Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism

[ocean515]

So when our own nation collapsed in the Great Depression, you blame the millions of Americans who suffered for it? People are looking for a better life and a system that supports it. That is what made America great and is what draws them here. So yes they come to be citizens and to take part in this great experiment. We need to be careful to not mess things up with toxic nationalism. It will lead to ruin.

The Depression has nothing to do with anything. Did US Citizens flee to other countries?

These people streaming to US illegally, or lying about asylum or refugee status are just failures from failed countries. They show no desire to abide by the law of the US, and simply importing the same attitudes the used to contribute to the failure of their native countries.

"Toxic Nationalism" - What a pathetic joke.

 

[JasperL]

People have been trying to equate nationalism with white-nationalism for as long as Trumps been in office, and it's been a failing argument. It's obvious that Vox is doing what they can to try and do the same here.

And it's because, as Amy Wax points out, cultural distance nationalism or just nationalism is in practice indistinguishable from white nationalism. Wax, for her part, approvingly quotes unapologetic white nationalists, and even talks about how dirty immigrant communities are versus all white communities. What would a white nationalist say?

That's the problem that people have been pointing out for years now. Call it whatever you want, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and flies like a duck, good luck drawing a distinction between that thing and a duck.

That was the argument in the OP, and you've studiously refused to address it with a series of evasions. How can someone from a mile away tell whether someone is a racist WHITE nationalist, or is just concerned about "culture" that results in policy that favors white people and fewer non-whites.

She says, "...cultural distance nationalism means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites, and fewer non-whites.
Well, that is the result anyway."

What would change about her ideas or the policies that flow from it if it was just "white nationalism" she was espousing versus this (new to me phrase) cultural distance nationalism?

 

[ocean515]

And it's because, as Amy Wax points out, cultural distance nationalism or just nationalism is in practice indistinguishable from white nationalism. Wax, for her part, approvingly quotes unapologetic white nationalists, and even talks about how dirty immigrant communities are versus all white communities. What would a white nationalist say?

That's the problem that people have been pointing out for years now. Call it whatever you want, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and flies like a duck, good luck drawing a distinction between that thing and a duck.

That was the argument in the OP, and you've studiously refused to address it with a series of evasions. How can someone from a mile away tell whether someone is a racist WHITE nationalist, or is just concerned about "culture" that results in policy that favors white people and fewer non-whites.

She says, "...cultural distance nationalism means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites, and fewer non-whites.
Well, that is the result anyway."

What would change about her ideas or the policies that flow from it if it was just "white nationalism" she was espousing versus this (new to me phrase) cultural distance nationalism?

There was no argument in the OP. It was a Progressive pile a propaganda garbage. Zack Beauchamp is nothing but a mouthpiece for rabid progressivism and the racist bigoted thuggery it espouses.

Lies and distortions apparently pass for meaningful journalistic activity among liberals today.

Republicans are not against legal immigration from anywhere on earth.

The never ending attempt to suggest otherwise proves how disingenuous and pathetic the liberal progressive New Democratic Party is, and worse, the propaganda ministries they are trained to embrace.

 

[JasperL]

There was no argument in the OP. It was a Progressive pile a propaganda garbage. Zack Beauchamp is nothing but a mouthpiece for rabid progressivism and the racist bigoted thuggery it espouses.

Lies and distortions apparently pass for meaningful journalistic activity among liberals today.

Where is the lie? What did he distort? That's just a classic example of ad hominem.

Republicans are not against legal immigration from anywhere on earth.

The never ending attempt to suggest otherwise proves how disingenuous and pathetic the liberal progressive New Democratic Party is, and worse, the propaganda ministries they are trained to embrace.

Why did you quote me and ignore every word?

Amy Wax is against legal immigration by non-whites, and so were several of the speakers at that conference. I quoted her words above, what part of the that confused you? If you want to reject what she said, that is fine, but you are instead ignoring what she said, or pretending she didn't say what she did.

"...cultural distance nationalism means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites, and fewer non-whites.
Well, that is the result anyway."

Hard to read that and conclude she's in favor of immigration, legal or illegal, from Somalia, because she says explicitly that she's opposed to immigration from the third world, which is a lot of the world!

 

[bubbabgone]

No, I'm just hopelessly jingoistic and racist.

I live in Miami. I'm pretty well aware of the affects of both legal and illegal immigration. A few bad apples isn't enough to frighten me from opening my door to desperate people fleeing violence in part caused by our own domestic war on drugs.

I'm not sure what about my avatar confuses you and as far as I know Ms. Harris is only Indian and Jamaican. I'm Chinese, Indian and Jamaican. There are quite a few us. Jamaica is a melting pot as well just a much smaller one. You can find all sorts of Jamaican mixes and you can find Jamaicans all over the world as well which is confusing for such a small little island.

One - there are more than a few bad apples.
Two - even the good apples are a drain on resources. Millions of them are a severe drain on resources.
Three - when did you last open your door and welcome a stranger to live with you, to feed them, to educate them, provide healthcare ... at your expense?
Four - a crime committed by ANY bad apple is a crime that wouldn't have occurred if that bad apple hadn't been allowed to be here illegally.
Five - Confused by your av? Hardly.

 

[ocean515]

Where is the lie? What did he distort? That's just a classic example of ad hominem.



Why did you quote me and ignore every word?

Amy Wax is against legal immigration by non-whites, and so were several of the speakers at that conference. I quoted her words above, what part of the that confused you? If you want to reject what she said, that is fine, but you are instead ignoring what she said, or pretending she didn't say what she did.

"...cultural distance nationalism means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites, and fewer non-whites.
Well, that is the result anyway."

Hard to read that and conclude she's in favor of immigration, legal or illegal, from Somalia, because she says explicitly that she's opposed to immigration from the third world, which is a lot of the world!

Amy Wax doesn't speak for anyone but herself. Who gives a damn what she says?

Do you deny the author of the pathetic Vox piece isn't a full blown Progressive ideologue. After all, he used to work for Think Progress.

This kind of racist propaganda the hard left is pushing is complete nonsense.

It will be rejected every time it's pushed, so get used to it.

 

[JasperL]

Amy Wax doesn't speak for anyone but herself. Who gives a damn what she says?

Do you deny the author of the pathetic Vox piece isn't a full blown Progressive ideologue. After all, he used to work for Think Progress.

This kind of racist propaganda the hard left is pushing is complete nonsense.

It will be rejected every time it's pushed, so get used to it.

Amy Wax is pushing racist propaganda. You haven't rejected her views, or addressed her comments in any way. All you've done is attack those who accurately quoted her.

 

[Master Debator]

One - there are more than a few bad apples.

The vast majority are just poor and desperate people but you go ahead and speak your truth and tell us all how terrified of little brown children you are.

Two - even the good apples are a drain on resources. Millions of them are a severe drain on resources.

Helping poor people is the proper use of resources. Waging unnecessary war, giving tax breaks and tax incentives and subsidies to corporations and rich people are the real drain on resources. The war on drugs is a drain on resources. Subsidizing health insurance companies rather than sick people is a drain on resources. There is a lot of fat to cut before we get to aid for the poor.

Three - when did you last open your door and welcome a stranger to live with you, to feed them, to educate them, provide healthcare ... at your expense?

Not strangers maybe but friends and family and neighbors all the time. My parents were the same but we have a different concept of solidarity than you do which should answer your question about the fist. That's what it stands for. Solidarity, unity, brotherhood for sufferers everywhere. My parents came to this country in the 80's with nothing. They lived with an aunt for a year saving money with some of my dads brothers and sisters and rented a three bedroom house we fit 9 people in. Eventually they all managed to get their own places but they always opened their door to people in need. My moms sister and her 4 kids lived with us for two years. My step fathers roommate from college stayed with us for a year. Our neighbor who got divorced stayed a year while he worked his **** out. My father and step mother the same. They took one of my step mothers cousins for three years while she went to school and right now they have a daughter of a friend my father grew up with staying with them and she's been there 4 years now I think. I have cousins that come and go whenever they want. One stayed with me for a little over a year, I've had friends stay with me. Even one of my brothers friend I didn't know that well but was in bad accident and needed a place to stay a few months because he couldn't get up and down his stairs. My houses have always been revolving doors. I'm not even entirely sure how many family members have a key to my place. At one point I think I had 30 first cousins just in south Florida. Not sure the count now.

Four - a crime committed by ANY bad apple is a crime that wouldn't have occurred if that bad apple hadn't been allowed to be here illegally.

Then you might as well advocate everyone stop giving birth since a percentage of them will grow up to be murderers and rapists. What a cowardly way to live.

Five - Confused by your av? Hardly.

The avatar is the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with your confusion over empathy and demagoguery.

 

[ocean515]

Amy Wax is pushing racist propaganda. You haven't rejected her views, or addressed her comments in any way. All you've done is attack those who accurately quoted her.

I agree Amy Wax is pushing racist BS. Unlike Progressives like Zack, outfits like Vox, and those who help them promote racist bigotry, I don't think she speaks for anyone but herself.

 

[JasperL]

I agree Amy Wax is pushing racist BS. Unlike Progressives like Zack, outfits like Vox, and those who help them promote racist bigotry, I don't think she speaks for anyone but herself.

So why did you spend 50 posts attacking the messenger versus just addressing accurately quoted comments and rejecting them?

Here's a conservative, Rod Dreher, making many of the same points Wax did, and defending her comments in principle if not the way they were delivered. He essentially reads what she said as a plea to allow debate, and if not the white nationalists will make the arguments.

Was Amy Wax’s Speech Racist? | The American Conservative

What he does not address is our "culture" that he concludes is Anglo-protestant was maintained by what was very explicit white nationalism. Up until the 1960s that was reflected in immigration law, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, exclusionary clubs and neighborhoods, and more. It wasn't just southern MLB teams that excluded blacks, or southern colleges, or southern NFL teams - that was the practice across the country until 1947 for MLB, for example. The NFL didn't integrate until 1946.

 

[NWRatCon]

What he does not address is our "culture" that he concludes is Anglo-protestant was maintained by what was very explicit white nationalism. Up until the 1960s that was reflected in immigration law, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, exclusionary clubs and neighborhoods, and more. It wasn't just southern MLB teams that excluded blacks, or southern colleges, or southern NFL teams - that was the practice across the country until 1947 for MLB, for example. The NFL didn't integrate until 1946.

This is called "studied ignorance"; the practice of knowingly espousing views that are deliberately uninformed by fact. There is a field of social science study called "Agnotology" - literally, "the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data." Think of the anti-vax movement, or other conspiracy-theory based milieu. The denial of "white nationalist" influence, and even more broadly, the existence of "white privilege", is a prime example, and writ large (in capital letters, bolded, italicized and underlined for emphasis) here.

I started another thread specifically about racist apologia to discuss that phenomenon with regard to Trump's racist tweets. It was amazing not only the blatant language some used in their "defense" but the lengths otherwise informed people went to excuse those tweets as anything but "racist." That same phenomenon has been going on in this thread. I don't know whether it is to avoid the obvious cognitive dissonance admission would entail, fellow-feeling, sophistry, or just straight disingenuity, but it certainly is rampant. "Cultural Distance Nationalism" is just using words to disguise what anyone else would just call "xenophobia" - or with even fewer letters, racism.

Trumpism is built on xenophobia and racism. "Send her back" is nothing new: Racism and xenophobia are Trump's only political strategy. Literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of Republican operatives recognized and rejected this before his election. Many of them are now his ardent supporters, a la Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, because they are primo examples of opportunists. That requires a level of sophistry and verbal legerdemain that is unprecedented in American political history. [A poignant example is expressed in the American Conservative apologia: "He said on Twitter that he doesn’t have a view on her immigration opinions, but that it is unjust to claim that she is racist, based on what she said."] In the past it was possible to be this blatant because it was culturally acceptable, but now they all recognize it is not, so they have to try to hide it. But they are not David Copperfields, and the hidden elephant is obvious for all but the most ardent disbelief suspenders to see. We know how this movie ends, or at least if you've seen Shindler's List you do.

 

[iguanaman]

The Depression has nothing to do with anything. Did US Citizens flee to other countries?

These people streaming to US illegally, or lying about asylum or refugee status are just failures from failed countries. They show no desire to abide by the law of the US, and simply importing the same attitudes the used to contribute to the failure of their native countries.

"Toxic Nationalism" - What a pathetic joke.

History is full of examples of "toxic nationalism" destroying countries and their people. Nazi Germany for one. You are giving up our country to Putin already by supporting Trump. He has distracted you while Putin sends mercenaries into Venezuela to prop up it's corrupt dictator and Trump has not said one word about it.

Exclusive: Kremlin-linked contractors help guard Venezuela's Maduro - sources - Reuters

 

[maxparrish]

Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism - Vox



I read this last night and thought it was an interesting article. It's clearly written from a 'liberal' perspective, but it really describes in clear terms the problem with "nationalism" in general and what amounts to in practice if not in theory 'white nationalism.'

The quote above by Amy Wax is part of a larger one in which she says what she's after is 'cultural' nationalism, and that race isn't relevant. The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you do that you favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim.

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

As a general rule any conservative taking advice from a liberal on what is in the best interests of conservatism is a fool. The liberal's unstated (or even unconscious) motivation is to advance liberal ideology, not invigorate conservatism. Hence, its never a surprise to read that the usual liberal advice is shape conservatism into a compliant political underclass, a kind of "mild centrist liberalism" whose role is to be no more than a token counter-vailing force - to create the fiction of a working consensus democracy.

And for whatever reason, there has been more than one article using this them that have appeared recently, for example on in the economist and one by Applebaum with variations of the same liberal advice to conservatives.

One needn't ignore these "analysis and advice" forays, but one should know their agenda.

 

[slick]

And you continue your lies and posting of garbage.
Your post reflects absolute ignorance of history - the immigrants who first populated the US were mostly poor and uneducated folks from all over the world looking for a chance to work hard in a new world.
As usual, you need to educate yourself prior to posting lies and garbage like this.

What is this post a summer special on stupidity maybe?

"the immigrants who first populated the US were mostly poor and uneducated folks from all over the world ‘
It’s your post, not the poster you were replying to, that reflects an absolute ignorance of history.

The immigrants who first populated the colonies which by the end of the 18th century became the united states
did not come from ‘ALL OVER THE WORLD’ THEY CAME ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY the British Isles & ireland
along with Dutch inroads in the NY, NJ & Delaware areas. With hints of small immigration from other Northern Europe
states noted.

Even more ignorant is your suggestion that the were largely poor & uneducated. Almost all the established colonies
were created by the British kings during colonial times in the form of large land grants to monied individuals
which included the right to establish colonies in America and extended all rights of Englishmen to colonists.
Under this charter, wealthy men invested money to finance ships and supplies needed for the voyage
Many of the newly-arrived settlers were described as “gentlemen.”, some had military experience, Among the
non-gentry were a piles of skilled craftsmen and artisans, The rest of the company was made up of unskilled workers of various kinds including common seamen & laborers. The core of those who first populated the colonies were not poor & uneducated,

I don’t think I overlooked those you say came 'ALL OVER THE WORLD’ if there were among the first who immigrated here
from places newsworthy today such as Somalia or Palestine please eloquently elaborate.

As I rolled down the pages of this thread I see you doubled down on your perceived put down of a fellow poster:

'I showed a perfect observation about the beginnings of this country.
I highlighted that Joko had no idea about the true meaning of immigrants in the US.
I proved that Joko has a warped and pathetic opinion about immigrants that is wrong.
I showed that Joko's post was stocked with lies and garbage.
I validated that Joko has no idea about American history.
Most importantly, I showed his post to be sociopathic and very wrong.'

I'm assuming you must feel that you have just made devastating points, probably already figuratively turning around
to accept high-fives. Kinda cute in a way but Guess what none of substance are coming.

 

[JasperL]

As a general rule any conservative taking advice from a liberal on what is in the best interests of conservatism is a fool. The liberal's unstated (or even unconscious) motivation is to advance liberal ideology, not invigorate conservatism. Hence, its never a surprise to read that the usual liberal advice is shape conservatism into a compliant political underclass, a kind of "mild centrist liberalism" whose role is to be no more than a token counter-vailing force - to create the fiction of a working consensus democracy.

And for whatever reason, there has been more than one article using this them that have appeared recently, for example on in the economist and one by Applebaum with variations of the same liberal advice to conservatives.

One needn't ignore these "analysis and advice" forays, but one should know their agenda.

The OP contained no advice from any liberals - it was advice from Prof. Amy Wax, who was a speaker at the National Conservatism conference.

So I'm a bit confused....

 

[maxparrish]

The OP contained no advice from any liberals - it was advice from Prof. Amy Wax, who was a speaker at the National Conservatism conference.

So I'm a bit confused....

The op cited the source, a liberal view of the nature of what is wrong with conservatism as embodied at the conference. Perhaps I assumed too much, that the article author or you were offering faux advice (constructive criticism). Either that or you or the author were actually offering just purely critical views of nationalist conservatism, and for you it seems it focuses mostly on Amy Wax.

Correct?

 

[slick]

History is full of examples of "toxic nationalism" destroying countries and their people. Nazi Germany for one. You are giving up our country to Putin already by supporting Trump. He has distracted you while Putin sends mercenaries into Venezuela to prop up it's corrupt dictator and Trump has not said one word about it.

Exclusive: Kremlin-linked contractors help guard Venezuela's Maduro - sources - Reuters

No countries cringed when they heard the word 'nationalist' especially not Europe. WWI created Czechoslovakia where 500,000 Ruthenians,
800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles, 3.6 million Germans & 2.5 million Slovaks. All resented being forced in a nation
dominated by 7 million Czechs. Czechoslovakia proved to be the saddest representation of how toxic a multi-ethnic diverse experiment can be.

After WWII they did not make the same mistake.Europe from Eire to the Elbe consisted of all homogenous states.
'The drive of ethnic groups to separate and create nations in which there own unique culture, language & faith are
dominant is among the most powerful drive of mankind.' You're swimming up
stream not to acknowledge the power of ethnonationalism.

 

[iguanaman]

No countries cringed when they heard the word 'nationalist' especially not Europe. WWI created Czechoslovakia where 500,000 Ruthenians,
800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles, 3.6 million Germans & 2.5 million Slovaks. All resented being forced in a nation
dominated by 7 million Czechs. Czechoslovakia proved to be the saddest representation of how toxic a multi-ethnic diverse experiment can be.

After WWII they did not make the same mistake.Europe from Eire to the Elbe consisted of all homogenous states.
'The drive of ethnic groups to separate and create nations in which there own unique culture, language & faith are
dominant is among the most powerful drive of mankind.' You're swimming up
stream not to acknowledge the power of ethnonationalism.

You deny that the most horrific incidents of human barbarism were caused by "the power of ethnonationalism"? That this nation has thrived mostly because we were able to integrate multiple cultures and religions sucessfully? Now you think we should go down the rabbit hole of ethnic cleansing? You are the one who has failed history.

 

[JasperL]

The op cited the source, a liberal view of the nature of what is wrong with conservatism as embodied at the conference. Perhaps I assumed too much, that the article author or you were offering faux advice (constructive criticism). Either that or you or the author were actually offering just purely critical views of nationalist conservatism, and for you it seems it focuses mostly on Amy Wax.

Correct?

It wasn't just Amy Wax. Her views in one form or another is Trumpism.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."

He added: "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

And before we go off on a tangent about rapists, etc. the most telling part of that quote is the bolded. THAT is where the white nationalism is most evident. IMO. He assumes "some" are good?

At any rate, there are a bunch of posts on this thread, and the article itself, and I don't feel like repeating points already made.

Bottom line is it's difficult to imagine a kind of 'conservative nationalism' that isn't at least in results indistinguishable than the centuries long American tradition of white nationalism. We've seen the movie. Wax just had the courage to state it directly. What's been missing from any of the critics on this thread is even to acknowledge the point she made much less deal with it. The most common dodge is ad hominem....

 

[uptower]

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

It's fairly simple. Though the polarisation had been gathering pace for decades it was trump that pushed it over the edge: conservatism has been co-opted by white nationalism. It used to be the other way round.

 

[NWRatCon]

As a general rule any conservative taking advice from a liberal on what is in the best interests of conservatism is a fool. The liberal's unstated (or even unconscious) motivation is to advance liberal ideology, not invigorate conservatism.

I was, for most of my adult life, "considered" a conservative, because I believed in things that "conservatism" stood for or paid lip service to (at least, once upon a time), like rationality, considered policy choices, gun rights, the death penalty, meritocracy, free will and free markets, love of country, rational regulation and tax policies, considered economic choices, conservation (yes, that was once a conservative value), etc. That kind of conservatism is considered "radical liberalism" today. But the OP and article is about one aspect of conservatism, conservative nationalism, not conservatism generally, and what it "means", philosophically, morally, and for the future. It may be a critique, but it is not "advice for conservatives."

By the way, the construct "any conservative taking advice from a liberal on what is in the best interests of conservatism is a fool" would also be anathema to a conservative for most of my life. Conservatism used to take advice from everybody (that's part of the "rationalism" aspect of it). It would not likely follow that advice, but would consider it - hence acceptance of Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the National Highway System, etc. The debates of Disraeli and Gladstone, while heated and loathsome of each other, were, nonetheless, of significant import to the success of England in the 19th Century, and so it had been for much of American history as well (until relatively recently).

That, in my view, is what is wrong with "conservatism" today - it is infested with those who pursue the "my way or no way" stratagem of Newt Gingrich and now Mitch McConnell, and the touchstone of Trumpism. It no longer takes input from anyone but the choir, and rejects insensibly anything proposed by "them" even if originally conservative ideas (like the ACA). You can accept or reject that advice from a "liberal", but a true conservative would listen to it.

 

[bubbabgone]

Not strangers maybe but friends and family and neighbors all the time. My parents were the same but we have a different concept of solidarity than you do which should answer your question about the fist. That's what it stands for. Solidarity, unity, brotherhood for sufferers everywhere. My parents came to this country in the 80's with nothing. They lived with an aunt for a year saving money with some of my dads brothers and sisters and rented a three bedroom house we fit 9 people in. Eventually they all managed to get their own places but they always opened their door to people in need. My moms sister and her 4 kids lived with us for two years. My step fathers roommate from college stayed with us for a year. Our neighbor who got divorced stayed a year while he worked his **** out. My father and step mother the same. They took one of my step mothers cousins for three years while she went to school and right now they have a daughter of a friend my father grew up with staying with them and she's been there 4 years now I think. I have cousins that come and go whenever they want. One stayed with me for a little over a year, I've had friends stay with me. Even one of my brothers friend I didn't know that well but was in bad accident and needed a place to stay a few months because he couldn't get up and down his stairs. My houses have always been revolving doors. I'm not even entirely sure how many family members have a key to my place. At one point I think I had 30 first cousins just in south Florida. Not sure the count now.

Why not strangers? That's what we're talking about here. Strangers. Totally unknown ... unknown even to someone you know.

Then you might as well advocate everyone stop giving birth since a percentage of them will grow up to be murderers and rapists. What a cowardly way to live.

Peculiar way to look at avoiding unnecessary risk. Comparing childbirth to open borders. Weird.
But since you raised the subject ... hypothetically ... why wouldn't you welcome possible murderers or rapists to stay with you? If you were married? If you had kids? Why not do it?
Someone gave birth to them so I heard that the odds are it'd probably be okay.

The avatar is the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with your confusion over empathy and demagoguery.

I'm not worried but I am amused that you would adopt that avatar as a virtue signal in the mistaken belief that it bestows on you a sheen of empathy & moral rectitude.
Miami has a bunch of homeless shelters. Why not take in a few homeless white guys. I'm sure it'd be fine. Or is there some reason you wouldn't do that?

 

[maxparrish]

It wasn't just Amy Wax. Her views in one form or another is Trumpism.

And before we go off on a tangent about rapists, etc. the most telling part of that quote is the bolded. THAT is where the white nationalism is most evident. IMO. He assumes "some" are good?

At any rate, there are a bunch of posts on this thread, and the article itself, and I don't feel like repeating points already made.

Bottom line is it's difficult to imagine a kind of 'conservative nationalism' that isn't at least in results indistinguishable than the centuries long American tradition of white nationalism. We've seen the movie. Wax just had the courage to state it directly. What's been missing from any of the critics on this thread is even to acknowledge the point she made much less deal with it. The most common dodge is ad hominem....

While I think there has been at least one thread critic has "dealt with it", I'm more than happy to address it. In a nutshell, the results are indistinguishable from what conservative nationalism has always demanded, regardless of race, the preservation of pre-existing culture and economic relations. All immigration opposition started with a fear of losing cultural identity to the foreign, and fears of economic displacement by the other: German, Irish, Italian, Catholic, Jewish, Chinese, etc. Race was sometimes an added synonymous component to these fears BUT no barrier to a strident nationalist rejection of the European Irish, Italian, Southern European, or Turk.

So the alleged "indistinguishability" is not an equivalency, in spite of the left's contemporary obsession with race as the all purpose demon behind all conservatives or nationalists.

In an era where outcome is immoral, regardless of the non-existence of racial intent or measures, you might confuse a logical and intelligent set of reasons with something like advocacy or support of "white nationalist ideology". Hence, requirements of a knowledge and literacy in English, a set of skills, a cultural and intellectual acceptance of western republican values and virtues, an IQ over 90, and the ability to stay off welfare services are deemed "racist" or "white nationalism".

So be it. However, it is no benefit to social cohesion to import those hostile to, or bereft of, those qualities. Be they Turks, Bulgarians, Mongolians, Serbs, or Congolese conservative nationalism is, first and foremost, puts the interests of the established and fully Americanized population ahead of that of foreigners of any race.

Shocking, I know. :roll:

 

[Master Debator]

Why not strangers? That's what we're talking about here. Strangers. Totally unknown ... unknown even to someone you know.

I'm not opposed to it. No strangers have ever asked.:shrug:

Peculiar way to look at avoiding unnecessary risk. Comparing childbirth to open borders. Weird.
But since you raised the subject ... hypothetically ... why wouldn't you welcome possible murderers or rapists to stay with you? If you were married? If you had kids? Why not do it?
Someone gave birth to them so I heard that the odds are it'd probably be okay.

Why go swimming when you can drown or walk outside when you can get struck by a car? Again murderers and rapists and a tiny percentage of the population. The chances of you running into one is tiny. More often than not the people at our border are desperate, decent people. I don't normally let the fear of unlikely things rule me.

I'm not worried but I am amused that you would adopt that avatar as a virtue signal in the mistaken belief that it bestows on you a sheen of empathy & moral rectitude.
Miami has a bunch of homeless shelters. Why not take in a few homeless white guys. I'm sure it'd be fine. Or is there some reason you wouldn't do that?

Mostly because homeless people typically have mental problems I'm not equipped or trained to deal with and because I'm pretty stretched as it is with all the charity I give friends and family. I had a friend who needed 2 grand last week and had to split that with my brother because I didnt have all of it to spare. Also we shouldn't be relying on individuals to do the work of governments. I doubt I'd see you out patrolling our border.

 

[Bodi]

If telling someone to go back to where they came from isn't racist then tell a black coworker that and watch how HR responds to your statement.

Why is it always people who have more melanin in their skin than Winder bread who are being told to go back where you came from and not white people like me when we criticize the US. I only criticize the US because I care and it should be fixing this problems instead of mouthing racist tropes and waving the Dixie Swastika? Why is the flag of traitors so popular with Trump supporters

The Confederate Flag has always been popular. It was on the General Lee on National TV, in fact.

White people with accents or a known family heritage have ALWAYS been told to go back to their country for the entire time of the USA. From the Germans to the Irish to the Italians to the Catholics. If you know your history you would understand and that is what I would educate HR about if somebody ever did that.