Luke Ford

Comment: “The project of “getting race out of American politics” means non-whites and Jews acting in their own ethnic interests, while whites behave like docile cows being prodded towards the slaughterhouse.”

Two academics write in The New Republic:

In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics”—an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.

We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.

When we talk about white identity, we’re not referring to the alt-right fringe, the white nationalist movement or others who espouse racist beliefs. Rather, we’re talking about everyday white Americans who, perhaps for the first time, are racially conscious.

The concept of “garden variety” white racial identity stands in contrast to conventional wisdom. In the last three decades of scholarship on whiteness as a race, the prevailing view has been that most whites fail to notice their own whiteness. In a society dominated by white people, whiteness simply fades into the background. Just as fish fail to notice the water around them, whites are unlikely to think about how they are members of a distinct group.

Our research shows that the era of “white invisibility” is coming to a close.

Non-Hispanic whites are projected to become a minority in the year 2044. This increasing diversity across the country is making whites’ own race harder and harder to ignore. Political and social phenomena, from Barack Obama’s presidency to the Black Lives Matter movement, are making whiteness even more salient to white Americans…

Recent research in social psychology suggests that when whites engage in discrimination based on their perceived collective interests, it’s hard to convince them that such discrimination is wrong. After all, doesn’t every group have a right to prioritize its own members? We believe our results portend increasing difficulty in achieving the democratic aim of getting race out of American politics.

Hillary may have the votes but Trump supporters have the guns. If Trump wins, there won’t need to be a coup. If he loses, there might be.

One man’s ugly feeling is another man’s freedom fighter.

TheHill: There’s an ugly feeling in the air. A Trump supporter in Ohio, Dan Bowman, tells a reporter, “If [Hillary Clinton’s] in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it. We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take.”

An ex-House member, Joe Walsh, tweets “On November 9th, if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket. You in?” Facebook, comment sections and message boards are full of angry people worrying that the vote will be “rigged” and discussing what they will do if the election is “stolen” from Donald Trump.

Free speech is an American’s birthright. But for the first time in living memory, ordinary people are pushing the boundaries of the First Amendment. Message boards, on-line comment sections and social media make the problem even worse. A lot of these people may think that they are just blowing off steam.
But when you are actually discussing using violence to overthrow the government or to interfere with an election, there’s a very thin line between “just talk” and criminal conspiracy. In the modern world, it is perfectly possible to become a member of a criminal conspiracy by “liking” a tweet.

Conspiracy is a little different than most crimes. The essence of conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to do something illegal. Some conspiracy statutes require that at least one of the participants take some concrete step — known as an “overt act” — toward actually carrying out the conspiracy. Some statutes do not.

Conspiring to overthrow the government by force or to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force is known as “Seditious Conspiracy” and is punishable by 20 years in federal prison. (18 USC 2384.) Just agreeing to use force to overthrow the government or to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President can be a federal crime, even if you never take action.

Because seditious conspiracy is essentially speech, the First Amendment comes into play. In a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that mere speech cannot be punished unless it is both aimed at producing “imminent lawless action” and it is likely to produce such action. So writing a book about the need for a revolution won’t pass this test. Someone exhorting a crowd to burn down City Hall very well might.

But “imminent” doesn’t necessarily mean “immediately.” Depending on the details of the conspiracy, lawless action might be “imminent” even if the conspirators understand that no violence might occur for weeks or months.

The Brandenburg test has a lot to tell us about this election. A year ago, people on message boards and social media discussing coups and revolutions were something of a joke. No one took them seriously, probably not even themselves, so all the talk was unlikely to produce action of any sort.

But the situation is different now and might be a lot different on November 9th if millions of Donald Trump’s supporters believe the election has been stolen from them. Tossing a burning match into a bucket of water isn’t likely to produce a fire. Tossing a burning match into a bucket of gasoline is.

Gideon Resnick writes:

Prominent white nationalist William Johnson, an ardent supporter of Donald Trump’s campaign who was previously listed as a California delegate for the Republican National Convention, has paid for a new robocall targeting #NeverTrump independent candidate Evan McMullin in Utah.
According to an email from Johnson, he has scheduled the new robocall to begin going out to Utah voters on Monday evening.
“Hello, My name is William Johnson,” the audio recording begins. “I am a farmer and a white nationalist. I make this call against Evan McMullin and in support of Donald Trump.
“Evan McMullin is an open borders, amnesty supporter.
“Evan has two mommies. His mother is a lesbian, married to another woman. Evan is okay with that. Indeed Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
“Evan is over 40 years old and is not married and doesn’t even have a girlfriend. I believe Evan is a closet homosexual.
“Don’t vote for Evan McMullin. Vote for Donald Trump. He will respect all women and be a president we can all be proud of.”

REPORT: According to former Jimmy Carter pollster Pat Caddell, Hillary Clinton is hemorrhaging support as a result of the FBI announcement and we could see a repeat of the 1980 election when anti-establishment candidate Ronald Reagan won in a landslide.

Caddell drew comparisons to the 1980 presidential race, which was close right up until the final days before the electorate abandoned Carter and rallied around the anti-establishment candidate, leading to Reagan taking victory in a landslide.

Caddell noted that Carter’s entire campaign had been built around portraying Reagan as unqualified and “dangerous,” in a similar vein to how Clinton has demonized Trump. Caddell explained that the polling between Reagan and Carter was close up until the final weekend when “the dam broke” and Reagan shot ahead by ten points.

Stating that he had been looking at the data regarding unfavorability ratings for both Clinton and Trump, Caddell noted that since Friday, large numbers of voters had been structurally “moving against the status quo – the incumbent who is essentially Hillary Clinton.”