Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings

[Colin Parkinson]

The timing is fortuitous for the Liberals and their gun control agenda, you be sure they won't let this go to waste.

 

[Furniture]

The timing is fortuitous for the Liberals and their gun control agenda, you be sure they won't let this go to waste.

Which will essentially be giving the nutjob exactly what he wants. His stated goal was to drive an even deeper wedge between the "left" and the "right" in the culture war, while also pushing to expand the racial divide. Pushing through another round of useless gun laws won't stop gangbangers from killing each other and innocent civilians, nor will it stop a nutjob from killing those they want dead.

The media it seems wants to help his goals along by pushing the idea that there is a huge group of white nationalists hiding around every corner waiting to gun down everybody that doesn't look like them, or worship in the same way. The far scarier situation is there are a few motivated, prepared, isolated(in that they don't operate in cells), and internet/self-radicalized crazies out there, and when they act they do it in a devastating way. Just like in Quebec city, Norway, and now unfortunately Christchurch.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wish people would stop using the term 'white nationalist'. We're essentially adding our own islamaphobia tag to ourselves. While all other 'nationalist' monikers are essentially pride and celebrations of race, black nationalist, japanese nationalist and all other nationalists movements are good things.

Why is 'white nationalist' the only one with negative racial overtones?

You're playing the liberal globalist game every time you use the phrase. It was made up by the left to demonize Trump when he said he was a nationalist, not a globalist.

Keep it up and it'll end up pigeonholing every white European that ever came here.

This does nothing more than lend credence to the left's other disgusting, false mantra of white privilege.

How about 'white' nationalism is the same as all the other nationalisms, except a different colour or race.

I consider myself a nationalist. I have since I was a wee lad. I'm proud of my country, our history and heritage. I'm a patriot.

I'm not a skinhead, a white supremacist, a neo nazi or anything close to that ilk. No matter how certain individuals try to paint me.

I belong to the world's largest fraternal organization and we don't see colour, religion, race or politics. We see the man, nothing more, nothing less.

So why is 'white' nationalism the only one that is bad and all other colour and race nationalism is looked at as good and attainable?

Were the black panthers and blm ever called black nationalists? They are modern equivalents of black racism, espousing white genocide, kind of a black KKK. Nationalists? Hardly. Black supremacists and anarchists for sure, but not nationalists.

Stop bastardizing the language to fit an agenda of people that want the country broken up.

 

[brihard]

I wish people would stop using the term 'white nationalist'. We're essentially adding our own islamaphobia tag to ourselves. While all other 'nationalist' monikers are essentially pride and celebrations of race, black nationalist, japanese nationalist and all other nationalists movements are good things.

Why is 'white nationalist' the only one with negative racial overtones?

You're playing the liberal globalist game every time you use the phrase. It was made up by the left to demonize Trump when he said he was a nationalist, not a globalist.

Keep it up and it'll end up pigeonholing every white European that ever came here.

This does nothing more than lend credence to the left's other disgusting, false mantra of white privilege.

How about 'white' nationalism is the same as all the other nationalisms, except a different colour or race.

I consider myself a nationalist. I have since I was a wee lad. I'm proud of my country, our history and heritage. I'm a patriot.

I'm not a skinhead, a white supremacist, a neo nazi or anything close to that ilk. No matter how certain individuals try to paint me.

I belong to the world's largest fraternal organization and we don't see colour, religion, race or politics. We see the man, nothing more, nothing less.

So why is 'white' nationalism the only one that is bad and all other colour and race nationalism is looked at as good and attainable?

Were the black panthers and blm ever called black nationalists? They are modern equivalents of black racism, espousing white genocide, kind of a black KKK. Nationalists? Hardly. Black supremacists and anarchists for sure, but not nationalists.

Stop bastardizing the language to fit an agenda of people that want the country broken up.

Did you not learn anything the first time I ripped this apart? Must we do this dance again? Nobody is ‘painting’ you anything, so you can stick the victim card back in the deck. You are merely exposing a willfully ignorant view of some very ugly modern history, and you’re trying to parse language in such a way that terms you don’t like lose a perjorative meaning through deliberate obfuscation- but that doesn’t fly either.

I’ll refer to my prior post on this matter. You didn’t like it the first time and you won’t like it now, but after the fuss you kicked up the first time it’s still there and I never got a word about it from the admins, so it seems it’s good to go. I stand by my words. If you keep posting this apologist nonsense, you can expect to keep hearing replies.

I had thought you would at least have the self awareness and good sense to just awkwardly stay out of this particular point (white nationalism) on this particular mass slaughter, but apparently not. Pity.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You are as much at fault for allowing this stupidity and condemning those asking for equal time. You have no moral authority on the subject. Didn't learn the last time? From you? :rofl: You spent more time in your last post attacking me than the point of the post.

You always take the opportunity to paint me as something I'm not. You don't like me so you resort to constant character assassination. You want everyone to believe I'm a white supremacist or a far right nutjob. Some likely will, but the majority of the sensible people know you're just making shit up.

I'm not going to second guess the mods. If they found nothing wrong with my previous post, that should be YOUR indicator that you're view ISN'T the only one. Just as they never take you to task for attacking me instead of the argument. This is three times this week you've attacked me with impunity. You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.

As for White Supremacists, the numbers are even smaller, there is perhaps 5,000 KKK in the US with a smattering of other groups maybe pushing that number over 10,000.

.........and one here!!! :rofl:

 

[brihard]

You are as much at fault for allowing this stupidity and condemning those asking for equal time. You have no moral authority on the subject. Didn't learn the last time? From you? :rofl: You spent more time in your last post attacking me than the point of the post.

You always take the opportunity to paint me as something I'm not. You don't like me so you resort to constant character assassination. You want everyone to believe I'm a white supremacist or a far right nutjob. Some likely will, but the majority of the sensible people know you're just making crap up.

I'm not going to second guess the mods. If they found nothing wrong with my previous post, that should be YOUR indicator that you're view ISN'T the only one. Just as they never take you to task for attacking me instead of the argument. This is three times this week you've attacked me with impunity. You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.

.........and one here!!! :rofl:

Again, you are not a victim. Stop acting like one.

I have never called you, attempted to paint you as, nor in any way insinuated that you are a “white supremacist” nor a “far right nutjob”. Had I done either, the admin team would have been on my like a fat kid on a cupcake, and rightly so. I have consistently challenged only your claims and arguments, and I have done so with analysis and with verifiable facts, something you have incorrectly characterized as ‘ad hominem’, a total misapplication of that logical fallacy, and one whose irony I think escapes you now. I have on a couple of occasions expressed concern about what you have picked for sources and you took that as a personal attack, but that’s not my problem. That’s how I deal with things I disagree with; I come back with a reasoned counter. Absolutely there have times where I have come back snidely and on a few occasions somewhat condescendingly, and I’ll own that- but it’s the exception. As to what others believe about you? Not my business, and I don’t care.

Nor do I ‘always take the opportunity’ to ‘paint you as something”, or even to rely at all. I don’t follow you around. I ignore most of your posts by simply not replying. Only rarely do I engage with you, and that where you say something particularly inaccurate, AND where I can back up what I would say in reply.

I like this site and I think there’s generally a pretty good level of discourse. When a I see something that I think is wrong and worthy enough of my time - either because it inherently interests me, or because I’m concerned about others being misled by misrepresentations - I will reply. If you don’t like having your opinions or arguments challenged, that’s unfortunate, but it’s our problem and not mine. If you’re going to try to either dismiss the notion of or make apologetics for white nationalism in a thread about a slaughter at a mosque, you can expect that to be challenged, and it happened to be me.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. I simply was not going to let an *actual* attack on character - mine in this case - go unchallenged. Admins, this tangent might be most suitably split off into a different board, and I apologize for it having been necessary to engage in this again.

 

[TechCrmn]

Hey Guys,

I think that the term is being used or at least misinterpreted by both sides to some degree and is likely what what is causing the conflict, or at least I think so.

If we begin by looking at the meaning of the word Nationalist is says:

Nationalist (google search) - "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

So before we even assign a describing word ie. white, black, american, etc. we can see that a Nationalist is someone who strongly supports their nation and especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Now we add a describing word.

White Nationalist - a  White (the nation) person who strongly identifies with their own nation(whites) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations (other nations being other races)." To me this sounds like someone who could be considered a racist or at the least discriminatory because they are basing their nationalism strictly on the basis of race or colour, hence White Nationalist.

Canadian Nationalist - a Canadian person who strongly identifies with their own nation(Canada) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." (other nations being other Countries or ways of life differing from the Canadian way of life).

Maybe what Fishbones Jones means is that he is a Canadian Nationalist or even just a patriot, or maybe still a White Nationalist, I don't know. My point is, that many people use terms with out knowing the exact definitions which causes arguments to arise even though you might actually be like-minded. Maybe that is what is happening in this case as well, maybe not.

Personally, I would consider myself a Canadian Patriot, and not a Canadian nationalist because I don't particularly agree with the latter point of the definition which reads "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriot -  "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

TechCrmn,

That's more than possible. I subscribe to being a white nationalist in the same way of all the rest of the colours / nationalities do. Why can they call themselves nationalists in all piety, but as soon as it's caucasian, it's damning and horrendous. This is the same nonsense as those that subscribe to different decades and centuries old handsignals like the OK sign or the 'V' sign being in support of white supremacists. If you don't wave right and your caucasian, you're KKK. Utter stupidity and I'll say anyone that subscribes to that theory shouldn't have a job requiring a brain. Perhaps they should carry luggage or something, like a bellhop. Pick that up, go where your told.

I'm proud of my race and country. I'm condemning no one. Not unless they try change things against the will of the people of my country, just like any other good and lawful citizen.

In the interest of ending this sidetrack from people that can't think outside the box or for themselves, Patriot it is.

Tanks!

 

[brihard]

Hey Guys,

I think that the term is being used or at least misinterpreted by both sides to some degree and is likely what what is causing the conflict, or at least I think so.

If we begin by looking at the meaning of the word Nationalist is says:

Nationalist (google search) - "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

So before we even assign a describing word ie. white, black, american, etc. we can see that a Nationalist is someone who strongly supports their nation and especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Now we add a describing word.

White Nationalist - a  White (the nation) person who strongly identifies with their own nation(whites) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations (other nations being other races)." To me this sounds like someone who could be considered a racist or at the least discriminatory because they are basing their nationalism strictly on the basis of race or colour, hence White Nationalist.

Canadian Nationalist - a Canadian person who strongly identifies with their own nation(Canada) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." (other nations being other Countries or ways of life differing from the Canadian way of life).

Maybe what Fishbones Jones means is that he is a Canadian Nationalist or even just a patriot, or maybe still a White Nationalist, I don't know. My point is, that many people use terms with out knowing the exact definitions which causes arguments to arise even though you might actually be like-minded. Maybe that is what is happening in this case as well, maybe not.

Personally, I would consider myself a Canadian Patriot, and not a nationalist because I don't particularly agree with the latter point of the definition which reads "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriot -  "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors."

I’m not taking any issue with him describing himself as a ‘nationalist’, particularly as in his case he has made clear that he sees that as synonymous with ‘patriot’. There are a lot of historical problems with trying to define it that narrowly, but that’s an aside. If he wants to call himself a ‘nationalist’ that’s no skin off my back.

The genesis of this particular conflict is that in a previous discussion a few weeks back (I linked i in my reply), he tried to extend that same narrow definition to argue that “white nationalism” is a misuse, which he achieved by artificially separating and parsing each word separately.  I corrected him rather forcefully on the point, using the same dictionary reference that he had initially used for ‘nationalism’, and which you appear to have also used. Essentially he refuses to accept that “white nationalism” has its own very real and dark meaning, and that the inclusion of “nationalism”, which in his expressed opinion just means “patriotism” does not water down that ugly thing just because that one word in a frictionless vacuum can be argued as benign.

And then that particular point of contention occurred in the context of us having butted heads for years, and us not being on each others’ Christmas card list.

In any case I will forcefully argue any claim that tries to diminish white nationalism as being anything but the malignant and increasingly murderous phenomenon that it is.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:not-again:

 

[brihard]

I subscribe to being a white nationalist in the same way of all the rest of the colours / nationalities do. Why can they call themselves nationalists in all piety, but as soon as it's caucasian, it's damning and horrendous.

If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

“White nationalist” =/= “patriot”. Relabelling the one does not mean synonymity with the other. “White nationalist” does not mean “a Canadian patriot who happens to be white”. Never has, never will. If what you mean is that you want a state and society that enshrines and advances whiteness, to the exclusion of others, then that is being a white nationalist. If that is not what you mean, you cannot twist “white nationalist” until it fits another definition.

So which is it? I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you’re still honesty struggling to understand why “white nationalism” is something other than what you believe it to be, and maybe it’s just your dislike of me personally as the messenger that is standing in the way of that realization and acceptance. But because you’ve just gone and self identified with “white nationalism” on a forum full of serving members of the military, I think clarity is owed here.

 

[TechCrmn]

Haha ok, I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation, at first glance it appeared as if the quarrel was the result of a simple misunderstanding. Its apparent that the two of you have quite the history and passion on the topic and have no use for my commentary I hope one day you two can come to an understanding, but what fun would that be

 

[brihard]

Haha ok, I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation, at first glance it appeared as if the quarrel was the result of a simple misunderstanding. Its apparent that the two of you have quite the history and passion on the topic and have no use for my commentary I hope one day you two can come to an understanding, but what fun would that be

All good, not your fault for not having the background. Have a good one.

 

[brihard]

Back on topic, in the interest of “how does this happen?”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-christchurch-manifesto-the-weaponization-of-the-internets-ranting-troll-culture?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0xeqbWFFYSHrcuRH3t6FV4YNuniQwyUlKjTFGC_BHrUKQzIzsQKyzzaQc#Echobox=1552707680

The Christchurch manifesto: a weaponization of the internet’s ranting troll culture
Adrian Humphreys
March 16, 2019 1:05 AM EDT

There is a dark and terrible line between a rant and a manifesto and it increasingly seems to be mass murder.

The gunman who killed 49 people in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday, allegedly mapped out his five-step process: train, plan, settle affairs, write a manifesto, then kill.

He wouldn’t start killing without one.

A manifesto was so important to him, he wrote 240 pages and then, in a spasm of self-doubt, deleted it and began again, two weeks before his rampage. Or so claims the 74-page document Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian, allegedly released online shortly before the shooting started.

And so we have “The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society,” a digital document titled like a political science treatise, looking like a high school journal, positioned as an ideological manifesto but coming off as a cut-and-paste online rant.

It reads exactly like what it appears to be: the weaponization of the internet’s culture of trolling, ranting, “shitposts” and memes, the culmination of long, demoralizing hours watching online videos, reading anonymous forums, following conspiracy theories and conferring with selected Wikipedia entries.

He even presents much of the material in the form of a FAQ, one of the oldest internet conventions of asking and answering your own frequently asked questions.

“From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?” he asks himself. His answer couldn’t be less surprising: “The internet, of course. You will not find the truth anywhere else.”

And the power of what he found is clear. He recounts his own radicalization to the white nationalist cause and encourages others to fan the flames of race war online through mimicking what he is himself mimicking in an echochamber of racial violence.

“Create memes, post memes, and spread memes. Memes have done more for the ethnonationalist movement than any manifesto,” the Christchurch treatise says.

He takes his own advice, deviating occasionally from pseudo-serious lecturing to cut-and-paste internet insider jokes, sarcasm and even repetitive joke-replies from the online forums he frequented.

Alongside the written manifesto, the gunman left a selfie video by livestreaming his attack on the internet and, reportedly, starts with one of the biggest throws in today’s internet culture by reminding viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie,” a huge but controversial YouTube star.

And his chosen forum for distributing his manifesto was also he world he apparently inhabited. It was uploaded to 8chan, an internet forum where anonymous posters create their own content threads with immense leeway over subject matter. 8chan was created to combat censorship in other online forums.

The manifesto spends pages describing the intent of his attacks, a chronicle of grievances that boil down to fear of non-European immigrants, characterizing it as “an invasion.”

“Mass immigration will disenfranchise us, subvert our nations, destroy our communities, destroy our ethnic binds, destroy our cultures, destroy our peoples,” it says.

“If not combated” it “will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”

He gallops from writing of a “civilizational paradigm shift” to the hysterics of all-capital letters rants of “This is WHITE GENOCIDE.” He complains of Westerners converting to Islam, calling them “blood traitors to their own race,” which evokes both Hitler’s policies and Harry Potter subplots.

And in case there is any doubt, he recites (a slightly misquoted) version of the notorious “14 word” slogan of the white nationalist movement: “We must ensure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.” He says he is neither a Nazi nor a neo-Nazi but is a fascist.

His writing is roadmap to his version of his radicalization story. Fuelled by what he found attractive online and making some money dealing in cryptocurrency, he says he traveled widely.

His hatred burned when he visited France and saw Muslim immigrants “in every french town…no matter how small.”

“WHY WON’T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING?” he writes. “WHY DON’T I DO SOMETHING?” He started thinking he would be a man to take violent action to help spur a race war, he writes.

He drew inspiration from others in his milieu, including other notorious mass murderers who had similar motivations.

The Christchurch manifesto directly refers to him reading the manifestos left by Anders Breivik, a Norwegian far-right anti-immigration terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011, and Dylann Roof, an American who shot and killed nine people in 2015’s Charleston church shooting in South Carolina.

Breivik’s manifesto, presenting like a university thesis, stretched to 1515 pages.

In Friday’s manifesto, the two prior killers are admiringly called “ethno soldiers” and “freedom fighters”, and he claims he even received “a blessing for my mission” from Breivik.

He also gives a qualified nod of approval to U.S. President Donald Trump.

“Are you a supporter of Donald Trump?” he asks himself. “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no,” he answers.

It all shows how action and words can inspire others to emulation, even when the outcome is a horror show of pain.

He also shows his inspiration, both in his chosen title but much of its content, from right-wing French polemicist Renaud Camus who, in 2012, published Grand Remplacement, or “Great Replacement” in English. It outlines his view on how the ethnic French are being ousted and replaced by immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.

“It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates,” says the Christchurch manifesto, echoing Camus’ premise.

He says at the start of his manifesto that if people remember only one thing, it must be that the Western world’s lower birthrate mean it is being subsumed by mass immigration and higher birthrates of “the immigrants.”

Camus, now 72, told The Washington Post Friday that although he condemns the Christchurch attack but is glad “that people take notice of the ethnic substitution that is in progress in my country.”

The manifesto fits a pattern of extremists, say scholars of extremist violence.

“Many attackers across the ideological spectrum have left manifestos of some form — whether written documents or videos. But far-right attackers do have a tendency to write very long screeds,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, a senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue at the University of Waterloo.

“They exist largely to articulate the reasons for their actions for new audiences who are desperate for motive, make a bunch of disparate and nebulous ideas coherent for supporters, and leave a written testament so they will be remembered.”

Simplified messages gussied up in flowery language or academic presentation are appealing to those already sympathetic to their cause, said Kamran Bokhari, a lecturer on countering violent extremism with the Center for Global Policy in Washington and the University of Ottawa.

“Extremist groups are not in the business of conversation they are in the business of staking out their ideas, stoking fears and apprehensions,” said Bokhari.

“They need to justify their action. How? They are not going to appeal to broader society but that’s not their target audience, you think they are a hopeless cause. You want to be able to at least tell people who think like you, or somewhat sympathetic to you.”

Despite his jokes and internet savvy, the manifesto’s author offers a dark and stark coda for his actions.

“Do you feel any remorse for the attack?” he asks himself.

“No, I only wish I could have killed more invaders, and more traitors as well.” Was

 

[Navy_Pete]

Jesus Jones, you can beat the same drum all you want, but "white nationalist" is used by Nazis and other hate groups as a label to obscure the fact that they are white supremacists. You're continuing insistence otherwise smacks of being obtuse or purposefully ignorant.

White nationalists are Nazis. They are one of the extremist groups who are a poison that needs to be cut out of society.

Given that we went to war with Nazis for being Nazis, personally think Nazis, white supremacist/nationalists and others of their ilk are traitors and should be treated as such.

Feel free to read any dictionary or encyclopedia to see why 'white nationalists' isn't what you claim it to be. This constant us vs them is pretty stupid, but people being proud of being white and thinking that somehow a whole group of people with completely different cultures, languages and values are somehow a group that should band together based on a lack of melanin is beyond me.  I have more in common with any Canadian than I do with any Brit, Afrikaaner, Eastern European etc, so while I'm not ashamed of my roots, I can't figure out any good reason for that to be a point of division, or have some kind of referred pride for things other people that looked like me did. I take pride in what I've done and how I live my life; but that's it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

“White nationalist” =/= “patriot”. Relabelling the one does not mean synonymity with the other. “White nationalist” does not mean “a Canadian patriot who happens to be white”. Never has, never will. If what you mean is that you want a state and society that enshrines and advances whiteness, to the exclusion of others, then that is being a white nationalist. If that is not what you mean, you cannot twist “white nationalist” until it fits another definition.

So which is it? I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you’re still honesty struggling to understand why “white nationalism” is something other than what you believe it to be, and maybe it’s just your dislike of me personally as the messenger that is standing in the way of that realization and acceptance. But because you’ve just gone and self identified with “white nationalism” on a forum full of serving members of the military, I think clarity is owed here.

:

Seriously? YOU want me to explain to you? Clarity, discussion? With you?  : I'm not struggling to understand anything. You are the one that keeps bringing it back. I doubt the membership here thinks me a white supremacist for using that term, like everyone else in the world uses it for their own nationality, race and culture. Most everyone but you that is. This is your agenda bucko. Shove off. You simply don't rate any discussion, or explanation, on my end. Let alone take direction from you and do as you demand. What you think is immaterial to me. And me not answering you should not be misconstrued for agreement with your bias. Fini.

Mods, I've tried to leave this and I will after this point. As I don't R2M anymore, it needs doing in the open. You may delete whatever you think is false or inappropriate for a response to my detractor.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Jesus Jones, you can beat the same drum all you want, but "white nationalist" is used by Nazis and other hate groups as a label to obscure the fact that they are white supremacists. You're continuing insistence otherwise smacks of being obtuse or purposefully ignorant.

White nationalists are Nazis. They are one of the extremist groups who are a poison that needs to be cut out of society.

Given that we went to war with Nazis for being Nazis, personally think Nazis, white supremacist/nationalists and others of their ilk are traitors and should be treated as such.

Feel free to read any dictionary or encyclopedia to see why 'white nationalists' isn't what you claim it to be. This constant us vs them is pretty stupid, but people being proud of being white and thinking that somehow a whole group of people with completely different cultures, languages and values are somehow a group that should band together based on a lack of melanin is beyond me.  I have more in common with any Canadian than I do with any Brit, Afrikaaner, Eastern European etc, so while I'm not ashamed of my roots, I can't figure out any good reason for that to be a point of division, or have some kind of referred pride for things other people that looked like me did. I take pride in what I've done and how I live my life; but that's it.

Hey that car is red, no it's maroon. C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre. Now why would that be? Why would caucasion pride, white pride or Canada pride mean something 180 degrees opposite of every other single meaning of the word or phrase nationalist/ pride? Why would that be, why can't it go back to what it was. It'll never change if it's never challenged. The left will use it like a hammer as they are now and as I'm being lectured here? So, do we cower, acquiesce, hang our heads in shame over being patriotic? Because someone has decided that the word is toxic only if used in conjunction with caucasions? I am proud and patriotic and white and that's why I refuse to be labelled by gits.

I've never been good with groupthink.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

For me all race is is a matter of environmental factors and mutation. People from desert climate developed differently than those in Europe or the Himalayas. I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares.

To other people it's important to them and they're proud of it, more power to them and I respect their views on it.

My opinion on race aside I personally think there IS a double standard in our society when it comes to people being proud of their gender and race. (There's even a difference between white/black nationalist in the dictionary I posted here)

If I'm a proud black man then that's celebrated. Gay and proud? More power to me.
If I'm a proud white male then I feel there's an assumption I'm racist and/or misogynistic. Proud and straight? I must be homophobic.

Am I wrong?

What does this have to do with the conversation? If we as a society attack white males for being white males then it's going to breed animosity and feed hate groups or nationalist groups or whatever they're called. We all know what happens when we "treat soldiers like children"- they feed off it and act like it. It's just a hypothesis but I think the double standard I mentioned is at least in-part enabling some of these groups.  Maybe our whole society and how we treat each other has to change. Stop feeding into the left vs right (which I'm guilty of I admit, and working on).

 

[brihard]

:

Seriously? YOU want me to explain to you? Clarity, discussion? With you?  : I'm not struggling to understand anything. You are the one that keeps bringing it back. I doubt the membership here thinks me a white supremacist for using that term, like everyone else in the world uses it for their own nationality, race and culture. Most everyone but you that is. This is your agenda bucko. Shove off. You simply don't rate any discussion, or explanation, on my end. Let alone take direction from you and do as you demand. What you think is immaterial to me. And me not answering you should not be misconstrued for agreement with your bias. Fini.

Mods, I've tried to leave this and I will after this point. As I don't R2M anymore, it needs doing in the open. You may delete whatever you think is false or inappropriate for a response to my detractor.

I suspect that what I think is not immaterial to you or you’d not have announced that you’re ignoring me twice in a week, and then come back increasingly irate for my next challenge to your position. But that’s by the by.

And yes, that’s what I want. In your post that I quoted you “subscribe to white nationalism”, your words. I want to know what that means to you, because what we see it meaning in the world in this day and age is normally pretty awful. You know it doesn’t mean merely being a patriot, yet you claim it anyway. I did not previously have the benefit of knowing that you claim that term for yourself. Now it makes your very evident angst on the subject of “white nationalism”, as the rest of us see it, much more clear.

If you think I’m the only one wondering, you’re wrong. If you don’t like being challenged on it, too bad. You chose to post, you chose to reply, you chose your words. Being called on it is just the inevitable result. You are not a victim. You don’t get to claim this forum as a ‘safe space’ where your words are immune to challenge.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

For me all race is is a matter of environmental factors and mutation. People from desert climate developed differently than those in Europe or the Himalayas. I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares.

To other people it's important to them and they're proud of it, more power to them and I respect their views on it.

My opinion on race aside I personally think there IS a double standard in our society when it comes to people being proud of their gender and race. (There's even a difference between white/black nationalist in the dictionary I posted here)

If I'm a proud black man then that's celebrated. Gay and proud? More power to me.
If I'm a proud white male then I feel there's an assumption I'm racist and/or misogynistic. Proud and straight? I must be homophobic.

Am I wrong?

What does this have to do with the conversation? If we as a society attack white males for being white males then it's going to breed animosity and feed hate groups or nationalist groups or whatever they're called. We all know what happens when we "treat soldiers like children"- they feed off it and act like it. It's just a hypothesis but I think the double standard I mentioned is at least in-part enabling some of these groups.  Maybe our whole society and how we treat each other has to change. Stop feeding into the left vs right (which I'm guilty of I admit, and working on).

No. You are not wrong.