Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DHS Assessment on "Rightwing Extremism"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This was posted yesterday on several "extremist" "right wing" (i.e., pro-capitalism) web sites. It's apparently since been retracted by DHS.

(U//LES) ["Unclassified - Law Enforcement Sensitive"] Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers. (p. 3)

The word "recruitment" is used a dozen times in the assessment, but always as the tool of "extremists," and never in reference to an actual organization that would recruit members. The word "group" is used 26 times, and is clearly an ambiguous, sloppy "grouping" of individuals (including a reference to "racial groups"), not a description of an organized entity capable of concerted action. In other words, what we are seeing is an increasing number of individuals who are antagonistic towards "the perception of" an overbearing, increasingly powerful government.

(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

How's that for Package Dealing? Note how individuals "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority" are smeared with anarchists as "antigovernment" "groups." which are then smeared with hate-oriented "groups" as "rightwing extremists." Nice trick.

This immediately brought to mind Miss Rand's 1964 essay "Extremism," or the Art of Smearing, CtUI, p 191.

Observe the technique involved . . . . It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a “package-deal” of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a “package-deal” whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.

-Ayn Rand, "'Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing," Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, 176.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny is that all the problems in there associated with "right wing extremists" can be solved by government releasing controls on the economy and individual rights. But what will likely happen is an increase in control to try and crack-down on them instead, further increasing the number of extremists.

edit: Probably not the racial hatred/violence though, or placing blame on racial groups.

Edited by Chris.S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny is that all the problems in there associated with "right wing extremists" can be solved by government releasing controls on the economy and individual rights. But what will likely happen is an increase in control to try and crack-down on them instead, further increasing the number of extremists.

edit: Probably not the racial hatred/violence though, or placing blame on racial groups.

Well, this proves two things that I've said for the last 35 years.

1. The left is a bunch of Fascists

2. The Conservatives would give the left the tools for the job. I was against the creation of DHS from the get-go because I knew that there would be a Democratic Administration at some time and they'd love something like this. This is one of the adnvantages of the Obama presidency: This bunch of Keystone Cops is too oafish to hide their hand. Now Hilary's buch might have done this more smoothly. Now it's up to the bright boys to creat "Barack Nixon"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left started howling when the government began to listen in on international phone conversations between suspected terrorists. I wonder if we'll now hear them object to what appears to be the first step in a move to go after American citizens who don't like the politics of the current administration. I won't hold my breath waiting for outrage from the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, their standard line now seems to be "You called us un-American when we protested, so you have no room to complain." Never mind the fact that it's the government doing it this time.... Though I suspect they conceive the government as encompassing everything so they don't see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly not a good sign, calling everyone who asserts individual rights as a right wing extremist and being lumped together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh who bombed a Federal building. Of course, I didn't see the right (or conservatives) complaining when they lumped together things like left-wing protesters and The Weather Underground who bombed buildings. Have we actually reached the point whereby the government is aiming towards socialism, and anyone who is against that is considered a right wing extremist who has to be kept an eye on least he drop the protest sign and picks up a bomb? Notice that unlike leftist protesters, the "rightist" protesters were peaceful and didn't go about destroying property where they were, unlike the leftist protesters of the sixties who would destroy whole city blocks in order to get attention. I guess since socialism trying to get established as the establishment, and body who is against that will be labeled an "extremist" whether they are peaceful or not.

And yes, there were many people a few years ago who wondered what something like The Department of Homeland Security would morph into in the hands of the wrong people -- those who would use it to usurp legitimate rights, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Definitely this trend needs to be kept an eye on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering how much of this the government will take before it does something about it. Is it time to start burying copies of Atlas Shrugged yet? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering how much of this the government will take before it does something about it. Is it time to start burying copies of Atlas Shrugged yet? :D

I think it might be time to start buying AR-15s. :lol:

I was amazed that there was absolutely no violence at all of the right wing extremist tea-parties yesterday. How is that possible given the resurgence of these "one-issue" hate groups? I bet these extremists even hate Sasha and Malia's new dog Bo! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that nobody has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

Just what crime did McVey commit? If he committed a real crime, how come they had him dead so quickly, Look how long it took to kill Tookie Williams et all. Something is not right here.

Now, before you come charging in, think it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly not a good sign, calling everyone who asserts individual rights as a right wing extremist and being lumped together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh who bombed a Federal building. Of course, I didn't see the right (or conservatives) complaining when they lumped together things like left-wing protesters and The Weather Underground who bombed buildings.

Conservatices don't invite people like McVeigh to speak at their functions or fomr part of their rallies. Many left-wing groups do invite people like William Ayers and others who planted bombs and otherwise comited terrorist acts.

At least I don't think conservatives do that. I wonder if they sanction people who've bombed abortion clinics, killed obstetricians, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that nobody has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

Just what crime did McVey commit? If he committed a real crime, how come they had him dead so quickly, Look how long it took to kill Tookie Williams et all. Something is not right here.

Now, before you come charging in, think it through.

Well never being one to avoid charging...

You're fucking joking right?

oklahoma-city-bombing.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well never being one to avoid charging...

You're fucking joking right?

You decide:

Premises:

1) His action was a reprisal, a retaliatory strike, for Waco. Agreed to by the court which was the tryer of fact

2) The attack on Waco was lethal and a violation of the US Constitution:

2a. Reason Magazine in 1981 had a feature article "American Gestapo" about the ATF which made this predictable.

2b. The branch Davidian compound's weapons were Texas Lega and therefore fullfiled the requirement of a "well-regulated militia"l, The ATF could have had Koresh anytime form Nov '92, when they started the "investigation" to Feb 93 without loss of life. When informed by his gun dealer that the ATF was inveistigation Koresh was willing to co-operate. It was the ATF that refused to co-operate.

2c. Gene Brunes read several Op Ed Pieces from former law enforcement officials that showed that this was a wrongful action that violated several principles of Law Enforcemnet.

2d. From David Brudnoy on, all libertarian commentators agree that this was a violation of the Constitution.

2e. The warrent, as read by Gene Burnes c 4:00 PM the day after the fire, was unspecific as to what to search for and sieze

Therefore, this act was illegal and a violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of Amereica plain and simple.

3) The Muro building in fact housed an ATF office which if the citizens have the right to retaliate against tyranny, made it a fair target, unless you support the human shield theory, in which case you have no quarrel with the North Viennamese putting anti-aircraft installations near hospitals so they will not be bombed.

4) From Ayn Rand: "The Aggressor bears the responsibility for the consequences of his actions" Since she made that statement without modification, therefore unconditionally, I take it she meant ALL the consequences and on principle.

Questions: Does the citizenry, in whole, part or singly have the right to retaliante against a government that violates the Constitution that results in fatalities? May the citizen use lathal force to respond to lethal force? Himt; 1775. Is not the government, AS THE AGGRESSOR, itself responsible for all the casualties resulting from its aggression and the retaliation? Hint; or Jimmy Doolittle was indeed a war criminal.

You be the judge. Think it through in a principled manner.

Edited by Space Patroller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You be the judge:

Premises:

1) His action was a reprisal, a retaliatory strike, for Waco. Agreed to by the court which was the tryer of fact

2) The attack on Waco was lethal and a violation of the US Constitution:

a) Reason Magazine in 1981 had a feature article "American Gestapo" about the ATF which made this predictable.

B) The branch Davidian compound's weapons were Texas Legal, The ATF could have had Koresh anytime form Nov '92, when they started the "investigation" to Feb 93 without loss of life. When informed by his gun dealer that the ATF was inveistigation Koresh was willing to co-operate. It was the ATF that refused to co-operate.

c) Gene Brunes read several Op Ed Pieces from former law enforcement officials that showed that this was a wrongful action.

d) From David Brudnoy on, all libertarian commentators agree that this was a violation of the Constitution.

3) The Muro building in fact housed an ATF office which if the citizens have the right of self-defense against tyranny, made it a fair target, unless you support the human shield theory, in which case you have no quarrel with the North Viennamese putting anti-aircraft installations near hospitals so they will not be bombed.

4) From Ayn Rand: "The Aggressor bears the responsibility for the consequences of his actions" Since she did not set any limits on that statment then I take it she meant ALL the consequences.

Questions: Does the citizenry, in whole, part or singly have the right to retaliante against a government that violates the Constitution that results in fatalities? May the citizen use lathal force to respond to lethal force? Is not the government, AS THE AGGRESSOR, itself responsible for all the casualties resulting from its aggression and the retaliation?

You be the judge. Think it through in a principled manner.

Hold on a second. Whether what the government did at WACO was morally correct or not, that event certainly doesn't put a target on the back of every ATF or FBI agent. It also didn't give McVey the right to kill hundreds of people who just happened to be in a federal building when he decided to bomb it. This is some of the most twisted logic I've ever seen posted on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on a second. Whether what the government did at WACO was morally correct or not, that event certainly doesn't put a target on the back of every ATF or FBI agent. It also didn't give McVey the right to kill hundreds of people who just happened to be in a federal building when he decided to bomb it. This is some of the most twisted logic I've ever seen posted on this site.

I wish you had let me finish

But to answer your question it does put a target on the ATF agent qua ARMED agent of tyranny and to the extent that the FBE partook af that tyranny, it to bears responsibility and do you wish to argue against Rand on the nature of aggressors?

with what premise do you disagree and what logical fallacy did I commit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reviewing my post I don't see any conclusion drawn, just premises and questions and an appeal to principled thought. I did not apply logic one way or the other since I did not state a conclusion. So there is no issue of "twisted logic" To be wrong, either there has to be significant errors of fact in the premises or the answer to one or more of my questions must be "no" and must be "no" all the way and all the time.

And yes, it is a horror. But that is what happens when rights are infringed since it destroys moral certitude and makes all cards wild and why, for the most part, the writers of the Constitution wrote in absolutist terms "Shall not be infringed" means "Hands Off! Period, no ifs ands or buts" It's a short trip from Waco/McVey to the subject of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hesitant to get involved in this because I have discussed Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, and Elian Gonzales from the beginning. Yes, they were all terrible abuses of power on the part of the Federal government and agencies of the Federal government -- the FBI, the BATF, and the Immigration department. And I think those responsible should have been held responsible -- if I remember correctly, Bill Clinton and Janet Reno were involved in all of these incidents. There is certainly some question about those agencies trying to arrest those involved and ordering them to give up; and so long as we live in a judicial society and not a dictatorship, one ought to give up to the authorities and fight them in court, rather than put up armed resistance (in the case of Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians). I totally, and I mean totally, disagree with the way the Feds handled each of those incidents, and if there is a hell, those Federal authorities involved ought to burn in it without question.

However, since we do not live in a dictatorship and there are legal means of fighting the Feds, then that is the way it ought to be handled. Taking up arms against government agencies should only be done if there is no other recourse -- and that means when we lose our right to free speech and the right to peaceful assembly. One may argue the exact point at which it would be morally permissible to take up arms against one's government, but I don't think we have reached that point.

For one thing, none of those people protesting against the government on this April 15 were harassed in any way by the government; that is, the government is not trying to shut down those aiming to restore individual rights (as uncertain as that term is to many of them involved). And this is a clear indication that we do not live in a dictatorship.

In the process of restoring individual rights, many innocent victims will go down and will be arrested, perhaps, in the future, and these injustices need to be fought. But if you are going to take up arms against the Federal government, they most certainly can and will fight back.

I think what Timothy McVeigh did was evil and no Objectivist ought to stand by him. For one thing he had no clear statement of fighting for individual rights, he just wanted to launch an attack against a Federal agency. And I don't think we can, in good conscious, support what he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that nobody has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

Just what crime did McVey commit? If he committed a real crime, how come they had him dead so quickly, Look how long it took to kill Tookie Williams et all. Something is not right here.

Now, before you come charging in, think it through.

Wow! I just noticed this craziness!!

If McVey was at war with the U.S., actual physical war, then he was at war with me too. I'm glad McVey got the death penalty.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions: Does the citizenry, in whole, part or singly have the right to retaliante against a government that violates the Constitution that results in fatalities? May the citizen use lathal force to respond to lethal force? Himt; 1775. Is not the government, AS THE AGGRESSOR, itself responsible for all the casualties resulting from its aggression and the retaliation? Hint; or Jimmy Doolittle was indeed a war criminal.

Are you trying to get us all arrested??? B)

Mebbe it's time someone came back down to Earth and took a few breaths.

Your answers, in this context, are: No, no, and no. And no, Jimmy Doolittle was not a war criminal. The comparison of Mr. McVeigh's act to Lt.Col. Doolittle's is particularly despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that nobody has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

Just what crime did McVey commit? If he committed a real crime, how come they had him dead so quickly, Look how long it took to kill Tookie Williams et all. Something is not right here.

Now, before you come charging in, think it through.

There was evidence, deliberately overlooked by Janet Sterno's Justice Dept., that tied McVeigh and his co-conspirator to Middle Eastern individuals.

This was an act of terrorism resulting in murder, pure and simple and McVeigh was a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to get us all arrested??? B)

Mebbe it's time someone came back down to Earth and took a few breaths.

Your answers, in this context, are: No, no, and no. And no, Jimmy Doolittle was not a war criminal. The comparison of Mr. McVeigh's act to Lt.Col. Doolittle's is particularly despicable.

Why i.e. by what principle(s)?

If the answer is no than we are proper still British Colonies and it is proper for the British Government to intiate force against its newly re-acquired colonial subjects without fear of retaliation since it was armed action that won our independence. In the case of Jimmy Doolittle, it was the Japanese that were the Aggressors and therefore responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo which was mostly wooden buildings that went up like tinderboxes.

if the answer to the third question is no. Then Rand is wrong since you are limiting the extent of responsibility that an aggressor is for the consequnences of that aggression. and she made the statement as sort of its own paragraph.

What did George Mason say about any attempt to disarm the populace? Don't forget the name of the attack on WACO was "Operation Showtime" so this was meant to be a high-profile show of brute foruce; a middle finger shoved in the face of every supporter of the Second Amendment and by the principle of extension, the Constitution.

Nww, at least your ansers are consistent and therefore coherent. I do hope when they march you off to jail as one of the "radicalized right-wingers" that you'll have the decency to go peacefully and accept whatever they do with you?

What is fascinating and predictable here is the emotionalism: "are you FUCKIN' joking [emphasis added]". "Twisted logic" when none was applied only premises and questions (in your case, they were answered; now are they the right answers, by what principle(s), and what are the resutls of those answers applied to the past and the future? Unless you believe that DHS just wants sit down with you and sing Kumbya). I hope you did not attend one of the Tea Parties since that would peg you as a radicalized rightwinger (I said "Think it through"). "you're dispicable" Gee Daffy. and " Mebbe somebody should ome back down to earth and take a few breaths (given the direction that DHS is going, isn't this kind of down to earth? or do you say 'it can't happen here'?)". It's all there except the principle by which a crime was committed. It was actually as near as I can see, an act of reabillion prompted by an act of tyranny (by George Mason's definition; not mine or Rand's). Could it be that we are letting our feeling about McVey get in the way of thought? Don't feel too badly about that, I did the same for awhile (what alerted me to question the whole business was how quickly they had him killed: 5 years, almost unheard of speed in a capital case, almst as if they were trying to make an end to it before something dawned on people) and there are things for which McVey deserves to be either punished or found incompetent to stand trial. The question is, is this one of those and if so by what Objectivist principle(s)? If it is our belief that the aggressor is responsible for the consequences of that action and the government must never initiate force or fraud against its people then how do we put teeth in those principles i.e. make them apply in the physical world? This is paraticulary pertinent since the government has all kinds of power and it was that power that the framers of the Constitution sought to limit. In fact the arms that it was deemed the right to keep and bear were meant to be aimed specifically at the Federal Government to keep it in line. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with self defense against criminals. That was a given and anyone questioning that would not even get a hearing and mostl likely been reccommended for asylum .

This whole business hearkens back, and this is where I'm going, to a question that Gene Burnes asked c1990 on one of his programs. At what point do you take up arms and say "basta!"? and the DHS memo is getting close to that issue. You should have heard that program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with what premise do you disagree and what logical fallacy did I commit?

The monumental error you are committing, long before Tim McVeigh's name ever comes up, is in that you're working under the assumption that the the population who's Constitutional right to revolt you keep bringing up would need to resort to violence in order to change the government. It does not, it could easily vote it out of office.

You're also ignoring the nature of McVeigh's crime:

Tim McVeigh committed an act of terror against the civilian population, and an act of revenge against the democratically elected government of the United States. What he did not do is punish or attempt to punish anyone who committed a crime or even a perceived crime at Waco.

Thirdly, a war would require two sides. One of the sides in this supposed conflict comes up a little short, since it only seems to contain two members. Or do you care to name a third?

The other side would of course have to be the American population, since we are indeed fully responsible for our elected government.

And finally, this whole McVeigh discussion started out with you alluding to a secret conspiracy within the government that had him convicted and executed through means that are hidden to the public. That's a baseless, obviously false claim, the decisions that lead to Tim McVeigh's conviction, sentencing and execution are all documented and explained to the letter and available to the public. How dare you appeal to logic, with your starting point at such a typical, senseless and easily identifiable conspiracy theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why i.e. by what principle(s)?
Okay, here is one principle: people's right to revolt against being oppressed is not free of context.

Others have addressed the context of the exact nature of that oppression.

Even before that, an essential part of that context is what they intend to put in place of their current oppression.

Was McVey fighting for a government that would allow Mexicans to come freely into the U.S.? Was he fighting for a government that protected a woman's right to abortion?

White supremacists have no right whatsoever to set up a government of the type they would like.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally, this whole McVeigh discussion started out with you alluding to a secret conspiracy within the government that had him convicted and executed through means that are hidden to the public.

There are some unkown facts in the McVeigh case. There's a matter of documents the FBI failed to trun over to the defense until shortly before McVeigh's execution. There's also the matter of why McVeigh dropped all appeals remaining to him. Had he pursued them all he'd likely still be alive in death row.

But questions, absence of explanations and general unkowns do not, as you point out, amount to a conspiracy of any kind. McVeigh's trial was public and there's a full record of it. He was convicted and executed fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You decide:

Premises:

You premises are based on a false assumption. Timothy McVeigh lived in a democratic nation that respects the rule of law. If he had a beef with the actions of the Government the proper, and only action he should have taken was an appeal to the law of the land.

His personal declaration of war was illegal, his actions, immoral and evil in that context. He should have been publicly hung from the neck until dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I just noticed this craziness!!

If McVey was at war with the U.S., actual physical war, then he was at war with me too. I'm glad McVey got the death penalty.

McVeys' act was a retaliation for the government's action at WACO. If he is at war with you, then you must, by nature support that act. That act was a denial of lthe right to keep and bear arms. Is that what you support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...