Archive for the ‘White Nationalism’ Category

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism …

In August, after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville ended in murder, Steve Bannon insisted that “there’s no room in American society” for neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, and the KKK.

But an explosive cache of documents obtained by BuzzFeed News proves that there was plenty of room for those voices on his website.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, under Bannons leadership, Breitbart courted the alt-right the insurgent, racist right-wing movement that helped sweep Donald Trump to power. The former White House chief strategist famously remarked that he wanted Breitbart to be the platform for the alt-right.

Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, on September 24.

The Breitbart employee closest to the alt-right was Milo Yiannopoulos, the sites former tech editor known best for his outrageous public provocations, such as last years Dangerous Faggot speaking tour and Septembers canceled Free Speech Week in Berkeley. For more than a year, Yiannopoulos led the site in a coy dance around the movements nastier edges, writing stories that minimized the role of neo-Nazis and white nationalists while giving its politer voices a fair hearing. In March, Breitbart editor Alex Marlow insisted were not a hate site. Breitbarts media relations staff repeatedly threatened to sue outlets that described Yiannopoulos as racist. And after the violent white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Breitbart published an article explaining that when Bannon said the site welcomed the alt-right, he was merely referring to computer gamers and blue-collar voters who hated the GOP brand.

These new emails and documents, however, clearly show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the political spectrum and clearing the way for them to enter the American mainstream.

Its a relationship illustrated most starkly by a previously unreleased April 2016 video in which Yiannopoulos sings America the Beautiful in a Dallas karaoke bar as admirers, including the white nationalist Richard Spencer, raise their arms in Nazi salutes.

These documents chart the Breitbart alt-right universe. They reveal how the website and, in particular, Yiannopoulos links the Mercer family, the billionaires who fund Breitbart, to underpaid trolls who fill it with provocative content, and to extremists striving to create a white ethnostate.

They capture what Bannon calls his killing machine in action, as it dredges up the resentments of people around the world, sifts through these grievances for ideas and content, and propels them from the unsavory parts of the internet up to TrumpWorld, collecting advertisers checks all along the way.

And the cache of emails some of the most newsworthy of which BuzzFeed News is now making public expose the extent to which this machine depended on Yiannopoulos, who channeled voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America. The emails tell the story of Steve Bannons grand plan for Yiannopoulos, whom the Breitbart executive chairman transformed from a charismatic young editor into a conservative media star capable of magnetizing a new generation of reactionary anger. Often, the documents reveal, this anger came from a legion of secret sympathizers in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, suburbia, and everywhere in between.

“I have said in the past that I find humor in breaking taboos and laughing at things that people tell me are forbidden to joke about,” Yiannopoulos wrote in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “But everyone who knows me also knows I’m not a racist. As someone of Jewish ancestry, I of course condemn racism in the strongest possible terms. I have stopped making jokes on these matters because I do not want any confusion on this subject. I disavow Richard Spencer and his entire sorry band of idiots. I have been and am a steadfast supporter of Jews and Israel. I disavow white nationalism and I disavow racism and I always have.

He added that during his karaoke performance, his “severe myopia” made it impossible for him to see the Hitler salutes a few feet away.

Steve Bannon, the other Breitbart employees named in the story, and the Mercer family did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Like all the new media success stories, Breitbarts alt-right platform depends on the participation of its audience. It combusts the often secret fury of those who reject liberal norms into news, and it doesnt burn clean.

Now Bannon is back at the controls of the machine, which he has said he is revving up. The Mercers have funded Yiannopoulos’s post-Breitbart venture. And these documents present the clearest look at what these people may have in store for America.

Protesters at a white supremacist rally at the University of Virginia on August 11.

A year and a half ago, Milo Yiannopoulos set himself a difficult task: to define the alt-right. It was five months before Hillary Clinton named the alt-right in a campaign speech, 10 months before the alt-rights great hope became president, and 17 months before Charlottesville clinched the alt-right as a stalking horse for violent white nationalism. The movement had just begun its explosive emergence into the countrys politics and culture.

At the time, Yiannopoulos, who would later describe himself as a fellow traveler of the alt-right, was the tech editor of Breitbart. In summer 2015, after spending a year gathering momentum through GamerGate the opening salvo of the new culture wars he convinced Breitbart upper management to give him his own section. And for four months, he helped Bannon wage what the Breitbart boss called in emails to staff #war. It was a war, fought story by story, against the perceived forces of liberal activism on every conceivable battleground in American life.

Yiannopoulos was a useful soldier whose very public identity as a gay man (one who has now married a black man) helped defend him, his anti-political correctness crusade, and his employer from charges of bigotry.

But now Yiannopoulos had a more complicated fight on his hands. The left and worse, some on the right had started to condemn the new conservative energy as reactionary and racist. Yiannopoulos had to take back alt-right, to redefine for Breitbarts audience a poorly understood, leaderless movement, parts of which had already started to resist the term itself.

So he reached out to key constituents, who included a neo-Nazi and a white nationalist.

Finally doing my big feature on the alt right, Yiannopoulos wrote in a March 9, 2016, email to Andrew Weev Auernheimer, a hacker who is the system administrator of the neo-Nazi hub the Daily Stormer, and who would later ask his followers to disrupt the funeral of Charlottesville victim Heather Heyer. Fancy braindumping some thoughts for me.

Its time for me to do my big definitive guide to the alt right, Yiannopoulos wrote four hours later to Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer who under the nom de plume Mencius Moldbug helped create the neoreactionary movement, which holds that Enlightenment democracy has failed and that a return to feudalism and authoritarian rule is in order. Which is my whorish way of asking if you have anything youd like to make sure I include.

Alt r feature, figured youd have some thoughts, Yiannopoulos wrote the same day to Devin Saucier, who helps edit the online white nationalist magazine American Renaissance under the pseudonym Henry Wolff, and who wrote a story in June 2017 called Why I Am (Among Other Things) a White Nationalist.

The three responded at length: Weev about the Daily Stormer and a podcast called The Daily Shoah, Yarvin in characteristically sweeping world-historical assertions (Its no secret that North America contains many distinct cultural/ethnic communities. This is not optimal, but with a competent king its not a huge problem either), and Saucier with a list of thinkers, politicians, journalists, films (Dune, Mad Max, The Dark Knight), and musical genres (folk metal, martial industrial, 80s synthpop) important to the movement. Yiannopoulos forwarded it all, along with the Wikipedia entries for Alternative Right and the esoteric far-right Italian philosopher Julius Evola a major influence on 20th-century Italian fascists and Richard Spencer alike to Allum Bokhari, his deputy and frequent ghostwriter, whom he had met during GamerGate. Include a bit of everything, he instructed Bokhari.

Bannon, as you probably know, is sympathetic to much of it.

I think youll like what Im cooking up, Yiannopoulos wrote to Saucier, the American Renaissance editor.

I look forward to it, Saucier replied. Bannon, as you probably know, is sympathetic to much of it.

Five days later Bokhari returned a 3,000-word draft, a taxonomy of the movement titled ALT-RIGHT BEHEMOTH. It included a little bit of everything: the brains and their influences (Yarvin and Evola, etc.), the natural conservatives (people who think different ethnic groups should stay separate for scientific reasons), the Meme team (4chan and 8chan), and the actual hatemongers. Of the last group, Bokhari wrote: Theres just not very many of them, no-one really likes them, and theyre unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right.

Magnificent start, Yiannopoulos responded.

Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an ignorant savage, and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.

Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive, Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.

Most of it is great but I dont want to rush a major long form piece like this, Marlow wrote back. A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.

Truthfully management is very edgy on this one (They love it but its racially charged)

Also, there was another sensitive issue to be raised: credit. Allum did most of the work on this and wants joint [byline] but I want the glory here, Yiannopoulos wrote back to Marlow. I am telling him you said its sensitive and want my byline alone on it.

Minutes later, Yiannopoulos emailed Bokhari. I was going to have Marlow collude with me about the byline on the alt right thing because I want to take it solo. Will you hate me too much if I do that? Truthfully management is very edgy on this one (They love it but its racially charged) and they would prefer it.

Will management definitely say no if its both of us? Bokhari responded. I think it actually lowers the risk if someone with a brown-sounding name shares the BL.

Five days later, March 22nd, Marlow returned with comments. He suggested that the story should show in more detail how Yiannopoulos and most of the alt-right rejected the actual neo-Nazis in the movement. And he added that Taki’s Magazine and VDare, two publications Yiannopoulos and Bokhari identified as part of the alt-right, are both racist. We should disclaimer that or strike that part of the history from the article. (The published story added, in the passive voice, All of these websites have been accused of racism.) Again the story went back to Bokhari, who on the 24th sent Yiannopoulos still another draft, with the subject head ALT RIGHT, MEIN FUHRER.

On the 27th, now co-bylined, the story was ready for upper management: Bannon and Larry Solov, Breitbarts press-shy CEO. It was also ready, on a separate email chain, for another read and round of comments from the white nationalist Saucier, the feudalist Yarvin, the neo-Nazi Weev, and Vox Day.

I need to go thru this tomorrow in depthalthough I do appreciate any piece that mentions evola, Bannon wrote. On the 29th, in an email titled steve wants you to read this, Marlow sent Yiannopoulos a list of edits and notes Bannon had solicited from James Pinkerton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush staffer and a contributing editor of the American Conservative. The 59-year-old Pinkerton was put off by a cartoon of Pepe the Frog conducting the Trump Train.

I love art, he wrote inline. I think [Breitbart News Network] needs a lot more of it, but I dont get the above. Frogs? Kermit? Am I missing something here?

Later that day, Breitbart published An Establishment Conservatives Guide to the Alt-Right. It quickly became a touchstone, cited in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New Yorker, CNN, and New York Magazine, among others. And its influence is still being felt. This past July, in a speech in Warsaw that was celebrated by the alt-right, President Trump echoed a line from the story a story written by a brown-sounding amanuensis, all but line-edited by a white nationalist, laundered for racism by Breitbarts editors, and supervised by the man who would in short order become the presidents chief strategist.

The machine had worked well.

It hadnt always been so easy.

The previous November, Yiannopoulos emailed Bannon with a bone to pick. Breitbart London reported that a London college student behind a popular social justice hashtag had threatened the anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller.

The story is horseshit and we should never have published it, Yiannopoulos wrote. Reckless and stupid. Strongly recommend we pull. its insanely defamatory. I spoke to pamela geller and even she said it was rubbish. Were outright lying about this girl and surely were better than that. We can and should win by telling the truth.

Six minutes later, Bannon wrote back to his tech editor in a fury. Your [sic] full of shit. When I need your advice on anything I will ask. … The tech site is a total clusterfuck—meaningless stories written by juveniles. You dont have a clue how to build a company or what real content is. And you dont have long to figure it out or your [sic] gone. You are magenalia [sic].

(Geller clarified to BuzzFeed News in a statement that she believed it was “rubbish” that the London university characterized the threats against her as “fake.”)

“Dudewe r in a global existentialist war where our enemy EXISTS in social media and u r jerking yourself off w/ marginalia!!!!”

On December 8, the New York Times published a major story about the radicalization of American Muslims on Facebook. Yiannopoulos published a story called Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.

That afternoon, Bannon emailed Yiannopoulos and Marlow.

Dude—we r in a global existentialist war where our enemy EXISTS in social media and u r jerking yourself off w/ marginalia!!!! U should be OWNING this conversation because u r everything they hate!!! Drop your toys, pick up your tools and go help save western civilization.

Message received, Yiannopoulos wrote back. I will do a Week of Islam next week.

U dont need that, Bannon responded. Just get in the fight—ur Social Media and they have made it a powerful weapon of war. There is no war correspondent in the west yet dude and u can own it and be remember for 3 generations–or sit around wasting your God-given talents jerking off to your fan base.

Over the next several months, Yiannopoulos began to find the right targets. First it was a continued attack on Shaun King, the writer and Black Lives Matter activist whose ethnicity Yiannopoulos had called into question. Next it was thenYahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who Bannon called in an email to Yiannopoulos the poster child for the narcissistic ecosystem.

And increasingly it was enemies of Donald Trump. In response to a Yiannopoulos pitch accusing a prominent Republican opponent of Trump of being a pill-popper, Bannon wrote: Dude!!! LMAO! Epic. And Bannon signed off on an April story by Yiannopoulos imploring #NeverTrumpers to get on board with Trump and the alt-right. (Bannon did, however, veto making it the lead story on the site, writing to Yiannopoulos and Marlow, Looks like we have our thumb on the scale.)

Why was Bannon so concerned with the focus of his tech editors energies? In a February email exchange before Yiannopoulos appeared on Greg Gutfelds Sunday Fox News show, Bannon wrote, Gutfeld should become an object lesson for u. Brilliant cultural commentator who really got pop culture, the hipster scene and advant [sic] garde.got on fox and tried to become a political pundit…lost all credibility. You r one of the potential heirs to his cultural leadership so act according. Bannon was grooming the younger man for something greater.

In May, Bannon invited Yiannopoulos to Cannes for a week for the film festival. Want to discuss tv and film with u, he wrote in an email. U get to meet my partners, hang on the boat and discuss business.

Phil Robertson at the 42nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center on February 27, 2015, in National Harbor, Maryland.

The boat was the Sea Owl, a 200-foot yacht owned by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who is a major funder of Breitbart and various other far-right enterprises. That week, Yiannopoulos shuttled back and forth from the Cannes Palace Hotel to the pier next to the Palais des Festivals et des Congrs and the green-sterned, fantasy-inspired vessel complete with a Dale Chihuly chandelier. The Mercers were in town to promote Clinton Cash, a film produced by Bannon and their production studio, Glittering Steel. On board, Yiannopoulos drank with, mingled with, and interviewed Phil Robertson, the lavishly bearded patriarch of Duck Dynasty, for his podcast.

I know how lucky I am, Yiannopoulos wrote to Bannon on May 20. Im going to work hard to make you some money — and win the war! Thanks for having me this week and for the faith youre placing in me chief. The left wont know what hit them.

U just focus on being who u are– we will put a top level team around u, Bannon wrote back. #war.

Getty Images (3); YouTube

On July 22, 2016, Rebekah Mercer Roberts powerful daughter emailed Steve Bannon from her Stanford alumni account. She wanted the Breitbart executive chairman, whom she introduced as one of the greatest living defenders of Liberty, to meet an app developer she knew. Apple had rejected the mans game (Capitol HillAwry, in which players delete emails la Hillary Clinton) from the App Store, and the younger Mercer wondered if we could put an article up detailing his 1st amendment political persecution.

Bannon passed the request from Mercer to Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos passed it to Charlie Nash, an 18-year-old Englishman whom he had met at a conference of the populist right-wing UK Independence Party conference the previous year, and who started working as his intern immediately after. Like some bleach-blonde messiah of antipolitical correctness, Yiannopoulos tended to draw in ideologically sympathetic young men at conferences, campus speeches, and on social media, accumulating more and more acolytes as he went along.

In June 2015 it was Ben Kew, who invited Yiannopoulos to speak at the University of Bristol, where he was a student; hes now a staff writer for Breitbart. In September 2015 it was Tom Ciccotta, the treasurer of the class of 2017 at Bucknell University, who still writes for Breitbart. In February 2016 it was Hunter Swogger, a University of Michigan student and then the editor of the conservative Michigan Review, whom Yiannopoulos cultivated and brought on as a social media specialist during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Yiannopoulos called these young researchers his trufflehounds.

Nash, who had just been hired by Breitbart at $30,000 a year after months of lobbying by Yiannopoulos, dutifully fielded the request from the billionaire indirectly paying his salary and turned around a story about the rejected Capitol HillAwry app on the 25th and a follow-up five days later after Apple reversed its decision.

Huge victory, Bannon emailed after the reversal. Huge win.

This was the usual way stories came in from the Mercers, according to a former Breitbart editor: with a request from Bannon referring to our investors or our investing partners.

After Cannes, as Bannon pushed Yiannopoulos to do more live events that presented expensive logistical challenges, the involvement of the investing partners became increasingly obvious. Following a May event at DePaul University in Chicago in which Black Lives Matter protesters stormed a Yiannopoulos speech, he wrote to Bannon, I wouldnt confess this to anyone publicly, of course, but I was worried … last night that I was going to get punched or worse. … I need one or two people of my own.

Btw they are ALL factories of hate.

Agree 100%, Bannon wrote. We want you to stir up more. Milo: for your eyes only we r going to use the mercers private security company.

Copied on the email was Dan Fleuette, Bannons coproducer at Glittering Steel and the man who acted for months as the go-between for Yiannopoulos and the Mercers. As Yiannopoulos made the transition in summer 2016 from being a writer to becoming largely the star of a traveling stage show, Fleuette was enlisted to process and wrangle the legion of young assistants, managers, trainers, and other talent the Breitbart tech editor demanded be brought along for the ride.

First came Tim Gionet, the former BuzzFeed social media strategist who goes by Baked Alaska on Twitter, whom Yiannopoulos pitched to Fleuette as a tour manager in late May. Gionet accompanied Yiannopoulos to Florida after the June 2016 Pulse nightclub killings in Orlando. The two planned a press conference outside a mosque attended by the shooter, Omar Mateen. (Brilliant, Bannon emailed. Btw they are ALL factories of hate.) But after some impertinent tweets and back talk from Gionet, Fleuette became Yiannopouloss managerial confidante.

He needs to understand that Baked Alaska is over, Yiannopoulos wrote in one email to Fleuette. He is not a friend he is an employee. He is becoming a laughing stock and that reflects badly on me. In another, I think we need to replace Tim. [He] has no news judgment or understanding of whats dangerous (thinks tweets about Jews are just fine). He seems more interested in his career as an obscure Twitter personality than my tour manager.

At the Republican National Convention, Yiannopoulos deliberately chose a hotel for Gionet far from the convention center, writing to another Breitbart employee, Exactly where I want him. He needs the commute to remind him of his place.

Gionet did not respond to multiple requests by BuzzFeed News for comment.

He needs the commute to remind him of his place.

But Gionet, who would go on to march with the alt-right in Charlottesville, was still useful to Yiannopoulos as a gateway to a group of young, hip, social mediasavvy Trump supporters.

Yiannopoulos managed all of his assistants and ghostwriters under his own umbrella, using yiannopoulos.net emails and private Slack rooms. This structure insulated Breitbarts upper management from the 4chan savants and GamerGate vets working for Yiannopoulos. And it gave Yiannopoulos a staff loyal to him above Breitbart. (Indeed, Yiannopoulos shopped a separate Team Milo section to Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal, in July 2016.)

It also sometimes led to extraordinarily fraught organizational and personal dynamics. Take Allum Bokhari, the Oxford-educated former political consultant whom Yiannopoulos rewarded for his years of grunt work with a $100,000 ghostwriting contract for his book Dangerous.

But the men were spying on each other.

In April 2016, Yiannopoulos asked Bokhari for a complete list of the email, social media, bank accounts, and any other system and services of mine you have been accessing, and how long youve had access. Bokhari confessed to having logged into Yiannopouloss email and Slack, and had used Yiannopouloss credit card for an Airbnb, a confession Yiannopoulos quickly passed on to Larry Solov, the Breitbart CEO.

My basic position is that he is not stable and needs to be far away from me, Yiannopoulos wrote to Marlow and Solov.

Meanwhile, Yiannopoulos had compiled a transcript of what he called a short section of 30 hours of recording down on paper, which appeared to be of conversations between Bokhari and a friend.

The newcomers brought in by Gionet werent much better behaved. Yiannopoulos had to boot one prospective member of his tour squad for posting cocaine use on Snapchat. Mike Mahoney, a then20-year-old from North Carolina, had to be monitored because of his propensity for racism and anti-Semitism on social media. (Mahoney was later banned from Twitter, but hes relocated to Gab, a free speech uber alles social network where he is free to post messages such as reminder: muslims are fags.)

Let me know if theres anything specific thats really bad eg any Jew stuff, Yiannopoulos wrote of Mahoney in an email to another member of his staff. His entire Twitter persona will have to change dramatically once he gets the job. On September 11, 2016, Mahoney signed a $2,500-a-month contract with Glittering Steel.

As the Dangerous Faggot tour swung into gear, Yiannopoulos grew increasingly hostile toward Fleuette, whom he excoriated for late payments to his young crew, lack of support, and disorganization. The entire tour staff is demanding money, Yiannopoulos wrote in one email to Fleuette in October. No one knows or cares who Glittering Steel is but this represents a significantly damaging risk to my reputation if it gets out. And in another, Your problem right now is keeping me happy.”

Yet ultimately Fleuette was necessary he connected Yiannopouloss madcap world and the massively rich people funding the machine.

I think you know who the final decision belongs to, Fleuette wrote to Yiannopoulos after one particularly frantic request for money. I am in daily communication with them.

Yiannopoulos holds a press conference down the street from Orlando’s Pulse Nightclub on June 15, 2016, two days after the shooting that killed 49 people and injured 53.

Yiannopouloss star rose throughout 2016 thanks to a succession of controversial public appearances, social media conflagrations, Breitbart radio spots, television hits, and magazine profiles. Bannons guidance, the Mercers patronage, and the creative energy of his young staff had come together at exactly the time Donald Trump turned offensive speech into a defining issue in American culture. And for thousands of people, Yiannopoulos, Breitbarts poster child for offensive speech, became a secret champion.

Aggrieved by the encroachment of so-called cultural Marxism into American public life, and egged on by an endless stream of stories on Fox News about safe spaces and racially charged campus confrontations, a diverse group of Americans took to Yiannopouloss inbox to thank him and to confess their fears about the future of the country.

He heard from ancient veterans who binge-watched his speeches on YouTube; from a 58 year old asian woman concerned about her high school daughters progressive teachers; from boys asking how to win classroom arguments against feminists; from a former NASA employee who said he had been laid off by my fat female boss and was sad that the Jet Propulsion Lab had become completely cucked; from a man who had bought his 11-year-old son an AR-15 and named it Milo; from an Indiana lesbian who said she despised liberals and begged Yiannopoulos to keep triggering the special snowflakes; from a doctoral student in philosophy who said he had been threatened with dismissal from his program for sharing his low opinion of Islam; from a Charlotte police officer thanking Yiannopoulos for his common sense Facebook posts about the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott (BLUE LIVES MATTER, Yiannopoulos responded); from a New Jersey school teacher who feared his students would become pawns for the left social justice campaign; from a man who said he had returned from a deployment in an Islamic country to discover that his wife was transitioning and wanted a divorce (subject line Regressivism stole my wife); from a father terrified his daughter might attend Smith College; from fans who wanted to give him jokes to use about fat people, about gay people, about Muslims, about Hillary Clinton.

He also heard, with frequency, from accomplished people in predominantly liberal industries entertainment, tech, academia, fashion, and media who resented what they felt was a censorious coastal cultural orthodoxy. Taken together, they represent something like a network of sleeper James Damores, vexed but silent for fear of losing their jobs or friends, kvetching to Yiannopoulos as a pressure valve. For Yiannopoulos, these emails werent just validation, though they were obviously that. They sometimes became more ammunition for the culture war.

Im a relatively recent ex-lefty who received deep liberal indoctrination via elite private schools (Yale and Andover), wrote one film editor who introduced herself as an Undercover pede in Hollywood.” (Centipede is slang for an online Trump supporter.) Ive been deeply closeted thus far due to the severe personal and professional repercussions of not beating the progressive drum.

In an email titled Working for E! Is Hell, a production manager at the cable network wrote Yiannopoulos that her employer was a contributor to the fake news machine and my colleagues have become insufferable. I offer you my services a partner in fighting globalism.

And Adam Grandmaison, whom Rolling Stone described as underground hip-hops major tastemaker, reached out to Yiannopoulos to suggest he investigate a journalist who had accused her ex-boyfriend of physical abuse.

In an email to BuzzFeed News, Grandmaison wrote that he was merely voicing concern about a black man being judged by the media, and that “I didn’t intend for [Milo] to write about it.” (Grandmaison’s email to Yiannopoulos began “first off i absolutely do not want credit for tipping you off to this.”)

Even more tips came in from tech workers.

Continue reading here:
Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism …

Fair Usage Law

October 25, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Nationalism – Wikipedia

Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation’s culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country’s government and the means of production.[3]

Historically, nationalism is a modern concept dating from the 18th century, of an ideological scope greater than a peoples’ attachment to family, to local authority, and to the native land.[4] Politically and sociologically, there are three paradigms for understanding the origins and bases of nationalism. The first paradigm is primordialism (perennialism), which proposes nationalism as a natural phenomenon, that nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, a complex, historical perspective, which explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon imbued with historical meaning, by way of the nation’s subjective ties to national symbols. The third paradigm is modernism, which proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that requires the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[5]

There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve. This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community. This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[9][10][11]

The word nation was used before 1800 in Europe to refer to the inhabitants of a country as well as to collective identities that could include shared history, law, language, political rights, religion and traditions, in a sense more akin to the modern conception.[12]

Nationalism is a newer word; in English the term dates from 1844, although the concept is older.[13] It became important in the 19th century.[14] The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga notes that “The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism.”[15]

Nationalism has been a recurring facet of civilizations since ancient times, though the modern sense of national political autonomy and self-determination was formalized in the late 18th century.[16] Examples of nationalist movements can be found throughout history, from the Jewish revolts of the 2nd century, to the re-emergence of Persian culture during the Sasanid period of Persia, to the re-emergence of Latin culture in the Western Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as many others. In modern times, examples can be seen in the emergence of German nationalism as a reaction against Napoleonic control of Germany as the Confederation of the Rhine around 180514.[17][18] Linda Colley in Britons, Forging the Nation 17071837 (Yale University Press, 1992) explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.[19] Some historians see the American Revolution as an early form of modern nationalism.[20]

Due to the Industrial Revolution, there was an emergence of an integrated, nation-encompassing economy and a national public sphere, where the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their province, town or family. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.[21] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Union Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one.[22] Thomas Arne composed the patriotic song “Rule, Britannia!” in 1740,[23] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot invented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English national spirit in 1712.[24]

The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism.[25][26]

The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (17441803) originated the term in 1772 in his “Treatise on the Origin of Language” stressing the role of a common language.[27][28] He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality and of patriotism “he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself”, whilst teaching that “in a certain sense every human perfection is national”.[29]

The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the 19th century nationalism became one of the most significant political and social forces in history; it is typically listed among the top causes of World War I.[30][31]

Napoleon’s conquests of the German and Italian states around 180006 played a major role in stimulating nationalism and the demands for national unity.[32]

Nationalism in France gained early expressions in France’s revolutionary government. In 1793, that government declared a mass conscription (leve en masse) with a call to service:

Henceforth, until the enemies have been driven from the territory of the Republic, all the French are in permanent requisition for army service. The young men shall go to battle; the married men shall forge arms in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen to lint; the old men shall repair to the public places, to stimulate the courage of the warriors and preach the unity of the Republic and the hatred of kings.[33]

This nationalism gained pace after the French Revolution came to a close. Defeat in war, with a loss in territory, was a powerful force in nationalism. In France, revenge and return of Alsace-Lorraine was a powerful motivating force for a quarter century after their defeat by Germany in 1871. However, after 1895 French nationalists focused on Dreyfus and internal subversion, and the Alsace issue petered out.[34]

The French reaction was a famous case of Revanchism (“revenge”) which demands the return of lost territory that “belongs” to the national homeland. Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geo-political factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a hawkish stance, suggesting that their desired objectives can be achieved through the positive outcome of another war. It is linked with irredentism, the conception that a part of the cultural and ethnic nation remains “unredeemed” outside the borders of its appropriate nation state. Revanchist politics often rely on the identification of a nation with a nation state, often mobilizing deep-rooted sentiments of ethnic nationalism, claiming territories outside the state where members of the ethnic group live, while using heavy-handed nationalism to mobilize support for these aims. Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient or even autochthonous occupation of a territory since “time immemorial”, an assertion that is usually inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.[35]

The Dreyfus Affair in France 1894-1906 made the battle against treason and disloyalty a central theme for conservative Catholic French nationalists. Dreyfus, a Jew, was an outsider, that is in the views of intense nationalists, not a true Frenchman, not one to be trusted, not one to be given the benefit of the doubt. True loyalty to the nation, from the conservative viewpoint, was threatened by liberal and republican principles of liberty and equality that were leading the country to disaster.[36]

In the German states west of Prussia, Napoleon abolished many of the old or medieval relics, such as dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.[37] He imposed rational legal systems and demonstrated how dramatic changes were possible. His organization of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 promoted a feeling of nationalism.

Nationalists sought to encompass masculinity in their quest for strength and unity.[38] It was Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck who achieved German unification through a series of highly successful short wars against Denmark, Austria and France which thrilled the pan-German nationalists in the smaller German states. They fought in his wars and eagerly joined the new German Empire, which Bismarck ran as a force for balance and peace in Europe after 1871.[39]

In the 19th century German nationalism was promoted by Hegelian-oriented academic historians who saw Prussia as the true carrier of the German spirit, and the power of the state as the ultimate goal of nationalism. The three main historians were Johann Gustav Droysen (18081884), Heinrich von Sybel (18171895) and Heinrich von Treitschke (18341896). Droysen moved from liberalism to an intense nationalism that celebrated Prussian Protestantism, efficiency, progress, and reform, in striking contrast to Austrian Catholicism, impotency and backwardness. He idealized the Hohenzollern kings of Prussia. His large-scale History of Prussian Politics (14 vol 18551886) was foundational for nationalistic students and scholars. Von Sybel founded and edited the leading academic history journal, Historische Zeitschrift and as the director of the Prussian state archives published massive compilations that were devoured by scholars of nationalism.[40]

The most influential of the German nationalist historians, was Treitschke who had an enormous influence on elite students at Heidelberg and Berlin universities.[41] Treitschke vehemently attacked parliamentarianism, socialism, pacifism, the English, the French, the Jews, and the internationalists. The core of his message was the need for a strong, unified statea unified Germany under Prussian supervision. “It is the highest duty of the State to increase its power,” he stated. Although he was a descendant of a Czech family he considered himself not Slavic but German: “I am 1000 times more the patriot than a professor.”[42]

Italian nationalism emerged in the 19th century and was the driving force for Italian unification or the “Risorgimento” (meaning the Resurgence or revival). It was the political and intellectual movement that consolidated different states of the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The memory of the Risorgimento is central to Italian nationalism but it was based in the liberal middle classes and proved weak.[43] Two major groups remained opposed, the South (called the Mezzogiorno) and the devout Catholics. The new government treated the South as a conquered province with ridicule for its “backward” and poverty stricken society, its poor grasp of the Italian language, and its traditions. The liberals had always been strong opponents of the pope and the very well organized Catholic Church. The pope had been in political control of central Italy; he lost that in 1860 and lost Rome in 1870. He had long been the leader of opposition to modern liberalism and refused to accept the terms offered by the new government. He called himself a prisoner in the Vatican and forbade Catholics to vote or engage in politics. The Catholic alienation lasted until 1929. The liberal government under Francesco Crispi sought to enlarge his political base by emulating Bismarck and firing up Italian nationalism with a hyper-aggressive foreign policy. It crashed and his cause was set back. Historian R.J.B. Bosworth says of his nationalistic foreign policy that Crispi:

Meanwhile, a third major group emerged that was hostile to nationalism as radical socialist elements became a force in the industrial North, and they too rejected liberalism. Italy joined the Allies in the First World War after getting promises of territory, but its war effort was a fiasco that discredited liberalism and paved the way for Benito Mussolini and his fascism. That involved a highly aggressive nationalism that led to a series of wars, an alliance with Hitler’s Germany, and humiliation and hardship in the Second World War. After 1945 the Catholics returned to government and tensions eased somewhat, but the Mezzogiorno remained poor and ridiculed. The working class now voted for the Communist Party, and it looked to Moscow not Rome for inspiration, and was kept out of the national government even as it controlled industrial cities across the North. In the 21st century the Communists are gone but political and cultural tensions remained high as shown by separatist Padanian nationalism in the North.[45]

The Greek drive for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and 1830s inspired supporters across Christian Europe, especially in Britain. France, Russia and Britain critically intervened to ensure the success of this nationalist endeavour.[46]

For centuries the Orthodox Christian Serbs were ruled by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The success of the Serbian Revolution against Ottoman rule in 1817 marked the birth of the Principality of Serbia. It achieved de facto independence in 1867 and finally gained international recognition in 1878. Serbia had sought to liberate and unite with Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west and Old Serbia (Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia) to the south. Nationalist circles in both Serbia and Croatia (in the Habsburg Empire) began to advocate for a greater South Slavic union in the 1860s, claiming Bosnia as their common land based on shared language and tradition.[47] In 1914, Yugoslavist revolutionaries in Bosnia assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary, with German backing, tried to crush Serbia in 1914 but Russia intervened, thus igniting the First World War in which Austria dissolved into nation states.[48]

In 1918, the region of Vojvodina proclaimed its secession from Austria-Hungary to unite with Serbia; the Kingdom of Serbia joined the union with State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on 1 December 1918, and the country was named Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. It was renamed Yugoslavia, and a Yugoslav identity was promoted, which ultimately failed. After the Second World War, Yugoslav Communists established a new socialist republic of Yugoslavia. That state broke up in the 1990s.[49]

The cause of Polish nationalism was repeatedly frustrated before 1918. In the 1790s, Austria, Prussia, and Russia invaded, annexed, and subsequently partitioned Poland. Napoleon set up the Duchy of Warsaw, a new Polish state that ignited a spirit of nationalism. Russia took it over in 1815 as Congress Poland with the tsar proclaimed as “King of Poland”. Large-scale nationalist revolts erupted in 1830 and 186364 but were harshly crushed by Russia, which tried to Russify the Polish language, culture and religion. The collapse of the Russian Empire in the First World War enabled the major powers to re-establish an independent Poland, which survived until 1939. Meanwhile, Poles in areas controlled by Germany moved into heavy industry but their religion came under attack by Bismarck in the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. The Poles joined German Catholics in a well-organized new Centre Party, and defeated Bismarck politically. He responded by stopping the harassment and cooperating with the Centre Party.[50][51]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Polish nationalist leaders endorsed the Piast Concept. It held there was a Polish utopia during the Piast Dynasty a thousand years before, and modern Polish nationalists should restore its central values of Poland for the Poles. Jan Poplawski had developed the “Piast Concept” in the 1890s, and it formed the centerpiece of Polish nationalist ideology, especially as presented by the National Democracy Party, known as the “Endecja,” which was led by Roman Dmowski. In contrast with the Jagiellon concept, there was no concept for a multi-ethnic Poland.[52]

The Piast concept stood in opposition to the “Jagiellon Concept,” which allowed for multi-ethnicism and Polish rule over numerous minority groups such as those in the Kresy. The Jagiellon Concept was the official policy of the government in the 1920s and 1930s. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin at Tehran in 1943 rejected the Jagiellon Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belarusians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland’s frontiers to the west.[53] After 1945 the Soviet-back puppet communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the “true inheritors of Polish nationalism”. After all the killings, including Nazi German occupation, terror in Poland and population transfers during and after the war, the nation was officially declared as 99% ethnically Polish.[54]

Jewish nationalism arose in the latter half of the 19th century and was largely correlated with the Zionist movement. This term originated from the word Zion, which was one of the Torahs names for the city of Jerusalem. The end goal of the nationalists and Zionists was to establish a sovereign Jewish state in the land of Palestine. A tumultuous history of living in oppressive, foreign, and uncertain circumstances led the supporters of the movement to draft a declaration of independence, claiming Israel as a birthplace. The first and second destructions of the temple and ancient Torah prophecies largely shaped the incentives of the Jewish nationalists. Many prominent theories in Jewish theology and eschatology were formed by supporters and opposers of the movement in this era.

It was the French Revolution of 1789, which sparked new waves of thinking across Europe regarding governance and sovereignty. A shift from the traditional hierarchy-based system towards political individualism and citizen-states posed a dilemma for the Jews. Citizenship was now essential, when it came to ensuring basic legal and residential rights. This resulted in more and more Jews choosing to identify with certain nationalities in order to maintain these rights. Logic said that a nation-based system of states would require the Jews themselves to claim their own right to be considered a nation due to a distinguishable language and history. Historian David Engel has explained that Zionism was more about fear that a majority of worldwide Jews would end up dispersed and unprotected, rather than fulfilling old prophecies and traditions of historical texts.[55]

An upsurge in nationalism in Latin America in 1810s and 1820s sparked revolutions that cost Spain nearly all its colonies there.[56] Spain was at war with Britain from 1798 to 1808, and the British Royal Navy cut off its contacts with its colonies so nationalism flourished and trade with Spain was suspended. The colonies set up temporary governments or juntas which were effectively independent from Spain. The division exploded between Spaniards who were born in Spain (called “peninsulares”) versus those of Spanish descent born in New Spain (called “criollos” in Spanish or “creoles” in English). The two groups wrestled for power, with the criollos leading the call for independence. Spain tried to use its armies to fight back but had no help from European powers. Indeed, Britain[citation needed] and the United States worked against Spain, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Spain lost all of its American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, in a complex series of revolts from 1808 to 1826.[57]

The awakening of nationalism across Asia helped shape the history of the continent. The key episode was the decisive defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905, demonstrating the military superiority of non-Europeans in a modern war. The defeat which quickly led to manifestations of a new interest in nationalism in China, as well as Turkey, and Persia.[58] In China Sun Yat-sen (18661925) launched his new party the Kuomintang (National People’s Party) in defiance of the decrepit Empire, which was run by outsiders. Kuomintang recruits pledged:

The Kuomintang largely ran China until the Communists took over in 1949. but the latter had also been strongly influence by Sun’s nationalism as well as by the May Fourth Movement in 1919. It was a nationwide protest movement about the domestic backwardness of China and has often been depicted as the intellectual foundation for Chinese Communism.[60] The New Culture Movement stimulated by the May Fourth Movement waxed strong throughout the 1920s and 1930s. According to historian Patricia Ebrey:

In the 1880s the European powers divided up almost all of Africa (only Ethiopia and Liberia were independent). They ruled until after World War II when forces of nationalism grew much stronger. In the 1950s and 1960s the colonial holdings became independent states. The process was usually peaceful but there were several long bitter bloody civil wars, as in Algeria,[62] Kenya[63] and elsewhere. Across Africa nationalism drew upon the organizational skills that natives learned in the British and French and other armies in the world wars. It led to organizations that were not controlled by or endorsed by either the colonial powers not the traditional local power structures that were collaborating with the colonial powers. Nationalistic organizations began to challenge both the traditional and the new colonial structures and finally displaced them. Leaders of nationalist movements took control when the European authorities exited; many ruled for decades or until they died off. These structures included political, educational, religious, and other social organizations. In recent decades, many African countries have undergone the triumph and defeat of nationalistic fervor, changing in the process the loci of the centralizing state power and patrimonial state.[64][65][66]

South Africa, a British colony, was exceptional in that it became virtually independent by 1931. From 1948 to 1994, it was controlled by white Afrikaner nationalists focused on racial segregation and white minority rule known officially as apartheid. The black nationalist movement fought them until success was achieved by the African National Congress in 1994 and Nelson Mandela was elected President.[67]

Arab nationalism, a movement toward liberating and empowering the Arab peoples of the Middle East, emerged during the latter 19th century, inspired by other independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. As the Ottoman Empire declined and the Middle East was carved up by the Great Powers of Europe, Arabs sought to establish their own independent nations ruled by Arabs rather than foreigners. Syria was established in 1920; Transjordan (later Jordan) gradually gained independence between 1921 and 1946; Saudi Arabia was established in 1932; and Egypt achieved gradually gained independence between 1922 and 1952. The Arab League was established in 1945 to promote Arab interests and cooperation between the new Arab states.

Parallel to these efforts was the Zionist movement which emerged among European Jews in the 19th century. Beginning in 1882 Jews, predominantly from Europe, began emigrating to Ottoman Palestine with the goal of establishing a new Jewish homeland. The effort culminated in the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948. As this move conflicted with the belief among Arab nationalists that Palestine was part of the Arab nation, the neighboring Arab nations launched an invasion to claim the region. The invasion was only partly successful and led to decades of clashes between the Arab and Jewish nationalist ideologies.

There was a rise in extreme nationalism after the collapse of communism in the 1990s. When communism fell, it left many people with no identity. The people under communist rule had to integrate, and found themselves free to choose. Given free choice, long dormant conflicts rose up and created sources of serious conflict.[68] When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism.

In his 1992 article Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber proposed that the fall of communism will cause large numbers of people to search for unity and that small scale wars will become common; groups will attempt to redraw boundaries, identities, cultures and ideologies.[69] Communism’s fall also allowed for an “us vs. them” mentality to sprout up.[70] Governments become vehicles for social interests and the country will attempt to form national policies based on the majority, for example culture, religion or ethnicity.[68] Some newly sprouted democracies have large differences in policies on matters that ranged from immigration and human rights to trade and commerce.

Academic Steven Berg felt that at the root of nationalist conflicts is the demand for autonomy and a separate existence.[68] This nationalism can give rise to strong emotions that may lead to a group fighting to survive, especially as after the fall of communism, political boundaries did not match ethnic boundaries.[68] Serious conflicts often arose and escalated very easily as individuals and groups acted upon their beliefs, causing death and destruction.[68] When this would happen, those states who were unable to contain the conflict ran the risk of slowing their democratization progress.

Yugoslavia was established after WWI and was a merger of three separate ethnic groups; Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The national census numbers for a ten-year span 19711981 measured an increase from 1.3 to 5.4% in their population that ethnically identified as Yugoslav.[71] This meant that the country, almost as a whole, was divided by distinctive religious, ethnic or national loyalties after nearly 50 years.

Within Yugoslavia, separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia is an invisible line of previous conquests of the region. Croatia and Slovenia to the northwest were conquered by Catholics or Protestants, and benefited from European history; the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and are more inclined towards democracy.[70] The remaining Yugoslavian territory was conquered by the Ottoman or Tsarists empires; are Orthodox or Muslims, are less economically advanced and are less inclined toward democracy.

In the 1970s the leadership of the separate territories within Yugoslavia protected only territorial interests at the expense of other territories. In Croatia, there was almost a split within the territory between Serbs and Croats so any political decision would kindle unrest, and tensions could cross the territories adjacent; Bosnia and Herzegovina.[71] Within Bosnia there was no group who had a majority; Muslim, Serb, Croat, and Yugoslav were all there so the leadership could not advance here either. Political organizations were not able to deal successfully with such diverse nationalism. Within the territories the leadership could not compromise. To do so would create a winner in one ethnic group and a loser in another, raising the possibility of a serious conflict. This strengthened the political stance promoting ethnic identities. This caused intense and divided political leadership within Yugoslavia.

In the 1980s Yugoslavia began to break into fragments.[69] The economic conditions within Yugoslavia were deteriorating. Conflict in the disputed territories was stimulated by the rise in mass nationalism and inter-ethnic hostilities.[71] The per-capita income of people in the northwest territory, encompassing Croatia and Slovenia, in contrast to the southern territory were several times higher. This combined with escalating violence from ethnic Albanians and Serbs within Kosovo intensified economic conditions.[71] This violence greatly contributed to the rise of extreme nationalism of Serbs in Serbia and within Yugoslavia. The ongoing conflict in Kosovo was propagandized by Communist Serbian Slobodan Milosevic to further increase Serb nationalism. As mentioned, this nationalism did give rise to powerful emotions which grew the force of Serbian nationalism through highly nationalist demonstrations in Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Serbian nationalism was so high, Slobodan Milosevic was able to oust leaders in Vojvodina and Montenegro, further repressed Albanians within Kosovo and eventually controlled four of the eight regions/territories.[71] Slovenia, one of the four regions not under Communist control, favoring a democratic state.

Within Slovenia, fear was mounting because Milosevic was using the militia to suppress a in Kosovo, what would he do to Slovenia.[71] Half of Yugoslavia wanted to be democratic, the other wanted a new nationalist authoritarian regime. In fall of 1989 tensions came to a head and Slovenia asserted its political and economic independence from Yugoslavia and seceded. In January 1990, there was a total break with Serbia at the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, an institution conceived by Milosevic to strengthen unity and became the backdrop for the fall of communism within Yugoslavia.

In August 1990, a warning to the region was issued when ethnically divided groups attempted to alter the government structure. The republic borders established by the Communist regime in the postwar period were extremely vulnerable to challenges from ethnic communities.Ethnic communities arose because they did not share the identity with everyone within the new post-Communist borders.[71] This threatened the new governments. The same disputes were erupting that were in place prior to Milosevic and were compounded by actions from his regime.

Also within the territory the Croats and the Serbs were in direct competition for control of government. Elections were held and increased potential conflicts between Serb and Croat nationalism. Serbia wanted to be separate and decide its own future based on its own ethnic composition. But this would then give Kosovo encouragement to become independent from Serbia. Albanians in Kosovo were already independent from Kosovo. Serbia didn’t want to let Kosovo become independent. Muslims nationalists wanted their own territory but it would require a redrawing of the map, and would threaten neighboring territories. When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism.

Nationalism again gave rise to powerful emotions which evoked in some extreme cases, a willingness to die for what you believe in, a fight for the survival of the group.[68] The end of communism began a long period of conflict and war for the region. In the six years following the collapse 200,000-500-000 people died in the Bosnian war.[72] Bosnian Muslims suffered at the hands of the Serbs and Croats.[70] The war garnered assistance from groups; Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian as well as state actors who supplied all sides; Saudi Arabia and Iran supported Bosnia, Russia supported Serbia, Central European and Western countries including the U.S. supported Croatia, and the Pope supported Slovenia and Croatia.

Arab nationalism began to decline in the 21st century leading to localized nationalism, culminating in a series of revolts against authoritarian regimes between 2010 and 2012, known as the Arab Spring. Following these revolts, which mostly failed to improve conditions in the affected nations, Arab nationalism and even most local nationalistic movements declined dramatically.[73] A consequence of the Arab Spring as well as the 2003 invasion of Iraq were the civil wars in Iraq and Syria, which eventually joined to form a single conflict.

The rise of globalism in the late 20th century led to a rise in nationalism and populism in Europe and North America. This trend was further fueled by increased terrorism in the West (the September 11 attacks in the U.S. being a prime example), increasing unrest and civil wars in the Middle East, and waves of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe (as of 2016[update] the refugee crisis appears to have peaked).[74][75] Nationalist groups like Germany’s Pegida, France’s National Front, and the UK Independence Party gained prominence in their respective nations advocating restrictions on immigration to protect the local populations.[76][77]

In Russia, exploitation of nationalist sentiments allowed Vladimir Putin to consolidate power.[78] This nationalist sentiment was used in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and other actions in Ukraine.[77] Nationalist movements gradually began to rise in other parts of Eastern Europe as well, Poland in particular.[79]

In a 2016 referendum, the British populace voted to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union (the so-called Brexit). The result had been largely unexpected and was seen as a victory of populism. The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign saw the unprecedented rise of Donald Trump, a businessman with no political experience who ran on a populist/nationalist platform and struggled to gain endorsements from mainstream political figures, even within his own party. Trump’s slogans “Make America Great Again” and “America First” exemplified his campaign’s repudiation of globalism and its staunchly nationalistic outlook. His unexpected victory in the election was seen as part of the same trend that had brought about the Brexit vote.[80]

In Japan, nationalist influences in the government developed over the course of the early 21 century, thanks in large part to the Nippon Kaigi organization. The new movement has advocated re-establishing Japan as a military power and revising historical narratives to support the notion of a moral and strong Japan.[81][82]

In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines running a distinctly nationalist campaign. Contrary to the policies of his recent predecessors, he distanced the country from the Philippines’ former ruler, the United States, and sought closer ties with China (as well as Russia).[83] During 2017, Turkish nationalism propelled President Recep Tayyip Erdoan to gain unprecedented power in a national referendum.[84] Reactions from world leaders were mixed, with Western European leaders generally expressing concern while the leaders of many of the more authoritarian regimes, as well as President Donald Trump, offered their congratulations.

Many political scientists have theorized about the foundations of the modern nation-state and the concept of sovereignty. The concept of nationalism in political science draws from these theoretical foundations. Philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau conceptualized the state as the result of a “social contract” between rulers and individuals.[85] Weber provides the most commonly used definition of the state, “that human community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a certain territory”.[86] According to Benedict Anderson, nations are “Imagined Communities”, or socially constructed institutions.[87]

Many scholars have noted the relationship between state-building, war, and nationalism. Many scholars believe that the development of nationalism in Europe (and subsequently the modern nation-state) was due to the threat of war. “External threats have such a powerful effect on nationalism because people realize in a profound manner that they are under threat because of who they are as a nation; they are forced to recognize that it is only as a nation that they can successfully defeat the threat”.[62] With increased external threats, the state’s extractive capacities increase. Jeffrey Herbst argues that the lack of external threats to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, post-independence, is linked to weak state nationalism and state capacity .[62] Barry Posen argues that nationalism increases the intensity of war, and that states deliberately promote nationalism with the aim of improving their military capabilities.[88]

The sociological or modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building argues that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies that have an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language understood by a community of people. Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically lack the prerequisites for nationalism. They lack a modern self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, and use multiple languages resulting in many groups being unable to communicate with each other.

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tnnies, Rabindranath Tagore, mile Durkheim, Max Weber, Arnold Joseph Toynbee and Talcott Parsons.

Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as “status” societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as “contract” societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests. Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.

Ferdinand Tnnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a Gesellschaft (society) as an impersonal society that is modern. While he recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.

mile Durkheim expanded upon Tnnies’ recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon “mechanical solidarity” versus societies based on “organic solidarity”. Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views. Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation. Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.

Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state. Weber’s conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.

Another approach emerging from biology and psychology looks at long-term evolutionary forces that might lead to nationalism. The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[92]

This approach has been popular with the general public but is typically rejected by experts. Laland and Brown report that “the vast majority of professional academics in the social sciences not only … ignore evolutionary methods but in many cases [are] extremely hostile to the arguments” that draw vast generalizations from rather limited evidence.[93]

The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation. Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.

The primordialist evolutionary views of nationalism often reference the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as well as Social Darwinist views of the late nineteenth century. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot reinterpreted Darwin’s theory of natural selection “often in ways inconsistent with Charles Darwins theory of evolution” by making unsupported claims of biological difference among groups, ethnicities, races, and nations. Modern evolutionary sciences have distanced themselves from such views, but notions of long-term evolutionary change remain foundational to the work of evolutionary psychologists like John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.

Approached through the primordialist perspective, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation’s borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response. There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions. As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.

Critics argue that primordial models relying on evolutionary psychology are based not on historical evidence but on assumptions of unobserved changes over thousands of years and assume stable genetic composition of the population living in a specific area, and are incapable of handling the contingencies that characterize every known historical process. Robert Hislope argues:

English Historian G. P. Gooch in 1920 argued that “While patriotism is as old as human association and has gradually widened its sphere from the clan and the tribe to the city and the state, nationalism as an operative principle and an articulate creed only made its appearance among the more complicated intellectual processes of the modern world.[100]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in the Communist Manifesto that “the working men have no country”.[101]

Vladimir Lenin supported the concept of self-determination.[102]

Joseph Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that “a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;” “a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”; “a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation”; and, in its entirety: “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”[103]

Historians, sociologists, and anthropologists have debated different types of nationalism since at least the 1930s.[104] Generally, the most common way of classifying nationalism has been to describe movements as having either “civic” or “ethnic” nationalist characteristics. This distinction was popularized in the 1950s by Hans Kohn who described “civic” nationalism as “Western” and more democratic while depicting “ethnic” nationalism as “Eastern” and undemocratic.[105] Since the 1980s, however, scholars of nationalism have pointed out numerous flaws in this rigid division and proposed more specific classifications and numerous varieties.[106][107]

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[108] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 “What is a Nation?”, where he defined the nation as a “daily referendum” (frequently translated “daily plebiscite”) dependent on the will of its people to continue living together.[108]

Civic nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[109][111] Ernest Renan[112] and John Stuart Mill[113] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,[115] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity to function properly.[116][117]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation must be voluntary, as in Ernest Renan’s classic definition of the nation in What is a Nation? (1882). Renan argued that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion, economics, geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but not sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a “daily referendum” among the people.[118] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.[36]

German philosopher Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach does not think liberalism and nationalism are compatible, but she points out there are many liberals who think they are. She states:

Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethno-nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the “nation” is defined in terms of ethnicity.[121] The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that “nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry”.[122] It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors. However, it is different from a purely cultural definition of “the nation,” which allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation; and from a purely linguistic definition, according to which “the nation” consists of all speakers of a specific language.

Whereas nationalism in and of itself does imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity or country over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric supremacy or protectionism.

The humiliation of being a second-class citizen led minorities in multicultural states, such as The empires of Germany, Russia and the Ottomans, To define nationalism in terms of loyalty to their minority culture, especially language and religion. Forced assimilation was anathema.[123]

For the politically dominate cultural group, assimilation was necessary to minimize disloyalty and treason and therefore became a major component of nationalism. A second factor for the politically dominant group was competition with neighboring statesnationalism involved a rivalry, especially in terms of military prowess and economic strength.[124]

Economic nationalism, or economic patriotism, refers to an ideology that favors state interventionism in the economy, with policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital.

Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation where a shared religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a common bond among the citizens of the nation. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Hindutva, Pakistani nationalism (Two-Nation Theory), are some examples.

Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)[125] refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism.

Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist MarxistLeninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin’s early work Marxism and the National Question and his socialism in one country edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions.

Other examples of left-wing nationalism include Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cornwall’s Mebyon Kernow, Ireland’s Sinn Fin, Wales’s Plaid Cymru, the Awami League in Bangladesh, the African National Congress in South Africa and numerous movements in Eastern Europe.[126][127]

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the ‘national community’ as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[128]

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption .[129] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes. Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalists. A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values, codes and traditions of the population.

There are different types of nationalism including Risorgimento nationalism and Integral nationalism.[131][132] Whereas risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation seeking to establish a liberal state (for example the Risorgimento in Italy and similar movements in Greece, Germany, Poland during the 19th century or the civic American nationalism), integral nationalism results after a nation has achieved independence and has established a state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, according to Alter and Brown, were examples of integral nationalism.

Some of the qualities that characterize integral nationalism are anti-individualism, statism, radical extremism, and aggressive-expansionist militarism. The term Integral Nationalism often overlaps with fascism, although many natural points of disagreement exist. Integral nationalism arises in countries where a strong military ethos has become entrenched through the independence struggle, when, once independence is achieved, it is believed that a strong military is required to ensure the security and viability of the new state. Also, the success of such a liberation struggle results in feelings of national superiority that may lead to extreme nationalism

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on “clusters” of ethnic groups. Pan-Slavism is one example of Pan-nationalism. The goal is to unite all Slavic people into one country. They did succeed by uniting several south Slavic people into Yugoslavia in 1918.[133]

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonization of the post war periods. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. It also appeared in the non-Russian territories of the Tsarist empire and later, the USSR, where Ukrainianists and Islamic Marxists condemned Russian Bolshevik rule in their territories as a renewed Russian imperialism. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent.[134]

Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its “national” history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.[135][136]

Racial nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity. Racial nationalism seeks to preserve a given race through policies such as banning race mixing and the immigration of other races. Specific examples are black nationalism and white nationalism.

Sport spectacles like football’s World Cup command worldwide audiences as nations battle for supremacy and the fans invest intense support for their national team. Increasingly people have tied their loyalties and even their cultural identity to national teams.[137] The globalization of audiences through television and other media has generated revenues from advertisers and subscribers in the billions of dollars, as the FIFA Scandals of 2015 revealed.[138] Jeff Kingston looks at football, the Commonwealth Games, baseball, cricket, and the Olympics and finds that, “The capacity of sports to ignite and amplify nationalist passions and prejudices is as extraordinary as is their power to console, unify, uplift and generate goodwill.”[139] The phenomenon is evident across most of the world.[140][141][142] The British Empire strongly emphasized sports among its soldiers and agents across the world, and often the locals joined in enthusiastically.[143] It established a high prestige competition in 1930, named the British Empire Games from 193050, the British Empire and Commonwealth Games from 195466, British Commonwealth Games from 197074 and since then the Commonwealth Games.[144]

The French Empire was not far behind the British in the use of sports to strengthen colonial solidarity with France. Colonial officials promoted and subsidized gymnastics, table games, and dance and helped football spread to French colonies.[145]

Feminist critique interprets nationalism as a mechanism through which sexual control and repression are justified and legitimised, often by a dominant masculine power. The gendering of nationalism through socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity not only shapes what masculine and feminine participation in the building of that nation will look like, but also how the nation will be imagined by nationalists.[146] A nation having its own identity is viewed as necessary, and often inevitable, and these identities are gendered.[147] The physical land itself is often gendered as female (i.e. “Motherland”), with a body in constant danger of violation by foreign males, while national pride and protectiveness of “her” borders is gendered as masculine.[148]

History, political ideologies, and religions place most nations along a continuum of muscular nationalism.[147] Muscular nationalism conceptualises a nations identity as being derived from muscular or masculine attributes that are unique to a particular country.[147] If definitions of nationalism and gender are understood as socially and culturally constructed, the two may be constructed in conjunction by invoking an “us” versus “them” dichotomy for the purpose of the exclusion of the so-called “other,” who is used to reinforce the unifying ties of the nation.[146] The empowerment of one gender, nation or sexuality tends to occur at the expense and disempowerment of another; in this way, nationalism can be used as an instrument to perpetuate heteronormative structures of power.[149] The gendered manner in which dominant nationalism has been imagined in most states in the world has had important implications on not only individuals lived experience, but on international relations.[150] Colonialism is heavily connected to muscular nationalism, from research linking British hegemonic masculinity and empire-building,[146] to intersectional oppression being justified by colonialist images of others, a practice integral in the formation of Western identity.[151] This othering may come in the form of orientalism, whereby the East is feminized and sexualized by the West. The imagined feminine East, or other, exists in contrast to the masculine West.

The status of conquered nations can become a causality dilemma: the nation was conquered because they were effeminate and seen as effeminate because they were conquered.[146] In defeat they are considered militaristically unskilled, not aggressive, and thus not muscular. In order for a nation to be considered proper, it must possess the male-gendered characteristics of virility, as opposed to the stereotypically female characteristics of subservience and dependency.[147] Muscular nationalism is often inseparable from the concept of a warrior, which shares ideological commonalities across many nations; they are defined by the masculine notions of aggression, willingness to engage in war, decisiveness, and muscular strength, as opposed to the feminine notions of peacefulness, weakness, non-violence, and compassion.[146] This masculinized image of a warrior has been theorised to be the culmination of a series of gendered historical and social processes” played out in a national and international context.[146] Ideas of cultural dualismof a martial man and chaste womanwhich are implicit in muscular nationalism, underline the raced, classed, gendered, and heteronormative nature of dominant national identity.[147]

Nations and gender systems are mutually supportive constructions: the nation fulfils the masculine ideals of comradeship and brotherhood.[152] Masculinity has been cited as a notable factor in producing political militancy.[152] A common feature of national crisis is a drastic shift in the socially acceptable ways of being a man,[153] which then helps to shape the gendered perception of the nation as a whole.

See original here:
Nationalism – Wikipedia

Fair Usage Law

August 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

White Nationalism is NOT the same as Jewish "Nationalism"

Make no mistake folks, White Nationalism is NOT the same as Jewish Nationalism. Not even close.

One thing I notice about some cucked White Nationalists is that they will praise Israel all day long, saying that Israel is the shining example of Nationalism. Strong borders, strong military, sense of racial pride.Really? One thing that the Jews are good at is their ability to misdirect, manipulate and give illusions to reality.

One of the most important things that separate White Nationalists from Jewish Nationalists is the idea of land. White Nationalists believe in boundaries, borders and the need for work. As many Aryans believe, Land is not promised and passed down from some Sky Property Owner God, but rather land is something to be fought for and worked on. Land is in itself not necessarily sacred, but the people are the ones who work on the land and make it sacred. As Hitler himself said in one of his speeches:

In days gone by our Fathers, they have not received Germany as a gift, but created it themselves! -Part of Hitlers first speech as Chancellor

This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Jewish concept of land. Lets face it, Jews hate the idea of work. Physical labor, to them, is something to be avoided at all cost. Let others work on my land! I will just sit, enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor. Maybe pay them a pittance.

But then the cucks would say, Israel has a strong economy! They must have WORKED hard for it! Haha! Billions and billions of dollars of American Aid (paid for by American taxpayers mostly Aryans) have flowed into Israels coffers. Unlike Aryans, who are self-sufficient, Jews, Arabs and other Semites, in general, rely on trade and aid to survive. The idea of making it on their own is ALIEN to them. Hell, the agricultural sector of Israel only makes up a mere 2.8% of the economy and that is mainly due to foreign investment in the sector, providing high-tech machinery for the Jews to work on their land.

One has to look no further than the Bible for proof that Jews hated work. When God sent Adam and Eve to Earth, he punished them with hard work:

Cursed in the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it, all the days of your life. Genesis 3:17

The idea of work being a curse is completely laughable to the Aryan. Work is a joy! It is an opportunity to care and provide for my folk and my family! It is these struggles that will make one better man, a happier soul!

So then, what is the Jewish concept of land? How does Israel play into this? Well, as many of us know, God promised his beloved Jews land. The Jews will conquer the land, and uproot and slaughter whichever unfortunate goyim who happen to live there.

But then the cucks would say: Israel is just a small piece of land! Lets give them the land all they want and they will leave us alone! And heres where these Israel apologists are being played.

The creation of Israel is NOT the end goal for the Jews. Heck, the creation of Greater Israel (Oded Yinon Plan) is NOT the end goal either. What they want is to be the Light of the World (Isaiah 49:6, Zechariah 4:1-14, Peter 2:9, Matthew 5:14-16).

And to be THE Light of the world, the other lights will either have to be dimmed or completely put out.

So what does it mean? Well, it means that they want to dominate the entire world!

Make no mistake, folks, the country of Israel is just a mere Front Office for their operations. It is heir aircraft carrier. The Oded Yinon plan is just an office expansion project plan. Their main business is the World. Their customers, gullible Goyim. Their land, the entire Planet Earth!

Israel serves as the rallying point for Christians, the largest Gentile group that loves the Jews. Seeing that the Jews got back their precious Israel, the Bible must be correct then! Yay! The creation of Israel gave legitimacy to Christianity and the Bible. It also gave legitimacy to all those secularists and democrats (mostly Jews or Jewish sympathizers) who say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Not all Nationalisms are equal. As we all know, nations are not geographical entities, but rather biological ones. Each race has their own ways of expressing their nature. Each race has different methods of survival. Each race has different views of progress.

For example, as mentioned earlier, to the Aryans, the land that they work for is sacred. They would do anything to protect it. They will take special care to live in harmony with the plants and animals there. They will create the greatest architecture that is beautiful, long lasting and breathtaking, at the expense of individual profit.

Now for nomadic races such as the Mongols, land is not really a big deal for them. For them, land is just a place for them to settle down for a while. It is place to rest for the moment, then they would continue on their journey. That doesnt make them in any way less nationalistic than the Aryans.The same goes for the Northeast Asians, various African ethnicities, Malay Races, Pacific Islanders and so on. Each of them has their own way of expressing their nature, their own methods of surviving.

This doesnt make them all equal. For the Aryan, unlike the other races, doesnt merely want to ADAPT to their environment. Rather, they want to OVERCOME it. They want to be excellent. They want to be noble.

It also explains why, despite living in the same harsh environment, the Eskimos are not as advanced as the Nordics. Eskimos merely adapt to the environment, and once they are able to make their ends meet, they will be happy and not make any further progress with their lives. If one were to throw an Eskimo to the tropics, he would have a very hard time adjusting, for he is adapted to the cold North. The Aryan is different. Though he thrives the best in the cold North, he would also try his best to overcome any difficulties if he were to be thrown into a desert environment. Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians were most likely Aryan during their greatest days. Both are desert civilizations.

Now, we are left with the Jews. Their brand of Nationalism isweird. There are some who say that Jews are NOT a race, but rather an anti-Race. It makes sense, given their desire to make everything uniform and destroy every single last bit of diversity. Not only that, the God they worship claims to be the God of all creations. Jewish Nationalism IS globalism. Judaism is law disguised as religion. It seeks to remove the sacredness of life and replace it with an artificial reality.

Trying to ally with Arabs to further White Nationalism is useless, for the Arabs are too drunk on their past glories. They are too divided. Islam, a Jewish-based faith, has completely destroyed them spiritually. Thats why they are unable to defeat Israel, even with their superior numbers (though to be fair, America did help out Israel a lot in its wars). The fact that they are also Semites makes it worse.

Trying to ally with the Iranians (Persians) doesnt make sense either. They too are brainwashed by Islam (though a different strand) and many of them are racially mixed nowadays. The remaining Persians who are still Aryan are probably too small to form any critical mass to overthrow their Islamic government and challenge Israel.

The Northeast Asians? No! Dont buy into the illusion that Northeast Asians have the same level of intelligence as Aryans do. IQ does not FULLY measure intelligence. It certainly does NOT measure creativity. If it does, the Jews would be the most creative people on Earth! And lets face it, most of China, Korea and Japans best days were a few thousand years ago when the Aryans (Amaterasu, Tocharians) were around. China is taking over America. People who are living near the Pacific coast can testify to that, with Chinatowns being everywhere. I have worked with the Chinese before, and trust me, they are one of the LAST people you want to ally yourselves with.

However, the most stupid act a White Nationalist can do is to ally with the Jews. It makes me laugh. The last time a true White Nationalist tried to compromise with a Jew, he became the Worlds greatest villain, an enemy of the Jews. Now, I am not too well-read on this topic, so do correct me if I am wrong. Hitler tried to compromise with the Jews and move them to the land of Palestine. So what happened in the end? The Jews did get their land and Nazi Germany was burned to the ground. Germany remains occupied to this day.

Many White Nationalists would claim that the Jews helped out with European Colonization by funding Christian voyages to colonize the New World, India, the Malay Archipelago and so on. Well, heres the thing:

It is also quite interesting to note that the first Europeans nations to ally with Jews usually find themselves being cucked down the road (France, Spain, Portugal, Britain).

Not all Nationalism is created equal, allying with non-Whites is futile (or at very least, allying with other non-whites should not be the main priority (BUT NO JEWS)) and Jewish Nationalism is certainly not the SAME as White Nationalism and should NOT be praised AT ALL in our struggle.

The rest is here:
White Nationalism is NOT the same as Jewish "Nationalism"

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

American Nationalism Isnt White Nationalism Occidental …

Greg Johnson has a new article at Counter-Currents which argues that American Nationalism is a form of White Nationalism.

He argues that American civic nationalism is a fundamentally false interpretation of American history and identity. In this view of American history, Lincolns Gettysburg Address is just another piece of high-minded rhetorical flummery like the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document of the United States. The Constitution was only written for the posterity of the Founding Fathers and as a result a free and orderly white society is every Americans birthright.

While this fairy tale will be music to the ears of the American Nationalist crowd on the internet, I think we should revisit the history of American Nationalism. We have to understand that history to grasp how American Nationalism evolved into the toxic ideology it is today.

The American Revolution Was About Civic Nationalism

American Nationalism has always been grounded in the symbols, documents, outcome and ideology of the American Revolution. The American Revolution had nothing to do with White Nationalism. In the American colonies, the conflict was a bitter civil war between Patriots and Loyalists over republican ideology. It was British subjects killing each other over the desire of one group to establish an independent state based on the fashionable 18th century ideology of civic nationalism.

Civic Nationalism was at the core of the American Revolution. The American colonists fought on both sides of the conflict. Blacks and Indians fought on both sides of the conflict. France and Spain entered the war on the side of the American Patriots. The result of the war was the defeat of Britain and the Loyalists, the ascendance of the Patriots and civic nationalism and the independence of the United States which was a loose confederation of republics organized under the Articles of Confederation.

The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are all products of civic nationalism. They justify or establish republican governments. At the very beginning, these documents laid down the foundation of American Nationalism, which is liberal republicanism or civic nationalism, with its axioms of liberty, equality, tolerance, individual rights and constitutionalism. They became the touchstones for future generations of Americans who sought to create a more perfect Union by eliminating inherited inconsistencies with American Nationalism.

American Nationalism Instantly Undermined And Destabilized Traditional Values

The result of the American Revolution and the triumph of American Nationalism was to create an independent state based on an ideology that undermined traditional values. Ethnicity was the most obviously undermined value as the American Revolution was a bitter civil war between Englishmen. Religion was undermined too and the Anglican Church was disestablished. Racial solidarity was undermined in an international conflict between Britain, France, Spain and between the American colonists. These conflicts would continue through the Age of Revolution.

Prior to the American Revolution, John Locke and his liberal theories were unknown in the American colonies even though Locke himself had written the constitution of South Carolina, which was later revised and ignored by the colonists. It was only during the American Revolution that Lockes theories about government were seized on and popularized in New England to justify the revolt against Britain. Locke had argued that the human mind was a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and the implication of this was that all measurable differences between human beings are environmental in origin.

Before the American Revolution, slavery had been legal in all the American colonies and no one but the most radical Quaker sects subscribed to the theory of racial equality. Even in Cotton Mathers New England, the consensus view was that blacks were an inferior race for hereditary reasons. They were born that way. Maybe they suffered from the Curse of Ham. After the American Revolution, slavery was abolished in New England and racial equality triumphed and became the dominant enlightened view in the region. Its leading intellectuals like Samuel Stanhope Smith argued against Thomas Jefferson.

The Founding Fathers Werent White Nationalists

The Founding Fathers were not White Nationalists and bitterly disagreed on race and slavery. Generally speaking, Southerners like Jefferson and Madison saw slavery as an evil that would fade away over time, but tended to believe in racial inequality. Northerners like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton believed in racial equality and were inclined toward emancipation. By this point, the Northern intelligentsia were coming to believe that blacks were inferior, but this was a result of their environment. It was slavery that had imbruted them and made them that way. This is a species of anti-racism known as the doctrine of assimilationism.

The US Constitution and the Naturalization Act of 1790 were compromises between the North and the South. It was Southerners who insisted on things like the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution, the 3/5ths Compromise and basing American naturalization laws on whiteness. American citizenship was based on state citizenship at the time. Before the War Between the States, blacks were citizens of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Blacks were stripped of voting rights in Pennsylvania in 1838. They were allowed to vote in New York as long as they owned $250 worth of property. They also lost voting rights in New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland.

There Was Never A Rise In White Nationalism In The Northeast

In the Northeast, there was never a rise in White Nationalism. From the Founding through the antebellum era, the consensus view among the educated Northern elite was that blacks were American citizens who ought to be allowed to vote. They were the equals of White people, but had been degraded by slavery. Education would solve the problem and uplift them to racial equality. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780. Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1834. New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont never passed anti-miscegenation laws.

This disagreement between North and South over the nature of American Nationalism, racial equality and civic nationalism came to a boiling point in the antebellum era. Northerners cried over Harriet Beecher Stowes Uncle Toms Cabin. John Brown was celebrated as a hero. In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Roger Taney ruled that blacks were not American citizens. This was considered outrageous in the Northeast where blacks were already citizens and voters in most states.

The Origins of White Nationalism

If the Founding Fathers were not White Nationalists, then where did White Nationalism come from?

The roots of White Nationalism trace back to the colonization movement in the Early Republic to resettle free blacks in Africa. Weve already seen how Liberia was founded for this purpose. It was Thomas Jefferson who first argued for resettling blacks in their native habitat in his Notes on the State of Virginia. The capital of Liberia was named after James Monroe. A number of prominent Americans including James Madison, James Monroe and Henry Clay were involved with the American Colonization Society.

Led by Virginia, fourteen state legislatures endorsed the colonization movement. It was most popular in the Upper South, Border South and the Midwest. Several slave states invested in Liberia and resettled about 11,000 blacks there. Blacks were banned or heavily fined to prevent their settlement in Ohio and Illinois. Oregon excluded free blacks when it was a territory. The cause of reserving the West to free, White settlers was later taken up in the Wilmot Proviso which was intensely polarizing.

White supremacy was the dominant form of racial nationalism in the United States from the Founding until the 1970s. The lineage of White Nationalism traces back to Jefferson and the Early Republic, but it was more of a deviant view. It was most popular in states like Kentucky and Ohio. The African colonization movement collapsed in the antebellum era after the rise of William Lloyd Garrison and the abolitionists polarized the Union over the issue of slavery. After the 1830s, Southern support for gradual emancipation and colonization waned as Southerners circled the wagons and responded to abolitionist attacks by embracing John C. Calhouns argument that slavery was a positive good.

Southern Nationalism and the Confederacy

The rise of Southern Nationalism in the antebellum era, the creation of the Confederacy and the War Between the States was all driven by the collapse of American Nationalism and was rooted in regional differences between the North and South that had existed since the Founding.

In the South, blacks were still considered an inferior race. Every Southern state was a slave state. Every Southern state practiced white supremacy. Manumission had been curtailed. Several Southern state legislatures had passed laws requiring free blacks to move out of state. Patriarchy was unchallenged. Southerners were moving away from the older view that slavery was an inherited evil to the newer view that it was a blessing or positive good.

In the Northeast, blacks were citizens in every New England state except Connecticut. Many Northern states like New York and New Jersey had never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. The dominant view among educated Northeastern elites was that blacks were capable of assimilating and becoming the equals of Whites. Segregation existed to some extent in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey while much of the rest of the region was already integrated by the antebellum era. Northern women were already holding womens rights conventions and were agitating for suffrage.

In the Midwest, blacks were banned or heavily fined from immigrating to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois due to the presence of so many Southern Whites from Kentucky and Virginia who settled the Lower Midwest. Blacks werent citizens in the Midwestern states, but states like Wisconsin and Minnesota didnt have anti-miscegenation laws. Iowa and Kansas repealed their anti-miscegenation laws in 1851 and 1859 as settlers from New England became more predominant there.

Greg Johnson tries to dismiss the relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to American Nationalism. He waves away the former as just a legal document and the latter as only applying to the posterity of the White Founders. He does this to sidestep the fact that differences of opinion over these documents were the source of a bitter conflict over civic nationalism between John C. Calhoun who represented the Southern view of American Nationalism and Daniel Webster who articulated the Northern version of American Nationalism in their generation.

In Websters view, the Union was created by the Declaration of Independence while Calhoun argued it was created by the sovereign and independent states that ratified the US Constitution. Webster believed the Union created the states. Calhoun believed the states created the Union. In Calhouns view, sovereign states could withdraw from the Union since they created it. In Websters view, the Union was sovereign and had created the states at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

Like the American Revolution, the War Between the States was another conflict over civic nationalism. It resolved a number of burning constitutional questions:

1.) Do states have the right to withdraw from the Union?

2.) Are the states sovereign or is the federal government sovereign?

3.) Do slaveowners have the constitutional right to bring their slaves into the common territories?

4.) Did the states create the Union or did the Union create the states?

5.) What is the status of blacks in America?

Every single one of these questions was a byproduct of arguments on both sides over the civic nationalism that is and always has been the central feature of American Nationalism.

THE MISCEGENATION BALL

Civil War and Reconstruction

The long term result of the Civil War and Reconstruction was the bifurcation of America into two incompatible racial orders. The Radical Republicans passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which established black citizenship and voting rights. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and the Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 attempted to impose the Norths racial system on the entire country.

In the antebellum era, only New England with the exception of Connecticut had black citizenship and voting rights. A Northern version of Jim Crow had been practiced in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the Midwest. This was swept away during the Reconstruction era. The Northeast and Midwest were integrated in this era. Anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in New Mexico (1866), Washington (1868), Illinois (1874), Rhode Island (1881), Wyoming (1882), Maine (1883), Michigan (1883), Ohio (1887).

The South was placed under the rule of scalawags, carpetbaggers and former black slaves. The system wasnt fully shaken off in the South until George White gave his farewell address as the last black congressman in 1901. The Jim Crow system which was created in the 1890s and 1900s never existed in the Northeast or Midwest. The South would have undoubtedly went further but this was as far as Northern public opinion would tolerate the effective nullification of the Reconstruction amendments.

The Western states created their own weaker version of Jim Crow which applied to Asians, Hispanics and American Indians. There were segregation statutes and anti-miscegenation laws in the Western states until the Second World War. At the same time, there was integration in some states like Washington and New Mexico. In the Midwest, Indiana was an outlier and had its own version of Jim Crow.

Greg Johnson also wants to dismiss the importance of Lincolns Gettysburg Address to American Nationalism. The Gettysburg Address simply built on the Northern view of civic nationalism which Daniel Webster had developed out of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is an understatement to say this is ahistorical and the postbellum Northern system of race relations only emerged after Abraham Lincoln had redefined American Nationalism.

Who is Uncle Sam?

UNCLE SAMS DEBUT

Our popular image of Uncle Sam (As seen in the image on the top of this page) was defined in large part by Thomas Nast, who was one of the most popular artists of the 1800s. Nast was also responsible for our popular images of Santa Claus, the Republican Elephant, and the Democratic Donkey. Nasts first illustration of Uncle Sam appeared in the November 20, 1869 edition of Harpers Weekly.

While Uncle Sam does not show the top hat and striped pants that we have come to associate with him, he shows something much more important in this image. In this image, Uncle Sam is a symbol of unity and equality. The image shows many people welcomed at Uncle Sams Thanksgiving table . . . Black, White, Chinese, and Indian, as wall as many others are seen sitting around the table. The image is captioned, Uncle Sams Thanksgiving Dinner; Come One, Come All, Free and Equal. The image clearly shows that Uncle Sam was originally a symbol of freedom, and equality. Uncle Sam was a unifying symbol.

By 1876, Nasts Image of Uncle Sam had evolved into one that we would recognize today. The image to the left is the cover of the November 24, 1876 Harpers Weekly. The image features Uncle Sam with striped pants, a long overcoat, and a top hat. In this image, the top hat also has feathers. This image deals with Reform of the Civil Service System.

While the exact image of Uncle Sam has evolved over the years, one thing remains constant. He is a symbol of the best ideals of the United States. From the earliest days until today, he has stood for Freedom, Equality, and Justice. While as a Nation, we do not always perfectly achieve these ideals, Uncle Sam remains a poignant symbol and reminder of the goal and objective . . . One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

Uncle Sam is a super patriotic Yankee American Nationalist whose ideology is civic nationalism. He is a symbol of the Second Republic that was defined in the Reconstruction era by the German immigrant cartoonist Thomas Nast.

Reconciliation

The 20th century opened up in the period that is known as the Nadir of the Negro.

It inaugurated a period that lasted about thirty years in which Northerners tried to forget about the foolishness of Reconstruction. Even before the Jews arrived en masse in the Great Wave, Northerners had already created the system we live under today in their own states. The Jews who arrived in the New York of the 1880s found a place that was already integrated. Northern states already had their own civil rights laws which were the precursors of federal civil rights laws.

It was the Black Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner who had pioneered racial equality, racial integration and civil rights laws during Reconstruction. They had already succeeded in writing racial equality into the Constitution which was undone in the South by two generations of Southerners. By the time of the Spanish-American War, Northerners and Southerners tried to put the past behind them and for a time the sectional peace endured until the Second World War.

Woodrow Wilson was the first Southern president to be elected since the War Between the States. Among his lesser known acts, Wilson resegregated the federal government. It had been integrated since the Lincoln administration. Black troops had fought for the Union in the War Between the States. They fought in segregated units in France in the First World War and largely in support roles during the Second World War. The US military wasnt reintegrated until the Korean War.

The Second World War

The Second World War was another huge turning point in American Nationalism.

In both the American Revolution and the War Between the States, the wars against Britain and the Confederacy had been ideological wars waged in the name of civic nationalism. In both cases, the result of the wars in the North had been a sharp diminution in racial consciousness and an upsurge in ideological fanaticism. The Black Republicans during the Reconstruction era are the best example of this.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the Spanish-American War and the First World War didnt have this effect on domestic politics and racial attitudes even though the latter had been waged as a crusade to make the world safe for democracy. This wasnt true of the Second World War. The war against the Third Reich and later the Cold War with the Soviet Union were ideological wars which exacerbated the worst tendencies of American Nationalism.

The Yankee style of war has always been about demonizing the enemy as evil and invoking the American Nationalist ideology of civic nationalism. The war against the Third Reich was no different and the result of the war was predictable. It was a noble war waged in the name of civic nationalism. It was a war against racism and imperialism, but a war for human rights and democracy and liberty and equality and religious tolerance. It was a war not unlike the total war that had been waged against the Confederacy.

After the war, Americans predictably put themselves under the moral microscope. They judged their own conduct by their own professed standards. If the Third Reich was evil and immoral for being racist, how could Americans indict the Third Reich while upholding white supremacy in the South? From the end of the Second World War until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Western states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and desegregated. Once again, racial attitudes in the North completely changed between 1938 and 1945 while the South alone committed itself to massive resistance.

The Cold War

The Cold War with the Soviet Union was another ideological war.

Unlike the previous wars, this war began when the Second World War ended in 1945 and lasted until 1991. For 52 years, the United States was embroiled in these ideological wars with the Third Reich and Soviet Union. American Nationalism was forever changed by them.

In the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Soviets indicted Americans on the grounds of racism in order to win support in the Third World. The US State Department was acutely sensitive to the charge and led the push for desegregation which culminated in the Brown decision in 1954. Jim Crow was an albatross for American leadership of the Free World and was dismantled from the top down, not the bottom up for that reason.

The Jewish Question

Jews arent the primary driving force of Americas decline.

The real culprit is the civic nationalism that is the ideological core of American Nationalism. From the beginning in 1789, Jews have been welcomed into the fold as American citizens. They have never had any other status than being equal to White Americans. George Washington embraced the Jews in the name of civic nationalism. In his letter to Newports Touro Synagogue, Washington boasted the Government of the United States was one that gives to bigotry no sanction.

The Jewish Question is simply the result of the logic of American Nationalism working itself out over the course of two centuries. The ideology of civic nationalism has always blinded White Americans to how Jews operate as a group, not as individuals. As American citizens, Jews have always had the right and liberty to, say, take over the universities, buy up the newspapers and publishing houses, corner the market in finance, build lobbies to exert power and influence over the government, etc.

How did the Jews in the 20th century convince White Americans that the United States has no inherent racial, cultural, religious or ethnic basis? They simply took the doctrines of American Nationalism as developed by Franklin, Webster and Lincoln to its logical conclusion. They used their media platforms to invoke American nationalism to undermine and marginalize the White majority. Southerners were bad because they were intolerant. They werent treating blacks equally. Blacks in the South didnt have the rights and freedoms of other Americans. Southerners were violating liberal democracy by denying them the right to vote. These were the arguments which Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully made to triumph over Jim Crow. He appealed to American Nationalism.

American Nationalism Isnt Ethnonationalism

American Nationalism is 18th century civic nationalism.

It isnt like German nationalism, Hungarian nationalism, Greek nationalism or the other ethnonationalist movements which came later and were grounded in 19th century romanticism. It is closely related to French nationalism. Ethnonationalism was a reaction against French civic nationalism.

Civic Nationalism has always brought about racial equality and integration. During the French Revolution, slavery was abolished and all blacks were made into free and equal citizens of the French Republic. The French Second Republic abolished slavery in 1848 in the French Caribbean for the second time after it had been restored by Napoleon. The French Third Republic which was overthrown by Hitler had black citizens that sat as representatives in the French Parliament.

The driving force that brought about the demise of White America has always been the civic nationalism at the core of American Nationalism. The Jewish Question is merely a symptom and outcome of American Nationalism. The presence of non-Whites lends itself more to caste societies like the white supremacy of the Old South than to racial equality and integration. Christianity has been displaced as our cultural center of gravity by liberalism. It has no problem accommodating racialism and did so for centuries.

No, the force which has driven America to this point wasnt Christianity, which in many cases like the Southern Baptists was late in adjusting to the new status quo. It wasnt really the Jews either who only took the center stage late in American history. From the beginning, the driving force toward racial equality in both the United States and France has been their doctrine of civic nationalism. It was already evident during the American Revolution and War Between the States and unquestionably so during the Second World War and Cold War when it reached its climax.

American Nationalism Today

99.99% of our fellow Americans agree that American Nationalism is synonymous with civic nationalism because the history of Americanism has been the destruction and elimination of every other aspect of national identity. The people who style themselves as American Nationalists are spitting in the wind and their ship sailed generations ago. They are just as marginalized as anyone else and waving a federal flag around isnt going to change their status or make them any less stigmatized as racists. You could even say it is karma since they were the progenitors of this Frankenstein.

Donald Trump hasnt changed this equation of American Nationalism with civic nationalism. Instead, he has affirmed it at every point in his campaign and throughout his presidency. He has never once even drawn attention to his White supporters, but has affirmed on countless occasions the triumphant narrative of American civic nationalism that is rooted in the Civil Rights Movement. He has repeatedly talked about how Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. redeemed America from White racism. Donald Trump and the Republican Congress explicitly condemned White Nationalism in the Charlottesville resolution.

Fortunately, we only have to endure this idiocy for at most one or two more presidential election cycles. When Texas or Florida reach their demographic tipping point in the 2020s and become blue states like Virginia, a Republican will never win the presidency again and the window will forever close on Taking Back America through voting for the Republican Party. The United States will become California writ large. The people who are talking now about how much they love America and identify with its symbols as super Patriots will be singing a different tune when they find themselves under permanent Democratic rule and effectively thrust back into the days of the Reconstruction South.

In reality, American Nationalism is already dead as a doornail. Donald Trump was the last chance to reform the system. He has unquestionably failed and nothing of significance will be accomplished before the midterms. As things stand today, Democrats once again have a 10 point lead in the congressional ballot. The Republican Congress is likely to get blown out in the 2018 midterm elections. The Trump agenda will die with it. American Nationalism is also going to die with the Republican majority.

In the long run, White Americans are destined to live under a Democratic majority with a feckless and dwindling, cucked Republican opposition. It is only going to get worse too as the electorate continues to brown. The fruits of civic nationalism are going to ripen on young White people who come of age in the 2020s and 2030s. They wont have any use for American Nationalism because voting by that point will be as hopeless as it is in South Africa. Theyre already growing up now as a racial minority.

American Nationalism in the 2020s and 2030s will be various non-White presidents like President Kamala Harris sticking it to White man. I would rather not jump on that sinking ship.

UPDATE: Heres a good old post about The Lincoln Catechism.

Lesson The First

I. What is the Constitution?A compact with hell now obsolete.

II. By whom hath the Constitution been made obsolete?By Abraham Africanus the First.

III. To what end?That his days may be long in office and that he may make himself and his people the equal of the negroes.

IV. What is a president?A general agent for negroes.

VI. What is an army?A provost guard, to arrest white men, and set negroes free.

X. What is meant by the word Liberty?Incarceration in a vermin-infested Bastille.

XV. What is the meaning of the word patriot?A man who loves his country less, and the negro more.

XIX. What is the meaning of the word law?The will of the president.

XXII. Have the people any rights?None but such as the president gives.

Lesson The Second

IX. What is the meaning of the declaration that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?That a mans house may be searched, and when he be stripped of his arms, whenever and wherever a provost marshal shall dare attempt it.

XVII. What is the meaning of the declaration that, the United States shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of government?That Congress shall assist the President in destroying the Republican form of government in the states, and substituting a military government wherever he pleases witness Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware.

Lesson The Third

II. What are the Ten Commandments?Thou shalt have no other God but the negro.Thou shalt make an image of a negro, and place it on the Capitol as the type of the new American man.Thou shalt swear that the negro shall be the equal of the white man.Thou shalt fight thy battles on the Sabbath day, and thy generals, and thy captains, and thy privates, and thy servants, shall do all manner of murders, and thefts as on the other six days.Thou shalt not honor or obey thy father nor thy mother if they are Copperheads; but thou shall serve, honor, and obey Abraham Lincoln.Thou shalt commit murder of slaveholders.Thou mayest commit adultery with the contrabands.Thou shalt steal everything that belongeth to a slaveholder.Thou shalt bear false witness against all slaveholders.Thou shalt covet the slaveholders man-servant and his maid-servant, and shalt steal his ox and his ass, and everything that belongeth to him.For on these commandments hang all the law and honor of loyal leaguers.

See the original post here:
American Nationalism Isnt White Nationalism Occidental …

Fair Usage Law

May 8, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

White Nationalist | Southern Poverty Law Center

White nationalistgroupsespouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites. Adherents believe that white identity should be the organizing principle of the countries that make up Western civilization. White nationalists advocate for policies to reverse changing demographics and the loss of an absolute, white majority. Ending non-white immigration, both legal and illegal, is an urgent priority frequently elevated over other racist projects, such as ending multiculturalism and miscegenation for white nationalists seeking to preserve white, racial hegemony.

White nationalists seek to return to an America that predates the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Both landmark pieces of legislation are cited as the harbingers of white dispossession and so-called white genocide the idea that whites in the United States are being systematically replaced and destroyed.

These racist aspirations are most commonly articulated as the desire to form a white ethnostate a calculated idiom favored by white nationalists in order to obscure the inherent violence of such a radical project. Appeals for the white ethnostate are often disingenuously couched in proclamations of love for members of their own race, rather than hatred for others.

This platitude collapses under scrutiny. Two favorite animating myths of white nationalists are the victimhood narrative of black-on-white crime the idea that the dominant white majority is under assault by supposedly violent people of color and the deceptively titled human biodiversity, the pseudo-scientific ascription of human behaviors, in this case along racial lines, to non-negligible genetic difference among humans. Appeals to the empirical science of human biodiversity are frequently coupled with thinly veiled nods to white, racial superiority.

In addition to their obsession with declining white birth rates, these themes comprise some of the most powerful propaganda that animates and drives the white nationalist movement. Adherents frequently cite Pat Buchanans 2001 book, The Death of the West, which argues that these declining white birth rates and an immigrant invasion will transform the United States into a third world nation by 2050, as the text responsible for their awakening, or red pill.

White nationalists also frequently cite American Renaissance,a pseudo-academic organization dedicated to spreading the myth of black criminality, scientific racism and eugenic theories. Its annual conference, a multi-day symposium with a suit-and-tie dress code, is a typical early stop for new white nationalists.

Although it isnt ubiquitous, there is a current of antisemitism in the modern day white nationalist movement. Jews are common scapegoats for the perceived cultural and political grievances of white nationalists. White nationalist and antisemitic literature and conferences also have frequent author and speaker overlap. Kevin MacDonald, the author of The Culture of Critique a trilogy of books alleging a Jewish control of culture and politics with evolutionary psychology is a frequent guest in white nationalist media and at events. His writing is frequently cited as what introduces white nationalists to the idea of a Jewish conspiracy

White nationalists also commonly pass through paleoconservatism an anti-interventionist strand of libertarianism that seeks to limit government, restrict immigration, reverse multicultural programs and deconstruct the social welfare programs. Some of white nationalisms most prominent voices, including Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimelow did stints at Takis Magazine, the most prominent paleoconservative journal.

Strategies for pursuing the white ethnostate fall into two major categories: mainstreaming and vanguardism. Mainstreamers believe that infiltrating and subverting the existing political institutions is the only realistic path to power. They aspire to convert disaffected normies to their politics and advocate for white nationalists to seek positions in politics and society that have access to resources otherwise unavailable to avowed racists. These resources often require that white nationalists disguise their politics and compromise on their most extreme positions. Mainstreaming allows those sympathetic to white nationalism to pursue or enact policies furthering white nationalist priorities. These arent always exclusive to white nationalism, such as immigration restriction or the elimination of social welfare programs.

Vanguardists believe that revolution is the only viable path toward a white ethnostate. They believe that reforming the system is impossible and therefore refuse to soften their rhetoric. They typically seek to reform what they believe to be an anti-white establishment through radical action. Vanguardists favor public demonstrations to anonymous, online activism and hope that by turning out in numbers at protests they can defy so-called political correctness, polarize politics and accelerate what they view as the inevitable collapse of America.

The racist so-called alt-right, which came to prominence in late 2015, is white nationalisms most recent formulation. While the themes of white dispossession, nostalgia for pre-1960s America and the desire for separatism remain central to the ideology, its edges are softer and porous, allowing for the influence and inclusion of more radical elements, including a suite of neo-Nazi organizations. It also welcomed an unsavory ecosystem of internet trolls. These chaos agents contribute a distinct style of discourse that include a notable lack of empathy, extreme, often violence-tinged, rhetoric, and willingness to dehumanize their enemies in service of political goals. Throughout 2016, with the contentious presidential campaign as a unique backdrop, the nascent alt-right launched a novel campaign of cultural vanguardism, tightly focused on radically altering culture in the form of a total war on political correctness rather than politics. This third style of activism, which borrowed from both the mainstreamers and the vanguardists, primarily took place online in the form of shitposting, meme making and online harassment.

As momentum dissipated post presidential election and online activism began to yield diminishing returns, white nationalists reverted to tried tactics such as public demonstrations, including college speaking engagements and propaganda distribution, primarily in the form of anonymous flyerings and banner drops also on college campuses. Universities, with their impressionable and at times combustible student bodies provide easy targets for the newly trollish tactics of an alt-right obsessed with youth recruitment.

Groupslisted in a variety of other categories Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead and Christian Identity can also be fairly described as “white nationalist.” Although, as organizational loyalty has dwindled and the internet has become white nationalisms organizing principle, the ideology is best understood as a loose coalition of social networks orbiting online propaganda hubs and forums.

View all groups bystateand byideology.

Alternative Right* (Atlanta, Georgia)

AltRight Corporation* (Alexandria, Virginia)

American Freedom Union* (Hampton Township, Pennsylvania)

Auburn White Student Union* (Auburn, Alabama)

Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar/BUGS* (Columbia, South Carolina)

Counter-Currents Publishing (New York, New York)

Counter-Currents Publishing (Seattle, Washington)

Counter-Currents Publishing* (San Francisco, California)

Counter.Fund* (Huntington Mills, Pennsylvania)

Faith and Heritage* (Killeen, Texas)

Forza Nuova (Phoenix, Arizona)

Forza Nuova* (Statewide, New Jersey)

Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas* (Clinton Township, Michigan)

Free American* (Tucson, Arizona)

GoyFundMe* (Paoli, Indiana)

H.L. Mencken Club* (Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania)

Identity Evropa (Statewide, Arizona)

National Policy Institute (Alexandria, Virginia)

New Albion* (Jackman, Maine)

Northwest Front* (Bremerton, Washington)

Occidental Dissent* (Eufaula, Alabama)

Occidental Observer* (Laguna Hills, California)

Operation Homeland* (Alexandria, Virginia)

Patriot Front (Chicago, Illinois)

Patriot Front (Statewide, California)

Patriot Front (Statewide, Washington)

Patriot Front* (Statewide, Texas)

Patriotic Flags* (Charleston, South Carolina)

Pioneer Little Europe Kalispell Montana* (Kalispell, Montana)

Racial Nationalist Party of America* (Lockport, New York)

Radix Journal* (Whitefish, Montana)

Real Republic of Florida* (Tallahassee, Florida)

Red Ice* (Charleston, South Carolina)

Rise Above Movement* (Huntington Beach, California)

RootBocks* (Paoli, Indiana)

Scott-Townsend Publishers* (Washington, District of Columbia)

The Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation* (Vienna, Virginia)

The New Byzantium Project* (Charlottesville, Virginia)

The Political Cesspool* (Bartlett, Tennessee)

The Right Stuff (Atlanta, Georgia)

The Right Stuff (Austin, Texas)

The Right Stuff (Baltimore, Maryland)

The Right Stuff (Houston, Texas)

The Right Stuff (Las Vegas, Nevada)

The Right Stuff (New York, New York)

The Right Stuff (Omaha, Nebraska)

The Right Stuff (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

The Right Stuff (St Paul, Minnesota)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Arizona)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, California)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Florida)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Indiana)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Michigan)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Oregon)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Texas)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Vermont)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Virginia)

The Right Stuff (Statewide, Washington)

The Right Stuff (Washington, District of Columbia)

The Right Stuff* (Hopewell Junction, New York)

Traditionalist Youth Network* (Paoli, Indiana)

True Cascadia (Statewide, Alaska)

True Cascadia (Statewide, Idaho)

True Cascadia (Statewide, Oregon)

True Cascadia* (Statewide, Washington)

Tyr 1 Security* (Alexandria, Virginia)

Washington Summit Publishers* (Augusta, Georgia)

Western Outlands Supply Company* (Mesa, Arizona)

White Boy Society* (Statewide, Illinois)

White Rabbit Radio* (Dearborn Heights, Michigan)

Follow this link:
White Nationalist | Southern Poverty Law Center

Fair Usage Law

February 24, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Fox News star Tucker Carlson faces accusations of "white …

The gypsies were coming, and Fox Newss Tucker Carlson was going to do something about it. Actually, the gypsiesRoma, as the nomadic European people are knownhad already come: Forty of them had settled in a small Pennsylvania town named California, and Carlson had taken it onto himself to expose what he saw as their manifold depredations, lest their invasion grow into something grander, more malign.

Carlson focused, in particular, on reports of Roma defecating outdoors. That seems to me a hostile act, the Fox News host concluded. While some longtime residents of California did bristle at their unexpected Roma neighbors, whod been resettled by the federal government, others welcomed the newcomers. Carlson hyped the fears of the former while hardly mentioning the hospitality of the latter.

Integration is not going well, Carlson declared grimly.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

This is a conclusion he has frequently come to in recent months. From his prime time perch at Fox News, Carlson has become the network’sstaunchest defender of President Donald Trumps anti-immigration policies. For having assumed that role, he has also become a favorite target of liberals, who worry that Carlsons fear-mongering about immigration has tipped into xenophobia. Why white supremacists love Tucker Carlson, ran one headline on the liberal news site Vox last summer.

The most recent outcry over Carlsons shift to the right came in mid-January, after a segment in which he interviewed Mark Steyn, a conservative pundit who is a frequent guest. As they discussed immigration, Steyn said, The white supremacists are American citizens. The illegal immigrants are people who shouldn’t be here. He added, a little later: The Democrats are getting very close to saying that foreigners are God’s apology for Americans.

Thats exactly right, Carlson said.

Dismay at this exchange was widespread among liberals, reflecting a curious opinion of Carlson: that hes smarter than Sean Hannity, more influential than Laura Ingraham.Because he was once on CNN and on MSNBC, theres an expectation that Carlson is a conservative who will articulate sophisticated truths, raising the level of discourse on a network where blustery denunciation is the norm.

When that expectation is confounded, outrage explodes, as it did after the Steyn exchange.

The unrepentant racism of Tucker Carlson Tonight, read a headline on ThinkProgress, a liberal website.

Tuckers been one of the more aggressive at putting forward what a lot of people have seen as a pretty blatantly white nationalist view of what immigration should be like, MSNBCs Joy Reid said. As this is not exactly a time of pacific cheek-turning, Carlson answered on his show: Reid’s entire public career has been built on race-baiting. Try to watch her show for 20 minutes and see for yourself.

Even some conservatives have become uneasy with Carlson’s strident rhetoric. Bill Kristol, who once employed Carlson at theWeekly Standard, spoke harshly of his formerprotgon CNBC earlier this week. “It is close now to racism,” he said ofTucker Carlson Tonight. “I mean, I dont know if its racism exactlybut ethno-nationalism of some kind, lets call it.”

Carlson responded to my questions about his views on immigration through a statement relayed by a Fox News publicist. Im not even sure what white nationalism is, but Im pretty sure Im against it, that statement said. But your question isnt serious. Its an attempt to shout down legitimate questions about the effect of our immigration policies on America. Tough luck. Were going to keep asking them.

Carlson took over the 9 p.m. slot in early 2017 (he has since moved to 8 p.m.). The onetime establishment conservative is now a vociferous Trump supporter, and national identity is of particular concern to both. For Carlson, as for Trump, there is virtually no issue more salient than immigration, Kelefa Sanneh wrote of Carlson in a recent New Yorker profile. Carlsons views on immigration, however, can lapse into a broader defense of white identity that can be those discomfiting to those who value multiethnic multiculturalism.

For example, after white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer, causing violence that left three dead, Carlson defended their original reason for converging on the college town, which was to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Watch out, Abraham Lincoln, youre next, he said. This echoed Trumps sentiments on Charlottesville. Like the presidents initial reaction to the violence, he seemed to excuse, at least in part, the torch-carrying mob of racists.

Several weeks after that, Carlson lambasted the creator and star of the HBO series Insecure, Issa Rae, for saying she was rooting for all African-American nominees to win at the Emmy Awards. This was, Carlson said, open race hostility that had been sanctioned by liberals. I think looking at the world like that gets you to civil war, he said. More recently, he defended the Its Okay to Be White campaign, which originated in far-right segments of the internet.

Carlson was raised in relative affluence in Southern California and went to a prestigious boarding school in Rhode Island. A graduate of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticutlong regarded as a patrician redoubthe has been a member of the political establishment for decades. Nevertheless, he appears to have quicklyand completelygrasped how much influence Trump would exert on the media, conservative media in particular. Instead of speaking truth to power, as have Fox News hosts like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, Carlson has cast himself as Trumps blocking back. As Stephen Rodrick wrote in a recent GQ profile, Carlson, more than anyone else at the network, has proved adept at papering over the crisis brought on the Republican Party by Trumps presidency, mostly by deflecting blame onto the left.

He does so with an acute understanding of the liberal media. That adds a measure of sophistication to his critiques, even if those are, ultimately, an expression of straightforwardracial grievance. Earlier this month, for example, he criticized the internet outlets BuzzFeed and The Root as trafficking in anti-white sentiment: Now some smug private-school kid from Brooklyn is lecturing you about how you are the problem, because the color of your skin, and the privilege it conveys. How much of that are you going to take before you explode at the unfairness of it all?

And though criticism of social justice college protests is a feature of virtually every Fox News program, Carlsonwho famously used to wear a bowtieapproaches the matter less like a Bible Belt conservative than a disapproving professor who is too old to care about silly outrages. (Carlson is 48.)

Carlson does, occasionally, make feints at moderation. Last summer, HuffPosts Pablo Manriquez challenged Carlson toa debate on immigration. Carlson agreed and invited Manriquez on his show. We had a gentlemens exchange on the issue, Manriquez later wrote. Some #MAGA viewers on Twitter were surprised that a primetime debate on immigration could also be an honest, respectful conversation.

Notinfrequently one hears, in media and politics circles, that Carlson is putting on anact, one that doesn’t truly reflect his convictions. That would suggest masterful calculation on his partand even more masterful mimicry of an establishment Republican moving ever further to the right.

To some, it doesnt matter whether Carlson is acting or not. What Tucker Carlson actually thinks is irrelevant to the wildly damaging, bigoted, and, frankly, anti-journalistic content he spews every night at 8 p.m., says Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca, who famously clashed with Carlson. He promotes the rhetoric of a white nationalist, and should be regarded as such.

Certainly, white nationalists are happy to claimCarlson as one of their own. Carlson is a one man gas chamber who gasses Jews and feminists on a nightly basis. He is literally and figuratively Hitler, wrote a contributor to the neo-Nazi news outlet InfoStormer. Andrew Anglin, who founded the Daily Stormer, a more prominent and influential neo-Nazi site, agrees.

Tucker Carlson is literally our greatest ally, he said recently. I don’t believe that he doesn’t hate the Jews.

Go here to see the original:
Fox News star Tucker Carlson faces accusations of "white …

Fair Usage Law

January 26, 2018   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

‘The Daily’ Transcript: Interview With Former White Nationalist Derek Black – New York Times

M.B.: It sounds like what youre describing is like youre the First Child of American white nationalism?

D.B.: [Laughs.] Yeah I knew everybody, I knew everybody who was involved in it, and I knew all the different organizations, and I expected that it would be my lifes work to try to advance this. I thought it was the right thing.

M.B.: How did you process these ideas of your godfather and your father and your mother and this entire movement as a child, what is white nationalism through the eyes of a child?

D.B.: Its a really tight knit movement of people. Its important to understand the context that in my family pioneering white nationalism on the web was my dads goal. That was what drove him from early 90s from beginning of the web, and so growing up we had the latest computers, first people in the neighborhood to have broadband because we had to keep Stormfront running, and so technology and connecting people on the website, long before social media and the way the web is set up now was his driving purpose, so we were very connected to everybody in the white nationalist movement to everyone in the world. When I was a little kid, I would get on chat rooms in the evening and I had friends in Australia who I would talk to at a certain hour … I had friends in Serbia I would talk to at a certain hour.

M.B.: And what would you be saying to each other?

D.B.: In the late 90s, I was talking to a white nationalist kid, and he was explaining to me the Smerican invasion of Serbia and how it tied to Jewish control of American military.

M.B.: Wow not the conventional understanding of the U.S. military action which was to spare people genocide.

D.B.: Absolutely, yeah. I started a kids website on Stormfront on my dads website and so, from the time I was 12, would constantly get death threats and emails.

M.B.: So you started your own kind of white nationalist website for children?

D.B.: Yeah.. when Im not sure what age 11 or 12 or something I set up pretty basic little web page on there, and posted some essays that I was writing at the time. In some ways in a lot of ways that brings people together, I know it brought my family together, fact that you have media coming over as I went on television and newspapers, which were usually coming over to talk to my dad and then wed get really bad stories about us, but were all working toward a cause so the fact that everybody is so opposed to something we know is so right really brought us together.

M.B.: At this point in your life, when youre a young man and you saw an African-American or you saw a Jewish person, what was going through your mind? What kind of things were you thinking or saying to yourself?

D.B.: I think my family made a distinction between individuals and big groups that theres many opinions on this among white nationalists, there are people who say, Oh you cant be friends with anyone whos not white. And my family was generally a bit more cosmopolitan …although I think theyve gotten more extreme in the last couple of years

M.B.: I have to pause and tell you the notion of a cosmopolitan white nationalist is a little tricky. But Im going to go with it.

D.B.: [Laughs.] When you zoom in on it, and it becomes the whole world that youre viewing then all the different factions take on a bigger role. So yeah, I think my family usually, at least, it was definitely my attitude by the time I got to college that individuals are one thing. You talk to people and everybody can be anything and their race is not going to predict an individuals life or anything about them. Its only when youre talking about millions of people that this becomes a defining aspect of humanity.

In reality it is white supremacy. Its just that they wouldnt see it that way. I never saw it that way. My dad I genuinely believe, who I know very well does not believe that he is doing something bad to other people. That does not make it untrue, but a lot of these people dont believe that theyre actually hurting other people by their policies.

M.B.: He instead believes what that hes doing something for himself?

D.B.: He believes that for white people to exist and live and have a country like America was before 1950, everybody needs to be the same color and be together because, race is a real, genetic thing that predicts all this stuff like intelligence and ability, that race is so real that every race in the world should be separated. Saying this and living as I do now sounds delusional, but it is possible for somebody to believe and think that it makes sense.

M.B.: Derek, can you take me to 2008 and President Obamas election? I dont know exactly how old you were at that moment but do you remember where you were and what you were doing around that time?

D.B.: In 2008, I was 19 and at the same time as Obama was heading to winning the presidency I had also submitted my name for this local Republican executive committee election which was county level, and I won that. I got 60 percent of the vote.

After he won, David Duke, my godfather, organized a conference for I think it was the weekend after the election. And I went up there and it was pandemonium. I knew people who were sobbing, and saying that now theres never going to be another white president again, and that the country is lost, thinking they had to make contingency plans. The thinking of white nationalist leaders at the time was that Barack Obama has won, but now that hes won, youre going to have a huge white backlash against this. And so it became this meeting to try to figure out how to make the movement bigger while hes president.

I had just won that little Republican position, so I was very encouraged that if we told people all the white nationalist talking points, without necessarily saying that were white nationalists, that we could win elections. Whether theyre little county things like that or maybe even larger ones.

M.B.: My whole talk was the fact that you could run as Republicans, and say things like we need to shut down immigration, we need to fight affirmative action, we need to end globalism, and you could win these positions, maybe as long as you didnt get outed as a white nationalist and get all the controversy that comes along with it.

M.B.: So the Republican Party which had just lost to Barack Obama, your argument was that it could be the vehicle for the mainstreaming of white nationalism or white supremacy?

D.B.: Yeah, my thinking at the time was that all this backlash, which we eventually did see of white people against having a black president, would have to go into the Republican Party. Because America is a two party system, and the Republican Party would become the white peoples party.

M.B.: Hmm.

M.B.: Then you went to college, so tell me about that.

D.B.: In 2010, I moved across the state and started college at this little liberal arts college in Florida, which was about three and a half hours from home and it was the first time that I had lived away from home. Nobody knew who I was and I did not volunteer who I was or anything about my background, I made friends, hung out with people and played my guitar on my balcony in my dorm. It was nice to come back from class and be able to talk about history or philosophy or whatever other subject and be around other people.

M.B.: Hmm.

D.B.: Id get up in the morning, and call into my dads radio show and talk about the news and then go to class and hang out with people who were often strong social justice advocates, and trying to live both of those lives was terrifying because I knew that one day somebody was going to type my name into Google.

There was this one really memorable moment where I was sitting in the cafeteria and talking to some people I knew, and one of them discovered this website Stormfront which is the site that my dad ran and that I had a kids page on and I that had run the internet radio on for years and was still running while I was in school, even though I didnt have as much time for it.

And guy sitting across from me found the Lord of the Rings section and showed everybody, and turned around and said, Can you believe these people are trying to get Lord of the Rings nerds into white nationalism? Isnt this insane?

And I had founded that section because when movies came out I got super into it, and I figured you could get people who liked with such a white mythos, a few turned on by white nationalism, and more mundanely just wanted to talk about movies, so I had found that 10 years earlier, guy turned it around and I pretended I had never heard of it.

M.B.: Huh, you just acted as if you had no role in it

D.B.: I was like, What is that? what is Stormfront?

M.B.: And so then of course inevitably it happens. Youre found out. The student forum explodes, and youre shunned on campus for a time. But then you get an invitation, right? Tell me about that.

D.B.: I had a friend on campus who I had gotten to know during my first semester when nobody knew who I was, he was an observant Jew who had Shabbat dinners pretty regularly whenever he was in town on Friday night and he would invite people of atheists and all sorts of different religions. It was just a nice dinner. And so he actually invited me to one of the Shabbats, and I knew him, and so I brought wine.

M.B.: Even after learning what he did about you?

D.B.: Yeah, he did. He had read my posts on Stormfront going back years even the stuff when I was a teenager and he doubted that he was going to convince me of anything, he just wanted to let me see a Jewish community thing so that if I was going to keep saying these anti-Semitic things that at least I had seen real Jews.

It was ultimately in private conversations with a person I met at the Shabbat dinners we would talk about things. Not only white nationalism, but eventually white nationalism. And I would say, This is what I believe about I.Q. differences, I have 12 different studies that have been published over the years, heres the journal thats put this stuff together, I believe that this is true, that race predicts I.Q. and that there were I.Q. differences in races. And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works and we would go back and forth until I would come to the end of that argument and Id say, Yes that makes sense, that does not hold together and Ill remove that from my ideological toolbox but everything else is still there. And we did that over a year or two on one thing after another until I got to a point where I didnt believe it anymore.

M.B.: So as you and this friend are going around and around and your mind is changing about this, whats the definitive moment where you make a decision and do something about it?

D.B.: It was really this letter over the summer of 2013, and I sent it to the Southern Poverty Law Center which is an organization my entire life that had been the enemy. They had come after my mother, they had constantly written articles about my father, they had tried to get his website taken down they had been one of the biggest opponents of my family for my entire life.

M.B.: And then you turned to them as somebody who would disseminate this letter you wrote?

D.B.: I did I turned to them to publish my letter because I knew that their intelligence report was the most widely read thing in the white nationalist world more so than any white nationalist publication, this was like the gossip mag that the white nationalist world turned to to find out what everybody else was doing. And by sticking my letter on their website, I knew that every white nationalist would see it and every anti-racist would hear about it. The audience was in a lot of ways my own family. I wanted them to know that I understood what we believed, and I was systematically disbelieving each point. And then I just sent it and they published it and when it came out my dad called me up in the morning and said, I think youve been hacked, I think your email was hacked and somebody sent this letter.

M.B.: Wow, he didnt believe youd written it.

D.B.: No, we hadnt talked about my beliefs changing. At first he was incredibly sad. He called me a few days after I had written the letter, it was the first time we talked since he first called to tell me he thought I had been hacked, and it was just this sad moment where he said, Ive thought about it and its really hurting me. I think it might not have been a good idea to have a son if this is the pain thats going to come from it.

M.B.: Whoa. He said that he wondered whether it was a good idea to have had a son because of the shame he felt because you had written the letter and rejected everything he stood for?

And I could understand it he called again later that day and said I shouldnt have said that Im sorry. And then we started talking bit by bit. I made the argument that family and political beliefs should not be the same thing and arent the same thing. He came back at the time with the case that there is nothing in your life experience that would suggest that our family is not a political family, we believe these things. That is the basis of our family the idea that you could be anti white nationalist and that wouldnt affect your relationship to the family is not going to work. It was how we connected its what kept us together.

M.B.: Right. This sounds unbelievably painful.

D.B.: It was.

M.B.: Whens the last time you spoke with him?

D.B.: Not since before Charlottesville. Not since all this.

My big revelation when I left this movement and no longer talked to anybody in the movement was that most people dont talk about race very often. And so I came to the conclusion that white nationalism is a fringe movement and everybody is aware that it should be a fringe movement, Barack Obama is the president hell make sure that it stays, remains a fringe movement and Ill just try to quietly fade away and never talk about this again and the future will be fine.

D.B.: So to begin with, I think its very important to understand that from the perspective of white nationalists, its basically the definition of the movement that youre working against the establishment. And thats what every white nationalist event is it is very easy for the local politicians to condemn it and you expect them to condemn it and theres nothing else that you would dream might happen. Its something that people are proud of that you are working even though everybody says you shouldnt. And so thats the context. And all the usual condemnations came from everybody else.

People in Congress, governors, mayors people who just wanted to get in their condemnations because everyone knows its extremely easy to condemn a white nationalist rally. And then on Saturday it was weird that he didnt, everybody took that as a huge victory there were tweets, people commenting online, thats very new, but Tuesday just took my breath away. I was sitting in a coffee shop and I thought the news from this was done when I read that he had come back and he said there were good people in the white nationalist rally and he salvaged their message.

M.B.: What do you mean when you say he salvaged their message?

D.B.: The message they were trying to get out was that tearing down Robert E. Lees statue is an assault on white culture, so if you think that tearing down Robert E. Lees statue is the wrong choice, then these are your guys that these are the people who are willing to say it but then amidst all the violence and the chaos I think that got lost. Youre not going to follow these people even if you believe that.

And in his message saying that these were good people because theyre fighting for something that a lot of people believe in, he salvaged the message that they wanted to spread which is that if you believe this too and maybe youre on the edge about whether this is a fringe movement or not, Donald Trump thinks were fine. I dont think the whole world reads it that way but within the white nationalist movement and anyone who was thinking maybe this might be a movement for me, suddenly being at that that rally becomes a historical moment. // What they wanted to do is blow apart that context. To say that if you think Lee statue should stay up, theres no distinction between what you believe and what a white nationalist believes, and it felt like he was agreeing with them.

M.B.: What do you think the impact of that is having the president in your words salvage their message and make all right what they were doing there in the broader sense?

I think Tuesday was the most important moment in the history of the modern white nationalist movement.

M.B.: Wow.

D.B.: Its impossible to say what will happen in the future, like maybe nothing. But if you were on the fence about whether to get involved in this stuff or not, the presidents O.K. is the biggest thing thats ever happened. I dont want to be an alarmist and say this is a movement thats going to take over the world. But its more precarious now than any point in my life on whether this thing as a movement and as a dangerous ideology grows because we dont seem to be as clear as we once were that we have to keep this suppressed we cannot let this be who we are.

M.B.: I usually have a set of normal reactions in these interviews and my vocabulary kind of fails me a little bit so I acknowledge that …

D.B.: Sure no, I understand, Im in this weird position these days where I have this background, I understand what people at these events and rallies are thinking, but I also know what I know now my experiences and so I can see on one hand where something is horrifying, and on the other, Im looking at it and wondering why they organize the event like that, why they were so kind of gauche to have swastika flags flying and werent they worried about the messaging and then I come back and say, what is happening to my country I have these two experiences, and I have a lot of trouble reconciling them sometimes. As I try to deal with events this week I wonder how much the fact that being in my family and other people I knew were willing to push to try to get people who were maybe on the fence or maybe thought they were being discriminated against or that they kids couldnt get into college because of affirmative action and try to push them a little bit more and try to get them a little but more angry. However much of an effect that had I cant say I dont know.

M.B.: It sounds like youve given some thought to your own role in this.

D.B.: Its something I think about everyday, I think.

M.B.: Derek, you know this Im sure, there are still pictures of you online as a child attending various far right white nationalist white supremacist conferences, and youve got a little hat on. And you are in it. Im guessing you dont go back and look, but what do you think when you look back at those images and that version of yourself?

D.B.: Im always very conflicted that Ive come to terms with myself, Im not too much filled with deep shame all the time. Because I dont know what else I could do. What I wanted to do what would have been more comfortable what I really wanted to do was just leave, never say anything again, disappear off the face of the earth pretend that I had never lived the life that I lived and didnt know anything about white nationalism and never be heard from again and it was a few more tough conversations that convinced me that wasnt enough because Id actually done harm I tried to follow the beliefs that my father has that if you think there is a danger to our society you should do something. And I dont want to be involved with this stuff but I just want to try to offer context sometimes because I think that is hard to understand what this movement is and how somebody could be a part of this movement and also offer that perspective of how you can realize youre doing something really bad.

M.B.: Sounds like youre following your fathers beliefs, just not the way he intended for you.

D.B.: I dont know if he sees it that way, but sometimes I do.

M.B.: Derek, Thank you very, very much I really appreciate that.

D.B.: Thanks.

M.B.: Bye.

Read more:
‘The Daily’ Transcript: Interview With Former White Nationalist Derek Black – New York Times

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Sorry, Richard Spencer: Comparing Zionism to White Nationalism Is A Rotten Comparison – Forward

Richard Spencer, the prominent alt-right white supremacist, recently described himself to an Israeli TV interviewer as a white Zionist. That claim, coming from the leader of such a viciously antisemitic movement, is ironic and ridiculous. But if Spencers hope was to win sympathy from Zionists, his claim of an analogy between Zionism and white nationalism is also sure to please and energize anti-Israel activists.

The parallel is false, and perniciously so. In this time of emboldened racism, and of great need for unity in opposition to white supremacism and other forms of hate, it has never been more crucial to understand why.

The key point: Jewishness and whiteness are extremely different concepts.

Jewish ethnic identity is multi-racial and inclusive. There are Jews of all races and ethnicities, from Ashkenazim and Sephardim, who look European, to Mizrahim, who look Middle Eastern, to the Ethiopian Beta Israel community, who look African, to other Jews of color. And thats just Jews from birth; importantly, Jewish identity isnt closed Anyone, in theory, can join the Jewish people. (Jewish denominations may argue over how conversion should work, but everyone agrees that an on-ramp exists). White racial identity, on the other hand, is rigidly exclusive.

Jewish identity expresses a thick, positive culture. The Jewish people has existed for thousands of years as a proud and distinct nation with shared history, languages, texts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and artistic traditions. Whiteness, on the other hand, has no cultural content in itself. Many cultures that happen to be predominantly white are thick, beautiful cultures deserving of celebration on their own termsFrench culture, Scotch-Irish Appalachian culture, British culture, etc.but it is not whiteness that defines these cultures, and they have all included many non-white cultural contributors, both now and in the past. There is such a thing as an Irish ballad, but not a white ballad. American whiteness crystallized as a negative definition implying full citizenship, over against Blacks, Indians, mestizos, Asians, and others who were seen as exploitable and enslavable. Unlike Jewish identity in its cultural richness, whiteness is new and irredeemably synonymous with tyranny. White people should take pride in their cultures, nations, religions, and morebut not in whiteness itself.

Israels Declaration of Independence states clearly that the Jewish State will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex and guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. Muslim Arabs serve in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Israeli Druze serve in the military. Israel is a state whose mission is fundamentally about being a homeland for the Jewish people, and, just as fundamentally about the equality of all human beingsitself a Jewish principle.

Thats Israel in theory and, at its best, in fact. Now, in practice, and at its worst, there is a great deal of racism and discrimination in Israeljust like everywhere else where there are humans. (And all of us should be working as actively as we can to fight racism in Israel, in America, and everywhere.) But thats a failure of Israeli society to live up to its fundamental principles of equality, not a successful realization of racist principles. The implication by Spencer is that Israels fundamental essence is similar to the white nationalist ideal; show me a white nationalist manifesto that takes as many pains as the Israeli Declaration does to revere racial and cultural equality and inclusion, and then the comparison might be very slightly less risible.

White people exert dominant control in many countries, many of which are the most powerful countries on earth. Jews have only one dedicated homeland, and a tiny one at that. And that homeland is certainly needed as a potential refuge. The Shoah demonstrated that with particular horror within living memory, but both before that dark time and after it, a steady drumbeat of anti-Jewish harassment, hate crimes, and murders has proven it time and again. Many countries have been safe places for Jews for a handful of centuries here and there, as the United States is today; but these golden ages do not last forever. If Richard Spencer gets his way, this one certainly wontas the vile march in Charlottesville clearly showed.

So no, there is no meaningful parallel between the alt-right fantasy and the Zionist reality.

Stepping back, we should remember that this conversation isnt only about Israel. (Is it ever?) These distinctions matter for the larger conversations were having about nationalism and immigration. Its tempting to oversimplify the issue into a binary choice: to be either (A) ethnic/racial/religious nation-states with first-class citizenship for one homogeneous, dominant caste and second-class citizenship (or slavery) for others; or (B) purely technocratic countries committed to equality for all, with no cultural agenda save personal autonomy, no hint of ethnic or nationalist symbolism, and no official status given to any one or more cultural or religious groups in any way.

But the world need not be so simple. The United Kingdom grants freedom of worship to all, but its Queen is also head of the Church of England. France is militantly committed to galit, but it is also committed to authenticity in the French language, and maintains the Acadmie franaise to safeguard it. These countrieslike Israelsit on the vast and varied landscape of choices beyond the two extremes, choices that enshrine some mix of both universal equality and particularistic national identity. These two concepts are often in tension with one another, but are not mutually exclusive. As America wrestles with a chilling renaissance of the most hateful kinds of nationalism, we must never let the likes of Richard Spencer trick us into forgetting that.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

View original post here:
Sorry, Richard Spencer: Comparing Zionism to White Nationalism Is A Rotten Comparison – Forward

Fair Usage Law

August 21, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Casting Zionism as White Nationalism is Anti-Semitism – HuffPost

[T]he destiny of the modern Jew is tragic beyond expression and comprehensionso tragic that they laugh at you when you speak of it, and this is the greatest tragedy at all. Isaac Deutscher, The Non-Jewish Jew

When neo-Nazis and white nationalists marched through Charlottesville, Virginia, last week, they chanted anti-Semitic slogans like, Jews will not replace us. Even before the march, Nazi websites had posted calls to marchers to burn down a synagogue there. As The Atlantic observed, they are obsessed with Jews. This comes as no surprise to Jewsand should not be a surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or Nazism. When the Ku Klux Klan was re-founded in 1915, for example, one of its key precepts was anti-Semitism, alongside anti-Black racism and xenophobia. That is why when, last week, white nationalists marched, it was an attack on Jews and Jewish institutions, as well as on people of color: when white nationalists gain power and influence, they use it to terrorize us.

It has therefore come as a shock to me to discover the growing popularity, among some on the left, of the notion that Zionism actually is white nationalism–a position as anti-Semitic as it is intellectually disingenuous. The most offensive aspect of this ideas growing popularity is that it has come primarily since the march in Charlottesville, but the significance of the timing goes beyond mere insensitivity. In the aftermath of the march, many Jews on the left insisted upon, at long last, recognition by our allies on the left that white nationalism is a threat to Jews. The growing power of white nationalists represents, as it always has, a direct challenge to the ability of Jews to feel at home or safe.

Yair Rosenberg, for example, suggested that the left set aside the longstanding debate over whether Jews are white or notan important debate because, he explained, implicitly at stake . . . is whether efforts to combat racism should prioritize prejudice against Jews or whether other groups should take precedence. In practice, however, the question has been settled by the growing power of white nationalists, who uniformly contend that Jews are not white, and have no place in their vision for America. Though with some notable exceptions, the general response to this call was deafening silence.

Soon after, and ostensibly out of nowhere, some anti-Zionists began to suggest that Zionism is a form of white nationalism. This represents a direct rebuke of Rosenbergs, and others, pleas. In fact, the exclusive effect of this line of argumentthere are innumerable other ways to criticize Israelwas, and is, to distract from and undermine the insistence of Jewish leftists that the threats to us and our communities be taken seriously. If Zionism is simply one form of white nationalism, and Jews are not threatened by Zionism, then how much could Jews really be threatened by white nationalism? Even without the dangerous underlying logic, the effect would be the sameto reorient the conversation about white nationalism to be about Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. And, as with so many discussions pertaining to Israel on the left, leftist Jews again find ourselves having to first disclaim any support for Israel before our concerns about anti-Semitism will be heard, let alone taken seriously.

Unspoken in the position is the erasure of any difference between Jews and non-Jewish whites (for the sake of simplicity, lets ignore the fact that the vast majority of Israeli Jews would not be seen as white in nearly any part of the world). After all, for Zionism to be considered white nationalism, it must involve support for a white nation. This distinction between whites and Jews, is of importance not because of any inherent difference between us but rather because centuries of oppression have created that difference. Regardless of whether Jews are counted as white, we remain a small minority, frequently discriminated against on the basis of being Jews. When the left-Twitterati pretends this not to be the case, it tacitly suggests that there is no history of Jewish oppression or, at least, that such history is irrelevant.

Obscuring the history of and invidiousness of Jewish persecution is both vital to and inherent in this theory. At its core, white nationalism is ideological dishonesty in pursuit of greater power for the already powerful. White nationalists claim they seek the creation of a nation exclusively for them on the basis that white people are an oppressed minority whose coherent culture requires protection. This, obviously, has no basis in reality: white nationalism is not aimed at the vindication of any oppressed group but rather the further empowerment of those who have occupied positions of privilege for most of the worlds history, and continue to do so now. (Also, the notion that there is a single, white culture is laughable.)

By contrast, Jews clearly are a coherent cultural group; we actually have been oppressed, in fact by the majority in every nation we have inhabited; our shared culture, and even our people, has often teetered on the brink of extinction. The existence of Israel does not undo that history or the fact that half the worlds Jews continue to live as precarious minorities. To suggest otherwise is to appeal to the age-old anti-Semitic canard that Jews are a powerful global cabal, under which the power of some of us anywhere enhances the power of all us, everywhere.

The left has too often allowed our critique of Israel to obscure the demands of our better angels. If we embrace the notion that Zionism is a form ofor indistinguishable fromwhite nationalism, we will commit that error yet again, endorsing by implication the idea that Jews wield as much as, or more power than, non-Jewish whitesa neo-Nazi talking point. Instead, we must directly confront the ugly problem of anti-Semitism which has again reared its head in the form of white nationalism.

We can, and must, do better.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

Read the original post:
Casting Zionism as White Nationalism is Anti-Semitism – HuffPost

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism …

In August, after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville ended in murder, Steve Bannon insisted that “there’s no room in American society” for neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, and the KKK. But an explosive cache of documents obtained by BuzzFeed News proves that there was plenty of room for those voices on his website. During the 2016 presidential campaign, under Bannons leadership, Breitbart courted the alt-right the insurgent, racist right-wing movement that helped sweep Donald Trump to power. The former White House chief strategist famously remarked that he wanted Breitbart to be the platform for the alt-right. Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, on September 24. The Breitbart employee closest to the alt-right was Milo Yiannopoulos, the sites former tech editor known best for his outrageous public provocations, such as last years Dangerous Faggot speaking tour and Septembers canceled Free Speech Week in Berkeley. For more than a year, Yiannopoulos led the site in a coy dance around the movements nastier edges, writing stories that minimized the role of neo-Nazis and white nationalists while giving its politer voices a fair hearing. In March, Breitbart editor Alex Marlow insisted were not a hate site. Breitbarts media relations staff repeatedly threatened to sue outlets that described Yiannopoulos as racist. And after the violent white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Breitbart published an article explaining that when Bannon said the site welcomed the alt-right, he was merely referring to computer gamers and blue-collar voters who hated the GOP brand. These new emails and documents, however, clearly show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the political spectrum and clearing the way for them to enter the American mainstream. Its a relationship illustrated most starkly by a previously unreleased April 2016 video in which Yiannopoulos sings America the Beautiful in a Dallas karaoke bar as admirers, including the white nationalist Richard Spencer, raise their arms in Nazi salutes. These documents chart the Breitbart alt-right universe. They reveal how the website and, in particular, Yiannopoulos links the Mercer family, the billionaires who fund Breitbart, to underpaid trolls who fill it with provocative content, and to extremists striving to create a white ethnostate. They capture what Bannon calls his killing machine in action, as it dredges up the resentments of people around the world, sifts through these grievances for ideas and content, and propels them from the unsavory parts of the internet up to TrumpWorld, collecting advertisers checks all along the way. And the cache of emails some of the most newsworthy of which BuzzFeed News is now making public expose the extent to which this machine depended on Yiannopoulos, who channeled voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America. The emails tell the story of Steve Bannons grand plan for Yiannopoulos, whom the Breitbart executive chairman transformed from a charismatic young editor into a conservative media star capable of magnetizing a new generation of reactionary anger. Often, the documents reveal, this anger came from a legion of secret sympathizers in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, suburbia, and everywhere in between. “I have said in the past that I find humor in breaking taboos and laughing at things that people tell me are forbidden to joke about,” Yiannopoulos wrote in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “But everyone who knows me also knows I’m not a racist. As someone of Jewish ancestry, I of course condemn racism in the strongest possible terms. I have stopped making jokes on these matters because I do not want any confusion on this subject. I disavow Richard Spencer and his entire sorry band of idiots. I have been and am a steadfast supporter of Jews and Israel. I disavow white nationalism and I disavow racism and I always have. He added that during his karaoke performance, his “severe myopia” made it impossible for him to see the Hitler salutes a few feet away. Steve Bannon, the other Breitbart employees named in the story, and the Mercer family did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Like all the new media success stories, Breitbarts alt-right platform depends on the participation of its audience. It combusts the often secret fury of those who reject liberal norms into news, and it doesnt burn clean. Now Bannon is back at the controls of the machine, which he has said he is revving up. The Mercers have funded Yiannopoulos’s post-Breitbart venture. And these documents present the clearest look at what these people may have in store for America. Protesters at a white supremacist rally at the University of Virginia on August 11. A year and a half ago, Milo Yiannopoulos set himself a difficult task: to define the alt-right. It was five months before Hillary Clinton named the alt-right in a campaign speech, 10 months before the alt-rights great hope became president, and 17 months before Charlottesville clinched the alt-right as a stalking horse for violent white nationalism. The movement had just begun its explosive emergence into the countrys politics and culture. At the time, Yiannopoulos, who would later describe himself as a fellow traveler of the alt-right, was the tech editor of Breitbart. In summer 2015, after spending a year gathering momentum through GamerGate the opening salvo of the new culture wars he convinced Breitbart upper management to give him his own section. And for four months, he helped Bannon wage what the Breitbart boss called in emails to staff #war. It was a war, fought story by story, against the perceived forces of liberal activism on every conceivable battleground in American life. Yiannopoulos was a useful soldier whose very public identity as a gay man (one who has now married a black man) helped defend him, his anti-political correctness crusade, and his employer from charges of bigotry. But now Yiannopoulos had a more complicated fight on his hands. The left and worse, some on the right had started to condemn the new conservative energy as reactionary and racist. Yiannopoulos had to take back alt-right, to redefine for Breitbarts audience a poorly understood, leaderless movement, parts of which had already started to resist the term itself. So he reached out to key constituents, who included a neo-Nazi and a white nationalist. Finally doing my big feature on the alt right, Yiannopoulos wrote in a March 9, 2016, email to Andrew Weev Auernheimer, a hacker who is the system administrator of the neo-Nazi hub the Daily Stormer, and who would later ask his followers to disrupt the funeral of Charlottesville victim Heather Heyer. Fancy braindumping some thoughts for me. Its time for me to do my big definitive guide to the alt right, Yiannopoulos wrote four hours later to Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer who under the nom de plume Mencius Moldbug helped create the neoreactionary movement, which holds that Enlightenment democracy has failed and that a return to feudalism and authoritarian rule is in order. Which is my whorish way of asking if you have anything youd like to make sure I include. Alt r feature, figured youd have some thoughts, Yiannopoulos wrote the same day to Devin Saucier, who helps edit the online white nationalist magazine American Renaissance under the pseudonym Henry Wolff, and who wrote a story in June 2017 called Why I Am (Among Other Things) a White Nationalist. The three responded at length: Weev about the Daily Stormer and a podcast called The Daily Shoah, Yarvin in characteristically sweeping world-historical assertions (Its no secret that North America contains many distinct cultural/ethnic communities. This is not optimal, but with a competent king its not a huge problem either), and Saucier with a list of thinkers, politicians, journalists, films (Dune, Mad Max, The Dark Knight), and musical genres (folk metal, martial industrial, 80s synthpop) important to the movement. Yiannopoulos forwarded it all, along with the Wikipedia entries for Alternative Right and the esoteric far-right Italian philosopher Julius Evola a major influence on 20th-century Italian fascists and Richard Spencer alike to Allum Bokhari, his deputy and frequent ghostwriter, whom he had met during GamerGate. Include a bit of everything, he instructed Bokhari. Bannon, as you probably know, is sympathetic to much of it. I think youll like what Im cooking up, Yiannopoulos wrote to Saucier, the American Renaissance editor. I look forward to it, Saucier replied. Bannon, as you probably know, is sympathetic to much of it. Five days later Bokhari returned a 3,000-word draft, a taxonomy of the movement titled ALT-RIGHT BEHEMOTH. It included a little bit of everything: the brains and their influences (Yarvin and Evola, etc.), the natural conservatives (people who think different ethnic groups should stay separate for scientific reasons), the Meme team (4chan and 8chan), and the actual hatemongers. Of the last group, Bokhari wrote: Theres just not very many of them, no-one really likes them, and theyre unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right. Magnificent start, Yiannopoulos responded. Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an ignorant savage, and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart. Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive, Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions. Most of it is great but I dont want to rush a major long form piece like this, Marlow wrote back. A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race. Truthfully management is very edgy on this one (They love it but its racially charged) Also, there was another sensitive issue to be raised: credit. Allum did most of the work on this and wants joint [byline] but I want the glory here, Yiannopoulos wrote back to Marlow. I am telling him you said its sensitive and want my byline alone on it. Minutes later, Yiannopoulos emailed Bokhari. I was going to have Marlow collude with me about the byline on the alt right thing because I want to take it solo. Will you hate me too much if I do that? Truthfully management is very edgy on this one (They love it but its racially charged) and they would prefer it. Will management definitely say no if its both of us? Bokhari responded. I think it actually lowers the risk if someone with a brown-sounding name shares the BL. Five days later, March 22nd, Marlow returned with comments. He suggested that the story should show in more detail how Yiannopoulos and most of the alt-right rejected the actual neo-Nazis in the movement. And he added that Taki’s Magazine and VDare, two publications Yiannopoulos and Bokhari identified as part of the alt-right, are both racist. We should disclaimer that or strike that part of the history from the article. (The published story added, in the passive voice, All of these websites have been accused of racism.) Again the story went back to Bokhari, who on the 24th sent Yiannopoulos still another draft, with the subject head ALT RIGHT, MEIN FUHRER. On the 27th, now co-bylined, the story was ready for upper management: Bannon and Larry Solov, Breitbarts press-shy CEO. It was also ready, on a separate email chain, for another read and round of comments from the white nationalist Saucier, the feudalist Yarvin, the neo-Nazi Weev, and Vox Day. I need to go thru this tomorrow in depthalthough I do appreciate any piece that mentions evola, Bannon wrote. On the 29th, in an email titled steve wants you to read this, Marlow sent Yiannopoulos a list of edits and notes Bannon had solicited from James Pinkerton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush staffer and a contributing editor of the American Conservative. The 59-year-old Pinkerton was put off by a cartoon of Pepe the Frog conducting the Trump Train. I love art, he wrote inline. I think [Breitbart News Network] needs a lot more of it, but I dont get the above. Frogs? Kermit? Am I missing something here? Later that day, Breitbart published An Establishment Conservatives Guide to the Alt-Right. It quickly became a touchstone, cited in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New Yorker, CNN, and New York Magazine, among others. And its influence is still being felt. This past July, in a speech in Warsaw that was celebrated by the alt-right, President Trump echoed a line from the story a story written by a brown-sounding amanuensis, all but line-edited by a white nationalist, laundered for racism by Breitbarts editors, and supervised by the man who would in short order become the presidents chief strategist. The machine had worked well. It hadnt always been so easy. The previous November, Yiannopoulos emailed Bannon with a bone to pick. Breitbart London reported that a London college student behind a popular social justice hashtag had threatened the anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller. The story is horseshit and we should never have published it, Yiannopoulos wrote. Reckless and stupid. Strongly recommend we pull. its insanely defamatory. I spoke to pamela geller and even she said it was rubbish. Were outright lying about this girl and surely were better than that. We can and should win by telling the truth. Six minutes later, Bannon wrote back to his tech editor in a fury. Your [sic] full of shit. When I need your advice on anything I will ask. … The tech site is a total clusterfuck—meaningless stories written by juveniles. You dont have a clue how to build a company or what real content is. And you dont have long to figure it out or your [sic] gone. You are magenalia [sic]. (Geller clarified to BuzzFeed News in a statement that she believed it was “rubbish” that the London university characterized the threats against her as “fake.”) “Dudewe r in a global existentialist war where our enemy EXISTS in social media and u r jerking yourself off w/ marginalia!!!!” On December 8, the New York Times published a major story about the radicalization of American Muslims on Facebook. Yiannopoulos published a story called Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy. That afternoon, Bannon emailed Yiannopoulos and Marlow. Dude—we r in a global existentialist war where our enemy EXISTS in social media and u r jerking yourself off w/ marginalia!!!! U should be OWNING this conversation because u r everything they hate!!! Drop your toys, pick up your tools and go help save western civilization. Message received, Yiannopoulos wrote back. I will do a Week of Islam next week. U dont need that, Bannon responded. Just get in the fight—ur Social Media and they have made it a powerful weapon of war. There is no war correspondent in the west yet dude and u can own it and be remember for 3 generations–or sit around wasting your God-given talents jerking off to your fan base. Over the next several months, Yiannopoulos began to find the right targets. First it was a continued attack on Shaun King, the writer and Black Lives Matter activist whose ethnicity Yiannopoulos had called into question. Next it was thenYahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who Bannon called in an email to Yiannopoulos the poster child for the narcissistic ecosystem. And increasingly it was enemies of Donald Trump. In response to a Yiannopoulos pitch accusing a prominent Republican opponent of Trump of being a pill-popper, Bannon wrote: Dude!!! LMAO! Epic. And Bannon signed off on an April story by Yiannopoulos imploring #NeverTrumpers to get on board with Trump and the alt-right. (Bannon did, however, veto making it the lead story on the site, writing to Yiannopoulos and Marlow, Looks like we have our thumb on the scale.) Why was Bannon so concerned with the focus of his tech editors energies? In a February email exchange before Yiannopoulos appeared on Greg Gutfelds Sunday Fox News show, Bannon wrote, Gutfeld should become an object lesson for u. Brilliant cultural commentator who really got pop culture, the hipster scene and advant [sic] garde.got on fox and tried to become a political pundit…lost all credibility. You r one of the potential heirs to his cultural leadership so act according. Bannon was grooming the younger man for something greater. In May, Bannon invited Yiannopoulos to Cannes for a week for the film festival. Want to discuss tv and film with u, he wrote in an email. U get to meet my partners, hang on the boat and discuss business. Phil Robertson at the 42nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center on February 27, 2015, in National Harbor, Maryland. The boat was the Sea Owl, a 200-foot yacht owned by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who is a major funder of Breitbart and various other far-right enterprises. That week, Yiannopoulos shuttled back and forth from the Cannes Palace Hotel to the pier next to the Palais des Festivals et des Congrs and the green-sterned, fantasy-inspired vessel complete with a Dale Chihuly chandelier. The Mercers were in town to promote Clinton Cash, a film produced by Bannon and their production studio, Glittering Steel. On board, Yiannopoulos drank with, mingled with, and interviewed Phil Robertson, the lavishly bearded patriarch of Duck Dynasty, for his podcast. I know how lucky I am, Yiannopoulos wrote to Bannon on May 20. Im going to work hard to make you some money — and win the war! Thanks for having me this week and for the faith youre placing in me chief. The left wont know what hit them. U just focus on being who u are– we will put a top level team around u, Bannon wrote back. #war. Getty Images (3); YouTube On July 22, 2016, Rebekah Mercer Roberts powerful daughter emailed Steve Bannon from her Stanford alumni account. She wanted the Breitbart executive chairman, whom she introduced as one of the greatest living defenders of Liberty, to meet an app developer she knew. Apple had rejected the mans game (Capitol HillAwry, in which players delete emails la Hillary Clinton) from the App Store, and the younger Mercer wondered if we could put an article up detailing his 1st amendment political persecution. Bannon passed the request from Mercer to Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos passed it to Charlie Nash, an 18-year-old Englishman whom he had met at a conference of the populist right-wing UK Independence Party conference the previous year, and who started working as his intern immediately after. Like some bleach-blonde messiah of antipolitical correctness, Yiannopoulos tended to draw in ideologically sympathetic young men at conferences, campus speeches, and on social media, accumulating more and more acolytes as he went along. In June 2015 it was Ben Kew, who invited Yiannopoulos to speak at the University of Bristol, where he was a student; hes now a staff writer for Breitbart. In September 2015 it was Tom Ciccotta, the treasurer of the class of 2017 at Bucknell University, who still writes for Breitbart. In February 2016 it was Hunter Swogger, a University of Michigan student and then the editor of the conservative Michigan Review, whom Yiannopoulos cultivated and brought on as a social media specialist during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Yiannopoulos called these young researchers his trufflehounds. Nash, who had just been hired by Breitbart at $30,000 a year after months of lobbying by Yiannopoulos, dutifully fielded the request from the billionaire indirectly paying his salary and turned around a story about the rejected Capitol HillAwry app on the 25th and a follow-up five days later after Apple reversed its decision. Huge victory, Bannon emailed after the reversal. Huge win. This was the usual way stories came in from the Mercers, according to a former Breitbart editor: with a request from Bannon referring to our investors or our investing partners. After Cannes, as Bannon pushed Yiannopoulos to do more live events that presented expensive logistical challenges, the involvement of the investing partners became increasingly obvious. Following a May event at DePaul University in Chicago in which Black Lives Matter protesters stormed a Yiannopoulos speech, he wrote to Bannon, I wouldnt confess this to anyone publicly, of course, but I was worried … last night that I was going to get punched or worse. … I need one or two people of my own. Btw they are ALL factories of hate. Agree 100%, Bannon wrote. We want you to stir up more. Milo: for your eyes only we r going to use the mercers private security company. Copied on the email was Dan Fleuette, Bannons coproducer at Glittering Steel and the man who acted for months as the go-between for Yiannopoulos and the Mercers. As Yiannopoulos made the transition in summer 2016 from being a writer to becoming largely the star of a traveling stage show, Fleuette was enlisted to process and wrangle the legion of young assistants, managers, trainers, and other talent the Breitbart tech editor demanded be brought along for the ride. First came Tim Gionet, the former BuzzFeed social media strategist who goes by Baked Alaska on Twitter, whom Yiannopoulos pitched to Fleuette as a tour manager in late May. Gionet accompanied Yiannopoulos to Florida after the June 2016 Pulse nightclub killings in Orlando. The two planned a press conference outside a mosque attended by the shooter, Omar Mateen. (Brilliant, Bannon emailed. Btw they are ALL factories of hate.) But after some impertinent tweets and back talk from Gionet, Fleuette became Yiannopouloss managerial confidante. He needs to understand that Baked Alaska is over, Yiannopoulos wrote in one email to Fleuette. He is not a friend he is an employee. He is becoming a laughing stock and that reflects badly on me. In another, I think we need to replace Tim. [He] has no news judgment or understanding of whats dangerous (thinks tweets about Jews are just fine). He seems more interested in his career as an obscure Twitter personality than my tour manager. At the Republican National Convention, Yiannopoulos deliberately chose a hotel for Gionet far from the convention center, writing to another Breitbart employee, Exactly where I want him. He needs the commute to remind him of his place. Gionet did not respond to multiple requests by BuzzFeed News for comment. He needs the commute to remind him of his place. But Gionet, who would go on to march with the alt-right in Charlottesville, was still useful to Yiannopoulos as a gateway to a group of young, hip, social mediasavvy Trump supporters. Yiannopoulos managed all of his assistants and ghostwriters under his own umbrella, using yiannopoulos.net emails and private Slack rooms. This structure insulated Breitbarts upper management from the 4chan savants and GamerGate vets working for Yiannopoulos. And it gave Yiannopoulos a staff loyal to him above Breitbart. (Indeed, Yiannopoulos shopped a separate Team Milo section to Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal, in July 2016.) It also sometimes led to extraordinarily fraught organizational and personal dynamics. Take Allum Bokhari, the Oxford-educated former political consultant whom Yiannopoulos rewarded for his years of grunt work with a $100,000 ghostwriting contract for his book Dangerous. But the men were spying on each other. In April 2016, Yiannopoulos asked Bokhari for a complete list of the email, social media, bank accounts, and any other system and services of mine you have been accessing, and how long youve had access. Bokhari confessed to having logged into Yiannopouloss email and Slack, and had used Yiannopouloss credit card for an Airbnb, a confession Yiannopoulos quickly passed on to Larry Solov, the Breitbart CEO. My basic position is that he is not stable and needs to be far away from me, Yiannopoulos wrote to Marlow and Solov. Meanwhile, Yiannopoulos had compiled a transcript of what he called a short section of 30 hours of recording down on paper, which appeared to be of conversations between Bokhari and a friend. The newcomers brought in by Gionet werent much better behaved. Yiannopoulos had to boot one prospective member of his tour squad for posting cocaine use on Snapchat. Mike Mahoney, a then20-year-old from North Carolina, had to be monitored because of his propensity for racism and anti-Semitism on social media. (Mahoney was later banned from Twitter, but hes relocated to Gab, a free speech uber alles social network where he is free to post messages such as reminder: muslims are fags.) Let me know if theres anything specific thats really bad eg any Jew stuff, Yiannopoulos wrote of Mahoney in an email to another member of his staff. His entire Twitter persona will have to change dramatically once he gets the job. On September 11, 2016, Mahoney signed a $2,500-a-month contract with Glittering Steel. As the Dangerous Faggot tour swung into gear, Yiannopoulos grew increasingly hostile toward Fleuette, whom he excoriated for late payments to his young crew, lack of support, and disorganization. The entire tour staff is demanding money, Yiannopoulos wrote in one email to Fleuette in October. No one knows or cares who Glittering Steel is but this represents a significantly damaging risk to my reputation if it gets out. And in another, Your problem right now is keeping me happy.” Yet ultimately Fleuette was necessary he connected Yiannopouloss madcap world and the massively rich people funding the machine. I think you know who the final decision belongs to, Fleuette wrote to Yiannopoulos after one particularly frantic request for money. I am in daily communication with them. Yiannopoulos holds a press conference down the street from Orlando’s Pulse Nightclub on June 15, 2016, two days after the shooting that killed 49 people and injured 53. Yiannopouloss star rose throughout 2016 thanks to a succession of controversial public appearances, social media conflagrations, Breitbart radio spots, television hits, and magazine profiles. Bannons guidance, the Mercers patronage, and the creative energy of his young staff had come together at exactly the time Donald Trump turned offensive speech into a defining issue in American culture. And for thousands of people, Yiannopoulos, Breitbarts poster child for offensive speech, became a secret champion. Aggrieved by the encroachment of so-called cultural Marxism into American public life, and egged on by an endless stream of stories on Fox News about safe spaces and racially charged campus confrontations, a diverse group of Americans took to Yiannopouloss inbox to thank him and to confess their fears about the future of the country. He heard from ancient veterans who binge-watched his speeches on YouTube; from a 58 year old asian woman concerned about her high school daughters progressive teachers; from boys asking how to win classroom arguments against feminists; from a former NASA employee who said he had been laid off by my fat female boss and was sad that the Jet Propulsion Lab had become completely cucked; from a man who had bought his 11-year-old son an AR-15 and named it Milo; from an Indiana lesbian who said she despised liberals and begged Yiannopoulos to keep triggering the special snowflakes; from a doctoral student in philosophy who said he had been threatened with dismissal from his program for sharing his low opinion of Islam; from a Charlotte police officer thanking Yiannopoulos for his common sense Facebook posts about the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott (BLUE LIVES MATTER, Yiannopoulos responded); from a New Jersey school teacher who feared his students would become pawns for the left social justice campaign; from a man who said he had returned from a deployment in an Islamic country to discover that his wife was transitioning and wanted a divorce (subject line Regressivism stole my wife); from a father terrified his daughter might attend Smith College; from fans who wanted to give him jokes to use about fat people, about gay people, about Muslims, about Hillary Clinton. He also heard, with frequency, from accomplished people in predominantly liberal industries entertainment, tech, academia, fashion, and media who resented what they felt was a censorious coastal cultural orthodoxy. Taken together, they represent something like a network of sleeper James Damores, vexed but silent for fear of losing their jobs or friends, kvetching to Yiannopoulos as a pressure valve. For Yiannopoulos, these emails werent just validation, though they were obviously that. They sometimes became more ammunition for the culture war. Im a relatively recent ex-lefty who received deep liberal indoctrination via elite private schools (Yale and Andover), wrote one film editor who introduced herself as an Undercover pede in Hollywood.” (Centipede is slang for an online Trump supporter.) Ive been deeply closeted thus far due to the severe personal and professional repercussions of not beating the progressive drum. In an email titled Working for E! Is Hell, a production manager at the cable network wrote Yiannopoulos that her employer was a contributor to the fake news machine and my colleagues have become insufferable. I offer you my services a partner in fighting globalism. And Adam Grandmaison, whom Rolling Stone described as underground hip-hops major tastemaker, reached out to Yiannopoulos to suggest he investigate a journalist who had accused her ex-boyfriend of physical abuse. In an email to BuzzFeed News, Grandmaison wrote that he was merely voicing concern about a black man being judged by the media, and that “I didn’t intend for [Milo] to write about it.” (Grandmaison’s email to Yiannopoulos began “first off i absolutely do not want credit for tipping you off to this.”) Even more tips came in from tech workers.

Fair Usage Law

October 25, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Nationalism – Wikipedia

Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation’s culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country’s government and the means of production.[3] Historically, nationalism is a modern concept dating from the 18th century, of an ideological scope greater than a peoples’ attachment to family, to local authority, and to the native land.[4] Politically and sociologically, there are three paradigms for understanding the origins and bases of nationalism. The first paradigm is primordialism (perennialism), which proposes nationalism as a natural phenomenon, that nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, a complex, historical perspective, which explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon imbued with historical meaning, by way of the nation’s subjective ties to national symbols. The third paradigm is modernism, which proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that requires the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[5] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve. This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community. This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[9][10][11] The word nation was used before 1800 in Europe to refer to the inhabitants of a country as well as to collective identities that could include shared history, law, language, political rights, religion and traditions, in a sense more akin to the modern conception.[12] Nationalism is a newer word; in English the term dates from 1844, although the concept is older.[13] It became important in the 19th century.[14] The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga notes that “The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism.”[15] Nationalism has been a recurring facet of civilizations since ancient times, though the modern sense of national political autonomy and self-determination was formalized in the late 18th century.[16] Examples of nationalist movements can be found throughout history, from the Jewish revolts of the 2nd century, to the re-emergence of Persian culture during the Sasanid period of Persia, to the re-emergence of Latin culture in the Western Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as many others. In modern times, examples can be seen in the emergence of German nationalism as a reaction against Napoleonic control of Germany as the Confederation of the Rhine around 180514.[17][18] Linda Colley in Britons, Forging the Nation 17071837 (Yale University Press, 1992) explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.[19] Some historians see the American Revolution as an early form of modern nationalism.[20] Due to the Industrial Revolution, there was an emergence of an integrated, nation-encompassing economy and a national public sphere, where the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their province, town or family. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.[21] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Union Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one.[22] Thomas Arne composed the patriotic song “Rule, Britannia!” in 1740,[23] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot invented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English national spirit in 1712.[24] The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism.[25][26] The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (17441803) originated the term in 1772 in his “Treatise on the Origin of Language” stressing the role of a common language.[27][28] He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality and of patriotism “he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself”, whilst teaching that “in a certain sense every human perfection is national”.[29] The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the 19th century nationalism became one of the most significant political and social forces in history; it is typically listed among the top causes of World War I.[30][31] Napoleon’s conquests of the German and Italian states around 180006 played a major role in stimulating nationalism and the demands for national unity.[32] Nationalism in France gained early expressions in France’s revolutionary government. In 1793, that government declared a mass conscription (leve en masse) with a call to service: Henceforth, until the enemies have been driven from the territory of the Republic, all the French are in permanent requisition for army service. The young men shall go to battle; the married men shall forge arms in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen to lint; the old men shall repair to the public places, to stimulate the courage of the warriors and preach the unity of the Republic and the hatred of kings.[33] This nationalism gained pace after the French Revolution came to a close. Defeat in war, with a loss in territory, was a powerful force in nationalism. In France, revenge and return of Alsace-Lorraine was a powerful motivating force for a quarter century after their defeat by Germany in 1871. However, after 1895 French nationalists focused on Dreyfus and internal subversion, and the Alsace issue petered out.[34] The French reaction was a famous case of Revanchism (“revenge”) which demands the return of lost territory that “belongs” to the national homeland. Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geo-political factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a hawkish stance, suggesting that their desired objectives can be achieved through the positive outcome of another war. It is linked with irredentism, the conception that a part of the cultural and ethnic nation remains “unredeemed” outside the borders of its appropriate nation state. Revanchist politics often rely on the identification of a nation with a nation state, often mobilizing deep-rooted sentiments of ethnic nationalism, claiming territories outside the state where members of the ethnic group live, while using heavy-handed nationalism to mobilize support for these aims. Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient or even autochthonous occupation of a territory since “time immemorial”, an assertion that is usually inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.[35] The Dreyfus Affair in France 1894-1906 made the battle against treason and disloyalty a central theme for conservative Catholic French nationalists. Dreyfus, a Jew, was an outsider, that is in the views of intense nationalists, not a true Frenchman, not one to be trusted, not one to be given the benefit of the doubt. True loyalty to the nation, from the conservative viewpoint, was threatened by liberal and republican principles of liberty and equality that were leading the country to disaster.[36] In the German states west of Prussia, Napoleon abolished many of the old or medieval relics, such as dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.[37] He imposed rational legal systems and demonstrated how dramatic changes were possible. His organization of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 promoted a feeling of nationalism. Nationalists sought to encompass masculinity in their quest for strength and unity.[38] It was Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck who achieved German unification through a series of highly successful short wars against Denmark, Austria and France which thrilled the pan-German nationalists in the smaller German states. They fought in his wars and eagerly joined the new German Empire, which Bismarck ran as a force for balance and peace in Europe after 1871.[39] In the 19th century German nationalism was promoted by Hegelian-oriented academic historians who saw Prussia as the true carrier of the German spirit, and the power of the state as the ultimate goal of nationalism. The three main historians were Johann Gustav Droysen (18081884), Heinrich von Sybel (18171895) and Heinrich von Treitschke (18341896). Droysen moved from liberalism to an intense nationalism that celebrated Prussian Protestantism, efficiency, progress, and reform, in striking contrast to Austrian Catholicism, impotency and backwardness. He idealized the Hohenzollern kings of Prussia. His large-scale History of Prussian Politics (14 vol 18551886) was foundational for nationalistic students and scholars. Von Sybel founded and edited the leading academic history journal, Historische Zeitschrift and as the director of the Prussian state archives published massive compilations that were devoured by scholars of nationalism.[40] The most influential of the German nationalist historians, was Treitschke who had an enormous influence on elite students at Heidelberg and Berlin universities.[41] Treitschke vehemently attacked parliamentarianism, socialism, pacifism, the English, the French, the Jews, and the internationalists. The core of his message was the need for a strong, unified statea unified Germany under Prussian supervision. “It is the highest duty of the State to increase its power,” he stated. Although he was a descendant of a Czech family he considered himself not Slavic but German: “I am 1000 times more the patriot than a professor.”[42] Italian nationalism emerged in the 19th century and was the driving force for Italian unification or the “Risorgimento” (meaning the Resurgence or revival). It was the political and intellectual movement that consolidated different states of the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The memory of the Risorgimento is central to Italian nationalism but it was based in the liberal middle classes and proved weak.[43] Two major groups remained opposed, the South (called the Mezzogiorno) and the devout Catholics. The new government treated the South as a conquered province with ridicule for its “backward” and poverty stricken society, its poor grasp of the Italian language, and its traditions. The liberals had always been strong opponents of the pope and the very well organized Catholic Church. The pope had been in political control of central Italy; he lost that in 1860 and lost Rome in 1870. He had long been the leader of opposition to modern liberalism and refused to accept the terms offered by the new government. He called himself a prisoner in the Vatican and forbade Catholics to vote or engage in politics. The Catholic alienation lasted until 1929. The liberal government under Francesco Crispi sought to enlarge his political base by emulating Bismarck and firing up Italian nationalism with a hyper-aggressive foreign policy. It crashed and his cause was set back. Historian R.J.B. Bosworth says of his nationalistic foreign policy that Crispi: Meanwhile, a third major group emerged that was hostile to nationalism as radical socialist elements became a force in the industrial North, and they too rejected liberalism. Italy joined the Allies in the First World War after getting promises of territory, but its war effort was a fiasco that discredited liberalism and paved the way for Benito Mussolini and his fascism. That involved a highly aggressive nationalism that led to a series of wars, an alliance with Hitler’s Germany, and humiliation and hardship in the Second World War. After 1945 the Catholics returned to government and tensions eased somewhat, but the Mezzogiorno remained poor and ridiculed. The working class now voted for the Communist Party, and it looked to Moscow not Rome for inspiration, and was kept out of the national government even as it controlled industrial cities across the North. In the 21st century the Communists are gone but political and cultural tensions remained high as shown by separatist Padanian nationalism in the North.[45] The Greek drive for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and 1830s inspired supporters across Christian Europe, especially in Britain. France, Russia and Britain critically intervened to ensure the success of this nationalist endeavour.[46] For centuries the Orthodox Christian Serbs were ruled by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The success of the Serbian Revolution against Ottoman rule in 1817 marked the birth of the Principality of Serbia. It achieved de facto independence in 1867 and finally gained international recognition in 1878. Serbia had sought to liberate and unite with Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west and Old Serbia (Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia) to the south. Nationalist circles in both Serbia and Croatia (in the Habsburg Empire) began to advocate for a greater South Slavic union in the 1860s, claiming Bosnia as their common land based on shared language and tradition.[47] In 1914, Yugoslavist revolutionaries in Bosnia assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary, with German backing, tried to crush Serbia in 1914 but Russia intervened, thus igniting the First World War in which Austria dissolved into nation states.[48] In 1918, the region of Vojvodina proclaimed its secession from Austria-Hungary to unite with Serbia; the Kingdom of Serbia joined the union with State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on 1 December 1918, and the country was named Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. It was renamed Yugoslavia, and a Yugoslav identity was promoted, which ultimately failed. After the Second World War, Yugoslav Communists established a new socialist republic of Yugoslavia. That state broke up in the 1990s.[49] The cause of Polish nationalism was repeatedly frustrated before 1918. In the 1790s, Austria, Prussia, and Russia invaded, annexed, and subsequently partitioned Poland. Napoleon set up the Duchy of Warsaw, a new Polish state that ignited a spirit of nationalism. Russia took it over in 1815 as Congress Poland with the tsar proclaimed as “King of Poland”. Large-scale nationalist revolts erupted in 1830 and 186364 but were harshly crushed by Russia, which tried to Russify the Polish language, culture and religion. The collapse of the Russian Empire in the First World War enabled the major powers to re-establish an independent Poland, which survived until 1939. Meanwhile, Poles in areas controlled by Germany moved into heavy industry but their religion came under attack by Bismarck in the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. The Poles joined German Catholics in a well-organized new Centre Party, and defeated Bismarck politically. He responded by stopping the harassment and cooperating with the Centre Party.[50][51] In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Polish nationalist leaders endorsed the Piast Concept. It held there was a Polish utopia during the Piast Dynasty a thousand years before, and modern Polish nationalists should restore its central values of Poland for the Poles. Jan Poplawski had developed the “Piast Concept” in the 1890s, and it formed the centerpiece of Polish nationalist ideology, especially as presented by the National Democracy Party, known as the “Endecja,” which was led by Roman Dmowski. In contrast with the Jagiellon concept, there was no concept for a multi-ethnic Poland.[52] The Piast concept stood in opposition to the “Jagiellon Concept,” which allowed for multi-ethnicism and Polish rule over numerous minority groups such as those in the Kresy. The Jagiellon Concept was the official policy of the government in the 1920s and 1930s. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin at Tehran in 1943 rejected the Jagiellon Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belarusians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland’s frontiers to the west.[53] After 1945 the Soviet-back puppet communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the “true inheritors of Polish nationalism”. After all the killings, including Nazi German occupation, terror in Poland and population transfers during and after the war, the nation was officially declared as 99% ethnically Polish.[54] Jewish nationalism arose in the latter half of the 19th century and was largely correlated with the Zionist movement. This term originated from the word Zion, which was one of the Torahs names for the city of Jerusalem. The end goal of the nationalists and Zionists was to establish a sovereign Jewish state in the land of Palestine. A tumultuous history of living in oppressive, foreign, and uncertain circumstances led the supporters of the movement to draft a declaration of independence, claiming Israel as a birthplace. The first and second destructions of the temple and ancient Torah prophecies largely shaped the incentives of the Jewish nationalists. Many prominent theories in Jewish theology and eschatology were formed by supporters and opposers of the movement in this era. It was the French Revolution of 1789, which sparked new waves of thinking across Europe regarding governance and sovereignty. A shift from the traditional hierarchy-based system towards political individualism and citizen-states posed a dilemma for the Jews. Citizenship was now essential, when it came to ensuring basic legal and residential rights. This resulted in more and more Jews choosing to identify with certain nationalities in order to maintain these rights. Logic said that a nation-based system of states would require the Jews themselves to claim their own right to be considered a nation due to a distinguishable language and history. Historian David Engel has explained that Zionism was more about fear that a majority of worldwide Jews would end up dispersed and unprotected, rather than fulfilling old prophecies and traditions of historical texts.[55] An upsurge in nationalism in Latin America in 1810s and 1820s sparked revolutions that cost Spain nearly all its colonies there.[56] Spain was at war with Britain from 1798 to 1808, and the British Royal Navy cut off its contacts with its colonies so nationalism flourished and trade with Spain was suspended. The colonies set up temporary governments or juntas which were effectively independent from Spain. The division exploded between Spaniards who were born in Spain (called “peninsulares”) versus those of Spanish descent born in New Spain (called “criollos” in Spanish or “creoles” in English). The two groups wrestled for power, with the criollos leading the call for independence. Spain tried to use its armies to fight back but had no help from European powers. Indeed, Britain[citation needed] and the United States worked against Spain, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Spain lost all of its American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, in a complex series of revolts from 1808 to 1826.[57] The awakening of nationalism across Asia helped shape the history of the continent. The key episode was the decisive defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905, demonstrating the military superiority of non-Europeans in a modern war. The defeat which quickly led to manifestations of a new interest in nationalism in China, as well as Turkey, and Persia.[58] In China Sun Yat-sen (18661925) launched his new party the Kuomintang (National People’s Party) in defiance of the decrepit Empire, which was run by outsiders. Kuomintang recruits pledged: The Kuomintang largely ran China until the Communists took over in 1949. but the latter had also been strongly influence by Sun’s nationalism as well as by the May Fourth Movement in 1919. It was a nationwide protest movement about the domestic backwardness of China and has often been depicted as the intellectual foundation for Chinese Communism.[60] The New Culture Movement stimulated by the May Fourth Movement waxed strong throughout the 1920s and 1930s. According to historian Patricia Ebrey: In the 1880s the European powers divided up almost all of Africa (only Ethiopia and Liberia were independent). They ruled until after World War II when forces of nationalism grew much stronger. In the 1950s and 1960s the colonial holdings became independent states. The process was usually peaceful but there were several long bitter bloody civil wars, as in Algeria,[62] Kenya[63] and elsewhere. Across Africa nationalism drew upon the organizational skills that natives learned in the British and French and other armies in the world wars. It led to organizations that were not controlled by or endorsed by either the colonial powers not the traditional local power structures that were collaborating with the colonial powers. Nationalistic organizations began to challenge both the traditional and the new colonial structures and finally displaced them. Leaders of nationalist movements took control when the European authorities exited; many ruled for decades or until they died off. These structures included political, educational, religious, and other social organizations. In recent decades, many African countries have undergone the triumph and defeat of nationalistic fervor, changing in the process the loci of the centralizing state power and patrimonial state.[64][65][66] South Africa, a British colony, was exceptional in that it became virtually independent by 1931. From 1948 to 1994, it was controlled by white Afrikaner nationalists focused on racial segregation and white minority rule known officially as apartheid. The black nationalist movement fought them until success was achieved by the African National Congress in 1994 and Nelson Mandela was elected President.[67] Arab nationalism, a movement toward liberating and empowering the Arab peoples of the Middle East, emerged during the latter 19th century, inspired by other independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. As the Ottoman Empire declined and the Middle East was carved up by the Great Powers of Europe, Arabs sought to establish their own independent nations ruled by Arabs rather than foreigners. Syria was established in 1920; Transjordan (later Jordan) gradually gained independence between 1921 and 1946; Saudi Arabia was established in 1932; and Egypt achieved gradually gained independence between 1922 and 1952. The Arab League was established in 1945 to promote Arab interests and cooperation between the new Arab states. Parallel to these efforts was the Zionist movement which emerged among European Jews in the 19th century. Beginning in 1882 Jews, predominantly from Europe, began emigrating to Ottoman Palestine with the goal of establishing a new Jewish homeland. The effort culminated in the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948. As this move conflicted with the belief among Arab nationalists that Palestine was part of the Arab nation, the neighboring Arab nations launched an invasion to claim the region. The invasion was only partly successful and led to decades of clashes between the Arab and Jewish nationalist ideologies. There was a rise in extreme nationalism after the collapse of communism in the 1990s. When communism fell, it left many people with no identity. The people under communist rule had to integrate, and found themselves free to choose. Given free choice, long dormant conflicts rose up and created sources of serious conflict.[68] When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism. In his 1992 article Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber proposed that the fall of communism will cause large numbers of people to search for unity and that small scale wars will become common; groups will attempt to redraw boundaries, identities, cultures and ideologies.[69] Communism’s fall also allowed for an “us vs. them” mentality to sprout up.[70] Governments become vehicles for social interests and the country will attempt to form national policies based on the majority, for example culture, religion or ethnicity.[68] Some newly sprouted democracies have large differences in policies on matters that ranged from immigration and human rights to trade and commerce. Academic Steven Berg felt that at the root of nationalist conflicts is the demand for autonomy and a separate existence.[68] This nationalism can give rise to strong emotions that may lead to a group fighting to survive, especially as after the fall of communism, political boundaries did not match ethnic boundaries.[68] Serious conflicts often arose and escalated very easily as individuals and groups acted upon their beliefs, causing death and destruction.[68] When this would happen, those states who were unable to contain the conflict ran the risk of slowing their democratization progress. Yugoslavia was established after WWI and was a merger of three separate ethnic groups; Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The national census numbers for a ten-year span 19711981 measured an increase from 1.3 to 5.4% in their population that ethnically identified as Yugoslav.[71] This meant that the country, almost as a whole, was divided by distinctive religious, ethnic or national loyalties after nearly 50 years. Within Yugoslavia, separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia is an invisible line of previous conquests of the region. Croatia and Slovenia to the northwest were conquered by Catholics or Protestants, and benefited from European history; the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and are more inclined towards democracy.[70] The remaining Yugoslavian territory was conquered by the Ottoman or Tsarists empires; are Orthodox or Muslims, are less economically advanced and are less inclined toward democracy. In the 1970s the leadership of the separate territories within Yugoslavia protected only territorial interests at the expense of other territories. In Croatia, there was almost a split within the territory between Serbs and Croats so any political decision would kindle unrest, and tensions could cross the territories adjacent; Bosnia and Herzegovina.[71] Within Bosnia there was no group who had a majority; Muslim, Serb, Croat, and Yugoslav were all there so the leadership could not advance here either. Political organizations were not able to deal successfully with such diverse nationalism. Within the territories the leadership could not compromise. To do so would create a winner in one ethnic group and a loser in another, raising the possibility of a serious conflict. This strengthened the political stance promoting ethnic identities. This caused intense and divided political leadership within Yugoslavia. In the 1980s Yugoslavia began to break into fragments.[69] The economic conditions within Yugoslavia were deteriorating. Conflict in the disputed territories was stimulated by the rise in mass nationalism and inter-ethnic hostilities.[71] The per-capita income of people in the northwest territory, encompassing Croatia and Slovenia, in contrast to the southern territory were several times higher. This combined with escalating violence from ethnic Albanians and Serbs within Kosovo intensified economic conditions.[71] This violence greatly contributed to the rise of extreme nationalism of Serbs in Serbia and within Yugoslavia. The ongoing conflict in Kosovo was propagandized by Communist Serbian Slobodan Milosevic to further increase Serb nationalism. As mentioned, this nationalism did give rise to powerful emotions which grew the force of Serbian nationalism through highly nationalist demonstrations in Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Serbian nationalism was so high, Slobodan Milosevic was able to oust leaders in Vojvodina and Montenegro, further repressed Albanians within Kosovo and eventually controlled four of the eight regions/territories.[71] Slovenia, one of the four regions not under Communist control, favoring a democratic state. Within Slovenia, fear was mounting because Milosevic was using the militia to suppress a in Kosovo, what would he do to Slovenia.[71] Half of Yugoslavia wanted to be democratic, the other wanted a new nationalist authoritarian regime. In fall of 1989 tensions came to a head and Slovenia asserted its political and economic independence from Yugoslavia and seceded. In January 1990, there was a total break with Serbia at the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, an institution conceived by Milosevic to strengthen unity and became the backdrop for the fall of communism within Yugoslavia. In August 1990, a warning to the region was issued when ethnically divided groups attempted to alter the government structure. The republic borders established by the Communist regime in the postwar period were extremely vulnerable to challenges from ethnic communities.Ethnic communities arose because they did not share the identity with everyone within the new post-Communist borders.[71] This threatened the new governments. The same disputes were erupting that were in place prior to Milosevic and were compounded by actions from his regime. Also within the territory the Croats and the Serbs were in direct competition for control of government. Elections were held and increased potential conflicts between Serb and Croat nationalism. Serbia wanted to be separate and decide its own future based on its own ethnic composition. But this would then give Kosovo encouragement to become independent from Serbia. Albanians in Kosovo were already independent from Kosovo. Serbia didn’t want to let Kosovo become independent. Muslims nationalists wanted their own territory but it would require a redrawing of the map, and would threaten neighboring territories. When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism. Nationalism again gave rise to powerful emotions which evoked in some extreme cases, a willingness to die for what you believe in, a fight for the survival of the group.[68] The end of communism began a long period of conflict and war for the region. In the six years following the collapse 200,000-500-000 people died in the Bosnian war.[72] Bosnian Muslims suffered at the hands of the Serbs and Croats.[70] The war garnered assistance from groups; Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian as well as state actors who supplied all sides; Saudi Arabia and Iran supported Bosnia, Russia supported Serbia, Central European and Western countries including the U.S. supported Croatia, and the Pope supported Slovenia and Croatia. Arab nationalism began to decline in the 21st century leading to localized nationalism, culminating in a series of revolts against authoritarian regimes between 2010 and 2012, known as the Arab Spring. Following these revolts, which mostly failed to improve conditions in the affected nations, Arab nationalism and even most local nationalistic movements declined dramatically.[73] A consequence of the Arab Spring as well as the 2003 invasion of Iraq were the civil wars in Iraq and Syria, which eventually joined to form a single conflict. The rise of globalism in the late 20th century led to a rise in nationalism and populism in Europe and North America. This trend was further fueled by increased terrorism in the West (the September 11 attacks in the U.S. being a prime example), increasing unrest and civil wars in the Middle East, and waves of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe (as of 2016[update] the refugee crisis appears to have peaked).[74][75] Nationalist groups like Germany’s Pegida, France’s National Front, and the UK Independence Party gained prominence in their respective nations advocating restrictions on immigration to protect the local populations.[76][77] In Russia, exploitation of nationalist sentiments allowed Vladimir Putin to consolidate power.[78] This nationalist sentiment was used in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and other actions in Ukraine.[77] Nationalist movements gradually began to rise in other parts of Eastern Europe as well, Poland in particular.[79] In a 2016 referendum, the British populace voted to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union (the so-called Brexit). The result had been largely unexpected and was seen as a victory of populism. The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign saw the unprecedented rise of Donald Trump, a businessman with no political experience who ran on a populist/nationalist platform and struggled to gain endorsements from mainstream political figures, even within his own party. Trump’s slogans “Make America Great Again” and “America First” exemplified his campaign’s repudiation of globalism and its staunchly nationalistic outlook. His unexpected victory in the election was seen as part of the same trend that had brought about the Brexit vote.[80] In Japan, nationalist influences in the government developed over the course of the early 21 century, thanks in large part to the Nippon Kaigi organization. The new movement has advocated re-establishing Japan as a military power and revising historical narratives to support the notion of a moral and strong Japan.[81][82] In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines running a distinctly nationalist campaign. Contrary to the policies of his recent predecessors, he distanced the country from the Philippines’ former ruler, the United States, and sought closer ties with China (as well as Russia).[83] During 2017, Turkish nationalism propelled President Recep Tayyip Erdoan to gain unprecedented power in a national referendum.[84] Reactions from world leaders were mixed, with Western European leaders generally expressing concern while the leaders of many of the more authoritarian regimes, as well as President Donald Trump, offered their congratulations. Many political scientists have theorized about the foundations of the modern nation-state and the concept of sovereignty. The concept of nationalism in political science draws from these theoretical foundations. Philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau conceptualized the state as the result of a “social contract” between rulers and individuals.[85] Weber provides the most commonly used definition of the state, “that human community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a certain territory”.[86] According to Benedict Anderson, nations are “Imagined Communities”, or socially constructed institutions.[87] Many scholars have noted the relationship between state-building, war, and nationalism. Many scholars believe that the development of nationalism in Europe (and subsequently the modern nation-state) was due to the threat of war. “External threats have such a powerful effect on nationalism because people realize in a profound manner that they are under threat because of who they are as a nation; they are forced to recognize that it is only as a nation that they can successfully defeat the threat”.[62] With increased external threats, the state’s extractive capacities increase. Jeffrey Herbst argues that the lack of external threats to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, post-independence, is linked to weak state nationalism and state capacity .[62] Barry Posen argues that nationalism increases the intensity of war, and that states deliberately promote nationalism with the aim of improving their military capabilities.[88] The sociological or modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building argues that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies that have an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language understood by a community of people. Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically lack the prerequisites for nationalism. They lack a modern self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, and use multiple languages resulting in many groups being unable to communicate with each other. Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tnnies, Rabindranath Tagore, mile Durkheim, Max Weber, Arnold Joseph Toynbee and Talcott Parsons. Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as “status” societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as “contract” societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests. Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies. Ferdinand Tnnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a Gesellschaft (society) as an impersonal society that is modern. While he recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities. mile Durkheim expanded upon Tnnies’ recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon “mechanical solidarity” versus societies based on “organic solidarity”. Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views. Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation. Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie. Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state. Weber’s conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments. Another approach emerging from biology and psychology looks at long-term evolutionary forces that might lead to nationalism. The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[92] This approach has been popular with the general public but is typically rejected by experts. Laland and Brown report that “the vast majority of professional academics in the social sciences not only … ignore evolutionary methods but in many cases [are] extremely hostile to the arguments” that draw vast generalizations from rather limited evidence.[93] The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation. Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry. The primordialist evolutionary views of nationalism often reference the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as well as Social Darwinist views of the late nineteenth century. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot reinterpreted Darwin’s theory of natural selection “often in ways inconsistent with Charles Darwins theory of evolution” by making unsupported claims of biological difference among groups, ethnicities, races, and nations. Modern evolutionary sciences have distanced themselves from such views, but notions of long-term evolutionary change remain foundational to the work of evolutionary psychologists like John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. Approached through the primordialist perspective, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation’s borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response. There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions. As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations. Critics argue that primordial models relying on evolutionary psychology are based not on historical evidence but on assumptions of unobserved changes over thousands of years and assume stable genetic composition of the population living in a specific area, and are incapable of handling the contingencies that characterize every known historical process. Robert Hislope argues: English Historian G. P. Gooch in 1920 argued that “While patriotism is as old as human association and has gradually widened its sphere from the clan and the tribe to the city and the state, nationalism as an operative principle and an articulate creed only made its appearance among the more complicated intellectual processes of the modern world.[100] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in the Communist Manifesto that “the working men have no country”.[101] Vladimir Lenin supported the concept of self-determination.[102] Joseph Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that “a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;” “a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”; “a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation”; and, in its entirety: “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”[103] Historians, sociologists, and anthropologists have debated different types of nationalism since at least the 1930s.[104] Generally, the most common way of classifying nationalism has been to describe movements as having either “civic” or “ethnic” nationalist characteristics. This distinction was popularized in the 1950s by Hans Kohn who described “civic” nationalism as “Western” and more democratic while depicting “ethnic” nationalism as “Eastern” and undemocratic.[105] Since the 1980s, however, scholars of nationalism have pointed out numerous flaws in this rigid division and proposed more specific classifications and numerous varieties.[106][107] Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[108] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 “What is a Nation?”, where he defined the nation as a “daily referendum” (frequently translated “daily plebiscite”) dependent on the will of its people to continue living together.[108] Civic nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[109][111] Ernest Renan[112] and John Stuart Mill[113] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,[115] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity to function properly.[116][117] Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation must be voluntary, as in Ernest Renan’s classic definition of the nation in What is a Nation? (1882). Renan argued that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion, economics, geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but not sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a “daily referendum” among the people.[118] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.[36] German philosopher Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach does not think liberalism and nationalism are compatible, but she points out there are many liberals who think they are. She states: Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethno-nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the “nation” is defined in terms of ethnicity.[121] The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that “nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry”.[122] It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors. However, it is different from a purely cultural definition of “the nation,” which allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation; and from a purely linguistic definition, according to which “the nation” consists of all speakers of a specific language. Whereas nationalism in and of itself does imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity or country over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric supremacy or protectionism. The humiliation of being a second-class citizen led minorities in multicultural states, such as The empires of Germany, Russia and the Ottomans, To define nationalism in terms of loyalty to their minority culture, especially language and religion. Forced assimilation was anathema.[123] For the politically dominate cultural group, assimilation was necessary to minimize disloyalty and treason and therefore became a major component of nationalism. A second factor for the politically dominant group was competition with neighboring statesnationalism involved a rivalry, especially in terms of military prowess and economic strength.[124] Economic nationalism, or economic patriotism, refers to an ideology that favors state interventionism in the economy, with policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital. Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation where a shared religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a common bond among the citizens of the nation. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Hindutva, Pakistani nationalism (Two-Nation Theory), are some examples. Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)[125] refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist MarxistLeninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin’s early work Marxism and the National Question and his socialism in one country edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism include Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cornwall’s Mebyon Kernow, Ireland’s Sinn Fin, Wales’s Plaid Cymru, the Awami League in Bangladesh, the African National Congress in South Africa and numerous movements in Eastern Europe.[126][127] Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the ‘national community’ as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[128] Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption .[129] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes. Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalists. A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values, codes and traditions of the population. There are different types of nationalism including Risorgimento nationalism and Integral nationalism.[131][132] Whereas risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation seeking to establish a liberal state (for example the Risorgimento in Italy and similar movements in Greece, Germany, Poland during the 19th century or the civic American nationalism), integral nationalism results after a nation has achieved independence and has established a state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, according to Alter and Brown, were examples of integral nationalism. Some of the qualities that characterize integral nationalism are anti-individualism, statism, radical extremism, and aggressive-expansionist militarism. The term Integral Nationalism often overlaps with fascism, although many natural points of disagreement exist. Integral nationalism arises in countries where a strong military ethos has become entrenched through the independence struggle, when, once independence is achieved, it is believed that a strong military is required to ensure the security and viability of the new state. Also, the success of such a liberation struggle results in feelings of national superiority that may lead to extreme nationalism Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on “clusters” of ethnic groups. Pan-Slavism is one example of Pan-nationalism. The goal is to unite all Slavic people into one country. They did succeed by uniting several south Slavic people into Yugoslavia in 1918.[133] This form of nationalism came about during the decolonization of the post war periods. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. It also appeared in the non-Russian territories of the Tsarist empire and later, the USSR, where Ukrainianists and Islamic Marxists condemned Russian Bolshevik rule in their territories as a renewed Russian imperialism. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent.[134] Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its “national” history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.[135][136] Racial nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity. Racial nationalism seeks to preserve a given race through policies such as banning race mixing and the immigration of other races. Specific examples are black nationalism and white nationalism. Sport spectacles like football’s World Cup command worldwide audiences as nations battle for supremacy and the fans invest intense support for their national team. Increasingly people have tied their loyalties and even their cultural identity to national teams.[137] The globalization of audiences through television and other media has generated revenues from advertisers and subscribers in the billions of dollars, as the FIFA Scandals of 2015 revealed.[138] Jeff Kingston looks at football, the Commonwealth Games, baseball, cricket, and the Olympics and finds that, “The capacity of sports to ignite and amplify nationalist passions and prejudices is as extraordinary as is their power to console, unify, uplift and generate goodwill.”[139] The phenomenon is evident across most of the world.[140][141][142] The British Empire strongly emphasized sports among its soldiers and agents across the world, and often the locals joined in enthusiastically.[143] It established a high prestige competition in 1930, named the British Empire Games from 193050, the British Empire and Commonwealth Games from 195466, British Commonwealth Games from 197074 and since then the Commonwealth Games.[144] The French Empire was not far behind the British in the use of sports to strengthen colonial solidarity with France. Colonial officials promoted and subsidized gymnastics, table games, and dance and helped football spread to French colonies.[145] Feminist critique interprets nationalism as a mechanism through which sexual control and repression are justified and legitimised, often by a dominant masculine power. The gendering of nationalism through socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity not only shapes what masculine and feminine participation in the building of that nation will look like, but also how the nation will be imagined by nationalists.[146] A nation having its own identity is viewed as necessary, and often inevitable, and these identities are gendered.[147] The physical land itself is often gendered as female (i.e. “Motherland”), with a body in constant danger of violation by foreign males, while national pride and protectiveness of “her” borders is gendered as masculine.[148] History, political ideologies, and religions place most nations along a continuum of muscular nationalism.[147] Muscular nationalism conceptualises a nations identity as being derived from muscular or masculine attributes that are unique to a particular country.[147] If definitions of nationalism and gender are understood as socially and culturally constructed, the two may be constructed in conjunction by invoking an “us” versus “them” dichotomy for the purpose of the exclusion of the so-called “other,” who is used to reinforce the unifying ties of the nation.[146] The empowerment of one gender, nation or sexuality tends to occur at the expense and disempowerment of another; in this way, nationalism can be used as an instrument to perpetuate heteronormative structures of power.[149] The gendered manner in which dominant nationalism has been imagined in most states in the world has had important implications on not only individuals lived experience, but on international relations.[150] Colonialism is heavily connected to muscular nationalism, from research linking British hegemonic masculinity and empire-building,[146] to intersectional oppression being justified by colonialist images of others, a practice integral in the formation of Western identity.[151] This othering may come in the form of orientalism, whereby the East is feminized and sexualized by the West. The imagined feminine East, or other, exists in contrast to the masculine West. The status of conquered nations can become a causality dilemma: the nation was conquered because they were effeminate and seen as effeminate because they were conquered.[146] In defeat they are considered militaristically unskilled, not aggressive, and thus not muscular. In order for a nation to be considered proper, it must possess the male-gendered characteristics of virility, as opposed to the stereotypically female characteristics of subservience and dependency.[147] Muscular nationalism is often inseparable from the concept of a warrior, which shares ideological commonalities across many nations; they are defined by the masculine notions of aggression, willingness to engage in war, decisiveness, and muscular strength, as opposed to the feminine notions of peacefulness, weakness, non-violence, and compassion.[146] This masculinized image of a warrior has been theorised to be the culmination of a series of gendered historical and social processes” played out in a national and international context.[146] Ideas of cultural dualismof a martial man and chaste womanwhich are implicit in muscular nationalism, underline the raced, classed, gendered, and heteronormative nature of dominant national identity.[147] Nations and gender systems are mutually supportive constructions: the nation fulfils the masculine ideals of comradeship and brotherhood.[152] Masculinity has been cited as a notable factor in producing political militancy.[152] A common feature of national crisis is a drastic shift in the socially acceptable ways of being a man,[153] which then helps to shape the gendered perception of the nation as a whole.

Fair Usage Law

August 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

White Nationalism is NOT the same as Jewish "Nationalism"

Make no mistake folks, White Nationalism is NOT the same as Jewish Nationalism. Not even close. One thing I notice about some cucked White Nationalists is that they will praise Israel all day long, saying that Israel is the shining example of Nationalism. Strong borders, strong military, sense of racial pride.Really? One thing that the Jews are good at is their ability to misdirect, manipulate and give illusions to reality. One of the most important things that separate White Nationalists from Jewish Nationalists is the idea of land. White Nationalists believe in boundaries, borders and the need for work. As many Aryans believe, Land is not promised and passed down from some Sky Property Owner God, but rather land is something to be fought for and worked on. Land is in itself not necessarily sacred, but the people are the ones who work on the land and make it sacred. As Hitler himself said in one of his speeches: In days gone by our Fathers, they have not received Germany as a gift, but created it themselves! -Part of Hitlers first speech as Chancellor This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Jewish concept of land. Lets face it, Jews hate the idea of work. Physical labor, to them, is something to be avoided at all cost. Let others work on my land! I will just sit, enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor. Maybe pay them a pittance. But then the cucks would say, Israel has a strong economy! They must have WORKED hard for it! Haha! Billions and billions of dollars of American Aid (paid for by American taxpayers mostly Aryans) have flowed into Israels coffers. Unlike Aryans, who are self-sufficient, Jews, Arabs and other Semites, in general, rely on trade and aid to survive. The idea of making it on their own is ALIEN to them. Hell, the agricultural sector of Israel only makes up a mere 2.8% of the economy and that is mainly due to foreign investment in the sector, providing high-tech machinery for the Jews to work on their land. One has to look no further than the Bible for proof that Jews hated work. When God sent Adam and Eve to Earth, he punished them with hard work: Cursed in the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it, all the days of your life. Genesis 3:17 The idea of work being a curse is completely laughable to the Aryan. Work is a joy! It is an opportunity to care and provide for my folk and my family! It is these struggles that will make one better man, a happier soul! So then, what is the Jewish concept of land? How does Israel play into this? Well, as many of us know, God promised his beloved Jews land. The Jews will conquer the land, and uproot and slaughter whichever unfortunate goyim who happen to live there. But then the cucks would say: Israel is just a small piece of land! Lets give them the land all they want and they will leave us alone! And heres where these Israel apologists are being played. The creation of Israel is NOT the end goal for the Jews. Heck, the creation of Greater Israel (Oded Yinon Plan) is NOT the end goal either. What they want is to be the Light of the World (Isaiah 49:6, Zechariah 4:1-14, Peter 2:9, Matthew 5:14-16). And to be THE Light of the world, the other lights will either have to be dimmed or completely put out. So what does it mean? Well, it means that they want to dominate the entire world! Make no mistake, folks, the country of Israel is just a mere Front Office for their operations. It is heir aircraft carrier. The Oded Yinon plan is just an office expansion project plan. Their main business is the World. Their customers, gullible Goyim. Their land, the entire Planet Earth! Israel serves as the rallying point for Christians, the largest Gentile group that loves the Jews. Seeing that the Jews got back their precious Israel, the Bible must be correct then! Yay! The creation of Israel gave legitimacy to Christianity and the Bible. It also gave legitimacy to all those secularists and democrats (mostly Jews or Jewish sympathizers) who say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Not all Nationalisms are equal. As we all know, nations are not geographical entities, but rather biological ones. Each race has their own ways of expressing their nature. Each race has different methods of survival. Each race has different views of progress. For example, as mentioned earlier, to the Aryans, the land that they work for is sacred. They would do anything to protect it. They will take special care to live in harmony with the plants and animals there. They will create the greatest architecture that is beautiful, long lasting and breathtaking, at the expense of individual profit. Now for nomadic races such as the Mongols, land is not really a big deal for them. For them, land is just a place for them to settle down for a while. It is place to rest for the moment, then they would continue on their journey. That doesnt make them in any way less nationalistic than the Aryans.The same goes for the Northeast Asians, various African ethnicities, Malay Races, Pacific Islanders and so on. Each of them has their own way of expressing their nature, their own methods of surviving. This doesnt make them all equal. For the Aryan, unlike the other races, doesnt merely want to ADAPT to their environment. Rather, they want to OVERCOME it. They want to be excellent. They want to be noble. It also explains why, despite living in the same harsh environment, the Eskimos are not as advanced as the Nordics. Eskimos merely adapt to the environment, and once they are able to make their ends meet, they will be happy and not make any further progress with their lives. If one were to throw an Eskimo to the tropics, he would have a very hard time adjusting, for he is adapted to the cold North. The Aryan is different. Though he thrives the best in the cold North, he would also try his best to overcome any difficulties if he were to be thrown into a desert environment. Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians were most likely Aryan during their greatest days. Both are desert civilizations. Now, we are left with the Jews. Their brand of Nationalism isweird. There are some who say that Jews are NOT a race, but rather an anti-Race. It makes sense, given their desire to make everything uniform and destroy every single last bit of diversity. Not only that, the God they worship claims to be the God of all creations. Jewish Nationalism IS globalism. Judaism is law disguised as religion. It seeks to remove the sacredness of life and replace it with an artificial reality. Trying to ally with Arabs to further White Nationalism is useless, for the Arabs are too drunk on their past glories. They are too divided. Islam, a Jewish-based faith, has completely destroyed them spiritually. Thats why they are unable to defeat Israel, even with their superior numbers (though to be fair, America did help out Israel a lot in its wars). The fact that they are also Semites makes it worse. Trying to ally with the Iranians (Persians) doesnt make sense either. They too are brainwashed by Islam (though a different strand) and many of them are racially mixed nowadays. The remaining Persians who are still Aryan are probably too small to form any critical mass to overthrow their Islamic government and challenge Israel. The Northeast Asians? No! Dont buy into the illusion that Northeast Asians have the same level of intelligence as Aryans do. IQ does not FULLY measure intelligence. It certainly does NOT measure creativity. If it does, the Jews would be the most creative people on Earth! And lets face it, most of China, Korea and Japans best days were a few thousand years ago when the Aryans (Amaterasu, Tocharians) were around. China is taking over America. People who are living near the Pacific coast can testify to that, with Chinatowns being everywhere. I have worked with the Chinese before, and trust me, they are one of the LAST people you want to ally yourselves with. However, the most stupid act a White Nationalist can do is to ally with the Jews. It makes me laugh. The last time a true White Nationalist tried to compromise with a Jew, he became the Worlds greatest villain, an enemy of the Jews. Now, I am not too well-read on this topic, so do correct me if I am wrong. Hitler tried to compromise with the Jews and move them to the land of Palestine. So what happened in the end? The Jews did get their land and Nazi Germany was burned to the ground. Germany remains occupied to this day. Many White Nationalists would claim that the Jews helped out with European Colonization by funding Christian voyages to colonize the New World, India, the Malay Archipelago and so on. Well, heres the thing: It is also quite interesting to note that the first Europeans nations to ally with Jews usually find themselves being cucked down the road (France, Spain, Portugal, Britain). Not all Nationalism is created equal, allying with non-Whites is futile (or at very least, allying with other non-whites should not be the main priority (BUT NO JEWS)) and Jewish Nationalism is certainly not the SAME as White Nationalism and should NOT be praised AT ALL in our struggle.

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

American Nationalism Isnt White Nationalism Occidental …

Greg Johnson has a new article at Counter-Currents which argues that American Nationalism is a form of White Nationalism. He argues that American civic nationalism is a fundamentally false interpretation of American history and identity. In this view of American history, Lincolns Gettysburg Address is just another piece of high-minded rhetorical flummery like the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document of the United States. The Constitution was only written for the posterity of the Founding Fathers and as a result a free and orderly white society is every Americans birthright. While this fairy tale will be music to the ears of the American Nationalist crowd on the internet, I think we should revisit the history of American Nationalism. We have to understand that history to grasp how American Nationalism evolved into the toxic ideology it is today. The American Revolution Was About Civic Nationalism American Nationalism has always been grounded in the symbols, documents, outcome and ideology of the American Revolution. The American Revolution had nothing to do with White Nationalism. In the American colonies, the conflict was a bitter civil war between Patriots and Loyalists over republican ideology. It was British subjects killing each other over the desire of one group to establish an independent state based on the fashionable 18th century ideology of civic nationalism. Civic Nationalism was at the core of the American Revolution. The American colonists fought on both sides of the conflict. Blacks and Indians fought on both sides of the conflict. France and Spain entered the war on the side of the American Patriots. The result of the war was the defeat of Britain and the Loyalists, the ascendance of the Patriots and civic nationalism and the independence of the United States which was a loose confederation of republics organized under the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are all products of civic nationalism. They justify or establish republican governments. At the very beginning, these documents laid down the foundation of American Nationalism, which is liberal republicanism or civic nationalism, with its axioms of liberty, equality, tolerance, individual rights and constitutionalism. They became the touchstones for future generations of Americans who sought to create a more perfect Union by eliminating inherited inconsistencies with American Nationalism. American Nationalism Instantly Undermined And Destabilized Traditional Values The result of the American Revolution and the triumph of American Nationalism was to create an independent state based on an ideology that undermined traditional values. Ethnicity was the most obviously undermined value as the American Revolution was a bitter civil war between Englishmen. Religion was undermined too and the Anglican Church was disestablished. Racial solidarity was undermined in an international conflict between Britain, France, Spain and between the American colonists. These conflicts would continue through the Age of Revolution. Prior to the American Revolution, John Locke and his liberal theories were unknown in the American colonies even though Locke himself had written the constitution of South Carolina, which was later revised and ignored by the colonists. It was only during the American Revolution that Lockes theories about government were seized on and popularized in New England to justify the revolt against Britain. Locke had argued that the human mind was a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and the implication of this was that all measurable differences between human beings are environmental in origin. Before the American Revolution, slavery had been legal in all the American colonies and no one but the most radical Quaker sects subscribed to the theory of racial equality. Even in Cotton Mathers New England, the consensus view was that blacks were an inferior race for hereditary reasons. They were born that way. Maybe they suffered from the Curse of Ham. After the American Revolution, slavery was abolished in New England and racial equality triumphed and became the dominant enlightened view in the region. Its leading intellectuals like Samuel Stanhope Smith argued against Thomas Jefferson. The Founding Fathers Werent White Nationalists The Founding Fathers were not White Nationalists and bitterly disagreed on race and slavery. Generally speaking, Southerners like Jefferson and Madison saw slavery as an evil that would fade away over time, but tended to believe in racial inequality. Northerners like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton believed in racial equality and were inclined toward emancipation. By this point, the Northern intelligentsia were coming to believe that blacks were inferior, but this was a result of their environment. It was slavery that had imbruted them and made them that way. This is a species of anti-racism known as the doctrine of assimilationism. The US Constitution and the Naturalization Act of 1790 were compromises between the North and the South. It was Southerners who insisted on things like the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution, the 3/5ths Compromise and basing American naturalization laws on whiteness. American citizenship was based on state citizenship at the time. Before the War Between the States, blacks were citizens of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Blacks were stripped of voting rights in Pennsylvania in 1838. They were allowed to vote in New York as long as they owned $250 worth of property. They also lost voting rights in New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland. There Was Never A Rise In White Nationalism In The Northeast In the Northeast, there was never a rise in White Nationalism. From the Founding through the antebellum era, the consensus view among the educated Northern elite was that blacks were American citizens who ought to be allowed to vote. They were the equals of White people, but had been degraded by slavery. Education would solve the problem and uplift them to racial equality. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780. Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1834. New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont never passed anti-miscegenation laws. This disagreement between North and South over the nature of American Nationalism, racial equality and civic nationalism came to a boiling point in the antebellum era. Northerners cried over Harriet Beecher Stowes Uncle Toms Cabin. John Brown was celebrated as a hero. In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Roger Taney ruled that blacks were not American citizens. This was considered outrageous in the Northeast where blacks were already citizens and voters in most states. The Origins of White Nationalism If the Founding Fathers were not White Nationalists, then where did White Nationalism come from? The roots of White Nationalism trace back to the colonization movement in the Early Republic to resettle free blacks in Africa. Weve already seen how Liberia was founded for this purpose. It was Thomas Jefferson who first argued for resettling blacks in their native habitat in his Notes on the State of Virginia. The capital of Liberia was named after James Monroe. A number of prominent Americans including James Madison, James Monroe and Henry Clay were involved with the American Colonization Society. Led by Virginia, fourteen state legislatures endorsed the colonization movement. It was most popular in the Upper South, Border South and the Midwest. Several slave states invested in Liberia and resettled about 11,000 blacks there. Blacks were banned or heavily fined to prevent their settlement in Ohio and Illinois. Oregon excluded free blacks when it was a territory. The cause of reserving the West to free, White settlers was later taken up in the Wilmot Proviso which was intensely polarizing. White supremacy was the dominant form of racial nationalism in the United States from the Founding until the 1970s. The lineage of White Nationalism traces back to Jefferson and the Early Republic, but it was more of a deviant view. It was most popular in states like Kentucky and Ohio. The African colonization movement collapsed in the antebellum era after the rise of William Lloyd Garrison and the abolitionists polarized the Union over the issue of slavery. After the 1830s, Southern support for gradual emancipation and colonization waned as Southerners circled the wagons and responded to abolitionist attacks by embracing John C. Calhouns argument that slavery was a positive good. Southern Nationalism and the Confederacy The rise of Southern Nationalism in the antebellum era, the creation of the Confederacy and the War Between the States was all driven by the collapse of American Nationalism and was rooted in regional differences between the North and South that had existed since the Founding. In the South, blacks were still considered an inferior race. Every Southern state was a slave state. Every Southern state practiced white supremacy. Manumission had been curtailed. Several Southern state legislatures had passed laws requiring free blacks to move out of state. Patriarchy was unchallenged. Southerners were moving away from the older view that slavery was an inherited evil to the newer view that it was a blessing or positive good. In the Northeast, blacks were citizens in every New England state except Connecticut. Many Northern states like New York and New Jersey had never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. The dominant view among educated Northeastern elites was that blacks were capable of assimilating and becoming the equals of Whites. Segregation existed to some extent in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey while much of the rest of the region was already integrated by the antebellum era. Northern women were already holding womens rights conventions and were agitating for suffrage. In the Midwest, blacks were banned or heavily fined from immigrating to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois due to the presence of so many Southern Whites from Kentucky and Virginia who settled the Lower Midwest. Blacks werent citizens in the Midwestern states, but states like Wisconsin and Minnesota didnt have anti-miscegenation laws. Iowa and Kansas repealed their anti-miscegenation laws in 1851 and 1859 as settlers from New England became more predominant there. Greg Johnson tries to dismiss the relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to American Nationalism. He waves away the former as just a legal document and the latter as only applying to the posterity of the White Founders. He does this to sidestep the fact that differences of opinion over these documents were the source of a bitter conflict over civic nationalism between John C. Calhoun who represented the Southern view of American Nationalism and Daniel Webster who articulated the Northern version of American Nationalism in their generation. In Websters view, the Union was created by the Declaration of Independence while Calhoun argued it was created by the sovereign and independent states that ratified the US Constitution. Webster believed the Union created the states. Calhoun believed the states created the Union. In Calhouns view, sovereign states could withdraw from the Union since they created it. In Websters view, the Union was sovereign and had created the states at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Like the American Revolution, the War Between the States was another conflict over civic nationalism. It resolved a number of burning constitutional questions: 1.) Do states have the right to withdraw from the Union? 2.) Are the states sovereign or is the federal government sovereign? 3.) Do slaveowners have the constitutional right to bring their slaves into the common territories? 4.) Did the states create the Union or did the Union create the states? 5.) What is the status of blacks in America? Every single one of these questions was a byproduct of arguments on both sides over the civic nationalism that is and always has been the central feature of American Nationalism. THE MISCEGENATION BALL Civil War and Reconstruction The long term result of the Civil War and Reconstruction was the bifurcation of America into two incompatible racial orders. The Radical Republicans passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which established black citizenship and voting rights. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and the Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 attempted to impose the Norths racial system on the entire country. In the antebellum era, only New England with the exception of Connecticut had black citizenship and voting rights. A Northern version of Jim Crow had been practiced in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the Midwest. This was swept away during the Reconstruction era. The Northeast and Midwest were integrated in this era. Anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in New Mexico (1866), Washington (1868), Illinois (1874), Rhode Island (1881), Wyoming (1882), Maine (1883), Michigan (1883), Ohio (1887). The South was placed under the rule of scalawags, carpetbaggers and former black slaves. The system wasnt fully shaken off in the South until George White gave his farewell address as the last black congressman in 1901. The Jim Crow system which was created in the 1890s and 1900s never existed in the Northeast or Midwest. The South would have undoubtedly went further but this was as far as Northern public opinion would tolerate the effective nullification of the Reconstruction amendments. The Western states created their own weaker version of Jim Crow which applied to Asians, Hispanics and American Indians. There were segregation statutes and anti-miscegenation laws in the Western states until the Second World War. At the same time, there was integration in some states like Washington and New Mexico. In the Midwest, Indiana was an outlier and had its own version of Jim Crow. Greg Johnson also wants to dismiss the importance of Lincolns Gettysburg Address to American Nationalism. The Gettysburg Address simply built on the Northern view of civic nationalism which Daniel Webster had developed out of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is an understatement to say this is ahistorical and the postbellum Northern system of race relations only emerged after Abraham Lincoln had redefined American Nationalism. Who is Uncle Sam? UNCLE SAMS DEBUT Our popular image of Uncle Sam (As seen in the image on the top of this page) was defined in large part by Thomas Nast, who was one of the most popular artists of the 1800s. Nast was also responsible for our popular images of Santa Claus, the Republican Elephant, and the Democratic Donkey. Nasts first illustration of Uncle Sam appeared in the November 20, 1869 edition of Harpers Weekly. While Uncle Sam does not show the top hat and striped pants that we have come to associate with him, he shows something much more important in this image. In this image, Uncle Sam is a symbol of unity and equality. The image shows many people welcomed at Uncle Sams Thanksgiving table . . . Black, White, Chinese, and Indian, as wall as many others are seen sitting around the table. The image is captioned, Uncle Sams Thanksgiving Dinner; Come One, Come All, Free and Equal. The image clearly shows that Uncle Sam was originally a symbol of freedom, and equality. Uncle Sam was a unifying symbol. By 1876, Nasts Image of Uncle Sam had evolved into one that we would recognize today. The image to the left is the cover of the November 24, 1876 Harpers Weekly. The image features Uncle Sam with striped pants, a long overcoat, and a top hat. In this image, the top hat also has feathers. This image deals with Reform of the Civil Service System. While the exact image of Uncle Sam has evolved over the years, one thing remains constant. He is a symbol of the best ideals of the United States. From the earliest days until today, he has stood for Freedom, Equality, and Justice. While as a Nation, we do not always perfectly achieve these ideals, Uncle Sam remains a poignant symbol and reminder of the goal and objective . . . One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. Uncle Sam is a super patriotic Yankee American Nationalist whose ideology is civic nationalism. He is a symbol of the Second Republic that was defined in the Reconstruction era by the German immigrant cartoonist Thomas Nast. Reconciliation The 20th century opened up in the period that is known as the Nadir of the Negro. It inaugurated a period that lasted about thirty years in which Northerners tried to forget about the foolishness of Reconstruction. Even before the Jews arrived en masse in the Great Wave, Northerners had already created the system we live under today in their own states. The Jews who arrived in the New York of the 1880s found a place that was already integrated. Northern states already had their own civil rights laws which were the precursors of federal civil rights laws. It was the Black Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner who had pioneered racial equality, racial integration and civil rights laws during Reconstruction. They had already succeeded in writing racial equality into the Constitution which was undone in the South by two generations of Southerners. By the time of the Spanish-American War, Northerners and Southerners tried to put the past behind them and for a time the sectional peace endured until the Second World War. Woodrow Wilson was the first Southern president to be elected since the War Between the States. Among his lesser known acts, Wilson resegregated the federal government. It had been integrated since the Lincoln administration. Black troops had fought for the Union in the War Between the States. They fought in segregated units in France in the First World War and largely in support roles during the Second World War. The US military wasnt reintegrated until the Korean War. The Second World War The Second World War was another huge turning point in American Nationalism. In both the American Revolution and the War Between the States, the wars against Britain and the Confederacy had been ideological wars waged in the name of civic nationalism. In both cases, the result of the wars in the North had been a sharp diminution in racial consciousness and an upsurge in ideological fanaticism. The Black Republicans during the Reconstruction era are the best example of this. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the Spanish-American War and the First World War didnt have this effect on domestic politics and racial attitudes even though the latter had been waged as a crusade to make the world safe for democracy. This wasnt true of the Second World War. The war against the Third Reich and later the Cold War with the Soviet Union were ideological wars which exacerbated the worst tendencies of American Nationalism. The Yankee style of war has always been about demonizing the enemy as evil and invoking the American Nationalist ideology of civic nationalism. The war against the Third Reich was no different and the result of the war was predictable. It was a noble war waged in the name of civic nationalism. It was a war against racism and imperialism, but a war for human rights and democracy and liberty and equality and religious tolerance. It was a war not unlike the total war that had been waged against the Confederacy. After the war, Americans predictably put themselves under the moral microscope. They judged their own conduct by their own professed standards. If the Third Reich was evil and immoral for being racist, how could Americans indict the Third Reich while upholding white supremacy in the South? From the end of the Second World War until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Western states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and desegregated. Once again, racial attitudes in the North completely changed between 1938 and 1945 while the South alone committed itself to massive resistance. The Cold War The Cold War with the Soviet Union was another ideological war. Unlike the previous wars, this war began when the Second World War ended in 1945 and lasted until 1991. For 52 years, the United States was embroiled in these ideological wars with the Third Reich and Soviet Union. American Nationalism was forever changed by them. In the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Soviets indicted Americans on the grounds of racism in order to win support in the Third World. The US State Department was acutely sensitive to the charge and led the push for desegregation which culminated in the Brown decision in 1954. Jim Crow was an albatross for American leadership of the Free World and was dismantled from the top down, not the bottom up for that reason. The Jewish Question Jews arent the primary driving force of Americas decline. The real culprit is the civic nationalism that is the ideological core of American Nationalism. From the beginning in 1789, Jews have been welcomed into the fold as American citizens. They have never had any other status than being equal to White Americans. George Washington embraced the Jews in the name of civic nationalism. In his letter to Newports Touro Synagogue, Washington boasted the Government of the United States was one that gives to bigotry no sanction. The Jewish Question is simply the result of the logic of American Nationalism working itself out over the course of two centuries. The ideology of civic nationalism has always blinded White Americans to how Jews operate as a group, not as individuals. As American citizens, Jews have always had the right and liberty to, say, take over the universities, buy up the newspapers and publishing houses, corner the market in finance, build lobbies to exert power and influence over the government, etc. How did the Jews in the 20th century convince White Americans that the United States has no inherent racial, cultural, religious or ethnic basis? They simply took the doctrines of American Nationalism as developed by Franklin, Webster and Lincoln to its logical conclusion. They used their media platforms to invoke American nationalism to undermine and marginalize the White majority. Southerners were bad because they were intolerant. They werent treating blacks equally. Blacks in the South didnt have the rights and freedoms of other Americans. Southerners were violating liberal democracy by denying them the right to vote. These were the arguments which Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully made to triumph over Jim Crow. He appealed to American Nationalism. American Nationalism Isnt Ethnonationalism American Nationalism is 18th century civic nationalism. It isnt like German nationalism, Hungarian nationalism, Greek nationalism or the other ethnonationalist movements which came later and were grounded in 19th century romanticism. It is closely related to French nationalism. Ethnonationalism was a reaction against French civic nationalism. Civic Nationalism has always brought about racial equality and integration. During the French Revolution, slavery was abolished and all blacks were made into free and equal citizens of the French Republic. The French Second Republic abolished slavery in 1848 in the French Caribbean for the second time after it had been restored by Napoleon. The French Third Republic which was overthrown by Hitler had black citizens that sat as representatives in the French Parliament. The driving force that brought about the demise of White America has always been the civic nationalism at the core of American Nationalism. The Jewish Question is merely a symptom and outcome of American Nationalism. The presence of non-Whites lends itself more to caste societies like the white supremacy of the Old South than to racial equality and integration. Christianity has been displaced as our cultural center of gravity by liberalism. It has no problem accommodating racialism and did so for centuries. No, the force which has driven America to this point wasnt Christianity, which in many cases like the Southern Baptists was late in adjusting to the new status quo. It wasnt really the Jews either who only took the center stage late in American history. From the beginning, the driving force toward racial equality in both the United States and France has been their doctrine of civic nationalism. It was already evident during the American Revolution and War Between the States and unquestionably so during the Second World War and Cold War when it reached its climax. American Nationalism Today 99.99% of our fellow Americans agree that American Nationalism is synonymous with civic nationalism because the history of Americanism has been the destruction and elimination of every other aspect of national identity. The people who style themselves as American Nationalists are spitting in the wind and their ship sailed generations ago. They are just as marginalized as anyone else and waving a federal flag around isnt going to change their status or make them any less stigmatized as racists. You could even say it is karma since they were the progenitors of this Frankenstein. Donald Trump hasnt changed this equation of American Nationalism with civic nationalism. Instead, he has affirmed it at every point in his campaign and throughout his presidency. He has never once even drawn attention to his White supporters, but has affirmed on countless occasions the triumphant narrative of American civic nationalism that is rooted in the Civil Rights Movement. He has repeatedly talked about how Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. redeemed America from White racism. Donald Trump and the Republican Congress explicitly condemned White Nationalism in the Charlottesville resolution. Fortunately, we only have to endure this idiocy for at most one or two more presidential election cycles. When Texas or Florida reach their demographic tipping point in the 2020s and become blue states like Virginia, a Republican will never win the presidency again and the window will forever close on Taking Back America through voting for the Republican Party. The United States will become California writ large. The people who are talking now about how much they love America and identify with its symbols as super Patriots will be singing a different tune when they find themselves under permanent Democratic rule and effectively thrust back into the days of the Reconstruction South. In reality, American Nationalism is already dead as a doornail. Donald Trump was the last chance to reform the system. He has unquestionably failed and nothing of significance will be accomplished before the midterms. As things stand today, Democrats once again have a 10 point lead in the congressional ballot. The Republican Congress is likely to get blown out in the 2018 midterm elections. The Trump agenda will die with it. American Nationalism is also going to die with the Republican majority. In the long run, White Americans are destined to live under a Democratic majority with a feckless and dwindling, cucked Republican opposition. It is only going to get worse too as the electorate continues to brown. The fruits of civic nationalism are going to ripen on young White people who come of age in the 2020s and 2030s. They wont have any use for American Nationalism because voting by that point will be as hopeless as it is in South Africa. Theyre already growing up now as a racial minority. American Nationalism in the 2020s and 2030s will be various non-White presidents like President Kamala Harris sticking it to White man. I would rather not jump on that sinking ship. UPDATE: Heres a good old post about The Lincoln Catechism. Lesson The First I. What is the Constitution?A compact with hell now obsolete. II. By whom hath the Constitution been made obsolete?By Abraham Africanus the First. III. To what end?That his days may be long in office and that he may make himself and his people the equal of the negroes. IV. What is a president?A general agent for negroes. VI. What is an army?A provost guard, to arrest white men, and set negroes free. X. What is meant by the word Liberty?Incarceration in a vermin-infested Bastille. XV. What is the meaning of the word patriot?A man who loves his country less, and the negro more. XIX. What is the meaning of the word law?The will of the president. XXII. Have the people any rights?None but such as the president gives. Lesson The Second IX. What is the meaning of the declaration that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?That a mans house may be searched, and when he be stripped of his arms, whenever and wherever a provost marshal shall dare attempt it. XVII. What is the meaning of the declaration that, the United States shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of government?That Congress shall assist the President in destroying the Republican form of government in the states, and substituting a military government wherever he pleases witness Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Lesson The Third II. What are the Ten Commandments?Thou shalt have no other God but the negro.Thou shalt make an image of a negro, and place it on the Capitol as the type of the new American man.Thou shalt swear that the negro shall be the equal of the white man.Thou shalt fight thy battles on the Sabbath day, and thy generals, and thy captains, and thy privates, and thy servants, shall do all manner of murders, and thefts as on the other six days.Thou shalt not honor or obey thy father nor thy mother if they are Copperheads; but thou shall serve, honor, and obey Abraham Lincoln.Thou shalt commit murder of slaveholders.Thou mayest commit adultery with the contrabands.Thou shalt steal everything that belongeth to a slaveholder.Thou shalt bear false witness against all slaveholders.Thou shalt covet the slaveholders man-servant and his maid-servant, and shalt steal his ox and his ass, and everything that belongeth to him.For on these commandments hang all the law and honor of loyal leaguers.

Fair Usage Law

May 8, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

White Nationalist | Southern Poverty Law Center

White nationalistgroupsespouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites. Adherents believe that white identity should be the organizing principle of the countries that make up Western civilization. White nationalists advocate for policies to reverse changing demographics and the loss of an absolute, white majority. Ending non-white immigration, both legal and illegal, is an urgent priority frequently elevated over other racist projects, such as ending multiculturalism and miscegenation for white nationalists seeking to preserve white, racial hegemony. White nationalists seek to return to an America that predates the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Both landmark pieces of legislation are cited as the harbingers of white dispossession and so-called white genocide the idea that whites in the United States are being systematically replaced and destroyed. These racist aspirations are most commonly articulated as the desire to form a white ethnostate a calculated idiom favored by white nationalists in order to obscure the inherent violence of such a radical project. Appeals for the white ethnostate are often disingenuously couched in proclamations of love for members of their own race, rather than hatred for others. This platitude collapses under scrutiny. Two favorite animating myths of white nationalists are the victimhood narrative of black-on-white crime the idea that the dominant white majority is under assault by supposedly violent people of color and the deceptively titled human biodiversity, the pseudo-scientific ascription of human behaviors, in this case along racial lines, to non-negligible genetic difference among humans. Appeals to the empirical science of human biodiversity are frequently coupled with thinly veiled nods to white, racial superiority. In addition to their obsession with declining white birth rates, these themes comprise some of the most powerful propaganda that animates and drives the white nationalist movement. Adherents frequently cite Pat Buchanans 2001 book, The Death of the West, which argues that these declining white birth rates and an immigrant invasion will transform the United States into a third world nation by 2050, as the text responsible for their awakening, or red pill. White nationalists also frequently cite American Renaissance,a pseudo-academic organization dedicated to spreading the myth of black criminality, scientific racism and eugenic theories. Its annual conference, a multi-day symposium with a suit-and-tie dress code, is a typical early stop for new white nationalists. Although it isnt ubiquitous, there is a current of antisemitism in the modern day white nationalist movement. Jews are common scapegoats for the perceived cultural and political grievances of white nationalists. White nationalist and antisemitic literature and conferences also have frequent author and speaker overlap. Kevin MacDonald, the author of The Culture of Critique a trilogy of books alleging a Jewish control of culture and politics with evolutionary psychology is a frequent guest in white nationalist media and at events. His writing is frequently cited as what introduces white nationalists to the idea of a Jewish conspiracy White nationalists also commonly pass through paleoconservatism an anti-interventionist strand of libertarianism that seeks to limit government, restrict immigration, reverse multicultural programs and deconstruct the social welfare programs. Some of white nationalisms most prominent voices, including Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimelow did stints at Takis Magazine, the most prominent paleoconservative journal. Strategies for pursuing the white ethnostate fall into two major categories: mainstreaming and vanguardism. Mainstreamers believe that infiltrating and subverting the existing political institutions is the only realistic path to power. They aspire to convert disaffected normies to their politics and advocate for white nationalists to seek positions in politics and society that have access to resources otherwise unavailable to avowed racists. These resources often require that white nationalists disguise their politics and compromise on their most extreme positions. Mainstreaming allows those sympathetic to white nationalism to pursue or enact policies furthering white nationalist priorities. These arent always exclusive to white nationalism, such as immigration restriction or the elimination of social welfare programs. Vanguardists believe that revolution is the only viable path toward a white ethnostate. They believe that reforming the system is impossible and therefore refuse to soften their rhetoric. They typically seek to reform what they believe to be an anti-white establishment through radical action. Vanguardists favor public demonstrations to anonymous, online activism and hope that by turning out in numbers at protests they can defy so-called political correctness, polarize politics and accelerate what they view as the inevitable collapse of America. The racist so-called alt-right, which came to prominence in late 2015, is white nationalisms most recent formulation. While the themes of white dispossession, nostalgia for pre-1960s America and the desire for separatism remain central to the ideology, its edges are softer and porous, allowing for the influence and inclusion of more radical elements, including a suite of neo-Nazi organizations. It also welcomed an unsavory ecosystem of internet trolls. These chaos agents contribute a distinct style of discourse that include a notable lack of empathy, extreme, often violence-tinged, rhetoric, and willingness to dehumanize their enemies in service of political goals. Throughout 2016, with the contentious presidential campaign as a unique backdrop, the nascent alt-right launched a novel campaign of cultural vanguardism, tightly focused on radically altering culture in the form of a total war on political correctness rather than politics. This third style of activism, which borrowed from both the mainstreamers and the vanguardists, primarily took place online in the form of shitposting, meme making and online harassment. As momentum dissipated post presidential election and online activism began to yield diminishing returns, white nationalists reverted to tried tactics such as public demonstrations, including college speaking engagements and propaganda distribution, primarily in the form of anonymous flyerings and banner drops also on college campuses. Universities, with their impressionable and at times combustible student bodies provide easy targets for the newly trollish tactics of an alt-right obsessed with youth recruitment. Groupslisted in a variety of other categories Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead and Christian Identity can also be fairly described as “white nationalist.” Although, as organizational loyalty has dwindled and the internet has become white nationalisms organizing principle, the ideology is best understood as a loose coalition of social networks orbiting online propaganda hubs and forums. View all groups bystateand byideology. Alternative Right* (Atlanta, Georgia) AltRight Corporation* (Alexandria, Virginia) American Freedom Union* (Hampton Township, Pennsylvania) Auburn White Student Union* (Auburn, Alabama) Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar/BUGS* (Columbia, South Carolina) Counter-Currents Publishing (New York, New York) Counter-Currents Publishing (Seattle, Washington) Counter-Currents Publishing* (San Francisco, California) Counter.Fund* (Huntington Mills, Pennsylvania) Faith and Heritage* (Killeen, Texas) Forza Nuova (Phoenix, Arizona) Forza Nuova* (Statewide, New Jersey) Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas* (Clinton Township, Michigan) Free American* (Tucson, Arizona) GoyFundMe* (Paoli, Indiana) H.L. Mencken Club* (Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania) Identity Evropa (Statewide, Arizona) National Policy Institute (Alexandria, Virginia) New Albion* (Jackman, Maine) Northwest Front* (Bremerton, Washington) Occidental Dissent* (Eufaula, Alabama) Occidental Observer* (Laguna Hills, California) Operation Homeland* (Alexandria, Virginia) Patriot Front (Chicago, Illinois) Patriot Front (Statewide, California) Patriot Front (Statewide, Washington) Patriot Front* (Statewide, Texas) Patriotic Flags* (Charleston, South Carolina) Pioneer Little Europe Kalispell Montana* (Kalispell, Montana) Racial Nationalist Party of America* (Lockport, New York) Radix Journal* (Whitefish, Montana) Real Republic of Florida* (Tallahassee, Florida) Red Ice* (Charleston, South Carolina) Rise Above Movement* (Huntington Beach, California) RootBocks* (Paoli, Indiana) Scott-Townsend Publishers* (Washington, District of Columbia) The Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation* (Vienna, Virginia) The New Byzantium Project* (Charlottesville, Virginia) The Political Cesspool* (Bartlett, Tennessee) The Right Stuff (Atlanta, Georgia) The Right Stuff (Austin, Texas) The Right Stuff (Baltimore, Maryland) The Right Stuff (Houston, Texas) The Right Stuff (Las Vegas, Nevada) The Right Stuff (New York, New York) The Right Stuff (Omaha, Nebraska) The Right Stuff (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) The Right Stuff (St Paul, Minnesota) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Arizona) The Right Stuff (Statewide, California) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Florida) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Indiana) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Michigan) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Oregon) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Texas) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Vermont) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Virginia) The Right Stuff (Statewide, Washington) The Right Stuff (Washington, District of Columbia) The Right Stuff* (Hopewell Junction, New York) Traditionalist Youth Network* (Paoli, Indiana) True Cascadia (Statewide, Alaska) True Cascadia (Statewide, Idaho) True Cascadia (Statewide, Oregon) True Cascadia* (Statewide, Washington) Tyr 1 Security* (Alexandria, Virginia) Washington Summit Publishers* (Augusta, Georgia) Western Outlands Supply Company* (Mesa, Arizona) White Boy Society* (Statewide, Illinois) White Rabbit Radio* (Dearborn Heights, Michigan)

Fair Usage Law

February 24, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Fox News star Tucker Carlson faces accusations of "white …

The gypsies were coming, and Fox Newss Tucker Carlson was going to do something about it. Actually, the gypsiesRoma, as the nomadic European people are knownhad already come: Forty of them had settled in a small Pennsylvania town named California, and Carlson had taken it onto himself to expose what he saw as their manifold depredations, lest their invasion grow into something grander, more malign. Carlson focused, in particular, on reports of Roma defecating outdoors. That seems to me a hostile act, the Fox News host concluded. While some longtime residents of California did bristle at their unexpected Roma neighbors, whod been resettled by the federal government, others welcomed the newcomers. Carlson hyped the fears of the former while hardly mentioning the hospitality of the latter. Integration is not going well, Carlson declared grimly. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now This is a conclusion he has frequently come to in recent months. From his prime time perch at Fox News, Carlson has become the network’sstaunchest defender of President Donald Trumps anti-immigration policies. For having assumed that role, he has also become a favorite target of liberals, who worry that Carlsons fear-mongering about immigration has tipped into xenophobia. Why white supremacists love Tucker Carlson, ran one headline on the liberal news site Vox last summer. The most recent outcry over Carlsons shift to the right came in mid-January, after a segment in which he interviewed Mark Steyn, a conservative pundit who is a frequent guest. As they discussed immigration, Steyn said, The white supremacists are American citizens. The illegal immigrants are people who shouldn’t be here. He added, a little later: The Democrats are getting very close to saying that foreigners are God’s apology for Americans. Thats exactly right, Carlson said. Dismay at this exchange was widespread among liberals, reflecting a curious opinion of Carlson: that hes smarter than Sean Hannity, more influential than Laura Ingraham.Because he was once on CNN and on MSNBC, theres an expectation that Carlson is a conservative who will articulate sophisticated truths, raising the level of discourse on a network where blustery denunciation is the norm. When that expectation is confounded, outrage explodes, as it did after the Steyn exchange. The unrepentant racism of Tucker Carlson Tonight, read a headline on ThinkProgress, a liberal website. Tuckers been one of the more aggressive at putting forward what a lot of people have seen as a pretty blatantly white nationalist view of what immigration should be like, MSNBCs Joy Reid said. As this is not exactly a time of pacific cheek-turning, Carlson answered on his show: Reid’s entire public career has been built on race-baiting. Try to watch her show for 20 minutes and see for yourself. Even some conservatives have become uneasy with Carlson’s strident rhetoric. Bill Kristol, who once employed Carlson at theWeekly Standard, spoke harshly of his formerprotgon CNBC earlier this week. “It is close now to racism,” he said ofTucker Carlson Tonight. “I mean, I dont know if its racism exactlybut ethno-nationalism of some kind, lets call it.” Carlson responded to my questions about his views on immigration through a statement relayed by a Fox News publicist. Im not even sure what white nationalism is, but Im pretty sure Im against it, that statement said. But your question isnt serious. Its an attempt to shout down legitimate questions about the effect of our immigration policies on America. Tough luck. Were going to keep asking them. Carlson took over the 9 p.m. slot in early 2017 (he has since moved to 8 p.m.). The onetime establishment conservative is now a vociferous Trump supporter, and national identity is of particular concern to both. For Carlson, as for Trump, there is virtually no issue more salient than immigration, Kelefa Sanneh wrote of Carlson in a recent New Yorker profile. Carlsons views on immigration, however, can lapse into a broader defense of white identity that can be those discomfiting to those who value multiethnic multiculturalism. For example, after white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer, causing violence that left three dead, Carlson defended their original reason for converging on the college town, which was to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Watch out, Abraham Lincoln, youre next, he said. This echoed Trumps sentiments on Charlottesville. Like the presidents initial reaction to the violence, he seemed to excuse, at least in part, the torch-carrying mob of racists. Several weeks after that, Carlson lambasted the creator and star of the HBO series Insecure, Issa Rae, for saying she was rooting for all African-American nominees to win at the Emmy Awards. This was, Carlson said, open race hostility that had been sanctioned by liberals. I think looking at the world like that gets you to civil war, he said. More recently, he defended the Its Okay to Be White campaign, which originated in far-right segments of the internet. Carlson was raised in relative affluence in Southern California and went to a prestigious boarding school in Rhode Island. A graduate of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticutlong regarded as a patrician redoubthe has been a member of the political establishment for decades. Nevertheless, he appears to have quicklyand completelygrasped how much influence Trump would exert on the media, conservative media in particular. Instead of speaking truth to power, as have Fox News hosts like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, Carlson has cast himself as Trumps blocking back. As Stephen Rodrick wrote in a recent GQ profile, Carlson, more than anyone else at the network, has proved adept at papering over the crisis brought on the Republican Party by Trumps presidency, mostly by deflecting blame onto the left. He does so with an acute understanding of the liberal media. That adds a measure of sophistication to his critiques, even if those are, ultimately, an expression of straightforwardracial grievance. Earlier this month, for example, he criticized the internet outlets BuzzFeed and The Root as trafficking in anti-white sentiment: Now some smug private-school kid from Brooklyn is lecturing you about how you are the problem, because the color of your skin, and the privilege it conveys. How much of that are you going to take before you explode at the unfairness of it all? And though criticism of social justice college protests is a feature of virtually every Fox News program, Carlsonwho famously used to wear a bowtieapproaches the matter less like a Bible Belt conservative than a disapproving professor who is too old to care about silly outrages. (Carlson is 48.) Carlson does, occasionally, make feints at moderation. Last summer, HuffPosts Pablo Manriquez challenged Carlson toa debate on immigration. Carlson agreed and invited Manriquez on his show. We had a gentlemens exchange on the issue, Manriquez later wrote. Some #MAGA viewers on Twitter were surprised that a primetime debate on immigration could also be an honest, respectful conversation. Notinfrequently one hears, in media and politics circles, that Carlson is putting on anact, one that doesn’t truly reflect his convictions. That would suggest masterful calculation on his partand even more masterful mimicry of an establishment Republican moving ever further to the right. To some, it doesnt matter whether Carlson is acting or not. What Tucker Carlson actually thinks is irrelevant to the wildly damaging, bigoted, and, frankly, anti-journalistic content he spews every night at 8 p.m., says Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca, who famously clashed with Carlson. He promotes the rhetoric of a white nationalist, and should be regarded as such. Certainly, white nationalists are happy to claimCarlson as one of their own. Carlson is a one man gas chamber who gasses Jews and feminists on a nightly basis. He is literally and figuratively Hitler, wrote a contributor to the neo-Nazi news outlet InfoStormer. Andrew Anglin, who founded the Daily Stormer, a more prominent and influential neo-Nazi site, agrees. Tucker Carlson is literally our greatest ally, he said recently. I don’t believe that he doesn’t hate the Jews.

Fair Usage Law

January 26, 2018   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

‘The Daily’ Transcript: Interview With Former White Nationalist Derek Black – New York Times

M.B.: It sounds like what youre describing is like youre the First Child of American white nationalism? D.B.: [Laughs.] Yeah I knew everybody, I knew everybody who was involved in it, and I knew all the different organizations, and I expected that it would be my lifes work to try to advance this. I thought it was the right thing. M.B.: How did you process these ideas of your godfather and your father and your mother and this entire movement as a child, what is white nationalism through the eyes of a child? D.B.: Its a really tight knit movement of people. Its important to understand the context that in my family pioneering white nationalism on the web was my dads goal. That was what drove him from early 90s from beginning of the web, and so growing up we had the latest computers, first people in the neighborhood to have broadband because we had to keep Stormfront running, and so technology and connecting people on the website, long before social media and the way the web is set up now was his driving purpose, so we were very connected to everybody in the white nationalist movement to everyone in the world. When I was a little kid, I would get on chat rooms in the evening and I had friends in Australia who I would talk to at a certain hour … I had friends in Serbia I would talk to at a certain hour. M.B.: And what would you be saying to each other? D.B.: In the late 90s, I was talking to a white nationalist kid, and he was explaining to me the Smerican invasion of Serbia and how it tied to Jewish control of American military. M.B.: Wow not the conventional understanding of the U.S. military action which was to spare people genocide. D.B.: Absolutely, yeah. I started a kids website on Stormfront on my dads website and so, from the time I was 12, would constantly get death threats and emails. M.B.: So you started your own kind of white nationalist website for children? D.B.: Yeah.. when Im not sure what age 11 or 12 or something I set up pretty basic little web page on there, and posted some essays that I was writing at the time. In some ways in a lot of ways that brings people together, I know it brought my family together, fact that you have media coming over as I went on television and newspapers, which were usually coming over to talk to my dad and then wed get really bad stories about us, but were all working toward a cause so the fact that everybody is so opposed to something we know is so right really brought us together. M.B.: At this point in your life, when youre a young man and you saw an African-American or you saw a Jewish person, what was going through your mind? What kind of things were you thinking or saying to yourself? D.B.: I think my family made a distinction between individuals and big groups that theres many opinions on this among white nationalists, there are people who say, Oh you cant be friends with anyone whos not white. And my family was generally a bit more cosmopolitan …although I think theyve gotten more extreme in the last couple of years M.B.: I have to pause and tell you the notion of a cosmopolitan white nationalist is a little tricky. But Im going to go with it. D.B.: [Laughs.] When you zoom in on it, and it becomes the whole world that youre viewing then all the different factions take on a bigger role. So yeah, I think my family usually, at least, it was definitely my attitude by the time I got to college that individuals are one thing. You talk to people and everybody can be anything and their race is not going to predict an individuals life or anything about them. Its only when youre talking about millions of people that this becomes a defining aspect of humanity. In reality it is white supremacy. Its just that they wouldnt see it that way. I never saw it that way. My dad I genuinely believe, who I know very well does not believe that he is doing something bad to other people. That does not make it untrue, but a lot of these people dont believe that theyre actually hurting other people by their policies. M.B.: He instead believes what that hes doing something for himself? D.B.: He believes that for white people to exist and live and have a country like America was before 1950, everybody needs to be the same color and be together because, race is a real, genetic thing that predicts all this stuff like intelligence and ability, that race is so real that every race in the world should be separated. Saying this and living as I do now sounds delusional, but it is possible for somebody to believe and think that it makes sense. M.B.: Derek, can you take me to 2008 and President Obamas election? I dont know exactly how old you were at that moment but do you remember where you were and what you were doing around that time? D.B.: In 2008, I was 19 and at the same time as Obama was heading to winning the presidency I had also submitted my name for this local Republican executive committee election which was county level, and I won that. I got 60 percent of the vote. After he won, David Duke, my godfather, organized a conference for I think it was the weekend after the election. And I went up there and it was pandemonium. I knew people who were sobbing, and saying that now theres never going to be another white president again, and that the country is lost, thinking they had to make contingency plans. The thinking of white nationalist leaders at the time was that Barack Obama has won, but now that hes won, youre going to have a huge white backlash against this. And so it became this meeting to try to figure out how to make the movement bigger while hes president. I had just won that little Republican position, so I was very encouraged that if we told people all the white nationalist talking points, without necessarily saying that were white nationalists, that we could win elections. Whether theyre little county things like that or maybe even larger ones. M.B.: My whole talk was the fact that you could run as Republicans, and say things like we need to shut down immigration, we need to fight affirmative action, we need to end globalism, and you could win these positions, maybe as long as you didnt get outed as a white nationalist and get all the controversy that comes along with it. M.B.: So the Republican Party which had just lost to Barack Obama, your argument was that it could be the vehicle for the mainstreaming of white nationalism or white supremacy? D.B.: Yeah, my thinking at the time was that all this backlash, which we eventually did see of white people against having a black president, would have to go into the Republican Party. Because America is a two party system, and the Republican Party would become the white peoples party. M.B.: Hmm. M.B.: Then you went to college, so tell me about that. D.B.: In 2010, I moved across the state and started college at this little liberal arts college in Florida, which was about three and a half hours from home and it was the first time that I had lived away from home. Nobody knew who I was and I did not volunteer who I was or anything about my background, I made friends, hung out with people and played my guitar on my balcony in my dorm. It was nice to come back from class and be able to talk about history or philosophy or whatever other subject and be around other people. M.B.: Hmm. D.B.: Id get up in the morning, and call into my dads radio show and talk about the news and then go to class and hang out with people who were often strong social justice advocates, and trying to live both of those lives was terrifying because I knew that one day somebody was going to type my name into Google. There was this one really memorable moment where I was sitting in the cafeteria and talking to some people I knew, and one of them discovered this website Stormfront which is the site that my dad ran and that I had a kids page on and I that had run the internet radio on for years and was still running while I was in school, even though I didnt have as much time for it. And guy sitting across from me found the Lord of the Rings section and showed everybody, and turned around and said, Can you believe these people are trying to get Lord of the Rings nerds into white nationalism? Isnt this insane? And I had founded that section because when movies came out I got super into it, and I figured you could get people who liked with such a white mythos, a few turned on by white nationalism, and more mundanely just wanted to talk about movies, so I had found that 10 years earlier, guy turned it around and I pretended I had never heard of it. M.B.: Huh, you just acted as if you had no role in it D.B.: I was like, What is that? what is Stormfront? M.B.: And so then of course inevitably it happens. Youre found out. The student forum explodes, and youre shunned on campus for a time. But then you get an invitation, right? Tell me about that. D.B.: I had a friend on campus who I had gotten to know during my first semester when nobody knew who I was, he was an observant Jew who had Shabbat dinners pretty regularly whenever he was in town on Friday night and he would invite people of atheists and all sorts of different religions. It was just a nice dinner. And so he actually invited me to one of the Shabbats, and I knew him, and so I brought wine. M.B.: Even after learning what he did about you? D.B.: Yeah, he did. He had read my posts on Stormfront going back years even the stuff when I was a teenager and he doubted that he was going to convince me of anything, he just wanted to let me see a Jewish community thing so that if I was going to keep saying these anti-Semitic things that at least I had seen real Jews. It was ultimately in private conversations with a person I met at the Shabbat dinners we would talk about things. Not only white nationalism, but eventually white nationalism. And I would say, This is what I believe about I.Q. differences, I have 12 different studies that have been published over the years, heres the journal thats put this stuff together, I believe that this is true, that race predicts I.Q. and that there were I.Q. differences in races. And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works and we would go back and forth until I would come to the end of that argument and Id say, Yes that makes sense, that does not hold together and Ill remove that from my ideological toolbox but everything else is still there. And we did that over a year or two on one thing after another until I got to a point where I didnt believe it anymore. M.B.: So as you and this friend are going around and around and your mind is changing about this, whats the definitive moment where you make a decision and do something about it? D.B.: It was really this letter over the summer of 2013, and I sent it to the Southern Poverty Law Center which is an organization my entire life that had been the enemy. They had come after my mother, they had constantly written articles about my father, they had tried to get his website taken down they had been one of the biggest opponents of my family for my entire life. M.B.: And then you turned to them as somebody who would disseminate this letter you wrote? D.B.: I did I turned to them to publish my letter because I knew that their intelligence report was the most widely read thing in the white nationalist world more so than any white nationalist publication, this was like the gossip mag that the white nationalist world turned to to find out what everybody else was doing. And by sticking my letter on their website, I knew that every white nationalist would see it and every anti-racist would hear about it. The audience was in a lot of ways my own family. I wanted them to know that I understood what we believed, and I was systematically disbelieving each point. And then I just sent it and they published it and when it came out my dad called me up in the morning and said, I think youve been hacked, I think your email was hacked and somebody sent this letter. M.B.: Wow, he didnt believe youd written it. D.B.: No, we hadnt talked about my beliefs changing. At first he was incredibly sad. He called me a few days after I had written the letter, it was the first time we talked since he first called to tell me he thought I had been hacked, and it was just this sad moment where he said, Ive thought about it and its really hurting me. I think it might not have been a good idea to have a son if this is the pain thats going to come from it. M.B.: Whoa. He said that he wondered whether it was a good idea to have had a son because of the shame he felt because you had written the letter and rejected everything he stood for? And I could understand it he called again later that day and said I shouldnt have said that Im sorry. And then we started talking bit by bit. I made the argument that family and political beliefs should not be the same thing and arent the same thing. He came back at the time with the case that there is nothing in your life experience that would suggest that our family is not a political family, we believe these things. That is the basis of our family the idea that you could be anti white nationalist and that wouldnt affect your relationship to the family is not going to work. It was how we connected its what kept us together. M.B.: Right. This sounds unbelievably painful. D.B.: It was. M.B.: Whens the last time you spoke with him? D.B.: Not since before Charlottesville. Not since all this. My big revelation when I left this movement and no longer talked to anybody in the movement was that most people dont talk about race very often. And so I came to the conclusion that white nationalism is a fringe movement and everybody is aware that it should be a fringe movement, Barack Obama is the president hell make sure that it stays, remains a fringe movement and Ill just try to quietly fade away and never talk about this again and the future will be fine. D.B.: So to begin with, I think its very important to understand that from the perspective of white nationalists, its basically the definition of the movement that youre working against the establishment. And thats what every white nationalist event is it is very easy for the local politicians to condemn it and you expect them to condemn it and theres nothing else that you would dream might happen. Its something that people are proud of that you are working even though everybody says you shouldnt. And so thats the context. And all the usual condemnations came from everybody else. People in Congress, governors, mayors people who just wanted to get in their condemnations because everyone knows its extremely easy to condemn a white nationalist rally. And then on Saturday it was weird that he didnt, everybody took that as a huge victory there were tweets, people commenting online, thats very new, but Tuesday just took my breath away. I was sitting in a coffee shop and I thought the news from this was done when I read that he had come back and he said there were good people in the white nationalist rally and he salvaged their message. M.B.: What do you mean when you say he salvaged their message? D.B.: The message they were trying to get out was that tearing down Robert E. Lees statue is an assault on white culture, so if you think that tearing down Robert E. Lees statue is the wrong choice, then these are your guys that these are the people who are willing to say it but then amidst all the violence and the chaos I think that got lost. Youre not going to follow these people even if you believe that. And in his message saying that these were good people because theyre fighting for something that a lot of people believe in, he salvaged the message that they wanted to spread which is that if you believe this too and maybe youre on the edge about whether this is a fringe movement or not, Donald Trump thinks were fine. I dont think the whole world reads it that way but within the white nationalist movement and anyone who was thinking maybe this might be a movement for me, suddenly being at that that rally becomes a historical moment. // What they wanted to do is blow apart that context. To say that if you think Lee statue should stay up, theres no distinction between what you believe and what a white nationalist believes, and it felt like he was agreeing with them. M.B.: What do you think the impact of that is having the president in your words salvage their message and make all right what they were doing there in the broader sense? I think Tuesday was the most important moment in the history of the modern white nationalist movement. M.B.: Wow. D.B.: Its impossible to say what will happen in the future, like maybe nothing. But if you were on the fence about whether to get involved in this stuff or not, the presidents O.K. is the biggest thing thats ever happened. I dont want to be an alarmist and say this is a movement thats going to take over the world. But its more precarious now than any point in my life on whether this thing as a movement and as a dangerous ideology grows because we dont seem to be as clear as we once were that we have to keep this suppressed we cannot let this be who we are. M.B.: I usually have a set of normal reactions in these interviews and my vocabulary kind of fails me a little bit so I acknowledge that … D.B.: Sure no, I understand, Im in this weird position these days where I have this background, I understand what people at these events and rallies are thinking, but I also know what I know now my experiences and so I can see on one hand where something is horrifying, and on the other, Im looking at it and wondering why they organize the event like that, why they were so kind of gauche to have swastika flags flying and werent they worried about the messaging and then I come back and say, what is happening to my country I have these two experiences, and I have a lot of trouble reconciling them sometimes. As I try to deal with events this week I wonder how much the fact that being in my family and other people I knew were willing to push to try to get people who were maybe on the fence or maybe thought they were being discriminated against or that they kids couldnt get into college because of affirmative action and try to push them a little bit more and try to get them a little but more angry. However much of an effect that had I cant say I dont know. M.B.: It sounds like youve given some thought to your own role in this. D.B.: Its something I think about everyday, I think. M.B.: Derek, you know this Im sure, there are still pictures of you online as a child attending various far right white nationalist white supremacist conferences, and youve got a little hat on. And you are in it. Im guessing you dont go back and look, but what do you think when you look back at those images and that version of yourself? D.B.: Im always very conflicted that Ive come to terms with myself, Im not too much filled with deep shame all the time. Because I dont know what else I could do. What I wanted to do what would have been more comfortable what I really wanted to do was just leave, never say anything again, disappear off the face of the earth pretend that I had never lived the life that I lived and didnt know anything about white nationalism and never be heard from again and it was a few more tough conversations that convinced me that wasnt enough because Id actually done harm I tried to follow the beliefs that my father has that if you think there is a danger to our society you should do something. And I dont want to be involved with this stuff but I just want to try to offer context sometimes because I think that is hard to understand what this movement is and how somebody could be a part of this movement and also offer that perspective of how you can realize youre doing something really bad. M.B.: Sounds like youre following your fathers beliefs, just not the way he intended for you. D.B.: I dont know if he sees it that way, but sometimes I do. M.B.: Derek, Thank you very, very much I really appreciate that. D.B.: Thanks. M.B.: Bye.

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Sorry, Richard Spencer: Comparing Zionism to White Nationalism Is A Rotten Comparison – Forward

Richard Spencer, the prominent alt-right white supremacist, recently described himself to an Israeli TV interviewer as a white Zionist. That claim, coming from the leader of such a viciously antisemitic movement, is ironic and ridiculous. But if Spencers hope was to win sympathy from Zionists, his claim of an analogy between Zionism and white nationalism is also sure to please and energize anti-Israel activists. The parallel is false, and perniciously so. In this time of emboldened racism, and of great need for unity in opposition to white supremacism and other forms of hate, it has never been more crucial to understand why. The key point: Jewishness and whiteness are extremely different concepts. Jewish ethnic identity is multi-racial and inclusive. There are Jews of all races and ethnicities, from Ashkenazim and Sephardim, who look European, to Mizrahim, who look Middle Eastern, to the Ethiopian Beta Israel community, who look African, to other Jews of color. And thats just Jews from birth; importantly, Jewish identity isnt closed Anyone, in theory, can join the Jewish people. (Jewish denominations may argue over how conversion should work, but everyone agrees that an on-ramp exists). White racial identity, on the other hand, is rigidly exclusive. Jewish identity expresses a thick, positive culture. The Jewish people has existed for thousands of years as a proud and distinct nation with shared history, languages, texts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and artistic traditions. Whiteness, on the other hand, has no cultural content in itself. Many cultures that happen to be predominantly white are thick, beautiful cultures deserving of celebration on their own termsFrench culture, Scotch-Irish Appalachian culture, British culture, etc.but it is not whiteness that defines these cultures, and they have all included many non-white cultural contributors, both now and in the past. There is such a thing as an Irish ballad, but not a white ballad. American whiteness crystallized as a negative definition implying full citizenship, over against Blacks, Indians, mestizos, Asians, and others who were seen as exploitable and enslavable. Unlike Jewish identity in its cultural richness, whiteness is new and irredeemably synonymous with tyranny. White people should take pride in their cultures, nations, religions, and morebut not in whiteness itself. Israels Declaration of Independence states clearly that the Jewish State will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex and guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. Muslim Arabs serve in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Israeli Druze serve in the military. Israel is a state whose mission is fundamentally about being a homeland for the Jewish people, and, just as fundamentally about the equality of all human beingsitself a Jewish principle. Thats Israel in theory and, at its best, in fact. Now, in practice, and at its worst, there is a great deal of racism and discrimination in Israeljust like everywhere else where there are humans. (And all of us should be working as actively as we can to fight racism in Israel, in America, and everywhere.) But thats a failure of Israeli society to live up to its fundamental principles of equality, not a successful realization of racist principles. The implication by Spencer is that Israels fundamental essence is similar to the white nationalist ideal; show me a white nationalist manifesto that takes as many pains as the Israeli Declaration does to revere racial and cultural equality and inclusion, and then the comparison might be very slightly less risible. White people exert dominant control in many countries, many of which are the most powerful countries on earth. Jews have only one dedicated homeland, and a tiny one at that. And that homeland is certainly needed as a potential refuge. The Shoah demonstrated that with particular horror within living memory, but both before that dark time and after it, a steady drumbeat of anti-Jewish harassment, hate crimes, and murders has proven it time and again. Many countries have been safe places for Jews for a handful of centuries here and there, as the United States is today; but these golden ages do not last forever. If Richard Spencer gets his way, this one certainly wontas the vile march in Charlottesville clearly showed. So no, there is no meaningful parallel between the alt-right fantasy and the Zionist reality. Stepping back, we should remember that this conversation isnt only about Israel. (Is it ever?) These distinctions matter for the larger conversations were having about nationalism and immigration. Its tempting to oversimplify the issue into a binary choice: to be either (A) ethnic/racial/religious nation-states with first-class citizenship for one homogeneous, dominant caste and second-class citizenship (or slavery) for others; or (B) purely technocratic countries committed to equality for all, with no cultural agenda save personal autonomy, no hint of ethnic or nationalist symbolism, and no official status given to any one or more cultural or religious groups in any way. But the world need not be so simple. The United Kingdom grants freedom of worship to all, but its Queen is also head of the Church of England. France is militantly committed to galit, but it is also committed to authenticity in the French language, and maintains the Acadmie franaise to safeguard it. These countrieslike Israelsit on the vast and varied landscape of choices beyond the two extremes, choices that enshrine some mix of both universal equality and particularistic national identity. These two concepts are often in tension with one another, but are not mutually exclusive. As America wrestles with a chilling renaissance of the most hateful kinds of nationalism, we must never let the likes of Richard Spencer trick us into forgetting that. The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Fair Usage Law

August 21, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed

Casting Zionism as White Nationalism is Anti-Semitism – HuffPost

[T]he destiny of the modern Jew is tragic beyond expression and comprehensionso tragic that they laugh at you when you speak of it, and this is the greatest tragedy at all. Isaac Deutscher, The Non-Jewish Jew When neo-Nazis and white nationalists marched through Charlottesville, Virginia, last week, they chanted anti-Semitic slogans like, Jews will not replace us. Even before the march, Nazi websites had posted calls to marchers to burn down a synagogue there. As The Atlantic observed, they are obsessed with Jews. This comes as no surprise to Jewsand should not be a surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or Nazism. When the Ku Klux Klan was re-founded in 1915, for example, one of its key precepts was anti-Semitism, alongside anti-Black racism and xenophobia. That is why when, last week, white nationalists marched, it was an attack on Jews and Jewish institutions, as well as on people of color: when white nationalists gain power and influence, they use it to terrorize us. It has therefore come as a shock to me to discover the growing popularity, among some on the left, of the notion that Zionism actually is white nationalism–a position as anti-Semitic as it is intellectually disingenuous. The most offensive aspect of this ideas growing popularity is that it has come primarily since the march in Charlottesville, but the significance of the timing goes beyond mere insensitivity. In the aftermath of the march, many Jews on the left insisted upon, at long last, recognition by our allies on the left that white nationalism is a threat to Jews. The growing power of white nationalists represents, as it always has, a direct challenge to the ability of Jews to feel at home or safe. Yair Rosenberg, for example, suggested that the left set aside the longstanding debate over whether Jews are white or notan important debate because, he explained, implicitly at stake . . . is whether efforts to combat racism should prioritize prejudice against Jews or whether other groups should take precedence. In practice, however, the question has been settled by the growing power of white nationalists, who uniformly contend that Jews are not white, and have no place in their vision for America. Though with some notable exceptions, the general response to this call was deafening silence. Soon after, and ostensibly out of nowhere, some anti-Zionists began to suggest that Zionism is a form of white nationalism. This represents a direct rebuke of Rosenbergs, and others, pleas. In fact, the exclusive effect of this line of argumentthere are innumerable other ways to criticize Israelwas, and is, to distract from and undermine the insistence of Jewish leftists that the threats to us and our communities be taken seriously. If Zionism is simply one form of white nationalism, and Jews are not threatened by Zionism, then how much could Jews really be threatened by white nationalism? Even without the dangerous underlying logic, the effect would be the sameto reorient the conversation about white nationalism to be about Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. And, as with so many discussions pertaining to Israel on the left, leftist Jews again find ourselves having to first disclaim any support for Israel before our concerns about anti-Semitism will be heard, let alone taken seriously. Unspoken in the position is the erasure of any difference between Jews and non-Jewish whites (for the sake of simplicity, lets ignore the fact that the vast majority of Israeli Jews would not be seen as white in nearly any part of the world). After all, for Zionism to be considered white nationalism, it must involve support for a white nation. This distinction between whites and Jews, is of importance not because of any inherent difference between us but rather because centuries of oppression have created that difference. Regardless of whether Jews are counted as white, we remain a small minority, frequently discriminated against on the basis of being Jews. When the left-Twitterati pretends this not to be the case, it tacitly suggests that there is no history of Jewish oppression or, at least, that such history is irrelevant. Obscuring the history of and invidiousness of Jewish persecution is both vital to and inherent in this theory. At its core, white nationalism is ideological dishonesty in pursuit of greater power for the already powerful. White nationalists claim they seek the creation of a nation exclusively for them on the basis that white people are an oppressed minority whose coherent culture requires protection. This, obviously, has no basis in reality: white nationalism is not aimed at the vindication of any oppressed group but rather the further empowerment of those who have occupied positions of privilege for most of the worlds history, and continue to do so now. (Also, the notion that there is a single, white culture is laughable.) By contrast, Jews clearly are a coherent cultural group; we actually have been oppressed, in fact by the majority in every nation we have inhabited; our shared culture, and even our people, has often teetered on the brink of extinction. The existence of Israel does not undo that history or the fact that half the worlds Jews continue to live as precarious minorities. To suggest otherwise is to appeal to the age-old anti-Semitic canard that Jews are a powerful global cabal, under which the power of some of us anywhere enhances the power of all us, everywhere. The left has too often allowed our critique of Israel to obscure the demands of our better angels. If we embrace the notion that Zionism is a form ofor indistinguishable fromwhite nationalism, we will commit that error yet again, endorsing by implication the idea that Jews wield as much as, or more power than, non-Jewish whitesa neo-Nazi talking point. Instead, we must directly confront the ugly problem of anti-Semitism which has again reared its head in the form of white nationalism. We can, and must, do better. The Morning Email Wake up to the day’s most important news.

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2017   Posted in: White Nationalism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."