THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

What's up today?

Moderators: plunderer, Bernie the union guy

Post Reply
User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19426
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by Libertas »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0212669971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Image


Any person who votes for ANY con at ANY level is BY DEFAULT supporting this so do NOT address me, you are MY ENEMY and you want me DEAD.




AND HERE he mentions ANTIFA then flashes the white power hand signal


https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1192263 ... 0212669971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
carmenjonze
Board Emeritus
Posts: 25420
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by carmenjonze »

dirty fascist

Stop calling the cops on us.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19426
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by Libertas »

Biden in disbelief the filthy fucking traitor that REPUBLICANS ON THIS SITE SUPPORT since they vote GOP

when told about rump going to


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1193 ... 3344439555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reporter: "What do you think of the idea of President Trump going to Moscow for the May Day parade?"

Joe Biden: "Are you serious?"

Reporter: "Yes, he's been invited and he said he's considering it."

Joe Biden: "You're kidding me. Whoa. Are you joking?"

video at link

Yep, you vote for cons you want me DEAD and I wont forget that.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19426
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by Libertas »

Monica Crowley of team rump tweets a pic of her in front of the Berlin Wall and it says "walls work"

so she A. has no idea the wall did NOT work and B. likes symbols of death and oppression...i saw that remark on twitter

I want to not live in the same country as these filth

User avatar
Number6
Board Emeritus
Posts: 15091
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by Number6 »

Libertas » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:36 pm wrote:Monica Crowley of team rump tweets a pic of her in front of the Berlin Wall and it says "walls work"

so she A. has no idea the wall did NOT work and B. likes symbols of death and oppression...i saw that remark on twitter

I want to not live in the same country as these filth
There is only a minuscule portion of the Berlin Wall remaining and it's in a park as a reminder of Soviet occupation. The lesson she fails to gasp is of the 302 miles of the Berlin Wall only that little portion remains.
When you vote Left you vote right.

User avatar
Sam Lefthand
Board Emeritus
Posts: 14010
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by Sam Lefthand »

That book sounds Fascist.

:|

The last time we faced that our war time and shortly after the war, our propaganda took on the theme "racial prejudices are abhorrent."

Here's an example of that:

"A young officer commands a special World War II combat team made up of Japanese Americans. Sent to fight in Europe, they prove their bravery and loyalty. Based on a real attack force and includes some of the actual soldiers from that group. Public domain film." From 1951.

At 23:00 the movie's theme is stated, "racial prejudices are abhorrent."


[BBvideo 425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0w1cl6aA8[/BBvideo]


By the time of the end of the Korean war our propaganda films were showing us how white women should regard their husbands duty, and how white men should show patriotism and courage. They dropped the ball on "racial prejudices are abhorrent."


I've seen similar WWII films with that theme featuring Black's and Native's, and even allied Russian service persons. It came down from the the top, the White House, Eleanor Roosevelt was the point person behind it.


Contrast that with the swamp currently in the White House. :(

User avatar
ProfessorX
Board Emeritus
Posts: 17801
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Location: Sunny South Florida

Re: THe FILTHY FUCK goes full on NAZI white nationalism

Post by ProfessorX »

To be fair, Rich Lowry doesn't endorse either white nationalism or national socialism in the book. However, he seems to treat them as aberrant forms of nationalism, whereas I would merely see them as the logical end of taking nationalism to extremes, into jingoism. Also, there's a lot of denial about the nature of American nationalism, again he seems to ignore things like Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism.

There's a good critique of Lowry's book over at Foreign Affairs. Haven't read it, but this guy did so I didn't have to. :D Still, I'm getting the "gist" from Lowry making the usual interview rounds.

America’s Original Identity Politics
Rich Lowry’s Flawed Case for Nationalism
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/ ... y-politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[snip]

Nations have existed since antiquity, Lowry says. The notion that they are relatively recent inventions, put forward by scholars such as Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson, is “nonsense.” (*) Instead, today’s nationalists are the inheritors of an ancient form of social and political organization known to classical Greeks and biblical Jews. They rightly see a language, a discrete culture, and a common historical experience as the best basis for self-governance. Nation-states are the political entities that encase these natural nations.

[snip]

Nations, in Lowry’s view, have resisted imperial domination and acted as vehicles for popular representation. The ills that detractors attribute to them, such as racism and fascism, are really better seen as products of militarism, authoritarianism, and “transnational” ideologies such as communism. American universities and the European Union—the latter being “perhaps the greatest threat to self-government in the West” (**) —are examples of places where these cosmopolitan ideologies hold sway.

[snip]

The problem with nationalism, the British historian Eric Hobsbawm once wrote, is that it requires too much belief in what isn’t so. Lowry’s claims rest on a maddening evasiveness when it comes to definitions. At times he uses the word “nation” to refer to a social group. At other times the word stands for a sovereign country or for the institutions and practices of a state. This slipperiness allows Lowry to make the strangest arguments, which collapse upon the slightest interrogation. English is a “pillar of our national identity,” he writes. Christmas, not Yom Kippur or Cinco de Mayo, is a “national holiday,” which reveals the Christian inheritance­ at the heart of American life. But many American citizens are perfectly capable of being multilingual without also feeling seditious. Holidays are national only if a government—a state, not a nation—declares them to be. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day wasn’t a national holiday until it was. Anyone who lives in a school district that recognizes Jewish or Muslim religious holidays, in addition to Christian ones, presumably feels no less American because of that fact.

Few of Lowry’s statements would pass muster with historians who have been to an archive or tried to write about the past in ways that admit complexity. “Ancient Egypt constituted a unified state, ruling an ethnically homogeneous people with a distinct culture, for thousands of years,” he claims. “The same was true of China, Korea, and Japan.” (***) Sweeping assertions like these are legion, and to any serious thinker they should be an embarrassment. A society might have an identifiable high culture, or a dominant language of trade or governance, or characteristic art forms in particular historical periods. But to claim homogeneity, much less “ethnic” sameness, for millennia is thoughtless sloganeering.

Throughout the book, Lowry’s underlying commitments come frequently into view. They peek out from the middle of a sentence or bubble up from his choice of evidence. Women are almost entirely absent from Lowry’s national past and present. By my count, fewer than a dozen or so women merit a mention in his book: Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are among them, along with a bevy of current-day intellectuals such as Amy Gutmann and Martha Nussbaum, who are there to be argued against. When he uses the term “we,” it almost always refers to white people of Anglo-Saxon heritage, or at least people who are not Native Americans, Latinx, or recent immigrants. That is how Lowry can speak of “our dealings with the Indians and Mexicans,” or the fact that “the Indians fought us, to try to stop our advance and to defend their civilization.” Still, he admits that a “healthy nationalism” needs to be inclusive, which is why the great contributions of African Americans should be recognized. He gives the blues and the banjo as examples.

Lowry’s orientations are also on display in his proposal for how to revive American nationalism: better breeding. In Lowry’s view, “racial and ethnic intermarriage” will ultimately “break down tribal group loyalties.” But the examples he adduces are census data showing that over time some Hispanic respondents stop identifying as “Some Other Race” and start identifying as “White.” In other words, cross-racial marriage will in due course produce more white people. Lowry’s other proposals ensure that only the right admixtures take place: U.S. immigration policy is “imbalanced” because there are too many newcomers “from Latin America.” He looks back fondly on a time when there were more “Germans, Italians, Russians, Poles, Canadians, and British,” who more readily married each other and enabled quicker assimilation. At no point does he entertain the idea that a United States could possibly exist without dominant roles for the English language, Christianity, and whiteness. Such a country, Lowry seems to believe, just wouldn’t be America.

But the United States, like any other country, does not have a single identity or history, at least not of the unproblematic kind that Lowry has in mind. What does have such a history is American nationalism. It is a line of thinking and a political program that includes John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and Andrew Johnson, all of whom saw themselves as the inheritors of the American founding and considered white supremacy the natural order of American society. It runs through post-Reconstruction historians who forged a narrative of white-to-white reconciliation after the Civil War. It encompasses writers such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, who in the early twentieth century worried about the rising tide of immigration from southern and eastern Europe and its effects on what they viewed as the Christian, northern European essence of American identity. It winds through George Wallace’s inaugural address as governor of Alabama in 1963, with its evocations of the Anglo-Saxon legacy and the foundational right not to be forced to amalgamate into “a mongrel unit of one.” It flows into William F. Buckley, Jr.,’s 1965 debate with James Baldwin at the Cambridge Union. (The great danger of black empowerment, Buckley said, was that it could end up promoting “less the advancement of the Negro than the regression of the white people.”) It slides directly into the Republican Party’s “long Southern strategy,” as the political scientists Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields have called it: the successful uniting of evangelicals, antifeminists, and non-college-educated whites into a hard bloc of cultural and racial grievance. And it threads through the essays in such outlets as Lowry’s own National Review, American Greatness, and The Claremont Review of Books, which published Michael Anton’s influential 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election.” Embracing Trump, Anton wrote, is the last chance to stop “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners” and restore “what used to be the core of the American nation.” Any use of “American nationalism” as a phrase entails an acknowledgment of this genealogy.

[snip]

Social solidarity may be important for social action. Fellow-feeling, mutual reciprocity, and trust improve the workings of institutions, reduce uncertainty, and facilitate cooperation. But there is nothing special about solidarity that comes wrapped in a national flag, other than that it is the version that modern governments have come to insist matters most. This is the contradiction lying at the heart of the defense of nationalism offered by Lowry and other anti-big-state conservatives. The social form that they are most eager to defend as natural and ancient took a large, modern state to manufacture: a language standardized by state-approved grammarians, an origin story taught in publicly funded schools, a set of symbols protected by law against defilement, and a reverential song that comes with its own required body position. As in so many other areas of conservative thought under Trumpism, what purports to be rugged individualism and spontaneous community is in fact the product of astonishingly intrusive governance.

Lowry is eager to make the case for American exceptionalism, but his book is ample evidence against it. His nationalism is essentially that of every other contemporary demagogue—Viktor Orban, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte, and Donald J. Trump—repackaged as radical truth-telling. There are legitimate debates to be had among liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and democratic socialists on everything from tax rates to immigration policy to foreign relations. But they are overshadowed by the political right’s resurrection of a tendentious, organicist view of history reminiscent of Italian and German philosophers of the 1920s and 1930s: semi-factual, over-confident, mythologized, and utterly self-serving.

The Case for Nationalism is an exemplar of America’s original identity politics: white, male, and Anglo-Saxon, with the occasional black jazzman making his contribution and with women kept safely offstage. More than anything, it is proof of a settler society’s ability to produce its own ethnonational chauvinism. Those who worry that the world is spinning out of their control often come up with schemes for corralling us all back into one melodrama with a single set of heroes. But history offers an outlook on life and a method for living it, not a catechism.

[snip][end]

(*) That's distorting Anderson's argument. He says the modern nation state is a recent construct, dating to the 1600s, and that's true.
(**) The EU. Really? Why not any diatribes against the UN? :roll:
(***) Anybody who's studied ancient Egypt or China knows even millennia ago they were not "ethnically homogenous". Just nuts.

While he may not come out and endorse explicit white nationalism, Lowry is essentially doing what many American jingoists have always done: tell a fairy-tale story of how WASPs Manifested Their Destiny on this continent. Also, he pretty much endorses Trump's nativism.

I'm not against all nationalism. I'm patriotic to this country, and I support Zionism, and of course a number of other movements for national self-determination that have not yet been realized. I do not think the nation-state will fade away tomorrow, nor does it need to. We will be living in them for a few more centuries, I think.

But saying things like the EU is the biggest threat to peoples' self-determination ... this just means to me you really somehow believe humans are incapable of living in things that transcend our current nation-states. (Other than empires ... not what I'm advocating.) I just think that's nonsense. We can dream bigger.
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Post Reply