4 ms·

You can claim that white nationalism has penetrated the White House all you want, but there is no evidence of this being the case.

craftyguy 8y ago
Uh, Trump invited Steve Bannon into his cabinet. They did not part ways because of Bannon's extreme white nationalist views...
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  You would need to show that Trump invited Bannon into the White House because of his white nationalist views, and not because of his abilities in other areas. Which I don't think you can do. Also, if Steve Bannon is a white nationalist, it seems weird that Trump would support him, considering that presumably makes him want to get rid of parts of Trump's own family(Ivanka/Jared and their kids).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    White nationalists and other racists making exceptions for select useful (to their cause) members of targeted groups when in power is nothing new.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Steve Bannon is best described as a civic nationalist. Although, I think he has questionable choice in allies.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Steve Bannon was a close friend of Andrew Breitbart (who was Jewish and famously anti-racist), and was hired by Breitbart to be Editor. Bannon greatly expanded the Brietbart Israel office and managed a number of non-whites such as Raheem Kassam, Ben Shapiro, and others, placing them in leading positions. While I do think Andrew wouldn't approve of what Bannon has done recently (and many of his old colleagues do not), there is no evidence his views have ever gone into "extreme white nationalist" territory.
  - burkaman 8y ago
    > When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” - https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-trump-presidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tr... > “We’re the platform for the alt-right" - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-... What is the alt-right? Let's see how Breitbart describes itself: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-co... > There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. > Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic. > The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions. > For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. > Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration. > You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option. > The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. > In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged. > The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions. This is, by definition, white nationalism. If Breitbart is the platform of the alt-right, and this is the alt-right, then Breitbart is a white nationalist news source, and Bannon is proud of it.
josefresco 8y ago
Well there's this (sorry for the quick source): https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps-early-businesses-blocked-blacks https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps-early-businesses-bl... And then of course Stephen Miller who really needs no explanation. Central Park 5 ... "Good people on both sides" The list goes on - how many examples do you need?
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  1) The early businesses suit was against the owner and alleged originator of the policies - Fred. There’s evidence of paternal racism, but no coherent “white nationalism”, especially since Jewish tenants were favored over whites. Donald in his own ventures was the first in the county to open up his country clubs to Blacks and Jews, and was repeatedly celebrated by African American leaders for his other community efforts. 2) Stephen Miller is Jewish. How is he a white nationalist? 3) Central Park 5 was a rush to judgement when a woman claimed she was raped near the ice rink and part of the park that Trump had just recently invested in renovating. Not proof of racism, or white nationalism. 4) "Good people on both sides", when you look at the full paragraphs of the speech (which details who exactly he is describing), is in reference to the "heritage not hate" locals who attended the event simply thinking it was about saving the statue. They were not sensational, and left when the neo-nazis showed up later in vans, so they were not covered in national news. I do not blame you for not noticing them. Many good people attended the Women’s March who were later horrified to find out that organizers were anti-Semites, and that they had a convicted homophobic murderer (Donna Hylton) as a speaker. I can empathize with people caught in that kind of situation.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    Fred .. Trump, Donald's father. Not some rogue un-monitored employee. Stephen Miller is Jewish, your point? Trump still stands by his comments as recent as 2016 about the Central Park 5 even though they were proven innocent using DNA evidence. Trump never one mentioned "heritage not hate" - I've read the transcripts, many times.
AaronFriel 8y ago
I'll avoid a more sinister accusation of bad faith and assume you are earnest in that belief. As you seem to believe that, I suspect that's largely because your standard of evidence is different from others who believe differently. If your standard is that no one in the White House has said explicitly "I am a white nationalist", then yes, that seems to be true and there is "no evidence". But on the other hand, notable white identitarian/nationalist/supremacist figures are currently in the White House, have served in recent years, and indeed, there were entire administrations in the past four decades predicated on the belief that white individuals should have different rules in criminal law than non-white individuals, and strategies were pursued to incarcerate or diminish the status of non-white individuals. Now, you may say "this is not evidence", but that's to my point. Your standard of evidence is different from others, and you aren't entertaining the idea that maybe, just maybe, these things are not coincidental. That a Muslim ban and "Superpredators" and the behavior of ICE/CBP and the implementation of federal criminal law toward low-level drug offenses (instead of much more societally damaging white collar crime usually perpetrated by wealthy white individuals) is just normal political discourse, not influenced by white supremacy. You could believe that, and I believe it's possible to believe it earnestly. But I would challenge you to consider whether your standard of evidence in this case might be too high, or even impossible to meet for any smart white nationalist. If your standard is so high that, all it would take is for White House officials to "hide their power level" (using chan-board speak) and use metaphor or coded language while accomplishing the same ends explicitly white nationalist outsiders push for, then is it a useful standard of evidence? Or, lastly, to bring it full circle: is your standard of evidence impossible to meet for someone who is a smart bad faith actor?
- googlryas 8y ago
  Who specifically are you talking about? And no, my standard of evidence is not hearing someone say the words - it is considering their actions and seeing if they align with a particular agenda. I've seen the accusations aplenty, but I just don't see any actual evidence supporting it. And for the record, I despise any kind of group-based ideology, or anything that treats people other than individuals. I denounce white nationalists or any kind of racial or ethnic superiority group when I see it - I just don't see it here.
dragonwriter 8y ago
White Nationalism has permeated the entire GOP since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and there is evidence of that everywhere, starting with the Southern Strategy itself as exhibit 1. That it has been more pronounced than the post-Southern Strategy GOP baseline in the Trump Administration is also quite evident to both opponents and overt supporters of White nationalism.

craftyguy 8y ago

Uh, Trump invited Steve Bannon into his cabinet. They did not part ways because of Bannon's extreme white nationalist views...

oh_sigh 8y ago
You would need to show that Trump invited Bannon into the White House because of his white nationalist views, and not because of his abilities in other areas. Which I don't think you can do. Also, if Steve Bannon is a white nationalist, it seems weird that Trump would support him, considering that presumably makes him want to get rid of parts of Trump's own family(Ivanka/Jared and their kids).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  White nationalists and other racists making exceptions for select useful (to their cause) members of targeted groups when in power is nothing new.
tathougies 8y ago
Steve Bannon is best described as a civic nationalist. Although, I think he has questionable choice in allies.
drak0n1c 8y ago
Steve Bannon was a close friend of Andrew Breitbart (who was Jewish and famously anti-racist), and was hired by Breitbart to be Editor. Bannon greatly expanded the Brietbart Israel office and managed a number of non-whites such as Raheem Kassam, Ben Shapiro, and others, placing them in leading positions. While I do think Andrew wouldn't approve of what Bannon has done recently (and many of his old colleagues do not), there is no evidence his views have ever gone into "extreme white nationalist" territory.
- burkaman 8y ago
  > When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” - https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-trump-presidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tr... > “We’re the platform for the alt-right" - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-... What is the alt-right? Let's see how Breitbart describes itself: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-co... > There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. > Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic. > The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions. > For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. > Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration. > You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option. > The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. > In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged. > The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions. This is, by definition, white nationalism. If Breitbart is the platform of the alt-right, and this is the alt-right, then Breitbart is a white nationalist news source, and Bannon is proud of it.

josefresco 8y ago

Well there's this (sorry for the quick source): https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps-early-businesses-blocked-blacks https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps-early-businesses-bl... And then of course Stephen Miller who really needs no explanation. Central Park 5 ... "Good people on both sides" The list goes on - how many examples do you need?

drak0n1c 8y ago
1) The early businesses suit was against the owner and alleged originator of the policies - Fred. There’s evidence of paternal racism, but no coherent “white nationalism”, especially since Jewish tenants were favored over whites. Donald in his own ventures was the first in the county to open up his country clubs to Blacks and Jews, and was repeatedly celebrated by African American leaders for his other community efforts. 2) Stephen Miller is Jewish. How is he a white nationalist? 3) Central Park 5 was a rush to judgement when a woman claimed she was raped near the ice rink and part of the park that Trump had just recently invested in renovating. Not proof of racism, or white nationalism. 4) "Good people on both sides", when you look at the full paragraphs of the speech (which details who exactly he is describing), is in reference to the "heritage not hate" locals who attended the event simply thinking it was about saving the statue. They were not sensational, and left when the neo-nazis showed up later in vans, so they were not covered in national news. I do not blame you for not noticing them. Many good people attended the Women’s March who were later horrified to find out that organizers were anti-Semites, and that they had a convicted homophobic murderer (Donna Hylton) as a speaker. I can empathize with people caught in that kind of situation.
- josefresco 8y ago
  Fred .. Trump, Donald's father. Not some rogue un-monitored employee. Stephen Miller is Jewish, your point? Trump still stands by his comments as recent as 2016 about the Central Park 5 even though they were proven innocent using DNA evidence. Trump never one mentioned "heritage not hate" - I've read the transcripts, many times.

AaronFriel 8y ago

I'll avoid a more sinister accusation of bad faith and assume you are earnest in that belief. As you seem to believe that, I suspect that's largely because your standard of evidence is different from others who believe differently. If your standard is that no one in the White House has said explicitly "I am a white nationalist", then yes, that seems to be true and there is "no evidence". But on the other hand, notable white identitarian/nationalist/supremacist figures are currently in the White House, have served in recent years, and indeed, there were entire administrations in the past four decades predicated on the belief that white individuals should have different rules in criminal law than non-white individuals, and strategies were pursued to incarcerate or diminish the status of non-white individuals. Now, you may say "this is not evidence", but that's to my point. Your standard of evidence is different from others, and you aren't entertaining the idea that maybe, just maybe, these things are not coincidental. That a Muslim ban and "Superpredators" and the behavior of ICE/CBP and the implementation of federal criminal law toward low-level drug offenses (instead of much more societally damaging white collar crime usually perpetrated by wealthy white individuals) is just normal political discourse, not influenced by white supremacy. You could believe that, and I believe it's possible to believe it earnestly. But I would challenge you to consider whether your standard of evidence in this case might be too high, or even impossible to meet for any smart white nationalist. If your standard is so high that, all it would take is for White House officials to "hide their power level" (using chan-board speak) and use metaphor or coded language while accomplishing the same ends explicitly white nationalist outsiders push for, then is it a useful standard of evidence? Or, lastly, to bring it full circle: is your standard of evidence impossible to meet for someone who is a smart bad faith actor?

googlryas 8y ago
Who specifically are you talking about? And no, my standard of evidence is not hearing someone say the words - it is considering their actions and seeing if they align with a particular agenda. I've seen the accusations aplenty, but I just don't see any actual evidence supporting it. And for the record, I despise any kind of group-based ideology, or anything that treats people other than individuals. I denounce white nationalists or any kind of racial or ethnic superiority group when I see it - I just don't see it here.

dragonwriter 8y ago

White Nationalism has permeated the entire GOP since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and there is evidence of that everywhere, starting with the Southern Strategy itself as exhibit 1. That it has been more pronounced than the post-Southern Strategy GOP baseline in the Trump Administration is also quite evident to both opponents and overt supporters of White nationalism.