The rise of the alt-right Mormons

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stacy_L said:

I'm a Mormon, alt-right, and supporter of Ayla.  We are a growing community. Please don't base your opinion of us on a hit piece. 

She is a bit more provocative than I would like, (keep in mind she is a convert who grew up in vegas) but I agree with most of what she says. We believe race is real, not a "biological construct".  We believe that genetics play a significant role in our instincts and the decisions we make.

So much for agency then.

[Stacy_L]

59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Then you should probably include the historical backgrounds. In the US, the non-white populations were subjugated. Africans were brought over as slaves, and it took a federal government (big government) to defeat a renegade collection of states (claiming states' rights and small government) to outlaw slavery. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, the push for equal rights for non-whites was opposed again by those claiming small government, and it was the federal government (big government again) that forced the end of institutional racism. I can very easily see why non-whites would prefer a government that stopped people from enslaving them and denying them civil rights.

What is your position on slavery, the civil war, and the civil rights movement, as relates to big government?

You see, ethnic nationalism solves this. If we had separate countries, non-whites would be safely away from evil white oppression.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stacy_L said:

I'm a Mormon, alt-right, and supporter of Ayla.  We are a growing community. Please don't base your opinion of us on a hit piece. 

She is a bit more provocative than I would like, (keep in mind she is a convert who grew up in vegas) but I agree with most of what she says. We believe race is real, not a "biological construct".  We believe that genetics play a significant role in our instincts and the decisions we make.

 

How can you be friends with people you refuse to allow be neighbors?

You do realize that American whites are generally froma diverse ethnic background, right?

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Stacy_L]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So much for agency then.

Do you believe that temperament is hereditary?  People still have agency, but our genetics play an influential role.

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

You see, ethnic nationalism solves this. If we had separate countries, non-whites would be safely away from evil white oppression.

If we had separate countries, the displacement caused to non-white families would intrinsically be a form of white oppression.

with luv, 

BD

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

You see, ethnic nationalism solves this. If we had separate countries, non-whites would be safely away from evil white oppression.

Because there is no trade or possibility of economic oppression?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

Do you believe that temperament is hereditary?  People still have agency, but our genetics play an influential role.

And where in our faith are we taught to give into that temperament, to nurture the less Christlike attributes by refusing to become of one heart, one mind?

Do you believe that homosexuality be removed as part of the law of chastity based on the biological tendencies that may be present?

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

You see, ethnic nationalism solves this. If we had separate countries, non-whites would be safely away from evil white oppression.

And how are you going to achieve this?  Split the US into a dozen different countries?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stacy_L said:

First of all, weren't the nephites here first? And weren't the nephites white? 

America doesn't exist until the Europeans.   Without our culture, our laws, our systems, America would not exist.

Europeans settled mostly vacant land.  Yes we had wars. We did terrible things to them, they did terrible things to us. But we have since shared the land and allowed them full sovereignty so they can preserve their heritage and culture. We also provide citizenship, welfare, and food stamps. 

Also, my ancestors weren't immigrants but settlers who sacrificed their lives and livelihoods for THEIR posterity, not for Mexicans and Muslims. The US was intended to be a European society period.

Saying we deserve what is happening to us for what our ancestors did to the Indians would be like saying the lamanites deserved it for what they did to the nephites. 

 

America might not exist, but another country would.

The Spanish originally had much of the US.  Are you planning on giving it back to them, the French, and the British whose culture their people brought with them and merged their different ethnicities eventually?

 Lamanites were here along with Nephites...Middle Eastern btw, not European.  Who knows who the Mulekites were besides Mulek himself.  Don't know what race Zoram was.

Don't  know what race Jaredites were, Mideastern perhaps.  Perhaps Asian though given the likely route.

'I am from settlers who immigrated, but they are immigrants who have settled'.  Yeah, not impressed by any of your reasoning.  It invalidates all your own claims save 'I want it and deserve it because I am white and they aren't.

So you think the US should be changed into a state run by the Israelites?  Israel might like adding to their territory.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Stacy_L]

30 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Hello Stacy and welcome to the board. 

First, I am probably the one on the board most diametrically opposed to just about everything you've stated on this post. I don't say that to be confrontational but honest and open. You see I don't just have an ideological difference (I do) my family and personal background run counter to this narrative. In just my immediate family, I have family members who have been in-country refugees during civil war, several racial/ethnic groups, including Mexican-american, Nigerian, white American from largely german/english stock, Navajo, Pacific Islander, and Moroccan/Arab mixed in there, somewhere. My extended family is gearing up to celebrate the marriage of my cousin to a wonderful Japanese-American woman and there are a number of other families that are mixed ethnically. Though my family has its problems, diversity wasn't...and still isn't the big problem.

So that said, Race is most definitely a social construct that can have real life implications. These constructs are based on arbitrary physical cues that we deem important and confusing cultural cues as near instinctive. I see this in play all the time. But lets take a silly one as an example. Before I was 18 I had no capacity to dance or keep a meaningful beat. None. So people would joke that my "white genes" were showing. Then, through a lot of practice I learned to dance. I was expecially good with african dance, a chinese fan dance ironically, and most of all latin dancing.  And then suddenly my minority heritages played a role...that they didn't....but you know, I looked the part...sooo....yeah. Likewise, politically, when I was a teen I took one of those weird political ideology tests and scored right leaning or moderately conservative. A few years later I was leaning more and more left of center and would consider myself democratic leaning most days. I didn't start out instinctively leaning towards "bigger government" I just became more jaded about market solutions and more concerned about potential human rights violations and protections for vulnerable populations. Many of whom I had close friendships with and knew their stories and struggles well. Oh and education. Even though I went to a place not exactly known for being a bastion for progressive attitudes and liberals (ie. BYU). This wasn't a latent trigger into black genes and mexican cultural residues....my nigerian father can be quite jaded about politics period and my TexMex step-father leans republican pretty dang hard. It was a product of environment and exposure to certain issues. White voters may be more likely to vote in ways that encourage smaller government, but this has a lot to do with cultural heritage/trends than anything else. The rate among whites also changes drastically based on things like education level, gender, and socioeconomic status. Demographics aren't destiny but they can definitely shape experience. So a white many from rural Utah who received only a high school diploma is most likely going to vote in ways that encourage small government. But a white woman from NYC who received a masters degree is most likely going to vote in a way that supports big.  Its not genetic intuition. 

Diversity IS a strength when done right. Lets take this out of race for a second and put it into religion. Having a a bunch of people from varying belief structures doesn't automatically equal strength, particularly if they just happen to be neighbors but only minimally interact. Which is quite common in modern society/neighborhoods. But if they get together for a specific cause or with a specific purpose (to better understand and find value in each other) they often will have a more enriching experience. If they come together contentiously and to argue about religious tenets to prove a point they are likely to come away more divided and with a reduced sense of community than when they left. I have seen diversity done well and done poorly. But the well is Zion-esque and products of some of my most beautiful experiences. These were able to find value and learning from differing cultural and ethnic experiences. They brought them together to help fulfill a greater purpose than any one group. They created friendships, respect, and compassion in a way that was more tangible and more aware of the world around them. Majority dominate groups have problems with group think, large blind spots, and can at times be hostile and resistant to change. 

On ethnic nationalism...that loses a lot of meaning in about all of the Americas. But particularly the US which as a nation started as a land of immigrants that ended up displacing the native inhabitants. Its national entity is a story of ethnic mixing. And changing the goal post to a generalized "white" depiction doesn't change the fact that what is "white" today was not "white" a century or 2 ago. Our stories is not of a unilateral "homeland" but a patchwork of displaced, opportunist, down trodden, wealth booned, and lost/broken peoples. We have NEVER been the ethnic nationalist fantasy where each land has their own intrinsic peoples. 

In my experience, being "pro-white" may not stop you from having minority friends, but it most certainly limits the friendship. Being too entrenched into this view simply reduces what you can or cannot see. I don't say this to scream "ignorant" at you. I say this from experience as a mixed woman. I share my experiences when I know there is openness to receive them. I taper or choose what to share judiciously when the circles become overwhelmingly homogeneous in views. This can especially happen in white circles. And with alt-right/pro-white narratives around minority experience (such as the narrative you write for Native American populations) often are in direct conflict with what the minority groups stories about their own experience entails.

I would also talk more about some of the distinctions from what I see of "pro-white" v "pro-mexican" or whatever other minority group. But it's growing late and I do love my sleep. I will simply state that there are differences. But one of the big ones I see has to do with power and voice differentials. For many minorities its about having their voice, concerns, etc simply having a place at the table....a table that has historically been white. Pro-white groups, IMO often interact in a way that reads "threat" when what was once all mashed potatoes and gravy, now is reshuffled to include some dishes of sushi, fufu, and chorizo around the table as well. Instead of seeing a greater palate experience they're like the person who struggles to integrate new tastes and experiences as enjoyable.

 As a daughter, sister, and friend as well as an aspiring mother who will likely have children who hold diverse ethnic and racial heritages, my desire is simple. I want a land and home I know they have place and space to flourish. Not inspite of their differences but because who they are is needed in the human tapestry. A land and home where they can be with their white and black and native and brown and asian and thoroughly mixed cousins and friends and feel welcomed. At home. I want America. My America. The America I see all around me all the time. I am in no way being "ethnically replaced" I am being "ethnically enriched and added."  Sometimes that process is messy. But it is worth it. And I want my children to see a world. Humanity. The rainbow children of God. Not just the confines of a tribe. 

P.S. it seems Ironic to me to bring up tribes. Separating into kin-based tribes was one of the symptoms of a broken Nephite/lamanite peoples. One of my favorite passages about it, included the 3 Nephi 7 where they separate into tribes after the destruction of the unified governing system. It describes a temporary fragile period described as having "no wars" but purposely NOT described as having peace. It's repeatedly described as iniquitous. Tribalism gave them a sense of security, but it wasn't actual abiding peace. Cloistering ourselves into homelands have done nothing to build the peace and security we actually need for our children.

 

With luv,

BD

In a perfect world, race/tribe wouldn't matter.  It is proven that whites are least tribal group on the planet, which is the problem. We can't operate like we don't have interests while all other groups are encouraged to aggressively pursue their interests.

It is perfectly legitimate for whites to pursue their interests as whites, such as resisting their displacement in the land their ansestors built.

[Calm]

Stacy,

Do you sustain your LDS leaders?

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

In a perfect world, race/tribe wouldn't matter.  It is proven that whites are least tribal group on the planet, which is the problem. We can't operate like we don't have interests while all other groups are encouraged to aggressively pursue their interests.

It is perfectly legitimate for whites to pursue their interests as whites, such as resisting their displacement in the land their ansestors built.

Ignoring how it was often being built on the banks of those they unrighteously oppressed like Africans, Chinese, Irish, Mormons, Catholics, etc.

Do not those who labor was used have as much right to the land as those who grew rich off their labor?

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

First of all, weren't the nephites here first? And weren't the nephites white? 

Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Jaredites were here before the Nephites? And also, (and here's the important key) weren't both groups Hebrew? Does your definitions of white include Hebrew? If so, does it include Arab? Why or why not?

My point is, nationalist definitions of race are easily shown to be ideological and not biological.

In Catholicism, there is a collection of Churches (and Rites) that create a Universal Church. There are 24 and what the majority of people think of as Catholicism is actually the Latin Church/Rite (which by far has the most members). Each of these 24 Churches has its own hierarchy, traditions, and practices. For me, it is a wonderful example of unity in diversity. A member of an Eastern Catholic Church that practices their particular Rite and a member of the Latin Rite (what you think of as Catholicism) can appear as practicing a quite different form of Christianity, but underneath both are equally part of the Body of Christ and are mutually enriched by each other and their individual and communal worship of Our Lord.

Such a beautiful woven tapestry of love is what God wishes from all of us. Galatians 3:28

Quote

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Part of the Good News of Our Lord is that through Him all tribalism and racism and division can cease. It is our duty to allow Him to work through us to His glory.

Edited March 26, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

Again what do you intend to happened to the nonwhites as the whites remove them from living on their alleged land?

What are your plans for the children of those who were brought here in chains and helped built up the wealth and power of the US?

[Calm]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Jaredites were here before the Nephites? And also, (and here's the important key) weren't both groups Hebrew? Does your definitions of white include Hebrew? If so, does it include Arab? Why or why not?

My point is, nationalist definitions of race are easily shown to be ideological and not biological.

In Catholicism, there is a collection of Churches (and Rites) that create a Universal Church. There are 24 and what the majority of people think of as Catholicism is actually the Latin Church/Rite (which by far has the most members). Each of these 24 Churches has its own hierarchy, traditions, and practices. For me, it is a wonderful example of unity in diversity. A member of an Eastern Catholic Church that practices their particular Rite and a member of the Latin Rite (what you think of as Catholicism) can appear as practicing a quite different form of Christianity, but underneath both are equally part of the Body of Christ and are mutually enriched by each other and their individual and communal worship of Our Lord.

Lehites were Hebrew, but who knows about Jaredites.

[Stacy_L]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

So much for agency then.

How can you be friends with people you refuse to allow be neighbors?

You do realize that American whites are generally froma diverse ethnic background, right?

I believe people should have freedom of association. When free to associate what do they do?  Self segregate.  We naturally want to be around the people most like us.

 I served my mission in multicultural Chicago.  I learned by about the third door what the rest of that neighborhood was going to look like.  If a Mexican answered, most likely the rest of that neighborhood was Mexican. Same with blacks, Jews, Muslims etc.

Have you heard of white flight?  Its what happens when a neighborhood becomes too multicultural. White people flee to suburbs. White people say what they think with their feet instead of with their mouths.

The "melting pot" and "nation of immigrants" is a lie.  We were a 90% white county til 1965. The truth is that the earliest immigration acts specifically stated "whites of good character"

[Calm]

All one has to do is look at the history of wars in Europe to realize that having white only ethnicities living together doesn't result in any greater civil or economic stability than having true diversity.  Same with Asia, Africa, North and South America.  Mankind has forever created us vs. them groups and gone to war with them, even when they were brothers, cousins, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

I believe people should have freedom of association. When free to associate what do they do?  Self segregate.  We naturally want to be around the people most like us.

 I served my mission in multicultural Chicago.  I learned by about the third door what the rest of that neighborhood was going to look like.  If a Mexican answered, most likely the rest of that neighborhood was Mexican. Same with blacks, Jews, Muslims etc.

Have you heard of white flight?  Its what happens when a neighborhood becomes too multicultural. White people flee to suburbs. White people say what they think with their feet instead of with their mouths.

The "melting pot" and "nation of immigrants" is a lie.  We were a 90% white county til 1965. The truth is that the earliest immigration acts specifically stated "whites of good character"

You have heard of Irish, Italians, English, Germans, Swedes, etc?

How do you think they all got from their own countries to the US?  Do you think the US would have been stronger if they had all remained separated as they were prone to do the first generation or two?

"whites of good character"

I don't think demonstrating racism has a long history supports your claims.

Please show how Europe was without conflict when it was primarily white, or even easier Britain.  Show us how the Angles, Celts, Picts, Scots, Irish, Welsh, English all lived together without one oppressing another.

A

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Stacy_L]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ignoring how it was often being built on the banks of those they unrighteously oppressed like Africans, Chinese, Irish, Mormons, Catholics, etc.

Do not those who labor was used have as much right to the land as those who grew rich off their labor?

Last one and I'm going to bed.

 Name one country, nation, or tribe in the world who hasn't engaged in violence, territory battles, and conquest. Oppression isn't unique to white people, yet white people are the only ones expected to feel bad and pay eternally for it.

If slavery was so profitable, why was the non-slave north so much more wealthy? There is not a shred of valid evidence that supports the claim that I'm somehow still benefitting from a practice that was ended  a century and a half ago.

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

We were a 90% white county til 1965. 

CFR.

(and yes, this CFR means that I'm calling you out on being wrong and, in addition, pointing out again that nationalist definitions of race are ideological and not biological).

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Stacy_L said:

Name one country, nation, or tribe in the world who hasn't engaged in violence, territory battles, and conquest.

And the non-Mormon swoops in to point out the Nephites for the 400 years after Christ visited them...

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Stacy_L said:

Last one and I'm going to bed.

 Name one country, nation, or tribe in the world who hasn't engaged in violence, territory battles, and conquest. Oppression isn't unique to white people, yet white people are the only ones expected to feel bad and pay eternally for it.

If slavery was so profitable, why was the non-slave north so much more wealthy? There is not a shred of valid evidence that supports the claim that I'm somehow still benefitting from a practice that was ended  a century and a half ago.

"white people are the only ones expected to feel bad and pay eternally for it."

And this somehow proves your solution of white only countries is going to be better?  How since they were as you say engaged in violence, territory battles, and conquest in the past just like all the west?

Again you have said nothing about what you intend to happen to the millions of people who you intend to displace so "your kind", a true ethnic melting pot ( look up the history of the term) of at least a dozen nations, hundreds if you go back in history, can have all the land their selfish hearts want.

Until you can show that this could even work without creating world economic collapse, you just look like a self centered idiot.

What do you plan to do to create these separate countries besides whine about how horrible it is you have to live with other of God's children?

You have no solution, you can only attack others.  Certainly not an example of someone it would be wise to turn the running of a country over to.

(the slavery thing...I am not claiming you personally benefit from....what a strange requirement to allow someone else to live here, what have you personally done for the millions of others in the US...perhaps you should leave since significant numbers have benefitted from your efforts...you want to allow the descendants of whites who got rich to live in the US, but not the children of slaves who had no more option to live here and their children live here than the white descendants, we are talking about people whose parents were here probably as long or longer than some of your ancestors)

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

In your genetic theory...if a person has three white grandparents and one nonwhite, since the majority of his or her genetic material is "white", they qualify as white for you, correct?

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And the non-Mormon swoops in to point out the Nephites for the 400 years after Christ visited them...

 

But only because they were not Nephite or Lamanite, but no "ites" at all.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they have no ethnic homeland"

How unfortunate your ancestors left their homeland, blame them, not others who had nothing to do with thaeir choice.

You could always move back. (Not suggesting you do unless you want to)

Edited March 26, 2017 by Calm