A few weeks ago, I provided a post that looked like this.
"In the democracy, they came first for the Extremists, but I did not say anything because I was not an extremist.
Then they came for the conspiracy theorists and the denialists, but I did not say anything because I was not a conspiracy theorist or a denialist.
Then they came for a the Targeted Individuals, but again I did not say anything because I was not a Targeted Individual.
Then they came for the outspoken and the some of the Christians, but I did not say anything then either, because I was not outspoken or a Christian.
Then they came for me, and by this time there was no one left to speak. "
I think that this is a real breakdown of what we will see if history should start to repeat itself. Based on that, I have been spending a lot of time getting to know, via observation a specific group on the net, that is considered to be extreme, and who might be at the epicenter of such an event if they did go after extremists first.
I have been learning what they believe, why they think and feel the way they do, and looking for signs that their communities are going to be following the script above, in getting targeted first, just like the communists were first targeted in Germany.
Would they really come for the extremists first?
Well like many others I have been paying attention to news articles. What I would expect to see is an increase in extremist killings, kind of like how we had those mysterious killing sprees that were suppose to get us all so scared, guns would be banned. Anyways, what I have been on the alert for is an increase in this type of media hype in regards to extremists a) and b) and increase in demonizing the community.
Remember in Germany it was the communists that they came for first. That group was easy to pick on and they were the first to be attacked. Once this was left to happen, it was easy to go after other political enemies, create laws, etc, which eventually lead to rounding up of several other groups. So what I have been wondering is, could it be happening again, using different groups?
I first noticed an increase in articles, such as the Tiller killing, trying to paint him as right wing, a lone wolf, and the new domestic threat. Then there was the extremist who said he was going to kill Obama. Then in the UK, an alleged international plot by extremists to kill ethnic minorities with ricin. Keep in mind the UK, plot involved only a father and son, and the so called ricin was in a jam jar, and had been there for two years. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/0 ... extremism/
The man suspected of fatally shooting abortion provider George Tiller as Tiller served as an usher during church services yesterday has a long history of involvement with the anti-government “sovereign citizen” movement, as well as anti-abortion radicalism.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... assination
The two men were taken to the county jail where, the next day, in the presence of FBI agents, they began to reveal their intentions. Cowart went first, saying they planned "to go from state to state on a killing spree. Paul had mentioned a total of 88 people and beheading 14 of them." In Schlesselman's account, their aim was "to kill 88 people and kill 14 blacks": either way, the numbers are symbolic among white supremacists. The eighth letter of the alphabet is H, so 88 translates as HH, "Heil Hitler"; 14 refers to the number of words in a message, legendary among the faithful, left by the white supremacist leader David Lane when he was jailed for murder: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
The perennial question in such tragedies is what motivates the perpetrators. In most cases, answers are hard to find, not least because those behind the trigger are not around to give their side of the story. In the case of Cowart and Schlesselman that impediment does not exist, but there are plenty of other conundrums, not least the issue that will no doubt prove central at their eventual trial: how serious were they? Was their talk of a killing spree and dying in a hail of bullets at the feet of Obama a plot they took seriously? Or was it the ranting of two infantile fantasists?http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/05/uta ... index.html
Federal authorities are searching for a man who has at least eight guns registered to him and has threatened to kill President Obama.
President Obama walks towards a car at the airport on Thursday in Dresden, Germany.
The man, identified as Daniel James Murray, is charged with making threats against the president of the United States.
He recently withdrew $85,000 from a Utah bank and told a teller: "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States," according to court papers.
Murray is originally from New York, but was seen several times in late May in St. George, Utah, making bizarre statements at a bank.
According to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Utah, Murray opened an account at Zions First National Bank on May 19 with a $85,000 check.
"Not to be disrespectful, but if I don't get this money, someone is going to die," Murray said, according to the criminal complaint.
Murray would not accept a check and demanded bills no larger than $50, the complaint says.
"We are 94 million miles from the sun, and are in between the sun and moon, and the eagle that flies between them and it's a giant step for mankind. ... I have traveled thousands of miles to be here and know things that are going to happen. ... the banking system will fail and people will die. ... there will be chaos in the world," Murray said.
He then made his threat against the president, the complaint says.
The next day, Murray returned to the bank, withdrew the rest of his money and closed the account.
Authorities do not know where Murray is and said he has been seen driving a blue 2001 Buick LeSabre with New York license plate number ERL 1445.
I was trying to look into this more, when I was again interrupted by another white supremacist plot. This case bothered me, because I know what happens when you make a large deposit such as this, investigations, etc, and then he was just allowed to withdraw the money. It sounded staged, but I did not have time to look into it further. http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/ ... esident39/
Allegedly he is mentally ill, but the fear has been set. But there are lot's of questions about that story that still did not make sense. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525299,00.html
A teenage boy and his father are being held in Britain under the Terrorism Act over a suspected ricin poison plot by white supremacists.
Nicky Davison, 18, was arrested after police found the deadly poison ricin in a jam jar at his father Ian’s home this week.
Ian, a 41-year-old former DJ, is also being held after the anti-terror raid at the terraced house, on Myrtle Grove, Burnopfield, Durham Durham.
Nicky was initially arrested at his home in Grampian Court, Annfield Plain, on suspicion of inciting racial hatred but now both father and son are being detained under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Senior police say they believe the two could be part of worldwide terror plot targeting ethnic minorities.
Durham’s assistant chief constable Mike Barton said: “This shows that the terrorist threat in the U.K. is real and present."
“We believe the people involved to be white supremacist extremists and one of our lines of inquiry was that they were going to target people from ethnic minorities.
I saw this plot and I called it bs. The son was initially arrested for inciting racial hatred, grant it not a good look, but an international plot? They searched the house and found a jam jar, that had been sitting there for two years, and it had traces of ricin. No clear evidence at the time that they were going to poison anyone with the ricin, and if that was their intent, why have it sitting in the cupboard for two years?
How they got that this is an international plot is what I am not clear on. So far they have a father and son, and every article that I had seen was just saying a father and son had been arrested, but the intent to spread fear, hatred, and racial division was there. Don't get me wrong, I am sure this kid got himself into trouble, but the news sources are taking every opportunity to exploit these cases, to point us in the direction of the new terror threat, and yes this is what I was expecting and looking for.
So at this stage I was like, should I sound the alarm, write an article or is it just too soon? No one ever wants to sound like that lone nut on the internet alerting the audience of the deliberate intent to create a new threat, the extremist. That willy domestic terrorist that is more hard to predict that external terrorist, thus necessitating more laws, to take away our freedoms, specifically hate speech laws, but this is what I thought I was seeing.
As it was the weekend, and my image needs no further hits, I thought, maybe just wait and see. What I found was in addition to that, I found a video of Obama telling people to not question the official version of 9-11. Exhibit A.
Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Storyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuASoVK8f9c
Now maybe Obama really does believe that 9-11 was done by terrorists, and that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, I don't know. However for many others they do believe that 9-11 was an inside job, and as the years go by, they are not alone in that belief. It seems more and more people are joining into the speculation that 9/11 was indeed and inside job.
Whatever you believe, in a free thinking society people should be able to look for answers to questions that they have, they should be able to question, without fear of draconian laws, and labels. It seems 9-11 truthers are also a target for new labels, as some try to link them in with extremism. I also expected to see this pattern, again 9-11 truthers fall into the second category I expect to see attacked, and that's the conspiracy theorists.
Anyways after seeing all this, I was still undecided. Then the weekend passed, and I was again in my observation mode, because I thought that with the 911 truthers being highlighted and the sudden media blip of evil extremists on the loose, I might be seeing what I had expected, but wanted to wait a little longer. Well I did not have to wait too long, because the holocaust museum shooting happened and a bit of hell broke loose.
This guy was a poster child and wet dream for extremist watchers everywhere. He was a hate filled white supremacist, had been for years. He had a history of jail time spent for taking hostages. (He claims it was a citizen arrest for the federal reserve.) Either way 4.5 years in jail. He was a supporter of the BNP. A British extremist party, who many claim have extremist or racist views. He was a 9-11 truther, and he also wanted to look into the Obama birth certificate issue. I can't remember if there was anything else that I missed. Oh yeah he hated black people and Jewish people, and thought the world was run Jewish persons. He also ran a website, which some had listed as a hate site. I don't know how this guy managed not to have links to Al Qaeda. Anyways, the stories were flying, and I spent days trying to monitor threads about this, articles, to get a better picture of what had happened.
So far many of the stories that I had come across were suspect in some ways, eg, the British ricin plot, the guy who seemed to have deposited money with no other intent than getting people to hear that he was threatening the president, and then this.
So the first question is was he really a hate-filled extremist that was hell bent on wipeing out someone black or Jewish before his last hurrah? On the surface it looked pretty cut and dried. His ex-wife says he wanted to go out with his boots off, his son says his hate-filled ways destroyed their life, he has a history of convictions, he is hate filled, what else do we really need to know?
Yeah I can see where most people would stop there, but as a targeted individual, and someone who looked deeper into the Jiverly Wong case, this is what I see.
Some weeks before the shooting, he told a friend that his social security had been cut, he felt that someone in Washington had visited his website saw something he posted, did not like it and then had his security benefits cut.
Most times this would sound like the ramblings of an old man who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, or paranoid but is it possible someone was visiting his site, and saw something they did not like? Someone with the connections to have his benifits cut?
He is under investigation, many articles have made this clear, if nothing else his arrest for the hostage taking or whatever it was, would leave him on a watch list probably for life. Remember when under investigation your family and friends are contacted, and they make it almost impossible for you to have the means to support yourself.
Based on articles that I have read, this is what I put together. Sometime ago, he moved in with his son and his sons room mate when his sister had cancer. It seems that his security could not cover their home and they had to move in with the son and room mate. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/dc. ... index.html
"I think it was financial reasons" that led the father and his sister Alice, who was being treated for cancer, to move from their home in Maryland into a 1,800-square-foot, three-bedroom house shared by the two managers of a store renting furniture, appliances and computers, Aulbach said. With Social Security payments his sole income, von Brunn "couldn't support himself," Aulbach added.
Aulbach said he and the younger von Brunn agreed to share the master bedroom so his roommate's father and aunt could have separate bedrooms, but he still paid half the $1,500 monthly rent.
That was several years ago.
Soon after, Eric lost his job and the von Brunns returned to Maryland, where Alice died of cancer. Eric moved in with his father in Easton, returning to Florida once in 2006 for a vacation, Aulbach said. The former roommates talked "maybe once or twice after that," but the conversations ended when Aulbach lost Eric's telephone number.
From what I understand, the dad Van Brunn moved in with his son and his son's fiance, or his son later acquired a fiance and he paid them $400.00 a month for rent.
He lived like that and ran his website. Then recently this is the part that's tricky because I don't have exact dates, but recently he said that his social security had been cut back. By how much I don't know, but in one of the articles that I read, it said the cut meant that he would not be able to pay for his monthly internet connection and would have to go offline.
I have other articles saying that he told his online friends that they would not be seeing him anymore, and one final article confirming that he sold his domain name, or transferred it to another gentleman on June 01, 2009.
So we have an octogenarian, who is barely making it, living hand to mouth, who's pleasure is talking his hate online to those who visit his site. He is hate-filled, but the hate is going into his website, till the means are cut back for whatever reason, he believed it to be someone in Washington.
The other articles say he had become despondent, talking about giving away his computer and other items. Can't pay your internet bill, no more access, no point in keeping the computer. Was he suicidal? I don't have the answer to that question, just what I found in the articles. http://www.adn.com/nation/story/827687.html
At least one acquaintance said he suspected that von Brunn was preparing for a violent end.
Von Brunn had talked about giving up "precious things" - even the computer from which he spread his angry diatribes against Jews, interracial dating and the government, said fellow white supremacist John de Nugent.
"He said he had gone offline," said de Nugent, who last spoke to von Brunn on the phone a few weeks ago.
De Nugent said von Brunn complained that his Social Security benefits had been reduced, and he suspected that his white supremacist views were the reason.
"He was unhappy with his living situation," de Nugent said.
I think he was more than unhappy, the other article described him as despondent. I have no idea what the cut to the social security cheque meant, or what it was going to do to his living circumstances, but the internet loss would suggest that it hit him someone what badly.
Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle — a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928
He had two guns that he owned, but oddly decided to take with him, the gun that would cause the lesser damage. Why not take the other gun if he intended to go on a killing spree or go out with a bang?
Investigators found 10 rounds in von Brunn's rifle and a signed, handwritten screed in his car. "You wanted my weapons - this is how you'll get them," von Brunn wrote.
I don't know how many rounds a winchester holds, he fired at least a few according to the reports, but there were still rounds left. I don't like guns, and I could not find this information via a quick web search, so I left it for the time being.
If the note really is his, and not faked. (Let's remember the Martin Luther King suicide note in his own hand writing, which was faked.) It it's his, it might give some indication as to why he finally snapped and let the hate spill over into the real world. He said that if they wanted his guns, this is how you'll get them. Who wanted his guns? Was he speaking in general terms or specific terms? Remember he is a convicted felon and is not allowed to own guns except on the downlow. If someone really did cut his security like he claimed, did they also find out about his guns? Did he get a letter from the tobacco and fire arms, or some other agency asking him to turn in his guns?
"It was a desperate move," said de Nugent's girlfriend, Margaret Huffstickler, "by a man who thought he couldn't do any more."http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... -shooting/
In his car, officers found a notebook with a handwritten note saying, “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews,” according to a court affidavit.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03495.html
"He said his Social Security had been cut and that he was barely making it," de Nugent said. "He felt it was the direct result of someone in Washington looking at his Web site."
In one of his e-mail blasts expressing his white supremacist views, the man police sources say shot and killed a security guard yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum told readers that they shouldn't expect to hear from him again. Von Brunn was shot and critically wounded by museum guards.
He was about to give away his computer, his primary connection to the fringe world of radical racists. He was living hand to mouth.
His primary connection to being social with others, to being human. Though I have read that he visited neighbours, and lived with his son, his real connection to others like him, like minded people was online. Having that taken away from someone who is already hate-filled, means having their outlet taken away. Having him online is like having a cage where you can openly monitor his views and opinions, but it also gives many of these an outlet, an outlet that might other wise be expressed in other none productive ways.
In the end Van Bran is responsible for what he did, so is Jiverly Wong and all the others, but let's not discount any other roles or factors that society might play. By this I mean killing is wrong, and their is no excuse for the actions, but let's examine what we know about this case.
If left to spill his hatred on the internet, Van Brann, much like many other keyboard warriors, (it's not my term, but I like it) would be just that. Keyboard warriors. The majority of people who come on the internet and spill their views, hatred what have you in my research are more likely to take action online, then offline. It gives them an outlet. Without the internet many of these people posting on extremist sites, conspiracy sites what have you, would do what people use to do, they would go out and they would find each other offline, and then maybe form movements, and then you really would have fringe groups all over the place.
As it is, most people online, not everyone, but the majority will spill their hate, opinions, and conspiracies on the internet and keep it that way. If this man had been allowed to stay online, would this shooting have happened? I don't know the answer to this question, but my suspicion is possibly not. Was there a final trigger that sent this man over the edge into unplanned rage? I don't have the answer to this question, just the picture that had been painted of an old man, conspiracy theorist, extremist, who spilled his opinions on the internet, where his hate was in someways more contained then we realise. This outlet due to a social security cut, which he blames on someone in Washington, was removed from him, he told the people online, whom he seems to have connected with, his community, that he would not be seeing them anymore. He then transferred his domain to someone else, and talked of giving away his computer. Remember it does not sound like he wanted to quit being online, it sounds like he had to, and I will not make excuses for what he did, but this left a hate-filled person with no outlet. I also don't know if the cutbacks were going to interfere with any other life necessities, I have no way of knowing this.
There is a hand written note where he talks about his guns being taken away, if the letter really is his, we have to wonder if there was an actual threat? Did someone know he had these guns? He is not allowed to under the law because of his conviction. Did someone turn him in? Did he mention that he had guns on his site? Did this set him over the edge, or was it just his natural years of being hate-filled as we are lead to believe?
When I see these stories, I try to understand what is behind it, what is the story we are not being told, the picture we are not being painted. I now realise what the mainstream tells you, and the picture they paint is hardly ever the full, real, or true story, and I often go looking for the answers that others do not.
Being under investigation myself for God knows what. Remember first I was supposedly crazy. Then I have heard danger to society. I know from what I have heard back, my handing out activism material was recently used to paint me as crazy. I am none of the above.
Then I know for a fact that my recent research into extreme communities was used to paint me as something that I am not. Me of all people. Welcome to 1984, any websites you visit, even just for research purposes, or to better understand the communities, can and will be used against you. Keep in mind that me and 109,000 other recent visitors to this site could potentially have this crap used against us, not for ever posting, but just for visiting.
So I always try to see that others side. These people could paint a saint as a demon, and this man gave them a lot of material to work with. He was clearly no saint, but was he the heartless fully unredeemable character being portrayed? Hellbent in a fit of racist glory on destroying others?
There are two sides to every story. I have read and gathered evidence and this is the side of the story that I think we are not seeing, and that might be worth examining.
As far as the fallout is concerned, it's just what I expected. Calls for rounding up of extremists, for limiting free speech, it's being used to attach 9-11 truthers. For the truthers, I say hang in their guys, you must be getting close to your goals or they would not be attacking you this much.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi
With the 9-11 truthers there is a scare campaign that I see happening. I see people posting stories such as "oh I was in a bar the other day and started talking about 9-11 and people tried to have me arrested," or "oh I was talking about conspiracies, and someone tried to have me committed to a mental hospital." I am seeing stories like this and I am thinking either the stories are fake and being used to scare people into not talking about 9-11, or people are getting desperate to shut them up. I kind of think it's the former, but who knows.
The fall out is interesting and I am still just getting caught up on that, but here are some of the highlights.
I see people talking about rounding them up, the extremists.
I see people wanting to push ahead the hatecrime bill, that bill needs to be stopped. It will kill free speech and not stop hatecrimes. It will allow them to take down blogs they don't like, and go after anyone who has an opinion they don't like. Free speech is under attack and we have to all work together to stop this.
They are comparing 9-11 truther to terrorists.
They are saying that the lone wolf terrorist is harder to predict than Al Qaeda terrorists and thus more laws are needed, it's not true, but while they have your attention this is what they are pushing forward.
This is what I was expecting, but the speed to which is came down, did catch me out of the blue. I really thought there would be a bit more time before this action came on like this, but I guess I was wrong, but on the other hand, I was watching for it, and expecting it, and this is what I can report back.