White Supremacy discussion thread

[Saiwania]

No they don't. There's not a single white nationalist movement currently in power and there's not a single one close to coming to power. There are similar nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary, but they're not white nationalists.

There isn't a single pro-White movement of any prominence anywhere in the world, arguably because the White race is in bad enough shape as to be trending towards extinction. If the White race were still secure in terms of demographics, there would be at least one represented on the world stage that's beyond the scale of just Stormfront, like might've been the case in the old days- as in the mid 20th century or earlier.

We see this dynamic play out too often in the present: Whiter countries have to be multicultural/diverse whilst non-White countries such as China, India, both Koreas or Japan, are all allowed to remain homogenous.

[Atheris]

No they don't. There's not a single white nationalist movement currently in power and there's not a single one close to coming to power. There are similar nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary, but they're not white nationalists.

There isn't a single pro-White movement of any prominence anywhere in the world,

yes

arguably because the White race is in bad enough shape as to be trending towards extinction.

what

[Borderlands of Rojava]

That is by far the most ludicrous thing I've read all day. White supremacists have a lot of power, especially in North America and to a lesser (but still concerning) extent in Europe.

No they don't. There's not a single white nationalist movement currently in power and there's not a single one close to coming to power. There are similar nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary, but they're not white nationalists.

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

[Atheris]

No they don't. There's not a single white nationalist movement currently in power and there's not a single one close to coming to power. There are similar nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary, but they're not white nationalists.

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

But he wasn't a white nationalist. He was a racist neoliberal, sure, but that doesn't make him a white nationalist.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

But he wasn't a white nationalist. He was a racist neoliberal, sure, but that doesn't make him a white nationalist.

He was willing to get support from avowed white nationalists and was much of his movement not made up of in the closet white nationalists? What do you think Making America Great Again means?

[Atheris]

But he wasn't a white nationalist. He was a racist neoliberal, sure, but that doesn't make him a white nationalist.

He was willing to get support from avowed white nationalists and was much of his movement not made up of in the closet white nationalists? What do you think Making America Great Again means?

Nationalist populist propaganda used to counteract the democrat party and accuse them of reducing America's influence on the world stage. Nothing about words "Make America Great Again" is explicitly racist.

[Senkaku]

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

But he wasn't a white nationalist. He was a racist neoliberal, sure, but that doesn't make him a white nationalist.

Just to remind you of the claim you're defending, since you've moved the goalposts to "was the American head of state explicitly and self-consciously a white nationalist":

White Supremacists are a tiny minority of the population with literally no power.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

He was willing to get support from avowed white nationalists and was much of his movement not made up of in the closet white nationalists? What do you think Making America Great Again means?

Nationalist populist propaganda used to counteract the democrat party and accuse them of reducing America's influence on the world stage. Nothing about words "Make America Great Again" is explicitly racist.

Explicitly no, but the vision many trumpsters have of making America great again is very similar to what white nationalists want.

For too many, make America great again means make America white again.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

But he wasn't a white nationalist. He was a racist neoliberal, sure, but that doesn't make him a white nationalist.

Just to remind you of the claim you're defending, since you've moved the goalposts to "was the American head of state explicitly and self-consciously a white nationalist":

White Supremacists are a tiny minority of the population with literally no power.

The therapist: White supremacists holding power are not real and can't hurt you.

White supremacists holding power: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/88037787 ... t-an-emoji

[Atheris]

Just to remind you of the claim you're defending, since you've moved the goalposts to "was the American head of state explicitly and self-consciously a white nationalist":

The therapist: White supremacists holding power are not real and can't hurt you.

White supremacists holding power: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/88037787 ... t-an-emoji

Looks more to me like it's pointing at the comments or like button, not as a political symbol, but I guess different interpretations exist.

[Fahran]

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

Trump actually began losing the support of many white nationalists, including people like Richard Spencer, because he wasn't racist enough. I doubt the guy with a Jewish daughter and son-in-law was ever going to be a dyed-in-the-wool white nationalist/supremacist. Trump was definitely a racist, but he was more akin to your drunk uncle who doesn't like Muslims very much and who you try to avoid on Thanksgiving than to a Klansman. It really depends on how we go about defining white supremacism and white nationalism. One could argue that every political party in a white-majority country is white supremacist by default. One could also argue that only those that explicitly admit to being white supremacist or white nationalist are.

[Fahran]

There isn't a single pro-White movement of any prominence anywhere in the world,

Largely because non-racial nationalism makes a lot more sense in most places. Why would a Pole become a white nationalist if it means linking arms with Russians and Germans and Swedes who are foreigners?

arguably because the White race is in bad enough shape as to be trending towards extinction. If the White race were still secure in terms of demographics, there would be at least one represented on the world stage that's beyond the scale of just Stormfront, like might've been the case in the old days- as in the mid 20th century or earlier.

Beyond the US, white nationalism or white supremacism was principally employed to justify the subjugation and colonization of non-white populations, a process that has contributed quite substantially to the miscegenation you seem to dislike.

We see this dynamic play out too often in the present: Whiter countries have to be multicultural/diverse whilst non-White countries such as China, India, both Koreas or Japan, are all allowed to remain homogenous.

India isn't even close to homogenous. It's possibly one of the most diverse countries on Earth in terms of religious traditions, linguistic variation, and ethnic groups present. There's even racial disparities out the wazoo.

[Genivaria]

There isn't a single pro-White movement of any prominence anywhere in the world,

Largely because non-racial nationalism makes a lot more sense in most places. Why would a Pole become a white nationalist if it means linking arms with Russians and Germans and Swedes who are foreigners?

arguably because the White race is in bad enough shape as to be trending towards extinction. If the White race were still secure in terms of demographics, there would be at least one represented on the world stage that's beyond the scale of just Stormfront, like might've been the case in the old days- as in the mid 20th century or earlier.

Beyond the US, white nationalism or white supremacism was principally employed to justify the subjugation and colonization of non-white populations, a process that has contributed quite substantially to the miscegenation you seem to dislike.

We see this dynamic play out too often in the present: Whiter countries have to be multicultural/diverse whilst non-White countries such as China, India, both Koreas or Japan, are all allowed to remain homogenous.

India isn't even close to homogenous. It's possibly one of the most diverse countries on Earth in terms of religious traditions, linguistic variation, and ethnic groups present. There's even racial disparities out the wazoo.

It's no surprise that white nationalists are fundamentally ignorant of the rest of the world.

[Joohan]

No they don't. There's not a single white nationalist movement currently in power and there's not a single one close to coming to power. There are similar nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary, but they're not white nationalists.

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

What does that matter though? He turned out to be a milquetoast conservative anyway. Plus, the alt-right almost unanimously stopped supporting him after his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

[Kowani]

My turn for an effortpost, then. We'll start with an analysis, then solutions, and at the end, I'll recommend some books and social scientists on Twitter.


So firstly, I need to demonstrate 3 separate attitudes that we often conflate. Racism, Racial Resentment, and White Identity. This will be important, because the three are born of different things and express themselves in different ways-meaning they can be fixed in different ways. Racism-specifically, overt racism, is the easiest one for most people to understand, since it's the one you grew up learning about. It contains innate beliefs about groups of people, that some inherent quality is caused by their belonging to that group. It's the KKK members in sheets, it's the phrenologists measuring skull sizes, it's the psuedoscience pumped out by the Nation of Islam about white people.

The common thread here is twofold. 1: There are inherent characteristics of a group (negative ones), and 2: hostility. This was, for the vast majority of American history, the predominant form of racial animus. When it ceased to be is up for debate among historians, but I would say the shift began around Nixon and Goldwater, but it most likely solidified with Republican political strategist Lee Atwater and his Southern Strategy.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

(The article contains a full 42 minute recording of the interview, and I recommend you go back and listen to it later, it's enlightening). It's important to note, however, that this one may be seeing a modern resurgence, and so cannot be dismissed from the conversation.

So let's talk about the second one, Racial Resentment, because it feeds into that Southern Strategy. Racial Resentment is, broadly speaking, 'Prejudice, but one that views African Americans as being at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, not as a result of inborn abilities (as is the case with old-fashioned racism) but rather as a result of not meeting the values embodied by the “Protestant work-ethic.” (and will have ramifications for policy, which I'll get into later). It seems to be at least partially activated by elite rhetoric, which will be important later. But first, an aside on the actual validity of it, since racial resentment tends to make a lot of conservatives angry.
The scale is measured through questions-4 or 6, depending on the age of the study.

1: Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.
2: Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.
3: Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.
4: It's really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough: if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.

(New Questions)
5: Government officials usually pay less attention to a request or complaint from a black person than from a white person
6: Most blacks who receive money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried

The astute observer will notice that these could just be ideological conservatism, and have no (or almost no) racial animus at all, which is an objection many conservatives have leveled. The second objection is that most of the empirical studies on racial resentment have been around racialized issues in the first place. So, let's test for that, with an issue that isn't racialized, and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.

Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment

Neither objection holds up:

The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our
March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)

The pattern even held with names:

The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.

Keep that in mind, we're gonna be coming back to it.

And finally, the last major attitude: White Identity. It's the youngest of all three, and unlike the previous two, it doesn't say anything about out-groups-at least, not on its face. But in other ways, it is the most literally reactionary (if not necessarily so in policy) of all three, because it is-as far as we can tell, it's mostly activated by racial movements that are perceived to threaten the status quo. White identity is, essentially, a sense of in-group identity among whites, and it's a change from the normal status quo, where white people generally don't consider their own race, because they don't have to-and once it appears that whites' placement at the top of the status quo is guaranteed, it dissipates again. Unsurprisingly, the modern catalyst for this...was the election of Obama, but the ongoing demographic trends, and immigration (an issue that is, in and of itself, highly racialized) , are all playing their own role. But because its motivations are different, its effects are as well. Someone high on White Identity isn't going to respond well to a political message about "thugs in the inner city", but they will respond to messaging about, say, immigration's cultural changes. It can even be cloaked in benevolence-as long as that benevolence is targeted towards (or perceived to be) targeted towards white people. To make this easier to comprehend, we'll use an example. Back during the GOP primaries of 2016, Trump promised to protect Medicare and Social Security. (He later tried to cut both of those things, because of course he did, but that's not super relevant to this analysis). But those two programs happen to be heavily associated with whiteness. Trump didn't have to attack anyone-he just had to signal to whites that their interests would be taken care of.
And now, the central question. How widespread are these? Very.

Across the three surveys, I find that the distribution of racial resentment is consistently skewed toward higher levels of resentment. Average scores among whites are at or near 0.6 on a scale ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater levels of resentment. In other words, a sizable proportion of white Americans possess some degree of racial resentment. In the 2012 ANES, for example, over 59% of white respondents scored above 0.6 on the resentment scale.16 Meanwhile, compared to the racially resentful, I find that fewer white Americans possess high levels of white identity, but the percentages who do are still notable respondents in three of the surveys, between 30 and 35% of whites indicate that their racial identity is very if not extremely important to them.

I also find that the correlation between racial resentment and white racial identity is fairly low. In the 2012 ANES, the Pearson’s r coefficient is .13 (p=.00). In the 2016 ANES Pilot, the correlation is .19 (p=.00), and in the 2016 ANES Timer Series study it is 0.21 (p=.00). These constructs are related, but the size of the correlation coeffecient suggests they are far from capturing the same construct or set of latent attitudes. In fact, the weak correlations lead to an important conclusion: Whites who are racially resentful and whites high on racial solidarity are not one in
the same, even if these whites may ultimately possess similar political preferences.

So let's get into causes a little bit more, because I think it's worth taking a look at. A brief overview, before going further in-depth.
Racism: Once present, always activated. When I say "activated" here, it refers to being a heuristic used in one's decision making. It may not always be the most salient one-Richard Spencer endorsing Biden over Trump is a good example of this- but the trend remains.
Racial Resentment, however, seems to be undergoing an evolution, and while previously, it had to almost exclusively be primed by elite rhetoric that leaned on stereotypical dogwhistles, that may no longer be the case. But it's important to understand something here-this one isn't just a conservative issue-white liberals are vulnerable as well. In fact, black liberal political candidates may be solidifying racial resentment-not just by running and standing for office (though to be clear, they do that too, and contrary to the insinuations of conservatives, it's not a modern thing caused by the "woke left"s" focus on diversity, it started in the 1960's), but through a process called Racial Distancing. (This is a book, and it is very good, and you should read it, but I will summarize the basics.) Black candidates, usually those in mixed-race districts, in an effort to signal to whites that they will not challenge the status quo, make either explicit or implicit statements disparaging black people-usually, their perceived willingness to work hard at things. And this happens with black candidates at every level, and in both political parties. Even Obama's guilty of it. (Though that didn't entirely work, racism cost Obama about net 4 percentage points he would have otherwise had in 2008, giving his opponent the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationwide)

So now, let's flip to electoralism and policy. Firstly, a thing to understand which is key. Government has been racialized-increasingly so. That is, people's opinions on race are affecting how they view everything else-even issues that, in theory, have no racial components whatsoever. And while Obama may have increased that trend, he did not start it.

On average, the two largest increases in the correlation between racial resentment and any one of the other variables occur between 2008 and 2012 with respect to health care policy and government services attitudes. This is congruent with Tesler’s (2012) work demonstrating the Obama-induced "spillover” of racial prejudice to attitudes about seemingly nonracial issues such as health care, though such an effect has not been directly observed with respect to attitudes about government spending and services in general.[...] The correlation between racial resentment and context-dependent political attitudes and behaviors also increase markedly over time. In 1988, differential feelings toward the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates was fairly weakly correlated with racial resentment at .16. By 2016, however, this correlation had nearly quadrupled to .61. A similar, albeit weaker, pattern emerges with respect to (Democratic) vote choice. Here, the value of the correlation with racial resentment doubled from .20 in 1988 to .54 in 2016.

The observed trends when it comes to both affective evaluations of the candidates and vote choice are particularly interesting because they began well before a racial minority of any sort was running for office. Again, our observation runs counter to the narrative of Barack Obama as a lightning rod when it comes to the racialization of politics—these trends harken back to at least the late 1980s, if not earlier. Although we observe relatively large increases in the correlations between 2004 and 2008 for both candidate evaluations and vote choice, the increases were larger moving from 2000 to 2004 with respect to vote choice, or from 2012 to 2016 with respect to candidate evaluations.

It's been affecting party choice and issue beliefs for decades, in fact:

To facilitate interpretation of the coefficients associated with the racial resentment–time multiplicative terms, we, once again, graphically present marginal effects in Figure 5. With each dependent variable, the marginal effect of racial resentment increases over time. The absolute value of the marginal effect of racial resentment on the differential evaluation of the major party candidates is 0 in 1988 and increases to approximately 0.18 by 2016. When it comes to voting for the Democratic candidate rather than the Republican candidate, the absolute value of the marginal effect of racial
resentment increases from 0.08 in 1988 to 0.12 in 2016. The increase in the marginal effects of racial resentment are even more striking with respect to issue attitudes. The marginal effect of racial resentment of attitudes about health insurance increases from –0.08 in 1988 to 0.17
in 2016, a marked increase from no effect to one rivaling that on affective evaluations or vote choice. The same marginal effect when it comes to attitudes about governmental spending and services increases from –0.06 in 1988 to 0.13 in 2016.

And obviously, this hurts black people and immigrants (though latinos are more nuanced, thanks to a thing called "Identity Prioritization", which is fascinating but this is already way too long to go into that. Perhaps later, I'll go into particular ways in which structural discrimination is conditioned upon these frameworks. But it also hurts white people. And not just in a weaksauce "we're all made weaker when we're divided", but because it leads whites to oppose welfare programs that aren't marketed as benefiting whites. A poor white family in, say West Virginia, is getting fucked over because of this.


...I was going to do solutions and reading recs
but this is wayyyyy too long
Instead, a simple point: Race is the central organizing axis of modern American politics-though that should not be confused with it being anywhere near the only one.
In fact, a little tool, for everyone to play around with, and see how individual issues affected vote choice, and a second one to compare racial resentment across states.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Correction: There is not a single explicitly and openly white nationalist movement leading a country. The United States did have a man in power for four years that was heavily backed by both in the closet bigots and explicit nazis.

What does that matter though? He turned out to be a milquetoast conservative anyway. Plus, the alt-right almost unanimously stopped supporting him after his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I wouldn't say he was milquetoast. He definitely wasn't the Aryan freedom fighter, but he was willing to tap white nationalists for support at various times.

[Suriyanakhon]

We see this dynamic play out too often in the present: Whiter countries have to be multicultural/diverse whilst non-White countries such as China, India, both Koreas or Japan, are all allowed to remain homogenous.

... my dude, do you realize just how monumentally ignorant saying that is? India is one of the most diverse countries on the planet. Assamese, Tamils, Parsis, Ahom, etc. are just a few ethnic groups who are vastly different from each other but are considered Indian. That's not getting into the other countries not being homogenous either.

[Joohan]

What does that matter though? He turned out to be a milquetoast conservative anyway. Plus, the alt-right almost unanimously stopped supporting him after his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I wouldn't say he was milquetoast. He definitely wasn't the Aryan freedom fighter, but he was willing to tap white nationalists for support at various times.

There was nothing really radical about the Trump presidency. The wall, perhaps, was as extreme as he got. The desire to halt illegal immigration isn't only a sentiment found within white nationalist camps, with plenty of store-brand conservatives holding that same desire without any racial connotation. Hell, even left leaning thinkers like Cesar Chavez were against illegal immigration ( though his was a labor concern ) for various reasons. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how Trump sounds, but I really don't think the dude was trying to court the friggin Klan on anything. He's just a tv personality trying to rouse the lowest denominator

[New haven america]

I wouldn't say he was milquetoast. He definitely wasn't the Aryan freedom fighter, but he was willing to tap white nationalists for support at various times.

There was nothing really radical about the Trump presidency. The wall, perhaps, was as extreme as he got. The desire to halt illegal immigration isn't only a sentiment found within white nationalist camps, with plenty of store-brand conservatives holding that same desire without any racial connotation. Hell, even left leaning thinkers like Cesar Chavez were against illegal immigration ( though his was a labor concern ) for various reasons. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how Trump sounds, but I really don't think the dude was trying to court the friggin Klan on anything. He's just a tv personality trying to rouse the lowest denominator

Other than, you know, he spent 4 years basically radicalizing 1/2 the country to the point where they attempted an armed insurrection.

[Joohan]

We see this dynamic play out too often in the present: Whiter countries have to be multicultural/diverse whilst non-White countries such as China, India, both Koreas or Japan, are all allowed to remain homogenous.

... my dude, do you realize just how monumentally ignorant saying that is? India is one of the most diverse countries on the planet.

His point is somewhat valid I should say though. No one in the west is demanding that Japan open itself up to unfettered multiculturalism - it seems to be strictly a responsibility that traditionally white countries are expected to hold up. Hardly anyone blinks an eye at Korean conservatism, but applying the same thought to a country like Germany and you've suddenly elicited a very uncomfortable feeling...

Mind you, i'm an American whose a hodgepodge of practically every ethnicity in western Europe and various native american tribes, living in a state that has exchanged hands with at least 6 different nations in the last 400 years, so I don't really care about homogeneity in my backyard ( cause we never had any ). If say Romania though, wanted to close their borders tomorrow I wouldn't see anything inherently wrong with such a decision ( at least from a cultural standpoint ).

[Suriyanakhon]

I wouldn't say he was milquetoast. He definitely wasn't the Aryan freedom fighter, but he was willing to tap white nationalists for support at various times.

There was nothing really radical about the Trump presidency. The wall, perhaps, was as extreme as he got. The desire to halt illegal immigration isn't only a sentiment found within white nationalist camps, with plenty of store-brand conservatives holding that same desire without any racial connotation. Hell, even left leaning thinkers like Cesar Chavez were against illegal immigration ( though his was a labor concern ) for various reasons. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how Trump sounds, but I really don't think the dude was trying to court the friggin Klan on anything. He's just a tv personality trying to rouse the lowest denominator

He did call several African countries obscene things and insist that he wanted immigrants from places like Norway instead.

Whether or not Trump was intentionally a white nationalist, the views he espoused and executive actions he performed usually played into their hands remarkably consistently.

[Joohan]

There was nothing really radical about the Trump presidency. The wall, perhaps, was as extreme as he got. The desire to halt illegal immigration isn't only a sentiment found within white nationalist camps, with plenty of store-brand conservatives holding that same desire without any racial connotation. Hell, even left leaning thinkers like Cesar Chavez were against illegal immigration ( though his was a labor concern ) for various reasons. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how Trump sounds, but I really don't think the dude was trying to court the friggin Klan on anything. He's just a tv personality trying to rouse the lowest denominator

Other than, you know, he spent 4 years basically radicalizing 1/2 the country to the point where they attempted an armed insurrection.

Yes... it was just him radicalizing people.... no one or anyone else...

Remind me though, how many people were killed or injured in the George Floyd riots?

[Joohan]

There was nothing really radical about the Trump presidency. The wall, perhaps, was as extreme as he got. The desire to halt illegal immigration isn't only a sentiment found within white nationalist camps, with plenty of store-brand conservatives holding that same desire without any racial connotation. Hell, even left leaning thinkers like Cesar Chavez were against illegal immigration ( though his was a labor concern ) for various reasons. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how Trump sounds, but I really don't think the dude was trying to court the friggin Klan on anything. He's just a tv personality trying to rouse the lowest denominator

He did call several African countries obscene things and insist that he wanted immigrants from places like Norway instead.

Whether or not Trump was intentionally a white nationalist, the views he espoused and executive actions he performed usually played into their hands remarkably consistently.

I don't give much credence to what he says, again, he's a TV personality. I think that his actions are well enough an indication of his sympathies. The most radical of which is the partial building of the wall, and the temporary travel ban. White nationalists want to close the border, kick out anyone who isn't white ( legal or not ). A temporary ban on travel with a few countries and a partial wall isn't that.

[Suriyanakhon]

His point is somewhat valid I should say though. No one in the west is demanding that Japan open itself up to unfettered multiculturalism - it seems to be strictly a responsibility that traditionally white countries are expected to hold up. Hardly anyone blinks an eye at Korean conservatism, but applying the same thought to a country like Germany and you've suddenly elicited a very uncomfortable feeling...

It might just be the circles that we hang out in, but I've seen Japan and Korea criticized quite a lot for racist and ethnocentric tendencies in their society and a belief that they should become more open and multicultural.

Mind you, i'm an American whose a hodgepodge of practically every ethnicity in western Europe and various native american tribes, living in a state that has exchanged hands with at least 6 different nations in the last 400 years, so I don't really care about homogeneity in my backyard ( cause we never had any ). If say Romania though, wanted to close their borders tomorrow I wouldn't see anything inherently wrong with such a decision ( at least from a cultural standpoint ).

Personally, it's something that I'm on the fence about. Me telling another country what it should do when I don't live there sounds extremely chauvinistic, but at the same time, white nationalist fears about the great displacement and whataboutism with Asian countries are ridiculous, and as someone who participates in cultures that aren't my ethnic one, I'd feel hypocritical being against immigration.

[Kowani]

He did call several African countries obscene things and insist that he wanted immigrants from places like Norway instead.

Whether or not Trump was intentionally a white nationalist, the views he espoused and executive actions he performed usually played into their hands remarkably consistently.

I don't give much credence to what he says, again, he's a TV personality.

this is an exceptionally dumb point to take
we know what effects his rhetoric have
we can measure this shit
words matter
trump's words, in particular, cultivated violence (and i'm not just talking about the capitol storming), police abuse, and an increase in prejudice
(or more accurately, a weakening of the norm of racial equality)

I think that his actions are well enough an indication of his sympathies. The most radical of which is the partial building of the wall, and the temporary travel ban. White nationalists want to close the border, kick out anyone who isn't white ( legal or not ). A temporary ban on travel with a few countries and a partial wall isn't that.

Trump being constrained by the law (and just being generally a moron) does not prevent him from playing into the hands of white nationalists, it just means he is a very unreliable instrument for them to accomplish any of their goals