Hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman, best known for crying on CNBC over the idea of a wealth tax, is back again. This time whining over the idea of having to pay his fair share.
| |||
|
| |||||||
|
30 January 21
Folks, We Have to Finish the Fundraiser!
We need 200 donations to finish for January. We have seen 200 donations in 2 hours. So far for January 565,438 readers have visited RSN, 514 have donated.
Kill this fundraiser!
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
30 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
FOCUS: Robert Reich | The Sedition That Nobody's Talking About
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Reich writes: "The sudden lurch from Trump to Biden is generating vertigo all over Washington, including the so-called fourth branch of government - CEOs and their army of lobbyists."
CEOs are being hailed – and hailing themselves – as guardians of democracy. That’s after saying they will no longer donate to the 147 Republican members of Congress who objected to the certification of Biden electors, on the basis of Trump’s lies about widespread fraud.
Give me a break. For years, big corporations have been assaulting democracy with big money, drowning out the voices and needs of ordinary Americans, and fueling much of the anger and cynicism that opened the door to Trump in the first place.
Their assault hasn’t been as violent as the pro-Trump mob who stormed the Capitol. And it’s entirely legal. But it’s arguably more damaging over the long term.
A study published a few years ago by two of America’s most respected political scientists, Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, concluded that the preferences of the average American “have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy.” Lawmakers respond almost exclusively to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.
So now, in the wake of Trump’s calamitous exit and Biden’s ascension, we’re to believe CEOs care about democracy?
As Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, put it, “No one thought they were giving money to people who supported sedition.”
Yet Dimon has been a leader of a more insidious form of sedition. He piloted the corporate lobbying campaign for the Trump tax cut, deploying a vast war chest of corporate donations.
For more than a decade Dimon has driven Wall Street’s charge against stricter bank regulation, opening bipartisan doors in the Capitol with generous gifts from the Street. (Dimon calls himself a Democrat.)
When Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg shut Trump’s Facebook account, he declared: “You just can’t have a functioning democracy without a peaceful transition of power.”
But where was Zuckerberg’s concern for a “functioning democracy” when he amplified Trump’s bigotry and lies for over four years?
After taking down Trump’s Twitter account, Jack Dorsey expressed discomfort about “the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
Spare me. Dorsey has fought all attempts to limit Twitter’s power over the “global conversation.” He shuttered Trump only after Democrats secured the presidency and control of the Senate.
Look, I’m glad CEOs are penalizing the 147 Republican seditionists and that big tech is starting to regulate social media content.
But don’t confuse the avowed concerns of these CEOs about democracy with democracy itself. They aren’t answerable to democracy. At most, they’re answerable to big shareholders and institutional investors who don’t give a fig as long as profits keep rolling in.
If they were truly committed to democracy, CEOs would permanently cease corporate donations to all candidates, close their PACs, stop giving to secretive “dark money” groups and discourage donations by their executives.
And they would throw their weight behind the “For the People Act”, the first bills of the new Congress, offering public financing of elections among other reforms.
Don’t hold your breath.
The fourth branch is already amassing a war chest to stop Joe Biden and the Democrats from raising corporate taxes, increasing the minimum wage, breaking up big tech and strengthening labor unions.
Make no mistake: These CEOs and their corporations don’t actually care about protecting democracy. They care only about protecting their bottom line.
The heiress to the Publix Super Market chain contributed the "lion's share" of money to fund the January 6 pro- Trump rally in Washington DC that preceded the deadly storming of the US Capitol, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a top donor to former President Donald Trump, gave about $300,000 to the "Save America" rally – more than half the cost of funding the event, the Journal said.
Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and far-right talk show host, arranged for Fancelli to contribute the money via an official from Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, the newspaper said. Jones himself contributed about $50,000 in seed money for the January 6 rally, Journal said.
At the event, Trump repeated baseless claims that he had been defeated in the presidential election due to fraud, and he told his supporters to "fight like hell."
The group then descended on the US Capitol, pushing past police and scaling walls in an attempt to stop President Joe Biden's electoral college certification. Five people died in the siege.
The "Save America" rally was marked by incendiary rhetoric, but as the Journal notes, was otherwise peaceful. However, Trump has been blamed for using the rally to stoke the assault on the Capitol.
Fancelli, the daughter of the Publix Super Markets founder, donated more than $980,000 to a joint account for Trump's re-election campaign and the Republican Party, the Journal notes.
Neither Fancelli or Jones responded to the Wall Street Journal's requests for comment.
In an emailed statement to Insider, a spokesperson from Publix said "Mrs. Fancelli is not an employee of Publix Super Markets, and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way. We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli's actions."
"The violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. The deplorable actions that occurred that day do not represent the values, work or opinions of Publix Super Markets," the statement said.
The popular Southern grocery chain has more than 1,200 locations, with the bulk of them in Florida. Founded in 1930 in by George W. Jenkins, the company has grown into the largest employee-owned company in the US.
Thanks for always fighting for our democracy alongside me, Adam |
PEOPLE COME HERE, READ THE ARTITCLES AND SHOULD BE SUBSCRIBING TO AND SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA.
WHAT YOU GET FOR FREE IS WORTH THE PRICE YOU PAID.
30 January 21
Urgent and Immediate Appeal for Donations
48 hours to go and donations are stalled. It is — very — important to get moving on donations, right here right now.
Yes we do need the money. Yes some people have helped. But we have to have a good month, whatever it takes. As of right now it’s not happening.
With urgency.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
30 January 21
We Need a Good Day of Fundraising in the Worst Way
It is a real battle at this point to get people donating. We are far behind where we need to be. A good day of fundraising would be a wonderful thing at this point.
With urgency.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
30 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
AOC, Rashida Tlaib Rip Robinhood Over GameStop Trading Restrictions
Patrick Reis and Ryan Bort, Rolling Stone
Excerpt: "House Finance Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that she will 'convene a hearing to examine the recent activity around GameStop (GME) stock and other impacted stocks with a focus on short selling, online trading platforms, gamification and their systemic impact on our capital markets and retail investors.'"
A company named after someone who redistributed wealth to the poor just intervened in trades in a way that favors [checks notes]… massive hedge funds
Incoming Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) also announced plans to hold a hearing. “American workers have known for years the Wall Street system is broken — they’ve been paying the price,” he wrote in a statement. “It’s time for SEC and Congress to make the economy work for everyone, not just Wall Street.”
Original story below.
Progressive Democrats are demanding congressional inquiries into Robinhood after the online financial trading app restricted purchases of GameStop and other fast-rising stocks, a move that comes at a time when many small-scale day traders were betting on the stocks to rise and several massive hedge funds were desperate for them to fall.
On Thursday, Robinhood said it was “restricting transactions for certain securities to position closing only.” In plain language, that meant that people could use the app to sell shares in the companies, but not to buy them. Professional trading outfits, such as hedge funds, could still buy and sell shares, as they don’t depend on the app for transactions.
Prices of GameStop crashed Thursday morning, plunging from the mid-$300s to as low as $126.01 shortly after 11 a.m. By a bit after noon, they’d recovered to the mid-$200s, but were still down sharply on the day.
Here are words that feature prominently on RobinHood’s website: “We’re on a mission to democratize finance for all.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that Robinhood’s move was “unacceptable” and said she’d use her seat on the House Financial Services committee to support a hearing on the matter. She followed up by saying the inquiry should extend beyond Robinhood. “We now need to know more about [Robinhood’s] decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit,” she wrote.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, another high-profile progressive, called Robinhood’s move “beyond absurd” and accused the service of manipulating the market to protect hedge funds at the expense of individual investors. “They’re blocking the ability to trade to protect Wall St. hedge funds, stealing millions of dollars from their users to protect people who’ve used the stock market as a casino for decades,” she wrote.
Investors have filed a class-action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Robinhood, saying the company had “deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open market” and that it had “manipulated the market.” Fox Business’ Lydia Moynhian was among the first to report the lawsuit.
Stock in GameStop, a brick-and-mortar retailer of video games and other electronics, has been the subject of a power struggle between hedge funds and a loosely affiliated group of individual investors and Reddit posters. The hedge funds made large-scale financial bets on GameStop declining in value, using a technique called “short-selling” that would allow them to profit when the company’s shares lost value. A group of investors posting on the subreddit WallStreetBets was on the other side of those trades, snatching up shares of the stock in mid-January and encouraging them to not sell.
The redditors pitched the move as both an investment strategy and an opportunity to stick it to Wall Street. The pitch was that, by banding together, they could bump up the stock price, boosting their own portfolio while taking a stand against companies poised to profit off the company’s failure. So far, it has worked: Demand for GameStop stock soared, and at the close of trading Wednesday, GameStop was trading at $347.51 a share — a massive jump for a stock that opened the year at less than $20 per share. While down off its high, the stock is currently trading well above its pre-mania price.
For the hedge funds that had bet on the retailer’s demise, it has been a financial disaster. Melvin Capital, an aggressive short seller which, per the Wall Street Journal, managed $12-billion-plus in assets at the start of the year, did not reveal its total loss after closing its position on GameStop, but reportedly needed a $3.5 billion cash infusion to stay stable. Other hedge funds reportedly remain on the hook for anti-GameStop bets, setting up more dominoes to fall.
GameStop’s rise prompted a furious debate over the role of online communities in investments. Some critics noted that the surge in the stock’s price was driven mainly by irrational exuberance and not based on any strengthening of the company’s fundamentals. Others countered by claiming that that’s how a large part of the stock market has worked for decades — and these critics didn’t seem to mind until it favored smaller investors at the expense of large ones.
Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)
Legal Pressure on Trump Increases With Judge's Order in Fraud Inquiry
William K. Rashbaum and Ed Shanahan, The New York Times
Excerpt: "A New York judge Friday increased pressure on former President Donald Trump's family business and several associates, ordering them to give state investigators documents in a civil inquiry into whether the company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits."
It was the second blow that the judge, Arthur F. Engoron of state Supreme Court in Manhattan, had dealt to Trump’s company in recent weeks.
In December, he ordered the company, the Trump Organization, to produce records that its lawyers had tried to shield, including some related to a Westchester County, New York, property that is among those being scrutinized by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James.
President Joe Biden. (photo: Tom Brenner/Reuters)
Biden's COVID-19 Relief Plan: Democrats Prepared to 'Move Forward Without' Republicans
Lisa Mascaro and Josh Boak, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Democrats in Congress and the White House have rejected a Republican pitch to split President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 rescue plan into smaller chunks, with lawmakers appearing primed to muscle the sweeping economic and virus aid forward without GOP help."
Despite Biden's calls for unity, Democrats said the stubbornly high unemployment numbers and battered U.S. economy leave them unwilling to waste time courting Republican support that might not materialize. They also don't want to curb the size and scope of a package that they say will provide desperately needed money to distribute the vaccine, reopen schools and send cash to American households and businesses.
Biden has been appealing directly to Republican and Democratic lawmakers while signaling his priority to press ahead.
"We've got a lot to do, and the first thing we've got to do is get this COVID package passed," Biden said Thursday in the Oval Office.
The standoff over Biden's first legislative priority is turning the new rescue plan into a political test - of his new administration, of Democratic control of Congress and of the role of Republicans in a post-Trump political landscape.
Success would give Biden a signature accomplishment in his first 100 days in office, unleashing $400 billion to expand vaccinations and to reopen schools, $1,400 direct payments to households, and other priorities, including a gradual increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Failure would be a high-profile setback early in his presidency.
Democrats in the House and Senate are operating as though they know they are borrowed time. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are laying the groundwork to start the go-it-alone approach as soon as next week.
They are drafting a budget reconciliation bill that would start the process to pass the relief package with a simple 51-vote Senate majority - rather than the 60-vote threshold typically needed in the Senate to advance legislation. The goal would be passage by March, when jobless benefits, housing assistance and other aid is set to expire.
Schumer said he drew from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's advice to "act big" to weather the COVID-19 economic crisis.
"Everywhere you look, alarm bells are ringing," Schumer said from the Senate floor.
Senate Republicans in a bipartisan group warned their colleagues in a "frank" conversation late Wednesday that Biden and Democrats are making a mistake by loading up the aid bill with other priorities and jamming it through Congress without their support, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private session.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a former White House budget director under George W. Bush, wants a deeper accounting of what funds remain from the $900 billion coronavirus aid package from December.
"Literally, the money has not gone out the door," he said. "I'm not sure I understand why there's a grave emergency right now."
Biden spoke directly with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is leading the bipartisan effort with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that is racing to strike a compromise.
Collins said she and the president had a "good conversation."
"We both expressed our shared belief that it is possible for the Senate to work in a bipartisan way to get things done for the people of this country," she said.
The emerging debate is highly reminiscent of the partisan divide over the 2009 financial rescue in the early months of the Obama administration, when Biden was vice president, echoing those battles over the appropriate level of government intervention.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that although Biden wants a bipartisan package, the administration is opposed to breaking it up to win Republican support.
"We're open for business and open to hear from members of Congress on that," she said, noting that lawmakers are not "wallflowers."
But, she said, "we're not going to do this in a piecemeal way or break apart a big package that's meant to address the crisis we're facing."
On Thursday, more than 120 economists and policymakers signed a letter in support of Biden's package, saying the $900 billion that Congress approved in December before he took office was "too little and too late to address the enormity of the deteriorating situation."
Employers shed workers in December, retail sales have slumped and COVID-19 deaths kept rising. More than 430,000 people in the U.S. have died from the coronavirus as of Thursday.
At the same time, the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits remained at a historically high 847,000 last week, and a new report said the U.S. economy shrunk by an alarming 3.5% last year.
"The risks of going too small dramatically outweigh the risks of going too big," said Gene Sperling, a former director of the White House National Economic Council, who signed the letter.
The government reported Thursday that the economy showed dangerous signs of stalling in the final three months of last year, ultimately shrinking in size by 3.5% for the whole of 2020 - the sharpest downturn since the demobilization that followed the end of World War II.
The decline was not as severe as initially feared, largely because the government has steered roughly $4 trillion in aid, an unprecedented emergency expenditure, to keep millions of Americans housed, fed, employed and able to pay down debt and build savings amid the crisis.
Republican allies touted the 4% annualized growth during the last quarter, with economic analyst Stephen Moore calling the gains "amazing."
Republicans have also raised concerns about adding to the deficit, which skyrocketed in the Trump administration.
Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-ranking party leader, said Biden should stick to the call for unity he outlined in his inaugural address, particularly with the evenly split Senate. "If there's ever been a mandate to move to the middle, it's this," he said. "It's not let's just go off the cliff."
But Democrats argue that low interest rates make the debt manageable and that the possibility of returning to work will do more to improve people's well-being.
The days and weeks ahead, against the backdrop of Trump's impeachment trial on a charge of inciting an insurrection with the U.S. Capitol siege, will set the tone, tenor and parameters of what will be possible in Washington.
A Black Lives Matter rally. (photo: Evelyn Hockstein/WP
Black Lives Matter Movement Nominated for 2021 Nobel Peace Prize
Shawna Chen, Axios
Chen writes: "The Black Lives Matter movement has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for compelling countries around the world to address systemic racism."
Why it matters: The BLM movement launched in 2013 following George Zimmerman's acquittal for shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager. The case kickstarted the international movement to address the controversial deaths of Black people, particularly at the hands of police.
Support safe, smart, sane journalism. Sign up for Axios Newsletters here.
Background: The BLM movement was co-founded by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi.
What he's saying: "It’s a strong linkage between antiracism movements and peace, and a recognition that without this kind of justice, there will be no peace and stability in the society," Eide said.
The big picture: Last year's Nobel prize recognized the World Food Program in a pointed assertion that multilateralism is saving lives. This year's winner will be selected in October and the award ceremony is scheduled for Dec. 10.
QAnon supporters. (photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Gett
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About QAnon but Were Too Weirded Out to Ask
Will Sommer and Luke Savage, Jacobin
Excerpt: "Much of the news these days is unhinged, but nothing can compare, in terms of pure lunacy, with QAnon."
The Daily Beast’s Will Sommer, longtime observer of the far right, spoke with Jacobin to explain QAnon’s origins and evolution — and why he thinks the movement is here to stay even if "Q" and "The Storm" are never heard from again.
mid all the chaos, ugliness, and otherworldly strangeness of the Trump era, few phenomena have proven as perplexing as QAnon. On October 30, 2017 an anonymous 4chan post from an account called Q claimed that Hillary Clinton’s arrest was imminent, spawning what quickly became a vast digital community of people trying to interpret and decipher Q’s cryptic messages — messages they believe suggest that a vast empire of global elites was about to face justice, courtesy of sealed indictments in the hands of Donald Trump.
With remarkable speed, the far-right conspiracy entered the mainstream and was soon earning less than subtle nods from Trump himself. It’s since been linked to murders, kidnappings, and even an armed standoff at the Hoover Dam. Its supporters have run for (and been elected) to Congress. Its visibility and influence notwithstanding, much about the QAnon conspiracy remains elusive — not least the specific nature of the conspiracy itself.
Due to the cryptic style of the posts that originally inspired it, the Q-verse has become a sprawling network of competing interpretations and micro-sects. With Donald Trump’s defeat and the swearing-in of a new Democratic president, QAnon now faces the existential paradox of a prophecy that has failed to materialize — a development which raises significant questions about the future of a group whose influence now reaches deep into the Republican base.
The Daily Beast’s Will Sommer has been following and reporting on QAnon from its early days. Since its creation a few years ago, his newsletter “Right Richter” has been a must-read for anyone interested in the machinations of the extreme right, from the sinister to the downright bizarre. He appears in a new docuseries debuting this week and is currently writing a book on QAnon.
Jacobin spoke to Sommer about the origins of the Q-conspiracy, its influence in American politics, and its future in the post-Trump era.
LS: The QAnon conspiracy began thanks to a series of opaque 4chan posts in October 2017 — and by the end of the Trump presidency, it was something a lot more people had heard of than your typical online conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, I think many still aren’t clear on exactly what QAnon is, beyond the fact that it exists, it may have something to do with satanic, interdimensional pedophiles, and has taken hold within an especially fanatical pro-Trump portion of the Republican base.
So, I think it might be useful for us to begin with some very bread-and-butter questions: Where did QAnon come from? And what is the basic narrative underlying the conspiracy?
WS: Basically, it’s a conspiracy theory worldview that launched in October 2017 with a series of anonymous posts on the website 4chan from a figure named “Q.” Now, Trump’s supporters took this to mean that this person has a high level Hugh “Q” security clearance and was giving them messages from Trump.
In terms of what QAanon actually means, there’s a lot of different factions in QAnon and they sort of believe different things. But pretty much all QAnon people believe that the world, as revealed to them by Q, is run by a cabal of satanic cannibal pedophiles who torture children in satanic rituals, that these people are in the Democratic Party, in Hollywood and in banking, and that they’ve controlled the world for centuries. They also believe that Donald Trump was basically convinced to run by the military to take this cabal down, and that someday there’ll be this big moment called “The Storm” in which Trump arrests and executes all of his enemies.
LS: The intervention of QAnon followers into the recent Georgia Senate runoffs really underscores the extent to which they’ve become an assertive faction within the GOP. As you reported in December, Lin Wood — a pro-Trump lawyer with ties to QAnon who was involved in spreading stolen election conspiracies — was quite literally telling rank-and-file Republicans not to vote for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the runoffs (something which earned him censure from Breitbart and even, of all people, Roger Stone).
Do we have any way of knowing what proportion of the Republican base identifies with QAnon or is Q-curious?
WS: The polling on this is kind of all over the place, but I think conservatively we can say that between 10 and 30 percent of the GOP is either like hardcore QAnon or has somewhat signed on to a lot of its ideas. And even that I would say is probably at the lower end of reality, so that would just be a conservative guess.
LS: QAnon initially started through these cryptic messages on 4chan. But what can you tell us about how and why it actually spread? There are reams of conspiratorial stuff posted on the internet every day, so what was it about this that made it catch fire?
WS: Before QAnon started, there were all these characters on 4chan that were sort of pretending “I’m a leaker in the FBI” or “I’m a leaker somewhere in the NSA” and stuff like that. But for whatever reason, QAnon really caught on, and I think that’s thanks to a combination of things.
One is that there’s this gamification element: the clues are very vague, so people can really get whatever they want out of it. For anti-vaccine people, for example, it’s about vaccines. If you’re obsessed with Fox News and Sean Hannity, it’s about the Russia investigation, etc.
Then, there’s this aspect of people who spend their time doing their research calling themselves “digital soldiers.” So, it’s like: you are the equivalent of a soldier, but all you have to do is spend a lot of time on the internet. I think it’s a very dramatic way to see the world and so a lot of people have been pulled into it for that reason too.
QAnon was lucky in a way in that it had some people who already had YouTube and Twitter accounts with big followings who latched onto it (I think of Jerome Corsi, for example, who was kind of one of the kings of the birther conspiracy theory and is tight with Alex Jones). So there were all these people who have seen in QAnon a thing that they could make a buck off of and promote. Some of those people have since had falling outs with QAnon but I think they’re one of the reasons it was able to go as far and fast as it did.
LS: Is it fair to say that QAnon attracts older Republicans more than younger Republicans?
WS: This is interesting, yes. I think, first of all, that is true, because I think younger Republicans are probably having more interactions directly with the alt-right. So the initial QAnon-type person is more or less in line with what we think of when we think of a Trump supporter: older, white, probably an evangelical Christian and, frankly, more likely to fall for something on the internet.
Because younger people, even Republicans, with more experience on the internet see this stuff and just think “Oh, that’s 4chan, I know what that is… I’ve seen like a bunch of crap for a decade on 4chan and I’m not just going to assume that that’s actually Michael Flynn typing away.” But, especially during the pandemic — when obviously the world seems a lot crazier and people have more time at home, or maybe they’ve been laid off — we’ve seen the rise of this broader kind of QAnon.
So now you’ve got more women and young people, and more black and Hispanic people getting into it, often through this “save the children” push (which is a vague anti-sex trafficking thing). You even have yoga-type people getting into the picture. So the question of what a typical QAnon person looks like is now really, really in flux.
LS: Something that has always been especially perplexing about QAnon is the Kennedy element / tie-in. Can you explain that a little bit?
WS: One thing that’s really interesting about QAnon is that, because it’s so big with boomers — and because the Kennedy family looms very large for them in general — JFK is a very big deal. QAnon has kind of subsumed many other conspiracy theories: 9/11 Truth, vaccine stuff, and also the JFK assassination. So that’s been sucked in too and people think “JFK stood up to the cabal and that’s why they killed him.”
And so Trump is, for them, the first non-cabal president since JFK. This narrative re-enters the picture after Q disappears for a little while and someone named R claims that JFK Jr (who died in a 1999 plane crash) in fact faked his own death to get revenge for JFK’s killing and join up with Trump to be Q.
So there’s this very intense JFK Jr Faction that is widely reviled by a lot of other QAnon people. I ran into it at the Trump 4th of July event in 2019 at the Trump hotel, where all these women were wearing JFK Jr masks. And I asked, you know, “What does this mean?” and this lady said “He’s alive!” and then sort of ran away. And then there’s a guy they think is JFK Jr in disguise — Vincent Fusca, who’s obviously not JFK Jr but really leans into it. He wears a George magazine shirt and clearly wants people to think that he’s JFK Jr.
LS: There are all sorts of questions about QAnon that are obvious to ask but difficult to answer: Why for example, given the amount of conspiracy material posted online, did this particular theory spread? But the bigger question, it seems to me, is why the second half of the Trump presidency gave birth to something like it at all.
When the first Q posts appeared, Republicans actually had unified control of the US government. Their guy was quite literally in the White House at the helm of the American state. Conspiracies more typically spread among groups of people whose values are distant from power. What do you think explains this apparent idiosyncrasy vis-à-vis QAnon?
WS: It is unusual to see a group that’s actually in power create their own conspiracy theory because they’re more often about rationalizing why a group believes it’s been robbed of power. But they had it. For me, the explanation is that Trump during the campaign made all these promises and people just thought all their personal issues would be solved if only Trump was elected. But then, when he did get into office and it was just tax cuts or him being bogged down with the Mueller investigation, they had to come up with excuses for why their hero was failing to really do anything for them. And I think the answer became “Well, you know, even though it appears that Republicans have total control of the government, the deep state is actually undermining him.”
So then it becomes much bigger than just winning an election and Trump is having to take on this centuries’ old evil. The corollary to that is it’s also just a lot more fun to see politics in that way compared to being like “Oh my gosh, like, can we get this out of committee?” or “Maybe they’ll use budget reconciliation?” That’s very boring stuff, and given that Trump attracted so many people who were not familiar with politics, you can easily see why they would prefer a tale of demons and witches and stuff like that.
LS: QAnon’s influence has manifested itself in some very peculiar (and also dangerous) ways. For example, just today you reported on a town of about seven thousand people (many of them retirees) in Washington State where the mayor’s public Q-sympathies have thrown the local civic institutions into chaos. What exactly is going on there? Do you know of any other examples like this?
WS: Yeah, this is a case in Sequim, Washington, which is a pretty sleepy retiree town in which the mayor’s job is essentially to set the agenda at the local meetings. But the guy is a QAnon supporter and is very open about it and tells all his citizens “check out these QAnon videos” and wears a little Punisher pin to his meetings, and refused to quarantine after traveling to South Dakota. He’s a pretty hardcore QAnon guy, and it’s sort of thrown the town into chaos. His critics say he fired the city manager because the guy was not into QAnon, so there’s also clearly a lot happening behind the scenes there.
But yes, I think it’s seeping into a lot of random places. I was struck a couple of years ago, when Mike Pence went to Florida and one of the people guarding him was a local SWAT team guy who had a bunch of QAnon patches. So suddenly this random police department had to be like “Why are you a QAnon guy?” and he then makes a cause out of saying “I can wear my QAnon gear when I’m here.”
I think what’s interesting to me is how QAnon has sort of seeped into all these different facets of life: you have QAnon Instagram influencers and you have Q kids — kids younger than ten years old who love QAnon. It’s very weird stuff.
LS: It’s a conspiracy theory that has almost metastasized into a lifestyle brand.
WS: Yeah, exactly. I mean, it is very much a way of seeing the world outside of just politics or Donald Trump. It applies to anything. It applies to entertainment and culture too because they think celebrities are big time cannibals and all that sort of stuff.
LS: The kinds of predictions that form the basis for QAnon have failed to be realized before. Back in 2018 there was a Justice Department report that was supposed to show leading Democrats had broken the law while trying to stop Trump from winning in 2016. It contained nothing of the kind.
But this wasn’t a problem for Q followers because they were quickly able to rationalize and/or explain it away. A popular QAnon poster and YouTuber who calls himself “Praying Medic,” for example, did a forensic analysis of things like the typeface and margins of the report to claim it was fake (Trump or someone else presumably having the real, unredacted version with all the good stuff).
The inauguration of Joe Biden, however, is many orders of magnitude greater as a failed prophecy than anything that’s happened before: As a new Democratic president was sworn in, the mass arrests that QAnon believers were anticipating never happened. “The Storm” never came. How would you characterize the Q-verse’s response to this event? How have QAnon devotees processed or tried to rationalize it?
WS: Joe Biden’s inauguration is maybe the most pivotal moment for QAnon since it started, because it’s all premised on the idea that Donald Trump is the president and so, if he’s not the president what happened? Initially they were expecting these mass arrests: right up until fifteen minutes before Biden was sworn-in and they all thought “Oh, this is going to be good. This is my super bowl and it’s going to be huge.”
And then Kamala Harris gets sworn-in and they’re like “Oh, that’s a little weird, they’re really taking it down to the wire…” and then, when it became clear that Biden was actually president the initial reaction on the forums was one of physical sickness. Stuff like “I want to throw up. I look like an idiot. I’ve been telling everyone in my family that they’re big dumb asses and they need to get ready to learn about the cabal, but now I look like a fool.”
So there was initially a lot of revulsion feeling that QAnon had ripped them off. But then, within a couple of hours, they had circled the wagons and were saying “Wait a minute: maybe this Q plan was a little ambitious, but that’s only because the deep state is so bad. Maybe it’s that Trump is going to come back in 2024. Maybe what Q taught us is real and we still think Comet Ping Pong is a pedophile dungeon, but maybe The Storm isn’t ready.”
LS: How has the Trump element, that is, Trump personally, played into this? Because the most obvious reading of the events since the capital storming is that he sort of betrayed this entire group of people, left without a fight, and laid down arms. After all of it there was no coup and no Storm. How does Trump figure in these rationalizations?
WS: The big thing right now is the idea that Trump is secretly going to take power in a couple of months. They’ve really gotten into this. What’s funny about QAnon is the way that it’s constantly evolving. So now, for example, they’re saying that the United States is only a corporation and it’s been owned by the City of London since 1877.
Plus they’re getting into a lot of sovereign citizen language. Now, Trump is going to come back in March and run the new American Republic so that essentially this can be a new country. That’s the latest theory and it remains very intensely focused on Trump. But yes, when he seems to be backing away from them, what do you do?
LS: This is obviously a very speculative question, but QAnon has spawned a pretty large community and culture. There are huge social media accounts connected to it. It has merchandise and people have made money off of it. It’s even found its way into totally bizarre places like wellness influencer Instagram. Given all of this, it’s hard to believe that it’s all just going to disappear. Might it live on in some other form beyond the Trump presidency? What do you think the future holds for QAnon?
WS: I think we’re going to see some QAnon followers, hopefully, come to their senses and drop off. But I don’t think there’s gonna be a huge number of them, and some are going to get even more hardcore because they’ve been tested and are now even more committed to it.
I think maybe the Q branding is going to be considered a little cringeworthy for them because the theory has so obviously turned out to be wrong. But the messaging of QAnon and these related conspiracy theories may continue — in the same way that after the Comet Ping Pong shooting people stopped saying “Pizzagate” but then that reemerged as QAnon, which was essentially the same thing but with a less tarnished branding.
Rights groups say Uyghur Muslims are being severely persecuted in China. (photo: Getty Images
Millions of Leaked Police Files Detail Suffocating Surveillance of China's Uyghur Minority
Yael Grauer, The Intercept
Grauer writes: "The order came through a police automation system in Ürümqi, the largest city in China's northwest Xinjiang region. The system had distributed a report - an 'intelligence information judgment,' as local authorities called it - that the female relative of a purported extremist had been offered free travel to Yunnan, a picturesque province to the south."
The woman found the offer on the smartphone messaging app WeChat, in a group known simply as “Travelers.” Authorities homed in on the group because of ethnic and family ties; its members included Muslim minorities like Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and Kyrgyz, who speak languages beside China’s predominant one, Mandarin. “This group has over 200 ethnic-language people,” the order stated. “Many of them are relatives of incarcerated people. Recently, many intelligence reports revealed that there is a tendency for relatives of [extremist] people to gather. This situation needs major attention. After receiving this information, please investigate immediately. Find out the background of the people who organize ‘free travel,’ their motivation, and the inner details of their activities.”
Police in Ürümqi’s Xiheba Precinct, near the historic city center, received the order and summarized their work in a 2018 report. The one person rounded up as a result of the order, a Uyghur, had no previous criminal record, had never heard of the WeChat group, and never even traveled within China as a tourist. He “has good behavior and we do not have any suspicion,” police wrote. Still, his phone was confiscated and sent to a police “internet safety unit,” and the community was to “control and monitor” him, meaning the government would assign a trusted cadre member to regularly visit and watch over his household. A record about him was entered into the police automation system.
Based on their notes, police appear to have investigated the man and assigned the cadre members to “control and monitor” him entirely because of religious activities, which took place five months earlier, of his eldest sister. She and her husband invited another Uyghur couple in Ürümqi to join a religious discussion group on the messaging app Tencent QQ, according to police records. The other couple bought a laptop and logged onto the group every day from 7 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.; the husband stopped smoking and drinking, and the wife began wearing longer clothes. They began listening to “religious extremism information” on their laptop, the report said. Between the two couples, police recovered 168 religious audio files deemed illegal, likely because they were connected to an Islamic movement, Tablighi Jamaat, that advocates practicing Islam as it was practiced when the Prophet Muhammad was alive.
The fate of the eldest sister and her husband is unknown; the report simply states they were transferred to a different police bureau. The other couple was sent to a re-education camp.
Details of the investigations are contained in a massive police database obtained by The Intercept: the product of a reporting tool developed by private defense company Landasoft and used by the Chinese government to facilitate police surveillance of citizens in Xinjiang.
The database, centered on Ürümqi, includes policing reports that confirm and provide additional detail about many elements of the persecution and large-scale internment of Muslims in the area. It sheds further light on a campaign of repression that has reportedly seen cameras installed in the homes of private citizens, the creation of mass detention camps, children forcibly separated from their families and placed in preschools with electric fences, the systematic destruction of Uyghur cemeteries, and a systematic campaign to suppress Uyghur births through forced abortion, sterilization, and birth control.
It offers an inside view into police intelligence files and auxiliary community police meetings, as well as the operation of checkpoints that are pervasive in Ürümqi. It also details phone, online, and financial surveillance of marginalized groups, showing how granular surveillance purportedly on the watch for extremism is often simply looking at religious activity. Additionally, the database spells out how Chinese authorities are analyzing and refining the information they collect, including trying to weed out “filler” intelligence tips submitted by police and citizens to inflate their numbers and using automated policing software to help prompt investigations like the one into the WeChat travel group.
Among the revelations from the database is information on the extensive use of a tool that plugs into phones to download their contents, the “anti-terrorism sword,” deployed so frequently that Chinese authorities worried it was alienating the populace. It shows authorities tracking how their policies succeeded in driving down mosque attendance. It also offers evidence that the “Physicals for All” biometric collection program, which authorities insisted was solely a health initiative, is intended as part of the policing system. And it quantifies and provides details on the extensive electronic monitoring that goes on in Xinjiang, containing millions of text messages, phone call records, and contact lists alongside banking records, phone hardware and subscriber data, and references to WeChat monitoring as well as e-commerce and banking records.
The database also sheds light on the extent of policing and detention in Xinjiang. It details how former residents who went abroad and applied for political asylum were flagged as terrorists. In some cases, it appears as though fixed-term sentences were assigned to people in re-education detention — undercutting the idea, promulgated by the government, that the lengths of such detentions are contingent on rehabilitation or vocational training.
Taken together, the materials provide a broad overview of how the extensive surveillance systems deployed in Xinjiang fit together to repress minority populations and how extensively they impact day-to-day life in the region.
“Overall, this testifies to an incredible police state, one that is quite likely to place suspicions on people who have not really done anything wrong,” said Adrian Zenz, an anthropologist and researcher who focuses on Xinjiang and Tibet.
The investigations stemming from the WeChat travelers group offer a concrete example of this intense policing, said Maya Wang, China senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “You can see the muddled thinking in here, where people are being jailed for nothing, but also the process is so arbitrary.”
The revelations underscore how Xinjiang is an early look at the ways recent technology, like smartphones, cheap digital camera systems, and mass online storage of data, can be combined to monitor and repress large groups of people when civil liberties concerns are pushed aside.
“The mass surveillance in Xinjiang is a cautionary tale for all of us,” said Wang. “Xinjiang really shows how privacy is a gateway right, where if you have no privacy, that’s where you see that you have no freedoms as a human being at all. You don’t have the right to practice your religion, you don’t have the right to be who you are, you don’t even have the right to think your own thoughts because your thoughts are being parsed out by these incessant visits and incessantly monitored by surveillance systems, whether they’re human or artificial, and evaluated constantly for your level of loyalty to the government.”
Landasoft and China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to requests for comment.
The database obtained by The Intercept appears to be maintained and used by the Ürümqi City Public Security Bureau and the broader Xinjiang Public Security Bureau. It also contains documents from units of the national Internet Safety and Protection Bureau.
Landasoft has branded the software that appears to be behind the database as “iTap,” a big data system it markets publicly.
The database spans 52 gigabytes and contains close to 250 million rows of data. It is fed by and provides data back to various apps, roughly a dozen of which appear linked to the database. These include:
One of the database’s major components is an extensive collection of minutes from “community stability” meetings, in which de facto police auxiliaries, or citizen-staffed neighborhood police, discuss what took place the week prior across their area. The database also contains various associated documents outlining policing and intelligence priorities and summaries of intelligence collected, local facilities checked, families of detainees visited, and updates on people of interest in the community. There are also weekly intelligence and detention reports, which include information on investigations of tips and on suspicious people.
The database provides information on numerous other tools used to analyze the digital surveillance it contains. For example, documents in the database reference a Chinese government system called the Integrated Joint Operations Platform. IJOP, which has been the subject of extensive interest and discussion by human rights groups, gathers together surveillance about the residents of Xinjiang, stores it centrally, and uses it to make automated policing decisions referred to in the database as “pushes,” or push notifications. IJOP was the platform police said issued the order to investigate the WeChat free travel group.
Other documents give information on the use of the label “three-category people,” who are deemed terrorists or extremists, with three varying degrees of severity.
The database itself repeatedly uses a marker to query for Uyghur people, “iXvWZREN,” which groups them with terrorists and ex-convicts. There is no marker for Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China.
The surveillance in Xinjiang was known to be extensive, creating one of the most watched regions in the world. What the database reveals is how this spying machine is used: what surveillance looks like on the ground (unrelenting) and what specific ends it is intended to serve (often to curb any unsanctioned influence, from the practice of Islam to ideas from foreign countries). People are watched up close and at a distance, with some information directly sucked out of their digital devices, other data collected from taps and sensors, and still more from relatives and informants in the community. The campaign against Uyghurs and their practice of Islam is laid out in stark and aggressive terms in police documents, and paranoia about outside or otherwise malign influence of many sorts manifest repeatedly.
Some of the most invasive data in the database comes from “anti-terrorism sword” phone inspection tools. Police at checkpoints, which pervade the city, make people plug their phones into these devices, which come from various manufacturers. They gather personal data from phones, including contacts and text messages, and also check pictures, videos, audio files, and documents against a list of prohibited items. They can display WeChat and SMS text messages. The data extracted is then integrated into IJOP.
A 2018 report from a neighborhood just northeast of the center of Ürümqi mentions authorities conducting searches on 1,860 people with an anti-terrorism sword in just one week in March. In the same report, detailing a single week in April, 2,057 people in the area had their phones checked. Around 30,000 people live in the area, the Qidaowan neighorhood, according to government statistics.
This pattern of frequent police stops is seen in other parts of Ürümqi. Documents discuss police checking people’s phones upwards of three or four times in one night, and how this makes it difficult to stay on the good side of the populace, which is clearly becoming annoyed.
For example, an August 2017 police report said that “due to overly frequent phone inspections conducted by certain checkpoints, which caused some people to be inspected over 3 times, people complain about this work.” An October 2017 “social opinion intelligence report” stated that “some people reflected that the current checkpoint is too overpowered. Often they would be checked 3 times during one night. It wastes their time when they are in an emergency.”
The documents discuss people who switched to older phones to prevent the inconvenience of these phone checks.
Rune Steenberg, an anthropologist in Denmark focusing on Xinjiang and Uyghurs, who spent time in Kashgar as a researcher as late as 2016, said he switched to using a simple phone rather than a smartphone in 2014 and that many Uyghurs did the same. “It’s not just about them discovering stuff on your phone,” he said. “They can place stuff on your phone in order to incriminate you. And there’s no way you can afterwards prove that that was placed on your phone and it wasn’t from you. So it became really dangerous, actually, to have a smartphone.”
And, Steenberg said, police would often scam people into giving up their smartphones, falsely stating the phone had religious content and asking people if it was theirs, knowing they would disown the device. “They would be like, ‘No, that’s not my phone, no, I didn’t bring my phone here,’” said Steenberg. Then, he said, the police would hold onto the phones and sell them afterward.
The database also helps quantify how broadly phone surveillance was deployed around Ürümqi. For example, in the space of one year and 11 months, Chinese authorities collected close to 11 million SMS messages. In one year and 10 months, they gathered 11.8 million records on phone call duration and parties involved in the call. And in a one-year, 11-month period, they gathered seven million contacts and around 255,000 records on phone hardware, including the IMSI number that identifies phones on cellular networks; phone model and manufacturer; a computer network identifier known as a MAC address; and another cellular network identifier, the IMEI number.
Phone call information that is tracked in the database includes people on the calls, name of the recipient, and the start and stop times of each conversation. Fields in the database indicate that online dating information, e-commerce purchases, and email contacts may also be extracted from phones.
“You cannot feel safe anywhere because of your cellphone,” said Abduweli Ayup, a linguist and poet who lived in Kashgar, Xinjiang. “You have to turn your cellphone on 24 hours, and you have to answer the phone at any time if police call you.” He said that with chat apps also monitored, Uyghurs can never experience privacy, even at home.
Beyond passively watching phones, the government worked to coerce people to participate in a biometrics program purported to be a health initiative. Under the “Physicals for All” program, citizens were required to go have their faces scanned and voice signatures analyzed, as well as give DNA. Documents describing the program indicate it is part of the policing system.
Darren Byler, an anthropologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Asian Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that while the “Physicals for All” program has long been known about and suspected to be a form of surveillance, authorities have always denied it and said it was simply a public health initiative. “How clearly this is part of the policing system is made clear in the documents,” Byler said. “It’s very clear, it’s obvious that that’s a part of how they want to control the population.”
Reports in the database show “Physicals for All” work is routinely conducted through the police “convenience stations,” leading to complaints from citizens about sanitary conditions. (The convenience stations purportedly bring the community and police closer together, featuring amenities like public Wi-Fi and phone-charging, but are hubs for surveillance.) They also discuss how citizens who fail to submit biometric and biographical information are reported to police, face fines, and are sometimes made to formally renounce their behavior. Some documents about the program focus on migrants or the “ethnic-language people.” One indicates that physical exams conducted on students are used for policing:
Documents in the database also show heightened surveillance of people as they move about in public through the growing use of facial recognition, directed by the IJOP system. The police report on use of the anti-terrorism sword also details the use of facial recognition, showing that over 900 people were checked using facial recognition across 40 police convenience stations in Qidaowan Precinct.
It’s clear, Byler said after reviewing the numbers, that “face recognition has become an increasingly important aspect of the surveillance system.”
Some of the most intriguing evidence of personal data surveillance comes from computer programming code stored in the database and seemingly designed to generate reports. This reporting code references a good deal of material not included in the database obtained by The Intercept, making it impossible to confirm how much of it is actually collected by authorities or how it would be used.
Still, these so-called tactic or evidence collection reports give clues as to what information the database, on its own or as part of a broader collection, is intended to include. The report code contains references to data on online services like Facebook, QQ, Momo, Weibo, Taobao’s Aliwangwang, as well as actual phone call recordings, photos, GPS locations, and a list of “high-risk words.”
Documents in the database also confirm police access to information on people’s use of WeChat. Discussion of WeChat surveillance appears in records of auxiliary community police meetings and accounts of police investigations.
In an example of how police document their WeChat capabilities, one document — from the national Internet Safety Bureau — demonstrates a police search drill in which a police officer was marked as a suspect for the purpose of the exercise. He drove throughout the city while other police traced his vehicle using his WeChat history and location data. Authorities appeared to read the mock suspect’s WeChat texts, with one “WeChat Analysis” reading, “He said he’s having lunch at the petrol area.”
The aim of much of the surveillance is to curb any influence that could conceivably lead to a desire for greater freedom or autonomy among Uyghur and other minority groups in Xinjiang.
For example, the material corroborates reports that Uyghurs are monitored outside of China and that it’s not just people who travel abroad and then return who are surveilled, but also their relatives and friends.
Police in the Shuimogou district of Ürümqi investigated a young woman because her high school friend went to study at Stanford University and because the woman sometimes talked to her on WeChat. “According to the investigation, we did not find any violation of rules or laws while she resided and worked in our area,” read a 2018 report from the neighborhood of Weihuliang. “While she resided in the area she actively participated in community works and actively participated in other activities in the community, and actively participated in the raising of the flag ceremony in the community. We do not see any abnormality and she is cleared from suspicion.” Byler called the incident “important confirmation on the way people outside the country are being monitored by those in the country, and the way these connections produce ‘micro-clues’ of suspicion.”
In another example of how outside influence is grounds for suspicion, a document from the community of Anping, also in Shuimogou, mentions that all phones and computers of workers who have visited family outside of the city should be inspected for unauthorized content.
Chinese authorities’ fear of outside influence on citizens of Xinjiang is connected to an initiative called “backflow prevention,” or fanghuiliu. The idea is to prevent the “backflow” of extremism or other malign ideas from abroad.
A possible example of this initiative is the 2018 imprisonment of Feng Siyu, a Chinese academic who came to Xinjiang University’s Folklore Research Center as a translator the previous February. Feng is part of China’s Han ethnic majority and is originally from Hangzhou in eastern China, far from Xinjiang. But she studied abroad — including at Amherst College, SOAS University of London, and Indiana University — and came under police attention in Ürümqi, according to an October 2017 police intelligence note in the database. The note recorded that Feng had “foreign obscure software” on her OnePlus smartphone. The note further stated that the software came with the smartphone and that Feng did not use it.
Feng is believed to have been sentenced to two years in prison in February 2018. Her imprisonment is tracked on shahit.biz, the Xinjiang Victim’s Database, a website that documents instances of incarceration in the region.
Steenberg, the anthropologist, said he believes Feng was under scrutiny because she traveled between the U.S. and Ürümqi and spoke good Uyghur, and because of her work at the folk research center and with its founder Rahile Dawut. A celebrated academic, Dawut collected ethnographic data, including folktales and oral literature in southern Xinjiang and information on Sufi Islamic practices. Dawut disappeared in December 2017 and is believed to be in detention.
The drive for “backflow prevention” is also reflected in the identification of those who leave China as security threats. One report from Saimachang, a Uyghur stronghold in the historic center of Ürümqi, discusses former residents who have gone abroad and applied for political asylum as terrorists, corroborating reports that Uyghurs are monitored outside of China.
“It’s really clear evidence that charges of terrorism or extremism don’t meet international standards of terrorism or extremism,” said Byler. “Applying for political asylum is not a sign of terrorism by most definitions, but in this context it is.” This also demonstrates the amount of detailed information Chinese authorities keep about Uyghurs abroad.
Ayup has experience with this sort of monitoring. While in Kashgar, Ayup operated a Uyghur-language kindergarten and promoted Uyghur-language education. He fled China after 15 months of detention, during which he said he was interrogated and tortured. After leaving, Ayup said at one point he joined a WeChat group for the Chinese embassy. “When I went to the Chinese embassy, they asked me to join their WeChat group, and when I joined, a Chinese spy in Ürümqi found me; he talked to me and he threatened me,” he said.
Even holding a passport is considered suspicious. Documents in the database indicate Uyghur passport holders are checked on by authorities more frequently than those without passports.
Indeed, any knowledge of life outside of Xinjiang can be flagged as suspicious. For example, police in Weihuliang took note in one weekly report, among “people who need special attention,” of four people who had traveled to Beijing “to reflect local issues.” “The rest have never left the region, so they’re seen as safer,” Byler said.
Even phone calls or text chats involving outside countries invite scrutiny from authorities in Xinjiang. In Tianshan, the historic and majority-Uyghur center of Ürümqi, authorities reported sending a professional driver to re-education following an unusual phone call to a “key country.” Zenz believes the “key country” is one in a group of 26 largely Muslim “focus” countries watched by authorities. Xinjiang authorities have targeted people with connections to these countries for interrogation, detention and even imprisonment, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. The countries include Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
The database also shows increased use of artificial intelligence, coupled with human intelligence, in directing surveillance in recent years. Documents from authorities in the Ürümqi districts of Tianshan and Shuimogou show IJOP sending push notifications directing investigations by local police. In 2018, one police precinct alone received 40 such notifications, according to one document.
While news reports in recent years have depicted Chinese police automation systems like IJOP as rudimentary, relying heavily on human intelligence, evidence in the database indicates use of machine-learning technology is growing, said Byler, who received his Ph.D. in Uyghur technopolitics in Chinese cities of Central Asia.
“What your data shows is that it’s beginning to automate in some ways, especially around face surveillance,” Byler said. “If they’re using 900 checkpoint [scans] around face surveillance, they are using AI to a significant extent now,” he added, referring to the 935 facial scans in one week in Qidaowan Precinct.
Documents show police are also adding into IJOP a significant amount of checkpoint data, including phone downloads from anti-terrorism swords. Documents from 2018 and 2019 show mounting push notifications from IJOP. “It’s clear that that system is beginning to alert them and direct their policing in new ways, and so it is starting to come online,” said Byler.
The documents also make clear the extent to which authorities try to assess the psychology of people under suspicion, with a keen eye in particular toward loyalty and even fervor. This is exhibited at so-called flag-raising ceremonies: community events in which participants proclaim their loyalty to China and the ruling regime. Documents show that these events are extensively monitored by police and their proxies. Authorities watch not just former detainees but their relatives as well, to confirm they are participating and to determine how passionate they are about doing so.
Authorities used participation in these weekly ceremonies as a way to monitor three people, likely Uyghurs, on a community watchlist, according to one of the documents. Participants are asked to perform a vow of loyalty involving the phrase “Voice your opinion, raise your sword” (or “Show your voice, show your sword”). If their participation is not wholehearted and patriotic, employers and others inform on them to police, Byler said. Also scrutinized at the ceremonies are “surplus laborers,” people on a coercive labor track that blends work on community projects with re-education. The surplus labor program has ramped up sharply over the last four years.
Documents show that the police officers and neighbors doing this monitoring at flag-raising ceremonies are also making recommendations about who should be sent to re-education camps.
Although China has insisted its policing in Xinjiang is directed at stopping terrorism and extremism rather than persecuting the practice of any religion, the database confirms and details how surveillance homes in on many common expressions of Islamic faith, and even on curiosity about the religion, leading in many cases to investigations. The government considers it a potential sign of religious extremism to grow a beard, have a prayer rug, own Uyghur books, or even quit smoking or drinking.
Surveillance directed at Islamic practice in the region also involves watching mosques. Authorities surveil mosque attendance, tally which worshippers are migrants and which are residents, and monitor whether prayers are conducted in an orderly way, according to police reports in the database.
Ayup said mosques have cameras inside too, and people are surveilled for the way in which they pray.
“If people use a different style of praying … the camera takes a picture,” he said, adding that a friend was arrested for this. Ayup said that some Uyghurs pray in very old styles, and some use new styles. “In the Chinese government’s eyes, the new style is threatening, is extremism,” he said.
Even the use of natural gas in a neighborhood mosque was monitored, according to a document from Quingcui, a community in the Liudaowan neighborhood in the district of Shuimogou.
The relentless surveillance in Xinjiang has been the best understood component of the repressive environment in the region. More difficult to study and understand, particularly for human rights groups abroad, has been how and to what extent it drives enforcement. As it turns out, the intensity of policing in Xinjiang matches the hyperaggression of the surveillance: closely integrated and every bit as pervasive. The database obtained by The Intercept reveals evidence of a deeply invasive police state, concerned with people’s thoughts and enthusiasms, entering their homes, interfering with their daily movements, and even seeking out crimes in activities perfectly legal at the time they were undertaken. Authorities in the region direct investigations and other police work using an approach one expert, after examining portions of the database, described as “hyperpolicing,” cracking down on any aberrant behavior. The tactics used are all-encompassing, involving civilian brigades, home visits, and frequent checkpoints. As extensive as this work is, it is also conducted in a way that targets people according to perceived danger. Minorities of all sorts — be they linguistic, religious, or ethnic — are disproportionately patrolled.
Discrimination against so-called ethnic-language people, or Muslim minorities with their own languages, is a key component of policing in Xinjiang.
Many detainees and former detainees are referred to as “three-category people.” The label, applied very liberally, refers to purported extremists and terrorists of three levels of severity, ranked according to the government’s perception of their mindset and potential to cause harm. Relatives of detainees and former detainees are also labeled, ranked, and tracked by police. Another system categorizes people as trustworthy, normal, or untrustworthy.
Police categories and rankings implicitly draw attention to minority groups, but in some contexts, this focus is made explicit. For example, minutes from the community stability meetings show that these meetings specifically put a focus on “ethnic-language people,” who are under stronger surveillance than Chinese-speaking Hui Muslims. The meetings also focus on relatives of primarily Uyghur detainees.
Uyghurs are also policed in their practice of Islam. Documents show that police at times conduct security checks on everyone attending a given mosque.
Indeed, the government tightly controls who is allowed into mosques. One police document detailed an incident in which three students tried to go to a funeral for a friend’s father at a mosque. As Byler described it, the three students “were just hanging around the entrance trying to find a way to walk in because they had to scan their ID cards to go inside, but they were worried that [the front gate checkpoint] would contact the police and they didn’t know what to do.” The police questioned the students, held them for hours, and put them on a watchlist at school, “even though they explained everything they were trying to do,” Byler said.
More recent reports indicate that authorities set a goal of lowering mosque attendance and met it. Many police documents mention that mosque attendance is lower, and some explicitly describe this as indicating success. One report indicated that at one mosque, total visits in a four-month period declined by 80,000, compared to the same period in the prior year: more than a 96 percent decrease. This appears to be partly due to the departure of an imam and temporary closure of the mosque, but the report states that “there has been a drastic lowering of religious practitioners” over two years. It adds that this is partly because visitors left the city, were sent to camps, or were afraid to practice Islam.
Mosque activity that the Chinese government views as signs of extremism, said Ayup, can include praying without a Uyghur doppa, wearing perfume in the mosque, or even being relaxed while praying. Anybody who doesn’t praise the Chinese Communist Party after their prayer is also considered suspicious, he said.
In police notes, Byler said, “it’s interesting that they’re describing citizens as enemies, and it makes it clear that they see this as a sort of counterinsurgency, when really they’re just trying to detect who practices Islam or not.”
Notes from a police station in Weihuliang describe a “large-scale investigation … focused on areas where migrant populations congregate,” concentrating on people from predominately Uyghur southern Xinjiang. The notes said that in one week, police had registered 605 people from southern Xinjiang, investigating 383 of them and people they lived with. In the same sweeps, authorities inspected 367 phones and nine computers.
Xinjiang authorities’ policing of Islam is particularly zealous in its hunt for “wild imams” or “illegal preaching.” The terms refer to Islamic preachers whose work is not sanctioned by the Chinese government; rights groups have said Chinese authorities draw this legal line arbitrarily, to serve political needs. These imams can be prosecuted for sermons delivered either online and in mosques.
The Weihuliang police station notes list 60 people involved in so-called illegal preaching, 50 of whom are in custody. The same document said that “illegal preaching” in the WeChat group “Group 1 teach (Qur’an ABCs)” led to the capture of a 41-year-old Hui woman and the administrative detention of a 62-year-old Hui man.
More recent documents, from 2017 through 2019, reflect mounting difficulty by the police in continuing to find violations to enforce and people to place in detention or re-education camps. That’s because in 2017, the first wave of detentions swept Xinjiang, leading to the expulsion of a large portion of the population from Ürümqi. Xinjiang party leader Chen Quanguo told officials to “round up everyone who should be rounded up,” extending a hard-line approach Chinese President Xi Jinping began organizing after a mass stabbing at a train station and an attack on an outdoor market with cars and explosives, both in 2014.
Police documents from this period, after the first wave of repression, reflect an intent to hunt down suspicious behavior of any kind.
“The system is set up in a way that’s producing hyperpolicing,” Byler said, “where any strange or any kind of aberrant behavior is reported, and if you’re a minority, you’re ‘ethnic,’ which is how they refer to Uyghurs and Kazakhs, then you’re very susceptible to this kind of stuff and you’re being policed on a micro level, both by human policing and by the application of the technology to you and your life.”
In some instances, people are being persecuted for violating laws before the laws were even instituted.
One police document describes how Hui women were detained because of evidence they had studied the Quran in an online group — which was legal at the time they did it but became illegal prior to their detention. They had been inactive in the group for at least a year before they were detained.
Such uncertainty about laws in Xinjiang, and when one might run afoul of police, echoes Ayup’s experience. “After people get arrested, then they will find out that ‘Oh, that [activity] is dangerous,’” he explained.
Wang said the hyperpolicing has become more pervasive over time.
“It’s basically a crackdown of everything,” Wang said, spreading from repression of Islamic practices to drug abuse and mental illness. “They just want to make sure they have such control over that region, general overall control.”
One illustration of how policing became increasingly aggressive and ubiquitous in Xinjiang is a police report discussing how one knife at a dumpling shop was not chained to a secure post, as per regulation. The report said the violation needed to be rectified within a day. Laws in Xinjiang require not only the chaining of knives, the document indicated, but that knives also have QR codes identifying their owners. “It’s just a way of showing how tightly everything is controlled, that even knives that are used in cooking have to be thought of as potential weapons,” said Byler.
To maintain the maximal vigilance entailed in “hyperpolicing,” authorities in Xinjiang enlisted ordinary citizens to inform on one another — not unheard of in China but practiced in the region more extensively, particularly against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities.
Helping to enable this, citizens are rewarded for reporting on one another. The documents in the database include some details on this previously reported fact. Informants are rewarded for passing along information, but people are also rewarded for more specific actions. Linking their WeChat account, passing a verification, and posting an image can all result in a cash reward. All of this is tracked and reflected in the database.
One document, a public announcement from police, indicates that police and auxiliaries faced pressure to submit large quantities of intelligence to authorities. It chastised citizens in the high-tech zone within Ürümqi’s Xinshi district for sending in tips that are “filler created just to make report numbers seem large, and cannot be used, and occupy a large amount of manpower and time to process.” For example, “residents reported that there are often kids urinating in the elevator” of one building. Also: “A few citizens reported that they are scammed while buying crabs or mooncakes online. Quantities lost are generally not big.”
The announcement then went on to extensively detail 10 “categories of intelligence that are forbidden to report,” including tips having nothing to do with “policy about anti-terrorism, minority policy,” or with something called the “Xinjiang Management Agenda,” or with “policies that benefits citizens.”
Essentially, as Byler put it, authorities “were like, ‘That’s not the intelligence we want, we want intelligence about the Muslims.’”
This type of policing, bubbling up from the grassroots of the populace, “is about recruiting and considering ordinary people as part of these surveillance teams,” Wang said. “And in that way, it spells out quite an interesting philosophy of surveillance and society and engineering that I don’t think a lot of people understand outside of China.”
When Ayup lived in Xinjiang, he said, groups of 10 families were required to report somebody once a week in a feedback box, which existed before the app. “The problem is, if you cannot find something to write, you have to make it up to avoid being sent to the camps and to the center, so it’s obligatory. That’s the problem, but you cannot blame someone who reports because it’s his or her obligation,” he said.
In addition to drafting ordinary citizens individually to report on neighbors, authorities in Xinjiang also organized them through more formal community groups known as “safety units” or “brigades.” These units are segmented into groups of 10, according to documents in the database. For example, 10 households or 10 businesses might be organized as a brigade, with one volunteer from each group responding to calls like an emergency medical technician and doing drills in opposition to “terrorism.”
The safety brigades hark back to a historical Chinese tradition known as the Baojia system, in which 10 households formed a bao (or later a jia, 10 of which in turn formed a bao). This fractal structure formed a social safety system and is heavily associated with policing and the militarization of the population.
In modern times, similar systems have been branded as “grid management.” Several years ago, the Chinese government rolled out grid management nationwide; the density of citizen watch units in Xinjiang, however, has remained much higher than in other parts of the country, and safety units there are used for different purposes.
The Xinjiang safety units have not been seen in previous government documents, Byler said, but are pretty obvious if you’re in the region, where you’ll see drills, people marching in formation, and business owners wearing red armbands to show their affiliation.
“It’s the militarization of the population as a whole,” Byler said. “To this point we haven’t had a full description of what it’s supposed to do.”
Hyperpolicing also reaches into people’s homes through regular visits by authorities; those deemed at risk for extremist, terrorist, or separatist influence receive frequent visits. This typically means Uyghurs, dissidents, and those who have gone through re-education camps, as well as anyone related to any of those people.
Minutes from community stability meetings give a granular look at the type of information recorded in these home visits. They include professions, place of employment, former jobs, relatives (and relatives’ national ID numbers), travel, location of children, schools the children are attending, and what the community is still monitoring.
Some residents are discussed as being monitored or controlled by the community; that means a neighborhood watch unit is assigned to monitor them. This can include visits as often as every day, or once or twice a week, from one or more cadre members living in close proximity.
Some relatives of detainees are visited daily by local police. Even those considered trustworthy are visited, “to show them warmth and pull them into the Chinese patriotic fold,” as Byler put it. “It’s like winning hearts and minds.”
In one account from a police document, an older woman whose son was held by authorities befriended a police officer who visited her. Police claimed that the woman had become like a mother to the officer. She treated him like her son and opened up about all of her actual son’s activities. She was the ideal type of person who has been re-educated through the system, the document indicated.
Some home visits are for inspection purposes, to find religious items. Documents show police searching for religious books and removing prayer mats and even, as mentioned in a July 2018 police document, a picture of the hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The documents indicate this effort originates from 2018 and is connected to a government initiative known as the “three cleanups” to encourage people to purge material considered extremist from their homes. “This is one of the first times I’ve seen that mentioned explicitly, that they’re going through people’s homes,” Byler said.
A document from October 2018 described how these home inspections unfold:
The authorities also monitor phone calls between detainees and their family members back home. One document detailed such a call that lasted four minutes and 20 seconds, describing the contents of the conversation and how grateful the relatives were that the government allowed it. “It’s an inflection point documenting how people are receiving the re-education,” Byler explained. “If they cry or act angry that their relative can’t be released, that’s a sign that the re-education hasn’t been received.”
In many cases, relatives were asked to record their call and share it with the police, or they were interviewed immediately after to see how they were doing after the call.
Citizens in Xinjiang are also routinely stopped outside their homes by authorities. The database contains records from more than two million checkpoint stops in Ürümqi (population 3.5 million) and the surrounding area in a two-year period. It includes a list of nearly three dozen categories of people to stop, such as “intelligence national security important person.” When a person is stopped at a checkpoint, they go through an ID check, typically including processing via facial recognition. Facial recognition is sometimes performed through automatic scanning by a fixed surveillance camera. It can also be performed through a manual scan using a smartphone camera; these are often used on people deemed to need the extra scrutiny of an up-close facial scan, for example, because they lack ID. If a person’s face is displayed with a yellow, orange, or red indicator on a computer, showing the system has deemed them suspicious or criminal, they are questioned and may be arrested.
Categories of people often stopped at checkpoints include relatives of offenders and relatives of detainees.
Data retained from these stops include photos of those stopped, the latitude and longitude of the stop, the name of the collection point, vehicle and license plate if applicable, the search time, the search level, whether the person was released, and the result of the search. Those who were stopped are categorized in the database as people who were immediately arrested, those who were returned to their original residence, psychiatric patients, relatives of detainees, relatives of offenders, and individuals who were listed as participants of the July 2009 Ürümqi riots, in which Uyghur–Han violence at a toy factory in southeast China led to a broader outbreak of civil unrest involving attacks against largely ethnically Han residents.
Beyond surveillance and policing, the database provides a close-up look at how various forms of incarceration are used to control the population, particularly minority groups and perceived dissidents in Xinjiang. It reveals a system moving to adapt its rhetoric and policies to a reality in which the length of incarceration, even under the guise of “training” or “re-education,” is often so uncertain that relatives of the imprisoned are grateful when detainees are granted fixed-term sentences.
Documents illustrate Xinjiang’s complex system of prison-like facilities, which roughly speaking break down into four categories: those for temporary detention; “re-education”; a more lenient form of re-education referred to as “vocational training”; and long-term prison.
Detention centers, which are said to have the harshest conditions and worst crowding, are essentially interrogation and holding facilities. People are kept there while waiting for an investigation to be completed. Re-education facilities are officially known as “transformation through education” camps. They practice “highly coercive brainwashing” in the words of Zenz, who has investigated the camps using government documents. The training centers are purportedly intended to transmit vocational and other skills but are clearly prison-like, with barbed wire, high walls, watchtowers, and internal camera systems.
It is common for a given citizen to travel through multiple types of incarceration in a sort of pipeline fashion. One police document from the Tianshan district of Ürümqi describes a mother involved in a “national security incident” who was put into re-education, then a vocational training school.
The re-education was conducted through the public security bureau’s internal security division, a domestic security force that investigates transnational crime. It is “a very tough unit,” often used against dissidents, said Zenz. “I totally expect that to be a place where torture is practiced, without knowing it for sure,” he added.
Authorities then sent the mother to a vocational training center, which would have been “still plenty unpleasant and coercive,” said Zenz, but “the most lenient” and eventually leading to release into forced labor. “In the police state, it’s the most desirable place to be because you’ll eventually get out,” he said. (These types of so-called vocational training centers are distinct from real vocational training centers existing in China that do not involve forced stays where people are removed from their families and subject to indoctrination.)
Nejmiddin Qarluq, a Uyghur who obtained asylum in Belgium in 2017, said the reason for detention isn’t always clear, since people are often arrested casually and have their property confiscated. When Qarluq was 6 years old, his father was released from prison. He himself was sentenced to three years in prison, then served another five-and-a-half-year term. One of his brothers was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996, he said, and another brother was sentenced to six and a half years and is still in prison. His brother, ex-wife, and sister were locked up in an education camp in 2018.
Because Qarluq was sentenced when he was 14, he said his entire life after he was released was under Chinese Communist Party police supervision, and he wasn’t ever able to feel safe at all. And, he said, there is no freedom or privacy — even privacy of thought — beyond the country’s control. “I am the lucky one who got the chance to flee the country,” he said.
The database contains evidence that rates of detention, compared to re-education, may be significantly higher than outside observers believed. That would mean Uyghurs and others in the system were enduring significantly harsher conditions while incarcerated.
A police report from Weihuliang Precinct provides information on the number of people held throughout Shuimogou, one of seven districts in Ürümqi, in detention and re-education. At the time, in February 2018, the district had 803 people in re-education and almost as many, around 787, in detention. In Weihuliang specifically, the ratio of people in detention was even higher: 348 detained versus 184 in re-education.
Byler called this “a really shocking proportion, if we take this to be normative across the region.”
“That’s showing us that almost half of the people detained are not even in the re-education camp system yet, they’re just being processed,” Byler added. “Conditions in these spaces are really bad. If what these reports are telling us are true, that these larger numbers are being held in these spaces, it is really concerning.”
Byler described detention as often “very crowded, from what we’ve heard from people, and the conditions in them are really bad, because of the overcrowding. … People sometimes, because of the crowding, aren’t able to sleep at the same time because they can’t all fit on the bed (actually a platform with a wooden top called a ‘kang’) at the same time.” Cameras in the cell watch constantly, and lights remain on all night.
Re-education, in comparison, offers somewhat better conditions, including larger inner courtyards for marching or teaching, and more importantly, the hope of potentially quick release — whenever “transformative” education is complete. But documents from the database indicate this may be, at least in some cases, a false idea. In over 100 cases, they discuss fixed-length sentences for re-education, such as two-year or three-year terms.
The sentences appear to be assigned to people in the vocational form of re-education, often after they have been in incarcerated for an extended period of time. They come, documents show, through a program called “Two Inform, One Advocate,” with “inform” apparently referring to information about extremism (as provided in re-education) and “advocate” referring to advocacy of a policy to provide sentences.
Under this system, relatives and cadre members typically meet the person in re-education and a judge issues a “pre-judgment” and “pre-sentence,” usually of two to four years in documents from the database. Sometimes, certain requirements come along with the sentence, such as acquiring Chinese language skills. An October 2018 report stated that “some relatives of three-category people are very happy after they learned about ‘Two Inform, One Advocate’ work; because of this, at least they know how long it would take for their relatives to come out, and they can arrange many business-related things beforehand.”
In one of many examples of this policy in the database, from a November 2018 report, a Uyghur woman traveled to Daban City Vocational Center to receive a verdict with her brother:
“We’ve never heard of people getting sentences for re-education,” said Byler. “They tell you that you have to earn points to be released, and so you’re supposed to try really hard to get re-educated, but now they’re saying actually that these people have been given a sentence, their course of re-education will take three years or what have you. So it’s actually like a prison term. That’s one of the tyrannies of the system, is that once you’re in the camps, you’ll never know when you’ll be released.”
Re-education also seems to be closed off as an option for some of the most heavily persecuted activities. The Weihuliang police station notes that homed in on “illegal preachers,” listing 50 in detention, said only two were in re-education.
Much of Zenz’s work has focused specifically on internment camps officially portrayed as “vocational skills education training centers” (zhiye jineng jiaoyu peixun zhongxin). The government positions them as a more benign alternative to prosecution for those who have committed minor offenses, but they are often cover for detention on minor grounds. Despite the emphasis on the word “training,” the facilities can practice coercive indoctrination just as re-education centers do.
Government documents previously obtained by Zenz had described the re-education as using, in Zenz’s recounting, “assault-style transformation through education” (jiaoyu zhuanhua gongjian) to “ensure that results are achieved” on those who have “a vague understanding, negative attitudes, or even show resistance.”
The impact of widespread detention is not limited to those who are in prison. One document indicates 326 children in one of the seven districts in Ürümqi have one or both parents in detention. The population of the district was around 43,730, according to 2010 government figures, but only around 12 percent of the population in Ürümqi are Uyghur. “If you take the adult population of that [ethnic group] and note that 326 students have one or two parents in detention, that appears to be quite substantial,” said Zenz.
The vibrantly colored eclectus parrot is native to the Solomon Islands, New Guinea and northeastern Australia. (photo: Bernard Spragg/Flickr)
Study: Current Protected Areas Not Enough to Save Parrots From Extinction
Liz Kimbrough, Mongabay
Kimbrough writes: "Parrots, with their bright colors, charisma and intelligence, are an iconic bird group. They are also at risk, globally. Nearly one-third of parrot species are threatened with extinction."
In a new study published in the journal Global Change Biology, scientists from Australian National University and the National University of Córdoba in Argentina analyzed parrots’ global conservation status, examined the effectiveness of existing protected areas to safeguard parrot biodiversity, and identified parrot conservation hotspots.
Researchers used range maps, IUCN status, population trends, habitat needs and a measure of forest dependency for all known parrot species to detect four parrot conservation hotspots: the northeastern Andes, southeastern Australia, the eastern Amazon Basin, and the island of New Guinea.
The northeastern Andes and southeastern Australia are highlighted as the two most important hotspots for parrot conservation.
“The current situation of these areas is not reassuring,” the paper says. “They had high deforestation rates during the last decades and have a worrying future under problematic conservation policies.”
The scientists also used global maps of timber extraction to predict where parrots are at high risk from habitat loss. The northwestern Amazon and western New Guinea, they predict, will “suffer very high rates of timber extraction by 2050.”
The study concludes that the current extent of protected areas is not sufficient to protect parrot diversity. On average, protected areas overlap with only 10% of the geographic range of all parrot species. Protected areas play a critical role in conserving biodiversity, but many have been created without assessing species distributions or ecological needs of specific animal or plant groups.
“We further showed the most threatened group of parrots is the least represented in protected areas globally and also locally in each region,” said study co-author Javier Nori, a spatial ecologist at the National University of Córdoba. “This is an additional proof of the inefficiency of protected areas in safeguarding global bird diversity.”
Of the 398 known species of parrots, 18 are critically endangered, 39 are endangered, and 55 are vulnerable, according to the IUCN Red List.
Threats to parrots vary worldwide. Invasive species have encroached on parrots in the Pacific Islands, where many parrots are endemic. Poaching for the pet trade, habitat loss and logging are ubiquitous global threats.
“In a previous global evaluation of parrots with scientists from BirdLife International we showed that they are among the most threatened bird orders, with higher extinction risk than other comparable bird groups,” study co-author George Olah, from Australian National University, said in a statement.
On the whole, the fate of parrots is largely tied to the fate of forests. More than 70% of parrots are forest-dependent, relying on these ecosystems for food and tree cavities for nesting. Commercial agriculture, pastures, tree plantations and shifting cultivation, all major drivers of forest loss, are on the rise in parrot habitats.
Agriculture is the main threat to parrots, the paper says, and this threat is especially relevant in the Neotropics, the area where parrot species richness is highest.
“We predicted that agricultural expansion will have a further negative effect on the conservation status of parrots, pushing many of their species to the edge of extinction in the near future,” Nori said.
“All these results suggest that the future of parrots is subject to policymaking in specific countries,” the paper says. “The future of wild living parrots is strongly subject to the future management of highlighted parrot conservation hotspots, especially in southern Australia and the Amazon Basin. In these hotspots, decision-makers should use the flagship image of parrots as a tool for guiding conservation policies.”
This article was originally published on Mongabay..
This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...
