Some thoughts on White Nationalism & Racism today on Capitol Hill

[Bootstrap]

I have very clearly stated what I see as the greatest form of racism practised today, I happen to think Ms. Owens would agree with me. No one has challenged what I said and I am fine with that because it happens to be a subject I am pretty close minded on. Just pointing it out since it is being stated that no .one wanted to talk about the subject.

You mean what you said about false accusations of racism? Or are you talking about something else?

[Josh]

Is it so hard to say, for instance, "yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't retweet white nationalists, that looks bad".

I don't care about "looking bad". I don't think it's good for people to be on Twitter in general, and I caution anyone involved with social media like Facebook or Twitter about the spiritual danger they are in. Retweeting often carries a lot of risk because it can look like an endorsement of whomever you retweeted.

I don't pay attention enough to Trump, Twitter, or white nationalism to really be able to say definitively that Trump is retweeting white nationalists. I don't believe you are unbiased enough to make a valid determination of if he is. I don't believe Trump is a white nationalist at all. I do believe he's not a liberal progressive and doesn't hold the same views on many topics as they do.

I don't think you are a closet racist. I don't say that kind of thing about you.

But if you don't want to discuss something, the easiest way is to not discuss it. If you keep attacking me, I keep trying to return to the actual subject. In this thread, that subject is white nationalism and racism.

Actually, the subject was Candace Owens' speech. A lot of us want to discuss that. Instead, you decided to start attacking her as illegitimate and actually being sympathetic to white nationalism - which is patently absurd. I wish you could take a step back and look at how bad you make your own position look.

[Bootstrap]

Josh, could you please quote the message you are responding to when you want to discuss what I said? Not just in this thread, but also in others?

If anyone wants to see what I actually said, most of that is in the earlier pages in my own words. I don't see much value in the last several pages of this thread. Happy to discuss substance ... not terribly interested in the fight. I'm not going to keep responding to accusations in this thread.

[Bootstrap]

Is it so hard to say, for instance, "yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't retweet white nationalists, that looks bad".

I don't care about "looking bad". I don't think it's good for people to be on Twitter in general, and I caution anyone involved with social media like Facebook or Twitter about the spiritual danger they are in. Retweeting often carries a lot of risk because it can look like an endorsement of whomever you retweeted.

Thanks. That is exactly my concern - doing something that looks like an endorsement of white nationalists.

I don't pay attention enough to Trump, Twitter, or white nationalism to really be able to say definitively that Trump is retweeting white nationalists.

I had thought the 4 examples I gave were very clear-cut. I had assumed that most people who looked at them carefully would agree.

[Szdfan]

I have very clearly stated what I see as the greatest form of racism practised today, I happen to think Ms. Owens would agree with me. No one has challenged what I said and I am fine with that because it happens to be a subject I am pretty close minded on. Just pointing it out since it is being stated that no .one wanted to talk about the subject.

You mean what you said about false accusations of racism? Or are you talking about something else?

I have some thoughts\questions\issues about your position regarding false allegations of racism. I’m just not sure how to have that conversation in a way that generates more light than heat.

[JimFoxvog]

I have very clearly stated what I see as the greatest form of racism practised today,

In a quick glance through this long thread, I didn't see what you thought was the greatest form of racism. Could you quote or restate it, please?

[appleman2006]

From a previous post

"And I am alright with racism being seen as an awful thing. I just like to be sure of what I am doing before I call a person racist. I personally define racism as anyone that sees another culture in a different light than their own. In other words if the first thing you think about when you meet a person is how his skin colour or anything else that sets him apart makes him different than you than you might want to look deep into your soul and see what is there.

You might even justify your feelings with the thought that this person because of who he is must obviously be disadvantaged therefor I need to patronise him and treat him with kid's gloves. That actually in my mind is the most common form of racism today at least on a systemic basis and the one that is doing the most harm today."

I think this is an obvious case of some of you not reading what I actually said if you think I said being accused falsely of racism is the most common form of racism today. I did not say that at all. Read it again very carefully.

[appleman2006]

I have very clearly stated what I see as the greatest form of racism practised today, I happen to think Ms. Owens would agree with me. No one has challenged what I said and I am fine with that because it happens to be a subject I am pretty close minded on. Just pointing it out since it is being stated that no .one wanted to talk about the subject.

You mean what you said about false accusations of racism? Or are you talking about something else?

I have some thoughts\questions\issues about your position regarding false allegations of racism. I’m just not sure how to have that conversation in a way that generates more light than heat.

It does bother me a bit if you think that I claimed that false allegations of racism was actually the worst kind of racism because that means that you did not read my whole post at all. I do not want to belabour this but it would be nice to at least have you acknowledge that you read my whole post and know that is not what I said. I would be happy to have you actually challenge what I did say I see as the most common form of racism today because I think that actually plays into the essence of what Ms. Owens said and is related to this topic and the OP. .

[Neoanabaptist]

Supporting one's own family, tribe, ethny or race is quite normal behaviour. So is supporting one's own church, religious or ideological or political community. There's no problem with this.
In all kinds of such groups, this kind of support can transgress: into harassing, attacking etc. a perceived (mostly real) enemy.

If a white nationalist drives his car into a group of opponents, the problem is not him being white (identity) nor him being a nationalist (normal behaviour), but him driving his car into a group of people (transgressive behaviour).

Transgressive behaviour is to be found everywhere. As far as there are differences they are differences of class. The lower classes prefer personal direct violence, the higher classes - who possess power - prefer impersonal indirect violence via the courts, via the media, via NGO's etc. This impersonal indirect violence is at least as damaging as direct violence.

Classical Western law relied on the identification and "outlawing" of the worst transgressions; it did not try to erase the "roots" of transgressive behaviour, i.e. normal behaviour and identity. This only became modern with "Puritanism", the Calvinist ideology of the 17th century which tried to abolish all sins by destroying their roots, i.e. destroying normal humanity.
(Puritanism was the starting point for the Jacobine and Bolshevist tradition - for that please read Jacob Talmon: The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy)

Unfortunately, all American Christians are highly informed by Puritanism - but Mennonites have been no Calvinists from the beginning and need not rely on Calvinist negative anthropology.

[MaxPC]

Supporting one's own family, tribe, ethny or race is quite normal behaviour. So is supporting one's own church, religious or ideological or political community. There's no problem with this.
In all kinds of such groups, this kind of support can transgress: into harassing, attacking etc. a perceived (mostly real) enemy.

If a white nationalist drives his car into a group of opponents, the problem is not him being white (identity) nor him being a nationalist (normal behaviour), but him driving his car into a group of people (transgressive behaviour).

Transgressive behaviour is to be found everywhere. As far as there are differences they are differences of class. The lower classes prefer personal direct violence, the higher classes - who possess power - prefer impersonal indirect violence via the courts, via the media, via NGO's etc. This impersonal indirect violence is at least as damaging as direct violence.

Classical Western law relied on the identification and "outlawing" of the worst transgressions; it did not try to erase the "roots" of transgressive behaviour, i.e. normal behaviour and identity. This only became modern with "Puritanism", the Calvinist ideology of the 17th century which tried to abolish all sins by destroying their roots, i.e. destroying normal humanity.
(Puritanism was the starting point for the Jacobine and Bolshevist tradition - for that please read Jacob Talmon: The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy)

Unfortunately, all American Christians are highly informed by Puritanism - but Mennonites have been no Calvinists from the beginning and need not rely on Calvinist negative anthropology.

I can agree with your points with the addition of one exceptional example: that of the politician who filmed himself harrassing and verbally abusing an old woman and teens praying in front of an abortion clinic. He is also known for making obscene hand gestures and posting them on social media. Does this mean he is not of the "higher classes" even though he occupies a position of power?