Biden administration pits Americans against each other in ‘white supremacy’ campaign

Internal documents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published last week reveal a campaign encouraging citizens to suspect and confront each other based on political views.

The documents, obtained by America First Legal via FOIA request, show the outline of a campaign proposed in January 2021 by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (OTVTP). The campaign involves five “tutorial” videos, each focusing on a type of citizen whom the government considers to be a potential “domestic violent extremist (DVE)”. Each video presents three scenarios and asks the viewer to choose from a list of possible actions to take. A DHS employee then explains which option — or options — would be ideal.

In introduction, the DHS memo states that “white supremacist extremists (WSE) are the most persistent and lethal threat”. However, as examples of domestic violent extremism (DVE), the memo cites three recent mass shootings in Georgia, Colorado and California, only one of which was perpetrated by a Caucasian. The Colorado shooting was perpetrated by Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa, a Syrian Arab, and the California shooting was perpetrated by Aminadab Gaxiola Gonzalez, a man of Hispanic descent.

The first video in the campaign focuses on Jamie, a white teenager in high school who has a confrontation with a non-white teammate. A voiceover narrates the first scenario:

You’re in the locker room at school, and your teammate, Jamie, a white freshman, gets bumped by Asif, an ethnic minority teammate. They have angry words in front of you and their other teammates, and Jamie ends up shoving Asif into a locker.

Viewers are then presented with three options: Report Jamie to the coach, walk away, or confront Jamie directly. The narrator dismisses the walkaway option, partially recommends reporting to the coach “but you can’t always know what the results of your actions may be,” and recommends confronting Jamie directly because that “might reveal important insights into Jamie’s behavior.”

In a second scenario, the viewer is told they are a parent watching a soccer game who hears Jamie hurl racial epithets. The narrator then recommends the parent report Jamie to the coach, his parents, and the school counselor, who should also be asked for information about Jamie’s background.

The second video presents Pete, a white suburban father in his late 30s who is “anti-gov/authority”. The viewer is told they are a neighbor who sees Pete post on “some radical sites with violent tendencies.” Possible actions offered to the viewer include talking to Pete’s wife, confronting him directly, and monitoring Pete’s “online activity”.

A second scenario has Pete getting into an argument with his wife, using “threatening gestures” and storming out. Viewers can choose to talk to his wife, confront Pete, or “be more attentive to the activities next door.”

In a third scenario, the viewer is told they are a bartender who knows Pete. One night, they overhear Pete planning with friends to go to a political rally and discuss “messing with counter protesters”. Viewers can confront Pete about where he met his friends, call Pete’s “old drinking buddy” to discuss Pete’s behavior and to talk about Pete with other bartenders and the manager.

A third video shows Jane, an environmentalist who becomes increasingly passionate about veganism. Even before Jane shows any signs of interest in violence, the viewer is offered the options to start speaking to Jane’s other family members and look into the groups she has joined.

In a fourth video, viewers meet Ann, a religious white suburban mother in her 40s who is pro-life, and are given the role of Ann’s preacher. One day, Ann asks her preacher if the Bible justifies violence to protect unborn children. Viewers may then choose to have private counseling sessions with Ann, alert Ann’s husband and start discussing her with members of her church group.

When Ann then calls the mayor a “baby killer” viewers — who now own a bakery Ann frequents — are similarly told they can confront Ann, contact her preacher and tell Ann’s husband.

As Ann’s hairdresser, viewers are told they overhear Ann “making pro-life arguments” and saying someone should “put a stop to the planned parenthood office in the next county. She shares videos of violent protests on her phone and you notice increasingly more militant language coming from Ann.” The “hairdresser” may then call the sheriff, talk to the salon’s staff about Ann, and investigate the groups Ann mentioned.

The last video features Courtney, a white single mother in her late 30s who works with underprivileged children and believes government actors may be involved in child abuse and trafficking. As Courtney’s friend, viewers see Courtney write angry posts about the subject on social media and can choose to start monitoring Courtney’s social media activity, contact Courtney’s ex-husband about her behavior, or message Courtney.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s transformation into a domestic intelligence organization and a Stasi-like Deep State internal security apparatus is alarming,” commented America First Legal Senior Counselor and Investigations Director Reed Rubinstein on the DHS documents. “It is a very long way from ‘see something, say something’ regarding an unattended suitcase at the airport to profiling patriotic and politically conservative Americans as abusive parents and domestic terrorists because they oppose abortion on demand and voted for former President Trump. The agency is out of control.”