Mediaboss Marketing

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

You might have seen articles or comments on social media lately alluding to sovereign citizens, or SovCits for short, with some reports suggesting COVID-19 government restrictions have driven a surge of interest in this movement.

So, who are these self-styled sovereign citizens, and what do they believe?

Sovereign citizens are concerned with the legal framework of society. They believe all people are born free with rights but that these natural rights are being constrained by corporations (and they see governments as artificial corporations). They believe citizens are in an oppressive contract with the government.

SovCits reportedly believe that by declaring themselves living people or natural people, they can break this oppressive contract and avoid restrictions such as certain rates, taxes, and fines or particular government rules on mandatory mask-wearing.

The SovCit movement arose in America decades ago, with roots in the American patriot movement, some religious communities, and tax protest groups. It has also been known as the free-man movement.

Read more: 'Alt-right white extremism' or conservative mobilising: what are CPAC's aims in Australia?

SovCits see themselves as sovereign and not bound by the laws of the country in which they physically live. Accepting a law or regulations means they have waived their rights as a sovereign and have accepted a contract with the government, according to SovCit belief.

The SovCit movement doesnt have a single leader, central doctrine or centralised collection of documents. It is based on their reinterpretation of the law and there are many legal document templates on the internet for SovCit use to, for example, avoid paying fines or rates they see as unfair.

SovCits tend not to follow conventional legal argument. Some have engaged in repeated court action and even been declared vexatious litigants by the courts.

The SovCit movement has many local variations but there are some key commonalities across the Australian SovCit movement.

A central belief, according to news reports, is that the Australian government, the police, and other government agencies are corporations. Believers feel they must be on guard to avoid entering into a contract with the corporation. They often do this by stating, I do not consent and trying to get the police officer or official to recognise them as a living or natural being and therefore as a sovereign.

SovCits are often careful to avoid showing ID such as drivers licences or giving their name and address. Saying I understand also risks being seen to agree to the contract so SovCits will repeat the phrase I comprehend to show they are refusing the contract.

Many reject their countrys constitution as false and reportedly refer to the Magna Carta of 1215 as the only true legal document constraining arbitrary power.

SovCits often come to the attention of authorities due to driving offences. It is a core belief of the movement that sovereigns have the right to travel freely without the need for a drivers licence, vehicle registration, or insurance.

Until COVID-19, the main threat seems to have been in committing road offences. More recently, actions protesting measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19 have been linked to the sovereign citizen movement.

Here is the original post:
'Living people': who are the sovereign citizens, or SovCits, and why do they believe they have immunity from the law? - The Conversation AU

Its been about two weeks since a bunch of well-intended liberals and lefties wrote an open letter in Harpers Magazine, denouncing intolerance on the left.

Well, if the conservative crowd appreciated the gesture, they have a funny way of showing it. Lets just run down a few of the insulting, degrading, racist, anti-Jewish broadsides emerging from figures on the right over the last few days . . .

Congressman Ted Yoho called congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a fucking bitch. Then when she called him out for it, he said he didnt say iteven though a reporter for the Hill said he did say it.

Senator Tom Cotton said slavery was a necessary evil. When he was called out, he said hed been misquoted and that what hed actually said was that the founding fathers thought slavery was a necessary evil.

As if that clarification is any less offensive. Or historically accuratecause its not at all clear that many slave-owning founding fathers thought there was anything evil about owning slaves.

Tribune columnist John Kass wrote what I call a twofer column in which he dragged out an alt-right, anti-Jewish trope regarding George Soros to malign Black officials like Cook County states attorney Kim Foxx.

Thus, he managed to degrade Jewish and Black people in one swoop.

Meanwhile, Lori Lightfoots right-wing critics have called her a communist whose base, as Tucker Carlson put it, consists of angry Marxist rich kids with spray paint.

All because they didnt agree with her decision to take down the Columbus statues.

In the aftermath, there are no apologies, no regrets. Apparently, theyre proud of what they say and would say it again. As far as I can tell, they feel free to say just about anything they want.

It seems as though there are almost no consequences for right-wingers who spew mean-spirited, hate-filled invective. Tucker Carlson still has his job. As does Sean Hannity. Laura Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh. And John Kass. OK, the Tribune moved Kass from page two to the editorial page.

By the waymuch love to the Tribunes guild for taking a strong stand against Kasss Soros column.

The rights done a masterful job of flipping the switch on free expression. Theyve got the left on the defensive. As though right-wingers are innocent victims whose free speech has been stifled by the lefty political-correct police.

I almost have to give them credit. Theyve rigged the debate so that even many well-intended liberals have been brainwashed into thinking that political correctness exists only on the left.

Well, the right has its own version of rigidly enforced political correctness.

Among other things, you cant criticize Trump supporters for being utterly batshit crazy even when theyre saying things that are, you know, utterly batshit crazy. Like the people in Florida who testified against an ordinance requiring masks in public places. Becauseoh, hell, just watch them if you havent done so already.

But if you criticize them, youre an elitist.

Similarly, you cant criticize Trumpsters for forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. Like the bakers in Colorado who went to court to win the right not to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

Then youre a secular humanist whos intolerant of religious beliefs.

The right recently convinced the Supreme Court to protect the religious rights of corporations to not cover the cost of contraceptives in their employees health-care plans. They even got two liberal justicesElena Kagan and Stephen Breyerto sign on to sending the case back to a lower court.

And they say the left is intolerant? Im still waiting for Justice Brett Kavanaugh to rule that doctors have a First Amendment protected right to talk about abortion with their patients.

Now, I guess were supposed to defend Tom Cottons right to describe slavery as a necessary evil and John Kasss right to employ anti-Jewish tropes. All in the name of free speech.

Generally, Im pretty open to free-speech arguments. But I dont get the feeling that its a two-way street.The obvious case is Colin Kaepernick. I dont recall many (or any) prominent Republicans defending his right to free speech when he got kicked out of the NFL for taking a knee during the national anthem.

Similarly, Trump says he supports the rights of his supporters to wave the Confederate flag.

Well, I guess I should say Trump doesnt limit that right to just his supporters. Though lets face itwho else but a Trump supporter would want to wave the Confederate flag?

Trump says waving the confederate flag is freedom of speech, even if that flag symbolizes an evil institution that is offensive to many people.

But then he turns right around and says flag burning should be against the law. "We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag, you go to jail for one year. One year, Trump said.

He says burning the flag is desecration that many people find offensive.

Oh, so when one group of people are offended, we need a law to protect them.

But when another group of people are offended, itsstop whining, snowflake!

Want another example?

Consider John Catanzara, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police. A few years back he made news when he posted a picture of himself in a Chicago police uniform holding a sign that read: I stand for the anthem. I love the American flag. I support my president. And the 2nd Amendment.

That president he supported was Trump. Well, you didnt think it was Obama, did you?

As a believer in free speech, I defended his right to post that picture.

But now hes threatening to expel any union member who takes a knee in solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters.

And so it goes. When it comes to free speech, the right only wants it for themselves.v

Excerpt from:
Yoho and Cotton - Chicago Reader

Federal officers deploy gas to disperse crowds of protesters near the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., July 20, 2020.

Jonathan Levinson / OPB

After more than 50 days of nightly protests against racism and police violence, demonstrators in Portland are intimately familiar with the immediate effects of tear gas: blurry eyes, burning skin, choking, coughing, crying, retching.

But some protesters believe the gas is doing more than causing red eyes and seething skin. OPB interviewed 26 protesters, ranging in age from 17 to 43, who said they believe regular exposure to tear gas has caused irregularities within their menstrual cycle.

Related: 60+ days of tear gas leaves behind 'a stew of pollutants'

The experiences range. Some protesters reported getting their period multiple times in a single month. Others reported debilitating cramps at least one that ended in a hospital visit and blood clots the size of half a fist. Trans protesters who had stopped menstruating since taking testosterone said they have seen their cycles restart.

There are two common threads between the experiences of the 26 protesters: All said what they were experiencing was abnormal for their bodies. And all believed the tear gas, which law enforcement has been using against demonstrators for two months, was at fault.

Related: 60-plus days of tear gas leaves lingering questions about environmental impacts

There has been little scientific research into whether tear gas can affect a persons hormones and experts warn against extrapolating a solid medical conclusion from anecdotal evidence. But while the science remains thin, the troubling stories have mounted as the release of the chemical has become a near-nightly occurrence.

Lindsey Smith, a 26-year-old preschool teacher who has been live-tweeting the protests since mid-June, said shes noticed a pattern: If she inhales a significant amount of gas in the night, shell have her period the next morning. She said this has happened at least three times in two months even though the hormonal birth control shes on makes it so shes only supposed to menstruate four times a year.

On July 12, after another night that saw federal officers blanket the crowd with tear gas, Smith tweeted to ask if anyone else was menstruating after being exposed to the gas. She received nearly 30 responses from protesters with their accounts of irregular periods: cramping within hours of exposure, periods that stretched for nearly a month, or arrived weeks early.

She was also met with some trolls.

When I posted that, there were a lot of alt-right people screenshot-ing it and reposting it and a lot of them are saying, Good, I hope after this youre sterile, she said. That was the first time that the thought occurred to me: I dont know what this is going to do. And I dont think anyone really knows long-term.

Within the small body of research that does exist on tear gas, the question of what effect it could have on a persons reproductive health, if any, has been left unanswered.

Sven Eric Jordt, an associate professor at the Duke University School of Medicine who has extensively studied tear gas agents, said its possible the gas impacts hormones. He pointed to a 2010 study that showed burning the agent in CS gas, a common type of tear gas, could generate chemicals potentially toxic enough to affect hormonal homeostasis. Researchers in Chile raised concerns tear gas might cause miscarriages in 2011, leading the government to temporarily ban its use. In Bahrain, Physicians for Human Rights documented accounts of pregnancy loss among civilians gassed during anti-government protests.

But no one can say with certainty if theres a link.

Theres really no data on this. Its entirely possible that some of these chemicals that if you inhale them at high levels can have effects, Jordt said. But its really hard to say.

Intense stress could be another culprit. Rising levels of cortisol, the bodys primary stress hormone, are known to upend normal menstrual cycles, And the policing tactics common among local and federal officers including tear gas, impact munitions, and flash bangs could all be fairly described as cortisol-inducing. Not to mention the new unusual rituals that could potentially alter someones usual menstrual cycle: bedtimes pushed to the early morning, a diet of snacks and energy drinks, nightly sprints away from gas and police.

But some protesters in Portland are convinced that stress alone cant explain their experiences.

While many nights are traumatic, protesters are not breathing lungfuls of the chemical every single evening. And some report its only in the aftermath of these hazy nights, during which theyve inhaled for minutes without a mask, that they notice the irregularities.

Alissa Azar, 29, has been protesting downtown at least five nights a week since the demonstrations began. She said shes been caught in the thick of a cloud of gas six times. On two of these occasions, her period started immediately after. The other four times, it started within a few days.

Obviously were experiencing a significant amount of stress right now physically, mentally, emotionally. It would be naive to believe that doesnt have an effect. However, I definitely think theres a correlation between menstruation and tear gas, she said. The timing has been too spot-on.

She said the periods are different than what she expects. Each one lasts for four or five days. The cramps are more like the contractions she had when she gave birth, inducing nausea and severe back pain. A dozen other protesters interviewed had similar accounts of cramps that felt like sharp rocks being cradled in their stomachs.

Were not paranoid. This isnt a coincidence. Somethings going on, Azar said. Within 15 minutes of a gas attack, myself and others will have to take a break from how bad the cramps are.

For some, the experience goes beyond physical pain. Five transgender individuals taking testosterone, which typically stops menstruation after a matter of months, told OPB theyd seen their cramps and bleeding return after attending demonstrations.

These protesters say these unexpected periods were accompanied by a sense of gender dysphoria, the clinical term for the discomfort and distress people feel when their bodies dont align with their gender.

Its definitely a back and forth feeling. Im still pretty early in my transition, and Ive waited a really long time to be able to do this, said Lester Lou Wrecksie, a nonbinary transmasculine person who has been taking testosterone since September.

Wrecksie, 43, said on most nights they stay in the back of protests, largely out of the way of gas. But on June 21, they got knocked down and ended up getting caught in the chemical for longer than usual. Two days later, Wrecksie said their cycle returned for the first time in half a year.

Its unsettling to be like, I can go out into the air with chemicals and have it basically undo part of what Im trying to do for myself, they said.

A few protesters said they were concerned enough with the period irregularities that they scheduled a call with the local Planned Parenthood. Paula Bednarek, the medical director for Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette, said clinicians had not noticed an uptick in patients reporting unusual menstruation since the protests began.

But enough reports linking period irregularities and tear gas have cropped up nationwide in the last few months that another branch of Planned Parenthood has taken note. An epidemiologist with Planned Parenthood North Central States, which supports reproductive health in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, crafted a research proposal after putting out a call for reports from protesters whod spontaneously menstruated after being tear-gassed. A handful of online outlets have also done write-ups this summer questioning a possible connection between the chemical and periods.

Dr. Rohini Haar, a medical expert for Physician for Human Rights, said while these experiences should be acknowledged, she believed there is danger in overreporting a potential link without the hard scientific evidence to back it up.

Haar, an expert in crowd control weapons who has studied the health consequences of tear gas up close among Palestinian refugees, said shed only started hearing these anecdotal reports of tear gas affecting menstruation a few weeks ago. She worried these new accounts could genderize protests and lead to a narrative that protesting is only safe for people without ovaries.

This may be an issue, but its certainly not enough of an issue to intimidate people away from protesting especially women, she said. Its not the situation where you should tell your teenager, This definitely injures your reproductive tract, you are not allowed to go. There is no evidence to say that.

Dr. Jordt said he thought it would be worth trying to find out. He suggested a local or state health department in Oregon should initiate a study, taking health data from protesters and residents and following up with them over the long term.

Jordt estimates there are currently five or six of these sorts of studies that look at long-term effects of tear gas on people who have been exposed repeatedly, most coming from the Middle East during the Arab Spring. But he said governments in these countries often hampered the efforts of the doctors leading these studies, making it difficult to follow up with civilians over long periods of time.

One of the most comprehensive studies within the United States was conducted on recruits for the U.S. Army in 2014. Researchers found recruits exposed to CS gas as part of a training exercise were at a higher risk for developing respiratory illnesses, including influenza, pneumonia and bronchitis.

They were exposed to the gas just once.

Jordt pointed to two reasons why learning the long-term health effects of repeated exposure to tear gas has yet to become a top concern of health experts in the United States: The first is that its rarely used at the levels the country has seen this summer. While its been used en masse on protesters before in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, during the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, during the Vietnam War protests in the 60s and 70s he said the chemical hasnt been pervasive enough to become a top priority among health experts.

Nor is it top of the list for law enforcement agencies. Jordt said theres a strong belief among law enforcement that teargas is their safest option for controlling crowds. He suspects they will not be the ones leading the charge for a deeper study.

The lack of concrete studies has left some protesters feeling like guinea pigs, scouring Google for answers on whats happening to their bodies with no satisfying results.

We dont know the long term effects of this, said Elisa Blackman, 24, who said she got her period five times between June 2 and July 5. She tried to search for an explanation, but the hits she got on the internet focused on effects you could expect in the minutes after being gassed, not weeks or years.

Its like theyre testing it on us.

View post:
'It's like they're testing it on us': Portland protesters say tear gas has caused irregularities with their periods - OPB News

I recently spoke with Darby about what White nationalism looks like in the Trump era, how America's perception of Whiteness is undergoing a slow but necessary change, and why it's crucial to pay attention to backlash dynamics amid a season of racial reckoning.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

There are so many ways to grapple with White nationalism. What motivated you to approach the issue from the angle of women's involvement in the movement?

I was very curious to dig into where White women fit into the far right. I started from the point of: Where are the women? Once I started looking for them, they weren't terribly hard to find. They were right there on the internet.

Had you thought about White nationalism in a focused way before the 2016 election?

I think that I was aware of it maybe more than the average person, just because I grew up in the South. My family's been in the South for a really long time. There was a Ku Klux Klan rally pretty regularly in the town next door to where I grew up. So White nationalism was something I was aware of.

But it wasn't something I'd spent a lot of time thinking too hard about -- other than worrying about it, I guess. 2016 really was the catalyst for me.

Did your thinking on Whiteness change as you worked on your book?

I'm really glad that you feel that way about the book. One of the things I feel was most illuminating to me in working on this project was how I hadn't necessarily considered my own Whiteness. As you said, in America, culturally, we tend to treat it as the default against which everything else is compared, and that itself is a measure of power.

It's interesting to me that we, as a country, haven't really had a meaningful reckoning with what Whiteness is, what it means, and how the far right, especially, is positioned to capitalize on Whiteness as an identity in a way that's incredibly toxic.

I obviously dig into the extreme end of White identity in my book. But everything exists on a spectrum. White nationalists are essentially saying that there's no problem with Whiteness being at the top of the hierarchy, that there's no problem with preserving White supremacy, if we think of White supremacy not just as a belief but also as a system of institutions and structures and even as a way of talking about history.

Conversations about Whiteness that are measured and fact-based are important. But you can't divorce them from an understanding of what the extreme end of the spectrum is.

What was the most surprising thing you learned from your reporting?

Whenever I talk with friends and family about the book, I keep coming back to the fact that you don't have to feel deep hatred to be a part of the hate movement. Often, hatred is secondary, even tertiary. It's something that can be learned over time by being a part of the space.

Think of hate more as a social bond, as a currency between people. I think that there's this misapprehension that if people get involved in the hate movement, they must have a particularly deep-seated disdain for people who aren't like them. But actually, they can get involved in the space -- whether we're talking about an organized group or, especially in the digital age, online networks -- for reasons that are actually really mundane and really familiar to pretty much anybody. They're looking for a way to understand the world that helps them have a narrative for their own lives. They might be looking for camaraderie. They might be looking for power. They might be looking for a way to have a voice, a way to have a platform.

The rhetoric of hate -- and then certainly the violence of hate in some cases, for some people -- that comes later. And it's a way of reinforcing a place in a community. It was very instructive for me to see hate like that, because if you think of hate as a kind of poison or as something that's just curdling in someone, that's not a terribly constructive way to think about hate as a social phenomenon.

Something else that was surprising to me was how little the rhetoric of the far right has changed over time, specifically in the post-Civil War era, because before the Civil War, it was pretty clear where the country stood in terms of hierarchy. Whether you're talking about the Ku Klux Klan or various neo-Confederate groups or Aryan Nations or the alt-right, the consistency in messaging over time is really striking. The rhetoric has been about how the White race is under threat, how the real racism is against White people, how White people are the true and rightful Americans and their way of life must be protected.

That stood out to me because there are people today who run White nationalist social media platforms and try to say: Well, I'm not in the Klan. Or: I'm not a neo-Nazi. And, OK, fine, but you're a part of the same ecosystem, and your rhetoric is remarkably similar.

That reminds me of how your book unpacks how even people who are progressive can gradually make their way to White nationalism.

The book is structured around three women. The first woman is by most people's standards the most extreme, in terms of the things she's done in her life and what she believed (before she disavowed White nationalism). But then I try to move through women who might be more familiar to people, because, again, there's a spectrum of people -- from the most unusual people you've ever heard of to people you could've gone to college with.

There are lots of people who go to this space because they're seekers. America is full of people who are seeking. I think that it's frightening to realize that some people can find their way to a surprising end.

What's also important here is that White nationalism isn't some totally alien environment. It's just making explicit things that are already coded and veiled -- maybe not even code and veiled, frankly -- in mainstream cultural and political conversations. People in the hate movement are explicit. They're very overt about what they believe. But they're drawing from a communal well, essentially. So it's not as though people who were more progressive or apolitical or whatever go to a totally new thing. White nationalism is building on something that's already very present in American life. Which goes back to your earlier point about why it's so important to have these conversations about race: We shouldn't disassociate White nationalism from the greater American experience.

Right. Schlafly was the object of sexism and misogyny. But everybody has a choice. To make the choice to run what was ultimately an exclusionary movement isn't a choice that had to be made.

It's possible to acknowledge that somebody can be the object of a negative cultural force and also be at the forefront of a negative cultural force. A lot of the time, we're not very good at recognizing that reality.

Since the police killing of George Floyd in May, has your thinking on what you want your book to accomplish -- how you want it to fit into conversations about race -- changed at all?

I've been very excited and heartened by what's been happening, with this very public resurgence of protests and demands. I think that it's incredible.

I spend time on parts of the internet that I don't recommend other people spend time on, but that's very much been the rhetoric: See, we told you that they'd come for White people. See, we told you that they actually hate White people. See, we told you that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization. All these things that are -- to me and I assume to you -- untrue, but they exist in echo chambers. I think that it's very important not to lose sight of the fact that there will be people who find something in these spaces to believe in.

See the article here:
Finding the women of the White nationalist movement - CNN