Associated Press Hysteria Over White Supremacists

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
The Associated Press is in the midst of a meltdown over the 'threat' of white supremacists (all, what, couple thousand of them?) on social media, with conspiracy theories of coded messages, pushing a Biden Homeland Security warning that there will be all sorts of White Supremacist attacks this summer (one wonders where the Homeland Security was the Summer of 2020 with BLM.....).

One really interesting part I thought some of our Christian posters might find particularly concerning: they declare that among those coded messages and hashtags, using a cross emoji in social media profiles is somehow a secret signal that someone is a white supremacist.


The social media posts are of a distinct type. They hint darkly that the CIA or the FBI are behind mass shootings. They traffic in racist, sexist and homophobic tropes. They revel in the prospect of a “white boy summer.”

White nationalists and supremacists, on accounts often run by young men, are building thriving, macho communities across social media platforms like Instagram, Telegram and TikTok, evading detection with coded hashtags and innuendo.

Their snarky memes and trendy videos are riling up thousands of followers on divisive issues including abortion, guns, immigration and LGBTQ rights. The Department of Homeland Security warned Tuesday that such skewed framing of the subjects could drive extremists to violently attack public places across the U.S. in the coming months.

These type of threats and racist ideology have become so commonplace on social media that it’s nearly impossible for law enforcement to separate internet ramblings from dangerous, potentially violent people, Michael German, who infiltrated white supremacy groups as an FBI agent, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

“It seems intuitive that effective social media monitoring might provide clues to help law enforcement prevent attacks,” German said. “After all, the white supremacist attackers in Buffalo, Pittsburgh and El Paso all gained access to materials online and expressed their hateful, violent intentions on social media.”


But, he continued, “so many false alarms drown out threats.”

DHS and the FBI are also working with state and local agencies to raise awareness about the increased threat around the U.S. in the coming months.

The heightened concern comes just weeks after a white 18-year-old entered a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, with the goal of killing as many Black patrons as possible. He gunned down 10.

That shooter claims to have been introduced to neo-Nazi websites and a livestream of the 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shootings on the anonymous, online messaging board 4Chan. In 2018, the white man who gunned down 11 at a Pittsburgh synagogue shared his antisemitic rants on Gab, a site that attracts extremists. The year before, a 21-year-old white man who killed 23 people at a Walmart in the largely Hispanic city of El Paso, Texas, shared his anti-immigrant hate on the messaging board 8Chan.

References to hate-filled ideologies are more elusive across mainstream platforms like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and Telegram. To avoid detection from artificial intelligence-powered moderation, users don’t use obvious terms like “white genocide” or “white power” in conversation.

They signal their beliefs in other ways: a Christian cross emoji in their profile or words like “anglo” or “pilled,” a term embraced by far-right chatrooms, in usernames. Most recently, some of these accounts have borrowed the pop song “White Boy Summer” to cheer on the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe v. Wade, according to an analysis by Zignal Labs, a social media intelligence firm.

Facebook and Instagram owner Meta banned praise and support for white nationalist and separatists movements in 2019 on company platforms, but the social media shift to subtlety makes it difficult to moderate the posts. Meta says it has more than 350 experts, with backgrounds from national security to radicalization research, dedicated to ridding the site of such hateful speech.

“We know these groups are determined to find new ways to try to evade our policies, and that’s why we invest in people and technology and work with outside experts to constantly update and improve our enforcement efforts,” David Tessler, the head of dangerous organizations and individuals policy for Meta, said in a statement.

A closer look reveals hundreds of posts steeped in sexist, antisemitic, racist and homophobic content.

In one Instagram post identified by The Associated Press, an account called White Primacy appeared to post a photo of a billboard that describes a common way Jewish people were exterminated during the Holocaust.

“We’re just 75 years since the gas chambers. So no, a billboard calling out bigotry against Jews isn’t an overreaction,” the pictured billboard said.

The caption of the post, however, denied gas chambers were used at all. The post’s comments were even worse: “If what they said really happened, we’d be in such a better place,” one user commented. “We’re going to finish what they started someday,” another wrote.


The account, which had more than 4,000 followers, was immediately removed Tuesday, after the AP asked Meta about it. Meta has banned posts that deny the Holocaust on its platform since 2020.

U.S. extremists are mimicking the social media strategy used by the Islamic State group, which turned to subtle language and images across Telegram, Facebook and YouTube a decade ago to evade the industry-wide crackdown of the terrorist group’s online presence, said Mia Bloom, a communications professor at Georgia State University.

“They’re trying to recruit,” said Bloom, who has researched social media use for both Islamic State terrorists and far-right extremists. “We’re starting to see some of the same patterns with ISIS and the far-right. The coded speech, the ways to evade AI. The groups were appealing to a younger and younger crowd.”

For example, on Instagram, one of the most popular apps for teens and young adults, white supremacists amplify each other’s content daily and point their followers to new accounts.

In recent weeks, a cluster of those accounts has turned its sights on Pride Month, with some calling for gay marriage to be “re-criminalized” and others using the #Pride or rainbow flag emoji to post homophobic memes.

Law enforcement agencies are already monitoring an active threat from a young Arizona man who says on his Telegram accounts that he is “leading the war” against retail giant Target for its Pride Month merchandise and children’s clothing line and has promised to “hunt LGBT supporters” at the stores. In videos posted to his Telegram and YouTube accounts, sometimes filmed at Target stores, he encourages others to go the stores as well.

Target said in a statement that it is working with local and national law enforcement agencies who are investigating the videos.

As society becomes more accepting of LGBTQ rights, the issue may be especially triggering for young men who have held traditional beliefs around relationships and marriage, Bloom said.

“That might explain the vulnerability to radical belief systems: A lot of the beliefs that they grew up with, that they held rather firmly, are being shaken,” she said. “That’s where it becomes an opportunity for these groups: They’re lashing out and they’re picking on things that are very different.”
 
The Associated Press is in the midst of a meltdown over the 'threat' of white supremacists (all, what, couple thousand of them?) on social media, with conspiracy theories of coded messages, pushing a Biden Homeland Security warning that there will be all sorts of White Supremacist attacks this summer (one wonders where the Homeland Security was the Summer of 2020 with BLM.....).

One really interesting part I thought some of our Christian posters might find particularly concerning: they declare that among those coded messages and hashtags, using a cross emoji in social media profiles is somehow a secret signal that someone is a white supremacist.

Yes the Marxist assault on religion must take place. Religion provides a moral standard that leftists need to obliterate. One of the very first things leftists did years ago in this country was get God out the schools and the govt. It was necessary to build their new foundation of moral relativism. Now things are right or wrong based on what the collective thinks and not some standard that applies to all of us. They have set up mankind as a god, as the one who is all knowing and all seeing. Time to stand up for the truth!
 
Yes the Marxist assault on religion must take place. Religion provides a moral standard that leftists need to obliterate. One of the very first things leftists did years ago in this country was get God out the schools and the govt. It was necessary to build their new foundation of moral relativism. Now things are right or wrong based on what the collective thinks and not some standard that applies to all of us. They have set up mankind as a god, as the one who is all knowing and all seeing. Time to stand up for the truth!
Then you won't mind if Islam is that religious moral standard? Or perhaps Zoroastrianism?
 
Then you won't mind if Islam is that religious moral standard? Or perhaps Zoroastrianism?
We'll first of all America wasn't founded on the principles of either of those so you're talking out of your posterior.

Next I wouldnt necessarily dismiss either out of hand because any moral standard based solely on human insight is rarely very moral.

Lastly unlike the idiot leftists who have infected America with their putrid disease, I heed the advice of G K Chesterton and, never to take down a fence until I know why it was put up.
 
We'll first of all America wasn't founded on the principles of either of those so you're talking out of your posterior.

Next I wouldnt necessarily dismiss either out of hand because any moral standard based solely on human insight is rarely very moral.

Lastly unlike the idiot leftists who have infected America with their putrid disease, I heed the advice of G K Chesterton and, never to take down a fence until I know why it was put up.
You're positing that it was founded on the principles of Christianity? What makes you say that? Give some explanation.
 
You're positing that it was founded on the principles of Christianity? What makes you say that? Give some explanation.
No I didnt say that. Don't start with your Olympic record jump to contusion please.

Well you didn't say "Please" but rudeness is expected here so I guess it's not entirely your fault and if we expected politeness no one here would converse.

The Declaration of Independence was quite clear that the founders based their movement toward independence on "nature's God".
 
No I didnt say that. Don't start with your Olympic record jump to contusion please.

Well you didn't say "Please" but rudeness is expected here so I guess it's not entirely your fault and if we expected politeness no one here would converse.
I didn't say you did. I asked you a question (two, in fact). See that squiggly hook-shaped line sitting above the period? That's a question mark, which denotes a question: an interrogative phrase requesting an answer. Why does that offend you so much?
The Declaration of Independence was quite clear that the founders based their movement toward independence on "nature's God".
So what about 'nature's God' is the Christian deity you believe in? It could just as easily be interpreted as human consciousness resulting from evolution. Or evolution itself.
 
I didn't say you did. I asked you a question (two, in fact). See that squiggly hook-shaped line sitting above the period? That's a question mark, which denotes a question: an interrogative phrase requesting an answer. Why does that offend you so much?

So what about 'nature's God' is the Christian deity you believe in? It could just as easily be interpreted as human consciousness resulting from evolution. Or evolution itself.
No it couldnt be easily interpreted to be that unless you have some evidence the founders believed in any of that babble.

They also used the word "creator" and unless you believe, by "creator" they meant "human consciousness resulting from evolution" or "evolution itself" you would have to have more than just your opinion about it.
 
No it couldnt be easily interpreted to be that unless you have some evidence the founders believed in any of that babble.

They also used the word "creator" and unless you believe, by "creator" they meant "human consciousness resulting from evolution" or "evolution itself" you would have to have more than just your opinion about it.
It would be very easy to interpret 'creator' as evolution, especially in context of the phrase "nature's god" (why am I not surprised you're a YECer)

I see you couldn't answer the question, however, so since you're unable to, I suggest getting back to the topic of my thread or removing yourself.
 
It would be very easy to interpret 'creator' as evolution, especially in context of the phrase "nature's god" (why am I not surprised you're a YECer)

I see you couldn't answer the question, however, so since you're unable to, I suggest getting back to the topic of my thread or removing yourself.
Show evidence where the founders believed evolution was the creator. You want to use "nature" the way wing nuts use nature today. Show me where the founders believed it. Again your opinion is worth what dogs leave behind from their back end.

You didn't like the answer not the same but you don't seem deterred by facts.
 
Show evidence where the founders believed evolution was the creator. You want to use "nature" the way wing nuts use nature today.
I don't need to. Just as I don't need to show that the founders believed that 'arms' only applied to single shot muskets and not AR15s. You sound like vibise
Show me where the founders believed it. Again your opinion is worth what dogs leave behind from their back end.

You didn't like the answer not the same but you don't seem deterred by facts.
I see you cannot answer the question.
 
I don't need to. Just as I don't need to show that the founders believed that 'arms' only applied to single shot muskets and not AR15s. You sound like vibise

I see you cannot answer the question.
So it's all just conjecture on your part. Good to see you admit it. The founders have been most often referred to as "deists" which of course means they believed in a supreme being or a creator that just stayed out of the way. They cleared believed this creator endowed us with rights.

You think you need to find a victory where you can. I get it.
 
So it's all just conjecture on your part.
No moreso than your claim.
Good to see you admit it. The founders have been most often referred to as "deists"
Many were. Most did not hold any Christian belief that you would recognize today (indeed if they existed today you'd view them the same way you do your fellow Christians like Mormons)
which of course means they believed in a supreme being or a creator that just stayed out of the way. They cleared believed this creator endowed us with rights.
And they're welcome to believe that, yet the words can be interpreted quite easily to mean evolution, etc..
You think you need to find a victory where you can. I get it.
I see you can't answer the question.
 
No moreso than your claim.

Many were. Most did not hold any Christian belief that you would recognize today (indeed if they existed today you'd view them the same way you do your fellow Christians like Mormons)

And they're welcome to believe that, yet the words can be interpreted quite easily to mean evolution, etc..

I see you can't answer the question.
Not really. I can point to the bible and see a reference to a creator. You can't point to anything that suggest the founders believe what you claim but I'm open to your offerings.

I don't have a problem with Mormons personally or religiosity wise. I am also on record as saying that being a Christian is no guarantee of heaven. Also while I admit I am no expert in moronism I doubt they believe what you claim the founders believe.

I think more important is what they meant not how it could be interpreted.

Asked and answered but keep repeating this it's fun.
 
Not really. I can point to the bible and see a reference to a creator. You can't point to anything that suggest the founders believe what you claim but I'm open to your offerings.
Anyone can point at anything and claim it is a creator.
I don't have a problem with Mormons personally or religiosity wise. I am also on record as saying that being a Christian is no guarantee of heaven. Also while I admit I am no expert in moronism I doubt they believe what you claim the founders believe.

I think more important is what they meant not how it could be interpreted.

Asked and answered but keep repeating this it's fun.
So still no answer. Gotcha.
 
Anyone can point at anything and claim it is a creator.

So still no answer. Gotcha.
The only thing that matters is what the founders pointed to as the creator and nothing you have pointed to even hints that's something other than God of the bible.

Right! Still no answer you like. Yippee
 
Silly me...and I thought this OP was about the news article...

I try to remember we are approaching the mid-terms and the regressives...sorry...progressives need to fire up their base some way since Biden and his administration are failing, miserably, and Ocasio-Cortez can only do so much with her declaring Biden is goind a "good job" :rolleyes:. So, liberal media to the rescue.

Oh yea, and I remember the left conspiracy theory that this ?was a secret white supremacist signal so no surprise they are turning this ?️ into one too...
 
Yes the Marxist assault on religion must take place. Religion provides a moral standard that leftists need to obliterate. One of the very first things leftists did years ago in this country was get God out the schools and the govt. It was necessary to build their new foundation of moral relativism. Now things are right or wrong based on what the collective thinks and not some standard that applies to all of us. They have set up mankind as a god, as the one who is all knowing and all seeing. Time to stand up for the truth!
The courts got YOUR version of God out of the schools. There is no justifiable reason to teach everybody's children to honor YOUR God contradicting the religious training they might get at home.

How do you get people to accept some "standard that applies to all of us" unless the populace (or collective as you call it) think these standards are appropriate?
 
Back
Top