Category Archives: Alt-right

Wrapping yourself in an American flag does not make you a patriot any more than going to church makes you a Christian.

The people who stormed the Capitol Jan. 6 were not patriots, despite their chants of USA! USA!, weaponized American flags, and the blessings of a man who would be their king.

The true patriots at the Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, were the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metro Police. They defended the members of Congress against the murderous mob who, unchecked, might have lynched (they had a gallows) sitting members of the U.S. government, including the vice president.

The flag-waving mob consisted of revolutionaries, insurrectionists, seditionists, rebels, thugs, racists, extremists, criminals, sovereign citizens, rogue cops, war-trained veterans, domestic terrorists, conspirators. Not a patriot among them.

To be fair, many of the people in the riot just got caught up in the moment, mob mentality, mass hysteria. They probably thought they were in the right because they truly believed Donald Trump won the election.

After all, since last summer Trump had been telling his supporters the only way he could lose the election was if it were rigged. And when he actually did lose the election, he refused to accept the results and whipped his supporters into a seditious frenzy by claiming without any evidence whatsoever that the election was stolen from him.

Aided and abetted by journalistically bankrupt right-wing media and self-serving politicians, Trump still sustains The Big Lie that he won despite overwhelming evidence that he lost.

The Big Lie is a tactic chillingly articulated by one of the architects of the Holocaust, Josef Goebbels, who said: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

I used to believe it could never happen here. I was wrong. It is happening here.

By grandiosely and mendaciously repeating the Big Lie that he won the election, Trump and his media sycophants have fooled and made fools of millions of credulous Americans.

Two hundred-and-still-counting rioters are facing federal charges ranging from misdemeanors to felonies to sedition. Fooled by Trump and the alt-right media. Foolish for taking selfies.

REALITY CHECK

Not only does Trump continue to promulgate the Big Lie, he has mesmerized millions of Americans into thinking theyre patriots. And these zombie patriots have appropriated the American flag as if only they were entitled to it.

Theres nothing patriotic about overthrowing our government.

And it is oxymoronic to use the American flag in support of insurrection.

All together now: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands .

Theres a whole lot of cognitive dissonance going on here, some very pretzeled logic, alternate reality.

It is a fundamental law of the universe: The more you ignore reality, the more it will work against you. Just ask the folks in jail.

I like to think some Trump supporters were shocked back into the real world, ashamed of what happened Jan. 6 and beginning to realize what Trump and his echo chamber have played them.

U.S. democracy marched forward and certified the election of Biden and Harris despite the riot and Trumps histrionics.

They saw Trump impeached, again. This time for the high crime of inciting insurrection. They witnessed a lopsided trial where the House impeachment managers proved beyond doubt Trump was guilty, guilty, guilty.

Depressingly but not surprisingly, 43 Republican senators ignored the evidence Feb. 13 and voted to acquit. Perhaps they just want to ride Trumps insurrectionary gravy train to its dead end. Or maybe those faithless pols are afraid of their Trump-loving and some clearly violent constituents?

What was encouraging and surprising Feb. 13 was that seven Republican senators Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey broke ranks and voted to convict Trump. They risked political suicide by rejecting partisan politics and upholding their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As Sen. Mitch McConnell so eloquently and hypocritically put it after he voted to acquit on an inane technicality, there was no question Trump was practically and morally responsible for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection riot.

Real patriots vote their conscience. Real Republicans accept the results of elections. They suck it up if they dont like who got elected, just as the Democrats did in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

Real patriots dont betray their oath of office and vote even after the riot not to certify the free and fair election of Biden and Harris.

Eighteenth-century British pundit Samuel Johnson noted, Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Former President Donald Trump is a lying, power-hungry scoundrel, and the people who blindly follow him are not patriots.

By their actions and rejection of reality, they have forfeited their right to call themselves patriots or to display the flag of the country they betrayed.

The election wasnt stolen, but the U.S. flag was.

Its our flag, and we want it back.

Tom Durkin is a freelance writer and photographer in Nevada City.

Read more here:

Tom Durkin: Stop the steal of our flag - The Union of Grass Valley

Patricia Lockwood created a Twitter account in 2011. Right away, she knew what to do with it. Free in the knowledge that no one was listening, I mostly used it to tweet absurdities like Touch it, Mr. Quiddity moaned. Touch Mr. Quidditys thing, she writes, in her memoir Priestdaddy (2017). Back in those days, people tended either to dismiss Twitter as one of the stupider things to have happened in human historythe whole world should care what you had for lunch?or to celebrate it as a revolution that would usher in a golden age of democracy and peace. Tuna-fish sandwiches versus the Arab Spring: that was the crux of the debate. Fewer saw that the form could be a kind of fiction, an exercise in pure persona sprung from the manacles of story, or even sense. All you needed was style, and Lockwood had it. (It helped that she was a poet, a fondler and compressor of language.) Her best tweets were tonally filthy but textually clean, like a clothed flasher, their voice so intrinsic to the new medium, so obviously online, that if you tried to explain to a parent or an offline friend what you were laughing at you ended up sounding like a fool. Tweeting is an art form, Lockwood tells her skeptical mother, in Priestdaddy. Like sculpture, or honking the national anthem under your armpit. She made it seem like it was.

A decade has passed since those happy days. Twitter did not usher in a definitive dawn of democracy abroad. Democracy in America has barely survived it. Meanwhile, much of the mediums fun has gone sour and sharp. Twitter is still a comedy club and a speakers corner, the cozy back booth at an all-night diner. Its also a stoning square, a rave on bad acid, an eternal Wednesday in a high-school cafeteria, an upside-down Tower of Babel pointing straight to human hell. What began as one of the biggest literary experiments since the birth of the world, everyone invited to shoot out words from their fingers at any time, has calcified into a genre clogged with clichs, one of which Lockwood has taken as the title of her first novel, No One Is Talking About This (Riverhead). To translate for the offline: this is what someone says in a clutch of outrage upon discovering a topic or bit of newsone which, it is safe to assume, many people are already talking about.

Why are we still On Here? Twitter users often ask with the desperation of the damned, and the answer that Lockwoods book immediately gives is that we are addicts. What opium did to the minds of the nineteenth century is no different than what the Internetthe portal, as Lockwood calls itis doing to the minds of the twenty-first. We know this from science, some of us from experience, but Lockwood is out to describe that sensation of dependency, the feeling of possessing a screen-suckled brainor of being possessed by it. Thomas De Quincey, plugged full of poppy, reported sitting at a window from sunset to sunrise, motionless, and without wishing to move, and something similar happens to Lockwoods unnamed protagonist when she sits in front of her computer screen:

Her husband would sometimes come up behind her while she was repeatingthe words no, no, no or help, help, help under her breath, and laya hand on the back of her neck like a Victorian nursemaid. Are youlocked in? he would ask, and she would nod and then do the thing thatalways broke her out somehow, which was to google beautiful brownpictures of roast chickensmaybe because thats what women used to dowith their days.

A digital ailment demands a digital cure: this is funny, sad, and right, as is the telling grammatical slip at the end of the paragraph, which implies that women used to Google chickens rather than cook them. Lockwood is sending a bulletin from the future, when, horrifyingly, such things will be said of her generation, and be true.

That historical anxiety, directed both at the past and the future, is acutely felt by Lockwoods protagonist, who, like Lockwood herself, is a married woman in her late thirties who has found real-world eminence by being very online. She is a kind of diplomat from the digital world, paid to travel around the globe to give lectures and appear on panels, at which she tries to explain things like why it was objectively funnier to spell it sneazing. Her public is not always receptive to such meditations. At an appearance in Bristol, an audience member brandishes a printout of the post that shot her to fameCan a dog be twins?and tears it in two. This is your contribution to society? he asks, stomping out.

Here is a reply guy in the flesh, a sneering man who reminds the protagonist that she is silly, unserious, a womana fact that Lockwoods protagonist, in spite of professing no particular attachment to what the portal has taught her to call her pronoun, knows all too well. Digital optimists like to say that social media is just a supercharged update of Enlightenment caf culture, with tweets passed around instead of pamphlets. But Lockwoods protagonist knows that she is excluded from that vision of the past. While the men, class permitting, read and debated, she would have been doing the washing and birthing the children; as recently as the fifties, a friend reminds her, the two of them would likely have been housewives. So what does it mean that she, a woman in the historically anomalous position of determining the course of her own life (notably, she is childless), is choosing to spend her days and nights glued to the portal, looking at a tarantulas compound eyes, a storm like canned peaches on the surface of Jupiter, Van Goghs The Potato Eaters, a chihuahua perched on a mans erection? What is her contribution to society?

The novel itself is one answer. Stream-of consciousness was long ago conquered by a man who wanted his wife to fart all over him, the protagonist tells the audience at one of her events. But what about the stream-of-consciousness that is not entirely your own? One that you participate in, but that also acts upon you? The comparison to Joyce, the man who wanted his wife to fart all over him, is bold, and telling. Lockwood has set out to portray not merely a mind through language, as Joyce did, but what she calls the mind, the molting collective consciousness that has melded with her protagonists singular one. And, as Joyce did, she sets about doing it through form. No One Is Talking About This is structured as a kind of riff on the tweet scroll, discrete paragraphs (many two hundred and eighty characters or less) arranged one after another to simulate, on the fixed page, the rhythm of a digital feed. This methoddense bulletins of text framed by clean white spaceis not revolutionary, or even innovative. It was used in the seventies to great effect by novelists like Renata Adler and Elizabeth Hardwick, and it has become newly popular over the past decade as a way to mimic a fragmented, flitting modern consciousnessoften that of a woman who is harried by competing demands on her attention. It is a permissive form, tempting to use and easy to abuse, since, paradoxically, the arrangement of disconnected beats implies a unity of meaning that the text itself may not do enough to earn.

The critic Lauren Oyler, a skeptic of the fragmented method, parodies it in a long section of her own novel, Fake Accounts, another recent dbut about life lived in the shadow of the Internet. Why would I want to make my book like Twitter? Oylers narrator asks. If I wanted a book that resembled Twitter, I wouldnt write a book; I would just spend even more time on Twitter. The question of how to represent the digital world in language has become only more interesting, and more urgent, as it has become clearer that the Internet is not just a device but an atmosphere, a state of being. Were always online, even when were off, our profiles standing sentry for us at all hours, our minds helplessly tuned to the ironic, mocking register of well-defended Internet speak. That is exactly the voice of Oylers narrator, who, like Lockwoods protagonist, is a young white millennial woman who resembles her author in sundry particulars, as a digital avatar might. Oylers narrator is entertainingly critical of digital life even as she is formed by it; it is her milieu, and the novel confronts its artifice, in part, by confessing its own. Sections of the book are labelled with the equivalent of highway signage (MIDDLE (Something Happens)); its title, which is seemingly descriptivethe novels nominal plot is launched by the narrators discovery that her boyfriend has an alt-right persona on Instagramdoubles, usefully, as a definition of fiction itself. When she is feeling cheeky, the narrator addresses her presumed readers, a silent gaggle of ex-boyfriends: the same audience that she might imagine checking out her social media accounts, keeping tabs.

Lockwood is up to something more sincere. She embraces the fragment because she has set herself the challenge of depiction; the medium becomes the message, the very point. Thoughts about fatbergs, videos of police brutality (the protagonist is trying to hate the policenot easy, given that her father is a retired cop), baby Hitler, the word normalize, and on and on and on, all of it sluiced together and left to lodge in the hive mind: that is what Lockwood wants to show us, and wants to see more clearly for herself. Someone could write it, Lockwoods protagonist tells a fellow panellist, a man who has earned fame by posting increasing amounts of his balls online. It would have to be done, she thinks, as a social novel, a documentation of the mores and habits of the portal collective. Already when people are writing about it, theyre getting it all wrong, she says. But Lockwood gets it right, mimicking the medium while shrewdly parodying its ethos:

P-p-p-perfect p-p-p-politics! She hooted into a hot microphone at apublic library. She had been lightly criticized for her incompleteunderstanding of the Spanish Civil War that week, and the memory of itstill smarted. P-p-p-perfect p-p-p-politics will manifest on earth asa racoon with a scab for a face!

Every day we were seeing new evidence that suggested it was the portal that had allowed the dictator to rise to power. This was humiliating. It would be like discovering that the Vietnam War was secretly caused by ham radios, or that Napoleon was operating exclusively on the advice of a parrot named Brian.

Some people were very excited to care about Russia again. Others were not going to do it no matter what. Because above all else, the Cold War had been embarrassing.

Read more from the original source:

Patricia Lockwood, Lauren Oyler, and the Voices That Get Lost Online - The New Yorker

Over the past month, the world has watched the United States in the throes of a struggle over a democratic system that they thought was invincible. Then more recently, in Myanmar we saw the borrowed false accusations of a corrupted election succeed in overthrowing a democracy, at least temporarily.

It's felt for many of us as if the foundations of democratic processes are on trial, and democracys source in the ancient world has been looked to for answers. But the widely accepted story that democracy was a brilliant, even miraculous, invention of 5th-century BCE Athens, and that the West is the heir to that moment in time, has obscured the universal hard work that's required to make democracy work well.

My research, among others', suggests that the struggle to create social and political systems that serve the wider populace existed long before, and in regions far distant, from classical Athens.

From armed mobs descending on the US Capitol, to the cleansing installation of a new American president, the world peered with a mixture of horror and bemusement as the self-professed greatest democracy in the world played out its internal battles. Democrats'Twitter was awash with teary American exceptionalism citing the victory and drawbacks of the worlds greatest deliberative body.

People around the world wanted to rejoice, but felt themselves balking at the only-in-America stance of the rhetoric.

At the same time, another more bizarre thread ran through all of this: The mobs descending on the Capitol wore the insignia of a variety of Greek and Roman fictionalised histories, and on the other side a Democratic senator condemned the chaos by citing Roman history, only minutes after regaining the Senate floor from the mob attack.

This equivalence between American democracy and the ancient world has a very long and problematic history the so-called founders evoked the Roman republic in defence of both their representative democracy and their adherence to slavery. By and large, the academic world has been willing to concede the parallels if Athens and Rome were the progenitors of democracy, the US was their most prominent heir.

The discipline of classics the study of ancient Greece and Rome has been undergoing some serious soul-searching in the past few years, just as classical history was increasingly picked up and distorted by the alt-right. The events of the past few months have brought this scholarly argument into the public forum, with the increasingly heated debate coming to a head in the past week.

Scholars have pointed out the huge fault lines in Athenian democracy (most of the population of Athens could not participate), and the largely manipulated history of the early Roman republic.

Many (but not all) classicists have balked at the myth of a legacy of an exclusive Western civilisation, but the origins of democracy have remained fairly stubbornly rooted in classical soil. That ultimate arbiter of history and culture, Wikipedia, tells us that the concepts of democracy originated in ancient Athens circa 508 BC. There's been surprisingly little push-back in classics to challenge that idea.

American exceptionalism has been uncannily mirrored by ancient Athenian exceptionalism.

A large part of this is definitional the Greek historian Herodotus first calls the political system of the 5th century BCE a democracy, and anything that doesnt fit that exact pattern is dismissed. (In fact, Herodotus puts the earliest use of the term democracy not in the mouths of Athenians, but in a speech debating the merits of different political systems by that notorious Persian, Darius I but thats another story).

Pedants will tell you that the US is a republic (after Rome) and not a democracy (following Athens), but that's a rhetorical ploy.When we say democracy, we mean a political system where decisions are made by the majority of its populace, or their elected representatives, in some kind of formalised way.

And that the practice of democracy plays out in a variety of ways across the world. Dont tell the protestors in the Republic of Myanmar that their stolen parliamentary system was not a democracy because it doesnt fit the Athenian model; they know better.

In large part, the legacy of Athens and Rome is the result of documentation. They're the models because they recorded what they did (or at least others wrote about them later). But if we look harder at the traces of world history, other examples emerge that indicate that the practice of democracy has wider roots and more diverse branches.

If the debate around the validity of the classical tradition goes anywhere, it will be to acknowledge that democracy wasnt the brilliant invention of an elite group of men in Iron-Age Greece.

My research on the Medes of the Zagros Mountains in Iran suggests that a few hundred years before Athens, Median communities responded to the encroaching Assyrian Empire by formalising their consensus decision-making; we dont have written confirmation for this transition, because the Medes probably purposefully avoided the record-keeping that would have made it easier for the Assyrians to extort taxes and tribute from them.

But archaeological excavations revealed a new Median form of columned meeting house that seems designed specifically for communal gatherings not unlike the famous Athenian hillslope meeting ground. My research team is now undertaking further analyses of the pottery and animal bones from these sites to find out just how far people were willing to travel to participate in these deliberations.

Early states in Africa also seem to have shared many components with the democratic tribal system of 5th-century BCE Athens, although, again, oral histories silenced by colonialism make it difficult to confirm details.

Larissa Behrendt has argued that Indigenous Australian communities used a variety of institutionalised democratic principles in their governance before colonialism imposed its own structure on them.

Jettisoning the exceptionalism of Athenian democracy isnt about rejecting that heritage. Athenian democracy, deeply flawed as it was, nonetheless provided a model for the benefits of a political system where decision-making was widely (but not widely enough) distributed. The fact that Athenians and later Romans wrote so convincingly of their reservations about this system may have been the best thing about it.

But if the debate regarding the validity of the classical tradition goes anywhere, it will be to acknowledge that democracy wasnt the brilliant invention of an elite group of men in Iron-Age Greece.

Democracy is an answer to an ancient question:How can communities serve all their members? Answering this question is an essential part of the functioning of human societies, and democracy is one solution that has both flourished and been quashed across history and around the world.

Greece and Rome are notable, but not exclusive, examples of the merits and failures of these systems. The false origin story of a democracy born in Athens with the West as its heir creates a barrier between democratic ideals and the establishment of enduring systems of governance around the world.

Its time to look more carefully for the democratic impulse in all our communities.

View post:

The global roots of democracy matter if it is to flourish in the future Monash Lens - Monash Lens

Nearly a month after a pro-Trump mob violently stormed the U.S. Capitol, a clearer picture is emerging of the individuals and groups involved as federal authorities arrest and charge people who allegedly participated in the riot.

Former President Donald Trumps supporters -- 74 million of whom voted to give him a second term in 2020 -- are diverse in background and ideology and come from all corners of the United States, and those who stormed the Capitol represent just a fraction.

But to some experts, the hundreds who took part in the Capitol siege represent some of the most fervent and radical adherents of the Make America Great Again movement and others caught up in the frenzy of the day. They say attempts to unite those extremist elements fell apart after Charlottesville but gained renewed momentum in 2020, with racial unrest, the pandemic and most recently the unfounded controversy over the election.

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., before a mob stormed the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with police officers, as congress gathered to certify the election of Joe Biden.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a sociology professor at American University who studies extremism and far-right movements, said that those who stormed the Capitol are a loose coalition of groups from across the far-right spectrum.

These were people who were radicalized and participated in an insurrection, its just that some did so in a very planned way, and I think others ended up being caught up spontaneously in mob rioting," Miller-Idriss said.

For the experts, the most prominent force that unified hard-right adherent, militias and other Trump supporters and whipped them up into a frenzy behind the idea that the election was stolen -- Trump himself.

And Trump, unlike past presidents, gave these disparate groups a national platform unlike any they'd had in modern American history with the instantaneous recognition and feedback of social media.

Trumps false claims about election fraud and his rhetoric post-election urging his supporters to fight back is at the heart of the former presidents Senate impeachment trial, which is set to begin next week. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on Jan. 13 after House Democrats filed an article of impeachment, charging him with "incitement of insurrection."

ABC News reached out to the former presidents legal team but representatives declined to comment.

Larry Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies, said that the mob was generally made up of two groups: right-wing populists, whom he described as part of Trumps most faithful rally-goers, and right-wing militia groups that represent two overlapping currents of the far-right movement: white nationalism and anti-government.

President Donald Trump is seen on a screen as his supporters cheer during a rally Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election.

Some of these ideologies and beliefs were on display in far-right insignia scattered among the crowd, which included symbols of the Confederacy, Nazism, white supremacy and anarchy.

And some of those arrested have documented their alleged involvement on social media and some have known ties to far-right groups, or are adherents of disproven conspiracy theories.

In addition to a diverse and loose coalition of groups involved, the members of the mob were also not racially and ethnically homogenous.

Although the majority of rioters at the Stop the Steal rally were white, the Trump mob was not a homogenous group of white nationalists," Cristina Beltrn, a professor at New York University who studies race, ethnicity and American politics, said.

Jacob Chansley and other supporters of President Donald Trump are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021.

In fact, one of the organizers of Stop the Steal is far-right activist and conspiracy theorist Ali Alexander, who identifies as Arab and Black. Blacks for Trump signs were spotted in the crowd and some Black and Latino participants are now wanted by the FBI for their alleged involvement in the siege.

In order to understand Trumps support, we must think in terms of multiracial whiteness, Beltrn writes in a Washington Post op-ed: Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.

The motivations of the mob

After weeks of hearing false claims from Trump and his allies that the election was stolen, thousands of the former president's most loyal followers disrupted the certification of the 2020 election results by breaching the U.S. Capitol and clashing with law enforcement in a violent siege that resulted in the death of five people.

Supporters listen as US President Donald Trump speaks on The Ellipse outside of the White House, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

This insistence -- and not just Trumps, but other elected officials insistence on that narrative of disinformation and that false conspiracy about the election has played a huge role in mobilizing these people, Miller-Idriss said.

In fact, chants shouted by rioters and signs spotted in the crowd closely mirrored Trumps own words.

For instance, the rally was named Stop the Steal, a phrase the Trump appeared to revel in and tweeted repeatedly before his account was suspended; shortly after Trump urged supporters to march to the Capitol and fight like hell, rioters shouted fight for Trump as they violently breached law enforcement to enter the building; signs reading take back our country and Trump won the legal vote were spotted among rioters, reflecting language Trump has been using for weeks on Twitter as he repeated his false claims that the election was stolen from him.

Member of a pro-Trump mob exit the Capitol Building after teargas is dispersed inside, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

And finally, after Trump continued to falsely claim that Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to ratify President Joe Biden's 2020 win -- but had declined to do so, chants of Hang Mike Pence were heard among rioters and images casting Pence as a traitor were scattered among the crowd.

(Trump) was continuing to propagate and circulate and disseminate this information about the election in ways that posed an existential threat to them and made them feel that their democracy has been stolen, Miller-Idriss said.

"People move from radicalization into mobilization, to really believing that they are not only empowered to act, but compelled to do so.

People shelter in the House gallery as protesters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

The leader of the mob

According to Rosenthal, far-right groups that subscribe to white nationalist ideologies have always existed in the United States and since the second era of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and 30s they have generally existed on the fringes of society, but Trump gave them a place in national politics.

Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

Suddenly, in 2015 at the level of presidential politics, somebody is talking their language, he added, pointing to Trump's anti-immigrant and racially charged rhetoric.

During his presidency, Trump frequently failed to condemn white supremacists and far-right groups espousing hateful and disproven conspiracy theories. He also often galvanized their causes.

The Stop the Steal movement energized some of the same elements of the far-right movement in the U.S. that shaped the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville when hundreds of so-called alt-right groups took to the streets to violently protest the removal of Confederate monuments.

The Unite the Right [movement] failed. It did not create such a unified militia and the groups that put it together started falling apart among themselves the alt-right kind of went into decline, but 2020 resurrected things, Rosenthal said.

This past year, anti-lockdown and anti-mask demonstrations amid the COVID-19 pandemic inflamed the anti-government right-wing militia groups, while the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted over the summer following the police killing of George Floyd activated the white nationalist side of the far-right movement, Rosenthal added.

Supporters of President Donald Trump gather in the rain for a rally at Freedom Plaza, Jan. 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C., the day before a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol following a rally with Trump.

And Trump, who was outspoken on both issues, elevated these positions to the national stage, experts said.

As president, Trump repeatedly downplayed the pandemic, refused to implement a nationwide mask mandate, mostly refused to wear a mask himself and his administration frequently flouted federal safety guidelines meant to curb the crisis.

Meanwhile, during his 2020 campaign, Trump cast himself as the law and order candidate, slammed the Black Lives Matter movement, dismissed concerns surrounding systemic racism and police brutality and in a message to voters, he claimed that if he is not re-elected, crime and riots will overtake the suburbs.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington D.C.

During his final weeks in office, the coalition of far-right groups again found a common cause around the baseless cause that the election had been stolen or rigged.

The white nationalist and anti-government currents compounded in "Stop the Steal," along with an important element of "fascist mobilizations," Rosenthal said: "A devotion to a singular leader who can command their attention.

ABC News' Alexander Mallin and John Santucci contributed to this report.

Read more:

Anatomy of the pro-Trump mob: How the former president's rhetoric galvanized a far-right coalition - ABC News

The Maricopa County Attorneys Office and Phoenix police have designated a group of protesters as a criminal street gang.

The controversial decision has been blasted by community groups, defense attorneys, and legal organizations.

Politically Charged is an ongoing ABC15 investigation series. Click here to watch part one of the series and watch part two of the series in the player above.

While declining to provide specifics about the evidence, police and prosecutors have defended the charges.

POLITICALLY CHARGED: Officials create fictional gang to charge protesters

As I have stated numerous times, my office is committed to protecting the safety of everyone in this community, law enforcement and demonstrators alike," County Attorney Allister Adel said in a written statement. I fully support everyone in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, but I will not allow criminal conduct, disguised as protest activity, to harm our community.

ABC15 obtained the full grand jury transcript and video from an 85-minute bond hearing for one of the defendants.

Both pieces of testimony show the legal basis Phoenix officers and county prosecutors used to justify the gang designation and other charges against the group.

Below are excerpts from the grand jury transcript and a bond hearing related to key issues in the case.

ACAB GANG

Arizona statutes regarding criminal street gang classification are broad and only require two of the following criteria to be met: (1) Self proclamation; (2) Witness testimony or statements; (3) Written or electronic correspondence; (4) Paraphernalia or photographs; (5) Tattoos; (6) Clothing or colors; (7) Any other indicators.

Phoenix police Sgt. Doug McBride, a grenadier who manages the Tactical Response Unit and former gang detective, testified that all members of the group met the criteria for three reasons.

The first is the chanting of All Cops are Bastards, which he claimed is self-proclamation. The second was most of the group dressed in black, which meets the colors requirement. And the third was many of the group carried umbrellas, which McBride claimed was part of their uniform.

The following are exchanges between prosecutor April Sponsel and McBride during an October 30, 2020 bond hearing for defendant Suvarna Ratnam.

TIMECODE: 5:35SPONSEL: Were they yelling or saying anything?MCBRIDE: Yes, they were.SPONSEL: What were they yelling or saying?MCBRIDE: I believe it was ACAB. And then the group would respond, "All Cops are Bastards.SPONSEL: In regards to the ACAB, do you know where that came from?MCBRIDE: Weve been dealing with it since May, since these protests started. Its a specific group of individuals that identify themselves as being part of All Cops Are Bastards, or ACAB.

Heres how McBride testified before a grand jury when questioned by a MCAO prosecutor.

PAGES: 31, 34, 36Q: What is that name of this gang?A: It is called ACAB, A-C-A-B, and it stands for All Cops Are Bastards. We first came into contact with this group through graffiti, signage, ACAB written on the back of skateboards and different paraphernalia throughout our 150-plus day employment and mobilization and civil unrest in Phoenix.

Q: And what were those two other criteria where you were able to attribute the other individuals listed in the indictment?A: Both self-proclamation and the colors, the clothing.

Q: And through your training and experience of dealing with this ACAB group, what exactly color what color do they claim?A: Black.

Q: And are you finding that ACAB is following the exact same type of philosophy of lets say the Bloods and the Crips?A: Yes.

Q: And what about even maybe the same philosophy as the Hells Angels?A: Very similar, yes.

Q: And why would that be similar?A: I think because the tattoos, the intimidation factor, how they are directing their violent behavior very similar to the Hells Angel organization where they actually organize their violent behavior, and then they carry that out in a very organized fashion. Its not random with the Hells Angels.

Q: And are you finding thats exactly what this ACAB group is doing is they are organizing for the intent to create violence?A: Yes.

A judge who presided over the Oct. 30, 2020 bond hearing heard similar testimony from McBride.

The judge ruled that Ratnam could be released and said the court did not see evidence of violence the night of the groups arrest.

The court does not see that as a threat of violence, said the judge, discussing the groups actions that night.

A defense attorney at the hearing also cross-examined McBride about his claims about ACAB.

TIMECODE: 46:14DEFENSE: Now you said that this group was yelling all cops are bastards during this protest, correct?MCBRIDE: Yes.DEFENSE: I watched the video, didnt they say other things?MCBRIDE: Im sure they did.DEFENSE: Did you hear them say, black lives matter?MCBRIDE: Not personally no.DEFENSE: Did you watch the video with sound on it?MCBRIDE: I did.DEFENSE: And you didnt hear them save black lives matter at any point of time during this march?MCBRIDE: They may have, Im not saying they didnt. I just dont have an independent recollection.

In court motions, another defense attorney attacked the designation of ACAB as a gang, calling it fictional.

ACAB is not a gang at all but a political slogan, Christopher DuPont wrote in the motion to compel prosecutors to release more evidence. In a continuing affront to the First Amendment, most likely motivated by hatred for a group using such an impolite name (ACAB), state prosecutors abetted by Phoenix police alleged that the protesters had assaulted police officers with deadly weapons, including toy smoke bombs and collapsible umbrellas even insinuating, without foundation, that protesters had weaponized their fingernails.

ACAB is a common protest chant that originated almost a century ago and is used across the world.

DuPont further criticized the comparison to the Crips, Bloods, and Hells Angels.

The state called a witness to testify at grand jury that ACAB was just as dangerous and in many ways more dangerous than notorious gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, two gangs that have accounted for as many as 15,000 homicides in the United States during their 30-year run.

UMBRELLAS

One of the criteria used to file gang charges was that many members of the group carried umbrellas during the protest.

TIMECODE: 19:42; 29:15;SPONSEL: The umbrellas, have you seen this tactic used in the past?MCBRIDE: Yes.SPONSEL: And is this a tactic thats commonly used by this particular group?MCBRIDE: Yes it is.

SPONSEL: What are they doing with the umbrellas right there?MCBRIDE: They are keeping them between us and them, and theyre swinging them back and forth basically as a distraction, to conceal what theyre doing, just cause, theyre trying to prevent us from arresting them.

In testimony before the grand jury, McBride also discussed the umbrellas.

PAGE: 38Q: And what about the umbrella, is that part of their, I guess you could say their gang uniform?A: It is. Its an extension of what they are doing to disrupt us and to try and defeat our tactics which are pepper spray and different types of nonlethal munitions. The umbrella will provide a protective umbrella around them, to use the umbrella word, and then it will also conceal what they are doing. As this group moved on October 17th, they were able to conceal what each person was doing by draping umbrellas around the exterior of the group so we couldnt see inside.

Umbrellas are common at protests and have been seen in many cities across the country.

Its something the defense attorney emphasized in the hearing.

TIMECODE: 48:16DEFENSE: Would you agree those umbrellas are used for them to protect themselves from getting pepper sprayed?MCBRIDE: Thats one example of their use.

Members of the group told ABC15 the umbrellas are also to keep alt-right counter-protesters, who were following along next to police, from "doxxing" them.

PROTESTERS RIFLE

A member of the group, Britney Austin, was carrying a rifle during the protest.

McBride discussed the rifle during his grand jury testimony.

PAGE: 47A: I didnt mention earlier, but there is one individual that we noticed early on who has an AR-15 rifle slung. So they cover that person up as well so we cant see what they are doing either.

Q: Does that create a risk for you guys?A: Absolutely. Its a huge hazard for us.

Q: And even though that person is not pointing the gun at you guys in any way, shape, or form, by the mere fact they are covering it up does that put you guys in apprehension that something could happen?A: Absolutely.

In the bond hearing, the defense attorney questioned McBride about the AR-15.

TIMECODE: 39:30DEFENSE: You said there was an individual with an AR-15 at the scene that day?MCBRIDE: Yes sir.DEENSE: Alright, is there anything illegal about having an AR-15?MCBRIDE: NoDEFENSE: Was that person a prohibited possessor?MCBRIDE: Not to my knowledgeDEFENSE: Did that person ever point it at any officer or threaten to point it at any officer?MCBRIDE: Not to my knowledge.DEFENSE: So youd agree with me that that AR-15 did not calculate into your factors of rioting?MCBRIDE: Correct.

The judge at the hearing also said the gun and the groups other actions did not constitute violence or the threat of violence.

TIMECODE: 1:17:30The court has to look at whether that was a threatening use of force or violence. We are an open carry state, the judge said. You are free to carry a gun. That may be threatening to other people, but that is your right in Arizona.

Contact ABC15 Investigator Dave Biscobing at Dave@abc15.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Inside the case: Watch testimony behind the Phoenix protest gang charges - ABC15 Arizona

Having reached the vice presidents chair in the U.S. Senate, the self-proclaimed QAnon shaman, UFO expert and metaphysical healer removed his coyote-skin and buffalo horns headdress and announced, with a megaphone, that it was time to pray.

Thank you, Heavenly Father ... for this opportunity to stand up for our God-given inalienable rights, proclaimed Jake Yellowstone Wolf Angeli (born Jacob Chansley), his face painted red, white and blue, and his torso tattooed with Norse symbols that his critics link to the extreme right.

Thank you, divine, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator God for filling this chamber with your white light and love, he added, in a prayer captured on video by a correspondent working for The New Yorker. Thank you for filling this chamber with patriots that love you and that love Christ. ... Thank you, divine Creator God, for surrounding and filling us with the divine, omnipresent white light of love and protection, of peace and harmony. Thank you for allowing the United States of America to be reborn. Thank you for allowing us to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors within our government.

Many phrases in this rambling prayer would sound familiar to worshippers in ordinary churches across America, said Joe Carter, an editor with the Gospel Coalition and a pastor with McLean Bible Church near Washington, D.C. But the prayer also included strange twists and turns that betrayed some extreme influences and agendas.

Go here to read the rest:

ON RELIGION: Twisted prayers and temptations to worship political power - GoDanRiver.com

If we were setting out to compile a list of groups that we condemn or disapprove of, a strong case could be made for the inclusion of the Proud Boys. But Canadas list of banned terrorist entities does not exist as a vehicle for expressing such sentiments and we should not be using it as such.

This past week, 13 additional groups were added to that list. Of those inclusions, 12 were relatively non-controversial. The inclusion of the Proud Boys, however, raises some legitimate questions and concerns.

Yes, the group holds radical political views and seem to have a thirst for violence (an alt-right fight club is how theyre described by one prominent anti-hate group), but the terrorism bar needs to be set higher than that. Politicizing this process seems both unwise and potentially counterproductive.

Story continues below advertisement

While a strong case exists for describing neo-Nazi groups like Atomwaffen Division and The Base as terrorist organizations, the Proud Boys were the only ones who were the subject of a motion in the House of Commons calling for such a designation (the NDP proposed the motion, which MPs passed unanimously).

Its encouraging that our elected representatives take a dim view of far-right organizations, but this is a highly unusual intrusion into what should otherwise be a sober and objective process. It should not be influenced by the prevailing political attitudes of the moment.

Loosening the definition of terrorism could set a troubling precedent, one that could be abused for political purposes.

The Proud Boys indeed appear to have been involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill insurrection. The events of that day certainly crystalize the threat posed by far-right political extremism. Again, though, thats not an excuse for political interference in this process. If anything, the rushed inclusion of the Proud Boys could prove embarrassing for the government.

Story continues below advertisement

While some Proud Boys members have been charged in connection with the insurrection, none of those charges have been proven in court. Absent any convictions, the case for listing the Proud Boys becomes much weaker.

Trending Stories

This rationale exposes two additional problems for the decision. The fact that those involved in the insurrection are now facing serious charges demonstrates how criminal law provides a means to deal with this sort of political extremism.

Furthermore, it exposes the arbitrary nature of the decision. For example, there are members of the far-right group known as the Oath Keepers who have also been charged in connection with the insurrection. Yet we have not listed the Oath Keepers as a terrorist organization, even though a similar case could be made.

Or, for that matter, why havent we listed the Three Percenters? Or the Soldiers of Odin? Or the Order of Nine Angles? Or the Boogaloo Bois? Or QAnon?

Some of these groups are more dangerous than others. Some are more organized that others (some may be considered more movements than actual groups). There are lone wolf actors who may subscribe to some or all of the beliefs of these groups. There is unquestionably a security threat that exists here, but a narrow counter-terrorism approach will leave many gaps.

Story continues below advertisement

Listing a group as a banned terrorist entity can provide some useful tools in targeting its leadership or disrupting its fundraising, but that has limited applications. The motion voted on in Parliament is rather vague with regard to these nuances as well as the broader question of how we deal with political extremism. It involves law enforcement, obviously, but also a broader de-radicalization approach. Ironically enough, it also involves political leaders.

The word terrorist is obviously a pejorative term, and so much of the conversation around the Proud Boys seems more about who can use the strongest language to denounce them than any sort of meaningful conversation about what these groups and movements represent and how we can counter them.

Politicizing counter-terrorism efforts only serves to erode public confidence in those efforts, as does making arbitrary decisions about which groups make the list and which do not. All of this may outweigh whatever marginal upside results from the listing of the Proud Boys.

This list is not a magic bullet and we not should rely on the listing process as our means of dealing with political extremism. Parliamentarians are right to be worried about groups like the Proud Boys, but their proposed solution which has now been acted upon misses the mark in many ways.

Rob Breakenridge is host of Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.

2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Read more:

COMMENTARY: We can condemn and combat extremism without loosening the definition of terrorism - Global News

As soon as President Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, political pundits began speculating on what the post-Trump Republican Party would look like. Fresh on the political scene and the newest sweetheart of the Republican Party, Madison Cawthorn just might be a picture of what a future GOP might embody: a concerning picture.

Cawthorn was born and raised in western North Carolina and was sworn in this January as North Carolina District 11s representative at the U.S. House at only 25 years old. Cawthorns politics combine traditional social conservative values, youthful proximity to Gen Z, Trumpism and an utter lack of experience or education. Now, under a guise of charisma and youth, Cawthorn is bringing hard-right conservative values and dangerous rhetoric to Congress as a representative of North Carolina.

Despite many Republicans making a last-ditch effort to put distance between themselves and President Trump after a disastrous and deadly end to his term, Trump has left a lasting impact on the Republican Party (GOP), especially their voters whom Cawthorn skillfully appeals to. Cawthorns Twitter presence, much like Trumps prior to being banned, is peppered with immaturity, including calling his Democratic opponent a simp and infamously tweeting Cry more, lib right after winning his House race.

Fearmongering and conspiracy theories also make appearances. In alignment with Trumps base, Cawthorn has actively promoted debunked allegations of election fraud, objected to the Electoral College votes on the House floor and contributed to the incitement of violence in the events of Jan. 6. Cawthorn also seems unconcerned about COVID-19, rarely mentioning the virus on social media except to ostensibly compare public health restrictions on businesses during the pandemic to oligarchical rule an absurd misuse of the term.

Like former President Trump, Cawthorn is also the focus of multiple sexual misconduct allegations and accusations of white supremacy. Various symbols of the alt-right have been discovered around him including the name of his real estate company, on a gun holster he owns, a flag flown at his home, a picture posted while visiting Hitler's vacation home prompting concern that he is an alt-right Trojan horse.

Perhaps due to his young age, Madison Cawthorn seems aware of the generational rift amongst Republicans. According to Pew Research Center, young Republicans are far more likely than their older counterparts to believe that climate change exists, acknowledge the unfair treatment of Black Americans and say that the government should do more to solve problems. While Cawthorn claims to take an active stance on issues like these that aren't traditionally Republican, the actions he proposes on his website concerning health care and the environment are essentially a doubling down on free-market approaches.

Status quo 2.0. Madison Cawthorn consistently speaks of a big tent New Republican Party that welcomes voters of any identity. Meanwhile, he and his conservative colleagues show absolutely no desire to protect voters of more marginalized identities. Cawthorn simply wants a rebranded Republican Party capable of capturing new voting blocs without any real shift in policy or ideology.

Although Rep. Madison Cawthorn may be an appealing political figure to conservative Gen Z voters who want a party rebrand that is in alignment with the policies that matter most to our generation the environment, health care, being seen as welcoming this rebrand is nothing more than a face-lift. While this slight shift in focus might make the Republican platform more palatable on the surface, figures like Cawthorn could ultimately represent a dangerous shift to the right. As support for a conservative agenda has lapsed amongst younger voters, it is not a surprise that the rising leaders will hail from farther right areas of the party. Meanwhile, Cawthorn claims to speak for the younger generation, but his ultra-conservatism simply doesn't align with the values of young North Carolinians.

See the rest here:

OPINION: Madison Cawthorn shows the troubling future of the GOP - N.C. State University Technician Online

Wall Street was among the last powerful institutions to be overrun by online populists, in part because it had a higher barrier to entry. Anyone with an internet connection and a Twitter account can start a hashtag campaign, but because trading stocks costs money and required some level of expertise and time commitment it was mostly left to professionals.

Smartphone-based trading apps like Robinhood changed that, by introducing commission-free trades and an interface that made executing a gamma squeeze as straightforward as ordering a burrito from Uber Eats. Suddenly, millions of amateurs could organize themselves, generate their own market research and investment theses, drum up excitement in Reddit threads and TikTok videos, and enter the casino with the big boys. (Whether storming the high-roller tables has helped them financially is another question entirely.)

Plenty of reporting on the GameStop saga has captured the jokey, profane enthusiasm of the traders, and the stunned disbelief of their Wall Street antagonists. But theres an economic justice angle that is easy to miss. On r/WallStreetBets, youll find impassioned essays from traders who say betting on GameStop has made them feel newly empowered in a financial system that has only taken advantage of them and their families for years.

Greed is absolutely out of control at the top, and this funny little news story is tangible proof of that, wrote one user in a popular post on Wednesday. Do not let them gaslight you into thinking that its wrong for you to get a slightly larger sliver of the pie.

If you can get past the all-caps lunacy and strange inside jargon, the Redditors make some good points. Big banks and hedge funds really do play by different rules than retail investors. Wall Street banks really did get bailed out after the 2008 financial crisis while Main Street homeowners suffered. M.B.A.s in fancy suits are probably no more likely to give you good investing advice than guys on YouTube with names like RoaringKitty.

While watching the GameStop drama, Ive been reflecting on what the author Martin Gurri calls the revolt of the public. Mr. Gurri writes that the internet has empowered ordinary citizens by giving them new information and tools, which they then use to discover the flaws in the systems and institutions that govern their lives. Once theyve discovered these shortcomings, he writes, these citizens often rebel, tearing down elites and dominant institutions out of anger at having been lied to and withheld from.

The result, Mr. Gurri writes, is a kind of vengeful nihilism, an urge to burn down the establishment without a clear sense of whats supposed to replace it.

The rest is here:

The GameStop Reckoning Was a Long Time Coming - The New York Times

To the editor: While Im endlessly grateful that news organizations, in their coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, continue to highlight the horrific evils of the Nazis, Im also puzzled as to why the Communists are not assailed as well. (How subtle changes in language helped erode U.S. democracy and mirrored the Nazi era, Opinion, Jan. 23)

As the daughter of Nazi death camp survivors whose parents four years later quickly had to make plans for their escape from the Communists who invaded their country, I feel that it is vital to be careful not to take the rubber band that former President Donald Trump stretched to the far right and allow it now to fling wildly to the far left.

Hopefully President Biden will be able to hold the right-wingers and left-wingers at bay and allow something in the middle to prevail.

Klara Shandling, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: In his odious comparison of present-day America to Nazi Germany, Martin Puchner carefully omits any mention of the woke social justice crowd that has successfully hounded speakers whom it has deemed unfit from college campuses.

Indeed, some have lost jobs and livelihoods because they dared voice a dissenting opinion to that mob. Witness the recent shutdown of Parler by Big Tech.

If there is an assault on free speech in our country, it is coming from the left, not the right.

Louis H. Nevell, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Puchner rightly compares the Nazi use of language for lies and disinformation with that of Trump, his followers and the alt-right. Puchner wisely examines the subtleties of language.

But subtlety goes even deeper. Over the last four years, many in the media, including The Times, spoke of Trump as amoral. This was absolutely incorrect.

The first definition of amoral in the Oxford English Dictionary is this: Not within the sphere of morality; that cannot be characterized as either morally good or bad; non-moral. This definition is not even remotely accurate for Trump.

The definition of immoral is more appropriate for Trump: Not consistent with, or not conforming to, moral law or requirement; opposed to or violating morality; morally evil or impure; unprincipled, vicious, dissolute.

As we recover now and learn and relearn, may we also direct sharper attention to our language.

Tim Vivian, Bakersfield

View post:

We keep hearing Nazi parallels. What about the Communists? - Los Angeles Times