You understand that Christian Indians have been killed for eating beef and pork right? And the current party in power is the BJP, a party that has allied itself with people like Bal Thackeray, a politician who suggested suicide bombings as a viable means of protecting Hindu interests, as well as links to actual murders of politicians he disagreed with [1] as well as instigating the Mumbai riots [2].
And that's just in the one state I'm familiar with. The party itself has many links to actual Hindu militias. Pull your head out of the ground. The United States problems (if there really even is one) are nothing compared to those of certain other countries.
I am not from India, but you do understand that the party that has majority control over India, the BJP, is a blatantly Hindu Nationalist party? I would argue this makes them even more entrenched in nationalist politics than here in the US. Look at the hundreds of killings and mutilations over cows that the government of India seriously turns a blind eye to.
> White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House
Wait, this means Trump is now banned on Facebook? Or who in the White House is the white nationalist that will be banned on Facebook starting next week?
White Nationalism has permeated the entire GOP since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and there is evidence of that everywhere, starting with the Southern Strategy itself as exhibit 1.
That it has been more pronounced than the post-Southern Strategy GOP baseline in the Trump Administration is also quite evident to both opponents and overt supporters of White nationalism.
And no, my standard of evidence is not hearing someone say the words - it is considering their actions and seeing if they align with a particular agenda. I've seen the accusations aplenty, but I just don't see any actual evidence supporting it. And for the record, I despise any kind of group-based ideology, or anything that treats people other than individuals. I denounce white nationalists or any kind of racial or ethnic superiority group when I see it - I just don't see it here.
And no, my standard of evidence is not hearing someone say the words - it is considering their actions and seeing if they align with a particular agenda.
That leaves the door open for a lot of hateful rhetoric excused on the grounds of 'ignore the speeches, look at the actions.' But in any case you could start by looking into the development of the 'muslim ban', anti-transgender policy in the armed forces, disregard for protected classes under title IX, and the so-called 'emergy' on the southern border.
Given the broad scope of your comment I'm not going to get into litigating those issues individually here, while understanding that you might not consider them as significant as other people do.
> I do not, honestly, think you are arguing in good faith.
The majority of Muslim countries are not in those areas. There are muslim countries in Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Central Asia. You're arguing from a place of ignorance.
The top muslim countries are Indonesia (12% of muslims), India and Pakistan (11% each), Bangladesh (9%). Those four countries account for 53% of the muslim population. The arab countries (not all of which were banned) only account for 20%. Thus, the vast majority of muslims are still able to enter the United States. Calling this policy a muslim ban is like calling the EU policy of requiring Visas for most countries a non-white screening program.
Moreover, both venezuela and North Korea are banned, both of which have few muslims. Is this also a Christian / Buddhist / atheist ban now?
The five majority muslim countries that were banned (Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya) account for 7.5% of the Muslim population. Syria at least also has a sizeable non-Muslim population.
> It's telling, I think, that you made this about the current President and his predecessor, and that your argument that the Muslim ban wasn't really white nationalist is because the Muslim ban was really a... ah yes:
And what exactly is it telling of? An avoidance of hyperbole when it comes to politics?
1) The early businesses suit was against the owner and alleged originator of the policies - Fred. There’s evidence of paternal racism, but no coherent “white nationalism”, especially since Jewish tenants were favored over whites.
Donald in his own ventures was the first in the county to open up his country clubs to Blacks and Jews, and was repeatedly celebrated by African American leaders for his other community efforts.
2) Stephen Miller is Jewish. How is he a white nationalist?
3) Central Park 5 was a rush to judgement when a woman claimed she was raped near the ice rink and part of the park that Trump had just recently invested in renovating. Not proof of racism, or white nationalism.
4) "Good people on both sides", when you look at the full paragraphs of the speech (which details who exactly he is describing), is in reference to the "heritage not hate" locals who attended the event simply thinking it was about saving the statue. They were not sensational, and left when the neo-nazis showed up later in vans, so they were not covered in national news. I do not blame you for not noticing them.
Many good people attended the Women’s March who were later horrified to find out that organizers were anti-Semites, and that they had a convicted homophobic murderer (Donna Hylton) as a speaker. I can empathize with people caught in that kind of situation.
Steve Bannon was a close friend of Andrew Breitbart (who was Jewish and famously anti-racist), and was hired by Breitbart to be Editor. Bannon greatly expanded the Brietbart Israel office and managed a number of non-whites such as Raheem Kassam, Ben Shapiro, and others, placing them in leading positions.
While I do think Andrew wouldn't approve of what Bannon has done recently (and many of his old colleagues do not), there is no evidence his views have ever gone into "extreme white nationalist" territory.
You would need to show that Trump invited Bannon into the White House because of his white nationalist views, and not because of his abilities in other areas. Which I don't think you can do.
Also, if Steve Bannon is a white nationalist, it seems weird that Trump would support him, considering that presumably makes him want to get rid of parts of Trump's own family(Ivanka/Jared and their kids).
