Extremist Militias Are Coordinating In More Than 100 Facebook Groups (wired.com) 204
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Join your localMilitia or III% Patriot Group," a post urged the more than 650 members of a Facebook group called the Free American Army. Accompanied by the logo for the Three Percenters militia network and an image of a man in tactical gear holding a long rifle, the post continues: "Now more than ever. Support the American militia page." Other content and messaging in the group is similar. And despite the fact that Facebook bans paramilitary organizing and deemed the Three Percenters an "armed militia group" on its 2021 Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List, the post and group remained up until WIRED contacted Meta for comment about its existence.
Free American Army is just one of around 200 similar Facebook groups and profiles, most of which are still live, that anti-government and far-right extremists are using to coordinate local militia activity around the country. After lying low for several years in the aftermath of the US Capitol riot on January 6, militia extremists have been quietly reorganizing, ramping up recruitment and rhetoric on Facebook -- with apparently little concern that Meta will enforce its ban against them, according to new research by the Tech Transparency Project, shared exclusively with WIRED.
Individuals across the US with long-standing ties to militia groups are creating networks of Facebook pages, urging others to recruit "active patriots" and attend meetups, and openly associating themselves with known militia-related sub-ideologies like that of the anti-government Three Percenter movement. They're also advertising combat training and telling their followers to be "prepared" for whatever lies ahead. These groups are trying to facilitate local organizing, state by state and county by county. Their goals are vague, but many of their posts convey a general sense of urgency about the need to prepare for "war" or to "stand up" against many supposed enemies, including drag queens, immigrants, pro-Palestine college students, communists -- and the US government. These groups are also rebuilding at a moment when anti-government rhetoric has continued to surge in mainstream political discourse ahead of a contentious, high-stakes presidential election. And by doing all of this on Facebook, they're hoping to reach a broader pool of prospective recruits than they would on a comparatively fringe platform like Telegram. "Many of these groups are no longer fractured sets of localized militia but coalitions formed between multiple militia groups, many with Three Percenters at the helm," said Katie Paul, director of the Tech Transparency Project. "Facebook remains the largest gathering place for extremists and militia movements to cast a wide net and funnel users to more private chats, including on the platform, where they can plan and coordinate with impunity."
Paul has been monitoring "hundreds" of these groups and profiles since 2021 and found that they have been growing "increasingly emboldened with more serious and coordinated organizing" in the past year.
Free American Army is just one of around 200 similar Facebook groups and profiles, most of which are still live, that anti-government and far-right extremists are using to coordinate local militia activity around the country. After lying low for several years in the aftermath of the US Capitol riot on January 6, militia extremists have been quietly reorganizing, ramping up recruitment and rhetoric on Facebook -- with apparently little concern that Meta will enforce its ban against them, according to new research by the Tech Transparency Project, shared exclusively with WIRED.
Individuals across the US with long-standing ties to militia groups are creating networks of Facebook pages, urging others to recruit "active patriots" and attend meetups, and openly associating themselves with known militia-related sub-ideologies like that of the anti-government Three Percenter movement. They're also advertising combat training and telling their followers to be "prepared" for whatever lies ahead. These groups are trying to facilitate local organizing, state by state and county by county. Their goals are vague, but many of their posts convey a general sense of urgency about the need to prepare for "war" or to "stand up" against many supposed enemies, including drag queens, immigrants, pro-Palestine college students, communists -- and the US government. These groups are also rebuilding at a moment when anti-government rhetoric has continued to surge in mainstream political discourse ahead of a contentious, high-stakes presidential election. And by doing all of this on Facebook, they're hoping to reach a broader pool of prospective recruits than they would on a comparatively fringe platform like Telegram. "Many of these groups are no longer fractured sets of localized militia but coalitions formed between multiple militia groups, many with Three Percenters at the helm," said Katie Paul, director of the Tech Transparency Project. "Facebook remains the largest gathering place for extremists and militia movements to cast a wide net and funnel users to more private chats, including on the platform, where they can plan and coordinate with impunity."
Paul has been monitoring "hundreds" of these groups and profiles since 2021 and found that they have been growing "increasingly emboldened with more serious and coordinated organizing" in the past year.
You sound like a Whig (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" ever present threat the state must fear if it were overstep and outrage the people"
I hate to break it to you, but until these groups can have jets, tanks and nuclear weapons they are no threat to the US government it the shit truly hits the fan.
Re: You sound like a Whig (Score:2)
And yet Vietnamese farmers seem to be impossible for the US to defeat.
Re: You sound like a Whig (Score:2)
Are these American militias being massively supported and aided by China and Russia?
I suspect most of these people will just shit themselves and downplay their involvement or go the way of David Koresh if it actually escalated to a real confrontation with the government, who have a much more legitimate claim of representing The People anyway.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they kooks?
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
The legal interpretation of this, and related laws at the state level, require that the "unorganized militia" be activated by and under the command of the state, so, no, one is not automagically a member of "the militia" by virtue of being an adult male between the ages of 17 and 45.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they kooks?
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Given the equal rights rules I suspect the restriction of any part of the militia to males only will not stand up in court.
So most likely you are already in the militia just by being an adult.
While these groups fit the definition of the Unorganized Militia as (re)defined by SCOTUS in Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), (because, who doesn't?), that does not authorize those groups taking up arms against a Duly and Constitutionally-Elected and Constitutionally-Performing Government (which this one is).
https://supreme.justia.com/cas... [justia.com]
However. . .
Political Disagreements over Border Policy and Appropriations that are Authorized by a Duly Elected and Constitutionally-Functioning Congress and/or Cons
Re: (Score:2)
"taking up arms against a Duly and Constitutionally-Elected and Constitutionally-Performing Government (which this one is)"
That ladies and gentlemen is called "begging the question." People often misuse the term as saying something which raises a question, in reality it is trick of rhetoric wherein one asks a question which assumed a fact to be true which is the key question in the debate.
That the current government is Duly and Constitutionally-Elected and Constitutionally-Performing is disputed. If the gov
Re: (Score:3)
"taking up arms against a Duly and Constitutionally-Elected and Constitutionally-Performing Government (which this one is)"
That ladies and gentlemen is called "begging the question." People often misuse the term as saying something which raises a question, in reality it is trick of rhetoric wherein one asks a question which assumed a fact to be true which is the key question in the debate.
That the current government is Duly and Constitutionally-Elected and Constitutionally-Performing is disputed. If the government is not acting constitutionally as many believe then it is the government which is rebellion against its sovereign, The People.
"nowhere near meeting that Definition"
In your interpretation and according to information you've chosen to believe and discount accordingly.
Oh, here we go. . .
62 out of 63 Courts (many with Judges Appointed by He Who Shall Not Be Named), Held that there was ZERO Evidence of Voter Fraud sufficient to alter the Outcome of the Election."
That should "do it" for "Duly Elected". But it won't in your Circular Logic World.
But I think any HONEST and straightforward reading of the Constitution shows the government clearly granting and allowing itself to act unconstitutionally for since shortly before the civil war. It is fair to say that MOST federal law at this point covers ground the Constitution doesn't authorize and arguments that are made about the viability of resistance by an armed populace highlight one of the most egregious offenses, the maintenance of a standing federal army outside of an official congressional declaration of war.
That is a philosophical strawman argument, and one I will not be drawn into by the likes of someone the likes of you.
J6 is an excellent example. It was and frankly still is believed that our elections have been compromised and that illegitimate unelected President was being installed in the whitehouse. Stepping aside from your own opinion on the truth of that, would you believe that rigging an election and installing an unelected President crosses this threshold? If being honest I think you would.
The only ones attempting to "Rig an Election" were the ones attempting to iIlegally Substitute Slates of "Alternate
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck, you are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they kooks?
If they are extremists, they are indeed kooks. And that's what this is all about.
There is a bit of ambiguity to the second amendment - "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That well regulated part, now what does that mean? Obviously the national guard is well regulated.
But those I have met who are in the unorganized milita want absolutely no constraints. They want anyone at all to walk into
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There is a bit of ambiguity to the second amendment
Not any more, there's no ambiguity since SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is unrelated to membership in any militia. It's right there in English if you don't try putting in meaning that isn't there. There is a right to keep and bear arms. They clarified and emphasized the meaning for stating this right as explicitly protected, that being there needs to be a population of men trained in arms so that a militia can be raised quickly.
It was never ambiguous, but those opposed to protecting ou
Re: Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Well regulated also meant that Bob had to sign up and join said militia."
False. Also it doesn't matter what it meant, the second clause which actually defines the right is not modified by the first which merely describes why it is needed. It actually helps to slightly reorder to make clear what is being said here.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [because as we all know] a well regulated Militia is necessary to ensure the security of a free State"
Every able bodied indiv
Re: (Score:2)
It did not.
Back in the early days of our nation, when shit happened (foreign invasion, indian attack, wolf pack, etc.) the call went out in the community, and the people showed up with their weapons and together they handled the problem.
That was the militia: the able-bodied men of the community with their personal firearms.
As this was deemed necessary to survival (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State), the government was forbidden to prohibit their ownership of these weap
Re: (Score:2)
No. That isn't how militia works at all.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Kooks is kooks, and need tabs kept on them when possible. It is fortunate that these extremists choose to provide public access points to identify and monitor their activities.
In the USA not all kooks are treated equally. There was no mention of any groups that posted anything containing the phrase "from the river to the sea" on their FaceBook page. Why is that? My guess is because such people enjoy a certain kind of protection because of their politics, a kind of political slant that while in opposition to American ideals there's enough of an "enemy of my enemy" thing going on that they are tolerated at a minimum to having overt support from those that have a political majority in American government right now.
I don't like the idea of people being allowed to threaten others, and there are laws that criminalize any overt call to harm others. Are any of these "three percent" groups making any overt calls to harm others? It appears that they might not be completely sane and logical but I see no harm. I might not like what they say but I am not going to lift a finger to stop them. I fear censorship more than whatever these people might post on FaceBook.
The general rule was that the government was prohibited from impeding free speech but with how things work today that might not be enough any more. It used to be that to get people's attention it took posting fliers, having people shout from the streets, and similar "low tech" means of communications that did not rely on the compliance of some utility or private corporation to get the word out. With more of our communications moving to electronic networks we may need government to step in and prohibit corporations like FaceBook from censoring things that they don't like. A common reply to any complaints of 1st Amendment protections being violated by removal from popular online forums is that the US Constitution only applies to government agents, not any private entity. Well, if the popular means of communications all colluded to silence some group over their political beliefs then there is no speaking freely any more. At that point we should have government protections to force private corporations to allow speech that they'd rather not see spread.
But then you did say "monitor" and not censor so I may be going on a tangent here. The solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. If groups that pose a hazard to society are driven underground then we might be ignorant of any real threat such groups pose, and they can use this ignorance to their advantage. I want to know if there's "kooks" saying hateful things, that way I can speak out against them and prepare a defense. What's the best defense against an armed militia? Probably raising a militia of my own. I do not believe it is an accident that the founders of the USA put protections of speech 1st on their list of rights protected with the right to arms as 2nd. There's no speaking freely if there's someone able to cause harm if they don't like what you say. It's the "four boxes of liberty", soap box, ballot box, jury box, and cartridge box. Please use them in that order.
Re: Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points for you today. This reminds me of what Slashdot used to be like 20 years ago.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Kooks is kooks, and need tabs kept on them when possible. It is fortunate that these extremists choose to provide public access points to identify and monitor their activities.
But then you did say "monitor" and not censor so I may be going on a tangent here.
Yup, monitoring is not censorship. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. And others are likewise legally allowed to read them.
But extremism is a real thing, and some people end up going off the deep end.
So there is also the concept of liability. If someone promotes an armed insurrection on a particular date on a public forum, and it happens, there will be a lot of finger pointing, asking why no one was paying attention. Probably why Amazon got rid of an extremist group hosted on its servers. Get something bad enough and end up in court.
Ironically, some of the same people promoting insurrection and using social media want social media held responsible for anything that is posted on it. That is contradictory, but it shows their ideology and plans to a certain extent.
Re: (Score:2)
"But extremism is a real thing, and some people end up going off the deep end."
No doubt but it is also a relative thing. One person's extreme might include being ready to use armed force to prevent an illegitimate President from assuming office, another might consider hiding medical treatments from a child's parent extreme or telling a kindergartener boy that with a few pills and genital mutilation surgeries he can transform into a girl and if his parents don't go along they are engaging in child abuse.
One
Re: (Score:3)
Are any of these "three percent" groups making any overt calls to harm others?
Four of them [apnews.com] tried to overthrow the government on January 6th.
The four men joined a telegram chat with Hostetter and Taylor called “The California Patriots - DC Brigade” to coordinate plans for coming to Washington. Taylor posted that he created the group for “fighters” who were expected to bring “weaponry” and body armor with them to Washington on Jan. 6, according to prosecutors.
Warner, Martinez, Kinnison and Mele drove cross country together days before the riot. On Jan. 6, Warner entered the Capitol through a broken window. Meanwhile, Martinez, wearing a tactical vest, and Kinnison, who was wearing a gas mask, joined rioters on the Capitol’s Upper West Terrace, according to the indictment. Mele, who was also wearing a tactical vest, proclaimed “Storm the Capitol!” in a “selfie” style video on the stairs of the building, prosecutors say.
Another, also trying to overthrow the government [theguardian.com] on January 6th, stated he wanted to drag Speaker Pelosi down the steps, hitting her head on every one of them.
As for other terror groups, another terrorist [apnews.com] wanted to kill U.S. border patrol agents.
Two other terrorists [dallasnews.com] were indicted when they threatened to kill FBI agents and any others who tried to stop them.
Three terrori [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well stated sir.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they are often smart enough not to cross the line into criminality. They just rely on radicalizing people until one of them snaps and goes on a rampage, which they disavow publicly but aren't too upset about privately.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
It is fortunate that these extremists choose to provide public access points to identify and monitor their activities.
They're not extremists. They're terrorists. Their goal is to use force to affect a political, governmental, or societal change. They don't accept lawful restrictions on themselves or their activities. Many are part of the "sovereign" citizen cult. Several of these terrorists were arrested [yahoo.com] as part of the January 6ty insurrection and tried to use the, "You have no power over me" defense, even as they were being taken away to jail or, oddly enough, followed the court ordered remunerations. They don't want to pay taxes or yield to authority while at the same time partaking of everything this country has to offer. Effectively, they're leeches.
This story is nothing new. Three years ago [imgur.com] a former gun executive warned of these terror groups being formed [rawstory.com] to attack democracy.
Good? (Score:3)
I mean, if they're dumb enough to coordinate in an easily-accessible space, they're really helping law enforcement keep tabs on them for less public expense.
Maybe give them a few days off their eventual sentences for that as a reward.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are that many different groups you can guarantee that they'll spend far more time fighting each other than they ever will fighting the government. Infighting has always been the largest opponent of revolutionary groups, and in the US the three letter agencies encourage it.
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has happened all around the world lots of times (yes including but by no means exclusively the Brownshirts) and yes I do think Trump would welcome such support, based on his past actions and statements so far. And yes I do think he would fire the head of the FBI to protect this type of activity, since he already did that to protect himself once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope we can all agree it is a serious issue when law enforcement takes some grumbling malcontents and deliberately acts to elevate them to an actual threat in order to justify a wider crackdown on malcontents.
That's just authoritarianism with extra steps. You should be free to grumble (but not free to kill people over your grumblings).
Re:Good? (Score:5, Informative)
No, typically only authoritarians want groups primed for stochastic terrorism on their behalf. It is appropriate to single out Trump for this, as he has used various groups of useful idiots for this purpose already.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think there's a secret Biden-led Democrat plot behind that. Adjust your hat, the tinfoil is too tight.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to use reason and logic. The people who disagree with you know that reason and logic are constructs of white privilege and the patriarchy.
And whatever is white and patriarchal is bad. So sayeth us all.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Did you see all the Trump supporting organized extremists that took over the universities for the past 10 days blocking Jews from going to class and chanting that they wanted to kill Jews?
I didn't see that. You know why? Because that's not a real thing.
Re: Good? (Score:2)
I was being sarcastic and trying to point out that they were democrats.
Re: Good? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, pointing out jew hatred and antisemitism would have earned you some mod points.
Today, it only works if the person you are accusing is orange, or orange-adjacent.
So, it's okay to notice neo-nazis at Charlottesville, but it's not okay to notice them at Columbia.
Re: Good? (Score:3)
Antisemitism is a meaningless word. Are you talking about people who want to see Netanyahu's government collapse? Or maybe you're talking about people who don't support apartheid?
Re: Good? (Score:2)
A live example of the old cartoon with someone sawing-off the tree limb that theyâ(TM)re perched on.
More than 100 Facebook groups? (Score:3)
If they were any good, they would only need one Facebook group.
Re: (Score:2)
Give them a break, they've only just started co-ordinating on Facebook, and they're still trying to work out that whole 'rub the sticks together for fire' thingy.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were any good, they would only need one Facebook group.
If Democrats were competent, they wouldn’t need to illegally open a border to secure millions of illegal votes while claiming voter ID laws are “racist” in a country addicted to demanding ID for damn near everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, boomer.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
There is an increasing public perception that law and order is circling the drain, especially in urban areas. The rise of vigilante behavior isn't particularly surprising when there are a large number of people who don't feel like the government is doing an adequate job of protecting them from criminals.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And that perception is idiotic. Urban areas are fine. It's the rural hellholes where these idiots are playing with their toys that are getting more and more dangerous because of criminals like these militias.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Uh... ignore the scaremongering politicians and search for "us crime rate by year".
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... ignore the scaremongering politicians and search for "us crime rate by year".
I see. And should I ask the left-wing organization, the left-wing organization, or the left-wing organization for that truncated data protecting the politicians who keep saying everything’s fine?
Like asking for flu statistics circa 2020-2022. Good luck finding anything that resembles accuracy. If crime were actually down, the mainstream media would have an easy time selling it. They don’t, because reality tends to make selling it a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. And should I ask the left-wing organization, the left-wing organization, or the left-wing organization for that truncated data protecting the politicians who keep saying everything’s fine?
No just look at the actual raw numbers. If you feel the need to assign a label to them simply because they disagree with your world view then you are the problem, not the numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
crime has been up for several years. that's not a disputable fact.
You are correct. It is actually not a fact at all.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an increasing public perception that law and order is circling the drain, especially in urban areas. The rise of vigilante behavior isn't particularly surprising when there are a large number of people who don't feel like the government is doing an adequate job of protecting them from criminals.
Why do you suppose people feel this way, when crime rates have been dropping in most of the United States for years, especially in urban areas?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you suppose people feel this way, when crime rates have been dropping in most of the United States for years, especially in urban areas?
Because a certain political party doesn't have a platform, and thus need a boogey man to run against.
Even if it's just made up.
Re: (Score:3)
The left has lost the plot, Black Parrot.
This video (who has speakers who were past NPR hosts) explains it really well.
https://youtu.be/PPvNucxB7TI [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
That is demonstrably false. You must get your "news" from NPR.
Well, then, demonstrate for the benefit of the class.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Both violent and property crime rates, overall, in the United States, have dropped significantly in the past 30 years. It's always possible to cherry pick a large statistical set for outliers, as you're doing, but the overall statistics say otherwise.
Police budgets have grown, not shrunk. While some people have advocated for the defunding of police, that doesn't make it so. Police budgets continue to grow at a staggering rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Both violent and property crime rates, overall, in the United States, have dropped significantly in the past 30 years. It's always possible to cherry pick a large statistical set for outliers
The fuck good is a 30-year long statistic when it comes to crime that’s happening in your face today? You really think the woman who was raped yesterday is going to feel better once you tell her that rape statistics are down?
Show me the last 30 days, not the last 30 years. Then you can talk about how much more safe we should all feel today, since the safety of me and my family is relevant to today, not 30 years ago.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
https://usafacts.org/state-of-... [usafacts.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
who don't feel like the government is doing an adequate job of protecting them from criminals.
Protect yourself. Courts have held [wikipedia.org] that the government has no duty to protect you.
Re: (Score:2)
who don't feel like the government is doing an adequate job of protecting them from criminals.
Protect yourself. Courts have held [wikipedia.org] that the government has no duty to protect you.
And how do we protect ourselves from the elected traitors hell-bent on taking 2A Rights away from citizens wanting to protect themselves again? Do I just vote, or should I first lobby to raise the voting age to somewhere north of 25 first?
Re: (Score:2)
raise the voting age to somewhere north of 25 first?
I'm not certain that will do anything to defend the 2A on the face of it. There are just as many young people interested in shooting sports as there are boomers.
But pegging the voting age to the same as the right to keep and bear arms might be one approach. If one is responsible enough to own arms, one is responsible enough to vote.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
The "increasing public perception" is just that, a perception created by the media for eyeballs. The reality is that violent crime is falling, has been falling for three decades, and there is no expectation that trend is likely to change any time soon. On the other hand political violence is rising, again to large extent because of the media. My recommendation to you would be to start to look a lot more critically at your media consumption, look for factual data rather than emotional statements (as few and far between as they may be).
Re: (Score:2)
the specific political party that tends to welcome crime
The Uniparty? Admittedly, the Democrats seem to be a bit more competent at getting away with graft and corruption than the Republicans, but that's mostly a matter of picking better staff. If the Repugs were to stop hiring sycophants and ideologues their conviction rate would drop dramatically.
Or were you referring to the Prison Industrial Complex? That's been a bipartisan effort since the '90s, with Biden leading the way and Gingrich close behind to get to the point where we have locked up a larger number and a larger percentage of the population than any other country on the planet. Both parties equally oppose applying anything like rationality or evidence to the problem of recidivism, with the result that a larger percentage of our criminals continue their life of crime after leaving prison than even most Third World countries. Keeps the private prison industry fat and happy, and a prison in almost every congressional district at full occupancy, so the money keeps rolling in. Bipartisanism at its worst.
Did you know that the Untied States has had an "Immigration Crisis" about once a generation since its founding? Go look at the news from pretty much any time period in the last two and a half centuries and conservatives of the time will be crying for a solution to the "crisis" of immigration of Irish, Italian, Chinese, Mexican, German, Vietnamese, and pretty much ever other large group of "undesirables" to arrive on this continent. They're ALWAYS accused of bringing crime, prostitution, often drugs, frequently communism/socialism, and generally are predicted to be about to overwhelm the prevailing society. Like the eternal fearmongering about raising the minimum wage, nothing ever happens and the noise dies down, until the next time when the past is completely forgotten and conservatives again get their panties in a twist. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
And yes, I know why they closed. It's for exactly the same reason why the Walmart in my exceedingly safe suburban neighborhood closed. Walmart didn't make the earnings that they expected from smaller stores, so they closed them and returned to their traditional superstores.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes it really funny when Trump was whining how nobody was showing up to support him at his trials. Well you kept telling people cities are nothing but crime ridden urban hellscapes. No wonder they're scared to go.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an increasing public perception that law and order is circling the drain, especially in urban areas. The rise of vigilante behavior isn't particularly surprising when there are a large number of people who don't feel like the government is doing an adequate job of protecting them from criminals.
Except these aren't vigilantes. They aren't running around trying to be Batman catching criminals. They're (incompetently) organizing and training their own private armies for a future military conflict.
The goal isn't to stop crime, the goal is to have that private army ready for when there's a civil war and/or anarchy. If that happens you're in a position to play power broker by joining the fight, or maybe even rule your own little region if government really collapses like in the post-apocalyptic stories.
Extremist Militias (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're definitely white. Let's reverse things. Spend a day walking the streets of Haiti or the DRC and let me know your opinion.
You’re definitely not thinking logically. Spend a day walking the streets of America and realize 200+ militias haven’t changed a damn thing with regards to your overall risk.
Just because other countries chose to define what a “militia” is through violent action, doesn’t mean American militias will automatically do the same. You’re being quite racist by assuming so.
No girls allowed tree house club (Score:2)
But those are adults, so they can't call it that.
Thats fine (Score:2)
Im unconcerned and actually support their right to exist. Generally in the US, your allowed to have hateful, ignorant, even dangerous views. As long as you dont act on them, the gov will quietly watch and not mess with your life. Its a big part of what distinguishes us from, say, other countries and cultures that are presenting themselves as alternate world leaders
The US
Similar to the Patriot Front (Score:2)
Created and manned by feds.
Re: (Score:3)
Which feds? FBI? CIA? US Marshalls? The IRS?
Why would a federal agency hire slack jaws to cosplay as extremists? To curtail your "freedoms"? Which freedom specifically? I know a guy who actually talked about grabbing guns but the statement is always overlooked.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns
Re: (Score:3)
They don’t get pulled over or ticketed because local cops are members of these groups.
Re: (Score:2)
The only evidence for your claim is the exact evidence for my questioning... the lack of arrests.
Other than that, nothing.
The problem with your assertion though is that the non-occurence of arrests lacks a motive (for the non-arrests). In any situation where there's a corrupt cop who has associated with the mob, or some skinhead group, or some such thing, there's always one or more co-workers who recognize the corrupt dude and is/are willing to rat him out - the bad guy has a motive to cover-up and not arre
Unlike the non-extremist militias then (Score:2)
Because there aren't any.
Meal Team Six (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh good, more of Meal Team Six and the Christian Taliban. These people cried about wearing masks for two years and now they have no problems wearing them when they're doing military cosplay. Judging by the beer guts they all sport, an "undesirable" would only need to run a block or two to escape them.
And oddly enough they only every wave Trump flags.
FBI groups (Score:2)
Let's all pay attention to the diversion! (Score:2)
Now why does an article like this get publicized and posted?
Could it be that we need to remind the proles that the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary defines "antigovernment militancy" as a strictly rightwing phenomenon?
Of course! Why if we didn't regularly issue such helpful reminders, the poor naive fucks might pick up a newspaper, see organized packs of leftists repeating terrorist slogans, and think that the left *isn't* all smiles und sunshine.
Can't have that, dear boy.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti government has been right wing for decades. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, all right wing extremists.
Re: (Score:2)
Antifa, BLM, and even Feds involved in Jan 6 prove how left-wing extremists have taken that job now.
Not to mention you conveniently forgot about anti government groups like the Black Panthers.
All right-wing? Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
Antifa, BLM, and even Feds involved in Jan 6 prove how left-wing extremists have taken that job now.
You think Jan 6th was left wing? Well I'm about to blow up your argument. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/04... [npr.org]
Why would Trump pardon left wing extremists?
Not to mention you conveniently forgot about anti government groups like the Black Panthers.
All right-wing? Nice try.
The Black Panthers exercising their second amendment rights caused governor Ronald Reagan AND the NRA to get rid of open carry laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why does Ronald Reagan hate the second amendment?
Define “Extreme” Please. (Score:3)
Without getting deep into the political weeds here, can anyone explain how an identified militia is automatically assumed as “extremists” in America? When exactly did the 2nd Amendment get modified to make that concept null and void again?
Based on what many a non-violent not-an-extremist American citizen has blatantly witnessed and endured directly with regards to the no-gun-rights anti-gun movement in America, that militia the Constitution identified as necessary for the security of a Free State, is quite justified.
So I ask again, what automatically makes the 200+ militia-type groups “extremists”? Not even the overwhelming majority involved in a self-prescribed “riot” on January 6th are considered “extremists” by the Government, and they actually did more than sit behind a keyboard and spew patriot rhetoric.
Of course they are (Score:2)
Meanwhile ... (Score:2)
Re:Next Up, Blacks & Hispanics (Score:4, Informative)
Every damn one of them think the South should rise again
That was the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the party of the south.
150 years ago, the party of the south called themselves "democrats" and the party of the north called themselves "republicans". In the early-to-mid 1900's the two parties swapped policies and voter-bases, so it doesn't make sense to think of the historical parties in terms of what today's parties call themselves.
Re: Next Up, Blacks & Hispanics (Score:2)
Swapped policies? Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just because people say it doesn't make it true. All the evidence suggests that as racism became gauche, the elitist Democrats caught up to the Republicans on racism=bad. When the Democrat leadership started virtue signalling to prove they felt white guilt, the core racist wing of the party abandoned it, not because Republicans were racist, but because they weren't constantly talking about racial justice.
Importantly, no the policies of the p
Re: (Score:2)
It was both major parties.
The abolitionist movement was promoted in British Colonies (and the USA) by the Quakers. Like Richard M Nixon and his ilk.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm not saying their all nazis, all I'm saying is when you keep having nazis show up on your behalf, you might just have a nazi problem.
For those I have now angered, you're going to scream "those are feds!"
Which federal agency? The FBI? It's lead by a Trump appointee. You think they get professional effects artists to airbrush tattoos every day on these false flag nazis? They also seem to be able to breathe just fine while wearing a mask.
Re: Next Up, Blacks & Hispanics (Score:2)
No he's talking about Nazis like the ones committing genocide in Gaza.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The site has been infested with Libertardians for years, their population ebbs and flows, but they're constantly present, kind of like the smell of the neighbor's chicken coop. It never ceases to amaze me that a fact-oriented web site is populated with so many fact-adverse Libertards.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you wish to be a subject of the All-Glorious State I'm sure you can find one. Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea come immediately to mind.
Re: Next Up, Blacks & Hispanics (Score:2)
Re:Let the idiots track themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
These are the dumb ones. The ones who actually have OPSEC are scary. That was the McVeigh thing in a nutshell.
And before everyone gets too hot and bothered about the topic, my sister got killed in the Murrah building, working the recruiting station there. In fact, you can find pictures of me in most of those 1995 picture books from OKC.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the dumb ones. The ones who actually have OPSEC are scary. That was the McVeigh thing in a nutshell.
I'm not worried about the LARPers directly, but my worry is this kind of coordination helps them promote and normalize extremism, and that can radicalize the scary ones. For instance, a few of these nutters showed up to the Jan 6th protests and generally wandered around confused once they got in the building. Having watched that are a few folks with OPSEC going to show up to the next Jan 6th with a real plan to do real damage in place?
And before everyone gets too hot and bothered about the topic, my sister got killed in the Murrah building, working the recruiting station there. In fact, you can find pictures of me in most of those 1995 picture books from OKC.
I'm sorry for your loss.
Re: (Score:2)
"These are the dumb ones. The ones who actually have OPSEC are scary. That was the McVeigh thing in a nutshell."
Dude, McVeigh was a loner and unaffiliated with any militia group. The feds claimed to have found a card from having once visited a militia group in his stuff. If there was an OP involved with McVeigh then it would have been a fed OP to do the whole thing just to establish negative sentiment toward patriot groups which were gaining serious momentum at that point post-waco. The entire movement expe
Re: (Score:2)
If only the TLAs handled them with the Jihadist-level seriousness they deserve, then their complete lack of opsec would actually threaten their operations...I don't think Jan 6th caused any significant change their sadly. US law enforcement and intellligence agencies still handle domestic right-wing militias with kid gloves.