They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough.
Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.
I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.
I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.
I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.
> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.
As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.
> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined.
It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?
Oh, I don't think so.
I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.
I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.
Yes it is. However those examples will nearly always be specific instances and special circumstances with a few exceptions like the Hapsburgs.
What I see now is sustained transnational political collaboration. That suggests the formation of a larger political unit based on shared ideals and an external threat (this is always true). I don't mean that this networking is equivalent to the EU's attempts, it is more organic than that.
The analogy I would use is TCP/IP vs the OSI. The EU is doing OSI. The nationalists are doing TCP/IP.
> As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value.
Right. And/or ideological terminal goal continuity. The Sikh and western Chinese are very much aligned with us, they are almost never a problem. This is one of the problems with the 'integration narrative' the center-left/right don't want to consider. There exist examples of non-integration and zero conflict.
The American experiment proves that Europeans can work together. That's the good news. After centuries of ethic and religious warfare no less. A larger political unit was successfully forged, which is still remarkable in historical context. Australia is another example just to show it isn't luck.
I also foresee no real political problems with Hispanics and Asians, I think this election has shown that.
The problem is that, especially in Europe, large portions of some subgroups have decided to reject the West and desire to establish a parallel state. The evidence for this is overwhelming, everything from secret courts to large caches of guns being discovered.
There is also a considerable number of native born citizens who are a real problem. To understand why take a look at this article by Charlie Stross:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/11/playtime...
In my view they are like RINOs, except that they are Westerners In Name Only. These people are contributing to a very dangerous polarization between the Muslims and other inhabitants of our territories. I believe that if civil conflict breaks out they will work against attempts to unify and establish civil order and this shall have horrifying consequences. The blunt end of the State, the army, the police, the intelligence, are all right wing to a man. I've seen sectarianism before, it's not a pretty sight.
> It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed ... What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
I know that, but the newspapers are very attached to their caricature of reality and that exerts influence. In Germany and Sweden the Pravda-ization is out of control. There is 'progress' and there is 'hitler'.
> Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile ... Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
I think America will have indigestion but ultimately be fine. I cannot say the same about Europe. It is a horror show unfolding in front of us, a few more attacks and reprisals are sure to start.
The only solutions that would prevent this are deemed politically impossible and so we shall deal with the political inevitable.