Pelafina Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 Stef recently Tweeted: "I am not a white nationalist". Question: Is it unvirtuous to be a white nationalist? Why has Stef decided to not being one?
Slavik Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 I think it depends on the definition of "White Nationalism," so what is the definition?
Pelafina Posted November 18, 2016 Author Posted November 18, 2016 I think it depends on the definition of "White Nationalism," so what is the definition? My definition - Identifying with your white heritage and historical accomplishments of the white race (western civilization). Being aware of the pitfalls of diversity, multiculturalism and of the possible intentions of other races and cultures to out-breed the white race (gene wars) for nefarious purposes. Feel free to add to or to correct my definition.
dsayers Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 White is an ethnicity and an unchosen one, so we can disregard it altogether in terms of a person's value or identity. Nationalism is the worship of dirt. It is an unprincipled conclusion. In a society where such a narrative that nationalism is benevolent is pushed, it can be a mark of virtue being able to resist the temptation of conformity to adhere to reality, where dirt isn't special even if you were born on it. Especially when you consider that nationalism is used to kill and imprison so many people. 1 1
rosencrantz Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 It's not virtuous, it's a necessity. If a group can't defend itself it is doomed.
DCLugi Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 White is an ethnicity and an unchosen one, so we can disregard it altogether in terms of a person's value or identity. Nationalism is the worship of dirt. It is an unprincipled conclusion. In a society where such a narrative that nationalism is benevolent is pushed, it can be a mark of virtue being able to resist the temptation of conformity to adhere to reality, where dirt isn't special even if you were born on it. Especially when you consider that nationalism is used to kill and imprison so many people. Perhaps value is circumstantial. Height is an unchosen trait yet tall people have more value when picking groceries from the top shelf.
deadflagblues Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 Assuming that virtue is more likely to be present in white people, virtue is still not inherent in whiteness of skin. A preference of whiteness over non-whiteness in every circumstance is the replacement of virtue with a poor estimator of virtue. Stefan takes adherence to western culture as a stronger indicator of virtue than he does whiteness, As for the nationalist part, Stefan is an anarcho-capitalist. Believing that a nation which gives out resources to invaders needs strong borders does not mean that you desire a nation.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 We should be trying to preserve our entire civilisation, not just our race. Our civilisation comprises culture, both material (race, sculpture, architecture) and immaterial (courtesy, language, religion). Other races here can and do participate in some of these things, but in sufficient strength alien races tend to displace them, including displacing the biological-artistic material culture of race. So in that sense destroying the White population is destroying the civilisation because the former is so deeply associated with the latter. Virtue is that which promotes the survival and happiness of Man. Promoting White survival promotes Western civilisation which promotes the survival and happiness of Man. So promoting White survival must be virtuous, if anything is virtuous. Promoting the false white guilt principle is directly opposite to virtue—it is a sin against the civilisation. Call that White Nationalism or call it being Conservative, so long as the Civilisation and its component elements are not destroyed by unlimited and hypocritical worship of Diversity.
dsayers Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 Perhaps value is circumstantial. Height is an unchosen trait yet tall people have more value when picking groceries from the top shelf. The thread poses the question of whether or not X is virtuous. If part of X is unchosen, that part can be dismissed from the overarching consideration. Would you agree that in order to be virtuous, something must be deliberate? It's not virtuous, it's a necessity. If a group can't defend itself it is doomed. Group is a concept, making this an anthropomorphism. The individual (who is capable of behavior) is unable to defend themselves from the State because the State WILL escalate, and with the benefit of societal acceptance of their aggression as benevolent and... indeed... necessary. Therefore, nationalism cannot be virtuous, especially not for the reason you've put forth. 1 1
rosencrantz Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 Group is a concept, making this an anthropomorphism. And? The individual (who is capable of behavior) is unable to defend themselves from the State because the State WILL escalate If you work together as a group you can change the state. Alone you are defenseless. Thank you for proving my point. Therefore, nationalism cannot be virtuous, especially not for the reason you've put forth. I never said it was. The surival of groups is a question of practicality not one of ethics.
dsayers Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 And? And therefore it is obfuscation, imprecision, deflection. If you work together as a group you can change the state. Alone you are defenseless. Thank you for proving my point. These are competing claims that cannot prove any point, other than the fact that you're engaging in anthropomorphism to obfuscate the truth. Groups cannot accomplish what a person cannot because a group is a concept, comprised of people, who would have to be the ones achieving what you've ascribed to the group, proving that an individual CAN accomplish it. I never said it was. The surival of groups is a question of practicality not one of ethics. The topic of discussion is nationalism. You are the one that painted it as necessary for survival's sake. A sentiment I have refuted since it was presented because your implication was that the "group" needed protection from without, when in fact that truth is it would need protection from within. Something that nationalism exacerbates, which incidentally leads to the threat from without. 3
rosencrantz Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 And therefore it is obfuscation, imprecision, deflection. No. Lets see what happens when you don't 'anthromorphize groups'. There were no groups such as the Foundings Fathers, the Revolutionaries, the English Army. All were indidividuals doing their thing. There was no revolutionary war in the US, only a mass of single aggressions. Groups cannot accomplish what a person cannot because a group is a concept, comprised of people, who would have to be the ones achieving what you've ascribed to the group, proving that an individual CAN accomplish it. So there are also no sports teams who never win sports games? They don't work together? A sentiment I have refuted since it was presented because your implication was that the "group" needed protection from without, when in fact that truth is it would need protection from within. Something that nationalism exacerbates, which incidentally leads to the threat from without. So there are no groups but you need to defend yourself from their actions?
HasMat Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Biology has value. Correctly assessing this value is virtuous.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Biology has value. Correctly assessing this value is virtuous. I second this. Virtuous/valuable behavior has a biological component when it comes to living beings. Given a moral standard, It is improbable that all compare equally against it.
Pelafina Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 Biology has value. Correctly assessing this value is virtuous. What's your assessment?
dsayers Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 @rosencrantz: I never said that concepts aren't useful. It's when you miss the trees in the forest and you begin to make false statements that it's time to take a step back and think about what it is you're putting forth. Your initial claim that was a point of contention is that citizens need the State to protect them from violence carried out in the name of religion. Something that occurs in isolated incidents and is accepted by almost everybody to be violent and intolerable. To which I pointed out that the very State you are turning to is also a religion, whose violence is guaranteed, and applies to everybody always. And you were using this oversight to justify folks asking this mother-of-all-abusers to enslave everybody to make use of this violence in a way that you agree with. One could not make such mistake if they were mindful of the fact that people exist, but groups are concepts. Useful ones to address specific aggregates of people, but people nonetheless. 1 1
Pelafina Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 Stefan should do an interview with Richard Spencer. Who agrees?
DCLugi Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 The thread poses the question of whether or not X is virtuous. If part of X is unchosen, that part can be dismissed from the overarching consideration. Would you agree that in order to be virtuous, something must be deliberate? Group is a concept, making this an anthropomorphism. The individual (who is capable of behavior) is unable to defend themselves from the State because the State WILL escalate, and with the benefit of societal acceptance of their aggression as benevolent and... indeed... necessary. Therefore, nationalism cannot be virtuous, especially not for the reason you've put forth. Agreed. One's value and identity doesn't equal their virtue but virtue can be a part of that value and identity.
Recommended Posts