Tea Party Terrorism

Che Guevara

I was recently dismayed to learn that, as a Tea Party member, I am, per se, a terrorist.  Well, a potential terrorist anyway.  And that revelation on no less authority than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). [1]

A report commissioned by DHS called Hot Spots of US Terrorism tells us exactly who the terrorists are:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

The article by the SLPC not only defines the "Extreme Right Wing" as the font of American violence and insurrection, but it describes their virulent profusion under the Obama administration.  Everywhere there is the unhinged rage of the Right, although they give the Tea Party a back-handed break.

 The anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as "socialist" or even "fascist" — goes beyond the radical right. The "tea parties" and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.

My sudden realization that I am a real or potential terrorist associated with 'hate groups' like the Tea Party is bad enough, but now I find I have to worry about what my punishment may be.  The military is much advanced in preparation for the day when, with others, I rise (as they are certain I will) against lawful government in acts of violent insurrection.  The military has drawn up elaborate plans, war-gaming strategies to put down civil unrest.  Yes, the Tea Party.  And in South Carolina.  Did they fire again on Sumter?

Marxist Meme-Think

What is most alarming to me is the uniformity of agreement among DHS, military brass and the SPLC [2] that is clearly based on something other than critical thinking.  Power, do you suppose?

A careful (or even cursory) reading of the quotations cited above as well as the link citations will reveal a number of glib and false assumptions that seem to have taken on the trappings of refined Marxist dogma.  The government education view that is the equivalent of stare decisis in law.  It doesn't seem to occur to these people that much of what they find pathological would pass as virtuous among the Founders; it is ludicrous to find that being "...suspicious of centralized federal authority, [or] reverent of individual liberty..." are threatening attributes.  It's a sign of how far we've strayed toward collectivist anti-capitalism. [3]

Now, to be sure, there are small violent groups among us, but they are amazingly rare.  Their activities are usually driven by the deranged or the simple; or in combinations.  And in the DHS/SPLC naming of violent individuals and groups  they could hardly be at a farther distance from the truth.  To pair neo-Nazis, skinheads and fascists with the Right is factually, historically wrong.  [4]  I suspect that many of the groups the government likes to yoke into tidy slots are anarchists; persons who harbor a generalized anger they are unable to place or sort out.  Anarchists usually (arguably by definition) are innocent of any political ideology.

The "racist" stereotype provides a useful elixir suitable to all purposes.  A label that threatens the self-respect of all at whom it is directed.  Somehow that has come to include any opposition to illegal immigration no matter how well founded it may be.  But "nativist" is gaining ground, and "hate" is right up there; "Islamophobe" is on the move.  These characterizations require no definition, scrutiny or analysis, but in the mouths and pens of the powerful and corrupt they are devastating to those who yet hold a virtuous civil society in high regard.  These ad hominem tactics of intimidation in politics were developed by Marx and Engels to ward off any critical analysis of Socialism.  It is a legacy that is continuously being improved upon by their heirs.

  The great irony of the statist position on violence and "hate groups" lies not in the fact that it is untrue, but that is directly opposite the truth.  In the modern (Burkean) distinction between Left and Right violence has always been the province of the former.  Anecdotally, one has only to contrast the behaviors of the unions, OWS and other leftist groups in the Alinsky mold to the Tea Party.  Yet it is upon the "extremist, radical" Right that statists dwell.

Where Are We Headed?

Continuing to paint with a broad brush of invective, the perceived (perhaps real) terrorists are said to be paranoically obsessed with "conspiracy theories".  Is it possible to be rationally concerned about metastasizing state power and the usurpation of personal sovereignty and liberty?  It certainly is.  I could catalog instances of contempt for the rule of law, unconstitutional acts and open contempt for the will of American citizens, abuse of regulation enforcement, destructive foreign policy... on and on.

But I'll stay with the subject at hand -- government planning for the exercise of police and military force against citizens.  And I haven't even mentioned the deployment of fusion centers.  That's for another time.  I want to conclude by mentioning what I see as a good thing and another that might not be quite so bad as we may imagine.

I begin by acknowledging the organization known as Oathkeepers. [5]  They foresaw the possibility (or probability) that the military and law enforcement would someday be asked to act against private citizens, and they determined that they would refuse to obey unlawful orders.  Depending on the extent of their deployment they might emerge in a time of crisis as a significant restraint.

Finally, much has been written about the government's recent acquisition of  in excess of 1.5 billion

hollow-point pistol rounds.  That's enough to kill one fourth of the world's population.  I've seen a number of essays that speculate that federal enforcement was preparing for an assault on citizens around the nation.  Called to account, government representatives have little to say, and none of it remotely convincing.  In my view, no assault is planned.  If that were the case, I would have expected the purchase of automatic FMJ rifle ammo.  Much more efficient. 

In my view, the buy was made not with the intent of killing on the grand scale, but for another reason, less violent but not less tyrannical.  To drive up the price of ammunition available to private hands.  As I said, bad, but not so bad as in might have been.

Now I must take a break; it is not an easy thing to reconcile one's self to being a terrorist.

----------------

1.  The SPLC is an extreme, radical leftist race-baiting organization that profits handsomely from donations that are often dishonestly solicited. It agitates for divisive political causes, pitting one citizen against the other to compete for government largesse, much of which finds its way into the pockets of Morris Dees and his organization's coffers.  It lives off its reputation for anti-KKK work early in the Civil Rights Movement.  Those who admire the honesty and civility of  Socialist, Julian Bond, SPLC's first president, will love Morris Dees.  Based on my own knowledge and impressions I find this highly critical article by Jerry Kammer entirely credible.

2.  SPLC is engaged in training DHS in the art and science of understanding 'hate groups'.

3.  Why throw ant-capitalism into an argument where it is not apparent?  Broadly paraphrasing Hayek, capitalism is the purest expression of liberty.

4.  Here we have a nearly intractable meme that has been carefully nurtured and polished by collectivists since the 1930's.  These groups are solidly rooted in the Left.  Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Facism makes an important contribution contrary to the prevailing view.  The conflation of authoritarianism with the Right has largely the same provenance, but it also has origins from feudal times up until the French Revolution.

5.  This is a group that is seen by some on the Hard Left as potentially dangerous.  I've been aware of them since shortly after their appearance, and I find no fault with them in principle.  They are a large group of active and ex-military and law enforcement who have pledged not to use unconstitutional force against citizens.  They were prescient, I think, saw the events we've been discussing long in advance of their materializing.  The seizure of guns by police during Katrina would seem to vindicate their concerns.  I must also add that much of my thinking on this subject has been influenced by an article on their website by Tom DeWeese.  Another good essay by 'notalemming' can be found here.