NEW: The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism is out. Importantly, it distinguishes our focus on 1/6 from the larger issue of white supremacy, which predates it. Some of it is familiar, but there are also some important new highlights. 1/ whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Before getting into the details, it is essential that the WH owns this issue, and owns it for us. While there is evidence of foreign countries amplifying our hate, this is an American problem. We have to embrace it to try to expel it. And that is a start. 2/
Details. First, it focuses on a specific issue: violence. While it gives due course to underlying hate, it also recognizes that the use of violence, or threat of it, is of primary importance. That is key because it opens up a conversation about guns, which are hard to ignore. 3/
Second, it may be the most honest reflection of the insider threat -- radicalization in the military and law enforcement -- that I've ever seen. The answers are harder, but include potential changes to security clearance. 4/
Third, I really appreciate its focus on disruption and deterrence. While hearts and minds (prevention) matter, they are impacted by the punishment we are willing to dole out through the criminal justice system. Wray and FBI are key figures here. 5/
Prosecutions provide a narrative to potential recruits to violence -- those whose hearts and minds may be wavering or curious -- that we (the US) are not messing around anymore. Trump is gone; no safe haven. 6/
Fourth, there are other important aspects to this: working with social media platforms, understanding the demographic and societal shifts that lead to violent extremism, etc. Some are familiar, but still good. 7/
Strategies like this are written as not only government statements to public -- and this is a good one, that violent hate must be addressed and eradicated -- but also as a statement to itself, about priorities, cleaning house, and focusing budgets. And that's a huge benefit. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How to measure success? On ransomware, the goal is delay and disruption; stopping Putin isn't about some legal action. So, some wins #GenevaSummit for US have already happened at G7 and NATO with greater focus and cooperation against Russia. Also 1/
Attribution isn't nothing. Calling out Putin's acceptance of criminal enterprises that target US networks is a positive step SINCE the opposite was occurring before (remember Trump focused on China and Iran). 2/
Those criminal enterprises will be less confident of continuing their mayhem against US civilians if they think either Putin might go after one or more of them as a public gesture to curb continuing international pressure or DOJ continues to disrupt their access to currency. 3/
Thread about MAGA violence and calling it out. MTG's comments aren't just about Nazis. Her words are in line with a narrative of Trumpism: endorsing violence or threat of violence for political gain, a throughline from 2016 to 1/6 to disenfranchisement efforts. 1/
Greene is disturbed. She is also promoting a familiar violent narrative meant to incite. Greene is equating those who support masking with Nazis. That's obvious. But it is more than horrifying. It is code. If we are Nazis, then violence towards us is justified. Wink and nod. 2/
It's a technique Trump mastered; promote violence without saying so, a sophisticated use of stochastic (inciting for random acts of violence) terrorism. "Liberate Michigan!" and they tried to kidnap the Gov. He would deny it. Just a joke, his people would say.
3/
The "vaccine wall" I've been describing is distressing but also not surprising. We go from riding a wave to walking through molasses as we hit demand issues related to access and hesitancy. Requires comms and delivery shifts at tactical level. Big is no longer best. 1/
.@erictopol is pointing out here the reality we knew was coming. So we pivot. There are other commentators (not Eric!) freaking out about this, saying the WH is trying to spin the numbers. I don't get that "take" however satisfying it may be for folks to just complain. 2/
Every major logistics challenge follows the same path: rough start, oil to the engine, then a surge and wave, then molasses. Thankfully, the WH got us to this slower stage sooner than we could have ever hoped under Trump. 3/
To science friends: @ScienceMagazine@hholdenthorp asked me about public health comms and lessons learned. As a mere consumer of health intelligence to guide things I do -- assist state, local and private entities and public how to respond -- I have some (hard) takes. Thread. 1/
Health intelligence is like other intelligence: imperfect, changing as we learn, looks solely through one lens. It provides insights into the "what," but the ultimate decisions often have to take into account costs and benefits that aren't necessarily "scientific" in nature. 2/
Thorp's editorial from the interview lays out the key takeaway: in a national crisis, there are many lanes, all relevant for a nation suffering. We could blame Trump and, while correct, that is too easy. 3/ science.sciencemag.org/content/372/65…
The "replacement theory" isn't just Tucker's usual racism. It is different. The theory -- that space is limited b/c displacement is occurring -- is used as justification for violence to protect a limited resource. It is a promotion and defense of violence. 1/
Also known as "the great replacement," the ideology was first introduced in France about fears of Arab and Muslim immigrants who were allegedly overwhelming the "elite." But Tucker clearly is focused on Hispanics, Jewish Americans and other minorities here. 2/
Tucker is coy because he is also correct in one sense. Replacement is occurring. Young white men today are the last generation of Americans born when Caucasian births outnumbered those of nonwhites. This trend will continue and it animates the racist violence. 3/
THREAD: Robert Pape's @washingtonpost essay about his study (that provides more details than a comment in a @nytimes story) is actually INTERESTING. The racism propelling the "protect the vote" insurrection and subsequent GOP voter suppression strategy are known to Pape. 1/
It would be too bad to lose this data based on a strong research agenda, then condensed to a column, that was written about by a reporter, only for Pape's quote to be criticized on twitter b/c he decided to have some fancy rollout only tomorrow so no one has seen the report! 2/
For me, though, some data from what Pape has released is interesting: "Those involved are, by and large, older and more professional than right-wing protesters we have surveyed in the past. They typically have no ties to existing right-wing groups." "In the past" is operative.3/