A helpful reminder why some whites voted for the Great Fat Orange Klansman

Zerlina Maxwell And 'The End Of White Politics'

She spends a lot of time on MSNBC insisting on the unique importance of the black vote, pushing for a fairly radical racial leftist agenda and defending vandalism of any white monument, so far as I can tell.

Might not be entirely right, so, cum grano salis.

Still, she (probably) and many others (certainly) on that network and at CNN and BBC News, many of them white, validate the warnings of what now seems an age ago, when Trump and others first claimed it's not really just about public honors for the Confederacy.

It's about a veto on any public honors exercised by agents of the racial left for whom not many whites would be allowed monuments in the United States of America, or perhaps in any white settler-state in the world.

If even Lincoln doesn't pass your test . . . .

Her anticipation of the eventual demographic eclipse of whites and her insistence that the Democrats behave as though it's already happened and magically made blacks the US majority, or at least the majority of the Democratic Party (it absolutely won't do the former and probably won't do the latter), will seem excessive to many and scary to some.

[The online CIA Factbook says the US is still over 70 % white and about 13 % black and above 15% all others. Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity, and Hispanics may be of any race and are so counted in the US census.]

[Political sites or organizations of any persuasion seem all to insist it's really about non-Hispanic whites rather than whites in general. Because why? Justices Sotomayor and the late Cardozo not white enough? Does Juan Carlos de Borbón seem a little too dark?]

She wants the Democrats to behave like a nonwhite - a racial left party is what she really means - party, at least as regards its agenda, and to more or less ignore the (non-racial left) whites who presumably make up an actual majority of its voters, members, and officials by a pretty long way.

She says this is what they need to do to win elections; trying to bring back white Obama voters who went with Trump last time - who make no sense at all to me - won't work.

Of course she says that.

Given the outsize roll she wants for the racial left and their ludicrous, anti-white agenda, what else would she say?

MSNBC and CNN and Donald Trump are all just fine with that.

Miller, Bannon, and even David Duke will send her fan mail and flowers.

Not for the last time, there is no code

An appeal to or claim to defend states rights is not code for racism or defense of racism or white supremacy.

But historically and so far as I know nobody has ever appealed to or defended states rights except to defend secession and slavery, or state-mandated segregation, or state Jim Crow laws, or the right of employers or public accommodations to discriminate on the basis of race.

"States rights" isn't code for those things.

Those things have been and largely still are the only reason for defending states rights.

The Klansman in Bozo emerges with a shout out

If this was intentional - and I think it was - it was not a "dog whistle", much less was it "code".

It was more of a blatant shout out to the alt.right.

The kind of folks we saw and heard at Charlottesville.

Trump thanked 'great people' shown in Twitter video in which a man chants 'white power'

Check out the video.

No mistaking the guy in the cart shouting "White power!" repeatedly, fist raised.

This is a chant or slogan of nobody but committed and very self-aware white racists.

The tweet was deleted after the news had insured everyone was aware of it.

President Donald Trump on Sunday morning widely shared a video he said is from the Villages, a retirement community in Florida, in which a man driving a golf cart with Trump campaign posters is seen chanting "white power."

The President retweeted the video that showed the community's Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters arguing with one another. 

The President thanked the "great people" shown in the video.

"Thank you to the great people of The Villages. The Radical Left Do Nothing Democrats will Fall in the Fall. Corrupt Joe is shot. See you soon!!" he wrote in the tweet. 

Roughly three hours later, the tweet no longer appeared in Trump's timeline.

Ask yourself this.

If the Duce had seen and heard the fellow in the golf cart covered with Trump signs shouting "White power!" and pumping his fist at a live rally, what would have been his reaction?

Would he have blanched in horror?

Would he instantly have publicly rejected the man and his support and the support of anybody like him as somebody like McCain or Romney would have done?

Pshaw.

That is not what he did when he was told David Duke supported him in 2016, when he and Pence both very clearly did not want to reject the support of the racist right.

If this had happened at a McCain or Romney support rally and they said or did nothing that would prove they were not aware.

But the Duce?

The Great Fat Orange Klansman in the White House?

I think not only was he aware, that was the point of re-tweeting the video.

Even if he expected or planned its removal, from the beginning.

The good people stayed home

'Swastikas and nooses': governor slams 'racism' of Michigan lockdown protest

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan issued a rebuke of the armed protesters who gathered inside the state capitol last week in defiance of statewide lockdown orders, saying the demonstrators embodied some of the “worst racism” of the nation’s history.

“Some of the outrageousness of what happened at our capitol depicted some of the worst racism and awful parts of our history in this country,” Whitmer said during a Sunday interview on CNN’s State of the Union.

Last week Donald Trump had said of the protesters: “These are very good people.”

. . . .

[Whitmer said,] “There were swastikas and Confederate flags and nooses and people with assault rifles. That’s a small group of people when you think that this is a state of almost 10 million people, the vast majority of whom are doing the right thing.”

. . . .

Displaying the Confederate flag, or other symbols of the slave-owning south during the American civil war, is usually seen as racist.

There is not the least doubt that many, even most, of the folks nationwide who support at least partial rollback right away are "good people", or anyway no worse than the general run.

But they aren't showing up to demonstrate under the Confederate flag, side by side with nazis, racist militia, and the worst of the right wing loonies.

And that's because good people don't show up to march under the Confederate flag, or side by side with nazis, or side by side with racist militia, or with the worst of the right wing loonies.

Let alone under the Confederate flag with all of them.

"Mississippi Burning"

Watched it for the nth time on Amazon streaming video last night.

The same battle being fought then against white supremacist, nationalist, racist terrorists who enjoyed widespread community support and political cover is still with us, today.

Even down to the denunciations of the press for printing lies, distortions, and "fake news" about the poor maligned South, Southerners, and especially organized racist killers and their official enablers and collaborators.

All of those almost-Nazi bastards ("almost" because the Klan and its sympathizers were never officially sympathetic, much less than committed, to the fascist theory of government or the tenet of government the Germans called the Führerprinzip) were soi-disant defenders of traditional white Christian Protestant Anglo-Saxon civilization against nonwhites, papists, and Jews, especially alarmed and angered by the prospect of mongrelization and pollution of the white race through miscegenation.

The Duce notably defended the white anti-American racists at Charlottesville as "good people".

So you say you like small government and states' rights better?

We get that that's code.

It means - among other things and leaving aside such stuff as white nationalism, white supremacy, white Nativism, fascism, authoritarianism, and populism - that you like crime better than government.

You think that the cure is worse than the disease.

Worse for you, because you're a white male, a plute, a 1 percenter, or a crook.

And if you talk like that you're probably all four.

Why does this work?

Joe Scarborough, the "Chinese Virus", and rabbit trails

He'd rather liberals damn him for racism, an accusation that resonates primarily among people who would never vote for him, anyway, than for dropping the ball on America's foot, an accusation that hurts him much more.

And, anyway, it amuses his supporters no end.

Joan Walsh on the Party of the Crazy Fuck Racist Assholes

This F#$%ing Decade

Mass politics

It could be said that an essential attribute of a successful regime in the age of mass politics is vulgarity.

But there is a considerable difference between the mere vulgarity of style and propaganda of the liberal regimes and the profound vulgarity of values of authoritarian and, even worse, fascist, racist, or Nazi regimes.

And right now many leading Western nations are sliding from the former toward the latter.

Are regimes, parties, or movements of the further left also committed to vulgar values?

Or is that another difference between them and regimes of the vicious right, from the merely authoritarian even to the totalitarian?

Questions that arise while watching on Amazon video Detective De Luca.

He is just who you thought he was

And Trump relies on nobody as he relies on this guy regarding the entire issue of immigration and the Mexican border.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller injected white nationalist agenda into Breitbart, investigation reveals

Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller shaped the 2016 election coverage of the hard right-wing website Breitbart with material drawn from prominent white nationalists, Islamophobes, and far-right websites, according to a new investigative report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Miller also railed against those wishing to remove Confederate monuments and flags from public display in the wake of Dylann Roof’s murderous 2015 attack on a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and praised America’s early 20th-century race-based, restrictionist immigration policies.

Emails from Miller to a former Breitbart writer, sent before and after he joined the Trump campaign, show Miller obsessively focused on injecting white nationalist-style talking points on race and crime, Confederate monuments, and Islam into the far-right website’s campaign coverage, the SPLC report says.

Pat Buchanan continues his long, slow slide to almost fascism

Although not quite.

Anyway, not yet.

If you think that what, about supranational institutions like the EU, the UN, or even NATO, bothers the new nationalists of Europe and America in part is their democracy deficit you are a fool.

And if you think they are even in part moved by concern for the political position of the world's eurowhites, or the rayonnement of their civilization, the much touted and much damned Western Civilization, you are again a fool.

Their increasingly evident love for authoritarian nationalism wherever it is to be found, while strengthening racism and racist policies within infected states, undermines both.

Let Them Howl, Boris!

PB here continues to celebrate stupid things ever less compatible with the rule of law, with republicanism, with responsible representative government.

Lying is his job. He works at Fox, you know.

Tucker Carlson Falsely Calls White Supremacy a ‘Hoax’

Numerous critics and media outlets rebuked the conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson Wednesday after he said white supremacy in America was “not a real problem” on his talk show the night before.

His remarks on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” came days after a mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart left 22 people dead and dozens injured. 

Investigators said the shooter was motivated by a hatred of Hispanics and pointed to a white supremacist manifesto worrying about “a Hispanic invasion.”

Mr. Carlson also likened white supremacy to “the Russia hoax,” calling it a “conspiracy theory” used by Democrats to divide the country.

Surely that can't be right. Or maybe it is.

Tucker Carlson Calls White Supremacy a 'Hoax'

OK, let's play along and allow that "white supremacist" means "dangerous white racist".

TC is using the expression pretty much that way, pretty much the way everybody seems to be using it.

So what the heck.

TC, himself infamous for broadcasting the white nationalist "invasion", "replacement", "white genocide" propaganda, says this.

The combined membership of every white supremacist organization in this country would be able to fit inside a college football stadium.”

That might be right.

But that's actually quite a lot of dangerous white racists.

We're talking tens of thousands, right?

Of the sort of folks who could be expected not only to rejoice in but also even to personally participate in violent racist attacks.

He added, “I mean, seriously, this is a country where the average person is getting poorer, where the suicide rate is spiking—‘white supremacy, that’s the problem’—this is a hoax. 

"Just like the Russia hoax, it’s a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power. That’s exactly what’s going on.”

"The Russia hoax"?

On Fox, Carlson continued: “White supremacy—you know, I’ve lived here 50 years, I’ve never met anybody—not one person—who ascribes to white supremacy. I don’t know a single person who thinks that’s a good idea. 

So he doesn't know what "ascribe" means and confuses it with "subscribe", in one of its meanings.

Just another C student with a big mouth.

"I don’t—I mean, they are making this up, and it’s a talking point which they are using to help them in this election cycle, obviously, because Russia died.”

Even supposing he's here dropped into using "white supremacy" to mean, uh, white supremacy and not just "dangerous white racism", did he not at the time offer comment on the infamous Charlottesville demonstrations?

Has he somehow remained all this time completely and totally ignorant of who those people were and what they were on about?

A whole panoply of dangerous white racists representing dangerous white racist organizations and urging dangerous white racist agendas, at least some of whom - think of the Klansmen among them, for example - actually do espouse, advocate, and seek to implement white supremacist policies, laws, and so on, in this country.

Think Jim Crow.

Think enslavement of blacks in the US.

Some of those folks at Charlottesville would have told you straight out those were good things.

Did he truly and honestly miss all that?

No, he's just lying.

Does anybody believe him?

Are even his regular viewers too stupid to see it?

Or do they just like it when he lies like this?

Over the top?

Brzezinski: Trump ‘Seems to Want’ White Nationalist Terror Attacks to Happen

Hmm.

Maybe they're just "an acceptable price to pay".

Krugman: "The Republican Party decided that a few massacres were an acceptable price to pay in return for tax cuts."

Why has the Republican Party become a systematic enabler of terrorism?

[T]he party remains in lock step behind a man who has arguably done more to promote racial violence than any American since Nathan Bedford Forrest, who helped found the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization if there ever was one — and who was recently honored by the Republican governor of Tennessee.

Anyway, the party’s complicity started long before Trump came on the scene. 

More than a decade ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning about a surge of right-wing extremism. 

The report was prescient, to say the least. 

But when congressional Republicans learned about it, they went on a rampage, demanding the resignation of Janet Napolitano, who headed the agency, and insisted that even using the term “right-wing extremism” was unacceptable.

This backlash was effective: Homeland Security drastically scaled back its efforts to monitor and head off what was already becoming a major threat. 

In effect, Republicans bullied law enforcement into creating a safe space for potential terrorists, as long as their violent impulses were motivated by the right kind of hatred.

. . . .

No doubt some members of Congress, and a significant number of Trump administration officials, very much including the tweeter in chief, really are white supremacists. 

And a much larger fraction — almost surely bigger than anyone wants to admit — are racists. 

(Recently released tapes of conversations between Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon reveal that the modern G.O.P.’s patron saint was, in fact, a crude racist who called Africans “monkeys.”)

But racism isn’t what drives the Republican establishment . . . .

The central story of U.S. politics since the 1970s is the takeover of the Republican Party by economic radicals, determined to slash taxes for the wealthy while undermining the social safety net.

With the arguable exception of George H.W. Bush, every Republican president since 1980 has pushed through tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the 1 percent while trying to defund and/or privatize key social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

This agenda is, however, unpopular. Most voters believe that the rich should pay more, not less, in taxes, and want spending on social programs to rise, not fall.

So how do Republicans win elections? By appealing to racial animus. 

This is such an obvious fact of American political life that you have to be willfully blind not to see it.

. . . .

[T]here are more and more angry white people out there willing to commit mayhem — and able to do so because those same Republicans have blocked any effective control over sales of assault weapons.

A different, better G.O.P. might have been willing to acknowledge the growing threat and supported a crackdown on violent right-wing extremism, comparable to the F.B.I.’s successful campaign against the modern K.K.K. in the 1960s. 

A lot of innocent victims would be alive today if Republicans had done so.

But they didn’t, because admitting that right-wing extremism was a threat, or even a phrase law enforcement should be allowed to use, might have threatened the party’s exploitation of racial hostility to achieve its economic goals.

In effect, then, the Republican Party decided that a few massacres were an acceptable price to pay in return for tax cuts.

And yet he's wrong.

They don't sell tax cuts with racism, alone.

There is Christianism, homophobia, Islamophobia, abortion, and a lot more, really.

Everything we identify with Republicanism that isn't racism.

A reminder why we miss him

He may easily have been the most decent human being to occupy the White House during my entire lifetime.

Truman was president when I was born.

Barack Obama's twitter statement about the El Paso and Dayton shootings

As for that use of "white supremacy" I deplore it, but never mind.

The statement reminds us why so many of us felt proud to be able to vote for him, send him to the White House, and keep him there as long as constitutionally possible.

While he did not mention the Duce by name it's pretty clear he had him in mind.

Anyway, Brian Kilmeade thought so, and so Bozo thought so.

And he couldn't resist a public reply that basically just cribbed Kilmeade's reply.

Trump responds to Obama over statement on mass shootings

Hm.

Why might Bozo deserve blame that O did not and does not?

What a puzzle, eh?

Could it be . . . . ?

While Bozo has so far resisted gun control measures to help stem the tide, O supported such efforts.

While Bozo and his campaign have furiously demonized immigrants from our south and actually adopted as their own the replacement/invasion propaganda of white nationalist terrorists, O and his side refused inflammatory rhetoric about anyone, and were actually blamed and regularly denounced by T and by Republicans for refusing such rhetoric, particularly about Jihaders.

Could that be . . . . ?

Update.

Is the Duce the most indecent person to sit in the White House in my lifetime?

I think so.

And remember that period includes Nixon.

A good editorial in the NYT

We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem

If any white person in any degree concerned by the sorpasso is a white nationalist then there are a lot more white nationalists than realize it, and by far not every white nationalist is a terrorist or criminal of any sort, no more than every pro-lifer is a terrorist.

Come to that, there are a whole lot of white nationalists, in that case, who don't have and wouldn't support a white nationalist agenda of any kind.

And nobody has any business suppressing free speech.

Once and for all (I hope, but know better. So, no, I guess I despair), white supremacy is political rule of nonwhites by whites involving special and repressive measures such as exclusion from office, exclusion from the franchise, or other such measures.

The cultural or political predominance associated with being a demographic majority is not "supremacy", even if the majority is white, though some people seem to use the expression as though it covered that case - obviously a tendentious usage.

[Update. O and others persist in using "white supremacy" as a labor for the mere fact that whites are a demographic majority in the US, and he writes of the concern of white nationalists at losing this status as a fear of loss of white supremacy.

But if majority status is "white supremacy" in the US - and Canada, and many states in Latin America, and all states in Europe - then majority status in every state in sub-Saharan Africa is black supremacy, and majority status in China is Han supremacy, and elsewhere we have Korean supremacy, Japanese supremacy, and so on.

White supremacy bad, other supremacy good?

Tendentious usage is such a bore.]

White supremacy, as a fact or a goal, may, but need not, be associated with or motivated by ideas of racial superiority or other manifestations or varieties of racism.

On the other hand, if we learned that an organization of ethnic Estonians sought to keep ethnic Estonians a demographic majority in Estonia we would have no qualms about calling it a nationalist group or about calling their goal a nationalist one.

So we should have no hesitation applying the label "white nationalist" to any group or person seeking to preserve the majority status of American whites, or to delay its loss, on account of that goal.

Update, 1221 EDT 08062019.

Fears or concerns associated with the sorpasso, by the way, ought not to drive policy or in any way determine an agenda.

Not in the least.

In my opinion, anyway.

So if merely being concerned makes you a white nationalist, your white nationalism ought to be politically irrelevant and empty.

And perhaps it is worth pointing out that though whites are going to cease to be America's majority that does not mean any other race or ethnic group is going to become America's majority.

The nonwhites of America who are going to be the majority are not one race or ethnic group but many, quite distinct from one another.

And American whites will continue to be the largest single racial or ethnic group in America for a long time to come.

The situation of whites in America is not going to parallel the situation of whites in South Africa, or of Chinese in Malaysia, the Ainu or Koreans of Japan, or the Uyghur in China.

In a very real and important sense, white Americans are not going to be suddenly living in a country where somebody else is in the majority.

What's in a name?

Why are people referring to these white Nativist killers generically, or individually, as white supremacists?

What's the foundation for that?

What we know is that they resent, fear, and want to stop nonwhite immigration in order to at least delay the approaching demographic sorpasso that will happen when the nonwhites of America outnumber the whites.

That makes them white Nativists.

That does not make them white supremacists.

But maybe there is material in those manifestoes that shows they are that, too.

What, I wonder.

Sen. Brian Schatz: "We have a white supremacist problem"

Santorum: "The person in El Paso is a white supremacist."

Everybody seems to be calling these guys that, today.

Maybe this absurdly broad usage at the ADL helps explain it.

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co- exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people.

In truth I would have thought belief in point 1 is, all by itself, the sum and substance of white supremacism, taking "other backgrounds" to (somehow) mean "other races".

And is that actually what these guys think or want?

Wanting white Americans to be spared slipping into minority status in the US is not and does not entail that, nor any others of the 4 points the ADL identified (though I suppose it's a safe bet these guys accept 3 and 4 in that ADL list, and maybe even 2 as some sort of ideal case).

And it's certainly not what the exterminationist fans of The Turner Diaries want.

They don't want to rule people of other races. They want to kill all of them.

Anyway, the ADL takes a considerably broader view than seems to be common in online dictionaries.

Here's one that's typical.

Definition of white supremacist : a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.

But that's to my mind too restrictive, since anyone who believed the second but not the first would not count as a white supremacist, on this definition; that seems wrong to me.

Update.

It seems right to call them white nationalists, too.

We would not hesitate, I think, to call a group of ethnic Estonians out to ensure ethnic Estonians remain a majority in Estonia rather than being eclipsed by Russian immigrants a group of Estonian nationalists.

The analogy is close enough.

Mayor Pete joins the growing chorus

Buttigieg: 'There's no question white nationalism is condoned at the highest levels of our government'

Booker: Trump 'particularly responsible' for rising hate

Castro: Trump 'made a choice to divide people' for his 'political benefit'

More white racist, white nationalist, white Nativist violence in two cities in 24 hours

El Paso Shooting: Massacre at a Crowded Walmart in Texas Leaves 20 Dead

A 21-year-old gunman armed with a powerful rifle turned a crowded Walmart store in this majority-Hispanic border city into a scene of chaos and bloodshed on Saturday, stalking shoppers in the aisles in an attack that left at least 20 people dead and 26 others wounded, the authorities said.

. . . .

The authorities identified the gunman as Patrick Crusius, from a Dallas suburb. 

He was taken into custody after he surrendered to the police outside the Walmart. 

The authorities said they were investigating a manifesto Mr. Crusius, who is white, may have posted before the shooting, which described an attack in response to “the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Shooting in Dayton, Ohio, Kills at Least 9

MSNBC says 9 dead and 26 wounded.

Seems everyone else is saying 16 wounded.

At least nine people were killed and 16 were wounded in a shooting early Sunday in Dayton, Ohio, the second American mass shooting in less than 24 hours and the third in a week.

The shooting began at 1 a.m. on East Fifth Street in the city’s Oregon entertainment district, the Dayton Police Department said. 

It said on Twitter that officers were “in the immediate vicinity when this shooting began and were able to respond and put an end to it quickly.”

Officers shot and killed the gunman, who was using a long gun, the police said.

The mayor of Dayton was on saying police were there in less than a minute from when the shooting began, and still the shooter was able to kill 9 and wound 26.

He did that in less than a minute.

Police have not yet identified the killer or his motive.

My guess is he's another white racist.

To be clear, so far, most if not all of the killers motivated by race politics this year have been whites consumed with hatred of others.

Only a fool could deny that Trump's endless bellowing about an invasion of undesirables and criminals and druggies and terrorists from the shithole countries to our south has created the atmosphere of heightened racial hostility that has resulted in numerous such incidents since the advent of the Duce.

Of course, it might be said he is merely echoing now and then what Fox and Breitbart scream 24/7, so maybe most of the fault is actually theirs.

And that would rightly be said.

El Paso: Beto O'Rourke blames 'racist' Trump for inflaming hatred

Pete Buttigieg: America ‘Under Attack From Homegrown White Nationalist Terrorists’

The El Paso killer is said by one network to face hate crime charges, and by another to face charges of terrorism.

If that manifesto records a purpose of the killings was to discourage immigration from the south, that would do it.

Violence to incite terror to achieve a political goal by modifying behavior is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

And wouldn't that be a first?

Charging a white racist mass murderer with terrorism, I mean?