True Left
Ideology => True Left vs False Left => Topic started by: 90sRetroFan on April 06, 2021, 11:44:25 pm
-
The theory that all politics is reducible to economics is Marxist. One of our objectives has always been to undermine this False Left worldview, which implicitly sees all people as fundamentally similar units all in pursuit of material gain. Our True Left worldview, in contrast, is one which sees people as fundamentally different. It is a worldview of moral dualism, of Good vs Evil:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_in_cosmology#Moral_dualism
A war of Good vs Evil will not be ended by making both sides more wealthy. It will only end when one side has totally exterminated the other.
More leftists are starting to get it:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/research-states-obvious-white-racist-224500201.html
New Research States the Obvious: White Racist Fears, Not Economic Anxiety, Likely Drove the Capitol Insurrection
Some mainstream (re: white) writers and thinkers have instinctually sought to find a way to point to ‘economic anxiety’ as an explanation for why hundreds of mostly white Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in January. Now, at least one expert is conceding the obvious: it was the racism.
We previously LOL’d at a Washington Post suggestion that the largely middle-class, gainfully employed members of the Jan. 6 MAGA mob were driven to storm the Capitol because they are victims of economic anxiety.
But Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and head of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has amassed and analyzed demographic data on the Capitol insurrectionists that he says show a curious commonality in their background.
The Capitol mob, made up almost 95% of white people, had a significant percentage of people who “typically hail from places where non-White populations are growing fastest,” the researcher wrote in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Tuesday.
The study’s findings were based on the CPOST’s evaluation of the profiles of 377 of the Capitol insurrectionists, said Pape, who added that the collection of people came from all over the country—most notably from counties whose electorates are diversifying and going blue.
From the Washington Post:
By far the most interesting characteristic common to the insurrectionists’ backgrounds has to do with changes in their local demographics: Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.
For example, Texas is the home of 36 of the 377 charged or arrested nationwide. The majority of the state’s alleged insurrectionists — 20 of 36 — live in six quickly diversifying blue counties such as Dallas and Harris (Houston). In fact, all 36 of Texas’s rioters come from just 17 counties, each of which lost White population over the past five years. Three of those arrested or charged hail from Collin County north of Dallas, which has lost White population at the very brisk rate of 4.3 percent since 2015.
...
Speaking with the New York Times about the CPOST study, Pape said his initial expectation going into the study was that leftover pain from the 2008 recession would emerge as a motivator of the Capitol attack. But then he explained that additional analysis of the data shows that what really drove the insurrectionists’ violence is the age-old racist idea that white people not having societal dominance—or the impression of dominance—justifies them violently lashing out so as to hold onto power.
From the New York Times:
...
“If you look back in history, there has always been a series of far-right extremist movements responding to new waves of immigration to the United States or to movements for civil rights by minority groups,” Mr. Pape said. “You see a common pattern in the Capitol insurrectionists. They are mainly middle-class to upper-middle-class whites who are worried that, as social changes occur around them, they will see a decline in their status in the future.”
See also:
https://www.theroot.com/thats-a-reach-washington-post-claims-financial-problem-1846242278
https://www.theroot.com/the-whitest-insurrections-of-all-time-1846048266
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-anyone-still-shocked-fear-153650869.html
Why is anyone still shocked that fear propels white hostility and violence?
...
In his initial findings, detailed in an op-ed for The Washington Post, Pape determined the rioters to be 95 percent white, 85 percent male, middle and upper middle class, and — significantly — to hail mostly from counties where the white population is shrinking fastest and the non-white growing most aggressively. Such counties were six times more likely to produce rioters than counties where demographic change was least dramatic, a disparity that held even when controlled for various variables.
Coincidence? Pape says the chances are less than one in a thousand. So assuming his findings hold, we may conclude that, while there was anxiety here, economics had nothing to do with it. This anxiety was racial.
And another word for anxiety is fear.
We seldom discuss the degree to which that primal emotion has driven U.S. history where race and tribe are concerned. And yet, it has always been there. It ripped the Choctaw, the Cherokee and the Creeks from their ancestral lands. It awakened Jefferson “like a firebell in the night.” It forced George, Noriyuki and Norman out of their homes and into camps ringed by barbed wire. It got Emmett maimed, Sam skinned and Mary hanged upside down and set afire.
...
This fear has only grown more acute since we learned that these are the last days of that majority, that soon, no racial group will be able to claim numerical dominance. Some white people find it frightening to envision a nation without white people calling all the shots. And bad things tend to happen when white people — particularly white men — get scared. Hence, the tea party and the birthers. Hence, Pittsburgh, Charlottesville and Charleston. Hence, the spike in voter suppression. Hence Donald Trump.
And, hence a mob of mostly white, mostly men, smashing through the sacred space of the U.S. Capitol. Economic anxiety? Who’s more economically anxious than Black and brown people? And how many Capitols have they breached?
To answer that question is to understand why there is something vaguely insulting in Robert Pape’s surprise. History tells us what’s happening here. Previous studies have quantified what’s happening here. Some of us have spent years declaiming what’s happening here.
So how is it a learned man is surprised by what’s happening here?
A disruptive demographic change is upon us. It represents a challenge, yes, but also an opportunity. To meet the one and seize the other will require a clear-eyed view of what we are and some strategy that delivers us to what we ought to be. The particulars of that are beyond the scope of this column, but there’s one thing we must do at a minimum. When frightened white people act out?
Stop being surprised.
Also, shoot them.
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/opinion-jayne-poor-white-voters-140100477.html
Explaining why people vote how they do is a complex task with no simple answers. But the questions above are at the core of "The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone."
The book, published this year, was written by Heather McGhee, and it provides a damning item-by-item inventory of how systemic racism has held back this nation over the past several decades. But there is more to it. The gist, if it is possible to summarize a 300-page book in one sentence, is that many white Americans vote against their own self-interest because policies that might help them would also help minorities.
Which doesn't make sense. White Americans, after all, make up the largest cohort of the uninsured and impoverished and minimum-wage workers — even if people of color are more likely to fall into those categories. Yet whites, including poor whites, comprised the bulk of Donald Trump supporters.
Of course it makes sense. "Whites" are acting in their self-interest: it's just that their self-interest is on a larger scale than that of individual economic security. To put it another way, "whites" are acting in their self-interest not as individuals (which is what False Leftists consider to be the only valid self-interest) but as "whites" ie. as members of the "white" tribe. Until more leftists stop complaining that "whites" are acting "irrationally" and instead understand they are acting very rationally, but merely with priorities other than their own pocketbooks, they cannot understand what is required to stop rightism.
To illustrate this, McGhee writes about swimming pools. In the mid-1900s, American cities commonly had grand community swimming pools, developed as a testament to civic funding and civic pride. When pools were desegregated, countless communities chose to close those facilities; it would be better for everybody to have nothing rather than provide a service that includes Black people.
This is what I mean. If "whites" thought as individuals, then obviously keeping the pool open would be rational. But "whites" were not thinking as individuals. They were thinking: "If the pool becomes a venue where multiethnic interaction becomes psychologically normalized, this will threaten the survival of white identity in the long-term." Once you realize what their actual objective is, not as individuals but as "whites", their choices turn out to be rational, but in service of a tribal objective. You cannot fight them effectively until you realize what their objective is.
Such thinking has diminished our society and fractured our sense of community. And it answers the overriding question posed by McGhee's book: Why can't we have nice things?
Because the most inferior fraction in our society would rather have "whiteness".
Which brings us onto the next question: should the left be merely about getting nice things, or should the left be about permanently getting rid of most the inferior fraction of society first?
-
Another report acknowledging rightists aren't driven by "economic anxiety", but pure tribalism:
A terrifying new theory: Fake news and conspiracy theories as an evolutionary strategy
Social scientist Michael Bang Petersen on why people believe outrageous lies — as a tool in violent group conflict
[...]
But the ignorance perspective has a deep hold on us because it appeals to the Enlightenment notion that we are motivated to pursue truth. We are "the thinking animal," right? The important part of that expression may be "animal." Human beings have an evolutionary history, and deception is commonplace in the animal world because it confers evolutionary advantage. There's good reason to believe we're not so different, other than the fact that humans are ultra-social creatures. In ancestral and evolutionary terms, being part of a successful social group was every bit as essential as food and water. So deception among humans evolved from group conflicts. That's the thesis of a recent paper called "The Evolutionary Psychology of Conflict and the Functions of Falsehood" by the Danish political scientists Michael Bang Petersen and Mathias Osmundsen and American anthropologist John Tooby.
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/08/a-terrifying-new-theory-fake-news-and-conspiracy-theories-as-an-evolutionary-strategy/
-
https://twitter.com/michelle_byoung/status/1432825399373975553
Almost every problem we have in this country right now is about White people’s FEAR of demographic change & the GOP exploiting those fears for political gain. It’s ALL about race & racism. These dots are OBVIOUS & EASY TO CONNECT.
-
Extremist segregationalist beliefs rose in the postwar South even in times of plenty, because the Federal government was daring to enforce laws that undermined their sense of supremacy.
Contentness in life often depends on those social factors more than actual economic ones. So if people feel like they're "being replaced," especially by people they are used to looking down upon, they'll become extremists no matter what the reality is like.
Even with Trumpists, they tend to be better off financially than the average American, not worse (google "Trump voters richer" for tons of articles). But they think things are getting worse because their sense of hierarchy and privilege are being attacked by those damn uppity egalitarians, thinking they can judge them, how dare they, etc. It should be no surprise then, that research repeatedly finds that the biggest predictors of Trump support are racial, ethnic, and notably gender prejudice.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pjekum/a_generation_of_american_men_give_up_on_college_i/hbyahdb/
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education. Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status. Results highlight the importance of looking beyond theories emphasizing changes in issue salience to better understand the meaning of election outcomes when public preferences and candidates’ positions are changing.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330
Hegemonic masculinity predicts 2016 and 2020 voting and candidate evaluations
Donald J. Trump’s history-making ascension from nonpolitician to president of the United States has been attributed to the antiestablishment, antielitist, and nativist populism of Trump voters, as well as to sexism, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. Based on the findings of seven studies involving 2,007 people, men’s and women’s endorsement of hegemonic masculinity predicted support for Trump over and beyond the aforementioned factors, even when controlling for political party affiliation. Results highlight the importance of looking beyond social identity–based conceptualizations of masculinity to fully consider how men’s and women’s endorsement of cultural ideologies about masculinity legitimate patriarchal forms of dominance and reify gender-, race-, and class-based hierarchies.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2020589118
-
We've all heard about immigrants being willing to work for lower pay and hence being preferred by employers; that is perfectly explicable by economics. The following, on the other hand:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-farm-hired-white-immigrants-195309719.html
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Six Black farmworkers in Mississippi say in a new lawsuit that their former employer brought white laborers from South Africa to do the same jobs they were doing, and that the farm has been violating federal law by paying the white immigrants more for the same type of work.
...
The lawsuit said the farm violated regulations of a foreign worker visa program, which requires equal treatment of U.S. workers and their immigrant counterparts. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages, including money the U.S. workers say they were shorted because of the uneven pay scale.
...
Four of the plaintiffs — Andrew Johnson, Wesley Reed, Gregory Strong and Richard Strong — said they did agricultural work from February through November and Pitts Farm Partnership usually paid them the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with $8.25 an hour for weekend work.
Two of the plaintiffs, Stacy Griffin and James Simpson, drove trucks for the farming operation during harvest time, usually from late July or early August through November. The lawsuit said they had been paid $9 an hour since 2018.
The farm paid the white workers from South Africa $9.87 an hour in 2014 and that rate increased most years until it reached $11.83 an hour in 2020, the lawsuit said.
...
The lawsuit said the Pitts family hired a white supervisor who gave employees their daily duties and had the power to hire and fire workers.
“Occasionally, the supervisor used racial slurs,” the lawsuit said. “Pitts Farms was informed about the supervisor’s use of racial slurs and did nothing.”
The lawsuit said the farm started bringing in white workers from South Africa in 2014, using a placement firm to hire seasonal labor, and that from 2014 to 2020, the farm did not make the same effort to recruit U.S. workers as it did to obtain immigrant workers.
-
Animosity toward minority groups predicts support for Donald Trump, regardless of party alignment
New research published in the journal American Political Science Review revealed that people who expressed extreme dislike toward Democratically-aligned minority groups were more likely to approve of Donald Trump when he made his way into politics — regardless of their party alignment. Animosity toward these groups did not predict support for other Republican candidates, suggesting the effect is unique to Trump.
Study authors Lilliana Mason and her colleagues note that American U.S. political parties are becoming further divided on key aspects of identity such as race and religion. It follows that party support can potentially be influenced by a person’s affiliation with social groups, as well as their feelings toward outgroups. (In other-words, TRIBALISM not nationalism!)
The researchers suggest this to be especially true in the case of support for former president Donald Trump, whose political campaigns were heavily centered around vilifying outgroups. Trump was known for his unapologetic and hateful rhetoric directed at numerous marginalized groups — notably, marginalized groups that were Democratically-aligned. Mason and her team wanted to explore whether animosity toward these minority groups may be partly driving support for Trump.
https://www.psypost.org/2021/09/animosity-toward-minority-groups-predicts-support-for-donald-trump-regardless-of-party-alignment-61874
Trump is a tribalist and a barbarian as are his supporters!!!
See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/trump-a-fascist/
-
(https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Table2.png)
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-23/eu-nationalists-vow-to-keep-migrants-out-despite-boon-to-economy
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban hosted the leaders of the Czech Republic, Serbia and Slovenia at a demographic-focused forum in Budapest, where he said immigration was a threat to the survival of western civilization rather than an antidote.
...
The stance also clashes with a raft of economic studies that show immigration boosts the economies and wages of countries that open their doors to foreign workers. The International Monetary Fund has said that for every 1 percentage-point increase in the inflow of immigrants relative to total employment in rich nations, output increases by 1% within five years.
They will not be convinced by economic arguments because they care about being Westerners, not about the economy. Therefore they will only be persuaded to open their borders if threatened by something else that will make it even harder for them to be Westerners than open borders e.g. nukes. So long as nuclear-armed countries lack the stomach to nuke them, Turandom countries will keep their borders closed. There is nothing mysterious about this. Economic appeals will have no effect on those who do not care about economics, just like ethical appeals will have no effect on those who do not care about ethics.
-
Yet another reason why democracy needs to be abolished. The electorate is so unbelievably retarded that they can be swayed by any sort of propaganda...
84% of Trump voters worry about discrimination against whites and think Christianity is under attack
New polling released today by Project Home Fire in partnership with University of Virginia's Center for Politics has found that Trump voters are animated by concerns about anti-white discrimination and the fate of Christianity in America.
[...]
The polling found that 52% of Trump voters said they strongly agreed with the statement, "I worry that discrimination against whites will increase significantly in the next few years," a figure that rises to 84% when including those that somewhat agree. An even higher percentage, 61%, strongly agreed with the notion that "Christianity is under attack in American today," which also rises to 84% when including people who somewhat agree.
Meanwhile, Biden voters largely disagreed. On both counts, only 38% of Biden voters strongly or somewhat agreed that anti-white discrimination is a problem and that Christianity is under attack. 91% of Democrats strongly or somewhat agreed that "system racism in America is a real and serious problem."
Further polling conducted by the group revealed just how tied to immigration Trump voter's concerns were; upwards of 80% of them strongly or somewhat agreed that they were worried about paying higher taxes due to illegal immigrants using healthcare, welfare, and education resources. A similar percentage were strongly or somewhat in agreement with the notion that they would "suffer personally" from the US being more socialist as a result of immigration.
"Trump voters are deeply and personally animated by a strong anti-immigration sentiment that unites their thinking across previously distinct and separate policy areas," the report observes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/84-percent-trump-voters-worry-discrimination-whites-christianity-under-attack-2021-10
-
Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features[1] of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves.[2] According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies (“legitimizing myths”) provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors[3] by serving to disguise privilege as “normal”
[...]
A primary assumption in social dominance theory (SDT) is that racism, sexism, nationalism, and classism are all manifestations of the same human disposition to form group-based social hierarchies.[13] The social tiers described by multiple theories of stratification become organized into hierarchies due to forces that SDT believes are best explained in evolutionary psychology to offer high survival value.[14] Human social hierarchies are seen to consist of a hegemonic group at the top and negative reference groups at the bottom.[15]
[...]
SDT believes that decisions and behaviors of individuals and groups can be better understood by examining the “myths” that guide and motivate them. Legitimizing myths are consensually held values, attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes, conspiracy theories,[23] and cultural ideologies. Examples include the inalienable rights of man, divine right of kings, the protestant work ethic, and national myths.[24][20] In current society, such legitimizing myths or narratives are communicated through platforms like social media, television shows, and films, and are investigated using a variety of methods including content analysis, semiotics, discourse analysis, and psychoanalysis. [25] The granularity of narrative extends from broad ideologies at the highest level to middle level personal myths (positive thinking of oneself as a successful smart dominant, or submissive inferior[26]), reaching the lowest level of behavioral scripts or schemas for particular dominant-submissive social situations.[27] Categories of myth include:
paternalistic myths (the dominant hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities)
reciprocal myths (suggestions that dominants and outgroups are actually equal)
sacred myths (karma or divine right of kings as a religion-approved mandate to dominate others)[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory
-
Economic factors have been used to explain why large US cities are even more segregated than they were during the Jim Crow days, despite legal barriers to integration being removed.
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/press-release-most-metros-us-have-become-more-segregated-1990
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/in-step-with-income-inequality-us-cities-more-geographically-segregated-than-ever-13050270/
But "racial/ethnic preferences" are also driving this. (Parental preference for school districts is typically painted as a primarily economic issue!)
White, Asian and Latino parents in New York City all express strong racial/ethnic preferences in where to send their kids to high school, according to a study just published in Sociology of Education. The study suggests that these preferences contribute substantially to school segregation in New York, which has one of the most racially segregated school systems in the country.
“Part of what’s going on is white parents living in a diverse city who don’t send their kids to Black neighborhood schools,” said study author Chantal Hailey, an assistant professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin. “But the choices and preferences of non-white parents also contribute to school racial and ethnic segregation.”
[...]
She found that when white, Asian and Latino parents were presented with the choice of otherwise similar schools that were majority Black, majority white, majority Latino or mixed, the racial/ethnic demographics directly influenced their preferences.
White parents rated the hypothetical majority white school highest, followed by the mixed school, then the majority Latino and Black schools. Asian parents, like their white peers, were also less willing to attend the majority Latino and Black schools. Latino parents preferred the majority Latino school, and most wanted to avoid the majority Black school. Black parents showed no statistically significant preference for any of the schools based on racial/ethnic composition.
The results of Hailey’s experiment were consistent with the real-world administrative data on family preference in the New York high schools. Controlling for numerous other school characteristics, white families were 97% less likely to rank majority Black schools first on their applications compared with majority white schools, and 84% less likely to rank majority Latino schools first. Asian families were 90% less likely to rank majority Black schools first and 45% less likely to rank majority Latino schools first. And Latino families were 67% less likely to rank majority Black schools first on their applications compared with majority Latino schools.
https://news.utexas.edu/2022/01/07/racial-demographics-influence-school-choices-for-white-asian-and-latino-parents-finds-study-of-nyc-school-preferences/
Also, as we know, children are less racist than adults:
Hailey’s study also queried eighth grade students to see whether their racial/ethnic preferences aligned with or diverged from their parents’. She found that there were substantial differences, particularly in the degree of aversion to the majority Black school.
White students, for instance, preferred the majority white school but were half as averse to the majority Black school as their parents. White eighth graders also did not distinguish between their preferences for the majority Latino, majority Black and mixed schools.
Latino parents and their children preferred the majority Latino school, but the parents rated the majority Black school as least desirable. Their kids did not distinguish between their willingness to attend the majority white, majority Black and mixed schools.
"Black" students don't want to put up with constant racist bullying?
Black parents did not show any strong preference for schools by their racial/ethnic composition. Black students, on the other hand, expressed less willingness to attend the majority white school compared with the majority Black, mixed, and majority Latino schools.
The most Westernized "minority":
There were no statistically significant differences between Asian parents’ and students’ school preferences based on their racial/ethnic composition.
See also:
Schelling's model of segregation is an agent-based model developed by economist Thomas Schelling.[1][2] Schelling's model does not include outside factors that place pressure on agents to segregate such as Jim Crow laws in the United States, but Schelling's work does demonstrate that having people with "mild" in-group preference towards their own group could still lead to a highly segregated society via de facto segregation.[3][4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling%27s_model_of_segregation
Run a simulation of this here:
Racial segregation has always been a pernicious social problem in the United States. Many factors have contributed to segregation including prejudice, zoning laws, housing discrimination, and loan discrimination. Although much effort has been extended to desegregate our schools, churches, and neighborhoods, the US continues to remain segregated by race and economic lines.
In 1971, the American economist Thomas Schelling created an agent-based model that suggested inadvertent behavior might also contribute to segregation. His model of segregation showed that even when individuals (or "agents") didn't mind being surrounded or living by agents of a different race or economic background, they would still choose to segregate themselves from other agents over time! Although the model is quite simple, it provides a fascinating look at how individuals might self-segregate, even when they have no explicit desire to do so.
http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/
JFK and Hitler recognized the solution to tribalism: statism.
-
Study: Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man
In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues.
All it takes to reduce support for housing assistance among Donald Trump supporters is exposure to an image of a black man.
That’s the takeaway from a new study by researchers Matthew Luttig, Christopher Federico, and Howard Lavine, set to be published in Research & Politics. In a randomized survey experiment, the trio of researchers exposed respondents to images of either a white or black man. They found that when exposed to the image of a black man, white Trump supporters were less likely to back a federal mortgage aid program. Favorability toward Trump was a key measure for how strong this effect was.
The study is just the latest to show that racial attitudes are a powerful predictor for support for Trump — and the newest to suggest that such attitudes play a major role in Americans’ views toward public policy. Previous studies have found that racial resentment was a much stronger indicator of support for Trump than views about the economy. And other research has shown that priming people to think about race can make them more conservative on a host of issues.
[...]
“Support for Donald Trump — not partisanship or ideology — uniquely captures distinct reactions to our experimental manipulation of race,” they conclude. “That is, support for Donald Trump appears to serve as a basis for polarized responses to racial cues in its own regard.”
[...]
A lot of studies show racial attitudes are a big deal in US politics
The most straightforward research in this area looks at how views on race influenced support for Trump.
One paper, published in January by political scientists Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta, found that voters’ measures of sexism and racism correlated much more closely with support for Trump than economic dissatisfaction after controlling for factors like partisanship and political ideology.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dIwJgEaGfpg1lk959AjucFnTnIo=/0x0:1065x812/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1065x812):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7747947/Trump_support.png)
And one telling study, conducted by researchers Brenda Major, Alison Blodorn, and Gregory Major Blascovich shortly before the election, found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042, they became more likely to support Trump. That suggested that there’s a big racial element to support for Trump.
[...]
As researchers Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel explained for Vox, racial attitudes are a very strong predictor for beliefs about government spending. “For decades, social scientists have found that attitudes about race, particularly toward African Americans, persistently impact political attitudes and opinions toward government services, spending, and welfare,” they wrote.
McElwee and McDaniel measured racial resentment, economic peril, and support for more government spending. They found that higher measured racial resentment correlated with a preference for decreased government spending and services, while more economic insecurity appeared to correlate — but not at a statistically significant level — with more support for increased government spending.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kitvjPUdmDcpRI3-K58MKdj4IK8=/0x0:491x349/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:491x349):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6017473/VoxMcDaniel2.3.png)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist
Check out that second image. Higher "economic anxiety" actually correlates to lower "racial resentment"! (Although the author says the trend of "economic peril" is not statistically significant, so, in other words, its trend is technically neutral based on their statistical calculations)
-
the choice of otherwise similar schools that were majority Black, majority white, majority Latino or mixed
Asian parents, like their white peers, were also less willing to attend the majority Latino and Black schools.
But not the majority "white" school! They are Eurocentrists.
Latino parents preferred the majority Latino school, and most wanted to avoid the majority Black school.
But not the majority "white" school! They are Eurocentrists also.
Black parents showed no statistically significant preference for any of the schools based on racial/ethnic composition.
They are behaving as Americans are supposed to behave.
white families were 97% less likely to rank majority Black schools first on their applications compared with majority white schools, and 84% less likely to rank majority Latino schools first. Asian families were 90% less likely to rank majority Black schools first and 45% less likely to rank majority Latino schools first. And Latino families were 67% less likely to rank majority Black schools first on their applications compared with majority Latino schools.
97% of "white" bloodlines, 90% of "Asian" bloodlines and 67% of "Latino" bloodlines in the US must be prohibited from reproducing in order for the US to become 100% American.
Black students, on the other hand, expressed less willingness to attend the majority white school compared with the majority Black, mixed, and majority Latino schools.
The parents are concerned with behaving individually as Americans should behave, but the students are the ones who have a sense of America on the societal scale:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-anti-whiteness-476/
On the other hand, the correct response is not to run away from "whites", but to get as close to them as possible:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/demographic-blueshift/msg3298/#msg3298
It is literally no different than grappling someone who is holding a handgun. The worst response is to try to run away. You will get shot if you do. Your best chance is to disarm the opponent or at least keep the opponent unable to point the gun at you while you call for additional help.
-
97% of "white" bloodlines, 90% of "Asian" bloodlines and 67% of "Latino" bloodlines in the US must be prohibited from reproducing in order for the US to become 100% American.
Speaking of which, what's going on in Madagascar these days? The reason I bring it up in conjunction with the above point is because it made me think of this:
Madagascar Plan
The Madagascar Plan was a proposal by the Nazi German government to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar. Franz Rademacher, head of the Jewish Department of the German Foreign Office, proposed the idea in June 1940, shortly before the Fall of France. The proposal called for the handing over of control of Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the eventual peace terms.
The idea of re-settling Polish Jews in Madagascar, then part of the French Empire, was investigated by the Polish government in 1937,[1][2] but the task force sent to evaluate the island's potential determined that only 5,000 to 7,000 families could be accommodated, or even as few as 500 families by some estimates.[a] Because efforts by the Nazis to encourage the emigration of the Jewish population of Germany before World War II were only partially successful, the idea of deporting Jews to Madagascar was revived by the Nazi government in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
BONUS:
Wir lagen vo Madagaskar Kriegsmarine Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR-GdErmN0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI2QE_3ATtw
While undoubtedly there were men unable to find sexual partners in all civilizations, I am quite sure that only Western civilization that could come up with calling such men "incels" (with the connotation that someone is supposed to be assigned to provide them with sex). In all other historical civilizations, where polygamy was generally legal, it would have been considered entirely normal for some people to have more spouses and hence others to have none. It is only the (supremely patriarchal) Western civilization with its ban on legal polygamy that caused Western men to feel automatically entitled to one spouse each, and hence consider failure to acquire this sufficient reason to become misogynistic.
-
I'd rather have sex with a cactus than a Westerner at this point. Succulents are much nicer to look at anyway. Speaking of which, some Western lady has been driving around my neighborhood in her Lexus and stealing succulents right out of my neighbors front yards....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNGz4A4e2w8
-
Supporters of Democratic candidates tend to be less cognitively rigid and more interpersonally warm than Trump supporters, according to new research published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology. This was found to be true even for supporters of left-wing Democratic candidates such as Bernie Sanders, suggesting that extreme liberals and extreme conservatives do not share similar psychological dispositions.
https://www.psypost.org/2022/01/trump-supporters-exhibit-greater-cognitive-rigidity-and-less-interpersonal-warmth-than-supporters-of-liberal-candidates-study-finds-62400
Just reading that shows how intuitive it is. Why would a so-called "extreme liberal" Sanders supporter be less empathetic than a mainstream liberal? Intuitively, we would expect the opposite--the Sanders-supporting liberals are motivated by social justice, whereas the mainstream liberals are just corporate elitists.
“There is an ongoing debate in psychology about whether liberals and conservatives fundamentally differ from each other (asymmetry), or whether both extreme liberals and conservatives are similar to each other on various psychological dimensions (symmetry),” explained study author Jake Womick, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“So, for instance, past work has shown cognitive rigidity and interpersonal coldness are linked to conservatism. There is a question of whether this is unique to conservatives, or if these might apply to anyone who endorses extreme ideology, regardless of whether they are on the left or right.
???
This is why people don't give a **** about what "experts" have to say. The left literally says they are motivated by social justice, and left-leaning journalists write articles with headlines titled "I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People". Anyone who has spent 3 milliseconds examining politics would know how obvious the left-right empathy divide is.
The participants also completed psychological assessments of four variables representing cognitive rigidity (openness to experience, active open-minded thinking, dogmatism, and preference for one right answer) and two variables representing interpersonal warmth (compassion and empathy).
“In general, we primarily found support for the asymmetry hypothesis,” Womick told PsyPost. “Supporters of relatively extreme Democratic candidates (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) were similar to supporters of more moderate Democratic candidates (Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg) and were not similar to Trump supporters. This trend was particularly strong for interpersonal warmth.”
-
They have the same attitude to religion, assuming all religious extremists share a stereotype despite them being extreme about religions with different teachings! This never made any sense to me. There was also the underlying presumption that all religious extremism is bad. Why? If the religion itself is good, the more extreme you are about following it, clearly the better you are!
They just fear extremism for being extreme, without regard for the content of the extremism. These are probably the same types who lack the ability to tell the difference between initiated violence and retaliatory violence, instead considering both equally bad. (They have annoyed me since childhood with bullshit about how I will only succeed in converting meat-eaters to veganism by being nice to them in all circumstances (even when they are literally killing animals in front of me) "so that they cease to fear veganism as something extreme". WTF?! The reason meat-eaters aren't vegan is not because they "consider veganism extreme" but because they don't care about the animals! I don't want to convert meat-eaters in the first place; I want to kill them using the same methods they are OK with being used to kill their victims! But when I say this, I am accused of "making vegans look extreme".)
"left-leaning"
Which means we are the ones constantly having to expend extra energy to distinguish ourselves from them and clarify that they do not represent serious leftist thinking, thereby putting us at an even bigger disadvantage compared to rightists who do not have this problem.
-
Not to mention that very often, massive problems require extreme solutions to solve in the first place. Using "extremist" or "radical" as a specifically negative catch-all term is foolish.
"They have annoyed me since childhood with bullshit about how I will only succeed in converting meat-eaters to veganism by being nice to them in all circumstances"
This drives me (quite literally) mad. What irks me the most is that 99% of the people saying this are non-vegan themselves. If you couldn't convince yourself to be vegan, why the **** would anyone take YOUR advice when you claim to know how to convert people? You're unintentionally admitting that you shouldn't be listened to. They're basically politely telling you to shut up, because non-humans are so oppressed that nobody even wants to hear about or be bothered with their plight, and on the rare occasions that it IS brought up in discussions, people forget entirely about the non-human's perspective in all of this. "It's all up to dietary choice. I'll respect vegans as long as they respect my right to eat meat." "I just don't like the vegans that force it on people" (neglecting the fact that carnism is forced on non-humans). "We need to eat plant-based for the environment." Etc etc. The psychopathic tunnel vision is so strong in carnists, that they register merely bringing up and vouching for veganism as force, and the exploitation and murder of billions of living beings as non-force. Cows, pigs, chickens, and really any non-human deemed socially acceptable to imprison, exploit and slaughter, are openly and proudly viewed as complete non-entities. Now, if only I had the power to snap my fingers and put any carnist in the situation they willingly place non-humans in
-
They just fear extremism for being extreme, without regard for the content of the extremism.
As an additional coping mechanism for their fear, they have turned to self-aggrandizement! For example, I've seen countless people seriously bring up the "horseshoe theory" (which is not even a "theory", much less a logically-consistent idea)--which is basically a way to say "Anyone who is unideological like me is good; anyone who has an ideology is bad."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
And for fun, here is a forum to make fun of these morons who make a false equivalency between leftism and rightism:
https://old.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/
This drives me (quite literally) mad. What irks me the most is that 99% of the people saying this are non-vegan themselves.
It reveals their exploitive character in its rawest form.
They are basically saying "Gratify me first, and if I am entertained enough, _maybe_ I will consider your perspective. But, if you slip up, I will mock you, because even in defiance I can derive gratification from you."
i.e. "I am going to attempt to exploit you, because I don't value you in the first place."
-
It reveals their exploitive character in its rawest form.
They are basically saying "Gratify me first, and if I am entertained enough, _maybe_ I will consider your perspective. But, if you slip up, I will mock you, because even in defiance I can derive gratification from you."
i.e. "I am going to attempt to exploit you, because I don't value you in the first place."
Alot of this going on out there!
-
https://archive.is/j9e22
Status Anxiety Is Blowing Wind Into Trump’s Sails
...
Over the past six decades, according to Petersen, there has been a realignment of the parties in respect to their position as pro-establishment or anti-establishment: “In the 1960s and 1970s the left was associated with an anti-systemic stance but this position is now more aligned with the right-wing.”
Yes, because in the 60s-70s the establishment had been shaped by traditional Western civilization. Today's establishment, on the other hand, has been significantly shaped by the Counterculture.
Instead of focusing on the economic system and its elites, Hartwich continued,
Right-wing populists usually identify what they call liberal elites in culture, politics and the media as the “enemies of the people.” Combined with the rejection of marginalized groups like immigrants, this creates targets to blame for dissatisfaction with one’s personal situation or the state of society as a whole while leaving a highly unequal economic system intact. Right-wing populists’ focus on the so-called culture wars, the narrative that one’s culture is under attack from liberal elites, is very effective because culture can be an important source of identity and self-worth for people. It is also effective in organizing political conflicts along cultural, rather than economic lines.
...
Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, described the political consequences of white status decline in her 2018 paper, “Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote.”
...
Mutz found that:
Change in financial well-being had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority-minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status.
...
Status anxiety has become a driving force, Mitrea and her colleagues note: “It is not so much current economic standing, but rather anxiety concerning future socioeconomic decline and déclassement, that influences electoral behavior.”
Hence offering to improve their financial well-being will not placate them. The only thing that will placate them is to give them permanent "white" supremacy. This is morally unacceptable. Therefore we should not be trying to placate them at all. We should be trying to destroy them.
Michael Bang Petersen puts it this way:
We know that humans essentially have two routes to acquire status: prestige and dominance. Prestige is earned respect from having skills that are useful to others. Dominance is status gained from intimidation and fear. Individuals who are high in the pursuit of dominance play a central role in political destabilization. They are more likely to commit political violence, to engage in hateful online interactions and to be motivated to share misinformation.
That this is dangerous does not need repeating.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-we-lose/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1cMn5nR0PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhmC26sbGfM
Related:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/groypers/
-
"But not the majority "white" school! They are Eurocentrists."
Literally this. I know many Indian immigrant parents who moved all the way to another **** city just to get their children into a "good" school. But I do not know if it was because they wanted their children to attend a "White" majority school, or if it was simply because those schools had shown better academic performance among their students.
They are still Westerners, as they view academic performance in the Western education system positively.
-
A series of 13 studies with over 10,000 participants tested the change in Americans’ prejudice following the presidency of Donald Trump. The researchers found that explicit racial and religious prejudice increased amongst Trump’s supporters, while prejudice decreased among those who opposed him. This research was published in Nature Human Behavior.
[...]
Across Studies 1-9, Ruisch and Ferguson found that support for Donald Trump predicted “a significant increase in prejudice towards a range of social, racial and religious minoritized groups.” Those who generally opposed Trump, including liberals and conservatives, showed decreases in prejudice in the same time period. Studies 10-13 provided indirect support for the mechanism behind the shift in social norms.
Trump supporters perceived that expressing prejudice had become more acceptable since his election, and this perception predicted greater personal prejudice among them. As well, “experimentally leading participants to feel that Trump supporters approved of his controversial rhetoric significantly increased Trump supporters’ personal expressions of prejudice .”
https://www.psypost.org/2022/04/donald-trumps-presidency-associated-with-significant-changes-in-the-topography-of-prejudice-in-the-united-states-62880
I.e., tolerating tribalism makes tribalists more tribalist:
Although these correlational studies cannot speak to causality, our final four studies provided indirect support for our proposed causal mechanism of shifting social norms: Trump supporters perceive that it has become more acceptable to express prejudice since Trump’s election (study 10), and the perception that prejudice is more acceptable predicts greater personal prejudice amongst Trump supporters (study 11). Providing more decisive causal evidence for this proposed norms mechanism, we found (studies 12 and 13) that experimentally leading participants to feel that Trump supporters approved of his controversial rhetoric significantly increased Trump supporters’ personal expressions of prejudice.
-
More than 60 percent of Americans who voted for former President Trump agree with the core tenet of the “great replacement theory,” according to a new Yahoo News-YouGov poll.
The poll, published on Tuesday, found that 61 percent of Trump supporters agree with the statement that “a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views.” Twenty-two percent of Trump supporters surveyed said they disagreed with the conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, 16 percent of respondents who voted for President Biden said they agree with the statement, while 71 percent said otherwise.
Seventy-three percent of Trump supporters agreed with the statement that there is discrimination against white people in the U.S. and 18 percent disagreed, compared with 20 percent of Biden supporters who agreed and 74 percent who disagreed.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents who voted for Trump said that they are concerned U.S.-born citizens are losing economic, political and cultural influence in the country to immigrants, while 30 percent of those who voted for Biden agreed with that statement, the poll said.
The new poll comes a week after the massacre at a Tops Friendly Markets location in Buffalo, N.Y., that resulted in the deaths of 10 people and injuries to three others.
https://thehill.com/news/state-watch/3499877-6-in-10-trump-voters-agree-with-core-tenet-of-great-replacement-theory-survey/
Who are those 16% of Biden voters who believe this?
-
Now they are learning to tie the threads together:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-replacement-theory-behind-buffalo-152511891.html
How The White Replacement Theory Behind The Buffalo Shooting Also Fueled The January 6 Insurrection
...
the insurrection wasn’t about election security. It was about a long-held white nationalist paranoia that their country is being “stolen” from them — which is laughable given that this nation was built on stolen land using stolen labor from stolen people.
However, the hearings won’t dig deep into how white replacement theory and white annihilation anxiety inflamed a violent mob to storm the Capitol the day Congress ratified the presidential election results. But it should.
The fear that white folks would someday lose the power of their majority has ignited a nationwide resistance against the “browning of America.” And it’s this same fear — not bogus claims of voter fraud — that’s motivating pro-insurrection “democracy deniers” to run for governor and secretary of state in key battleground states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. The MAGA crowd on January 6 — primed by white nationalist fear-mongering — heeded Rep. Mo Brooks’ (R-AL) call to violently do what it takes to “fight for America.”
So did 18-year-old Payton S. Gendron, who, according to reports, posted 180 pages referencing the “Great Replacement” to justify killing 10 Black people last month at a supermarket in Buffalo, NY. That shooting not only contextualizes the white replacement theory but a deeper motive that belies the January 6 insurrection.
White replacement ideology sits at the underbelly of White supremacy. It’s powerful enough to motivate ordinary people to commit mass murder and attempt to overturn a legal presidential election. Unfortunately, that’s nothing new to Black folks in this country.
...
The so-called “Great Replacement” theory sprang from white anxiety around race and Black people, which began hundreds of years ago when plantation owners feared violent slave uprisings. The modern iteration of that fear, or white replacement theory, is the belief that people of color will replace white people and take over the country — especially when they become the majority in 2050, as predicted by the U.S. Census Bureau. When that happens, white supremacists fear their new minority status will subject them to punishment for centuries of racial oppression. They imagine their punishment would be the ultimate extinction of white people.
That would be a good thing, by the way (even though >500 years late).
The bloodshed caused by white supremacy is this country’s putrid legacy — one that our leaders have ignored, excused and whitewashed for far too long. Ultra right-wing lawmakers have long been allowed to push white fear buttons with impunity. They’re using a 200-year-old playbook, and it’s working. It works because it’s allowed to work.
And the correct response is not to tell them the Replacement is not happening, but to tell them it is already much better than what they actually deserve for what they have done to the world.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/immigration-crime-propel-europes-move-to-right-analysts-say-202748280.html
At a glance, the two countries share relatively few commonalities. Sweden is a wealthy, cohesive welfare state, which over the past 90 years has typically been led by leftist coalition governments. By comparison, Italy’s economy, which is burdened by massive debt, is reeling. Costs of living are soaring, and over the past decade, its government has changed nearly every 18 months. But in both places, rising crime and misgivings about immigrants are prompting a political realignment.
In other words, it's not economics behind rightist popularity, and hence rightism will not be defeated by False Leftist platforms offering economic improvement. Leftist politicians need to stop trying to distract people with economics ASAP and argue directly against rightist talking points on ethical grounds. For example, we are pro-immigration not because immigration is economically beneficial (even though it may be), but because it is the only ethical position:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/debunking-rightist-anti-immigration-arguments/ (see excerpts below)
Continuing:
Jimmie Akesson, the new leader of the Sweden Democrats, insists his party has shed its fascist leanings, though the party remains staunchly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim and keeps pounding home its messaging linking foreign-born Swedes and crime.
We already have this covered!
Another similarly common rightist argument that "migration by criminals will increase crime" is similarly faulty. Again, every immigrant is also an emigrant. The total number of criminals is unchanged. Only the location of crimes are changed.
(And again, what rightists really mean, of course, is that they prefer others whom they do not care about to be the victims of crime. This is tribalism.)
Continuing:
The bigger issue for Meloni, however, may be the changing face and complexion of Italian citizens. The woman who promotes “God, homeland and family” frequently laments Italy’s low birth rate and fears the extinction of Italians and their replacement by immigrants from Africa, a conspiracy she has accused the government of the European Union of orchestrating. “The EU is complicit in uncontrolled immigration, the invasion of Europe and the project of ethnic replacement of European citizens,” she wrote on her website in February.
We have this covered too! Firstly, it is not "invasion":
If State A invades State B, former taxpayers to State B will now be paying taxes to State A instead (ie. State B loses taxpayers; State A gains taxpayers). In contrast, if inhabitants of State A migrate to State B, these former taxpayers to State A who have migrated will now be paying taxes to State B instead (ie. State B gains taxpayers; State A loses taxpayers). Thus in fact immigration is the opposite of invasion.
Secondly:
if it's OK for "whites" to live outside of Europe (as hundreds of millions currently do), it's OK for at least the same number of "non-whites" to live in Europe.
The only way for the left to win is to take the moral high ground on the issue:
This pretty much highlights how it is flat-out logically impossible for WNs to win the ethical debate. If they go with the position that migration is wrong (which they need for criticizing migration by "non-whites"), then they cannot avoid the conclusion that "whites" wronged "non-whites" first, and hence have no authority to complain. The only logical way to avoid incriminating themselves is to go with the position that migration is not wrong, in which case they have no reason to complain. Either way they are screwed.
Their only recourse is to declare that it is OK when "whites" do it but not OK when "non-whites" do it ie. ingroup/outgroup double-standards a.k.a. "It's OK to be white!" In other words, to declare that they do not care about ethics.
not to attempt to distract attention from the issue (which has failed already).
-
Rome was fallen because of immigrants from "Northern Europe", and it ruined Rome's government and economy. That's the rightist argument to defend the "controlled borders." What about that?
-
Ethics cannot be motivated by survivalism. We must unconditionally do what is ethical first, and only thereafter try to survive the (often dangerous) consequences of being ethical. The moment we start trying to survive first, we have already ceased to be ethical and hence do not even deserve to survive.
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/america-vanishing-trump-insist-were-115731851.html
Their America Is Vanishing. Like Trump, They Insist They Were Cheated.
When Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas voted last year to reject Donald Trump’s electoral defeat, many of his constituents back home in Fort Bend County were thrilled.
...
The county in recent years has become one of the nation’s most diverse, where the former white majority has fallen to just 30% of the population.
...
white people in Fort Bend “did not like certain people coming here,” he said. “It’s race. They are old-school.”
A shrinking white share of the population is a hallmark of the congressional districts held by the House Republicans who voted to challenge Trump’s defeat, a New York Times analysis found — a pattern political scientists say shows how white fear of losing status shaped the movement to keep him in power.
The portion of white residents dropped about 35% more over the past three decades in those districts than in territory represented by other Republicans, the analysis found
...
Many of the 139 objectors, including Nehls, said they were driven in part by the demands of their voters. “You sent me to Congress to fight for President Trump and election integrity,” Nehls wrote in a tweet on Jan. 5, 2021, “and that’s exactly what I am doing.” At a Republican caucus meeting a few days later, Rep. Bill Johnson, from an Ohio district stretching into Appalachia, told colleagues that his constituents would “go ballistic” with “raging fire” if he broke with Trump, according to a recording.
...
Many of the objectors’ districts started with a significantly larger Black minority, or had a rapid increase in the Hispanic population, making the decline in the white population more pronounced.
Of the 12 Republican-held districts that swung to minority white — almost all in California and Texas — 10 were represented by objectors. The most significant drops occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs and California desert towns, where the white percentage fell by more than one-third.
...
Texas is one of six states where the white population is now outnumbered by Black, Hispanic and Asian residents. Nehls’ district, which includes most of Fort Bend County, is part of the reason: It swung from nearly 70% to less than 40% white over the past three decades.
But changing demographics in many places may not yet be reflected at the polls, because of a larger white share of the voting-age population and higher turnout levels. Exit polls show that white Texans still made up 60% of the state’s voters in 2020.
The greater Houston area is the center of the state’s transformation and also a hub of the “stop the steal” movement. True the Vote, the organization behind some of the loudest accusations of voter fraud, was founded 12 years ago by a Fort Bend resident who claimed that a nonprofit was falsely registering voters in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston. A cluster of congressmen who actively promoted Trump’s election denial come from the area. Next month, another Republican who calls the election stolen is expected to replace an incumbent who accepted the Biden victory and did not seek reelection.
...
Some Fort Bend Democrats said they saw an obvious connection between the declining white share of the population and the refusal by Nehls and his supporters to accept Trump’s defeat.
“It is a power grab by white Republicans,” said K.P. George, a Democrat born in India who was elected in 2018 as the county’s top executive, the first nonwhite person to hold the office.
Nehls, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, served as the county sheriff for eight years before running for Congress in 2020. His seat appears safe this year because the Republican-controlled state Legislature redrew the boundaries of his district to include more predominantly white and solidly Republican terrain outside Fort Bend County. Whites now make up a majority of the eligible voters in the district.
Nehls said election fraud was the only thing that could stop “the greatest leader of my lifetime” from returning to the Oval Office in 2024.
“In a fair election, you can’t beat Donald Trump!” Nehls said, posing for photographs in front of a life-size photo of the former president.
More about Nehls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Nehls
On January 7, 2021, Nehls joined 121 other Republican members of Congress in objecting to counting certain electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election.[21] On January 13, 2021, he voted against the second impeachment of President Donald Trump.
...
In the wake of the FBI search of presidential records at Mar-a-Lago in 2022, Nehls announced his support for Donald Trump for president in 2024 and denounced the FBI and Department of Justice as "corrupt".[27]
Nehls doubled down on his support for Trump by publishing a book in 2022 titled The Big Fraud,[28] in which he falsely writes that Democrats rigged the 2020 presidential election.[29]
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watching-white-anxiety-turn-violent-085752555.html
We’re Watching White Anxiety Turn Into Violent Rage
It is this simple. No economic dressup required.
the whitelash that had been brewing since the advent of birtherism and the Tea Party would soon manifest itself in an upending of all that “post-racial” hope. That’s when Republicans nominated the anti-Obama—a man who ramped up racial anxieties rather than speaking to them with compassion and nuance—Donald J. Trump.
Trump is (and always has been) a caricature of white privilege and white resentment. A silver spoon heir to a multimillionaire, whose failures in business were repeatedly bailed out by Daddy, he somehow conned people into buying his image as the savior of poor white America. He rebuffed political norms and embraced the “good old days” of unapologetic racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and Islamophobia—all while embracing white nationalism and fetishizing the American flag.
If it were about economics, the part in bold would be impossible. It happened because economics is not what this is about.
But this didn’t start with Trump.
Many white Americans have been fed a very purposeful lie that began in kindergarten, one that instilled a belief in their excellence and benevolence.
They learned from the time that they could read and write that white people discovered this country and turned it into something the world bowed to and held up as a beacon.
From art to music to innovation, they were fed a steady diet of their heroes. Even former slave owners were given the benefit of the doubt to the “thinking of their time,” but were otherwise characterized as good people—glossing over the enslavement and torture of other human beings they deemed as chattel to build “their nation” from scratch. They were told wonderful stories of Thanksgiving, instead of the massacres and genocide of an entire Indigenous population at the hands of their ancestors. They were fed stories of love affairs between slave owners like Thomas Jefferson and his enslaved captive, Sally Hemings, but not the reality of ****, abuse, and human property. They were taught about the innovators of government, like Robert Moses, but not his rampant racism that was the basis for their urban planning—the creation of highways that purposefully drove a stake through the heart of Black communities.
These lies are just the tips of the melting iceberg of white exceptionalism. And it’s the desperate need for white dominance and power—the “we must fight like hell to take our country back” mentality—that is steadily becoming a violent reality.
...
In less than two years, we’ve witnessed an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a conspiracy to kidnap a Democratic governor, and a likely assassination attempt on the Speaker of the House and her family.
...
the myth of white greatness is a threat to us all.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11385903/Ex-CIA-staffer-claims-Christian-white-men-primed-start-civil-war-America.html
California professor and ex-CIA staffer claims that 'Christian, white men' are primed to start a civil war in America because they 'were once dominant and are in decline' - and blames the right for spike in violent extremism
...
Sreenivasan asked Walter - who said she studied foreign nations on the brink of civil war for the CIA - how far off a war within the US could be.
Walter then went on to explain the past '100 years' showed that civil wars are typically started along divided religious and ethnic lines, when a previously dominant group begins to see their position wane.
She then went on to say that 'white men' who 'also tended to be Christian,' were beginning to see such a decline in their position in the US, and that they had 'almost exclusively' been the perpetrators of violent extremism in the country since 2008.
...
And again, if you look at the history of the United States, the group that had been dominant since the very inception of our country were white men. They also tended to be Christian, and they are losing that position.'
She then said that white Christian men's notion that they are the 'true identity' of the nation, and a fear over losing that ownership, was driving the nation towards violent war.
'You see a subset of this population becoming increasingly resentful, angry, and they truly feel that this is their country,' she said. 'And that they're being patriots by saving what they believe is the true identity of this country and they're willing to use violence to do it.'
Therefore there is no way to change their mind. So if there is no way to change their mind, and it is morally unacceptable to let them win, what is the only option left?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcYVVpKG7nk
Note how Goodman tries (0:42) to shoehorn "anti-Semitism" in alongside racism with the useless Thompson quote at the beginning. By no coincidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman
Amy Goodman was born to secular Jewish parents who were active in social action groups.[7][8] Her father, George Goodman, was an ophthalmologist.[9] Her mother, Dorothy Goodman, a literature teacher and later a social worker.[10] She has two brothers, David Goodman and Steven N. Goodman.[11] Goodman's maternal grandfather was an Orthodox rabbi.[12][13] Her maternal grandmother was born in Rivne, Ukraine.
-
Mainstream journalists are learning at last:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israels-hard-line-government-made-131724137.html
Israel's new hard-line government has made headlines – the bigger demographic changes that caused it, not so much
...
Israel’s new goverment is the most right-wing and religious leadership the country has had in the 75 years of its existence, as many observers have pointed out. And this style of leadership may last because it represents the next generation of Israelis.
You don’t have to look far to see that the religiously observant Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox sectors of Israel’s population are growing quickly. The new minister of Jerusalem affairs has 12 children. The minister of national missions – one of the few women in the cabinet – has 11, the housing minister 10, the interior minister nine, the finance minister and the minister of immigration have seven each and the minister of heritage has six.
...
The second-fastest growing “tribe” in Israel, based on birth rate – with families of four children, on average – are the Orthodox National Religious, whose current political leaders represent the settlers of the West Bank.
Now how much longer will it take them to figure out the only effective solution?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wesley-lowery-tackles-american-whitelash-110000516.html
The ‘American Whitelash’ Is Far From Over
...
Three years after the eruption of protests following the death of George Floyd, Lowery isn’t convinced that America is any better prepared to deal with whitelash as a political force, let alone a cultural one — particularly as we head into a sharply contentious presidential election. Trump once again leads the GOP primary field, and his closest rival is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has stoked controversy by curtailing education on Black history.
...
What we see historically is that, in moments of Black racial advancement, we see America’s white majority lash out with rhetoric, with policy, but also with violence. We see a strengthening of that white supremacy and violence now. In the Obama years, there was a delusion of a post-racial America. Instead what happened is that people lashed out in anger. A Black president was replaced by one who stoked nakedly nativist anxiety — he wants to get rid of birthright citizenship, for example.
...
The big problem is that all our institutions — not just media, but law enforcement, political parties — have not taken white violence seriously enough.
...
whiteness is real; it’s power. And whiteness has shifted and changed over the years in terms of who is white, and who isn’t. But it’s still about who’s in and who’s not.
...
Whitelash drills down into the idea that many white people who are not at all disposed to violence or even racism, at least on the surface, are the real problem.
...
There’s this desire to cover politicians normally, to treat those of them spreading racist or bigoted ideas as if they are not doing something abnormal. We have to make choices, understand the differences between who we’re covering and how. Having a live camera on a Mitt Romney speech is different from having a camera on a Donald Trump speech, because only one of them can incite people to violence.
CNN said in 2016, ‘We’re going to treat Trump like we treat any other candidate.’ That may sound fair, but it’s a choice to not do something. There are plenty of ways media can inform people. We can contextualize, we can explain. I think we can’t abdicate our responsibility to that.
...
One of the incidents of racial violence described in Whitelash is the murder of a Latino man in Patchogue, Long Island, in 2008 by a white teen who was out wilding with his friends, looking to attack Mexicans. The case raises a question that troubles us now: Why would a white person who seems tolerant and normal, like this teen, commit an obviously racist murder? And when he says he’s not racist, why do we believe that?
...
Steve Levy, the Long Island official at the time in Patchogue who criticized immigrants, insisted he was simply responding to his constituents’ uneasiness about the impact of immigration.
Brief interruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Levy_(politician)
Jewish American state legislators in New York (state)
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/
Back to main article:
There are very few people in our society who are willing to see our world for what it is, who recognize that there is a strong avowed white supremacist movement, and that that movement is often strengthened by our mainstream politics. There are people in my book who are willing to look at this and engage it, to call things by their name. But there’s not a critical mass of those people. The majority of white people want to believe the world is better than it is. That doesn’t sound terrible, but it’s a big problem.
Related:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/mainstream-media-rightist-bias/
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/ad1a8a7678a7980751036aa9c8db32ea/a58f4cf0ece86db7-28/s2048x3072/4eb3d3ebdb47ca3c55f207fdbbace6694899241b.jpg)
-
https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1771553897020064212
I honestly think 99% of US politics can be reduced to this one projection by Pew Research. The desperate attempts to force women to have more kids, the terrified rants about immigration, the absolute panic about being “replaced”.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJXS4TYX0AA1kfw?format=jpg&name=240x240)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyA_bhLQAhI
This commenter doesn't get it:
Not giving “WATER BREAK” to any worker is absolutely NUTS let alone a water break to those who fking work outside in the SOUTH heat!!!!
This commenter gets it:
likely migrants
Yes (and not Ukrainians either). It is demographic warfare.