Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

[Roel]

This is a very controversial subject and I wouldn't open this topic if I didn't read about it first. Instead of condemning them for their views, I 'll deal with it in an objective way.

I don't agree with them on many things, like caucasian jews not being white and the worth of other races, but browsing StormFront was educative and taught me a few things.

Every national-socialist is a white suprematist, but not every white suprematist is a national-socialist. Although most of them have problems with jews, it surprised me that thiaps doesn't unite them, what unites them is a dislike of black people and children of parents of mixed race.
Some are even zionists which prefer brave Israeli soldiers above people from Africa.
There were to my surprise also white suprematist jews which supported them and white suprematists with jewish friends. They however didn't seem to have black friends. You could write a whole book about them. Maybe it's simply that our whole society is progressive, even the KKK and StormFront.

What they also claim is that anti-racist is a code word for anti-white, as only white countries are flooded with immigrants from the third world and white people will become a minority in a few decades due to higher birth rates among immigrants. This is also refered to as white genocide. Although it indeed isn't unlikely that white people might cease to exist in the future, they see this as a deliberate plan, I don't know however why people would want to let white people die out.

I however also saw a woman who said that she's a white nationalist and not a nazi and wants to be left alone, she didn't want to kill non-whites and didn't seem to hate them, but simply be with white people only.

That made me think. If we accept jews to stick together with their own group, blacks and hispanics to do this and other groups, why would we deny non-hateful and non-aggressive whites this same right? Is white nationalism always bad and why do we judge all white nationalists based on the actions of right-extremist nazis?


EDIT: Title change at Roel's request to mods below:

Could you remove "suprematism" from the topic title and only keep nationalism? I agree with the responders that suprematism is never good.

[Sy Borg]

a white nationalist and not a nazi and wants to be left alone, she didn't want to kill non-whites and didn't seem to hate them, but simply be with white people only

This is fair enough. That's her choice, although those who live examined lives prefer to consider individuals rather than stereotypes. Goodness and odiousness seem to each be well represented in all human categories.

[Fooloso4]

You have not shown there to be anything good about it. First, nationalism should by definition be inclusive of all the people or citizens of a nation. ‘White’ is not a national designation. Second, there is a difference between being united by a shared identity and being united by a shared fear and hatred of others. Third, a supremacist is not just declaring a desire to be separate but is claiming supremacy, to be superior and therefore to have authority, power, and the right to rule over others.

I don't know however why people would want to let white people die out.

I think the only people suggesting this are white people who are afraid that their dominance is being threatened. It is a fear fueled by hatred and rhetoric.

I however also saw a woman who said that she's a white nationalist and not a nazi and wants to be left alone, she didn't want to kill non-whites and didn't seem to hate them, but simply be with white people only.

It really is a matter of what it means to be left alone. We should have to freedom to associate with whom we please, but those who say they want to be left alone often mean they want enforced segregation.

[TSBU]

It's just ignorant and stupid. As most of what people call evil or bad people.

My grandma is something similar to a racist, she says nasty things from time to time about jew, gipsy, or black people. But she has lived all her life without knowing one (deeply), all she knows is from her experience. She is kind and good with their neightbours, etc, people tend to love her.

This world is full of people who aren't "evil" but do evil things and hurt each other all the time. Hitler was nearly elected after all, slavery was accepted, etc. Some people can't see some things, because they are too ignorant or stupid, they move on feelings and in what is accepted, gays? monsters. Until a couple of years, then it's ok. It has been always like that.

[Alias]

Is white suprematism/nationalism necessarily bad?

Yes. Unequivocally.
Nationalism is love of country, which is okay in reasoned moderation. There is nothing reasoned or moderate about supremacy.

White people won't die out any sooner than all other hues and shades, tints and tones of people. Unless we all die pretty soon, likely the recessive genes will be hidden by the dominant ones, so that their phenotypes will become rare, as males and females carrying the same recessive gene will meet, attract and reproduce less often. Red hair is already uncommon, as are freckles. Eventually, fair skin will become less and less prevalent. So what? It sunburns too easily. It'll be replaced by more robust skin and darker hair.

There is nothing at all superior about any outward appearance, any puddle of genes. Inbreeding is considerably more harmful to the species than interbreeding.

[Roel]

It's just ignorant and stupid. As most of what people call evil or bad people.

My grandma is something similar to a racist, she says nasty things from time to time about jew, gipsy, or black people. But she has lived all her life without knowing one (deeply), all she knows is from her experience. She is kind and good with their neightbours, etc, people tend to love her.

This world is full of people who aren't "evil" but do evil things and hurt each other all the time. Hitler was nearly elected after all, slavery was accepted, etc. Some people can't see some things, because they are too ignorant or stupid, they move on feelings and in what is accepted, gays? monsters. Until a couple of years, then it's ok. It has been always like that.

I agree that not having interacted with any of those groups fuels racism, I know however that black comedian Kamau visited the KKK and although they were racist, they accepted to talk to him, so even the KKK is progressive and I think this is a good first step for them, actually talk with a black person.

-- Updated October 31st, 2016, 9:39 am to add the following --

Is white suprematism/nationalism necessarily bad?

Yes. Unequivocally.
Nationalism is love of country, which is okay in reasoned moderation. There is nothing reasoned or moderate about supremacy.

White people won't die out any sooner than all other hues and shades, tints and tones of people. Unless we all die pretty soon, likely the recessive genes will be hidden by the dominant ones, so that their phenotypes will become rare, as males and females carrying the same recessive gene will meet, attract and reproduce less often. Red hair is already uncommon, as are freckles. Eventually, fair skin will become less and less prevalent. So what? It sunburns too easily. It'll be replaced by more robust skin and darker hair.

There is nothing at all superior about any outward appearance, any puddle of genes. Inbreeding is considerably more harmful to the species than interbreeding.

Yes, I agree on any suprematism being bad, maybe we should narrow it to white nationalism.

[Dolphin42]

I'm confused as to the intended meaning of the word "white" in this discussion. It seems at first sight to be a colour but it doesn't seem to be used like a colour. From the OP:

I don't agree with them on many things, like caucasian jews not being white...

If you've stated this disagreement then you must have some criterion that you use to decide if somebody is "white". What criterion do you use?

Although it indeed isn't unlikely that white people might cease to exist in the future, they see this as a deliberate plan, I don't know however why people would want to let white people die out.

Is there a way to test the proposition "white people have died out"? Would it involve a measurement of colour or of something else? Of would it not involve any kind of measurement?

[Roel]

I'm confused as to the intended meaning of the word "white" in this discussion. It seems at first sight to be a colour but it doesn't seem to be used like a colour. From the OP:

I don't agree with them on many things, like caucasian jews not being white...

If you've stated this disagreement then you must have some criterion that you use to decide if somebody is "white". What criterion do you use?

Although it indeed isn't unlikely that white people might cease to exist in the future, they see this as a deliberate plan, I don't know however why people would want to let white people die out.

Is there a way to test the proposition "white people have died out"? Would it involve a measurement of colour or of something else? Of would it not involve any kind of measurement?

Yes, this is very difficult indeed. I would say, anyone with Indo-European DNA and a pale skin with black hair and brown eyes, pale skin and red/brown/blond hair and any eye-color, or one of the last with a slightly darker skin than pale, but not extremely brown and albinos despite their colors can't be considered white as their white color is due to a genetical disease. That seems like a reasonable distinction to me and what white suprematists claim of jews not being able to be white is irrational and racist to me.

So I would consider an Afghan girl with slightly darker skin and blue eyes and red hair as white, but a Berber of the Maghreb not, as despite possibly having blue eyes, they are not of Indo-European descendance. Caucasian people started in the caucasus, but I 'm not sure if these were Indo-European already. Israelis with a pale skin and blue eyes I consider as whites too.

These I would consider white:





This good-looking black man I wouldn't consider white:



If you know any other non-Indo-European tribe fulfilling these criteria, we might regard them as whitd too.

-- Updated October 31st, 2016, 12:21 pm to add the following --

I'm confused as to the intended meaning of the word "white" in this discussion. It seems at first sight to be a colour but it doesn't seem to be used like a colour. From the OP:

I don't agree with them on many things, like caucasian jews not being white...

If you've stated this disagreement then you must have some criterion that you use to decide if somebody is "white". What criterion do you use?

Although it indeed isn't unlikely that white people might cease to exist in the future, they see this as a deliberate plan, I don't know however why people would want to let white people die out.

Is there a way to test the proposition "white people have died out"? Would it involve a measurement of colour or of something else? Of would it not involve any kind of measurement?

As for the "white people have died out" hypothesis we might take DNA samples and look how much Indo-European DNA there is and simply count by hair- and eye-color, if people are in the abovd criteria, they might in my opinion be considered white, although racists will disagree with me and exclude jews.

I thinm however that it's important to maintain these people, as it would seem horrible to me if people 300 years later look back at movies from the 21st century and say: where are all these people with these distinct hair- and eye-colors? It is not out of racist motives that I would be worried about this, I 'm worried about the Ainu in Japan too, the problem is that we might lose something which will be lost for eternity.

[Alias]

What is "white"? is a difficult enough question. (It's also a silly question, since it has no definitive or correct answer. As shown by the attempt above. Indo-European? But Indians are not usually counted among "us" by the whites-only contingent.)

What is white nationalism? must then be an even more difficult and even sillier question.

[Roel]

What is "white"? is a difficult enough question. (It's also a silly question, since it has no definitive or correct answer. As shown by the attempt above. Indo-European? But Indians are not usually counted among "us" by the whites-only contingent.)

What is white nationalism? must then be an even more difficult and even sillier question.

So you wantto scrap "white people" from the dictionary? According to mydp definition, Indians aren't white.

[Alias]

What is "white"? is a difficult enough question. (It's also a silly question, since it has no definitive or correct answer. As shown by the attempt above. Indo-European? But Indians are not usually counted among "us" by the whites-only contingent.)

So you wantto scrap "white people" from the dictionary? According to mydp definition, Indians aren't white.

Most "whites" would agree, and that would invalidate Dolphin42's definition of Indo-European DNA - or at least half of it. He's not helped by the fact that both African and European DNA has traveled far and wide, everywhere and back again, showing up in the oddest places, under the most unexpected skin surfaces.

The term "white people" is not in the dictionary now - not in my big desk Webster, nor my pocket Oxford, anyway - probably because it has no valid definition. It's a visual description with different subjective criteria for each person who uses it.

So... "white nationalism" would mean... what?

[Burning ghost]

Prejudice is prejudice. We are all prejudice in some way or another and learn to neutralise these our ignorance as life goes on.

As for the woman who doesn't want to live around black people she is simply racist and judges purely by what people look like. Her position has probably been instilled in her mind by her community.

I think even suggesting that any form of prejudice is okay is plain stupidity. The problem is often looking at the ill founded reason for your thoughts towards some group of people and unearthing the lack of reason for holding views against some group.

-- Updated November 1st, 2016, 1:10 am to add the following --

Basically this thread is stupid. That is what I am saying. The reason is there is focus on "race" and no talk about culture. Next you'll be asking is it okay for people under 6' to expel taller people from their society?

Also you mention a group of people in Japan. If they die out we lose their culture. Cultural diverisity is something worth preserving. To confuse culture with race is a mistake. Culture has a very broad scope for discussion. Racism itself is a cultural attitude that has adapted as cultures have entwined over the centuries. More so today because of the ease of tranaportation in thebmodern age.

[RodCameron]

Here are some impressions on this topic

The topic has been poorly composed. It should ask: “Is racial nationalism necessarily bad?” ‘White’ and ‘supremism’ [supremacy] are red herrings.

Greta, you have had what you called “a peak experience”. I accept its truth, but if it was revelatory, why believe in goodness? There is no a priori concept for goodness; there is no pure form of goodness. Why confuse existential joy with ethics? I think you have not studied the roots of your opinions.

Fooloso4,

You have not shown there to be anything good about it. First, nationalism should by definition be inclusive of all the people or citizens of a nation. ‘White’ is not a national designation. Second, there is a difference between being united by a shared identity and being united by a shared fear and hatred of others. Third, a supremacist is not just declaring a desire to be separate but is claiming supremacy, to be superior and therefore to have authority, power, and the right to rule over others.

Similarly, what is this ‘good’ that you want? Can you provide the a priori of goodness? Perhaps racial nationalism is the reality and undefined ‘inclusiveness’ a mere ideal. Re: your second point: race is a solid basis for shared identity and ‘belonging’. ‘Not belonging’ gives rise to negativity. If you change your priorities to belonging, you will grasp the origins of the negativity. Your third point just tells me you are a moralist. You and others get to ride your moral stallion on the matter of supremacy, were the politics of the issue has left this matter behind.

TSBU says, “It’s just stupid and ignorant”.
It is my conviction that dualistic consciousness is superficial, i.e. objectivity and ethics are superficial, and you do not have the intellectual tools to grapple with this and other topics. It is not your fault. It is the duty of metaphysics to bring more insight to philosophy.

Burning Ghost briefly brings a break in the fog and clouds:

Basically this thread is stupid … The reason is there is focus on "race" and no talk about culture. …

… To confuse culture with race is a mistake. Culture has a very broad scope for discussion. Racism itself is a cultural attitude that has adapted as cultures have entwined over the centuries. …

I maintain that the essence of the issue is culture because race is synonymous with culture. Also objectivity cannot get to grips with culture because culture has dimensions and objectivity is one-dimensional. Where Burning Ghost loses the plot is that he contradicts “there is focus on "race" and no talk about culture. …” with the next line as quoted, “To confuse culture with race is a mistake.”

This is a serious and worthy subject totally messed up by poor composition of the topic, self-assured moralists who have not been more than superficial, and when someone get close to the essence he contradicts. We simply do not have the intellectual tools to examine this topic.

[Sy Borg]

Greta, you have had what you called “a peak experience”. I accept its truth, but if it was revelatory, why believe in goodness? There is no a priori concept for goodness; there is no pure form of goodness. Why confuse existential joy with ethics? I think you have not studied the roots of your opinions.

Rod, why believe in goodness? None whatsoever :) However, yes, I did have a peak experience that left me with the thoroughly unjustifiable impression that, bottom line, reality is somehow "good".

I don't believe in deities, nor many other speculations, but I have this one irrational, unjustifiable belief because, in context with all I've perceived in life, it "feels" as though that is correct.

Generally, that which promotes growth and preservation is considered to be "good", while that which promotes entropy tends to be referred to as "bad". Meteors, volcanoes, floods, storms, fires, dictators, ruthless companies and deeply prejudiced people* are promoters of entropy and seeming balance concomitant growth. Humans are as much subject to these broader forces of nature as other things. So my attitude towards racists is, "yeah, they exist" and I avoid them.

Perhaps my belief in "goodness" is rational, in that there is more matter than antimatter in reality, a triumph of something over nothing. (Hopefully not a Pyrrhic victory).


* noting that we all have our biases.

[Roel]

Here are some impressions on this topic

The topic has been poorly composed. It should ask: “Is racial nationalism necessarily bad?” ‘White’ and ‘supremism’ [supremacy] are red herrings.

Greta, you have had what you called “a peak experience”. I accept its truth, but if it was revelatory, why believe in goodness? There is no a priori concept for goodness; there is no pure form of goodness. Why confuse existential joy with ethics? I think you have not studied the roots of your opinions.

Fooloso4,

You have not shown there to be anything good about it. First, nationalism should by definition be inclusive of all the people or citizens of a nation. ‘White’ is not a national designation. Second, there is a difference between being united by a shared identity and being united by a shared fear and hatred of others. Third, a supremacist is not just declaring a desire to be separate but is claiming supremacy, to be superior and therefore to have authority, power, and the right to rule over others.

Similarly, what is this ‘good’ that you want? Can you provide the a priori of goodness? Perhaps racial nationalism is the reality and undefined ‘inclusiveness’ a mere ideal. Re: your second point: race is a solid basis for shared identity and ‘belonging’. ‘Not belonging’ gives rise to negativity. If you change your priorities to belonging, you will grasp the origins of the negativity. Your third point just tells me you are a moralist. You and others get to ride your moral stallion on the matter of supremacy, were the politics of the issue has left this matter behind.

TSBU says, “It’s just stupid and ignorant”.
It is my conviction that dualistic consciousness is superficial, i.e. objectivity and ethics are superficial, and you do not have the intellectual tools to grapple with this and other topics. It is not your fault. It is the duty of metaphysics to bring more insight to philosophy.

Burning Ghost briefly brings a break in the fog and clouds:

Basically this thread is stupid … The reason is there is focus on "race" and no talk about culture. …

… To confuse culture with race is a mistake. Culture has a very broad scope for discussion. Racism itself is a cultural attitude that has adapted as cultures have entwined over the centuries. …

I maintain that the essence of the issue is culture because race is synonymous with culture. Also objectivity cannot get to grips with culture because culture has dimensions and objectivity is one-dimensional. Where Burning Ghost loses the plot is that he contradicts “there is focus on "race" and no talk about culture. …” with the next line as quoted, “To confuse culture with race is a mistake.”

This is a serious and worthy subject totally messed up by poor composition of the topic, self-assured moralists who have not been more than superficial, and when someone get close to the essence he contradicts. We simply do not have the intellectual tools to examine this topic.

Why is the topic poorly composed? I gave my observations of what I found on SF in a neutral way.