[Discussion] Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Fascism

Pages

The history and current state of racism and fascism in our society and how that is codified by many laws and industries is familiar to many of us. I would like to consciously avoid overly fixating on (or unintentionally promoting) the notoriety of specific insurrectionist terrorist cells or individuals whenever possible. The idea of this thread is to be a general repository for observations, discussion, and information to educate ourselves and the people in our immediate spheres of influence.

Many of us here have the inherent privilege to not have to deal with being directly assaulted by racists or fascists on a daily basis as a part of our lived experience; millions of others did not and do not get the same afforded to them. Please be actively conscious and considerate of that when discussing such a complex, nuanced, and delicate topic.

Gamerg*te, Pr*ud Boys, Q*non, tr*mp insurrectionists, whatever you want to call them, they're cut and cultivated from the same white nationalist cloth. Let's not mince words and do what we can to educate ourselves and each other on how to think critically about this, and be agents of change within our own spheres.

Conversations about the Biden administration and governmental shift after January 20th, 2020, belong in the Welcome to the Biden Administration thread.

Conversations about post-presidential Tr*mp and the disturbing legacy he left behind go in the Impeachment, Legacy, and Discussion of Individual 45 thread.

Mm new thread smell.

Running thought I had today was "Great, but what about the other 75 million of 'em?"

How many of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses?
A. Some
B. Most
C. All

I really hope that an honest DOJ can start making real inroads into breaking the backs of these terror cells.

Progress

(CNN)A leader of the Proud Boys, an extremist group that took part in the US Capitol insurrection, was taken into custody and is facing charges, federal officials said.

Joseph Randall Biggs, 37, of Florida was arrested Wednesday and is facing three counts -- obstruction of a proceeding, entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct -- for his part in the siege of the Capitol on January 6, according to the Justice Department and an FBI affidavit. The FBI described Biggs in the affidavit as an organizer for the Proud Boys.

This catch and release crap is bullsh*t though

Biggs appeared in court in Orlando yesterday and was released under home confinement and other restrictions by U.S. Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd.

Yeah, but those sound like misdemeanors (not really sure). Are the courts' hands tied?

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, but those sound like misdemeanors (not really sure). Are the courts' hands tied?

They probably would be if they weren't done on government property. Instead he faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
There's also the possibility of more charges being added later. Lots of Proud Boys were wearing earpieces, which is evidence the attack was planned and they were coordinating during it and not just going along with the mob. If they can prove that in court he'll face much worse charges.

thread poke

Just a tag. sorry all.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, but those sound like misdemeanors (not really sure). Are the courts' hands tied?

I don't think they've yet made up their minds fully about if the Justice Dept. will pursue sedition charges for those involved. I'm remaining optimistic that, when it's all said and done, very few will get out with a simple slap on the wrist. I'm also crossing my fingers for felony charges for most, it removes their legal right to own a gun and I can't say that's a bad thing, either.

I don't know if anyone follows Legal Eagle on YouTube, but he did a good breakdown of some possible charges here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3X...

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military

NPR wrote:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly one in five people charged for their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appears to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20 percent, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only seven percent of all American adults are military veterans, according to the Census Bureau.

OG_slinger wrote:

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military

NPR wrote:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly one in five people charged for their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appears to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20 percent, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only seven percent of all American adults are military veterans, according to the Census Bureau.

And your point is?

The better data would be how long they served, what branch they served in, what their military occupation or rate was, and what their type of discharge was?

It would also be interesting to know what the percentage of ex-military is for the general population. I'm guessing it's less than 1 in 5, but I don't actually know.

I don't like nazis.

SpyNavy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military

NPR wrote:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly one in five people charged for their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appears to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20 percent, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only seven percent of all American adults are military veterans, according to the Census Bureau.

And your point is?

The better data would be how long they served, what branch they served in, what their military occupation or rate was, and what their type of discharge was?

The point is likely that this is yet another piece of evidence that these weren't just economically anxious nutjobs who got swept up and carried away; that they had the training and capability to execute the members of Congress they consider enemies and traitors had they been able to find them.
I wouldn't take it to be insinuating that military service leads to having white national beliefs, it's more the other way around. It's been known for awhile that right-wing extremists have been encouraging their members to join and that they've been seeking to recruit disaffected military veterans once they return home.

Malor wrote:

It would also be interesting to know what the percentage of ex-military is for the general population. I'm guessing it's less than 1 in 5, but I don't actually know.

It says in the quote that only 7% of adult Americans are military veterans.

Stengah wrote:
Malor wrote:

It would also be interesting to know what the percentage of ex-military is for the general population. I'm guessing it's less than 1 in 5, but I don't actually know.

It says in the quote that only 7% of adult Americans are military veterans.

Oops. Duh. Thanks.

So, yeah, 20% is much higher than 7. Could definitely indicate a problem.

In my experience it isn’t a problem with the military, it’s that there’s correlation but no causation. MAGA type families in the south raise their sons the way they were raised (low or high key bigotry), the schools aren’t great and either ignore the idea of tolerance or teach the opposite. If they do have black people in the area, the parents demonize them and the young men themselves are jealous of them for various reasons, compounding resentment. When they get out of school there isn’t a lot of opportunity in the sticks so more young men than average head to the military.

Which is all to say the states are United by law and sometimes cause, but not really by common culture. That will always cause rifts, I’m afraid.

SpyNavy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military

NPR wrote:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly one in five people charged for their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appears to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20 percent, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only seven percent of all American adults are military veterans, according to the Census Bureau.

And your point is?

The better data would be how long they served, what branch they served in, what their military occupation or rate was, and what their type of discharge was?

Yes! How many of those honorably served multiple terms in the True Scotsman division?

SpyNavy wrote:

And your point is?

The better data would be how long they served, what branch they served in, what their military occupation or rate was, and what their type of discharge was?

The point of the news article is very clear: nearly 20% of the people charged so far for the insurrection earlier this month were currently serving or had previously served in the military.

A rational person might assume that no current or former member of the military would have participated in an attempted violent coup, them being patriotic Americans who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and all, but that clearly wasn't the case.

We've known for years--decades--that the military has a serious white supremacist problem and it seems they haven't done enough to fix it.

We've also known for years--decades--that certain branches, like the USAF, have essentially been taken over by evangelical Christians. We've seen that that brand of white evangelicalism is a major on-ramp for QAnon as well as the highly revisionist conservative version of history that America is exclusively a Christian nation that's popular with the MAGAheads (which is just a hop, skip, and jump from America is exclusively a white Christian nation) and have done nothing about it.

January 6th showed that we can no longer pretend the military doesn't have a problem with extremists in its ranks (and, very likely, its command structure). That point was hammered home by the fact the FBI had to vet the National Guardsmen who were sent to protect D.C. for the inauguration.

The questions you asked should be answered by extensive investigations, but we, as a nation, shouldn't accept any investigation that concludes it was "only a few bad apples" and there's nothing for us to be concerned about.

Tagging.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I don't like nazis.

But... unity?!

JC wrote:

Progress

(CNN)A leader of the Proud Boys, an extremist group that took part in the US Capitol insurrection, was taken into custody and is facing charges, federal officials said.

Joseph Randall Biggs, 37, of Florida was arrested Wednesday and is facing three counts -- obstruction of a proceeding, entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct -- for his part in the siege of the Capitol on January 6, according to the Justice Department and an FBI affidavit. The FBI described Biggs in the affidavit as an organizer for the Proud Boys.

This catch and release crap is bullsh*t though

Biggs appeared in court in Orlando yesterday and was released under home confinement and other restrictions by U.S. Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd.

One of my spiritual teachers, Dr Brene Brown, is saying that there must be accountability before any significant healing can be achieved. She’s speaking directly to the Jan 6 coup attempt.

Without accountability there can be no healing. Without healing there will be no unity.

My concern is that President Biden wants to tip toe past the accountability process, ignore the healing process, and jump straight to unity. This simply won’t solve anything.

OG_slinger wrote:

The point of the news article is very clear: nearly 20% of the people charged so far for the insurrection earlier this month were currently serving or had previously served in the military. A rational person might assume that no current or former member of the military would have participated in an attempted violent coup, them being patriotic Americans who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and all, but that clearly wasn't the case.

We've known for years--decades--that the military has a serious white supremacist problem and it seems they haven't done enough to fix it.

Thank goodness for SpaceForce. It's so new there can't possibly be any racist supremacists in there! /s

I was thinking this morning that the Olympic committee should strip the swimmer dude of his medals. Then I remembered that they gave actual Nazis medals (at least for the events that Jesse Owens decided not to win).

Shadout wrote:

Tagging.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I don't like nazis.

But... unity?! :evil:

United in our hatred of nazis

SpyNavy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military

NPR wrote:

As a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly one in five people charged for their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appears to have a military history.

NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20 percent, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only seven percent of all American adults are military veterans, according to the Census Bureau.

And your point is?

The better data would be how long they served, what branch they served in, what their military occupation or rate was, and what their type of discharge was?

We're going to go through this every time this kind of info about the military is brought into the light, aren't we? Every single time?

I am unfortunately reminded of my friend who was born into a cop family in NJ. He had a defense for every single instance of police abuse or misbehavior during the George Floyd protests, and there were many that we saw with our own eyes. It wasn't that we both weren't seeing the same scenes play out in real time, it was that those scenes didn't bother him in the slightest.

Don't start with the personal jabs, please.

AP Article

An Associated Press survey of law enforcement agencies nationwide found that at least 31 officers in 12 states are being scrutinized by their supervisors for their behavior in the District of Columbia or face criminal charges for participating in the riot.

What I don't understand is why anyone is entertaining this as free speech.

For two Virginia police officers who posed for a photo during the deadly U.S. Capitol insurrection, the reckoning has been swift and public: They were identified, charged with crimes and arrested.

But for five Seattle officers the outcome is less clear. Their identities still secret, two are on leave and three continue to work while a police watchdog investigates whether their actions in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6 crossed the line from protected political speech to lawbreaking.

This professor has the right of it, in my opinion.

Ayesha Bell Hardaway, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, said an officer’s presence at the rally creates a credibility issue as law enforcement agencies work to repair community trust, especially after last summer’s protests against police brutality sparked by the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Communities will question the integrity of officers who attended the rally along with “individuals who proudly profess racist and divisive viewpoints,” she said. “It calls into question whether those officers are interested in engaging in policing in a way that builds trust and legitimacy in all communities, including communities of color.”

The Pacific North West is appallingly racist and fascist. The Portland, OR BLM protests are a direct response to the racist police practices in the region. The white communities there were founded on white supremacy.

This could go over on the Trump discussion as well but I think it's better served here.

538's Radicalized Republic article which led me to the below article on WAPO which is a great, albeit terrifying and depressing read, full of data points.

how many Americans condone political violence — and why

The most basic finding is that a significant minority of Americans will not reject violence outright. Several of our surveys asked respondents if they believed “it is justified for [their own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days.” In a 2017 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 8 percent of partisans agreed that violence is at least “a little bit” justified. In 2018, it rose to 15 percent and has hovered around there since.
We also asked whether violence would be okay if their party lost the 2020 presidential election. Across nine surveys in 2017-2019, about 20 percent said that it would be at least a little bit okay. In fall 2020, the political science project Bright Line Watch asked: Would violence be justified if opponents acted violently first? Forty percent of partisans said yes, at least a little.
In a Cooperative Congressional Election Study conducted before and after the 2020 election, only 1.5 percent of respondents said they had ever hit, pushed or grabbed people in a conflict over politics. But among those who said that violence was at least a little bit okay, 9 percent reported this kind of physical confrontation. That connection from violent expressions to violent acts manifested in the U.S. Capitol assault.

The best predictor of pro-violence attitudes is an aggressive personality. People who report getting into fights, arguing frequently with others and getting angry easily in everyday life were likely to approve of partisan violence. The second-best predictor was strong identification with a party.

Another predictor of pro-violent attitudes is “partisan moral disengagement,” which entails seeing the other party as evil, less than human and a serious threat to the nation. This is consistent with psychology research that has found moral disengagement to be a precursor to harming behavior.

Democrats tend to support violence on behalf of inclusive democracy and civic equality, while Republicans support violence in defense of the traditional social hierarchy, in which White men retain disproportionate status and power.

Evidence for this difference in motives is visible in the factors linked to partisan moral disengagement — and how those linkages differ for Democrats and Republicans. Partisan moral disengagement is particularly prevalent among Republicans who express more resentment toward African Americans and more sexist attitudes toward women.

This is not true for Democrats who morally distance themselves from Republicans. For Democrats, expressing lower levels of racism is associated with moral disengagement from Republicans. Sexism has no relationship with partisan moral disengagement among Democrats.

partisan opponents are not the only target for violence. In our 2017 survey, we found that strongly attached partisans are more violent toward partisan opponents and to apostates within their party.
After Biden was announced president-elect in November, we asked Republicans whether they would support various ways of rejecting Biden’s presidency. Fourteen percent of Republicans said governors should call up the National Guard to resist federal orders. Nine percent said the military should overthrow the new president. And an astounding 25 percent said citizens should prepare weapons to resist the federal government.
Most alarming, Republicans who believe Democrats cheated in the election (83 percent in our study) were far likelier to endorse post-election violence, even after accounting for traits such as partisanship and aggression. Although we can’t be certain about cause and effect, this establishes a clear link. As Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

And why we're screwed...

To reduce the threat of violence and accompanying risks to democracy, political leaders have an important role. Historical and cross-national evidence shows leaders are key to regulating violence in their followers. In the wake of last week’s violence at the Capitol, the onus falls on Republican leaders in particular to renounce violence and the false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

Ordinary citizens have an important role, too. Interpersonal conversations are among the strongest influences on political views and actions. Thus, the more Americans renounce violence in conversations with family members, friends and neighbors, the more likely people will consider violence an illegitimate political strategy.

Ensuring robust American democracy requires all political leaders — and at this moment, especially Republican leaders — to renew their commitment to peaceful resolution of political differences.

538 article:
IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/koerth-atd-BIDEN-RADICAL-6_Compromise_desktop.png?w=2048)

Pages