Charlottesville Car Crash Video

CaptainHowdy said:
You're missing the point. I'm saying that White Nationalism isn't inherently racist. I'm pointing to Israel as a example of a successful ethnostate that currently exists sans racism to demonstrate that nationalism doesn't have to be racist. How and why the state of Israel came about is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If "White Nationalism" isn't inherently racist, why call it White? Isn't "White" a racial concept?
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
If "White Nationalism" isn't entirely racist, why call it White? Isn't "White" a racial concept?
Click to expand...

It's not really a difficult concept, is it?


Something predicated on differences in entitlement based on supposed race is fundamentally racist.
 
LSSBB said:
If "White Nationalism" isn't entirely racist, why call it White? Isn't "White" a racial concept?
Click to expand...

Isn't "White Nationalism" a name for a crayon color? Something like "Burnt Sienna?" Oh wait- no it's not. Instead it is the belief that the most important characteristic of any human being is their race and that it is essential for us to define ourselves that way and to separate people into nations by race.

Funny- Saggy was just arguing in this Forum that the really bad thing about the present time is that we don't openly embrace and celebrate racism "like we used to." CaptainHowdy may be hesitate to be so overt in his views, but it sure seems like the same song to me.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
You're missing the point. I'm saying that White Nationalism isn't inherently racist. I'm pointing to Israel as a example of a successful ethnostate that currently exists sans racism to demonstrate that nationalism doesn't have to be racist. How and why the state of Israel came about is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I am certainly not missing the point. I am disagreeing with it, emphatically.

The entire concept of an "ethnostate" is inherently racist, and it's a bad idea. It shouldn't have happened in Israel. Look at the grief that has come about because of it. However, I will give them a little bit of a pass, because, in the environment that existed when the state of Israel was founded, there was a real problem and the Jews faced real persecution and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Likewise, when Zionism became a movement, Jews were facing real persecution. It just hadn't turned to outright extermination like it would later. As for today, we can't just declare a non-ethnostate, for a whole lot of reasons, but basically because there are enemies, not just of Israel, but of the Jews themselves. It is an incredibly difficult problem that was centuries in the making, and the dangers can't be ignored, and an ethnostate is part of the best solution that anyone can come up with right here and right now. Nevertheless, the whole concept sucks.

So, if you can make a similar case for white people, then by all means we can talk of the need for an ethnostate, but the concept is racist, by definition.
.
 
LSSBB said:
If "White Nationalism" isn't inherently racist, why call it White? Isn't "White" a racial concept?
Click to expand...
Personally I would rather not call it "White." Doing so places undue emphasis on the color of a persons skin and it attempts to describe a diverse group of people, none of whom technically have white skin. I think that "European Christian" is a better description. But when I say "European Christian" nobody knows what the Hell I'm talking about (even though it's pretty obvious). And it's easier to type "white." So that's what I go with.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Personally I would rather not call it "White." Doing so places undue emphasis on the color of a persons skin and it attempts to describe a diverse group of people, none of whom technically have white skin. I think that "European Christian" is a better description. But when I say "European Christian" nobody knows what the Hell I'm talking about (even though it's pretty obvious). And it's easier to type "white." So that's what I go with.
Click to expand...

Ah, a bit like a new Holy Roman Empire, where pe
like you can have livingroom?
 
Meadmaker said:
It shouldn't have happened in Israel. Look at the grief that has come about because of it. However, I will give them a little bit of a pass, because, in the environment that existed when the state of Israel was founded, there was a real problem and the Jews faced real persecution and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Likewise, when Zionism became a movement, Jews were facing real persecution. It just hadn't turned to outright extermination like it would later.
Click to expand...


This is one of many points that CaptainHowdy seems to be missing in his ridiculous comparison:

The Israeli "ethnostate" is the result of the terrible things done to that particular group of human beings throughout history. A white ethnostate would be the result of... annoyance at other races. What a terrible burden us white people have had to endure! :rolleyes:
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Presumably under a White supremacist state, blacks would be separate.

But White Nationalism isn't the same as White supremacism. Using Israel as our model of how ethnic nationalism without racism works: In a White Nationalist United States, European Christians would enjoy the same rights and responsibilities that Jews enjoy in Israel and non-European Christians would enjoy the same rights and responsibilities that non-Jews enjoy in Israel.
Click to expand...

So being first class over those who are of lower classes isn't supremacy?

Mighty fine hair to split.

Israel is able to preserve the Jewish character of the state without physically separating Jews and non-Jews. We could do the same.
Click to expand...

I can't even...

The Jewish National Fund alone controls 13% of the land in Israel and bars Arabs. Let's not even get into the inherent segregation of having overarching control of the occupied territories.

What a terrible, terrible analogy to pick. Not just for the derail potential, but especially for being the exact opposite of how you portray it.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty certain that CaptainHowdy is playing a tu quoque gotcha game here: see, "da Jus are racist" so why is anyone complaining that the Nazis are racist?

The failure with this is that Nazis believe in racism as an inherent part of being defined as Nazi; most modern day Jews do not believe in racism and it is not inherent to being Jewish. And to be Jewish does not mean to support the Israel government or the right wing religious parties to which it currently panders....

I just deleted most of the rest of my post because this is a derail. There are other threads for talking about Israel and the Palestinians. Let's just focus on Nazis here. And tu quoque may be a method of accusing someone of hypocrisy but it is not a method of justifying a wrong.
 
Meadmaker said:
I am certainly not missing the point. I am disagreeing with it, emphatically.

The entire concept of an "ethnostate" is inherently racist, and it's a bad idea. It shouldn't have happened in Israel. Look at the grief that has come about because of it. However, I will give them a little bit of a pass, because, in the environment that existed when the state of Israel was founded, there was a real problem and the Jews faced real persecution and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Likewise, when Zionism became a movement, Jews were facing real persecution. It just hadn't turned to outright extermination like it would later. As for today, we can't just declare a non-ethnostate, for a whole lot of reasons, but basically because there are enemies, not just of Israel, but of the Jews themselves. It is an incredibly difficult problem that was centuries in the making, and the dangers can't be ignored, and an ethnostate is part of the best solution that anyone can come up with right here and right now. Nevertheless, the whole concept sucks.

So, if you can make a similar case for white people, then by all means we can talk of the need for an ethnostate, but the concept is racist, by definition.
.
Click to expand...
So you agree that Zionism is a form of nationalism. Since you believe that Zionism is a form of nationalism, you have to agree that a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a Jewish nationalist. Does that mean that a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a Jewish supremacist? That Jewish nationalist and Jewish supremacist are interchangeable? In the same way White Nationalist and White supremacist and Nazi and KKK are all interchangeable? Or is there a difference between a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist and a Jew who hates all gentiles and wants to kill them because they are inferior?

Because that was jumping off point, my objection to nationalists being called Nazis and KKK.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This is one of many points that CaptainHowdy seems to be missing in his ridiculous comparison:

The Israeli "ethnostate" is the result of the terrible things done to that particular group of human beings throughout history. A white ethnostate would be the result of... annoyance at other races. What a terrible burden us white people have had to endure! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you're not denying that Israel is an ethnostate?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
So you agree that Zionism is a form of nationalism. Since you believe that Zionism is a form of nationalism, you have to agree that a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a Jewish nationalist. Does that mean that a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a Jewish supremacist? That Jewish nationalist and Jewish supremacist are interchangeable? In the same way White Nationalist and White supremacist and Nazi and KKK are all interchangeable? Or is there a difference between a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist and a Jew who hates all gentiles and wants to kill them because they are inferior?

Because that was jumping off point, my objection to nationalists being called Nazis and KKK.
Click to expand...

See "equivocation, fallacy of".

You are trying to come up with definitions and chain them together and say that this must equal that because blah.....blah....blah. Let's not go there. Instead, let's try and come up with the actual differences between someone who thinks that Israel has a right to exist, compared to someone who thinks there ought to be some sort of ethnostate that is dominated by people of European descent.

One very, very, obvious difference between the two is that the Jewish state already exists. Dismantling it would result in a lot of grief for a lot of people. Moreover, it is not obvious that dismantling it would benefit anyone. Yes, I know people want it dismantled and they are sure that dismantling it would make the world a better place, but it is far from clear exactly who would be better off in any meaningful way if the state of Israel were dismantled, or if it were to lose its identity as a Jewish state.

On the other hand, the exact same thing could be said about the formation of a white ethnostate. Formation of such a state would result in a lot of grief for a lot of people, and it is not obvious that it would benefit anyone.

So on a purely practical level, there's a difference between supporting the state of Israel and supporting a white ethnostate.

On a philosophical level, I also see differences between the concepts of Zionism versus white nationalism. I don't think that any ethnic or racial discrimination makes any sense, ever, However, I can look at the Zionist movement and the eventual declaration of a Jewish state and see that despite my principled opposition to any sort of ethnostate, there is a practical reality that Jews were the targets of discrimination, and indeed of persecution and genocide. Whatever theoretical, philosophical, objection I might have to the formation of a government that enshrines any sort of ethnic or racial favoritism, I can see why, in the case of Zionism, the proponents would see it as necessary to escape a different form of favoritism that resulted in discrimination at best, and murder at worst. I don't think the formation of a Jewish state was the best possible solution to that problem, but it might have been the best available solution And given that it was the solution chosen, see the first point above.

By contrast, I look at the motives of the white nationalists, and I can't see anything remotely comparable. I can't see any need to have a state where people can pursue some sort of "white" way of life, free from persecution. Given that, I look for some other motivation, and all I can come up with is "We don't like black people."
 
Meadmaker said:
See "equivocation, fallacy of".

You are trying to come up with definitions and chain them together and say that this must equal that because blah.....blah....blah. Let's not go there. Instead, let's try and come up with the actual differences between someone who thinks that Israel has a right to exist, compared to someone who thinks there ought to be some sort of ethnostate that is dominated by people of European descent.

One very, very, obvious difference between the two is that the Jewish state already exists. Dismantling it would result in a lot of grief for a lot of people. Moreover, it is not obvious that dismantling it would benefit anyone. Yes, I know people want it dismantled and they are sure that dismantling it would make the world a better place, but it is far from clear exactly who would be better off in any meaningful way if the state of Israel were dismantled, or if it were to lose its identity as a Jewish state.

On the other hand, the exact same thing could be said about the formation of a white ethnostate. Formation of such a state would result in a lot of grief for a lot of people, and it is not obvious that it would benefit anyone.

So on a purely practical level, there's a difference between supporting the state of Israel and supporting a white ethnostate.

On a philosophical level, I also see differences between the concepts of Zionism versus white nationalism. I don't think that any ethnic or racial discrimination makes any sense, ever, However, I can look at the Zionist movement and the eventual declaration of a Jewish state and see that despite my principled opposition to any sort of ethnostate, there is a practical reality that Jews were the targets of discrimination, and indeed of persecution and genocide. Whatever theoretical, philosophical, objection I might have to the formation of a government that enshrines any sort of ethnic or racial favoritism, I can see why, in the case of Zionism, the proponents would see it as necessary to escape a different form of favoritism that resulted in discrimination at best, and murder at worst. I don't think the formation of a Jewish state was the best possible solution to that problem, but it might have been the best available solution And given that it was the solution chosen, see the first point above.

By contrast, I look at the motives of the white nationalists, and I can't see anything remotely comparable. I can't see any need to have a state where people can pursue some sort of "white" way of life, free from persecution. Given that, I look for some other motivation, and all I can come up with is "We don't like black people."
Click to expand...

If Nationalists are Supremacists are Nazis/KKK then Zionists are Nazis/KKK (N=S=N/KKK and Z=N, then Z=N/KKK). You cannot escape that. You could argue that the equation is false because Zionism isn't a form of Nationalism or you could argue that the Zionist ideology had no role in the founding of Israel. Good luck with that.

Calling me an antisemite for saying this would be a common ploy. But it doesn't make the equation false. Your argument, ever popular special pleading that acknowledges that Zionists are Nationalists but justifies it because some people were mean to the Jews in the past can be hand-waved away with a chuckle. Being wronged in the past never gives a person the right to wrong others in the future. That this argument is being made on behalf of the wealthiest, most successful minority group in the world is embarrassing to anybody who believes it's a good point and an insult to people who are actually suffering oppression today.

You're only argument is to acknowledge that maybe Nationalists aren't always Supremacists and Nazis and we shouldn't conflate the terms. Meadmaker, as somebody who is pretty close to being labeled a Nazi for saying that Corey Long was not 25 to 30 feet away from the protesters or that knowing who pulled their weapon first is important in determining fault, I would think you would be sensitive to the importance of not using words irresponsibly.

I'd love to continue this conversation but we're suppose to be talking about the car crash here. Has any new evidence emerged in the last week or so that supports either the deliberate attack scenario or the terrible accident scenario? It seems the media has gone silent.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
If Nationalists are Supremacists are Nazis/KKK then Zionists are Nazis/KKK (N=S=N/KKK and Z=N, then Z=N/KKK). You cannot escape that. You could argue that the equation is false because Zionism isn't a form of Nationalism or you could argue that the Zionist ideology had no role in the founding of Israel. Good luck with that.

Calling me an antisemite for saying this would be a common ploy. But it doesn't make the equation false. Your argument, ever popular special pleading that acknowledges that Zionists are Nationalists but justifies it because some people were mean to the Jews in the past can be hand-waved away with a chuckle. Being wronged in the past never gives a person the right to wrong others in the future. That this argument is being made on behalf of the wealthiest, most successful minority group in the world is embarrassing to anybody who believes it's a good point and an insult to people who are actually suffering oppression today.

You're only argument is to acknowledge that maybe Nationalists aren't always Supremacists and Nazis and we shouldn't conflate the terms. Meadmaker, as somebody who is pretty close to being labeled a Nazi for saying that Corey Long was not 25 to 30 feet away from the protesters or that knowing who pulled their weapon first is important in determining fault, I would think you would be sensitive to the importance of not using words irresponsibly.

I'd love to continue this conversation but we're suppose to be talking about the car crash here. Has any new evidence emerged in the last week or so that supports either the deliberate attack scenario or the terrible accident scenario? It seems the media has gone silent.
Click to expand...

I actually started the Nazis, White Supremacists, etc. thread with the express purpose of trying not to derail this thread with the discussion. If you want to continue it, that would be a good place, even though that discussion has long since gone a different direction. Continuing this in that thread would actually be pulling the discussion back to the intended topic of that thread.

But I will leave it alone in this thread, except to say that you seem to have misunderstood my last post completely. Specifics will have to be in another thread.
 
Heather Heyer had a heart attack?

There's some talk on reddit about Heather Heyer's mother saying her daughter died from a heart attack. If she was struck by one of the vehicles and then had a heart attack, that's one thing. But if she wasn't actually struck during the car crash, then we have an obese cigarette smoker standing in the afternoon sun on a hot muggy day surrounded by a packed crowd of agitated ANTIFA who has a heart attack after witnessing a car hit another car. Maybe she didn't even witness the accident. That would change the narrative (not that anybody is going to admit that).

So now I'm wondering, where was Heather Heyer standing when James slammed into the crowd? I had assumed she was physically struck while standing between two cars but it's not been clear. Is she one of the people we see flying through the air in the photos or video?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
There's some talk on reddit about Heather Heyer's mother saying her daughter died from a heart attack. If she was struck by one of the vehicles and then had a heart attack, that's one thing. But if she wasn't actually struck during the car crash, then we have an obese cigarette smoker standing in the afternoon sun on a hot muggy day surrounded by a packed crowd of agitated ANTIFA who has a heart attack after witnessing a car hit another car. Maybe she didn't even witness the accident. That would change the narrative (not that anybody is going to admit that).

So now I'm wondering, where was Heather Heyer standing when James slammed into the crowd? I had assumed she was physically struck while standing between two cars but it's not been clear. Is she one of the people we see flying through the air in the photos or video?
Click to expand...
Till this point, while I have often disagreed with you sir, I have accepted it is a difference of political and social opinion. However, this places you far beyond the pale of any decent human being. Just because sub-human scum on the alt-right give credence to ridiculous conspiracy fantasies does not mean any decent or sane human being should give the time of day to the bilge-water they spew out. Please, consider the line you are being spun and where it comes from before posting the like here again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom