President Trump on white nationalism: Not a rising threat around the world

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

[Hammy]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

Feeling your whiteness gives you rights others shouldn't have, feeling that the land that used to belong to someone else that your ancestors murdered is somehow your native land, while everyone else is an "invader", feeling those that aren't white are less than human, should be killed, etc, feeling whites not being a majority is somehow genocide or being replaced, etc.

Basically the backbone of modern culture-war conservatism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

Racists who promote and do violence has gone up over the last few years and that is undeniable.

Trump will never ever say anything has gotten worse over the past few years not matter how bad they have gotten worse  because he is always paranoid that things would be blamed on him . Remember he did the exact same thing with Kashogi saying that the Saudis didn’t have anything to do with it because instead of caring about doing what is right he cares more about that if he tells the Saudis killed Kashogi then he will be blamed for it because of his relationship with the Saudis . He then did the same thing at Helinski and the worst Charlottesville as well .

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

[T'Chenka]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

People who want a white-only or white controlled nation. Simple.

What's your angle here? Are you suggesting that the Charlottesville mob, Dylan Roof, et cetera were violent racists but maybe not white nationalists, so technically Trump might be right in his statememt?

[Frodo]

As usual, Trump is wrong:

Trump doesn’t think white nationalism is a threat — but data says otherwise

(…) But as evidenced by reports from civil liberties groups and American justice officials’ own data, domestic terrorism, specifically white supremacy, is on the rise in the United States.

Data released earlier this month by the Anti-Defamation League shows white supremacists’ propaganda efforts increased 182 percent last year, with 1,187 distributions across the US in 2018, up from 421 total incidents reported in 2017.

The number of racist rallies and demonstrations also rose last year: The ADL data released in February shows at least 91 white supremacist rallies or other public events attended by white supremacists were held in 2018, up from 76 the previous year.

Other evidence of the resurgence of white nationalism and related right-wing extremism in America abounds:

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

What do you think?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

[Frodo]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

So white nationalists are the real 'victims' here?  Are you going to be defending the Ku Klux Klan next?

'You see, in a way I think the freed slaves brought about Jim Crow upon themselves in subsequent decades by being too....enthusiastic in exercising their newly won freedoms in the aftermath of the Civil War.  It made local whites angry, and so made the Ku Klux Klan into a terrorist organization that we know it as today.  They shoulda known better.'

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

So white nationalists are the real 'victims' here?  Are you going to be defending the Ku Klux Klan next?

'You see, in a way I think the freed slaves brought about Jim Crow upon themselves in subsequent decades by being too....enthusiastic in exercising their newly won freedoms in the aftermath of the Civil War.  It made local whites angry, and so made the Ku Klux Klan into a terrorist organization that we know it as today.  They shoulda known better.'

Sorry I'm not equating the two. White nationalists don't have to necessarily be racists, but more interested in preserving their own rights.  You want to defend Antifa as non-violent? Well most white nationalists are not violent either, just a couple have acted out violently.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

So white nationalists are the real 'victims' here?  Are you going to be defending the Ku Klux Klan next?

'You see, in a way I think the freed slaves brought about Jim Crow upon themselves in subsequent decades by being too....enthusiastic in exercising their newly won freedoms in the aftermath of the Civil War.  It made local whites angry, and so made the Ku Klux Klan into a terrorist organization that we know it as today.  They shoulda known better.'

Sorry I'm not equating the two. White nationalists don't have to necessarily be racists, but more interested in preserving their own rights.  You want to defend Antifa as non-violent? Well most white nationalists are not violent either, just a couple have acted out violently.

All white nationalists are racist.

Also, your answer is very suspicious *side eye*.

[Frodo]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

So white nationalists are the real 'victims' here?  Are you going to be defending the Ku Klux Klan next?

'You see, in a way I think the freed slaves brought about Jim Crow upon themselves in subsequent decades by being too....enthusiastic in exercising their newly won freedoms in the aftermath of the Civil War.  It made local whites angry, and so made the Ku Klux Klan into a terrorist organization that we know it as today.  They shoulda known better.'

Sorry I'm not equating the two. White nationalists don't have to necessarily be racists, but more interested in preserving their own rights.  You want to defend Antifa as non-violent? Well most white nationalists are not violent either, just a couple have acted out violently.

White supremacy/nationalism (the two are one and the same in practice, whatever your pretensions to the contrary) is inherently racist and inherently violent, like all such movements in the past that sought to ensure that white males remain on top of the social hierarchy.  And how have you stayed on top historically? Through violence and intimidation.  You white nats are no different.  Just look at Charlottesville.  

It is important to remember the Ku Klux Klan didn't start out as being violent -but due to the atmosphere of white supremacy, newly freed slaves and social dislocation brought about by the Civil War, it just turned out that way.  Inevitably.  

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

So white nationalists are the real 'victims' here?  Are you going to be defending the Ku Klux Klan next?

'You see, in a way I think the freed slaves brought about Jim Crow upon themselves in subsequent decades by being too....enthusiastic in exercising their newly won freedoms in the aftermath of the Civil War.  It made local whites angry, and so made the Ku Klux Klan into a terrorist organization that we know it as today.  They shoulda known better.'

Sorry I'm not equating the two. White nationalists don't have to necessarily be racists, but more interested in preserving their own rights.  You want to defend Antifa as non-violent? Well most white nationalists are not violent either, just a couple have acted out violently.

All white nationalists are racist.

Also, your answer is very suspicious *side eye*.

:rolleyes:

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

Just look at Charlottesville.  

Yep, one guy in a car.  One guy in New Zealand. That's two people.

[GeorgiaModerate]

IMO the term "white nationalism" means a belief that white people should control the nation (example: South Africa under apartheid).  This belief is inherently racist.  There's simply no way to spin it otherwise.

[GeorgiaModerate]

"White nationalism" is just a extreme reaction to SJW anti-whitism and open-borderism, led by such horrible institutions attacking freedom of speech like the SPLC.

*plonk*

[Frodo]

Hate Crimes Increase for the Third Consecutive Year, F.B.I. Reports

Hate crime reports increased 17 percent last year from 2016, the F.B.I. said on Tuesday, rising for the third consecutive year as heated racial rhetoric and actions have come to dominate the news.

Of the more than 7,100 hate crimes reported last year, nearly three out of five were motivated by race and ethnicity, according to the annual report. Religion and sexual orientation were the other two primary motivators.

In addition to the tense political climate, the increase also points to a growing awareness among various law enforcement agencies of the importance of identifying and reporting hate crimes to the F.B.I.

And that's just for those that were reported.  

[Meclazine for Israel]

White supremacy/nationalism (the two are one and the same in practice, whatever your pretensions to the contrary) is inherently racist and inherently violent.

No. For a political science forum, we need a reset.

Can we please go back to basics in terms of our definition of the terms: isolationalist, populist and nationalist.

The discussion quality decreases when people exaggerate the lines of political definitions to suit their arguments.

Your argument about white supremacy is sound, but your definitions on nationalism are wrong.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

IMO the term "white nationalism" means a belief that white people should control the nation (example: South Africa under apartheid).  This belief is inherently racist.  There's simply no way to spin it otherwise.

What would you say about what happened in Nigeria in the '00s and now South Africa to the farmers? Is that racist?

[Frodo]

Far be it for me to single out white men -white women were just as complicit in upholding white supremacy, and passing it along like a virus to their progeny:

White Women Must Hold Each Other Accountable For Racism

(…) Historian Elizabeth Gillespie McRae’s new book, Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of White Supremacy, is a fascinating, meticulously researched, and damning look into the myriad ways white women have consciously worked to aid racial segregation in the Jim Crow South and sanctify their racially pure vision of white motherhood. The book focuses on four women—Florence Sillers Ogden, Mary Dawson Cain, Cornelia Dabney Tucker, and Nell Battle Lewis—across multiple generations of white-supremacist activism; it takes us from Deep South racism in the “progressive” 1920s to the mob of screaming white mothers who greeted Black schoolgirl Ruby Bridges in 1960 New Orleans through the Boston school busing controversy of the mid ’70s.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

White supremacy/nationalism (the two are one and the same in practice, whatever your pretensions to the contrary) is inherently racist and inherently violent.

No. For a political science forum, we need a reset.

Can we please go back to basics in terms of our definition of the terms: isolationalist, populist and nationalist.

The discussion quality decreases when people exaggerate the lines of political definitions to suit their arguments.

Your argument about white supremacy is sound, but your definitions on nationalism are wrong.

This is the problem with most political arguments these days.  The left made up their own PC definitions for everything and normal folk don't speak that language or understand these positions.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Here's a question:  What qualifies someone to be a "White Nationalist"?  What are the "check-off boxes"?

People who want a white-only or white controlled nation. Simple.

What Fuzzy is saying is that people are throwing all members on the right of politics in the same bucket.

Look at this thread. Just all red avatars echo chambering each other, but no real rational analysis.

If you actually define "white nationalism" as you have, then Fuzzy and I can say that only a small % of right wing political supporters think this way.

As opposed to the alarmist 'red avatar' postings, Fuzzy is actually the only person in this thread attempting a normal debate style discussion.

[Frodo]

White supremacy/nationalism (the two are one and the same in practice, whatever your pretensions to the contrary) is inherently racist and inherently violent.

No. For a political science forum, we need a reset.

Can we please go back to basics in terms of our definition of the terms: isolationalist, populist and nationalist.

The discussion quality decreases when people exaggerate the lines of political definitions to suit their arguments.

Your argument about white supremacy is sound, but your definitions on nationalism are wrong.

-----------------------

And this is why they call themselves 'white nationalists' instead of 'white supremacists' -to entangle their critics in the weeds of minutiae.

I have news for you Meclazine et al -only you and your kind care about the 'difference' between the two.  The rest of us can see right through you.  You're all racists, whatever you call yourselves to ensure you can sleep well at night.   

[PSOL]

Predictable that the Nazis here are derailing everything with whataboutery and odd definitions.

[GP270watch]

Predictable that the Nazis here are derailing everything with whataboutery and odd definitions.

 It is quite sad but calling them Nazis might be going overboard. Even though these last few years have made me understand exactly how Nazism came to be. It's one thing to read about it in books and another to see how fearful, gullible, nasty, soulless and easy it is to dupe the masses into blaming others for their own problems.

[T'Chenka]

Predictable that the Nazis here are derailing everything with whataboutery and odd definitions.