White Supremacists Propaganda Is On The Rise (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    305
    Reaction score
    1,556
    Age
    43
    Location
    Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
    Offline

    So the ADL's Center of Extremism is tracking a dramatic (double, in most cases) rise in white supremacists propaganda being promulgated in the US.

    The 2019 data shows an increase of incidents both on and off campus, with a total of 2,713 cases reported (averaging more than seven incidents per day), compared to 1,214 in 2018 – a doubling in activity year over year. This is the highest number of propaganda incidents ADL has ever recorded.

    It seems they are deliberately targetting US campuses.

    Approximately one-fourth (630) of the total (2,711) white supremacist propaganda incidents in 2019 took place on campus – nearly double the 320 campus incidents counted in 2018. The 2019 propaganda efforts targeted 433 different campuses in 43 states and the District of Columbia. An overwhelming majority of the campuses (90 percent) were targeted only once or twice, which suggests that despite their increased efforts, white supremacists seem to have failed to gain a sustained foothold on campus.

    Klan events are down.

    America’s Klan movement continued its decline in 2019. The combined efforts of seven different Klan groups resulted in only 53 propaganda distributions – a significant drop from the 102 incidents in 2018 and well off the Klan’s five-year average of 82.

    Public opposition is possibly a deterrence.

    ADL documented 20 percent fewer white supremacist events in 2019 than 2018, down from 95 to 76 events.

    White supremacists continued to rely heavily on so-called flash demonstrations, preferring not to risk the exposure of pre-publicized events.

    2019 saw very few pre-announced white supremacist events, rallies or protests, and those that did occur suffered from dismal attendance and were met with heavy opposition.


    The messaging and tactics have become less overtly racists yet more insidious because it delivers the message using seemingly innocuous themes like patriotism or nationalism.


    These and other white-supremacist groups largely favor veiled hate over explicitly racist language, and some, such as the Patriot Front, lean heavily on “patriotic” imagery, incorporating American flags or red, white and blue color schemes. They all tend to use toned-down language about how “diversity destroys nations” and the need to take pride in “Western” culture.

    This is purposeful; it gives white supremacists an opening to a population of curious young people who would most likely be turned off by explicit neo-Nazi rhetoric or overtly racist language.



    "The barrage of propaganda, which overwhelmingly features veiled white supremacist language with a patriotic slant, is an effort to normalise white supremacists' message and bolster recruitment efforts while targeting minority groups including Jews, Blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants and the LGBTQ community," the statement added.

    Center on Extremism Director Oren Segal told the Associated Press that the groups are making an effort to emphasise "patriotism" in an attempt "to make their hate more palatable for a 2020 audience".


    Community takes notice; on alert.


    The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) increased the threat level of white supremacist extremists from moderate to high, according to a report released by the state agency Friday.

    The change comes amid increased rates of crimes linked to white supremacist groups, such as a New Jersey man who allegedly conspired with members of a neo-Nazi network to vandalize synagogues in the Midwest.

    "The threat from white supremacist extremists is also high due to the number of threats, plots, and attacks in 2019," the report read. "In 2020, white supremacist extremists are likely to cite accelerationism as a motivation for future violent acts, and recruitment efforts promoting extremist ideology continue throughout the State."


    My take: Obviously, this is troubling, especially for members of such targeted groups. Not included or linked to, in this post, is the alarming rate at which white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement and its evidenced by their public assertions on social media and the like. Their messages are finding homes and we need to vigilant in discovering why so we can properly combat. Now, with the "why", President Trump is the obvious low-hanging fruit. And, while I think there is legitimate conversation to be had about any atmospheric influence his Administration has had in this issue ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ller-white-nationalist-trump-immigration-guru) I also believe focusing on him, or even solely blaming him, is missing the forest for the tree. This is a centuries old issue that seems to be undying in our culture. I think this is more of a reflection of us then Trump.

    Thoughts?
     
    Out of curiosity was that house purchased with HUD money that was denied to black families?

    Naw, just a poor old farmer who fell his own trees to cut lumber with a home made saw mill. I wish I had a picture of it but they was too poor to have a camera.
     
    Seems this website know more about the activities of white supremists than the freaking FBI. It also seem to be the only hate group ever discussed. They MUST be the only ones out there.
    To be fair, the Department of Homeland Security agrees with those of us that think white supremacy is a pretty big problem:


    The title of the thread should have signaled to you that the discussion would focus on the problem of white supremacy, and nobody said it was the only hate group out there. If the topic angers you, you could either not click the link, or start your own thread about the hate groups you think need to be discussed.

    But since you're already here -- do you agree with the DHS that domestic terrorism driven by the ideology of white supremacy presents a growing threat to our national security?
     
    'System QB' and 'Game manager' are racist or not appropriate to say anymore? What if that player is a 'System QB' or 'Game Manager'? How would one describe QB that will probably not win a game but will definitely not make the mistakes that will cost a game, despite physical talent?

    So, this is a good example of why this type of dialogue is very helpful. To me, my analogy was clear. But, this is evidence that while things may be clear to us they can, in good faith, get lost in translation to others. I've read through the thread so let me clarify.

    It wasn't my intent to imply those terms are loaded "racially." Sports wise, they are loaded. The analogy is that if I said "Drew Brees is a system QB or a game manager" and left it at that, I would be seen as being inflammatory because most persons would assume I am attempting to be disparaging towards Drew Brees. Why? Those terms historically, traditionally and presently aren't normally used for quarterbacks who we think are good, not to mention, first ballot HoFers. Guys like Alex Smith, Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Teddy Bridgewater get labeled that. You hardly hear of the Aaron Rodgers or Pat Mahomes of the league being called system quarterbacks or game managers.

    Similarly, well-intentioned persons, if not careful, can become susceptible to not only entertaining the rhetoric of white supremacists/nationalists but, also, unknowingly/unwittingly start espousing such views too. Which is the point Taylor was making to which I responded to. White supremacists are purposefully disguising their rhetoric amidst things like patriotism so as to make it more palatable for some. So when we see it, we call it out, because it may not have so easily discernible to that person.

    Let me provide an example, anecdotally. A few weeks back I pushed back on a poster using the term "lynching" for political reasons. Pushed back is generous; I mildly requested they not use the term. It wasn't well received by them and others took exception to the request. I didn't want to get deeper into it in that thread, it was already a mild threadjack, but they assumed my intention was to score political points. Had they responded in good faith I could have enlightened them otherwise.


    If you notice from that tolerance.org article on the misuse of lynching, most of the examples of misuse are coming from or in defense of black men. So, I'm cognizant of the fact that misuse of the term isn't relegated to a political party or even race ("white people"). To boot, I've pushed back, in person, on the phrase more on persons of color than anyone else.

    I understood the poster didn't intend to offend but it's my responsibility (and everyone else's) to call out inappropriate remarks so everyone can be uplifted. Unfortunately, the conversation never got fleshed out to that point because of how it was received.

    I can do my due diligence in calling out propaganda and labeling it as such and even be mindful to not hurt feelings in the process but the other side has to be a willing participant in the discussion. Otherwise, I'm wasting my time.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom