By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 1906, Wolf Laib brought over family members, ultimately leading to the establishment of a successful business that evolved into a chain of stores. This family’s journey mirrors that of millions who immigrated to the United States during the great migration to escape hardship. Despite their pursuit of a better life, they faced intense nativism rooted in racial prejudice and the belief in their social inferiority. These new arrivals were considered a threat to the nation’s “civilization,” and their presence was thought to be leading to the nation’s extinction.
Read the original article here
Inside Stephen Miller’s Dark Plot to Build a MAGA Terror State, we are witnessing a disturbing reality unfolding. The most effective way to counter him, some suggest, is to consistently portray him as the shadow president, mirroring the strategy used against Steve Bannon early in the Trump administration. The hope is that if Miller receives more attention than Trump, the former president will be forced to distance himself. The core of this issue lies within the people themselves, as the fate of this situation rests on the actions of the American people.
Stephen Miller’s trajectory, some argue, could have been altered had he faced consequences for his hateful rhetoric earlier in life. Instead, he appears to have been coddled, seemingly emboldening his beliefs. The current environment is perceived as a MAGA dystopia, where the concept of “liberty” is twisted to mean freedom from facts. Comparisons to historical figures, such as those who ran the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz or Treblinka, are being made to demonstrate the potential dangers of the current situation. There is genuine fear that marginalized groups are already in the crosshairs, and this is considered historical fact.
The issue at hand involves the political landscape; it is seen as a stark illustration of the deep-seated divisions within American society. A significant portion of the electorate is seen as supportive of Miller and his ideologies, expressing a lack of concern for the suffering of specific groups. These statistics are seen as a grim reminder of the challenge ahead. Moreover, Miller’s worldview, often detailed in interviews and on right-wing media outlets, is perceived as a comprehensive and sinister plot to reframe immigrants as a threat to “civilization”.
The article’s main argument is not whether Miller has malicious intents, rather, it’s that he embodies a deeply disturbing set of beliefs. The suggestion is to directly confront Miller and his views, labeling him as what he is perceived to be: a neo-Nazi. Many opinions on social media and other platforms mock Miller, with comparisons to other historical figures. These critics appear to see his political maneuvering as dangerous. There’s a perceived need to publicly identify Miller’s views and actions as the threat they pose to democracy.
The potential for Miller to ascend to even greater political heights is a very real concern. With his influence, there is a worry that he could potentially run for president on an anti-immigrant platform, and receive support from the MAGA base. The situation is seen as an ongoing issue with no easy solution in sight. The belief is that Miller’s vision for an “American Terror State” is already well underway. The fear is that the press is also on his side and in effect enabling the rise.
Some believe the only answer to this is a massive public demonstration, a “color revolution” where millions occupy a major city, to try and bring change. However, others are less hopeful, pointing out that apathy among a large portion of the population is the biggest obstacle. The idea that a third of the population doesn’t know or care, and another third will support Miller, makes the situation appear even more difficult to resolve. The source of the problem is perceived to run deeper than just Stephen Miller.
There is a sentiment that the average voter does not have the attention span to process complex issues. The problem is that many people are buying into Miller’s rhetoric, making it even more challenging. There is a general feeling that the way to deal with Miller is to avoid giving him a platform.
The core of the problem comes down to the consequences of his actions. Miller, in this view, is a person who has never faced the consequences of his actions, and therefore lacks a sense of accountability. If Miller’s trajectory had changed, this dark situation may have been averted. The core of this warning serves as a cautionary tale about the misuse of government power.