In the July issue of American Free Press, Pat Shannan reports on a recent Homeland Security study that claims to identify domestic terrorists. The AFP article is reposted below, but above Shannan’s writing are three direct quotes from the DHS-funded, University of Maryland-conducted report “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States.” These three short selections from the over thirty page dossier are of particular relevance to national anarchists; respectively, they each describe the terrorist nature of the “extreme right-wing,” “extreme left-wing,” and “ethno-nationalist/separatist” groups. Read the full report on the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Reponses to Terrorism’s website. -NATA-NY
“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.”
“Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).”
“Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945.”
DHS says pro-lifers, gun owners, preppers, freedom activists are all a threat
By Pat Shannan
American Free Press
A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) depicts Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing terrorists.” The $12M report, entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States,” was produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.
According to this report, the new “terrorists” in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.
Not unlike the 2009 Missouri Information Analysis that labeled as potential terrorists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and anyone displaying pro-freedom bumper stickers or storing food or gold or silver, the DHS report will almost certainly get national distribution to law enforcement agencies at every level.
Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this “terrorist” list, but a mere “pro-life” bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.
Consider the dilemma of law-abiding Robert Baillio of Shreveport, La., a licensed-to-carry weapon owner, who was pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck. In Louisiana, a gun owner does not need a license to keep a weapon in one’s vehicle. The cop never asked for Baillio’s drivers license, registration or proof of insurance. He only wanted to know if he had a gun, where it was and if he was a member of any pro-gun organization. Baillio answered all the questions honestly but promptly had his weapon confiscated anyway. When Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said “No” and pointed to the stickers on his truck.
The DHS report displays another Orwellian reversal of thought by saying, “Extreme right-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes.”
Then it defined its anti-right wing stand: “The extreme far right is composed of groups that believe one’s personal and/or national way of life is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations or survivalism.”
It’s all a shit sandwich…eat it or choke on it.
I wrote this about the VoR 4th gen show, but since it doesn’t have a comment section and this article is vagely related……..
Nice show Keith. However I would have liked to have heard more about how 4th generation principles can be employed within the context of Western radicalism. The concept of “open source” insurrection for example. In the UK the radical right is obsessed with the futile and pointless objective of securing “unity” (even the N-AM implicitly assumes that it should be organised under a single banner with conformity of strategy, tactics and ideology). Not only is this impossible since there is such a wide range of beliefs ranging from authoritarian fascism to anarcho nationalists but for a dozen good reasons that would be counter productive. For one because the more outlandish elements idiocy is used to smear the whole movement by association, plus the usual potential for falling out over personality and factional jockeying for position within formal hierarchies. Then there are the advantages which accrue to the opposition from facing a single organisation in terms of propaganda, counter strategy, intelligence, infiltration, subversion etc.
All these problem could be bypassed by simply adopting a 4th gen open source organisational model so that exactly as the Iraqi insurgents fought as, at best, a loose coalition of wildly divergent groups and individuals so would Western radicals (all be it in a none violent way). Additionally all the usual benefit of decentralised “cellular” organisational structures apply in terms of the promotion of innovation, resistance to sabotage and infiltration, competition between groups, deniability etc. Moreover the prime concern of the activist at street level becomes attacking the opposition instead of attempting to build ramshackle coalitions. The point is not to get people to row in a neat formation but to get them to row towards the enemy. (moreover the chances of securing some degree of cooperation would be greatly enhanced if one group had managed to successful engage the opposition since others would necessarily want in on that)
The 4th gen conception of securing local superiority could also be adapted to western radical tactics. So instead of worrying about building a force capable of taking on the entire US Army over the entire of Iraq the objective is to win overwhelming superiority at Checkpoint X by concentration of force. This would translate as focusing efforts on one identified weak spot, one community or electoral district for example with the aim of rapidly overwhelming the opposition through sheer force.
The 4th gen principle of mobility is also applicable in this context. The fact is that in the UK at least the Establishment are weak at a community level. They frequently suffer localised defeats however they respond to this by concentrating their own resources on the static target identified which invariably leads to a brief and one sided arms race which the radicals lose. Basically the elite in the UK operate on the same strategic basis as the Roman Army, sure you can turn over the local police station, but when you do the Legions will be marching down those long straight roads. By rapidly refocusing resources on different communities this ability of the establishment to concentrate and counter attack would be mitigated and they would either be forced to disperse their resources or allow relatively free runs in the majority of areas. At the very least their resources would be bled at a greatly increased rate as they were forced to chase around the country and assume every radical hotspot showing any sign of activity could potentially be the site of another concentrated offensive by one or other group.
The principle of asymmetric conflict are the same whether you are blowing up bridges or fighting elections or building community groups. You are Charlie, think like Charlie!
My thoughts exactly, and you lay it out quite well. Still, this is why we need to petition John Robb to appear on Keith’s show.
Thanks Vince, it’s nice to know someone reads the comments I so very carefully craft for the cause of pan-secessionism and the ATS collective!
I have not yet encountered John Robb but I’ll certainly look him up if this is the kind of thing he is talking about. However it would seems VoR is having some considerable technical or other difficulties at the moment so getting anyone on it might be a moot point.