No conspiracy to see here, move on!
Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter Censor Viral Video of Doctors’ Capitol Hill Coronavirus Press Conference
Yes. As we’ve been saying, you’ve been lied to. They want you dead. What’s the appropriate response? https://t.co/uFPEndgem2
— Monica On Air 🎙🇺🇸 (@monicaonairtalk) July 28, 2020
Facebook removed a live video stream posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which at the time of removal was the top-performing Facebook post in the world, of a press conference in D.C. featuring frontline doctors speaking out against misinformation about COVID-19.Big Tech Censors Viral Video of Doctors’ D.C. Coronavirus Presser
American cities are being destroyed by the far left, so the media writes this
— ELIJAH RIOT (@ElijahSchaffer) July 28, 2020
Jihadist plots used to be U.S. and Europe’s biggest terrorist threat. Now it’s the far right.
LONDON — The threat of terrorism — particularly from the far right — should be a major concern for governments on both sides of the Atlantic as coronavirus restrictions continue to ease, according to multiple experts and former law enforcement officials who have experience monitoring violent extremist activity.
High unemployment levels due to the pandemic, poor economic prospects and the spread of disinformation through the internet and social media could accelerate radicalization, they said.
And after a major drive by law enforcement agencies to disrupt the organizing potential of violent Islamist movements in the United States and in Europe, where hundreds of people have returned from the battlefields in Iraq and Syria, recent analysis suggests far-right groups now pose the most significant threat to public safety.
“We see an increasing percentage of plots and attacks in the United States shifting over the past couple of years from jihadist motivations, increasingly, to far-right activity,” said Seth Jones, who directs the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
Jones defined right-wing extremists as “sub-national or non-state entities” with goals that could include ethnic or racial supremacy. They can also be marked by anger against specific policies like abortion rights and government authority, as well as hatred toward women, or they may be members of the “involuntary celibate,” or “incel,” movement.
A report he co-authored recorded 14 terrorist incidents, including attacks and disrupted plots, from Jan. 1 to May 8. Thirteen of them were classified as right-wing, and the other was recorded as being religiously motivated in the context of jihadism.
The report found that the comparable figure for right-wing attacks and plots in 2019 was a little more than 60 percent, which itself was the highest level of such activity since 1995, the year of the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, which killed 168 people. And in both 2018 and 2019, right-wing attackers caused more than 90 percent of the terrorism-related deaths in the United States.
Jones said the threat of terrorism had probably increased in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the combined activities of those opposed to lockdowns and other restrictions, anti-federal militia members and their backers, and far-right activists energized by the country’s polarized politics or angered by the Black Lives Matter movement.
The highest-profile recent attacks came in late May and early June, when California police officers and security personnel were ambushed in separate attacks, leaving two people dead and three others injured. The FBI said one of the suspects who was arrested was associated with a loosely organized far-right “Boogaloo” movement.
“There is a growing trend of right-wing extremism in the U.K., but it is not as significant as the rising right-wing extremism in America,” said retired Maj. Gen. Clive Chapman, the former head of counterterrorism for Britain’s Defense Ministry.
He said that, in the almost two decades since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., more Americans — 335, according to data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies — have been killed by adherents of a form of right-wing extremism than any other terrorist ideology.
He said terrorists need more than just an ideology to act — they often nurse grievances of some kind and typically have encountered what he termed a “recruitment environment.” That could be a social activity in a real-life community, he said, or it could be online.
But Thomas Hegghammer, a senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment in Oslo, said that while the recent shift to far-right terrorist activity has not passed unnoticed by law enforcement internationally, the kind of websites that might radicalize right-wing actors have been subject to far less scrutiny than has been accorded to the equivalent jihadist literature.
“The threat hasn’t been perceived as sufficiently severe,” he said. “To put it bluntly, there hasn’t been enough mass casualty terrorism from the far right for Western governments to put the full weight of their intelligence apparatus into this.”
MARCH 23, 202009:40
The limited censorship and law enforcement surveillance of “hard-core far-right extremist propaganda” on the internet has made it easier for users to access such material without inviting attention from government intelligence agencies, Hegghammer said — at least for now.
Meanwhile, the clampdown on online jihadist activity has significantly affected the ability of organizations like the Islamic State militant group to reach new audiences online and to recruit adherents, he said. After a spate of high-profile attacks in Brussels, Paris and London several years ago, the frequency of such incidents has fallen recently.
“In a sense, we’ve kind of taken away their communication platform. And now the coronavirus is taking away the analogue ‘in real life’ platform,” together with the media attention that Hegghammer described as the “lifeblood” of modern jihadist terrorist attacks.
“The net effect of the corona crisis is negative for the militants, for the radicals,” he said. “I would be kind of frustrated if I were a jihadi strategist in this time. And I would be looking forward to the post-corona era.”
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and alerts
Internet activity may have spiked during the lockdowns among would-be jihadists who are no longer interacting with people in person and who may have struggled to get involved in Islamic extremist networks in the past. But that now comes with clear pitfalls because of the heightened surveillance, said Raffaello Pantucci, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a British think thank.
In a video call from Singapore, he pointed to a Moroccan man who was arrested in Spain last month after authorities observed what they described as his constant activity on social media and his anonymized access to radical jihadist content.
He was suspected of disseminating “jihadist terrorist propaganda” through the internet, according to a Europol notice published shortly after his arrest, “and demonstrated a full adherence to the postulates of terrorist groups, fully justifying their violent actions.”
Pantucci said of the man’s self-radicalization: “It seemed to be very linked to the fact that he was locked in because of coronavirus. Those kinds of cases, I think, are going to be ones that we’re going to see more problems with going forward.”
Here’s what you should know about this execrable ” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)” and their commie propaganda:
How the Left Creates Fake Studies to Fabricate Right-Wing Terrorism
After weeks of violence, Democrats have some public relations needs to redirect attention away from the awfulness of leftism.
Insert the latest report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which concludes that the greatest domestic threat comes not from leftists or Muslims, but from right-wing terrorists!
Each study is fake, but the most recent CSIS study is the most pathetic of them all — partly because the CSIS doesn’t provide a list of incidents to fact-check. Just trust them.
There’s an art to creating this type of propaganda, which provides the Democrat narrative a halo of credibility. A tremendous volume of subtle manipulation is concocted within studies on right-wing terrorism, and each demonstrates variations of the same basic formula.
1. Use “incidents” as a key metric
Written in the methodology of the CSIS study is this: “We coded threats of violence as attacks rather than plots, even if the threat turned out to be a hoax.”
This statement is an incredible admission. The CSIS includes threats of violence as terrorist attacks — even if the threat was a hoax.
Such low standards for terrorism allow the authors to leverage vaguely defined “hate crime” data from the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center to inflate right-wing occurrences.
This way, NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace’s paranoia could be counted as a terrorist threat.
2. Manipulate definitions
Each study is careful about the definitions for terrorism. The CIR defines right-wing terrorism as follows: “militia movements, as well as white supremacist, anti-government, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion extremists, including radical Christians.”
These are standard terms Democrats use to attack conservatives — which is the point. The definitions are deliberately vague to increase subjectivity.
The NAF study uses the same broad criteria as the CIR.
The latest CSIS study casts an even wider net for right-wing terrorism by including, “incels,” “misogyny,” and “hatred based on sexuality or gender identity; and/or opposition to certain policies such as abortion.”
Notice that they do not suggest merely opposition to abortion policies — but opposition to certain policies such as abortion. Basically, right-wing terrorists are defined as anyone who opposes the left, plus incels.
For Muslim terrorists, the variables are much more rigid. The CIR criteria for Islamic terrorism is as follows:
We use the term “Islamist” to describe theocratic extremists inspired by groups such as the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. We chose the term “Islamist,” rather than “Islamic,” in an effort to uncouple the Muslim faith from the political ideology of Islamism.
The first sentence limits Islamic terrorism only for violence from those with a clear connection to specific terrorist groups. The second sentence reminds us this is not a legitimate study.
The NAF uses a similarly limited criteria for Islamic terrorism.
Each study follows the same model of broad definitions for right-wingers but restrictive ones for Muslims.
In a fatal self-own, the CIR implies that racism and Islamophobia are the cause of 84% of Islamic incidents resulting in terrorism charges, compared to only 9% of right-wingers. But this statistic reveals how deceptive these studies are. Most right-wing incidents don’t result in terrorism charges because what they’re calling terrorism for right-wingers, isn’t terrorism.
Fortunately, our legal system does not redefine words to achieve more equitable sentencing outcomes for the purpose of creating better propaganda (yet).
3. Lone wolves are not terrorists
By limiting Islamic terrorism only to cases with direct ties to specific terrorist groups, they define away “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and exclude them from the studies.
The Washington mall shooter, Arcan Cetin, who killed five people in 2016? Lone wolf.
Esteban Santiago, who killed five people at a Fort Lauderdale airport and told FBI agents he carried out the attack on behalf of ISIS? Lone wolf.
The Beltway snipers, who killed ten people in 2001? Not terrorism.
None of these incidents or fatalities at the hands of Islamic terrorists are included in the NAF or CIR studies. While the CSIS does not list their incidents, undoubtedly, they mimic the same restrictions.
4. Apply inconsistently
The NAF study enables anti-government statements to classify someone as a right-wing extremist.
This flimsy definition does not apply to Muslim extremists.
Yelling “down with the government” while carrying out an act of violence is enough to be counted as right-wing terrorism. However, a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” while committing the same violence is not sufficient to be an Islamic extremist.
This tactic helps reduce Islamic terrorism while increasing occurrences of right-wing terrorism.
5. Count violence unrelated to ideology
While the CSIS study doesn’t list specific terrorist acts, it discloses some sources — one of which is the Anti-Defamation League.
This inflates numbers by including incidents committed by those who fit the ideological criteria, even if the acts were unrelated to ideology.
For example, the ADL includes the murder of KKK member Frank Ancona, who was killed by his wife —also a KKK member. It’s unlikely that Ancona’s wife shot him in the name of white supremacy, but it counts as right-wing terrorism anyway.
Another white supremacist, Edward Blackburn, murdered a white man dating his ex-girlfriend. Did he kill him to advance white supremacy? Unlikely.
Two white supremacists in Georgia broke out of prison and killed two guards in the process. One guard was white and the other black. Were the guards killed for their skin color? Probably not.
While the CSIS claims to have excluded non-ideological incidents, fatalities attributable to right-wing terrorism are significantly larger for CSIS than previous studies. Couple that with a complete lack of transparency, and that’s enough to consider its claim a lie.
The CIR study includes as right-wing terrorism Gavin Long, a black man, who killed three police officers in Louisiana. They describe Long as “influenced by black nationalist ideology and angry over the shooting of a black man by Baton Rouge police[.]”
Long also tweeted a news story about Dallas shooter Micah Johnson (who assassinated five police officers at a BLM rally) and wrote that the shooter was “one of us! # MY Religion is Justice.”
What makes Gavin Long a right-wing terrorist? He didn’t like police, and police work for the government, therefore he was an anti-government extremist.
These are only a few examples of many similar cases.
The timing of the studies is also peculiar. The NAF starts tracking deaths after 9/11, excluding 9/11 from the study. The CSIS starting tracking deaths in 1994, claiming that it selected that start date because it didn’t have enough reliable data to track before 1994.
A start date that begins just after the 1993 NYC bombings but just prior to the 1995 Oklahoma city bombings was purely a coincidence.
Oh, and don’t forget: Muslims are 1% of the American population, while these broad definitions of right-winger terrorists easily encompass 50% of Americans. To be proportionate, right-wing terrorism should be 50 times greater than Islamic terrorism. Best to omit any mention of that.
Studies on right-wing terrorism are fake — they are nothing but propaganda.
Most left-wing studies on other topics model the same framework: manipulate definitions and variables, fabricate data to fit or exclude based on the falsified definitions, and apply criteria inconsistently.
Bode Lang is a conservative blogger who produces conservative videos on YouTube. You can find him at https://www.youtube.com/c/Bodelang.