Sunday, March 20, 2011

A Nationalist vs a Supremacist

Below is an article concerning the White Pride March in Calgary, Alberta.  The article read like a press release from the ADL.  For example, I am not sure that this group considers themselves to be “Nazis”. But such is the standard slur that is repeated by the media no matter the facts. If you disagree with “diversity” you are automatically branded as a White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi and RACIST.  It is a mantra that is used over and over.

I am a Nationalist. A Nationalist believes two things:

1) People have the right to exist
2) People have the right to self-determination

That is it. Nationalism is not an economic policy.  It is not 150 bullets on a checklist.  Nationalism is a simple concept.

If you disagree with those two points you are a Supremacist.  If you are White and advocate the genocide of other races, you are a White Supremacist.  If you are Jewish and advocate the genocide of the White Race (usually through immigration policies) you are a Jewish Supremacist.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. A racist used to be a supremacist who advocated political discrimination. Now a racist is any white person who recognizes that race exists.

  3. I just viewed this video on YouTube. I believe you are referring to Tim Wise at 2:15. Kindly note that he is NOT Jewish, by religious practice, by Jewish law, or by predominant ethnic background. His paternal grandfater was Jewish, but his remaining grandparents were ethnic non-Jewish European whites. Perhaps you know this, though, and you subscribe to National Socalist racial theory, whereby one with a single Jewish grandparent is considered to be a Jew. Care to comment?

  4. I don't really accept the universality of this principle. No nation has an automatic right to a continued existence, after all, most nations never made it to present day. People have been exiled, displaced or assimilated, with religions destroyed and languages forgotten. Who speaks of the Cornish nation, the Hittite nation, the Gothic nation, and of untold others lost to history?

    You seem pragmatic, so you must realise that this fantasy isn't tenable. Nations are not inviolable, might makes right, the civilised will trump over the savage, the preponderant over the abated, the powerful over the weak. I understand the PR value for nationalism for all, and how "supremacist" views might vindicate white genocide, but that doesn't change the reality.

    And recognising a nations right to violate the sovereignty of others isn't supremacist it's imperialist.