The rise of White Nationalism

[kallipolis]

Yes. But there is no reason for Americans to allow it to be done to them.

I see very good reasons, for the USA has grown prosperous on its openness to legal immigration from most, if not all the nations of this planet.

My position is crystal clear when emphasising legal immigration.

 

[kallipolis]

Was it racist for the Indians to resist white immigration? Was it Indian Nationalism? How was it wrong. Struggle to think beyond mere name calling.

Immigration facilities, and green cards were not in place four hundred years ago.

 

[Benvolio]

I see very good reasons, for the USA has grown prosperous on its openness to legal immigration from most, if not all the nations of this planet.

My position is crystal clear when emphasising legal immigration.

We were already prosperous before the openness to non Eropean countries which resulted from the end of the quota system by the democrats in the 1960s. At the end of world war two we had a dominance in virtually all aspects of production and manufacturing, such as no country before or since. Now we have lost much of our manufacturing and have an economy held up by borrowing a trillion a year for deficit spending.
But we are clearly reaching a tipping point at which we will lose our underlying culture, economy and democracy.

 

[Benvolio]

Immigration facilities, and green cards were not in place four hundred years ago.

Either it was wrong for them to resist immigration or it was not wrong.

 

[rareboy]

This is a ridiculous argument.

In many cases, the native population did not resist immigration at all. In many cases they were okay with the new colonists.

And the American economy was built on serving the needs of an exploding population from all over the globe after the 1860's.

Once again, the only reason that the USA had any kind of economic strength before that was almost entirely the result of slave labour and cotton.


You've got nothing.

 

[kallipolis]

Either it was wrong for them to resist immigration or it was not wrong.

There is no right, or wrong for the history book informs that the first English settlers survived their first Winter, in what became New England due to practical help offered by a local indigenous tribe.

 

[kallipolis]

We were already prosperous before the openness to non Eropean countries which resulted from the end of the quota system by the democrats in the 1960s. At the end of world war two we had a dominance in virtually all aspects of production and manufacturing, such as no country before or since. Now we have lost much of our manufacturing and have an economy held up by borrowing a trillion a year for deficit spending.
But we are clearly reaching a tipping point at which we will lose our underlying culture, economy and democracy.

While recognising that paranoia can over influence negative reasoning of any perceived dilemma, I believe that legal immigration can continue to contribute to the prosperity of the United States.

Globalisation is a totally different matter that has created very many challenges for the American political elite to resolve.

 

[Benvolio]

There is no right, or wrong for the history book informs that the first English settlers survived their first Winter, in what became New England due to practical help offered by a local indigenous tribe.

You are trying to avoid the significance for this thread. The liberal position is that limiting immigration is morally wrong as being racist, nativist, xenophobic, white supremacist, or nationalist and several other nasty names. My position is that the people of a country are entitled to protect their people, their culture ,values, government and self determination from foreign invasion. It is no more wrong, racist or immoral for the people of the US than it was for the Indians to resist white immigration. The Indian resistance could be labeled racist, Red supremacist, nationalist, xenophobic, nativist. But who would say that it was wrong for them to resist?

 

[Benvolio]

While recognising that paranoia can over influence negative reasoning of any perceived dilemma, I believe that legal immigration can continue to contribute to the prosperity of the United States.

Globalisation is a totally different matter that has created very many challenges for the American political elite to resolve.

Now you are justifying immigration on an expedient or pragmatic basis. I have no problem with that approach, but is different from the liberal moralistic labeling of it as racist, white nationalist etc. Analyzing it pragmatically, as you do, the question is how does it benefit the existing citizens of the country; the benefits must be weighed against the costs and negatives, and in a democracy, the people are entitled to make that judgment. It is not immoral for them to decide that the net negatives outweigh the benefits to them.

 

[rareboy]

THERE IS No SUCH THing AS some kind of superior purely WHITE/AnGlo Protestant AmeriCAn CUltURE

What you mean is that you think that Americans should be Aryan.

Jesus Fuck.

I'm assuming you've spent the last two days on the mother-ship being trained in how to promulgate white supremacy in a bolder and more open way now that you've started giving the Nazi Salute to Herr Drumpf.

 

[gsdx]

My position is that the people of a country are entitled to protect their people, their culture ,values, government and self determination from foreign invasion.

Translation: White Only Need Apply.

Word it any way you want, but this is what you're saying. You and your 'friends' have no desire to protect the culture, the values, or the self-determination of anyone coming into your country unless they meet your standards and qualifications. That is being nativist, xenophobic, white supremacist, and any other number of nasty names they have been called this past year.

By the way, white people invaded America and stole it from the Natives, giving them itsy bits of land to survive on. Immigrants are not invading. Your argument has advanced from fear of another Muslim attack to include everybody whose skin isn't OxyClean white with one exception: gay people are blacklisted whatever their skin colour. Oh, except for that Republican fag buying designer underwear for a 17-year-old boy. But he's not gay, right?

 

[kallipolis]

You are trying to avoid the significance for this thread. The liberal position is that limiting immigration is morally wrong as being racist, nativist, xenophobic, white supremacist, or nationalist and several other nasty names. My position is that the people of a country are entitled to protect their people, their culture ,values, government and self determination from foreign invasion. It is no more wrong, racist or immoral for the people of the US than it was for the Indians to resist white immigration. The Indian resistance could be labeled racist, Red supremacist, nationalist, xenophobic, nativist. But who would say that it was wrong for them to resist?

That's not how I understand the position of most posters here, who support legal immigration.

No one here has proposed unlimited immigration, or undermining the principles upon which the United States was founded.

I have not noted any threat to the culture, values, or government of the United States arising from immigration.

 

[kallipolis]

Now you are justifying immigration on an expedient or pragmatic basis. I have no problem with that approach, but is different from the liberal moralistic labeling of it as racist, white nationalist etc. Analyzing it pragmatically, as you do, the question is how does it benefit the existing citizens of the country; the benefits must be weighed against the costs and negatives, and in a democracy, the people are entitled to make that judgment. It is not immoral for them to decide that the net negatives outweigh the benefits to them.

We can agree that no country can support unlimited, unregulated immigration.

I believe that American institutions, culture, tradition, values and its English language is sufficiently robust to accommodate a continuing flow of legal immigration that contributes to the prosperity of all.

An argument can be made for revisiting, and adjusting the trade deals that the United States has negotiated with other countries, and trading blocks.

 

[Benvolio]

That's not how I understand the position of most posters here, who support legal immigration.

No one here has proposed unlimited immigration, or undermining the principles upon which the United States was founded.

I have not noted any threat to the culture, values, or government of the United States arising from immigration.

You somehow read this thread and usual liberal positions differently than I do. It is a condemnation of alleged "white nationalists", i.e., those who oppose massive immigration and amnesty. Such people are, automatically racist, xenophobic, nativist, white supremacists, nazis, KKKs, and every other nasty term they can think up. It is fine to say that we do not have to have unlimited immigration, but immigrants, getting the vote , want more of their kind, so they vote against limitation. If we cannot limit it today, we never can.
Of course there is a threat to the American culture, values. Liberals deny they exist. More importantly liberals would deny the American people the right to protect themselves, their culture or their values. They regard it as immoral for them to protect themselves.
Libarals have made immigration the ultimate good, more important than anything else; anyone who opposes it is evil.

 

[Kulindahr]

Racist Kochs will always be racist.
It's just up to everyone else to tell them that they are among the lowest scum in society. Give me immigrants of all colours over trash any day.

Ironically, while at the top we have to view with dismay the increasing parallels with Roman history, even the Empire at its worst had a substantial leg up on U.S. society: it was pretty much color-blind. There was slavery, but it wasn't racial. There was citizenship, but it wasn't racial. Indeed, Rome had greater equality among its people than the U.S. has ever had simply because color of skin (or other mark of ethnicity) was not an issue. And that equality -- granted, on two levels, between citizen and non-citizen (though for the most part the difference was minor) -- was a major strength of the society, because what mattered was effectiveness at one's job/task.

To switch empires, contrast that with the British, where preservation of privilege for a special class directly contributed to the collapse of the whole thing. If Britain had handled matters of ethnicity the same way Rome did, there might still be an empire on which the sun never set.

So historically, it's better to ignore ethnicity and avoid having any privileged class. But the alt-right especially stands against both those, and thus are a factor weakening American society. Better to acknowledge and welcome the coming situation where no ethnicity is in the majority (especially when that majority is actually an amalgam of various ethnicities whose only claim to unity is in their stance against others who are different -- a mark that is a form of tribalism, which always weakens a nation).

 

[kallipolis]

You somehow read this thread and usual liberal positions differently than I do.

I believe that American values, culture, and American institutions are sufficiently robust not to collapse because of the ongoing immigration of people from Hispanic countries. I also believe that the United States is able to continue absorbing immigrants from various cultures without risking the dominance of American values.

I have faith in the robustness of American institutions

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. But there is no reason for Americans to allow it to be done to them.

Your answer indicates that for you, American = white.

That is vile. It is anti-human and anti-American. It should not be tolerated on this board or anywhere where the words "all men are created equal" are honored. It is filth that needs to be washed from the planet and removed from the gene pool.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kind of a long read, but it highlights many of the players in the White Supremist movement. (no, I won't call them alt-right, I call them what they are).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-is-the-alt-right_uk_58371275e4b0b60ceeaa01ae?section=us_queer-voices

"Youth for Western Civilization"?

They've got it wrong -- neither ancient Greece nor Rome discriminated on the basis of color, only quality.

Nor did Christianity until the invention of racial slavery.

 

[Benvolio]

I believe that American values, culture, and American institutions are sufficiently robust not to collapse because of the ongoing immigration of people from Hispanic countries. I also believe that the United States is able to continue absorbing immigrants from various cultures without risking the dominance of American values.

I have faith in the robustness of American institutions

I think a majority would disagree with what you think are those values, culture and institutions. They, not you, are entitled to determine what values, culture and institutions are to be protected. I would point out that, largely as the result of immigration and
to promote it, there is a substantial independence movement in California. See its reasons at; Yescalifornia.org
When the hispanic population is sufficient, it may succeed.

 

[kallipolis]

I think a majority would disagree with what you think are those values, culture and institutions. They, not you, are entitled to determine what values, culture and institutions are tombe protected. I would point out that, largely as the result of immigration and
to promote it there is a substantial independence movement in California. See its reasons at; Yescalifornia.org
When the hispanic population is sufficient, it may succeed.

I can't speak for others, nor can you.

I have clearly stated that legal immigration contributes to a prospering economy.