[@Pepperm1nts]

That would be wonderful if someone would provide a shred of that evidence rather than a rambling eighteen minute video that covered only the details I listed and spoke to at length in my reply on it. Thus far I have one person whose motives I am deeply suspicious of and now your account, which I too am suspicious of.

I would like to see the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" evidence and the fact that only whites are permitted in their state. I am not sure how many times I need reiterate that based on what has been presented there is no real suggestion of that.

No less I am certainly not painting them as anything of those just wanting to "preserve American culture". I have before and will again state their mindset does not match with the ideals of the United States and the historical American intetests, let alone my own, examples being they appear flat out against immigration and imply they are against any sort of assimilation. Does that mean that is what they believe? No, thus far I haven't seen that and the sole reason I haven't a care to is because of the fact they have yet to prove to be a threat or concern.

As far as protest goes, certainly, but one might recall this goes back to the United Kingdom and how they temporarily barred people as if they had commit a crime, essentially under the premise they "thought wrong". If one is looking for the point I am making in all of this, the true root of it, it is that it is a glaring double standard. The accused organization might legitimately be wrong in ideological process to me, but there is no ground to do what was done unless something is being withheld.

To further emphasize this I am asking anyone to prove otherwise, yet no one has as of yet. Note the utter lack of denial by my hand that the accused do believe these things or that I stand defending them against their accusers simply because they are "my opposition".

As a late addition, I posted their demands on the previous page, which outline their vision and intended process. Does this mean they adhere to it? Of course not, but I cannot find any mention of or implications to the suggested in their core identity. I presume the accusations deal with members who do hold more extreme belifs than those stated, which goes back to an organizational issue and not so much an ideological one.