Scholar Kathleen Belew on New Zealand, Donald Trump and the rise of "white power"
Scholar Kathleen Belew on New Zealand, Donald Trump and the rise of "white power"
Author of new book on "white power movement" says the recent outbreak of violence was a long-planned strategy
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA
APRIL 2, 2019 12:00PM (UTC)
The overt white supremacy of the white power movement does not remain isolated to that subculture. This hate metastasizes and infects "mainstream" conservative political discourse, leaders and the general public. There are many such examples.
The extreme hostility to nonwhite immigrants espoused by the broader white power movement has been massaged and repackaged into the policy positions of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
On a near daily basis Fox News host Tucker Carlson summons talking points and narratives from white supremacist and other right-wing hate sites and spoon-feeds that poison to his eager audience. Derrick Black, a former white supremacist and the son of a Ku Klux Klan leader, told CNN last Saturday: "It’s really, really alarming that my family watches Tucker Carlson’s show once and then watches it on the replay because they feel that he is making the white nationalist talking points better than they have, and they’re trying to get some tips on how to advance it."
Should we see white supremacy as a cultural, social and political problem rather than just the pathology of the relatively small white power movement? What does the white power movement want, in practical terms, and what are its activists and foot soldiers willing to do to achieve their goals? Can we explain the New Zealand terror attacks as part of a decades-long plan by the white power movement in America and around the world? How did white hate groups pioneer the use of the early internet and social media to radicalize, recruit and coordinate the actions of their members?
More:
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/02/scholar-kathleen-belew-on-new-zealand-donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-white-power/
= new reply since forum marked as read
don't even discuss what can be done to turn it back... While her analysis is undoubtedly "spot-on", how could the interviewer not even broach the subject of what can be done? 
I'm not arguing against the post, btw, just that this historian leaves me feeling rather hopeless.
