It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, July 08, 2022
'THEY SHALL NOT REPLACE US'
Top white nationalist: ‘Jews stood in the way’ of ending Roe v. Wade
Nick Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the ”groyper army,” made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday.
By ANDREW LAPIN/JTA JUNE 30, 2022 Supporters of the America First ideology and U.S. President Donald Trump cheer on Nick Fuentes, a leader of the America First movement and a white nationalist, as he makes his way through the crowd for a speech during the "Stop the Steal" and "Million MAGA March" protests, November 14, 2020. (photo credit: REUTERS/LEAH MILLIS)
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.
Who is Nick Fuentes?
Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the ”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”
“If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”
Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.
Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.
Nick Fuentes is hosting another white nationalist conference in Orlando during CPAC
(credit: DAVID DECKER)
Fringe Catholic groups
Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.
The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).
The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term.
US House panel asks gunmakers to testify amid mass shootings
US House Oversight Committee asks chief executives of gun manufacturers to testify on July 20 as the nation continues to suffer from mass shootings.
By REUTERS Published: JULY 7, 2022 16:19 A child's bike is left behind after a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade route in the wealthy Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois, US July 4, 2022. (photo credit: REUTERS/Max Herman)
The US House Oversight Committee has asked the chief executives of three gunmakers to testify on July 20 as part of its investigation into the firearms industry following a wave of high-profile mass shootings, the panel said on Thursday.
The panel called on the CEOs of Smith & Wesson Brands SWBI.O, Sturm, Ruger & Co RGR.N, as well as privately held Daniel Defense to appear, according to letters sent to the companies released by the panel.
"I am deeply troubled that gun manufacturers continue to profit from the sale of weapons of war, including AR-15-style assault rifles."New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney
"I am deeply troubled that gun manufacturers continue to profit from the sale of weapons of war, including AR-15-style assault rifles," committee chairwoman Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, wrote.
"Products sold by your company have been used for decades to carry out homicides and even mass murders, yet your company has continued to market assault weapons to civilians."
Community members gather at a memorial site near the parade route the day after a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois, US July 5, 2022
(credit: CHENEY ORR/REUTERS)
Representatives for the gunmakers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lawmakers gave the CEOs until Friday to respond to the committee.
Last month, the panel heard from victims and relatives of recent mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.
Lawmakers are grappling with a recent spate of deadly attacks across the United States, which has seen more than 200 mass shootings just this year.
Gun reform
A modest bipartisan package of gun reforms was signed into law in late June while the U.S. Supreme Court separately expanded gun owners' rights. Read full story Some U.S. states have separately moved to act on guns following the top court's ruling.
The July 20 hearing will look into gun sales and marketing "and the broad civil immunity that has been granted to manufacturers," wrote Maloney.
"Your testimony is crucial to understand why your company continues to sell and market these weapons to civilians, what steps your company plans to take to protect the public, and what additional reforms are needed to prevent further deaths from your products," Maloney wrote in the letters to the CEOs of gunmakers.
The pandemic has eroded Americans’ trust in experts and elected leaders alike, a survey finds.
The survey, conducted in May, also found that people were growing less worried than before about catching or spreading the virus.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before a Senate hearing in June.
As the coronavirus pandemic entered its third year, the American public had lost much of its trust both in public health experts and in government leaders, and was less worried than before about Covid-19, according to a survey conducted in early May and released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
Confidence ratings for public health officials, like those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; for state and local elected officials; and for President Biden fell in a range from 43 percent to 54 percent in the survey — much lower than during the early stages of the pandemic.
The survey found a wide partisan gap in attitudes. Overall, 52 percent of respondents said that public health officials had done an excellent or good job at managing the pandemic. But while 72 percent of Democrats in the survey said they felt that way, only 29 percent of Republicans did.
Democrats were also more likely than Republicans — 67 percent to 51 percent — to say they had at least some confidence in how prepared the nation’s health care system was to address a future global health emergency.
Public confidence in medical centers and hospitals remained high: Eight out of ten respondents said those institutions were continuing to manage the pandemic well, a small decline from 88 percent two years ago.
The survey found that Americans have grown less worried about catching the virus or unintentionally spreading it to others. Most respondents said they thought the worst of the pandemic was over, and only about a quarter saw the coronavirus as a significant threat to their personal health, down from 30 percent in January.
The average number of new confirmed cases reported daily across the United States surged to record highs in January, driven by the Omicron variant. The surge receded swiftly as the winter ended, but the average started to rise again in the spring. Since the survey was taken, the number of new confirmed cases has been around 100,000 a day, according to a New York Times database.
A a narrow majority of respondents in the Pew survey — 55 percent — said they thought vaccination had been somewhat or very effective at curbing the spread of the coronavirus. But only about half felt that way about wearing masks indoors, and respondents were even more skeptical about the efficacy of maintaining six feet of social distance indoors, with only 34 percent considering that at least somewhat effective.
The poll included 10,282 adults who were surveyed online between May 2 and May 8.
Christine Chung is a general assignment reporter covering breaking news. @chrisychung A version of this article appears in print on July 8, 2022, Section A, Page 11 of the New York edition with the headline: Pandemic Gutted Trust in Experts, Poll Finds.
Outbreak of highly contagious Ebola-like virus a ‘serious concern’
Ghana reports two cases of Marburg for the first time, a haemorrhagic fever with a death rate of up to 88 per cent
Officials outside the home of a Marburg patient during an outbreak in Angola in 2005 CREDIT: REUTERS/Mike Hutchings
Two people have died in Ghana after contracting a highly contagious Ebola-like virus, sparking a rush to identify potential contacts and squash the outbreak before it spreads.
It is the first time the country has reported cases of Marburg virus, a haemorrhagic fever with a death rate of up to 88 per cent, and only the second outbreak in West Africa.
The patients were identified in Ghana’s southern Ashanti region, but only after they had died – raising fears of broader transmission. The virus is transmitted to people via fruit bats, and spreads between humans through direct contact with the bodily fluids of infected people.
“An outbreak of a filovirus such as Marburg is always a serious concern, especially in a setting that hasn’t managed outbreaks before, and when cases are diagnosed postmortem,” said Dr Tom Fletcher, an infectious disease consultant at the Royal Liverpool University hospital.
“Whilst Marburg probably doesn’t transmit as easily as Ebola, delayed diagnosis often means that healthcare workers have been exposed and it's likely there would be cases. We also don’t have as many tools in the cupboard in terms of diagnostics, treatments and vaccines compared to Ebola,” he told the Telegraph.
Marburg virus was first identified in 1967 during two epidemics that occurred concurrently in Marburg and Frankfurt in Germany, and in Belgrade, Serbia. The outbreak was linked to laboratory work using African green monkeys imported from Uganda.
In the decades since, sporadic epidemics have been identified in countries including Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kenya. The largest outbreak to date was in Angola in 2005, when 374 caught the virus and 329 died – a fatality rate of 88 per cent.
Last year, in the first outbreak to hit West Africa, Guinea also reported one case. Although 170 contacts were monitored, the virus did not spread more broadly.
The World Health Organization said the two patients in Ghana had symptoms including diarrhoea, fever, nausea and vomiting. Samples have been sent to the Institut Pasteur in Senegal, a WHO Collaborating Centre, to confirm the diagnosis.
The UN agency added late on Thursday that it will send an emergency team to Ghana to try and prevent a serious outbreak.
“We are working closely with the country to ramp up detection, track contacts, be ready to control the spread of the virus,” said Dr Francis Kasolo, WHO representative in Ghana.
The Marburg virus is a top concern for public health officials who are worried about the next pandemic. It has the potential to cause serious public health emergencies but there are currently no vaccines or antiviral treatments approved to treat the virus.
Although fatality rates are high, supportive care that includes rehydration with oral or intravenous fluids can improve chances of survival.
Shireen Abu Akleh family’s letter to Joe Biden: Full text
Family of slain Palestinian-American journalist demand meeting with Biden and urge meaningful push for accountability.
'Your administration’s actions can only be seen as an attempt to erase the extrajudicial killing of Shireen and further entrench the systemic impunity enjoyed by Israeli forces,' Abu Akleh's family writes in letter to Biden [Al Jazeera]
Published On 8 Jul 2022
As Joe Biden prepares to embark on his first trip to Israel as US president, the family of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh has sent him a letter laying out a list of demands to ensure accountability for her killing in the occupied West Bank in May.
The letter on Friday berated Biden for what it called efforts by his administration to “whitewash Shireen’s killing and perpetuate impunity” for Israeli forces who killed the journalist in May.
The Biden administration infuriated Palestinian rights and press freedom advocates when it released a statement saying the bullet that killed Abu Akleh “likely” came from an Israeli military position but dismissed the incident as the unintentional “result of tragic circumstances”.
Abu Akleh’s family called on the US administration to retract that statement, expressing “grief, outrage and sense of betrayal” with Biden. Below is the full text of the family’s letter. (Hyperlinks, emphasis in original)
Dear Mr. President:
We, the family of Shireen Abu Akleh, write to express our grief, outrage and sense of betrayal concerning your administration’s abject response to the extrajudicial killing of our sister and aunt by Israeli forces on May 11, 2022, while on assignment in the occupied Palestinian city of Jenin in the West Bank.
Shireen was a prominent, beloved Palestinian journalist. She was a role model and a mentor to aspiring Palestinian female journalists, and a trusted colleague of many in the local and international media. She was also a United States citizen. Despite wearing a protective helmet and blue bulletproof vest clearly marked as “PRESS,” Shireen was murdered by an Israeli-fired bullet to the head. Israeli forces continued to fire live rounds as bystanders– including other members of the press–tried to render assistance. Then, as we and hundreds of others gathered to begin her funeral procession, Israeli forces attacked us, beating mourners and pallbearers, violently disrupting the dignified burial procession she deserved.
In the days and weeks since an Israeli soldier killed Shireen, not only have we not been adequately consulted, informed, and supported by U.S. government officials, but your administration’s actions exhibit an apparent intent to undermine our efforts toward justice and accountability for Shireen’s death. Investigations conducted by the United Nations, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, Bellingcat, and B’Tselem all concluded an Israeli soldier fired the shot that killed Shireen. All available evidence suggests that Shireen, a U.S. citizen, was the subject of an extrajudicial killing, yet your administration has thoroughly failed to meet the bare minimum expectation held by a grieving family—to ensure a prompt, thorough, credible, impartial, independent, effective and transparent investigation that leads to true justice and accountability for Shireen’s killing.
Instead, the United States has been skulking toward the erasure of any wrongdoing by Israeli forces. From the failure to immediately ensure an independent and impartial investigation, to the rushed hand-off of the bullet that killed Shireen without consultation let alone allowing us to have a representative present, which culminated in the July 4 statement adopting the conclusions and talking points of the Israeli government, your administration’s engagement has served to whitewash Shireen’s killing and perpetuate impunity. Little information has been shared on who oversaw the American “summation” of investigations, who participated in the ballistics assessment, or any specific individual qualifications or findings leading to the conclusions issued by your administration. It is as if you expect the world and us to now just move on. Silence would have been better.
You have made clear that your administration is willing to abdicate its responsibility concerning Israel’s extrajudicial killing of Shireen. The July 4 press statement by Department of State Spokesperson Ned Price announced that Shireen’s killing was likely unintentional, yet when pressed by reporters during the July 5 press briefing, Mr. Price conceded that nobody present was qualified to reach a conclusion about intent. He also clarified that the United States government did not, in fact, conduct its own investigation, let alone legal analysis, and that the Department of State was content with merely “summarizing”—and adopting—Israeli authorities’ investigation. Nonetheless, your administration deemed it necessary to include and perpetuate the baseless and damaging conclusion that the killing was not intentional, seemingly choosing political expedience over actual accountability for a foreign government’s killing of a U.S. citizen.
We remind you that on May 11, the day an Israeli soldier killed Shireen, Mr. Price stood at the Department of State podium to strongly condemn her killing and call for “an immediate and thorough investigation and full accountability.” Then, on July 5, that call for full accountability was reduced to nothing more than a contorted statement that Israel “soon will be in a position to consider steps to further safeguard noncombatants.” We are incredulous that such an expectation would be the pinnacle of your administration’s response to the killing of Shireen. Israeli forces have for long known no bounds, perpetrating war crimes and killing Palestinian civilians with impunity, including those clearly identifiable as children, medical personnel and journalists. Israeli officials and armed forces are enabled and empowered by unconditional U.S.-sourced weapons and financial assistance and then provided with near absolute diplomatic support to shield Israeli officials from any accountability.
Since Israeli forces killed our Shireen, lawmakers have pressed you to deliver on the strong condemnation and call for “full accountability” concerning Shireen’s death. On May 19, 57 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray to demand the State Department and the FBI launch an investigation into the killing of Shireen. On June 6, Sens. Jon Ossof and Mitt Romney sent a letter to Secretary Blinken insisting that the administration ensure a “full and transparent investigation and accountability”. On June 23, Senator Chris Van Hollen and 23 of his Senate colleagues sent you a letter demanding you ensure the direct involvement of the United States in the investigation of Shireen’s killing, stressing the importance of an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation.
.
A woman lays flowers at a makeshift memorial for Shireen Abu Akleh during a vigil in Washington, DC May 17 [File: Al Jazeera]
We reaffirm these demands on behalf of our beloved Shireen as your administration’s actions to date have not only fallen woefully short of “full accountability” but they amount to express acceptance for Shireen’s killing. Your administration’s actions can only be seen as an attempt to erase the extrajudicial killing of Shireen and further entrench the systemic impunity enjoyed by Israeli forces and officials for unlawfully killing Palestinians.
We call on you to:Meet with us during your upcoming visit and hear directly from us about our concerns and demands for justice. Provide us with all of the information gathered by your administration to date concerning Shireen’s killings, including any evidence reviewed and assessed by U.S. officials, the identities and qualifications of all individuals present during the latest review of evidence, any forensics reports or other information that has not been provided to us or our legal team. Retract the Department of State’s July 4 press statement, given that the Department’s own account indicates that it is not based on any credible assessment. Direct the Department of Justice, including the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other relevant U.S. offices or agencies to take action on Shireen’s extrajudicial killing. Finally, and it should be needless to say, we expect the Biden administration support our efforts to push for accountability and justice for Shireen, wherever they take us.
Sincerely,
Anton Abu Akleh
On behalf of the Abu Akleh Family
CC: Secretary of State Mr. Antony Blinken
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Tunisians protest against draft constitution referendum
Supporters of Tunisia's Free Destourian Party rally against Tunisian President Kais Saied and the holding of the new constitutional referendum on 25 July 2022, in Tunis, Tunisia, 18 June 2022. epa / Mohamed Messara
#Tunisia#constitution#referendum#epaphotos#epaimages
Supporters of the Free Destourian Party protest against the Tunisian President outside the Independent High Authority for Elections in the capital Tunis on July 7, 2022. -
A protest against the upcoming July 25 referendum on President Kais Saied's new constitution has taken place in Tunis.
Some 200 supporters of Tunisia's secular Free Destourian Party gathered outside the electoral commission's headquarters bearing signs reading "we don't trust your results" and "stop this illegal process".
In July last year, Saied sacked the government and froze the parliament dominated by Tunisia's Islamist-inspired Ennahdha party.
He later extended his powers in what critics see as a coup against democracy in the birthplace of the Arab Spring uprisings.
The constitution, the centrepiece of Saied's drive to remake the Tunisian political system, sparked instant criticism for the nearly unlimited power it gives the president. A 'dictatorial regime'
"The draft that has been presented has been made to measure for Saied, Ennahdha party spokesman Imed Khemeri said.
"This document did not come from the people or from a national dialogue."
The legal expert who headed a committee to draw up the new charter said the final text published by Saied had "nothing to do with the text we drafted and submitted to the president".
The expert, Sadeq Belaid, added that it risked paving the way for a "dictatorial regime", more than a decade after Tunisia's pro-democracy revolt sparked copycat uprisings across the region.
On Tuesday, Saied defended the proposed constitution in an open letter.
He said "this draft was built on what the Tunisian people have expressed from the start of the revolution up until the correction of its path" last July, and that those who worried about it creating a new autocracy hadn't read it properly. Ennahdha under pressure
Ennahdha, which has dominated Tunisia's politics since the revolt that toppled dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, has found itself under pressure since Saied's power grab.
A Tunisian court on Tuesday froze the bank accounts of its chief and speaker of the now-dissolved parliament Rached Ghannouchi, as well as his son Mouadh and former prime minister and one-time senior party member Hamadi Jebali, who is accused of money-laundering.
The party urged its supporters on Thursday to boycott the referendum on Saied's new constitution, saying it would "lead to a repressive, authoritarian regime".
"We call for a boycott of the referendum because what is being voted on is not in the interests of Tunisians," Khemeri said.
Around 30 NGOs including the SNJT journalists' union and rights group the LTDH also called for a boycott of the referendum, saying the text was "written by a single person without participation by civil society or experts".
FILE - Two patrons enter the Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream shop, July 20, 2021, in Burlington, Vt. The Vermont-based ice cream maker is suing its corporate parent Unilever over a plan that would allow its product to be sold in east Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, July 6, 2022 in New York, the ice cream maker asked a court to block the decision by Unilever to sell the business interest in the ice cream company in Israel to a local company that would sell ice cream with Hebrew and Arabic labeling poses “poses a risk” to the integrity of the Ben & Jerry’s brand name.
(AP Photo/Charles Krupa) (ASSOCIATED PRESS) WILSON RING Wed, July 6, 2022
One week after its parent company found a way to get Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sold in east Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank, the company known for its stance on social issues almost as much as for its Chunky Monkey ice cream is suing to block that from happening.
Unilever announced that it was selling its interest in the Vermont ice cream maker to its Israeli licensee, which would market Ben & Jerry’s products with Hebrew and Arabic labels.
In a Manhattan federal court this week, the ice cream maker said that Unilever’s maneuver “poses a risk” to the integrity of its brand. It claims the deal violates the 2000 acquisition agreement that allowed Ben & Jerry's to continue its progressive social mission independently of business decisions made by Unilever.
“An injunction restraining Unilever from violating the express terms of the Merger Agreement and Shareholders Agreement is essential to preserve the status quo and protect the brand and social integrity Ben & Jerry’s has spent decades building," the complaint says.
That passage in the lawsuit refers to the intense bidding process that took place in 2000 for Ben & Jerry’s, one of the most recognizable brands in America. Ben & Jerry's was adamant that even after a sale, it would be allowed to continue to pursue its social causes.
The final agreement was so unique that Richard Goldstein, then group president of Unilever North American Foods, said ““I never did another deal that was remotely like it,” according to the suit.
In agreeing to the sale, Ben & Jerry's was allowed an independent board of directors which was authorized to prevent Unilever from making decisions that are “inconsistent with the Essential Integrity of the Brand," according to legal filings.
Unilever said it does not comment on pending litigation, but said it did have the right to the sale and that, “The deal has already closed."
The complaint outlines Ben & Jerry's history of social activism over its 44-year history, including opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons spending in the 1980s and in the 1990s supporting LGBTQ+ rights and farmers.
That activism has continued under Unilever with the focus on, among other issues, migrant justice and climate change. In the aftermath of the 2020 death of George Floyd, Ben & Jerry's became an advocate for Black Lives Matter.
Unilever said it was committed to its operations in Israel, and earlier this year it was sued by its Israeli licensee, American Quality Products Ltd, over the termination of their business relationship, saying it violated U.S. and Israeli law.
When Unilever announced it was selling the Israeli operations to American Quality Products last week, it said it had “used the opportunity of the past year to listen to perspectives on this complex and sensitive matter and believes this is the best outcome for Ben & Jerry’s in Israel.”
Israel hailed the decision by Unilever as a victory in its ongoing campaign against the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to bring economic pressure to bear on Israel over its military occupation of lands the Palestinians want for a future state.
Unilever does not support the BDS movement and has said it was “very proud” of its business in Israel, where it employs around 2,000 people and has four manufacturing plants.
Ben & Jerry’s 2021 decision was not a full boycott, and appeared to be aimed at Israel’s settlement enterprise. Some 700,000 Jewish settlers live in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, which Israel annexed and considers part of its capital. Israel captured both territories in the 1967 Mideast war, and the Palestinians want them to be part of their future state.
Most of the international community views the settlements as a violation of international law. The Palestinians consider them the main obstacle to peace because they absorb and divide up the land on which a future Palestinian state would be established. Every Israeli government has expanded settlements, including during the height of the peace process in the 1990s.
Disneyland's social media accounts were hacked with racist, offensive posts after a 'super hacker' took 'revenge' on the park
Erin Snodgrass Thu, July 7, 2022 Visitors pose for a selfie at the Disneyland Resort on April 30, 2021 in Anaheim, California
Christian Thompson/Disneyland Resort via Getty Images
A hacker "compromised" Disneyland's social media accounts early Thursday morning.
The culprit posted on the resort's Instagram page using obscene language and a racial slur.
A spokesperson for the company told media outlets that they worked quickly to remove the content.
Disneyland Resort's Instagram account was hacked early Thursday morning with racist and homophobic posts after a self-identified "super-hacker" said he was taking revenge on the theme park.
The culprit made four posts on Disneyland's Instagram account before 5 a.m. PT, according to The Disney Blog, which captured photos of the profanity-laced posts. The hacker identified themself as David DO, and posted two selfies as well as memes. In the caption of one photo, he said he was tired of "all these Disney employees mocking me," using both a racial slur and expletive.
In subsequent posts, the hacker also claimed to have invented the COVID-19 virus and threatened to release a new "COVID-20" virus.
The posts have since been removed.
A spokesperson for Disneyland confirmed to Insider that its Instagram and Facebook accounts were "compromised" on Thursday morning.
"We worked quickly to remove the reprehensible content, secure our accounts, and our security teams are conducting an investigation," the representative said.
The Anaheim, California-based resort boasts 8.4 million followers on Instagram and typically posts content featuring the park's parades, rides, and events.
The MCU’s Biggest ‘Ms. Marvel’ Tweak Undoes a Powerful Story on Race
Joshua N. Miller
Wed, July 6, 2022
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty/Disney
When Marvel Studios made its proper entrance into the film business with 2008’s Iron Man, it seemed committed to staying true to Marvel characters’ origins—at least initially. After he’s wounded by shrapnel from his own missile, Tony Stark sets to work as Iron Man to keep his weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Thor Odinson learned humility when he was stripped of his powers and exiled to Earth. Steve Rogers then swung onto the scene as Captain America to take down Nazis in a similar fashion to his 1941 comic book debut.
It wasn’t until 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) deviated radically from the comic books. Despite appearing in a few major comic events, the Guardians didn’t hold much cachet with general audiences—making them the perfect test case for Marvel Studios (and its new owner, Disney) to gauge just how much their audiences cared about sticking to the source material. Rather than a competent group of heroes that united to proactively deal with major threats, the MCU’s Guardians are a ragtag group of outlaws, whose initial incentive to collaborate was a common genocidal enemy.
When the movie came out, my fellow middle schoolers—who’d never heard of the team—questioned what kind of superheroes would recruit a talking raccoon and a walking tree. But sure enough, Guardians won over viewers by successfully uniting the team in their first outing without spending three years fleshing them out individually. Since then, Marvel has taken more liberties with its storytelling, to varying degrees of success—such as with 2017’s acclaimed Thor: Ragnarok and 2021’s panned Eternals. Based on this more liberal approach to their adaptations, it appears that Marvel’s learned that people don’t really care if their content sticks to the source material–until they do.
The latest entry in the MCU to differ from the comics is Disney+’s Ms. Marvel, which gives its Pakistani American protagonist Kamala Khan a new set of superpowers. Instead of gaining shape-shifting abilities through exposure to a DNA-altering vapor called the Terrigen Mists, MCU Kamala can manipulate light to create objects, like weapons and platforms by wearing a bangle that’s been passed down in her family.
In the comics, Kamala has faced a multitude of threats with her polymorphic abilities, ranging from killer robots in her hometown of Jersey City, New Jersey, to the time-traveler Kang the Conqueror. And she’s become hugely popular with real-life fans while doing it: numerous volumes of her solo series landed on the New York Times bestseller list within their first year on the market, and Kamala quickly achieved one of Marvel’s highest honors: becoming an Avenger. That level of recognition begets another big one, this time off the page and on the screen. In May 2018, Disney announced that Ms. Marvel would become a Disney+ show, which finally premiered earlier this month.
With Kamala’s level of popularity and publicity, it only makes sense that fans were watching closely to see how her story would translate onto TV. Which is why it’s no surprise that their eyebrows rose when Kamala’s MCU entrance came with a new backstory, in which her powers derive from a bangle that was passed down in her family.
Fans on social media have speculated as to what inspired the power change. One theory that’s become particularly popular is that the MCU didn’t want Kamala and the Fantastic Four’s Reed Richards to have similar powers ahead of the upcoming Fantastic Four movie. (This idea was recently dispelled by Kamala’s co-creator Sana Amanat in an interview with The Direct.)
But Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige maintains that the MCU isn’t “an exact translation of the comics,” as he said in a recent interview. He also explained in the same interview that the true nature of Kamala’s powers would be developed further in 2023’s Captain Marvelsequel, The Marvels. How her powers will develop until then remains to be seen. But no matter what happens, this initial change is a major one: it erases a major element of her origin story in a way that demonstrates their reluctance to confront real issues.
In both the Ms. Marvel show and comics, Kamala is experiencing an identity crisis. Torn between the cultures of her traditional Pakistani family and her more free-wheeling American peers, she takes comfort in her idolization of superheroes to detach from her day-to-day life. Her favorite hero is Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel), who once saved Kamala from the comic’s version of Yon-Ragg and helped save the world in Avengers: Endgame. Kamala looks up to Carol as a role model; she’s a strong, independent woman who charts her own path, just as Kamala wishes to become. But while the show frames Kamala’s idolization for Carol as fannish—the same way young girls might’ve idolized Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel after watching their respective films—the comic emphasizes that a substantial part of Kamala’s idolization of Carol extends from the fact that Carol is white.
Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) in the comic books.
Marvel Comics
In a scene from the comics, Kamala sees Carol in a vision as she is transforming into her super-powered self. She uses the opportunity to talk to her favorite hero, voicing her frustration with who she is and who she wants to be. Kamala wishes she were “beautiful, awesome, butt-kicking, and less complicated,” all traits that she directly equates with being Carol. Kamala immediately receives her wish, emerging from her transformation as the spitting image of Carol from her own Ms. Marvel days, sporting the Warbird costume with white skin and blonde hair.
Yet even as she gets exactly what she asks for, Kamala still doesn't feel as confident or beautiful as she imagined she would. Part of this is shown through the character of Zoe, a popular, blonde, white girl who bullies Kamala in bigoted ways throughout the second issue. Her insults are blatantly Islamophobic, ranging from implying that Kamala’s friend Nakia might’ve been forced to wear her hijab to running away from Kamala at a party, complaining that she smells like curry.
It’s after that party that Kamala acknowledges that her idolization of whiteness is only internalized racism. Although Kamala initially defends Zoe’s actions—in part because she also represents Carol’s carefree lifestyle— she can’t ignore how badly her bully actually makes her feel. Struggling to control her new powers as she tries to make it back home afterward, she runs into Zoe. Her powers react accordingly: as soon as she sees Zoe, Kamala assumes her Carol-like form, as she feels like she has to be a different person—a cooler person—around her bully. But she ultimately reverts to her true appearance and then shrinks down, admitting to herself that Zoe makes her “feel small.”
The scene makes it clear that Kamala’s idolization of whiteness (and the privilege it grants) is what motivates her at first. But that desire is also what frustrates her, even as she tries to mask the true nature of her frustration by blaming it on her family’s Muslim traditions. She doesn't really hold her culture in contempt; what she hates is that her peers are too ignorant to learn about it and too insensitive to respect it. That’s what leaves her ostracized from them, and that’s what leaves her wanting to be more like them—not less like herself.
So far, however, the show omits these crucial nuances. Zoe is still a bully but without the racism, throwing dodgeballs at Kamala’s face when she's distracted in gym class. And while Kamala still idolizes Carol, her participation in the Captain Marvel cosplay competition at AvengerCon doesn't compare to her assuming the form of a white woman because she can’t see herself as a superhero otherwise.
Kamala Khan (Iman Vellani) tests out her powers (alongside her friend Bruno, played by Matt Lintz) in the Ms. Marvel TV show.
Marvel Entertainment/Disney+
The problem isn’t that the MCU’s version of Kamala doesn’t appear to face racism or Islamophobia in the same explicit ways that she does in the comic books. For example, her family discusses their experience living under Partition—when the British Empire cut India into two different nations—and how colonialism deeply impacted the Khans for generations. But the trauma of Partition is the most prominent example the show gives of how white supremacy affects them and, in turn, Kamala. The family doesn't talk about, say, 9/11 and the increase of Islamophobia it engendered, which continues to exist in the country. Kamala isn't given many modern touchpoints to refer to in terms of the actual material impact of the white majority's oppression. It's something that affected her parents when they were her age; that is in the past, and her present is concerned with other issues.
By downplaying this backstory’s modern reverberations in Kamala’s life, the show becomes just the latest MCU entry to shy away from the social issues that otherwise affect her. Like Tom Holland’s Peter Parker before her—the one who rose out of his canonical poverty thanks to Tony Stark—the MCU’s Kamala has other enemies to face.
It’s hard not to feel cynical about the decision not to replicate these parts of Kamala’s story on-screen. Considering that Ms. Marvel is the only Marvel TV show to feature a female lead of color thus far (and the only one to be review-bombed after its release), this creative decision feels as though Disney avoided depicting this conflict in the show, as to not make white audiences uncomfortable.
Perhaps Ms. Marvel’s viewers—and its makers—would benefit from watching Amanat recount her experiences growing up in New Jersey as a Pakistani-American. They’d easily see just how strongly the comic book version of Kamala’s struggles are lifted directly from her own: from the temptations of BLTs to the ostracization she faced after 9/11, Kamala is her reflection. Not only was the comic books’ Kamala meant to offer readers a hero who shared their struggles to find themselves, but she also was to do it with a sense of pride in her heritage. If Kamala’s origin offers any lesson to readers, it’s that sometimes it takes confronting your issues directly to change for the better. The MCU ultimately facilitates the existence of white supremacy and the other social issues it refuses to address by pretending that they’re no longer as relevant to the character as they were in the comics.
