‘White Nationalists’ ????

[childeye 2]

A reasonable opinion -- but what does it mean?

For nationalism to have any meaning beyond concerning one's nation, it needs to be qualified further. There could be many different forms of nationalism. Generally, as propaganda, it serves to create a context for an us vs them debate within the nation. Whether nationalism carries a positive or negative connotation depends on the substance of any actual debate about the direction of our country (in this case trade deals).

Because entanglement in foreign economies is not only beneficial, but inevitable -- thus torpedoing your definition of nationalism.

We are well past any conclusion of inevitability. As for being always beneficial, the subject matter is framed by Trump as, creating a "better" trade policy "more" beneficial for "America" in the context of +/- dollars. Contrary to that, any "failure" at a better trade deal, is going to be called, "Becoming less intertwined and independent".

Hence if a "better" trade deal is made, then logically the more beneficial, and the more intertwined and dependent we become. That's why it's propaganda. I claimed it's propaganda and I showed why, so I think my definition stands.

Except many of Donald's trade policies failed, and the US is no more independent as a result.

Of course it stands to reason that the less we trade, the more the market for our goods and the economy is confined to the nation. That's just a matter of due course. The question is, "is that good or bad" for all Americans? There are pros and cons that would need to be weighed. But when I see people complaining that we should be less intertwined, while also complaining that China and other countries are dominating us in the world, then I see someone reasoning on a contradiction (misinformation/disinformation).

 

[TLK Valentine]

For nationalism to have any meaning beyond concerning one's nation, it needs to be qualified further. There could be many different forms of nationalism. Generally, as propaganda, it serves to create a context for an us vs them debate within the nation. Whether nationalism carries a positive or negative connotation depends on the substance of any actual debate about the direction of our country (in this case trade deals).

And I have found that the definition I have used -- contrasting nationalism with patriotism -- has been both relevant and useful.

We are well past any conclusion of inevitability. As for being always beneficial, the subject matter is framed by Trump as, creating a "better" trade policy "more" beneficial for "America" in the context of +/- dollars. Contrary to that, any "failure" at a better trade deal, is going to be called, "Becoming less intertwined and independent".

And yet Donald failed (many times over) to make America less intertwined, and failed at making "better" trade policies "more" beneficial for America.

This should come as no surprise -- Donald has always excelled at finding new and interesting ways to fail.

Hence if a "better" trade deal is made, then logically the more beneficial, and the more intertwined and dependent we become. That's why it's propaganda. I claimed it's propaganda and I showed why, so I think my definition stands.

And it can stand for you as much as you wish it to.

Of course the less we trade, the more the market for our goods is in the nation.

Which means nothing unless the goods we have are the goods Americans want -- it's called "supply and demand" for a reason.

Otherwise, they're just taking up space in a warehouse somewhere.

That's just a matter of due course. The question is, "is that good or bad" for all Americans? There are pros and cons that would need to be weighed. But when I see people complaining that we should be less intertwined, while also complaining that China and other countries are dominating us in the world, then I see someone reasoning on a contradiction (misinformation/disinformation).

And I see someone who does not understand one of the most fundamental principles of economics.

Ain't it funny what people see?

 

[childeye 2]

When the word "white" is added to "nationalist", it's meant to add a racial component to the label as a way to demonize those they apply the term to. Race and skin color means everything to those who use the term "white nationalist".

Of course, it stands to reason that "white nationalism" carries a negative connotation to those who would oppose it. But to those who see it as preserving a perceived culture, such as those who I saw speaking in Charlottesville, it's a positive.

 

[childeye 2]

And I have found that the definition I have used -- contrasting nationalism with patriotism -- has been both relevant and useful.

Nationalism is basically any concern about the course of a nation, particularly if it is framed in diverging some way from the interests of another country or other countries. Patriot is a passionate description of the same generalization.

And yet Donald failed (many times over) to make America less intertwined, and failed at making "better" trade policies "more" beneficial for America.

Of course he did. He was selling a semantical construct where he could claim Americans win either way.

And it can stand for you as much as you wish it to.

Hmmm. The definition I gave is not based on my wishes. It's based on the sentiments of those who are self-described anti-globalists. I said this: I think that "Nationalist", in these times, means to many people, self-dependent and self-determined, as in not too intertwined with the economies of other nations.

Which means nothing unless the goods we have are the goods Americans want -- it's called "supply and demand" for a reason.

I think America is capable of producing anything. Your words, however, do bring to mind how consumerism is a different mechanism than acquiring the basic necessities.

 

[childeye 2]

When the word "white" is added to "nationalist", it's meant to add a racial component to the label as a way to demonize those they apply the term to. Race and skin color means everything to those who use the term "white nationalist".

I understand what you're meaning to say, but the real white nationalists will call it preserving a perceived culture or looking out for the interests of white people. So, another way to look at it is through the changing demographics in our country. These people who claim to represent a white nationalist movement are not trying to demonize themselves any more than a movement claiming to represent the interests of black people, like BLM.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nationalism is basically any concern about the course of a nation, particularly if it is framed in diverging some way from the interests of another country or other countries. Patriot is a passionate description of the same generalization.

That's one definition; I still find my own more useful.

Of course he did. He was selling a semantical construct where he could claim Americans win either way.

Sounds more like the construct he was selling was a hybrid suspension/cable-stayed construct spanning across the East River between Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Hmmm. The definition I gave is not based on my fantasy. It's a deduction based on those who are self-described anti-globalists. I said this: I think that "Nationalist", in these times, means to many people, self-dependent and self-determined, as in not too intertwined with the economies of other nations.

I agree -- it's not based on your fantasy.

I think America is capable of producing anything. Your words, however, do bring to mind how consumerism is a different mechanism than acquiring the basic necessities.

First of all, America can only produce those things it has access to the raw materials to, and our nation is not a bottomless wishing well.
Second, Americans want a whole lot more than the "basic necessities." We are consumers -- we want it all.

Really, this is economics 101.

 

[childeye 2]

First of all, America can only produce those things it has access to the raw materials to, and our nation is not a bottomless wishing well.
Second, Americans want a whole lot more than the "basic necessities." We are consumers -- we want it all.

Really, this is economics 101.

Exactly. Of course, whether we can or can't have it all depends on what that means (if not qualified). As I agree with your sentiment, I feel we need to think in terms of how establishing a sustainable lifestyle is productive towards establishing a sustainable economy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly. Of course, whether we can or can't have it all depends on what that means (if not qualified). As I agree with your sentiment, I feel we need to think in terms of how establishing a sustainable lifestyle is productive towards establishing a sustainable economy.

And therein lies the problem -- free market capitalism is not a sustainable economy in quasi-isolationist nationalism.

 

[childeye 2]

And therein lies the problem -- free market capitalism is not a sustainable economy in quasi-isolationist nationalism.

Whatever we call it, a country's economy is a good economy when securely maintaining a sustainable and achievable standard of living for its people. That may be rhetorical, but it is meant to imply a motive greater than greed or cynicism is necessary to change our current course.

 

[DaisyDay]

When the word "white" is added to "nationalist", it's meant to add a racial component to the label as a way to demonize those they apply the term to. Race and skin color means everything to those who use the term "white nationalist".

An awful lot of people proudly self identify as white nationalist - Trump aide Stephen Miller, for example.

White is not a race.

What is a race? Even so, it is an identity whether cultural, ethnic or societal.

 

[Aldebaran]

An awful lot of people proudly self identify as white nationalist - Trump aide Stephen Miller, for example.
What is a race? Even so, it is an identity whether cultural, ethnic or societal.

The label is proudly applied by congressional Leftists to people who don't identify that way as well, just as the words "white supremacist" is often applied to anyone who supports Trump--even if they're not white.

 

[childeye 2]

An awful lot of people proudly self identify as white nationalist - Trump aide Stephen Miller, for example.
What is a race? Even so, it is an identity whether cultural, ethnic or societal.

I can see how white can refer to an identity in demographics. I don't see how there are any cultural, or ethnic, or societal differences that can be inferred through the general meaning of 'white'. A Native American may not see it the same way.

What is a race? That question always seems redundant to me, since I come from several stocks, and my children even more so. My understanding is that some say race is relating to an origin of stock, and others say ethnicity is actually derived from the origin of different languages.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can see how white can refer to an identity in demographics. I don't see how there is any cultural, or ethnic, or societal differences that can be inferred through the general meaning of 'white'.

At least until someone decides to throw out the term "white privilege". That would be the time to ask.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Whatever we call it, a country's economy is a good economy when securely maintaining a sustainable and achievable standard of living for its people.

I suspect the people have a higher expectation of the standard of living than you plan to allow them.

That may be rhetorical, but it is meant to imply a motive greater than greed or cynicism is necessary to change our current course.

Is such a motive forthcoming?

 

[Albion]

What Republicans did is leave Democrats up in the air angrily flailing at the injustice and chicanery.

...and that has been very much the history of this kind of tit-for-tat finger pointing.

The Democratic Party specialized in something shady -- gerrymandering in this case -- and then when the Republicans got a majority, and even though they'd complained about the practice when the Democrats were doing it, they chose to do it themselves!

Predictably, the Democrats immediately sprang into operation charging that what the Republicans were doing was outrageous, unheard of, and etc....Precisely what they had done themselves before. Many people were fooled when they heard the claim.

So is there any political party that is better than the other in this process? Maybe not. But, maybe yes, because the pattern is for the Democrats to engage in it, excuse it, and then protest loudly when the Republicans finally decide to follow that lead.

Gerrymandering is a good example. But so is court packing, the spoils system used with presidential appointments, doing away with the filibuster, and on and on.

 

[Aldebaran]

...and that has been very much the history of this kind of tit-for-tat finger pointing.

The Democratic Party specialized in something shady -- gerrymandering in this case -- and then when the Republicans got a majority, and even though they'd complained about the practice when the Democrats were doing it, they chose to do it themselves!

Predictably, the Democrats immediately sprang into operation charging that what the Republicans were doing was outrageous, unheard of, and etc....Precisely what they had done themselves before. Many people were fooled when they heard the claim.

So is there any political party that is better than the other in this process? Maybe not. But, maybe yes, because the pattern is for the Democrats to engage in it, excuse it, and then protest loudly when the Republicans finally decide to follow that lead.

Gerrymandering is a good example. But so is court packing, the spoils system used with presidential appointments, doing away with the filibuster, and on and on.

Don't forget about questioning election results. Until now, it's been looked down upon as being undemocratic, unpatriotic and divisive. Now we already hear biden himself questioning the results of the 2022 mid-term election if it goes ahead without his bill going through congress to rewrite the rules for the election.

 

[Albion]

Don't forget about questioning election results.

Ah yes. That is indeed another example.

Until now, it's been looked down upon as being undemocratic, unpatriotic and divisive. Now we already hear biden himself questioning the results of the 2022 mid-term election if it goes ahead without his bill going through congress to rewrite the rules for the election.

That's true.

 

[Fantine]

...and that has been very much the history of this kind of tit-for-tat finger pointing.

So is there any political party that is better than the other in this process? Maybe not. But, maybe yes, because the pattern is for the Democrats to engage in it, excuse it, and then protest loudly when the Republicans finally decide to follow that lead.

Gerrymandering is a good example. But so is court packing, the spoils system used with presidential appointments, doing away with the filibuster, and on and on.

The difference being that after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Bill twice--in 2013 and 2021--the people whose voting rights were dependent on that bill were left helpless and vulnerable.

Red states went into overdrive, falling over themselves in their haste to take away their voting rights and tilt the balance in their favor. With the more recent Supreme Court decision, they became even more emboldened. Not to mention that technology has allowed them to draw the most bizarre districts to give them their advantage.

And how can you forget the blatantly dishonest obstructionism that allowed for the appointment of Gorsuch and many lower court judges? That combined with the 11th hour appointment of Coney Barrett when Ginsberg was barely buried? Not only do we have senators and congressmen who have no respect for voting rights but we have the handpicked Federalist Society judges who believe in voting rights even less.

 

[childeye 2]

I suspect the people have a higher expectation of the standard of living than you plan to allow them.

It can always be asserted that the grass is greener over there.

Is such a motive forthcoming?

By forthcoming, I am assuming you mean coming soon. As I see it, the motive has always been here, in that there exists a resistance to plutocracy.

 

[Albion]

The difference being that after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Bill twice--in 2013 and 2021--the people whose voting rights were dependent on that bill were left helpless and vulnerable.

In our Constitutional Republic, the rulings of the Supreme Court are not so easily ignored. I well remember what people said after Roe vs. Wade and some other controversial rulings--"it's the law. We have to respect the law even when we don't agree."

It comes as a bit of a shock to hear many on the left these days talk as though anything that conflicts with their preferences can just be ignored.

Red states went into overdrive, falling over themselves in their haste to take away their voting rights and tilt the balance in their favor.

Is there anything specific to report on that subject? It sounds like you're just repeating some politician's speech.

And how can you forget the blatantly dishonest obstructionism that allowed for the appointment of Gorsuch and many lower court judges?

There was nothing that was not in accord with the rules of the Senate.

That combined with the 11th hour appointment of Coney Barrett when Ginsberg was barely buried?

Yes, I understand that that turn of events was most unfortunate for the Democrats, but the process went ahead in a perfectly legal manner. Or are we supposed to believe that the Senate Republicans somehow engineered the death of RBG in time for the Senate to confirm a successor as the Constitution says should be done?

Not only do we have senators and congressmen who have no respect for voting rights but we have the handpicked Federalist Society judges who believe in voting rights even less.

The Federalist Society did not pick any judges. The Federalist Society compiled a fairly long list of possible nominees considered highly qualified...and the President took it under consideration, just as the Democratic Presidents do with their own advisors.