,
26 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Historians are doing a fine job laying out how Owen is wrong on facts.
I’ll point out that Owens is prominent not because she actually believes anything, but because she’s skilled at knowing what white conservatives want to hear.
This is what they want to hear about Hitler.
I’ll point out that Owens is prominent not because she actually believes anything, but because she’s skilled at knowing what white conservatives want to hear.
This is what they want to hear about Hitler.
Put another way, it would be a mistake to suppose Owens' formulations of nationalism/globalism/Hitler, which very much traffic modern neo-Nazis frame it, is original with Owens.
She tells white conservatives what they want to hear, professionally.
She's heard it said before.
She tells white conservatives what they want to hear, professionally.
She's heard it said before.
She didn't mis-speak. She said exactly what conservatives think about nationalism and globalism.
The president called himself a nationalist.
Charlie Kirk was standing right there. He wasn't concerned.
It's mainstream conservatism. It's what they believe.
The president called himself a nationalist.
Charlie Kirk was standing right there. He wasn't concerned.
It's mainstream conservatism. It's what they believe.
It really has become shockingly obvious, the extent to which white nationalism and white supremacy and neo-Nazism have become mainstream conservative positions in America.
The president of the U.S. says the same things that American neo-Nazis do.
It's mainstream.
The president of the U.S. says the same things that American neo-Nazis do.
It's mainstream.
This isn't speculative. You just listen to what one group says, then listen to what the other group says.
They match.
Here's a thread that lays some of it out.
They match.
Here's a thread that lays some of it out.
Nor is this a new trend.
It’s historical. Traditional.
Read the words of this attached flyer from the 50s.
This isn’t a debate: It’s a nearly perfect match.
It’s historical. Traditional.
Read the words of this attached flyer from the 50s.
This isn’t a debate: It’s a nearly perfect match.
To recap: Candace Owens, whose job is understanding what white conservatives want to hear and then saying it while black, was asked about nationalism, and she said what they wanted to hear, which is:
Nationalism is good.
It's globalism that's bad.
Which Hitler thought, too.
Nationalism is good.
It's globalism that's bad.
Which Hitler thought, too.
Like, that's exactly what Hitler thought about nationalism and globalism. Again, I'm not name-calling. It's just ... you know. A match.
And that's what white conservatives would like to hear from a black lady.
We might wonder why.
And that's what white conservatives would like to hear from a black lady.
We might wonder why.
I mean, white conservatives (I'm not saying Republicans because this is true of white conservatives worldwide) really have a problem.
What they want is nationalism.
Nationalism. And all that goes with it.
But they also know that makes them the bad guys.
what to do, what to do
What they want is nationalism.
Nationalism. And all that goes with it.
But they also know that makes them the bad guys.
what to do, what to do
This is where turning racism solely into a hateful thing a specific individual thinks about another specific individual is useful.
Once you've done that, you just have to not want to specifically kill any specific individuals, and you are clean as a whistle.
And then you can want to do anything at all.
And you can perform similar surgery with history.
And then you can want to do anything at all.
And you can perform similar surgery with history.
If that's your view of racism, then you can easily excise it even from history's most infamous racist monster.
No no no we're only the *nationalist* part of what Hitler wanted to do. All the good stuff. You know, the stuff where he kept his culture pure within his own borders.
No no no we're only the *nationalist* part of what Hitler wanted to do. All the good stuff. You know, the stuff where he kept his culture pure within his own borders.
All the *bad* Hitler stuff, that was where he was *socialist*.
You know, *globalist*.
Those *bad* things.
The same terms neo-Nazis now use to describe ... well, Jews, for one thing.
Neo-Nazis use those terms now because Hitler used them then.
But anyway.
You know, *globalist*.
Those *bad* things.
The same terms neo-Nazis now use to describe ... well, Jews, for one thing.
Neo-Nazis use those terms now because Hitler used them then.
But anyway.
At some point we may notice that the same moral laundering meant to mediate between purity of individual intention and a collective desire for harm is very much the same sort of mental gymnastics that are performed by any empowered group prior to genocide.
Again: It's a match.
Again: It's a match.
At some point perhaps it becomes obvious to us that the booming market for having people from marginalized groups tell white conservatives the things they want to hear is all part of the same moral laundering as the rest of it.
It's the confession of unquiet consciences.
It's the confession of unquiet consciences.
Don't let them say it was mis-speaking, when it's what they've been saying.
No pretending in 2019.
It's plain speaking from here.
No pretending in 2019.
It's plain speaking from here.
It seems to me it’s the exact message Charlie Kirk is knowingly trying to put into the world.
White nationalism in the United States was kitchen-sink normal when it inspired white nationalism in Germany.
We fought Germany in WWII, so there was a generation of backlash against it here.
We are seeing the end of a deliberate, decades-long strategy to re-normalize it.
We fought Germany in WWII, so there was a generation of backlash against it here.
We are seeing the end of a deliberate, decades-long strategy to re-normalize it.
The question “what side of World War II should we be on?” would have been as normal and mainstream a question in 1940 as “should we be in World War II at all?”
Our role defeating Germany was not a settled matter. Some of our most prominent citizens backed Hitler, and not because they *didn’t* know what he stood for, but because they did know.
That tradition didn’t die in this country. It just went underground in most places.
That tradition didn’t die in this country. It just went underground in most places.
Charlie Kirk has placed himself very ostentatiously and deliberately within that tradition.
If he was discomfited by Candace Owens words, I am convinced it is only in a “oops this one might’ve been a bit too soon” sort of way.
If he was discomfited by Candace Owens words, I am convinced it is only in a “oops this one might’ve been a bit too soon” sort of way.
I’m adding this at the end of the thread, because I overstated matters in this tweet.
The notion that we should join on the German side was not prevalent. The notion that Jewish people were trying to pull us in and we should stay out of it was.
The notion that we should join on the German side was not prevalent. The notion that Jewish people were trying to pull us in and we should stay out of it was.
And thanks to historians for letting me know when I get something wrong.
One other thing: I imagine some conservatives reading this don’t feel that they are well-identified by the pro nationalist statements of Donald Trump and company.
And that’s good.
They’re betting you’ll make yourself comfortable enough with it to stay in their boat.
Your call.
And that’s good.
They’re betting you’ll make yourself comfortable enough with it to stay in their boat.
Your call.
Res ipsa loquitur
I am such a slick goat, in fact, that I figured out a way to separate the concept of pride in my country from ascribing to nationalism, which the same ideology as neo-Nazis, and regular Nazis, and so forth. 
