Who are the white nationalists?(Charlottesville)

wnd.com ^ | 8/10/2018 | Dinesh D'Souza

[rktman]

So the white nationalists are coming back to Charlottesville, and once again we’re going to hear the standard media narrative that these bigots are “on the right.” Leave aside that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the original Charlottesville rally, was an Obama activist and an Occupy Wall Street guy. Never mind that Richard Spencer, the poster boy of white supremacy, reveals in a detailed interview in my new movie that he’s a progressive who supports nationalized health care and expanded centralized state, and whose favorite presidents are all Democrats.

We need to probe deeper to understand who these white nationalists are and what they are about. One of the few scholars to make a genuine attempt to study their movement is political scientist Carol Swain. Swain, who was featured in my film “Hillary’s America,” is one of the leading African-American scholars in the country. She has written two books, a detailed study of the white nationalist movement called “The New White Nationalism in America ” and the other consisting of searching interviews with its most prominent members.

[wardaddy]

Tks I told my wife not to go public here

I did this 14 years ago and seemed once was enough

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068545/posts

[LongWayHome]

Always best to be circumspect. I’m old taciturn New England so I’m naturally private. I understand why you want to keep the wife out of such.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "I nearly died six months ago so I doubt I’ll be around forever and I’m too old"

Sorry to learn of your trials, glad to see you made it!

My health is good, I feel fine, my Dad & grandfathers were all long-lived, so I might trundle along for decades more.
But I don't expect open civil warfare in that time, so long as good people can still elect presidents like Reagan or Trump we'll be OK.
Sure, the Left will squeal & squawk but without controlling the machinery of Federal government to apply force against citizens, it's all just sound & fury, signifying not so much...

[The_Media_never_lie]

So, one year ago how many white nationalists were there? And, they were being stoked by an Obama support Occupy type. Can anyone say Reichstag fire?

[GOPJ]

I think ‘white nationalist’ are bought and paid for with Soros money...

[BroJoeK]

let me add to my previous response:

Pelham: "He’s [D'Souza is] one of the jackasses who likes to equate the Confederacy to Nazism.
Something you might like?"

You keep bringing up D'Souza and my knowledge of him consists of reading his book, The Big Lie, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left and just now his new movie, The Death of a Nation.

Both cover much of the same ground, Death of a Nation being far more dramatic.
I saw no place in either where D'Souza equates Confederacy to Nazism.
But he does go after Democrats with a well deserved whip-lash and beats them to a bloody pulp, metaphorically.
In that he expresses my own opinions dramatically & perfectly.

I'd say to you this: if you find yourselves identifying with D'Souza's bad guys, then you probably don't belong misrepresenting yourselves as Free Republic type conservatives.

[Ohioan]

In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate for a newcomer into America to accept the benefits of being here, and then trash the descendants of the Founders; totally inappropriate. That does not mean he can not have opinions on various subjects; but it really is not debatable that the ongoing purpose of our Constitutional Federation was the common defense & enduring liberty of the Founders' posterity.

Now three of my four grandparents were immigrants, as were the grandparents of the one who was not. I have always considered it a solemn moral duty to uphold the intent of the founders of the political society into which we were accepted.

You and I agree on almost everything, but I do not think Dinesh has any really legitimate beef against England. It is not necessarily a legitimate beef, if a much smaller nation, with a fraction of your population, located almost halfway around the world, is able to control you for two centuries. It might make an interesting subject for debate, if we did not have more immediate concerns, today, whether India was more a victim or a beneficiary of the era when Britannia ruled the waves.

(Anyway, the influence of British personality types & ancient values on our value system--as reflected in the Constitution--cannot be denied. That is relevant to the subject.)

[wardaddy]

I’ve found in my early life late 70s to early 90s that anywhere in the world where the British colonized is better off than anyone else by and large and especially when compared to other colonizers.

Irish Catholic freepers of course bristle.

I’m Irish too.....the other kind lol

The six counties where abortion is almost non existent btw

Only 15 allowed last year for life of mother

Isn’t that weird that Ulster still forbids abortion yet The Republic of doesn’t

The British and Dutch seemed most benevolent

French if they hadn’t lost Saint Domingue would be top tier too

Spanish and Portuguese much more harsh

If pressed Dinesh has conceded pretty much the same thing in interviews despite his early writings lamenting the discrimination his father experienced

I think as a NeoCon he kind of goes with what he thinks makes him popular

Believe it or not long ago he defended southern slaveowners as treating slaves better than the Brits and Brahmins did lower caste servants in India

Now he’s part of this NRO position that Democrats were always bad and GOP always good and context and historicaL perspective is irrelevant which is stupid to me

It’s a short path from Jackson bashing to doing the same to Jefferson and Washington and Madison etc

I’ve seen Jefferson disparaged here by this ilk

I’m glad we were founded by the Brits more than anyone else even though where I grew up it was Spanish French Spanish English American Confederate and American with Indians thrown in...Choctaw type not Tandoori

[manc]

well said

[Ohioan]

I think it to be a basic step in understanding the priorities & values of the Founding Fathers—as distinguished from the vast spectrum of philosophic rationalizations behind most of the earth's political movements--that in the Founders' case, theory followed and was clearly based upon actual experience. We are in great danger losing the ideological war, when we fail to effectively teach each generation a detailed history of settler experiences (1607 to 1776).

Not having followed his career, I have no idea whether the subject of this thread appreciates the point, or not. But the fact is, that understanding makes it possible to reach many of the vast pool of those who are not really ideologically driven--i.e., the majority of the population.

America: Based On Experience & Reason

[central_va]

That is exactly what happened.

[central_va]

What is wrong with being a nationalist?

What's wrong with being white?

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Now he’s part of this NRO position that Democrats were always bad and GOP always good and context and historicaL perspective is irrelevant which is stupid to me."

Naw, you're missing the point, and it's an important one: Democrats and their allies are working furiously to rewrite history, turning Confederates into conservative Republicans and making Lincoln's northerners into liberal Democrats.
That's what Tim Russert's color change in 2000 of Republicans from Blue to Red was all about, just one small piece of the bigger puzzle.

What D'Souza is doing is standing up against the Big Lie, saying, no, wait a minute, facts matter, the truth matters and the truth is that Democrats today are basically the same as they've always been.
D'Souza lays out the history of how we got from then to now, and how today's Democrat insanity well reflects that of Democrats in the past.

I'd hate to think that some our Southerners would prefer to accept Democrat lies to the truth about them.

[Ohioan]

The political parties have undergone ideological swings, which you seem to be denying. In the 1840s the Democrats were the more Conservative Party, the Whigs--here as they were in Britain, the more Liberal Party. (While I would have been a Democrat in that era, I can still respect outstanding American Whigs such as Henry Clay & Daniel Webster.)

Of course the Whig party collapsed in the 1850s, and was replaced largely by the Republican Party, which in the aftermath of the panic of 1857--a seriously underlooked factor in the turmoil that followed--and the terrible war, brought in elements clearly to the Left of the Whigs. Thus the Democratic Party remained the more Conservative Party until the next great economic upheaval, the Panic of 1893, when the Conservative Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland completely lost control of their own party to the easy money movement headed by William Jennings Bryan.

In the early 20th Century, each Party had a "liberal" wing & a "conservative" wing, but with the next great economic panic (the Great Depression) the Democratic Prty took a sharp turn to the Left, but still retained local Conservative politics, such as the Byrd Government in Virginia & similar traditionalists in South Carolina.

With Strom Thurmond's shift to the Republicans, in order to support Barry Goldwater, in 1964, the Republican surge to the right was underway, which led to several Republican victories, Conservative Supreme Court appointments, the election of Ronald Reagan, etc. (To understand the dynamics involved, I would recommend a book by Bill Rusher in the mid 1970s, The Making of the New Majority Party. Rusher, in that era was the "Publisher" of National Review, and was more pragmatic than some there, today.

[Pelham]

“Democrats and their allies are working furiously to rewrite history, turning Confederates into conservative Republicans and making Lincoln’s northerners into liberal Democrats.”

Nice try. It fits the confusion that Dinesh and his ilk are sowing.

Those extremist northerners were in fact the Radical Republicans, a name that they gave themselves as early as 1854. It included a healthy number of 48er radicals who had come to the US after their failed European revolution, Carl Schurz being one, and who were involved in the founding of the Republican Party. A group that believed in the raw use of government power. But they were the driving force for the complete eradication of slavery and for war to eradicate secession. I suppose they are the true heroes for today’s yankeefa as they tour the country eradicating statues.

Lincoln didn’t belong to the Radicals but they were a powerful force in the government. Sumner. Stevens. Stanton. Butler. Logan. Stanton and Butler had both been Democrats. They often were at odds with Lincoln, he was too moderate for their purposes. Stevens even made speeches the seemed to call for the extermination the white population of the south. He could probably get elected today on that one, but he might have to run as a California Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

Ohioan: "The political parties have undergone ideological swings, which you seem to be denying.
In the 1840s the Democrats were the more Conservative Party..."

Nonsense, Democrats have always been what they were born as: the anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist faction of our Founders.
They voted "no" on ratification and became the party of nullification, slavery, secession and war against the United States.

When Democrats were in power, which was almost continuously from 1800 until secession in 1861, they ignored the Founders' Constitution to suit their own purposes, i.e., the Louisiana Purchase and SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
Your claim that Democrats in 1840 were somehow more "conservative" than Whigs of the time was denied by Whigs who found plenty of "swamp" in DC under Democrat rule.

After the Civil War Democrats quickly went to work nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and Southern Democrats especially cheered on the 16th and 17th amendments, expanding Federal power, providing foundations for the "Progressive Era" under Southern Democrat Wilson and New York Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, supported overwhelmingly in the Solid South.
So today's Democrats, especially their BLM & Antifa wings, are simply Democrats of the past in black-face.

Sure, you like to claim that Whig/Republicans were sometimes more Big Government than Democrats, but the great expansion in Federal government did not happen after the Civil War, it came more than 50 years later, beginning under Southern Democrat Wilson and flowering under FDR's New Deal, then Southern Democrat President Johnson's Great Society.
The fact is the big players in big government were all Democrats.

Ohioan: " I would recommend a book by Bill Rusher in the mid 1970s, The Making of the New Majority Party. Rusher, in that era was the "Publisher" of National Review, and was more pragmatic than some there, today."

I'm no expert on Rusher, but if as you seem to imply, Rusher here talks about Nixon's so-called Southern strategy, I would recommend to you D'Souza's new movie, "Death of a Nation" which, among other things, debunks that.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Nice try. It fits the confusion that Dinesh and his ilk are sowing."

So Pelham is allied with our Leftist media to turn real history on its head.
Why am I not surprised.

Pelham: "Those extremist northerners were in fact the Radical Republicans, a name that they gave themselves as early as 1854.
It included a healthy number of 48er radicals who had come to the US after their failed European revolution, Carl Schurz being one, and who were involved in the founding of the Republican Party."

The fact is the vast majority of new Republicans were simply Northern Whigs, like Lincoln & Seward mixed with some Free Soil Democrats like Chase from Ohio and Fremont from California.
Of course Republicans were applauded by some groups in Europe, other groups supported Confederates.
Such supporters did not necessarily define the parties or their leaders.

Pelham: "A group that believed in the raw use of government power.
But they were the driving force for the complete eradication of slavery and for war to eradicate secession.
I suppose they are the true heroes for today’s yankeefa as they tour the country eradicating statues."

Nonsense -- Northern abolitionism was not driven by 1848 European revolutionaries, that's fantasy.
You might just as well claim Southern slavery was propped up by British aristocracy, which supported the Confederacy.

Even in early 1865 Confederates were offered compensated abolition in exchange for peace but refused.
They preferred Unconditional Surrender and uncompensated abolition, who knew?

Pelham: "Stevens even made speeches the seemed to call for the extermination the white population of the south."

So did, curiously, Jefferson Davis:

[Pelham]

” Why am I not surprised.”

My guess is that’s part of your yankeefa thing.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "My guess is that’s part of your yankeefa thing."

Anybody can play word games.
I like BLM in white-face.
How about Confedeefa, or just Coneefa?
You know Demo-rats, right? How about Demo-rebs?

See, making up names is much easier than producing real facts and honest reasons from history.
That's why real Democrats seldom bother with the latter and usually stick to name-calling.
So you lost-soul sons of Democrats are confused & disoriented.
You've figured out that Democrats are wrong about pretty much everything, but you just can't give up your old Democrat ways, can you?

[Ohioan]

Your exercise in mislabbelling & cherry-picking (#116) is noted. When you contrive to suggest that the Jeffersonians--who basically provided the ethos of the Democratic Party up until the Bryan confusion, were ideologically the forerunners of FDR, LBJ, Clinton & Obama, you espouse nonsense.

As for Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana? Yes he did cut the corner there, as to Constitutional authorization, but it was for exactly the opposite considerations to those behind LBJ's Great Society, or the Leftists winking at the open Southern border. It was, as he reported to Congress, to create a cultural buffer between the Founders' settlements & Hispanic America. (An American Immigration Policy)

As to Bill Rusher's strategy, it was basically post-Nixon, and led to the Reagan Democrats increasingly voting Republican.

You also appear to ignore the fact that the 14th Amendment was clearly an assault on the whole fabric of the Constitution, and was responsible for anchor babies, abortion, outlawing public religious expression, the removal of State Legislative checks & balances, school bussing & most of the rest of the egregious expansion of judicial activism. We obviously do not define "Conservatism" in the same way.