This post tests WordPress’ Twitter Embeds feature.

Answered Apr 29, 2019

Of the 700 counties that voted for Obama, 200 of them voted for Trump. White supremacists don’t vote for black presidential candidates. We can safely dismiss these voters.

The KKK today is a very small group, virtually defunct. It has been that way since the 1980s. They have a few hundred members nationwide. There is no revival except for fevered reporting of the left-wind media. They need the Klan to sustain their political attack on the right. So they magnify the organization, allowing the public to believe that it still poses a threat that it historically posed.

Lets suppose that the Klan has 500 to 1000 members. What evidence is their to show they voted for Trump? Actually there is none. The media loves to trot out former Klansman David Duke not because he is a representative of anything but because he is the only prominent name associated with the Klan that can be tied to the Republicans, notwithstanding the GOP’s insistent repudiation of him on numerous occasions. It is hard to name anyone else because historically the entire leadership of the KKK—Imperial Wizards, Grand Dragons, Exalted Cyclopses, Great Kleagles—have all been Democrats.

Has anyone conducted a servey of neo-nazis or skinheads to show that they are actually Trump voters? I am not aware of any. Columnist Will Saletan invoked an opinion survey to show that while 3% of whites said they “mostly agree” with the white supremacy movement, 5% of Trump voters fell into this category. So the data are scarce.

Many of the most prominent white supremacists have a left-wing background. The Poverty Law Center looked into the past of Jason Kessler, organizer of the Charlottesville rally, and was astonished to discover that he had been an Obama supporter and active in the left-wing Occupy movement.

The progressive media went dead silent on this one. Only 1 Charlottesville newspaper, “The Daily Progress,” bothered to dig into this, noting that Kessler’s previous tweets, his neighbors and several of his friends “attest that he held strong liberal convictions just a few years ago.” Kessler said that not only was he a former Democrat, but many of his current followers previously voted for Democrats.

He also has a jewish heritage. His ex-girlfriend said he had been roommates with an African American for years. He said he broke up with her because she wasn’t “liberal enough.” She’s a very progressive Democrat. He didn’t like the fact that she was a Christian. Kessler sounds just like a left-wing racist.

One of the few scholors to make a genuine attempt to study their movement is political scientist Carol Swain. Swain is one of the leading African American scholors in the country. Swain has written 2 books, a detailed study of the white nationalist movement called “The New White Nationalism in America,” and another consisting of searching interviews with its most prominent members.

Swain recognizes that the “new white nationalism” is different from the old-style racism. The nationalists of today vehemently deny that they are white supremacists. They insist that they are advocates of white identity and white power in the same mode as the advocates of black identity and black power. They seek to portray themselves as a kind of civil rights movement, fighting for equal treatment for white people.

David Duke is on board with that approach. He founded the (NAAWP). Duke says that just as the NAACP works for black interests and La Raza Unida works for Hispanic interests, his group is “about preservation of our identity as ethnic people, our existence, our values, our culture, our traditions.”

Not only is Swain right that the white nationalists are not the bigots of old, but she also correctly discerns that the point they make is not entirely wrong.

But the usual progressive response is that white solidarity is dangerous because whites as a group have the power to put their prejudices into practice. Racism is prejudice plus power and whites supposedly have both. Black and Hispanic solidarity is not dangerous because minority groups may have their prejudices but they don’t have the accompanying power.

Moreover, the motives for minority collective associations are benign. In the progressive view, disadvantaged groups have a right to form in their desire to resist white oppression and white supremacy.

This argument, however, fails to consider the contemporary reality that minority interest groups are much more powerful than white nationalist groups. It’s not even close. Which group has more clout, the NAACP or the NAAWP? Black representatives in Congress have a Black Caucus, which does not hesitate to fight for explicitly black interests; where is the White Caucus that openly promotes white interests? Moreover, black and Latino interest groups have powerful allies in Hollywood and the media.

The white nationalists have none of this. They are shunned by both political parties and they have much less power to enforce discrimination in their favor than their black and Latino counterparts. While the old-style racism is now outlawed as a consequence of civil rights legislation, affirmative action—racial preferences against whites and in favor of blacks and other minorities—is currently the law of the land. In order to be a threat you have to have real power.

So marginalized are the white nationalist groups today that they are the ones who feel victimized. They are the ones who are branded as hate groups. Even most whites hate them! Their ideology is so controversial that on campus it sends students fleeing in search for safe spaces. The only time it is acceptable for whites to speak collectively as whites, is to apologize. Their racial solidarity, the white nationalists say, is a necessary response to being so besieged in mainstream culture.

America needs to move away from ethnic identity politics. Politics ideally should not be structured along the lines of race or ethnicity. As long as the Democratic Party mobilizes groups along ethnic lines, they are going to feel justified in doing as whites what every other group does in the name of its own ethnicity. Multiculturalism has come home to roost, and white nationalists are its newest advocates.

David Spencer is the leader of the Alt-Right. Spensers views are virtually identical to those of the progressive racists of the Woodrow Wilson era. In a purely logical sense, Spencer should be a progressive Democrat. Progressive Democrats invented the ideology he espouses, and even today the Democratic Party is the party of ethnic identity politics. Spencer’s problem, however, is that the Democrats mobilize black, Latino and Asian identity politics against that of whites. Since whites are now the all-round bad guy, Spencer’s brand of progressivism is no longer welcome at the multicultural picnic.

Thus Spencer, a man without a party, turns to Trump. There is very little on which Spencer and Trump actually agree. Trump is a flag-waving patriot who cherishes the American founders; Spencer isn’t and doesn’t. Trump is a capitalist; Spencer prefers a strong state regulating markets on behalf of white interests: Trump wants to keep illegals out so legal immigrants and other American citizens—whether white, black or brown—can thrive. Spencer wants more white immigrants, fewer—if any—black and brown ones. In sum, Trump is generally conservative in his ideology and Spencer is clearly not.

Why, then, did Spencer vote for Trump? Why does he consider himself on the right? The simple answer is that Spencer has no place else to go, so he is trying to carve out a niche for himself in the only party where he can find some measure of agreement, however small. The point here is that Trump isn’t embracing Spencer, just as Lincoln didn’t embrace the Know-Nothings. Rather, Spencer is going to Trump, as the Know-Nothings eventually went with Lincoln.

Look at it from Spencer’s point of view. If you’re a white nationalist who wants racial preferences for whites, would you rather go with the Democrats, who want racial preferences against whites, or with the Republicans, who want racial preferences for no one? Clearly the latter. If you’re a white nationalist who want to eliminate minority immigration altogether—legal and illegal—would you rather vote for the Democrats, who encourage more illegals, with a view to gaining more future voters, or Republicans, who support legal but not illegal immigration? Again, the answer is the obvious.

Add questionTrump supporters state that Trump has occasionally “condemned” far right groups, white supremacists, etc. Trump’s rallies are filled with condemnations of everything he’s against. Has he ever condemned white supremacists at his rallies?Jim B Cooper, Street Crimes/narcotics/Maj. Crimes/SWAT at The United States of America (2004-present)Answered Oct 7, 2020

Despite the obvious spin trying to be made about Trump misquoting himself which turned out not to be a misquote the media leaned on his omission of saying there were bad things/people on many sides but much ado has already been made about him saying there were good people on both sides which was actually taken out of context by numerous media outlets. So here you have the very first entry on a Google search that displayed a rally 3 years ago with a very verbal condemnation of those hate groups.