• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stephen Miller e-mails leaked

ponderingturtle said:
So what is the difference in their beliefs? Why is it say anti catholic and immigrant like the good old KKK was, but suddenly so distinct from being full on white supremacist?
Click to expand...

Because it is lead By Pro Catholics and Pro evangelicals, It's pro White nationalist anti Muslim.
It's basically pro White Christian Right, war on White Christians type.
 
Mycroft said:
You are so very confused on so many levels.

Marking someone as a sub-group of white supremacists still marks them as white supremacists.
Click to expand...

Go back to Venom's post, he was contrasting them to true white supremacists. You then took exception to my taking exception to not classing them as white supremacists.

Venom said:
My thoughts exactly.

ethno-nationalism should be understood by region and culture.

I've always had the impression that relatively recent upticks in nationalist fervor, say, since the 80s, 90s are more anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim than overtly white supremacist. There are those KKK, Neo-Nazi, neo-confederate holdovers sure but they are probably just the loudest in a sea of "moderate" nationalists because 9/11 and the wrong kind of Latino.
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
You are so very confused on so many levels.

Marking someone as a sub-group of white supremacists still marks them as white supremacists. That's how it works, sub groups of larger groups still are part of the larger group. Otherwise it wouldn't be a sub-group, it would just be a different group.

It seems like you really need to find that person who (according to you) claimed the sub-group of white supremacists aren't white supremacists and argue with them. I don't see anyone who said that in this thread, but you seem to think you saw it.
Click to expand...

It's "clear", I'm sure.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Go back to Venom's post, he was contrasting them to true white supremacists. You then took exception to my taking exception to not classing them as white supremacists.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly agree with Venom because it seems clear to me that white supremacists have felt empowered to come out and be more vocal in the last several years, however...

Do you believe it is possible to be anti-Muslim without being a white supremacist? Yes or no?

Do you believe it is possible to be anti-immigrant without being a white supremacist? Yes or no?

I think the answer to both of those is an obvious "yes", and that doesn't in any way condone being anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant. Further, I think it's important to be able to look at who believes what, and to make distinctions among them because without being able to look at that one couldn't possibly make any effort to counter wrong-thinking.

So, while I generally agree with you that being a bigot of any kind is wrong, I think in this exchange you're the one who is being anti-knowledge and pro-ignorance.

So please stop. Just stop.

Is Venom wrong? Maybe, but he's not wrong for making distinctions between the beliefs of different kinds of bigots because there are real distinctions in the beliefs of different kinds of bigots. You are wrong in claiming that noting these distinctions implies any kind of approval of them.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't particularly agree with Venom because it seems clear to me that white supremacists have felt empowered to come out and be more vocal in the last several years, however...

Do you believe it is possible to be anti-Muslim without being a white supremacist? Yes or no?

Do you believe it is possible to be anti-immigrant without being a white supremacist? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Of course when you are only against certain colors of immigrants as such rants tend to be they are a bit of a give away.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Of course when you are only against certain colors of immigrants as such rants tend to be they are a bit of a give away.
Click to expand...

You dodged the questions. Why?

In the past my country has held prejudices against white immigrants. Does you making a distinction between prejudices against white and non-white immigrants imply it's okay to be prejudiced against white immigrants? Aren't you marking a very similar distinction to the one Venom made?

Yes or no? Why or why not?
 
Mumbles said:
It's only the guys who think it's a horrible wrong to punch Nazi wannabes like Richard Spencer that are "shocked". You know, the type of (almost always white, here in the US) centrist that thinks that we can all just argue, even against transparently harmful people as Nazi wannabes. Wonder if they'd argue the same for child rapists and the like - since we're discussing the most disgusting people on the planet....
Click to expand...

"Nazi wannabes" are people who believe in free speech and are against foreign wars. Yes, these are the most harmful people on the planet. It isn't the neo-cons and other Interventionistas who never met a war they didn't like and are responsible for the deaths of millions.

It isn't the crime that bothers or offends the Left. It is the thought crime.

Mycroft said:
Yes, that's how the overt racists see themselves. You know, the comments made at Thanksgiving dinner that make the kids and grandkids drop their mouths in horror and shame. "What?! I'm just telling the truth!" the racist says.
Click to expand...

Every cult needs a way to distinguish true-believers from heretics. Whenever the Left uses the terms of racist, sexist, Nazi, Fascist, white supremacists etc., it is their way of labeling infidels. If the beliefs or arguments of "racists" were wrong then you would not have to label then. You could simply demonstrate where they are wrong in a Socratic dialogue kind of way. But the Left can't do this. So they take the arguments out the intellectual realm and move them over to the moral realm. If you believe so-and-so you are a bad person irrespective of whether or not you are telling the Truth.

Belz... said:
How liberating that must be.
Click to expand...

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
 
tanabear said:
Every cult needs a way to distinguish true-believers from heretics. Whenever the Left uses the terms of racist, sexist, Nazi, Fascist, white supremacists etc., it is their way of labeling infidels. If the beliefs or arguments of "racists" were wrong then you would not have to label then. You could simply demonstrate where they are wrong in a Socratic dialogue kind of way. But the Left can't do this. So they take the arguments out the intellectual realm and move them over to the moral realm. If you believe so-and-so you are a bad person irrespective of whether or not you are telling the Truth.
Click to expand...

I think you should name some of these beliefs that have marked you as an infidel to the leftist cult. That way we can all understand the true nature of your persecution.
 
Mycroft said:
Is Venom wrong? Maybe, but he's not wrong for making distinctions between the beliefs of different kinds of bigots because there are real distinctions in the beliefs of different kinds of bigots. You are wrong in claiming that noting these distinctions implies any kind of approval of them.
Click to expand...
Anti-Semitism seem to be a potential wedge issue in conflicting right-wing ideologies. There is a wing that insists on Jews being the overarching enemy, the fountain head of loathing. Another kind of sees Jews as special friends, with a strong Israel a harbinger of the End Times that some evangelical Christians are fervently hoping for. I can see that the two groups might sometimes forge temporary alliances, but I'm not sure this key difference could be resolved.

It makes me wonder when Trump will be challenged by a full-on Nazi on the far right.

ETA: Maybe it comes down to which people count as "white."
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
It makes me wonder when Trump will be challenged by a full-on Nazi on the far right.

ETA: Maybe it comes down to which people count as "white."
Click to expand...

Once they've destroyed their common enemies on the left, then they can argue amongst themselves over who qualifies as white and how Jews should be regarded.

I wonder if it isn't recent advances in leftist policies, the acceptance of gay marriage and such, that convinced moderates on the right that they need to embrace the far right to hold their ground.
 
Mycroft said:
Once they've destroyed their common enemies on the left, then they can argue amongst themselves over who qualifies as white and how Jews should be regarded.

I wonder if it isn't recent advances in leftist policies, the acceptance of gay marriage and such, that convinced moderates on the right that they need to embrace the far right to hold their ground.
Click to expand...

Given that they've embraced similar views for well over a century - and screamed that "librul" (meaning democrats, including the great majority of conservative black and Jewish people - and more recently conservative Asian, Hispanic, and Muslim people as well) was "fake" or "Identity politics", they were either being supremely ignorant on the matter, or themselves disingenuous. That's why they've not only rejected "small" government for these groups groups, but openly championed overwhelming, oppressive and violent government for many of them.

"Wow, I'm shocked to find that our embrace of systematic government bigotry has attracted a bunch of Nazi-loving goons!" They can cram it where the sun doesn't shine.
 
Remarkable how little uproar actually occurred after this episode. Partly, that's due to the news about impeachment taking all the press attention and the fact that, really, no one is surprised that Miller advocates nationalist views.

What a shame that this story has caused no real response from any Senate Republicans however. They don't even bother saying that Miller's views are disreputable and he's the wrong man to advise on immigration policy.
 
Mycroft said:
You dodged the questions. Why?

In the past my country has held prejudices against white immigrants. Does you making a distinction between prejudices against white and non-white immigrants imply it's okay to be prejudiced against white immigrants? Aren't you marking a very similar distinction to the one Venom made?

Yes or no? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Bah only if you think those swarthy Germans are really white, I agree with Ben Franklin and say they are not!

I mean it isn't like there is some absolute definition of white.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Bah only if you think those swarthy Germans are really white, I agree with Ben Franklin and say they are not!

I mean it isn't like there is some absolute definition of white.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom