As far as I'm concerned, that's not "White nationalism", that's paranoia, or some other personality disorder.

And let's face it almost everything is a matter of degree. The Chinese restaurant on the corner and the generally reserved, hard-working, friendly people who run it are obviously no "threat" of any kind and would be welcomed accordingly. Now if they were to organize all of a sudden and start plotting and conspiring to bribe and blackmail our politicians and monopolize and control our media, and bombard us with propaganda and undermine our culture and generally subvert our government and loot our assets, etc., then some of us would have a problem with that.

If people cannot respect each other, and treat each other as "equals" then we have to find some other way to co-exist, wouldn't you say?

For example, if, as part of long-standing tradition, I teach my children: "Don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do to you", and my neighbor teaches his children the same moral doctrine, and we all get along pretty well, and we create a moderately successful society, what happens when we mix with other people, who, in accordance with long-standing tradition, teach their children: "You can do anything you want to anyone else, as long as it's not another one of your fellow tribesmen". How do you think that'll work out in the long run?

What David Duke is saying is what every sentient being already knows, but only honest, courageous people not intimidated by the tyranny of political correctness, are willing to say.

Lastly, the Jewish state of Israel is a bad example of "voluntary segregation", since there is nothing "voluntary" about it. It's a brutal, criminal, artificial fascist state, which cannot exist in anything other than a parasite-host relationship. It's an example of pure evil, and nothing else.

Originally at issue here was an overtly unjust comparison of David Duke with something he obviously is not. Now you seem to want to go much deeper into philosophy.

Unfortunately the comments section of Justin's article doesn't seem like the right place to do that.

As I see it, generally speaking, "nationalism" whether we're talking about "White nationalism", or "German nationalism" or "Black nationalism", or whatever, means similarly situated people rallying around the ties that bind them, in response to some threat or injustice visited upon them from "outsiders". IOW, it's one distinctly recognizable group organizing itself to defend common interests against an injustice or threat by another organized, distinctly recognizable group.

White nationalism is basically a defensive response to aggressive Jewish supremacism.

Moreover, the only way the Jewish-supremacist mafia was able to take control of the U.S. government, was to first corrupt our values and undermine our culture. After all, what good is it to run the government of the U.S. if the peasants are morally competent and refuse to make the bombs you want made; and/or refuse to join the Army to go on Zionist crusades slaughtering and subjugating Arab/Islamic countries? The Jewish-supremacist mafia can and will only rule where there is consummate corruption, thus they have to foster moral degeneracy as a pre-condition to our enslavement.

What "question", precisely, are you trying to ask me?

I didn't say you called it White Nationalism; I was merely providing a reference point for further study (for anyone actually interested in the relevant subject matter). Of course if you've read David Duke's books as you claimed above, and you were familiar with the phrase and with him and his ideas...which you obviously are not, you wouldn't be trying to make some kind of an issue out of it.

And, no, we can "preserve and defend the identity of...[our]...race" by clinging to our moral principles and preserving our culture. It's only when we allow our values to be undermined that "the state", i.e., the Jewish criminal enterprise masquerading as "government", can take over and subvert the Constitution for example.

You ask what was "silly" about your posts? Your reply to "Truth Allowed" above, for example, is pure nonsense, and speaks for itself.

Lastly, yes, the period normally would go inside the parentheses. Originally my parenthetical statement was part of the sentence preceeding it, but I changed it to a separate sentence without moving the period. But unlike your posts (which reflect a basic ignorance of grammar) that's the type of mistake everyone makes from time to time, myself included.

Aw c'mon, it sounds worse than it really is...it's not mass murder, it's just presidential poseur "Obama" (if that's actually his real name) implementing his "disposition matrix"...please get with the program...

Sorry but I'm not your research assistant. If you were actually familiar with David Duke and "White Nationalism" or whatever you want to call it (as you appear to imply), and you were acting in good faith, you wouldn't be making all these silly posts. (BTW maybe you could begin your quest for knowledge with the subject of basic grammar).

Apparently you don't know very much about Dr. David Duke - either that or you're being dishonest. David Duke is is not a "racist". David Duke is not a "White supremacist". David Duke does not believe in violence. David Duke believes that Jewish supremacists have launched a race war against the non-Jewish balance of humanity for domination and control of the world. He believes that organized Jewry has an agenda to destroy the White race. He doesn't believe that Whites are "superior" to anyone else and should run the world, but that the White race has a duty to defend itself and preserve its identity in the face of the treacherous onslaught of organized Jewry. As far as I know, this is what David Duke is all about. Of course "the establishment" - you know, the same people that try to pretend that the Palestinians are the real problem in the world today, likewise project their evil characteristics onto David Duke.

Justin said: "The President has steadfastly refused to give in, at least up until this point. He has even gone so far as to inform the Iranians in advance that any such attack by Israeli forces will not have the sanction or support of the US — and, in such an event, to please refrain from attacking American targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf."

This is a smokescreen. The "President" (if we can call him that) is just another puppet playing a role. A direct, unprovoked attack on Iran was never an option in the first place. Netahyahoo and the "let's attack Iran" nonsense is simply propaganda being used to make "Obama" look like a "reasonable" person by comparison, for those who need and want to be fooled.

They will eventually get their war against Iran, but they'll do it through the back door of Syria, which was always the plan. As I type this Turkey is doing everything possible to get the war going. How can anyone give the butcher "Obama" credit for being anything other than the mass-murderer he is?

LOL! Firstly, why would it need to be "quiet"? Second, if "fire" can destroy the structure, why can't "concentrated fire", i.e., thermite?