Eugene Terre'Blanche schools a "colorblind" Liberal

I think this video is especially telling. It particularly sheds light on the utter stupidity of the modern multicultist "liberal" who does nothing but parrot the same lines he's been fed from birth.

The contrast between the cowardly liberal interviewer and the late, great Terre'Blanche is as different as night and day.

Why is this 'reactionary'? I don't see this man singing the praises of private property and free markets. Terre'Blanche was a stalwart defender of his people, to label him 'reactionary' is not only wrong, it is highly offensive to his memory. Whoever put this in the 'reactionary' subforum should explain why they did so.

Also, why are so many threads started by avowedly socialist forum members being dumped here?

Bladridigan wrote:Why is this 'reactionary'? I don't see this man singing the praises of private property and free markets. Terre'Blanche was a stalwart defender of his people, to label him 'reactionary' is not only wrong, it is highly offensive to his memory. Whoever put this in the 'reactionary' subforum should explain why they did so.

Also, why are so many threads started by avowedly socialist forum members being dumped here?

I agree. Eugene Terre'Blanche was a hero to his people.

Bladridigan wrote:Why is this 'reactionary'? I don't see this man singing the praises of private property and free markets. Terre'Blanche was a stalwart defender of his people, to label him 'reactionary' is not only wrong, it is highly offensive to his memory. Whoever put this in the 'reactionary' subforum should explain why they did so.

Also, why are so many threads started by avowedly socialist forum members being dumped here?

First of all, I don't know who directed this video to the Opposing Views section, but I don't disagree with the action in the slightest.

With respect to Terre'Blanche, unless his 'people' were/are Africans, I fail to see how his actions/worldview can be interpreted to be anything more than (reactionary nationalist) imperialism. I would also like to know what aspects of Terre'Blanche's worldview can be interpreted as socialist or revolutionary.

Admin wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:Why is this 'reactionary'? I don't see this man singing the praises of private property and free markets. Terre'Blanche was a stalwart defender of his people, to label him 'reactionary' is not only wrong, it is highly offensive to his memory. Whoever put this in the 'reactionary' subforum should explain why they did so.

Also, why are so many threads started by avowedly socialist forum members being dumped here?

First of all, I don't know who directed this video to the Opposing Views section, but I don't disagree with the action in the slightest.

With respect to Terre'Blanche, unless his 'people' were/are Africans, I fail to see how his actions/worldview can be interpreted to be anything more than (reactionary nationalist) imperialism. I would also like to know what aspects of Terre'Blanche's worldview can be interpreted as socialist or revolutionary.

You are it seems, unfamiliar with the AWB, its founder, and Afrikaner nationalism. Firstly, as the video demonstrates, their nationalism is separatist, not imperialist, his goal is (or rather was, now that he is dead), the creation of a 'free-state' for Afrikaners only, not the recreation of apartheid government.

The Afrikaners are an oppressed and destitute people preyed upon daily by the native Africans; everyday they are subjected to rape, murder, and dispossession. They have every right to their own nation-state.

It is not clear what Terre'Blanche's economic views were, it could very well be true that he had none, but that in itself would not make reactionary. It would have been perfectly sufficient to point out that his economic views are rather ambiguous, rather than slapping the label of reactionary on him.

Before I forget, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the term 'reactionary'. This is not a term we should throw around, it has very specific meaning of someone whose views are highly conservative or antiquated. If we throw it around carelessly, it will become like the term 'fascist' which no longer has any real meaning.

Bladridigan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:Why is this 'reactionary'? I don't see this man singing the praises of private property and free markets. Terre'Blanche was a stalwart defender of his people, to label him 'reactionary' is not only wrong, it is highly offensive to his memory. Whoever put this in the 'reactionary' subforum should explain why they did so.

Also, why are so many threads started by avowedly socialist forum members being dumped here?

First of all, I don't know who directed this video to the Opposing Views section, but I don't disagree with the action in the slightest.

With respect to Terre'Blanche, unless his 'people' were/are Africans, I fail to see how his actions/worldview can be interpreted to be anything more than (reactionary nationalist) imperialism. I would also like to know what aspects of Terre'Blanche's worldview can be interpreted as socialist or revolutionary.

You are it seems, unfamiliar with the AWB, its founder, and Afrikaner nationalism. Firstly, as the video demonstrates, their nationalism is separatist, not imperialist, his goal is (or rather was, now that he is dead), the creation of a 'free-state' for Afrikaners only, not the recreation of apartheid government.

The Afrikaners are an oppressed and destitute people preyed upon daily by the native Africans; everyday they are subjected to rape, murder, and dispossession. They have every right to their own nation-state.

It is not clear what Terre'Blanche's economic views were, it could very well be true that he had none, but that in itself would not make reactionary. It would have been perfectly sufficient to point out that his economic views are rather ambiguous, rather than slapping the label of reactionary on him.

Before I forget, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the term 'reactionary'. This is not a term we should throw around, it has very specific meaning of someone whose views are highly conservative or antiquated. If we throw it around carelessly, it will become like the term 'fascist' which no longer has any real meaning.

Well said comrade! I totally agree

Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche (31 January 1941 – 3 April 2010) was a former member of South Africa's Herstigte Nasionale Party who founded the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (or AWB) during the apartheid era. During the 1980s and early 1990s, he became known for threatening civil war to maintain white rule in South Africa. After the country's transition to non-racial democracy, he revised his stance and urged his followers to push for independence in an independent Afrikaner homeland, which he frequently referred to as a "Boerevolkstaat". Terre'Blanche continued to lead the organisation until his death. A polarizing figure, Terre'Blanche was given several labels during his lifetime, including "white supremacist," "nationalist," and "racist."

Terre'Blanche spent three years in prison for assaulting a black petrol station worker and the attempted murder of a black security guard in 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Terre%27Blanche

Sections to note are; "threatening civil war to maintain white rule in South Africa", and the description of him as a "white supremacist" both of which reek of 'reactionaryism' in my eyes.

Neither Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche or the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (or AWB) are/were revolutionary socialist or left wing nationalist and that is why discussion of him or them is here in this section.

Because we use the term 'nationalist' does not imply that we support all who use that particular label to describe them selves.

Oh, and Bladridigan what term would you prefer us to use?

Bladridigan wrote:You are it seems, unfamiliar with the AWB, its founder, and Afrikaner nationalism.

What makes you say that?

Firstly, as the video demonstrates, their nationalism is separatist, not imperialist, his goal is (or rather was, now that he is dead), the creation of a 'free-state' for Afrikaners only, not the recreation of apartheid government.

I'm glad you brought this up. This distinction you are attempting to draw is severely flawed for a number of reasons. To begin with, this 'separatism' is based not on any legitimate premise, but rather a claim to specific territory that is itself based entirely on an imperialistic framework; for these Afrikaners would not be in any part of the African continent if not for European imperialism/colonialism. They wish to maintain a colonial presence in these lands, irrespective of the fact that their territorial claims intrude upon lands that were/are inherently African. This is no different than someone like myself declaring that I am 'entitled' to my own separate country within China, Japan, Korea, etc. and using force to justify my 'right' to it.

If the AWB or any other similar movement aspired to reason, they would attempt to work with the indigenous African people to determine whether or not such a construct would be allowed within their (the African peoples') continent. If no compromise could be reached, the best function of a national movement directed at the Afrikaner people would be to help assist them in repatriation or immigration to other parts of the world.

The Afrikaners are an oppressed and destitute people preyed upon daily by the native Africans; everyday they are subjected to rape, murder, and dispossession. They have every right to their own nation-state.

That's unfortunate, but how would you feel about the plight of foreign colonists in your country? Let's say Africans took over part of your country by force and established their own colonies — monopolizing your country's best resources and lands. How would their downfall strike you?

Of course, any crimes against humanity are deplorable, irrespective of who they are directed against. But, of course, these Afrikaners would spare themselves a great deal of suffering if they simply left that country.

The overall point here is that we should not be hypocritical about this issue, simply because these are Europeans we are talking about.

It is not clear what Terre'Blanche's economic views were, it could very well be true that he had none, but that in itself would not make reactionary. It would have been perfectly sufficient to point out that his economic views are rather ambiguous, rather than slapping the label of reactionary on him.

My characterization of Terre'Blanche is based not upon speculation of his economic views, but rather a basic evaluation of his 'nationalism'.

Before I forget, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the term 'reactionary'. This is not a term we should throw around, it has very specific meaning of someone whose views are highly conservative or antiquated. If we throw it around carelessly, it will become like the term 'fascist' which no longer has any real meaning.

If you cannot apply the outlined section of your post to an individual like Terre'Blanche, I'd like to know who it can be applied to. If you wish to revisit this forum's position on what constitutes reactionary nationalism and what constitutes left-wing/progressive nationalism, I suggest you go back to the FAQ thread, which states

"Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism."

What aspect of Terre'Blanche's worldview corresponds with this definition of left-wing/progressive nationalism?

Admin wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:You are it seems, unfamiliar with the AWB, its founder, and Afrikaner nationalism.

What makes you say that?

Firstly, as the video demonstrates, their nationalism is separatist, not imperialist, his goal is (or rather was, now that he is dead), the creation of a 'free-state' for Afrikaners only, not the recreation of apartheid government.

I'm glad you brought this up. This distinction you are attempting to draw is severely flawed for a number of reasons. To begin with, this 'separatism' is based not on any legitimate premise, but rather a claim to specific territory that is itself based entirely on an imperialistic framework; for these Afrikaners would not be in any part of the African continent if not for European imperialism/colonialism. They wish to maintain a colonial presence in these lands, irrespective of the fact that their territorial claims intrude upon lands that were/are inherently African. This is no different than someone like myself declaring that I am 'entitled' to my own separate country within China, Japan, Korea, etc. and using force to justify my 'right' to it.

If the AWB or any other similar movement aspired to reason, they would attempt to work with the indigenous African people to determine whether or not such a construct would be allowed within their (the African peoples') continent. If no compromise could be reached, the best function of a national movement directed at the Afrikaner people would be to help assist them in repatriation or immigration to other parts of the world.

The Afrikaners are an oppressed and destitute people preyed upon daily by the native Africans; everyday they are subjected to rape, murder, and dispossession. They have every right to their own nation-state.

That's unfortunate, but how would you feel about the plight of foreign colonists in your country? Let's say Africans took over part of your country by force and established their own colonies — monopolizing your country's best resources and lands. How would their downfall strike you?

Of course, any crimes against humanity are deplorable, irrespective of who they are directed against. But, of course, these Afrikaners would spare themselves a great deal of suffering if they simply left that country.

The overall point here is that we should not be hypocritical about this issue, simply because these are Europeans we are talking about.

It is not clear what Terre'Blanche's economic views were, it could very well be true that he had none, but that in itself would not make reactionary. It would have been perfectly sufficient to point out that his economic views are rather ambiguous, rather than slapping the label of reactionary on him.

My characterization of Terre'Blanche is based not upon speculation of his economic views, but rather a basic evaluation of his 'nationalism'.

Before I forget, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the term 'reactionary'. This is not a term we should throw around, it has very specific meaning of someone whose views are highly conservative or antiquated. If we throw it around carelessly, it will become like the term 'fascist' which no longer has any real meaning.

If you cannot apply the outlined section of your post to an individual like Terre'Blanche, I'd like to know who it can be applied to. If you wish to revisit this forum's position on what constitutes reactionary nationalism and what constitutes left-wing/progressive nationalism, I suggest you go back to the FAQ thread, which states

"Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism."

What aspect of Terre'Blanche's worldview corresponds with this definition of left-wing/progressive nationalism?

I don't want to dissect your posts, so I'll number my responses instead.

1). You seem unfamiliar with it because of your previous statements. Please see below.

2). True, the imperialist policies that led to the establishment of European colonies in South Africa in 1652 were certainly unjustified, but contemporary Afriakners, the product of this policy, are not to blame for this policy. They are no longer Dutch, French, or German, though they are derived from these national elements, they are a new nation altogether, an Afrikaner nation. To blame the Afrikaners for old imperialist policies is as irrational as blaming a child for the sins of its parents. Secondly, no border is carved in stone. The nation-states of today did not exist a thousand years ago, and it is very likely they will change in the future. Human populations are fluid, they rise, decline, perish, immigrate, and war against each other. No system of states can ever be frozen for eternity.

No given territory is eternally reserved for a given nation. The native Africans in South America today are in fact not the original inhabitants; the indigenous populations were wiped out almost to the point of extinction centuries ago, and for all we know, they could have taken that land by force as well.

Now, if the Africans were willing to allow the Afrikaners to have their own nation-state, they would be perfect, but there is no chance of such a diplomatic solution ever happening. However, I don't believe mass migrations to be a sensible choice either, because then their population would become diffused amongst a dozen other countries, and eventually cease to exist. The only ethical solution is the establishment of an Afrikaner nation-state, by whatever means the Afrikaners and can think of.

3). As I said, these people are not colonists, they are the descendants of colonists. According to your logic, the White population of the USA should all go back to Britain, Germany, France, and all the other countries (ignoring the fact that such a mass migration would be impossible) beause their ancestors were colonists who displaced the Amerindians (also ignoring the fact that the colonists in question were in some instances victims of religious persecution simply looking for a better life).

4). As for Terre'Blanche's nationalism, separatist nationalism is not specifically revolutionary nor reactionary, so characterizing him as reactionary for not being a left-wing nationalist is akin to suggesting that anyone who is not a left-wing nationalist is a reactionary, which is silly.

I hope that I've clarified my position somewhat, and if I sounded rather shrill in my earlier post, I apologize, it was not my intention, and I hope I haven't put you off. As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about the issue. In fact, the plight of the Afrikaners in South Africa is what first brought me around to ethno-nationalism in the first place.

Isakenaz, I saw your post, and I'll answer it tomorrow, since it's getting late where I live, and this one took longer than I expected.

Bladridigan wrote:I don't want to dissect your posts,

It's a bit of a pain, so don't worry about it.

1). You seem unfamiliar with it because of your previous statements. Please see below.

Well, I disagree with that assessment. I understand the dynamics of the question well enough to render an opinion on it.

2). True, the imperialist policies that led to the establishment of European colonies in South Africa in 1652 were certainly unjustified, but contemporary Afriakners, the product of this policy, are not to blame for this policy.

True and I don't blame their descendants for those actions. However, we also have to acknowledge the fact that they still were/are the beneficiaries of those policies and that Afrikaner 'nationalist' movements (such as the AWB) seek to perpetuate their privileged status in that region of Africa.

They are no longer Dutch, French, or German, though they are derived from these national elements, they are a new nation altogether, an Afrikaner nation.

Well, a nation is a relative concept, so I am inclined to agree. At the same time, however, national identity should not be so uncompromisingly interconnected to specific territorial claims. We know what such things lead to. I'm sure that in the case of Zionism, you likely oppose Jewish claims to Palestinian territory. I don't see how this case is much different.

To blame the Afrikaners for old imperialist policies is as irrational as blaming a child for the sins of its parents.

Again, I never blamed the modern Afrikaners for that.

Secondly, no border is carved in stone. The nation-states of today did not exist a thousand years ago, and it is very likely they will change in the future. Human populations are fluid, they rise, decline, perish, immigrate, and war against each other. No system of states can ever be frozen for eternity.

I agree. What warrants our consideration, however, is the overall basis of such changes to the current assortment of nation-states. I am not going to support the formation of a new nation-state simply because it can be done. A movement based upon the principle of national self-determination should be able to demonstrate its legitimacy to its constituency, as well as to the relevant parts of the international community — in particular, those who will be affected by the many changes such a movement will bring.

No given territory is eternally reserved for a given nation. The native Africans in South America today are in fact not the original inhabitants; the indigenous populations were wiped out almost to the point of extinction centuries ago, and for all we know, they could have taken that land by force as well.

There is no use indulging in such speculation. The only time I ever encounter such (opportunistic) rationalizations is when someone is attempting to justify imperialism.

With respect to the overall plight of the indigenous Americans, I regard it as very unfortunate and believe that far more should be done to provide those remaining (indigenous) populations with sufficient autonomy and material opportunity.

That being said, the matter at hand is not at all equivalent. South Africa is still overwhelmingly Black with a marginal 'Boer' population (less than 4 million people). The AWB and similar movements seek to provide that (Boer) minority with a substantial portion of African land and have no regard for the concerns of the indigenous population — much of which would be directly affected by such a political transformation to the region.

Now, if the Africans were willing to allow the Afrikaners to have their own nation-state, they would be perfect, but there is no chance of such a diplomatic solution ever happening. However, I don't believe mass migrations to be a sensible choice either, because then their population would become diffused amongst a dozen other countries, and eventually cease to exist. The only ethical solution is the establishment of an Afrikaner nation-state, by whatever means the Afrikaners and can think of.

First of all, the 'diffusion' of a nation does not automatically nullify its existence. (The history of the Jewish people alone clearly demonstrates this fact.) Secondly, I do not inherently reject the premise behind the right of Afrikaners to have their own nation-state, but that does not mean that its borders should conform to those sought by the AWB or any similar movement.

I recall you suggesting that the Zionists were not entitled to Palestinian lands (recommending instead that they be provided with lands elsewhere). I don't see why you view the AWB's claims to South Africa territory to be any more reasonable than the Zionist's claims to Palestine. (The former case is, in my opinion, far more absurd, as the Jewish people are at least partially Semitic.)

3). As I said, these people are not colonists, they are the descendants of colonists. According to your logic, the White population of the USA should all go back to Britain, Germany, France, and all the other countries (ignoring the fact that such a mass migration would be impossible) beause their ancestors were colonists who displaced the Amerindians (also ignoring the fact that the colonists in question were in some instances victims of religious persecution simply looking for a better life).

The cases are not equivalent. The North American continent no longer hosts has a majority population of indigenous Americans. South Africa, on the other hand, is still predominately African. Most Americans are the descendants of Europeans who immigrated to the United States after its founding as an independent country. Most Boers, on the other hand (at least from what I understand), are the descendants of European colonists. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

With respect to what should be done about the remaining indigenous American population, I refer back to my previous statements on the matter.

4). As for Terre'Blanche's nationalism, separatist nationalism is not specifically revolutionary nor reactionary, so characterizing him as reactionary for not being a left-wing nationalist is akin to suggesting that anyone who is not a left-wing nationalist is a reactionary, which is silly.

You are intentionally keeping things as abstract as possible, in order to justify this sort of ideological neutrality. Of course, separatism is not inherently revolutionary nor reactionary. Terre'Blanche's separatism, however, was reactionary. His chauvinism/jingoism and antagonism towards the indigenous African people was/is proof enough of this. His Christian zealotry was/is also evidence of this.

I hope that I've clarified my position somewhat, and if I sounded rather shrill in my earlier post, I apologize, it was not my intention,

Nor was it mine, so I too apologize if I have left you with any such impression.

and I hope I haven't put you off.

Don't worry, you haven't.

As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about the issue. In fact, the plight of the Afrikaners in South Africa is what first brought me around to ethno-nationalism in the first place.

That's interesting.

Admin wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:I don't want to dissect your posts,

It's a bit of a pain, so don't worry about it.

1). You seem unfamiliar with it because of your previous statements. Please see below.

Well, I disagree with that assessment. I understand the dynamics of the question well enough to render an opinion on it.

2). True, the imperialist policies that led to the establishment of European colonies in South Africa in 1652 were certainly unjustified, but contemporary Afriakners, the product of this policy, are not to blame for this policy.

True and I don't blame their descendants for those actions. However, we also have to acknowledge the fact that they still were/are the beneficiaries of those policies and that Afrikaner 'nationalist' movements (such as the AWB) seek to perpetuate their privileged status in that region of Africa.

They are no longer Dutch, French, or German, though they are derived from these national elements, they are a new nation altogether, an Afrikaner nation.

Well, a nation is a relative concept, so I am inclined to agree. At the same time, however, national identity should not be so uncompromisingly interconnected to specific territorial claims. We know what such things lead to. I'm sure that in the case of Zionism, you likely oppose Jewish claims to Palestinian territory. I don't see how this case is much different.

To blame the Afrikaners for old imperialist policies is as irrational as blaming a child for the sins of its parents.

Again, I never blamed the modern Afrikaners for that.

Secondly, no border is carved in stone. The nation-states of today did not exist a thousand years ago, and it is very likely they will change in the future. Human populations are fluid, they rise, decline, perish, immigrate, and war against each other. No system of states can ever be frozen for eternity.

I agree. What warrants our consideration, however, is the overall basis of such changes to the current assortment of nation-states. I am not going to support the formation of a new nation-state simply because it can be done. A movement based upon the principle of national self-determination should be able to demonstrate its legitimacy to its constituency, as well as to the relevant parts of the international community — in particular, those who will be affected by the many changes such a movement will bring.

No given territory is eternally reserved for a given nation. The native Africans in South America today are in fact not the original inhabitants; the indigenous populations were wiped out almost to the point of extinction centuries ago, and for all we know, they could have taken that land by force as well.

There is no use indulging in such speculation. The only time I ever encounter such (opportunistic) rationalizations is when someone is attempting to justify imperialism.

With respect to the overall plight of the indigenous Americans, I regard it as very unfortunate and believe that far more should be done to provide those remaining (indigenous) populations with sufficient autonomy and material opportunity.

That being said, the matter at hand is not at all equivalent. South Africa is still overwhelmingly Black with a marginal 'Boer' population (less than 4 million people). The AWB and similar movements seek to provide that (Boer) minority with a substantial portion of African land and have no regard for the concerns of the indigenous population — much of which would be directly affected by such a political transformation to the region.

Now, if the Africans were willing to allow the Afrikaners to have their own nation-state, they would be perfect, but there is no chance of such a diplomatic solution ever happening. However, I don't believe mass migrations to be a sensible choice either, because then their population would become diffused amongst a dozen other countries, and eventually cease to exist. The only ethical solution is the establishment of an Afrikaner nation-state, by whatever means the Afrikaners and can think of.

First of all, the 'diffusion' of a nation does not automatically nullify its existence. (The history of the Jewish people alone clearly demonstrates this fact.) Secondly, I do not inherently reject the premise behind the right of Afrikaners to have their own nation-state, but that does not mean that its borders should conform to those sought by the AWB or any similar movement.

I recall you suggesting that the Zionists were not entitled to Palestinian lands (recommending instead that they be provided with lands elsewhere). I don't see why you view the AWB's claims to South Africa territory to be any more reasonable than the Zionist's claims to Palestine. (The former case is, in my opinion, far more absurd, as the Jewish people are at least partially Semitic.)

3). As I said, these people are not colonists, they are the descendants of colonists. According to your logic, the White population of the USA should all go back to Britain, Germany, France, and all the other countries (ignoring the fact that such a mass migration would be impossible) beause their ancestors were colonists who displaced the Amerindians (also ignoring the fact that the colonists in question were in some instances victims of religious persecution simply looking for a better life).

The cases are not equivalent. The North American continent no longer hosts has a majority population of indigenous Americans. South Africa, on the other hand, is still predominately African. Most Americans are the descendants of Europeans who immigrated to the United States after its founding as an independent country. Most Boers, on the other hand (at least from what I understand), are the descendants of European colonists. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

With respect to what should be done about the remaining indigenous American population, I refer back to my previous statements on the matter.

4). As for Terre'Blanche's nationalism, separatist nationalism is not specifically revolutionary nor reactionary, so characterizing him as reactionary for not being a left-wing nationalist is akin to suggesting that anyone who is not a left-wing nationalist is a reactionary, which is silly.

You are intentionally keeping things as abstract as possible, in order to justify this sort of ideological neutrality. Of course, separatism is not inherently revolutionary nor reactionary. Terre'Blanche's separatism, however, was reactionary. His chauvinism/jingoism and antagonism towards the indigenous African people was/is proof enough of this. His Christian zealotry was/is also evidence of this.

I hope that I've clarified my position somewhat, and if I sounded rather shrill in my earlier post, I apologize, it was not my intention,

Nor was it mine, so I too apologize if I have left you with any such impression.

and I hope I haven't put you off.

Don't worry, you haven't.

As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about the issue. In fact, the plight of the Afrikaners in South Africa is what first brought me around to ethno-nationalism in the first place.

That's interesting.

Once again, I'll number my responses for simplicity. I'll skip the numbers where we've reached agreement.

2). How exactly are the Afrikaners still the beneficiaries of imperialist policies? What privileged status? Ever since the end of apartheid, they've been the victims of persecution by the majority African government, there is no privileged status to perpetuate, unless you mean bringing back apartheid, which has no chance of happening, due to the fact that they're so badly outnumbered. The AWB has no chance, and certainly no plan, to bring back apartheid, but rather to ensure their own survival in a separate state.

Your argument is reminiscent of liberals who miss the major distinction between separatism and supremacism.

3. I agree that nationality is not interconnected with territory, that mentality leads to irridentism. In the case of Zionism, yes, I do oppose Jewish claims to Palestinian territory, but then again, the Israeli state was created within living memory, it is an apartheid state based upon Jewish domination of the Palestinians, and is still bringing in immigrants. It is an imperial state in every sense of the term. The Afrikaners are the equivalent of the Palestinians in this case.

6). Actually, except for that least part, that wasn't speculation, it is a fact that the Africans in that region today are not its indigenous inhabitants, and just as a reminder, I am not trying to justify imperialism. If the territorial claims of the AWB are too ambitious, then let the Afrikaners have a smaller fraction that corresponds to their population.

7). It is true that nations can survive in a diaspora, but such examples of the Jews are exceptions, European nations and their derivatives have a habit of being "swallowed by the blob", when they immigrate, to use a phrase from my favorite horror movie. Agreed, the territory desired by the AWB is disproportionate to its population, so they ought to, IMHO, lower their demands. It would increase their chances of getting something at all.

Alas, the AWB would probably never listen to either of us, or anyone else, for that matter. As for what I think about the Jews/Palestine situation, refer back to my previous statements on the matter.

Tell me, do you subscribe to any particular school of international relations by any chance?

Bladridigan wrote:Once again, I'll number my responses for simplicity. I'll skip the numbers where we've reached agreement.

2). How exactly are the Afrikaners still the beneficiaries of imperialist policies? What privileged status? Ever since the end of apartheid, they've been the victims of persecution by the majority African government, there is no privileged status to perpetuate, unless you mean bringing back apartheid, which has no chance of happening, due to the fact that they're so badly outnumbered. The AWB has no chance, and certainly no plan, to bring back apartheid, but rather to ensure their own survival in a separate state.

Your argument is reminiscent of liberals who miss the major distinction between separatism and supremacism.

They are beneficiaries in a number of ways.

First and foremost, they are on the African continent. This was not the result of a peaceful migration that enjoyed the consent of the African people. Moreover, the era of apartheid also afforded the colonialists and their descendants many material advantages. As such, you find a number of Afrikaners today living on relatively large estates and so forth. (That is not discounting the fact that many Afrikaners are nevertheless subject to capitalist exploitation like the rest of the population.)

Insofar as the AWB's 'plans' are concerned, perhaps the organization does not currently advocate on behalf of the re-institution of apartheid, but I do recall that Terre'Blanche was initially in favor of perpetuating apartheid before he chose to pursue an agenda based upon what can be regarded as a separatist framework.

3. I agree that nationality is not interconnected with territory, that mentality leads to irridentism. In the case of Zionism, yes, I do oppose Jewish claims to Palestinian territory, but then again, the Israeli state was created within living memory, it is an apartheid state based upon Jewish domination of the Palestinians, and is still bringing in immigrants. It is an imperial state in every sense of the term. The Afrikaners are the equivalent of the Palestinians in this case.

I am not so sure that you can draw that particular correlation. The Israelis, for example, utilize advanced weaponry and domestic military forces against the Palestinian people. The oppression is state-sanctioned, with Western-backing. The crimes perpetuated against the Afrikaner people primarily involve rouge individuals/groups victimizing certain of the Afrikaner people — with various levels of state indifference towards such crimes.

Of course, that does not make the crimes against any of the populations in question any less deplorable.

6). Actually, except for that least part, that wasn't speculation, it is a fact that the Africans in that region today are not its indigenous inhabitants, and just as a reminder, I am not trying to justify imperialism. If the territorial claims of the AWB are too ambitious, then let the Afrikaners have a smaller fraction that corresponds to their population.

Well, I doubt that the territorial claims of the AWB would form the framework for any viable plan directed towards establishing autonomous rights for the Afrikaner community. However, I do agree that a proportional approach to the question of territorial distribution would be the most sensible option for any such movement to pursue.

7). It is true that nations can survive in a diaspora, but such examples of the Jews are exceptions, European nations and their derivatives have a habit of being "swallowed by the blob", when they immigrate, to use a phrase from my favorite horror movie. Agreed, the territory desired by the AWB is disproportionate to its population, so they ought to, IMHO, lower their demands. It would increase their chances of getting something at all.

While it is indeed true that the experience of the Jewish people serves as more of an exception, insofar as certain Caucasian populations are concerned, I would argue that a more acute sense of national identity is identifiable amongst many immigrant populations, of multiple racial persuasions (primarily from the Global South). Much of this has to do with the circumstances surrounding the assimilation process of each respective ethnic group within the countries they find themselves in.

And, again, I agree that more proportional demands would certainly help the overall cause of Afrikaner separatism — though I still feel the cause itself has not truly demonstrated its legitimacy. However, I must stress that the viability of such a cause is largely contingent upon the overall character of the movement behind it. On that point, the AWB simply cannot be regarded, by any rational individual, as a viable organization for such an enterprise.

Alas, the AWB would probably never listen to either of us, or anyone else, for that matter. As for what I think about the Jews/Palestine situation, refer back to my previous statements on the matter.

Indeed, they would not and that partially accounts for why they should not be regarded as a movement capable of advancing a legitimate expression of Afrikaner nationalism.

Tell me, do you subscribe to any particular school of international relations by any chance?

I have studied international relations at a relatively superficial level in college, but have also studied numerous issues of pertinence to this overall field — as I am sure many socialists and nationalists have. Personally, I tend to view the question of international relations more in a post-positivist (particularly Marxian) capacity.

Why should we support any 'nationalism' that isn't proletarian-based and pursuing revolutionary socialism?

Coach wrote:Why should we support any 'nationalism' that isn't proletarian-based and pursuing revolutionary socialism?

Well, I for one surely do not. (I trust I have not given the impression that I would any support expression of nationalism that wasn't itself based upon a framework of socialist emancipation.)

Admin wrote:

Coach wrote:Why should we support any 'nationalism' that isn't proletarian-based and pursuing revolutionary socialism?

Well, I for one surely do not. (I trust I have not given the impression that I would any support expression of nationalism that wasn't itself based upon a framework of socialist emancipation.)

You haven't, comrade. I'm asking why anyone could possibly think of supporting the AWB or other "pro-White" groups that aren't clearly proletarian-based and revolutionary socialist?

Coach wrote:You haven't, comrade. I'm asking why anyone could possibly think of supporting the AWB or other "pro-White" groups that aren't clearly proletarian-based and revolutionary socialist?

I think it is deeper than that. A lot of nationalist groups focus on waking people up solely on the racial pride. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me; that is why we socialists are here to give economic direction!

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I think it is deeper than that. A lot of nationalist groups focus on waking people up solely on the racial pride. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me; that is why we socialists are here to give economic direction!

But they don't focus "solely on racial pride"...they focus on promoting class-collaboration with a "white" bourgeoisie, the defense of capitalism, and rationalize and even actively support oppression/assaults against non-white peoples.
I think we revolutionary socialists are here to provide much more then just "economic direction". We're here to provide revolutionary socialist leadership for our working people in every arena of struggle and every aspect of social life, so that they might be capable of governing and advancing society consistently in their own interests.

Coach wrote:But they don't focus "solely on racial pride"...they focus on promoting class-collaboration with a "white" bourgeoisie, the defense of capitalism, and rationalize and even actively support oppression/assaults against non-white peoples.
I think we revolutionary socialists are here to provide much more then just "economic direction". We're here to provide revolutionary socialist leadership for our working people in every arena of struggle and every aspect of social life, so that they might be capable of governing and advancing society consistently in their own interests.

Do they? If you could provide some sources as to how Eugene Terr'Blanche wanted to compromise with the bourgeois I would be happy. I'm sure he is not like us; in fact I am positive he wasn't a revolutionary socialist. But the more nationalist groups that gain ground of any kind are for the better if you ask me. If we somehow manage to get a nationalist group who compromises with the bourgeois we still have revolutionary socialism. We can still fight to bring economic justice and true social freedom to our people. Better to support this movement in South Afrika than none at all. Better that our people still exist; even in a state with the bourgeois than not exist at all. If our people die out I don't give a damn how this world governs themselves.

I am not suggesting a compromise with the bourgeois at all. However; Terre'Blanche still fought for the solidarity of ethnic Europeans. And for that, he is an honorable man.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Do they? If you could provide some sources as to how Eugene Terr'Blanche wanted to compromise with the bourgeois I would be happy. I'm sure he is not like us; in fact I am positive he wasn't a revolutionary socialist. But the more nationalist groups that gain ground of any kind are for the better if you ask me. If we somehow manage to get a nationalist group who compromises with the bourgeois we still have revolutionary socialism. We can still fight to bring economic justice and true social freedom to our people. Better to support this movement in South Afrika than none at all. Better that our people still exist; even in a state with the bourgeois than not exist at all. If our people die out I don't give a damn how this world governs themselves.

I am not suggesting a compromise with the bourgeois at all. However; Terre'Blanche still fought for the solidarity of ethnic Europeans. And for that, he is an honorable man.

That is where we disagree, I suppose. For me, I couldn't care less about what fate awaits the "white" race if our mode of living is not diametrically altered so as to reflect positive social values. We must recognize the deeply flawed forms that our societies have taken throughout history (some of them less avoidable than others) and reconfigure our societies so as to improve the future. Romanticizing past nationalistic glory is something I find delusional and entirely devoid of purpose.

I absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of marginalizing genuine socialism in favor of some grotesque bourgeois nationalism—no matter how "noble" the intention. I share absolutely no solidarity with my European capitalist "brothers"; I share absolutely none with bourgeois collaborators or apologists; I share none with right-wing nationalists. A bourgeois state is no state of mine. To somehow believe that a "nationalist" capitalist state is any enhancement over what exists now is pronouncedly naive. If "our people" do not eliminate their despicable presence as a global cancer, I don't give a damn about them, period.

Let there be true revolutionary socialist nationalism or let there be none.

Rev Scare wrote:That is where we disagree, I suppose. For me, I couldn't care less about what fate awaits the "white" race if our mode of living is not diametrically altered so as to reflect positive social values. We must recognize the deeply flawed forms that our societies have taken throughout history (some of them less avoidable than others) and reconfigure our societies so as to improve the future. Romanticizing past nationalistic glory is something I find delusional and entirely devoid of purpose.

I absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of marginalizing genuine socialism in favor of some grotesque bourgeois nationalism—no matter how "noble" the intention. I share absolutely no solidarity with my European capitalist "brothers"; I share absolutely none with bourgeois collaborators or apologists; I share none with right-wing nationalists. A bourgeois state is no state of mine. To somehow believe that a "nationalist" capitalist state is any enhancement over what exists now is pronouncedly naive. If "our people" do not eliminate their despicable presence as a global cancer, I don't give a damn about them, period.

Let there be true revolutionary socialist nationalism or let there be none.

My thoughts exactly.

I think those of us who are left-wing nationalists have drawn a very clear distinction between what can generally be regarded as acceptable and unacceptable expressions of nationalism. As such, I am no more inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues a 'nationalist' agenda anymore than I am inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues an 'anti-capitalist' agenda. (Would I support a movement that desires a return to feudalism simply because it opposes capitalist social relations? Surely not. Similarly, I am not going to support a movement that promotes class collaboration, imperialism, etc. simply because it pushes back against certain social developments of recent decades.)

My support for a nationalist movement/cause is entirely contingent upon the totality of the ends it is endeavoring to achieve; for nationalism is not inherently 'noble'. It has been used for generations as a tool to perpetuate social injustices, the world over.

Rev Scare wrote:That is where we disagree, I suppose. For me, I couldn't care less about what fate awaits the "white" race if our mode of living is not diametrically altered so as to reflect positive social values. We must recognize the deeply flawed forms that our societies have taken throughout history (some of them less avoidable than others) and reconfigure our societies so as to improve the future. Romanticizing past nationalistic glory is something I find delusional and entirely devoid of purpose.

I absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of marginalizing genuine socialism in favor of some grotesque bourgeois nationalism—no matter how "noble" the intention. I share absolutely no solidarity with my European capitalist "brothers"; I share absolutely none with bourgeois collaborators or apologists; I share none with right-wing nationalists. A bourgeois state is no state of mine. To somehow believe that a "nationalist" capitalist state is any enhancement over what exists now is pronouncedly naive. If "our people" do not eliminate their despicable presence as a global cancer, I don't give a damn about them, period.

Let there be true revolutionary socialist nationalism or let there be none.

Values can be restored. A race can not.

I want to see zero compromise with the bourgeois. But if our race exists in an exploitative system than it is our noblest duty to revolt and return freedom to our people. If we don't exist we can't do that though.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Values can be restored. A race can not.

I don't prescribe to the notion that the means justify the ends in these instances. Humoring such ideas leads to the sort of thing we saw in Norway.

Sorry, no way I am going to dispense with my principles simply to 'save' a biological group that is (apparently) incapable of voluntarily perpetuating its own existence.

Admin wrote:I don't prescribe to the notion that the means justify the ends in these instances. Humoring such ideas leads to the sort of thing we saw in Norway.

Sorry, no way I am going to dispense with my principles simply to 'save' a biological group that is (apparently) incapable of voluntarily perpetuating its own existence.

Obviously shooting a bunch of white kids, like in Norway, is by no means going to bring us to an end any of us desire. Therefore the means are pointless. I do think the end justifies the means in a lot of cases.

Even Trotsky said "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

You should not be such a self hater admin. Your race is beautiful, and I am sure you are too. You just need to discover that beauty and realize our race is the most precious thing on this planet. You are anti-imperialistic which means you support the idea every race, culture, and nation has a right to its own self determination without having to worry about imperialists taking over and stripping it away. Such views are worthless if you don't treasure your own culture and biological heritage more than anything else.

SSocialistStateSS wrote: Obviously shooting a bunch of white kids, like in Norway, is by no means going to bring us to an end any of us desire. Therefore the means are pointless. I do think the end justifies the means in a lot of cases.

Even Trotsky said "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

Trotsky's quote does not indicate an absolute commitment to the notion. Of course, there are instances wherein the ends can justify the means of a given pursuit. However, as my previous post indicated, I do not find that to be the case when it comes to what you are essentially advocating (i.e. supporting basically any manifestation of nationalism, simply because of the implicit promise of securing racial/ethnic homogeneity).

Again, I fail to see how you can divorce this (flawed) premise from the rationale behind the murders carried out by the reactionary piece of shit in Norway. (In his mind, any action that would serve to avert the 'Islamification' of Europe was itself legitimate in principle. How is what you are advocating for any different?)

You should not be such a self hater admin. Your race is beautiful, and I am sure you are too. You just need to discover that beauty and realize our race is the most precious thing on this planet. You are anti-imperialistic which means you support the idea every race, culture, and nation has a right to its own self determination without having to worry about imperialists taking over and stripping it away. Such views are worthless if you don't treasure your own culture and biological heritage more than anything else.

Don't confuse my statement for any personal misanthropic sentiments. To be clear, my point was semi-sarcastic in tone, for I do feel that the 'White race' is capable of (voluntarily) sustaining itself within the confines of Western (racially pluralistic) bourgeois societies for a sufficient amount of time. (Reactionary nationalist hysteria tends to either marginalize or deny this premise, in order to bolster the support base for various movements/parties.) There are, of course, legitimate demographic problems that certainly need to be addressed, but there are ways in which to do that which do not involve forging an unhealthy dependency upon counterproductive manifestations of nationalism.