• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is wrong with white nationalism?

Do you oppose white nationalism? If so, would you please explain your reasons in this thread?

Every other race and ethnicity except whites are allowed to have their own culture and live separately.

No one questions the Jewish nationalism that created Israel, what people have a problem there is that the land was stolen from the Palestinians.

Blacks have their own countries - South Africa, Zimbabwe, Haiti, and Jamaica all are black dominated nations. Japan is a mostly closed society.

Only white countries have mass immigration of non-whites forced into their midst and if any white person mentions that it would be nice to have a homogenous white society they are instantly attacked in the most vicious manner and called "racist. hater, and bigot".

Is it wrong to love your own kind more than another? Does a man who loves his wife by definition hate all other women?

Why is all other ethnic and race based nationalism OK, but not white nationalism?

The fact that its based on skin color is whats wrong. Now, if you change that to western European culture nationalism, there isnt anything wrong with it.

Its just as wrong for Japan, Haiti, or Arabs to exclude based on race as it is for whites.
 
The Democrat Party committed political suicide in the South, a place that the Republicans did not take control of until the late 1990s. It was Democrat's far-left policies that did it, not a race based "Southern Strategy"/

Not sure then why the chair of the RNC would issue a formal apology if they didn't do anything:

By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or even trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
-Ken Mehlman, chair of RNC
 
I am sorry. You do not know who you are. A pity.

2011-09-14-who-am-i.png
 
My professors consider me one. Most of them probably voted for Hillary.

Right, your "professors" who graded your "paper" an "A." No one believes you, because lots of us have seen serious scholarship and you've demonstrated none of it that you would acquire in an actual effort like you described, and that was awarded a high grade by a serious institution of any kind, even a relatively decent HS.
 
Yes...

But his join dates coincides IIRC with when the went off for a while.

The good news about DP is intolerance for his kind of toxic swill is truly bipartisan, so they never seem to last long. I guess the mods put a fork in them at some point, but I do appreciate that the community mocks these idiots pretty mercilessly in the meantime.
 
Luckily the true racists and white supremacists (the ones that showed up in Charlottesville) constitute IMO less than 1% of the population. That means 99% of all people either slightly disagree or strongly disagree with their agenda.

In other words, they're just a nuisance
 
The good news about DP is intolerance for his kind of toxic swill is truly bipartisan, so they never seem to last long. I guess the mods put a fork in them at some point, but I do appreciate that the community mocks these idiots pretty mercilessly in the meantime.

In a way pond scum like Indian Giver are uniters...

:)
 
Right, your "professors" who graded your "paper" an "A." No one believes you, because lots of us have seen serious scholarship and you've demonstrated none of it that you would acquire in an actual effort like you described, and that was awarded a high grade by a serious institution of any kind, even a relatively decent HS.

I apologize for not meeting your standards in an online forum. I didn't know that I was supposed to perform at a high level just for your satisfaction. I do that when writing for my professors and peers and for my employers (for the record, I always work for myself but someone gives me money in exchange for my labor - and they count too, You have to produce something, or starve).

I find that most people are not appreciative of scholarly contributions, so I tone it down when I find myself in a more "lowbrow" crowd like this one.

Please don't take offence, sir. If you are up for high quality intellectual discussion, I will be right there in private..

But not here.

You have to know your audience and a lot of what us thinkers do doesn't pass muster in your typical political forum.

In fact politics seeks to reach the lowest common denominator - a fact that is both the success and death of great civilizations since time immemorial.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Charlie. You may have lived it, but you just bought the propaganda of the mainstream news which was as much in control of the left-wing as it is today, except there were no alternatives.

You had three networks and a handful of major news conglomerates that controlled the major markets.

News was more free in the 19th century - which is why Toqueville wrote about it's influence in Democracy in America and William Sherman decried it during the War Between the States.

I wrote a paper about the "Southern Strategy" and how the South turned red. I got an A by the way, and this was no right wing school - it is a highly respected public university in California with professors who trend to the left.

However, this is a stellar history department where evidence is valued over politics, maybe even more than in the science department! I wrote a well researched, reasoned paper with impeccable sources that argued the South did not turn Republican overnight in either 1964 or 1968, but was a slow process over more than 30 years driven by the implosion of the Democratic Party and their full tilt to the far-left. In the process they alienated voters who had always supported them by attacking religion, morality, hard work, capitalism, and free markets.

Race had little to do with it - in fact every Southern Democrat who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act remained a Democrat - there was no instant "switch" to the GOP. If there was a Republican Southern Strategy, it failed. The South kept electing Democrats to state legislatures and governor mansions, and two Southern Democrats were elected to the presidency after 1968 - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. If the South had gone "red" in 1968, what the heck were Southerners doing voting for a Democrat as late as 1992?

The Democrat Party committed political suicide in the South, a place that the Republicans did not take control of until the late 1990s. It was Democrat's far-left policies that did it, not a race based "Southern Strategy"/

That is a left-wing myth put out because Democrats cannot handle the truth.

Your "evidence" means little to someone who lived it. Why? The only reason that either Clinton or Carter were able to win Southern states was because they were fairly conservative - especially in comparison to today's Democratic party. What you need to remember about the South is that regardless of which party the Deep South followed, it was ALWAYS strongly conservative. Can you even begin to dispute that sentence? No, you can't - not factually. It is true that the Deep South is not as conservative as it used to be, but it's still strongly conservative when compared to the rest of the country. I mean, look how many in Alabama were willing to vote for an accused child molester just so they wouldn't elect a liberal! So if you did not address the fact that Democrat/Republican meant quite a bit less than conservative/liberal, then you missed out on much of what happened.

And don't try to tell me that race "had little to do with it". You do know that Mississippi didn't finalize ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) until 2013, right? That's five years ago. And you do know there's "segregation academies" still in operation in the South, don't you? I attended one. Racism, sir, informs daily life there to an extent that you cannot know unless you've both lived there for many years and lived somewhere outside the Deep South in a place that gives one real perspective.

After all, do you really think it was an accident that Reagan gave his first speech in his first presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS - a states' rights speech at that? What was up with that? His campaign adviser Lee Atwater put it best:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

No, you don't know. If you want a better education, read "The Senator and the Sharecropper". The opening scenes take place about ten miles from where I grew up. That book will show you just how much race has to do with Southern politics.
 
Luckily the true racists and white supremacists (the ones that showed up in Charlottesville) constitute IMO less than 1% of the population.

Antifa (Anti-First Amendment) showed up in Charlottesville and was responsible for all the violence.

Are they less then 1% of the population?

No wonder Hillary lost.

On the other hand your ilk falsely call President Trump a "white supremacist".

So, how did he win with less than 1% of the population voting for him?

I think that your theory is fatally flawed.
 
I apologize for not meeting your standards in an online forum. I didn't know that I was supposed to perform at a high level just for your satisfaction. I do that when writing for my professors and peers and for my employers (for the record, I always work for myself but someone gives me money in exchange for my labor - and they count too, You have to produce something, or starve).

I find that most people are not appreciative of scholarly contributions, so I tone it down when I find myself in a more "lowbrow" crowd like this one.

Please don't take offence, sir. If you are up for high quality intellectual discussion, I will be right there in private..

But not here.

You have to know your audience and a lot of what us thinkers do doesn't pass muster in your typical political forum.

In fact politics seeks to reach the lowest common denominator - a fact that is both the success and death of great civilizations since time immemorial.

You're a Holocaust denier. I'll make no effort at serious discussion with someone holding that position, and I expect no one else on this forum will either. It's a waste of time and effort. That whole - wrestle with pigs thing.
 
Your "evidence" means little to someone who lived it. Why? The only reason that either Clinton or Carter were able to win Southern states was because they were fairly conservative - especially in comparison to today's Democratic party. What you need to remember about the South is that regardless of which party the Deep South followed, it was ALWAYS strongly conservative. Can you even begin to dispute that sentence? No, you can't - not factually. It is true that the Deep South is not as conservative as it used to be, but it's still strongly conservative when compared to the rest of the country. I mean, look how many in Alabama were willing to vote for an accused child molester just so they wouldn't elect a liberal! So if you did not address the fact that Democrat/Republican meant quite a bit less than conservative/liberal, then you missed out on much of what happened.

And don't try to tell me that race "had little to do with it". You do know that Mississippi didn't finalize ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) until 2013, right? That's five years ago. And you do know there's "segregation academies" still in operation in the South, don't you? I attended one. Racism, sir, informs daily life there to an extent that you cannot know unless you've both lived there for many years and lived somewhere outside the Deep South in a place that gives one real perspective.

After all, do you really think it was an accident that Reagan gave his first speech in his first presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS - a states' rights speech at that? What was up with that? His campaign adviser Lee Atwater put it best:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

No, you don't know. If you want a better education, read "The Senator and the Sharecropper". The opening scenes take place about ten miles from where I grew up. That book will show you just how much race has to do with Southern politics.
I used Atwater's speech in my paper - and defended it as a necessary explanation in a racially driven time produced by the always racist Democrats.

You have not even read my paper but feel free to criticize it. I will gladly email you a copy. I have nothing to hide.

The fact is that the South stayed Democrat for well over 30 years after Nixon was elected, and your Republican Southern Strategy is a sham. In fact, it failed.

The South remained Democrat all through the 1970s, 1980s, and most of the 1990s until Southerners got tired of their old party ****ting on them for being Christian, capitalist, moral, in favor of free markets, and having a work ethic.
 
You're a Holocaust denier. I'll make no effort at serious discussion with someone holding that position, and I expect no one else on this forum will either. It's a waste of time and effort. That whole - wrestle with pigs thing.

Your opinion, sir, while wrong is noted.
 
You revel in the universal disdain others have for you.

Got it.
I have disdain for Hillary and Bernie supporters. If you live in America I guarantee that you supported one of them.

The only one I know who didn't was even farther to the left - my pastor who voted for Gloria Stein. He performs "gay "weddings" in our church. I was part of the board that allowed him to do that. I didn't exactly abstain, but I did not vote no. I wasn't aware that I was on the board and just stayed silent. It wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Who did you vote for?
 
Last edited:
Antifa (Anti-First Amendment) showed up in Charlottesville and was responsible for all the violence.

Are they less then 1% of the population?

No wonder Hillary lost.

On the other hand your ilk falsely call President Trump a "white supremacist".

So, how did he win with less than 1% of the population voting for him?

I think that your theory is fatally flawed.

What utter trash. Your Neo Nazi buddies are the ones who committed murder.
 
I have disdain for Hillary and Bernie supporters. If you live in America I guarantee that you supported one of them.

The only one I know who didn't was even farther to the left - my pastor who voted for Gloria Stein. He performs "gay "weddings" in our church.

Who did you vote for?

Whole lot of rambling... But thanks for uniting liberal, conservative, libertarian and all others....
 
I used Atwater's speech in my paper - and defended it as a necessary explanation in a racially driven time produced by the always racist Democrats.

You have not even read my paper but feel free to criticize it. I will gladly email you a copy. I have nothing to hide.

The fact is that the South stayed Democrat for well over 30 years after Nixon was elected, and your Republican Southern Strategy is a sham. In fact, it failed.

The South remained Democrat all through the 1970s, 1980s, and most of the 1990s until Southerners got tired of their old party ****ting on them for being Christian, capitalist, moral, in favor of free markets, and having a work ethic.

Really? Dude, if you think "Christianity" and morality isn't paramount to most Southerners...you're really showing your ignorance. Do you really think it's called the "Bible Belt" just for s**ts and grins? And when it comes to having a "work ethic", Google "list states by labor force participation rate"...and you're going to find that nearly all of the states with the lowest labor force participation rate are Southern states. In other words, the data simply do not support your claim.

Seems to me that yeah, you wrote a paper...but reading (and looking on a screen) about a place is no substitute for living in that place.
 
What utter trash. Your Neo Nazi buddies are the ones who committed murder.
In Charlottesville? I am not a "Neo-Nazi", whatever that means.

The lady (Heather Heyer) was killed by her own ilk - Antifa terrorists who attacked a man driving a car who panicked and tried to get away.

The Charlottesville police deliberately allowed the leftists to instigate violence into what was a peaceful demonstration against the removal of a statue, and then withdrew.

That is criminal and Democrat Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe ought to be charged with Heather Heyer's death.
 
Really? Dude, if you think "Christianity" and morality isn't paramount to most Southerners...you're really showing your ignorance. Do you really think it's called the "Bible Belt" just for s**ts and grins? And when it comes to having a "work ethic", Google "list states by labor force participation rate"...and you're going to find that nearly all of the states with the lowest labor force participation rate are Southern states. In other words, the data simply do not support your claim.

Seems to me that yeah, you wrote a paper...but reading (and looking on a screen) about a place is no substitute for living in that place.
I respect your "eyewitness" testimony, but the historiography of that period does not match your experience.

It is sad, but you have been sold a bill of goods, and Democrats have capitalized on that Goebellian lie longer than I have been alive.

I would not be alive if it were not for the Vietnam War.
 
Back
Top Bottom