Connect with us

Tech

Christian Militants Are Using Instagram to Recruit—and Becoming Influencers in the Process

Published

on

Christian Militants Are Using Instagram to Recruit—and Becoming Influencers in the Process


Many of these Christian nationalist militia groups also call themselves “guerillas” as opposed to militias, implying that their “enemy” is the government rather than civilian population. While Jon Lewis, a research fellow at the program on extremism at George Washington University, is alarmed by the brandification of overtly accelerationist or Christian nationalist content on Instagram, he’s skeptical that the armed groups pose a genuine threat. “They do their off-the-grid guerilla training, they shoot their video for their Instagram account, and then they go back to their mom’s basement,” he said. “I’m not sure how many of these 16-year-olds are really prepared for a real guerilla warfare campaign against the US military.”

This new movement of Christian nationalist militias online sits at a growing crossover between gun culture and Christian nationalism, a union perhaps best exemplified by the popularity of Christian “guntuber” Lucas Botkin and the company he founded, “T-Rex Arms.” In this Venn diagram of subcultures, culture war rhetoric is paired with exhortations to take up arms to protect Christian and traditional family values.

“The guns help push the religion, and the religion helps push the guns,” says Lewis. “You get these networks that are steeped in that kind of rhetoric, and when you combine that with offline mobilization and weapons training, it doesn’t really bode well.”

Instagram is already home to a sprawling and well-established community of gun enthusiasts, tactical gear brands, and firearms influencers, and abounds with potential recruitment opportunities for this emergent paramilitary movement. It’s not uncommon for groups of firearms enthusiasts to gather in the woods on the weekends to engage in airsoft training or hunting. What sets this movement apart from more legitimate “sports” organizations is their emphasis on recruitment and the fact they conceal their faces in imagery, says Paul. “And then there’s the explicit Christian ideology they’re trying to push.” (WIRED attempted to contact several accounts in this ecosystem; some initially agreed to be interviewed, before growing suspicious that this reporter was “a fed.”)

It’s not exactly clear what this new crop of Bible-thumping paramilitary extremists thinks they’re preparing or fighting for, given that President Donald Trump took office in January and stacked his administration with Christian nationalists.

Since the emergence of the modern militia movement in the late 1980s, paramilitary activity has typically waxed and waned according to whichever political party was in power. Higher levels of paramilitary activity were generally observed during Democratic administrations, as movement leaders could rabble rouse and recruit around perceptions of an overreaching government or looming gun control, as well as conspiracy theories about a coming “New World Order.” (To that end, Kill Evil sells a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Christ World Order.”) That pattern broke during the first Trump Administration, as militia activity surged, galvanized by the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories and anti-government sentiment.

Groups within this new guard make their political views known through the type of content they share to Instagram Stories, which delete after 24 hours: for example, screenshots of posts by white nationalist Jared Taylor about immigration, posts about declining birth rates, or anti-Muslim memes. As for their broader mission, these militant influencers are generally preparing for “end times,” they tend to say, though it’s not always clear what that means. Some take an accelerationist approach, preparing for a conflict that they see as an inevitable response to “degeneracy” and political decay. “There is no more political solution,” one account posted in July, along with a photograph of a Roman bust portraying the Greek god of war, Ares, in Tivoli, Italy. “Some hills are worth dying on, if not for yourself, for your children.” For others, the mission may be more about a primordial battle between good and evil, and coming “armageddon.”

“If you don’t train, you’ll die,” one account posted, along with a photograph of a man in a skull mask and a long gun. “Get together with friends, family, or do it alone. Whatever you gotta do, make sure that YOU aren’t a liability.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI

Published

on

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI


Thinking Machines cofounders Barret Zoph and Luke Metz are leaving the fledgling AI lab and rejoining OpenAI, the ChatGPT-maker announced on Thursday. OpenAI’s CEO of applications, Fidji Simo, shared the news in a memo to staff Thursday afternoon.

The news was first reported on X by technology reporter Kylie Robison, who wrote that Zoph was fired for “unethical conduct.”

A source close to Thinking Machines said that Zoph had shared confidential company information with competitors. WIRED was unable to verify this information with Zoph, who did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Zoph told Thinking Machines CEO Mira Murati on Monday he was considering leaving, then was fired today, according to the memo from Simo. She goes on to write that OpenAI doesn’t share the same concerns about Zoph as Murati.

The personnel shake-up is a major win for OpenAI, which recently lost its VP of research, Jerry Tworek.

Another Thinking Machines Lab staffer, Sam Schoenholz, is also rejoining OpenAI, the source said.

Zoph and Metz left OpenAI in late 2024 to start Thinking Machines with Murati, who had been the ChatGPT-maker’s chief technology officer.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet

Published

on

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet


Since Donald Trump returned to the White House last January, the biggest names in tech have mostly fallen in line with the new regime, attending dinners with officials, heaping praise upon the administration, presenting the president with lavish gifts, and pleading for Trump’s permission to sell their products to China. It’s been mostly business as usual for Silicon Valley over the past year, even as the administration ignored a wide range of constitutional norms and attempted to slap arbitrary fees on everything from chip exports to worker visas for high-skilled immigrants employed by tech firms.

But after an ICE agent shot and killed an unarmed US citizen, Renee Nicole Good, in broad daylight in Minneapolis last week, a number of tech leaders have begun publicly speaking out about the Trump administration’s tactics. This includes prominent researchers at Google and Anthropic, who have denounced the killing as calloused and immoral. The most wealthy and powerful tech CEOs are still staying silent as ICE floods America’s streets, but now some researchers and engineers working for them have chosen to break rank.

More than 150 tech workers have so far signed a petition asking for their company CEOs to call the White House, demand that ICE leave US cities, and speak out publicly against the agency’s recent violence. Anne Diemer, a human resources consultant and former Stripe employee who organized the petition, says that workers at Meta, Google, Amazon, OpenAI, TikTok, Spotify, Salesforce, Linkedin, and Rippling are among those who have signed. The group plans to make the list public once they reach 200 signatories.

“I think so many tech folks have felt like they can’t speak up,” Diemer told WIRED. “I want tech leaders to call the country’s leaders and condemn ICE’s actions, but even if this helps people find their people and take a small part in fighting fascism, then that’s cool, too.”

Nikhil Thorat, an engineer at Anthropic, said in a lengthy post on X that Good’s killing had “stirred something” in him. “A mother was gunned down in the street by ICE, and the government doesn’t even have the decency to perform a scripted condolence,” he wrote. Thorat added that the moral foundation of modern society is “infected, and is festering,” and the country is living through a “cosplay” of Nazi Germany, a time when people also stayed silent out of fear.

Jonathan Frankle, chief AI scientist at Databricks, added a “+1” to Thorat’s post. Shrisha Radhakrishna, chief technology and chief product officer of real estate platform Opendoor, replied that what happened to Good is “not normal. It’s immoral. The speed at which the administration is moving to dehumanize a mother is terrifying.” Other users who identified themselves as employees at OpenAI and Anthropic also responded in support of Thorat.

Shortly after Good was shot, Jeff Dean, an early Google employee and University of Minnesota graduate who is now the chief scientist at Google DeepMind and Google Research, began re-sharing posts with his 400,000 X followers criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration tactics, including one outlining circumstances in which deadly force isn’t justified for police officers interacting with moving vehicles.

He then weighed in himself. “This is completely not okay, and we can’t become numb to repeated instances of illegal and unconstitutional action by government agencies,” Dean wrote in an X post on January 10. “The recent days have been horrific.” He linked to a video of a teenager—identified as a US citizen—being violently arrested at a Target in Richfield, Minnesota.

In response to US Vice President JD Vance’s assertion on X that Good was trying to run over the ICE agent with her vehicle, Aaron Levie, the CEO of the cloud storage company Box, replied, “Why is he shooting after he’s fully out of harm’s way (2nd and 3rd shot)? Why doesn’t he just move away from the vehicle instead of standing in front of it?” He added a screenshot of a Justice Department webpage outlining best practices for law enforcement officers interacting with suspects in moving vehicles.





Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

A Brain Mechanism Explains Why People Leave Certain Tasks for Later

Published

on

A Brain Mechanism Explains Why People Leave Certain Tasks for Later


How does procrastination arise? The reason you decide to postpone household chores and spend your time browsing social media could be explained by the workings of a brain circuit. Recent research has identified a neural connection responsible for delaying the start of activities associated with unpleasant experiences, even when these activities offer a clear reward.

The study, led by Ken-ichi Amemori, a neuroscientist at Kyoto University, aimed to analyze the brain mechanisms that reduce motivation to act when a task involves stress, punishment, or discomfort. To do this, the researchers designed an experiment with monkeys, a widely used model for understanding decisionmaking and motivation processes in the brain.

The scientists worked with two macaques that were trained to perform various decisionmaking tasks. In the first phase of the experiment, after a period of water restriction, the animals could activate one of two levers that released different amounts of liquid; one option offered a smaller reward and the other a larger one. This exercise allowed them to evaluate how the value of the reward influences the willingness to perform an action.

In a later stage, the experimental design incorporated an unpleasant element. The monkeys were given the choice of drinking a moderate amount of water without negative consequences or drinking a larger amount on the condition of receiving a direct blast of air in the face. Although the reward was greater in the second option, it involved an uncomfortable experience.

As the researchers anticipated, the macaques’ motivation to complete the task and access the water decreased considerably when the aversive stimulus was introduced. This behavior allowed them to identify a brain circuit that acts as a brake on motivation in the face of anticipated adverse situations. In particular, the connection between the ventral striatum and the ventral pallidum, two structures located in the basal ganglia of the brain, known for their role in regulating pleasure, motivation, and reward systems, was observed to be involved.

The neural analysis revealed that when the brain anticipates an unpleasant event or potential punishment, the ventral striatum is activated and sends an inhibitory signal to the ventral pallidum, which is normally responsible for driving the intention to perform an action. In other words, this communication reduces the impulse to act when the task is associated with a negative experience.

The Brain Connection Behind Procrastination

To investigate the specific role of this connection, as described in the study published in the journal Current Biology, researchers used a chemogenetic technique that, through the administration of a specialized drug, temporarily disrupted communication between the two brain regions. By doing so, the monkeys regained the motivation to initiate tasks, even in those tests that involved blowing air.

Notably, the inhibitory substance produced no change in trials where reward was not accompanied by punishment. This result suggests that the EV-PV circuit does not regulate motivation in a general way, but rather is specifically activated to suppress it when there is an expectation of discomfort. In this sense, apathy toward unpleasant tasks appears to develop gradually as communication between these two regions intensifies.

Beyond explaining why people tend to unconsciously resist starting household chores or uncomfortable obligations, the findings have relevant implications for understanding disorders such as depression or schizophrenia, in which patients often experience a significant loss of the drive to act.

However, Amemori emphasizes that this circuit serves an essential protective function. “Overworking is very dangerous. This circuit protects us from burnout,” he said in comments reported by Nature. Therefore, he cautions that any attempt to externally modify this neural mechanism must be approached with care, as further research is needed to avoid interfering with the brain’s natural protective processes.

This story originally appeared in WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending