Thread: Trump Must Confront Hate Groups That Love Him

Aug 14 2017, 7:04 pm ET

Trump Must Confront Hate Groups His Political Rise Energized, Experts Say

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s slow response to the deadly white-nationalist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia was shocking to many politicians, experts on extremism and even members of his own party, but nobody could call it surprising.

Groups and researchers that track hate had sounded the alarm throughout Trump’s campaign and presidency, warning that his rhetoric and actions were empowering the racist fringe.

They’re now demanding Trump finally confront a growing threat from hate groups who they say have been energized by his political rise.

"I believe we’re at a pivotal movement here, one where the forces of hatred in this country are feeling unfettered to act and emboldened to move out of the shadows," Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, told reporters in a conference call. He called Trump's failure to adequately confront those forces a "serial issue" as a candidate and as president.

While Greenblatt said Trump’s remarks condemning racism on Monday were positive, he added that Trump should have to “step above the lowest possible bar” and pair his words with action. Suggestions included producing a plan to investigate extremists and educate the public about the ongoing threat.

The list of Trump’s prior run-ins with the far-right fringe is long and varied. He tweeted fake crime statistics spread by racists to paint black Americans as violent, then defended them as credible. He sparked a firestorm last year when he declined to renounce support from David Duke, who participated in the Charlottesville white-nationalist rally, before later disavowing him. His campaign tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton with a Jewish star that was traced to an extremist user, then claimed it was a sheriff’s badge.

Researchers who study extremist groups view the Charlottesville rally, the largest of its kind in recent years, as part of a broader move by white supremacists to play a more aggressive role in politics. This newfound confidence, they say, is inseparable from Trump’s attacks on Muslims and immigrants and his references to a conspiracy of global elites that the ADL has complained echo anti-Semitic tropes.

“President Trump’s candidacy had so many different themes that were consistent with their views that he really did excite them in a way you haven’t seen with other mainstream political figures,” said Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University who researches extremism.

Greenblatt described Trump's campaign rhetoric as a "bullhorn" to the far right.

After Trump’s election, white nationalist Richard Spencer led a conference in Washington in chants of “Hail Trump!” as attendees raised their arms in a Nazi salute. The White House transition team distanced Trump from the event in a statement at the time, saying he "has continued to denounce racism of any kind.”

Greenblatt and Simi both said Trump should consider removing figures like White House adviser and former Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon, who once described his news site as “the platform for the alt right” and has repeatedly cited an anti-immigrant novel, "The Camp Of The Saints," that’s a touchstone in far right circles. Bannon has denied any ties to white nationalism.

Trump initially condemned violence "on many sides" in Charlottesville, drawing opprobrium across the political spectrum for comparing scuffles between anti-racist protestors and white supremacists to a deadly car attack that killed Heather Heyer, 32, and injured 19 others.

While Simi said "false equivalence" was a mistake that fed into white supremacist efforts to portray themselves as victims, he warned there was a real danger that far-right, anti-fascist and anarchist groups will adopt more violent tactics in their confrontations if left unchecked.

"I don't have very optimistic views on the next few years," Simi said. "I think the cycle of radicalization is quickly gaining momentum."

Brian Levin, Director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, said the president’s response was important because there are signs they can play a role in preventing racist violence.

Levin’s research found a significant uptick in reported hate crimes against Muslims immediately after Trump announced his plans for a Muslim ban, for example. By contrast, President Bush’s speech on tolerance at a mosque shortly after 9/11 coincided with a drop-off in hate crimes, which spiked after the attack.

"This is an extraordinarily strong indication that words matter," Levin said.

He added that his research has found an uptick of hate crimes in major cities since the election, lending more urgency to the issue.

Trump, who has made it a point of pride to condemn Islamic terrorism abroad even before the attackers are named (and sometimes inaccurately), has been notably slower to highlight violence targeting ethnic and religious minorities at home.

A newspaper in Kansas criticized Trump in February for not responding quickly enough after a man was charged with fatally shooting an Indian man and wounding two others while telling them "get out of my country." After police charged a man in Portland with fatally stabbing two good Samaritans who defended a Muslim teen he harassed, Trump waited days to praise the victims on Twitter for "standing up to hate and intolerance." More recently, the White House stayed silent after an explosive device set by unknown perpetrators went off at a mosque in Minnesota last week.

Days before the Charlottesville attack, Trump’s deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka mocked concerns over far-right violence in an interview with Breitbart as an effort to distract from Islamic terrorism.

"It’s this constant, 'Oh, it’s the white man, it’s the white supremacists, that’s the problem,'" Gorka, a former Breitbart editor, said in the segment. “No, it isn’t.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dona...ocates-n792671

Is there a source that has responsible reporting on this happening.

I'd like to know exactly what happened and why.

Who was involved?

It is a typical strategy among extremist groups to identify as friendly figures who are not at all friendly to them. Should Trump treat "hate groups" as if they have some sort of genuine affiliation with him? Wouldn't that be an admission of some sort of guilt treating their attention as having some sort of legitimacy?

Trump has very clearly shown that he is alienated from such groups. He doesn't need to make some sort of demonstration to placate anyone.

Two independent news media reporters were there: Faith Goldy of the Rebel Media and Millie Weaver from Alex Jones’, Info Wars. Both reporters told very similar stories. Everything was peaceful until the so-called anti-FA and Black Lives Matter groups of counter demonstrators showed up. Both groups are crazy left and notorious for excessively aggressive and violent behavior. According to both reporters the Leftwing counter demonstrators were throwing bottles of urine and bags of feces at the Rightwing demonstrators. The Info Wars camera man had pepper spray shot into his face by one of the leftists because they recognized InfoWars as Rightwing news media. He was blinded for 45 minutes. The police stood by and did nothing to stop the fighting that broke out. Then they called the demonstration an illegal assembly and forced the hapless Rightwing demonstrators to exit by walking through the middle of their leftwing attackers. In summary, to the best judgment of independent sources the violence was started by the Left and the Right was reacting by defending themselves.

People on this web sight should know better than to take seriously anything put out by the old guard propaganda news media. If you go to the InfoWars web site, it has a lot on this Charlotte incident. And on Stephen Molyneux web there is the interview with Faith Goldy.

The purpose of the demonstration planned by the Right-wingers was to protest efforts to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee. It was never intended to be some kind of racist rant. Although there were a few overt racists there (how do you screen them out) the majority were simply people promoting White pride. Every ethnic group can express racial pride except Whites, when they do it, it is automatically labeled “racism” (i.e. hatred for other groups).

According to Jason Kessler, the organizer for the Robert E. Lee statue preservation, he did everything possible to assure a peaceful protest. He believed the police when they promised adequate protection that later was not provided. He is in fact suing them for their negligence. He tried to have a press conference after the riot and was attacked by the Leftists and was forced to flee.

Of course the Democrat governor went on a rant about evil racists. When asked if he would also condemn the actions of the radical left counter demonstrators, four times he ignored the question.

I hope these links will work: https://youtu.be/4UpF8H1Zjcw https://youtu.be/v_hTkjV4Lts

People on this web site ought to know better than believe anything coming from the old guard propaganda media. See my post below for more accurate information about what really happened.

Originally Posted by 17patri76

....

The purpose of the demonstration planned by the Right-wingers was to protest efforts to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee. It was never intended to be some kind of racist rant. Although there were a few overt racists there (how do you screen them out) the majority were simply people promoting White pride. Every ethnic group can express racial pride except Whites, when they do it, it is automatically labeled “racism” (i.e. hatred for other groups).


....

How ridiculous is that? What kind of idiot is ever going to believe that expressing "white pride" is ever going to be anything but racist? Only racists have ever used the idea of "white pride" and nobody with any sense is ever going to believe that expressing "white pride" is anything but racist.

It is exactly the same as the fools running around displaying the swastika as some sort of good luck symbol having nothing to do with the Nazi party. As a symbol, the swastika isn't ever going to be associated with anything but the Nazi party as long as history has any legitimacy.

Originally Posted by 17patri76

People on this web site ought to know better than believe anything coming from the old guard propaganda media. See my post below for more accurate information about what really happened.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the media is corrupt. With everything else I agree with pkskyali in his last post on here. We are against illegal immigration, which is obviously against the law. Other Americans of every color on here agree with us on this issue, whether they are white, black or whatever. We are all Americans, legal Americans. Associating ourselves with swastikas, white pride, etc. would be very, very stupid. If we did something idiotic like that, we would never be taken seriously by anyone and basically lose all credibility.

And besides, I may be white, but I have nothing against black Americans, or any other Americans of color who work hard and are law-abiding citizens. People who disregarded our laws by jumping our border are automatically criminals. I don't have an issue with people who followed our laws to come here legally, although I think that legal immigration should be severely reduced until we get our house in order. But legal immigration is another issue. Right now my main concern is to send back all the illegals who are here, who basically gave us the finger and told us what we could do with our laws.

Originally Posted by 6 Million Dollar Man

And besides, I may be white, but I have nothing against black Americans, or any other Americans of color who work hard and are law-abiding citizens.

I don't usually quote myself, but I'd like to clarify this one sentence I wrote. When I say law-abiding citizens, I'm excluding illegal alien who duped the system and later became legal. No illegal alien in my eyes should ever be rewarded with citizenship for breaking our laws. Who ever came here illegally and is now a citizen should also be stripped of their citizenship and sent the "F" back to their country of origin.

And Trump was right. Both sides are to blame. The White Pride side had every legal right to protest peacefully, but not drive a car into people to try to harm them. The other side is at fault because they also had a right to counter-protest peacefully, but they chose to physically attack the other side, which is also breaking the law the moment they decided to get physical.

To quote myself: “Every ethnic group can express racial pride except Whites, when they do it, it is automatically labeled ‘racism’ (i.e. hatred for other groups).”

Dear pkskyali: to quote you, “How ridiculous is that? What kind of idiot is ever going to believe that expressing "white pride" is ever going to be anything but racist? Only racists have ever used the idea of "white pride" and nobody with any sense is ever going to believe that expressing "white pride" is anything but racist.”

With your post, you have just proven my point. You perpetuate the Left wing monopoly of language and subjects of discussion and thus their power to control what people think.

Here is a novel idea: one can take pride in his ethnic heritage and not have any animosity toward and not wish harm on another ethnic group. Why is it wrong to take pride in my long family linage of being Caucasian? Why must I shut up not talk about it? I repeat, every other ethnic group can have pride in their race but when the White man does it, somehow it makes him evil.

The business that only racists use the term “white pride” is not correct. That you think everybody will believe the phrase somehow makes a person a racist (race hater) only shows how effective the political thought police have been in controlling our language and the ideas words invoke in people’s minds. We are talking George Orwell here. “White pride” is a benign term that demeans nobody.


You totally miss my point; we need to push back against stifling expressions of pride in our people. What lessons are our children learning regarding their heritage and their self image when they can not express pride in being who they are, yet every other group can be proud? The message is clear – because people in every other race are better than you. You strip them of their self-respect. Control the language and you control all discussion and all ideas.

The truth and frank honesty are not racists. Think about it.