Saturday, April 7, 2018

THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN TERRORISTS.


HOW WHITE AMERICAN TERRORISTS ARE RADICALIZED.


They're reading the same websites, talking to each other, and killing the same targets. The lone wolves are actually a pack.
 
When Mark Conditt was a teenager, he participated in a club called Righteous Invasion of Truth. RIOT kids were home schooled and religious, and spent their club time playing war games, practicing weapons skills, and reading the Bible. As a community college student in 2012, he wrote blogs against homosexuality and abortion. In 2018, he planted bombs in Austin, Texas, appearing to target African-American communities, then blew himself up as police closed in. The question isn't whether Conditt was a terrorist, but where was this terrorist radicalized? More important, who else is being radicalized in the same way, and what can we do about it?
 
It's easy to connect the dots after an attack. A radicalized white man commits murders. Investigators dive into his past. The dots emerge in the clarity of hindsight. In the interests of preventing future attacks, though, we need a clear understanding of how white terrorism works in this country. While not organized by some kind of hierarchical conspiracy or secret cabal, these discrete acts of violence are part of a systematic campaign to terrorize and divide Americans. What's worse, it's working.
 
 
We know where Elliot Rodger, the 2014 Isla Vista shooter, was radicalized. When the Southern Poverty Law Center published its report last month on "alt-right" violence, focusing on the many incidents in 2017, the SPLC began its account with the 2014 killings by Rodger, a student at the University of California–Santa Barbara. Based on Rodger's experiences in specific online fora, the SPLC has dubbed Rodger America's first "alt-right" killer. In his writings and videos, Rodger used misogynistic and racist tropes common in the worlds of "gamergate," a forum called PUAhate (Pick Up Artist Hate), and other online spaces where he could connect with like-minded men. No one ordered Rodger to kill people, but the valorization of targeted violence permeates those communities. He ultimately murdered seven people and wounded an additional 14. According to the SPLC, Rodger's violent acts were celebrated in various online communities, including by people who went on to kill in turn. The SPLC cites other misogynist killers, but also people like Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black citizens in a Charleston church. Roof's racism appears to have intensified as he spent more and more time on the Council of Conservative Citizens' website. More recently, a pro-Trump white supremacist killed two people at his school in New Mexico, after spending five years glorifying school shooters on alt-right websites.
 
 
In 2017, Michael Hari drove from Champaign, Illinois, to Bloomington, Minnesota, just outside the Twin Cities. There, he and two friends broke a window in a mosque and threw a pipe bomb in through the window. Hari ran a YouTube channel where you could watch him and his friends putting on ski masks and making terroristic proclamations about driving Muslims out of the country. It's not clear why they drove to Minnesota and targeted this specific mosque. Hari is also accused of attempting to bomb a woman's health clinic in Champaign. Writing for HuffPost, Christopher Mathias links Hari's organization to other anti-Muslim militias that are proliferating around the country, including The Crusaders, a group in Kansas City, Missouri, that plotted to blow up a mosque and apartment complex that housed immigrants from Somalia.
 
Then there are the Nazis. Atomwaffen, an explicitly neo-Nazi group, has been murdering people. ProPublica recently broke the story of the murder of a gay Jewish man by an Atomwaffen member, one of five recent murders associated with the terrorist organization. James Field, who murdered Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, idolized Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. He belonged to Vanguard USA, a neo-Nazi group that combines anti-black racism and anti-semitism. Nikolas Cruz, the shooter in Parkland, Florida, engaged in racist rants on Instagram and had swastikas on his ammo cases. Motherboard recently reported that, while YouTube removes ISIS-related material reasonably quickly, neo-Nazi material can linger on the site for months and years.
 
These terrorist strains overlap and entangle, as we see in the case of Jeremy Christian. Christian had no coherent simple ideology. He read credulously from alt-right websites, contemplated Nazism, and spent time connecting with "Odinist" groups that appropriate medieval Viking mythos to support a platform of toxic masculinity and racism. In May of 2017, Christian murdered two men and stabbed a third in Oregon after they tried to stop him from harassing two young women of color wearing head scarves.
 
These murders, mostly committed by white American men, reveal patterns, but they're not evidence of some kind of single, secret organization dedicated to committing white-supremacist violence. That tends to puzzle people, because our conception of terrorism is linked to Islam and people of color, but also to cell-based groups like al-Qaeda: When we think of terrorism, we look for secret leaders sending out commands and planning operations. That's just not the model in this case, so when these white men kill, the media, elected officials, and law enforcement respond by disavowing connections to terrorism. These disavowals reveal a basic racism surrounding the word "terrorism," although many officials and reporters just want to keep people from panicking.
 
But maybe it's time to panic a little, or at least understand that these incidents are connected and require an organized response from our politicians, law enforcement, and media. When hundreds of "lone wolves" are reading the same websites, talking to each other, consuming the same stories, picking up easily accessible weapons, and killing the same targets, they have become a pack.


https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-white-american-terrorists-are-radicalized.

ONCE, IN AMERICA, THERE WAS HOPE



Image result for photo - robert kennedy/martin luther king monument
ROBERT KENNEDY/ DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING 



A RIPPLE OF HOPE


On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and mortally wounded. American cities were engulfed in chaos and fear. Despite the violence raging across the country, Robert F. Kennedy made a campaign appearance in an African-American neighborhood, delivering a moving, extemporaneous plea for peace and reconciliation, a talk that eventually would be regarded as one of the great political speeches of the twentieth century.



"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."


 Robert F. Kennedy


Friday, April 6, 2018

THE WORLD HELPED TO MURDER 800,000 RWANDANS


HUMANRIGHTS.CA
In the face of human rights violations, indifference can sometimes be a default response. It is often easiest to be indifferent – to keep one's head down. But indifference is not a neutral response. It contributes to an…
  • April 7 is International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.
    Museum Researcher-Curator Dr. Jeremy Maron interviewed Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, UN leader of the Rwanda mission at the time, about how the world responded with indifference to repeated pleas for help.
    Due to the inaction from the global community, more than 800,000 people were killed. Lieutenant-General Dallaire wonders if perhaps a belief that "some humans are more human than others" determines whether we intervene in crisis situations or not.
    Lieutenant-General Dallaire's perspective provoked Maron to look at victims of violence with a new perspective and to discover a shared humanity in unexpected places.
    Comments
    Phyllis Carter - JUST AS THE WORLD TURNED ITS BACK ON THE JEWS BEING SLAUGHTERED BY HITLER, EVERYONE IGNORED THE MASSACRES IN RWANDA IN SPITE OF ROMEO DALLAIRE'S DESPERATE PLEAS. THIS WORLD IS FULL OF SELF-CENTRED, COLD-BLOODED PEOPLE. IT'S A WONDER EARTH HAS NOT BEEN DESTROYED YET.

BANG! BANG! YOU'RE IN TRUMP'S AMERICA.


On average, 96 people are killed with a gun (in the U.S.A) each day


This is a uniquely American problem.

The homicide rate in the United States is more than 25 times than that of our industrial peers.

This is not the price of freedom - this is the price of inaction and Washington politicians doing the bidding of the National Rifle Association.

The majority of American gun owners support common sense gun safety measures that could save many lives - Congress must act. We must all work to compel them to do so.

Cory Booker

"MENSCH" - A PERSON OF EXEMPLARY QUALITIES


THE HOPE OF THE WORLD


Image result for photo martin luther king arrested

CRUCIFIED

Thursday, April 5, 2018

CELL PHONE DANGER HIDDEN BY INDUSTRY

 
Ninety-five out of every 100 American adults owns a cellphone today. And worldwide, three out of four adults now have cellphone access. The wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing on Earth, raking in annual sales of $440 billion in 2016. But are cellphones safe? A new investigation by The Nation suggests that's a question that cellphone giants prefer you don't ask. We speak with Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation's environment correspondent and investigative editor. His report, co-authored with Mark Dowie, is headlined "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe."
 
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
 
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ninety-five out of every 100 American adults owns a cellphone today. And worldwide, three out of four adults now have cellphone access. The wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing on Earth, raking in annual sales of $440 billion in 2016.
 
But are cellphones safe? Well, a new investigation by The Nation suggests that's a question that cellphone giants prefer you don't ask. The article, by journalists Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, is headlined "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe."
 
The article notes that cellphones were first marketed to U.S. consumers in the 1980s without any government safety testing. Then, a decade later, one of the industry's own hand-picked researchers, George Carlo, reportedly told top company officials, including leaders of Apple, AT&T and Motorola, that some industry-commissioned studies raised serious questions about cellphone safety. On October 7th, 1999, Carlo sent letters to industry CEOs urging them to give consumers, quote, "the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume." Instead, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association reportedly tried to discredit Carlo's findings, and had him physically removed from its premises during its annual conference in February 2000.
 
AMY GOODMAN: The Nation magazine investigation notes Carlo's story "evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively."
 
For more, we go to San Francisco to speak with one of the authors of this new investigation, Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation's environment correspondent and investigative editor, author of seven books, including Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.
 
Mark, welcome back to Democracy Now!
 
MARK HERTSGAARD: Hi, Amy.
 
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what you have found, what we do know about cellphone safety, and how dangerous are cellphones.
 
MARK HERTSGAARD: Let me emphasize, Amy, our piece is not saying that cellphones are safe or are not safe. Our piece is an investigative exposé showing you how the cellular industry has worked for 25 years behind the scenes to convince you that cellphones are safe, when, in fact, if you look at the independently funded science, the picture is a lot more mixed than that. And as you mentioned, there's that smoking gun memo—letter, I should say—from George Carlo in 1999 telling the CEOs of all these big companies, "Look, this stuff is raising serious questions, especially about kids and cancer and genetic damage."
 
And I think that's the real parallel with both Big Oil and Big Tobacco. In each case, these big companies were told privately by their own scientists that there are serious questions about your product, whether it be cigarettes or fossil fuels or cellphones. And in each case, those executives decided not to share that with the public, but rather to keep that information to themselves, while telling the public and telling the press and telling policymakers there's no problem.
 
There is a lot of evidence suggesting that we need to be a lot more careful about these cellphones. The World Health Organization has listed them as a possible carcinogen. And just last week, here in the United States, the National Institutes of Health had a major study, peer-reviewed, about cellphone radiation. And the peer-review scientists, who are independent of government, said that there was, quote, "clear evidence," unquote, that cellphones can cause cancer.
 
And that is something that you have not read in the American media. And I have to say that that's another part of the story, Amy, is how the U.S. news organizations and journalists have been hoodwinked, yet again, by a corporate propaganda campaign, where we listen more to what the industry says than to what independent scientists are saying.
 
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Mark, could you talk a little about the way in which wireless industries have tried to influence the scientific research on the effects, possible effects, of cellphone use?
 
MARK HERTSGAARD: Sure. The term that they use is "war gaming." They have war-gamed the science. That comes from an internal memo in 1994 from Motorola, a major cellphone manufacturer, which at that point was already facing lawsuits from customers claiming that their brain tumors had come from Motorola-supplied equipment. War gaming means a number of different things. It means funding science that is friendly to industry. It means discrediting science, or attempting to discredit scientists, that are critical of industry. And it means trying to put industry-friendly scientists on key advisory boards, such as the World Health Organization.
 
And our piece in The Nation magazine documents how when the World Health Organization was preparing, in the year 2011, to render a judgment on how likely cellphones are to cause cancer, the industry made sure to get a number of its scientists onto the advisory boards that consulted with the WHO on that decision. And that is contrary to the conflict-of-interest rules that the WHO has, but the industry managed to circumvent those. It put money into that process. And at the end of the day, in 2011, the WHO, World Health Organization, called cellphone radiation a "possible" carcinogen.
 
But a number of the scientists who were on that committee, who we interviewed, said that they wanted to call it a "probable." And one scientist even wanted to call it a "known" carcinogen. So, later this year, the WHO is going to revisit this question of cellphone radiation, and they told us that they will look very carefully at this recent study from last week by the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. government that found clear evidence that cellphones can cause cancer.
 
AMY GOODMAN: Mark, you wrote the industry has "also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group. Hardell's studies, which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users, were some of the strongest evidence that the group was considering." Gliomas, acoustic neuromas, explain what they are and what you feel has been suppressed or discredited.
 
MARK HERTSGAARD: Well, Lennart Hardell, the Swedish scientist you mentioned, Amy, he was the one scientist on that WHO committee who wanted to call cellphone radiation a "known" cancer risk—not probable, not possible, but known. That would be Category 1. And he did that on the basis of his studies of gliomas. They are a nasty brain tumor, brain cancer, partly because it's very difficult to treat them. It's not like a specific sort of nodule that you can take out. They kind of leak through the brain in long strands.
 
And Hardell was especially concerned about what this means for children. And I should note here, Amy, that, you know, the United States is quite different than other advanced countries on this. In Britain, in France, in Israel, the governments have issued very strict limitations on cellphone use by children. In the public schools in France, there are no iPads, there is no wireless, partly for the reasons of addiction, but also because of these concerns about health.
 
And in the case of Lennart Hardell in Sweden, once he started to publish those findings in 2002, the industry immediately mobilized to have two of their friendly—industry-friendly scientists immediately put out a paper condemning Hardell. Well, we found out that those two scientists, at the very time that they were posing as independent scientists and saying that Mr.—that Dr. Hardell's findings were methodologically incoherent, they were consulting—they were consulting to Motorola as expert witnesses in a brain tumor case. So, who are you going to believe?
 
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we have to leave it there, but we're going to do Part 2 and post it as a web exclusive online at democracynow.org. There's just too much to talk about, from the internet of things, talking about 5G, and how the campaign here mirrors what happened with Big Tobacco. Mark Hertsgaard's new special investigation, we'll link to, is headlined "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe."

Democracy Now

THAT FUR COLLAR IS STILL SCREAMING IN AGONY

Chinese Animal Activists. The Forgotten Heros
This page is in direct contact with the activists that attend Changchun slaughterhouses and other similar horrendous places where dogs are murdered for their meat. As explained in a previous post whenever I receive a message from them I literally have to prepare myself for what I am going to see.

The activists are highlighting another species of animal that suffers terribly at the hands of humans and they want to share what is happening right now. Today they have traveled to Changli Marketplace, Hebei, where thousands of foxes are facing a fate worse than death.

In a public place the foxes are being skinned alive for their fur. The activists are there to record and witness the horrors and they will try to save as many lives as possible.
Welcome to the fur trim on your jacket. The fur pompom on your hat. Your fur coat.