United States Turning Point Fires Ashley St. Claire for Talking to Nick Fuentes

[The Name of Love]

It's that 'being against demographic change' part that is why the Left is correct to call this guy out, and why Reps should not accociate with him.

In my experience people who are against 'demographic change' tend to be those with white nationalist sympathies. Like, I very much dislike illegal immigration and mass legal immigration, but not because I care about preserving the 'white' demographic.

I don’t think wanting to preserve a white demographic in America is any more evil or wrong than wanting to preserve a black demographic in Africa, or a Japanese demographic in Japan. It’s a normal thing most people throughout history have done, and I don’t see anything inherently wrong or even “white nationalist” about it. You shouldn’t let people into your country that have radically different traditions and loyalties to the local population en masse.

I’m sorry, but your position on demographic replacement assumes Left wing morality, and I already am a Catholic, so I have no need to kowtow to such moral standards, especially when they are enforced in such a way that it gives the Left what they want.

 

[Marduk]

It's that 'being against demographic change' part that is why the Left is correct to call this guy out, and why Reps should not accociate with him.

In my experience people who are against 'demographic change' tend to be those with white nationalist sympathies. Like, I very much dislike illegal immigration and mass legal immigration, but not because I care about preserving the 'white' demographic.

I disagree.
You know how leftist identity politics work. They are actively for "demographic change", and in a specific direction at that. If being against it is evil, then being for it is even more evil, because it means chipping away at the national self-rule of all the current American ethnicities, including the non-white ones - even if due to the numbers as they are, the white one loses the most. Do African-Americans not lose the relative influence in the country with the rise of other groups?

 

[Bacle]

I don’t think wanting to preserve a white demographic in America is any more evil or wrong than wanting to preserve a black demographic in Africa, or a Japanese demographic in Japan. It’s a normal thing most people throughout history have done, and I don’t see anything inherently wrong or even “white nationalist” about it. You shouldn’t let people into your country that have radically different traditions and loyalties to the local population en masse.

I’m sorry, but your position on demographic replacement assumes Left wing morality, and I already am a Catholic, so I have no need to kowtow to such moral standards, especially when they are enforced in such a way that it gives the Left what they want.

This assumes that the US is an inherently or naturally 'white' nation, an axiom I reject.

I disagree.
You know how leftist identity politics work. They are actively for "demographic change", and in a specific direction at that. If being against it is evil, then being for it is even more evil, because it means chipping away at the national self-rule of all the current American ethnicities, including the non-white ones - even if due to the numbers as they are, the white one loses the most. Do African-Americans not lose the relative influence in the country with the rise of other groups?

Oh, I am no fan of the way many on the Left gloat about 'demographic change' and 'demographics are destiny'. I think if they were saying it about any other group they'd be described as massive racists.

But that doesn't mean I think being seriously concerned about 'demographic change' on the Right is an innocent thing either.

If someone is worried about mass importantion of foreigners for cheap labor and to force political 'demographic' changes (illegal immigration is very guilty of this) I think there is a non-race based reasoning to it and it is not part of the 'white nationalist' fringe arguments. However if the 'demographic' concerns are more about race and ethnicity than economics and politics, then that is treading on 'white nationalist' ground.

I know my view on this action and this issue are in the minority here, but this is just how I see things.

 

[FriedCFour]

I don’t think wanting to preserve a white demographic in America is any more evil or wrong than wanting to preserve a black demographic in Africa, or a Japanese demographic in Japan. It’s a normal thing most people throughout history have done, and I don’t see anything inherently wrong or even “white nationalist” about it. You shouldn’t let people into your country that have radically different traditions and loyalties to the local population en masse.

I’m sorry, but your position on demographic replacement assumes Left wing morality, and I already am a Catholic, so I have no need to kowtow to such moral standards, especially when they are enforced in such a way that it gives the Left what they want.

I don't think it's necessarily left wing morality to not care about preserving a white demographic. I personally care more about preserving a Christian demographic and American values much more so than race and I think that's perfectly possible. That being said I do oppose diversity as a strength and that we should actively try to make America less white as much as we should make it more white. Those aren't congruent with me.

 

[Marduk]

This assumes that the US is an inherently or naturally 'white' nation, an axiom I reject.
Oh, I am no fan of the way many on the Left gloat about 'demographic change' and 'demographics are destiny'. I think if they were saying it about any other group they'd be described as massive racists.

If they were doing it in a country where t he r-word is not among the most powerful attack terms, it would be described as seditious, an attempt against the country's nation's right to rule said country, in favor of some foreigners.

But that doesn't mean I think being seriously concerned about 'demographic change' on the Right is an innocent thing either.

Innocent or not, it is rational and reasonable regardless. We have experiences with people trying to guesswork other's motives and sanction them on the basis of said guesswork, so let's not follow that mistake.

If someone is worried about mass importantion of foreigners for cheap labor and to force political 'demographic' changes (illegal immigration is very guilty of this) I think there is a non-race based reasoning to it and it is not part of the 'white nationalist' fringe arguments. However if the 'demographic' concerns are more about race and ethnicity than economics and politics, then that is treading on 'white nationalist' ground.

And as i said above, how do you tell? In the end, it's impossible, and in general terms, not important anyway. If some people want to be allies to your political cause, want exactly the same thing you do, what do you care if their motivation for it is exactly the same as yours, or technically a bit different?

 

[The Name of Love]

This assumes that the US is an inherently or naturally 'white' nation, an axiom I reject.

Is there such a thing as an inherently white nation then, in your opinion? Or do you reject race-based self-determination as a principle while hypocritically excusing the Left's support of Third-World, Anti-American Nationalists?

I don't think it's necessarily left wing morality to not care about preserving a white demographic. I personally care more about preserving a Christian demographic and American values much more so than race and I think that's perfectly possible. That being said I do oppose diversity as a strength and that we should actively try to make America less white as much as we should make it more white. Those aren't congruent with me.

Look, for me? I just believe the Left when they say "being a hated minority sucks!" Left-wingers have made clear that they despise me for being a conservative Christian of European descent (or "white" in their terminology). If the Left gets a super-majority of votes from importing third world socialists and Muslims into our country, they will openly implement anti-"white" policies using South Africa as their model. They already have anti-"white" laws on the books in the form of affirmative action. So the racial demographic question does matter even if you are of the opinion that race isn't the most important thing (which, by the way, I do hold). You might not care about race, but the Left does, and they will use that against you.

But that doesn't mean I think being seriously concerned about 'demographic change' on the Right is an innocent thing either.

This is just a bad faith argument based on the Left wing belief that, if you oppose the Left on key issues, you are automatically a bigot. It's a form of meta-bigotry, and it needs to stop.

 

[ShieldWife]

I'm going to say some controversial things here, so I'll dog whistle it with this fantasy analogy.

Let's say that there are two fantasy kingdoms, one with elves and one with dwarves. The elven kingdom is an awesome place to live with magical trees and waterfalls and the dwarven kingdom is a dismal mine. So what happens is that the dwarves want to move to the elven kingdom and they start to do so. Now when the dwarves get there, they don't know how to live in trees as well, so they live in holes and then they blame the elves for how bad their new lives are. In fact, the new dwarf immigrants don't really care about elven politics, they just support any policy which benefits themselves at the expense of elves including bringing in more dwarves. We'll assume that these countries are democracies.

The dwarves move into to the elf nation, elves reproduce very slowly, and so the percentage of dwarves grows until the policy which dwarves care about most - blaming elves for their unhappiness and redistributing resources from elves to themselves - becomes a major focus of politics in the elven nation. The dwarves, and elven politicians who align themselves with them, routinely say how awesome things will be when dwarves are the majority and how they are going to show the elves what for. The dwarves want to cut down trees and dig holes for everybody to live in, basically replicating the bad conditions of the homeland that they left.

Some elves will say "Hey lets preserve the trees and not live in mines." and the dwarves and their allies immediately say that this is racist against dwarves. But another weird thing happens, most of the other elven politicians who claim to want to preserve the trees and not live in mines say that the very most evil thing any elf can do is to suggest that they limit the number of dwarves who come into the elven kingdom. They say that living among trees and not in mines is good, but that preventing elves from becoming a minority in their ancestral lands is the most evil and despicable thing anybody can do and that any elf who supports such a thing should be ruined utterly - expelled from politics, fired from jobs, socially ostracized, maybe even thrown into a dungeon, etc.

So some human comes along and observes what is going on here. On one hand he sees dwarves saying that they are going to be the majority in elven lands soon, then they can cut down all the trees, replace the homes with holes, and take all of the elven money for themselves. On the other hand he sees a minority of elves saying that they don't want any more dwarves in their country and that they want their nation to be elven and to preserve elven traditions and ways.

If this human said - "racism is horrible and disgusting - elves who want to keep out dwarves are evil" would that human be against racism or would he really be against elves? If that human opposed racism would it not be more appropriate to focus on the dwarves and their allies rather than those reacting to it? That human would seem to conveniently ignore the demographic and political warfare against the elves, something which is motivated largely by racial self interests, while focusing on and demonizing the racial self interests of the elves which are far more defensive in nature.

Why is it so important that the elven kingdom must eventually have a non-elven majority, especially when the politics of dwarves is so focused on scapegoating elves for their problems? If the dwarves view elves as the source of all of their problems, then why are they so anxious to move to elven lands? Why is it fine for the dwarves to practice pro-dwarven policies in their own lands but evil for the elves to do so in their own lands? If an elf laments the cutting down of his trees and the demonization he receives at the hands of dwarven immigrants, does it mean that he hates dwarves? Does he hate dwarves because he doesn't want to become a hated minority in his own ancestral lands?

If racial identity politics is bad, if you really think that, then one should be far more concerned about the people who practice aggressive identity politics rather than those who practice defensive identity politics.

 

[Bacle]

If they were doing it in a country where t he r-word is not among the most powerful attack terms, it would be described as seditious, an attempt against the country's nation's right to rule said country, in favor of some foreigners.

Innocent or not, it is rational and reasonable regardless. We have experiences with people trying to guesswork other's motives and sanction them on the basis of said guesswork, so let's not follow that mistake.

And as i said above, how do you tell? In the end, it's impossible, and in general terms, not important anyway. If some people want to be allies to your political cause, want exactly the same thing you do, what do you care if their motivation for it is exactly the same as yours, or technically a bit different?

The thing is, I don't think it's rational to try and preserve the purity of a skin color or ethnicity, at least not in the US and much of the modern world.

And I am not a fan of just accepting anyone in if they are 'on our side'; that's not something I think should be happening on either side. Maybe having that sort of standard seems like a hindrance because it excises some fringes, but I do not the standard is a bad thing.

Is there such a thing as an inherently white nation then, in your opinion? Or do you reject race-based self-determination as a principle while hypocritically excusing the Left's support of Third-World, Anti-American Nationalists?

I think many European nations could make an argument that they are naturally or inherently 'white' nations e.i. Poland and Finland.

But that last sentence is...what the fuck? Where the have I supported that, or do you assume I support a Leftist anti-American because we disagree here?

This is just a bad faith argument based on the Left wing belief that, if you oppose the Left on key issues, you are automatically a bigot. It's a form of meta-bigotry, and it needs to stop.

You seem to assume that I support the Left just because we disagree here. Which is so false it's not even funny, and you don't seem to get that a person can have nuanced views that are more complex than just Left or Right.

 

[Captain X]

I don't know. The thing is, I'm reminded much of how Natives have dwindled in numbers, even long after the "Indian Wars" have been over. Plenty of Natives have been concerned about this, some of them to the point that they talk down to and hate on people like me who are mixed bloods. It's pretty easy to say that people like that are racist for doing that, but is it racist to worry that your people are becoming smaller in number and/or are being pushed out by foreigners? For me, it's a bit like history repeating itself in a really ironic way.

 

[FriedCFour]

Look, for me? I just believe the Left when they say "being a hated minority sucks!" Left-wingers have made clear that they despise me for being a conservative Christian of European descent (or "white" in their terminology). If the Left gets a super-majority of votes from importing third world socialists and Muslims into our country, they will openly implement anti-"white" policies using South Africa as their model. They already have anti-"white" laws on the books in the form of affirmative action. So the racial demographic question does matter even if you are of the opinion that race isn't the most important thing (which, by the way, I do hold). You might not care about race, but the Left does, and they will use that against you.

I'm actually pretty sad we ended the easy immigration for Cubans. People fleeing Socialist hellholes are exactly who I want here. My point is that I can oppose mass migration, illegal immigration, while also not supporting limiting immigration based on race.

Like let me pose you a question. My wife isn't white, is in the immigration process, but she is a christian more devout than myself and a bigger Trump than I am. She's going to have kids with me that aren't white and contribute to the demographics problem. Is there any issue with that? Would it be better if she were white?

And then would it be better if in her stead say, a german atheist socialist who wants churches to be taxed heavily and open borders be a better immigrant given they are white. My point is how much, if any, is a persons whiteness a factor in immigration for you. How much weight should it hold?

 

[The Name of Love]

The thing is, I don't think it's rational to try and preserve the purity of a skin color or ethnicity, at least not in the US and much of the modern world.

And I am not a fan of just accepting anyone in if they are 'on our side'; that's not something I think should be happening on either side. Maybe having that sort of standard seems like a hindrance because it excises some fringes, but I do not the standard is a bad thing.

It Is exclusively the Left that decides which ideas are fringe though.

I think many European nations could make an argument that they are naturally or inherently 'white' nations e.i. Poland and Finland.

But that last sentence is...what the fuck? Where the have I supported that, or do you assume I support a Leftist anti-American because we disagree here?

I’m saying that there’s a fundamental inequality between the Left and the Right you are ignoring in favor of “excising fringes.”

You seem to assume that I support the Left just because we disagree here. Which is so false it's not even funny, and you don't seem to get that a person can have nuanced views that are more complex than just Left or Right.

If the rights of the people of this country and the preservation of their traditions isn’t important to you, then you might as well be a Leftist.

I'm actually pretty sad we ended the easy immigration for Cubans. People fleeing Socialist hellholes are exactly who I want here. My point is that I can oppose mass migration, illegal immigration, while also not supporting limiting immigration based on race.

A lot of people fleeing Cuba were actual sociopathic criminals sent here to sow dissent in America.

 

[Marduk]

The thing is, I don't think it's rational to try and preserve the purity of a skin color or ethnicity, at least not in the US and much of the modern world.

No one is talking about "purity", but amounts that affect the well recognized concept of "nation's right to self-determination". Point being, it's no longer "*self*-determination" if a country has to be shared and co-ruled by a large amount of people who openly self identify with a different one and their interests. It has nothing to do with skin color, that's just an obsession of American left driven political scene. Plenty of cases where people of different nationality and same skin color had freaking wars and country splits (successful or not) over this stuff. Russians in Ukraine, all the immigrants in South Africa from other African countries, Czechs and Slovaks, Spaniards and Catalonians, and that's just relatively recent ones.

And I am not a fan of just accepting anyone in if they are 'on our side'; that's not something I think should be happening on either side.

Of course, however your ideological enemies are about the last people who should be given authority to make such calls.

I think many European nations could make an argument that they are naturally or inherently 'white' nations e.i. Poland and Finland.

No, you don't understand. The race obsession is an US left thing, there is no reason why anyone should play by their ruleset of choice. Everywhere else, culture\nationality is at very least equally, and usually much, much more important.
Say, Poland may not want to be flooded by any "brown people" from middle east, but it doesn't mean that it would love to be flooded by even the palest of Germans or Russians. There were plenty of wars about that. It's nationality, culture, heritage, race by nature of these things will also be a factor by demographic connections between these things (if you say Russians, by all chance they won't be black), but it's far from the driving one, particularly when the people in question usually aren't visibly distinguishable, it can't be.

On top of that, "Hispanic" is technically not a race. It's more of a cultural/national qualifier really. "Hispanics" in their own countries range from, effectively, white Spaniards, usually their elites by the way, to historical natives of their regions, and lots of various mixes in between. The thing that unites them, as the name suggests, is some degree of assimilation to Spanish culture, and using Spanish language, as opposed to being defined by being a certain particular mix in terms of biological relations.

 

[Bacle]

It Is exclusively the Left that decides which ideas are fringe though.

No, no it's not.

I’m saying that there’s a fundamental inequality between the Left and the Right you are ignoring in favor of “excising fringes.”

There is an inequality between the sides in terms of who excises their fringes, no doubt, and I am not ignoring it.

You however are ignoring what I am saying, and putting words in my mouth all over the place.

If the rights of the people of this country and the preservation of their traditions isn’t important to you, then you might as well be a Leftist.

Here you are putting words in my mouth again.

I will not engage you further, since you do not seem interested in actually debating or engaging with what I actually say, instead of the strawman of my position you've concocted in your head.

No one is talking about "purity", but amounts that affect the well recognized concept of "nation's right to self-determination". Point being, it's no longer "*self*-determination" if a country has to be shared and co-ruled by a large amount of people who openly self identify with a different one and their interests. It has nothing to do with skin color, that's just an obsession of American left driven political scene. Plenty of cases where people of different nationality and same skin color had freaking wars and country splits over this stuff. Russians in Ukraine, all the immigrants in South Africa from other African countries, Czechs and Slovaks, Spaniards and Catalonians, and that's just relatively recent ones.

Of course, however your ideological enemies are about the last people who should be given authority to make such calls.

No, you don't understand. The race obsession is an US left thing, there is no reason why anyone should play by their ruleset of choice. Everywhere else, culture\nationality is at very least equally, and usually much, much more important.
Say, Poland may not want to be flooded by any "brown people" from middle east, but it doesn't mean that it would love to be flooded by even the palest of Germans or Russians. There were plenty of wars about that. It's nationality, culture, heritage, race by nature of these things will also be a factor by demographic connections between these things (if you say Russians, by all chance they won't be black), but it's far from the driving one, particularly when the people in question usually aren't visibly distinguishable, it can't be.

On top of that, "Hispanic" is technically not a race. It's more of a cultural/national qualifier really. "Hispanics" in their own countries range from, effectively, white Spaniards, usually their elites by the way, to historical natives of their regions, and lots of various mixes in between. The thing that unites them, as the name suggests, is some degree of assimilation to Spanish culture, and using Spanish language, as opposed to being defined by being a certain particular mix in terms of biological relations.

Let's just agree to disagree, because I feel like there is a cultural disconnect going on here that has us talking past each other.

 

[FriedCFour]

A lot of people fleeing Cuba were actual sociopathic criminals sent here to sow dissent in America.

Not as many as with Mexico. It's still a heavily Republican, conservative Christian demographic. I also edited in a very late question on accident.

 

[The Name of Love]

No, no it's not.

Yes it is.

There is an inequality between the sides in terms of who excises their fringes, no doubt, and I am not ignoring it.

You however are ignoring what I am saying, and putting words in my mouth all over the place.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating that your position basically amounts to a form of leftism.

Here you are putting words in my mouth again.

I will not engage you further, since you do not seem interested in actually debating or engaging with what I actually say, instead of the strawman of my position you've concocted in your head.

I am debating what you said, and my am argument is that your assumption that we must excise fringes and how you define “fringe” is based on Left-wing moral standards. If I’m wrong, tell me why.

 

[FriedCFour]

I am debating what you said, and my am argument is that your assumption that we must excise fringes and how you define “fringe” is based on Left-wing moral standards. If I’m wrong, tell me why.

Well this story shows its kind of fringe. Fuentes is not a mainstream commentator, most don't know who he is. Demographic replacement isn't a mainstream conservative gripe with immigration, the one politician who got there in the Reps was disowned. It's clearly outside both the left and right overton windows.

I would also ask where does whiteness factor in on who you want as immigrants. Out of race, economics, religion and political disposition, where does race play in?

 

[ShieldWife]

Demographic replacement should be a mainstream conservative gripe because the left is going to win and they are going to do it through demographic replacement. This is a simple fact that mainstream Republicans have been in denial of for decades much to their peril and the peril of the nation.

California, the state of Nixon and Reagan, will be blue forever because of immigration. In a few more years, Texas, that unassailable fortress of conservatism, will be a toss up state and soon after will also be eternally blue. This is a fact and politically correct conservatives had better get their heads out of the sand about it.

 

[FriedCFour]

Demographic replacement should be a mainstream conservative gripe because the left is going to win and they are going to do it through demographic replacement. This is a simple fact that mainstream Republicans have been in denial of for decades much to their peril and the peril of the nation.

California, the state of Nixon and Reagan, will be blue forever because of immigration. In a few more years, Texas, that unassailable fortress of conservatism, will be a toss up state and soon after will also be eternally blue. This is a fact and politically correct conservatives had better get their heads out of the sand about it.

It's not as though that means that we now must limit the number of non-whites who immigrate though.

 

[The Name of Love]

Well this story shows its kind of fringe. Fuentes is not a mainstream commentator, most don't know who he is. Demographic replacement isn't a mainstream conservative gripe with immigration, the one politician who got there in the Reps was disowned. It's clearly outside both the left and right overton windows.

I'm not arguing that Fuentes is a mainstream commentator at all. I'm arguing that it is the Left that decides who is or isn't a mainstream commentator.

I would also ask where does whiteness factor in on who you want as immigrants. Out of race, economics, religion and political disposition, where does race play in?

That's a good question. Of course, "white" isn't a very useful word and it's one that I avoid using. But being of European descent is strongly correlated with traditions in line with Western values, certain qualities that a so-called "merit-based immigration system" would look for (such as wealth, general intelligence, education level, low time preferences, etc.), and political dispositions. In short, it is not race in itself, but the things correlated with race, that I'm primarily interested in. There are also contingent factors to consider too, such as the mainstream Left's disposition towards "white people."

Demographic replacement should be a mainstream conservative gripe because the left is going to win and they are going to do it through demographic replacement. This is a simple fact that mainstream Republicans have been in denial of for decades much to their peril and the peril of the nation.

California, the state of Nixon and Reagan, will be blue forever because of immigration. In a few more years, Texas, that unassailable fortress of conservatism, will be a toss up state and soon after will also be eternally blue. This is a fact and politically correct conservatives had better get their heads out of the sand about it.

Well yes, but I believe that the Republican Party is constitutionally incapable of making that decision. The Foundational Myths of the Modern West conflate such demographic concerns with Nazi Germany and Jim Crow, and the Republican Party cannot go against those ideas.

 

[LordsFire]

Demographic replacement should be a mainstream conservative gripe because the left is going to win and they are going to do it through demographic replacement. This is a simple fact that mainstream Republicans have been in denial of for decades much to their peril and the peril of the nation.

California, the state of Nixon and Reagan, will be blue forever because of immigration. In a few more years, Texas, that unassailable fortress of conservatism, will be a toss up state and soon after will also be eternally blue. This is a fact and politically correct conservatives had better get their heads out of the sand about it.

People's politics are not fundamentally rooted in their ethnicity.

It's not demographic replacement that's causing the problem, it's the cultural replacement that's coming with it. Limited immigration over long periods allows immigrants to meld into the larger culture, and their descendants 3-4 generations down the way being indistinguishable from 8th or 10th generation Americans.

Controlled immigration works fine. Partly because it tends to let in those most interested in becoming Americans.