No, Trump's victory doesn't represent resurgent racism, white nationalism, or the return of the Klan

Just ask Kanye.

Or better yet read this article, which thoroughly demolishes the whitelash narrative:

Here is a list of the talking points that the article shows to be nonsense:

From the looks of things, y’all need to peek your heads out of your laboriously maintained echo-chambers and stop crying wolf.

But God, how desperate is the east/west metro media to contain the on going narrative within that framework.

According to this guy, who apparently has enough money and free time to maintain his own blog site. Is there some reason outside of your recommendation I should pay him the least attention?

I agree that it is not resurgent racism. It never went away. But now it is in the White House. Way to go, America.

It made it more mainstream.

My big issue with Trump is that he is totally unqualified mentally or emotionally to be president. The resurgence of white nationalism is just an added negative.

Also the reason Trump didn’t see major gains among whites is that for every high school educated white Trump gained, he lost a college educated white. Trump’s coalition had far more high school educated whites and far fewer college educated ones. So you can’t really say it was a racial realignment in and of itself, it was a racial realignment with educational overtones.

White identity groups think it does.

These points made by this article are all logical fallacies and misdirection.

If you found a kernel of truth you have to say it. Otherwise those 10 or 20 talking points/questions are going to stand as very credible.

No, it’s not. As the article plainly spells out, Trump’s message has been a racially inclusive one from the beginning.

Any increased profile that racialist groups have gotten due to Trump’s campaign and victory are caused by the media and his opponents (which are both in the same basket of deplorables imo and according to Wikileaks) giving racialism massive exposure in their futile attempt to ruin Trump’s chances by associating him with these nearly universally reviled ideas and groups.

He just appointed a guy found too racist to be a federal judge, as Attorney General.

So…people are not wrong to have concerns, by all appearance, in my opinion.

Trump’s on message talking points have been racially inclusive.

But when you evaluate the following:

Hostility towards immigrants which spills over to latinos in general
His support for voter suppression efforts that affect latinos and blacks
His promotion of the birther movement, which was an effort to de-legitimize the first black president.
His efforts to claim Obama needed to release his transcripts because ‘of course’ he couldn’t have gotten good grades or an ivy league education on his own
Trumps claims that he could end crime in Chicago in a week by hinting it would involve taking away civil rights in the ghetto.
His appointment of Sessions as AG

Trump’s message and his base has been anything but racially inclusive. He has a few talking points now and then, but most people see those for what they are.

When talking points are contradicted by actions and evidence, most people reject the talking points.

I remember a few years ago when fox news and the right wing started pushing the narrative that Martin Luther King jr was one of them, that he would be a fox news supporting republican. People saw through that and they see through Trump’s talking points too. That is unless they don’t want to see through them.

Its a blog. Your insistence on calling it an “article” suggests that you eager to dignify these opinions. Which opinions you share, we may reasonably assume.

Why would I pay any more attention to Some Guy With A Blog than any FB “article” about how Hillary converted Chelsea to Satan-worship?

What is a racialist group? Are you talking about the kkk? Racialist? What’s that?

Absolutely, and war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

David Duke got 5% of the vote in his senate bid last summer. In Louisiana. Satanism is probably more popular. White identity groups have exactly zero successful prominent politicians. They are desperate and so have to take what they can get, even if it is agreement on a single issue like anti-Israel positions or immigration enforcement.

Trump is no more responsible for the fact that a few white ethno nationalists share his desire to reduce the number of illegal immigrants than PETA is responsible for Hitler’s vegetarianism, or Obama was for communist’s preference for his candidacy.

Oh, I think I see! They’re wrong about Trump dignifying their views, and, since they are irrational assholes, we can overlook their praisesongs to him? Did these crazy people adopt the same irrational views about Hillary? Or Bernie?

Or is Trump the only one burdened with the unwanted and unwarranted approval? Why would that be, do you think?

Racialists are collectivists for whom the in-group is those who share the same race. Examples being the KKK, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and The National Alliance.

So is it different than “racist”?

As reality plainly spells out, Trump message has been an inconsistent one from the beginning.

Right, if there is one thing we have learned from this election, it is the importance of paying attention only to ideas presented by those high profile names and platforms we recognize like Sam Wong andHuffington Post. :stuck_out_tongue: (warning: auto-play vid on that page)

As the article points out the head of the US Communist Party endorsed Hillary, and she is certainly preferred by some real nasty fellows in Saudi Arabia who, unlike US based racialists, have actual power over the lives of gay people and women.

And racist anti-Semites endorsed Obama.

In a very important way! “Racialists” are a collectivist thing, a group mind. Racists are individualists, standing in shit up to their necks, but on their own two feet!

I wonder why the kkk didn’t endorse Hillary. Is she not racialist?