SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Franklin, Andrews, Kramer & Edelstein -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: scion who wrote (12791)2/26/2021 7:21:23 AM
From: scion  Respond to of 12881
 
The GOP is not even trying to disguise its racism anymore

Opinion by Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
Feb. 25, 2021 at 6:52 p.m. GMT
washingtonpost.com

This week, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) played up White victim mentality during the confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee Merrick Garland. Kennedy took issue with Garland’s use of the term “implicit bias,” arguing that it meant he (and presumably his supporters) were being called racists. Garland patiently explained that implicit bias is endemic in the human condition.

In retrospect, Garland’s right response may have been: If the shoe fits, senator.


Just days later Kennedy, echoing the disgraced ex-president’s call for members of the Squad to “go back" to the countries from which they are from (even though they are all American citizens), attacked Neera Tanden, President Biden’s nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, declaring that her “allegiance is not to America and it’s not to President Biden, it’s to Secretary [Hillary] Clinton.” The Indian American, you see, is not loyal to this country.

That is a message that many Republicans have been telling us about women of color, although not always as overtly. The Post reports, “Many of the president’s Black, Latino, Asian and Native American nominees are encountering more political turbulence than their White counterparts, further drawing out the process of staffing the federal government.” When someone like Tanden is treated so differently — accusing her of disloyalty and making up a new standard never employed for Republicans or White males (mean tweets) — that “turbulence” becomes indistinguishable from racism.

It does not stop there. The GOP is now going after two nominees for key spots in the Justice Department, Vanita Gupta for associate attorney general and Kristen Clarke for head of the civil rights division. And — no shocker — both are women of color. The Post reports: “Kristen Clarke, a Black lawyer who has been nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division at Justice, has been accused of being insensitive to Jewish people because she invited the author of an antisemitic book to speak at Harvard. She has said she regrets this decision.” She was 19 years old at the time. That’s it.

Sheila Katz, chief executive of the National Council of Jewish Women, responded in an op-ed for NBC News:

Clarke herself has never been accused of making anti-Semitic comments. Not one. Full stop. She has spent her career championing the rights of Jews and all of the most marginalized and at-risk people in our country during her time at the Justice Department, at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, at the New York Attorney General's Office as director of the Civil Rights Bureau or as president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. And her nomination is supported by a number of prominent Jewish organizations and people — including me and the organization I lead, the National Council of Jewish Women.

The criticism Clarke faces is solely because in 1994, as the 19-year-old head of the Harvard Black Students Association, the group she led accepted Wellesley College professor Tony Martin’s offer to speak on campus to rebut the racist screed “The Bell Curve.” In 1993, Martin had become embroiled in several academic disputes over his promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which led him to self-publish a book about the controversy that many at his college labeled anti-Semitic. The speech was controversial, and Clarke defended the decision to host Martin.


Republicans have been throwing fits about “cancel culture” and disinviting controversial speakers on campus. Their own party includes a House member who has spread antisemitic conspiracy theories (Jewish lasers?!). Are we’re supposed to believe they care one whit about antisemitism?

Clarke has spent her career fighting religious discrimination — from her work in New York to launch the Religious Rights Initiative that, as Katz wrote, “worked to secure accommodations for employees in multiple workplaces to observe the Sabbath” to partnering with Jewish organizations, to championing the “Lawyers’ Committee’s Stop Hate Project that worked to combat hate crimes and white supremacy — including suing the owner of the Nazi-sympathizing platform The Daily Stormer.”

Clearly, Republicans’ opposition to her is not about some newfound concern about antisemitism. It’s about making a woman of color, whose qualifications are beyond question, into a scary, radical figure.

Meanwhile, right-wing groups have launched a campaign calling Gupta “dangerous,” falsely claiming she advocated defunding the police in a speech. They have also claimed that she wants to lessen punishment for violent white supremacists, an absurd distortion of her opposition to the federal death penalty — a view many elected officials hold.

It is not hard to find the pattern. Take a woman of color who is an outspoken advocate for her views. Call her dangerous, radical, extreme, disloyal. Find some scrap of something that proves nothing and seems to contradict their enabling of a racist, disgraced ex-president. It is as blatant as their attempts to disenfranchise Black voters, their refusal to disown white-supremacist groups and their lionization of Confederate imagery. Forget the “Party of Lincoln”; this is the party of Jim Crow.


Jennifer Rubin
Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post.Follow

washingtonpost.com



To: scion who wrote (12791)2/26/2021 12:13:07 PM
From: scion  Respond to of 12881
 
As fractures emerge among Proud Boys, experts warn of a shift toward extremist violence

By Marissa J. Lang
Feb. 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. GMT
washingtonpost.com

As members of the Proud Boys arrived at the foot of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, they gathered as a unified front, donning bright orange beanies and tactical gear and carrying flags and megaphones used to lead chants that rippled through the roiling crowd.

Members of the all-male far-right group, which has a history of violence, posed for photos, displaying the “okay” hand gesture, which has become a “white power” sign, and moved through the crowd together.

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio — who had been arrested and banned from the District on charges related to the burning of a Black Lives Matter banner stolen from a historically Black church — cheered on members in social media posts. The next day, he wrote a message to thousands of followers: “I am with you. We are all with you. You make this country great. Never stop fighting.”


VIDEO
During the first presidential debate Sept. 29, President Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Here’s why they are defined as a hate group. (Allie Caren/The Washington Post)

In the weeks since, this unified front has fractured and the very brand of the group has begun to corrode.

Experts who study far-right organizations warn that as members distance themselves from the group, the Proud Boys could metastasize into an increasingly violent organization led by those who have long jockeyed for control.

Cassie Miller, a senior research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, said the political terrain is shifting in a way that could be friendlier to the organization’s more extreme faction.

“One thing that was made apparent by the insurrection is there is this growing anti-democratic far-right bloc that is willing to use violence and force to push their views,” she said. “We’re seeing a shift back to what the Proud Boys have been practicing for a long time.”

Federal investigators have accused the Proud Boys of leading the charge during the assault on the Capitol. One member, Dominic Pezzola, was filmed using a police shield to smash through a window and encouraging others to climb into the building.

Pezzola and other prominent members of the Proud Boys have been arrested and charged with a litany of federal crimes, including conspiracy charges that allege that the Proud Boys were at the forefront of planning much of the violence that transpired on Jan 6.

The Proud Boys have since instituted a moratorium on participating in or organizing protests. Tarrio has denied that the Proud Boys organized violence at the Capitol.

Late last month, court records surfaced from a 2012 fraud case that outlined how Tarrio had been a prolific cooperator with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in South Florida. Jeffrey Feiler, Tarrio’s defense attorney at the time, said that Tarrio had worked as an undercover informant in a case related to an immigrant-smuggling operation and that information he provided in another case enabled police to raid multiple marijuana grow houses.


Reports of Tarrio’s past life sparked suspicion in the ranks, with some members denouncing him on social media, calling him “a rat” and demanding his removal as head of the organization.

On Feb. 3, the Canadian government designated the Proud Boys a terrorist organization. Bill Blair, Canada’s public safety minister, said that “since 2018, we have seen an escalation toward violence in this group,” adding that the Proud Boys were “hateful, intolerant and, as we’ve seen, they can be highly dangerous.”

As controversies mount, at least four chapters have split from the national organization, announcing their disaffiliation on social media and encouraging other chapters to follow.

The Indiana chapter of the Proud Boys was first. The Alabama Proud Boys, the Oklahoma Proud Boys, the Missouri Proud Boys and the Las Vegas Proud Boys have since disaffiliated and denounced the national group.

“If other states follow this lead we can have a truly autonomous chapter that won’t be liable for the mistakes of the next chairman or the next group of elders,” Brien James, leader of the Indiana chapter and a member of the white nationalist Vinlanders Social Club, wrote to his followers on the Telegram app. “Don’t talk about autonomy. Be autonomous.”

The groups that disaffiliated from the national organization this month cited Tarrio as one of the reasons.

“It’s going to be a lot more difficult for him to maintain control over the group, because a lot of them don’t see him as a legitimate leader anymore,” Miller said. “If you have been outed as having cooperated with the feds, you’re essentially blacklisted in far-right circles.”

Tarrio responded to the defections on Feb. 14, posting a statement on Telegram that rejected the idea that the group was “splintering,” saying, “You will never be able to ‘splinter’ the bonds that have been created by men that have shared their joy, their sweat, their blood and their tears.” The message went on to assert the group’s staying power, saying: “Proud Boys are here forever. I suggest you start figuring that out.”

For years, experts said, Tarrio has sought to legitimize the Proud Boys by encouraging increased involvement in mainstream politics and cozying up to former president Donald Trump. Tarrio joined the Latinos for Trump group, had a prominent seat at a 2019 Trump rally in Florida and posted photos to social media in December of himself at the White House. The Trump administration said Tarrio had taken a public tour and was not invited by, nor did he meet with, Trump.

Tarrio briefly ran for Congress as a Republican and began making branded clothing with Trump’s now-famous line from a presidential debate when he was asked to denounce the Proud Boys and instead told them to “stand back and stand by.”

“Standing down and standing by, sir,” the group wrote on its social media accounts soon after.

Afterward, Tarrio said, the group’s membership swelled. More than 700 Proud Boys attended a December presidential-election protest in D.C. that devolved into violence after dark. It was the largest number of the group’s members to attend a protest in the nation’s capital.

Pro-Trump rally descends into chaos as Proud Boys roam D.C. looking to fight

After the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, experts said, some members of the group that had followed Tarrio’s lead in seeking to nudge the Proud Boys into mainstream politics may turn to the burgeoning far-right Patriot Party as a vehicle for political aspirations.

Richard Schwetz, president of the Lehigh Valley Proud Boys, shared in a chat group for supporters of the Patriot Party that he intends to run for Congress.

“The Proud Boys has become a dirty name and some of the Proud Boys’ members are trying to distance themselves but they still need the infrastructure to set up and bring people over to these new groups and causes,” said Rita Katz, executive director of SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors online extremism. “The Proud Boys are being watched, and they know that. As a result, many of them — including some looking to get into politics — are distancing themselves from the Proud Boys brand and organizing under different names.”

As different factions of the group wrestle with what direction the Proud Boys should take, experts said, more extreme members and influences may push the group to double down on its violent roots.

Jared Holt, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank who monitors domestic extremism, said the impact the Proud Boys have on American society extends far beyond their in-person events and protests. The group has developed an expansive media operation that includes podcasts, social media accounts with tens of thousands of followers and YouTube shows.

D.C. is becoming a protest battleground. In a polarized nation, experts say that’s unlikely to change.

Although infighting could hamper the group’s ability to turn out hundreds of members to any single event — protests in the nation’s capital, for example — it also allows members with increasingly radical views to access a large network of followers, Holt said.

“If people have hitched their wagons to the Proud Boys and now their local chapter decides to run off the rails and go in a more extreme direction, there will be at least some portion of that group that tags along with them,” Holt said. “There’s a risk that some of the groups that break off of the national organization — should they choose a more extreme approach — could use those broader sympathies within the Republican base to further extremist causes and radicalize more people within the Republican zeitgeist.”

One of the Proud Boys’ most popular Telegram channels, formally called “Proud Boys: Uncensored,” recently changed its name to “Western Chauvinists” — one of the terms the group uses to define the organization, but one that Holt said carries a super-nationalist tone that puts the group “straight into neo-fascist third position.”

Miller, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said chatter among members of the Proud Boys on social media seems to indicate a growing disillusionment with electoral politics. Many thought Trump had turned his back on them after the insurrection, she said, and do not have faith in other Republican politicians.

She and other experts said that when and how the Proud Boys reemerge from the group’s moratorium on events is likely to be telling of the shape the organization will take in the future.

“The thing you have to remember is the Proud Boys felt untouchable last year. But now, the government is coming after them and many of their members have been arrested,” Katz said. “They feel betrayed and angry, and they’re not going to suddenly become more moderate. They are just going to become angrier. What they do with that anger, how they try to get back the privilege they once had, we’ll have to see.”

Headshot of Marissa Lang
Marissa Lang
Marissa J. Lang is a local reporter covering the D.C. metro area. Follow

washingtonpost.com