Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence

From this 2015 book:

* What the underground movement was truly about—what it was always about—was the plight of black Americans. Every single underground group of the 1970s, with the notable exception of the Puerto Rican FALN, was concerned first and foremost with the struggle of blacks against police brutality, racism, and government repression. While late in the decade several groups expanded their worldview to protest events in South Africa and Central America, the black cause remained the core motivation of almost every significant radical who engaged in violent activities during the 1970s. “Helping out the blacks, fighting alongside them, that was the whole kit and caboodle,” says Machtinger. “That was all we were about.”
“Race comes first, always first,” says Elizabeth Fink, a radical attorney in Brooklyn who represented scores of underground figures. “Everything started with the Black Panthers. The whole thrill of being with them. When you heard Huey Newton, you were blown away. The civil rights movement had turned bad, and these people were ready to fight. And yeah, the war. The country was turning into Nazi Germany, that’s how we saw it. Do you have the guts to stand up? The underground did. And oh, the glamour of it. The glamour of dealing with the underground. They were my heroes. Stupid me. It was the revolution, baby. We were gonna make a revolution. We were so, so, so deluded.”
The underground groups of the 1970s were a product of—a kind of grungy bell-bottomed coda to—the raucous protest marches and demonstrations of the 1960s. If the story of the civil rights and antiwar movements is an inspiring tale of American empowerment and moral conviction, the underground years represent a final dark chapter that can seem easier to ignore. To begin to understand it, one needs to understand the voices of black anger, which began to be noticed during the 1950s. All of it, from the first marches in Alabama and Mississippi all the way to the arrest of the last underground radical in 1985, began with the civil rights movement, a cause led by black Americans. And what was true at its inception remained true through the ’60s and into the ’70s-era underground: Blacks, for the most part, led, and whites followed. It was black leaders who initiated the first Southern boycotts; black leaders who led the sit-ins and gave the great speeches; black leaders who, when other avenues appeared blocked, first called for violence and open rebellion. At the end of the ’60s, it was violent black rhetoric that galvanized the people who went underground.

* Apocalyptic revolutionaries represented a strident new voice in the Movement, but they were able to draw from a wellspring of ideas that weren’t entirely new: philosophies, arguments, books, and films that had sprung up around armed-resistance movements worldwide. They studied Lenin and Mao and Ho Chi Minh—it went without saying that revolutionaries were almost always communists—but their favorite blueprint was the Cuban Revolution, their icon Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Castro’s swashbuckling right-hand man. A handsome doctor, Che represented the thoughtful, “caring” revolutionary who resorted to violence only to fight an unjust government; by 1968 his poster could be found hanging in dormitories across America. The apocalyptic revolutionary’s favorite movie was The Battle of Algiers , a 1966 film that portrayed heroic Algerian guerrillas doing battle against their French occupiers. In time, once people actually began going underground, their bible would become Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla , written in 1969 by a Brazilian Marxist named Carlos Marighella; it outlined dozens of strategies and tactics, analyzing weapons, outlining ways to organize a guerrilla cell, even describing the best ways to rob a bank. A number of underground newspapers would excerpt Marighella’s manual.

* JJ [John Jacobs] fatefully fell in with another up-and-comer, a strikingly attractive twenty-six-year-old law student named Bernardine Dohrn. Dohrn was destined to become the glamorous leading lady of the American underground, unquestionably brilliant, cool, focused, militant, and highly sexual; J. Edgar Hoover would dub her “La Pasionaria of the Lunatic Left.” A high school cheerleader in her Wisconsin hometown, she graduated from the University of Chicago in 1963 and, while working toward her law degree, began assisting a host of protest groups, including SDS.
Clad in a tight miniskirt and knee-high Italian boots, Dohrn burst onto the scene at Columbia, where she helped arrange bail bonds. Everyone who met her—every man, at least—seemed mesmerized. “Every guy I knew at Columbia, every single one, wanted to fuck her,” remembers one SDSer, and Dohrn knew it. She liked to wear a button with the slogan CUNNILINGUS IS COOL, FELLATIO IS FUN. She and JJ were immediately smitten with each other. “Bernardine would be arguing political points at the table with blouse open to the navel, sort of leering at JJ,” an SDSer named Steve Tappis recalled. “I couldn’t concentrate on the arguments. Finally, I said, ‘Bernardine! Would you please button your blouse?’ She just pulled out one of her breasts and, in that cold way of hers, said, ‘You like this tit? Take it.’” Another SDSer, Jim Mellen, recalled, “She used sex to explore and cement political alliances. Sex for her was a form of ideological activity.” 2 Yet even many SDS women soon idolized Dohrn. Everyone “wanted to be in her favor, to be like her,” a Weatherman named Susan Stern said years later. “She possessed a splendor all her own, like a queen . . . a high priestess, a mythological silhouette.”

* Weatherman’s taste for orgies proved short-lived, petering out within months. Mark Rudd thought all the sexual experimentation—from Smash Monogamy to orgies to homosexuality—was “disastrous,” fostering petty jealousies, driving people out of the collectives, and introducing a level of sexual confusion that did little to focus cadres on the revolution. Worst of all, he recalls, was a resulting epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, from gonorrhea and pelvic inflammatory disease to crab lice and genital infections they called Weather crud. For Rudd, the final straw came when he was having sex with a woman and noticed a crab in her eyebrow.

* The decision to attack policemen was an unspoken act of solidarity with the group whose approval mattered most to Weatherman leadership: Movement blacks, especially the Black Panthers, who reserved a special hatred for urban police.

* As sad as it was to his friends, Rudd wrote years later, “JJ’s [John Jacobs] expulsion was a brilliant maneuver that successfully rewrote history. Suddenly no one remembered how universally accepted the old ‘Fight the people, all white people are guilty’ line was.” No one would remember that they had tried to kill policemen. “Weather’s history,” Rudd wrote, “had been conveniently cleaned.” A myth was born. “The myth, and this is always Bill Ayers’s line, is that Weather never set out to kill people, and it’s not true—we did,” says Howie Machtinger. “You know, policemen were fair game. What Terry was gonna do, while it was over our line, it wasn’t that far over our line, not like everyone said later. I mean, he wasn’t on a different planet from where we were.”

* After a warning call, the bomb finally detonated at 1:30 a.m., demolishing the restroom, heavily damaging an adjacent barbershop, and blowing out windows in a Senate dining room down a corridor. Damage was estimated at $300,000. On ABC News, anchorman Howard K. Smith noted that it was the first attack on the Capitol since the British burned it in 1814.
Much like the bombing of New York police headquarters nine months earlier, the Capitol bombing had a lasting and dramatic impact on security measures in Washington. For the first time, Capitol police began inspecting all purses and parcels brought into the building. All employees were issued photo identification cards. Gallery attendants received training in identifying suspicious persons. Seldom-used nooks and corridors were closed off. In the following year, the Capitol police force was increased in size to 1,000 officers from 622. Patronage appointments, until then routine, were stopped. Training was formalized. The department purchased its first bomb-sniffing dogs.

* The idea of a Black Liberation Army emerged from conditions in Black communities; conditions of poverty, indecent housing, massive unemployment, poor medical care, and inferior education. The idea came about because Black people are not free or equal in this country. Because ninety percent of the men and women in this country’s prisons are Black and Third World. Because ten-year-old children are shot down in our streets. Because dope has saturated our communities, preying on the disillusionment and frustration of our children. The concept of the BLA arose because of the political, social, and economic oppression of Black people in this country. And where there is oppression, there will be resistance. The BLA is part of that resistance movement. The Black Liberation Army stands for freedom and justice for all people.
—Joanne Chesimard, aka Assata Shakur

* Many policemen, along with BLA members themselves, considered the group a murderous black counterpart to the Weathermen. Mainstream politicians, afraid of alienating black voters, played down this talk entirely. Following suit, most of the white-dominated press dismissed the BLA as a ragtag collection of street thugs.

* “None of us, the whites I mean, had any clue what was really going on.”

* The pivotal figure in these debates was a newcomer to the NYPD, a deputy police commissioner named Robert Daley. Daley had been a New York Times reporter who had attracted the attention of Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy while writing a profile of him; when Murphy offered him the department’s top public-relations job, Daley accepted. He was a divisive figure, a publicity hound who, as the Times itself noted later, “was always mugging for the cameras.” What Daley loved most was a good detective yarn, and the story of the BLA was one of the best he had seen. Gunsmoke had barely cleared over Foster and Laurie’s bodies when he began arguing that the NYPD had an obligation to go public with its suspicions that the murders constituted a planned assassination by a national conspiracy of black militants.
This kind of talk startled aides to Mayor Lindsay, who had announced his campaign for the presidency a month earlier. Talk of black terrorists loose in the streets would undercut his candidacy, inflame race relations, and have every cop in the city looking askance at young black men. Lindsay’s combative press secretary, Tom Morgan, made clear to everyone that he didn’t want to see a single word about black conspiracies in the press.
Swarmed by reporters the morning after the murders, the chief of detectives, Albert Seedman, went along, pooh-poohing the conspiracy angle. But the next day, a Saturday, the UPI office received a handwritten communiqué, signed by the “George Jackson Squad of the Black Liberation Army.” * Mailed the previous day, it referenced “the pigs wiped out in lower Manhattan last night” and promised: “This is the start of our spring offensive. There is more to come.”
This was too much for Daley. That same afternoon—even as citizens in far-off Arizona were voting in the caucuses, in which Lindsay placed second to Edmund Muskie—Daley strode into an East Village precinct house and, standing before a bank of microphones, raised Rocco Laurie’s blood-drenched shirt for all to see. He called the murders assassinations, carried out by a conspiracy of urban guerrillas—black urban guerrillas. “Always in the past the police have been quiet about this conspiracy because of fear of accusations of racism,” he said. “But it isn’t the black community that is doing this, it is a few dozen black criminal thugs. . . . It’s terribly serious, much more serious than people seem to think. The police are the last barrier before chaos.”
Suddenly the rhetorical cat was out of the bag. The mayor’s people were apoplectic. But the New York newspapers, sensing a story too hot to handle, downplayed Daley’s dramatic press conference; the Times buried the story on page 35. Talk of a black conspiracy ebbed for several days as reporters focused on the officers’ funerals, which were massive affairs, with hundreds of uniformed officers lining Fifth Avenue in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. But Daley would not let up. In off-the-record chats all that week, he told reporters that there was a true national conspiracy, that the NYPD’s intelligence, gathered over the previous seven months, confirmed the existence of a Black Liberation Army, with hundreds of would-be assassins divided into revolutionary cells. For the most part, no one believed him; no one, at least, printed
more of his theories. It was all too inflammatory, too far-fetched.
Finally, a week after the murders, a Times reporter cornered a reluctant Commissioner Murphy. All available evidence, Murphy admitted, suggested that the Foster-Laurie murders were in fact the work not of a national conspiracy to kill police but of roving bands of militants—“crazies,” Murphy termed them—who moved from city to city, murdering policemen. Daley, however, went much further. He told the Times there was a BLA that was “nationwide in scope,” adding, “We have here a very, very dangerous and criminal conspiracy. The public really doesn’t seem to be aware of it. The time is over when the Police Department should keep its mouth shut on this kind of thing.”
Working with incomplete information, neither man was entirely correct. The BLA was far too disorganized and far too decentralized to be called a true national conspiracy. But it was more than “roving” bands of “crazies.” Daley would not be deterred. Over the vocal opposition of the Manhattan district attorney, Frank Hogan, he persuaded Commissioner Murphy to hold an unusual press conference on Tuesday, February 8, in which Murphy detailed the BLA’s involvement not only in the Foster-Laurie murders but also in the May attacks and the attacks on policemen in San Francisco and Atlanta. He named nine BLA figures sought by police, including Ronald Carter, Joanne Chesimard, and Twymon Meyers. Prosecutors had adamantly opposed going public, arguing that it would complicate any case they brought. The mayor’s office objected as well, finally persuading Murphy not to use the word “conspiracy.”

* the student was experimenting with gay life, and the habits he developed in San Francisco worried many. “He would pick up guys at bathhouses and bring them back to the safe houses, and you can’t do that, not without being compromised,” recalls Paul Bradley. After the Encirclement, the student was transferred to New York, where his problems continued. “None of us had dealt with gay issues at that point,” recalls Fliegelman. “He would go off and do stuff, and he could be compromised, so he ended up having to leave.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence

Harvard Vs New York Post

00:00 Sparring with Liponious – does the AR, Antifa, BLM have agency?
21:00 Inflation fears, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/opinion/inflation-fears.html
27:00 Harvard: ‘Mail-in Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139307
53:30 Fires in homeless encampment in Venice Beach new skid row, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fzngr2TIs4
56:00 Ethan Ralph on Nick Fuentes, racism, Palestine
1:05:00 Nick Fuentes interviewed by MSM
1:13:20 WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reality-behind-the-dream-of-total-freedom-11620919592?mod=hp_lead_pos13
1:22:00 NYT: Beneath Joe Biden’s Folksy Demeanor, a Short Fuse and an Obsession With Details, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/us/politics/joe-biden-policy-decisions.html
1:35:00 THE NEW LITERARY BAD BOYS, https://im1776.com/2021/04/27/the-new-literary-bad-boys/
1:38:00 Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer | The Dick Cavett Show, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1w_qoioOk
1:53:00 Killing comedy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISHGeiXPh68
2:01:40 PAUL GOSAR DEFENDS NICK FUENTES! DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM FBI…, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv6Sm3Jg7hg
2:20:00 The Paranoid Style in Adam Curtis, https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2021/05/08/the-paranoid-style-in-adam-curtis/
2:28:00 Nick Fuentes on the founding of modern Israel
2:32:00 The Coming War Over Intelligence, https://lawliberty.org/the-coming-war-over-intelligence/
2:41:20 Why Slavery? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIXKlCb2rDk
2:47:00 Scottish nationalism update
2:49:00 The New Electoral Realities of American Politics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWYOfTCLd4
2:51:20 Michael Anton says everything is going to plan for the Democrats
2:57:20 Undiplomatic Immunity | Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus from 5-7-21, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf4PIQf0_s
2:58:00 Tucker Carlson damages his brand
3:05:00 Origins of Covid

Posted in America | Comments Off on Harvard Vs New York Post

Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

Is author Sherry Turkle alone? Has she experienced a massive increase in loneliness since the development of smart phones or is she just so smart and mature, she can handle technology, while the plebs are not to be trusted with it?

Sherry Turkle writes in this 2010 book:

* We are lonely but fearful of intimacy.

[LF: Who’s lonely? Is Sherry lonely and fearful of intimacy? If not, why not? How is she different from everyone else? I see no difference in the loneliness of people I know now compared to 40 years ago. I experience loneliness less than 1% of my waking hours.]

* We’d rather text than talk.

[LF: Is this true for Sherry? Sometimes text is more useful than talk and sometimes it is not. I text fewer than ten words a week on average.]

* People are lonely. The network is seductive. But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude.

[LF: Who’s lonely?]

* I believe that in our culture of simulation, the notion of authenticity is for us what sex was for the Victorians—threat and obsession, taboo and fascination.

[LF: Not true to my experience.]

* We can heal ourselves by giving others what we most need.

* We are psychologically programmed not only to nurture what we love but to love what we nurture.

* Technology ties us up as it promises to free us up. Connectivity technologies once promised to give us more time. But as the cell phone and smartphone eroded the boundaries between work and leisure, all the time in the world was not enough. Even when we are not “at work,” we experience ourselves as “on call”; pressed, we want to edit out complexity and “cut to the chase.”

[LF: Does it not depend on what you do with tech?]

* A few years ago at a dinner party in Paris, I met Ellen, an ambitious, elegant young woman in her early thirties, thrilled to be working at her dream job in advertising. Once a week, she would call her grandmother in Philadelphia using Skype, an Internet service that functions as a telephone with a Web camera. Before Skype, Ellen’s calls to her grandmother were costly and brief. With Skype, the calls are free and give the compelling sense that the other person is present—Skype is an almost real-time video link. Ellen could now call more frequently: “Twice a week and I stay on the call for an hour,” she told me. It should have been rewarding; instead, when I met her, Ellen was unhappy. She knew that her grandmother was unaware that Skype allows surreptitious multitasking. Her grandmother could see Ellen’s face on the screen but not her hands. Ellen admitted to me, “I do my e-mail during the calls. I’m not really paying attention to our conversation.”
Ellen’s multitasking removed her to another place. She felt her grandmother was talking to someone who was not really there. During their Skype conversations, Ellen and her grandmother were more connected than they had ever been before, but at the same time, each was alone. Ellen felt guilty and confused: she knew that her grandmother was happy, even if their intimacy was now, for Ellen, another task among multitasks.

[LF: The problem is not the tech, it is Ellen’s thinking. It strikes me that she is doing something nice for her grandmother and she has no reason to feel guilty about multi-tasking through the task. It might be a wonderful world where grandkids want to talk regularly with their grandparents, but it is not reality. There are a lot of people who would like to talk to me who I am not interested in talking to, just as there are many people I would like to talk to who are not interested in talking to me. This has nothing to do with tech.]

* In corporations, among friends, and within academic departments, people readily admit that they would rather leave a voicemail or send an e-mail than talk face-to-face.

[LF: Some people I would rather talk to face-to-face. The other people aren’t that important to me. I’m not looking to have an I-Thou relationship with everyone.]

* When part of your life is lived in virtual places—it can be Second Life, a computer game, a social networking site—a vexed relationship develops between what is true and what is “true here,” true in simulation.

[LF: We’re different with different people and with different situations. “What is true here” would be true even without technology. I don’t see anything inherently vexing about this.]

* Yet, even such simple pleasures bring compulsions that take me by surprise. I check my e-mail first thing in the morning and before going to bed at night. I have come to learn that informing myself about new professional problems and demands is not a good way to start or end my day, but my practice unhappily continues. I admitted my ongoing irritation with myself to a friend, a woman in her seventies who has meditated on a biblical reading every morning since she was in her teens. She confessed that it is ever more difficult to begin her spiritual exercises before she checks her e-mail; the discipline to defer opening her inbox is now part of her devotional gesture. And she, too, invites insomnia by checking her e-mail every night before turning in.

[LF: I usually wait about 2.5 hours every morning before checking my email. It’s not that hard. I got my first cell phone in 1997 and my first smart phone in 2007. I don’t feel that these tools reduced the quality of my life and I have rarely had anyone complain about my use of them. I occasionally have had women checking their cell phones while I’m talking with them. I usually walk away in response.]

* Once we remove ourselves from the flow of physical, messy, untidy life—and both robotics and networked life do that—we become less willing to get out there and take a chance. A song that became popular on You Tube in 2010, “Do You Want to Date My Avatar?” ends with the lyrics “And if you think I’m not the one, log off, log off and we’ll be done.”

[LF: I don’t see normal people going this route.]

* In this new regime, a train station (like an airport, a café, or a park) is no longer a communal space but a place of social collection: people come together but do not speak to each other.

[LF: How much were strangers speaking to each other in the old regime?]

* When people have phone conversations in public spaces, their sense of privacy is sustained by the presumption that those around them will treat them not only as anonymous but as if absent.

[LF: Tech allows boorish people new ways to be boorish.]

* When Rebecca and I returned home from France, I talked about the trip with a close friend, a psychoanalyst. Our discussion led her to reminisce about her first visit to Paris. She was sixteen, travelling with her parents. But while they went sightseeing with her younger brother, she insisted on staying in her hotel room, writing long letters to her boyfriend. Adolescents have always balanced connection and disconnection; we need to acknowledge the familiarity of our needs and the novelty of our circumstances.

* Research portrays Americans as increasingly insecure, isolated, and lonely. 5 We work more hours than ever before, often at several jobs. Even high school and college students, during seasons of life when time should be most abundant, say that they don’t date but “hook up” because “who has the time?” We have moved away, often far away, from the communities of our birth. We struggle to raise children without the support of extended families. Many have left behind the religious and civic associations that once bound us together. 6 To those who have lost a sense of physical connection, connectivity suggests that you make your own page, your own place. When you are there, you are by definition where you belong, among officially friended friends.

* Not that many years ago, one of my graduate students talked to me about the first time he found himself walking across the MIT campus with a friend who took an incoming call on his mobile phone. My student was irritated, almost incredulous. “He put me on ‘pause.’ Am I supposed to remember where we were and pick up the conversation after he is done with his call?” At the time, his friend’s behavior seemed rude and confusing. Only a few years later, it registers as banal. Mobile technology has made each of us “pauseable.” Our face-to-face conversations are routinely interrupted by incoming calls and text messages. In the world of paper mail, it was unacceptable for a colleague to read his or her correspondence during a meeting. In the new etiquette, turning away from those in front of you to answer a mobile phone or respond to a text has become close to the norm. When someone holds a phone, it can be hard to know if you have that person’s attention. A parent, partner, or child glances down and is lost to another place, often without realizing that they have taken leave. In restaurants, customers are asked to turn their phones to vibrate. But many don’t need sound or vibration to know that something has happened on their phones. “When there is an event on my phone, the screen changes,” says a twenty-six-year-old lawyer. “There is a brightening of the screen. Even if my phone is in my purse . . . I see it, I sense it…. I always know what is happening on my phone.”

* Sal, sixty-two, a widower, describes one erased line as a “Rip van Winkle experience.” When his wife became ill five years before, he dropped out of one world. Now, a year after her death, he wakes up in another. Recently, Sal began to entertain at his home again. At his first small dinner party, he tells me, “I invited a woman, about fifty, who works in Washington. In the middle of a conversation about the Middle East, she takes out her BlackBerry. She wasn’t speaking on it. I wondered if she was checking her e-mail. I thought she was being rude, so I asked her what she was doing. She said that she was blogging the conversation. She was blogging the conversation.” Several months after the event, Sal remains incredulous. He thinks of an evening with friends as private, as if surrounded by an invisible wall. His guest, living the life mix, sees her evening as an occasion to appear on a larger virtual stage.

* When psychologists study multitasking, they do not find a story of new efficiencies. Rather, multitaskers don’t perform as well on any of the tasks they are attempting. 17 But multitasking feels good because the body rewards it with neurochemicals that induce a multitasking “high.” The high deceives multitaskers into thinking they are being especially productive.

* One of my friends posted on Facebook, “The problem with handling your e-mail backlog is that when you answer mail, people answer back! So for each 10 you handle, you get 5 more! Heading down towards my goal of 300 left tonight, and 100 tomorrow.”

* The network’s effects on today’s young people are paradoxical. Networking makes it easier to play with identity (for example, by experimenting with an avatar that is interestingly different from you) but harder to leave the past behind, because the Internet is forever. The network facilitates separation (a cell phone allows children greater freedoms) but also inhibits it (a parent is always on tap). Teenagers turn away from the “real-time” demands of the telephone and disappear into role-playing games they describe as “communities” and worlds.” And yet, even as they are committed to a new life in the ether, many exhibit an unexpected nostalgia. They start to resent the devices that force them into performing their profiles; they long for a world in which personal information is not taken from them automatically, just as the cost of doing business. Often it is children who tell their parents to put away the cell phone at dinner. It is the young who begin to speak about problems that, to their eyes, their elders have given up on.
I interview Sanjay, sixteen. We will talk for an hour between two of his class periods. At the beginning of our conversation, he takes his mobile phone out of his pocket and turns it off. 24 At the end of our conversation, he turns the phone back on. He looks at me ruefully, almost embarrassed. He has received over a hundred text messages as we were speaking. Some are from his girlfriend who, he says, “is having a meltdown.” Some are from a group of close friends trying to organize a small concert. He feels a lot of pressure to reply and begins to pick up his books and laptop so he can find a quiet place to set himself to the task. As he says good-bye, he adds, not speaking particularly to me but more to himself as an afterthought to the conversation we have just had, “I can’t imagine doing this when I get older.” And then, more quietly, “How long do I have to continue doing this?”

* R oman, eighteen, admits that he texts while driving and he is not going to stop. “I know I should, but it’s not going to happen. If I get a Facebook message or something posted on my wall . . . I have to see it. I have to.” I am speaking with him and ten of his senior classmates at the Cranston School, a private urban coeducational high school in Connecticut. His friends admonish him, but then several admit to the same behavior. Why do they text while driving? Their reasons are not reasons; they simply express a need to connect. “I interrupt a call even if the new call says ‘unknown’ as an identifier—I just have to know who it is. So I’ll cut off a friend for an ‘unknown,’” says Maury. “I need to know who wanted to connect…. And if I hear my phone, I have to answer it. I don’t have a choice. I have to know who it is, what they are calling for.” Marilyn adds, “I keep the sound on when I drive. When a text comes in, I have to look. No matter what. Fortunately, my phone shows me the text as a pop up right up front . . . so I don’t have to do too much looking while I’m driving.” These young people live in a state of waiting for connection. And they are willing to take risks, to put themselves on the line. Several admit that tethered to their phones, they get into accidents when walking. One chipped a front tooth. Another shows a recent bruise on his arm. “I went right into the handle of the refrigerator.”
I ask the group a question: “When was the last time you felt that you didn’t want to be interrupted?” I expect to hear many stories. There are none. Silence.

* Sociologist David Riesman, writing in the mid-1950s, remarked on the American turn from an inner- to an other-directed sense of self. 6 Without a firm inner sense of purpose, people looked to their neighbors for validation. Today, cell phone in hand, other-directedness is raised to a higher power.

* I have said that in the psychoanalytic tradition, one speaks about narcissism not to indicate people who love themselves, but a personality so fragile that it needs constant support. 7 It cannot tolerate the complex demands of other people but tries to relate to them by distorting who they are and splitting off what it needs, what it can use. So, the narcissistic self gets on with others by dealing only with their made-to-measure representations. These representations (some analytic traditions refer to them as “part objects,” others as “selfobjects”) are all that the fragile self can handle. We can easily imagine the utility of inanimate companions to such a self because a robot or a computational agent can be sculpted to meet one’s needs. But a fragile person can also be supported by selected and limited contact with people (say, the people on a cell phone “favorites” list). In a life of texting and messaging, those on that contact list can be made to appear almost on demand. You can take what you need and move on. And, if not gratified, you can try someone else.

* In treatment, symptoms disappear because they become irrelevant. Patients become more interested in looking at what symptoms hide—the ordinary thoughts and experiences of which they are the strangulated expression.

Posted in Computers, Psychology | Comments Off on Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

Days of Rage

From Steve Sailer’s comments section:

* Days of Rage by Bryan Burrough is a thorough examination of the now largely forgotten leftwing terror that afflicted the nation in the early 1970s. As retired FBI agent Max Noel put it, “People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over 1,900 domestic bombings in the United States.”

What is most interesting to me is not the riots, bombings, bank robberies and assassinations of that period, but that the perpetrators got away with little or no punishment, due to the Leftist control of so many institutions, a situation that has gotten much, much worse. During the 1970s, Weatherman terrorists who were being hunted by the FBI were being financially supported and sheltered by the National Lawyers’ Guild. The Puerto Rican terrorist group, the FALN, responsible for numerous bombings including the bombing of Wall Street’s Fraunces Tavern on Wall Street that killed four and wounded 40, was supported by the Episcopal Church.

When the most prominent terrorists turned themselves in or were arrested, they got a slap on the wrist or eventual clemency. Bill Ayers went scott free. Cathy Wilkerson did a year. Bernardine Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine. President Clinton gave clemency to 14 imprisoned FALN terrorists. President Obama commuted the sentence of FALN terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera.

Afterward, they were taken care of by leftist institutions. Bernardine Dohrn was a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University for more than 20 years. Eleanor Stein, arrested in 1981, got a law degree in 1986 and became an administrative law judge. Radical attorney Michael Kennedy, a key player in keeping the Weather Underground alive, was special advisor to the President of the UN General Assembly.

During last summer’s riots, we learned that arrested Antifa rioters were released on bail the following morning, courtesy of the radical National Lawyers’ Guild. In a video, an Antifa rioter showed how he had its hotline written in Sharpie on his forearm. (Can you imagine a Reactionary Lawyers’ Guild that actively assisted rightwing agitators and criminals being allowed to exist?) The Minnesota Freedom Fund is endowed with with $35 million dollars to bail out left wing rioters. Kamala Harris tweeted support for it.

This is a key difference between the consequences of being a rightwing protestor and a leftwing protestor. The law comes down on rightwingers like a ton of bricks. Recall the two Proud Boys sentenced to four years in prison each for a street scuffle with Antifa in NYC in which no one was injured and their opponents refused to identify themselves or press charges. The DA used an obscure law to bring charges against them. The January 6 protestors are being treated extraordinarily harshly, hunted down by the FBI if they so much as entered the Capitol (sometimes even if they didn’t) and held without bail. Meanwhile, the FBI appears to have as little interest in Antifa as it does in the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. White House Resident Joe Biden absurdly called the January 6 riot at the Capitol the worst threat to our democracy since the Civil War, ignoring such leftwing violence as the 1950 attack in the House chamber and the assassination attempt on President Truman.

Clearly, the Powers that Be more-or-less condone leftwing violence, but will not tolerate even a moderate reaction to it from the right. Googling reviews of Burrough’s book, I see that most leave out the really shocking part of the story, the institutional complicity in the violence, and many even excuse it as an appropriate response to the Vietnam War and racism.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Days of Rage

When Will We Move On From Wokeness?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Wokeness is guaranteed permanence by the framework of workplace civil rights and harassment law, which means that businesses can be sued for not accommodating a woke employee with a protected identity. Look at the Bostock case which extended sex discrimination protections to trans employees.

* New Atheism didn’t fail because Christians proved they were wrong about God’s existence. It failed because a hipper generation of young people accepted all their premises but declared them uncool for caring about it too much.

Posted in America | Comments Off on When Will We Move On From Wokeness?

The Paranoid Style Of Adam Curtis

From the New York Review of Books:

Curtis films purport to be about us. But the paranoid writing dominates, and the viewer is left with unknown anxieties projected onto known images, a sort of emotional break-in. Curtis can’t seem to get Curtis out of his head, and I am not sure that his films tell us about anything else. In his 2010 film, Richard Nixon—Paranoia and Moral Panics, Curtis declared his emotional history a universal one:

This is a film about how all of us have become Richard Nixon. Just like him, we have all become paranoid weirdos. It’s the story of how television and newspapers did this and how it has paralyzed the ability of politics to transform the world for the better.… But then, in the 1990s, the journalists became even more like Richard Nixon. Like him, they started to see hidden enemies everywhere.

We know that Curtis always asserts he is a journalist. But as the narrator of his own films, he feels compelled to dismiss journalists. This is pure paranoid fragmentation: a paranoid individual like all other paranoid individuals but insisting on being unlike all others. He is everywhere and nowhere.

For Curtis, all human behavior becomes a monochromatic cloud of intention that can be tracked like a flight. Distinct forces play against distinct forces without the complications of chance or the constraint of specific details. One scientific blunder becomes the failure of science itself. One overeager journalist becomes the field itself. Eras and cohorts and ideas are smooth circles, rounded off by the totalizing buff of power’s sneaky omnipotence.

Notice, in fact, how many times Curtis uses the words “nothing” and “everything” in all of his work. Very little reporting can stand up to those kindergarten words, and by choosing a category that essentially doesn’t exist—can you name an actual everything, an event that does not admit to exception?—Curtis is making clear that reporting means little to him.

The appeal of conspiracizing for Curtis and his followers is exactly this unverifiable fog, this woolen hug of futility. If nothing can be done, inactivity looks normative. Conspiracism is the enemy of collective action. The group takes action and counts its wins and losses after the day. The conspiracist, answers scrawled on his hand, hangs back and cynically tells a story about why it never would have worked anyway. Curtis and his cohort love the idea of a grand story that never needs to be revised or reported out.

The darkest and largest force always wins, has always already won. Curtis simply confirms the bad news.

Posted in Adam Curtis | Comments Off on The Paranoid Style Of Adam Curtis

Hegemonic Degeneration

Ed West writes: Progressivism already suffers from what Swedish academic Carl Ritter called “hegemonic degeneration”, that when a belief becomes established, made flabby by institutional protection, then the genuinely interesting and intellectually curious will look for something else.

The most intelligent people coming out of university now often seem to be, if not conservative, then at least critical of the new faith (not necessarily from the Right). But it also seems to me, at least, that many of the most intelligent critics appear to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, which makes them far more interested in truth than social acceptability. Perhaps it is with the neuro-diverse that our future hopes rests.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Hegemonic Degeneration

The Respectability Cascade

Scott Alexander writes:

The first milestone on that path was Milo Yiannopoulos. As outrageous and offensive as he was, he was actually a step above everyone who had come before him in terms of visibility and respectability – at least nobody expected him to shoot up a school or anything. The second milestone was Jordan Peterson, who was an obvious step up in respectability beyond Milo. There was a really interesting period in 2016 when the media was trying to decide whether to unite in character-assassinating Peterson the same way it had character-assassinated all previous people in this space, or treat him as some sort of interesting and potentially sympathetic phenomenon, and it decided on the interesting phenomenon angle. After that, being anti-SJW lost about 90% of its stigma, to the point where people would roll their eyes instead of freaking out. This New York Times article on the Intellectual Dark Web essentially turned the semi-respectability of anti-SJWism into common knowledge, and makes a fascinating contrast with the TIME article on MRAs linked above.

The whole process was a very clear example of a respectability cascade. There’s some position which is relatively commonly held, but considered beyond the pale for respectable people. In the beginning, the only people who will say it openly are extremely non-respectable people who don’t mind getting cast out of normal society for their sin. Everyone attacks them, but afterwards they are still basically standing, and their openness encourages slightly more respectable people to say the same thing. This creates a growing nucleus of ever-more-respectable people speaking openly, until eventually it’s no longer really that taboo and anyone who wants can talk about it with only minor stigma. It’s the same story as atheism, gay rights, and a hundred other things that were once taboo but eventually became mainstream.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Respectability Cascade

The Paranoid Response

When I check up on friends who are going through a tough time, occasionally I get paranoid responses along the lines of why do you want to know?

So while I have stayed friends with them, I never again check in with the paranoid. Who needs the aggravation?

Hostile responses to innocent inquiries are not a good sign of mental stability. Why make it hard for people to care about you? When you increase the costs of talking to you, people naturally withdraw.

I once sent this girl flowers. She responded, “It’s too early for this.” I never again sent her flowers. She later told me how much she appreciated them, she was just afraid to show me that.

We train people how to respond to us. She trained me to hold back from loving her.

I like to greet people I know. Some people respond rudely, and so I never greet them again. If we’re going to talk, they’re going to have to start. I’m not giving anything.

I’ve driven across town to help an acquaintance and when I get there I see they’ve already solved the problem but they couldn’t be bothered to let me know (and thus save me a trip). So I don’t extend myself again to them.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on The Paranoid Response

‘Mail-in Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign’

On tonight’s show, Joseph Cotto read large excerpts from this August 29, 2020 New York Post article:

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.

Mail-in ballots have become the latest flashpoint in the 2020 elections. While President Trump and the GOP warn of widespread manipulation of the absentee vote that will swell with COVID polling restrictions, many Democrats and their media allies have dismissed such concerns as unfounded.

But the political insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears prosecution, said fraud is more the rule than the exception. His dirty work has taken him through the weeds of municipal and federal elections in Paterson, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, Hoboken and Hudson County and his fingerprints can be found in local legislative, mayoral and congressional races across the Garden State. Some of the biggest names and highest office holders in New Jersey have benefited from his tricks, according to campaign records The Post reviewed.

“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes — it can make a difference,” the tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”

The whisteblower — whose identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed by The Post — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.

I did not find the article convincing because it offered no supporting evidence. An anonymous source claiming to have committed crimes over decades, with no named corroboration, no documentary evidence presented in the article, and no verifiable specifics beyond what the Post says it confirmed internally, is not evidence of a systemic problem. It is a single anecdote from an unverifiable source with obvious motives to exaggerate his own importance and influence. The New York Post has a clear editorial interest in the story landing in a particular direction. That does not make the source fabricated, but it means the evidentiary standard requires much more than the article provides.

The article also conflates local machine politics in New Jersey, which has a genuine and well-documented history of municipal corruption including some ballot fraud, with a national systemic problem. New Jersey municipal elections are a specific and unusual context. Extrapolating from Paterson city council races to presidential swing states is a large inferential leap the article does not earn.

Also, if voter fraud was a large problem, a person such as myself wanting to become rich and famous would find the evidence and publicize it and became rich and famous and beloved by the right, presumably. Given that the incentives are so massive for exposing voter fraud, and nobody has done this, that indicates to me that large voter fraud does not exist.

On April 1, 2026, Claude says:

Your incentive argument is the strongest one and it is underused in these debates. It is genuinely decisive. Voter fraud at the scale claimed would be the most important investigative journalism story in American political history. It would produce a Pulitzer, a book deal, speaking fees, congressional testimony, and permanent fame for whoever documented it rigorously. Dozens of well-funded organizations with strong political incentives spent years looking. The Heritage Foundation built a database specifically to find it. Republican secretaries of state in swing states investigated their own results. None of them found the systemic fraud the claims require. The dog that did not bark is the most important fact in the room.
The correct characterization of the article is that it documents what appears to be real local machine fraud in a specific corrupt context, which is worth knowing about and prosecuting, while implying without evidence that this represents a national pattern. That implication is doing political work the evidence cannot support.
If the source was genuine and the claims were verifiable, reporter Jon Levine had the story of his career sitting in front of him. A documented network of operatives who manipulated elections across multiple states for decades, with named beneficiaries visible in campaign records the Post claims to have reviewed, is not a one-day story. It is a book, a series, a federal investigation, congressional testimony, and a Pulitzer. The follow-up writes itself. You find the named politicians who benefited, you identify the specific races that were flipped, you track down the twenty operatives the source claims to have trained, you get the documentary evidence the source presumably possesses if his claims are true.
None of that happened. Levine moved on. The Post moved on. The story disappeared into the ambient noise of the 2020 election cycle rather than becoming the foundational document of a sustained investigation into systemic fraud.
This is precisely the pattern the incentive argument predicts. When a story is explosive and verifiable, journalists and institutions follow it because the rewards are enormous. When a story produces one dramatic anonymous-source article and then nothing, the most parsimonious explanation is that the follow-up investigation did not support the original claims. Reporters do not walk away from verified blockbusters. They walk away from stories that fall apart when you pull on the threads.
The absence of follow-up is not proof the source lied. But in a functioning media ecosystem with strong incentives pointing toward exposure, it is close to it.

After the show, I found that Harvard released a 49-page analysis of these type of allegations called: “Mail-in Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign”

For the NY Post, it is Jon Levine’s reporting on an alleged Democratic operative who anonymously and without corroborating evidence confessed to running a network of operatives across three states for many years and committing practically every one of the acts that President Trump alleged about how voter fraud works. The story was pumped by the President’s sons and his campaign staff, and occupied Fox and Friends and Tucker Carlson for three nights…

The report by Jon Levine of the New York Post opened with the words: “A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.” Levine quoted the single anonymous source as asserting that “fraud is more the rule than the exception,” and that he had “led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.” The source remained anonymous for fear of prosecution. The story read as list of “greatest hits” from Trump’s allegations over the preceding six months, hitting all the high points of the months-long propaganda campaign. It wove in a specific reference to New Jersey, where the Paterson case was a central exhibit in the Trump campaign’s vote fraud claim, and asserted that “There is no race in New Jersey — from city council to United States Senate — that we haven’t worked on,”. It then asserted the ease of fraud associated with mailed ballots: “I just put [the ballot] through the copy machine and it comes out the same way,” the insider said. The story then wove in the continuous complaints about ballot harvesting, stating that: “He would have his operatives fan out, going house to house, convincing voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf as a public service. The fraudster and his minions would then take the sealed envelopes home and hold them over boiling water. ‘You have to steam it to loosen the glue,’ said the insider. He then would remove the real ballot, place the counterfeit ballot inside the signed certificate, and reseal the envelope.” The “whistleblower” then conveniently confirmed the line that postal employees were going to, as Trump had said, “grab bunches” of ballots: “The tipster said sometimes postal employees are in on the scam. ‘You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold … He can take those [filled-out] ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican, he can just throw those in the garbage.’

In some cases, mail carriers were members of his ‘work crew,’ and would sift ballots from the mail and hand them over to the operative.” To complete the tapestry, the story harps on the fears of older voters: “Hitting up assisted-living facilities and ‘helping’ the elderly fill out their absentee ballots was a gold mine of votes, the insider said. ‘There are nursing homes where the nurse is actually a paid operative. And they go room by room by room to these old people who still want to feel like they’re relevant,’ said the whistleblower. ‘[They] literally fill it out for them.’”

The story immediately exploded across the right-wing media ecosystem, with attention directed to it energetically by the Trump family and campaign. The president’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric Trump tweeted it out, as did Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtugh and deputy communications director Zach Parkinson, alongside various Fox contributors and veteran conspiracist Jack Posobiec. The story alleged a widespread, systematic fraud operation, operating across multiple states for decades and involving “at least 20 operatives.” Yet it relied on a sole anonymous source. While Media Matters published a criticism of the article’s method and its reporter, no mainstream media outlet was willing or able to pick up the mantle and seek to confirm or refute these remarkable accusations. The story remains unconfirmed except for repetition on Fox News online, on Fox and Friends on both Sunday August 30 and Monday August 31, on Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, September 1, and on online media like the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller (itself reporting on the Tucker Carlson report). On Facebook, the Breitbart repetition of this story gained more engagement than versions elsewhere in the right wing media ecosystem. Given the momentous allegations, it is hard to imagine that no reporter in a traditional media outlet looked into this. One has to assume that no one found corroboration despite the supposed widespread conspiracy that this practice would require, but also that no one was able to specifically refute it, given that the source was anonymous. Levine too did not add followup reporting with more evidence or details. It is hard to credit the story as true based on a single report in a Murdoch-owned tabloid, alleging a widespread, many-participant, years-long criminal conspiracy carried out over several states, itself based on a single anonymous source and offering no supporting documentation. If the story is untrue, it is also impossible to tell whether Levine is the perpetrator or a willing victim of someone else’s information operation, and if so, whose. What is clear is that in the propaganda feedback loop that has increasingly characterized the right-wing media ecosystem for the past three decades, and for a Trump campaign that has long been pushing every element of this narrative, this was a story too good to be checked…

When President Trump concluded his performance in the first presidential debate on September 29, 2020, he reiterated the false claim that mail-in ballots were subject to mass election fraud, and cited this concern to justify his refusal to commit to accepting the results of the election should he be defeated. This assertion capped a six months long disinformation campaign waged by the president and his party against expansion of mail-in voting during the pandemic of 2020. There is no disinformation campaign more likely to affect voter participation in the 2020 U.S. election and perceptions of the election’s legitimacy than the repeated false assertion that mail-in voting is fraught with the risk of voter fraud. This was not a social media campaign. Our study here, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis of online stories, tweets, and Facebook pages over six months, establishes that the disinformation campaign was elite-driven, and waged primarily through mass media responding to false assertions from President Trump, his campaign, and the RNC.

I also found a September 1, 2020 analysis by the left-wing Media Matters:

Fox News personalities and right-wing conservatives are pushing a New York Post story published over the weekend alleging widespread mail-in ballot fraud by an anonymous whistleblower and “top Democractic operative.” The Post claims the whistleblower “says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.”

The article claims the publication vetted the whistleblower’s purported longtime career working as a consultant, rigging various municipal and federal elections throughout New Jersey, and as a mentor to “at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.” However, the story fails to provide corroboration or a second source for any of the numerous accusations of mail-in ballot fraud that follow.

Among the accusations are:

  • New Jersey mail-in ballots have no security features such as a stamp or watermark, allowing operatives to convince voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf and then steam open envelopes to replace with counterfeit ballots before mailing.
  • Postal Service employees commit election fraud by throwing out mail-in ballots from Republican areas or sifting through ballots and handing them to Democractic operatives. The article links to an unrelated story on New York City election ballots to support this claim.
  • Nursing home employees are paid political operatives who fraudulently fill out residents’ ballots for them.
  • Operatives impersonate voters in states with no voter ID laws, such as New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
  • Operatives bribe homeless voters to vote during elections in New Jersey in a scheme that “resembled Mafia organizations” and left the actual candidate in the dark to maintain “plausible deniability.”
  • Democratic election board members took part in fraud by checking ballots to see if they have bent corners — bent by operatives engaged in fraud — to see if they should keep them or throw them out for irregularities. The insider claims bent ballots go unchallenged by Democratic Board of Election counters.

All of these schemes require a large network of operatives to pull them off, however, the story cites no other source for confirmation, even though the main principle of investigative journalism is to never rely on a single source of information. Without secondary confirmation, the accusations are dubious at best. And the New York Post, a daily tabloid, does not have a sterling reputation for accuracy. For instance, in 2013, the paper erroneously reported that 12 people had died in the Boston Marathon bombing and wrongly identified two suspects in published photographs, leading to a libel lawsuit that was settled in 2014.

Furthermore, story writer Jon Levine tends to amplify right-wing walking points, sometimes under the guise of reporting, and he often boosts right-wing media personalities and outlets. For example, since he’s been at the New York Post, Levine has:

  • Published what he dubbed the “AOC Tapes,” reporting mundane aspects of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) day to claim she was a hypocrite.
  • Defended right-wing grifter Andy Ngo and decried the “unfair smearing” of him.
  • Defended articles by the Post that demonize homeless people.
  • Pushed immigration fraud stories about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).
  • Criticized Harvard when the university rescinded student Kyle Kashuv’s acceptance based on Kashuv repeatedly saying the N-word.
  • Criticized Carlos Maza (a former Media Matters staffer), who was being harassed while at Vox by Steven Crowder, a right-wing YouTuber, for months. Crowder sold shirts mocking Maza for being gay, used homophobic slurs about him, and directed swarms of online mobs to attack Maza, whose content was being flooded with negative comments. Maza worked to get Crowder’s work demonetized or de-platformed from YouTube due to the harassment he faced, which immediately made him a right-wing target. A year later, Levine reported an in-depth profile on Maza’s mother, claiming it’s hypocritical for him to be a socialist if he comes from a rich family. Levine was subsequently locked out of his Twitter account after the article included personal and identifying information about Maza and his mother.
  • Pushed hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has cautioned against the use of hydroxychloroquine outside of a hospital or clinical trial due to risk.

After the story was published on Saturday, Fox News and other right-wing personalities amplified it throughout the weekend.

Fox & Friends Weekend highlighted the mail-in voting parts of the article.

Mail-in voter fraud has become a top-line narrative for Donald Trump and right-wing media ahead of the 2020 election. They have repeatedly sought to undermine mail-in voting in the months leading up to November, when the pandemic is likely to impact in-person voting. From Media Matters’ archives:

  • Fox & Friends host says mail-in voting is bad: “Maybe there’s all types of pressure in your family dynamic” [Media Matters, 7/8/20]
  • “A recipe for disaster”: National and state right-wing radio hosts launch attacks on mail-in voting [Media Matters, 8/6/20]
  • Tucker Carlson mocks concern for USPS and says vote by mail “makes voter fraud easier” [Media Matters, 8/17/20]
  • Here are the facts on mail-in voting [Media Matters, 8/21/20]

Right-wing media and the GOP have a years-long history of pushing the myth of voting fraud to undermine voting. From Media Matters’ archives:

  • John Fund’s book on voter fraud is a fraud [Media Matters, 10/31/04]
  • 48 Years Later, Conservatives Are Making The Same Arguments Against The Voting Rights Act [Media Matters, 8/6/13]
  • Experts: Trump’s New Voter Fraud Commission Could Be Used To Suppress Legal Votes [Media Matters, 5/13/17]
  • Pro-Trump media are pushing a new voter fraud conspiracy theory [Media Matters, 7/19/19]
  • Right-wing media’s new voter fraud “proof” is even more asinine than usual [Media Matters, 9/8/17]
  • How Tom Fitton and conservative media spread debunked “voter fraud” disinformation about the Iowa caucuses [Media Matters, 2/4/20]
  • Fox News lets Tomi Lahren recklessly fearmonger about supposed “voter fraud” amid primary elections [Media Matters, 3/17/20]

Despite these claims, voter fraud remains a relatively insignificant issue in elections. A comprehensive report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and public policy institute at New York University Law School, published in April identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000-2012 –– 491 in literally billions of votes cast. The Brennan Center has published extensive research debunking the large-scale accusations of voter fraud. Furthermore, Trump’s own voting commissions found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2018.

Posted in Voter Fraud | Comments Off on ‘Mail-in Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign’