22 million Americans support neo-Nazis, white supremacists: Poll

Source

Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the "alt-right" march down East Market Street toward Emancipation Park during the United the Right rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Getty Images)
Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the “alt-right” march down East Market Street toward Emancipation Park during the United the Right rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Getty Images)

Nearly 1 in 10 people in the United States say holding white supremacist or neo-Nazi views are acceptable, according to a new poll.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday found that 9 percent of Americans, equivalent to about 22 million people, call it acceptable to have a racist and xenophobic opinion.

A similar number, 10 percent, say they support the so-called alt-right movement, a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who support white nationalism.

The alt-right movement has gained increasing attention since President Donald Trump launched his election campaign and his time in the White House.

While Trump has sought to distance himself from the movement – which has been accused of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – its members have rallied behind Trump and helped him get elected to the White House.

Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of how Trump responded to the deadly clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, while 28 percent approve of his reaction in the new survey.

Read More:

The white supremacists, neo-Nazis and KKK members participating at the “Unite the Right” event in Charlottesville on August 12 were protesting against the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, which many critics believe are symbols of hate and racism.

A 32-year-old woman was killed and 19 others were injured when a 20-year-old Nazi sympathizer plowed his car into a crowd taking part in a counter-protest.

Human rights experts have warned about the rising racism and xenophobia in the United States, citing the rally in Charlottesville as the latest example.

Trump has come under increasing pressure over his stance on the racial violence, with many members of his own Republican Party and US business executives distancing themselves from him.

Advertisements

Jew Loving is the Way Forward

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

60 Percent of Swedes View US as a Major Threat to World Peace

[ Ed. note – In a post I put up on Monday I wrote, “The US government’s unquenchable thirst for overturning other governments is the greatest threat to world peace today.” Apparently 60 percent of the people of Sweden agree with me. Below is a news story on a recent poll conducted in Sweden; the video above supplies an analysis on the conflict in Syria, but also mentions the poll. ]

RT

The number of Swedes who believe the US is one of the major threats to world peace and security has jumped to 60 percent, an annual poll has shown, with officials noting a 6 percentage points jump since last year.

The biggest changes in the way the Swedes see the world’s civil preparedness, security policy and defense have occurred in their attitude towards the United States, the recent poll carried out by the Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) suggests.

The MSB poll was conducted from December 9-14, after Donald Trump’s win in the US presidential elections in November.

“That is a significant change,” MSB general director Helena Lindberg said of the jump from 54 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2016, according to Swedish daily Sydsvenska.

Swedes generally (73 percent) express great concern and fear over the current situation in the world, as well as their future. However, nine out of 10 Swedes confirm that Sweden is still “a good country to live in.”

At the same time, 58 percent of people believe that Sweden is likely to see a terrorist attack in the next five years, a slight uptick of 1 percentage point higher than in 2015.

Despite that, the proportion of those who believe that Sweden in five years will be a better country to live in increased from 2015’s 13 percent to 18 percent, while the proportion of those who think that living conditions will be worse decreased from 54 percent to 42 percent.

A political threat from another country seems likely to occur by 47 percent of Swedes, while propaganda or false information spread by foreign states looks probable to 44 percent.

Swedes’ negative perception of Russia has relaxed a bit, with 77 percent calling Russia a threat to the world peace – 5 percentage points less than last year.

More than half of the people who took part in the poll welcomed Sweden’s participation in the EU’s foreign and security policy work, saying it promotes peace and security inside the country. Among the factors affecting peace and security negatively, 55 percent named the influx of asylum-seekers.

More than 1,000 people aged between 18 to 74 took part in the survey.

‘Liberal Internationalism Has Become a Godless Religion’

Interesting discussion on what Trump’s victory may mean both for America and for Europe.

From the video description:

Guillaume Durocher is a French political writer and historian. He has lived in many European countries and worked in politics and journalism. He writes for several Alt-Right publications, including The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, and Radix.

We begin by discussing the results of the recent election. Guillaume compares Trump’s victory to Brexit, for the mainstream media – through its polls and pundits – failed to accurately predict either. We discuss what this means for not only America, but the West as a whole. Guillaume explains that the American nation-state is now run by a wildcard, and that if Trump drastically alters the course of America, Europe will follow suit.

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the Opinion Polls

Global Research, May 26, 2016
Trump-Speech-2

There should be no sharp intake of breath on this. Reactionary politics and a certain voodoo mastery of reality was already perfected by Ronald Reagan when he secured the White House and ensured the irrevocable decline of an ailing empire. Making America great has remained the caption of failed politics, but it seems entirely at home in the Trump argot.

Which brings us back to that most inexact of sciences, if one can even call it that. Reading polls is much like reading tea leaves: such matter is often inscrutable, though people still make much of it. The United States first witnessed that now insatiable obsession in 1824, when the pundits suggested that Andrew Jackson was in the lead over John Quincy Adams.  On that occasion, the figures were accurate enough.

Behind such readings come the usual deceptions, hesitations and assumptions in population sampling. One does not want to come across as a barking racist, so it is best to keep silent.  Again, US politics familiarised itself with this phenomenon in what remains known more generally as the Bradley Effect.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American candidate, threw his hat in the ring in contesting the California governor race. All seemed to be going swimmingly in the polls till “social desirably bias” struck him down.

Pundits have attempted to find some means of relating the lessons of Bradley to the Trump phenomenon, though many of these are stretched.  The point on Trump, it has been contended, is that he has more appeal that is being measured or calculated, a reverse Bradley phenomenon.  Effectively, “social desirability bias” favours, rather than undermines him, with voters reluctant to concede they might back such a candidate.[1]

In December last year, polling and data firm Morning Consult studied the figures on Trump’s faring across telephone and online polling using a sampling of 2,500 Republican voters.  The study found that Trump performed “about six percentage points better online than via live telephone interviewing and that his advantage online is driven by adults with higher levels of education.”[2]

Such findings have convinced political scientists such as Ken Goldstein that Trump’s support is “understated when you go into the sanctity of the secret ballot.”  Like all polling figures, the last minute rush, the desperate re-think, and the appraisal as the candidate is selected at the ballot box, tend to elude such calculations.

Similarly to tea varietals, polls vary.  RealClearPolitics impressed media outlets such as the BBC, which insisted with a grave air that Clinton’s “double-digit lead, which she has held over the past several months, has vanished – and with it, apparently, Democrats’ dream of a transformational 2016 victory that would leave Republicans wandering in the wilderness for a generation.”[3]

Other polls, such as the Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday, speak of 44 percent of the electorate wishing for a third candidate option.  But this is merely a sign that the current poll figures suggest a good degree of fear and loathing.

As Dan Balz and Scott Clement have put it, “Among those registered who say they favour Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump.”  This point is mirrored on Trump’s side with 44 percent of backers claiming they are voting for the presumptive Republican nominee while 53 percent “say their motivation is to oppose to Clinton” (Washington Post, May 22).

Nothing could ever have been transformational about Clinton, a veteran political apparatchik who has a record sufficiently tarnished to warrant barring.  Her husband, on the other hand, managed to shape the United States in a manner few Republicans could have, giving it a true Tory savaging if ever there was one.Conversely, the suggestion that Trump could be devastatingly different is to ignore the various devastating administrations that have come before.  Such regimes wax and wane in their appalling effects, with some aspects contained by Congressional limits – when those on the Hill decide to wake up from their business slumber.

There is little doubt that the great problem for Trump – resistance from within the GOP movement – is faltering.  The figures, to end, show that.  The #NeverTrump movement has folded, and is now passing into enforced and collaborative amnesia.  Opponents have decided that Trump, bogus of intention or otherwise, is their figure of choice, the favoured bull in a doomed china shop.  Having made the political flip flop artful and, importantly, without lasting consequence, Trump has managed to stay essentially unburnt.

The dangers surrounding Clinton, however, are far more pronounced.  The fires are leaping, and there are Democrats who remain seduced by Bernie Sanders who, if he is worth his salt, should take the plunge as a true independent.  As for Clinton, there is no hint of Teflon coating on that side of the race.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-22/a-reverse-bradley-effect-polls-may-underestimate-trump-s-support

[2] http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Morning-Consult-Donald-Trump-online-versus-live-polling-methods-study1.pdf

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36372929

Jews vs. Non Jews in Israel: The New York Times’ Whitewash of Israeli Public Opinion Poll

Global Research, March 16, 2016
Jordan Times 14 March 2016
New York Times

This past week, the Pew Research Centre released the results of a massive poll of Israeli public opinion — focusing on their attitude towards religion, identity, values and political issues facing their country.

In the days that followed the release, a number of articles appeared in Israel and the US commenting on the study’s findings.

The strangest and most troubling of them was the piece titled “Deep Rifts Among Israeli Jews Are Found in Religion Survey”, printed in the New York Times on March 8, 2016.

Written by Isabel Kershner, the article was a transparent effort to combine straight reporting with tortured apologia.

Kershner began the piece with a simple recitation of a few of the poll’s findings: “A majority of Israeli Jews marry within their own religious or secular groups” and the different sub-groups “largely separate social worlds” and have “starkly contrasting positions on many public policy issues”, like whether West Bank settlements contribute to Israel’s security.

Kershner’s straightforward reporting ended, however, when she came to one of the poll’s more disturbing findings:

“nearly half of Israeli Jews said that Arabs should be expelled of transferred from Israel”.

Unable to allow that result to stand on its own, in the same sentence, Kershner added “although Israeli pollsters found the wording of the question problematic”.

The addition of that phrase was a classic example of deflection — a device often used in New York Times’ articles to sow doubt or confusion among readers so as to soften the blow of facts that are damaging to Israel.

Here’s how it works: first the “fact” is stated; then it is quickly followed (usually in the same sentence) by an unsubstantiated remark that questions the “fact”.

The reader is then left confused.

Kershner did not get around to explaining exactly what was “problematic” about the wording of the poll question until she meandered for several paragraphs discussing other results from the poll.

Then she returned to the “transfer” issue, devoting the last full one-quarter of her piece to quotes from Israeli pollsters telling us that “the phrasing of the question is very blunt” or that it is possible that Israeli Jewish respondents may have understood the question to imply that Arabs would “voluntarily” leave or be compensated for leaving [as if that would somehow make it better!].

Kershner quoted another pollster who agonised over the transfer question, saying: “I would feel uncomfortable incriminating the Israeli public based on one question,” adding her fear that this “one question” would “be used as a weapon’ by Israel’s critics”.

Actually, the question was quite clear. And it was not the only question in the poll in which Israelis displayed troubling views.

And, while I might quibble with the term “weapon”, it would be irresponsible not to raise serious questions about what this poll reveals about racism in Israel.

First, let’s look at the “problematic” question and ask whether it was too vague, too blunt or too unclear.

Here is what Israelis were asked: do you agree or disagree with this statement

“Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel?”

In response to this direct question, 48 per cent of Israeli Jews agreed, while 46 per cent disagreed.

Among Israelis who are religious and those who received a Jewish education, two-thirds agreed with the idea that Arabs should be expelled or transferred.

This is not the only disturbing finding in this poll.

Israeli Jews were also asked if they agreed with the statement

“Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel”;

79 per cent agreed — including well over 95 per cent of those who are religious and those who received a Jewish education.

The bottom line is that Israel’s political culture has become increasingly intolerant.

With eight in ten Israeli Jews supporting preferential treatment for themselves at the expense of the 20 per cent of the population that is Arab, and with almost one-half of Israeli Jews calling for Arab citizens to be expelled or transferred, one can only conclude that this is a society and a political culture that is in trouble.

This dangerous reality needs to be confronted honestly and directly. Whitewashing the situation only allows the danger to grow.

The Times has done Israelis, Palestinians and its readers a disservice.

%d bloggers like this: