White House Plans Broad Crackdown on Liberal Groups
nytimes.comExtremely against any kind of murder over difference of opinion, but this obsession with making it look like an evil coordinated group was behind this killing is legitimately one of the larger threats to US I've witnessed in my life.
Making this event into an excuse to crack down on any kind of group opens a door that nobody, left or right, should ever want open. JD and co. are playing a deadly game here.
> obsession with making it look like
I think many of the people involved sincerely believe it.
I find that hard to believe after watching the FBI shift the narrative like 6 times in a matter of days. They're just fishing.
The FBI is not creating a narrative, never mind shifting it. They are trying to explain what currently best fits the evidence. Much of what they said was clearly premature. IIRC they even caught the wrong guy initially and then had to apologize.
By "the people involved" I mean those who would propose to make lists of leftist organizations and do whatever unspecified thing NYT is vaguely alluding to.
> They are trying to explain what currently best fits the evidence.
This is a narrative. If they got things wrong and had to change their explanation, it is reasonable to describe that as a "shift".
They intend to play a deadly game. And they've been ginning up the specter of a vast and dangerous left-wing conspiracy for a long time. Look at what QAnon's beliefs actually were, and their intersection with Evangelical Christian beliefs about the inherently satanic nature of secular and leftist ideology. Trump was accusing the media of being run by leftists coordinating with the DNC to steal the election from him in 2016. "The Nazis were really leftists","BLM was a leftist terrorist organization burning down entire cities","leftists tried to kill Trump once," etc. They've been laying the foundations for a road that only leads to one place. Hell, they were talking about a "cold civil war" back in the Obama days.
Just look at the reactions from the right and the government after the shooting[0]. Immediate calls for war and violence. The narrative was constructed and deployed everywhere, even on Hacker News - that this is the evil of "the left" [and trans people] on display. I'm not claiming it was a coordinated psyop on the part of the Trump administration or anything - I do believe the right sincerely considers the left to be vermin only wort crushing under their boot - but as many people have pointed out in other contexts, you don't always need a conspiracy, sometimes you just need a confluence of interests.
I only just learned about the "Horst Wessel effect" in relation to this[1] and it's chilling how much history is seeming to repeat itself here. The only question to me is how far Trump administration is able to take this? Simply harassing leftist organizations isn't that unusual - the US has been doing that since the end of World War 2. Right wing militias are going to keep killing "leftists," again, that's just America. I hope this administration just isn't organized enough to take us back to the 1940s instead of just the 1960s or 1950s.
Note that when I say "leftist" I implicitly include LGBTQ people, black people, immigrants, feminists, Jews and a lot of other groups that for some reason are "left coded" to the right. When the Overton Window shifts so far that the Democratic Party are considered Marxist by half the country, "the left" encompasses a hell of a lot of people.
[0]https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-reactions-charlie-kirk...
[1]https://forward.com/news/768607/horst-wessel-charlie-kirk-na...
The US is half a skip and a jump from masked federal agents not just kidnapping and disappearing people without judicial warrants but lining people up who are on their AI-generated list of suspect collaborators and enemies of the state against a wall and summarily executing them. Way, way past claims of "It can't happen here". because it's getting closer each and every day with deviance grooming as the populace, the rich, the media, the police, and the political establishment are sufficiently on-board and gradually shifting their views to tolerate "the new normal". Even Fox News guy openly called for euthanasia of poor street people while his sidekick agreed with him; that's eugenics; on several days later he was forced to make a sorry-not-sorry, perfunctory "apology" because he got too far ahead of his skis / dear leader's plan.
Too many Americans have been indoctrinated into believing tyranny and fascism are impossible in the US because of their "well-armed militia," and that theirs is the only truly free society in the world. It's going to take a lot of hard shocks to break that delusion.
And let's be honest...too many Americans would be perfectly happy if certain demographics were put up against the wall.
“It is not the job of law enforcement or government agencies to police thought,”
1984 in full effect
This quote has now been scrubbed from the article.
I don't see this going anywhere. The calls for violence are coming from the low-levels of these organizations, not from the top. Now, if the case can be made that people at the top have stated that violence is the goal, or they have trained people below them to promote violence, then maybe.
There are many things about this article that lead me to dismiss the argument it's making.
The title element for the page differs: "On Charlie Kirk Show, JD Vance Talks of Crackdown on Liberal Groups - The New York Times". That "the White House plans" this does not logically follow, so the changed headline distorts the story.
TFA spends many paragraphs arguing e.g. that "Trump administration officials... seiz[ed] on the killing to make broad and unsubstantiated claims about their political opponents." and that "Mr. Vance and Mr. Miller spoke in vague and menacing terms about far-left groups that they said facilitated violence."; but they don't give any concrete indication of what these supposedly "unsubstantiated claims" were or how they expressed "menace", so it's impossible for the reader to evaluate NYT's characterization fairly.
TFA claims that a "broad crackdown" is "planned", but the authors do not evidence that any specific action is planned to be taken beyond:
> The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.... An administration official said officials would be investigating people behind the recent burning of Teslas and assaults against immigration agents, and would be looking to draw links between those episodes and organized liberal groups.
(The categorization "as domestic terrorism" could potentially make sense in some cases, depending on the facts of course.)
Having a goal is not the same thing as having a plan, and it is only the critics who even hypothesize that there could be any "crushing" of "dissent". Similarly, they claim that there is a "[threat] to bring the weight of the federal government down", but this is neither specified nor substantiated.
Similarly, there is no indication of what "liberal groups" are supposedly going to be targeted; and that phrase didn't come from the officials anyway. The officials, rather, apparently refer to "what they called leftist nongovernmental organizations.", which is not the same thing. Reasonable people who knew which "groups" Vance had in mind might reasonably disagree with NYT about whether they are "liberal"; but we lack this information.
TFA also claims:
> The White House and President Trump’s allies suggested that he was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives — without presenting evidence that such a network existed.
but it only describes this as a suggestion (which therefore doesn't require evidence, only investigation) — while really not doing any more in itself than "suggesting".
TFA even claims that
> [Trump] appeared to excuse violence on the right by saying that it was driven by people who “don’t want to see crime.”
But without any context, I have no reason to believe that the "appearance of excusing violence" is a reasonable interpretation. Having just spent so much time explaining the "many fine people" debacle, I am not exactly disposed to take a mainstream media source such as NYT at face value here. Many mainstream media sources flagrantly misrepresented that video and showed decontextualized excerpts; it took years to get fact-checkers to represent the story fairly, and even now I can find outlets like The New Republic openly asking why Snopes would "sanitize" things by showing everything that Trump said and interpreting it in the natural way.
And then the article concludes with a pull quote from someone supporting their narrative:
> “It is not the job of law enforcement or government agencies to police thought,”
This is included in order to reinforce the impression that they have established an intent on the part of Trump's government to "police thought". But they have not actually done so.
----
In short, all of this is fear-mongering and no concrete basis is presented. If it is indeed the case that
> Some of the highest-ranking officials in the federal government used Mr. Kirk’s podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” to lay out their plans.
and that the officials indeed laid out what can be reasonably be called plans to do something harmful, then NYT owes it to their readers to show this with proper, contextualized citations. But what we are looking at right now is an editorial responding to something that isn't being shown to us.
> That "the White House plans" this does not logically follow,
is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house?
> these supposedly "unsubstantiated claims" were or how they expressed "menace
Investigators were still working to identify a motive in Mr. Kirk’s killing, but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone.
They already came to their conclusion, while investigators haven't event started investigating.
> This is included in order to reinforce the impression that they have established an intent on the part of Trump's government to "police thought". But they have not actually done so.
"Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said as he guest-hosted an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. "We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility." -https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o
> is JD Vance not the second highest ranking member of the white house?
He is the Vice-President, yes.
It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either. Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it.
> but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone.
Of course he acted alone. It was an assassination using a rifle from a distance. How could anyone else have possibly been involved, even in principle?
"Leftist ideology" is Cox's entirely understandable interpretation of the available evidence, including the bullet markings. It's also the base assumption for the political assassination of a right-winger. And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political.
This leaves open the question of supposed "menace".
> while investigators haven't event started investigating.
They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise.
> (Vance quote)
This is not thought-policing. Granted, in most cases, people should not lose their jobs for saying vitriolic things on social media. However:
* Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme.
* People who call employers don't actually have power over those employers, never mind their employees. The employer gets to make the decision, and it's fair that employers should know if their employees are tarnishing the company's image.
* NYT literally used the phrase "police thought". This is a stronger claim than "police speech". Nobody would ever have had a problem with any of these people privately approving of Kirk's death, if only because they would have no way to know.
* When right-wingers previously objected to "cancel culture", I can guarantee that you could have talked to them and found that they would, in fact agree that there are lines that must not be crossed when it comes to things said on social media. The things I used to see people get fired for were not in the same ballpark, and the pressure to fire them was typically focused serially on individuals rather than being part of a broad search.
While I generally agree with you, I have two specific issues with what you say here:
> People who call employers don't actually have power over those employers, never mind their employees. The employer gets to make the decision, and it's fair that employers should know if their employees are tarnishing the company's image.
Who do you think is doing the calling? If Vance is saying this, is it going to be the government doing the calling? Well, I work for a government contractor. That might be a bit more than just "more speech".
> Of course he acted alone. It was an assassination using a rifle from a distance. How could anyone else have possibly been involved, even in principle?
Someone could have supplied him the rifle, the position, and/or the idea/motivation. More than one finger could not pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean he was alone in planning it. It doesn't even mean that he was alone at the place where he fired the shot.
But I agree with you in general. If there was a conspiracy, it was a small one. It wasn't the Democratic Party, or the DNC, or the Utah Democratic Party, or anything of that scale. All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree.
> Who do you think is doing the calling?
Vance proposing "Call them out, and hell, call their employer" stands completely separate from anything that he may or may not have the government do. This is a call to action to ordinary people.
> All the more reason why a broad crackdown is inappropriate. To the degree that Vance is serious, he's barking up the wrong tree.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy here. Clearly the belief of Trump, Vance etc. is that there are agitators out there (someone else showed me a source implying that this is specifically about "antifa", which isn't exactly an NGO with a contact address, but black bloc tactics are a thing) who would like for more such incidents to occur, and that by "cracking down" in whatever vague unspecified form they could prevent this. And it certainly doesn't appear that the groups they have in mind are anything like "the DNC".
> Calling people out is doing more speech, not restricting speech — as we were all constantly reminded when "call-out culture" was the meme.
You must be aware of JD Vance's stance on "call out culture":
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1887900880143343633?ref_src=tws...
I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind.
> You must be aware
I don't know why, considering I'm not even American and don't have a Twitter account. But I looked into this since you mentioned it.
> I wonder why he has suddenly changed his mind.
I don't think that "people should not be fired for previously having expressed bigotry" and "people should be fired for endorsing political violence" are inconsistent.
Especially if the bigotry occurred prior to being hired, on a non-work account. Should such a person never work again? Should such a person receive welfare? Is such a person beyond reform?
And the same for the political violence advocates, honestly. They should have an opportunity to repent, apologize and return to a normal life.
You sure seem to spend a lot of time defending trump and fascism for someone who isn’t American
I live in Toronto, Canada and have my entire life, and have been open about this.
I am not defending fascism; my entire point is that this is not fascism.
I disapprove of Trump as president. More than that, I care about fairness. If there is a bias in who I defend, it is because of a bias in who is attacked, and in whose attacks gain respect and notoriety, and in whose criticisms follow from the evidence.
Personal attacks are not, to my understanding, considered acceptable here.
The question isn’t whether people should be fired (that’s up to their employers, within the law) but whether there should be a concerted popular campaign to get people fired who said dumb things on Twitter. That’s the “call out culture” part. I’d thought that JD Vance was opposed to it, but apparently his views have evolved.
> Talking about doing something doesn't mean you plan to do it.
So you are saying the VPs words hold no meaning? I don't get it, of course the VP talking about it signals a plan to do it. What would be the point otherwise?
"We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting)
> It wouldn't logically follow if they were quoting Trump, either.
we should just ignore what he says, right?
> They have started investigating. I can't fathom thinking otherwise
That was an obvious hyperbole. the FBI changed their narrative how many times before they got the shooter (not by their own skill btw)? Cox was talking out of his ass, they did not have any hard information at that point in time.
> And there cannot be any serious doubt that the murder of a prominent political advocate, at an event specifically about politics, during a political exchange, was political.
That is why there are investigations, and why it is important to establish a motive, in a state with real rule of law.
> This is not thought-policing.
That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people for what they post online.
> "We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence" -Pence
Then they should have included this.
> (not sure what NGO he was referring to, that sponsored this shooting)
"Sponsored" means something else.
> That's correct, it's just the vice president directly telling people to dox and harrass people
"Calling people out" and "calling their employers" is not doxxing or harassment. Or at least, so I've been told for years by others doing the same to right-wingers.
This is impeachable, will lead to immediate bad places, and ultimately, political violence. Nobody will enjoy the end point.
Won't be impeached, though. Won't be prosecuted after the fact, either.
There are far more of us than there are of POTUS, SCOTUS and Congress. Not sure why it's so quiet out there.
Impeachment and conviction are pipe dreams.
Protesting in-person is basically pointless virtue signaling because it lacks effective impact without the sustained and organized effort with specific, reasonable, realistic demands of millions of people bringing the economy to a screeching halt by not working, not buying anything, and impeding commercial transportation. 5-6 weeks and the king would need to abdicate.
Also need to go:
- PACs, especially AIPAC
- Citizens' United
- Non-independent state-level gerrymandering
- Campaign finance corruption
- Financial conflicts of interest, i.e., emoluments, stock trading, and insider disclosure to friends/family
Required:
- National voting holiday, perhaps combined with the July 4 holiday weekend
- Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) voting
- Mandatory, nationwide option for permanent mail-in ballot
- Mandatory sufficient polling stations with sufficient required polling stations per capita, maximum average waiting time, maximum average driving distance, and blockchain transaction voting (not crypto bullshit, just blockchain recording) with a paper record that can be located on the public blockchain that also indicates total number of votes and the contents of all votes. With mail-in ballots, a receipt is sent to the sender similar to in-person voting and so they can prove their vote was counted themselves. Provisional ballots are only for unregistered persons without identity docs who go on a provisional blockchain until the identity verification issue is resolved.
- Same day, no-registration-needed voting for any unregistered people with a valid, physical original seal birth certificate or valid passport
- Restoration of the Tillman Act (prohibit corporate contributions to political campaigns)
it is quiet because the few that pillage us made us all quiet (social media immensely helped)