They don't have to. Trump is a symptom. People, as a whole, need to use their brains a little. Again, you've a Nazi protest, you know the media are going to sensationalise it and report it because they're pretty much desperate to full up their time, so use that fact to your own advantage. Aggressiveness and hostility plays into the Nazis hands, mockery and fun takes some secateurs to their scrotum. Politicians need to stop using identity politics to grab votes, they need to stop marginalising and ignoring issues by white groups simply because, on a national level, whites are the overwhelming majority. The left needs to stop accusing any concerns over immigration and social change as having only ever a racist origin. The right needs to stop catering to its extreme wings. It only takes one group to start making things better, it's not a Hollywood movie where you need disparate groups to hit that 1-in-a-million chance.
All of that is true, but unfortunately it also works the other way. Yes, Trump started out as a symptom, but now that he is President he becomes part of a systematic process favoring supremacism and bigotry. Ultimately I am unsure whether the alt-right is weak enough to be laughed off the stage. Trump got all the laughs until he won. The racists on WF almost always post their stuff with some superficial irony. And on the other hand, laughter is not a signal to the concerned publics you describe that they are being taken seriously. Speaking about which, we have yet to find a role for those concerned people that is not racist by definition. If they are reasonably worried about immigration and social change, that has nothing to do with their race, and reasonable people from all races should have those concerns. And yet even you automatically described them as 'white' in your previous post. If the concerns are reasonable, the concerned should not all be white. So something has already gone wrong to produce the idea of that political group.
Which, so far, isn't achieving much. Nazis are emboldened, which I'm feeling will be a temporary state of affairs. The UK had a similar situation, albeit without the BNP managing to gain much traction, not that long ago. The current proliferation of gay pride marches, wider-community celebrations of the likes of Diwali and general continuing interest of non-native foods and festivals shows what they achieved in the mid- to long-term when they crawled back under their rock - absolutely nothing. Laughter does the weakening. Nobody is that strong that mockery isn't treated as a threat, and combating that threat with violence just makes them look all the weaker. Religions loathe being mocked, as they know there is nothing more likely to weaken their grip on the faithful than their po-faced diatribes being laughed at. The truly strong are laughed with, not at. Ask the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Why? Treat their concerns equally. If some concerns come from a racist point, it's handy data for educational and social debates, if other concerns don't that's indicates action needs to be taken. Well, you do. Hearing an Asian proprietor of a shop complain about Poles coming to the UK was amusing. His parents would have been on the other side of that equation a decade earlier. The majority of the concerns are from white people, just as if I was typing this from Beijing I'd be noting the majority of the concerns were from Chinese. You're looking for a pretext when basic demographics provides an answer without popping on the Racistfinder General outfit. The UK, overall, is 87% white, with an uneven distribution of non-whites at most levels due to the usual tribal behaviour people show generating ghettos. Moreover, ghettos produce a different set of issues. You go listen to the whines of the British ex-pat enclave in Spain, then move out 20 miles to listen to the Spanish complaints and you'll find some overlap, but not actually that much. And given how some of the UK ghettos discourage immigrants not of their own 'kind', you've got an additional bias to the figures there. So yes, it is entirely reasonable to expect non-whites to have concerns, just expect their numbers to be something of a rounding error without a large enough sample set. As to my use of whites, that is within the context of concerns being ignored. Politicians are usually very, very interested in minority concerns (back to using identity politics for vote farming.) If I was moaning about complaints about police behaviour being brushed under a nearby rug in the 70's and 80's, you can bet I'd using 'black' instead of 'white'
