After the terrorist attack by an apparent white nationalist in New Zealand, President Trump was offered the opportunity to strongly condemn white supremacists. He declined to do so. While white supremacists killed more Americans in 2017 than another other domestic extremist group, authorities are often reluctant to treat them as terrorists. For example, they are not on the terror watchlist—even though white supremacists meet the definition of “terrorist.”
In contrast, Trump and others are quick to cast most (or even all) Muslims as potential or actual terrorists. Trump and others also present Mexicans and migrants as presenting such a threat that he declared a state of emergency on the southern border. This disparity invites investigation and explanation.
One possibility is that the disparity is warranted—that white nationalists do not present a significant threat and are merely isolated individuals while Muslims, Mexicans and migrants present a significant and organized threat. The obvious problem with this view is that it fails to match the facts. In terms of the number of Americans killed, white supremacists are the deadliest domestic extremist group. Even if they were not the deadliest, this would still not warrant such an extreme disparity in the rhetoric and actions.
One plausible explanation lies in the realm of politics. One key tactic in politics is to demonize a group and cast them as a scapegoat for problems. The targeted group must, obviously enough, not be part of the politician’s base—it must be relatively unimportant to the politician politically and demonizing it must gain more than what is lost in doing so. It obviously also helps if the groups being demonized are relatively weak and even better if they are seen as outsiders. Demonizing Muslims, Mexicans and migrants works quite well because these groups are relatively weak within the United States and are generally regarded as outsiders. There are also pre-existing prejudices that can be used effectively. Trump and others have made no bones about being anti-Muslim and anti-migrant. They have also openly appealed to such sentiments in others as a political tool.
While Trump and others might get some criticism from the left, casting Mexicans as rapists, migrants as murders and Muslims as terrorists comes with little political cost and considerable political gain with their base. There is also the fact that their base is often afraid of such people and easily buy into the stereotypes, scare tactics and hasty generalizations used to influence them.
While Trump and other politicians in his camp probably do not condone the murder and violence conducted by white supremacists, demonizing and scapegoating white supremacists presents a problem. In the case of migrants, Mexicans and Muslims, Trump is fine with presenting them as a general threat—though he is willing to admit that despite so many being rapists, there are fine people among the Mexicans. What Trump and others do is make hasty generalizations and appeals to anecdotes in order to claim from a few examples or anecdotes about crimes, acts of terror or violence conducted by migrants, Mexicans or Muslims that most of them are thus criminals, violent or terrorists.
Taking the same approach to white supremacists would involve generalizing from the relatively few white people who are domestic terrorists to white people in general. Even if it were restricted to white people who like guns and dislike non-whites, this would still generalize to a significant section of the white population. Demonizing whites to win white votes would not be a winning strategy. Also, Trump’s base includes a significant number of white people who like guns and are not very fond of non-whites. Demonizing them would presumably not work well for him.
It could be pointed out that this, at best, explains why Trump and his ilk demonize Mexicans, migrants and Muslims and not white supremacists. It does not explain why Trump and his fellows are so reluctant to condemn white supremacists and categorize them as terrorists.
One obvious explanation is that white supremacy and racism are part of the ideological, economic, moral and political foundation of the United States. Racism is not just a matter of history—it is still active today across all of America. While white people often claim that it does not exist, the evidence is rather strong that it does. Interestingly, when people deny that it exists or that they are racist, they often do so in the context of being racist. As such, to be critical of white supremacy and racism is to be critical of the very foundations of the United States and it is to attack part of the institutionalized power of white people. Since the wealth and power of Trump and his fellows are at least partially built on this foundation and maintained by the current institutions, it is hardly surprising that they are unwilling to condemn white supremacists. To do so would be to condemn racism and to thus attack themselves.
In contrast, Islam is not part of the foundation of the United States nor is it part of the institutions that maintain power and wealth. When Trump and his fellows demonize and attack it, they are not attacking the foundation and maintainer of their own wealth and power—it is a safe target for them.
In short, it makes perfect sense why Trump and his fellows attack migrants, Muslims and Mexicans while treading lightly when it comes to white supremacists. Demonizing migrants, Mexicans and Muslims is politically useful while attacking white racism would be to attack what is foundational and sustaining for their wealth and power.
Mike, you referred to the New Zealand terrorist as a “white nationalist.” Exactly what “nation” is he associating himself with? Are you sure he is not a globalist?
Mike, you should also explain why Trump should care more about a lone wolf attack in New Zealand rather than the organized slaughter of Christians in Nigeria by Islamic supremacists. Don’t people in Africa count just as much as people in New Zealand? What is the standard?
Barnabas Fund contacts report that nearly 300 people were killed in at least seven predominantly Christian villages across Kaduna State, Nigeria, in February and March 2019; brutal rapes and maiming with machetes were also reported.
In a dawn attack on Karamai on 14 February, 41 died when some 300 gunmen engulfed the village, chanting “Allahu Akbar!” as they fired their guns and ransacked homes. Almost all the dead were women and children, apart from a few elderly and blind men who were unable to flee.
Red herring. I never argued that Trump should care more about the attack in New Zealand than about other attacks; the focus was on providing an account of why Trump and others are not consistent in their approach to terrorism.
Also: https://qz.com/africa/1576853/new-zealand-attack-right-wing-media-uses-nigeria-christian-killings/
You are missing the point. Both New Zealand and Nigeria are not America. Why in your view does Trump have the obligation to speak out on one but not the other.
He has no more obligation to one than the other. And no less.
To be fair, even in your post you say, “..the terrorist attack by an apparent white nationalist”.
Apparent.
I think it exacerbates the problems we have when people rush to judge, don’t you? Just look at what happened when it was “apparent” that a bunch of MAGA-hat wearing teenagers from Covington High School were harassing a poor Native American … the news rushed to judge – it was obvious that because they were white, and because they were wearing MAGA hats, they must have been at fault, right? Except they weren’t.
And of course, there’s the current systematic demonization of anyone who dares criticize Ilhan Omar for her anti-Semitic remarks; after all, she’s just a poor, peaceful Muslim refugee who is the target of White Nationalist anti-Muslim xenophobes, right? And she apologized, right? That’s what Nancy, Liz, and the entire CAIR organization would have you believe, anyway. Except that Ilhan is not a peace-loving Muslim, she is an Islamist who supports Hamas, who raises money for the organization that believes in the extermination of Israel and Jews by violent means.
According to the link that you provided, Donald Trump did not rush to demonize White Nationalists, which has brought a flurry of criticism down on him. Instead, as I would expect any US President or World Leader to do, he delivered a measured response:
“”If you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case,” Trump said on white nationalism.
OK, so he’s not denying the possibility, right? Wait, there’s more …
“I don’t know enough about it yet. They’re just learning about the person and the people involved.”
And this is somehow unreasonable to you? More …
“I did not see it. [referring to the manifesto the killer had written] I did not see it, but I think it’s a horrible event, it’s a horrible thing,”
Your linked CNN article goes on to say, “Trump referred to the attacks at a pair of New Zealand mosques as “terror attacks” during remarks, the first time the President had done so himself publicly.”
I don’t really know what you expect of the man. He comes under fire when he sends out tweets expressing unsubstantiated or incorrect opinions, and he comes under fire when he delivers a measured response in the absence of a full story. He called it a terrorist attack, he allowed for the possibility that it was the work of white nationalists, and he said that information was still forthcoming. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Also, I have to take issue with your broad statements about Trump “and his ilk” being broadly anti-Muslim, being “quick to cast most (or even all) Muslims as potential or actual terrorists.”
The fact is that what the left would like to have us believe is a total “Muslim Ban” was actually a ban on travel to the US by people from seven specific countries that had been identified as harboring or supporting terrorist activity. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Trump’s directive was “facially neutral toward religion.”
The SCOTUS majority opinion, authored by John Roberts, went on to say,
“The proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion.”
Roberts continued, commenting on the fact that the seven nations were Muslim-Majority, and that this was, for some people, a clear indication of Trump’s bias …
“that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility”
The policy covered only about 8 percent of the world’s Muslim population and was limited to countries previously designated by Congress or other administrations as posing national security risks.
But here’s the point I’d really like to make.
First of all, I want to make a distinction between “Muslims” and “Islamists” The left would have us believe that we are painting all brown people from the Middle East with the same brush for our own racist purposes, while it is they who are guilty of exactly that for their own political purposes. The same, of course, is true with their refusal to use the term “Illegal Immigrant”, replacing it instead with the heart-wrenching “Migrant”.
Islamist extremists are well-organized, well-funded, and well-hidden. Through their networks, which include the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hamas, CAIR, ISIL and others, they have declared war on the non-Muslim world, perpetrating violent attacks in major cities with the express purpose of creating fear, havoc, bloodshed, and terror. They compensate suicide bombers; they are responsible for the largest attack on US soil in history. They have been responsible for planned bombings in major cities around the world, including London, Paris, Mumbai, Cairo, and Moscow – in countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia – the list goes on and on, and dates back decades. Every single year there are dozens of attacks killing hundreds of innocent people by organized, funded, Islamist terrorists who follow a sophisticated central control. And their bombings occur not just in crowded shopping centers or crowded squares – they include banks and centers of commerce and government as well.
They have a stated mission – a return to a worldwide Caliphate, the extermination of Jews, the elimination of Israel, the destruction of “infidels”, and a worldwide implementation of a version of sharia law which advocates harsh punishments such as amputations, stonings, “honor killings” and similar atrocities for offenses like homosexuality or adultery; they advocate for the practice of female genital mutilation and child marriages. They are the self-declared enemies of the Western World.
I should point out that I do realize that this does not apply to all Muslims, nor does it apply to a majority of them. I will also point out that this is an extreme version of the interpretation of sharia law that is held only by the extremists I’m talking about – the forces behind the terrorists, the centralized theocracies that know no national borders – but these are the exact people that pose a national security threat to the US.
“White Supremacists”, on the other hand, are not centralized, they are not funded, they are not organized, and they have no stated mission – except that they hate non-whites. Of course, there are pockets of organized people who amass a bunch of weapons and make coordinated attacks – but their execution is haphazard and limited, and often attributed to lone-wolf operatives who have gone off the deep end. There is no national or international movement of White Supremacists who have any sort of organized “mission” at all, let alone one that comes close to rivaling that of the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its arms.
You probably have a good point, that White Supremacists should be on the “terror watch list”, but I think it would be hard to identify a group to watch, unless you just monitored Facebook. Or maybe I’m just being naive.
But I want to return to my original point. I believe that the US Government, including the CIA, the NSA, HSA, FBI – the whole lot of them, Donald Trump “and his ilk” included, are doing what Trump so clumsily described as
“a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
Despite the fact that the “complete ban” never happened, I think that the part about “our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on” is the salient point – figuring out how to differentiate between the Islamist extremists who do want to destroy Jews and Israel, who do want to restore the Caliphate, and who do want to bomb the financial, economic, commercial, and government centers in major cities and the peaceful, God-loving Muslims who just want to live a better life.
I believe that the conflation of these two groups is absolutely a construct of the Left Wing and the Democrats, who are so blinded by their hatred of Trump and of people like you and me – average white males – who are just all too willing to ignore the difficulty in discovering the true terrorists, who deny that there is even a danger, and who refuse to take part in the process, and prefer to just call those who are trying “anti-Muslim”.
It doesn’t go without notice that at least one of your links is to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been described as “having the ideology of Sen.Joe McCarthy, but with a better business sense”. The SPLC has taken “hate” to a new level of fundraising, and has created an empire out of its (real or imagined) identification.
The SPLC was all over Trump’s appointment of Charles Kupperman as the assistant to National Security Advisor John Bolton last year, as was Al-Jazeera – calling Kupperman “Anti-Muslim”. This of course fits right into the Left-Wing narrative of racism, bigotry, xenophobia –
Why? Because Kupperman had been on the board of directors of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), which was “designated” by the SPLC and CAIR as an “Anti-Muslim Hate Group”. (I am not sure that I’m so willing to take CAIR’s word for who is “anti-Muslim” and who is not … and for me, this throws the opinion of the SPLC right into the “suspicious” pile – but for the Left, the headline is the gospel.)
This designation came from the perception that the CSP promoted “conspiracy theories” that Muslims have infiltrated US Government and seek to establish Islamic Law in this country.
Can you call it a conspiracy theory, when there are now two duly elected Muslim members of Congress who actively support CAIR and Hamas, who raise money for these organizations who by their very written charter, support the destruction of Israel by violent means? CAIR and Hamas were founded under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is part of the network of Islamist Extremists that support the restoration of the Caliphate worldwide, that supports the implementation of the most extreme interpretations of sharia law, and that calls for the dominance of sharia law over and above the laws of the country in which these people reside?
Of course, any criticism of Omar and Tlaib, with the support of CAIR and most of the Democrats in Congress, is now being characterized as “White Nationalism” or “anti-Muslim” – because the political rhetoric is far more important now than seeing an actual problem of anti-Semitism, pro-Jihad, and successful inroads by Islamist Extremists. It fits right into the anti-Trump rhetoric that they hope will gain them power in 2020 – as long as there’s no incident between now and then. There isn’t likely to be, either, because CAIR knows a good thing when they see one. Best to promote the idea of White Supremacy on the right, downplay the danger of extreme Islam, see the Democrats victorious in 2020, and then continue with their agenda unopposed – or with the full support of the American government.
White nationalists, the KKK, rank-and-file bigots and anti-Semites have existed in this country for hundreds of years. They are a scourge, they are ignorant – and they occasionally resort to violence. It is a fact that the violence is on the rise – but to compare it to the international security threat posed by Islamist extremists is very, very short sighted
Your hatred of Trump is noted, as always, as is your rush to believe that the right-wing is full of white nationalist, neo-Nazi, intolerant, anti-Muslim, anti-Migrant bigots – but what you fail to realize is that that entire world-view has been carefully concocted by the “leaders” you so admire – it is a careful re-wording, a rush to judgement, a cherry picking of what news to highlight and what to suppress – and the quiet forgiveness of racism and bigotry among their own ranks.
It’s too late and this is too long already to address your distorted view of the securing of our Southern border – but suffice it to point out the substitution game again being perpetrated – “Migrants” for “Illegal Immigrants” – in one blow we can garner sympathy for poor folk just trying to make a better life, we can deny that there is a growing problem with illegal immigration here and around the world, we can deny the existence of drug cartels and traffickers in human flesh, and we can paint the opposition as white supremacists, racists, bigots, “Trump Supporters” and worse. It’s a win/win – but it still astounds me as to how many people in this country just fall for that transparent game.
It would be hasty to simply assume an attacker has an affiliation or ideology-even if they claim one. After all, the attacker could really be using the professed ideology to get attention/appear significant or even to troll. But, if the weight of evidence supports the claim that the person had a specific ideology, then it is rational to accept this claim. This approach would need to be applied consistently. So, for example, one should not just assume that a Muslim who engages in violence is acting from Islamic motivations.
So, the New Zealand shooter is probably a white nationalist-but one cannot have Cartesian certainty about this.
“This approach would need to be applied consistently. “
Well, maybe – but it never is, is it? I seem to remember a certain act of “workplace violence” at Fort Hood – where the weight of evidence supported the claim that prior to the attack, Nidal (Just-Because-He-Is-a Muslim) Hasan had been in close contact with Yemeni-American cleric and al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, and (as he confessed in his trial), he acted in defense of the Taliban.
But Obama dug in and refused to call this a terrorist attack. Not in his address to the nation after the attack, not in his eulogy for the victims – in fact, not until six years later by virtue of a begrudging admission.
This was an attack on American soil, and Obama’s political stance on this issue was no mere war of words. Those who were killed in the attack were denied the posthumous award of a Purple Heart.
So, speaking of even-handed criticism – today Donald Trump is being gleefully denounced as a White Supremacist or White Nationalist, based on his apparent reluctance to come out against the presumed White Nationalist motivations of the New Zealand shooter – and against White Nationalists in general. But do we remember what happened to anyone who made the same kind of claim against Obama? If anyone dared even hint that he was a Muslim, or had Muslim sympathies, that person (like critics of Ilhan Omar today) was denounced as a bigot, an anti-Muslim, a racist, a White Nationalist and more.
But, according to the precedent set by the Obama “call a spade a spade” (no racist intent there …) timetable, Trump should be given a little more leeway, like maybe six years’ worth.
And of course, it’s fine to excoriate Trump and Trump supporters daily for their presumed racism, to accuse them of being White Supremacists, Nazis, Fascists, and more – but to even hint at criticism of someone like Ilhan Omar can land one in the unemployment line. Just ask Jeanine Pirro.
Omar levied all sorts of accusations about the dual loyalties of Jews around the world, and furthered the anti-Semitic trope about them controlling businesses and governments for the benefit of the State of Israel. She received a watered-down admonishment that did not even cite her words or actions directly.
So if she is going to question the loyalties of a group of people, it is logical that her own loyalties can be questioned, isn’t it? She did not levy an attack on Omar, as some news outlets would have you believe. She did not make an accusation, she did not even make a statement and claim it to be fact – all of which Omar did to the Jews. No, Pirro asked a question.
“Omar wears a hijab. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”
I think this is a valid question. It could be asked and answered; Omar could explain why she wears a Hijab and how that, for her, is different from adhering to Sharia law. She could have used this as a “teaching moment” for America, showing how only the most extreme Islamist Fundamentalists wield Sharia as a weapon, and affirm her oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Instead, she and the full force of CAIR set out to demonize and destroy Pirro, to denounce her as a racist and anti-Muslim, and to pressure Fox to cancel her show, denying her her livelihood.
Why this double standard? The left wing mount a protracted, incessant attack on the President of the United States, consisting of investigation after investigation – and (as has been proven today) all of which triggered by the falsifications and outright lies in the Steele dossier – without which there would be no investigation, no “collusion hoax”.
An entire, multi-year investigation built upon a dossier for which there is no foundation, no evidence, no truth.
And yet, there is a growing body of evidence that Ilhan Omar is a serial violator of campaign finance laws, beginning with the State house all the way up to the US House of Representatives. There is evidence that she committed immigration fraud in helping gain admission to the US for her brother. There is an investigation by the Minnesota House of Representatives, but the US House of Representatives doesn’t seem to care at all. Nor does the news media, who prefer to paint her as the hapless victim of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment – a picture she and her friends at CAIR are only too happy to promote. Not only does it gain her sympathy, but it potentially destroys her enemies – as this victimhood did for Barack Obama and other “protected classes”,to which white people and Jews need not apply.
So if you are going to call for “even handedness” or the consistent application of criticism, you should look first at your own ideologies and statements. This self-righteous attack on the right and on Trump leaks like a sieve.
I think the world has gone insane.
All you need to do is a simple Google search about this shooting, and what you get is a string of criticism of Trump – ranging from “He caused this attack” to “He inspired this attack” to “He is a white-supremacist who refuses to call out his supporters”. There’s far more about Trump than there is about the shooting.
So Kellyanne Conway, in what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable statement, says that if people want to understand what really motivated this guy, they should read his 70-page manifesto. So what was the headline?
“Kellyanne Conway’s stunningly irresponsible advice: read New Zealand mosque shooter’s manifesto”
I dunno. To me, as an academic and one who tries to seek the truth by way of research, challenging ideas, and critical thinking – this seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. But the left disagrees. The comments under the article don’t descend into personal attacks against her, they start there. “Kellyanne Conway is a terrible person”. “BREAKING: Kellyanne Conway announces distribution of “Mein Kampf” for all interested parties”, and “Is this the picture-book they made for Donald?” The commitment to ignorance and bigotry is palpable.
The article itself does try to legitimize the position with some research, but they miss the mark. The research they cite is from Jaclyn Schildkraut, a “mass shooting expert” (Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at SUNY Oswego, nabbing her 15-minutes of fame), who says,
“The copycat effect is real. A 2015 study suggests that a mass shooting increases the likelihood of an additional mass shooting in the two-week period following the incident.”
The article goes on to say,
“Schildkraut’s view is widely accepted. The Columbia Journalism Review has cited similar concerns about “contagion” to make a case that publicizing mass shooters’ identities and motives “can be perilous for the public, so much so that publishing profiles of shooting suspects and perpetrators should be considered a dangerous proposition.”
Anyone else see a problem here?
The major disconnect is that the mass shooter’s identity IS being widely publicized, and his so-called “motives” are all over the place! The problem is that the motives being described in the news and commentary all boil down to “Trump, Trump, Trump”. It’s speculation, it’s presumption, it’s talking points, and it’s all made up.
And the one voice of reason, the one person who is saying, “Don’t believe what you read. The truth is right there, in his own words. Read it and draw your own conclusions”, is dragged through the mud, called names, ridiculed, and made out to be a white supremacist Nazi herself, who advocates exposing yourselves to white supremacist ideology!
No, the Left has it right – “Don’t even think about trying to make up your own mind. We’ll tell you what to think. No need to expose yourself to those dangerous words – we can simplify it for you. We probably don’t even have to – do we? You know what we’re going to say … just repeat after us!”
https://youtu.be/YgYEuJ5u1K0
So in an earlier post I expressed the fear of rising McCarthyism, Democratic Socialism, and anti-Semitism and the frightening potential of that combination … and now we have the suppression of ideas and individual thought to go along with it.
The other night my wife and I saw an original 35 mm print presentation of “Inherit the Wind”, about the Scopes “Monkey Trial”. The film was introduced by a film historian from a local university. She explained that the intent of the film (which was made in 1960) was not to be a historic re-telling of the story of the trial, but rather as a reaction to the country’s recent era of McCarthyism, of the dangers of “group think”, the destruction, hatred, and violence that emerge from the abject dismissal of challenging ideas, and the personal and public peril of setting aside the most important aspect of being human – the ability to think as an individual – in favor of joining a crowd in support of ideas put forth by some self-proclaimed “authority”.
In this context, Donald Trump is a minor player – little more than a clown with a Twitter account, trying to play in a political arena packed with pros like Pelosi, Schumer, Warren – and newcomer ideologues like Omar and Tlaib, backed by the full force of the Muslim Brotherhood, the New York Times and MSNBC. The destructive ability of the left is massive – they will take your job, your reputation, your livelihood – and whoever said that “you can’t take my ideas!” is having second thoughts right about now.
The real danger is in the left-wing re-write of the news, the strident and unflinching accusations and McCarthyesque blackballing of anyone and everyone who dares to challenge the word from On High.
In other posts, I have referred to the chilling image of Donald Sutherland at the end of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”; he had become one of “them”, and was identifying his former friends as being the last vestiges of the human race …
The image comes to mind whenever I consider expressing my views on a college campus, if they don’t fit in with the tacitly approved ideology …
https://youtu.be/GEStsLJZhzo
Jeanine Pirro knows what I’m talking about. So does Kellyanne Conway.
But what I learned at this screening of “Inherit the Wind” (which sent a chill down my spine) is that “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” is also based on the dangers of McCarthyism and “going along”.
Imagine a world where the President of the United States has to sign an executive order forcing colleges and universities to honor the right to free speech on campus, lest they forego federal research grant money. And imagine a world where the President of the United States, rather than being praised for upholding the First Amendment, is criticized for this order as being nothing more than “a message that Trump is eager to embrace the priorities of conservative activists”.
Believe it.
I hope my other comment passes “moderation” soon … it includes two YouTube links.