I don’t understand the lack of interest by journalists. What more did Williams need to do the first time he reached out to garner interest? Does ProPublica overestimate the seriousness of the militia movement? I’d think based on J6 the journalists ignoring Williams’ communications should have paid attention.
Besides the things other comments mentioned: There is a longstanding sentiment that "It can't happen here".
The wider public in America more or less blocks out the risks involved. "They're not actually going to blow up the power grid."
Hell, just look at the tech industry. Endless whining about not needing to be regulated, and what have they done? Built an enormous surveilance machine, lead by executives who preemptively kowtow to any authoritarian leader. Europe's attempt to regulate this is still angrily opposed by heaps, even on this very site.
Normalcy bias — it's an absolute killer. The same cognitive failure that has people in a fire thinking it's "just part of the show", or "just something in the kitchen", until it is too late, and panic overtakes everyone. I've never seen a story of a fire where someone in the situation said "I wasn't sure what was going on, but it didn't seem good so I left early, I'm alive because I did!".
Normalcy bias can kill us all if we aren't careful.
Thanks for writing this: things are quite askew right now for various reasons, and it was unexpectedly affirming to hear someone say it loud.
Until now I would have said this is an extreme minority view, even though it's quite obvious and aligns with the core values I've seen on this site over the last 15 years, and thus presumed were tech in general's view.
Maybe I just need to get off X, the Everything App™, 90% of my news consumption and commentary is through there.
I dropped of Twitter, and Facebook in 2014 (or around that time); and I have not missed a single important event since then.
People think they need Facebook, X, whatever to stay up to date. Not so.
I have a few online newspapers/sites I scan a few times a week, and that's it.
IMHO (and it's really just MO), Twitter, Facebook and alike are a 100% useless waste of time.
(Maybe Facebook had some use in the beginning for staying in contact with more "friends" than I could have by other means.)
I feel better for it. And as I said, I will guarantee you that won't miss anything important going on.
This people would be 100% better off. Not consuming the garbage. I tried to just follow tech peeps on X.
Now it is nonstop propaganda even just following a niche.
I made a decade long transition from dropout waiter => startup founder => exit => Google thanks to getting to soak in all the tech stuff on Twitter, without having the formal education.
It's hard to say without being reductive, but TL;DR it's turned into a very know-nothing atmosphere, to the point it certainly swamps the prior positive effects.
Good example yesterday: OP is excited about Elon newly announcing a new interest in non-regretted user-seconds.
Elon's talked about it a bunch, so some people gently correct OP.
Some other people gently point out this...isn't something you can metric.
Everyone's being polite and pointing out indirectly the excitement is irrational: it's an old idea, and not an actual metric you can optimize for
OP half-rolls-back that its a new idea, but is still excited about the implications.
Someone tells him directly "non-user-regretted-seconds" isn't a metric, he doubles down and says its standard in industry.
I reply saying it's Elon-invented, not a good or bad thing, but certainly not a traditional metric.
OP replies saying that's not true, OP saw it in use at Google a decade ago.
It's a day later and it's completely unclear to me: A) if this is an actual phrase that was used prior to Elon B) if it is a phrase, how it could be a metric and C) if OP is right that it was in use before Elon, given our time at google overlapped by 7 years and I've never, ever, heard of anyone having a metric like that (could someone have used it as a term of art in a meeting? sure! but generic "amount of time people enjoy using our thing" isn't worth noting as a distinct term, unless you actually collect info on it)
The only way I can think of to even engage is to say pretty much the above, but it's too aggro and "cares too much" for the level of current discourse, especially since the premise is we should be excited Elon cares about this.
A more factual approach, like trying to find the first instance of "unregretted user-seconds" isn't convincing. I'm not sure how you'd prove the first use was after a certain date.
Even if I try searching for refs between 2000 and 2020 only, there's ~3 pages of obviously re-dated results, i.e. referring to Elon as Twitter owner with a date of "2013"
Then, just because it wasn't on the internet at a certain date, doesn't mean it wasn't in use regularly at Google before that date.
Then, the clunky pseudo-scientific phrasing makes it impossible to debunk there wasn't another form of "unregretted user-seconds" I should be checking.
There's only 8 pages of results for "unregretted user-seconds", all tied to Elon/Twitter, but that means nothing because again, clunky phrasing means maybe there's another form I should be checking, and maybe it was a phrase that had been locked inside companies until Elon used it publicly.
So what was the point of even reading, thinking, replying about this?
As somebody who successfully avoided twitter stuff my whole life - whats the lure of this? Following some folks reading some random brainfarts is not how I imagine spending my time, and that's all I can see on this. Maybe I have just different type of personality than target audience.
Or is it so addictive like social networks seem to be?
I have left X / Twitter now, but while there it gave me good insights, to an extent. If you follow the right people, you get news without intermediate interpretation by journalists. Who the "right people" are is hard to answer, but basically, select people you trust the judgement of.
But.... I am no longer there. Too much noise and distraction drowns the sane voices. And I can't stand Musk any longer.
I went into twitter for the academic side. Transition to baky has been nice. It's often like RSS feeds but I get to interact with my peers.
I tink it totally depends what your niche is. What bugged me about Twitter is that after Musk took over it was no longer mostly RSS feed-like but all the politics came in. That all ranked higher even when not from accounts I don't follow (now I get notifications from Musk even after muting him)
> Or is it so addictive
AFAIK the ranking is simple. But since everything is open you could filter as you wish. I'm not aware of anyone doing it but I'd like to see this.
It’s sort of alluded to but I suspect journalists get a whole lot of false tips from various mentally unhealthy folk, which perhaps appear much like Williams’ in this story.
Yeah, being contacted by someone who’s on a bespoke undercover mission in right-wing militias is huge. Being contacted by someone who’s says they are is another matter.
We don't know how the initial attempts at contact were presented. I can see it being extremely difficult to get someones attention. If how seemingly technical people ask for assistance on net forums is any indication, unless has someone has the skill of a reporter in presenting information, a string of signal messages with, "contact me, I have important information on XYZ" isn't going to cut it.
Because it's just not interesting. He didn't find out anything exciting and basically nothing crazy happened. Its incredibly easy to join these organizations. Just show up. They aren't doing much of anything.
There's no shortage of street gangs, kill rappers, cartels,ethnic crime families, ransomware groups, terrorist etc that are actively killing people or committing wide scale crimes. Go join them and you could have a compelling story. Join the Nuwabian Moors and get to work on infiltrating the SuperMax.
Even corny ass biker gangs with their name on their "cut" occasionally get in shoot outs and have more interesting things going on then what is basically a middle aged version of the boy scouts.
I dont think journalists really find J6 to be important at all. Even left leaning journalists pay lip service to it but shrugs, buncha white dudes blowing off steam I think is how "everyone" sees this. As evidence, look at the election we just had.
It reminds me of how the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Oh, that was scary, well, whatever, the dudes in jail, shrugs. Because it failed to bring the building down. For me, I was like, holy crap people are trying to blow up the WTC arent they going to....keep trying? but that's just not how people think. Super scary thing that failed == ho hum.
The amazing thing is how the right was able to essentially rewrite the history of Jan 6 over the last 4 years. Right after the incident even many Republican politicians in DC were calling for Trump's resignation and impeachment (or at least some resolution that would not allow him to run again). There was a huge amount of alarm in the immediate aftermath. But then the narrative about the events of that day slowly started to turn into "it was just a peaceful protest where a few bad apples got a bit out of hand" (that came right after the "it was antifa" stage which didn't last too long when it was clear that these folks were Trump supporters). Trump certainly minimized Jan 6 (to his benefit) and the rest of the GOP began to go along just as they've gone along with the idea that the 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump (and if they actually believe it was stolen then they can come to the conclusion that Jan 6 was justified as some of them do).
> the right was able to essentially rewrite the history of Jan 6 over the last 4 years.
so when the left literally changed wikipedia entries, what was that? not rewriting history?
to put it bluntly, it’s hard to have sympathy for your case when the left does the same. when will the left stop complaining that the right is doing things they are also doing?
when will the rest of you figure out that parties are the problem?
Thank you for saying something that has me opening my mouth and getting in trouble.
Given that I am a Lockean liberal at heart, I object to describing the entire left as doing the same thing as the right. There is still a portion of the left (admittedly shrinking) whose foundation is based on science, math, logic, and history.
However, that said, I see a lot of similarities between progressives and MAGAs in their denial of facts, shouting down others who disagree with them, and preferring conspiracies and truthiness because it feels better. Magas do carry it one step further in making up case law, inventing legal theories out of whole cloth (textualism), and making choices that degrade the function of socicity that make things better for everyone except stockholders
> When will the left stop complaining that the right is doing things they are also doing?
progressives, not the left. when the right stops being a bunch of snowflakes.
They won't as long as they get a molecule of attention.
You’re mistaking genuine concern with political hay making.
Of course the Democrats call it an insurrection - that’s what their base wants to hear and benefits them at the polls.
But look at what they do in totality - after calling him Hitler the Democratic leadership was wishing Trump a speedy recovery after the assignation attempt.
You don’t wish Hitler a “speedy recovery”.
It’s mostly political theatre. J6 was a riot, but the republic was not able to topple.
>No ancient Greek would have had any trouble in understanding what happened on the 6th or that it was a serious attempt (albeit an incompetent one) to seize power. Having a leader or a political faction move with a mob (often armed, but not always so) to try to disperse the normal civic assemblies of a Greek polis and occupy their normal meeting place was a standard maneuver to try to seize power during stasis. As Dr. Roel Konijnendijk, an ancient Greek history specialist, noted in this excellent discussion on the r/AskHistorians reddit (where he posts as Iphikrates), “In the Greek world, most attempts to seize power by force tended to take the same form: the seditious party would contrive an opportunity to gather in arms while their opponents were unarmed and off-guard, and seize control of all public spaces.”
(The link author has a PhD in ancient history)
(the "acoup" name is incidental, it stands for A Collection Of Unmitigated Pedantries)
And while yes, the Dems have flip-flopped between calling Trump Hitler and wishing him a speedy recovery, that's because they're spineless slaves to proceduralism who won't break decorum if the fate of US's democracy depends on it.
Or, pertinent to the subject at hand, how the Oklahoma City bombing was tied to the right wing militia movement and they’re still mostly seen as, well, a bunch of white dudes blowing off steam like you said. In that case, it seems like people saw that they got the perpetrators and that’s that, not considering what sort of circumstances produced them and where it might go in the future.
And WTC and OKC were (at least somewhat) successful attacks! J6 caused damage but failed. We’re really bad at taking failed attempts seriously.
A big factor in the OKC, J6, and militia movement and White nationalist violence more generally is that the law enforcement community in the US has very significant overlap with the militia and White nationalist movements, impacting how seriously they are treated by law enforcement, and how seriously they are treated by journalists who rely on experts from within the law enforcement community (both current officers and private experts that are the same people relied on as outside experts by law enforcement and are usually ex-law enforcement) for their understanding of the issues.
No, shooting. I don’t think it was a meaningfully different rate than other weeks in Capitol Hill, but firefighters failing to render first aid certainly didn’t help that one kid who was dying a couple hundred yards from a fire station. (The crowd wouldn’t let a police car through, and it turns out the firefighters wouldn’t approach until the police were there and said it was safe).
Well, that's the official story given by the police. According to the protest medics who treated the shooting victim on the scene, the cops took so much time getting ready to respond - and this was independently verified by a local journalist, using hospital intake records and police scanner timestamps - that the medics gave up on the ambulance and drove the man to the ER themselves. When the police finally showed up, they were in fact told to leave, but it was not out of some political objection to emergency services: they were simply far too late to be of any use to someone who was already in the hospital at that point.
(I live just up the street from the police station at the center of the whole thing, so I paid close attention to all this stuff while it was happening.)
> firefighters failing to render first aid certainly didn’t help that one kid who was dying a couple hundred yards from a fire station
Still not terrorism. Left-wing militias are a problem in some parts of the world. They aren’t in America.
Our domestic terrorism comes almost exclusively from radical Islam and right-wing nutjobs. (Who, somewhat hilariously, see eye to eye on more than they realise.)
I suspect you're classifying the Trump assassins as right-wing nutjobs though (they weren't Islamists), which dilutes the position somewhat. What does right-wing even mean to you if it covers people trying to gun Trump down?
> What does right-wing even mean to you if it covers people trying to gun Trump down?
Is your impression that “right-wing” should designate a hive mind within which there is no conflict?
Because that's not what right-wing (or left-wing) has ever meant. The political universe isn't divided into two teams that conflict with each other but lack internal conflict.
Alternatively, I guess you might accept divisions within the Right but think that the term right-wing is defined in terms of proximity to Trump's cult of personality, but, no, while Trump is a right-wing figure (or perhaps an opportunist leveraging a right-wing base) loyalty to Trump is not what defines someone as being ”right-wing”. In either case, being violently opposed to Trump is not inconsistent with being right-wing.
My impression is that "right" and "left" wing are fairly vague terms that don't really mean much.
But in this case jumpcrisscross is identifying political violence as an almost exclusively religious (technically muslim which seems a bit off to me, but whatever) or right-wing phenomenon - presumably including political violence against leftists and rightists as perpetrated under the banner of the right wing (although note in another comment he has clarified his position somewhat). If leftists declaring autonomy and militantly seizing a chunk of Seattle isn't terrorism to him then there are some interesting meaning-of-words questions to resolve here - like what he think "right wing" means. It might be that political violence is by definition right-wing to him.
Extremism isn't something that has been accepted as a right-wing position, historically speaking. The right wingers - like everyone - prefer to enact policy from government. Anti-government vigilantism is one of those highly ineffective strategies that nobody really lays claim to.
> ...some small business owners were intimidated by demonstrators with baseball bats, asked to pledge loyalty to the movement and choose between CHOP and the police...
Call me old school, but it sounds like there were threats of violence for political purposes. I'm not sure how an armed and ideological group can seize an area and block the police for any interesting length of time without being a terrorist group. If not political purposes, why are they doing it? If not violence, why do they need guns (there were a few shootings) and how are they holding the police off?
And you aren't really addressing the point I was challenging you on - how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
> it sounds like there were threats of violence for political purposes. I'm not sure how an armed and ideological group can seize an area and block the police for any interesting length of time without being a terrorist group.
Then every bridge protest, any strike that gets contentious and/or gang activity is terrorism. They’re not. What you describe is an attempt to consolidate power; not sow terror.
The definition of terrorism is famously ambiguous. But if we expand its definition to include Seattle then must also include armed marches and counter-protests. That still leaves us with a domestic terrorism problem that is overly concentrated amidst right-wing extremists.
> how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
Broadly, by partisan orientation. More loosely: by authoritarian and individualist manifestos versus collectivist and anti-capitalist ones. The closest we’ve had to left-wing terrorism since the ecoterrorism era is Luigi, and that’s partly because he’s almost impossible to fit on a one-dimensional metric.
you have an interesting ability to ignore things you complain about coming from your own party. did you already forget about the BLM riots? how much damage was caused there? what about antifa?
as an independent i have a different perspective, the left are the violent ones and consistently push us towards a civil war with their bigotry and inability to stop attempting forced “progress”.
Are you sure you’re responding to the right comment?
If you meant to respond to me, and not roenxi, nobody is forgetting the riots. They were a menace. But they weren’t terrorism and wouldn’t respond to antiterrorism tactics; they’re mass lawlessness. Same as Seattle. The solution is enforcing the laws on the books against flagrant rulebreakinh. That doesn’t work for terrorists.
Haha, yeah you are a real independent all right. I swear I've never heard anyone say that and then follow it with something in their own voice, it's f*cling hilarious to me - I've never met an independent, just idiots tbh.
For the record, and this is true for all humans, speaking words that you've INDEPENDENTLY thought of and come up with all on your own - they leave your mouth differently than words you've heard another say and now your just repeating... it's instantly and immediately identifiable - it's like an advertisement came on, totally different tone, incantation and inflection.
His views aren’t particularly clear, but the would-be Trump assassin does seem to have been a right-wing nutjob. I don’t see why being a right-wing nutjob would require being a Trump supporter, it just happens that most of them are at the moment.
it’s interesting to me the tactics the left employs to make themselves feel better. the entire nation near about said they dislike the lefts policies and yet some still act confused and resort to childish tactics to resolve their inner conflict.
> suspect you're classifying the Trump assassins as right-wing nutjobs
No. Of course we've had left-wing terrorism. It's just not been as prevalent, organised or present as the right-wing form. (And I'm aware of zero currently-operating left-wing militias anyone considers a threat in America.)
There were 5 shootings resulting in 3 deaths over a period of 9 days (20-29 June). CHAZ/CHOP existed for a period of 23 days (8 June - 1 July). There were 33 homicides in the entire city of Seattle in 2019. No matter how you slice it, there was definitely an increase in the murder rate around the protests, potentially much higher.
And a piece with the increase in homicides, Mayor Durkan reported that SPD had received a 525% increase in reported crimes in the area when compared to the previous June. Obviously not all of the crime was committed by protestors, but the protestors were the ones that drove out the police presence and the city tolerated the situation created by the protestors for nearly a month. Regardless of whether the situation is best described as domestic terrorism or not, it's clear that public officials were willing to tolerate violence enabled by left wing protestors "letting off steam" too.
After OKC, the FBI turned the eye of sauron upon the militias. Then 9/11 happened, and white guys in the woods were suddenly less scary than non-white guy and the eye of sauron was no longer looking at the white guys in the woods.
> We’re really bad at taking failed attempts seriously.
To that point, Osama bin Laden had multiple attempts attacking the WTC. They realized that it was going to take a lot more than a car bomb to take down those buildings and made improved plans from a car bomb. Which is just some of the data pointed to by those that are unbelieving that a truck bomb was the sole cause of OKC.
I think your comment is a direct reflection of the lack of popular coverage and discussion of January 6th. It was planned for prior to the election as a contingency. There's clear and direct evidence of that fact and there's very little awareness of that fact.
I think that your comment is a direct reflection of your desire to paint the opposing political side as dangerous in order to gain political favor and power.
It’s still not going to work. When will the left learn that changing peoples mind by lying will not work?
What’s the lie? Groups like Oath Keepers planned it. It was not spontaneous.
The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because they were completely incompetent. But being bad at overthrowing the government doesn’t mean you didn’t try.
But it wasn't, I remember seeing people on Facebook talking about J6 before it happened. It's kind of weird to see the minimization of J6 in real time.
There were several organized groups of people among the mob who went prepared for it to go much differently and stoked the flames. I shudder to think what would have happened if they made it to the chamber before the Representatives and Senators got out.
I see another person posted a credible source, so I won’t he redundant, but I do want to respond to ask why you elected to comment asking for a source - this story is very easily googlable.
The various right-wing groups had been escalating their rhetoric and actions by that time for more than a decade without any meaningful action against it.
Even if it was a spur-of-the-moment mob action, something like that was always coming due to inaction in addressing the increased violence from the different right-wing groups.
This is in no way a statement support of terrorism but if you simply look at the facts the government showed up at these people’s homes and started shooting. In Waco they killed children by burning them alive and their defense was they didn’t know filling the building with flammable gas would set it on fire. Yes the branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons but at that point they were, to my understanding, legally allowed to own and sell guns. These were tragedies created by the US government on their own citizens.
I don't think these right wing militias are that much of a threat. They're mostly LARPers and have enough attachment to their groups to not do the radical violence. Historically the right wingers that have actually committed violence are the ones that can't even find belonging in the right wing militias.
They're essentially the US' guerilla forces that we see in other countries that cause foreign forces operating in their land to get stuck in a quagmire. They may not be undefeatable, but they'll be able to put up a helluva show enough to make the opfor to question their commitment. Probably long enough to sway public opinion as well.
He just up and joined a bunch of radical militias that he strongly disagrees with? I mean... maybe. But you'd of course be very suspicious of everything he says and his motives for coming forward.
The article's author was suspicious and skeptical too. That's why he read through the chat logs and audio recordings, and also interviewed former friends and militia members to corroborate the story. The article also explicitly calls out which of Williams' claims were uncorroborated or contradicted.
Genuinely asking: what other evidence are you looking for?
I think he actually agreed with it. Then had a change of heart or they pissed him off. I would go with the latter.
Myself.
Plus really have to be careful doing solo stuff like this. Alot of actual bad guys would say.
See I was telling a journalist etc. I am super under cover!
He might have been reaching out to journalists working for outlets that run cover for this militia movement. Based on J6 and subsequent developments in the justice system, there are media outlets cooperating with those authorities that downplay/join the militia movement.
This is an important side-light on the concept that media sources are 'grifting' and only interested in what will make them money. It's surprisingly common for media sources to turn away from stories that could be sensational and give them money, but at the expense of a cause (such as these paramilitaries) which someone at the media source supports.
In that case, the person at the media source making decisions will understand that the story is sensational and attention-getting, but will quash it because to run the story would be hurting the paramilitaries…
> Does ProPublica overestimate the seriousness of the militia movement?
Unclear. Depends on how supportive of it Trump is. He might legitimize it by pardoning the Jan. 6 attackers. Many of them thought they were acting on Trump's orders, after all. There was one platoon-sized Proud Boys unit on Jan. 6th that showed military organization and discipline. The rest were just a mob.
Having a private army of goons can be useful. That's what the SA was in the Nazi era. The SA was a big organization, 20x the size of the German army at peak. Eventually, it was put down once Hitler was firmly in power. See "Night of the Long Knives".[1] Other countries have been through this. Sometimes the goons ended up in charge, or at least as a large faction to be kept happy.
This is often seen after internal unrest that yields a large, restless, armed group. Germany got there by losing WWI, but not being crushed. Haiti is a classic example. Afghanistan seems to have gone down this road - all those former "fighters" have to be fed and kept busy.
The closest the US came was the "Bonus Army" camped out on the Mall after WWI, demanding a bonus for veterans.[2] The Bonus Army had 17,000 veteran soldiers, and some political and police support. Eventually they were forcibly dispersed.
US militias don't match any of those classic situations. They're mostly wannabees. If you encounter militia types, ask them if all their members use the same ammo. If not, they're a rabble, not an army.
Do we get to see the actual documents the original author talks about?
> US militias don't match any of those classic situations. They're mostly wannabees. If you encounter militia types, ask them if all their members use the same ammo. If not, they're a rabble, not an army.
Sure, but there's plenty of opportunity for asymmetric warfare. Several power stations have been attacked in various parts of the US over the last few years. They could be probing the power system for vulnerabilities (and there are plenty of those). Also, look at how lowish-cost drones are coming to dominate the Ukraine war.
The job of corporate media is to preserve the establishment, to perpetuate the status quo.
Sometimes, some token investigative journalism is allowed. (So long as those revelations do not challenge the status quo, natch.) Maintaining the charade of being the Forth Estate. Less so over time, as the "infotainment" biz model pioneered by USA Today transformed the industry. What kids today would call "enshitification."
FWIW, Propublica is a member of the so-called Fifth Estate, explaining why they can do what actual journalism.
I've been involved with a local militia for several years, and they absolutely do have strong connections with law enforcement (and, to a lesser extent, military) - some cops are members outright, others are not formally affiliated but provide support, training etc.
The cops I've seen in those meetings talking about how the communities they are policing are "subhuman animals" that "just need a bullet" are still in Seattle PD, as well.
They also had connections with some state legislature members, such as Matt Shea.
Ok, but so what though? Are they actively committing crimes or doing something crazy with regard to the militia? I mean we have tons of evidence of cops doing crazy shit in uniform and on the record and nothing happens.
The report identified (but didn't directly name) 1 sheriff. Assuming it’s the current sheriff, a quick google of his background + the fact that he "facilitated" the militia members FBI interview gives a pretty strong hint why mainstream media would not pick up this story.
If he does follow up with releasing incriminating files then that's not nothing. We'll see. I have hopes that he wasn't lying, I like nothing more than seeing traitors and treasonous cowards exposed to the light. I try to always stay centered and skeptical, but it would be a great reveal to expose these militia cowards skulking around the country.
Because as low as most journalist’s standard are, Williams is below that low standard. Though good enough for Pro Publica. He is an erratic, ex-con, who seems to be mentally unstable. Did you believe the puppy story?
If the journalist really verified the audio recordings I believe it. Faking so many hours of audio from multiple people is still difficult. I mean, you could do it with AI voices, but I doubt that's the case
Pro Publica is probably the most outstanding investigative journalist collective in the USA currently, unafraid to step on MAGA and militia toes despite their constant threats against journalistic freedom.
I see people proclaim the quality of Propublica journalism and thus actually read through a number of their major exposes.
I wasn’t impressed. They do the same thing the major news outlets do - craft a narrative then selectively use findings to support it.
Their expose on tax records is a good example - they calculated billionaires tax rates based not on income (as everyone thinks of) but rather total wealth to arrive at shockingly small numbers (intentionally).
Maybe they do a better job of in depth articles but the overall quality isn’t that impressive.
I get a sense that we are beginning to see a resurgence in lone-wolf style operator activism and crime (or terrorism, etc., depending on your view of things), sort of like was more common 30+ years ago, a la the Unibomber, Skyjacker, all of the serial killers in the 60-80s.
The reasons of “why now” and “why lone wolf” are complicated but mostly boil down to high availability of information (awareness of opsec) and relatively low trust amongst social groups and of institutions, coupled with a more online and more destabilized male demographic the younger you go.
Luigi was the first educated one we've seen in a while, not sure if its a trend yet. the rest are young with not much going for them, or homeless and have mental problems
The more the behemoth of bureaucracy and total control will grind and (o)press the societies to atomized individuals, the more lone wolfs will crop up.
> the outrage machine results in mass self-radicalization
I would think that radicalization is more likely caused by the center being more and more obviously fascist or corporatist or anti-people or whatever term you prefer.
As I understand it, self-radicalization (via social media) happens when a person succumbs to the algorithm. Some kind of feedback loop. A susceptable person innocently watchs some right leaning video (Joe Rogan) and they're quickly drawn into QAnon, crisis actors, and ancient civilizations.
--
Have you read Potkin's Stalin diary? His theory is the October Revolution succeeded, where all prior attempts had failed, because Emperial Russia's elites couldn't be bothered to bolster the ruling regime, yet again. Potkin further says this is how all successful revolutions play out.
Are you referring to something like that?
Potkin completely changed my view of the "reactionary centrists", like the NY Times. The Village, the Beltway, whatever our elites are called. For whatever reason, they no longer give a shit about democracy, neoliberalism (much less all social progress since woman's suffrage), and the "maritime order" of the post-WWII America hegomony.
So much so, the reactionaries (Heritage, Federalist Society, etc) are orchestrating another Constitutional Convention. The goal is to lock-in their world view.
For better or worse. And now we'll find out.
"Nobody want's to rewrite our Constitution! That's absurd!"
I know I sound "shrill" and alarmist and nutty. Simply restating outloud what reactionaries themselves claim are their end goals makes one sound insane.
Thanks for reading. Also, I'm keen to hear other people's hot takes.
> Sowing that distrust is why Williams is going on the record, albeit without his original name
I don’t understand this. There’s an insane level of detail here that if true immediately reveals his identity to those involved. How does withholding his name change anything?
> On March 20… He’d helped persuade Seddon and his lieutenants to fire the head of AP3’s Utah chapter and to install Williams in his place.
I wonder if he also infiltrated under a fake name (possibly the same fake name).
I think the “albeit” is just an aside. It isn’t necessarily enhancing his ability to create distrust. It is slightly confusing though because one could of course imagine a way of writing the report anonymously that would add additional distrust; if he was vague enough it could be hard for anybody to know that he wasn’t talking about their organization. But he’d have to be pretty vague.
I am guessing that his threat model includes people involved in these militias (or others) but who he didn't interact with directly. It probably also includes action by people merely sympathetic to them, for example maybe local law enforcement.
There can be a difference between revealing identity to some and revealing it to all. I'm not sure how much difference there is in this case specifically but it's not my life, not my call.
Right, and random readers it's irrelevant to. The ones who care and have context would be able to figure out who this is in their organization if this isn't the real name unless it's entirely a fabricated story. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
What answer do you want? The answer has already been told to you twice. They don't want more people to know who they are. If you had read carefully you'd seen that in the article they say the group already knows who he is and he is on the run. It's natural he doesn't want more people to know him. But you seem to want some other answer that satisfies you.
Those details are not necessarily his firsthand account of things. I mean, in your own comment you quote something where Williams is posing as something else in order to take someone else down, why should it be any different in the case of providing these details?
Because the journalist is claiming to have validated the elements of the story. If the journalist is also lying about that or intentionally helping their source in lying that’s a huge breach of public trust and should be immediately blacklisted from working as such in the future. There are other ways the source could be protected without actually lying about things they’re claiming are true.
I don't think that source can really be protected, nor does he expect to be. He's pretty clear on 'I want the militias to know what I did and to live in fear that anybody they trust could be another me, ready to betray them'.
To some extent, the FBI has at least sometimes done just this. It's possible that some new leader like Kash Patel can remove the threat of the FBI infiltrating and betraying militias, but then what about moles infiltrating the FBI once they become effectively the same thing as the militias?
There's a fundamental difference between acting as a law enforcement agency, and acting as a militia seeking to wage secret war on a class of citizens, where if your intent is to STOP various humans from planting bombs etc. you're acting like law enforcement, and if your intent is to plant the bombs you are the militia even if you're wearing a law enforcement name.
This is shown in the struggles of the mole: would've been morally easier for him if he was just looking to rack up a body count. He wanted to protect what he saw as innocents, and so he had to calculate to what extent his infiltration was causing collateral damage, and when he acted on that he fled, cover blown as far as he knew. If he was more interested in just body count he might have been more blase about how things were going.
This post makes me wonder why videos of militias training always look so farcical.
Practically, why are there not militia groups with Navy SEAL/Delta-level tactical abilities? Or at least near to that? Is it personnel selection effects or bc that level of training requires time/money investments that are out of the reach of non-professional organizations?
Possibly those with real abilities have the discipline to not publicise it in videos.
Also, in experience with self-organized volunteer organizations in different fields (not militias, etc.), the lack of discipline, organization, motivation, just basic thought is often shocking. The dysfunction can be overwhelming. I'm not surprised that very few have developed real capabilities.
> Navy SEAL/Delta-level
Maybe you didn't mean it literally, but that is a pretty high standard. It's like asking why you don't see local basketball players with NBA-level ability. 99.x% of military personnel, with years of training and experience, don't reach those levels.
You bring up some interesting points. The publicizing side of things makes sense. Although given how often you hear about ex-military, police, etc, members in groups like these, I'd still expect that we'd see a handful of criminal/terrorist activities taken out by highly competent groups, even if it's unclear who it is.
But that may get back to your point about discipline, motivation, intelligence, etc.
Re SEAL/Delta-level: I guess I'm asking two distinct questions.
1) To use your basketball analogy: while NBA-level skills may be an unreasonable expectation, why do the videos seem to show middle school or JV-level competence? I'd expect that D3 college-level competence wouldn't be super difficult, but evidently that isn't a correct assumption.
2) What is the practical requirement for a world-class tactical unit (or near that level, e.g. D1 basketball or a bad pro team)? I wouldn't expect current militias to be at that level, but what about less developed nation-states?
> What is the practical requirement for a world-class tactical unit (or near that level, e.g. D1 basketball or a bad pro team)? I wouldn't expect current militias to be at that level, but what about less developed nation-states?
One common form of US military aid is training elite units in partner militaries, often in less developed countries. This has an evil history, training death squads and other war criminals, knowingly or unknowingly. It also has a cost-effective and good history, training Ukraine's elite units, for example.
(My impression is that it's a cost-effective compromise solution to a very difficult, expensive problem: The institutions of militaries are sometimes highly corrupt and incompetent; the Afghan military is an example. Fixing that problem would require building a new military, which could take 20 years at great cost and may be impossible: The corruption usually comes from the government, whose corruption comes from elites and from society-wide political problems.)
You can find some competent people and create a small, isolated organization, and train and equip them, and do it cost-effectively. The Afghan military was hopeless; their elite units were reportedly very good.
1) Opsec is synonymous with survival to elite warfighters, so again you will rarely if ever see them in PR videos. Then think about the video production resources available to actual militaries versus homegrown militia. Appearing competent on video is a different matter from actually being competent.
2) World class units require world class funding. Training and equipment are not cheap. The amount of money spent on the military by the US government is a big factor in tactical superiority, not just for the front-line units themselves, but also the massive amount of logistics it takes for them to operate at that elite level anywhere on the planet at the drop of a hat.
Brazil has some really high level militia groups. The largest ones are mainly active in Amazonas.
I think it boils down to their ability to make money as well as practice their craft. Militias in Brazil will be paid in secret by the government to fight drug traffickers and vice versa. They can be hired out by rival cartels fighting against each other too. They can have jobs to protect loggers from eco-terrorist or to protect swaths of forest from illegal logging.
There isn't much "work" for private militias in the US. Private security has demand but it's fairly small scale. Their isn't really the opportunity to field brigades with 1000s of well trained soldiers for regular off the books military action.
> There isn't much "work" for private militias in the US.
There's a great deal of work for private US militia's, China has a substantial contract with a subgroup spun off from the private contractor formerly known as Erik Prince's Blackwater.
TBH it's a full time investigative exercise keeping track of them all. The linked article gives a very partial overview of one arm of many and tails off after 2021.
Not sure I would classify PMC's as militias. They are operating internationally and it's more like a full time job or deployment.
There's not really much domestic demand for American PMC services. In Brazil the militias are locals that primarily have other income.
The US is paying a billion dollars to a PMC to secure the green zone in Iraq, but it's not like all those people will be militia in the US in a certain area.
However US PMC's are labelled, they are private groups, not national armies, they are as well resourced if not better than a number of national military regiments of comparable size, and the fact that they operate internationally and often for other non US nations and various transnational companies makes them of greater concern than cosplaying LARP'rs.
FWiW one general definition of militia is:
A militia is a military or paramilitary force that comprises civilian members, as opposed to a professional standing army of regular, full-time military.
and PMC operate within and without that grey zone; a siginificant number of members are "civilians" that take on contract gigs for a period of time, then tap out to do other things.
To me the distinction is that PMC soldiers are full time. They aren't spending their days farming or being cops and lawyers or whatever. And for the most part they are officially government funded.
The militias on the other hand are more so made up of normal people moonlighting as soldiers.
> Militias in Brazil will be paid in secret by the government to fight drug traffickers and vice versa.
these "militias" in Brazil are not militias by your criteria.
From my PoV the described activities carried out by paramilitary groups in Brazil are similar to the activities carried out by US PMC's, and there's as much of that kind of work available to US contractors as there is for Brazilian operatives.
Also, having that level of skill makes you valuable. You could probably earn a decent wage and therefore have more to lose and be less likely to use or want to pass on those skills for free. If you have the skill, you’re probably not desperate enough to use it. If you’re desperate enough to use those skills, you probably can’t afford to learn them.
A very good point. Also, if you are a professional, few things are more frustrating that working with amateurs. Mostly you are wasting time, trying to prevent fundamental mistakes, and failing.
The “new generation of paramilitary leaders” described by the article includes “doctors, career cops and government attorneys”. All of these would seem to have a lot to lose. If this is true, one would think that elite military operators might be even more likely to take risks for what they believe in. They’ve already made peace with the possibility of death.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that elite military forces make peace with death as part of their training. So, “having a lot to lose” would be less of a deterrent compared to those without such training.
> elite military forces make peace with death as part of their training
That seems like a narrative someone might tell, but I don't know it's true at all, or if it's part of their training. Lots of PSTD out there, even among elite soldiers. Look at the person who blew up the vehicle in Las Vegas.
I've read interviews with them saying that killing is unnatural and you never get used to it.
My two bit understanding is that militias are mostly LARPing (in a very open sense)? And it’s not like they have a giant candidate pool
Probably important to consider that everything you know about SEALs etc are filtered through a massive PR system anyways. So you might not be comparing the same level of quality of video either. Good editing can do wonders.
> everything you know about SEALs etc are filtered through a massive PR system anyways.
I saw a joke about Navy Seals awhile ago that went something like:
A Navy Seal and a Delta Force operator are chatting in a bar. The Navy Seal immediately starts talking and bragging for hours about all the amazing things he and other Seals have done. The entire time the Delta Force operator smiles and nods.
I think the militias don't get the top-of-the-line retired military people. They get the wannabes, the people who love the trappings of being tough and deadly, without the actual skills or training. Putting on my amateur psychologist's hat, I'd guess that the militia types mostly washed out in the military, but are still looking for what they went into the military to try to find - a sense of belonging and identity.
The real SEAL/Delta level people don't go into a militia to try to find that - they found it for real in the real military.
More often plate carriers and body armor, mag holders and other “operator” gear than just military syyle vests. “tacticool” is the ironic label given to overtly “tactical” gear.
This is a good point, and the emphasis on belonging aligns with the article.
A trope of many action/thriller movies is groups of top-notch professionals becoming disenchanted with democracy and forming terrorist organizations. While movies aren't reality, it's striking that even watered-down versions almost never seem to happen. Maybe the military is just that good at filtering out those types during psychological testing, or maybe belonging is far more important than ideology.
>>Maybe the military is just that good at filtering out those types during psychological testing, or maybe belonging is far more important than ideology.
The more mundane reason is probably because it's more appealing to use those skills to enter law enforcement or become a private military contractor than knowingly and overtly breaking away from society to form and maintain an organization that uses violence to achieve specific political aims.
What you write sounds plausible at first, but then there’s this example from the German KSK:
„In 2018, the German Federal Criminal Police Office uncovered a plot involving unknown KSK soldiers to murder prominent German politicians such as Claudia Roth, Heiko Maas and Joachim Gauck among others, and carry out attacks against immigrants living in Germany.[7] Also, earlier that same year in a separate investigation, the State prosecutors in the city of Tübingen investigated whether neo-Nazi symbols were used at a "farewell" event involving members of KSK.[8][9]
In June 2020, German defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer announced that the unit would be partially disbanded due to growing far-right extremism within the ranks.[10] The KSK had become partially independent from the chain of command, with a toxic leadership culture. One of the force's four companies where extremism is said to be the most rife was to be dissolved and not replaced.[11]“
> why are there not militia groups with Navy SEAL/Delta-level tactical abilities?
Let's set aside talent, access to experience trainers, facilities and equipment and just look at time on task: real special forces operators spend 30-60 hours per week, 48 weeks a year (assuming 4 weeks of leave) working on their craft. Finding people that can put that kind of time in would be rare.
When you look at the other factors, the gap widens.
So if the militia doesn't hold a candle to the SEALs the why do they matter? Because of modern point and shoot repeating and guided weapons. We're seeing that in how the Russians are taking people off the streets and out of prisons, giving 1-3 week of training and throwing them at the Ukrainians. We saw that with the Ukrainians when they stopped huge Russian armored columns with man-portable anti-tank missiles. Bullets, grenades, ATGMs and drones really don't care about the experience level of their target. Artillery, even portable stuff like a pack mortar or repeating grenade launcher takes out any Spetznaz or Rangers in the general area you aim at just like it does any other soldier. The age of the super-proficient ended with the US Civil war: the revolver, repeating rifle and machine gun level skill gaps pretty quickly..
A large part of the FBI's job is to shut these militias down. You can't grow a resistance movement without making some noise, and the US government is obviously very keen on maintaining the status quo.
Examples from the past are easy to come by (COINTELPRO), but a recent example would be the failed 2020 kidnapping plot of Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan at the time.
Thirteen arrests were announced, and the FBI has admitted to using three informants and two special agents. The defense argued that there were at least twelve.
Using the official number as a conservative guess, that's still 5 feds for 13 arrests (a 38% ratio!)
Now imagine if instead of 13 dudes trying to kidnap a governor, it was a local militia trying to arm and train hundreds or thousands of people. The full power of the US government to crush opposition is terrifying.
Exactly. And defense against tyranny is a legitimate thing. Militia's are not really special. It's unclear what it even means given many things are legal in the US.
In addition to the prohibitive cost and effort to setup and maintain such a program, I believe all 50 states have laws on the books that make it illegal to organize and train in military tactics without prior authorization from the state.[1]
The law doesn't say that at all. They're not allowed to perform law enforcement _functions_. There's nothing that prevents them from /training/ to do so.
A “paramilitary organization” is
“an organization of two or more persons who engage or conspire to engage in
military instruction or training in
warfare or sabotage for the purpose of unlawfully causing physical injury to
any
person or unlawfully damaging the
property of any person.” N.Y. Mil. Law § 240(6)(b)(i).
Perhaps, but do you think these groups would NOT train just because of some state law?
It feels like the "no scammers" thing you see on Craigslist ads; as if some scammer would say, "Darn, and I was really hoping to cash in on THIS one; I guess I'm out."
>>[...]but do you think these groups would NOT train just because of some state law?
To your point, the groups will likely continue to train (seemingly illegally), but the quality of the groups will definitely be degraded due to the more limited pool of qualified trainers driven by the presumably high-deterrence of state laws. The original comment above asked why we don't see high(er) performing militia groups, and these types of state laws seem like a strong contributing factor.
And when you’re done being a SEAL, you use your skills in organization, focus, and motivation to succeed in business and having a normal life. Not cosplaying your old job with a bunch of dudes that suck.
> This post makes me wonder why videos of militias training always look so farcical.
This exactly - a few 300-pound dudes taking a break from their McDonalds to look like they really mean it by firing long barrelled weapons at some cardboard target. All this escape and evasion training, with all the wilderness stuff too - it's nonsense, little guys playing soldier is all.
this is that guy bringing his tactical knife to the forest and putting wax in a can to light a fire for a "bushcraft/survivalist" YouTube video, but in group
My family had to evacuate a few times due to fires. One of them, the National Guard was outside my neighborhood helping to coordinate the chaos. I'll never forget seeing Humvees right outside my neighborhood while the sky was blood red and full of smoke. It was like a disaster scene out of a movie, except real life. Not fun as a kid...
We barely were able to find a hotel to go to.
Afterwards, my dad kept 4-6 duffel bags full of water, first aid, clothes, MREs/dry meals, and other gear so if we ever need to get out of the place, we'd be ready.
So yes, it's a good idea to have some supplies ready because you never know.
It seems like a good thing to have in general. A few days of food? Good if society collapses… or also if you have a real bad storm. Having it in a bag, eh, well why not, right?
Earthquakes are a thing in California too, a very real threat. Flooding in Southern California is something that could happen too especially with climate change, and we live right next to a major waterway. We have our emergency kit in a very large thick rubber waterproof bag. We also have water filtration devices in there. Nobody I know is prepared as well as we are, not even a little bit prepared.
If society collapses, a few days of food is not going to do too much for you except maybe delay the suffering by a few days. If that's your intent for the bug out bag, you might want to reconsider. If it's for getting out to allow a natural disaster to subside, it's more than probably a good idea
We have prepared for disasters. 3 to 6 months of food fuel and water for every member of the house and livestock.
Everyone should have a week or two of supplies just in case. Look at what happens during large scale natural disasters. Prices go way up and supply goes way down. Why bother with that?
But in a real society collapse situation, our plan is much, much shorter term and much darker. That's just the reality of the situation. Why starve and suffer when you can just happily exit as a family in a way if your own choosing?
That’s true. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but based on multiple responses it didn’t really go through. So, unclear communication on my part.
Society collapsing was supposed to be the unlikely and somewhat comical (in that it is a bit over-the-top) motivator for people to do something prep that we should do anyway.
there are all sorts of levels of society collapsing, probably the only ones where surviving the collapse means delaying the inevitable by a few days are fictional collapses, like Zombie apocalypse or similar.
A few days food is a normal kitchen cupboard — singular cupboard, not the whole kitchen.
A few weeks was what I kept ready during the pandemic, just in case I got ill and didn't want to go shopping for a fortnight. Plenty of natural disasters are in that kind of range, even outside the pandemic.
Civilisation collapsing needs a stockpile of about however many months it would take for you to turn your garden into a residential farm and get to harvest season, plus a bit for if that doesn't work… or if raccoons steal in the night everything the ravens didn't steal in the day.
> Civilisation collapsing needs a stockpile of about however many months it would take for you to turn your garden into a residential farm and get to harvest season, plus a bit for if that doesn't work
What I haven't even considered is that although there's a few cases where your immediate community can work together on stuff like this, an actual collapse leads to a power vacuum and breakdown of supply chains, so your immediate community needs to not only be self-sufficient for food but also defence from looting, and yet somehow also not important enough for to the original government to try to keep running, nor for any warlords who spring up in the vacuum to try to pillage, and also not for any foreign powers to peace-keep or annex.
Hmm, I wonder: if the USA suddenly collapsed as hard as the USSR, would Mexico and the Texas region start fighting? Or Cuba and the Florida region?
> I will keep my X months of food, water, and warm shelter even it makes me a "target"
As you should. For all of the things that can happen between normal life and full societal collapse. The point is, X months of anything is useless in that last case. The only precedented way of evading death or poverty in the wake of societal collapse is to get out.
> you don't talk about being prepared
You're thinking of a zombie apocalypse film. Picture, instead, the warlords and their armies in Sudan or Ethiopia. Whether you talk about it is irrelevant. Your home will be torn apart, and your body pressed into service, irrespectively.
Have you personally been through a major disaster? Talking federal state of emergency declared, electrical grid is down for weeks, data networks overcrowded, shipments bottlenecked?
I ask because I see so much resistence to good prep online but never from people who've been through disasters.
That’s disaster prep. It’s rational. Preparing for society’s collapse is not. (If you want to prepare for society’s collapse, what this article’s protagonist trains for is closer to what you want to master than kitting out a glorified man cave.)
You might if you were already in the habit of taking them. Or if you were more worried about the quality of your future food than having any. They don't take much space or weight, so it's not that hard to include them.
I remember re-watching “three days of the condor” recently - and apart from a few “wow the 70s was a different time” moments the biggest takeaway was the hero just hands a dossier to the Washington Post, no drops off a dossier to the post room!, and the film, the audience, everyone just assumes the job is done - the bad guys are exposed and they will be punished
I think we have a different view now. In the UK we are looking at a Post Office scandal where the upper management literally prosecuted its own employees for theft instead of admit a billion dollar computer system was buggy. And this started in 1990s, was printed in newspapers by the mid-2000s and only got serious last year and prosecutions will probably go through to the 2030s
I mean if the punishment for your misdeeds is thirty years delayed, and basically consists of retiring and being embarrassed in front of friends it’s hardly a punishment.
And it rather makes this “moles” efforts … well it’s not much of a deal for him is it really.
That's kinda the trouble with fighting these memes, it's legal to own guns, it's legal to hang out with your buddies and shoot guns and talk about overthrowing the government, it's legal to be friends with the sheriff, it's legal for the sheriff to be a white supremacist...
But all that shit's a powder keg, they're hoping for some nonsense like "race war" to set them off, and until then they have a lot of deniability.
Half the thread is saying they're incompetent but you think them getting(what they feel) is a call to action is powder keg. Feel like neither is actually true as a result.
I also see no reason why a group wanting to get a form of survival training(even with legal firearms) should be against the law unless they have made specific targeted threats of violence. That's usually what you need to press assault as a person. "They said they'd hurt me" doesn't cut it usually without details or clear evidence like video of the threat.
Not sure why for either side it's outside their rights. Keeping tabs is a good thing but they aren't exactly dominating headlines with their acts of violence
Your last sentence sounds completely unfounded and based on your own perception of these groups with no evidence of said "hoping for race wars"
(Edit I'm Canadian but spent a lot of time in the US. Am here now)
The relationship is the most 70s part of that movie. Holy cow. Its old enough I can chuckle at how sexist it is since I can't judge 50yo films by today's standards.
> He moved to Las Vegas and, at the age of 25, became an officer in the metro police. Kinch came to serve in elite detective units over 23 years in the force, hunting fugitives and helping take down gangs like the Playboy Bloods. Eventually he was assigned to what he called the “Black squad,” according to court records, tasked with investigating violent crimes where the suspect was African American. (A Las Vegas police spokesperson told me they stopped “dividing squads by a suspect’s race” a year before Kinch retired.)
That is crazy, you'd think that would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act. White criminals had a separate police force from black ones.
I'm white as heck but I wouldn't think that for a single moment. I know enough black Americans and enough about policing that I'm unsurprised. Also, I would categorize the spokesperson's response as 'PR' and an expected claim, which is not the same thing as an accurate claim.
As near as I can tell Black Lives Matter did not arise out of some sort of spite or radicalism, but out of the conditions Kinch's stated experience suggests. This pretty well contradicts the Civil Rights Act, something Kinch's stated experience also suggests.
It’s a bona fide occupational qualification, it’s completely legal under the Civil Rights Act and works the same way if for example Hollywood wants to hire a black actor or a Las Vegas club wants to hire female dancers. If said discrimination is necessary for a legitimate business function (And meets a couple of tests) it’s completely legal.
> It’s a bona fide occupational qualification, it’s completely legal under the Civil Rights Act and works the same way if for example Hollywood wants to hire a black actor or a Las Vegas club wants to hire female dancers.
I think you've misunderstood. It's clear from the article that the "Black squad" was so named because it specialised in investigating suspects who were Black, not because the officers in it were themselves Black.
The existence of black cops and their similar treatment of minorities does not eliminate the possibility of there being racism.
For example, there are documented cases of emancipated black slaves becoming slave owners themselves prior to the Civil War, some of whom were known to be at least as brutal with their slaves as their white peers.
I suspect it comes down to individuals identifying themselves as being part of a new tribe (e.g., cops), allowing them to treat members of their former tribe (by race) as "others". The degree to which they mistreat their former tribe likely stems from how their new tribe perceives the old one (i.e. many cops believe they are above "civilians" and especially minorities).
That is ultimately the core of racism.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly in simple classroom experiments where children are divided into two groups based upon some arbitrary characteristic (e.g., eye color, clothing, or even some new identifier passed out to them) and quickly displaying camaraderie within their own group while antagonizing members of the other group.
A lack of "being polite" does not justify state sanctioned extrajudicial punishment, as your victimhood narrative implies. Sure, be polite to cops because you should be polite in general until someone gives you a reason not to be. And from a social engineering standpoint you get better results by being friendly. But as a rule one should be able to be rude to police officers in any way one can be rude to any other citizen, and if they attack you for it they should be the ones going to jail, like any other citizen. Public employees tasked with upholding law and order need to be shining examples of it, not hypocritically exempt from it.
A BFOQ can only apply to private hiring discrimination, not "having a separate police force when you are suspected of a crime based on race" discrimination. It's not employment rights at issue, so occupational qualifications are not relevant.
OTOH, the issue here is probably more 14th Amendment equal protection than statutory rights.
On the gripping hand, American police departments having racist practices that are internally well-known, and not being held accountable for them is..not at all surprising.
i can see why in highly segregated communities it might be more effective to have detectives who know xyz about a certain community, especially since criminal gangs tend to self-associate by race/ethnicity
would a police group dedicated to investigating the mafia be a violation of the civil rights act?
The details matter when talking about legalities. A group of cops investigating a gang that happens to have a lot of italian members is different than having a group of cops that investigates italians.
And yet, it was never called that, right? It would have been a Mafia task force, a task force against a particular family, or a task force against organized crime. You wouldn’t call it an Italian task force because you’re probably hoping for help from the Italian-American community to help catch the Mafiosos, and that naming convention is pretty insulting to law abiding Italians-Americans.
i believe the nypd (before the civil rights era) historically had an italian squad named precisely that comprised mostly of italian-american officers investigating italians in NYC
It's unfortunate, certainly, but it's probably very useful for police to have knowledge of and experience with the communities they're policing. In Canada police officers who are expected to work with indigenous communities often get special training to familiarize them with those cultures.
Sure, you (presumably) want the police to be sensitive to cultural issues -- the problem is you can't use skin color as an indicator of inclusion in a cultural group.
I was watching an interview the other day from one of the Tuskegee Airmen and just going by his physical appearance he looked as "European" as I do.
> A Las Vegas police spokesperson told me they stopped “dividing squads by a suspect’s race” a year before Kinch retired.
and later:
> In 2016, he turned in his badge, a year after the saga broke in the local press.
If all those facts are consistent, they had a 'Black squad' until 2015.
Edit: An aside in an article and piecing together facts that were not necessarily intended to be consistent can result in bad misunderstandings. We need more information to understand it.
But at the same time, let's be careful about proceeding like scientists and making the null hypothesis 'it wasn't racist' or even 'there isn't racism', requiring 99.9% certainty. That's one way members of the status quo perpetuate bad things, even without meaning to. It's a rationalization ('I'm thinking about this scientifically!') for plain old self-serving bias - I'm innocent of anything until there are scientific levels of proof, and then I'll still keep questioning it and probably just refuse to believe it. It's an impossible mountain to climb; in those discussions, the status quo will never agree.
There are other approaches, such as a preponderance of evidence, to borrow the legal term.
Is Williams black? I can see the argument for having black officers investigate black criminals, particularly if they're enterprises requiring infiltration.
An organized group of people arming themselves and training to fight against some present or future threat. Also not recognized as an official armed force of a country.
This first paragraph really made me LOL.
This here:
and thumb drives that each held more than 100 gigabytes of encrypted documents, which he would quickly distribute if he were about to be arrested or killed.
he wouldn't be distributing crap if either of those happened. The cops or killers would be in possession!
I mean was he going to say to the cops WAIT don't arrest me and hands stuff to bystander01!!!
I can't take this article serious at all.
> Unless otherwise noted, none of the militia members mentioned in this story responded to requests for comment
This is a serious story but this made me burst out laughing. Sorry, the PR agent for these heavily armed militias was unable to return my request for comments.
Well they have to strike some compromise between readers expecting timely news and story subjects responding to accusations, especially when they’re competing against the Joe Rogans of the world with no professional ethics whatsoever.
24 hours is reasonable. At the very least you can say “I will provide a response but it will take 7 days” and they can note that in the article and update later.
No time is usually reserved for breaking news. No outlet is going to hold a story on today’s building fire because the fireworks factory owner deserves 24 hours to respond.
In the recent case between the actress and the film director for ‘ it ends with us’ one of the sides gave the other a few hours to respond on the last working day of the year.
Assuming the email released is genuine, ProPublica itself recently sent a request for comment to someone by email with the line "Our deadline is in one hour".
It is.
Sometimes the writer will add "didn't respond before press time" to give a little more context, but most readers won't grasp what that could really mean (like the reporter might have contacted them 15 mins before press time)
Here's a current story. No idea of this news source but it is widespread. CNN is in a defamation lawsuit directly related to not waiting for a response to straighten out facts.
The moles are leading the militias, what are you talking about - 'infiltrated'? Enirque Tarrio was an FBI informant the entire time before he was arrested.
You seem to be arguing that the intelligence community should take independent actors more seriously than organized extremist groups. I'd recommend developing your position a bit more before trying sarcasm.
I'd also avoid rhetorical pitfalls like "TDS" which give you negative credibility in the eyes of most commenters.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” for those unfamiliar. If it’s not already obvious, it is a rhetorical device used by some to invalidate and dismiss criticisms of Trump. “That’s just TDS!” etc.
It was going strong for 4 years where he wasn't president. I don't recall so much whinging from the right when Obama left office. I'm Canadian so no dog in that race, just stating the clear obsession the left has with trump meant TDS stuck ad a meme cuz it was to a degree, real.
A glance at the politics sub during his time out of office demonstrates this clearly on reddit. This non elected non govt position holding person still dominated their front page.
After years of research, our mole discovered that "militia" members liked to dress in plus-sized camo and shoot legally-owned ARs on private property...
That description could fit a group of friends having wholesome fun, or a private army being raised with the goal of taking territory. These groups are somewhere in between, but closer to the latter. The main mitigating factor is that they’re usually pretty incompetent.
He sat in the White House watching the violence unfold on fox news for hours egging the protestors on on twitter while leaving Mike Pence to be hung while he very likely could have stopped the violence with a few tweets. Instead, he waited until it was clear that they already failed. We all saw it live on tv and Jack Smith's investigation brought out the details. Unfortunately, he was not permitted by the supreme court to provide his evidence.
You are spreading misinformation, as did most of the news media and politicians that manufactured outrageous claims about J6. That’s not the quote. Trump literally used the word “peacefully” in the same sentence when he called for the (planned) march. He did not call for illegal actions or violence at any point. This is well known now, so your made up false quote is a lie.
> very likely could have stopped the violence with a few tweets.
That he didn't was repugnant and a dereliction of duty, but even if he had, do you honestly think that mob would have done anything different? People in groups don't think normally, that's pretty well studied and established; I don't think it would have made one whit of difference.
But he should have tried; I'm surprised someone didn't even tell him to just for the optics of it.
> I'm surprised someone didn't even tell him to just for the optics of it.
White house staff and Trump's family members were urging him to do something while he was enjoying watching the show unfold on TV. I'm unsure of where you live but the truly surprising thing is many people in the US aren't aware of this.
One of the more disturbing parts of seeing him back in office is going to be knowing that a lot of this malfeasance is just not known by the general public.
> That he didn't was repugnant and a dereliction of duty
But Trump did call for peace twice on January 6. The tweets are publicly available. The idea that he did not is a conspiracy theory similar to the very fine people hoax.
>But I don't blame you for believing the protesters carried weapons into the capitol. it's because of the intentional framing of the media and the government.
They literally did carry weapons into the capital. There are many instances of this. People have been tried and convicted on those charges. You can literally see weapons present on them in pictures:
First of all, you're moving the goalposts from "weapon" to "loaded gun".
Second of all, you said that "none" of those articles say that the guns were loaded, but the first one I just checked did literally specify that the gun was loaded, and a second one did specify that video evidence shows he had actually fired the gun, so obviously it was in fact loaded.
>Federal prosecutors said that Mazza, "while armed with [a] .40 caliber *loaded* firearm, engaged in multiple efforts to break through the police line: he repeatedly pushed against officers using the combined physical exertion of the mob; he armed himself with a stolen police baton and assaulted officers with the baton; he yelled at officers telling them to get out the mob’s way and to 'Get out of our house!'; he held open the door to the tunnel entrance against the resistance of officers, and after being rebuffed, he gathered additional rioters into the tunnel area to continue 'heave-ho' pushes against officers in the doorway."
...
>The FBI affidavit said that the footage published by Evans, as well as CCTV footage highlighted by NBC News last month, showed Banuelos "raising the gun over his head, and, at approximately 2:34 p.m., firing two shots into the air."
Third, even if the articles didn't literally say the guns were loaded, the lack of the word "loaded" in the article isn't a good reason to assume the guns weren't loaded.
There's not a single indictment of any protester for possession of a rifle inside the capitol.
This is America. Guns are cheap and easy to obtain. They could have all marched into the open doors of the capitol armed but they didn't. Why do you think that is?
Why you wrapping it in all of these conditionals? Why does it matter whether the many people with firearms went inside the capital itself or if they just helped other break through the police barricades outside the capital, which they did? Why are you making a distinction between whether someone with "a rifle" was caught inside or any other type of firearm?
There were many people verified to have brought firearms onto capital grounds, and several of those people tried to get inside the capital building itself, and there may well have been others that succeeded. Or not. Either way, there is little difference.
I have never heard of anyone in the developed world who would be afraid to criticize Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or Isis. Actually I have never heard anyone NOT criticize them when talking about them.
We do criticize them. A lot. But there are certain boundaries where people get scared.
Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is the key example. Many refuse to translate it. It used to take courage for book stores to sell it.
It’s a bit weird how this became the cause for religious extemists. It’s not a hateful book. It received good reviews in Riyahd and Tehran when first published.
But I’m old enough to remember bookstores refusing to sell it. Multiple translators have been killed.
A similar line exists with visually depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
People get killed over this.
ChatGPT won’t show an image of the Sultan Mehmet II, but has no such qualms about the Sultan Sulieman the Magnificient.
I can’t get it to depict anyone named Muhammad, can you?
I have made no claims nor pointed to Wikipedia as a source (note the word “references”). Just wanted to clarify that as you are accusing me of writing things I did not write.
The way you spin 'with assistance' when this is the type of 'criminal assistance' they received is crazy (D.C. police intel chief found guilty of tipping off Proud Boys leader ahead of Jan. 6 attack):
The comment you are replying to states that some of the rioters had assistance entering and being led through the building - this has been shown on video multiple times. Others forcibly entering does not preclude that occurrence.
Your rebuttal seems to be "but the leader wasn't packing heat (alongside all of his underlings who were)". I would counter that if the leader has a bunch of people around him with guns, whether they themselves personally were carrying guns doesn't matter that much.
You must have been watching different videos of the event than I did, because I saw people breaking windows and forcing themselves against police, who were blocking doors.
Evidence of planning is available from court proceedings:
> Beginning in late December 2020, via encrypted and private communications applications, the defendants and various co-conspirators coordinated and planned to travel to Washington, D.C., on or around Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the certification of the electoral college vote. The defendants made plans to bring weapons to the area to support the operation. The co-conspirators then traveled across the country to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area in early January 2021, with paramilitary gear and supplies including firearms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, and radio equipment.
The fact you are willing to attach your name and reputation to this post is a true indictment of our ability as a society to resist fascism and disinformation. This comment and the boldness in which you tried it will sit with me more impactfully than the original article.
The amount of supposed criminal activity by "militias" pales in comparison to the massive transnational mexican cartels - who have their own militias, whose ideology is money.
But manufacturing a right wing conspiracy is more important than discussing real narco terrorism that kills thousands of Americans and Mexicans every year, floods our country with lethal drugs, and finances North Korea and Chinese crime organizations.
How many headless corpses did the Oath keepers leave on the street last year?
How many metric tons of fentanyl did they smuggle?
While you're correct about the sheer scale of narco cartels you are incorrect to bluntly state that right wing conspiracy is manufactured.
While it may be small scale and clownish in appearence from a distance, it is real and does result in bombings, shootings, death, injury, and disruption.
Just discovered the existence of large scale armed political extremist groups in the States. Wow. And both left and right wing with any kind of mix of ideologies, too. I wonder how many of them are able to use a computer to find the myriad holes in the world's infrastructure.
Here is a really nice book to give some perspective:
End times, by Peter Turchin
Best most terrifying birthday present I ever got, I think.
Actually I think I'll put it as a post in and of itself, folks here may like it.
The majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.
These idiots think they are going undercover with the mob apparently, the author and subject of this article seem to been uninformed and scared of everyone around them. Two pathetic losers.
Don't be like the author, instead be a man, use Linux and join your local militia.
The military->domestic abuse->divorce->family court->terrorism pipeline is quite strong, as evidenced in LV and NOLA this week. Rather than larping in your "local militia" while being slowly but surely radicalized, consider professional help. Everyone can benefit from some therapy.
Thanks for sharing your perspective; HN really needs it; I could really benefit from it.
> The majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.
I can believe that and really I expect it. The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down.
How do you reconcile that with the militia group members that are planning and plotting and acting to burn things down? The most visible example was the January 6 attack, but of course there are plenty more.
Are they just segregated into different groups? Are there a few around but you think of them as ineffectual cranks? Do the groups, in this way, have different circles: the hard core, maybe another layer, and the people who like to hang out?
The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down, but some movements do try to burn things down. People just there to socialize sometimes find they supported something awful and turned a blind eye, when they should have done something or at least walked away. A genuine question: With everything happening, doesn't that cross your mind?
Unfortunately the spin cycle has anyone, including a lot of HN, believing that all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.
Ironic given I reserve that title for ISIS who seems to have just recently radicalized another person to run over a bunch of people in New Orleans.
I have no particular love for these militias, but I’m not ignorant enough to believe the stuff media goes about parroting.
> all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.
That's a strawperson. It doesn't have to be all. Groups that call themselves 'militias', arm and train themselves, plan violence, and sometimes perpetuate it. It's reasonable for the public to be concerned about them.
We'll never agree on this because I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.
What an interesting way to talk to someone, especially someone you don't know: Tell them what they think and denounce it.
You don't even need the other person; you can have these conversations by yourself. Or if you need to feel like you're socializing with someone, just tell me what to post and I'll post it for you.
Here: 'I disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.' Now you can respond!
Where did I denounce it? I attempted to make sense of your accusation in an otherwise asynchronous communication platform. If my assumption was wrong, go ahead and correct it.
You don't get to make baseless accusations against people and require them to entertain you with a response. They are not guilty of everything you can make up until they prove themselves innocent of each one. If you are going to accuse someone, you need to prove it - it's up to you. Otherwise, don't say it.
An far better approach is, ask; be curious. People have wildly different ideas than you. Here you cut all that off and reduce the world to the narrow range of what you can think of, and the even narrower range your expectations. The great advantage of talking to others is they have different ideas totally outside and independent of yours.
Baseless accusations are not ok, even if they are commonplace on social media. They are morally wrong. Bearing false witness is a sin. I don't want to be accused, to have this put on me; nobody does.
It's hard to take you seriously when you're doing the same thing that you're labeling as morally wrong. It's the internet, and we're anonymous for the most part, I have absolutely zero expectations of you.
But yeah, that's how a conversation goes. You made a claim (that was wrong), I have told you it's wrong now, and thus the conversation goes. Trying to assert your form of communication is morally superior is quite an interesting take, but to each their own.
Anyways, as I predicted, we'll be at an impasse here, because apparently my communication method is far too immoral for your tastes.
I didn't make that claim, you made it up. I have no problem saying that is morally inferior, a lie, and factually wrong.
> I have absolutely zero expectations of you.
You wrote: "I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are." That's an expectation.
The reference to "militias" in my comment referenced American militias, just like the topic of the posted article. I don't understand how to make sense of the comment claiming that ISIS is a militia as if that somehow makes my comment illogical. I wasn't talking about all militias, just like the article wasn't.
I was involved with a local militia for several years. The stuff that I've seen there has firmly convinced me of two things. First, those people are political and religious extremists that fantasize of violence against their perceived enemies and are basically waiting for an excuse and a leader to realize it. And second, if and when they do, many cops will look the other way (and some will be among their ranks).
> majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system
Are you discussing assassinating politicians with your militia members? Did any of them march on the Capitol? If not, you’re not comparable to AP3. (If so, um, call a lawyer and a psychiatrist.)
