Category Archives: Black Lives Matter

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email

Left-wing activists are jealous of the Holocaust and want to replace it with slavery, a leading historian has said in a bizarre speech at the National Conservatism conference in London.

David Starkey claimed that groups such as Black Lives Matter were attempting to destroy white culture and do exactly what was done to German culture because of Nazism and the Holocaust.

He said: The determination is to replace the Holocaust with slavery. In other words, this is why Jews are under such attack from the left, theres jealousy, fundamentally. There is jealousy of the moral primacy of the Holocaust and a determination to replace it with slavery.

The historians comments brought swift condemnation, with Daniel Sugarman, public affairs director at the Board of Deputies of British Jews, tweeting that they were pathetic attempts to drive a wedge between communities that will not work.

Dr Starkey, an expert on Tudor history, has previously been criticised for comments on slavery and the Black Lives Matter movement, including during coverage of the coronation on GB News when he was accused of racism for claiming that Rishi Sunak was not fully grounded in our culture.

He later denied his comments were racist, saying he was referring to the prime minister being a typical international liberal with no interest in British values.

I fear, indeed I loathe, the unforgiving, inhumane impatience of utopian perfectionists, whether they are Maoists or agents of Islamic State or progressive twittering social justice warriors.

Nigel Biggar, professor emeritus, Oxford University

In his speech to the National Conservatism conference on Wednesday, Dr Starkey renewed his criticism of Black Lives Matter, denying that the movement cared about black lives at all.

To applause from the audience, he said: Movements like critical race theory and Black Lives Matter are not what they pretend to be.

They are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western political and cultural tradition.

The idea that they are there to defend black lives is a preposterous notion. They do not care about black lives, they only care about the symbolic destruction of white culture. We have to be absolutely clear about this.

He added: The narrative of Black Lives Matter is that Western culture and Anglo-American culture in particular are fundamentally morally defective, they are characterised by the mark of Cain and their strategy is to do exactly what was done to German culture because of Nazism and the Holocaust.

Downing Street said Mr Sunak did not agree with the remarks but said the attendance of ministers Michael Gove and Suella Braverman was a matter for them.

He wouldnt agree with those comments but with regard to the specific ministerial attendance, that would be a matter for them, a No 10 spokesman said.

During the conferences morning session, the audience also heard from Nigel Biggar, a professor emeritus of theology at the University of Oxford, who argued that the British Empire had a mixed moral record and denied there was any reason to pay reparations to former colonies.

He said: As a Christian, Burkean conservative I dont expect perfection in any human affairs. Those who rule, just like those who are ruled, are creatures and sinners, finite and flawed.

Even as I recognise the duty to repent and improve, I expect even the noblest of human efforts to be marred by limited power, moral obtuseness and culpable failure.

And so I fear, indeed I loathe, the unforgiving, inhumane impatience of utopian perfectionists, whether they are Maoists or agents of Islamic State or progressive twittering social justice warriors.

He added: Much of what our forebears achieved was extraordinary. We need to remember it, we need to admire it, we need to conserve it, and we need to build on it.

Prof Biggar also criticised Scottish nationalism as based on a false Braveheart version of history.

He said: When too many Scots, in my view, align themselves with Scottish independence they do it, most of them, not because theyve analysed policies.

They do it in large part because they inhabit imaginatively a vision of the past that is false, a Braveheart past that excites unjustified nationalist indignation and resentment against the English and against Britain today.

View post:

David Starkey in bizarre claim that left-wing wants to replace Holocaust with BLM - The Independent

A Black Lives Matteractivist the British Film Institute say owes them 216,000 of sponsorship, tried to get another person jailed who 'she owed money to'.

Alisha Hall, 41,and her Hall Media Group Limited are subject of a winding-up petition launched by the BFI over the large sum it says was due.Hall denies any wrongdoing or monies due.

MailOnline can reveal today how she failed last month in an attempt to get another person she is said to owe money to, a criminal conviction, after 'spinning a web of lies'.

Former BBC Radio London producer Acua Gyamfi, 46, was dragged to court after Hall shouted for police when she was confronted over a35,000 'debt'.

Ms Gyamfi - described as a role model in City of London Magistrates Court - was charged with Common Assault, which carries a maximum sentence of six months.She was found innocent by JPs.

In extraordinary scenes in court she was forced to defend herself as details of huge provocation were revealed.

Ms Gyamfi - who founded the admiredThe British Blacklist in 2012 - told the court how she had trusted Hall after being introduced to her by friends in the BFI.

She explained to JPs: 'I was planning a lunch for black filmmakers at the London Film Festival.I was looking for sponsors and they were approached by Alisha, who offered to sponsor the BFI London Film Festival.

'She offered support by sponsoring the introductory soiree and my two BFI friends said "She has approached us, she is sponsoring us".

'Alisha agreed to be the sponsor of the lunch and she asked for invoices for the 35,000 agreed amount for the event at the NoMad Hotel, Covent Garden.'

The luxury hotel is housed in the converted former Bow Street Magistrates' Court listed building.

The event proceeded on October 8, with Gyamfi paying 20,000 out of her pocket to secure the location, confident Hall's sponsorship would be paid.

'She was the guest of honour because she was the main sponsor,' Gyamfi told the court. 'She said the money would be paid in three days so I used my money to pay for the venue.

'That money was not paid and she was very apologetic and said it was Santander's fault. I used my money, 20,000, with confidence that Alisha was going to reimburse me, but that did not happen.

'She said there was 'account maintenance' and then there were multiple emails from her saying: "The money is in your bank. The money will be in your bank".

'I started to feel quite suspicious as to where the money was and she claimed to have gone to the bank with her legal team.

'In November I was suspicious that this money was not going to come and in January I told her I did not believe the money was going to come.'

Both women attended a Windrush Day celebration at the Film and TV Charity HQ in Golden Square, Soho on June 22, last year.

'I saw Alisha in the garden area and made a point to say "hello" and she kind of gave me a dismissive 'hello' back,' explained Ms Gyamfi.

'I wanted to speak to Alisha to clear up why the money had not been paid and I went over to her and said: "We should talk".

'She said: "I don't want to talk to you, I don't have to. Go away". It surprised me and I was flustered.

'I said: "You owe me 35,000, you owe the BFI 200,000 and Rhapsody Media 38,000".

'I was bemused at this point and didn't understand why she did not want to engage in conversation. I thought I could appeal to her better nature.

'She was saying: "Leave me alone, go away, I don't have to talk to you" and she started to get more flustered.'

The court heard Hall began shouting: 'Get my lawyer, get the police,' and told the event's organiser Ms Gyamfi was 'harassing' her.

Ms Gyamfi told her: 'You call the police because I am asking you to confess, to come clean or apologise for not paying me.'

Hall's mother Elain Roberts intervened, suggesting the complaint was a matter for solicitors.

Ms Gyamfi added: 'Alisha then sarcastically said: "She doesn't have the money for a lawyer", and it got more irate between us.

'She was being very unapologetic and and was swearing at me, telling me to f*** off. She was creating a storm to make it look like she was the victim.

'Something inside broke my spirits so I started to cry and get upset and emotional, asking: "Alisha. Why are you being like this? Tell the truth and pay the money you owe me".

'You have ruined my life and I owe my mum 19,000 because she bailed me out.'

'She continued to tell me to 'f*** off' and to leave her alone and go away.'

The court viewed CCTV of Gyamfi following Hall and her mother outside and down the street.

Hall had claimed Ms Gyamfi told her she would 'get her' and claimed she thought she was going to be hit by you and she circled round her with raised clenched fists.

But the defendant denied this or that she wasaggressive, but was just taking a rare opportunity to speak to Hall face to face.

Ms Gyamfi's lawyer George Skinner said of Hall: 'She has spun a web of lies. She did not fear an attack that day.

'Ms Gyamfi is a role model, an inspiring person that has built an impressive career and uses that to help others.

'In the circumstances of the 35,000 owed you may feel she was incredibly controlled.'

The magistrates court agreed and MsGyamfi, of Shepherd's Bush, was found not guilty of assaulting Hall.

Chair Sneha Kooros told her:'It is agreed there was an argument inside and outside the venue and you followed Ms Hall and her mother outside and at the time raised your arms

'Ms Hall's evidence was that during the event's Q and A you deliberately sat behind her and her mother and approached her about money she owed you on multiple occasions.

'She said she was frightened and embarrassed and asked someone to call the police.

'You followed them across the road and she said that you told her you were going to 'get her' and she said she thought she was going to be hit by you and you circled around her with raised clenched fists.

'We feel you were credible and honest in giving evidence and were concise and plausible. Your actions did not amount to common assault.It was a heated conversation that could have gone wrong, but it didn't.'

Hall's The Liberation Initiatives calls itself 'a force for systematic change against the social & economic disadvantages faced by marginalised communities'.

It was founded in the aftermath of George Floyd's death in America.

Hall Media Group has told the Metro it does not believe it owes any money to any parties.

A spokesperson said: 'We are extremely proud of the work we do for marginalised communities in the UK, and the support we have provided over the years to a variety of community groups, Black entrepreneurs, and creatives.

'In light of the legal process underway, it would be inappropriate to comment further other than to say we do not believe the BFI's complaint has merit and we look forward to making our case in court.'

The BFI told MailOnline: 'Proceedings against Hall Media Group Limited in respect of sums owed to the BFI are ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment whilst those proceedings remain live.'

Go here to read the rest:

Black Lives Matter activist accused of owing the BFI 200,000 'spun web of lies' over other debtee - Daily Mail

By Harry Howard, History Correspondent 13:11 17 May 2023, updated 15:15 17 May 2023

Historian David Starkey has sparked outrage after claiming that left-wing activists are trying to destroy 'white culture' and are 'jealous' of the Holocaust.

In a speech to the National Conservatism Conference in London, Dr Starkey claimed that groups such as Black Lives Matter were attempting to 'do exactly what was done to German culture because of Nazism and the Holocaust'.

He added: 'The determination is to replace the Holocaust with slavery.

'In other words, this is why Jews are under such attack from the Left. There's jealousy, fundamentally. There is jealousy of the moral primacy of the Holocaust and a determination to replace it with slavery.'

Reacting to his speech, former Labour MP John Mann, the Government's adviser on anti-Semitism, branded the academic 'pathetic' and said he was using the 'Jewish community and the Holocaust' to try to 'divide' people.

Dr Starkey, an expert on Tudor history, has previously been criticised for comments on slavery and the Black Lives Matter movement. He was accused of racism during coverage of the Coronation on GB News when he claimed that Rishi Sunak was 'not fully grounded in our culture'.

He later denied his comments were racist, saying he was referring to the Prime Minister being a 'typical international liberal' with no interest in British 'values'.

In 2020, he was dropped by his publisher and lost two university positions after claiming slavery was not genocide because there are 'so many damn blacks' in Africa and Britain.

In his speech to the National Conservatism Conference on Wednesday, Dr Starkey renewed his criticism of Black Lives Matter, denying that the movement cared about black lives at all.

To applause from the audience, he said: 'Movements like critical race theory and Black Lives Matter are not what they pretend to be.

'They are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western political and cultural tradition.

'The idea that they are there to defend black lives is a preposterous notion.

'They do not care about black lives, they only care about the symbolic destruction of white culture. We have to be absolutely clear about this.'

He added: 'The narrative of Black Lives Matter is that Western culture and Anglo-American culture in particular are fundamentally morally defective, they are characterised by the mark of Cain and their strategy is to do exactly what was done to German culture because of Nazism and the Holocaust.'

During the conference's morning session, the audience also heard from Nigel Biggar, a professor emeritus of theology at the University of Oxford, who argued that the British Empire had a 'mixed' moral record and denied there was any reason to pay reparations to former colonies.

He said: 'As a Christian, Burkean conservative I don't expect perfection in any human affairs.

'Those who rule, just like those who are ruled, are creatures and sinners, finite and flawed.

'Even as I recognise the duty to repent and improve, I expect even the noblest of human efforts to be marred by limited power, moral obtuseness and culpable failure.

'And so I fear, indeed I loathe, the unforgiving, inhumane impatience of utopian perfectionists, whether they are Maoists or agents of Islamic State or progressive twittering social justice warriors.'

He added: 'Much of what our forebears achieved was extraordinary. We need to remember it, we need to admire it, we need to conserve it, and we need to build on it.'

Professor Biggar, the author of recent book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, also criticised Scottish nationalism as based on a false 'Braveheart' version of history.

He said: 'When too many Scots, in my view, align themselves with Scottish independence they do it, most of them, not because they've analysed policies.

'They do it in large part because they inhabit imaginatively a vision of the past that is false, a Braveheart past that excites unjustified nationalist indignation and resentment against the English and against Britain today.'

Other speakers at the National Conservatism Conference this week have included Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove.

Former Business Secretary Jacob Rees Mogg had his speech interrupted on Monday by an Extinction Rebellion protestor.

The man, dressed in a shirt, tie and blazer, joined Mr Rees-Mogg at the lectern and told the audience: 'Ladies and gentlemen, you all look very nice people and I'm sure you are fantastically nice people.

'But I would like to draw your attention to a few characteristics of fascism.'

Read the rest here:

David Starkey says activists including Black Lives Matter are 'trying to destroy white culture' - Daily Mail

Questions of guilt hovered over another couple I worked with. He had recently cheated on his wife. They were generally deeply supportive of each other, but after she found out about his transgression, she was terribly upset and also confused. Their attempts to talk about what happened were halting. #MeToo rhetoric was woven into their discussions, functioning as a superego, shaping and inhibiting what they could even think. She said that she felt that the lessons of the movement were telling her not to forgive but to leave him Especially now, if a woman is being wronged, you get out. It was hard for her to know how she actually felt about it all. Early on, he couldnt separate remorse from fear. He was terrified of getting into trouble, and guiltiness prevailed. His voice was hushed while he scrutinized me intently, worried about how he would be perceived: There are a lot of men in this business right now who have taken positions of power and use them to have sex with people.

They were both white and understood their privilege and were apologetic about it. She often undid her own complaints I levitate out by having the thought, Oh, poor cis white woman. He was uncomfortable, too. He talked about reading the news about another Black or brown person being killed. And its just like I feel a little well, I feel guilty, to be honest, to be sitting here. The lessons of the Black Lives Matter movement initially can provoke such paralyzing guilt and shame that people become defensive and stop fully thinking. Yet over time, Ive found, the ideas can inspire deep psychological work, pushing people to reckon with the harm that has been done, the question of whom should be implicated, and the difference between virtue signaling and deeper concerns. These are tough and important lessons that can carry over into intimate relationships. In this case, the husband described a new understanding about the ways he exercised power at work: Hold on. Have I been an ally? Has it just been optics? These insights extended even to his way of speaking about his transgression. He had been rationalizing his behavior by saying that his wife was not giving him the attention he needed. But moving beyond what the couple called optics, now he was asking himself for a more thorough accounting of what his cheating was really about, and how it affected his wife. He explained how lonely he was if she traveled; he felt left behind and discarded, a feeling deeply familiar to him from early childhood. Acknowledging his vulnerability was hard for him, but it opened up a series of honest conversations between them. I convinced myself she does not desire me, he said. Im not the popular guy. Im not the strong guy. He linked those feelings to insecurities he felt as a teenager, when he suffered chronic teasing from kids at school for being perceived as effeminate.

This new, nondefensive way of talking made it possible for her to understand how his transgression hit her where she felt most insecure, and he could see it, generating remorse and forgiveness between them. She described how it had become easier for both of them to check themselves for their impact on the other person, and quickly notice or apologize. In one session she said, smiling: You were a jerk to me yesterday, and then you apologized a couple hours later. You recognized that you took out your frustration there on me because I was an easy target. He realized that he stopped skimming over ways he caused others pain: I actually was just thinking therapy and the Black Lives Matter movement have made me keenly aware of the words that just came out of my mouth, and the understanding that she reacted adversely to that, instead of me just going, We move on, because thats awkward. Theres a need now to address it. He continued: Did I just upset you? What did I do to just upset you?

Couples work always goes back to the challenge of otherness. Differences can show up around philosophical questions like what is important to devote a life to, or whether it is ethical to have babies with a climate crisis looming; or it can be closer to home, like whether having a sexual fantasy about a person who is not your partner is acceptable; or even as seemingly trivial as the correct way to load a dishwasher. Whatever the issue, differences can become a point of crisis in the relationship. Immediately the question of who is right, who gets their way or who has a better handle on reality pops up. Narcissistic vulnerabilities about self-worth appear, which then trigger an impulse to devalue the other. Partners try to resolve such impasses by digging in and working hard to convince the other of their own position, becoming further polarized.

The challenge of otherness may be easiest to see when we think of racial differences. This was certainly true for James and Michelle. Michelle was a calm, gentle, somewhat reserved African American social worker, and James, at the time a police officer, was a slight, wiry white man whose face did not reveal much feeling. They came in with classic conflicts around division of labor and differing parenting styles, and then the pandemic hit. Quarantined, working remotely and home-schooling their 3-year-old son, they started fighting about Covid protocols. Michelle was aware of the way that Covid was devastating Black communities and wanted to be careful. James, along with his fellow police officers and his conservative parents, thought the concern was overblown. Discussion about how race shaped James and Michelles experiences and ideas routinely dead-ended. If Michelle tried to bring up the topic, James would insist, I dont see color, and say he didnt know what she was talking about. In our sessions, Michelle sounded hopeless: She wanted him to understand how traumatizing Covid had been for Black people. But she was frustrated by his inability to acknowledge real difference, as if everyone was the same race. Hes of the mind-set that I dont see color. She continued setting out his thinking: I dont want to hear what you have to say because thats not how I think. That point of view obviously angers me, she said. James would shrug, expressionless. Michelle was describing the infuriating experience of trying to break through a barrier: Her husband wasnt consciously aware that whiteness was a perspective that was constricting what he could imagine or comprehend.

Read the original:

I'm a Couples Therapist. Something New Is Happening in ... - The New York Times

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record.1

Political violence in the United States is a grave threat not only to the lives of Americans, but also to the health of American democracy. Violence poses a threat to political leaders and to Americans who participate in politics. It polarizes our already-divided country and undermines political discourse.

Although this hearing focuses on left-wing violence and movements like Antifa, it is vital to recognize that in recent years violence linked to white supremacist, anti-government, and other causes lumped under the label right-wing have proven far more lethal and more politically consequential. Congress must use its powers to bolster law enforcement, improve our understanding of the threat, and otherwise fight the scourge of extremism. All political leaders must reject those who espouse violence and extremism, creating a clear line between legitimate politics and illegitimate extremism.

The remainder of this statement has three sections. I first provide some caveats on the labels used, as both right- and left- wing movements are divided, and the uses of terms are politicized. In the second section, I compare left-wing and right-wing political violence, noting in particular the grave danger that anti-government and white supremacist violence has posed in recent years. In the final section, I offer recommendations for reducing the threat of political violence in the United States.

Using the labels left-wing or right-wing to describe political violence invariably leads to the conflation, sometimes accidental and sometimes deliberate, of extremist activity with the actions of legitimate political activists. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who are concerned about police violence against minority communities and similar legitimate causes associated with the political left in the United States have nothing to do with the violent extreme; similarly, the overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who favor strong gun rights, are concerned with federal government overreach, worry about the level of immigration, and otherwise share concerns associated with the political right have nothing to do with the violent extreme. We can, and should, have a robust debate with people espousing their views, even if unpopular, without the threat of violence. By using the labels left and right to describe violence extremists I am trying to separate out legitimate politics from illegitimate violence.

Making this more difficult, and in contrast to jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS), both left- and especially right-wing extremists are difficult to categorize, with few robust organizations but strong informal networks. Antifa is a label under which left-wing extremism is often lumped. Contrary to much commentary, Antifa is not a group or an organization in any traditional sense; rather, it is a set of beliefs shared by a few activists, many of whom disagree with one another considerably. Antifa is short for anti-fascist (itself a word used broadly and inconsistently), and many of its members today focus on what they consider to be anti-racist activism. They do not have a tight organization or coherent command and control, and indeed the concept of hierarchy is anathema to many local groups. In a few cities, their ranks are slightly coherent, but in most places, it is a small group of informal activists. Much of the information put out about Antifa, including by prominent figures such as President Donald Trump, has exaggerated its coherence and reach.2 Russian influence operations have also attempted to amplify disinformation linked to Antifa.3

Many Antifa adherents do not favor violence of any sort. Others argue it is necessary to be prepared for violence in self-defense. Some of these attend rallies, such as those protesting police brutality, prepared to defend protesters against groups like the Proud Boys. They are prepared, indeed at times eager, to brawl with them. Others Doxx their opponents, publishing embarrassing private information (usually on their neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist activities) to get them fired or shamed in their communities.4 A smaller number do use violence without even the excuse of self-defense, such as the Antifa adherents who joined broad, and mostly peaceful, anti-Trump or pro-Black Lives Matter protests and smashed the windows of local businesses or threw Molotov cocktails. In a very small but still notable number of cases, Antifa activists have used more lethal forms of violence. In July 2019, one activist attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Tacoma, Washington with a rifle and bombs. As this spectrum of activity related to violence suggests, using the label Antifa thus tells us little about the specifics of an adherents goals or methods.

This organizational chaos is even more pronounced among right-wing extremists. Some are anti-immigrant, some focus on the Black community, and many are anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Some hate all these communities. Others are strongly opposed to the federal government to the point that they see government officials as agents of tyranny. Making this more complex, many among these extremists embrace a range of conspiracy theories, and some embrace a virulent form of male supremacy. Organized groups themselves are weak: almost every major attack involving right-wing terrorism in the United States was conducted by individuals with little or no group involvement so-called Lone Wolf attacks.5 An important exception to this was the January 6, 2021, insurrection, in which violent groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers played leading roles, although even there the majority of participants were not affiliated with these extremist groups.6

There are different ways to measure the danger posed by political extremists, but one of the simplest is to look at the number of people they kill. In the post-9/11 era, on the left, the United States has seen one murder, which occurred when Michael Forest Reinoeh, a left-wing extremist, shot and killed a member of the right-wing extremist organization Patriot Prayer in Portland in 2020. The killer had previously provided security for left-wing protests. He described himself as anti-fascist, but he was not a member of any local Antifa group.

Numbers for right-wing extremist violence are far higher, with numerous high-profile terrorist attacks as well as lower-level assaults, vandalism, and other forms of violence. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, far-right extremists have killed 130 people in the United States, more than any other political cause, including jihadists.7 Notable attacks in recent years include the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue attack, the 2019 El Paso mall killings, and the 2022 Buffalo market attack. A range of far-right extremists, including organized groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as hundreds of unaffiliated conspiracy theorists, anti-government extremists, and ordinary supporters of President Trump, also stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a direct assault on American democracy. Far-right extremist violence has not abated: earlier this month, on May 6, 2023, an apparent neo-Nazi with misogynist leanings shot up a Texas mall, killing eight people.

Another concern is the role of right-wing extremism in the ranks of the military and among police officers. Although the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and military personnel reject extremism, even small numbers of extremists in uniform are of concern given the important role these entities play in American society, including their position at the frontline of the battle against violent extremism itself. Here the difference with left-wing extremism is considerable: many left-wing adherents reject authority, see the police and military as instruments of authoritarianism, and otherwise are far less likely to join their ranks. Many right-wing extremists, in contrast, glorify military and police forces in theory, though in practice they have attacked them. Violent extremist crimes among those with U.S. military backgrounds have increased significantly in the last decade, and such members have played important roles in anti-government extremist groups like the Oath Keepers and disorganized anti-government movements like the Boogaloos.8

In contrast to far-right extremists in the past, todays violent far-right often targets law enforcement. On January 6, 2021, of course, far-right extremists were responsible for the death of a Capitol police officer and the wounding of over 100 others. A right-wing extremist also threatened an FBI facility in Cincinnati in 2021.9 Anti-government extremists have regularly attacked and killed local police, questioned their authority to enforce the law, resisted arrest, and otherwise pose a grave threat to law enforcement.

Another danger of violence is that it infects and degrades politics. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans of all political beliefs came together, supporting a strong response to jihadist terrorism. Unfortunately, during its four years in office, the Trump administration increased public fears of white supremacist and anti-government violence because of its perceived toleration, and at times even encouragement, of these causes. Trumps rhetoric matched some white supremacist talking points, playing down police violence against Black people, calling Mexican immigrants rapists, declaring COVID-19 to be a Chinese virus, telling Black and other minority members of Congress to go back to their home countries, claiming a mythical deep state, and demonizing the FBI. When violence occurred, as it did during a 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia organized by white supremacists, Trump opined that their ranks included very fine people.

Political support, or at least toleration, of extremism also occurs at the state and local level: political figures have at times embraced racist and anti-government ideas, and a few even have ties to violent organizations.10 The demonization of the FBI when it carries out legitimate investigations of American politicians is another instance of how politics can degrade an effective response against extremism. At times, the effects are simply to turn good Americans off politics, with many who would otherwise engage in local politics afraid of, or simply disgusted by, the constant stream of abuse from extremists.

Extremism of one political variety encourages its opposite. Antifa, in fact, rose in both its appeal and its activism with the rise of the white nationalist alt-right early in the Trump administration.11 Similarly, many right-wing extremists claim they are acting in self-defense, often promoting outlandish conspiracy theories to prove that Antifa and others are controlling events and thus justifying their violence.

The U.S. government, including the U.S. Congress, should take several steps to fight political extremism of all stripes.

A first step is to understand the problem beyond isolated examples. Data on extremism is bad in the United States, and Congress should require and resource better reporting at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite attempts such as the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, many local jurisdictions, including many that have troubling histories, simply do not report on hate crimes, and those that do report often are inconsistent.12 Legislation that required consistent reporting and resourced local jurisdictions would improve our understanding of violent extremism and allow a better distribution of resources. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security should use this data to produce regular reports on the threat of extremism in the United States.

Ensuring the ranks of U.S. law enforcement and the U.S. military remain free from violent extremism of any sort is also vital. This requires careful screening of recruits, training that helps inoculate them against extremist recruitment, and other measures that reduce the danger to ensure that those charged with protecting America do so fairly and impartially.

Existing laws offer law enforcement many ways to disrupt violent extremist activities. On social media, many openly threaten others in specific terms and otherwise reveal their intentions. Many extremists violate state gun laws and rules against private paramilitary militias.13 Congress should encourage federal, state, and local officials to use their authorities to target those entities that have a propensity toward violence.

Both right-wing and left-wing extremists use social media to publicize their messages and to harass their enemies. Online harassment is especially common against people of color and women, making their lives far more difficult and discouraging many from engaging in political discourse. Social media companies should be strongly encouraged to crack down on such harassment.

Political leaders should also work to delegitimize violent extremists of all stripes, drawing clear lines between those engaging in politics even on contentious issues such as abortion, immigration, gun rights, and police abuse and those who favor or legitimate violence. Leaders should disavow any connections to those who espouse violence against minorities, law enforcement, and others. A model is President George H.W. Bush, who declared neo-Nazi and former KKK leader David Duke a charlatan and called for him to be rejected by voters when Duke ran as the Republican candidate for governor of Louisiana in 1991.14 Such condemnations are the right thing to do. They also discourage extremists from trying to take over the political process and ensure that U.S. law enforcement agencies know they can use the proper power of the law against violent extremists without political criticism.

Strong leadership is necessary in the fight against extremism. It is my hope that hearings such as these can both identify weaknesses that must be corrected and also educate the public on the need to stop political violence of any sort.

See the original post here:

Countering organized violence in the United States - Brookings Institution

Trio suspected of vandalizing Black Lives Matter banner on Susquehanna University campus  Sunbury Daily Item

Read more from the original source:

Trio suspected of vandalizing Black Lives Matter banner on Susquehanna University campus - Sunbury Daily Item

Too pretty to be Aboriginal: Meet the model who wants to abolish our beauty paradigm  Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt from:

Too pretty to be Aboriginal: Meet the model who wants to abolish our beauty paradigm - Sydney Morning Herald

1. New York City Said It Will Pay $21,500 Each To Protesters Who Were Kettled And Beaten By Police During Black Lives Matter Demonstrations  BuzzFeed News
2. New York City could pay Black Lives Matter protesters $21K each over rights 'violations' in 2020  Fox News
3. City agrees to pay $21.5K each to protesters trapped by NYPD during 2020 protest, per new settlement  Gothamist

Read the original here:

New York City Said It Will Pay $21,500 Each To Protesters Who Were Kettled And Beaten By Police During Black Lives Matter Demonstrations - BuzzFeed...

Dad of white boy forced to his knees and to say Black Lives Matter speaks out speaks out  Daily Mail

View post:

Dad of white boy forced to his knees and to say Black Lives Matter speaks out speaks out - Daily Mail

Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action kicks off for thousands of U.S. schools  Fox News

Go here to see the original:

Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action kicks off for thousands of U.S. schools - Fox News