PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: asechrest on January 12, 2019, 08:21:04 AM
-
Ben Shapiro, who I admire for his incredible debate skills, is speaking out against Steve King, who said -
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked in an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/424731-ben-shapiro-urges-congress-censure-steve-king-after-he-questions-why-term
Why that would ever escape the lips of a politician is beyond me.
-
Ben Shapiro, who I admire for his incredible debate skills, is speaking out against Steve King, who said -
Why that would ever escape the lips of a politician is beyond me.
So should we scrub our school books, and eliminate any and every references? Should we not teach how these groups affected our history, and what we learned from it?
Should we censor and rewrite history?
-
Like all the professional whiners, it wasn't what he said that got their panties in a wad. It was what they interpreted into his words that did the trick.
For the sake of blind liberals, the real offensive word in his statement was WHITE. Everybody is supposed to be ashamed to be white. White is the new "N" word. you can't say it without bringing down the wrath of stupid people on you.
It has become so profitable to be among the agrieved class that stupid people are creating new 'can't speak' words every day.
There is nothing wrong with the words White Nationalist. King happens to be white, which is an offense against the stupid people contingent, and if one is proud to be an American that makes the crime even worse.
The stupid people contingent has made so many words off limits that anyone can fall into the stupid people trap at any moment. When stupid people (democrats) made saying you were pro life into a sin, it was inevitable that saying you support traditional marriage an even greater sin.
From there it didn't take long to make being white a sin, and God forbid you be content to be white, instead of ahamed like stupid people (democrats) demand.
Liberalism has become a fascist system of hate and cruelty. Communists (democrats for you stupid people who don't have the stones to call a spade a spade) LOVE the control that has come from people caving in to the stupid people.
For those of you who are triggered and make-believe offended because I didn't put in any liberal terms into my opinion to sooth your pathetic souls, go fuck yourselves.
-
So should we scrub our school books, and eliminate any and every references? Should we not teach how these groups affected our history, and what we learned from it?
Should we censor and rewrite history?
For Steve King, at least, scrubbing the history books would have made no difference, since he doesn't know why the history of white nationalism and white supremacy makes them offensive, and so clearly hasn't read any of the history books.
-
There is nothing wrong with the words White Nationalist. King happens to be white, which is an offense against the stupid people contingent, and if one is proud to be an American that makes the crime even worse.
There is something wrong when a politician of our great country doesn't know the history of white supremacy.
-
So should we scrub our school books, and eliminate any and every references? Should we not teach how these groups affected our history, and what we learned from it?
Should we censor and rewrite history?
The Left is rewriting history, and spinning the past to suit their liberal/progressive indoctrination. Hence things like removing Confederate Statues that have stood for over 100 years, and all of a sudden now are "offensive". Textbooks are being rewritten to Virtue Signal how bad Whitey was to Black people, Indians, and any other group they choose. As always, the intent is to punish the people of today for their perceived sins of the past.
Our kids get this at school, then come home, and get it on social media, TV, and movies. The few minutes parents have with them can not overcome the barrage from school, and the media. Plus kids today are so wrapped up in their phones, and technology that it is difficult to even get through to them at home.
The Left, and the Media have now successufully made Patriotism (nationalism) akin to Fascism, and White Supremacy. They call it White Nationalism now, so if you are proud of the U.S. as a country you are Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic. Essentially one of Hillary's DEPLORABLES.
-
There is something wrong when a politician of our great country doesn't know the history of white supremacy.
Too bad no one is allowed to point out that the real white supremists were virtually ALL DEMOCRATS.... and nothing has changed except their tactics.
There is something wrong when someone thinks they can reinterpret words to make them evil and use their make believe anger to make money, which is all the PC movement is about.
The MMGW scam is all about taking money from people who worked for it and giving it to politicians who didn't.
The new race wars (ANTIFA, BLM, and all the rest) are about getting money from white people who earned it and keeping for themselves. Nothing makes a racist happier than a calling others racist and demanding money before they'll shut up and go away.
jessee jackson was the king of that movement.
-
There is something wrong when a politician of our great country doesn't know the history of white supremacy.
Many Democrats refuse to acknowledge their party created white nationalism and white supremacy. They also refuse to acknowledge that they created and maintained the KKK.
Go a bit further. Democrats refuse to acknowledge they fought against ending slavery, and they fought against civil rights, they fought against giving blacks the right to vote, and they fought for segregation. Many of the icons of the democrat party have connections to all of that.
Democrats have tried desperately to rewrite history and place these atrocities on the republicans.
Ask any prominent democrat about segregation and civil rights they will tell you they championed them. Ask them about white supremacy and white nationalism they will quickly say this is being perpetrated by conservatives.
-
Many Democrats refuse to acknowledge their party created white nationalism and white supremacy. They also refuse to acknowledge that they created and maintained the KKK.
Go a bit further. Democrats refuse to acknowledge they fought to end slavery, and they fought against civil rights, they fought against giving blacks the right to vote, and they fought for segregation. Many of the icons of the democrat party have connections to all of that.
Democrats have tried desperately to rewrite history and place these atrocities on the republicans.
Ask any prominent democrat about segregation and civil rights they will tell you they championed them. Ask them about white supremacy and white nationalism they will quickly say this is being perpetrated by conservatives.
What does this have to do with Steve King failing to understand why white supremacy is offensive?
-
What does this have to do with Steve King failing to understand why white supremacy is offensive?
Because talking about it is not offensive. Talking about it brings understanding.
By censoring free speech, or even atrocities of the past is a slippery slope.
-
There is something wrong when a politician of our great country doesn't know the history of white supremacy.
White supremacy was not really about white skin. It was about European culture advancing faster than the indigenous cultures of Australia, Africa and the Americas. Because they were more advanced they colonized and dominated those other continents and in very large part this was accomplished by not only technological superiority but by (inadvertently) bringing disease to which native peoples were not immune.
Nothing about that was unnatural. Humans always migrate and dominate and even eradicate other forms of humans, it's been going on for millions of years. The dominating group becomes advantaged through chance. Geograpical layout, climate change (I'm talking about geologic time scales) nutrition and opportunities to domesticate animals all play a part in the rise of a culture. Some groups evolve physically to be larger or more intelligent and this may also confer some advantage. Historically this is what happened with whites.
Meanwhile on the other side of Eurasia, a sub race of Homo sapiens sapiens evolved to be even more intelligent (although physically smaller) and also culturally superior, and could have just as easily been the rampaging colonizing scourge instead of the white man but for a random confluence of geography and politics in the biggest group there (Chinese) which hampered their navy and kept them home bound.
The Europeans by contrast and due to equally random happenstance did not limit their navy; ships allowing long range water travel was the single biggest factor behind "white supremacy". None of the three targeted continents had peoples with anything close to the advanced ship technology of Europe. Go there on good ships and wait for your bugs to kill them was in a nutshell the whole of white spread and dominance across the world. All the rest was incidental and normal political takeover that all humans do with each other when confronted with outside "tribes". There is NOTHING the white man did in that regard that was any worse than black men to other blacks within Africa, or red men to each other within the Americas, or people in the Far East or on the islands of Southeast Asia and Australia. All humans everywhere persecute, dominate, kill, torture and enslave each other.
The only reason whites are singled out for it is the cultural superiority (ships) that made the process easy to spread to undeveloped continents. This does not mean whites are morally worse than other races. Other races do the exact same deplorable behaviors and had they attained the same level of technology they would have been the worldwide colonizing power we would now be demonizing.
With globalization of travel and intermingling everywhere, the unequal development of culture and technology hopefully will be muted, and that as a root cause of white domination will be eliminated. Intermarriage between races will hopefully soften the sharp differences in skin color and other characteristics that cause people to feel "us vs them" but, no doubt it won't because humans will always create ways to group identify and then hate each other. Among all white nations you have prejudice against redheads. Among blacks you have prejudice against blacker blacks. Among Asians you have prejudice based on eye folds. It never ends, because we are Homo sapiens sapiens and it's what we do.
-
Are the terms Democrat Nationalist and Democrat Supremacists offensive terms yet?
-
Are the terms Democrat Nationalist and Democrat Supremacists offensive terms yet?
They should be. The Democrats are the enemy of the U.S. They value illegal aliens over taxpaying citizens.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?456719-6/representative-king-white-nationalism-allegations
-
Because talking about it is not offensive. Talking about it brings understanding.
By censoring free speech, or even atrocities of the past is a slippery slope.
You are the only one here talking about censoring free speech, or rewriting history. Ben Shapiro has suggested Censure of Steve King, which is a formal reprimand. Not to be confused with censoring.
-
You are the only one here talking about censoring free speech, or rewriting history. Ben Shapiro has suggested Censure of Steve King, which is a formal reprimand. Not to be confused with censoring.
Reprimand for using his rights to free speech? Seriously?
Please cite where using these words is an offense?
-
Reprimand for using his rights to free speech? Seriously?
I should try this. Tell the owner of my company to go fuck himself, and then scream "free speech" when he reprimands me. How very progressive of you!
Please cite where using these words is an offense?
I don't know what you mean by "an offense". Steve King broke no law.
-
White supremacy was not really about white skin. It was about European culture advancing faster than the indigenous cultures of Australia, Africa and the Americas. Because they were more advanced they colonized and dominated those other continents and in very large part this was accomplished by not only technological superiority but by (inadvertently) bringing disease to which native peoples were not immune.
Nothing about that was unnatural. Humans always migrate and dominate and even eradicate other forms of humans, it's been going on for millions of years. The dominating group becomes advantaged through chance. Geograpical layout, climate change (I'm talking about geologic time scales) nutrition and opportunities to domesticate animals all play a part in the rise of a culture. Some groups evolve physically to be larger or more intelligent and this may also confer some advantage. Historically this is what happened with whites.
Meanwhile on the other side of Eurasia, a sub race of Homo sapiens sapiens evolved to be even more intelligent (although physically smaller) and also culturally superior, and could have just as easily been the rampaging colonizing scourge instead of the white man but for a random confluence of geography and politics in the biggest group there (Chinese) which hampered their navy and kept them home bound.
The Europeans by contrast and due to equally random happenstance did not limit their navy; ships allowing long range water travel was the single biggest factor behind "white supremacy". None of the three targeted continents had peoples with anything close to the advanced ship technology of Europe. Go there on good ships and wait for your bugs to kill them was in a nutshell the whole of white spread and dominance across the world. All the rest was incidental and normal political takeover that all humans do with each other when confronted with outside "tribes". There is NOTHING the white man did in that regard that was any worse than black men to other blacks within Africa, or red men to each other within the Americas, or people in the Far East or on the islands of Southeast Asia and Australia. All humans everywhere persecute, dominate, kill, torture and enslave each other.
The only reason whites are singled out for it is the cultural superiority (ships) that made the process easy to spread to undeveloped continents. This does not mean whites are morally worse than other races. Other races do the exact same deplorable behaviors and had they attained the same level of technology they would have been the worldwide colonizing power we would now be demonizing.
With globalization of travel and intermingling everywhere, the unequal development of culture and technology hopefully will be muted, and that as a root cause of white domination will be eliminated. Intermarriage between races will hopefully soften the sharp differences in skin color and other characteristics that cause people to feel "us vs them" but, no doubt it won't because humans will always create ways to group identify and then hate each other. Among all white nations you have prejudice against redheads. Among blacks you have prejudice against blacker blacks. Among Asians you have prejudice based on eye folds. It never ends, because we are Homo sapiens sapiens and it's what we do.
This is interesting. You know more history than I, for sure. Can you recommend some links I can read?
When I think of white supremacy, I think of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy). And given the history underneath that umbrella term, asking when the phrase "white supremacy" became offensive seems silly.
-
I should try this. Tell the owner of my company to go fuck himself, and then scream "free speech" when he reprimands me. How very progressive of you!
I don't know what you mean by "an offense". Steve King broke no law.
So no law was broke, but King should be censured. Censured for stating words that are historically correct? Seriously?
And how is talking about wrongs of the past in correlation to, using your example, of telling your boss to fuck off?
So tell me, who, or what organization, or government arm is going to start to regulate speech? Is this in line with the progressive “hate speech” that liberals want implemented?
-
This is interesting. You know more history than I, for sure. Can you recommend some links I can read?
When I think of white supremacy, I think of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy). And given the history underneath that umbrella term, asking when the phrase "white supremacy" became offensive seems silly.
So.
It's just a matter of what definition you CHOSE to apply that makes it hate, or non hate speech...
Yep. We have another winner.
-
And who is Ben Shapiro to demand congress, or anyone for that matter, to do anything?
Who anointed him?
-
This is interesting. You know more history than I, for sure. Can you recommend some links I can read?
Good Lord no, sorry. I wouldn't know where to find all that on a webpage or two. I got it from reading many books over the years.
When I think of white supremacy, I think of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy). And given the history underneath that umbrella term, asking when the phrase "white supremacy" became offensive seems silly.
Well that definition falls under my statement "all the rest was incidental and normal blah blah blah". It's what's to be expected when one group of humans gains an evolutionary and/or environmental advantage over other groups. In fact it's what all living things do. It would have been abnormal if they hadn't done all that, and if a black skinned version of human had been the one to gain the technology of water travel first, we might be talking about whether the term "black supremacy" is offensive.
Make no mistake, saying it's normal is not saying it was right! It's perfectly natural and normal for a pack of hyena to eat a wildebeest - alive, slowly, from the legs and guts up - while it struggles in agony, but from the perspective of the wildebeest it's great evil.
You have to put yourself in the position of people before very recent times, with the internet and airwaves connecting you to distant parts. For the great majority of man's time on earth, he only knew his immediate surroundings and people. When white Europeans first discovered Africa, they did not fully understand that we are all the same species. It's been barely a century that fact has become universally understood.
This is all objective fact, so there should be no offense taken at the term white supremacy from that standpoint. However, if the term is used as an encouragement for continued racism, it is indeed offensive. I don't know enough about King to say whether I agree with Shapiro in this case.
-
Rush,
Don’t post tha over at POA. They’ll ban you for pointing out history that they have deemed racist...
Imagine someone noticing that cultures succeed or fail based on things other than liberal (communist) policies....
-
When white Europeans first discovered Africa, they did not fully understand that we are all the same species. It's been barely a century that fact has become universally understood.
Whether they even understood the concept of "species" as we do, evidence seems to indicate that blacks were treated the same as whites in ancient Greece.
Some references:
"Africans in Ancient Greek Art"
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm (https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm):
"The Negro in Ancient Greece"
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1948.50.1.02a00060 (https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1948.50.1.02a00060)
The section on pages 37 to 41 (or 7 to 11 offset) "The Greek Attitude Toward the Negro" begins as follows:
"The available evidence supports the general statements of Zimmern that the Greeks show no trace of color-prejudice, and of Westermann that Greek society had no color line.
Several authors give rather definite information as to what the Greeks thought of the Negro in his native land. Diodorus spoke highly of the civilized Ethiopians who inhabited Meroe and the land adjoining Egypt. He regarded the Ethiopians as the first people to worship the gods, and most Egyptian institutions as derivatives of their civilization. Lucian records that the Ethiopians were the first to deliver the doctrines of astrology to men and that their reputation for wisdom was great. The Greeks also had knowledge of the uncivilized Negro tribesmen who lived beyond Napata and Meroe. Ptolemy attributed their savage habits to the fact that their homes were continually oppressed by the heat, just as continual cold explained the savage behavior of the Scythians.
Odysseus regarded Eurybates very highly and gave him a place of esteem among his heralds. A Negro trumpeter on a Homeric shield is one of several devices which Chase is inclined to regard as indication of rank. In spite of the Aristotelian physiognomonical interpretation that those who are too swarthye and those who have very woolly hair are cowardly, many a Negro warrior must have won the respect of the Greek world. The Minoans probably employed Negroes as auxiliaries. Negro warriors fought against the Greeks in both the Trojan and Persians Wars and appeared in the Carthaginian army against Gelon of Syracuse. The rather extensive use of Negroes as auxiliaries may be an indication of the premium which certain Mediterranean peoples placed on their military prowess. Quintus of Smyrna, at any rate, records that the Ethiopians at Troy excelled in battle. Negroes on the coinage of Phocis, Delphi, Lesbos, and Athens point to the existence of a tradition which honored some Negro hero, whether it was Delphos, as some have maintained, or some other unknown black hero."
-
What does this have to do with Steve King failing to understand why white supremacy is offensive?
Allow me to counter with a question that is meant sincerely. Why IS the term White Nationalist offensive? I get why the idea of white nationalism is offensive, but why the words? BTW, I still hold the idea is Democrat Suprematism and Democrat Nationalist to be equally offensive.
It is important to point out that when we inhibit the expression of ideas via words, we inhibit the expression of knowledge. As I have recently been falsely accuse of virtue signaling, isn’t this the same thing? An accusation for the purpose of silencing someone?
Keep in mind that I am not a Republican (N7, that is your cue to berate me in your childish way). I really do not consider myself a conservative, I make my choices based on rational thought, more Jeffersonian than following the flock. Also alcohol is involved, so my inhibitions are lessened and I am more ready to say FU to more people.
Just being honest.
May the board be lively.
-
Bflynn, you really have no fucking idea what you are talking about... as usual.
I am not a republican either. Your childish bullshit notwithstanding, we have that in common.
I live in Florida where NPA no party affiliation outnumbers either Reps or communists (they call themselves democrats).
-
The Editors of National Review wrote a piece on this. They are no fans of Steve King, but they break with Shapiro a bit:
There’s currently a push to censure King in the House. We aren’t a fan of this approach because the precedent it creates of the House passing judgment on the speech of its members. It’d be better if Republicans policed their own and the NRCC made it clear that it won’t back King in a primary or the general election in 2020.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/steve-king-white-supremacy-comments-odious/
-
You are the only one here talking about censoring free speech, or rewriting history. Ben Shapiro has suggested Censure of Steve King, which is a formal reprimand. Not to be confused with censoring.
There's an argument to be made that by censuring Steve King, you're effectively censoring his free speech. I'm not sure I agree with censuring him because of the precedent it may set (see my above post by the National Review Editors), though I certainly don't condone what he said.
-
And who is Ben Shapiro to demand congress, or anyone for that matter, to do anything?
Who anointed him?
Why can't he? He has a large audience and a big microphone, so he's not any different than anybody else urging Congress to do something. At the very least, he's a citizen and has the right to do it.
-
Why can't he? He has a large audience and a big microphone, so he's not any different than anybody else urging Congress to do something. At the very least, he's a citizen and has the right to do it.
He's grandstanding and into self promotion.
Let him chirp away.
-
It's an old scam.
Change the definition to suit you, then attack your intellectual challenger with new definitions of words to gain an advantage.
Communists (in America they are called democrats) have been doing it for centuries.
-
Whether they even understood the concept of "species" as we do, evidence seems to indicate that blacks were treated the same as whites in ancient Greece.
Some references:
"Africans in Ancient Greek Art"
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm (https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm):
"The Negro in Ancient Greece"
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1948.50.1.02a00060 (https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1948.50.1.02a00060)
The section on pages 37 to 41 (or 7 to 11 offset) "The Greek Attitude Toward the Negro" begins as follows:
"The available evidence supports the general statements of Zimmern that the Greeks show no trace of color-prejudice, and of Westermann that Greek society had no color line.
Several authors give rather definite information as to what the Greeks thought of the Negro in his native land. Diodorus spoke highly of the civilized Ethiopians who inhabited Meroe and the land adjoining Egypt. He regarded the Ethiopians as the first people to worship the gods, and most Egyptian institutions as derivatives of their civilization. Lucian records that the Ethiopians were the first to deliver the doctrines of astrology to men and that their reputation for wisdom was great. The Greeks also had knowledge of the uncivilized Negro tribesmen who lived beyond Napata and Meroe. Ptolemy attributed their savage habits to the fact that their homes were continually oppressed by the heat, just as continual cold explained the savage behavior of the Scythians.
Odysseus regarded Eurybates very highly and gave him a place of esteem among his heralds. A Negro trumpeter on a Homeric shield is one of several devices which Chase is inclined to regard as indication of rank. In spite of the Aristotelian physiognomonical interpretation that those who are too swarthye and those who have very woolly hair are cowardly, many a Negro warrior must have won the respect of the Greek world. The Minoans probably employed Negroes as auxiliaries. Negro warriors fought against the Greeks in both the Trojan and Persians Wars and appeared in the Carthaginian army against Gelon of Syracuse. The rather extensive use of Negroes as auxiliaries may be an indication of the premium which certain Mediterranean peoples placed on their military prowess. Quintus of Smyrna, at any rate, records that the Ethiopians at Troy excelled in battle. Negroes on the coinage of Phocis, Delphi, Lesbos, and Athens point to the existence of a tradition which honored some Negro hero, whether it was Delphos, as some have maintained, or some other unknown black hero."
The Ancient Greek civilization was an island of enlightenment in many ways and a foreshadowing of modern liberalism (in the classical sense not the leftist sense). Greece's physical location and ability to commerce with Northern Africa brought it into contact with blacks as trading partners and other capacities but not as a prolific source of slaves. Nevertheless, if they did not draw color lines, they most certainly did group identify. All foreigners were regarded as inferior to citizens of the state and therefore potential slaves.
-
Allow me to counter with a question that is meant sincerely. Why IS the term White Nationalist offensive? I get why the idea of white nationalism is offensive, but why the words? BTW, I still hold the idea is Democrat Suprematism and Democrat Nationalist to be equally offensive.
It is important to point out that when we inhibit the expression of ideas via words, we inhibit the expression of knowledge. As I have recently been falsely accuse of virtue signaling, isn’t this the same thing? An accusation for the purpose of silencing someone?
Keep in mind that I am not a Republican (N7, that is your cue to berate me in your childish way). I really do not consider myself a conservative, I make my choices based on rational thought, more Jeffersonian than following the flock. Also alcohol is involved, so my inhibitions are lessened and I am more ready to say FU to more people.
Just being honest.
May the board be lively.
I know of no one who considers as offensive the mere utterance of the words "white supremacy" in the the benign context of news or history (for example). I give Steve King enough credit to know that. And the next line in his remark doesn't fit a suggestion that this is what he meant.
However, if he meant to ask why simply speaking that phrase in the context of history or news is offensive, the simple answer is that it's not. And most would agree.
-
I know of no one who considers as offensive the mere utterance of the words "white supremacy" in the the benign context of news or history (for example). I give Steve King enough credit to know that. And the next line in his remark doesn't fit a suggestion that this is what he meant.
However, if he meant to ask why simply speaking that phrase in the context of history or news is offensive, the simple answer is that it's not. And most would agree.
I agree, in fact, to ban discussion of groups who have committed evil is at our peril, because we will forget and then repeat the sins of history. It takes but only one generation to completely forget something if you don't openly discuss it and name it it's name. On the other hand I don't agree with constantly rehashing it either. I want objective balanced truth from all sides when looking at events but that's a hard thing to come by.
-
For Steve King, at least, scrubbing the history books would have made no difference, since he doesn't know why the history of white nationalism and white supremacy makes them offensive, and so clearly hasn't read any of the history books.
Obviously he should know the term white supremacy. But I reject the characterization of “white” nationalism. Nationalism is not wrong; it’s a very good thing in most cases. The adjective “white” has been attached recently (probably since Trump started to run) to create a racist connotation, and to obfuscate the lines between nationalism and white supremacy. In fact you did the same thing in your post.
MAGA, America first, or whatever you want to call it is NOT a bad thing, but NOW, due to a wholesale hijacking of the language, many on the left, including virtually ALL the talking heads on the left, equate nationalism or nationalists with racists and white supremacists that it’s simply a given in their view. So when a guy like King states something on the topic, he’s immediately the top KKK representative in the state of Iowa.
-
^^^^^Yes our Leftist Media has equated patriotism (nationalism) which they now call White Nationalism to Racism, and KKK affiliation. But, their obsession with Identity Politics using Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion is OK. Since there is no media watchdog, they are not held accountable except for places like this which don't harm them.
-
Obviously he should know the term white supremacy. But I reject the characterization of “white” nationalism. Nationalism is not wrong; it’s a very good thing in most cases. The adjective “white” has been attached recently (probably since Trump started to run) to create a racist connotation, and to obfuscate the lines between nationalism and white supremacy. In fact you did the same thing in your post.
MAGA, America first, or whatever you want to call it is NOT a bad thing, but NOW, due to a wholesale hijacking of the language, many on the left, including virtually ALL the talking heads on the left, equate nationalism or nationalists with racists and white supremacists that it’s simply a given in their view. So when a guy like King states something on the topic, he’s immediately the top KKK representative in the state of Iowa.
The term "white nationalism" is not at all a recent term, as a bit of Googling will reveal. But I agree, "nationalism" is not a bad thing.
-
However, like race, you cannot have a discussion about white nationalism. Lefties immediately jump to that because it's a white person discussing nationalism, they must be a white nationalist and that cannot be allowed.
-
The term "white nationalism" is not at all a recent term, as a bit of Googling will reveal. But I agree, "nationalism" is not a bad thing.
I’ve read the Wiki entry on this term, and there is no reference as to when this term entered the American lexicon. I won’t research this stupid exercise any further. But the fact is, to virtually the entire left and to the MSM, “Nationalism” (or patriotism, America-first, or anything related) is immediately and unequivocally linked to “white nationalism”, and thus branding anyone supporting nationalism as being a racist, or worse. The brand is permanent.
Look at the lies about Trump being a racist because he said there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville situation. Do you doubt that there were people there who, like me, don’t believe in ripping down historic statutes of one of the most significant phases of our country’s history, just because it suddenly makes some people uncomfortable? Those are the people Trump was speaking to, not the true white supremacists that still exist in many places in the south, and elsewhere.
-
But the fact is, to virtually the entire left and to the MSM, “Nationalism” (or patriotism, America-first, or anything related) is immediately and unequivocally linked to “white nationalism”, and thus branding anyone supporting nationalism as being a racist, or worse. The brand is permanent.
This is the problem when the Media is largely representing one side of the political spectrum and that is the LEFT. They OWN the narrative, and they sway people to believe these utter lies. So, in effect we are constantly dealing with a propaganda machine that sets the agenda, creates public opinion, and will certainly MOLD POLICY. It is scary.
-
However, like race, you cannot have a discussion about white nationalism. Lefties immediately jump to that because it's a white person discussing nationalism, they must be a white nationalist and that cannot be allowed.
Except the quote in question specifically mentioned white nationalism and white supremacy. There was no attempt to talk about nationalism.
-
I’ve read the Wiki entry on this term, and there is no reference as to when this term entered the American lexicon. I won’t research this stupid exercise any further. But the fact is, to virtually the entire left and to the MSM, “Nationalism” (or patriotism, America-first, or anything related) is immediately and unequivocally linked to “white nationalism”, and thus branding anyone supporting nationalism as being a racist, or worse. The brand is permanent.
Look at the lies about Trump being a racist because he said there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville situation. Do you doubt that there were people there who, like me, don’t believe in ripping down historic statutes of one of the most significant phases of our country’s history, just because it suddenly makes some people uncomfortable? Those are the people Trump was speaking to, not the true white supremacists that still exist in many places in the south, and elsewhere.
It is a perfectly fair point that "nationalism" is something different. Unfortunately, Steve King happens to have prefaced his two words with the word "white", so the complaint would not appear to apply to the instant case.
[EDIT] - Typo
-
Agree. I'm getting old now and time is going too fast, the term "nationalism" has zero racial connotation to me, but if what you're saying is true apparently there's been a very recent change in the definition. It is now by default (white) nationalism. People in their 20s for whom time moves more slowly will never remember it being anything else.
Extremely dangerous and frightening that the media is nearly 100% controlled by one party and it would be just as bad if it were the other party. Journalism should be as objective as possible and when you have the population at roughly an even divide but mainstream news only speaks to one side, you are molding all the young with a lopsided view of everything.
-
This is the problem when the Media is largely representing one side of the political spectrum and that is the LEFT. They OWN the narrative, and they sway people to believe these utter lies. So, in effect we are constantly dealing with a propaganda machine that sets the agenda, creates public opinion, and will certainly MOLD POLICY. It is scary.
I don’t usually if ever peruse CNN or MSNBC, by when I’m trapped in an airport of a hotel, I often have no choice in the matter.
In those situations, I have absolutely no idea who this Donald Trump is that they are crowing about. The person they are talking about is a cross between Pol Pot, George Wallace, and Hitler. It is NOT the same person that I recognize as our president. Yet day in and day out that is the ONLY persona that they represent. To them, there is no other “truth.”
-
Agree. I'm getting old now and time is going too fast, the term "nationalism" has zero racial connotation to me, but if what you're saying is true apparently there's been a very recent change in the definition. It is now by default (white) nationalism. People in their 20s for whom time moves more slowly will never remember it being anything else.
Extremely dangerous and frightening that the media is nearly 100% controlled by one party and it would be just as bad if it were the other party. Journalism should be as objective as possible and when you have the population at roughly an even divide but mainstream news only speaks to one side, you are molding all the young with a lopsided view of everything.
Objective journalism may go the way of the dinosaur, though I'll note that even in my parents' day (they were both journalists for large FL newspapers), newspapers had a noted "slant". The only thing I can see to do two-fold -
1) Teach kids that it is imperative that they take in the issues from different sources, even the sources they don't typically agree with, before accepting any of them as fact, and before drawing their own informed conclusions.
2) Teach kids that it is honorable and a sign of great intelligence to voraciously consider opposing viewpoints, even to the point of arguing for them as if they were your own, in order to understand them and then, if warranted or necessary, oppose or even destroy them with the substance of your final position.
-
I don’t usually if ever peruse CNN or MSNBC, by when I’m trapped in an airport of a hotel, I often have no choice in the matter.
In those situations, I have absolutely no idea who this Donald Trump is that they are crowing about. The person they are talking about is a cross between Pol Pot, George Wallace, and Hitler. It is NOT the same person that I recognize as our president. Yet day in and day out that is the ONLY persona that they represent. To them, there is no other “truth.”
Donald Trump represents to liberals their shadow side. They are projecting the worst parts of themselves, which they suppress with virtue signaling, onto him.
Conservatives do the same with people like Barack Obama. The difference is that conservatives tend to admit they are not perfect, no one is, and that there can be no utopia. Thus tends to keep the shadow in balance.
That’s why we can laugh at fools like Jim Acosta and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. We can admit that they are fools and point out why. Putting illegals ahead of Americans, for example.
But liberals can’t. Acosta and the dynamic duo have to be intelligent and rightly motivated. But they’re not ... so that construct has to be balanced by scourging someone not themselves ... Donald Trump.
-
Objective journalism may go the way of the dinosaur, though I'll note that even in my parents' day (they were both journalists for large FL newspapers), newspapers had a noted "slant". The only thing I can see to do two-fold -
1) Teach kids that it is imperative that they take in the issues from different sources, even the sources they don't typically agree with, before accepting any of them as fact, and before drawing their own informed conclusions.
2) Teach kids that it is honorable and a sign of great intelligence to voraciously consider opposing viewpoints, even to the point of arguing for them as if they were your own, in order to understand them and then, if warranted or necessary, oppose or even destroy them with the substance of your final position.
Excellent plan. And make sure not one penny of the family resources goes to a school or college that doesn’t teach the importance of looking at all sides. Good luck with that.
-
I don’t usually if ever peruse CNN or MSNBC, by when I’m trapped in an airport of a hotel, I often have no choice in the matter.
In those situations, I have absolutely no idea who this Donald Trump is that they are crowing about. The person they are talking about is a cross between Pol Pot, George Wallace, and Hitler. It is NOT the same person that I recognize as our president. Yet day in and day out that is the ONLY persona that they represent. To them, there is no other “truth.”
I get that feeling too. I'm always aghast, like what planet are these people on? This isn't the world I see at all.
-
Objective journalism may go the way of the dinosaur, though I'll note that even in my parents' day (they were both journalists for large FL newspapers), newspapers had a noted "slant". The only thing I can see to do two-fold -
1) Teach kids that it is imperative that they take in the issues from different sources, even the sources they don't typically agree with, before accepting any of them as fact, and before drawing their own informed conclusions.
2) Teach kids that it is honorable and a sign of great intelligence to voraciously consider opposing viewpoints, even to the point of arguing for them as if they were your own, in order to understand them and then, if warranted or necessary, oppose or even destroy them with the substance of your final position.
Your 1 and 2 is exactly how I raised my kids.
-
Here is Rep. Steve King’s statement.
One of my quotes in a New York Times story has been completely mischaracterized. Here’s the context I believe accurately reflects my statement.
In a 56 minute interview, we discussed the changing use of language in political discourse. We discussed the worn out label “racist” and my observation that other slanderous labels have been increasingly assigned to Conservatives by the Left, who injected into our current political dialog such terms as Nazi, Fascist, “ White Nationalist, White Supremacist,— Western Civilization, how did THAT language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”…just to watch Western Civilization become a derogatory term in political discourse today. Clearly, I was only referencing Western Civilization classes. No one ever sat in a class listening to the merits of white nationalism and white supremacy.
When I used the word “THAT” it was in reference ONLY to Western Civilization and NOT to any previously stated evil ideology ALL of which I have denounced.
My record as a vocal advocate for Western Civilization is nearly as full as my record in defense of Freedom of Speech.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/rep-steve-king-releases-statement-debunks-new-york-times-report-and-outrageous-accusations-of-racism/
The lesson learned here is to never sit down for an interview with the MSM. And if you do, have your own recording of the event.
-
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/brit-hume-racism-charge-against-steve-king-bogus/