Opinion | The Buffalo Shooting Was Not a Random Act of Violence - The New York Times
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By The Editorial Board
Republican politicians, including some of the party's top leaders, openly espouse versions of a white supremacist conspiracy theory holding that an orchestrated effort is underway to displace white Americans. A recently published poll found that almost half of Republicans believe that immigrants are being brought to the United States as part of such an effort.
On Saturday, a gunman who said he was motivated by a version of this "replacement theory" killed 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store, officials said. The suspect, identified as Payton S. Gendron, wrote in an online diatribe that he sought to kill Black people because he wanted to prevent white people from losing their rightful control of the country.
Mr. Gendron described himself as part of a movement. He said that he was inspired by similar attacks on other minority communities and that he hoped others would follow his example. The suspects in several mass killings in recent years, including the 2015 murder of nine Black worshipers at a church in Charleston, S.C.; the 2018 murder of 11 Jewish worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh; the 2019 murder of 51 Muslim worshipers at a pair of mosques in New Zealand; and the 2019 murder of 23 people, many Latino, in El Paso also propounded versions of this racist worldview.
American life is punctuated by mass shootings that are routinely described as idiosyncratic. But these attacks are not random acts; they are part of the long American history of political violence perpetrated by white supremacists against Black people and other minority groups.
Politicians who have employed some of the vocabulary of replacement theory generally do not make explicit calls for violence. The office of one of those politicians, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, said in a statement that the Buffalo attack was an "act of evil" and that she "has never advocated for any racist position."
The matter is not so simple.
Replacement theory is an attack on democracy. It privileges the purported interests of some Americans over those of others, asserting, in effect, that the will of the people means the will of white people. It rekindles fears and resentments among white Americans that cynical practitioners of American politics have stoked throughout the nation's history. It also provides a disturbing rationalization for people inclined to resort to violence when the political process does not deliver what they want or protect what they see as their place in society.
The Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a leading purveyor of replacement theory rhetoric, has promoted the idea that elites are seeking to replace white Americans on more than 400 episodes of his program, according to an analysis by The New York Times.
"Now I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the third world," Mr. Carlson said on an episode in April 2021. "But they become hysterical because that's — that's what's happening, actually." Representative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, later tweeted that Mr. Carlson "is CORRECT about Replacement Theory as he explains what is happening to America."
In September, Ms. Stefanik's re-election campaign paid for a Facebook ad that combined imagery of immigrants with the accusation that "Radical Democrats are planning their most aggressive move yet: a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION." Ms. Stefanik's ad continued, "Their plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington."
Right-wing rhetoricians in the United States portray undocumented immigrants as the primary threat. This sanitizes replacement theory for mainstream consumption without diluting its logic. The same argument is easily applied to other minority groups.
The French author Renaud Camus coined the term "the great replacement" in a 2011 book to describe what he saw as a conscious effort by French elites to open the country's doors for Muslim immigrants to replace the ethnically French population and culture.
The template has been adapted for use by extremists around the world. Mr. Gendron wrote that he blamed Jews for orchestrating the replacement of white Americans. He copied large portions of his manifesto from the document posted to justify the New Zealand killings, in some cases inserting the name of the Jewish philanthropist George Soros in place of the former German chancellor Angela Merkel's name. The manifesto posted by the El Paso shooting suspect, which Mr. Gendron also referenced, spoke of the "Hispanic invasion of Texas." The common thread — the ineluctable core of replacement theory — is that some people are white and some people are not, and the people who are white are threatened by those who are not.
It must also be emphasized that the United States makes it easy for domestic terrorists to kill. The police said that the Buffalo assailant used a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle that he had purchased legally at a gun shop near his hometown. As a practical matter, almost anyone can buy guns that are designed to kill a lot of people quickly. The only real line of defense is the judgment of the people who sell guns. "He didn't stand out — because if he did, I would've never sold him the gun," Robert Donald, the store's owner, told The New York Times.
The focus on the gunman's motives should not obscure the fact that the most important step the government can take to impede similar attacks is to limit the availability of guns.
The health of American democracy also requires the constructive use of free speech, especially by the nation's political leaders. There are always demagogues whose stock in trade is the demonization of immigrants and other minority groups, and American society has long allowed those on the fringes to air their views. The question in any era is whether such views are voiced, or echoed, by those in positions of responsibility.
It is telling that House Republicans last year installed Ms. Stefanik in leadership to replace Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who remains among the most forthright critics of the party's illiberal turn.
Ms. Cheney tweeted on Monday: "The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. @GOP leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them."
She's right.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
We have already seen numerous right wing pundits etc claim that Tucker Carlson was no influence on the shooter (mass murderer). The shooter says he was motivated by "replacement theory". This is irrefutable. Tucker Carlson promoted replacement theory on his nightly show more than 400 times over the recent years. Its possible I suppose that Carlson did not directly, by name, motivated the shooter, but he certainly has motivated the mindset.
Do you know what we haven't seen?
Any left wing pundits showing any evidence the murderer watched Tucker Carlson.
Thus, a whole lot of thundering speculation and little facts.
Carlson referred to "great replacement theory" material over 400 times in recent years. And you think that repetition had no influence over the mindset that led to this shooting? lol.
Its a shame that we have to listen to such drivel on this site. I should have seeded this in my group so I could delete your nonsense.
The only drivel is the crap you shovel here every day. Now move on to your echo chamber boy if you can’t hack conversations at the adult table
Give me some of what you're smokin ! lol. All you do is spew out one banal one liner after another, searching for something that will pass the smell test. Keep looking.
Very few people on any forum are as content free as you are.
You might want to actually read what I wrote.
I don't know that Carlson influenced this murderer.
You have provided no proof that he did so, just lots of guesses and claims and projections, but little in the way of facts.
Posting in your group would ensure the echo chamber you appear to seek.
And somehow it's only the left that is freaking out over it being mentioned. There must be some truth to it. I mean, we do have the left and Democrats opposing securing the border. Democrats flying illegals all over the country. An abysmal approval rating and base that sees the Democrats as the problem. That voting base has to be build back somehow...
Censoring differing opinions, how very Russian of you comrade.
I dont give a shit if the shooter credits Tucker Carlson by name as an influence. Tucker Carlson has vastly helped create the mindset that led to this attack. One would have to be a literal idiot to not see that.
Why dont you argue about actual ideas and concepts instead of always trying to find some minute flaw in someone's argument? I think you would fare better here.
That's nice.
I don't give a shit if you credit Carlson with the blame when you offer ZERO in the way of proof that he actually influenced the shooter.
You just wanted another excuse to attack Fox News, or anyone connected with it.
I COULD--IF you actually claimed something and were able to actually PROVE it for once.
Making completely asinine claims without a shred of proof for them is no way to go through life.
[Deleted]
As always , it is a waste of time to engage with you.
Your complete lack of ability to make an actual argument sticks out like a sore thumb on these pages. Its hard to tell if it is incompetence or just laziness.
Why don't you argue with FACTS instead of "ideas and concepts"?
Do you have FACTS that back up your claim that Carlson or anybody at Fox News influenced this guy?
Do you have FACTS that say it was only Fox News that influenced this guy?
Do you have FACTS that exonerates anything and everybody from the left in this mess?
I'll go out on a limb and guess that, no, you don't have the facts to any of this. Honestly none of us do. But here you are making this tragedy a political circus. And for what? Exactly what is there to gain from it?
That is a VERY typical comment by you. You make a variation of it many times every single day. There's nothing there, just syllables flapping in the wind.
Well, when you actually have something germane to say, I'll be right here!
MINUTE flaw?
Poor fella, you must think your opinion means something to me.
I don't expect to see a single one of those questions answered or anything to back up those answers. He's already cut and run.
A chance to grouse about Fox News and its personalities.
That's really about it.
[Deleted]
And that's what I don't get. They swear up and down that they don't watch Fox but will quote it word for word. Kind of hard to do that if you don't watch it.
So what you are saying is that you CAN'T answer my questions in 1.2.11 and are, in fact, running because you got called out again.
BINGO!
Apparently he posted a similar article to his echo chamber and is censoring everybody's statement that doesn't fit his narrative.
Probably best to avoid pertinent questions about unsubstantiated claims.
You're right. We wouldn't want to expose misinformation.
There are reports that he hates Fox news and conservatives. But you won't hear that from the liberal media.
Proof is not needed in liberal land. They only require an accusation, factual or not, to declare someone guilty. They also believe one is guilty until proven innocent and even there they will still claim the innocent is guilty.
I KNOW he watches Fox a hell of a lot more than I do.
I equate it to them following Trump on Twitter. They have to get their "outrage of the day" from somewhere.
"The suspected shooter, who was taken into custody, described his political beliefs as “mild-moderate authoritarian left” in a manifesto reportedly written by him."
Right now the disgusting puppet we have for a president is shamelessly pandering to black Americans in Buffalo. His words have been written for him by his shrewd but evil handlers, who hate America.
Meanwhile right wing media across the land panders to white Americans who are in fear of becoming a racial minority.
What kind of country is it John?
Who the hell cares what he described himself as? He was motivated by an ideology prevalent on the political right.
Really John and what was Darrell Edward Brooks motivation?
You know, the guy that Biden, Garland etc never talk about. Biden never went to Waukesha. Brooks was never charged with a hate crime.
You can't hide from that.
In case anyone wants to know:
What motivated Brooks to kill white people was all the divisive rhetoric of Joe Biden and articles like this!
You know as well as everybody else that wasn't supposed to see the light of day.
Most Americans are not useful idiots John and don’t fall for triggered dog whistles like you do.
You’ll find that out this fall ..... again .....
Apparently you do. You've been blathering on and on about him being "radical right" since this hit the news.
The National File? Have you no shame Vic?
I disagree with the useful part. The rest of your comment is spot on
"Representative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, later tweeted that Mr. Carlson "is CORRECT about Replacement Theory..."
Well, there ya go John - rock solid argument.
Too many on the left loves nothing more than an act of violence it can blame on Republicans (especially when it's committed a self described authoritarian left winger who despises conservatives and Fox News)...
But if a Bernie Sanders volunteer with a crush on Rachel Maddow shoots up a baseball field of Republicans, that's a lone nut engaged in workplace violence. And that goes double for a racist black man whose Car (apparently of its own volition) seems to target white kids at a parade
Yep, they just get nuttier and nuttier.
Their payoff for that is coming this summer and fall.
It’s going to be a bloodbath of epic proportions......
Really? A blood bath for Dems? That is F'd Up!
Tell us why you think the Dems won't lose the House and Senate.
Nah, not fucked up at all unless you’re triggered I suppose and/or unprepared for the beatings you’re going to take in elections in 2022.
It WILL BE a referendum against the liberal/progressive crackpottery the left has been pushing since dumbo got in office in 2020.
Dems better get well stocked up on butt cream ..... pray for no shortages of that liberal peeps or you be in big trouble.
Because he thinks the Biden economy is GREAT and people don't vote their wallets. That abortion is a bigger issue for voters than runaway inflation, supply-chain issues, rising gas prices, etc.
He thinks enough people will be so up in arms over Roe v. Wade that they will only vote for Democrats (except the Democrats who are pro-life, of course).
Because he chooses to ignore history AND current polling.
The hope that suburban women would think abortion is a huge issue has just been blown away by suburban woman not being able to buy formula for their babies.
Sean, how many Democrats espouse and promote "great replacement" theory? Frankly, I've never heard of a single one. This is a right wing extremist theory. The NYT found that Carlson has referred to it over 400 times on his show. Now someone acts on behalf of that theory, and you want to hallucinate that he is a leftist.
No, they've been chanting "Demographics are destiny" for 15 years. It's two sides of the same coin.
you want to hallucinate that he is a leftist.
That's what he called himself, along with everything else. He attacked Fox News and you want to hallucinate that Fox News is to blame.
When you claim Democrats are to blame for all the attacks where the attacker references beliefs that can be shoehorned to resemble something said by a left winger, I'll take you seriously on this.
This is just exploiting a tragedy for political gain. That's it.
His "self described" ideology was all over the map.
His "self described" ideology was all over the map
yes, that's a better description.
As the author concludes, "Whoever your ideological boogeyman of today’s discourse is, this person doesn’t link up to him very easily."
Exactly.
His "self-described" ideology is practically irrelevant. He killed these people on behalf of "the great replacement" theory. That is not left wing ideology.
Ridiculous.
Absolutely ridiculous ..... even for you John.
And hardly anyone supports these wacky and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and uninformed opinions masquerading as facts.
The "great replacement theory" is just the latest bogyman the liberals are trying to get everyone to believe to distract from their terrible policies. All the shows are now promoting it although it was hardly an asterisk before Buffalo. Now it is the worst thing ever, embraced by countless millions and a threat to democracy. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Complete nonsense. ALL of the below took place before Buffalo.
That is a dozen times in half a dozen years.
And now it is all they talk about 20 out of 24 hours a day. Now it is the worst thing ever, embraced by countless millions and a threat to democracy. Bogyman
Well, I admit it was not a daily topic on everyone lips 24/7 prior to last Saturday. So what? That doesnt mean it wasnt a thing. It was.
So although I am sure a few people on the fringes may buy into that crap (including the nut case in Buffalo) there is no way I will buy it is so prevalent that it deserves the attention it is getting now as the huge problem the media is trying to make it out to be. This just makes it another shotgun blast against the wall hoping it will stick before an election tactic that the politicians and media today are so focused on.
The seeded article is an editorial today in the New York Times.
And?
It's still misleading leftist propaganda
I wouldn't give any credence to that by responding to something so ridiculous.
The vain attempts to tie all Republicans to every single crazy act is legendary by now. It is sometimes amazing to see the level they stoop to tie things together.
Yeah it just shows how politically nuts some people are. As bad or worse than this Buffalo gunman they are talking about.
" Between 1982 and May 2022, 68 out of the 127 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was A frican American in 21 mass shootings , and Latino in 10 . When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 53 percent, 16 percent, and eight percent respectively.
In other words white people underperform statistically when it comes to being mass shooters.
However, I think these statistics might be a bit distorted by the fact that a mass shooting is a shooting where four or more people are killed. A robbery at a liquor store or a bodega where four people are killed will be counted as a mass shooting the same way a Columbine type shooting incident with dozens of victims will be counted as a mass shooting.
How often do robberies like that occur? There were 13 killed at Columbine, not dozens.
My point is people start comparing too many apples to too many oranges. Violent crimes with motivations of theft or revenge aren't terrorist incidents or hate crimes and when you start digging into hate crimes you find multiple groups being targeted and not just by white people. (One of the shooting incidents this past weekend was a Chinese on Taiwanese hate crime.)
Good luck banning getting rid of all these various motives.
It would be far more efficient to address the gun problem.
49% of us can agree that White Supremacism is a problem and none of us can do anything about AR-15 style assault rifles.