From Pat Caseys subscribestar on the debates.
"Of everything said during the first presidential debate, President Trump’s statements regarding “white supremacy” have garnered the most media attention. Why? We already know why. The establishment is hellbent on proving that Trump is guilty of the cardinal sin that is racism. Journalists, academics, and politicians have been playing this card for years, so this isn’t anything new. However, the issue of white supremacy – an elusive and largely nonexistent specter – has gained salience in the wake of George Floyd’s death, which has likely played a role in Trump’s declining support among educated white voters.
During Tuesday’s debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump if he condemned white supremacy, to which the president responded, “Sure.” When asked again, he gave the same reply. That the “Trump refuses to condemn white supremacy” narrative nonetheless continues to be promoted by the media and accepted uncritically by tens of millions of Americans is more evidence of the dire straits our country is in. These two disavowals were not enough, apparently, as Wallace then asked Trump to disavow the Proud Boys. Trump’s response? Stand back and standby. This statement has been construed as a call to action in the event that things take a turn for the worse in November, which is all but guaranteed at this point.
The Proud Boys, as you well know, are far from white supremacists. They’re not “neo-Nazis,” either, contrary to what the media claims. Instead, they’re civic nationalists, meaning they believe anyone, regardless of race, can be an American so long as they adhere to the antiquated and waning civic religion of free speech, representative government, free markets, and so on. While identitarians certainly can find common ground with civic nationalists – indeed, all sincere Trump supporters are on the same side, like it or not – we account for the realities of race, identity, and demographics, which we feel civic nationalism lacks.
Still, any form of nationalism favored by white people, civic or otherwise, is at odds with progressivism. And because the high priests of this new civil religion have established racism as the penultimate evil, they see much to gain strategically by characterizing all nationalists as white supremacists, white nationalists, or neo-Nazis. These terms amount to little more than “people who dissent against globalism.” None of this, of course, matters to the anti-Trump masses, who have been so thoroughly propagandized that they will accept at face value accusations of “white supremacy” leveled against anyone right of center.
A sober of definition of white supremacy would be that a white supremacist is one who believes that white people are inherently and categorically superior to non-white people; that non-white people have no moral worth on account of their non-whiteness; that any act, from slavery to genocide, is justified when carried out by whites to non-whites; and that white people can and should dominate, subjugate, and lord over non-white people.
Do there exist those who subscribe to such views? Sure. But do they have any power? Are there many of them? The answer to both questions is no. We as identitarians merely wish to preserve our homelands: culturally, demographically, and spiritually. If this is “supremacy,” then virtually all peoples who currently exist and have existed in the past could be described as such as well. One cannot conflate identitarianism with supremacism without making a bold statement about human nature as well. The truth is that what we espouse as identitarians is natural, historical, and morally defensible – it is only through unprecedentedly complex social conditioning that people could be fooled into believing otherwise. "