White nationalism, populism, racism and domestic terrorism II July 2021-

Written by  //  July 13, 2021  //  Government & Governance, Terrorism  //  No comments

National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism
Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR)
The OK sign is becoming an alt-right symbol

Why Is the Country Panicking About Critical Race Theory?
(NYT Opinion) Florida is one of six states in recent months that have passed such pedagogical regulations — which in some cases apply to public universities — and 20 others are considering measures to the same effect, often explicitly targeting critical race theory. Where did this movement come from, and what are the underlying disputes?
The furor over critical race theory owes its greatest debt to Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist and documentarian. Rufo came to prominence in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, which compelled millions of Americans — many of them white — to attend racial justice protests, read up on racial inequality and register for webinars on how to raise antiracist children.
Last September, Rufo appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to denounce critical race theory, which he claimed had “pervaded every aspect of the federal government” and posed “an existential threat to the United States.” The next morning, the Trump White House reached out to him and soon asked for his help in drafting an executive order canceling government contracts for sensitivity training.
More recently, Rufo has expanded his focus to “critical race theory in education.” Most of the 11 examples he cites of this supposed indoctrination revolve around diversity trainings that, broadly speaking, implicated teachers in white supremacy.
Critical race theorists tend to share several key assumptions, as Janel George, a law professor at Georgetown, explains at the American Bar Association website:
Race is not a biological fact but a social construction.
Racism is not aberrational but an inherited, ordinary feature of society.
Racial hierarchy is primarily the product of systems, not individual prejudice.
Racial progress is accommodated only to the extent that it converges with the interests of white people.
Lived experience, not just data, constitutes relevant evidence to scholarship.

9 July
Jonathan Kay: The performative snobbery of social justice invades the supermarket
Progressive ideological manias were once confined to a handful of privileged professional silos. Now, mass retail corporations are signing on, too
Conservative pundits have prattled on about “left-wing media bias” since the dawn of time. But what we often see nowadays goes beyond “bias”: progressives have crowdsourced what is effectively an entirely new dialect — one that’s unintelligible to the vast bulk of the population, especially immigrants and working-class people who lack entrée to college-educated professional circles.
The idea of social justice was once based on the widely shared desire to help the poor and underprivileged. And given the obvious overlap with the Christian tradition of alms, Muslim zakat, Jewish tzedakah and South Asian dāna, there is no reason why a sincere commitment to social justice couldn’t help bridge the political gap between liberals and conservatives in a multicultural Canada.
Alas, social justice has instead metastasized into a passcode-protected treehouse club, from which the privileged lecture those proles who lack fluency in the latest social-justice argot.

4 July
Why are states banning critical race theory?
Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons
(Brookings) Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past. They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today. Policies attempting to suffocate this much-needed national conversation are an obstacle to the pursuit of an equitable democracy.
CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with
racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that racism can exist without racists. However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us—these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling
social institutions racist as calling them racist personally. It speaks to how normative racial ideology is to American identity that some people just cannot separate the two. There are also people who may recognize America’s racist past but have bought into the false narrative that the U.S. is now an equitable democracy. They are simply unwilling to remove the blind spot obscuring the fact that America is still not great for everyone.

What to know about Rise of the Moors, an armed group that says it’s not subject to U.S. law
(WaPo) One expert on the group said its members see themselves as separate from the United States.
“They have the idea that they have the authority to essentially detach themselves from the United States,” said Freddy Cruz, a research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “So they do things like refusing to pay taxes, get driver’s licenses, or register firearms, and they try to get their members to challenge those federal laws.”
Rise of the Moors draws a link between its members and Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
“Especially with these sovereign Moorish groups, there is this idea that is rooted in ancient civilizations like the Aztecs, the Olmecs, Incas,” said Cruz. “They have this belief that the U.S. government has no right to be enforcing or creating laws in territories that don’t belong to them, so they see themselves as forming their own sovereign nation.”

6 July
What The Biden Admin’s Countering Domestic Terrorism Plan Is Missing
By Dr. Jessica White, Research Fellow in the Terrorism and Conflict group at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
While the strategy includes a nuanced assessment of the challenges, there isn’t enough priority given to the role gender plays in extremism.
(Rantt media) The new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism released by the White House last month seems to be a significant step in the right direction. Overall, the very creation of the Strategy signifies that the US government is committed to addressing an array of ideologies – prominently including white supremacist and anti-government ideologies from the radical right – as serious domestic threats to US national security.
The Strategy emphasizes the goal of addressing the underlying dynamics of the long-term threat of violence in the US and sets out the need for a multi-agency and multi-stakeholder approach – including contributions from across a spectrum of government organizations, social media companies, civil society organizations, local communities and others, as well the cooperation of foreign partners where the ideologies have a transnational reach.
The Biden administration has made good progress in acknowledging the growing threat of domestic terrorism – highlighting particularly the impacts of white supremacist and anti-government ideologies, while emphasizing that the definition itself is not limited to any particular set of ideologies.  However, more research and analysis are needed to investigate how current threats fit into traditional counter-terrorism structures and how programming will have to be adapted to effectively address these various forms of extremism. … [T]here needs to be course correct to include gender perspective across implementation of the new strategy as it moves forward, in order to ensure its effectiveness.

1 July
How The Anti-Democracy Movement Is Weaponizing Conspiracy Theories
Chamila Liyange
(CARR) Conspiracy theories are increasingly intersecting with right-wing extremist ideologies. This is not happening by mistake. It’s a deliberate strategy.
Conspiracy theories hatch onto shadows, assuming that shadowy organizations or figures are behind every functioning of the world. Extremist ideologies are, instead, extreme views and extreme measures such as violence as means to achieve an end.
…recent evidence suggests that violent extremism increasingly overlaps with conspiracy theories. The latest examples are the Hanau shooter’s beliefs in fringe conspiracy theories and the storm of Capitol Hill by QAnon followers on January 6, 2021. How does this happen? Are conspiracy circles being radicalized? Do conspiracy theories intersect with extremist movements, or do conspiracy theories play a mobilizing role in radicalizing individuals?

Leave a Comment

comm comm comm