Why do they have any more merit than people who live in Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe who want to migrate to America?
Who says they do? And why are you presuming that this doesn’t include immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe? It cetainly does.
Sure, sure - we’re neck deep in doctors and engineers who snuck across the border.
If they want to be top-notch Americans, maybe they can start off by obeying the law right from the get-go.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahh, but there are other professions and skills that can be greatly useful to America. Even unskilled folks, if they are hard-working and decent, can contribute hugely to society.
Unfortunately, for some of these folks, this would result in death or terrible suffering for themselves or their families. But they’d still make great Americans, and placing their families’ lives and health above border laws is a demonstration of their moral decency. The fact that they made an incredible difficult journey and came out still able to work is a testament to their toughness and work ethic.
For those that this accurately describes, we should make them Americans, since they’d help make the country stronger and better. I support this kind of policy because I want my country to be stronger and wealthier, and making such folks Americans would greatly contribute to that.
All white ones and some of the other ones.
Yes those that advocate for “good” minorities have a long history. Beginning after the Civil War, they sought to indoctrinate former slaves and make them more “white”. They did the same with the Native Americans and Roman Catholic immigrants. This was largely the impetus behind public schooling. The progressives were horrified that Roman Catholics formed their own schools and brought their own customs to America. They pushed for universal public schooling for indoctrination purposes.
The same ideas persist today by those who favor immigrants who live up to the white Protestant ethic of America. “Hard working”, “moral”, and “pro-family” are code words for whiteness. The hope is that they become white like good Americans. Over time, certain ethnic groups have succeeded in the progressive dream of achieving whiteness, or at least passing for it. Italians, Irish, Jews, are all pretty much white now. Japanese and Koreans are also largely accepted into the white progressive notion of whiteness. This is all in the name of increasing the “strength” of the country, achieving national greatness through the adoption of whiteness by all.
Of course this form of white supremacy has much deeper and lasting ramifications than a few 4chan trolls, but it is pretty much ignored.
Is the truth of white nationalist immorality axiomatic or based on observation from history?
Honestly the point where someone is defending Molyneux, Southern, and McInnes is long past the point where any reasonable discussion has found its end.
The most important lesson you can learn while talking about fascists is this: fascists always lie. They cannot be trusted to convey the contents of their beliefs to you, because they understand full well that most of the world considers their beliefs incredibly toxic and vile. This is why Richard Spencer prefers “identitarian” to “nazi”, why the NSDAP called itself a “socialist worker’s party” (despite their first concentration camps being for socialist dissidents), and why Milo Yiannopolous knowingly lied to downplay the neo-nazi connections in the alt-right in his first article on the subject, all the while being coached by actual fucking neo-nazis on how best to do it. They lie because they know they have to.
But hey, Lauren Southern has explicitly rejected getting rid of all the foreigners? Great! So… what’s up with her defense of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, then? You know, that conspiracy theory which implies certain very clear courses of actions for white people to take, lest they be “overrun” by foreigners and become the victims of “white genocide”? Actions that clearly imply the creation of a white ethnostate? Hmm. Almost as though she’s a lying shitbag, like all the rest of her fashie buddies.
Fascists. Always. Lie.
I’m on record as holding a low opinion of nationalism in general.
But whatever the debatable merits of nationalism as a broader concept, the subcategory of ethnic nationalism is far worse. I have real issues with even the most benign examples or those that I can sympathize with( like Israel, which arose in good part out of a very reasonable response to horrible oppression ). But there is nothing benign about “white nationalism” in the United States - it is and always has been tainted with racism of the worst sort.
Saying you can have a peaceful, non-racist white nationalist movement in the U.S. is like saying you can reclaim the swastika as a symbol of prosperity and good luck. It’s just not going to happen. Even if you have some such concept( I’m really not sure how you’d even conceptually dodge racism in a white-centric group ), most of the people attracted to such a movement in this country are going to be shitheels.
That seems a bit … discriminatory on the basis of race.
You claimed they support the forcible removal of non-whites. They do not. You can tap dance all you want.
Ok that’s why I also reject white nationalism and believe it to be a poorly devised ideology to achieve goals, even when some former libertarianish individuals mentioned upthread are going on that direction. That said there is an important distinction to be made between those that favor violence (subject of the thread) and those that explicitly reject it.
Those are the only choices? What about those that tacitly support it? And those that explicitly lie about rejecting it by claiming, “There are good people, on both sides!”.
If you explicitly reject violence you can’t be said to tacitly support it.
Oh, but you can. You can even have a good old laugh about it.
Ok bud. Of course if someone explicitly rejects violence but also holds differing political beliefs from you, you will try to smear him as a supporter of violence.
Trump has explicitly endorsed violence on multiple occasions.
You don’t have to be white or consciously believe in literal white supremacy in order to have beliefs that are the product of white supremacy. Racist myths emerge from white supremacy. Actual racial disparities, from which people draw spurious racial conclusions, also emerge from white supremacy.
Are there theoretical reasons you could oppose illegal immigration that aren’t based in white supremacy? Sure. But it certainly isn’t “I just don’t like people who break the law.” That claim is always a pretext, asserted by the same people who don’t give two shits when a police officer breaks the law and who would fight tooth and nail against decriminalization. It certainly isn’t “but illegal immigrants are a drain on resources,” a position taken by people who have no idea what the economic cost-benefit equation of immigration looks like. It isn’t “we cannot have a nation without strong borders,” something said by people who, despite saying this, believe the United States was in fact a nation prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
We can’t even get politicians to stop putting up monuments to the people who tried to destroy the United States in the name of white supremacy. “Crawl back under their rocks” implies they have, at some point, been under rocks. They haven’t.
Ok that’s Trump. I’ve been talking about others. Of course Trump is violent. Commander in Chief, amirite?
You disagreed with two posts referring to Trump’s tacit (or explicit) endorsement of violence.
Never heard of them plus from what I Googled all 3 are Canadian.
Besides look at those subscriber numbers, thats still less than 1% of even the population of the US not to mention Canada and the rest of the world.
You SERIOUSLY think they are the next nazi party and will take over the US?