Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Getty Images/fStop

In many ways, Alya Stewarts motherhood led her to the white-supremacy movement. When Stewart had her first child in 2003, she was a pro-gay-rights feminist in her early 20s who followed a vegan diet and studied midwifery, according to a new book called Sisters in Hate. But after getting her masters degree in womens spirituality, her politics began to shift. Journalist Seyward Darby writes about how Stewart converted to Mormonism, had more kids, and began posting about how men should be the dominant breadwinners and women should focus on family life. When feminists criticized her philosophy, she decided stay-at-home mothers werent welcome in the womens rights movement and that it demonized white men, like her husband.

She gravitated toward the alt-right corners of the internet places that embraced her increasingly traditional lifestyle. And by 2017, her blog and YouTube channel interspersed spelt cookie recipes and and videos of her kids in the garden with racist screeds about the refugee crisis and musings on how good mothers should dress modestly, speak softly, and avoid urban accents. But she didnt want to be labeled a white supremacist, and Stewart used motherhood to obscure her racist beliefs.

In proudly showing off her life, Ayla demanded to know one thing, writes Darby, if all she wanted was safety, prosperity, and health for her family and nation, how could she be considered hateful?

Sisters in Hate tells the story of Stewart and two other women who were at some point involved in racist hate groups: Corinna Olsen, a former neo-Nazi who disavowed the movement and converted to Islam, and Lana Lokteff, a prominent white supremacist whose online TV and radio shows were banned from YouTube in 2019. Darby writes about how each character was drawn to white supremacy for different reasons a sense of belonging (Olsen), creed (Stewart), power (Lokteff) and she intersperses their stories with historical and psychological context to explain why women have always been a valuable part of American hate movements.

The Cut spoke with Darby, a self-described feminist from the South, about how femininity and motherhood are some of the far rights greatest weapons.

You lay out ample evidence that white women are a key demographic in hate movements. Why is white nationalism most often associated with men?

To be fair, men are often the group leaders and certainly the people committing violence. And so I completely understand why you would want to focus on those very visible and often very harmful manifestations of hate. But while women might not be the ones leading conferences, they are helping build the infrastructure of these movements.

Women have been deeply instrumental in everything from the KKK to the Nazis to the resistance of civil rights. And yet they have been repeatedly written out of the history of bigotry. I think theres a benevolent sexism there, where people make assumptions about women having an inherent goodness, or an inherent fragility or vulnerability, and assume they couldnt possibly be the bad actors. There was this myth after World War II of the apolitical German woman who was trapped in the country and had to go along with the Holocaust. Women who were seen as meek and matronly and feminine quite literally got away with murder. At the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, we saw a lot of images of white men in white polo shirts, but behind the scenes, a woman was kind of the chief organizer online. You could argue that work is just as important as walking up to the front line, carrying a tiki torch.

Why are women so valuable to white nationalism? Lokteff, one of the women in your book, said When women get involved a movement becomes a serious threat and A soft woman saying hard things can create repercussions throughout society. What does she mean?

There are a couple of layers to that. The most basic biological one is that white nationalism is a deeply pro-natal movement. The whole narrative is that white America is under threat and you should have as many white children as you can. Nazis gave women medals based on how many children they had. (Stewart became notorious in mainstream media after tweeting about a white baby challenge.) But the much more outward facing layer is that women are seen as bridges who can communicate with the mainstream. There are some who say the vilest things imaginable. But there are a lot who say, We just want to love our heritage. We just want to love our children. Look at me, Im just a nice white woman trying to live her life. What could be so bad about that?

And you describe in the book how motherhood and children are weaponized. For example, in one online post, Stewart included an image of her toddler-age daughter wearing a frog costume an homage to Pepe the Frog, who has become an alt-right mascot. Can you say more about how this works?

Women like Ayla who really showcase their children are ready-made for the Instagram era in a way. Its like, Heres what we made for dinner, here are my children raking the yard. Look at my blissful life. I think theyre daring critics of white nationalism to say something critical so they can retort: Are you saying that my children are dangerous little Hitlers in the making?

Theres an obvious pernicious PR slant to showing off how normal they are. Theres some people that are going to be kind of seduced by that idea and think, You havent said any racial slurs, you havent promoted violence. This cant possibly be bad! When its convenient to them, these women wear their motherhood status as a shield. Theyre saying, Its not that I hate Black people, I just want the best for my own children. So I want to live in an all-white community or homeschool my kids. Its manipulative.

Its also an incredibly effective recruitment tactic.

The women in these movements are appealing to other white women who might have the same kind of thoughts, impulses, and instincts. Im sure you know women who would probably say I would send my kids to public schools if the public schools were better. From there, the conversation can become more racially overt, right?

I wanted to find these points of familiarity where the things that women were saying and doing on the far right actually sounded a lot like people I know. Theres a tendency to think of white nationalists as crazy or to other them. But plenty of people who are educated and financially comfortable can find a place in this space. And women are very important in drawing new believers in.

The way women draw in new members is often less aggressive than men. You write about how they might invite someone over for wine, or use community picnics and Bible studies groups as scouting grounds.

A sociologist named Kathleen Blee wrote about how when it comes to radicalization, shes most worried about spaces that might not seem vulnerable or risky in some way. So, for example, communities around anti-vaccination or homeschooling, where people come together around some shared beliefs usually having to do with autonomy of an individual or family that, if taken to the extreme, can lead to a way of seeing the world thats racist and exclusive.

As a parent, there are a number of spaces where youre going to be talking about the well-being of your children. That is of course a natural impulse and good parenting. But a good parent should also be thinking about the ways in which their desire to protect their children can lead to things like opportunity hoarding, or a kind of exclusionary way of seeing people who are not like you.

Can you talk about the relationship between tradlife short for the traditional lifestyle of wifely submissiveness and the white-supremacist movement?

I think that women in this space kind of go back to the idea of motherhood as cherished and unassailable. White-nationalist women are saying motherhood doesnt have to be sullied by the muck of feminism, the workplace, and multiculturalism. You can just focus on being a cherished, hardworking, domestic goddess. In the white-nationalist movement, children, just like women, are kind of supposed to inspire this instinct to protect by all means necessary. Its very much playing on this idea that they are the most vulnerable to social upheaval.

This kind of thinking sounds similar to arguments Phyllis Schlafly and other conservative women used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s.

Theres a lot of similarity. Schlafly defined privilege as being a wife and a mother. She felt threatened by people with less privilege gaining power, and wanted to fend off forces like feminism, which was deeply tied up in the civil-rights movement. The racism of her campaign was less overt but the coded language of the campaign was to say, We dont want to disrupt the order of things.

Similarly, in todays hate movements, women talk about fighting for the status quo and have this nostalgic idea of what it means to be a housewife. But the difference is they dont want to be seen as the stodgy Phyllis Schlaflys restoring the world to this Rockwellian idea of America. They consider themselves rebels and countercultural because they define the mainstream as feminist and multicultural. Theres definitely a cognitive dissonance there.

Your book has been published at a time when police brutality against Black people has spurred mass protests and a focus on anti-racism. What value is there to learning about white womens roles in a hateful movement?

I hope that the book shows how there is a spectrum of bigotry that even women who are liberals and feminists fall into. Im also a pretty pessimistic person, so while people are talking about race in a constructive way and theres the potential for profound change, I also think there will be a backlash. The far right is already using the Black Lives Matter movement as a way to appeal to white peoples fears and grievances about a changing future. I think white nationalists definitely see an opening to recruit white women who feel like I was told Youre the oppressor and I couldnt handle that.

We should be attentive to the ways in which people on the alt-right see potential for their tentacles to touch somebody. Where is this happening? Can we see whos vulnerable to it? History shows that moments of upheaval and change inspire hope but can also inspire some people to feel hate.

Get the Cut newsletter delivered daily

Read this article:
How White Nationalists Weaponize Motherhood - The Cut

This summer there arent any superhero movies coming out (theyve all been postponed), but there is one film this season that features real-life heroes. The filmmaking team behind the riveting political doc Weiner Josh Kriegman, Elyse Steinberg and Eli B. Despres have made the documentary The Fight, which follows a group of crusading American Civil Liberties Union lawyers as they defend some of the bedrock protections under attack from the Trump administration.

This lively and fast-paced doc opens with a rapid-fire split-screen montage that introduces the ACLUs 100-year history of defending civil liberties and introduces four specific cases of the hundreds the organization has brought against the Trump administration, regarding immigrants rights, reproductive rights, voting rights and LGBTQ rights. The filmmakers, as well as editors Kim Roberts and Greg Finton (Despres also edited) do a Herculean job of weaving together a comprehensive patchwork narrative, as the ACLU jabs and parries with the administration and the courts on each issue.

The four cases are Garza v. Hargan, in which a teenage refugee was denied access to an abortion by the Office of Refugee Resettlement; Stone v. Trump, the controversial transgender military ban; Department of Commerce v. New York, about the citizenship question on the 2020 Census; and Ms. L. v. ICE, an asylum-seekers family separation lawsuit.

The filmmakers also sketch humane portraits of each cases tireless lawyers, who are almost constantly in motion. Immigration rights lawyer Lee Gelernt seems to run entirely on Diet Coke, adrenaline and many, many phone chargers; Dale Ho, director of the ACLUs voting rights project, is a charming, smiley man whom we get to see practice his remarks for the Supreme Court over and over; Brigitte Amiri, a dedicated and passionate defender of Roe v. Wade, writes briefs at midnight and enjoys well-earned train wine after a win; and Chase Strangio, a dedicated working parent, taking on the transgender military ban with Josh Block.

Its the fight that keeps them going: the hateful invective sent their way via postcards, emails, Facebook messages and voicemails only fans the flames of the fire that drives them.

Although The Fight is jam-packed with ups, downs, wins, losses, injunctions, stays, hearings and Trump speeches, the film is remarkably detailed and careful, and in fact, it reckons with the ACLUs dedication to defending civil liberties for all, not just the people we agree with. Theyve defended far-right and alt-right groups, radical Muslims and Nazis from Skokie, Ill. But their defense of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., where Heather Heyer was murdered by white supremacist James Fields Jr., weighs heavy on many in the organization, who try to understand if there are limits to defending free speech, at least for them.

In this film, and in life, it often feels like the lawyers of the organization are the only ones standing in the way of the Trump administrations policies, many capriciously intended not only to strip human rights but to bully and intimidate the American public. They are the real heroes of this era, battling in court after court, armed with tote bags of documents, caffeine and a deeply unwavering and humanitarian sense of justice. But as Ho put it so frankly, lawyers and courts arent going to change the world; people are. And its up to us to do it.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

The Fight'

Rated: PG-13, for strong language, thematic material and brief violence.

Running time: 1 hour 31 minutes

Playing: Available July 31 on digital and VOD

See more here:
'The Fight' review: The ACLU defends against Trump - Los Angeles Times

Evan Krell July 31st, 2020 - 6:47 PM

The rise and rapid expansion of video sharing sites like YouTube have given people all over the world a voice and a platform to talk about film and other forms of entertainment. Its done plenty of good by promoting more independently created content and breaking down a lot of boundaries between creators and audiences. Movie making, discussion, and critique is easier than ever. YouTube however has become a breeding ground for alt-right groups of internet trolls posting hour long videos complaining about films featuring women and people of color in prominent roles. This groups often have their origins in nerd culture and their roots can be traced back to the mid 2000s when the internet was still relatively new, all things considered.

In 2004, amateur filmmaker James Rolfe inadvertently started a trend when he uploaded the first video in his Angry Video Game Nerd series. This series featured Rolfe portraying the titular character of the Angry Video Game Nerd, a foul mouthed, ill-tempered video game player who would review bad video games in a humorous manner. These reviews would usually feature skits, running gags, and slapstick interwoven with actual criticism of the games. When the series hit YouTube in 2006 it gained immense popularity and paved the way for the angry reviewer archetype.

Perhaps most famous of these was Doug Walkers character the Nostalgia Critic. The shows format was very similar to Angry Video Game Nerd, only centered around films instead. The Critic would go through the movie, picking it apart, performing skits, all the while screaming and swearing. Countless imitations would pop up over the years, almost all of which would focus on bad movies or video games. The biggest allure to the series wasnt the actual criticism though. People were drawn to these videos because of the over the top personalities and the humorous skits. Neither series really provided great critical insight, but they served their purposes as light bits of humor, often appealing to teenage audiences.

Both Angry Video Game Nerd and Nostalgia Critic (pictured above) are still running today with new episodes. Though the landscape of the internet and YouTube have changed drastically since both series were created. In the early 2010s both Screen Junkies and CinemaSins would get their start on YouTube. Screen Junkies biggest claim to fame is their Honest Trailers series. These videos are set up like a traditional movie trailer but poke fun at the movie by pointing out shortcomings and what not. CinemaSins features a narrator going through a movie scene by scene, pointing out every single little problem or inconsistency with the film and adding it to the sin counter with the total being shown at the end of the video. Like the angry reviewers before them, these videos became immensely popular and still rake in hundreds of thousands of views today with new videos. Unlike the earlier reviewers, these shows will focus on recently released popular movies rather than poor quality films of the past.

In recent years, people have begun flocking to these kinds of videos and putting them on a pedestal as the gold standard for film criticism. Despite these internet series starting off as being nothing more than comedy, people have begun to take their word as gospel and point to them in an attempt to discredit people who happen to like a film that has been covered. Many filmmakers have spoken about the prevalence of these kinds of channels. Jordan Vogt-Roberts, director of Kong: Skull Island stated, These guys are just trolling the art form we love and profiting from it while dumbing down the conversation. Many other directors and writers have agreed, stating that these types of videos are reductive and replace the nuance of film criticism with nitpicking and mean spirited complaining.

A lot of this rallying behind voices like CinemaSins stems from a disdain for mainstream movie critics. This has been especially prominent in so called nerd culture with one of the most notable examples being the response to the DC Comics superhero films. The films of the DCEU have done relatively poorly with critics and many hardcore fans of DC have claimed that its an elaborate conspiracy of critics paid off by Marvel and Disney to give their competitors lower scores. People like to flock to these internet personalities because they tell it like it is, which naturally ends up drawing in alt right circles. Despite many championing these internet personalities as voices of reason, any attempt at criticizing them results in a response of its just satire, stop taking it so seriously. If it fits their narrative, its gospel. If it doesnt then its just a joke.

Even if reviewers like CinemaSins are just meant to be viewed satirically and not seriously, it doesnt help that the creators dont make this clear at all. Even more so, the type of people being drawn to these reviewers arent being satirical at all. With a sizable alt right presence, the conversation drifts towards people complaining about films that dont conform to white, male, hegemonic expectations for films. Perhaps most infamously was the response to The Last Jedi, featuring an unprecedented amount of vitriol and debate among the Star Wars fan base. The film despite being praised by critics for its inventive story, fleshed out characters, and stunning visuals was met with an extreme amount of backlash by many fans claiming that it ruined the franchise forever. To this day its hard to mention the film in any capacity online without someone starting a debate about it.

Any attempt at nuanced criticism was buried by the hordes of people tearing the film down as disgrace to Star Wars. The most vitriolic hate was directed towards the female characters of the film, labeling the protagonist Rey as being too perfect and a Mary Sue, a reductive name given to characters who have no flaws. Perhaps most egregious was the way members of the cast were treated by these internet trolls. Rose Tico actor Kelly Marie Tran ended up leaving social media entirely due to the constant harassment from the trolls targeting her because of her gender and race. Some radical alt right internet users even went as far as to create an entire cut of The Last Jedi that removes almost all of the female characters, running at just 47 minutes. This goes beyond just mere satire and is symbolic of the deep rooted misogyny in many of these pop culture circles.

To say that entities like CinemaSins singlehandedly created the alt right movement would be too much. These types of people have always been around and the internet has only further radicalized them and given them a more vocal platform. However, its important to realize how intertwined they are. It started with angry comedy reviewers and evolved into channels entirely dedicated to making surface level judgements and nitpicks on films under the guise of genuine critique. The audiences grew and grew, drawing in the alt right crowds from nerd circles, many of whom have developed a deep resentment towards women and define themselves by their hatred. This comes from deep sexist roots of othering women and feeling like they, straight white men, are entitled to sex. And much like the bad faith internet reviewers, they use their platform to tear down movies for having women and people of color in prominent roles. There is no nuance, no genuine critique. Just pure hatred.

This issue is much larger than just angry Star Wars fan boys. The rise of the online alt right can be found in every facet of life and has become especially prominent on video streaming sites. Additionally, YouTube has taken very little action against the hateful content on their site despite literal Nazis posting videos. YouTubes algorithm makes it such that its impossible to watch anything Star Wars related without the recommended videos section becoming flooded with vitriolic rants directed at the women and people of color involved with the franchise. Its important to always be mindful of the content youre consuming, and to take a stand against bigotry and hatred where it manifests. The internet has, and continues to do plenty of good. Creators from marginalized backgrounds are getting more exposure then ever and people are able to engage with media like never before. The ugly, hateful underbelly of YouTube still festers and needs to be uprooted entirely to ensure a healthy online environment.

Link:
How the Internet has Warped Film Criticism - mxdwn.com

Conspiracy theorists, alt-right memers and prominent white nationalists have frequently appeared at properties owned by President Trump, where theyve hosted gatherings, mingled with officials and spent money, according to research obtained by Salon.

Trump properties are well-documented hot spots for MAGA-world luminaries and hangers-on, particularly Trump International Hotel in Washington, where the lobby is frequently a blur of lobbyists, administration officials, lawmakers, corporate leaders and foreign dignitaries the physical embodiment of the presidents numerous conflicts of interest.

But in a sense those properties are also real-world iterations of the presidents Twitter feed, a running scroll of the same groups. Both are also sprinkled to varying degrees with influential right-wing extremists and internet trolls (Diamond and Silk kicked off their 2019 Chit Chat Live tour at Trump Hotel D.C.), some of whom now are now moving into legitimate electoral politics under the auspices of the Republican Party in various states, including Oregon, Colorado, Georgia and Trumps new home state of Florida.

Get reliable, independent news and commentary delivered to your inbox every day.

And though Trump fandom is little more than an ironic lark to young fringe-right adherents, who see themselves as more pure, edgy and extreme, those places draw an older generation that has influence, but might be looking for someone who knows better how to wield it today.

Trump properties are the place to be if youre an elected Republican looking to dip your toe in alt-right waters. So no one should be surprised that once-mainstream Republicans and the NRCC are now backing the very QAnon supporters and fringe factions theyve mingled with for years, said Kyle Morse, an American Bridge 21st Century spokesperson.

The more high-profile of these patron-extremists include:

Trump properties are a particularly popular draw for the Fuentes-led Groyper movement, a loose affiliation of far-right and alt-right nationalists who peddle racist and anti-Semitic tropes while mocking mainstream conservatives including some less radical white nationalists as phonies.

As with most things born in the nether regions of the internet, the origins of the Groyper movement are not easy to understand. Its name is drawn from a specific Pepe the Frog pose, in which the alt-right cartoon mascot rests his chin on his interlinked hands.

Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation Leagues Center on Extremism, described the movement in a 2019 interview.

What theyre trying to do, theres this whole grouping who refer to themselves as the dissident right, they want to move the Overton window, said Mayo, referring to the shifting spectrum of acceptable ideological and political discourse. They want to make racism and anti-Semitism mainstream.

Trump made waves this January when he retweeted a clip of Michelle Malkin, the self-described mommy of the Groyper movement, complaining about online censorship. Trump added his own caption, thanking her:

The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle!

That Malkin clip was produced by Fuentes internet show, America First.

Donald Trump is watching America First Clips, Fuentes tweeted.

Fuentes has attended events at Trump International in Washington, including with friend and fellow Groyper Megan Harris, and both appeared there during the conservative gathering CPAC this year, as documented in a since-deleted Instagram post. The two were joined at CPAC by musician and Groyper Ricky Rebel, who shared a number of pictures from Trump International on his Instagram story.

Fuentes, like several other fringe-right personalities, has also patronized Trump National Doral, the presidents golf resort near Miami, where he appeared in an Instagram photo with alt-right internet personality Baked Alaska (Tim Gionet).

One of the more well-known names is alt-right personality, Pizzagate truther and noted misogynist Mike Cernovich, whom Gionet engaged in multiple projects. Cernovich has spent considerable time at Trump properties.

Gionet once spent Christmas with blogger Chuck Johnson, the aforementioned most hated man on the internet, who reportedly had a hand in vetting Trump Cabinet picks during the transition (working with Facebooks Peter Thiel) and may have acted as an inadvertent conduit between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Donald Trump Jr.

In January 2017, Johnson posted on Facebook that he was building algorithms to ID all the illegal immigrants for the deportation squads. HuffPost quoted a source claiming to have seen Johnson discussing that same project with a whole bunch of really important people at the Trump hotel in D.C. Former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh has said that Johnson asked to be connected with senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller so he could pitch a way to identify every illegal alien in the country.

In 2018, Johnson was also spotted at Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.

Then theres the Posobiec, who while not exactly a Groyper is a fringe conspiracy theorist with anti-Semitic views whom Trump has retweeted a number of times. Posobiec and his wife met Brexit architect Nigel Farage at the Trump Hotel in Washington in February, 2017, and have spent both Christmas and New Years holidays there.

In July 2019, Posobiec joined QAnon acolyte Tracy Beanz, MAGA alt-right memesmith Carpe Donktum and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a conservative conference called AMPFest, held at Trump National Doral. Documents obtained by The Washington Post showed that the Florida propertys revenues were in steep decline at the time.

Posobiec spread the debunked conspiracy theory that the Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS, but was challenged for credit by right-wing provocateur, Islamophobe and Trump patron Laura Loomer. The two seemed to smooth things over before AMPFest 2019, where Loomer appeared alongside Posobiec.

Loomer is currently running as a Republican congressional candidate in Floridas 21st district home to Donald Trumps private Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago, where she appeared at a 2019 winter gala that featured Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, former White House staffer Sebastian Gorka and guest of honor Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Just a few days after that, Trump tweeted his support for Loomers candidacy. And since the 21st is officially his district of residence, he will have the chance to vote for her should she appear on the ballot in November. (Her chances of winning are not strong: Incumbent Rep. Lois Frankel, a Democrat, was re-elected without opposition in 2018.)

On March 3, Loomer was back at Trump International in D.C.

See the rest here:
Trump's Properties Are a Playground for White Nationalists, Far Right Extremists - Truthout

David Harsanyi Published 11:00 p.m. ET July 29, 2020

Despite the occasional looting, chaos, property damage, trespassing, rioting, graffiti, assaults, arson and general mayhem, the media consistently assure us that antifa "protesters" are "largely peaceful." And since the majority of buildings in Portland, Seattle and Denver haven't been looted yet, who am I to argue?

Of course, it takes only a sliver of the population to transform downtowns into a mess and create quality-of-life issues for thousands of law-abiding citizens. And the mayors who surrender parts of their cities to left-wing "protesters" are tacitly endorsing lawlessness themselves.

There's little doubt that if alt-right activists had occupied a few city blocks in Seattle or tried to firebomb a federal courthouse in Portland, we'd be in for feverish wall-to-wall media coverage, engulfed in a national conversation about the perils of right-wing radicalism. Every elected Republican would be asked to personally denounce the extremists to make sure they take implicit ownership of the problem.

When a few hundred angry tiki torch-carrying Nazis marched in Charlottesville, you would have thought the RNC had deployed the Wehrmacht. Those who led the riot were even asked to opine on CNN. On the other hand, left-wing rioters the people Chris Cuomo and other journalists compared to GIs landing on Normandy are immediately transformed into apolitical actors, rogue "anarchists," as soon as any violence starts.

Who knows? Perhaps the majority of citizens and businesses in Portland, Seattle and Denver want their elected officials to let antifa act with impunity. Or maybe some of those citizens and businesses will begin fleeing those cities. Whatever the case, it's a local concern.

To a point. If mayors do nothing to stop anarchists from tearing down federal monuments or from defacing, vandalizing, and attempting to burn down federal buildings, the feds have every right to dispatch teams of agents to restore order.

None of which is to deny that there are legitimate concerns about how law enforcement is conducting itself. I'm sympathetic to criticisms of the federal officers who operate in camouflage and in unmarked vans. Cops should display badge numbers and identification if they truly aren't doing so right now otherwise civilians have no real way to hold those in authority accountable for their actions. But the claim that Pinochet-like secret police have begun snatching Portland protesters off the street and making them disappear amounts to the arrest of one man, who refused to speak without his lawyer and was released a little more than an hour later without any charges.

If it were up to me, I'd leave Portland to the anarchists and their political accomplices. But federal law enforcement including agencies such as the DEA, FBI, ICE, ATF, Department of Homeland Security and Marshal Service regularly operate across the country. Sometimes they make arrests, and sometimes they do so after going undercover. This happens under every administration, every day, and it often happens for far less compelling reasons. As far as we know, cops haven't broken any laws in the streets of Portland. The protesters who cover their faces have broken tons.

With this in mind, it's been instructive watching many of the same characters who cheer on governors who take undemocratic emergency powers and shut down houses of worship without the consent of the people and who sometimes arrest Americans for playing Wiffle ball, attending church or cutting hair act as if policing portends the end of democracy. The same people who incessantly clamor to empower the federal government when it suits their purposes now act as if protecting a federal courthouse is the Reichstag fire.

MSNBC's John Heilemann says that Trump's sending federal police into Portland is a "trial run" for using "force" to "steal this election." In a piece titled "Trump's Occupation of American Cities Has Begun," Michelle Goldberg, somehow still allowed to freely opine at The New York Times, says that "fascism" is already here. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the police "stormtroopers" who are "kidnapping protesters."

All of these contentions are ugly conspiracy theories, hyperbolic allegations meant to fuel partisan paranoia before an election. Even if we accept the criticisms of law enforcement, the driving problem, and it's been happening to various degrees in a number of major cities, is that mayors are allowing "protesters" to trample on public and private property. They allow it because they share the same left-wing sensibilities. But protesting should never be a license for anarchy.

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun." T

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/07/30/opinion-problem-portland-isnt-law-its-lawlessness/5535192002/

See the article here:
Opinion: The problem in Portland isn't the law; it's the lawlessness - The Detroit News