Digital Fourth (RT4 - Boston)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants Americans to believe since 2011, when the word “extremists” was just starting to take root in the public’s consciousness, there has been an explosion of violent extremism. 

The DHS report made dubious claims like al-Qa‘ida was trying to recruit Americans and radicalize terrorism across the country, which coincidentally was also the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The report mentions extremists and violent extremists interchangeably during a time when Americans were beginning to question the war on terror.
In May 2011, National Public Radio wrote, “Why We Must End The War On Terror” and asked in September, “Is It Time To End The War On Terror?” Similar articles were being published across the country asking the same thing.

Fast forward eleven years, to 2022 and the war on terror shows no signs of abating. 

DHS, who could be mistaken for magicians if it were not so ironic, have convinced law enforcement that America now has at least twenty-three different types of extremists.

There does not appear to be a master list of American extremists published by DHS or the Department of Justice.

I used four sources to compile this list of twenty-two different types of violent extremists, but I fear that the government’s “official list” is far larger.

1. Anti–government violent extremist
2. Anti-war extremist
3. Anti–authority violent extremist
4. Anarchist violent extremist
5. Domestic violent extremist
6. Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist
7. Militia violent extremists 
8. Sovereign citizen violent extremist 
9. Individual violent extremist
10. Involuntary celibate–violent extremist
11. Abortion extremist
12. Anti-abortion extremist 
13. Animal rights extremist 
14. Environmental extremist 
15. Right-wing extremist 
16. Left-wing extremist 
17. Christian Identity extremist
18. Islamist extremist 
19. Muslim extremist 
20. Racist extremist 
21. Nativist extremist
22. Schoolboard extremist

Sources: National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,  A Schema of  Right-Wing Extremism in the United States,  Homegrown Violent Extremist Violent Indicators (2019) report and the National School Board.

Two weeks ago, the Tallahassee Democrat revealed that a Hot Yoga shooting in 2018 was the result of “Misogynist extremism.”

“Scott Beierle had a long trail of misogynist and criminal behavior that was missed by authorities before he walked into Hot Yoga in 2018 in Tallahassee, killing two people and injuring five, the U.S. Secret Service determined in a new report.”

“The case study focused on 40-year-old Beierle — who killed himself minutes after the shooting began — and linked his behavior to the greater threat of what investigators called misogynistic extremism, sometimes referred to as male supremacy.” 

According to the report by the National Threat Assessment Center (a component of the Secret Service) a man who killed two women attending a hot yoga class was an act of “Misogynist extremism” making it the twenty-third different type of violent extremism in the U.S.

“The behavioral history of the Hot Yoga Tallahassee attacker illustrates many of the behavioral threat assessment themes identified through years of U.S. Secret Service research examining targeted violence. Further, this attacker’s history highlights the specific threat posed by misogynistic extremism. This gender-based ideology, sometimes referred to as male supremacy, has received increased attention in recent years from researchers, government agencies, and advocacy groups due to its association with high-profile incidents of mass violence. Some of these attacks were perpetrated by individuals who espoused specific types of misogynistic extremism, including anti-feminists and involuntary celibates.”

After reading this report it appears that there are probably at least two more types of violent extremists: “Anti-feminist extremists and “involuntary celibate extremists” that the public is not aware of. 

All indications are that the Feds are re-classifying attacks on women as violent extremism.

“It is further important to note that misogynistic violence is not restricted to high-profile incidents of mass violence. Misogyny frequently appears in more prevalent acts of violence, including stalking and domestic abuse. No matter the context, responding to the threat posed by these beliefs requires collaboration across multiple community systems, including law enforcement, courts, mental health providers, and domestic violence and hate crime advocacy groups.”

Taking what we know of DHS, the Secret Service and the FBI it would not be stretch of the imagination to see people who stalk, abuse and rape women and kids being charged with ‘Domestic Abuse extremism’ and up to ten more crimes.

The FBI’s new “National Incident-Based Reporting System” is designed to do just that, according to the Baltimore Sun.

The article describes how the Baltimore Police Department, like police departments across the country, are now charging people who have committed a single crime with up to 10 additional crimes.

“The transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System, which is mandated by the FBI, will increase the number of crimes reported. The new system requires law enforcement to report multiple crimes, up to 10, that might be associated with a single incident.”

“For example, a burglary at a home in which the burglar assaults a homeowner would result in the entry of at least two separate crimes, the burglary of the home and the assault of the homeowner.” 

A recent story in Homeland Security Today hints that the Feds have created or will create ‘Cryptocurrency Domestic extremists’ saying that a “whole-of-society response” is necessary to stop them. 

“To mitigate the continued threat posed by white supremacist extremists and their supporters, the U.S. government and the private sector should institute policies that target extremists’ use of cryptocurrency,” noting that a whole-of-society response will be necessary to mitigate this risk.

It is only a matter of time before people who use cryptocurrency are called Cryptocurrency Domestic extremists.

Last year, a District Attorney in Arizona called BLM protesters, “gang members” effectively creating BLM extremists.

Police who testified before the grand jury accused the protesters of being part of a violent criminal street gang called “ACAB” — “ACAB” means “All Cops Are Bastards,” a phrase commonly used at protests against police violence.

The Arizona DA and police tried to convince the jury that BLM protesters are essentially BLM violent extremists. 

A recent DHS “Report to the Secretary of Homeland Security Domestic Violent Extremism Internal Review” claimed that people who doubt the results of elections and vaccines pose an elevated threat to the Homeland. Does that mean the Feds have secretly created ‘Election Doubter extremists’?

Reclassifying domestic violence and workplace violence as violent extremism appears to be a reality according to DHS.

“[T]he Department and its Components did not track domestic violent extremism allegations as their own sub-category of misconduct. Instead, such allegations were classified under another sub-category (e.g., workplace violence). Second, the responsibility to investigate allegations regarding violent extremist activity varied across the Department and its Components. Investigations could be led by multiple offices such as the DHS Office of Inspector General, Component offices responsible for internal investigations, or the Component’s Insider Threat Program. Further, other gaps that limited our ability to collect and validate data included (1) the lack of an official definition of “domestic violent extremist;” (2) guidance as to what constitutes violent extremist activity, or an established list of behaviors that may be indicators of violent extremism; (3) the lack of a centralized, interoperable DHS-wide investigative case management system; and (4) lack of standardized reporting and information sharing mechanisms for investigating allegations of violent extremist activity.”

What “behaviors” could make someone an alleged domestic violent extremist? No one can can say for sure, not even DHS: “DHS lacks a definitive list of behaviors that may be indicators of domestic violent extremism…” (page 8).

Based on the above information, one can expect that in the near future the Feds will add Anti-Republican extremists, Anti-Democrat extremists, Anti-Big Tech extremists, Anti-Vaccine extremists, Anti-Vaccine Passport extremists, Anti-Digital ID extremists, and Anti-School Book extremists to their growing list of violent extremists.

The reason why there is no publicly available master-list of violent extremists is obvious as DHS’s internal review revealed: “the lack of an official definition of domestic violent extremist; and guidance as to what constitutes violent extremist activity” means that there is no legal definition, PERIOD. 

We owe it to ourselves and the generations to follow to put a stop to this madness before the Feds re-classify everything they do not like as violent extremism.

During the Trump years, the President loved to lay into the FBI, and in consequence, the FBI found new allies on the left. Lifelong Republican Jim Comey became a darling of the Sunday morning talk shows, and after the January 6 attack on Congress, the FBI went full tilt after insurrectionists, to the applause of many Democratic legislators.

Funny thing about the power of the State, though. It has a deep bias against those who want to disrupt, violently or peacefully, the economic, social or racial status quo. And for that reason, the FBI and the police are always going to be more natural enemies of left social movements than of right-wing militia folks.

Take, for example, Detective Andrew Creed of the Boston PD Field Operations Group, who is heavily involved with the Boston Regional Intelligence Center; and FBI Special Agent Steven Kimball, whose lamentable grasp of the context of Dzokhar Tsarnaev’s social media posts made international news and imperiled that prosecution.

Creed last showed up on our radar harassing and surveilling water protectors at the Standing Rock Reservation. Now, he and Kimball are back, harassing and surveilling people involved with a satirical documentary, “2020: The Dumpster Fire“, forthcoming on Apple TV and in theaters December 7.

The investigation, they claim, began when as part of the investigation of Jan. 6, a Proud Boy suggested that a trailer for this documentary was evidence of a plot to assassinate then-President Trump. (C’mon, if you can’t trust a Proud Boy’s word, who can you trust? Especially when Mr. Webber, the film’s director, had just finished up a documentary excoriating the Proud Boys…)

Unable to make a charge of plotting an assassination stick, this tyrannous tag-team got “Dumpster Fire”‘s producer, Embry Galen, fired from their day job. They’re threatening Lauren Pespisa, the film’s producer, with felon-in-possession charges for, during filming on private property in Maine, dressing up and holding a replica gun. And both she and the film’s director, Rod Webber, have experienced frequent visits to their door from Creed and Kimball.

The chilling effect which a potential prosecution would inflict on First Amendment rights is not hypothetical.  It is direct and far reaching.  Everyone involved in this film is in fear with the looming threat of prosecution.  If this goes to court, I can only imagine that anyone seeking to convey a message (especially a message which seeks to inspire debate, which is the most vital form of expression) would hesitate to risk it.  In the face of a government willing to scrutinize their production for any evidence of violation of law, then seek to prosecute it regardless of whether the violation implicated any true public safety concerns, many would choose to remain silent.

Murat Erkan, attorney for Lauren Pespisa

Alex Jones may think that Webber and Pespisa exemplify what is wrong with America, but Alex Jones’s hold on reality is only so-so. The truth is that the FBI and the police are clutching at any possible connection to January 6, to go after the same old targets: People on the left who embarrass and offend the powerful.

This is contemptible and unconstitutional. Please sign the petition to stop the prosecution of people involved with “2020: The Dumpster Fire.”

Quick summary of S. 2963, the MA police reform bill, as compared to previous versions.

Ignore the acres of verbiage on commissions. Maybe they’ll work, maybe they won’t, but they’re likelier to drag out and thwart police accountability than to promote it. So: What real reforms were blocked and what were included?

First, and most crucially, police reformers didn’t get any limitations on qualified immunity. Without that, police officers know they’ll still likely face no consequences for violating people’s rights in Massachusetts – which they do a lot. MA punted where CO led.

Second, the bill contains important, if long-overdue reforms. It outlaws police rape of people in their custody. It allows municipalities to not have a school resource officer. It limits school information sharing with gang databases. It limits no-knock warrants (RIP, Breonna Taylor.) The bill outlaws chokeholds resulting in unconsciousness or death. And it bans biometric surveillance without a time limit (though RMV is still allowed to do it).

But the final version also omits important things. No limits on military equipment acquisition by police; no data collection on police stops; it never envisioned doing anything on civil asset forfeitures, or requiring warrants for use of drones or stingrays or other police surveillance tech.

In summary: The reforms that are real are the ones police unions really felt they could not block. The fact that there are some reforms they couldn’t block shows that there are limits to their massive resistance. And the battle on qualified immunity is just beginning.

Here is this morning’s update on the current status of police “reform” in the House. For the topics the House has not yet considered, it’s not too late to call your House Rep and make your opinion known. All texts of amendments may be found at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H4860/Amendments/House.

Key successes so far:
– #116, which we supported, passed narrowly. It placed further restrictions on no-knock warrants to protect children and elders. Yes, this means that almost half of our 80% Democratic House, thinks that on suspicion that illegal drugs exist in a home, the police should not have to check whether there are kids and elderly people inside before a SWAT team busts in, throws flash-bang grenades, and opens fire.
– #148, which we supported, passed. It strengthened penalties for police rape of people in custody, so at least there’s a consensus that that is wrong, I guess. Looking forward to seeing how many indictments are actually brought!

Key failures so far:
– #51, #54, #79, #107, #110, #129, #132 and #177, all of which we opposed, were some of the amendments which were folded into “Consolidated Amendment A” (https://malegislature.gov/Bills/GetAmendmentContent/191/H4860/A/House/Preview).* Consolidated Amendment A weakens the procedures of the Commission relative to the underlying House Amendment H4860 (the House bill). The Consolidated Amendment generally limits the ability of the Commission to investigate complaints until the police department has ruled on them, narrows the grounds for decertification, extends the appeal process for decertification, and gives the Commission greater discretion to not decertify. This basically means that the most important lesson Bob DeLeo is taking from the fury on the streets, is that it’s very important that any new Commission not be obliged to decertify officers who are shown to practice racist policing, to use excessive force, or to fail to intervene when they see other officers doing it.

– #77, which we supported, failed, as part of the process leading to the approval of Consolidated Amendment A. It was an effort to restore a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for decertification; the standard in the bill remains at “clear and convincing evidence.” There are further efforts, apparently, to increase the standard to “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
– #111, which we opposed, passed. It narrowed information not allowed for schools to share with law enforcement.
– #187, which we opposed, passed. It replaced the state auditor as a member of the new Police Commission with the president of the DAs’ association, as part of “Consolidated Amendment B”, which covered who should and should not be a member of various Commissions set up by the bill (https://malegislature.gov/Bills/GetAmendmentContent/191/H4860/B/House/Preview).
– #200, which we supported, failed. It would have banned tear gas and other chemical weapons. Apparently, it’s just a step too far to ban substances whose use in war is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, from being used against people protesting police brutality.

Key amendments we support that have not yet been considered:
– #80: Establishes that database of police misconduct records should be publicly available and searchable
– #85: Public notice for Commission meetings, not simply by request
– #100: (also supported by ACLU and Progressive Mass): Creates direct right to sue for police abuse, not just via the AG’s office
– #131: (also supported by ACLU and Progressive Mass): Restores Senate language on local control of military equipment acquisition
– #201: Appears to bar 287(g) agreements of police or sheriffs’ departments with ICE in their current form

Key amendments we oppose that have not yet been considered:
– #33 would make the chokehold ban more limited, as would #114
– #91 is a mischievous and silly amendment that would strip legislators’ qualified immunity from civil suit as revenge for stripping police officers of theirs.
– #149, also opposed by ACLU, would remove warrant/imminent harm requirement for law enforcement access to RMV records
– #172, #173, #193, #197 and #204 would all replace the bill’s repellently weak reform of qualified immunity with an even weaker study committee to consider the issue.
– #215, among other things, would limit decertification for bias to intentional bias.

* It appears that if an amendment is folded into a “Consolidated Amendment”, it may be that its exact language need not appear in the Consolidated Amendment; it’s more like the amendment’s author agrees to implicitly withdraw the amendment if the language in the Consolidated Amendment passes.