Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dinesh D'Souza interviewed a guy in his recent movie that is a white supremacist. Richard SPencer I think his name. And that guy is clearly a leftist.
Wouldn't white supremacists support abortion given a lot of black babies are being killed.
Trump sprung a black woman from jail and he got the 3 black UCLA basketball players out of jail in China. If he's a white supremacist, he's got a weird way of getting the message to his people.
Obama could have sprung that black woman and he didn't.
If you think Richard Spencer is a leftist it’s a waste of time trying to communicate with you.
After the 2016 election, Richard Spencer led a celebration of Trump’s win with a shout of “Hail Trump!” with an accompanying Nazi salute.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 02-11-2019 at 09:31 AM..
If you think Richard Spencer is a leftist it’s a waste of time trying to communicate with you.
That we can agree on. How desperate does one have to be in the lengths of defending Confederate types and white supremacists? Or desperate to gaslight in this case? Even further, consider that the subjects of Democrats, Republicans, left wing, and right wing was brought up. This wasn't related to the subject. It was brought up as just another gaslighting tactic. Some individuals would rather deflect from the topic than say how they really feel.
I don't necessarily subscribe to a lot of what the Self-Loathing Left believes regarding race and today's notions of 'social justice'.
But how hard is it to condemn people who betrayed their country to preserve slavery? If you can't have some kind of moral clarity on THAT... then you can/will justify nearly anything that suits your purpose.
Slavery is bad, m'kay?
so declaring your independence from a tyrant central government that doesn't represent you is "betraying" your country? then this country was founded on betrayal since day #1.
the war wasn't fought over slavery. Lincoln and the North said it many times and made it loud and clear when they passed the Corwin Amendment.
You can't judge history with today's morals and standards. The South was a lot more than just slavery. Just like our Founding Fathers were a lot more than just slavery, they owned slaves but nobody condemns them like they do the South....why is that?
I don't necessarily subscribe to a lot of what the Self-Loathing Left believes regarding race and today's notions of 'social justice'.
But how hard is it to condemn people who betrayed their country to preserve slavery? If you can't have some kind of moral clarity on THAT... then you can/will justify nearly anything that suits your purpose.
Slavery is bad, m'kay?
They are running nice circles around it though.
Notice how they refer to the Constitution....that slavery was outlawed. Well, the same people jump up and down about CHANGING the Constitution...even by Executive Order, on stuff like birthright citizenship.
They fail to mention that the 13th Amendment (ending slavery) was introduced before the end of the Civil War and only passed due to "reconstruction" (northern installed) governments in the South....and these Reconstruction government were soon done away with by the confederates.
There was about 10 years when it looked like the South was going to change....but they rose up and massacred blacks who won office and who thought that the majority would rule. Then they turned to terror (lynching) and other methods to keep things that way.
A White Supremacist would be most like "extended" Nazi Germany.....having some false ideals of "racially pure Nordic Stock"...which, of course, was a complete falsehood being as these "White Supermen" all came from Russia (and Germans thought Russians, their own ancestors, were sub-humans).
A White Nationalist would be more about the particular Nation they currently lived in and trying to wall that off from the rest of the world in the false assumption that this would be a positive thing. Poland and modern Day Hungary fit this with their current governments.
Racist just want to think they are better than others...even if they are not. Most of them are actually not even up to par, so they can't stand upon their own accomplishments and therefore use the ID of others (Hey, I'm white like Thomas Edison) and think that is a badge of honor.
They often wish to maintain the status quo which includes sitting around with their families and pals and putting down those with a different birthright than they have.
Generalizations...of course. I admit that. But we are talking in general terms here. A skinhead is a white supremisits (to a skin head, even Italians are not white...let alone Jews). A white Trumpie living in a bubble of whiteness (rural PA, etc.) might be a White Nationalist, especially if they rant about Globalism.
But I think both overlap by quite a bit.
I am white but neither a Nationalist nor a Supremisist. Being of Italian and Jewish stock we tend to feel those horrible (to racists) emotions of empathy and compassion. Instead of trying to reach for something that never was, we read history so we can learn to put it in context.
There ARE good reasons for all the angst among the racists mentioned above. But it is misplaced...that is, it was Wall Street and London and predatory capitalism that dumped on them...NOT other poor folks like themselves.
A racist is someone who believes races aren't the same. Racists don't believe in the absolute superiority or inferiority of any race. They readily-acknowledge that blacks are better at many sports, and that East-Asians have higher average IQ's. Hitler even believed blacks were better at athletics(and the whole story about Jesse Owens is a lie).
Racists are more about the uniqueness of race, not the superiority of race.
A White-Nationalist is a racist in this way, but his main goal is the preservation of race. He despises the idea of a "grey world" of mixed people with no culture or history. He believes that all races would be better-off separated into their own communities. And Hitler despised what he called the "race-chaos" of the cities, where races were being pitted against each other by "the capitalists" in a way that hurt all workers for the benefit of the capitalists.
The White-Nationalist sees no point or benefit in "diversity". And believes it is nothing more than a globalist plot to bring the whole world under a single government for the benefit of the "ruling classes".
White-nationalism is not an ideal, it is a compromise. A White-Nationalist is nothing more than a tribalist, and there is no white tribe. In Europe, this tribalist streak is not "white people", but rather Scottish people, English people, German people, Polish people, etc.
What these people actually want, is merely to surround themselves with people like themselves. Because without "anti-discrimination laws", people naturally tend to "self-segregate" into like-minded communities.
The only thing that maintains the diversity we have now, is government force. None of this would exist without the government's boot on our necks.
White-Supremacist is the most-ridiculous term of all. A White-Supremacist would be someone who believes white people should rule over other races. Basically, that whites should be the "masters" of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.
A White-Supremacist would necessarily be fine with sharing a country with black people, as long as he was in power.
I have never met an actual White-Supremacist in my entire life. I would be shocked if they even exist. Every racist I have ever met in my entire life just wants to be separated from black people. In essence, they wish black people didn't exist at all. They wish the entire world was nothing but white people, especially Western Europeans. They don't want to rule anyone.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-11-2019 at 09:02 AM..
so declaring your independence from a tyrant central government that doesn't represent you is "betraying" your country? then this country was founded on betrayal since day #1.
the war wasn't fought over slavery. Lincoln and the North said it many times and made it loud and clear when they passed the Corwin Amendment.
You can't judge history with today's morals and standards. The South was a lot more than just slavery. Just like our Founding Fathers were a lot more than just slavery, they owned slaves but nobody condemns them like they do the South....why is that?
The Traitor South made it clear in nearly every secession document and state constitution that the preservation of slavery was their primary reason for secession. It's right there in writing. Google it.
Now *of course* slavery wasn't the only reason and *of course* the North wasn't morally pure and innicent there by a long shot. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Southerners betrayed their country and died primarily so that rich men could keep their slaves.
Not sure I can come up with a worse cause to die for. And you people should be GLAD to see such a shamefully stupid history buried.
Sharecropping, redlining, jim crow, segregation were all vestiges of slavery. Voting right, civil rights....at the very best you could call about 1980 the end of that, although some parts (voting rights, etc.) still remain.
I think it's self-evident that the US Constitution was changed. It's also evident that the simple wearing of a hat does not automatically change minds and memories.
MAGA and "white nationalism" are tied together because Trump declared Nationalism his outlook...and he clearly said that "both sides" (meaning neo-Nazis) have good people.
Flags and Hats are Flags and Hats. I could put on a MAGA hat and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in my thinking....but I won't.
You see, the word "deplorable" partially describes people who do things....to cause trouble...because they CAN. Just because one can doesn't mean they should.
I forgive them. Maybe they don't know or don't see it.
So i was right.. slavery ended 150 years ago! Whew, was worried about that one..
again, that is not why the war was fought. You keep ignoring facts. Lincoln and the North didn't wage war to end slavery. He said it many times and just look up the Corwin Amendment but you keep repeating the ignorance. Lincoln and the North were OK that slavery was kept as long that they control the revenues and resources and the South pays their taxes.
Slavery lasted a lot longer in Brazil and Cuba and Puerto Rico than the U.S.
The U.S. went to war for revenues and resources again, it's call the American/Spanish war and the American/Mexican war......nobody was willing to go to war for black slaves but they were willing to go to war for revenues, land and resources and that's the history of every war.
I'm talking about the Confederate cause, and the Confederate cause alone. With the Civil War altogether, slavery wasn't the only factor. However, the Confederate cause was very clearly explicit about its desire to keep slavery. Lincoln being okay with slavery does not negate the Articles of Secession, or the Confederate Constitution. Articles of Secession bring up the desire to keep slavery alot, and how many felt that the northern states were a threat to the south's slavery institution. The Confederate Constitution explicitly protects the right to own slaves. I could post it here, but I'm not just for the sake of brevity. If you refuse to look it up, that reveals willful stupidity on your part.
I know slavery lasted longer in Cuba and Brazil than here. We're not discussing those places. We are talking abut what happened right here in the USA. Have nothing better to offer than gaslighting? Want to discuss those places? You can start your own thread.
Southern Heritage and Antebellum south is a lie, it was a great time for the top 1% of land owners, and crappy for the rest. Black people see a southern heritage of slavery, poverty, and a population brainwashed by the top people that they could join them one day if those pesky others don't interfere. Looks a lot like today, same bag, same trick.
What is interesting is I see the confederate flag all the time in Florida, near daily in some form. And I don't think about it at all, its an old relic that is way past its time. I have even thought about this from a 1800's southern "regular" white person's prospective (no middle class at this time) it looks just as crappy as it is today. Poor whites were still looked down on by the white haves who also ran the show. Poor whites got no respect from their well to do peers, no say or vote on government matters, poor living condition, no upward mobility unless you could afford land.
It is also worth noting that the confederate flag was largely absent for nearly a hundred years after the Civil War ended. It became more prominent with a revival in the 1950's and 1960's which also coincided with the civil rights era. Many of those displaying the flag then were opponents of the Civil Rights Movement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whew, was worried about that one..