*bangs head against desk repeatedly*
At 9/22/13 05:07 PM, 24901miles wrote:
What's the big deal? If the Jews are allowed to have a Jewish Nation-State, then why can't Whites have a White town in the very least? Or a White Nation-State? Why do people try to stand in the way of these sorts of things?
Ugh, no, come on, you cannot seriously be making this comparison. See below.
There are plenty of places which are completely inhospitable for white immigrants
Those places have never had the kind of massive influx of immigrants North America and Western Europe have, or comparable socioeconomic circumstances, so you don't really know how they would react. FWIW some of the countries I think you're alluding to have been pretty accommodating to Syrian refugees (and their notions of racial/ethnic difference are probably a lot more complicated than your broad categories of "white" and "not white").
but all of the European Nations which were founded by caucasians thousands of years ago
Nations didn't exist thousands of years ago. Neither did races, really, though that's a bit more of a point of contention I guess.
have been accepting large numbers of non-white immigrants who come from Nations which don't reciprocally invite whites
When I was like five years old and I got into a fight with my brother and I was being reprimanded for it, sometimes if I thought I was getting the worse of it I'd whine that he was doing bad stuff too. That is the argument you're making now, as a supposedly rational adult, about how developed nation-states ought to behave.
Also, Europe hasn't exactly been accepting those immigrants unequivocally with open arms, what with anti-immigrant sentiments running rampant, frequent instances of threats and violence, and immigrants often being denied economic opportunity, social integration or political representation. Hell, one of the more popular political organizations in Greece right now is an actual fucking fascist party.
That is literally identical to the procedure used by the Jewish Zionist Movement to found Israel.
-Wants to make town exclusively for white people, kicking out sole non-white resident in the process.
-Why? Because he thinks the white race is superior and feels like establishing a separate community for it away from groups he doesn't like, and because he thinks that it's somehow threatened even though there are still more white people than any other race in America and they still wield an extremely disproportionate amount of political and socioeconomic power and influence, as they have around the world for ~500 years.
-An entire intellectual and political movement developed over many years.
-Wants to make country officially for Jews, but generally and at least nominally inclusive of other groups, though (admittedly not without its problems, which does extend to kicking people out of their homes in certain occupied areas).
-Why? Because they want to establish a community for Jews in their ancestral homeland away from groups that seek to harm them, because they know the Jewish race is threatened, having been an historically diasporic and oppressed group for thousands of years which, by the time of Israel's founding, had recently had its global population decimated and various adopted homelands ripped out from under it by a regime of systematic murder.
I dunno, maybe I'm biased but I feel like Israel's justification for existing is just a smidge more legitimate.
Why—in your mind—are all white nationalists "dumb bigots"? There might be plenty of purebred white intellectuals who might see themselves as taking part in this movement after it's beyond the founding phase.
There is no such thing as a white supremacist intellectual.
Keeping the white gene pool alive and undiluted is not an evil motive, it's just an expression of natural self-preservation with emphasis on a racial phenotype.
You're wading around in extremely dangerous and highly contentious territory here. Don't just hide behind pseudoscientific language and then pretend your argument is totally benign and reasonable.
I can't even respond to this because I hate invoking Godwin's Law and there's just no way around it here. Honestly, I find your outlook on this issue to be not just logically wrong and unsubstantiated by science, but also truly toxic and disturbing at an ethical level. It's been the source and justification for all sorts of heinous, evil acts.
I won't even argue with you about it because I can't separate logic from emotion here. Just, fuck, man. Yikes. Dust the cobwebs off your right brain every once in a while and read an anthropology book that wasn't written 50 years ago.
At 9/22/13 06:17 PM, SevenSeize wrote:
Even though he is clearly an idiot and the premise is horrible, if it were the other way around, CNN would not be reporting on it.
True, but that's actually because of racism against black people, not white people like I think you might be suggesting.
They have that website, "this is where black people meet.com"............Can you IMAGINE if someone were advertising a "white people only" dating site on TV at night???
They're not equivalent and the existence of that site isn't racist. "Black people meet.com" exists because every other dating site is by default pretty much "white people only". There are all kinds of dating sites meant to cater to particular cultural niches that aren't adequately represented by the biggest mainstream sites, from J-Date to Christian Mingle to Farmers Only. A site for black people is no different.
With that in mind, a "white" dating site would be absurd, pointless and redundant. How are white people not already more than adequately represented by mainstream sites?
I have come across Facebook page after page of "black power" which promote not marrying other races, how all historical figures were really black, white women are not beautiful, and sadly, some of the pages even promote any violence against whites, stating that a white death is not a crime at all because white people are hateful.
But those are obviously fringe views that most people, black and white, find abhorrent. Are the people who hold such views called out for it as often as white racists? Probably not, but honestly that's because it's not as big a deal. It's not the same because there's still a distinctly unequal power relationship at work here. There's no 400-year history of oppression of whites by blacks that still echoes today. At the end of the day, no insult or personal prejudice by a black person against white people is really going to effect anyone's life all that much because it can easily be brushed off and ignored; socioeconomic and political power and cultural representation are already disproportionately slanted to favor white people to the point where a white person never has to feel like they're being oppressed or trivialized on the basis of their race. The same is not true the other way around.
Racism against whites is almost always individual, racism against blacks is often individual but also often systemic, and therefore it's far more dangerous. That doesn't mean the views you're seeing on these Facebook pages are okay or acceptable, but all things considered their existence really just isn't as problematic.
So. Thanks CNN for continuing to promote racism and hatred---one sided. If we want to make people like this go away, we need to quit giving them media attention.
I dunno, I think there's some small value in making sure these people are publicly shamed and mocked. But more importantly, not shedding a light on things like this might make people complacent and create a false notion that racism doesn't exist anymore.
Though I guess that's more of a problem for larger issues of systemic racism like voter ID laws/stop-and-frisk/etc., you're probably right that individual fringe crazies like this guy are probably best left alone.