Internet Security

A New “War on Terrorism” Is the Wrong Way to Fight Domestic Extremists

On January 6, as insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol building, pro-Trump rioters outside set up a noose. In one photo, taken by a reporter from USA Today, a woman draped in a Trump flag stands on the wooden gallows, clutching the unambiguous symbol of white supremacist terror. She is smiling.The attack, which left five dead,…

On January 6, as insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol building, pro-Trump rioters outside set up a noose. In one photo, taken by a reporter from USA Today, a woman draped in a Trump flag stands on the wooden gallows, clutching the unambiguous symbol of white supremacist terror. She is smiling.The attack, which left five dead, was the crowning moment of a slew of eminently preventable instances of far-right violence throughout the Trump era. The display of white resentment that day hearkened back to the former president’s 2016 campaign. Trump’s early comments, disparaging Mexicans as “rapists” and demanding a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” had animated far-right extremists. Over the course of his administration, they found comfort in Trump’s America. Meanwhile, the president himself made clear, time and again, that he would, at best, ignore the extreme right’s acts of terroristic violence or, at worst, encourage them—just as he did on January 6. “The call was from inside the house,” said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, the author of Hate in the Homeland and the director of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab. “This was democracy itself being challenged.”In the months since, the question of how to stem the tide of domestic extremism has been met with appropriate seriousness from most corners, save certain factions on the right. But many of the solutions offered pose serious problems themselves. Among the more troubling developments is an explosion in calls for a domestic “war on terrorism.” Proposals along this line, emanating from federal law enforcement, intelligence officials, and lawmakers, have run the gamut, from invocations to use the tools and institutions refined during the Bush- and Obama-era “war on terrorism” to demands for a new criminal domestic terrorism statute. The Department of Homeland Security, a sprawling bureaucratic behemoth created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and branded during the Bush era as one of the “essential institutions” in fighting terrorism, has reportedly been tapped by the Biden administration to play a greater role in combating white supremacist extremism. Likewise, the federal No Fly list—which names people who are prohibited from boarding commercial aircraft for travel within, into, or out of the country, and has been referred to as a “due-process nightmare” by civil liberties advocates—has been trotted out as a potential means of restricting the freedom of movement of insurrectionists.Rhetoric supporting these tactics arose out of the cottage counterterrorism industry that blossomed in the aftermath of 9/11, said Michael German, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and a former FBI agent. “You had all these people who were looking for a new target,” German explained. “And that happened just at the time that the public was growing more concerned about unenforced white supremacist violence.”Supporters of a domestic terrorism statute claim that it would provide the government with a mandate to redirect its sprawling intelligence and investigative resources toward pursuing white supremacists. If the FBI could step up its intelligence gathering, the argument goes, it could more effectively disrupt plots, and elevating certain offenses to the level of federal crimes would serve as a deterrent against future organizing. The most important plank of such an approach would be the creation of a special designation for domestic terror organizations, enabling the conviction and imprisonment of those who offer material support.To call these proposals an effort to bring the “war on terrorism” home would be to ignore the fact that most of these tools and tactics have been used on Americans already—for example, in the relentless surveillance of Muslim Americans. And it is unclear what, if anything, such a huge national security push would achieve, aside from creating an even more massive dragnet. Indeed, rather than catching propagandists of hate who incite violence or members of white supremacist paramilitary groups training for the day they can overthrow the U.S. government, American counterterrorism officials have tended to ensnare those who are most frequently the victims of white supremacist violence—Black and brown Americans, immigrants, and religious minorities. After years of Trump’s frantic calls to designate anti-fascists as members of a terrorist organization, it’s near impossible to believe that the right wouldn’t use such a statute against its political opponents the next time it is in power.From left: insignia appropriated from the Nazis on the collar of a member of the National Socialist Movement; tactical headgear worn by a demonstrator at a Second Amendment rally in Richmond, Virginia, in 2020.The stories of two men—a former State Department official, Matthew Q. Gebert, and an Army veteran, Joshua Beckett—make clear that the “war on terrorism” approach, beyond being a civil liberties nightmare, is also, quite simply, unnecessary. We already have the tools to pursue such people, we just aren’t using them correctly. Gebert embedded himself in the national security bureaucracy while organizing events with some of the white power movement’s most prominent figures. He was investigated twice by federal officials vetting him for a high-level security clearance, yet his involvement in the movement—conducted under the protection of a pseudonym but otherwise barely veiled—went unnoticed. Meanwhile, Beckett used his military training to bolster a neo-Nazi group with terroristic aspirations—which was then successfully disbanded. These men illustrate the pitfalls of addressing white supremacist violence through a “war on terrorism” against domestic extremism.Developed in the aftermath of 9/11, the “war on terrorism” tool kit was designed to target a network of international terrorist groups with broad directives of surveillance, as well as on-the-ground military operations overseas. Over the course of the next two decades, federal officials pursued an array of groups and individuals, both in the United States and abroad. A major problem with repurposing the tool kit is that white supremacist violence, merely a radical expression of beliefs baked into the founding of this country, is anything but foreign—and is finding itself increasingly at home.In late November 2016, at a conference in Washington, D.C., after Trump’s election, the white nationalist leader Richard Spencer told a crowd of supporters that the alt-right had “crossed the Rubicon in terms of recognition.” In so doing, it had become more difficult to ignore, its adherents more difficult to spurn. Spencer was referring to Trump and his supporters’ growing enthusiasm for motifs cherished by the extreme right, as well as the outpouring of press attention to his movement. But the comment could easily have been about white supremacists’ ability to actuate political change through the co-option of mainstream conservative institutions, as well as the government itself. Thus, when a pseudonymous Twitter account offered to help European far-right extremists dodge new State Department regulations requiring most visitors and immigrants to turn over their social media histories, it should have been cause for alarm.On March 29, 2018—a Thursday and, therefore, a workday for most federal employees—a user going by the handle @RevengeCoach on Twitter blasted out a message targeted at European extremists. He alluded to having enough sway with State Department visa officials to convince them that a European far-right extremist was a suitable visitor. In case of trouble with U.S. government bureaucrats, @RevengeCoach implied, call up your “good friend,” “Coach Finstock.”“Coach Finstock,” whose name was likely derived from a character in the 1985 film Teen Wolf, wasn’t a mere low-level apparatchik. As my colleague Michael Edison Hayden reported in August 2019, he was Matthew Q. Gebert, an official in the U.S. State Department. In a series of articles at Hatewatch, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s publishing arm that is focused on hate and extremism, Hayden detailed Gebert’s extensive ties to the white power movement. As “Coach,” Gebert had called for a nuclear-armed white ethnostate and led a meetup group tied to the white nationalist media outlet The Right Stuff. Meanwhile, as a foreign affairs officer in the Bureau of Energy Resources, he attended meetings with high-ranking officials in the United States, as well as internationally.According to a later article in Vanity Fair, Gebert had a Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance—one of the highest levels of authorization, and one that had to be renewed every five years. In 2020, Amos Hochstein, the former head of President Barack Obama’s special envoy for international energy at the State Department, told the Southern Poverty Law Center’s podcast, Sounds Like Hate, that Gebert “had full access to classified information and classified computer systems that would give him access to quite a bit of information outside of the purview of the energy bureau alone.” The year after he marched alongside Klansmen, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other far-right extremists at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Gebert’s security clearance was renewed.The “war on terrorism” approach, beyond being a civil liberties nightmare, is also, quite simply, unnecessary.Gebert’s tenure at the State Department began a few years prior to his work as an organizer within the white power movement. He joined in 2013 as a presidential management fellow—a prestigious two-year program that places recent graduates from advanced degree programs at U.S. government agencies. At the time, he was assigned to the State Department. An organizational directory that was declassified in early 2017 lists Gebert as a fellow assigned to the Office of Russian Affairs. Even though the fellows are given two-year appointments, many of the program’s participants, including Gebert, graduate into a permanent position at their assigned agency. Over the course of the next couple of years, he served as the desk officer on energy, where, according to Hochstein, he focused on a few South and Central Asian countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India.Gebert claimed that his in-person involvement with the movement began in 2015, around the time that the alt-right started to pick up steam. He credited The Right Stuff and Richard Spencer’s white nationalist organization, the National Policy Institute, for introducing him to real-life organizers. The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified at least 10 accounts online that have belonged to him throughout the years, with handles such as @Cue1933—an apparent reference to the year Hitler came to power—and @nevercuck. Gebert later moved on to help lead the “D.C. Helicopter Pilots”—an offshoot of The Right Stuff that brought together white nationalists in the Washington, D.C., and Northern Virginia area. With his wife, Anna Vuckovic, herself a white nationalist pundit under the nom de plume “Wolfie James,” Gebert hosted parties and events for far-right extremists at his home in Leesburg, Virginia. At one gathering, the pair served cookies in the shape of swastikas.In August 2019, in response to Michael Edison Hayden’s reporting at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the State Department placed Gebert on immediate administrative leave. The blowback elsewhere was equally rapid. Investigations were launched in the State Department and on Capitol Hill. Gebert’s neighbors in Greenway Farms, a development of quaint single-family homes and townhouses in Leesburg, expressed alarm. One nearby resident reached out to Hayden, saying that they had spotted Gebert standing in his lawn with a handgun on his waist.If the revelations about Gebert sparked an appropriately swift and severe response, it’s not clear why it took so long to out him. The hate he spewed could have come up in the course of the federal government’s exhaustive background check. His involvement in Unite the Right should have. Gebert wasn’t a member of any far-right extremist group that’s been mentioned as meriting the designation of a terrorist organization, but because he was an applicant for a security clearance, the government had numerous ways to pry at his background; his facade as an innocuous, hardworking family man could have been revealed for what it was. There were questions on Standard Form 86—the form used by the government to facilitate background checks for those seeking a security clearance—that should have turned up evidence of Gebert’s involvement in white supremacist organizations, or his involvement in groups that sought to dismantle the U.S. government. Officials could have inquired about his comments calling for “a country founded for white people with a nuclear deterrent,” or his involvement in Unite the Right. People have lost security clearances for less. But no one, it seemed, had asked the right questions.Gebert and others like him saw their positions in government, think tanks, and media as incubators for shifting the mainstream political discourse further to the right. Alongside their efforts arose another wing of the movement, whose enmity toward the state caused them to eschew the nuances of the political process. These extremists—often referred to as white supremacist accelerationists—embrace terroristic violence and glorify the trappings of America’s militaristic culture. Their goals include a revolutionary race war, and their ranks contain current or former members of the military whose combat training was acquired and honed through America’s “war on terrorism.”Among them was Joshua Beckett, a U.S. Army veteran (he served between 2011 and 2015 as a combat engineer) and a self-described former wounded warrior, who later joined the neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division as its Ohio cell leader. Beckett was first identified by Ali Winston, Jake Hanrahan, and A.C. Thompson at ProPublica as one of several members of Atomwaffen who were either veterans or active-duty military. Beckett, ProPublica’s reporting revealed, had trained Atomwaffen members in firearms and hand-to-hand combat in 2017. Chat logs provided to the Southern Policy Law Center, detailing Atomwaffen’s inner workings from mid-2017 to early 2018, make clear that Beckett, under the name “Johann Donarsson,” discussed his training in some detail with other members, as well as his skills with weaponry. But they also reveal a side of Beckett that hasn’t been reported on, namely how he presented his own radicalization narrative, and the role he claimed his own military experience played in it. (Beckett declined to participate in this story.)By the time Beckett, then an Ohio resident, appeared in Atomwaffen chats, he had been out of the military for two years. He described himself as a college student (he went to Ohio University between August 2015 and May 2019), and discussed his “red-pilling”—a term used by many members of the white power movement, especially those younger, to denote their radicalization to far-right extremism—over the course of several conversations with chat room members. In particular, he connected his deployment to Afghanistan, a key battleground in the “war on terrorism,” with his turn to terroristic national socialism. “I was slightly pro-white pre-Army but the Army made me full blown [National Socialist],” he wrote on the messaging platform Discord. At the same time, he professed to having received “more respect from Taliban detainees than the k***s that sent me over there to kill them.”Beckett told Atomwaffen members that he’d returned to the United States with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and cancer, and joined up with a program offering services to wounded warriors, though it is unclear which one. He also claimed to have attended events hosted by the Wounded Warrior Project, a charity and veterans’ services organization. (However, Sherry Sanderford, public relations manager for the organization, told me in an email that there was no Joshua Beckett from Washington, D.C., or Ohio signed up for the program in 2013.) Beckett bragged that he had “met all the big name politicians,” while in the U.S. capital: “The more I’d meet them the more I’d hate them. That’s when I realized Mein Kampf was still relevant and that’s how I started hating Jews.” (One of these “big name politicians” was President Barack Obama; Beckett and three dozen other people identified as part of a “Wounded Warriors tour” visited the White House two years prior to his discharge.)Beckett’s Ohio cell consisted of just one person: himself. But the combat training he supplied at an Illinois Atomwaffen “hate camp”—the term used by the group to describe meetups where members of various cells would gather in a remote area to prep for their dreamed-of race war—came at a time when the group’s thirst for extreme violence had begun to play out in the real world. In May 2017, Atomwaffen member Devon Arthurs was arrested while holding store employees at a Tampa-based smoke shop hostage. Officers searched Arthurs’s apartment, which he shared with former Atomwaffen leader and Florida National Guard member Brandon Russell, where they found the bodies of two other members of the group shot to death at close range. In the garage stood a cooler with a white, cakelike substance, later identified as explosive hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, which has been used in terrorist attacks, such as the 2005 London bombing, and a framed photo of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.Less than a year later, in January 2018, Atomwaffen members on Discord celebrated the brutal murder of Blaze Bernstein, a 19-year-old openly gay Jewish man. His alleged killer, Samuel Woodward, was described by ProPublica as a key member of Atomwaffen’s California cell. Like Beckett, Woodward had also attended a “hate camp,” this one in Texas.Russell’s imprisonment, the subsequent change in leadership, and the fallout from Unite the Right, which the group saw as evidence that mass organizing and political tactics were bound to fail, whetted the group’s appetite for revolutionary violence. What Atomwaffen sought, in short, was an apokalypsis—literally an “unveiling”—of either a white ethnostate or a national socialist utopia through an outburst of violence. The group claimed to stand for what the alt-right was not. Where alt-right leaders held rallies and conferences in an effort to exert political influence, accelerationists saw no merits in political praxis. “When shit hits the fan, these fakes are going to run for the hills,” wrote John Cameron Denton under the username “Rape” on August 15, 2017, three days after Unite the Right, referring to those who organized the event. “And we need to be there to guide those who will prove to be worthwhile in this struggle.” At one party, Matthew Q. Gebert and his wife served cookies in the shape of swastikas.“This movement has always been capable of violence, but right now there is especially interest in building paramilitary structures and gaining specialized training in firearms, explosives, and operations,” said my colleague Cassie Miller, a senior research analyst and spokesperson at the Southern Poverty Law Center. As a result, she added, “people with military training are highly prized because they not only increase the movement’s capacity for violence with their own set of skills, but are capable of training others.” Beckett, for instance, not only provided on-the-ground combat training to Atomwaffen members, but also said he would construct weaponry, specifically an AK-47, at one point offering to do so “for free.”Armed adherents of the far-right anti-government Boogaloo movement demonstrated at the Second Amendment rally in Richmond in 2020.Mark Peterson/Redux“They don’t have to get that [training] from veterans,” said Kathleen Belew, the author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America. “We’re in the age of the internet. They can go get that in a whole bunch of other ways.” But, she added, “it’s more deadly when it comes from the armed forces, who are very good at the use of deadly force in training and munitions.” And because their military background gives them a kind of “social capital,” as Belew put it, they can have an especially influential role in extremist groups. One Pentagon report, obtained in early 2021 by Roll Call, referred to those with experience in the armed services as “highly prized” members or recruits. While it offered no statistics on the number of current or former members associated with hate groups, the report noted that the radicalization of members of the military presented a unique concern because of their “proven ability to execute high-impact events.”After a series of high-profile arrests targeted the core leadership of Atomwaffen Division, the group found itself rudderless, and James Mason, a prominent neo-Nazi and the group’s unofficial mentor, announced its disbandment. “The decision is a matter of the plainest reality,” Mason said in a recording posted on a number of different sites. “Over the course of the past weeks and months, the level and degree of federal infiltration and the numerous arrests stemming from that have so severely hampered the group’s ability to function as a group that it would be pointless to even pretend that anything resembling organizational activity could continue.”The disbandment of Atomwaffen coincided with speculation that the State Department planned to name the group, which was based and founded in the United States by U.S. citizens, a foreign terrorist organization. Doing so, some counterterrorism experts posited, would empower law enforcement to better track and prosecute alleged members within the United States. Atomwaffen didn’t receive the designation, but the State Department did choose to list an ultranationalist organization in Russia, the Russian Imperial Movement, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” in part because it had provided paramilitary training to some other European far-right groups, as well as two individuals charged with bomb attacks in Sweden in 2017. This more limited classification of a foreign terrorist organization allows the United States to implement sanctions against the group but prevents it from aggressively pursuing those American citizens who provide material support of any kind to these groups. Since then, lawmakers re-upped their calls to designate overseas white supremacist organizations. In April, Representative Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, called on the Biden administration to classify a number of groups, including the German-based Atomwaffen Division Deutschland, in this manner.However, the disbandment of Atomwaffen demonstrates, again, that traditional law enforcement doesn’t need the expanded tools and tactics of the “war on terrorism”; it simply needs to better exploit its existing ability to investigate and prosecute acts of white supremacist violence. What’s more, while there have been other white supremacist accelerationist cells like Atomwaffen operating within the United States, such as the Base—another group that was torn apart in early 2020, after a series of arrests of its U.S.-based leadership—the reality is that, for years, white supremacist organizing has occurred not in secretive cells but in full view of the authorities. The Capitol insurrection and Unite the Right were organized on social media, often by accounts that did not conceal the identities of their owners.How effective could the tools of the national security state be against white supremacists when white supremacists themselves are deploying them?An effective approach to combating white supremacist violence would be one that uses existing laws to root out propagandists like Gebert, disarm paramilitaries like Beckett, and manage public actions like the Capitol insurrection and Unite the Right so that they don’t become violent. That said, making real progress against the extreme right requires that we not rely solely on law enforcement either. The tool kit of the “war on terrorism” isn’t necessary, and law enforcement isn’t enough—so what do we need?In considering the question, it’s worth keeping in mind that despite the mantra that there is no domestic terrorism statute on the books, domestic terrorism is already proscribed within federal law. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice details some 50 or more predicate offenses that could apply to cases of domestic terrorism, ranging from the destruction of infrastructure and U.S. government property to killing or attempting to kill government officials. This list is far from exhaustive, as the report goes on to note that the Justice Department has used a number of other statutes to prosecute cases of domestic terrorism, such as wire fraud and manufacturing weapons without paying tax, as well as federal hate crime laws.Extremists’ organizing and fundraising capabilities can be curtailed in other ways. Civil lawsuits, such as the one targeting Unite the Right, have hampered organizing and fundraising activities. On the tech side, experts have pointed to deplatforming—a term used to refer to the act of removing groups or individuals, usually extremists, from internet platforms—as one starting point, given that the organizers of events like Unite the Right and the Capitol insurrection were reliant on mainstream social media sites and payment platforms. A suite of alternative platforms—some of which, like Gab, catering openly to extremists—is on the rise, so deplatforming can only go so far. But far-right extremists on these decentralized, sometimes encrypted platforms can still be monitored by journalists, researchers, and law enforcement, as evidenced by the reporting on and the charges against members of Atomwaffen. A federal investigation into a massive Bitcoin donation from a deceased French programmer to a slew of far-right propagandists and activists demonstrated that these alternative payment platforms are not immune to legal intervention.Then there are those, such as Cynthia Miller-Idriss, of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab, who have pointed to the need for broader protective measures that could stop radicalization from happening in the first place. If we don’t want a “securitized future,” she said, “the alternative is investing in prevention.” Such measures might focus on inoculating the public—not just the fringe—against extremist propaganda and disinformation, perhaps by educating parents and caregivers on how to identify extremist propaganda read by their children, creating a German-style program of political education, or even developing a Finnish-style curriculum to build up media literacy.From left: a customized AR-15 worn by a Boogaloo Boi at the Second Amendment rally in Richmond; members of the National Socialist Movement giving a Nazi salute at the group’s annual meeting in April 2021.The military has already taken steps of its own. After nearly one in five people facing charges tied to their alleged involvement in the insurrection were revealed to be either veterans or active-duty military, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III ordered a temporary “stand down” to address extremism within the ranks. Units were instructed to reaffirm the oath of enlistment and were provided with a number of case studies and some questions for discussions. A series of slides, provided to Military Times by a Naval Reserve training officer, discussed what constitutes unlawful behavior with regard to extremist or criminal groups, alongside permissible political activities. In April, Austin announced additional changes, including a review and revision of the Department of Defense’s definition of extremist activities and of the screening questionnaires administered prior to recruitment, as well as the establishment of a Countering Extremism Working Group. While these initial steps would not do much to keep someone like Beckett from becoming radicalized during their enlistment, it could help limit the number of white supremacists enlisting in the first place—a problem that has continued to this day, as a recent HuffPost investigation revealed.Gebert’s case presents its own challenges, but his ability to retain a top-secret security clearance raises serious concerns about the process by which investigations are carried out. It’s especially worrying given that some members of the national security infrastructure have suggested such exhaustive background checks as a means of rooting out far-right extremists in the military and elsewhere in government. The whole purpose of a domestic “war on terrorism” would be to turn the tools of the national security state against white supremacists, but how effective could such tools be when white supremacists themselves are deploying them? Furthermore, the means to root out people like Gebert already exist. Much of his activity and commentary as a far-right extremist, though under a pseudonym, was carried out in public. Since 2016, a policy document, Security Executive Agent Directive 5, has ensured that federal investigators can take publicly available social media posts into account while “cyber vetting” applicants. Standard Form 86, a questionnaire given to all applicants seeking a security clearance, does ask for nicknames or other aliases, which presumably guide the assessment of social media accounts. Another section asks explicitly about affiliations with groups promoting or using violence against those exercising their constitutional rights, as well as promoting terrorism.German, the Brennan Center fellow, said part of the problem was the FBI’s limited role in holding participants at Unite the Right accountable for the violence. “I assumed that at the very least the FBI was going to have extensive enforcement coverage and video coverage of everything that happened there,” he said. Instead, he observed, the FBI turned its sights on only one of the dozens of extremist groups involved in the protest. Specifically, the agency targeted the white nationalist street-fighting group the Rise Above Movement, after reports from ProPublica and PBS’s Frontline detailed its involvement in the demonstration and in other instances of violence throughout the country. A handful of participants faced significant criminal charges, but the majority of organizers have faced civil lawsuits, not criminal charges. In this climate of law enforcement apathy, someone like Gebert, then, could slip through the cracks.With Gebert’s departure from the State Department, the white power movement lost one of its men on the inside. But for Gebert himself, the news was far from catastrophic for his career as a hawker of white nationalist propaganda. He had mentally prepared for this moment, he confessed on an episode of the alt-right podcast Fatherland—losing his job, his paycheck, and perhaps even some of his friends—because the formation of a whites-only ethnostate was, at the end of the day, “the most important thing to me in my life.” Thus, in 2020, Gebert and his family fled for even whiter pastures. In the midst of a nationwide Covid-19 lockdown, Gebert and his wife sold their Virginia home and moved into a two-bedroom house in Purgitsville, West Virginia. That August, someone, presumably Gebert or his wife, registered a business consulting firm dubbed Young Wolf Consulting at their new home. Officials at the State Department have not confirmed whether Gebert is still being paid, despite several requests for comment by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2019. (A spokesperson from the State Department said it does not comment on an individual’s security clearance and stated that matters of payroll were protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act. Gebert himself did not respond to The New Republic’s request for comment.) Vanity Fair speculated that he was on unpaid leave, adding that a source had told the magazine that he had not been on payroll since October 2019. All the while, Gebert has remained active in hate groups, and his once part-time gig as a peddler of racist dreck has transformed itself into a full-time job.The government’s response to Gebert’s activities did nothing to dissuade his continued involvement in the white power movement. There were inquiries from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs into how much, or how little, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security—the office charged, in part, with vetting security clearance applicants—knew regarding Gebert’s involvement with white supremacist groups and organizing, but they went unanswered. In the meantime, news of two other similar cases broke. One, reported by Politico in February, involved a foreign services officer who derided Jews as the “wholly Anti-Christ” and claimed whites were on the road to “self-extermination.” In March, a former Trump appointee and State Department aide was arrested on charges tied to storming the Capitol on January 6.“When Gebert was exposed by the SPLC, I said he was symptom of a bigger problem,” Hochstein told me in an email, a few weeks after Politico outed the foreign services officer as an antisemitic blogger. “Sadly, my warnings were ignored and tragically, I was right.”On the evening of January 7, Gebert logged onto DLive, a youth-targeted livestreaming site that has become popular with far-right extremists. Alongside a cadre of white nationalist propagandists, he proceeded to unpack the events of some 24 hours prior. The episode, entitled “DCville”—a portmanteau of “DC” and “Charlottesville”—seemed intended to evoke memories of Unite the Right. While warning insurrectionists of the legal, political, and personal fallout that was to come, Gebert got personal. In a back-and-forth with his cohost, “Sam,” he sought to offer a glimmer of hope to pro-Trump rioters as arrests began to pick up steam. “The experience of the past year and a half has taught me that it’s extraordinarily liberating to not have to live in a little bit of a shell,” said Gebert, who has continued to refer to himself as “Coach Finstock” online. A little more than a month later, he and his wife posted a selfie celebrating 20 years of marriage on Gebert’s now-defunct Twitter account, @RadByReality. It was likely their first post as open white nationalists on a public social media site.Of course, the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 didn’t seem to feel they were hiding from anything. They didn’t live in a “shell”—there was no need to. The insurrectionists knew, as prosecutors underlined during impeachment hearings in February, that they were abiding by the president’s orders. “We love you, you’re very special,” Trump had told his supporters in a video posted to his now-banned Twitter account on the evening of January 6. Attendees crowdfunded their travels on sites like GoFundMe. On the day of the attack, public social media posts, not private communiques, prompted a number of arrests. When they returned home, some rioters even bragged about their excursion to the nation’s capital.Their act of terror, which took place at the behest of the president of the United States, was planned and carried out in full view. In 2017, when Gebert and others marched in Unite the Right, they were emboldened by Trump’s recent election; they too saw no reason to hide. In 2021, after the president’s enthusiastic endorsement, they saw no reason to back down.In the end, the grim truth is that any attempts to curtail the actions of white supremacists—those of sensible law enforcement or those of an overreaching “war on terrorism” tool kit—are treating merely the symptoms, and not the cause. White supremacist ideology has been knitted into American society since the country’s founding. To try to undo the conditions that produce individuals like Gebert or Beckett is to undertake a vast cultural project. Some white nationalists “may be members of foreign terrorist organizations, but others are members of Congress or popular Fox News hosts,” pointed out Emerson Brooking, a fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, a think tank in Washington. “There’s no way to ‘other’ a movement that wields so much power and so much influence over American life.”
Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Internet Security

Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto but few make it central to wealth plans

Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto, but integration stays low. Security, fees and platform complexity emerge as key barriers to adoption. US investors show deepest crypto integration despite lower ownership rates. High-net-worth investors are increasingly buying crypto, but many are still reluctant to make it a major part of their long-term wealth plans


An investor checks rising cryptocurrency charts on a laptop and smartphone with a city skyline visible through the office window.

  • Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto, but integration stays low.
  • Security, fees and platform complexity emerge as key barriers to adoption.
  • US investors show deepest crypto integration despite lower ownership rates.

High-net-worth investors are increasingly buying crypto, but many are still reluctant to make it a major part of their long-term wealth plans, according to a new Nexo survey.

The report found that 67% of affluent investors across the US, UK and Argentina already own crypto. However, security concerns, high fees and complicated platforms are stopping many from using digital assets for retirement planning or replacing traditional investments.

Nexo published its “Future of Digital Wealth 2026” report on September 23 after surveying 1,000 affluent investors. Its new Crypto Integration Index, which measures how deeply crypto is incorporated into investors’ finances, produced an average score of 4.83 out of 10.

Ownership outpaces deeper integration

Nexo said a score near the survey average of 4.83 represents a small, short-horizon crypto position outside retirement planning.

Only 4.7% of surveyed investors scored seven or higher, a level Nexo describes as structurally integrated, where crypto has replaced a traditional asset and forms part of longer-term financial planning.

The report found that just under 20% of respondents expect crypto to become their number-one personal wealth driver over the next decade, ahead of salary, equities and real estate.

More than 40% are already invested in crypto without yet building wealth with it.

“Once an investor gets past the risk perception stage, what’s left is security, fees, and platform user-friendliness and capabilities – the same things we’ve spent years building Nexo to solve,” said Neil Steinhardt, COO, Nexo US.

That’s the gap between owning crypto and actually building wealth with it, and it’s exactly where our platform is designed to meet investors.

Integration also varies by market. Argentina had the highest ownership rate at 74%, but a CII score of 4.62. The US had the lowest ownership at 62%, but the deepest integration with a score of 5.07.

The UK recorded 65% ownership and a CII score of 4.75.

Platform trust becomes the next hurdle

The report said crypto integration peaks among investors aged 35 to 44, with 28% treating digital assets as a core retirement asset.

Investors aged 18 to 25 reported the highest ownership and conviction, with more than 90% holding crypto, but only 2% maintaining a horizon of 10 years or longer.

Among

Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

LIZ PEEK: Can Trump Make the UN Great Again despite its globalist agenda?

close Video Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon condemns the UN for allegedly including Israel in sexual violence blacklist Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations (UN), blasts the UN for what he claims is their decision to include Israel in a sexual violence blacklist that also includes Hamas. NEWYou can

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Today, President Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly. As New Yorkers fume over traffic nightmares created by the president and by hordes of visiting diplomats, they may (again) question, as do many Americans, why U.S. taxpayers support this badly managed and scandal-scarred institution. Especially when the U.N. so frequently works against our interests and seems incapable of accomplishing its primary mission.

A new Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans think the U.N. does a poor job of “maintaining international peace and security,” and 70% say the same about the U.N. “upholding international law” and “protecting human rights.” That’s a lousy report card for an organization that spends roughly $70 billion per year.

Elsewhere in the world, the U.N. scores better, which is not surprising since poor countries, which constitute the majority of members, look to wealthier nations for handouts via the U.N. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are especially keen on the sprawling organization.

WALTZ DELIVERS BLUNT WARNING TO NATIONS DEFYING IRAN SANCTIONS, TOUTS GREENLAND DEAL

Trump heads to UN General Assembly as foreign policy challenges mount Video

How does that wealth transfer happen? One way was described by President Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz in recent testimony before Congress: “The U.N. let countries use peacekeeping missions as cash cows for their militaries. Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the U.N.” Those operations can employ “10,000 to 18,000 soldiers”; the costs, Waltz says, are “quite significant.” He is ending that practice — just one step in reforming the bloated U.N., whose budget has quadrupled over the past 25 years.

Americans have reason for skepticism, given the frequent votes that go against the U.S. or our ally Israel. For thirty-three years in a row, the General Assembly has voted to end our embargo on Cuba, and for decades it has opposed Israel’s attempts to protects its citizens from Palestinian terrorists. Waltz calls the body a “cesspool of antisemitism.”

WALTZ SLAMS FRANCE AFTER STUNNING SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACK ON US AFTER UN VOTE

Not only is the U.N. frequently hostile to the U.S., it is often ridiculous. Most recently, the U.N. voted overwhelmingly to adopt a new map which blows up Africa’s presence on the globe; the U.S. was the sole dissenter. In a memo explaining our outlier vote, Deputy U.S. Representative Yaryna Ferencevych called such resolutions “barnacles on our work here” and wrote: “Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace… this body is debating map projects from the 16th century, and their role in promoting reparations and “cognitive justice.”

The U.N. rarely has much real-world impact. Critics might question, for instance, what the U.N. has done to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War, or how it has helped keep the world’s oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. The answer in both cases is zero.

Instead, the U.N. is hyper-focused on climate change, gender equality and other issues that may scratch a globalist itch, but appear little related to the cause of peace.

Demonstrators gather outside United Nations General Assembly Video

Meanwhile, the U.N. is going broke. Last year the Economist reported: “On May 5th the U.N. will brief members on a previously unreported $600m (17%) cut to its $3.7bn [administrative] budget aimed at avoiding default this year. It will include a hiring freeze… Yet it may not be enough. A combination of deadbeat members and mad budget rules have led to a liquidity crisis.”

TRUMP BRINGS NEW HEAT TO CONTROVERSIAL UN AGENCY AS ALLEGED HAMAS TIES ENGULF SCORES OF EMPLOYEES

The article goes on to warn that a “leaked memo” suggesting that the Trump administration might cut off funding to the U.N. threatened “a financial crash in the citadel of peace and security.”

The Trump White House has not bankrupted the U.N. by withholding payments. Instead, it appointed Waltz to drive much-needed reforms and who is, according to Politico, “generally well-regarded, including among many Democrats on Capitol Hill.” That’s rare praise for a Trump appointee.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROBES UNRWA OVER ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT OF 1,500 TERRORISTS

Waltz is working to downsize the bloated U.N., focusing on its staff of 100,000 — individuals who are paid roughly 17% more than equivalent U.S. civil servants, according to Waltz. According to testimony he gave to Congress a few months ago, Waltz’s team pushed through a “historic 15% cut $570 million out of the U.N.’s regular budget. That will eliminate nearly 3000 headquarters positions.” That change alone provided a savings for U.S. taxpayers of $126 million. Waltz recently told Fox Digital that budget cuts now total $1 billion.

Waltz is also overhauling U.N. peacekeeping operations, some of which, as he has said, have been around for “30, 50 or even 80 years.” Waltz argues such forces are important to provide breathing room for political settlement of a conflict, but it “can’t then become an excuse to not have a political resolution. When you have a peacekeeping force, for example, in DRC and Congo, at the cost of a billion dollars a year, that’s been there for 30 years,” it should end.

Mike Waltz: 'Under President Trump we're demanding reform' at the United Nations Video

Waltz is just getting started; reforming an institution so large and complex takes time, which he may not have. Soon, the U.N. will elect a new secretary-general to succeed Portugal’s António Guterres, who has served since 2017. Currently, most of the candidates who have stepped forward appear eager to embrace the reforms advocated by the White House, alarmed that President Trump is ready to eviscerate the U.N.’s funding if changes are not made and a U.S.-friendly official not elected.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Finances are not Trump’s only weapon. As Politico reported, when the White House announced the creation of the Board of Peace last year to oversee the Israel-Gaza conflict, “U.N. officials and diplomats were really, really unnerved,” seeing that Board as some sort of “rival peacemaking institute.”

TRUMP-BACKED BOARD OF PEACE, ISRAEL ‘WILL TAKE ACTION’ IF HAMAS REMAINS OUT OF COMPLIANCE: NETANYAHU ADVISOR

However, permanent members of the Security Council, which include Russia, China, France, the U.K. and the U.S., can veto candidates. That is making the race unpredictable. If the members cannot agree, they could extend Gutterres’ term by another year, which would likely mean that President Trump would have less say in the outcome.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That could trash the White House’s push to Make the U.N. Great Again and would be disastrous for the U.N.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LIZ PEEK

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Today, President Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly. As New Yorkers fume over traffic nightmares created by the president and by hordes of visiting diplomats, they may (again) question, as do many Americans, why U.S. taxpayers support this badly managed and scandal-scarred institution. Especially when the U.N. so frequently works against our interests and seems incapable of accomplishing its primary mission.

A new Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans think the U.N. does a poor job of “maintaining international peace and security,” and 70% say the same about the U.N. “upholding international law” and “protecting human rights.” That’s a lousy report card for an organization that spends roughly $70 billion per year.

Elsewhere in the world, the U.N. scores better, which is not surprising since poor countries, which constitute the majority of members, look to wealthier nations for handouts via the U.N. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are especially keen on the sprawling organization.

WALTZ DELIVERS BLUNT WARNING TO NATIONS DEFYING IRAN SANCTIONS, TOUTS GREENLAND DEAL

Trump heads to UN General Assembly as foreign policy challenges mount Video

How does that wealth transfer happen? One way was described by President Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz in recent testimony before Congress: “The U.N. let countries use peacekeeping missions as cash cows for their militaries. Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the U.N.” Those operations can employ “10,000 to 18,000 soldiers”; the costs, Waltz says, are “quite significant.” He is ending that practice — just one step in reformin

!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Niger Miners’ Deaths: CSOs Demand Transparent Probe, Caution Against Speculation

A coalition of civil society organisations led by Stand Up Nigeria (SUN) has appealed to Nigerians to remain calm and avoid spreading unverified information on social media over the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State…

A coalition of civil society organisations led by Stand Up Nigeria (SUN) has appealed to Nigerians to remain calm and avoid spreading unverified information on social media over the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State…
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Artists can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Advertisement Singapore Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How cited several performances dealing with social and humanitarian issues that had been allowed to proceed in Singapore. Robert Del Naja and Grant Marshall from Massive Attack stand with a Palestinian flag

Advertisement

Singapore

Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How cited several performances dealing with social and humanitarian issues that had been allowed to proceed in Singapore.

Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Robert Del Naja and Grant Marshall from Massive Attack stand with a Palestinian flag onstage at the end of their performance in Singapore, July 29, 2026, in this screengrab from video obtained from social media. Simran Panaech/via REUTERS


New: You can now listen to articles.


This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

10 Sep 2026 01:42PM
(Updated: 10 Sep 2026 02:06PM)



Bookmark



Bookmark



Share

SINGAPORE: Artistes can express humanitarian concerns about international conflicts, but such expression should not undermine public order, security or stability in Singapore, Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Tan Kiat How said on Thursday (Sep 10).

“Singapore should not be used by foreigners as a platform to further political causes, including those relating to conflicts or political issues overseas,” he said.

Artistes, whether Singaporean or foreign, are expected to abide by Singapore’s laws and the conditions of the arts entertainment licence when performing here, he added.

Mr Tan was responding in parliament to MP Hazlina Abdul Halim (PAP-East Coast), who asked how authorities distinguish prohibited political advocacy from expressions of humanitarian concern.

CNA Games
Guess Word
Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time

Buzzword
Buzzword
Create words using the given letters

Mini Sudoku
Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser

Mini Crossword
Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge

Word Search
Word Search
Spot as many words as you can

Show More

Show Less

She also asked how an artiste’s intent and the context of an expression are taken into account, and whether licensing conditions would be reviewed to exclude peaceful expressions of support for humanitarian causes.

Mr Tan said that besides an artiste’s intention, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) considers the likely impact of a performance when assessing whether it meets licensing conditions.

Under IMDA’s Arts Entertainment Classification Code, content should not undermine public order, national security or stability.

The code, which sets out the framework for assessing and classifying live or public arts entertainment, also states that content should be “sensitive to the concerns of different racial or religious groups and the prevailing community expectations of what is necessary to safeguard racial harmony and religious harmony”.

In July, members of British band Massive Attack were issued stern warnings and barred from re-entering Singapore after flying a Palestinian flag during a concert, with one of the members shouting “Free Palestine”.


06:31 Min

The government recognises the humanitarian impact of international conflicts and that artistes may wish to express concern for those affected. Such expressions are not prohibited but should not undermine public order, national security or stability in Singapore. This condition is made clear in the Arts Entertainment Classification Code issued by the Infocomm Media Development Authority. Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Tan Kiat How highlighted this approach in reply to an MP’s questions in parliament on Thursday (Sep 10). He stressed that Singapore should not be used by foreigners as a platform to further political causes, including those relating to conflicts or political issues overseas. 

Ms Hazlina asked Mr Tan for examples of performances involving social causes that had been allowed to take place.

He cited To The Unforgotten, an event held in May this year that featured a song, poem and multimedia artwork about the Israel-Gaza conflict. It was classified R18.

Another example was 6 Microlectures on Genocides. Also classified R18, the play comprised short works that explore themes of genocide, war crimes and contemporary conflicts, Mr Tan said.

He also pointed to the 2024 stand-up comedy show Namaste, which was classified Advisory 16 and included a segment in which comedians spoke about the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“So having material and content on causes itself is not prohibited, and the licensing framework is designed to, of course, protect young people from unwanted content, but also allow people to make decisions on what they can watch,” said Mr Tan.

“But at the same time, having some boundaries on the kind of content that may stir up public disorder or national security considerations.”

Mr Tan said assessments were “very contextual” and encouraged applicants for Arts Entertainment Licences to engage IMDA early.

“The earlier the applicants engage IMDA, the earlier conversations can start, and earlier we can give clarity and guidance on the kind of content that may be approved and

!–>!–>
Read More

Continue Reading