Heisenberg wrote:The problem is that you are assuming that white supremacy necessarily entails genocide.
The Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were both clearly white supremacist states, but neither was genocidal. It's not "malicious" to identify them as white supremacist, and it doesn't imply that they were therefore the same as Nazi Germany.
Eh... but Taylor is not advocating that whites have the right to enslave others and ought to rule over all others races because of their inherent awesomeness. He might believe that there is a relation to genetics and I.Q. and the reproductive strategies of different races (evolutionary speaking), but that only means that in regards to intelligence and the requisite ability to develop sophisticated civilizations that different nations have relative gifts/abilities.
Just because I believe Germans are better at makings cars than Russians, does not make me a German supremacist. Thats kinda silly on the face of it, what if we applied the same principle to developing complex pieces of music? On the face of it, a generalization in that category could very well be misconstrued as some sort of supremacy, but that would not be quite accurate either.
I would also contend your claim that the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were white supremacist even if they were discriminatory. Early SA apartheid was more religious than racial and became so more overtime and the Confederate systems was originally based on belief in the right to own slaves and likewise became more racial overtime. So those examples are kinda complicated in my opinion.
Nazi Germany does seem to have believed and even created a mythology of white and ever nordo-germanic superiority to all other peoples and that all other peoples are ispo facto
sub-human. That is the essence of supremacist thinking and why such is almost invariably destined towards genocidal tendencies. But once again, such is a very narrow and specific belief. You are using a very polarizing and stigmatizing term way too"broadly." That would be like labeling anyone who claimed to believe in the resurrection of the Christ as a "fundamentalist." the overlapping similarities between the two does not justify using that latter term as label for the former and if you were to see such in a wikipedia article ascribed to YOUR beliefs, you would likely see it as a "hit."
Heisenberg wrote:I am aware that he sees East Asians as even better than white people, but the political implications of his views in the United States - i.e. where they are most relevant - are a white supremacist state that either deports or subjugates non-white people.
Well you can't be a white supremacist if you believe Asians are superior
Plus, we have plenty of Asians in the American context, so you are stretching that point a bit. That being said, I don't think he advocated "subjugation of all other races," but deportation is consistent
with white nationalism as much as it would be with white supremacy for if you believe in an ethnic-state then maintaining multi-ethnic demographics wouldn't make a lot of sense. You don't have to be a "supremacist" to believe that. Hell, even Israel deported "ethiopian" Jews and arguably for this same reason, in spite of their claims to be the "lost tribe."
Heisenberg wrote:So yes, at least in an American context, Taylor is a white supremacist, but he does not advocate genocide - merely ethnic cleansing. How noble
No, by definition he cannot be a white supremacist, regardless of context, and I don't really understand your beef with requiring him to be labeled in a way that can only be accurate if you unduly shrink its relative context...
Why not just say he is a white nationalist, which is true in any context, and leave it at that? What is the necessity of attaching an inaccurate label that we all know is instantly stigmatizing?
I can't see a rational reason to do so, but I can definitely see emotional reasons to do so, and that is what concerns me as an intellectual.