I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic here.
Like what?
Edit: no really, I'd like to know what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. I have absolutely no idea what foreign policy decisions "oshitsdom" is referring to, which have supposedly been influenced by a "rise of white nationalism". That would be a very serious event, and I genuinely want to know if there's some legitimate way of squinting at our shared reality which could give that impression.
Edit 2 because I'm rate limited: This is not a rhetorical question, except that nobody has answered honestly. It is a question that is answerable. To form it more explicitly: "Name an example of a consequential foreign policy decision of the current administration which is white nationalist in nature (invokes a desire to create a state where citizenship is contingent on having white skin), and which has clearly been influenced the a cultural force of a 'rise of white nationalism'."
You are very wrong about the latter part. Trump's response to Charlottesville was so bad that the phrase "both sides" became a meme. To this day, he continues to downplay the problem.
Also that is not foreign policy.
You can certainly argue that he does, but please come up with things that aren't quite so easily argued around. (and I've yet to hear an argument for how he's a Nazi when his favorite daughter is literally an Orthodox Jew) The more we allow easily refuted arguments to propagate unopposed, the easier it is to assume that there are no legitimate arguments for a position.
I think the increased visibility of extremist groups even if said groups aren't increasing in number fits the recent trend of increased polarization. Both sides are screaming their heads off about "look-at all these terrible people on the other side"
Edit: The fact that the down-vote to "legitimate answer so my question" ratio right now is 3:1 makes me think that this is a very ideologically difficult question for people here.
* The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic increase in the number of white nationalist groups in the U.S., from 100 chapters in 2017 to 148 in 2018.
* The Anti-Defamation League reports a 182 percent increase in incidents of the distribution of white supremacist propaganda, and an increase in the number of rallies and demonstrations by white supremacy groups, from 76 in 2017 to 91 in 2018.
* A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators quadrupled in the U.S. between 2016 and 2017, and that far-right attacks in Europe rose 43 percent over the same period. Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
I think the FBI is neutral whereas other sources tend to have biases so they’d require additional scrutiny.
Measuring this sort of thing is hard, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Interest groups, although well meaning, are like internal organizations preparing next year’s budget. Borderline issues cease to be borderline. (Was it domestic violence, was it hate? Obviously there is potential for both, but there’s interpretative subjectivity)
Anyway, this is speculative. I think I trust the FBI to be more neutral than interested parties for these numbers.
> According to the FBI, there were 7,175 hate crime incidents in 2017, a 17 percent increase from 2016 and the third year in a row with an increase. The number of incidents in 2017 was also the highest yearly total since 2008. About 58 percent of the hate crimes in 2017 were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry.
In addition, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified back in April that White nationalist violence is a “persistent, pervasive threat”.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18295358/fbi-white-nationalism-...
'After years of smearing good people with false charges of bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology.'
Also a thing to note: They've put pepe as an official hate symbol. (Sigh.. poor pepe)
The SPLC is an extremely unreliable source, who has been successfully sued for arbitrarily defaming people. Their classifications of incidents are deliberately misleading, and classify anti-government acts as "right wing", despite the fact that a huge number of lefty anarchists exist in the U.S.
> Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
Why combine these? This would include lefty anarchists, who have a consistent and increasing record of well documented political violence. It completely obscures the point you're supposedly trying to make.
(P.S. wtf did they have to call it CSIS? Very confusing since this is the acronym for our intelligence services here in Canada)
I do that too, if you look at what I said. But surely an unreliable source can't be allowed to burden everyone with continually disproving them. The SPLC has no credibility, I don't see why anyone should have to dismantle their arguments any more than any other activist publisher (occupy democrats, the daily mail, the daily stormer).
It is very difficult to win a defamation suit in the U.S. The SPLC have been proven a fraud in the courts, that's an extremely high bar of bullshit.