Category Archives: Liberal Press

Coffee & Covid. Monday, May 23, 2022: BABY AIRLIFT

He is not making this stuff up.  They couldn’t make it up on SNL. “And you are voting for who?”  mrossol

*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY*

🔥 Late last week, Elon Musk went shopping for lawyers on Twitter. He tweeted, “Tesla is building a hardcore litigation department … [that] will report directly to me. Please send 3 to 5 bullet points describing evidence of exceptional ability.”

In a followup, Musk promised that, if defending a lawsuit, he would never try to win a lawsuit if the people suing Tesla were justified. And he pledged that if the claims were unjust, he would never settle.

In a further followup, possibly explaining why he was using a non-traditional way to find counsel, Musk said he was “Looking for hardcore streetfighters, not white-shoe lawyers … There will be blood.”

I have to admit, it sounds like fun. What do you think? Should I throw my helmet into the Thunderdome? Or keep on fighting for the Constitution? Let me know in the comments.

🔥 Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro said late last week that he won’t be signing any WHO “pandemic treaty.” Maybe we should reject it, too?

🔥 Over the weekend, the hashtag “#BillGatesBioTerrorist” secured the top spot on Twitter.

🔬 JAMA published a research letter last week titled, “Routine Surveillance and Vaccination on a University Campus During the Spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant.” The researches studied nearly 20,000 Cornell students’ de-identified covid data. Check out the conclusion:

Cornell’s experience shows that traditional public health interventions were not a match for Omicron. While vaccination protected against severe illness, it was not sufficient to prevent rapid spread, even when combined with other public health measures including widespread surveillance testing.

It’s not clear how they determined that the jabs protected against severe illness because the students are in one of the least affected demographics anyway.

The bottom line is, Cornell required its elite students to wear masks, get boosted (97% jabbed), PCR tests every week, and be immediately contact traced. In spite of all that “safety” nonsense, the mask mandates completely failed, and 98.6% of reported covid cases were breakthrough infections.

When will the public health experts concede that all their dumb ideas blew up on the launch pad creating a bill for injuries that is still being calculated? Could it have something to do with how it only took 14 months to go from “I will shut down the virus” and “build back better” to “there WILL be food shortages?”

📈 Gas was $7.29 a gallon in LA yesterday. Over just the last two weeks, the average price of gas in the US reached $4.71 per gallon, and JP Morgan predicted an average of $6 a gallon by August, which seems, well, optimistic at this rate.

🔥 Over the weekend, former senator Joe Biden tweeted that his Administration just delivered “70,000 tons” of infant formula to Indiana.

The problem was, it was 70,000 POUNDS, not tons. Pounds, Joe. Sadly, we have a disinformer at the top of the government, somebody should probably call the gov … oh. Never mind. Anyway, they deleted his tweet after a short period of relentless Twitter mocking, I mean misinformation, sorry, I mean domestic terrorism.

I have SO many questions about this story. It ran with great fanfare over the weekend, with stories showing a tarmacked C-150 cargo plane loaded with pallets of … something, I guess it could be baby formula. We trust the media, right?

Anyway. Why is the MILITARY airlifting baby formula? To INDIANA. Are we a third-world country now? Don’t answer that. The question is, why not Fedex? I mean, Fedex SPECIALIZES in delivering retail products fast. That’s their WHOLE JOB. Or what about AMAZON? Or, why not just ship the formula straight to Indiana in a couple semi’s, right in the containers it came in? And, where did the formula COME FROM? Why can’t WE just order the formula for ourselves, right from the source? Do they have a website?

The whole thing looks just like those staged Chinese psyop photo ops in the New York Times showing thirty government workers unloading ten boxes of food from the back of a semi in Shanghai. Totally staged. Totally fake. Makes no sense.

Stop propagandizing us.

🔥 ABC News ran a story last week headlined, “Carbon Removal Technologies To Get $3.5B Federal Investment.” The sub-head explained, “The federal government is investing in machines that suck giant amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air in the hopes of reducing damage from climate change.”

Spoiler alert. In the 2006 movie “Idiocracy,” time travelers discovered that the future US was starving because the government required farmers to use orange soda instead of water on their crops. But they had no idea why the plants were dying.

Now it’s 2022, and it’s real life. Don’t plants NEED carbon dioxide? I mean, even if these newly-enriched contractors COULD build billion-dollar machines big enough to make a difference, and even if the machines WOULDN’T create more carbon than they remove from the air, setting all those valid objections aside, what if the machines ACTUALLY WORK? Are they SURE there won’t be any unintended consequences? How do the plants feel about this?

We’ve GOT to be in a simulation, right? And it has a new head programmer with a really twisted sense of humor? Please tell me I’m dreaming all this.

🙈 Yesterday, the Epoch Times published an article headlined, “Biden Sounds Alarm on Monkeypox as CDC Alerts American Doctors.” Speaking to reporters in South Korea, Biden said the pox is something “everybody should be concerned about,” adding, “We’re working on it hard” — that’s what SHE said — “to figure out what we do and what vaccine, if any, may be available for it.”

Great, a new vaccine. According to Epoch, as of May 21st, about 80 cases of monkeypox have been reported in Australia, the United States, Canada, and Europe. Weird how the small number of cases unnaturally broke out all over the world at the same time.

BBC News ran an article this morning headlined, “World faces big challenges over Covid, monkeypox and wars – WHO.” For some reason the story is tagged on the BBC’s website with “Russia-Ukraine War.”

The WHO held an “emergency meeting” yesterday to discuss the new outbreak. That’s not our only problem. Channeling multiple chapters from the Book of Revelation, WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “We face a formidable convergence of disease, drought, famine and war, fuelled by climate change, inequity and geopolitical rivalry.”

Geopolitical rivalry and wars? Since when is that the WHO’s business?

Regarding the pox, experts are baffled. The pox appears to be genetically identical to an already existing strain, and the BBC said “currently there is little evidence to suggest this is a new variant.”

Who needs evidence?

🙈 Reminder: there was a monkeypox outbreak in six states in the US in 2003, supposedly from, and I am not making this up, infected pet prairie dogs. At that time, there were 72 cases reported, most of which were mild, and no deaths. In July 2021, there was a case of monkeypox reported in Dallas, and in November, one in Maryland. Right now in 2022 we only have a few reported cases in the US. So why the freakout? Could it have anything to do with elevated levels of shingles (i.e., chickenPOX)?

💉 The White House’s Covid Czar, Dr. Ashish Jha, predicted this weekend that Americans will have to deal with covid by regularly taking vaccines — for the indefinite future.

CNN’s John Berman asked Jha, “what does that mean? Does that mean we are going to be getting shots every six months? My wife just got her fourth shot, right, she had her two initial shots plus a booster, plus a booster. Are we talking two shots a year?”

Jha replied, “in the short run, yeah, like, we have had to boost people about every six months. Over the long run, I am confident we will develop more durable vaccines, the virus will also settle down. And so my hope is over the long run, this comes down to maybe a once a year shot, but right now we’re having to boost people a little bit more frequently because of how quickly the virus has continued to evolve.”

MY hope is that Jha doesn’t get HIS hope.

*THE MINORITY REPORT*

🚀 Yesterday, the Epoch Times ran a story headlined, “Gen. Milley Warns West Point Graduates of Likelihood of War With Russia, China.” General Mark Milley is the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs. His pronouns are he/him and they/them. Mercifully, Milley still identifies as male. No offense, ladies.

Milley addressed the graduates with the cheerful message that the US is rapidly losing its military advantage on the global stage, that Chinese artificial intelligence bots will ’swarm’ our soldiers and battle tech with tiny killer robots, and that “the world you’re being commissioned into has the potential for significant international conflict between great powers — and that potential is increasing, not decreasing.”

What could be making the potential for world conflict increase? It’s baffling.

Have a marvelous Monday! I’ll see you guys back here tomorrow morning.

Share

You can help get the truth out and spread optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-

MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Twitter: @jchilders98
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-may-23-2022?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyODc2Mzg5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTYyMDUyNjksIl8iOiJPZjdrMSIsImlhdCI6MTY1MzMyODA3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjUzMzMxNjc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNDYzNDA5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.Ds3eUM4lkpWsxq766E6MbxZ7RDgJvJJjHhLxP5fGlUg&s=r

Share

The Demented – and Selective – Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings

By Glenn Greenwald

All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground.

May 15 Comment Share

Buffalo Police on scene at a Tops Friendly Market on May 14, 2022 in Buffalo, New York. At least 10 people were killed after a mass shooting at the store with the shooter in police custody. (Photo by John Normile/Getty Images)

NOTE: This article is longer than the Substack email delivery system permits. To read the full article, please click on this link, and select the top article.

At a softball field in a Washington, DC suburb on June 14, 2017, a lone gunman used a rifle to indiscriminately spray bullets at members of the House GOP who had gathered for their usual Saturday morning practice for an upcoming charity game. The then-House Majority Whip, Rep. Steven Scalise (R-LA), was shot in the hip while standing on second base and almost died, spending six weeks in the hospital and undergoing multiple surgeries. Four other people were shot, including two members of the Capitol Police who were part of Scalise’s security detail, a GOP staffer, and a Tyson Foods lobbyist. “He was hunting us at that point,” Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI) said of the shooter, who attempted to murder as many people as he could while standing with his rifle behind the dugout.

The shooter died after engaging the police in a shootout. He was James T. Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old hard-core Democrat who — less than six months into the Trump presidency — had sought to kill GOP lawmakers based on his belief that Republicans were corrupt traitors, fascists, and Kremlin agents. The writings he left behind permitted little doubt that he was driven to kill by the relentless messaging he heard from his favorite cable host, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and other virulently anti-Trump pundits, about the evils of the GOP. Indeed, immediately after arriving at the softball field, he asked several witnesses whether the people gathered “were Republicans or Democrats.”

A CNN examination of his life revealed that “Hodgkinson’s online presence was largely defined by his politics.” In particular, “his public Facebook posts date back to 2012 and are nearly all about his support for liberal politics.” He was particularly “passionate about tax hikes on the rich and universal health care.” NBC News explained that “when he got angry about politics, it was often directed against Republicans,” and acknowledged that “Hodgkinson said his favorite TV program was ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ on MSNBC.”

Indeed, his media diet was a non-stop barrage of vehement animosity toward Republicans: “His favorite television shows were listed as ‘Real Time with Bill Maher;’ ‘The Rachel Maddow Show;’ ‘Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” On the Senate floor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) divulged that Hodgkinson was an ardent supporter of his and had even “apparently volunteered” for his campaign. A Sanders supporter told The Washington Post that “he campaigned for Bernie Sanders with Hodgkinson in Iowa.”

The mass-shooter had a particular fondness for Maddow’s nightly MSNBC show. In his many Letters to the Editor sent to the Belleville News-Democrat, reported New York Magazine, he “expressed support for President Obama, and declared his love for The Rachel Maddow Show”. In one letter he heralded Maddow’s nightly program as “one of my favorite TV shows.”

While consuming this strident and increasingly rage-driven Trump-era, anti-GOP media diet, Hodgkinson “joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including ‘Terminate The Republican Party’; ‘The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans’;, and ‘Join The Resistance Worldwide!!'” Two of his consuming beliefs were that Trump-era Republicans were traitors to the United States and fascist white nationalists. In 2015, he had posted a cartoon depicting Scalise — the man he came very close to murdering — as speaking at a gathering of the KKK.

Once Trump was inaugurated in early 2017, the mass shooter’s online messaging began increasingly mirroring the more extreme anti-Trump and anti-GOP voices that did not just condemn the GOP’s ideology but depicted them as grave threats to the Republic. In a March 22 Facebook post, Hodgkinson wrote: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” In February, he posted: “Republicans are the Taliban of the USA.” In one Facebook post just days before his shooting spree, Hodgkinson wrote: “I Want to Say Mr. President, for being an ass hole you are Truly the Biggest Ass Hole We Have Ever Had in the Oval Office.” As NBC News put it: “Hodgkinson’s Facebook postings portray him as stridently anti-Republican and anti-Trump.”

Despite the fact that Hodgkinson was a fanatical fan of Maddow, Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, and Sanders, that the ideas and ideology motivating his shooting spree perfectly matched — and were likely shaped by — liberals of that cohort, and that the enemies whom he sought to kill were also the enemies of Maddow and her liberal comrades, nobody rational or decent sought to blame the MSNBC host, the Vermont Senator or anyone else whose political views matched Hodgkinson’s for the grotesque violence he unleashed. The reason for that is clear and indisputable: as strident and extremist as she is, Maddow has never once encouraged any of her followers to engage in violence to advance her ideology, nor has she even hinted that a mass murder of the Republican traitors, fascists and Kremlin agents about whom she rants on a nightly basis to millions of people is a just solution.

It would be madness to try to assign moral or political blame to them. If we were to create a framework in which prominent people were held responsible for any violence carried out in the name of an ideology they advocate, then nobody would be safe, given that all ideologies have their misfits, psychopaths, unhinged personality types, and extremists. And thus there was little to no attempt to hold Maddow or Sanders responsible for the violent acts of one of their most loyal adherents.

The same is true of the spate of mass shootings and killings by self-described black nationalists over the last several years. Back in 2017, the left-wing group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) warned of the “Return of the Violent Black Nationalist.” In one incident, “Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed Dallas police officers during a peaceful protest against police brutality, killing five officers and wounding nine others.” Then, “ten days later, Gavin Eugene Long shot six officers, killing three, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.” They shared the same ideology, one which drove their murderous spree:

Both Johnson and Long were reportedly motivated by their strong dislike of law enforcement, grievances against perceived white dominance, and the recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men under questionable circumstances, specifically the shooting deaths of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota . . .

Needless to say, the ideas that motivated these two black nationalists to murder multiple people, including police officers, is part of a core ideology that is commonly heard in mainstream media venues, expressed by many if not most of the nation’s most prominent liberals. Depicting the police as a white supremacist force eager to kill black people, “grievances against perceived white dominance,” and anger over “the white supremacism endemic in America’s system of governance from the country’s founding” are views that one routinely hears on MSNBC, CNN, from Democratic Party politicians, and in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Yet virtually nobody sought to blame Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jamelle Bouie or New York Times op-ed writers for these shooting sprees. Indeed, no blame was assigned to anti-police liberal pundits whose view of American history is exactly the same as that of these two killers — even though they purposely sought to murder the same enemies whom those prominent liberals target. Nobody blamed those anti-police liberals for the same reason they did not blame Maddow and Sanders for Hodgkinson’s shooting spree: there is a fundamental and necessary distinction between people who use words to express ideas and demonize perceived enemies, and those who decide to go randomly and indiscriminately murder in the name of that ideology.

Since that 2017 warning from the SPLC, there have been many more murders in the name of this anti-police and anti-white-supremacist ideology of black nationalism. In June of last year, the ADL said it had “linked Othal Toreyanne Resheen Wallace, the man arrested and accused of fatally shooting Daytona Beach Officer Jason Raynor on June 23, to several extremist groups preaching Black nationalism.” He had “participated in several events organized by the NFAC…best known for holding armed marches protesting racial inequality and police brutality.” He had a long history of citing and following prominent radical Black anti-police and anti-White ideologues.” Also in June of last year, a 25-year-old man named Noah Green drove a car into a Capitol Hill Police Officer, killing him instantly. The New York Times reported that he follows black nationalist groups, while a former college teammate “recalled that Mr. Green would often talk to fellow players about strategies to save and invest, emphasizing the need to close the wealth gap between white and Black America.”

Just last month, a self-identified black nationalist named Frank James went on a terrifying shooting spree in the New York City subway system that injured dozens. He had “posted material on social media linked to black identity extremist ideologies, including the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, BLM and an image of black nationalist cop-killer Micah Johnson.” Angie Speaks, the brilliant writer who voices the audio version of the articles for this Substack, reported in Newsweek that James had “posted prolifically on social media and hosted a YouTube channel where he expressed Black Nationalist leanings and racial grievances.” In 2019, The New York Times reported that “an assailant involved in the prolonged firefight in Jersey City, N.J., that left six people dead, including one police officer, was linked on Wednesday to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement,” and had written “anti-police posts.”

Most media outlets and liberal politicians correctly refused to assign blame to pundits and politicians who spew anti-police rhetoric, or who insist that the U.S. is a nation of white supremacy: the animating ideas of these murders. Yet in these cases, they go much further with their denialism: many deny that this ideology even exists at all.

“The made-up ‘Black Identity Extremist’ label is the latest example in a history of harassing and discrediting Black activists who dare to use their voices to call out white supremacy,” claimed the ACLU in 2019. PBS quoted a lawyer for an advocacy group as saying: “We’re deeply concerned about the FBI’s ‘black identity extremist’ designation. This is mere distraction from the very real threat of white supremacy…There is no such thing as black identity extremism.” The same year, The Intercept published an article headlined “The Strange Tale of the FBI’s Fictional ‘Black Identity Extremism’ Movement,” which claimed over and over that there is no such thing as black extremism and that any attempt to ascribe violence to this ideology is a lie invented by those seeking to hide the dangers of white supremacy.


It is virtually impossible to find any ideology on any part of the political spectrum that has not spawned senseless violence and mass murder by adherents. “The suspected killer of Dutch maverick politician Pim Fortuyn had environmentalist propaganda and ammunition at his home,” reported CBS News about the assassin, Volkert van der Graaf. Van der Graaf was a passionate animal rights and environmental activist who admitted “he killed the controversial right-wing leader because he considered him a danger to society.” Van der Graaf was particularly angry about what he believed was Fortuyn’s anti-Muslim rhetoric. As a result, “some supporters of Fortuyn had blamed Green party leader Paul Rosenmoeller for “demonizing Fortuyn before he was gunned down in May just before general elections.” In other words, simply because the Green Party leader was highly critical of Fortuyn’s ideology, some opportunistic Dutch politicians sought absurdly to blame him for Fortuyn’s murder by Van der Graaf. Sound familiar?

During the BLM and Antifa protests and riots of 2020, an Antifa supporter, Michael Reinoehl, was the leading suspect in the murder of a Trump supporter, Aaron J. Danielson, as he rode in a truck (Reinoehl himself was then killed by federal agents before being arrested in what appeared to be a deliberate extra-judicial execution, though an investigation cleared them of wrongdoing, as typically happens when federal agents are involved). In 2016, The New York Times reported that “the heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could, officials said Friday.” The Paper of Record noted that many believed that anti-police protests would eventually lead to violent attacks on police officers: it “was the kind of retaliatory violence that people have feared through two years of protests around the country against deaths in police custody.”

Then there are the murders carried out in the name of various religions. For the last three decades at least, debates have been raging about what level of responsibility, if any, should be assigned to radical Muslim preachers or Muslim politicians when individuals carry out atrocities and murders in the name of Islam. Liberals insist — correctly, in my view — that it is irresponsible and unfair to blame non-violent Muslims who preach radical versions of religious or political Islam for those who carry out violence in the name of those doctrines. Similar debates are heard with regard to Jewish extremists, such as the Israeli-American doctor Baruch Goldstein who “opened fire in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing 29 Muslim worshippers.” Many insist that the radical anti-Muslim speech of Israeli extremists is to blame, while others deny that there is any such thing as “Jewish terrorism” and that all blames lies solely with the individual who decided to resort to violence.

To be sure, there have been a large number of murders and other atrocities carried out in U.S. and the West generally in the name of right-wing ideologies, in the name of white supremacy, in the name of white nationalism. The difference, though, is glaring: when murders are carried out in the name of liberal ideology, there is a rational and restrained refusal to blame liberal pundits and politicians who advocate the ideology that animated those killings. Yet when killings are carried out in the name of right-wing ideologies despised by the corporate press and mainstream pundits (or ideologies that they falsely associate with conservatism), they instantly leap to lay blame at the feet of their conservative political opponents who, despite never having advocated or even implied the need for violence, are nonetheless accused of bearing guilt for the violence — often before anything is known about the killers or their motives.

In general, it is widely understood that liberal pundits and politicians are not to blame, at all, when murders are carried out in the name of the causes they support or against the enemies they routinely condemn. That is because, in such cases, we apply the rational framework that someone who does not advocate violence is not responsible for the violent acts of one’s followers and fans who kill in the name of that person’s ideas.

Indeed, this perfectly sensible principle was enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1982 unanimous free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. That case arose out of efforts by the State of Mississippi to hold leaders of the local NAACP chapter legally liable for violence carried out by NAACP members on the ground that the leaders’ inflammatory and rage-driven speeches had “incited” and “provoked” their followers to burn white-owned stores and other stores ignoring their boycott to the ground. In ruling in favor of the NAACP, the Court stressed the crucial difference between those who peacefully advocate ideas and ideologies, even if they do so with virulence and anger (such as NAACP leaders), and those who are “inspired” by those speeches to commit violence to advance that cause. “To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment,” ruled the Court.

This principle is not only a jurisprudential or constitutional one. It is also a rational one. Those who express ideas without advocating violence are not and cannot fairly be held responsible for those who decide to pick up arms in the name of those ideas, even if — as in the case of James Hodgkinson — we know for certain that the murderer listened closely to and was influenced by people like Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders. In such cases, we understand that it is madness, and deeply unfair, to exploit heinous murders to lay blame for the violence and killings on the doorsteps of our political adversaries.


But when a revolting murder spree is carried out in the name of right-wing ideas (or ideas perceived by the corporate press to be right-wing), everything changes — instantly and completely. In such cases, often before anything is known about the murderer — indeed, literally before the corpses are even removed from the ground where they lie — there is a coordinated effort to declare that anyone who holds any views in common with the murderer has “blood on their hands” and is essentially a co-conspirator in the massacre.

A very vivid and particularly gruesome display of this demented game was on display on Saturday night after a white 18-year-old, Payton Gendron, purposely targeted a part of Buffalo with a substantial black population. He entered a supermarket he knew was frequented largely by black customers and shot everyone he found, killing 10 people, most of them black. A lengthy, 180-page manifesto he left behind was filled with a wide variety of eclectic political views and ideologies.

In that manifesto, Gendron described himself as a “left-wing authoritarian” and “populist” (“On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist”). He heaped praise on an article in the socialist magazine Jacobin for its view that cryptocurrency and Bitcoin are fraudulent scams. He spoke passionately of the centrality and necessity of environmentalism, and lamented that “the state [has] long since heavily lost to its corporate backers.” He ranted against “corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit.” And he not only vehemently rejected any admiration for political conservatism but made clear that he viewed it as an enemy to his agenda: “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

But by far the overarching and dominant theme of his worldview — the ideology that he repeatedly emphasized was the animating cause of his murder spree — was his anger and fear that white people, which he defines as those of European descent, were being eradicated by a combination of low birth rates and mass immigration. He repeatedly self-identified as a “racist” and expressed admiration for fascism as a solution. His treatise borrowed heavily from, and at times outright plagiarized, large sections of the manifesto left behind by Brenton Tarrant, the 29-year-old Australian who in 2019 murdered 51 people, mostly Muslims, at two mosques in New Zealand. Gendron’s manifesto included a long list of websites and individuals who influenced his thinking, but made clear that it was Tarrant who was his primary inspiration. Other than extensive anti-Semitic sections which insisted that Jews are behind most of the world’s powerful institutions and accompanying problems, it was Tarrant’s deep concern about what he perceived is the disappearance of white people that was also Gendron’s principal cause:

If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number. To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman….

In 2050, despite the ongoing effect of sub-replacement fertility, the population figures show that the population does not decrease inline with the sub-replacement fertility levels, but actually maintains and, even in many White nations, rapidly increases. All through immigration. This is ethnic replacement. This is cultural replacement. This is racial replacement. This is WHITE GENOCIDE.

Within literally an hour of the news of this murder spree in Buffalo — far too little time for anyone to have even carefully read all or most of Gendron’s manifesto, and with very little known about his life or activities — much of the corporate press and liberal pundit class united to reveal the real culprit, the actual guilty party, behind this murder spree: Fox News host Tucker Carlson. So immediate and unified was this guilty verdict of mob justice that Carlson’s name trended all night on Twitter along with Buffalo and Gendron.

Twitter trending topics, May 14, 2022

The examples of liberal pundits instantly blaming Carlson for this murder are far too numerous to comprehensively cite. “Literally everyone warned Fox News and Tucker Carlson that this would happen and they fucking laughed and went harder,” decreed Andrew Lawrence of the incomparably sleazy and dishonest group Media Matters, spawned by ultimate sleaze-merchant David Brock. “The Buffalo shooter… subscribed to the Great Replacement theory touted by conservative elites like Tucker Carlson and believed by nearly half of GOP voters,” claimed The Washington Post‘s Emmanuel Felton. “See if you can tell the difference between [Gerdon’s manifesto on ‘white Replacement’] and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show,” said Georgetown Professor Don Moynihan. “The racist massacre in Buffalo rest [sic] at the feet of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the GOP,” decreed Hollywood’s nepotism prince Rob Reiner. The shooter was inspired by “a white nationalist conspiracy theory that Tucker Carlson has defended on his show,” was the verdict of The Huffington Post‘s Philip Lewis less than six hours after the shooting spree began. And on and on.

That Carlson was primarily responsible for the ten dead people in Buffalo was asserted despite the fact that there was no indication that Gendron even knew who Carlson was, that he had ever watched his show, that he was influenced by him in any way, or that he admired or even liked the Fox host. Indeed, in the long list of people and places which Gendron cited as important influences on him — “Brenton Tarrant, [El Paso shooter] Patrick Crusius, [California Jewish community center killer], John Earnest, [Norwegian mass murderer] Anders Breivik, [Charleston black church murderer] Dylann Roof, etc.” — nowhere does he even allude to let alone mention any Fox News host or Carlson.

To the contrary, Gendron explicitly describes his contempt for political conservatism. In a section entitled “CONSERVATISM IS DEAD, THANK GOD,” he wrote: “Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. Conservatism is dead. Thank god. Now let us bury it and move on to something of worth.” In this hated of conservatism, he copied his hero Brenton Tarrant, who also wrote that “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it,” adding about conservatives:

They don’t even BELIEVE in the race, they don’t even have the gall to say race exists. And above all they don’t even care if it does. It’s profit, and profit alone that drives them, all else is secondary. The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.

So desperate and uncontrolled was this ghoulish attempt to blame Carlson for the Buffalo shootings that my email inbox and social media feeds were festering with various liberal pundits demanding to know why I had not yet manifested my views of this shooting — as though it is advisable or even possible to formulate definitive opinions about a complex mass murder spree that had just taken place less than five hours before. “Still working on your talking points to defend your buddy Tucker or are you holding off on trying out your deflections until the bodies get cold?,” wrote a pundit named Jonathan Katz at 6:46 pm ET on Saturday night in a highly representative demand — just four hours after the shooter fired his first shot. Demands to assert definitive opinions about who — other than the killer — is to blame for a mass murder spree just hours after it happened can be called many things; “journalistic” and “responsible” are not among them.

As it happened, I was on an overnight international flight on Saturday and into Sunday morning; I deeply apologize for my failure to monitor and speak on Twitter twenty-four hours a day. But even if I had not been 40,000 feet in the air, what kind of primitive and despicably opportunistic mindset is required not only to opine so definitively about how your political opponents are guilty of a heinous crime before the corpses are even taken away, but to demand that everyone else do so as well? In fact, Katz was particularly adamant that I opine not just on the killings but on the list of pundits I thought should be declared guilty before, in his soulless words, “the bodies get cold” — meaning that I must speak out without bothering to take the time to try to understand the basic facts about the killer and the shootings before heaping blame on a wide range of people who had no apparent involvement.

But this is exactly the morally sick and exploitative liberal mentality that drives the discourse each time one of these shooting sprees happen. Rachel Maddow had far more known connections to Scalise’s shooter James Hodgkinson than Carlson has to Gendron. After all, as Maddow herself acknowledged, Hodgkinson was a fan of her show and had expressed his love and admiration for her. His animating views and ideology tracked hers perfectly, with essentially no deviation. And yet — despite this ample evidence that he was influenced by her — it would never occur to me to blame Maddow for Hodgkinson’s shooting spree because doing so would be completely demented, since Maddow never told or suggested to anyone that they go out and shoot the political enemies she was depicting as traitors, Kremlin agents, plotters to overthrow American democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, and grave menaces to civil rights and basic freedom.

The attempt to blame Carlson for the Buffalo shootings depended entirely on one claim: Carlson has previously talked about and defended the view that immigration is a scheme to “replace” Americans, and this same view was central to Gendron’s ideology. Again, even if this were true, it would amount to nothing more than a claim than the shooter shared key views with Carlson and other conservative pundits — exactly as Hodgkinson shared core views with Maddow and Sanders, or the numerous murderers who killed in the name of black nationalism shared the same views on the police and American history as any number of MSNBC hosts and Democratic Party politicians, or as Pim Fortuyn’s killer shared core views with animal rights activists and defenders of Muslim equality (including me). But nobody is willing to apply such a framework consistently because it converts everyone with strong political views into murderers, or at least being guilty of inciting murder.

But all bets are off — all such principles or moral and logical reasoning are dispensed with — when an act of violence can be pinned on the political enemies of liberals. If a homicidal maniac kills an abortion doctor, then all peaceful pro-life activists are blamed. If an LGBT citizen is killed, then anyone who shares the views that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had until 2012 about marriage equality is blamed. If a police officer unjustifiably kills a black citizen, all police supporters or those who dissent from liberal orthodoxy on racial politics are decreed guilty. But liberals are never at fault when right-wing politicians are murdered, or police officers are hunted and gunned down by police opponents, or an anti-abortion group is targeted with firebombing and arson, as just happened in Wisconsin, or radical Muslims engage in random acts of violence. By definition, “moral reasoning” that is applied only in one direction has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with crass, exploitative opportunism.

Though it does not actually matter for purposes of assigning blame, it is utterly false to claim that Carlson’s ideology — including on “replacement” — is the same as or even related to the views expressed by the killers in Buffalo or New Zealand. Indeed, in key respects, they are opposites. Both Tarrant and Gendron targeted citizens of the countries in which they carried out their murder spree. They justified doing so on the ground that any non-white citizen is automatically an “invader,” regardless of how long they have been in the country or how much legal status they have. “It would have eased me if I knew all the blacks I would be killing were criminals or future criminals, but then I realized all black people are replacers just by existing in White countries,” Gendron wrote.

To claim that Carlson ever said anything remotely like this or believes it is just an outright lie. Indeed, with great frequency, Carlson says that the priority of the U.S. Government should be protection of and concern for American citizens of all races. Tarrant and Gendron believe and explicitly say that any non-white citizen of a European country is automatically an “invader” who must be killed and/or deported to turn the country all-white. Carlson believes the exact opposite: that the proper citizenry of the United States is multi-racial and that Black Americans and Latin Americans and Asian-Americans are every bit as much U.S. citizens, with all of the same claims to rights and protections, as every other American citizen. His anti-immigration and “replacement” argument is aimed at the idea — one that had been long mainstream on the left until about a decade ago — that large, uncontrolled immigration harms American citizens who are already here. There is no racial hierarchy in Carlson’s view of American citizenship and to claim that there is is nothing short of a defamatory lie.

But even if these liberal smear artists were telling the truth, and Carlson’s view of immigration and “replacement” were similar or even precisely identical to Gendron’s, one could certainly say that Carlson holds immoral and despicable views. But he would still no more carry blame for the Buffalo murders than liberal pundits have blood on their hands for countless massacres carried out in the name of political causes they support and theories they espouse, whether it be animus toward the police or anti-imperialism or opposition to Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the belief that the United States is a fundamentally racist country or the view that the GOP is a fascist menace to all things decent.

The distinction between peaceful advocacy even of noxious ideas and those who engage in violence in the name of such ideas is fundamental to notions of fairness, justice and the ability to speak freely. But if you really want to claim that a public figure has “blood on their hands” every time someone murders in the name of ideas and ideologies they support, then the list of people you should be accusing or murder is a very, very long one indeed.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyODc2Mzg5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTQ5NTI4ODAsIl8iOiJyT0t6cCIsImlhdCI6MTY1Mjg4MDY3OCwiZXhwIjoxNjUyODg0Mjc4LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.qd6EU8DRWO-lI9xsr_RLAmzWEX9uXFwImMydOlBC7EM&s=r

Share

Silent No More: Voices Against Restrictions and Mandates

Silent No More: Voices Against Restrictions and Mandates

By Sarabeth Matilsky   April 27, 2022   Society   16 minute read SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL

Around the world, people are coming together to stand up for bodily autonomy, and against the widespread harm that emergency measures and covid mandates are having on society. We must find and support each other.

Here are a few voices: a white, Catholic NYPD lieutenant (unvaccinated, Covid-recovered) who was forced to take early retirement when his religious exemption was denied after having worked for the police department for 18 years; a black activist and employee at the MTA who wore a bulletproof vest to work in February to protest and bring attention to the dangerous working conditions for both workers and riders on the NYC transit system, and is vaccinated for Covid but tore up his vaccine card to protest the “racist and unconstitutional mandates”; a comedian who wrote a stand-up routine concerning his experience with Covid vaccine injury; and an activist who co-wrote the eloquent official statement released by the Black Caucus of the Minneapolis Green Party, denouncing Covid mandates.

Some of these interviews were conducted on behalf of the Children’s Health Defense by a woman who moved her family to Florida when her husband realized he would soon lose his job due to vaccine mandates…and a former special education teacher in the NYC public schools who continues to work, along with more than a thousand other NYC teachers, and many thousands of other formerly “essential workers”, to compel New York City to allow skilled professionals to have their jobs back without regard to vaccine status. Some of these voices are from Defeat the Mandates LA.

——

John Macari

I was a lieutenant with the police department for 18 years, with zero disciplinary history. I was preparing for the captain’s exam to move up through the ranks of the NYPD. I get in my car the first day of the lockdown, and I thank God that I have this job, that I get to try to bring order to chaos in this city. 

I worked through the whole summer of the riots, every day. 

I was out there _every day_. For the first six months, no police officers wore masks. I supported the order to wear them when we started, because it was the same for everyone, and no one was being treated differently.

I contracted Covid prior to vaccines being readily available, I got pneumonia from it, and treatment in New York City at that time was awful. I couldn’t get basic medicine, I was begging for a Z-pack six days into my pneumonia… 

I finally healed. I rush back to work, and everything‘s fine, and next thing I know, the mask and testing mandate comes out for the unvaccinated. I was pretty upset about this, and I spoke at a couple of union meetings about it, and I felt it was very discriminatory: you’re creating two tiers of employees: vaccinated, and unvaccinated. I tested my antibodies, and I had _very_ high levels. I just felt that it wasn’t right to tell one group that you don’t have to test or mask, but the other group: you’ve gotta test, you gotta wear a mask, you’re not allowed at ceremonies…and at that point, the union stance was, they’re going to mandate vaccines so there’s nothing you can do about it.

And again, I kept saying, what’s my recourse in any of this? I submitted to the testing for four months, and I never tested positive, even though many of the employees who did take the vaccine to avoid going through the masking and the testing, got Covid! 

From the beginning, many of my colleagues did not want to wear a mask and did not want to take the test, and they didn’t feel the need for it – they had already worked the year prior, and they had ways to keep themselves healthy other than medicine. Myself, I never really went to the doctor much, and my first interactions with them was when I had pneumonia from Covid. At that time the doctors, including the NYPD doctors, as the vaccine started to roll out, said, “If you’re going to take the vaccine, we suggest against you taking it right after a recent infection.”

And to me, it made total sense, because I had chickenpox, so I didn’t run out and get the chickenpox vaccine. So all of these things played in my head throughout the whole time they’re pushing this vaccine down our throats: we get these emails, “Hey you’re a danger, it’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” I’m listening to mayor de Blasio go on TV every morning and call the unvaccinated “Criminals.” 

Even though, my vaccinated colleagues keep coming into work with Covid, exposing me to it, and I’m still not getting it again. And I keep getting tested, and I’m not getting it. In October, when the vaccine actually became mandated, I submitted my religious exemption, I submitted my sincerely held religious beliefs. I am familiar with OEO law, I’m familiar with with The Human Rights Act of New York State, and I’m familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

So I submit for my religious exemption, saying basically that I believe in God‘s healing powers, I believe he healed me from Covid, I believe the antibodies were given to me through God. I also do not take medicine, I don’t take aspirin when I have a headache, I don’t take medicine for _any_ reason when I’m not sick. If I do need medicine, I’m _sick._ I point to two verses in the Bible, where it says twice: Jesus says, those who are sick are in need of a doctor, and those who are not sick, do not. And even though the Catholic Church tells me that there’s nothing against this vaccine as a tenet of my religion, I believe that it is a tenet of my religion, and whether they want to admit to that or not, it is clearly written in the Bible. 

The other thing is, I’m a big believer in the truth, and I was always taught through my whole career: Have integrity! Have integrity! I wanna be the guy who walks into a precinct, where 300 guys are dealing drugs, and I’m gonna be the guy that stops that. I’m the guy who’s gonna lock criminals up, I’m not gonna be the guy who partakes in any of that sin. So I’m a big believer in the truth, and what I believe to be the truth, and I see that I’m not harming anyone by not taking the vaccine, and I’m not doing anything wrong. 

And basically I submitted that exemption application, and I said, Hey, you’re offering me $500 to go against my religious beliefs! It’s almost bribery, it’s wrong, I can’t even believe we are at at this point, and I feel that for me to take the vaccine would violate my conscience, which would damn me, not only to hell here on earth, but also to hell in the afterlife.

Meanwhile, of course, athletes and entertainers are allowed to work without vaccination, but not the essential workers.

There are 5000 NYPD members that are still waiting to hear the results of their appeals. And that’s just in the police department! 

I’m not a danger to anyone, I went through Omicron and Delta, I’ve never tested positive again, and even if I did, so do vaccinated people! You know what I mean? It’s so arbitrary and capricious, it’s not even funny. And at the same time, I’m being rejected and some of my coworkers are being rejected – only 30% of them are being approved for the religious exemptions. So New York City is completely violating OEO law on this, New York City is no longer an OEO employer, and I don’t know how they can even put that tag on themselves, since they’re not following the law. They’re basically telling one guy who submits a religious exemption, Okay yeah, you’re approved. Then I submit the same exact religious exemption, and: You are denied. So… Someone’s religion is is an undue hardship to the city, and another one’s isn’t? It’s completely arbitrary and capricious, none of it makes sense, and it’s been the same way with the mask mandate on the MTA. 

Personally, I had to give up my career. I’m not where I thought I would be, I thought I would getting ready to be a captain in the NYPD and pursue higher ranks. At the end of the day, I’m still blessed, but I’m worried for New York City. I love New York City, I worry for all the young guys that are still living in that city and trying to raise a family, and anyone, any city worker like teachers, nurses, these are great people and they’re being demonized. As crime runs wild in the city, all of a sudden, the people that pay their taxes, the bear the brunt of everything in the city, they are turned into the bad guys, and I just pray for New York. I really do.

There were MANY of my colleagues who took this vaccine and they did not want to take this vaccine. They took it to keep their employment, to put food on the table, and I would never judge anyone for doing that, but it was horrible, the way they were being pushed into it. 

The days before you were allowed to submit an exemption, people felt the pressure. Even myself, and I’m not a guy who feels much pressure, I tell you, my right eye at the time was fluttering. It was fluttering for weeks and months leading up to that day…and in that line, at One Police Plaza, everyone’s there lining up to get the shot. And I’m seeing hundreds of guys lining up, day in, day out – as the days got closer it was more and more. It went from 40% vaccinated, to 60% vaccinated, 75% vaccinated… And people were feeling the pressure, and the unions weren’t there for them, they felt they had nowhere to go, and I felt the same way. Which is why I started to look for different career options. I was like, I can’t believe I’m doing this, in my 18th year, looking for different career options! I’m down there at work, I’m watching grown men, with tears in their eyes, sit down, take a shot that they don’t want to take, stand up enraged, and immediately storm out of there: “I had no choice. I had no choice!!!” Same thing with women. 

And you know, these are not your average New Yorkers, these are tough, tough people. They’re New York City police officers, they see and go through things that other people have nightmares about. They deal with these things numerous times per day, they are not your average people, and you watch that response to the mandates…it really just cemented my own conviction even more: Hey listen, I can’t do that, I can’t violate my conscience. I can’t sit there and tell my children to do the right thing, to speak up for the truth, and to protect the weak, I can’t tell that to them if I don’t do it. If I were to succumb to take this thing just as compliance, none of it making sense to me, none of it in my religion…I can make money doing something else. If New York City doesn’t want people like you there, if they don’t want people of faith there, it’s time to move on, then. Let Mayor Eric Adams put his uniform back on, and he can be the cop! He can arrest people. He didn’t do it when he was, but he could try now!

For me personally, I grew up in Brooklyn, I lived in Staten Island, I never pictured myself leaving New York. My neighbors loved me, I shoveled the snow for all my neighbors, my whole family is in New York, I _never_ thought that I would leave New York. I thought that I would retire an old man from the police department, maybe get myself a little condo in Florida and travel back-and-forth, and raise my children here. It just didn’t work out that way. I had to leave my career, to basically put food on the table. I had to come to Florida to come to a state that supports my faith.

… Meanwhile, I have no health benefits for my kids, I have no steady check coming in anymore, and I have a disabled daughter, who is blind. She needs care all the time, and it’s a scary world out there. But it’s even scarier to think that, hey: they could ask me to stick whatever they want in my body…and I have to do it? Or force a medical procedure on me just so I can keep my check? I don’t believe in that, and I put my faith in God and I stick to my morals. As stressful and as hard as it is, I still count my blessings. I loved being a cop, I had a great time, and thank God I did save the way I did and I can get through the hard times now. 

——

Jimmy Dore, comedian; injured by his second Covid vaccine dose, he created a stand-up routine about it. This is the very end:

…Well, it’s been great to talk to all of you white supremacists! And in honor of your white supremacy, I’m going to read the statement from the Black Caucus of the Green Party, which got it right: lockdowns, mandates, and passports are the major issue of the day, with millions of people protesting against them worldwide. In fact, what has become known as the medical freedom movement is arguably the biggest and most diverse international movement in the world‘s history. And you’re part of it! Vaccine mandates, and vaccine passports, are among the most vile, unconstitutional, immoral, unscientific, discriminatory, and outright criminal policies ever to be forced upon this population…

That’s the Black Caucus of the Green Party, [effing] white supremacists! 

Don’t turn on each other! I have more in common with every person here than I do with Bill Gates. We have more in common than we do with the oligarchs! Don’t turn on your neighbor, keep your attention on the oligarchy, and [eff] authoritarianism. Stand together, love your neighbor, don’t turn on them, support each other! Thank you for being here, stop the mandates!

——

Trahern Crews, co-author of the Black Caucus Green Party statement referenced above:

…I am now an organizer with Black Lives Matter Minnesota, and we still feel that the mandates are unconstitutional, especially with the history here with Black people in the medical field. It’s just a no-brainer that we don’t accept the vaccine mandates. We’ve been working in the jails here; my sister’s son died from neglect and abuse in the county jail. They tried to tell her he died in their arms and they tried to revive him, but when we got the footage back, we found out that he was laying on the floor for eight hours and they just watched him die when they could have saved him.

So when we’re talking about medical freedom, sometimes even our inmates are being used as guinea pigs inside jails and prisons, and this is another thing we have to watch for. 

[Interviewer: It is so interesting that Black Lives Matter is against the mandates, and the Green Party is against the mandates… And also, the police officers are against the mandates! When else do we see BLM and the police come together on an issue like this?! That kind of tells you something.]

The St. Paul police union actually sued the city here about the vaccine mandate, and I think the fire department got involved, so that’s something we both can agree on for sure.

The truckers came through Minnesota on 94, and then right when they were starting to show up, mandates started dropping around here, so they were pretty effective, driving through St. Paul on 94! (Laughs.)

I think the experience we had in DC [at Defeat the Mandates] was: here’s a way to show that there are people from all walks of life, this is not just white supremacists, and lots of people who are impacted by this are black. Like in New York, 75% of people who are black are unvaccinated, and these are hard-working people, who want to take care of their families, take pride in going to work…but then you’re telling them that they have to get a vaccine that they don’t trust? We’re educated enough to know how long a product takes to get approved, and we’re like, why should we do this?

[in New York City public schools, you can’t enter your
child’s school if you’re not vaccinated! If you don’t show your
segregation pass… And that means 60 to 70% of black parents there can’t
enter their child school.]

After the March in D.C., a sister reached out to me because she wasn’t allowed to get on the subway. And here in Minnesota recently, I saw a man get asked for his papers in a restaurant, and he was turned away, and then I was like: Wow, so now they can just pick and choose who they want to ask!

[In New York City, you’re not required to ask for passports, but you are still ALLOWED to ask…if you want. Have we not learned these lessons already?]

Just yesterday, a Republican Minnesota lawmaker activist called for a vaccine mandate ban. “Whether you’re pro-vax or anti-vax, we are for healthcare freedom, and mandates that are one-size-fits-all should not be on the agenda.”

We’re also working on some reparatory justice work, so if any of your viewers can contact our Republican friends here in Minnesota, and tell them to support HF 3850…and keep fighting against injustice, tyranny, authoritarianism! When we keep pushing like this, we’re going to see these mandates fall across the country!

——

Tramell Thompson

…Now let me tell you all something. I’m going to be honest with you guys: I’m vaccinated, but I did it by choice. I do not subscribe to the mandates that they have us going through in this country! So what I did in New York City is, I went up to Albany, New York and invited 5000 of my friends. I tore up my vaccination card right there, to let them know I would not subscribe to their tyranny. 

Now check this out: this whole entire two years, I thought that the virus was actually Covid. And come to find out, the virus was never Covid: the virus was fear. The virus was control. 

Now if you notice, in 2022, they’re mandating everything but freedom.

In New York, in early 2020, they were calling frontline workers, “heroes.” They was banging pots at 7 PM, clapping for our heroes. In 2022, they’re firing those same heroes, who are trying to have freedom of choice. It’s crazy, right?

… Are you all familiar with Bobby Kennedy Junior? I got a text last night, and it said, “Tramell, come hiking with me in the morning?”

I said, “Bobby, I have a very important event!“ But I forgot, I’m speaking to a Kennedy! I can’t deny this, right? 

But he told me something important. He said, “When we’re going to sleep, the devil was just now putting on their clothes.” 

I said, “Mr. Kennedy, they must not know that our guard don’t sleep either.“ 

Our guard do not sleep!

Now check this out, I want you all to put your hand in the air real quick. If you are American, and you believe in freedom, put your hand in the air! Every time I name a freedom, I want you all to drop a finger: freedom of speech. Freedom of press. Freedom of religion. The right to assemble. The right to petition the government. Do you see this fist? This is our most powerful weapon in this country. It is time to fight back!

Author

  • Sarabeth Matilsky Sarabeth Matilsky writes about her family’s unschooling adventures, trying to find as much humor as she can.
Share

Life threats on Twitter deemed not a violation of platforms policy

Share:

On Thursday, April 21st, Libs of TikTok, an anonymous account whose identity was recently revealed by the Washington Post, posted screenshots of another tweet showing a post calling for her assassination.

The post also revealed that Twitter deemed that the threatening post did not violent the platforms’ user guidelines. Tagging Twitter Safety in the post, Libs of TikTok tweeted:

“Apparently threatening to assassinate someone doesn’t violate Twitter’s policies. But conservatives get suspended for stating biological facts.”

One of the tweets that Libs Of TikTok shared said:

“ASSASSINATION MODE ACTIVATED; ACTIVATION WORD LIBS OF TIKTOK; TARGET: [ALLEGED ACCOUNT OPERATOR’S NAME]; BEGIN OPERATION.”

The tweet also included a video of various guns being reloaded and assembled by people in all-black tactical gear. Libs of TikTok included a second photo, which was of the response the account received from Twitter Support after reporting the tweet:

“Hello, Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.”

Twitter’s violent threats policy very clearly states that it forbids “threatening to kill someone” on its platform.

The assassination threat and post comes just days after an article in the Washington Post written by Taylor Lorenz who revealed the operator behind the Libs of TikTok account, including private work details and address.

Reportedly, that link was later deleted and the Washington Post released a statement claiming they didn’t “publish or link to any details about her personal life.” The entire statement is below:

“Taylor Lorenz is an accomplished and diligent journalist whose reporting methods comport entirely with The Washington Post’s professional standards. Chaya Raichik, in her management of the Libs of TikTok Twitter account and in media interviews, has had significant impact on public discourse and her identity had become public knowledge on social media. We did not publish or link to any details about her personal life.”

https://fundourpolice.com/

The New York Post reported that Lorenz defender her decision to reveal the woman’s identity, tweeting:

“Reporters make phone calls, send messages, show up places, and knock on doors when reporting out a story.”

She added:

“I reported this story out extensively, using every tool I had, to ensure I had the correct woman.”

In response to criticism that she targeted a private citizen who wished to remain anonymous, Lorenz tweeted that the social media user, “isn’t just some average woman with a social media account” but is instead a “powerful influencer operating a massively impactful right wing media shaping discourse around LGBTQ+ rights.”

Another woman with the same name, Chaya Raichik also took to social media stating on Instagram that since the Washington Post article, she has been harassed and that her family is terrified. People began attacking her online, believing and assuming that she is the same person as the one behind Libs of TikTok.

One comment on her account allegedly said:

“You are what’s wrong with this world. You’re vile and disgusting. Your children should be taken away from you and put in a safer home. May you rot in (expletive).”

Other comments included her being called a “Nazi scum,” someone saying, “your [sic] so disgusting we will find you evil trump supporter,” and “you are (expletive) bigoted trash. Your children should be ashamed of you.”

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/life-threats-on-twitter-deemed-not-a-violation-of-platforms-policy/

Share