Are you a white nationalist?

Not a white nationalist.

Italian Irish mix...

 

So what do you have to back up your claim that Hitler outlawed socialism?

An opinion piece that a leftist wrote on the Internet based on no historical source whatsoever.

While I have Hitler's own words calling himself a socialist which he defines as a class struggle during the entire time he was in power.

 

I supported the settlement of Diaspora Jews In Palestine and the creation of the nation of Israel as it was decided by U.N. decree. That is to say THE ORIGINAL internationally accepted Zionist philosophy. But I do not support any broader development of what Zionism encompasses today.

 

It is common knowledge.

Stalin called himself an anti-Fascist and a Communist. He was neither.
Baby Bush Jr.said he represented Democracy and the will of Jesus. He did neither.

 

I'm going to come the rest later, but Hitler rejected the privatization part of the Nazi platform. Which was the socialist part. Strasser pushed for nationalizing private business. Hitler pushed for the opposite . . . the opposite of socialism.

 

I voted 'yes' because: A. I am White. B. I am proud to be an American nationalist, promoting the interests, security, prosperity, and sovereignty of the United States above all others.

BUT -- that is NOT what you asked! No, in your OP, you distorted it TOTALLY by asking a different question altogether: "Do you want to build an ethnostate where only white people can be full citizens?" -- "WTF...?"

So -- although I anwered the POLL QUESTION truthfully, your question-within-a-question is nothing but manipulative, deflective bullshit! This is the kind of "Social Justice Warrior" crap that you on the Left think is so damned clever, but anyone with a triple-digit IQ can see through it easily!

 

Lay off the tinfoil hat. You're not seeing through anything, you just don't know what white nationalism means. Besides you just called me an SJW, which is pretty embarrassing.

White nationalism = nationalism for white people = wanting white people to have their own country.

You can't trust dictionaries to define it properly since they're flooded with progresssive BS about white supremacy, but that's definitely the definition they give for black nationalism for example. It means black separatists, not patriots that just happen to be black.
https://www.britannica.com/event/black-nationalism
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/black_nationalism

A white nationalist isn't a nationalist who just happens to be white. You might want to look into how adjectives and compound words work mr 3 digit IQ sir.

 

I am well-aware of the denotative definitions of the words, "white", and, "nationalist" mean. I don't subscribe to revisionist, 'new-speak' memes as being reflective of anything but the political biases of those who utter them. Therefore, I suggest that you get yourself a real DICTIONARY... preferably one that was printed back before the English language became corrupted with new-speak horseshit....

 

Nationalism can mean several different things. A commonplace is that a patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates others. But it's possible to use to word as more or less synonymous with 'patriot'. For instance, the liberal writer Michael Lind wrote a book about years ago called 'The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution'. , [Click to see the Wiki description].

But the word 'nationalism' is best avoided, in my opinion, for several reasons, not least of which is that unscrupulous people on the Left (there are one or two) will elide the 'American' and then leave it to their listeners to merge the term into 'white' nationalism.

America is a multi-ethnic state and this fact cannot ever be forgotten. One of the sad things about the growing tendency of people on the Left to poo-poo, sneer at, or even do away with, patriotic symbols and rituals, is that these are what bind a nation together. We are NOT bound together by tribal loyalty, as so many other nations are.

Ethnic diversity is always a danger: different ethnic groups have the potential to become foci of fracture pressures. Fortunately, America's ethnic minorities have played a forward position in its many wars, and so our patriotism -- which always has a military tinge -- tends to run against ethnic conflicts. [Quiz: what unit is the most decorated unit in American military history? If you don't know Google the "442nd Regimental Combat Team". ]

Here is proof: the Patriot Guard are from the same social layer as the Proud Boys. They haven't been on any college sensitivity courses.(You probably wouldn't want to hear their conversation in a bar, when it comes to women.) But watch this video and you will see why American patriotism is actually a very effective form of anti-racism:



I wouldn't want to be a white nationalist, KKKer or neo-Nazi turning up to protest the transit of that Black Marine's remains which were being escorted by those Patriot Guard bikers. I'm all in favor of the right to protest but ....

That's the real way to fight racist attitudes in the white working class, not some scolding lecture from some little "anti-racist" weenies. The flag-burners and people who refuse to say the Pledge and who don't want to fly the flag are actually helping racism. What fools they are.

 

This is an unfair statement. A false one.

 

How is it false?

 

these are the good white nationalists because they are noble leaders who support the inclusion of others to be followers.

the other white nationalists only support exclusion.

 

Nationalists come in all colours.

 

But WHITE nationalists are WHITE and believe that America is a WHITE NATION, do they not?

Are you conflating white nationalists with nationalists that just happen to be white also? If you are I have to say that you are misusing language to a point that is silly since there is NO reason to say "WHITE nationalist" rather than just "nationalist" and the result is, in your case, a rather completely misleading statement if that is so.

Also, in ALL the reading I have done on White Nationalism it is rather clear that the WHITE in the phrase is the operative word. They see America as part of the cultural hearth of the Aryan "Master Race" and this belief is the core of their ideology.

I apologize for being unclear in this matter if that is problem here

 

Black Nationalists are not racists any more than White Nationalists are racists. I think the word you are looking for is "White Supremacists".

 

Maybe, but I've always seen White Supremacy as assumed in White Nationalism. If you are saying that America is a White Nation then just natually the White Race will be seen as Supreme.

Again, if you are just a Nationalist who is white then just say you are a Nationalist. There is no good reason to add your race at that point and it is highly misleading to you in a negative way.

Black Nationalists and White Nationalists are both racists. Indeed,, racism is the core of their beliefs

 

The subject is not about people calling themselves "White Nationalist". The question in the OP is
"Are you a white nationalist?" Not even in caps.

 

In America we use patriot instead of nationalist or patriotism instead of nationalism.
Europeans use the words nationalist and nationalism.

The first time I heard of the phrase of a hyphenated-nationalist or hyphenated-nationalism was during the 1960's in reference to the black separatist movement and the Nation of Islam, black-nationalism.

The La Raza movement has been correctly labeled as Mexican-nationalism since those of the La Raza movement in America hold their loyalty to Mexico not to America.

I think the left has corrupted the hyphenated-nationalism for furthering a political marxist agenda.

White separatist, black separatist, Mexican separatist would be the accurate phrases to be used.

I've known more than a few black separatist who are very patriotic Americans.

 

It's about nomalisation of language for the intellectually weak communists who pretend to be patriots and who are out in force on PF like usual.

 

Exactly right!

Read any book on American history, or look any newspaper archive for stories about America's wars, and you will find the words 'patriotism' and 'patriot' occur a thousand times more often than 'nationalist'.
And even then, 99% of the time, the word 'nationalist' will be proceeded by the adjective 'black'.

'White nationalism' as a phrase is an import, either by people who are secret or not-so-secret admirers of a certain Austrian who was a German nationalist -- Austria is a lovely country but 'Austrian nationalist' just doesn't have that scary sound to it -- or Leftists who want to cut off debate about issues of ethnicity.

Theoretically, 'Black nationalists' should want to have their own separate country, but the reaction they get from everyone else when they threaten to leave probably disconcerts them.

Everywhere else in the world, when an ethnic minority threatens to separate, the majority gets angry, or anxious, and even tries to keep them in by force. From the Catalans in Spain to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, this is true. Even the nice Canadians were not going to let Quebec go when it had that referendum many years ago. (Only the British, who got their fill of quarrelsome Celts in Ireland, have said to the Scots, 'You want to leave, you can'.)

But America is so kind and generous and liberal that when a Black Nationalist says, "We're gonna leave!" the reaction is unalloyed delight. "Really??? You want to leave??? How can we help?" A model of liberal generosity for the whole world to follow. The problem is finding somewhere for them to go.

There have always been Black separatists, from Marcus Garvey's Back-to-Africa movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey to the 'Republic of New Africa' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika] today. Stalin, mechanically imposing the Russian experience on the American situation, forced the American Party to come out in favor of the Right of Self-Determination for the 'Black Belt' -- those counties in the South which had a Black majority. They even had a map of the future Black nation. As if the poor Blacks in the South in those days didn't have enough to worry about, the Communists helpfully wanted them to get the whites worried about another Nat Turner revolt.

In our previous period of collective insanity, in the 1960s and 70s, the Hispanics -- or "Chicanoes" they were called then -- had an imaginary nation called 'Aztlan'. Usually, ethnic separatists who have a border with a country where they are a majority, just want to cut out a piece of territory and merge it back with the one where they already rule. But the 'Chicano' nationalists were ashamed of Mexico, so they invented Aztlan.


They would have some trouble actually realizing it. For one thing, within 'Aztlan' there is a real nation, two of them in fact, which have much better claims for having their own separate country: the Navajos and Hopi. Or, should I say 'countries' because they both claim some of the same territory and their independence would be followed immediately by a shooting war.. ( Leftists who are nothing if not naive, even totally gullible, where non-whites are concerned, have this fond belief that because 'the oppressed' are united in their hatred of the white imperialist oppressor, Black and Brown will also stand together against Whitey. Actually, they are more likely to firebomb each other.) But people who think gays and Muslims can unite to fight Islamophobia and Homophobia will believe anything. [Think I'm kidding? Click here.]

For almost a century and a half after the Communist Manifesto, the Hard Left pushed to unite the working class across racial lines, the better to overthrow the capitalist class. 'Identity politics' was seen as a capitalist trick to divide the workers.

Now, the Left have given up on uniting the workers, and have decided to see if they can bring down the empire by opening up the very real fracture lines that divide the races in America. And they are right to do so: wherever the Communists were able to build a mass movement in the Third World, it was by acting as nationalists, not by acting as class warriors. In the Third World, nationalism is largely harmless, because it's directed at a foe who is mainly located on the other side of the planet. (Yes, the Montagnards of Vietnam might tell you differently with respect to Vietnamese nationalism, but no one knows who they are anymore.)

Nationalism in the United States will not be harmless. Start the fires of nationalism and identity politics burning among America's racial minorities, and the flames will find dry tender among the white soon-to-be minority. For fifty years these people have been schooled in the doctine of equality, fair play, equal rights for all. They've accepted it: the cultural deposit of democratic thinking has been laid over the far deeper layer of tribal identity, which goes down to the biological level. But ...so far as they're concerned, it was them and their ancestors who built Western civilization, the envy of the world.

They see how Third World peoples treat each other ... the latest sickening atrocity from Africa, the most recent mass deportation of Muslims from Burma, the slaughter of Tamils in Sri Lanka .. and they think, "We're not like that."

Now they're being told that they are like that.

That they're oppressors, the bearers of white privilege, while at the same time they are told they are the contemptible social inferiors of the liberal elite, the deplorables.

If the flames of identity politics really catch alight among the whites, you'll see something grow that will make the little Hollywood Nazi weenies and the semi-literates with their Klan hoods be remembered with fondness.

 

I urge you to read about this man.

His key idea -- obvious, in my opinion -- has to do with the 'to be' verb: if we're not careful with it, we can get entangled up in semantic knots.

"Were" [ plural past of 'To be'] the Nazi's socialist?" "Is" Donald Trump a conservative? "Are" the Democrats the party of slavery? Utterly pointless arguments.

They always divert people from having meaningful discussions. Just re-phrase your question or assertion without using any form of 'to be'.

 

That is not the correct definition. The correct definition is someone who advocates whatever is best for their country vs. other countries who happens to be white.

 

Liberals were traditionally nationalists. The left is not.