 Without question, the January 6th insurrection was terrifying and I want that to not happen again. Having said that though, I've always been very apprehensive about the implementation of some sort of policy to stop violent extremism in America because we've seen countless times the way that the US government uses these sorts of incidents to further consolidate state power and crackdown on civil liberties. And we saw the way that the Patriot Act used 9-11 to justify the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. I mean bulk metadata collection, warrantless surveillance. So I don't want the government to use January 6th to justify them taking away more rights from US citizens. And we're learning about the Biden administration's stance towards domestic extremists. And already there's a lot of red flags that journalist Ford Fisher is pointing out via Twitter. He says, Now he also shares this document and as you can see it describes DVE's domestic violent extremists as quote, It also goes on the same year advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute violent extremism. So the definition is fairly broad and I think purposefully so, you know, it might be somewhat reassuring to see them point out that mere advocacy of political positions that are perceived to be extreme, including, you know, the philosophical acceptance of violence as a political tactic that in and of itself doesn't mean that you are a domestic violent extremist. Having said that, though, when you look at some of the examples here, you can see that the scope of this, what his administration characterizes as a DVE, domestic violent extremist is incredibly bizarre in a number of ways, because some of the examples listed here, there isn't much evidence to suggest that these are threats at all. So you see animal rights and environmental violent extremists. You know, there are instances of extremism from these sections of society, not incredibly prevalent though, not prevalent enough in my opinion to be listed in the same category with like far right extremists like sovereign citizens. And then you also see abortion related violent extremists. And it says DVEs with ideological agendas in support of pro life or pro choice beliefs. Now just pause there for a moment. Like we've heard about violent pro life extremists, right? Threats being made towards abortion doctors, but pro choice extremism. So it's a it's a bit of a bizarre thing to include here because to the extent that pro choice extremists exist. One, are they as violent as fascist groups in America, the Proud Boys, and are they as prevalent as any other extremist group? I mean, I've never heard of extremist pro choice people. It doesn't really make sense. Also, anti-government, anti-authority violent extremists, including anarchist violent extremists, DVEs who oppose all forms of capitalism, corporate globalization and governing institutions who are perceived as harmful to society. Now, of course, it prefaces anti-capitalist by saying these are DVE anti-capitalists, but still they're basically like with all of these groups being contained in the same document. Like me looking at this as a layman, I see this and I think, wow, these groups are all similar, right? But this is a false equivalence. If you're in an administration and you're trying to pinpoint the most extremist elements domestically in society, I mean, you look to the actual ones doing the violence and disproportionately it is right-wingers. Now, that's not to say that the administration isn't expected to like look at left-wing extremists as well. I mean, of course, that's expected. But to be so broad in your application of who could possibly be DVEs, that's what worries me. And also what constitutes being DVE, even though they try to lay out a definition here, that could be broadened. I mean, we're constantly seeing what extremist is be broadened. So for example, BDS, that's viewed as something that is politically unacceptable. We see state governments try to crack down on BDS across the country. So, you know, what's to stop the Biden administration from lumping in BDS? Because that is technically, you know, violent because you're advocating for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the Israeli government. Therefore, we're going to characterize that as you being a domestic extremist. And so really, to me, I worry about the application of this and Fort Fisher kind of runs down why these, you know, classifications are problematic. He explains the reason I reference this is that as Congress and Biden expand policing power and budgets, the media's framing largely pertains to right-wing extremism. Biden is making no secret of the fact that his administration puts the anti-fascist movement officially in the same boat. By the same token, Biden is apparently concerned about both pro-life and pro-choice domestic violent extremists. An interesting contrast in the document is that militia groups are only classified by Biden as domestic violent extremists if they take overt steps to fight government. Some militias wouldn't be DVEs to Biden. Meanwhile, anarchists need only opposed capitalism without steps. Included in Biden's broad definition of anti-government slash anti-authority violent extremists are DVEs who oppose perceived economic, social or racial hierarchies. In activist discourse, this is referring to those who identify as anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-racist. As some are pointing out, this document does proceed every section with DVEs, domestic violent extremists, who demonstrate the ideologies in question. That said, the surveillance state obviously doesn't only investigate slash monitor once individuals become violent. And that's key. I think that Fort Fisher here is making a phenomenal point. So these are all red flags to me and it worries me because our government, they've been doing this for decades now, right? And we have to make sure that they're not using people's fears about January 6 and them wanting to prevent another January 6 against them. They're not weaponizing that issue to crack down on civil rights and civil liberties. So this is an issue that I will continue to monitor. But of course, I absolutely unequivocally do not condone anything related to another Patriot Act for January 6. That's not the solution, of course. The government should take meaningful steps to stop another January 6 insurrection from happening because people died on that day. It was very serious. But whatever we enact, it can't just be enacted willy-nilly. It's going to be something that is thoughtful, something that is not overall going to take away liberty of Americans. But I mean, something tells me that you can get Americans to be in support of something that's against their own self-interest. And all you have to do is really weaponize fear a little bit and you see what happens. This is something that is... I mean, sure, they're saying DVEs, right? They're prefacing it. Every single thing they say. Anti-capitalist, but only if you're a DVE, anti-capitalist. So you have to already be a domestic violent extremist. But as Fort Fisher pointed out, it's not like they're just all of a sudden only going to start tracking you as an individual once you become violent. So what worries me, it makes it seem as if the government views anti-capitalists as big of a threat as they view insurrectionists. QAnon. So it's just something that we have to look out for. These are a lot of red flags. And I would encourage you to pay attention to this and do not allow people to condone something like this because they're worried about the broader implications of another January 6. And don't let fear be used as a weapon against us to take away our civil liberties because once they're gone, it's hard to get them back, right? So we have to be cognizant of what our government is doing, who they view as extremists. And this is pretty broad. It's something to watch. It's something to just keep an eye on because this worries me a lot.