doesn't him citing the book repeatedly do enough to say he's a white nationalist? even if it does nothing to prove he's a racist or has violent tendencies towards minorities and immigrants?

or are you disputing he's a fan of the book?

i'm a bit confused. i get hating SPLC, i dont get hating SPLC in support of Miller when even beyond their biased language reporting there's plenty of source material to look at.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 21 2019 11:08am

Immigration has been broken under the past several presidents. The process of entering the United States is still obtuse and broken, which is why the black market is flourishing as it does in any instance when government artificially creates scarcity through rationing.

This post was edited by Skinned on Nov 21 2019 11:13am

I'm just wondering if the two party system of the United States really is a two party system or if the similarities between the two are so abundant, that it it really kind of is one party.

I'm looking from the outside, Canada, so my perspective is certainly different but I often find myself wondering if the divide between the people is more of a construct than based on anything real and when a Republican or a Democrat gets elected to office, no matter which party is represented in the White House, is it untrue to say either one would be under the influence of corporations?


So I guess I just wonder why it seems so many Americans are polarized against each other, calling each other out on all the wrongs each others opposing parties and yet not looking at the wrongs of their own party.

Wouldn't it be more productive to recognize all the flaws of both parties and find a way to fix them instead of pointing fingers all the time? People in glass houses kind of thing?

Believe me, my own country is a shit show politically, it really is, but one thing we don't have here is a raging hate between the existing political parties.

It just boggles my mind the polarization between the people in the US.


An example I guess would be the separation of children from their parents and held in detention centers. I remember first hearing about this on the news here in Canada and I was shocked by it and outraged that Trump and his administration would condone this behaviour until I started looking into it and discovered that Obama enforced the same policies.

It's only one example of many, but it is a good enough example for me to express my point which is generally speaking, both parties are corrupt in their own way and in many ways are corrupt in exactly the same ways so the hatred and finger pointing seems really disingenuous to me.

This post was edited by Zepllica on Nov 21 2019 11:40am

No, thats certainly not enough.

1. Citing a book's name doesn't make someone a white nationalist. Obviously.

if it did, bad news for everyone in this thread then..

2. There is one single email where he mentions camp of the saints.
Miller: Also, you see the Pope saying west must, in effect, get rid of borders. Someone should point out the parallels to Camp of the Saints.

The rest of the section is the SPLC trying to tie the book to white nationalists and neo-nazis to condemn Miller.

3. Does liking a book that some white nationalists like automatically make you a white nationalist? No obviously not.

4. Have you read the book? I haven't. As such i'm not comfortable making a definitive stand on its content or condemning people for knowing it.
I certainly won't be taking the SPLC's word for anything.

Presumably a dystopian anti-mass-immigration book from the 70s is going to have some tropes and language that doesn't stand up to 2019 SJW/PC culture standards.

If a book is inflammatory or controversial or 'racist' does that mean it necessarily has no value and is wrong and evil about everything? it can't represent or touch on valid concerns, points and observations or have parallels to the real world?

From a brief twitter search it has been mentioned numerous times by a variety of prominent figures. Its not a neo-nazi-only fan club as the SPLC insinuates and as you were falsely led to believe.

This was a Breitbart spokesperson's response:

I feel like we're using wildly different definitions for "white nationalist". and perhaps you're sensing a trap that doesnt exist thinking i'm using the evil liberal driven connotation.

we know Miller's immigration policy wants closed borders. we know his trade policy is nationalistic and protectionist. we know he's a fan of a book which is xenophobic and discourages cultural blending.

i dont see how we can put these together and not come to the conclusion that he's an american protectionist who doesn't want the USA to be less white. or less european if that's your preference.

i said pages ago Miller was in the nonviolent sector of white nationalism that seems more concerned with american protectionism than actual racism. i dont see anything that could sway me from that pretty basic judgement. its an opinion i suppose tho.

Immigration restrictions and white nationalism are not the same thing.
Protectionism/Nationalism and white nationalism are not the same thing either.
Yes there is a connotation, and content, associated with the term.

I directly attacked the talking points and lies surrounding the book.
Do you have a response? to any of the points?
Is the book no longer important?
Can you argue the principle?

Or are you abandoning the principle of the arguments and going with 'Miller is a white nationalist regardless'?


If you want to allege someone is a white nationalist for mentioning a popular book once, opposing immigration and for linking to infowars like the SPLC does, feel free to do so.
I won't agree with it for good reason. I need more than that.

Is the new claim that he is a nationalist opposed to mass immigration? and the SPLC 'bombshell emails' are completely irrelevant?
I don't imagine that will carry the same weight in the media or with people like HG.

For the simpletons out there, this is not to say that I think Miller is necessarily innocent or doesn't have some objectionable views.
I'm analyzing and debating the merit of the points and evidence.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 21 2019 12:39pm

i simply dont play the liberal game of playing by their definitions. if i think miller wants america to be more white (or at least stay as white) and that he wants it more insulated and less globalized then he's a white nationalist. it doesnt mean he's a nazi, or a KKK member, or any of that. just that he wants a more self reliant and less culturally diverse america moving forward.

based on his policy, what ive heard from him in many interviews, those emails, and his face i made the call in my own head that he fits the bill.

is naming that book damning? of course not. but is even knowing an obscure book such as that let alone citing it a good indication? yup. it's not like he referenced Mein Kampfe, a book everyone knows. its something that shows at minimum he's researched those circles.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's probably a duck.



so, lastly, do you have any indications he's not a white nationalist? or is it more of a lack of proof he is type situation?

Abortions for some, Chinese made tiny American flags for others.

We debate on whether people are human enough for not.




Just call it white identity politics like I have for so long. White nationalism makes people think about nazis too much. Its descriptive without being inflammatory. And it's a true and accurate label.

This post was edited by Skinned on Nov 21 2019 01:28pm

I don't play their game, but i also don't play your game of making up your own definition of words that already have insidious connotations and definitions, and then sticking that label onto people to defend the claims of left wing smear sites and their useful idiots.

Opposition to mass immigration is white nationalism? Are you a white nationalist then? Is it good or no big deal in your opinion?
Cant wait to see what HG makes out of a potentially affirmative response to that line of questioning.

Your own ignorance of the book and its popularity does not make knowing it a good indication that someone is a white nationalist.

New York Times reviewed the book. They loved the message but disliked it 'as a work of art'
The pace was sluggish you see.. and the tone was no good.. characters needed improvement..


Is Ann Coulter a white nationalist for this tweet?

how about the 1.6k people that liked it? The hundreds of positive reviews on amazon and goodreads?
That argument doesn't seem to be valid.

I'm not here to defend miller or attempt to prove a negative. I'm open to any possibilities.
The correct default position is not to call people white nationalists, racists and neo-nazis over mostly trivial 'evidence' and make believe story time that ties hitler to people for mentioning coolidge or infowars to white nationalism, or to take the word of a site known for heinous smears.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 21 2019 01:29pm

I can't really blame people like Miller, it's well know that the less tolerant to immigration are themselves earlier generations of immigrants. At least here.
Finally it's super simple, if you feel too well integrated, even bored, you will naturally welcoming immigrants.

If you're feeling a bit insecure it's a different story...