Friday, August 16, 2019

White Nationalism - Domestic Terrorism on the Rise

Domestic Terrorism on the Rise


Christian Identity and the internet's ability to unite fringe groups are giving a new rise to domestic terrorism in the United States. And I'll prove why in an essay that's totally unnecessary but I really enjoy writing this sort of thing. So here we are. 


The Department of Homeland Security defines a domestic terrorist this way:
"Domestic terrorists are individuals who commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as racial bias and anti-government sentiment..." intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of the government." 


"...in fact, there have been more arrests and deaths caused by domestic terrorists than international terrorists in recent years." 
(FBI Director's Statement before the House Homeland Security Committee on May 8, 2019)

You can see the increase in extremist's violence charted in this interactive map created by the Anti-defamation League: LINK
If you go back to 2014, 2015, you can see activity steadily sits in the double digits (2014 = 36 , 2015 = 63, and then a sharp rise in 2016 to quadruple digits = 1,321, then it doubles in 2017 to 2,482 and 2018 = 3,045.

And if you scroll down you can see details of the attacks that didn't quite make headlines. Even some funny ones. One Minnesota man made a pig pinata that said "Fuck the Police" with an explosive device inside of it. And the less funny ones, like the man who killed 11 people in a Synagogue in Pennsylvania.

And if you need a close-up 1 to 1 comparison. In 2017 you can see only 13 people died of domestic terrorism. While last weekend 31 people were killed in the two-pronged attack in El Paso and California. (LINK to 2017 data)



It's dismissive to say these are random crazy men who choose shoot up a place in isolation. Because these attacks, though seemingly random, have a common ideology, that has pervaded in America, and caused one Civil War already. That ideology is Christian Identity. This common ideology is present in multiple present-day groups that could congeal or unite under extreme circumstances. From racially motivated attackers like Dylan Roofe to border security guards who see immigrants as a deadly serious threat. You can see the pervasiveness of these thoughts in manifestos on 8chan, GAB and other forums where ideologically-motivated mass shooters are recruited and inspired to carry out their acts.

Proud Boys
Nativists
Immigration Hardliners
Pro-Gun Advocates
White Supremecists
Hate groups (Neo-nazis, KKK)
Chrisitian Identity Advocates
Conspiracy Theorists (Alex Jones, Q Anon)
End of Day Preachers and believers
Pro-Militia
Anti-Government Extremists

Each of these groups has a core in the Christian Identity movement, which we'll get into in the history portion. The issue of domestic terrorism is not a specific problem arising from a single one of these groups. The danger is the radicalization of these common ideologies and the possibility of of these groups congealing under a united front. 

The danger, as Robert Evans posits in his 7 part series "It Could Happen Here": is that if any single one of these groups was able to disrupt the government enough to require military action. That retaliation from the government could propagate an "us vs them" mentality that could unite these groups. End of days, martyrdom, victimhood, persecution; for these reasons the groups would finally feel justified in violent extreme action against The State (and thereby The New World Order). 

This may sound alarmist, and it is a little bit, I know that. But I think it's something to keep an eye on, because it happens in other countries all the time. After all a civil war is just unchecked violent groups rising up to disrupt a country's infrastructure. And that's a slippery slope that can get very slippery very quick. And there are just enough pieces in this puzzle to keep an eye on it. For instance, did you know liberals are actually buying more guns in the US. And one of the reasons for that is linked to fear of far-right extremist attacks, as cited in this BBC (LINK).

A Brief History

To backtrack a bit, let's talk about the through-line that unites these groups. Christian Identity wasn't the spawn of fascism, racism and domestic terrorism, but it has been the quiet vehicle keeping them alive in America. You can see the sentiments of Christian Identity drawn up from this ideal in manifestos from marches against MLK to the Mosque shooting in New Zealand.

While I'm not going to go into the entire history, because that would have to be its own article. What's important is important are two main things: proud white christian heritage, and the idea of The New World Order persecuting white men. The idea that white people are the special chosen people of the earth and that they are being attacked by a cabal (of Jews and minorities). A cabal that is totally in charge of things from faking the Holocaust and Sandy Hook to owning the "liberal media" and Hollywood. Take a second if you would and look back up at the list. Some form or another of Christian Identity and The New World Order idea plays into the ideologies of every group on that list.

So how did this start? Well fears of blacks and minorities have always been a prevalent issue in America. White people have stood at the docks and thrown bricks at every type of immigrant from the Irish and Italians, to the present-day Mexicans. And a fear of black people has kept the KKK alive, even today, 140 years after the end of the Civil War. (Fun fact, the KKK regularly marched at our Christmas day parade in my home town in South Carolina.) The real fear isn't crime. The real fear arises as a trend when the white middle class feels threatened by a rising lower class, which isn't blamed on white lower class but on minorities swindling the system. (As illustrated in this beloved pop-song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73tiBBzvFM)

All of this fear in America becomes very important in the 40's because a young man named George Wallace had a real big problem. See he was a Nazi and pro-fascist in the 1940s-50s, and despite his best efforts, he just couldn't figure out how to gain support in America after we pantsed the Germans in "that whole World War 2 thing." 

So his solution was to tone down the pro-nazi rhetoric and amp up the pro-white rhetoric. And a long line of this dialogue has propagated from Welsey Smith ad Christian Nationalistic Crusade in the 60's to present day Gavin McInnes and his violent group of Proud Boys who led the march in Charlottesville. 

The Funny Thing about Conspiracy Theories

In Testimony FBI Director Christopher Wray said. “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists are on the rise,” (like: Q-Anon, Youtube Theorists, Alex Jones)
also"...I will say that a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.”


While not all conspiracy theories are deadly, those specifically identified in the FBI’s 15-page report have led to either attempted or successfully carried-out violent attacks. For example, the Pizzagate conspiracy. Where tweets by Q-Anon and rhetoric by Alex Jones led a 28-year-old man to invade a D.C. restaurant with his assault-style weapon.


Supporters who believe Pizzagate was real
Supporter who thought Pizzagate was real
While in the past, these fringe groups quietly festered in the dark corners of gun shows and basement Klan meetings. A new resurgence has populated the American dialogue. A massive recruiting via memes and message boards. If a single banner was erected for all the new recruits it would be Pepe the Frog.

this was the first result in the Google Search for Pepe



This is about the third.
Because a white nationalist can't recruit a young, disenfranchised 20-year-old by ranting about the great Jewish cabal. The young person would run away. But what our recruiter can do is make racist jokes and share offensive memes with a kid who wants to be edgy.

As this sort of dialogue becomes normalized, over time the Jewish Cabal idea can slowly pivot from being a joke, to being reality. And I know this sounds far fetched, but normalizing this sort of ideology can be traced to Boris Johnson, Hitler, and of course our commander and thief, Trump. Through humor, through dog whistling, and tongue and cheek speech.

A huge issue is how Trump thrives off of conspiracy theories. Not because he's a necessarily an idealist, but because it draws headlines. And headlines for Trump means free publicity. His Birther conspiracy about Obama kept him in the headlines for months and arguably set him up to be someone who looked to be on par with a president. And while not openly a Sandy-Hook denier or Q Anon advocate. He enjoys dancing around advocating these conspiracy theorists to draw headlines. This is why he won't shut the fuck up about The Clintons, because they've been a great foil for conspiracie; alleging that Hillary killed Seth Rich in 2016, the "lock her up" slogan, and using them as a shield against accusations of rape and as a pivot from Trump's relationship with Jeffery Epstien.


As I said, I don't think Trump is an idealist, I don't think he's a fascist or active White Nationalist. I think he knows that trolling the media by talking about these things keeps the attention on him. The unintended consequence is the normalizing of racist and extremist rhetoric. The issue is that this rhetoric from an authority figure validates people who are involved in violence and dehumanizing minorities. From the El Paso shooting, where the shooter mimed Trump's own "invasion" theory. To Cesar Sayoc, the terrorist who mailed bombs to ex presidents and members of the press.


And when Trump says "it isn't a bad thing to be called a nationalist, I'm a nationalist", that is normalizing a dark path toward fascism. Because as we talked about in The History, fascism is what started this movement. And if unchecked, that could very well be where it ends.


The Slippery Dragon

Here's a question, have you ever heard of a white church having surveillance put on it by the Department of Homeland Security? Or a white neighborhood having a curfew? Or laws that groups of a certain number of white men can't gather at a time? Probably not, because it doesn't happen in the United States. Despite the majority of serial killers, domestic extremists, and the continued presence of the KKK (the US's oldest domestic terrorist group) the government does not perceive white men as a threat.


These groups know this, and therefore government will also be slow to crack down on this kind of activity. And like a festering wound, it will get worse, because we are going to continue to ignore it.

Remember that militia that staged the armed take-over a federal building in Oregon? Aside from the leaders, most of the men were only sentenced to a few months of probation. And while one leader was shot while reaching for a firearm in a scuffle with police, I don't believe that could have happened to anyone but a group of affluent white people. Imagine how this might have played out differently if the group was say, black militants or a Hispanic "gang", or (and here's the ringer) Islamic militants.
Look at all these unharmed violent militants 



The issue is there is no difference. Violent young men drawn to a dogma provided by older men who seek power and prominence will always be the creators of violent militant groups, whether it's in America or South Africa. The problem America faces, is that we are letting them continue to get away with it. 

Robert Evans was a war correspondent in the Middle East and Syria. He spent a lot of time embedded with people fighting these militants in countries that used to be stable democracies. He outlines how militants in those countries rise to prominence, disrupt the government, and how (if unchecked) it could happen here

Thursday, March 14, 2019

REVIEW: The Verdict on Serial

I'm in my office screaming and cursing and confused. A coworker walks by with a look on her face. "Y'all alright in there?" she says.

"Yeah, Serial!" I said, but what she heard was "Cereal!" I live in the south, where NPR is held with as much regard as the Winter Olympics. She left looking more concerned than before, either believing I'm crazy or hungry or just mad hungry.

Serial just threw me through a window. It's been pingponging my brain between the verdict for the death of Hae Min Lee. I have dedicated my whiteboard to solving the mystery six episodes ago and now no one is EVER going to know the truth. The listeners will split up into camps and argue for or against Adnan, rarely convincing the other party off our circumstantial evidence. If you haven't listened to the Serial podcast through the final episode, this post is going to spoil a lot. So ye be warned. And double spoiler, I'm certain I have the answer, which I'm going to outline in the first section here.

Not knowing the verdict wasn't the only cause of my turmoil. It was what the whole series says about our legal system, about journalism, and how responsible any single citizen is to them both. And I feel like I just got tossed into a stranger, blurrier world than when I started listening to the podcast in October. Which really says a lot about how well this was made. I'm going to critique it a lot here, but I only to that with media I hold in the highest regard, I think Serial is the True Detective of Podcasts.

1. The Verdict on Adnon

A. That dude totally did it

The last episode makes two great points that turned me around about how I considered the verdict for Adnan. That said, I had the verdict pegged 5 episodes in and every episode after only confirmed my theory.

I want to preface my verdict by saying that Sarah Koenig's analysis of the proceedings and evidence provided by the state and the judge should not have upheld a guilty verdict. She makes a great point about that. The detectives had no physical evidence, a loose story on an inaccurate timeline, almost completely rooted on the confession of one young man whose story couldn't stop changing. Koenig is definitely right, the court should have acquitted Adnan, and if his defense attorney had done a better job, he might be free today.

The loose evidence and deep holes in the timeline are what gave Koenig trouble, even after over a year of in-depth research in reporting, it's hard to fathom that a jury could convict him in less than a week.

On the other hand Sarah is clearly sympathetic to Adnan, working to be objective, but lacking any clear evidence that he didn't do it, she spins his hand-fed narrative to the audience, and hey it works. I really like this guy and my heart's telling me that dude can't be a killer, that he might be the victim here. But on the other hand, he totally fucking did it.

I think the biggest pit for Koenig's verdict is that she talked to Adnan at all.  She is a great journalist, but in this case she was not 100% objective. I think she should have coached someone to interview him as she spent time doing the research, then put those two stories together, and acted more as a hammer for the truth between the evidence and his story and less like the cushion. Meaning, I think when we heard the facts and his story she usually would shrug her shoulders and say: you could see this story going either way, like:  "I really don't want to be the person who says this dude's guilty on air after all this time he let me interrogate him". I mean if she did, then who would ever let her interview them afterwards?

If she had not conducted the interviews herself I think she would have said what Dana said during the final episode. Dana's opinion was exactly what I thought by the 5th episode, and likely what judge, jury, and the detectives knew to be true as well. Simply, that there are too many coincidences for Adnan not to be the culprit.
- The phone being by Linkin Park that night
- The call to Shei
- Jay knowing where the car is and you know, going through this whole ordeal of blaming it on Adnan and going to court and risking jail time for one story. You know, Adnan, who just happened to loan him his own car and phone the same day.
- The fact that Don (Hae's new boyfriend) had made sure to remember that the instant he found out she'd gone missing while Adnan claims not to remember anything about that day.... oh except the morning, Stephanie's birthday, that he probably asked Hae for a ride, and gave Jay his phone and car on that day. But aside from that, clearly couldn't remember anything.

Dana's right. Yes there are huge holes in the detectives' timeline and sure they weighed the deck to support Jay's argument, but they had their culprit. Look I'm not a lawyer or a detective, I'm just a culture junkie who happens to love detective stories, from The Maltese Falcon to Brick. But I've been keeping rabid, fanatical details of the series from start to end, and while I can only speculate why Adnan murdered Hae, I can say for certain that dude fucking did it.

B. Never Listen to the culprit

Recently I picked up a friend from jail the day after he'd been arrested. It was later in the morning, he'd been in court and a cell all day.  The first thing my buddy did was call his boss to explain why my he was not at work. He apologetically tells his boss a detailed and emotionally riveting account about how he'd fought off a boyfriend abusing his girlfriend near my buddy's apartment. His boss is satisfied, I see his bandages, I'm satisfied.

When he hangs up he tells me the real story, and it has nothing to do with a relationship dispute. Now this friend is as far from an actor as a roughneck tower-climbing surfer can be, but he laid the story out with perfect ease and conviction as if it'd happen. He laid it out like Samuel L. Jackson in Resovoir Dogs had coached him. That was after one night sleeping off a hangover in a jail cell.

Adnan has had 15 years to work on every aspect of this story. 15 years.

Many of the questions Koenig had are things he'd probably figured out with his lawyer or in correspondence with friends and family long ago. He's definitely a smart guy, you put a smart guy in one place for 15 years I bet he could recite the Iliad from memory.

Now I'm not saying he's a liar or Koenig let herself get duped. What I am saying is that this fact makes him a totally unreliable source of information. My rule throughout the series has been not to listen to anything Adnon says as fact, that is to add it to the mix of other evidence.

How many times did Koenig describe Adnan's own accounts as convenient, just as Dana says.

C. Listen to Jay

I mean in the "really listen" the way some guardian wizard tells their portage to listen to the wind. The final fact presented on Serial as the only hard evidence they actually had is that Jay knew where Hae's car was. This works in two directions,
 1 - Jay had Adnon's car.
 - If Jay had Adnon's car and then picked up and hung out with Adnan (as several people testify to), exactly at what point in the night did he have time to:

  • Find Hae
  • kill Hae 
  • Be contacted by someone who had killed Hae on a cell phone he'd just borrowed that morning
  • help bury Hae
  • or bury her by himself
  • ditch Hae's car (b/c w/or without an accomplice, he knew where it was)
  • and if you believe (I think it was Katherine's? story) sneak the dirty shovels into Adnan's car 

 - If Hae is en-route from one school to another, where would a stranger (like the potential murderer they discussed) or Jay have somehow stopped her to kill her? Sure you can work out ways it could happen, elaborate or simple, but it would contradict multiple testimonies outside Jay and Adnans' own versions of the story.
     - and on that note, if it is this stranger, who alway assaults his victims and always robs them. If Hae was neither assaulted or robbed and the car was itself abandoned, then why pursue that path of thinking?

D. My Theory

When I first started listening to the podcast I had my finger pegged on Jay, he was shady, inconsistent, and you know, worked at a porn store. Adnan though, just seemed like a guy caught up with the wrong people and had the bad luck of being Hae's recent ex.


But by that fourth episode I was certain that wasn't the case, and if you listen again to the subsequent episodes, they support my theory. My theory is simple, that Jay knew of Adnan's plan ahead of time and completely collaborated with it. The reason his story changes is to protect himself, and his own involvement so he does not go to jail. I think Adnan said: "Hey man I'm going to kill that bitch" and Jay either believed he wasn't serious or he would chicken out.

Jay and the detectives that interviewed him both knew that he would go to jail for confessing in the collaboration. The detectives helped him elude confessing his own involvement before their tapes started recording and set him up with a lawyer for his cooperation in the case. The idea that they're all conspiring against Adnon at once to reign him in as the killer is hardly believable.

This still leaves the question of why Jay did it. That's speculation and heresay, but for my two-cents I think he agreed to help Adnon, didn't believe he'd actually do it, would chicken out or think better of it when he actually confronted Hae, until he actually arrived to see her body, by which time he was too late not to be an accomplice. Adnon had basically kidnapped Jay, Jay had no car and no cell phone and was standing next to a murderer. A murderer who had class with Jay's girlfriend the very next day, and who threatened that girlfriend.



ESSAY: How the Dark Knight Rewrote the book on Superhero Movies

When the Dark Knight was released I worked as a projectionist at Regal Cinemas. Every night I would save Dark Knight as the last movie I reeled so I could watch it.  I've probably seen it over a hundred times and today I am still able to re-watch it and enjoy it.

It's more than a superhero movie, it's a masterpiece in filmmaking. I know, I know, it sounds silly when talking about a superhero movie, but it is executed with such precision, simplicity and quality. It has that dope, unique Hans Zimmer soundtrack that includes the notable violin screech when the Joker appears.  The noise plays at the opening of the movie and you already know something bad is going to happen in that building before the window blows out. The acting was impeccable. From Aaron Eckhart's transformation, to Christian Bale's performance as the guy from American Psycho, and of course Heath Ledger's performance as a young Tom Waites (seriously have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRbhBXPgKk).  The editing is genius, seamlessly switching between action, like the Joker interrogating Harvey as Bruce saves the accountant. And also switching between the personal accounts to the big picture.

that it has inspired tropes in action movies as much as Sergio Leonne did with A Fistful of DollarsThe Dark Knight script has inspired action movie filmmakers and rewritten the book on how to make a helluva action movie. As the Joker says: "You've changed thing FOREVER"

1. The premise is realistic, dark and gritty. It is less cartoonish, as early Batman movies and superman movies were. Everything has to be justified and is made more plausable. From Harvey Dent becoming two-face to how Batman gets his awesome equipment.
      - EVERYONE very notably Man of Steel 
      - It should be said of course that The Expendables, Machete, and Scott Pilgrim chose to                 completely go the other direction, but I'd say it wouldn't have worked or been relevant to do         so without Dark Knight, and probably Sin City.

2. The villain intentionally being caught to further some convoluted plan.
      - Skyfall
     -  Star Trek: Into Darkness
     - Iron Man 2
     - The Avengers

3. Not being a Hero or a Vigilante.  Alfred says , Bruce Wayne always confirming through the first two movies that he is not a vigilante or a hero, but a legend, as Alfred perfectly puts it "He's not being a hero, he's being something more" Though in the examples, the hero doesn't become an idealist or icon, they become something else, but don't register as a hero.
     - Iron Man 2 and 3
     - The Avengers - They're what does Sammy L call them? Supersoldiers?
     - Thor - he's a god.

4. Having a villain that's more likable/intriguing than the hero
     - Loki, Thor, The Avengers
     - Kahn, Star Trek: Into Darkness
     - The hot chick from Man of Steel (in my opinion)
     

5. The main character/villain doesn't spend much time on screen. Of course Nolan didn't invent this technique, it's adapted from horror/monster movies, leaving the imagination to run free after a few glimpses of the monster. And making the audience want to see more of the monster/bad guy. Much like Jaws didn't make a full appearence until the last quarter of the film, Cloverfield, Godzilla, recently.

     - Dark Knight Rises - Ironically, don't see Batman too much until the fourth act.
     - The Iron Man Suit in Iron Man 3
     - Javier Bardem in Skyfall
     -

6. Playing up that the suits, government/city also fighting the hero.
     Of course most movies do this to up the stakes but they used this to fuel the plot very well, in        them chasing down Batman and getting Harvey. And Batman beating up the Swat team.
     - Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3
     - Man of Steel
     - Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol 

8. The terrifying low-budget viral tape.
 Yes of course it's been done a million times, with the villain broadcasting his threat across the world but it had become scarier and relevant with Bin Laden's threats after 9/11 and the campy cheesy effect it had in the 90's
     - Iron Man 3
     - Man of Steel

9. ALCOHOL = BAD
     - Iron Man 2
     - Skyfall

12. Not being able to tell what one of the main characters is saying
     - Bane, The Dark Knight Rises
     - The Asian Businessman, Inception
    on second thought, maybe it's just a Christopher Nolan thing.

14. Straying from the series' tropes. As when Bruce Wayne says: Sonar? Like a... and Morgan freeman says: submarine, though it would be fun to see A Submarine Man movie. Also not saying "I am Batman". Also Nanananananana Batman!!
     - Quantum of Solace - "Shaken not Stirred" - also James Bond doesn't have sex with the girl.
     - Iron Man 3 - Tony never says "I am Iron Man"

15. Not letting Ben Affleck play the hero.
     - EVERYONE
     - Except Dare Devil and Batman/Superman

THINGS ACTION MOVIES SHOULD HAVE LEARNED:
1. How to do the disappearance of a main character properly. Just because we see Tony Stark the whole movie doesn't mean we're going to enjoy not seeing him in the Iron Man suit.
2. The love interest dies. To be replaced with a bad girl. C'mon Pepper Pots out, Black Widow in. Louis Lane out, hot alien chick in, or maybe Wonder Woman.
3. Straying from the goal of world domination to someone who "just wants to watch the world burn."
4. The resignation of the right hand man/butler.
6. This moment

7. Awesomely subtle Foreshadowing.
     When Bruce asks Fox how his new suit will protect him against Dogs, Fox says "Should be fine against cats" words he totally eats when Catwoman hands Batman to Bane.
8. An upside-down Monologue.
9. Include Morgan Freeman. Though I guess RED learned
10. Not really having a happy ending. Though Breaking Bad killed it while Dexter flopped.
11. Thanking Elvis Presley in the credits.
12. Don't harp on the dead loved-one thing for the whole friggin movie.
13. Not using the Inception Horns sound.

The line: We need a hero with a face about Harvey Dent
I love that the joker doesn't hide by wearing a mask, but by not wearing one, when his make-up is off during the assassination of the mayor.