Back in 2019, Facebook banned white nationalism from its platform. Informing the masses that:
Facebook’s epiphany apparently coming in the aftermath of the New Zealand, Mosques mass-shootings and under the growing pressure from so-called “civil rights” groups like the ironically called Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Muslim Advocates. Madihha Ahussain a lawyer for their organization stating that Facebook’s ban was “a welcome development” enlightening us further that:
“expressions of anti-Muslim, anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ sentiment — all underlying foundations of white nationalism.”
Mark Pitcavage of the ADL certainly echoed Ahussain’s sentiments about Facebook’s change in policy, convinced that it was: “a good thing if they were using such a narrow definition before.”
By too narrow, I think Pitcavage meant its actual definition wasn’t conducive to a broader manipulation where you can interchange the concept with white supremacy. In fact, Pitcavage clarifies this by informing us that white nationalism:
“had always been used as a euphemism for white supremacy, and today it is still used as a euphemism for white supremacy.” adding that both concepts are “identically extreme.”
There we have it then, two representatives from ‘civil rights’ organizations able to categorize, impartially, why advocacy for white nationalism, which would include British ethnic nationalism or any other ethnicity belonging to the Western-European-ethnic diaspora, is essentially white supremacy, or at least hate speech, which is in turn can be categorized, when convenient as, extremism; which further still lends itself to terrorism, making it tantamount to causing the Mosque shootings.
Call me a Cynic
Well, call me cynical but doesn’t this reek of sophistry and obfuscation. I mean a lot of assertions have been made here without even at least stating what white nationalism posits let alone how it caused the Mosque shootings. The truth is this omission is deliberate precisely for the reason Facebook claim they didn’t ban it in the first place:
“We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.”
Precisely! Note how this positivity in affirmation of identity is missing from both Pitcavage and Ahussain’s representations of white nationalism, especially when we break it down to ethnicity because to attack the legitimacy of ethnicity or religious identity, would have ramifications for any in-group, including one based upon either Islam or Judaism.
But worry not because in this current epoch whether something is true or not is not so important. Ultimately, what counts is whose truth. Nonetheless, you may be forgiven for thinking that it is a bit farcical for groups that are identified (permitted to self-identify unlike us) as ‘civil rights’ movements to suppress free speech, a bit Orwellian perhaps. “Hate speech is not free speech” – armed with this newspeak knaves like Pitcavage, can circumvent their way around the illiberal practice of silencing legitimate political opposition and uncomfortable truths.
The trap is to start with the conclusion and then frame everything in relation to that. Then it doesn’t matter whether real events are advantageous for the narrative or not. Take Leftist-based violence as the epitome. How many times have you heard the mainstream media utter the words ‘the Far Left’ or ‘Leftist extremism’ despite the fact that if I were to look up empirically which groups initiated violence more frequently, even citing the Left’s never diminishing favourite well of moral condemnation, Charlotteville, without providing copious amounts of stats, it would be unequivocally Antifa (or associate groups), followed by BLM; whether that be throwing rocks at students waiting in line to attend a Milo talk on an American college campus; or any of the numerous attacks on Trump supporters, especially post the 2016 elections.
Of course, these events won’t spring to mind for the normies because they were buried by the mainstream media and when they do report gleefully about say the latest Proud Boy protest to turn south, they will depoliticize the Left by using apolitical labels, especially ‘protestor’ or ‘counter-protestor,’ whilst their opposition will be labeled the ‘Far-Right’ or ‘extremists’. And from those more partisan parts of the establishment, including the aforementioned organizations, as White supremacists.
Twisted By Knaves
Perhaps, it would be a good idea to address white supremacy itself then considering it is the modern-day equivalent of being singled out as a witch, but with the added bonus of being applicable to only one racial categorization. What does it actually mean without all the sophistry and deliberately vague application? According to Wikipedia (hardly impartial but I’m trying to give the devil his due). White Supremacy is:
Well, lets try and do something that really wouldn’t be approved of by the Left: use their modus operandi, deconstruction, against them. Observe how when calling out Islamic violence, for instance, the messenger will be shot with a barrage of obfuscations such as: ‘which Islam’ “There are different interpretations;” “You can’t judge an entire religion by one crazy individual” and so on, whereas white supremacy can be asserted from the offset as matter of fact, no need for clarification. It can just be treated as tacitly objective, as with the concept of racism.
“The Belief that white people are superior”
Mmm! Different ethnicities demonstrating pride and accomplishment in different fields. Isn’t that what Black History Month is about, but to cut to the chase, the context this is applied to is essentially intelligence. To the best of my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of people within the white ethnic nationalist communities are race realists, concurring with the controversial findings upon race and intelligence within its scientific field, particularly that of the Bell Curve, where caucasians are not upon average the most intelligent race, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests. And even if you don’t want to accept this data, this categorically isn’t a belief in racial superiority.
“superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.”
This part of the definition is easier to dismiss. I don’t think it is possible to dominate other races if what your advocating for is separatism. Slavery would be the clearest example of the desire to dominate, although the Left don’t want it to be this tangible: they would rather assert white privilege into being (an argument from ignorance) and then leap to white supremacy this way because white privilege is not subject to any empirical quantification, just the process of pointing out any racial discrepancy unless the discrepancy is in their championed groups’ favour, as with affirmative action in America; or White working-class boys doing worst at schools in the UK.
The Emperor has no Clothes
Now that the curtain has been completely torn off its rail, we can see that there is no such thing as white supremacy in any substantial sense just as you will never hear the term in relation to any other ethnicity in the mainstream media. The problem Facebook was running into wasn’t that they couldn’t distinguish white supremacy from white nationalism, but they couldn’t really identify white supremacy in the first place.
What! You’ve overreached there Duncast! If that is true, who the hell is Richard Spencer!? – Answer that one you frigging Nazi!
Yes, the Left’s arch villain. The name any news anchor can bring up when they do want to prove there are witches among us. Spencer can be plausibly characterized as a white nationalist whether he personally identifies with that term or not. He has advocated for white separatism (incidentally, so did Malcolm X in respect to black separatism) and I have heard him in a discussion with Jean-François Gariépy endorsing the validity of the Bell Curve so the Left’s best example doesn’t even meet the criteria.
“Well, surely you must agree that the Mosque shooter was a white supremacist. The mainstream media was in unison when confirming this.”
Based on what? I would probably start with his manifesto as a good indication of what this sick individual believed. I can’t disclose that here because now it would probably be a criminal offense to share it, but I can say that there were no assertions of racial superiority or desire to dominate other races, and if they were I am certain that they would have been conveniently accessible to the media.
Rudyard Kipling in his sage poem ‘If’ wrote that if you could tolerate being lied about and hated without responding in kind you would have come of age. Here within the nationalist community at Patriotic Alternative, there are many people who have this moral fortitude, thus can stand strong while our detractors demonize us and the State places its jackboot on our throats. Are you still prepared to watch from the sidelines whilst others refuse to go gently into that good night?