New Study on Trump Supporters ties to Racist Views

[Kukulkan]

Ok. So what is the fear specifically? In other words, what does the demographic replacement portend for white America?

- Doc

According to the video it is the belief that the rights of minorities are, and will outpace the rights of white people in America. Generally people who believe this conspiracy theory tend to believe that it will lead to tangible violence against whites in America.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok. So what is the fear specifically? In other words, what does the demographic replacement portend for white America?

- Doc

According to the video it is the belief that the rights of minorities are, and will outpace the rights of white people in America. Generally people who believe this conspiracy theory tend to believe that it will lead to tangible violence against whites in America.

I guess I don’t really understand white pride or white protectionism in the sense that whiteness would or could act as a political bloc. Whites have been at each others’ throats for all time and eternity. I recall, having grown up in an era where whites generally dominated all aspects of society, that there was never any sort of white peace. Catholics - Protestants. Republicans - Democrats. Monied - Poor. Irish - English. WASPs - the Rest. Mormons - ex-Mormons. Rednecks - Professionals. Rockers - Pop. Druggies - Squares. There was and is constant, unrelenting conflict within “white culture”.

So, swinging back around to the idea of demographic replacement, which is a lie since ~85% of white people choose ove white people to breed, does it really boil down to a paranoid idea that white en masse will be genocided? If that’s what these people are thinking, or if they think there was a white utopia at some point, they’re insane. There will never be peace amongst white people. We’re too instantiated by historical violence to believe a homogenous culture based on the color of our skin will achieve any semblance of peace. If that were the case history would’ve born that out by now.

- Doc

[Moksha]

In other words, what does the demographic replacement portend for white America?

- Doc

Decreased viewership for Fox News, Breitbart, and the Klan Crusader newsletter? Or, perhaps more if their viewers buy into this particular conspiratorial nonsense.

[Kukulkan]

According to the video it is the belief that the rights of minorities are, and will outpace the rights of white people in America. Generally people who believe this conspiracy theory tend to believe that it will lead to tangible violence against whites in America.

I guess I don’t really understand white pride or white protectionism in the sense that whiteness would or could act as a political bloc. Whites have been at each others’ throats for all time and eternity. I recall, having grown up in an era where whites generally dominated all aspects of society, that there was never any sort of white peace. Catholics - Protestants. Republicans - Democrats. Monied - Poor. Irish - English. WASPs - the Rest. Mormons - ex-Mormons. Rednecks - Professionals. Rockers - Pop. Druggies - Squares. There was and is constant, unrelenting conflict within “white culture”.

So, swinging back around to the idea of demographic replacement, which is a lie since ~85% of white people choose ove white people to breed, does it really boil down to a paranoid idea that white en masse will be genocided? If that’s what these people are thinking, or if they think there was a white utopia at some point, they’re insane. There will never be peace amongst white people. We’re too instantiated by historical violence to believe a homogenous culture based on the color of our skin will achieve any semblance of peace. If that were the case history would’ve born that out by now.

- Doc

My understanding is that as minorities have recently organized and been more vocal about equality and fair treatment, a reactionary segment of the white population has formed and organized as well to combat the perceived threat.

And yeah, it unfortunately means people truly believe that they will be violently genocided in some sort of pending race war and also culturally genocided as more non-white people enter the country and establish themselves. I find this position odd because I always remember as a youth feeling proud that an American doesn't have a distinct racial appearance and that we truly are the "Great American Melting Pot." Sad that some people want to see that vision destroyed.

[ajax18]

For me it's more about importing cheap labor, cheap votes, and destruction of the middle class as most people become very poor and a few become very rich. Then in response we embrace communist policies that are proven failures that put us on the road to becoming Venezuela , Greece, or Cuba.

The idea that an immigrant Slav or European looking Cuban Hispanic, or Appalachaian enjoy the same white privilege as Hunter Biden, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney, is what is receiving the backlash because it's ridiculous but also what actual prejudice and racism is.

[K Graham]

For me it's more about importing cheap labor, cheap votes, and destruction of the middle class as most people become very poor and a few become very rich. Then in response we embrace communist policies that are proven failures that put us on the road to becoming Venezuela , Greece, or Cuba.

The idea that an immigrant Slav or European looking Cuban Hispanic, or Appalachaian enjoy the same white privilege as Hunter Biden, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney, is what is receiving the backlash because it's ridiculous but also what actual prejudice and racism is.

You have no sense of what middle class even means. The Middle Class has been decimated by Republican policies since Reagan along with their hell bent intent to destroy unions which idiots like you have demonized in favor of corporate dictatorships. Unionization, minimum wages, workers rights, etc, have nothing to do with "communist policies." [deleted, FR 2, RI]

[Gunnar]

Ok. So what is the fear specifically? In other words, what does the demographic replacement portend for white America?

- Doc

Nothing whatsoever, in my opinion, but Trump's MAGA and white supremacist supporters apparently can't bear the very thought of White, fundamentalist, Christian Americans no longer being in the majority or able to get away with unfairly discriminating against others who are not like themselves. Other contributors to this thread have already explained this better than I could.

[Gunnar]

According to the video it is the belief that the rights of minorities are, and will outpace the rights of white people in America. Generally people who believe this conspiracy theory tend to believe that it will lead to tangible violence against whites in America.

I guess I don’t really understand white pride or white protectionism in the sense that whiteness would or could act as a political bloc. Whites have been at each others’ throats for all time and eternity. I recall, having grown up in an era where whites generally dominated all aspects of society, that there was never any sort of white peace. Catholics - Protestants. Republicans - Democrats. Monied - Poor. Irish - English. WASPs - the Rest. Mormons - ex-Mormons. Rednecks - Professionals. Rockers - Pop. Druggies - Squares. There was and is constant, unrelenting conflict within “white culture”.

So, swinging back around to the idea of demographic replacement, which is a lie since ~85% of white people choose ove white people to breed, does it really boil down to a paranoid idea that white en masse will be genocided? If that’s what these people are thinking, or if they think there was a white utopia at some point, they’re insane. There will never be peace amongst white people. We’re too instantiated by historical violence to believe a homogenous culture based on the color of our skin will achieve any semblance of peace. If that were the case history would’ve born that out by now.

- Doc

Yeah, I recognize that even if almost all Americans were White, there would still be bitter and nearly intractable cultural differences and prejudices between some of them, but it seems apparent to me that there is a tendency for various, extreme White factions who are nearly constantly at each others' throats to unite with each other against non-white minorities' aspirations to be treated as their equals.

[ajax18]

This article lays it out pretty well.

…

Are you a liar or just retarded?

The AP, which is national, described the perp as black as the manhunt was underway. ABC news NY also described the perp as black as soon as the NYPD released a description. The NY Intelligencer reported likewise. NY Times ran a piece that described him as a black man. Day of the shooting a mainstream media NYC news report:

@ 4:08 https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news-4-now/n ... 2/3642688/

Why are you a liar, and/or, why are you a retard? When Bing Bong and Atlantic Cuck were haranguing this forum on your behalf it’s because they felt in you a kindred retarded spirit and were defending a forever-liar, racist, and idiot “F” up who doesn’t read, and doesn’t ever learn his damned lesson. No matter how many times you’ve been shown that your sources are misleading you, you damned donkey, you just go back to their B.S. well to lap some more up sluice.

- Doc

Yes, the Media Bury the Race of Murderers—If They’re Not White

Free Beacon analysis shows how homicide coverage downplays the race of minority offenders

Brooklyn shooting suspect Frank James / Getty ImagesCharles Fain Lehman • April 14, 2022 5:00 am



Frank James, the man arrested for Tuesday's New York City subway shooting, is a black nationalist and outspoken racist who railed against whites, Jews, and Hispanics. A careful reader of the New York Times could be forgiven for overlooking that. In a nearly 2,000-word article on the attack, James's race is not mentioned. The same is true for the coverage offered up by Reuters; the Washington Post only mentioned James's race in relation to his condemnation of training programs for "low-income Black youths."

Media critics on the right say that the conspicuous omission of James's race from these news reports illustrates a trend among prestige papers, which deemphasize or omit the race of non-white criminals while playing up the race of white offenders. But is it a real pattern?

Yes. A Washington Free Beacon review of hundreds of articles published by major papers over a span of two years finds that papers downplay the race of non-white offenders, mentioning their race much later in articles than they do for white offenders. These papers are also three to four times more likely to mention an offender's race at all if he is white, a disparity that grew in the wake of George Floyd's death in 2020 and the protests that followed.

The Free Beacon collected data on nearly 1,100 articles about homicides from six major papers, all written between 2019 and 2021. Those papers included the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, and Minneapolis's Star-Tribune—representatives of each paper did not return requests for comment for this article. For each article, we collected the offender's and victim's name and race, and noted where in the article the offender's race was mentioned, if at all.

The data suggest an alarming editorial trend in which major papers routinely omit information from news reports, presenting readers with a skewed picture of who does and doesn't commit crime. These editorial choices are part and parcel with the "racial reckoning" that swept newsrooms in the wake of Floyd's murder, which saw journalists dramatically overhauling crime coverage to emphasize the view that the criminal justice system is racist at the root—perhaps at the expense of honesty about individual offenders' crimes.





The chart above indicates that papers are far quicker to mention the race of white murderers than black. (Those two races account for 92 percent of mentions in the data, so others are not shown.) Half of articles about a white offender mention his race within the first 15 percent of the article. In articles about black offenders, by contrast, mentions come overwhelmingly toward the end of the piece. Half of the articles that mention a black offender's race do not do so until at least 60 percent of the way through, and more than 20 percent save it until the last fifth of the article.

Of course, journalists choose not only where in a piece to mention an offender's race, but also whether to mention it at all, and omissions can skew a reader's perspective.

To measure these choices, we identified the race of the offender in roughly 900 stories where his name, but not his race, was mentioned, first by looking at the race of people with the same name in Census data, and then hand-confirming race based on mug shots or other images published in local news stories.






Doing so permits an estimate of how often journalists highlight an offender's race—or don't. Again, the skew is startling: White offenders' race was mentioned in roughly 1 out of every 4 articles, compared with 1 in 17 articles about a black offender and 1 in 33 articles about a Hispanic offender.

This effect is driven in part by a handful of major news stories involving white perpetrators, though the attention paid to these stories is also an editorial choice. But even after omitting reports about white offenders Kyle Rittenhouse, Derek Chauvin, and the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, the race of white offenders is mentioned in 16 percent of cases, two to three times the rate at which the race of black offenders is mentioned. (Middle Eastern offenders were labeled as Asian in this analysis, but labeling them as white results in only a small change to the race mention rate.)



This disparity widened following George Floyd's murder. Before May of 2020, papers were roughly twice as likely to mention the race of a white (13 percent of stories) versus a black perpetrator (7 percent). After May of 2020, the numbers were 28 percent and 4 percent, a ratio of seven to one. Even omitting the above-mentioned stories, papers still mentioned race in 23 percent of stories about white killers post-Floyd, a six-to-one ratio.


It could be that there were more stories in which a white offender's race was relevant after Floyd's death than before. But it is also easy to see how the increased attention to white murderers represents a change in what reporters and editors thought it was, and was not, important for their readers to hear about, particularly after they publicly committed to revamping their crime reporting following Floyd's death.

Newspapers across the country—including the Inquirer—stopped publishing mugshot galleries in part because, two Florida newspapers wrote, they "may have reinforced negative stereotypes." Others committed to overhauling their language, substituting phrases like "formerly incarcerated person" for "felon" to respond to what the Poynter Institute described as an "inextricabl[e]" link between reporting on crime and "race and racism." And the Associated Press amended its style guide to discourage the use of the word "riot," which allegedly has racist connotations.

At the same time, major newsrooms have prioritized "racial justice" coverage, part of a push for what the journalist-cum-activist Wesley Lowery called "moral clarity" over "objectivity": writing news reports that take the sides on contested issues with the goal of advancing a political objective.


Such "moral clarity" may mean downplaying black crime and emphasizing white crime. In the case of offenders like James, it means leaving readers in the dark about an important element of the story—journalistic malfeasance that is, of course, in service of the greater good.

https://freebeacon.com/media/yes-the-me ... not-white/

[ajax18]

One of the reasons the mainstream media gives for not reporting on crimes committed by blacks but reporting on the same type of crime committed by a white person is to classify crimes committed by blacks as a local news story and to classify crimes committed by whites as a national news story. There was a black man who rammed his car into orthodox Jews in an attempt to kill them in Lakewood, New Jersey. This of course is not a national news story and nobody other than me on this board would know the name of the man.

However, we see multiple long pieces in most of the major newspapers about a black man named Patrick Lioya who was killed by a white police officer in the city of Grand Rapids, MI. The Washington Post quotes Lioya's family saying that, "He was killed like an animal." That certainly sounds rather inflammatory. If all you read was the Washington Post, you'd think that this police officer just went out and chose to shoot this man for no other reason than he was black. But what actually happened according to the video we have? Lioya was pulled over for having a license plate that didn't match the vehicle he was driving. He first tried to run. Then he wrestled with the officer for minutes and continued to grab the officers Taser in an attempt to use it on the officer. According to the Washington Post Lioya was unarmed, but how are you unarmed when you have the officers Taser? Do you really think that if a white man were to resist arrest from a police officer of any color by trying to grab his weapon and use it on the officer that he would not also be shot? Yet according to the media and Lioya's family, grabbing the officers taser and refusing to let go doesn't mean you pose a threat. And every single one of these local news stories are elevated to the level of national news stories and portrayed as yet another case of systemic racism in the criminal justice system.