The Racist Podcaster Who Started a Neo-Nazi Coffee Company to Fund White Nationalism

[Zaune]

No, that title is not in any way editorialised.

In the spring of 2017, Thomas White had an idea: What if he combined his love of gourmet coffee with his staunch belief in a white ethnostate?

In caffeinated circles, White was already well-known. Espresso Joya, which he opened in 2015, was a fixture of Thunder Bay, Ontario’s small but vibrant arts scene. The walls of the coffee shop, located in the town’s trendy Waterfront District, served as a revolving gallery for local artists. Joya’s small stage regularly hosted a mostly-acoustic plethora of singer-songwriters, and its shelves were stocked with local food and goods.

The quality of Joya’s espresso, hyped by locals and out of town Yelp users alike, completed this artsy smorgasbord. “It’s all about doing really exceptional quality in terms of the quality and the product as well as providing a really nice space for local artists,” White said in a short 2017 documentary on Thunder Bay’s coffee scene. An accredited teacher, he taught drawing art at the local arts centre and was a volunteer firefighter.

Online, White was the antithesis of this very earnest coffee shop owner. For the last six months, under the alias “League of the North,” White has co-hosted “This Hour Has 88 Minutes,” the most popular white supremacist podcast in the country.

[...]

VICE conducted a months-long investigation into White and his coffee businesses. This included going through hours upon hours of podcasts, thousands of forum posts, pulling property records, and speaking to numerous people familiar with the situation on background. Two separate teams, one from VICE Canada, the other from VICE Quebec, arrived at the same conclusion independently—former Thunder Bay coffee whiz Thomas White was the man behind both the neo-Nazi coffee company Rising Sun Coffee and League of the North, making him one of the biggest players in the booming Canadian alt-right scene.

Too long to quote in its entirety, but it just gets more surreal from there.

If I wanted to write a hysterical conspiracy thriller about the secret alt-right conspiracy to stealthily infiltrate a country at all levels before coming out into the open and taking it over, in the style of all those shitty Cold War paranoia stories in the style of The Overton Window, this is the kind of subplot I would go with. Especially the part near the end where he refuses to tell off a valued employee for his unpopular political views and his clientele boycott his business as a result, oh noes it's political correctness gone mad! (Although even I have to admit he's not completely in the wrong there, because as long as said employee doesn't let them affect his conduct on the clock then his personal beliefs are nobody's damn business but his own.) Except, plot twist! He really is a neo-Nazi and his business is a front for low-key domestic terrorism. Oh, how I wish I could make this stuff up...

Also, this has got to be the first time in the entire history of the English language that "gourmet coffee" and "white ethnostate" have been used in the same sentence.

[The Romulan Republic]

I feel a little sick reading the phrase "...booming Canadian alt-right scene."

Well, I'm not exactly surprised. Since Brexit and Trump, I've figured that Canada's turn would come for an attempted Alt. Reich take over (probably with Russian backing). What disturbs me is the shear complacency most Canadians seem to have about it- in my experience, far too many Canadians tend to look down at those backwards Americans while patting themselves on the back, secure in the complacent belief that it could never happen here...

[Zor]

Fortunately this is a mostly self correcting problem. Word gets out, people take their business elsewhere.

Zor

[Tandrax218]

Guys i have a question, i saw the documentary and the discussion, someone mentioned "Low-Key domestic Terrorism" going on in those shops ?

whats that about , are these guys making bombs or plots or what ?

[Zaune]

whats that about , are these guys making bombs or plots or what ?

More like gassing endlessly about what a great idea it would be if someone did that but rarely if ever getting as far as putting their money where their mouths are, because they have neither the courage to try nor the intelligence to have a hope of carrying it off if they did.

[Tandrax218]

well then they are probably already under the watchful eye of the NSA, CIA and FBI if they have any plans of blowing stuff an people up...

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Not under this administration. Unlikely under the next.

[K. A. Pital]

Nazi Coffee Barons of the XXI century.

The captains of industry we deserve.

[Zaune]

Is anyone else at least a little morbidly curious about what Rising Sun's coffee is like, by the way? I'm guessing average-to-bad, because if these Turner Diaries fanboys were actually competent at anything they wouldn't be compensating for their inadequacies with ardent fascism, but there'd be a certain comic pathos to it if their front company turned out to be the one thing they didn't fuck up.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Is anyone else at least a little morbidly curious about what Rising Sun's coffee is like, by the way? I'm guessing average-to-bad, because if these Turner Diaries fanboys were actually competent at anything they wouldn't be compensating for their inadequacies with ardent fascism, but there'd be a certain comic pathos to it if their front company turned out to be the one thing they didn't fuck up.

Your guess is likely to be correct. They will likely be so busy pushing their...agenda..that they will let service and quality go to shit.

[Tribble]

I feel a little sick reading the phrase "...booming Canadian alt-right scene."

Well, I'm not exactly surprised. Since Brexit and Trump, I've figured that Canada's turn would come for an attempted Alt. Reich take over (probably with Russian backing). What disturbs me is the shear complacency most Canadians seem to have about it- in my experience, far too many Canadians tend to look down at those backwards Americans while patting themselves on the back, secure in the complacent belief that it could never happen here...

At least in the Ontario context, I don't think complacency is the real issue. After all, Toronto elected Rob Ford a full 6 years before Donald Trump and Brexit. We know pretty much what to expect with these far right groups and what would happen should his brother become premier. The problem is that's exactly what a good portion of our population wants.

[Tribble]

Or in terms of complacency you could mean that the political and economic elite believed they could do whatever and ignore voters needs indefinitely without consequences, that can certainly lead to the rise of extremists.

[The Romulan Republic]

At least in the Ontario context, I don't think complacency is the real issue. After all, Toronto elected Rob Ford a full 6 years before Donald Trump and Brexit. We know pretty much what to expect with these far right groups and what would happen should his brother become premier. The problem is that's exactly what a good portion of our population wants.

Oh, there's always that element, but they're emboldened now, and the rest of the populace doesn't seem to have woken up to the threat.

It may be what, oh, thirty or forty percent of the population wants, but I very much doubt its a majority in Ontario. But that doesn't matter if that side is energized and turns out, and the opposition isn't/doesn't.

Or in terms of complacency you could mean that the political and economic elite believed they could do whatever and ignore voters needs indefinitely without consequences, that can certainly lead to the rise of extremists.

There's some of that too, though I am wary of falling into the trap of viewing the rise of Trumpism, etc. as simply a response by frustrated people to a corrupt "establishment", because that plays right into their narrative, and it isn't really true. Are there problems with the status quo? Of course. But Alt. Rightism doesn't actually challenge oligarchy (as we've seen with Trump)- it entrenches oligarchy by using women/minorities/liberals as scapegoats for voters' frustrations, and directing their anger against them, rather than against the oligarchs. Classic divide and conquer.

So I'm sick of all this stuff about how Alt. Rightism is a response by working class people to economic injustice. Bernie Sanders, love him or hate him, was a response to economic injustice (although the Alt. Right did its best to coopt the movement, with some success). Alt. Rightism is "Blame the women/minorities/liberals for all our problems." Its the easy approach for insecure cowards who take pride in their skin and their genitals because they have nothing else to be proud of, and who want to take out their frustrations on someone weaker than them. That's all its ever been, and that's all it ever will be.

[Gandalf]

So I'm sick of all this stuff about how Alt. Rightism is a response by working class people to economic injustice. Bernie Sanders, love him or hate him, was a response to economic injustice (although the Alt. Right did its best to coopt the movement, with some success). Alt. Rightism is "Blame the women/minorities/liberals for all our problems." Its the easy approach for insecure cowards who take pride in their skin and their genitals because they have nothing else to be proud of, and who want to take out their frustrations on someone weaker than them. That's all its ever been, and that's all it ever will be.

Different people respond to things differently. Look at the political divisions during the interwar period of the twentieth century.

[Zaune]

Quite. Looking for a convenient scapegoat, or just someone who can't fight back to use as a punchbag so you feel like you still have a little bit of power and control, is definitely a reaction to economic injustice. A stupid, spiteful and cowardly reaction that does fuck-all to solve the actual problem and indeed plays into the hands of the people whose fault it really is, but a reaction nonetheless.

[Gandalf]

Indeed. Trump and the far right told the electorate that everything wrong was the fault of someone else, and that removing that someone else could fix the issues. In contrast, Clinton offered vague fixes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But let's remember that, by the numbers, Trump's support was NOT predominantly working-class or poor. He did NOT win a larger share of low socio-economic status people than Hillary Clinton did, unless you also start breaking things out by face; but even then, the majority of his support came from the middle-class and high-income white people. The numbers are fairly unequivocal on this point. That does not mean that economic factors were completely irrelevant (there are, after all, real and significant economic pressures on the middle-class in America), but let's not perpetuate the myth that Trump's support came from a groundswell of poor, under privileged people finally standing up to an indifferent elite. The reality is that his support largely came from individuals who were afraid of losing their social and economic privilege, due to a combination of threats, some of which were real (economic) and some of which were imagined (Muslims). This is a very different narrative. Accepting the reality of this narrative does not mean you have to dismiss all Trump supporters as racist, or to say that there weren't and aren't legitimate grievances among this population, but nor does it mean that you can dismiss the very real and disturbing problems (racial and otherwise) with his movement, either.

[TheFeniX]

"Members" of those same groups were willing to vote for Obama in 2008 and gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2012. HRC was possibly the worst candidate to keep those votes. Much like McCain was a terrible candidate to keep the Republican party together. Remember the consistent calls of him as a Maverick? Or of Palin "going rogue" to show both were go-getters who put the people above politics? Yea, no one except the most devout conservative bought shit like that, but they continued to try and do everything to setup McCain as a RINO, but in a good way. "He worked with a damaged party for YOUR benefit." Like I said, no one bought it. Especially when they brought in Palin to court arch-conservatives in contrast with McCain's new set of clothes.

Obama's Speaches are pretty familiar if you paid attention in 2016. Just with a lot less race baiting than Trump would go with. "The other guys failed you. I won't fail you." It's not exactly Chaotic Evil to say these things, politicians do it all the time. It just kind of boils down to who are you going to believe WRT the two choices you have?

Whether you believe it exists or not, "The Establishment" is a brain-bug in U.S. Politics. Voters believe in it and there's been a well-spring in anti-establishment voting going back decades. If you can sell yourself as a competent person who can work inside the system while being able to maintain an existence "outside:" voters eat that shit up. But it's not even so much about that in particular. People are just way more likely to believe someone like that will make good on "I'll fix everything" promises over that of someone like McCain or HRC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course I do not deny that there was widespread anti-establishment sentiment (some of it justified, some of it exaggerated). Nor do I deny that Hillary Clinton was a horrible choice of candidate in that environment, given her personal baggage (some real, some fabricated by her opponents) and her relative lack of charisma (something Obama, in contrast, had in spades). That was probably a significant factor in some voters who turned out for Obama staying home in key states.

But I don't think that it was a big factor in people actually voting for Trump. Because say what you will about anger against the "establishment", and how justified it is, the fact remains that Trump, a (supposed) billionaire who built his fortune on inherited wealth and is practically the personification of the corrupt elitist fat cat, is a really weird candidate to back if your problem is with oligarchy. He is, however an excellent choice of candidate if you are an angry, insecure white man who resents that other people now get to have a piece of the pie. If, in other words, the "establishment" you are objecting to is not the corporate-political oligarchy, but the multi-cultural worldview which embraces diversity and equality.

Yeah, that's a predictable reaction from some people. Its also a racist, misogynist reaction, which is why I say that Trumpism is fundamentally about asserting a white male-dominated American nationalism.

[TheFeniX]

I find that's just an oversimplification when you take into all the bullshit 2016 brought up. White evangelicals swung harder for Trump than ever but not for the reasons people think. Now of course, the problems with polls is that people can, and probably do, just lie their asses off. But on this level?

In total, nearly half of white evangelicals considered the economy or national security most important when choosing between presidential candidates. Even when the Pew Research Center asked them which issues—not limited to a single one—were “very important” to them in deciding how to cast their votes, terrorism (89%) and the economy (87%) ranked higher than Supreme Court appointments (70%) and abortion (52%).

Immigration is still an important issue for them, and there are racial motivations, but also specific economical ones. So, being rabidly anti-illegal immigration doesn't make you racist or at the least not exclusively so.

Yes, it's fucking so just.... moronic people (even people I know) thought and still think the Trumpster would fight for them more than HRC. But where was HRCs swell of support from minorities and women when up against a total shit-bag, philanderer, and sexual assaulter like Trump? What cost the Democrats all the white middle class votes that help push Obama into office?

There's gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. And those were issues, maybe even big enough to swing an election where the winner lost the popular vote by 3 mil. But WHY was it even at that level? Why did Trump pick up the votes in the areas he needed while Clinton LOST votes in the areas she had no fucking business losing?

Racism and Sexism? No, I don't see it. Those were issues, but not nearly in the numbers needed (that I've found, though honestly I've not kept up since 2017) to turn 2016 into the dumpster fire it was. If anything, the worst part about it was the ability of voters to IGNORE racism and sexism for multiple reasons. Fear of HRC starting more wars, selling more jobs overseas, fear of her track-record, or just straight "who gives a shit about HRC?" to get enough people swinging Democrat to stay home, enough people on the fence to swing to Trump, enough idiotic "look at the shiny" douchebags to get taken in by Trump's bullshit to push Trump into a landslide win of "lost by 3 million."

tl:dr: I don't blame racism and sexism for 2016 because I can't find anything to really back it up. Not in the numbers needed to explain the low turn-out, shifting votes, the support Trump had, and support HRC didn't have. If those WERE at fault, it's because all the other bullshit pushed the election so far into "rock bottom" territory that you can actually dig up a bit of blame in that area.

EDIT: I should probably add that a SIDE EFFECT of Trump is emboldening racists and sexists.

[Gandalf]

Couldn't you argue from the other side of it that the Trump campaign's racism and sexism were so overt that in order to vote for him the voter had to be fairly accepting of it?

[TheFeniX]

Couldn't you argue from the other side of it that the Trump campaign's racism and sexism were so overt that in order to vote for him the voter had to be fairly accepting of it?

Yes, this is a large part of that whole "in spite of" writing that came around. But American voting is pretty much built off the idea of "you gotta take the good with the bad." It's a 50/50 coin flip with the two party system.

A whole lot of white people (depending on the group, even "people" in general), based on polling and other reading, just don't CARE about homosexuals, minorities, or Muslims. They just won't bother FIGHTING for them, or possibly will if their own interests are also represented. There's nothing vindictive about it, they don't care if gays/minorities marry or are treated as equals. But 2016, at least IMO, was when the (laughable) idea that Trump was going to put the economy and domestic safety at the fore-front beat out HRCs track record of basically just going with the flow or (in their eyes) consistently fighting for people who weren't them.

People mostly vote FOR someone they feel best represents their interests or they just stay home. And as much blame which should go out to those who voted for Trump, HRC (really, Democrats in general) deserve a lot of blame for putting up such terrible numbers in the election across nearly all demographics.

Obama didn't win as big as he did in 2008 by pandering to a specific group of people. Most of his campaign was focused on the failures of the previous administration, the weak economy, the wars and the INCREASING radicalism they were creating, thus making American's less safe. I've said it before, but 2016 was eerily similar mechanically to 2008.

I also just want to take a cheap shot here and say "America is already fairly accepting of Racism and Sexism." But I saved it for last to try and not derail my post before it started.

[mr friendly guy]

Couldn't you argue from the other side of it that the Trump campaign's racism and sexism were so overt that in order to vote for him the voter had to be fairly accepting of it?

It brings out a fair point. At what point will you vote for someone who you think will implement policies beneficial to you, even if they have some views which you oppose? To use an Australian example, when the GST was being debated I actually the idea being proposed was a good one (from economic theory and all that nice things about consumption tax). But I refuse to vote for the party proposing it even if the opposition ALP refused to endorse it. Why? Because the Libs showed an inability to condemn the racist One Nation party. I drew the line there.

Now the question becomes, will it change if those views were directed against another minority which I don't belong to? I would like to think not. However its clear from reports various Trump voters didn't care because they thought it wouldn't affect them (think those people who are friends with illegals, even one married to an illegal who were shocked, shocked I say when their illegal acquaintances were targeted by the authorities). They didn't care about the bigotry because they didn't think they would be affected.

This brings me to my next point. If you voted for someone despite opposing their racism or sexism or <insert repugnant view here> but did so because you felt you were going to get some benefits, did you do so because

a) you didn't feel that strongly about anti bigotry in the first place, if not downright bigoted yourself

b) you were really desperate you were willing to do a deal with the Devil so to speak

c) you somehow magically believed you wouldn't be affected because I don't know, "maybe that stuff just happens to other people"
or

D) they just thought he was bluffing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find that's just an oversimplification when you take into all the bullshit 2016 brought up. White evangelicals swung harder for Trump than ever but not for the reasons people think. Now of course, the problems with polls is that people can, and probably do, just lie their asses off. But on this level?

In total, nearly half of white evangelicals considered the economy or national security most important when choosing between presidential candidates. Even when the Pew Research Center asked them which issues—not limited to a single one—were “very important” to them in deciding how to cast their votes, terrorism (89%) and the economy (87%) ranked higher than Supreme Court appointments (70%) and abortion (52%).

Immigration is still an important issue for them, and there are racial motivations, but also specific economical ones. So, being rabidly anti-illegal immigration doesn't make you racist or at the least not exclusively so.

Let's be real here: the vast majority of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US is directly tied to racism and xenophobia. And there's a reason for that: there are not clear economic reasons to oppose immigration, even illegal immigration. That might seem an outlandish claim, given how hard the anti-immigrant movement has worked to ingrain the idea that immigrants automatically represent an economic loss into the public consciousness, but its true. There is considerable statistical evidence IIRC that immigration can actually strengthen a country's economy, and it makes sense- those immigrants who take jobs will also be creating jobs, and putting money back into the economy as consumers- at least if they're paid a decent wage and afforded full rights and legal protection (in which case, there would be no incentive to hire them over workers who are US citizens). In any case, automation now represents a far greater threat to jobs than immigration.

If there are negative economic reprecussions for immigration, they are more likely to result from immigrants being forced into the shadows, where they can be more easily exploited as a source of cheap labor without rights, and where they will find it harder to become successful members of society. If we wanted to address those problems, we would grant all the illegal immigrants citizenship.

But that's not what the anti-immigrant movement is about. Its about scapegoating the "other" as the cause of our economic problems (which makes it a handy tool for wealthy politicians, media figures, and lobbyists who don't want to address the real causes of corporate greed and political corruption), and it rests on the assumption that foreign people (especially brown foreign people) are always no good, shiftless criminals and parasites, who will only take from, not contribute, to society, living at the expense of "real" (ie, white) Americans.

Yes, it's fucking so just.... moronic people (even people I know) thought and still think the Trumpster would fight for them more than HRC. But where was HRCs swell of support from minorities and women when up against a total shit-bag, philanderer, and sexual assaulter like Trump? What cost the Democrats all the white middle class votes that help push Obama into office?

There's gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. And those were issues, maybe even big enough to swing an election where the winner lost the popular vote by 3 mil. But WHY was it even at that level? Why did Trump pick up the votes in the areas he needed while Clinton LOST votes in the areas she had no fucking business losing?

Racism and Sexism? No, I don't see it. Those were issues, but not nearly in the numbers needed (that I've found, though honestly I've not kept up since 2017) to turn 2016 into the dumpster fire it was. If anything, the worst part about it was the ability of voters to IGNORE racism and sexism for multiple reasons. Fear of HRC starting more wars, selling more jobs overseas, fear of her track-record, or just straight "who gives a shit about HRC?" to get enough people swinging Democrat to stay home, enough people on the fence to swing to Trump, enough idiotic "look at the shiny" douchebags to get taken in by Trump's bullshit to push Trump into a landslide win of "lost by 3 million."

tl:dr: I don't blame racism and sexism for 2016 because I can't find anything to really back it up. Not in the numbers needed to explain the low turn-out, shifting votes, the support Trump had, and support HRC didn't have. If those WERE at fault, it's because all the other bullshit pushed the election so far into "rock bottom" territory that you can actually dig up a bit of blame in that area.

EDIT: I should probably add that a SIDE EFFECT of Trump is emboldening racists and sexists.

I think to some extent you're conflating two different issues.

Racism and misogyny were, absolutely, at the heart of why the Trump base voted for Trump. Not the only reasons, of course, because humans are complicated, but that was a big fucking part of it, and as noted by Gandalf, anyone who voted for Trump, or supported or condoned him, at the very least had to be okay with those thing being given a platform at the highest levels of government. At the very least, they were willing to throw women and minorities under the bus for whatever issues were more important to them, which I would argue is itself a racist/sexist position.

That said, I would agree that racism and sexism are not the main reason why Trump ultimately won. They were major motivations of his base, but they were not enough to put Trump over the top. Neither was "anti-establishment"*/anti-Democrat/anti-Clinton backlash, however. There is no single reason for the cluster fuck that is the 2016 election result, and anyone saying their is either is misinformed or saying it to push an agenda. Trump barely got elected, with a deficit of nearly three million in the popular vote, by a relatively tiny margin in three key states- which is close enough that there are at least half a dozen major things, off the top of my head, that could have changed the outcome if they had gone a little differently. So in that sense, you can more or less equally say that racism and sexism caused 2016, Bernie Sanders caused 2016, Jim Comey caused 2016, Anthony Weiner caused 2016, Russia caused 2016, voter suppression and gerrymandering caused 2016, Hillary Clinton caused 2016, and that a wave of "anti-establishment" anger caused 2016. All of those are probably true, and all of them are false (or rather, only part of the picture).

I am, however, wary of progressives saying that Trump's election was due to anti-establishment/anti-Democrat/anti-Clinton backlash rather than bigotry, because it can very easily slip into portraying Trump's election as a justified backlash based on legitimate grievances, and minimizing the bigotry- it can slip, thus, into condoning Trumpism, and thereby becoming culpable in it. I know that's not your intention here, but its a concern that is never far from my mind when discussing these issues. All the more because I am very aware of the constant efforts by Trumpers (and Russia) to push those sorts of narratives: to on the one hand shield themselves against charges that they are essentially rebranded Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, and on the other, to stoke anti-establishment anger to drive a wedge into the opposition. And ultimately, more insidiously, to coopt Progressivism.


*I hate the term anti-establishment these days, because 2016 and the Trumpers and the Bernie-or-Busters made it almost meaningless. Any definition of "anti-establishment" which can condemn Hillary Clinton but condone Donald Trump- a wealthy fat cat who inherited his fortune from Daddy Klansman- is a meaningless one. Or, alternately, one in which the "establishment" being condemned is not the corrupt oligarchy, but rather the cultural establishment which says that open bigotry against women and minorities are no longer okay.

[TheFeniX]

Let's be real here: the vast majority of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US is directly tied to racism and xenophobia.

I'd like to see something here. I've never been able to find anything and I wouldn't mind being wrong. What I have found is Americans (across near all races) want immigration reform, but they view illegal immigration pretty negatively.

This is part of the problem I have when looking for benefits to illegal immigration. You get an article like "Illegal Immigration is good for the economy" then they start talking about the benefits of legal immigration. I don't care to actually argue the merits of immigration, merely people's reaction to it.

Racism and misogyny were, absolutely, at the heart of why the Trump base voted for Trump. Not the only reasons, of course, because humans are complicated, but that was a big fucking part of it, and as noted by Gandalf, anyone who voted for Trump, or supported or condoned him, at the very least had to be okay with those thing being given a platform at the highest levels of government. At the very least, they were willing to throw women and minorities under the bus for whatever issues were more important to them, which I would argue is itself a racist/sexist position.

The people who made racism an misogyny an issue would have voted (R) anyway. The best case is to get them to stay home. But the shitstorm of them rallying behind a handjob like Trump and having their worst fear of "HRC WILL BE PRESIDENT! DO SOMETHING!" made them decide to vote this time around.

And.... the numbers weren't that great TBH. I've said it before: if THIS is what an emboldened group of shitheels can put up when their back is too the wall, then I have to blame Democrats because if they put up someone REMOTELY electable, who isn't saddle by tons of... everything, then presidental elections SHOULD be a blowout in favor of Democrat in 2020+ unless the Republicans make considerable changes to their platform. Because Trump's platform of hate is not actually sustainable. But damn sure MIGHT be if they run HRC again.

Still, it's a pretty good spot considering the group Clinton should have had overwhelming support from (and didn't) and still put 3 million votes up over the Trumpster.

That said, I would agree that racism and sexism are not the main reason why Trump ultimately won. They were major motivations of his base, but they were not enough to put Trump over the top. Neither was "anti-establishment"*/anti-Democrat/anti-Clinton backlash, however. There is no single reason for the cluster fuck that is the 2016 election result, and anyone saying their is either is misinformed or saying it to push an agenda.

I know. That's what I've been saying.

I am, however, wary of progressives saying that Trump's election was due to anti-establishment/anti-Democrat/anti-Clinton backlash rather than bigotry, because it can very easily slip into portraying Trump's election as a justified backlash based on legitimate grievances, and minimizing the bigotry- it can slip, thus, into condoning Trumpism, and thereby becoming culpable in it. I know that's not your intention here, but its a concern that is never far from my mind when discussing these issues. All the more because I am very aware of the constant efforts by Trumpers (and Russia) to push those sorts of narratives: to on the one hand shield themselves against charges that they are essentially rebranded Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, and on the other, to stoke anti-establishment anger to drive a wedge into the opposition. And ultimately, more insidiously, to coopt Progressivism.

I will say this, at least as long as I've been alive: positioning yourself as the anti-establishment candidate, the "outsider," the guy who says "I'm really like you guys, but I'll put it on myself to deal with these scumbag politicians to work with you:" it has benefits.

Obama being "the new guy" and taking shots at our leaders for failing us, and McCain comical attempts to define himself as the same thing: this ONE thing did not decide the election, but it was an important part of why people got off their ass to vote for Obama. I could make a few GW/Gore reference here, but I don't think it's needed.

Just to focus on Clinton for a moment: she didn't even have Young Women locked up in the Primary. Sanders was giving her serious trouble here. I'm pretty sure this was the article I ran across way back:

While Trump has publicly and dramatically fractured the Republican Party, the Clinton candidacy has, in a seeming irony, brought out the fractures in modern feminism. During the primaries, a handful of high-profile women—including Madeleine Albright, Lena Dunham and Gloria Steinem—insisted that the fight against sexism is an un-won war, and that putting a woman in the White House remains a crucial goal. But younger feminists, many of them Sanders supporters, reminded us this is not the 1970s or even the 1990s, and that wealthy white female figureheads who promise to shatter glass ceilings don’t automatically get a feminist stamp of approval. The population of American women is more diverse than it’s ever been, and any leader who wants to run as a feminist must speak to their varied needs.

And, as we've talked about, all these little (or big) things just kind of added up to "WTF just happened" in 2016. 8 years after... pretty much everyone but geriatric white guys threw in with Obama. And even 4 years ago when enough were like "well...... otherwise it's Romney."