HURR white men are duh real terrorists!
We all knew this was coming. After the Roof shooting, the anti-white media exploded into an orgy of signaling and double-standards, and now a new trending story is out about how the amorphous hydra of home-grown non-Muslim right-wing white American extremism is the biggest threat to the United States. You know, that country we founded? The New America Foundation—who I presume are anti-Old America—has put out some stats on "lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11."
Here are some of the best spins on the story, as delivered by the trending column on the Facebook (-book, -book):
The answer to your question is no, since you are signaling—err, I mean singling—out the country's largest demographic as its largest threat. As we'll see later, per capita huwhytes are quite safe to be around. Bonus points though for the Confederate battle flag, the one that even "conservatives" want taken down.
Hows that for a juxtaposition; 9/11 and a skinhead troll!
This actually isn't even what the study put out refers to, unless you consider all Muslim terrorists in the United States foreign, and while I do, I am surprised that the left would make a misstep like that. I'm sure someone has corrected their error in HuffPo's comments section, because the real issue here is being more inclusive to Islam. Go troll them if you want on that point.
Although it's the closest to the source's headline, the NYT headline too is a funny juxtaposition. Can we really trust these white cops to fight right-wing terrorism? White people are the biggest threat!
Okay all joking aside, this narrative is bullshit. Let's take a closer look.
Problem 1: Taking out the September 11 Muslim terror attacks.
The agenda here is so painfully obvious that no one should take this home-grown white terror meme seriously, but of course, people are taking it seriously because it is being fed to them. Removing 9/11 from the stats on terror attacks in the United States puts a huge damper on the Muslim K-D ratio, and the overall number of people killed. To the tune of two thousand nine hundred seventy-seven people in three attacks, or two since one failed. So like, uh, other than fucking 9/11, Muslims haven't terroristed anyone like whites have right? Let's just sweep that under the Persian rug.
Problem 2: Conflation of White Americans with right-wing extremism and with non-Muslims, and just making a generally bad case for it.
This is less of a problem with the originator of the story, the New America Foundation, and more a problem with the aggregators reposting it. The Foundation breaks down terror attacks into two categories, "Jihadist" and "Right-Wing." The binary is pretty ironic since Jihadists are frequently right-wing in terms of their views on religion, ethnicity, women and sexuality, while "Right-Wing" is just a stand-in for non-liberal whites, especially when the aggregator sites posted this story. You know, the wrong kind of white people, the ones that Jon Leibowitz laughs at.
Thankfully, their breakdown of the attacks is quite clickable and we can find each attack's basic description on their site. I'm not going to go through all of them here, but since there are 19 "Right-Wing" attacks, seven of which with only one fatality each, I was tempted to look into them. Some of them just cite the perpetrators as having made "anti-government" or "anti-police" statements as enough to make them Right-Wing Terrorists™. I thought it was the left hated the police for being racist and stuff? Aren't conservatives tough on law and order? No matter, they're home-grown non-Muslim right-wing white American extremist terrorists. Other cited terrorists actually had connections with neo-Nazism or voiced other objectively right-wing leanings. And of course there's the recent Roof shooting, which adds one attack and nine casualties to the overall count. Fair enough. But these kinds of things are extremely rare, as we shall soon see.
Problem 3: These numbers actually make the left's pet Muslims look worse.
This isn't so much our problem as theirs though; I don't think any of us advocate for Muslim immigration. But let's look at some numbers, because the white terrorism meme is an obfuscating one.
48 people were killed in 19 attacks by non-Muslim extremists
That's an average of 2.52 people per attack. Assuming that all of these attackers were white nationalists or supremacists, because that's what all the headlines are implying, we will assume the population they are drawn from is non-Hispanic whites. According to the Census Bureau, this group made up 62.6% of the United States in 2013, making it the majority. Multiplying the 2013 population estimate with this number yields 198,127,454 huwhyte people. The ratio of whites to right-wing or white terror attacks is therefore 10,427,760:1. So for every 10,500,000 white people, there is one terrorist.
26 people were killed in 7 attacks by Muslim extremists
That's an average of 3.7 people per attack. According to Pew Research Center, there were 2,770,000 Muslims in the United States in 2010, making up 0.9% of the population. The ratio of Muslims to Muslim terror attacks is therefore 395,714:1. So for every 400,000 Muslims, there is one terrorist.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that minority Muslims are almost 26 times more likely to be terrorists than the majority white population, even though whites commit more terror attacks? Even though there are almost 70 times more whites than Muslims in the United States? How do per capita statistics work? How could that even be possible? You're racist! Skinhead troll!
Whites killed more people because there are vastly more whites than Muslims, but whites are also vastly less dangerous than Muslims in the United States. It should also be noted that if the aggregator sites has been honest about their reporting instead of defaulting right-wing persons to white people, there would still be more conservatives than Muslims, and Muslims would still be more likely to be terrorists than either conservatives or whites. You tell me who is proportionately the bigger threat.