Unblocked Photos, Video Surveillance, and Other Concessions to Reality

There are any number of German privacy laws that restrict the ability of German police to solve crimes. Cops are not allowed to use DNA to create profiles of criminal suspects. Major political parties continue to resist putting surveillance cameras in public places, or upgrading the ludicrously outdated ones that are already there. 

And police often wait days or months to publish photos of criminal suspects. Even when they do, the photos are often blurred out of concerns for "privacy".

Which leads to what the rest of the world sees as a ludicrous charade: a manhunt for a dangerous wanted terrorism suspect in which the public is not allowed to see the man's face.

This is the photos of Anis Amri, the Tunisian asylum-seeker suspect in the Breitscheidplatz Christmas market attack, as show on the front page of the German Bild tabloid:

Bildredc

And here is the photo of the suspect as shown on the Daily Mirror tabloid site:

Fff

As the Mirror notes, with barely-disguised incredulity:

Despite an unfolding international manhunt the first pictures of him released in Germany have his eyes deliberately covered, thought to be because of strict privacy laws there. MailOnline has uncovered unblurred images.

In case you were wondering, the website of the Daily Mirror can be accessed from anywhere inside Germany, so the unblurred photo is just a mouse-click away.

When Germans bother to ask why these photos are so often blurred, or not even released in the first place, authorities mumble something about 'privacy concerns' and 'data protection'. The restrictions have just been around forever, they're taken so much for granted that nobody seems to actually understand why they still exist. It's like asking why pretzels are folded the way they are. Who knows? We've always just done it that way.

If pressed, Green Party members (the most vociferous opponents of updating police laws) will probably say something like "Well, if you release the entire photo, the man will be marked for life. Maybe some vigilante will try to attack him." Yet there is no proof that these things happen with regularity in other countries which do release unedited photos. Of course there might be isolated cases, but by and large, people in those countries -- i.e. the rest of the world -- understand that suspects are just suspects, and that it's wrong and illegal to take the law into your own hands. And that the public interest in apprehending dangerous violent criminals also has to be taken into account, and is very high.

Allow me to make another one of my predictions: most of these outdated policies will crumble within the next few years. The moderate, cautious, kid-gloves approach to law enforcement in Germany was designed for a bygone era, in which Germany was much more homogeneous and even criminals shared a language, culture, and set of expectations with the society in which they lived.

When Dieter the local bartender robs a bank with a plastic pistol because he lost his job and can't pay his mortgage, he's probably going to turn himself in and confess ('I just drank a bottle of Schnaps and lost control.'). Everyone knows Dieter and his family, Dieter showed he understands what he did was wrong, nobody was hurt, and Dieter will not only promise to repay the money, he will actually do so. Because Dieter is German, and has roots in the community, and can anticipate regaining some place in it if he shows genuine remorse. The same even goes for Dieter beating his wife after a violent argument. Of course that crime is much more serious, and Dieter will go to prison, but the crime is still comprehensible and (conditionally) forgivable within the pattern of assumptions and practices that make up German culture. 

The sort of crime happening in Germany has changed completely. The laws will need to change as well. There will still be vigorous rear-guard resistance to these changes, but it will eventually fail. As Herbert Stein once said, if something can't go on forever, it will stop.


Why Most of the 2015 Arrivals Will Never Integrate

Sure, people like commenter Ralph concede, letting in all those young males in 2015 without any background checks was foolish, but now we're stuck with them. So we have to "integrate" them into German society. Not to single out Ralph, who's a great guy -- you hear this line on every talk show. It's the standard trade-off for mainstream politicians: "I can no longer credibly defend the 2015 influx. So admitting it was a mistake preserves my credibility. But I can insist that all the problems can be solved by the magic panacea of integration. Of course, I have to add that it will be 'difficult', but I must continue to hammer on it. Because the alternative is too awful to think about."

News from an ambitious longitudinal study of young people in New Zealand give the lie to this optimism:

The research – based on New Zealand data but involving an international team – also revealed that such “high cost” adults can be predicted when as young as three years old from an assessment of their brain health.

The study, which followed around 1,000 children from birth, found that at 38 years of age just 22% of the group accounted for 81% of its criminal convictions, 78% of pharmaceutical prescriptions, and 66% of welfare benefits.

“About 20% of the population is using the lion’s share of a wide array of public services and we found that the same people use most of the national health service, the criminal courts, insurance claims for disabling injury, pharmaceutical prescriptions and social welfare benefits,” said Terrie Moffitt, co-author of the research from Duke University, North Carolina.

...“The implications are that we have really underestimated the long-term benefits of investment in early years education for disadvantaged children, both in terms of the benefits for the children themselves but also in terms of the payback for the public purse,” he said.

At first, this seems to be just routine confirmation of the 80/20 rule of thumb: 20% of the population causes 80% of the crime. 

But notice the implications for Germany. Conditions in every single country from which 2015 migrants arrived are light-years behind stable, prosperous New Zealand. Also, as the study's authors implicitly concede, treatment of these disturbed people when they are adults is generally ineffective. That is why they stress early childhood intervention. There is, of course, a hereditary component which nobody dares to mention, but let's leave that to one side for now.

That is why most of the 2015 arrivals will not integrate into German society: (1) many new arrivals had formative childhood experiences much worse than even the most deprived of the New Zealanders; (2) it is too late to do anything about them by early childhood intervention; and (3) the 2015 arrivals don't have to figure out how to live in their own society, they have to figure out how to live in another, completely different one.

Most of them will fail, of course. Most will not actively harm German society, but they won't contribute anything much, and will be a significant drain on resources.

This is why it's time to step up deportations. Hundreds of thousands of these young males are here for no reason. They are not subject to persecution, have no legal right to be in Germany, and have zero prospects for successfully integrating into and contributing to German society. They should be returned to their homes, families, and communities. The experiment is over.


Crime by Germans Down, Crime by Immigrants Up

Take a look at these graphs from the 2015 criminal statistics report from the city of Hamburg. In each case, the numbers in light-blue represent crime by people with German citizenship, dark-blue people without.

Burglaries:

Wohnungseinbruch

All thefts:

Wohnungseinbruch

Robberies on streets, paths, or public places:


Wohnungseinbruch

Homicides:


Wohnungseinbruch

Sexual assault:


Wohnungseinbruch

All robberies:


Wohnungseinbruch

All crimes except for offenses against immigration laws (purple equals total, light-blue is persons with German citizenship, darker blue is persons without):


Wohnungseinbruch

As always, these statistics have to be treated with caution, since it will never be possible to know how much political pressure was applied to reduce the number and/or seriousness of offenses by non-Germans. It's also necessary to understand that these stats do not record the ethnic ancestry of people who actually have German citizenship, so it would probably be reasonable to assume some fairly large percentage of the German citizens are of non-German ethnic extraction.

Yet even with all these caveats, the charts are illuminating. It is the case, as liberal commentators point out, that crime in general is going down in Germany. However, as we can see, that's not the whole story. Crime by Germans is decreasing steadily, because Germany is aging. But crime by non-Germans is increasing. It's almost as if Germany were attempting to keep the overall level of crime steady by importing young foreign criminals to offset the safety gains from aging native Germans.

I don't know about you, but I don't think that's a very sound policy. I would rather enjoy the benefits of a safer society, wouldn't you? Yet Germany's bizarre, asylum-driven immigration system results in the importation of disproportionate numbers of males who have no realistic chance of successfully integrating into German society and end up committing crimes, including violent crimes.

I'm not sure German policymakers realize this, but you don't have to offset Germany's aging society at all. Even if you want to, you don't have to do it by plucking random young males from the sidewalks of teeming Third World countries. You could consciously decide to import intelligent, well-adjusted young people with motivation and skills. You know, the kind of people who are extremely unlikely to end up as criminals or gangsters. There are millions of them out there. Why not give it a try?


Mitten in Deutschland -- German History X

A huge conglomeration of public and private foundations put together a three-part series on the early 2000s murder spree of the National Socialist Underground called Mitten in Deutschland (In the Middle of Germany) in Germany and German History X when it was released by Netflix with English subtitles.

It's basically a trilogy of feature-length movies. I found it surprisingly good. German television and movies punch below their weight in general, but have shown some intermittent signs of improvement in recent years. Deutschland '83 is much more than watchable, and so is German History X. 

The first movie, about the formation of the 2-man one-woman 'trio' which formed the core of the NSU, shows the protagonists coming together in the 1990s neo-Nazi scene in Jena. The three core performers are stellar. The film also does a fine job of demonstrating how young people in the damaged, demoralized East often sought fellowship and a sense of purpose in violent Nazi groups. The second movie focuses on the victims, and is held together by a strong performance by Almila Bagriacik, who emerges from adolescence under the shadow of the murder of her father. The police immediately seek the killer in the 'milieu' of foreign small businessmen, without considering the possibility of a terrorist motive even after numerous other foreign shopkeepers are killed with the same weapon used to kill the first victim. 

The final movie, which focuses on the investigation, is the slackest of the bunch. This is hard to avoid, since the subject is, by definition, an investigation that went nowhere. The early-2000s murder spree of the three NSU members was discovered only posthumously, when two of them committed suicide after a botched 2011 bank robbery, and the murder weapon was found in their accomplice's apartment. The third movie paints a picture of detectives who develop solid leads, only to be frustrated by the machinations of the Thuringia state Verfassungsschutz. The Verfassungsschutz claimed to have deeply infiltrated the groups supporting the NSU trio, and fought against any arrests, questioning, or surveillance which could theoretically blow their agents' cover. Which meant, in the end, that they provided an enormous amount of cover, and even financing, to out-and-out Nazis who were committing sundry violent crimes. The movies' clear implication is that the Verfassungsschutz was operating at least in part out of sympathy for the right-wingers' goals.

The English translation of Verfassungsschutz in the movies was "secret service", which obviously doesn't do justice to this peculiar organization. English-language viewers certainly missed many of the implications of what was shown in the third film. Basically, the "Agency for the Protection of the Constitution", as the title means in English, is an originally West German domestic spying and intelligence agency. As its name implies, it is theoretically supposed to monitor, document, report on, and suppress any nascent threats to the German constitutional order. This includes right-wing and left-wing extremists, religious organizations, and cults. Each German state has one of these agencies, and there is a federal one as well. To call them controversial is an understatement -- they are often accused of putting far more energy into surveillance of left-wing militants than right-wing groups, and are also accused of chilling free speech by singling out politically-charged organizations and publications for scrutiny in their public reports. In fact, the right-wing weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit -- successfully sued to prohibit the Verfassungsschutz from mentioning them in its reports.

The agency has also been involved in innumerable scandals involving -- at the very minimum -- incompetence. The most recent in a very long list is the hiring of Roque M. (g) -- a German citizen of Spanish descent who was hired as a Verfassungsschutz spy in the State of Northern Rhine Westphalia despite a history of mental instability and bizarre behavior, such as acting in gay porn films even though he was a married father of 4, running his own gay porn publishing house, running a website selling "German Military Underwear. Strong. Manly. Sexy.", and converting to radical Islam. The Verfassungschutz -- apparently unaware of the possibility of running a Google search -- only found out about him when he bragged about being a mole in the agency and working on plans to destroy it in an online forum which was being monitored by his co-workers.

In fact, the picture of the German law enforcement authorities in all of the films is devastating. The Keystone Kops of East Germany let the three neo-Nazis go underground even after finding bombs and weapons in one of their hideouts. Cops invent a hare-brained drug-smuggling conspiracy theory to explain the totally unrelated murder of ethnic-minority shopkeepers all over Germany with the exact same weapon. (Although this isn't mentioned in the film, they also chased a phantom serial killer whose existence was based on botched DNA testing). Their attitude toward murder victims' surviving relatives is callous in the extreme; Germany still has only a vestigial state infrastructure for providing counseling and care to surviving family members of murder victims. And in the third movie, the police actively allow and sometimes even assist neo-Nazis to commit violent crimes and spread propaganda, either out of incompetence or covert sympathy for their goals.

The general portrayal of police agencies is counterbalanced by sympathetic portrayals of individual cops, but they are seen as constantly having to fight against institutional blindness, rivalry, and silo-mentality thinking. When they're not fighting against moles in their own and other agencies who actually intentionally assist the neo-Nazis. The picture of police is probably a bit exaggerated, but there is no doubt much of it was justified -- there are still dozens of very strange unanswered questions surrounding the fruitless investigation of the NSU murders. And, given the authorities' mania for secrecy and the lack of a culture of vigorous investigative journalism fed by leaks from inside the government, they'll probably remain unanswered forever.


...meanwhile in France: Listlessness, Gloom, Mistrust

This handy summary of a poll about attitudes toward government in France comes courtesy of the right-wing Gatestone Institute, and is based on this poll (f):

Public Opinion: In January 2016, Cevipof, a think tank of the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po), released its seventh Barometer of Political Trust, a poll published annually to measure the values of democracy in the country, and based on interviews with 2074 people:

  • What is your current state of mind? Listlessness 31%, Gloom 29%, Mistrust 28%, Fear: 10%
  • Do you trust government? Not much 58%, not at all 32%
  • Do you trust lawmakers? Not much 39%, not at all 16%%
  • Do you trust the president? Not much 32%; not at all 38%
  • Do politicians care about what the people think? Not much 42%, not at all 46%
  • How democracy is working in France? Not well 43%, not well at all 24%
  • Do you trust political parties? Not much 47%, not at all 40%
  • Do you trust the media? Not much 48% not at all 27 %
  • What do you feel about politics? Distrust 39%; disgust 33%, boredom 8%
  • What do you feel about politicians? Disappointment 54%; disgust 20%
  • Corruption of politicians? Yes 76%
  • Too many migrants? Yes, plus tend to agree: 65%
  • Islam is a threat? Yes, plus tend to agree: 58%
  • Proud to be French? Yes 79%

I don't know about you, but I'd say these numbers are good news for a certain Marine. But then again, French people have been feeling this way for quite some time:

More frenchy


Another 17-Year-Old Afghan Goes on a Murder Spree

Not that it took anything but common sense to make it, but my prediction of this morning stands confirmed.

According to the just-completed police press conference, the accused in the case of the October 2016 rape and murder of Maria L. is an "unaccompanied minor" from Afghanistan who claimed to be 17 years old. His "unusual haircut" (which he never bothered to change) gave him away, and his DNA matches DNA found at the crime scene.

Cops were working overtime, and are justifiably proud of the arrest. They were working under the constraints of German law, which forbids them from creating an ethnic profile from the DNA found at the crime scene, which would have immediately ruled out Northern Europeans as a DNA contributor. The accused was living with a German host family. No word yet whether he is also involved in the rape and murder of a jogger which happened in the same general area in November. Given how rare these sorts of crimes are (were?) in Germany, I'd bet the odds are fairly high he is.

This is the second time this year that a German host family has woken up to find that the shy, polite 17-year-old "unaccompanied minor" from Afghanistan with whom they shared their home turned out to be a ticking time-bomb (g). One hacked four people nearly to death with an ax, this latest one may be a serial sex-murderer.

Have I mentioned my suspicion that a disproportionately large number of the young males who arrived in 2015 seem to have mental problems, and were probably sent away by their families because they were an embarrassment/liability back home?

If he's convicted -- and especially he's found responsible for other random murders of young women -- this case will have a huge impact on the immigration debate here.

And why shouldn't it?

If only there were some way to investigate the background and mental condition of illegal immigrants before letting them enter and move freely about your country....

 

 


Freiburg Rape-Murders Still Unsolved

In October and November, two young women were attacked, one in Freiburg, one nearby. They were apparently seized at random, raped, and murdered. It is possible both attacks were committed by the same rapist/murderer. So far, despite cash rewards, the use of scent hounds, and comparisons with volunteer DNA samples, there are no solid clues.

The police have male DNA from one of the crime scenes with which they could construct an accurate visual profile of the suspect and precisely define which ethnic group he comes from. But Section 81(e) of the German Criminal Procedure code outlaws this, although it is common in other countries. The contains no exception for extreme situations, such as the possibility of active serial killers.

The police took hundreds of DNA samples from men who attended a medicine faculty college party with one of the victims just before she was killed. Let's assume 90% of the men where white. If the DNA sample could have been tested for ethnicity, and it showed the suspect was black, the police would not have had to waste thousands of man-hours on this fruitless search. The police will probably broaden their search to other ethnic communities. But if the DNA sample showed someone of Northern European ancestry, these searches would also be superfluous -- or at least could be targeted much more precisely.

There should be a national debate about changing this law, but the only commentary I have seen so far about this questionable law has been in the conservative Junge Freiheit. And, of course, here on German Joys.

If another young woman is dragged into the bushes, raped, and murdered -- and it turns out a DNA profile could have helped solve the crime before her death -- maybe the mainstream press will notice this issue. But it shouldn't have to come to that, should it? 


The New German Illegal Immigration Policy: Discourage, Detain, Deport

A prominent CDU politician has just advocated (g):
  • Actually deporting the 500,000 migrants currently in Germany whose asylum claims have been denied and who have no legal right to be here.
  • Turning back illegal migrants at the border.
  • Turning back migrant boats launching from Africa and establishing a detention center in Egypt.
  • Sanctioning and then deporting people who "lost" their identity papers and refuse to cooperate in getting new ones.
  • Disallowing illness as a reason to prevent deportation (an extremely common tactic, enabled by sympathetic doctors) if the person migrated to Germany with the illness.

In other words, adopting the sort of immigration policies the rest of the developed world has always had. Any one of these proposals would have been -- and was -- denounced as tantamount to fascism in 2015. It's unlikely all of these proposals will be enacted, but the reaction will be a lot more muted, and many of them will have a chance at passage.

We're a long way from the heady days of 2015, when seemingly every German was entranced by the moistly sentimental dream of proving Germany's enduring moral superiority by throwing open its borders to anyone. A year of dealing with the resulting increased crime; soaring expense; dismal integration results; visible decay and danger in lower-class neighborhoods; abuse of the asylum system; child marriages; honor killings; street stabbings, terror scares and terror attacks; and conflicts over resources, cultural differences, and funding priorities has taken its toll.

Turns out there was no magic pixie dust.

Of course nobody could have predicted the problems or the backlash. Except, of course, me, and millions of other observers. Who were mocked, insulted, and even threatened for the crime of clinging to our common sense in a period of national self-delusion.

We're a long way from Willkommenskultur.

  


The Constitution and American Political Culture Will Survive (and Restrain) Trump

Another thoughtful piece putting the Trump win in context by Robert Howse, professor of international law at NYU:

4. Trump correctly gauged based on geographical and demographic factors to whom he would need to appeal  in order to put together a winning coalition.  He grew up in New York in the 60s and 70s, became a niche celebrity figure; he does not have a worked out racialist or authoritarian ideology.  True, he has been a tough and perhaps dodgy businessman (but not dodgy enough ever to face serious criminal consequences); but he has never been a colonel, an agent in the secret police, an operative in an extremist political party or movement, nor even a right wing activist or agitator.  He approached his political rhetoric as would a businessman who has identified the market he needs to succeed with and the slogans that work for the range of consumers within that market.    Trump did not create xenophobic, reactionary voters; nor are there more of them; it is just that Trump and others have figured out how to make political gains by mobilizing them as part of their coalition....

5. Trump was elected fairly.  The Clinton campaign itself made no objection to the result nor any claim of widespread intimidation, vote-rigging or suppression that was material to the outcome. The Clinton campaign was not inequitably deprived of resources or opportunities to make its case....

8.  Don’t forget that there is a diversity of views within liberal democratic constitutionalism about collective identity, diversity, and democracy.  Be very cautious before simply labeling someone who doesn’t share one’s strongly held own view as intolerant, racist, or anti-liberal.

9. Trump’s project of mass deportation of undocumented migrants would, I believe, be a social, economic, and humanitarian disaster. As for the horrific notion of closing the borders to Muslims, it’s already apparently removed from his website. This said, open borders is not and never has been a sine qua non for liberal democratic constitutionalism (the EU experiment not withstanding). Strictly enforcing immigration rules is not inherently illiberal or undemocratic. I’m all for a decent approach that would involve amnesty for undocumented migrants, but people like me still have to bear in mind that there is a rule of law argument behind Trump’s position that forgiveness is unfair to those who have followed the rules and lined up in the queue. I also favor an open approach to legalimmigration and generosity in the reception of refugees.  I think it’s the right thing to do, but it is not dictated by a bedrock commitment to liberal democratic constitutionalism....

12. The United States has always lacked a stable caste of high officials whose calling is absolute loyalty or service to the ruler. Just watch an episode or two of House of Cards or West Wing and you will see that how the President is surrounded by rivals past, present and future; advisers in his own office may well have their own agendas, and everybody is looking out for themselves and looking to the next election.  The Republican Party is fractious, so is the conservative movement in America: they will line up behind Trump only to the extent that serves their interests and values  The checks and balances in the United States political system are not a mere matter of constitutional formalism that could quickly crumble in the presence of a strong man contemptuous of the rule of law, they are deeply embedded sociologically in America’s culture of freedom and self-interested individualism.

13. Demonizing Mr. Trump and attempting to isolate him as beyond the liberal democratic pale is itself contrary to the spirit of liberal democratic constitutionalism. He deserves the respect of office, however much self-control is required to give it to him.  But respect of office is just that, a recognition of his legitimately acquired constitutional role. If Trump starts to act in ways that are threatening to the constitution and its underlying values that respect is forfeited. And impeachment is the ultimate remedy if he acts extra-legally.  Finally, as is often the case, Bernie Sanders puts it best:

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.


Many Anti-Trump Arguments Are Hysteria

Trump is many things, and has said many things, but he's not a fascist, he's not deeply racist (although he has made racist statements), he's clearly no anti-Semite, and his views on immigration aren't far out of the mainstream.

Those of you getting your news from the German media may well be doing spit-take after spit-take, but this thorough and well-documented post from Slate Star Codex checks out all the most extreme claims about Trump and finds most of them overblown. You should read the entire thing, but here are some generous excerpts:

3. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from people who wouldn’t join white nationalist groups, aren’t in the online alt-right, but still privately hold some kind of white supremacist position?

There are surprisingly few polls that just straight out ask a representative sample of the population “Are you white supremacist?”.

I can find a couple of polls that sort of get at this question in useful ways.

This poll from Gallup asks white Americans their support for school segregation and whether they would move out if a black family moved in next door. It declines from about 50% in 1960 to an amount too small to measure in the 1990s, maybe 1-2%, where it presumably remains today.

(this graph also seems relevant to the stories of how Trump’s father would try to keep blacks out of his majority-white real estate developments in the late 60s/early 70s – note that at that time 33% of white families would move out if a black person moved in next door)

Here’s a CBS News poll from 2014 asking Americans their opinion on the Civil Rights Act that legally prohibited discrimination. Once again, the number of whites who think it was a bad thing is too small to measure meaningfully, but looks like maybe 1-2%. Of note, whites were more convinced the Civil Rights Act was good than blacks were, though I guess it depends on the margin of error.

Another Gallup graph here, with the percent of people who would vs. wouldn’t vote for an otherwise-qualified black candidate for President. It goes from 54% in 1968 to 5% in 1999; later polls that aren’t included on the graph give numbers from 4% to 7%, which sounds probably within the margin of error.

This is a Vox poll asking how many people had favorable vs. unfavorable views of different groups. 11% admit to “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” views of blacks, which sounds bad, except that 7% of people admit to unfavorable views of heterosexuals by the same definition. This makes me think “have an unfavorable view about this group” is not a very high bar. If we restrict true “white supremacists” to those who have only “very unfavorable” views of blacks, this is 3%, well in line with our other sources.

(of note, 1% of respondents had “never heard of” blacks. Um…)

Maybe a better way of looking for racists: David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana this year. He came in seventh with 58,000 votes (3%). Multiplied over 50 states, that would suggest 2.5 million people who would vote for a leading white supremacist. On the other hand, Louisiana is one of the most racist states (for example, Slate’s investigation found that it led the US in percent of racist tweets) and one expects Duke would have had more trouble in eg Vermont. Adjusting for racism level as measured in tweets, it looks like there would be about 1 million Duke voters in a nationwide contest. That’s a little less than 1% of voters.

So our different ways of defining “open white supremacist”, even for definitions of “open” so vague they include admitting it on anonymous surveys, suggest maybe 1-2%, 1-2%, 4-7%, 3-11%, and 1-3%.

But doesn’t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn’t this still really important?

I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.

(and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don’t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)

...

This gets back to my doubts about “dog whistles”. Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.

And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election.

Finally, no, none of this suggests that Donald Trump is courting the white supremacist vote. Anybody can endorse anybody with or without their consent. Did you know that the head of the US Communist Party endorsed Hillary, and Hillary never (as far as I know) “renounced” their endorsement? Does that mean Hillary is a Communist? Did you know that a leader of a murderous black supremacist cult supported Donald Trump and Trump said that he “loved” him? Does that mean Trump is a black supremacist? The only time this weird “X endorsed Y, that means Y must support X” thing is brought out, is in favor of the media narrative painting Trump to be a racist.

This, to me, is another form of crying wolf. One day you might have a candidate who openly courts the KKK, in the sense of having a campaign platform saying “I like the KKK and value their support”, speaking at Klan meetings, et cetera. And instead, you’ve wasted the phrase “openly courts the KKK” on somebody with a twenty year history of loudly condemning the KKK, plus one weird interview where he said he didn’t know anything about it, then changed his mind the next day and said he hates them.

...

6. What about Trump’s “drugs and crime” speech about Mexicans?

Trump said that:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):

We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.

Or John McCain in 2008:

Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminalgangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people.

Trump’s platform contains similar language – and, like all past platforms, also contains language praising legal immigrants:

Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society. We are also thankful for the many legal immigrants who continue to contribute to American society.

When Democrats and Republicans alike over the last twenty years say that we are a nation of immigrants but that illegal immigrants threaten our security, or may be criminals or drug pushers, they’re met with yawns. When Trump says exactly the same thing, he’s Literally the KKK.

7. What about the border wall? Doesn’t that mean Trump must hate Mexicans?

As multiple sources point out, both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border. Politifact says that Hillary and Obama wanted a 700 mile fence but Trump wants a 1000 mile wall, so these are totally different. But really? Support a 700 mile fence, and you’re the champion of diversity and all that is right in the world; support a 1000 mile wall and there’s no possible explanation besides white nationalism?

...

10. Isn’t Trump anti-Semitic?

I feel like an attempt to avoid crying wolf might reserve that term for people who didn’t win an Israeli poll on what candidate would best represent Israel’s interests, or doesn’t have a child who converted to Judaism, or hasn’t won various awards from the American Jewish community for his contributions to Israel and American Judaism, or wasn’t the grand marshal of a Salute To Israel Parade, or…

...

14. Haven’t there been hundreds of incidents of Trump-related hate crimes?

This isn’t a criticism of Trump per se (he’s demanded that his supporters avoid hate crimes), but it seems relevant to the general tenor of the campaign.

SPLC said they have 300 such hate incidents, although their definition of “hate incident” includes things like “someone overheard a racist comment in someone else’s private conversation, then challenged them about it and got laughed at”. Let’s take that number at face value (though see here)

If 47% of America supports Trump (= the percent of vote he got extrapolated to assume non-voters feel the same way), there are 150,000,000 Trump supporters. That means there has been one hate incident per 500,000 Trump supporters.

But aren’t there probably lots of incidents that haven’t been reported to SLPC? Maybe. Maybe there’s two unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 150,000 Trump supporters. Or maybe there are ten unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 45,000 Trump supporters. Since nobody has any idea about this, it seems weird to draw conclusions from it.

Oh, also, I looked on right-wing sites to see if there are complaints of harassment and attacks by Hillary supporters, and there are. Among the stories I was able to confirm on moderately trustworthy news sites that had investigated them somewhat (a higher standard than the SLPC holds their reports to) are ones about how Hillary supporters have beaten up people for wearing Trump hats, screamed encouragement as a mob beat up a man who they thought voted Trump, knocked over elderly people, beaten up a high school girl for supporting Trump on Instagram, defaced monuments with graffiti saying “DIE WHITES DIE”, advocated raping Melania Trump, kicked a black homeless woman who was holding a Trump sign, attacked a pregnant woman stuck in her car, with a baseball bat, screamed at children who vote Trump in a mock school election, etc, etc, etc.

But please, keep talking about how somebody finding a swastika scrawled in a school bathroom means that every single Trump supporter is scum and Trump’s whole campaign was based on hatred.

...

Whatever bizarre, divisive, ill-advised, and revolting thing you’re about to mention, the answer is probably yes.

This is equally true on race-related and non-race-related issues. People ask “How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, if he wasn’t racist?” I don’t know. How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK?

Trump will apparently believe anything for any reason, especially about his political opponents. If Clinton had been black but Obama white, we’d be hearing that the Vince Foster conspiracy theory proves Trump’s bigotry, and the birtherism was just harmless wackiness.

Likewise, how could Trump insult a Mexican judge just for being Mexican? I don’t know. How could Trump insult a disabled reporter just for being disabled? How could Trump insult John McCain just for being a beloved war hero? Every single person who’s opposed him, Trump has insulted in various offensive ways, including 140 separate incidents of him calling someone “dopey” or “dummy” on Twitter, and you expect him to hold his mouth just because the guy is a Mexican?

I don’t think people appreciate how weird this guy is. His weird way of speaking. His catchphrases like “haters and losers!” or “Sad!”. His tendency to avoid perfectly reasonable questions in favor of meandering tangents about Mar-a-Lago. The ability to bait him into saying basically anything just by telling him people who don’t like him think he shouldn’t.

If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.

...

Why am I harping on this?

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.

Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.

I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.

Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.

Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.