[jakell]

I was noticing this happening as well. There seems to be difference in perspective of what constitutes one as a national.

One is a civic nationalism approach. That says you are part of us, if you share our culture and allegiance to the state.

The other is more of ethnic nationalism rooted in physique and blood as well as culture.

This split was bound to come onto surface. I wonder which approach will persevere.

They actually called this way back in the summer after Hilary's speech forced them to define themselves more clearly. They could have taken the broader route and kept it all as one big tent but the general thrust was to define the alt-right as White Nationalism, and anything else as outside the alt-right. This made them a smaller but more cogent movement.

So, by the time of the NPI conference and 'hailgate' the die had already been set so when people such as Mike Cernovitch and RamZPaul made negative comments it was not a 'split', but a predicable reaction from the alt-light that caused no problems. Also when more internal figures such as Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson disapproved, this was also anticipated and seems to have been absorbed.
So, the so-called 'rift' is not really problematic but adds to the spectrum of attitudes surrounding the alt-right.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I find it very disappointing someone could be so ignorant of history to believe racism is strictly a problem of whites, and especially American whites. America has it's racial issues, but if you look at the world objectively you will see American whites are probably the least racist people in the world. Asians and many Africans are worse. Europeans are just now finding out they are no better when being confronted with demographics not even approaching what the US has. When you have large cultural conflicts identified by race then everyone is going to show some racism.

I never said that racism is strictly a problem of whites. Context. I was talking about the problems of America. In America, whites have historically been racial troublemakers. Slavery, Jim Crow, vigilante lynchings, intellectual racism, etc. Blacks may have been prejudiced against whites, but for very good reason. It was dangerous for them to treat whites as normal people because whites did not tolerate equality.

I'm not trying to look at the world, I'm looking at American history. Very obvious from what I wrote that's what I was talking about.

And what have none Whites been? What race has respected human rights? Its White people who invented the idea of human rights. Its White people who invented anti-racism. But White supremacism is not something we should be ashamed of, its something we should be deeply proud of. White supremacism was a huge moral advance over the bestial savagery that lay outside Europe. The idea that all White people had rights regardless of nation, language or creed.

Black Africans, East Asians, Native Americans proved utterly incapable of reaching Continental racial consciousness without European intervention. The idea that White people have anything to apologise to non White people is a pathetic joke. White people are the saviours of Black Africa not its oppressors.

You really think white supremacism was that big of an advantage? Funny, I always thought the prevailing notion was that disease was white's biggest advantage. They were such a dirty people that they spread their disgusting filth all over the New World.

Seriously though, I think you're over-estimating how much the supremacism was an advantage versus how much the supremacism was a response to material conditions. We only become white supremacists after we had to explain why it was right for only people of other races to be slaves. And of course, our supremacism looks pretty foolish now when we see that we don't perform the best intellectually (Asians), physically (blacks), or monetarily (Jews). We're really just the most ruthless, bloodthirsty people with the best weapons, so we were able to bully our way to the top. Hell, before the industrial revolution the Chinese looked at us like we looked at black people: subhuman savages not even worthy of consideration. The difference is, they never wanted to rule the world.

[One Degree]

In America, whites have historically been racial troublemakers.

I guess your choice of words triggered me. Calling whites historical racial troublemakers indicates slavery and all the prejudice that followed was done with malicious intent and therefore the idea that whites owe blacks concessions. This ignores the reality of the cultures of the time. Slavery and prejudice were wrong, but the whites did not know it was wrong. The Blacks did not like it, but even they did not know it was wrong. It had always been a part of history. This is how every one lived. No one should be surprised it has taken this long to attempt to undo the history of mankind. In the early 1800's people decided it was wrong and the US has been moving away from it ever since. Maybe not as fast as people would like, but it has been continuous progress. There is no need to place blame. We just need to keep moving forward. Change of this magnitude takes a very long time. We can't even be positive it is the right thing to do yet. We know a lot of people are okay with it, but it is far from a done deal.

[quetzalcoatl]

Then there are nationalist/American reactionary/nativist like Trump. Trump I suspect is actually an ethno nationalist to be honest.

Ethno-nationalists are just another group of marks waiting to have their pockets picked, as far as Trump is concerned.

He is not an ethno-nationalist. He is a kleptocrat in a kleptocray. We are all pretending to ourselves this is something new and unheralded. It is not. Trump is the man for the job, and the job is the selling of America.

The true Trump supporters, like Donald, have known this all along. Indeed, they have counted on it.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I guess your choice of words triggered me. Calling whites historical racial troublemakers indicates slavery and all the prejudice that followed was done with malicious intent and therefore the idea that whites owe blacks concessions. This ignores the reality of the cultures of the time. Slavery and prejudice were wrong, but the whites did not know it was wrong. The Blacks did not like it, but even they did not know it was wrong. It had always been a part of history. This is how every one lived. No one should be surprised it has taken this long to attempt to undo the history of mankind. In the early 1800's people decided it was wrong and the US has been moving away from it ever since. Maybe not as fast as people would like, but it has been continuous progress.

I just don't see the North/South American form of slavery as being the same as anything that came before. Sure, there have been slaves for a long time, but never to the horrifically awesome magnitude that we saw in the Americas. And you certainly didn't work your slaves to death for the most part because they had rights, even as slaves. In the Americas, a slave was a piece of property, like a table is a piece of property. Slaves were beaten, raped, psychologically abused, and in many cases killed. You also have to realize the material capacity for oppression was much larger, and the playing field not as level.

I'm not a big proponent of reparation, but I do think we need to be mindful of the history and the culpability of the white ruling class in exploiting many people, not just slaves and blacks but also the white working class. However, lets also not whitewash the role of the white working class in subjugating black people either.

There is no need to place blame. We just need to keep moving forward. Change of this magnitude takes a very long time. We can't even be positive it is the right thing to do yet. We know a lot of people are okay with it, but it is far from a done deal.

I don't think placing blame is necessary, but lets be mindful of history. Lets not analyze things in a vacuum. Lets not act like race riots are because blacks are inherently violent, or high crime rate in the inner city is because of blacks' genetic inferiority. That's the real problem, that people want to look at issues without understanding the history. Lets be aware of the history first and then we can look at the issues.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

To me, white nationalist politics is like the white version of victim culture/identity politics. They have their little safe spaces where only their opinions are allowed to be heard, and other voices are banned as being "trolling", and they believed that they have been victimized by multiculturalism. Maybe I just have an unfavorable view of the alt-right because they always seemed like they are the white version of being PC. If you say that differences between people are based on culture and not genetics, they treat you with the same condescending ignorance that they accuse others of having.

A political outlook, such as alt right, cannot be a version of identity politics, because identity politics is based on the idea that belonging to one or more particular groups, such as being female, does or should shape your political outlook. It's all about considering certain characteristics of people very important, sometimes overwhelmingly so, in political decision making, e.g. as a female you cannot possibly vote for Trump.

White working class males could be perhaps regarded as a relatively new identity in the realm of identity politics, but I think this is only a superficial description. They are actually better thought of as a reaction to and against identity politics which has resulted in this group being called "privileged", contrary to their real life experiences, and disregarded as a voting block worth targeting. Or in other words, they don't identify and organise themselves based on the colour of their skin and their class status but they want this "rainbow coalition" madness to end which de facto politically marginalises them.

[Pants-of-dog]

A political outlook, such as alt right, cannot be a version of identity politics, because identity politics is based on the idea that belonging to one or more particular groups, such as being female, does or should shape your political outlook. It's all about considering certain characteristics of people very important, sometimes overwhelmingly so, in political decision making, e.g. as a female you cannot possibly vote for Trump.

White working class males could be perhaps regarded as a relatively new identity in the realm of identity politics, but I think this is only a superficial description. They are actually better thought of as a reaction to and against identity politics which has resulted in this group being called "privileged", contrary to their real life experiences, and disregarded as a voting block worth targeting. Or in other words, they don't identify and organise themselves based on the colour of their skin and their class status but they want this "rainbow coalition" madness to end which de facto politically marginalises them.

I disagree with the bolded statement. Identity politics is not based on the idea that you can predict a person's politics based on skin colour or gender. It is more correct to say that identity politics is based on the fact that modern society disadvantages people based on skin colour or gender, and that this then causes a reaction where the group being marginalised identifies as a group because of this shared experience of being marginalised, and then becomes politically active as a way of figting said marginalisation.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I disagree with the bolded statement. Identity politics is not based on the idea that you can predict a person's politics based on skin colour or gender. It is more correct to say that identity politics is based on the fact that modern society disadvantages people based on skin colour or gender, and that this then causes a reaction where the group being marginalised identifies as a group because of this shared experience of being marginalised, and then becomes politically active as a way of figting said marginalisation.

Maybe that's how this type of political thinking came into existence.

As it is now, I believe my description reflects reality better. I've read, for instance, that voting for Trump is a sign of slave morality in females. The idea is that being female ought to be one of my most important, if not the most important, characteristic when it come to politics. That's what the rainbow coalition is about.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, there are always people who misunderstand or do not think about the history of things. But this does not mean that the defintion of something changes just because some of its proponents are confused.

There are many people of a conservative bent on this forum who are less than clear on their own ideological tenets, but I would not assume the actual tenets of conservative ideology are changed simply because these people do not seem to understand them.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I'm more interested in how politics play out in reality, @Pants-of-dog. The ideological underpinnings and history are not completely irrelevant of course, but it's the real life developments that are affecting us.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, Kaiserschmarrn, I disagree that the reality of identity politics is changed simply because a few people are confused about it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Better talk to the "few" who are responsible for taking this view mainstream then, @Pants-of-dog.

[One Degree]

I am watching 60 minutes right now. They are attempting to crucify the Chicago police department for not taking proactive actions. The police stopped making a lot of stops because of the unrest over police shootings and murders went crazy. The police did what the liberals said they wanted and now the liberals are upset over the results.

Edit: Okay, maybe it is not totally biased. Then again it looks like they were tossing the police a bone.

[Pants-of-dog]

Better talk to the "few" who are responsible for taking this view mainstream then, @Pants-of-dog.

I hate it when you are right.

[Political Interest]

The alt-right still do not learn and seem incapable of any type of subtlety. They have not yet understood that ethnic consciousness and even nationalism are not the same as racism. But keep making outlandish gestures and statements and keep using crass and garish narratives to push more Americans to liberalism. A movement of stupid memes is not going to succeed. The average decent American will not embrace this. This movement lacks ideological depth.

If the alt-right are serious about the rights of Europeans and European Americans they will take an honest look at what they are really seeking to achieve and readjust their entire focus. At the moment it is just blowhard angry American men. Richard Spencer is clearly very intelligent and has some interesting ideas but the rank and file of this movement are not wonderful. You can see it in the comments section of video sharing websites. I tried teaching them not to be racist and to blame policies rather than other ethnicities. None of them listened. Many of them really are quite inadequate people.

Identity must be something positive and an affirmation of oneself as opposed to hatred or fear of others. It is very strange that they cannot seem to distinguish between ideologies and races. Many of the rank and file alt-rightists would do well to make friends with Muslims and Hispanics. They may find that they share far more common ground than they realise. There is a problem when a Muslim man living in Europe can oppose mass immigration and respect the country in which he is living but still be rejected by certain elements among the alt-right. The fact that such people have no interest in building bridges with others just suggests to me that they consider the movement a racist hobby rather than a serious attempt to address real issues.