National Review is an American conservative rag that extends a long tradition of American conservative editorialism in the style of William F. Buckley. It would still be pushing for racial segregation were it allowed to.
The mayor of Detroit too. He won a write-in campaign against a progressive. Now Democrats are trying to strip him of some of his appointments because he's a little too conservative for them and not progressive enough.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_o...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#Controversies
The examples in that list of controversies are weak to say the least. In each case that could vaguely be considered racism or antisemitism, the higher ups at the magazine issued a rebuke and often dismissed the writer. Is this really all you got?
Meanwhile, the NYT posts shit like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracia...
Look at former racist house representatives who were Democrats but renounced their racism. It's as if they never espoused racist views. But if they had been conservatives, then by definition they could never disavow their racist past and would for ever be racists.
It would be silly to say the DNC is still what it was in the 1950s, since "organisations change and it was 60 years ago" but the comment you're replying to is arguing that we only give that sort of benefit of the doubt when it's convenient politically. Buckley wouldn't be relevant otherwise here, and every single "older" newspaper would be a conservative rag if we were to go by what's been published or said by their founders.
But it’s still not clear what this has to do with the National Review.
https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmus...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/13/william-f...
From Politico, no less. Bill is remembered by those who lived through those times for doing good rear-guard work in civil rights in the 1960s when it really counted.
Obviously everyone can be racist or bigoted, regardless of race but that doesn't mean they are internalizing white supremacy whenre they aren't white, it just means they are racist. Its weird to make everything all about white people and the whole concept is increasingly sounding like a way to cope with bruised savior egos.
We all have internalized white supremacy, regardless of our skin color. It’s just that the definition of “white” changes situationally (e.g. Italians weren’t considered “white” until the mid-1900s, rather they inhabited the “brown” space that south Asians and Hispanics currently do). But the internalized part is that we generally consider what is “white” to be the better outcome.