Jack Smith's filing against DJT's crimes; The psychology of belief in the White Replacement conspiracy

Everyone is reporting about Jack Smith's court filing that lays out DJT's crimes in his 1/6 coup attempt. 

Yahoo News reports:

In a 165-page legal brief unsealed by a federal judge (albeit with some redactions), the special counsel fleshed out detailed evidence he would use against Trump at trial, if the case ever makes it that far. Smith also presented his arguments for why Trump is not immune from the charges, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling over the summer that granted presidents broad immunity for official acts.  

Much of Smith’s brief focused on Trump’s state of mind in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith described a slew of conversations suggesting that the then-president knew his claims of election fraud were spurious. And Smith laid out evidence that Trump’s sole objective was to stay in power — not, as he and his lawyers have claimed, to exercise legitimate authority over election integrity.

[Trump's] tweet criticizing Pence coincided with one of the most perilous moments of the riot: the precise minute Pence was being evacuated from his Senate office to a loading dock below the Capitol. Rioters had come within 40 feet of where he was sheltering just before this moment.

When Trump was told by an aide of Pence’s evacuation, prosecutors say Trump responded: “So what?”

DJT is clearly an authoritarian kleptocrat and a criminal. In my opinion, he's a traitor. The open question is whether it will matter. Few MAGA rank and file supporters will defect because of this. Few or none of the MAGA elites will change their mind. If DJT is elected next month, he will make the federal law suits simply go away. Even if he is not elected, it is possible that the USSC will protect him by saying that what DJT did was legal because (i) it was not an attempt to overthrow the government, and (ii) was an "official act" that protects DJT from criminal prosecution. His lawyers argue that the 1/6 coup attempt was DJT simply exercising his legitimate authority over "election integrity." 

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

PsyPost writes:

Belief in “White Replacement” conspiracy linked to 

anti-social traits and violence risk

A recent study published in Politics, Groups, and Identities has found that up to one-third of Americans believe in the “White Replacement” conspiracy theory. The study provides evidence that these beliefs are linked to personality traits such as anti-social tendencies, authoritarianism, and negative views toward immigrants, minorities, women, and the political establishment. Surprisingly, however, partisanship and ideology did not significantly predict belief in this conspiracy theory, suggesting that these views transcend typical political divides.

The White Replacement conspiracy theory, often referred to as “White Genocide,” has gained attention in recent years due to its promotion by media figures and political leaders, as well as its association with acts of mass violence. Proponents claim that white people are being systematically replaced by people of color, particularly through immigration policies that favor non-white populations. This idea has been cited as a motivation for multiple violent attacks, including the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

“There have been numerous mass shootings tied to these beliefs. Numerous media personalities, such as Tucker Carlson, have expressed these beliefs,” said study author Joseph Uscinski, a professor of political science at the University of Miami and co-author of Conspiracy Theories: A Primer.

The study found that belief in the White Replacement conspiracy theory was more prevalent than might have been expected. Around one-third of participants agreed with statements suggesting that white people are being intentionally replaced by people of color through the actions of powerful elites. This belief was not confined to any particular racial or ethnic group; both white and non-white respondents expressed similar levels of agreement with these ideas.

The survey also revealed several key psychological and social factors that were associated with belief in the conspiracy theory. People who believed in White Replacement were more likely to score higher on measures of anti-social personality traits, such as narcissism, psychopathy, and a desire for chaos. They were also more likely to express authoritarian views, including a preference for strict social hierarchies and distrust of those outside their group. In terms of social attitudes, believers in White Replacement exhibited stronger negative views toward immigrants, minorities, and women, and expressed higher levels of racial resentment and anti-immigrant sentiment.

If this data is a reasonable description of the reality of public sentiment about the WRC (White Replacement conspiracy), it suggests a deep seated source of non-trivial fear. The fear is not partisan here, it is primal human. Presumably, (i) most of the fear is grounded in bigotry or racism, and (ii) the fear is mostly or completely irrational and exaggerated by authoritarian radical right demagoguery (dark free speech). 

This data raises a question. Is it possible that by constant use of dark free speech to enhance feelings of fear, bigotry and racism, that could create a backlash from targeted and dehumanized groups who themselves feel resentful and vengeful of those who vilify them without any good, evidence-based reason? Could the WRC, though false at present, become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

If I were in one of those targeted, dehumanized groups, I would probably feel at least some resentment and maybe even an urge to get some payback if an opportunity presented itself. 

But, how big a deal is the belief in the WRC? Apparently, it is a fairly big deal in MAGAlandia and the GOP, and if the data here is accurate, it is a fairly big deal in all of American society:

Q: How common is belief in the White Replacement theory among Trump supporters?

A: Belief in the "White Replacement" conspiracy theory appears to be quite common among Trump supporters and Republicans more broadly, according to recent polling data. A May 2022 Yahoo News/YouGov poll found that 61% of Trump voters believed that "a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views." .... This belief was more prevalent among conservative media viewers, with 45% of One America News Network and Newsmax viewers and 31% of Fox News viewers agreeing.  

Researchers note that the White Replacement conspiracy theory has moved from fringe white supremacist circles into mainstream conservative discourse in recent years. High-profile Republican politicians and media figures have promoted versions of the theory, contributing to its wider acceptance among conservative voters.

The European origin of the WRC

Charlottesville 2017 

Fringe White Supremacists going mainstream

Chant: Jews will not replace us!

Some loaded questions, I admit…

• Q1: Do you think moderate Republicans should be/have a right to be royally pissed that Trump has almost single-handedly destroyed their beloved political party and turned it into an angry, vengeful, xenophobic MAGA cult?

• If yes, is that a valid reason for turning their back on Trump this November, in hopes that their party can rise up from the ashes Trump has left them with?

• If no, they shouldn’t be pissed, why not?

• Q2: Is Trump the kind of role model you would like for your kids to emulate?  How about for your country and/or for the greater world to emulate?  

• Whether yes or no, please elaborate. 

(by PrimalSoup)

Regarding a core aspect of politics: Reality, and thinking and lies about it

Wikipedia on false balancing: False balance, known colloquially as bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.

False equivalence: A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." This logic fallacy incorrectly presents two things as equivalent despite significant differences between them. Equivalence between two subjects is based on flawed reasoning, often oversimplifying or otherwise distorting complex issues by focusing on superficial similarities. False equivalence is not specific to journalism. It occurs in many types of arguments. 

Both false balancing and false equivalence mislead by presenting unequal things as equal. Both are common tactics in misinformation campaigns.

Germaine chatting with the MSM?

(mainstream media)

A few days after the 2016 presidential election, Russian reporter Masha Gessen wrote this warning in an article, Autocracy: Rules for Survival, for the New York Review of Books:

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.”

 

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said on Wednesday [in her concession speech to Trump].

Gessen watched and reported about Putin dismantling Russia's democracy and the building of his brutal kleptocratic tyranny. She could see the threat of the same thing happening to America even before DJT was elected to office.

Today, an NYT opinion-interview with Gessen included the following comments:

When you place lies and facts on an even footing, it basically creates a political sphere in which there’s no fact-based reality. That’s a pre-totalitarian condition. You can’t have [democratic] politics if you don’t have a shared reality and if you don’t place an absolute value on the truth. I think that normalization degrades our political life and degrades our understanding of politics. [authoritarian politics disregards reality and truth when they are inconvenient and sometimes even when they aren't] 

 

We, as journalists, do our absolute worst when we engage in a kind of false evenhandedness. What I think their thinking was — and I can only conjecture — but their thinking was probably: We have one candidate who is in the habit of lying, as is his running mate. Let’s find a way that we can show that we’re equally critical of both candidates.

 

The idea that that is in any way comparable to the kinds of really malignant lies that Trump and Vance have been spreading intentionally [referring to Walz's false assertion that he was in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China]. There is no equality here.

Vance absolutely leaned into the Trump framing of Jan. 6 as, on the one hand, a peaceful protest, on the other hand, a question of freedom of speech, a reflection of fundamental American values. And this, as many people have noted, was when Walz finally seemed to find his footing, in the last 10 minutes of the debate. And I think this is another thing that was so disappointing to me.

It’s a classic false equivalence. Walz is talking about his time in Hong Kong and possibly fibbing, possibly misremembering, but it’s a minor, minor thing in his background. Versus Vance’s out-and-out lies about an actual insurrection and actual violent attack on our institutions of state. To put them on the same level is absurd.

So the debate was truly worse than I feared. If you think back to the presidential debate and how in the immediate aftermath everybody said that Kamala Harris won it, which she did, she was a better debater if you judge it as a debate. But if you judge it in terms of its influence and think about who dominated the news cycle afterward, well, it was clearly Donald Trump and his lies, and Vance’s lies about Springfield, Ohio.

Three thoughts:

• By virtue of his sloth and stupidity, DJT is no totalitarian like Stalin, Hitler or arguably Putin. Unless I grossly misread Hannah Arendt's 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, DJT can never be a totalitarian. But he is capable of being, and desperately wants to be, a cruel kleptocratic, above-the-law dictator for life.

• More importantly, Gessen correctly calls out the MSM's stubborn false equivalence habit that puts dark free speech by DJT, MAGA and the GOP on the same footing as people and institutions that support honest speech, democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and truth, even if that support is sometimes uneven or contradicted. She calls out lies and points out the non-equivalence of authoritarian DJT/GOP/MSM lies compared to Waltz falsely saying he was in Hong Kong when he wasn't. It is not just the quantity of lies, e.g., lies/week, that is important. Just as or more important is the quality of those lies. Anti-democracy lies are far more damaging and thus important than merely self-aggrandizing lies coming from a politician who supports democracy.

• Gessen's assertion of false equivalence the MSM routinely asserts is similar to the false balancing criticism I have been asserting about the MSM falsely calling authoritarianism and authoritarians things like conservatism, conservatives or some variant thereof. Gessen's comments were so resonant with me that I got irrationally exuberant and wrote some comments about the opinion piece. I don't comment much anymore at the NYT because I irritated someone there. Now the NYT "moderates" my comments into irrelevance. For those interested, here's my comment, which is still in "moderation" by the NYT.

Eww, I've been

moderated upon!

Yeah, pending approval

my ass!

My comments pasted here: Fantastic interview. Gessen gets it. For months, I have been writing emails to journalists, editors and opinionologists, including those at the NYT, bitterly complaining about the false balancing malpractice the MSM keeps committing by treating Trump and MAGA on an equal footing.

My main complaint has been and still is is that it is false balancing for the MSM to call Trump, MAGA, Project 2025 and the like "conservative" when they are in fact authoritarian. Gessen knows authoritarianism when it exists. She warned us in 2016 just after Trump won the election that he was an autocrat. She was ignored or attacked as a liar, idiotically alarmist, etc.

What has the MSM response to Gessen and people like me been? In my case, The NYT now moderates my comments and refuses to post them until they are "moderated." I get moderated into oblivion for no reason I can fathom other than being too blunt about inconvenient truth. Apparently, I really ticked off somebody here. Not surprisingly, none of my emails about false balancing to the people here and elsewhere has elicited a single response.

Regarding false equivalence, Gessen is right. Under current circumstances, the MSM is so wrong it amounts to malpractice at best, but arguably betrayal of the public.

Any thoughts about the VP debate?

My reaction is that Vance did about the best he could with the crappy situation he was in, e.g., (i) lying to us by says DJT saved Obamacare when DJT tried to kill Obamacare, (ii) won't answer about solen election stuff, (iii) deflects inconvenient questions, (iv) blaming Harris for things she had no control over and power to deal with, etc. Honestly, what else could he do other than that, but using his usual insulting, attacking MAGA style? Being attached to DJT and is record of moral rot somewhat limits the things one can say, even if one is a chronic liar.

Waltz did fine for the most part. He's a likeable, reasonable guy.

Now, I'll check to see what the punditocracy has to say about it.

A commentary about patriotism

The NYT editorial board seems to be worried (not paywalled):

The Only Patriotic Choice for President

It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.

[Trump] has promised to be a different kind of president this time, one who is unrestrained by checks on power built into the American political system. His pledge to be “a dictator” on “Day 1” might have indeed been a joke — but his undisguised fondness for dictatorships and the strongmen who run them is anything but.

Hm, morally unfit. One doesn't hear that very often. And, an unequivocal, dispiriting truth, also pretty rare in MSM rhetoric.

Now taking predictions…

 …for the upcoming political "October Surprise(s)."

Let’s see if anyone predicts correctly.

(by PrimalSoup)