The fact that some random white supremacist metal band used it and maybe some other white supremacists used it over 10 years before does not mean it isn't "some innocent phrase". I don't even know that the /pol/sters got it from either of those places. It's a deliberately anodyne phrase; it may have been independently reinvented.
It was directly inspired by posters from American Renaissance, an alt-right publication. The very post organizing the operation was racist. The phrase is meant to be more inoffensive, but only when you intentionally refuse to take the statement at anything other than face-value. That's not how language functions, or how normal people operate.
Which is a strange thing to say, since I didn't use the term or quote them using the term.
Exactly. To quote myself, "leftist" is a meaningless term on /pol/. It basically means anyone that isn't at least a white nationalist. "Shitlib" is a term for anyone on the left, any political liberal. The idea is that there's a systematic war on white people. It is really difficult to argue that /pol/ isn't full-on goosestepping Nazis. No one mentions "progressives" but you, and I doubt that it'd have a very precise meaning if /pol/ was fond of it.
White supremacists might believe that, but it doesn't seem in any way essential to their beliefs; presumably they would still be white supremacists if they were in fact undeniably ascendant.
Just because something isn't a foundational pillar doesn't make it any less significant. It's the simple answer to why, if they're so ascendant, they seem to be "losing," that "white genocide" is being perpetrated. It's a common theme in the white supremacist movement and not something normal people tend to believe.
Anyway, the idea that "White supremacists believe X, therefore anyone implying anything in the general neighborhood of X must be a white supremacist" is utterly fallacious.
That's not what I'm saying. This gets into the thing I was talking about, where we operate under the pretense that white supremacism is an unconscionable, evil ideology, but only for rhetorical purposes. A hallmark of white supremacy is the idea of a systematic war on white people. That in no way means that any given instance of anti-white behavior isn't real, but that broad claims of a widespread, vaguely-defined movement of anti-white sentiments believed to macroscopically influence politics aren't something you can say without providing really good evidence.
I could point you to the collections of Sarah Jeong tweets, or to the appendices of the Damore lawsuit. I could find New York Times op-eds. But I don't think you'd accept them, and it's irrelevant anyway.
I can respond to those things if you want.
If the implication behind the posters was wrong and nobody of importance believes it isn't OK to be white, then the posters would merely be bemusing. Nobody would think it's somehow evil to post such an anodyne statement.
Generally, people react badly to white supremacism popping up on campus. If similar statements had anti-white sentiments, you certainly wouldn't find it bemusing. Ironically, in citing Damore's appendix, you basically demonstrate that. His examples of "anti-Caucasian postings" are ridiculously benign. One of his examples is just someone calling Scott Adams a "paranoid sexist dickbag," something that doesn't even mention race. Others are just statements asking for white people to be empathetic and listen to the perspectives of minorities.
This is where the idea that people making arguments that white supremacists make are generally white supremacists, especially when it is repeatedly demonstrated that almost everyone that touched this is, in fact, a white supremacist. It is something you need to substantiate, which you are deliberately refusing to do. Again, it's not an "anodyne statement" unless you engage in bad faith arguments.
It feels to me like you're throwing in a lot of irrelevancy to obscure the fact that you don't have a valid argument, and I'm declining to address the most irrelevant parts.
How is it irrelevant? How is charitable to completely ignore responses to what you said without explaining why? All of the stuff you're refusing to address is directly related to your arguments, to the point where half this post is quoting myself.