what is up with "white nationalism"?

seriously, it seems like a bunch of hooie used to deal with white people's insecurities. i just don't understand how anyone can consider this a viable political stance.

it honestly makes me sick to think that some people actually endorse this viewpoint.

It's not a viable political stance, it's pure hatred. Ignorance at it's worst.

But it doesn't seem to me to be that much less valid than most political stances.

I think that saying that white nationalism is about hatred is to oversimplify. Mostly what it seems to be is reactionaryism, and as such is not that much different from most political stances.

Look at the brawls that pass for political debate here and elsewhere-- they're usually based not on a conviction that one's side is right, but that the other side is wrong. They're fundamentally reactionary.

Republicans complain about Democrats
Democrats complain about Republicans
Fundamentalists complain about secularists
Secularists complain about fundamentalists
Feminists complain about men
Socialists complain about capitalists
Capitalists complain about socialists
Black nationalists complain about whites
White nationalists complain about blacks.

It's simpleminded, certainly. It's probably at least to some degree rooted in hatred too, but that sort of hatred (or maybe "intolerance" might be a better word-- or simply "blame") seems to be part and parcel of reactionary political views. There are just some forms of that "hatred" that are more readily accepted than others.

Someone has to defend Christmas.

I agree! But... why did you leave out "Men complain about feminists"?

I honestly agree with your premise, though, 100%. There's a PODcast covering some of these ideas under the Skeptic Overview 17. Great discussion.

It's curious that you should mention that.

I started out just listing poltical divisions-- groups that defined themselves as discrete from others. Each of those groups is bound, at least in part, by their hatred of some other group. And each of those groups has their opposite number-- the group that they hate also hates them. Thus I listed Democrats/Republicans, secularists/fundamentalists, capitalists/communists, feminists.... feminists......... and I realized that there really isn't a comparable organization on the other side of that one. Feminists-- at least the modern variation-- hate men. All men. That's fully one half of the population. Men don't, en masse, hate feminists. Many of them certainly do, but it's not the defining characteristic of even them, and certainly not of all men. There simply isn't an opposing force to the feminists as there is to all those other groups.

I find that to be interesting.

It might even make for an interesting thread of its own...

Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Interesting.



This statement is incorrect. The radical, slobbering, angry (extremist) feminists hate men. The majority of feminists do not. Feminists are just people (male or female) who support the rights and interests of women. Of course every group has its extremists.


And men aren't the only ones to complain about the radical feminists, believe me.

Yes, it's a good subject and probably deserves its own thread. Sorry for the hijack, but there was a little educatin' to be done.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

"White Nationalism" describes the frantic and chorally arranged scream of us, the drowning tribe-in-power. As we whites -- Caucasians to quadroons to octaroons -- slide unhappily into the abyss, the various groups that forced us overboard will engage in internecine warfare, each wishing to be first in the line of succession. In truth, the battle is already joined.

[See ? to Greeks to Romans to HRE to Great Powers to the EU; or, an ocean away, see ? to Mayas to Toltecs to Aztecs to Cortez to Illegalz. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, eh? and who will grab power's mantle in the U.S.?]

Years ago while seeking an antonym for "misogynist," hater of women, the best I could come up with (I was very young) was "misanthrope," which hardly fills the bill, being much too inclusive (Who dares call me Miss Antelope?). "Misogynist," on the other hand, was too specifically inclusive...rats! Thus do I sympathize with the gentleman, and admirably literate ATS contributor, whose search for an etymological opposite for "feminists" has proved unproductive.

Actually, it's a wash: Misogynist has no antonym (to my knowledge) and the term "feminists" has no easily described opposing force. So I suggest, being an advocate for the Philosophy of Absurdism, that the nation's medical schools create a new field of specialization: Let them call it, "misogynecology," and vow they will only half-train its practitioners.

Why go to such asinine lengths? I'm glad you asked. You see, I believe that in no time at all an absurd composer in an absurb rock group will write an absurd song entitled, "The quack in the crack," the nation will dissolve in derisive laughter, feminists will lose what little credibility they have, and we white men will drown in peace, our place in oblivion assured. ........................Tomrow

Yeah, I'd say most of the right wing radio hosts qualify as mysoginists and the millions that listen to their "feminazi" bunk do too. They are much more feminist hater than any feminist I know actually hates men. No real feminist does hate men. But millions now think they do...thanks to misogynists like Rush Limbaugh.

That right wing angry white male bunk is all about inventing "backlashes" to non-threatening, non-events to press their own agenda.

War on Christmas my ass.

Those are the ones of whom I spoke. Those "radical, slobbering, angry (extremist) feminists" are the official representatives of feminism in the US today. NOW, for instance, is no longer run by dedicated, fair-minded, ambitious women who seek equality for women-- it's led by extremists whose only real agenda seems to be to express their overt hatred of men. They no longer speak of what women might do to make the world better, but of what men have done to make it worse. They're reactionaries in the purest sense.

Of course there are many women and men who are what might at one time have been called feminist, but their interests are no longer represented by NOW or other "feminist" organizations. Those organizations have been taken over by the extremists. Theirs is the official voice.

You don't need to school me on feminism-- my mother was an accountant and my father stayed home. This was in the 60s and 70s, long before it was really socially acceptable to have such an arrangement. She was a charter member, and later was president, of the local chapter of the American Business Women's Association, and was an early member of NOW. I grew up with feminism-- REAL feminism-- the quest to assert the rights of women-- ALL women.

And my opinion of modern feminism pales beside hers. She is deeply bitter and frustrated over the direction that feminism has taken-- I merely observe and describe what I see.




Certainly-- but only some groups are actually officially led by, and represented by, their extremists.

how did this become a feminism thread?

i'm talking about a serious threat, white supremicists. they're gaining strength, and we need to spread rational thought NOW.
spread humility, stop letting people foster insecurity.

stop those fueled by hate!

I agree. Let's start with The Nation of Islam, and Farrakahn (*sp). I hold that group up there with the KKK, and Neo-Nazi groups.

How do you suppose we stop these hate groups? Do you have a plan of action, or are you ranting? Your cause is noble. Where ya gonna start?

Outside of the whole 'white people are superior to all other mongrel races and deserve to eliminate other races from a global white homeland' stuff, sure.


There's a bit of a difference between republicans complaining about liberal media or democrats calling bush stupid, and then the KKK lynching blacks.

I can see what you are saying about it being yet another reactionary type of politics, but, I think you've gotta agree, its much more....extreme.

racist skinheads and the like account, from what I have heard, for about 1% of the american population. I don't see where they are gaining strength.

I don't think Rush is a misogynist. He is dating Daryn Caghan of CNN.
Rush isn't even a conservative; he is a very clever entertainer that knows how to appeal to a group of "white nationalists" though.




[edit on 4-1-2006 by whaaa]

i've heard that an openly racist party (though i can't remember the name for the life of me) in england has seats in parliament because they ditched the skinhead association.

i'm just saying that this is a form of ignorance that is gaining strength, slower in some parts than others.

Hi madness, would you mind siting your sources? I would like to read up on this.

I agree that ideals based on ignorance should be smitten.

Thanks in advance for your resources.

the main source i had was a documentary about the white supremecist music "scene" (not the one that was on abc primetime), the party, who's name i still don't remember, has decided to put out an album with some well known songs lyrics changed to support their cause.


i'll get to work finding some other research i had done on the topic.

The only overtly racist party that has any chance in an election is the BNP and the last time I checked, they had no Parliamentary seats.

They do, however, have seats on local councils in certain areas, but it is believed to be more of a protest vote at certain things within the UK immigrant "scene" and their percieved exploitation of British hospitality, rather than any actual desire by the electorate to usher in a Fascist State.

They will never control a single council, let alone actually get a Parliamentary seat. Don't worry!

wait, that isn't in santa's job description?
not even rudolph does that?
frosty?
jack frost?
they can't defend they're own holiday?