What's the point of this thread? Are you interested in the psychology of right wing authoritarians? Google that term, there's an online book that delves into why they believe the things they do.

What online book?

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

[...]

Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manners.[1]

Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[14][15]

Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.

Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.

Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.[16]

The terminology of "authoritarianism", "right-wing authoritarianism" and "authoritarian personality" tend to be used interchangeably by psychologists, though inclusion of the term "personality" may indicate a psychodynamic interpretation consistent with the original formulation of the theory. — Wiki

And the book:

http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Are you saying that that's the same as white nationalists? Why do you think that?

I don't think I need to spell out the fact that nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

That's incorrect. Are you having some kind of reality overload here? Can you not look away? Ill ask the mods to delete this thread if that's the case.

Ill ask the mods to delete this thread if that's the case. — frank

No, it's a good thread. I just came off as judgmental.

Sorry.

In the US, nationalism is expressed as severe isolationism (as if maybe the rest of the world might do us a solid and disappear). As I mentioned, black nationalism was about black isolation and it was accompanied by violent rhetoric.

If there are white Americans who want some form of isolation, what does that even mean? That was my question.

I don't think I need to spell out the fact that nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism. — Posty McPostface

There seem to be several countries that are nationalistic, but not authoritarian. Iceland springs to mind, as does Japan, and certain Eastern European democracies. Why do you think "nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism", when empirical evidence suggests otherwise?

Well now that, that implicit assumption that I have held has been expressed and open to criticism and examination, I'm not that sure it be true anymore. So, I seem to be at fault in assuming so.

Well now that, that implicit assumption that I have held has been expressed and open to criticism and examination, I'm not that sure it be true anymore. So, I seem to be at fault in assuming so. — Posty McPostface

What were you quoting from?

It was a prejudice of mine. Nothing more or nothing less.

"Japan" — tom

Hum, the whole freaking fabric of japanese society is lacquered in authoritarianism.
It's a society which is perfectly comfortable saying that they do not want to share their space with other cultures. The Japanese state itself describes their society as monocultural.

Being monocultural is one thing, and it can easily slip into the kind of thing white nationalism is, but it's different in some significant ways. Insisting that one's culture shouldn't necessarily mix with other cultures is often a conservative stance, but can be progressive (like not wanting to compromise on women's rights just cause older Muslim immigrants object).

White nationalism is not only about culture, it is more about race. The idea is that whites are different in meaningful ways (usually seen as better) than non-whites. They don't just insist on total behavioral assimilation-they don't want other races to mix with their own.

It's very close to black nationalism, which also insists on meaningful differences, but of course the history and psychology behind it is different. BNs (in America at least) are/were trying to reestablish an identity that had been taken from them by force by whites.

The way I see it, authoritarianism and nationalism are simply two names for the same structure, once implemented. The difference lies in the biases of those perceiving the structure.

Nationalism is slightly more... how to say... epurated? Ineffable? But essentially, the only purpose of nationalism is to ensure the nation's head authority.

But essentially, the only purpose of nationalism is to ensure the nation's head authority. — Akanthinos

What if the nation is a republic?

What if the nation is a republic? — frank

That doesn't influence the nature of nationalism. It's just a different form of political fiction.

It doesnt matter if it's a President, a Prime Minister, a Grand Director or a Council of Elders that makes the decision, in all cases nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind it.

in all cases nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind it. — Akanthinos

Question the wisdom behind what? I don't understand what you mean.

Question the wisdom behind what? — frank

Behind the decision.

To do what?

Long ago, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate to America, and only white land owning males could vote...

Fast forward to 1830, the rising populist Andrew Jackson rabble roused his way to the white house by promising suffrage for all white males...

Fast forward to 1860-61, A nascent Kansas is being settled and becomes a state politically allied with the northern states, which gave the north a majority in the electoral college, which causes southern states to attempt succession. Out of necessity during the civil war, the great emancipator (notably a racist himself) "freed" the slaves of the south (told them to revolt), and at some point afterward we all decided that the civil war was fought over slavery alone, and not to maintain the union.

The KKK formed as a reaction to all the newly free blacks following the civil war (within a potpourri of resentment, racism, and fear directed at catholics, blacks, jews, and foreigners of all stripes) ...

Fast forward 50 years and the KKK has spread to harness the full magnitude of prejudice in the U.S, and in some states its popularity could function as a barometer for racism and human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, in Europe...

German civilian pilots soar gracefully above the national discontent below, and as the ire of one particular malcontent comes to a head, the cultural and political climate of fear and resentment present in the nation allow him to slowly but surely rise to power. The old European anti-semetic meme was revitalized along with a new idea that one specific ethnic group of people are the superior ethnicity, and that a nation should be founded by and for this superior ethnicity to protect it's traditions, culture, legacy, and genetic superiority. Graceful German pilots become graceful German killers under a banner of white supremacy and nationalism.

By 1950, the idea is well out there. Though the nazi party were defeated (an ironic end for the white nationalists among them), bad ideas often behave like cancer, and this particular bad idea has been singularly immortalized by the second world war. Scientology also springs to mind for some reason...

During the 60's, our societies were becoming more and more diversified. Immigration reforms coincided with equal rights movements, and overtime the segregationist and supremacist elements of western political culture were marginalized and defeated.

By the 90's, white supremacy was highly frowned upon, and so naturally it had a small but dedicated following consisting of young misanthropic skinheads as recruits being lead by the old-guard white supremacist ideologues of the 50's-80's. At this point they were a mere counterculture in the mainstream of new political correctness that sought to civilize and bring an end to the emotionally charged and prejudiced rhetoric of the past. Bona fide racism saw a massive decline in the west between the 60's and the turn of the millennium, but just as we were about to turn an important corner of intellectual maturation, the internet happened. The recruitment and organizational capacity of social media, in my opinion, saved the white nationalist "movement", along with saving and birthing many other emotionally founded movements which function as mutual fuel for each other's bonfires. The easiest way to recruit someone into white nationalism is by exposing them to the radical rhetoric of their diametric opposition, white guilt.

As they exist today, the "alt-right" ethno-nationalists are a conglomeration of this inglorious history. They're awash in a mix of pseudoscience, fear, historical misreading, and general dissatisfaction. And to boot they've managed to build raison d'etres within the delusion that the white race is presently being genocided and requires saving. Wikipedia gives a decent summary:

White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity. Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation. White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost. Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.

White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts. White nationalist groups espouse white separatism and white supremacy. White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state"; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites, taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.

I'll try again.

Nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind the choices made by your government.

In other words, nationalism makes you believe that being a traitor is necessarily a wrong thing. There is nothing, however, which guarantees that betraying your nation is not going to be the morally right choice in any event.

As such, it's a fallacy.

Bona fide racism saw a massive decline in the west between the 60's and the turn of the millennium, but just as we were about to turn an important corner of intellectual maturation, the internet happened. The recruitment and organizational capacity of social media, in my opinion, saved the white nationalist "movement", along with saving and birthing many other emotionally founded movements which function as mutual fuel for each other's bonfires. — VagabondSpectre

This passage of your post caused me to have a stunned look on my face. I think I still have it. Really? Couldn't it be that the internet facilitated a pendulum swing that was going to happen anyway? Or no, the technology exacerbated an underlying feature of the culture?

BTW, your history of the American Civil War isn't exactly right. The real sequence of events was ten times more bizarre than that.

I'll try again.

Nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind the choices made by your government.

In other words, nationalism makes you believe that being a traitor is necessarily a wrong thing. There is nothing, however, which guarantees that betraying your nation is not going to be the morally right choice in any event.

As such, it's a fallacy. — Akanthinos

It could be that in some cases this is true, but there are also cases where nationalism wells up from grass roots. It's apt to be a response to a social illness, but I think some societies are just more nationalistic at baseline. Both the US and Britain are.

I don't know if Canada is or not. Is it?

Couldn't it be that the internet facilitated a pendulum swing that was going to happen anyway? Or no, the technology exacerbated an underlying feature of the culture. — frank

Whether it magnified or amplified, distilled or quickened, concealed or revealed, the contemporary result is the same: a new wave of white nationalism flowing mainly through the cultural canal of the internet. The internet represents a change in the landscape and transportation of ideas and culture, and for various reasons extreme ideologies are finding niches to fill within the new landscape.

White nationalism as you might hear it bandied today was reborn in one of the internet's many facets.

BTW, your history of the American Civil War isn't exactly right. The real sequence of events was ten times more bizarre than that. — frank

Well I did elect to leave a few things out, heh, but did I get any of my dates or major points wrong? I was pulling rather quickly from memory so do let me know if I've bungled something up terribly.

Whether it magnified or amplified, distilled or quickened, concealed or revealed, the contemporary result is the same: a new wave of white nationalism flowing mainly through the cultural canal of the internet. The internet represents a change in the landscape and transportation of ideas and culture, and for various reasons extreme ideologies are finding niches to fill within the new landscape.

White nationalism as you might hear it bandied today was reborn in one of the internet's many facets. — VagabondSpectre

Do you write music? For some reason that's blowing my mind.

Well I did elect to leave a few things out, heh, but did I get any of my dates wrong? I was pulling rather quickly from memory so do let me know if I've bungled something up. — VagabondSpectre

The South seceded because Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was elected because the southern delegates to the Democratic National Convention of 1859 stood up, walked out, and had their own convention. This was a political reversal. The anti-slavery people in the north had always been fragmented and prone to apathy. The slavery forces were always united, so slavery always won the presidency. Lincoln had been instrumental in gathering the anti-slavery forces together into the Republican Party after the shock of the so-called Dred Scott Decision. Now anti-slavery (to be clearly distinguished from abolitionist) was running one candidate for president. Pro-slavery had two. LIncoln won.

Southerners started becoming hysterical when LIncoln was elected, completely overlooking the fact that the Supreme Court had promised them final victory in the Dred Scott Decision. Southerners had been soaking in apocalyptic prophecy about a massive slave revolt where black men would rise up, take up arms and kill all the white people. They believed the abolitionists (probably about 5% of the American population) were attempting to help this world-ending vision to become a reality. So this was their understanding of an attempt made by an abolitionist named John Brown to take over a federal arsenal in Harper's Ferry, Va. Brown was executed, but the news that an abolitionist had tried to take an arsenal triggered fear. The Democrats said they had evidence that top Republicans were involved the Harper's Ferry Incident, and they named Lincoln (which was ridiculous.)

When Lincoln was elected, many Southerners earnestly believed something like the Anti-Christ had just been elected president. They just wanted to isolate themselves from it.

They didn't need to secede in order to protect slavery. And Lincoln wasn't racist. He had grown up poor and had no romantic feelings about black people. He wasn't crusading to ease their suffering. He believed suffering is part of life for everyone. He believed slavery was a disease on the vision of the Free Society. When people get used to having someone do their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom. The master is not free, he just has the preferred role in an un-free world. The master is just as locked in to his role as the slave.

Freedom means recognizing that you are not the role you are playing. You can pull your spirit out of whatever role you're in and invest it in some other role (like President of the USA).

I don't know if Canada is or not. Is it? — frank

The canadian government pushes a lot of "identity building" through the various media outlet they back, such as the CBC or Maccleans. At least, the french appendage of the CBC, Radio-Canada, is pretty much neutral.

This identity building results in a lot of chauvisnism. We see ourselves as more polite than most other people, including most European nations, and I can tell you, as someone who spent time on Alberta's oil field, the average Canadian swears like a trucker. We see ourselves as more responsible, more intelligent, better educated (which is, sadly, kinda true, americans need to pick up the pace on this).

It's not the worst nationalism. We don't think we can win at everything and against everyone, contrary to some others. But it definitely blinds us to our own issues of racism, sexism, etc...

And the way we treat the First Nations here... :vomit:

I don't think I've ever met a Canadian that I didn't like. They're awesome.

They're awesome. — frank

Sorry, but that's the point ; no we are not. Being polite is a must, not something you are awesome for. We have serial killers, rapists and morons like any other country, and just because we don't litter or swear as much as our southern neighbours, doesn't mean we don't have deep issues to tackle.

Have you ever driven from Detroit into Canada? It's like driving into the Land of Oz. Everything is in technicolor. It feels safe and happy. Detroit is grey, dirty, and just a tad hostile, not that the whole US is like Detroit.