America's Brownshirts on the March

[prole]

Rage on the Right

By Mark Potok

 

The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation.

 

Hate groups stayed at record levels — almost 1,000 — despite the total collapse of the second largest neo-Nazi group in America. Furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups soared by nearly 80%, adding some 136 new groups during 2009. And, most remarkably of all, so-called "Patriot" groups — militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose “one-world government” on liberty-loving Americans — came roaring back after years out of the limelight.

 

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.

 

“We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. "We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage."

 

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Just a quarter think the government can be trusted. And the anti-tax tea party movement is viewed in much more positive terms than either the Democratic or Republican parties, the poll found.

 

The signs of growing radicalization are everywhere. Armed men have come to Obama speeches bearing signs suggesting that the "tree of liberty" needs to be "watered" with "the blood of tyrants." The Conservative Political Action Conference held this February was co-sponsored by groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a Communist agent, and Oath Keepers, a Patriot outfit formed last year that suggests, in thinly veiled language, that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps. Politicians pandering to the antigovernment right in 37 states have introduced "Tenth Amendment Resolutions," based on the constitutional provision keeping all powers not explicitly given to the federal government with the states. And, at the "A Well Regulated Militia" website, a recent discussion of how to build "clandestine safe houses" to stay clear of the federal government included a conversation about how mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh and Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph were supposedly betrayed at such houses.

 

Doing the Numbers

The number of hate groups in America has been going up for years, rising 54% between 2000 and 2008 and driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period, the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African American president.

 

According to the latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), these groups rose again slightly in 2009 — from 926 in 2008 to 932 last year — despite the demise of a key neo-Nazi group. The American National Socialist Workers Party, which had 35 chapters in 28 states, imploded shortly after the October 2008 arrest of founder Bill White for making threats against his enemies.

 

At the same time, the number of what the SPLC designates as "nativist extremist" groups — organizations that go beyond mere advocacy of restrictive immigration policy to actually confront or harass suspected immigrants — jumped from 173 groups in 2008 to 309 last year. Virtually all of these vigilante groups have appeared since the spring of 2005.

 

But the most dramatic story by far has been with the antigovernment Patriots.

 

The militias and the larger Patriot movement first came to Americans’ attention in the mid-1990s, when they appeared as an angry reaction to what was seen as a tyrannical government bent on crushing all dissent. Sparked most dramatically by the death of 76 Branch Davidians during a 1993 law enforcement siege in Waco, Texas, those who joined the militias also railed against the Democratic Clinton Administration and initiatives like gun control and environmental regulation. Although the Patriot movement included people formerly associated with racially based hate groups, it was above all animated by a view of the federal government as the primary enemy, along with a fondness for antigovernment conspiracy theories. By early this decade, the groups had largely disappeared from public view.

 

But last year, as noted in the SPLC’s August report, "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias," a dramatic resurgence in the Patriot movement and its paramilitary wing, the militias, began. Now, the latest SPLC count finds that an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244% jump.

 

That is cause for grave concern. Individuals associated with the Patriot movement during its 1990s heyday produced an enormous amount of violence, most dramatically the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead.

 

Already there are signs of similar violence emanating from the radical right. Since the installation of Barack Obama, right-wing extremists have murdered six law enforcement officers. Racist skinheads and others have been arrested in alleged plots to assassinate the nation’s first black president. One man from Brockton, Mass. — who told police he had learned on white supremacist websites that a genocide was under way against whites — is charged with murdering two black people and planning to kill as many Jews as possible on the day after Obama’s inauguration. Most recently, a rash of individuals with antigovernment, survivalist or racist views have been arrested in a series of bomb cases.

 

As the movement has exploded, so has the reach of its ideas, aided and abetted by commentators and politicians in the ostensible mainstream. While in the 1990s, the movement got good reviews from a few lawmakers and talk-radio hosts, some of its central ideas today are being plugged by people with far larger audiences like FOX News’ Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn). Beck, for instance, re-popularized a key Patriot conspiracy theory — the charge that FEMA is secretly running concentration camps — before finally “debunking” it.

 

Last year also experienced levels of cross-pollination between different sectors of the radical right not seen in years. Nativist activists increasingly adopted the ideas of the Patriots; racist rants against Obama and others coursed through the Patriot movement; and conspiracy theories involving the government appeared in all kinds of right-wing venues. A good example is the upcoming Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. The website promoting the march is topped by a picture of a colonial militiaman, and key supporters include Larry Pratt, a long-time militia enthusiast with connections to white supremacists, and Richard Mack, a conspiracy-mongering former sheriff associated with the Patriot group Oath Keepers.

 

What may be most noteworthy about the march, however, is its date — April 19. That is the date of the first shots fired at Lexington in the Revolutionary War. And it is also the anniversary of the fiery end of the government siege in Waco and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. --from SPLC Intelligence Report Spring 2010

[tvashtarkatena]

If they want to test their theory about concentration camps and martial law, they should revolt. They'll quickly find that they're 100% correct on all counts. Given the draconian police response that marches out to control, say, a bunch of grandma's protesting nukes a the Port of Tacoma, I'd imagine the response these McVeigh wannabes evoke would be a bit on the warm, ala Waco, side.

 

Any rise in the number of hate groups probably corresponds much more with the new ability to a) get a free website and b) get cheap, high speed web access, than with any real increase in overall membership. If membership in such groups were to increase (it may well have, but the researchers presented didn't track it), that would actually mean something. As for some huge, pending revolt...yeah, we'll see, I guess.

 

Presumably, these folks never vote Democrat, so at least some of them, probably most, vote Rfuck. It would be amusing to see them go up against the new security state they helped create, you know, the one libruls are now behind the wheel of. Rotsa ruck!

Edited March 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

The interesting and disturbing thing that this and other recent articles point out are the deep connections that the "fringe" groups have with the more "mainstream" organizing that's been going on for the last year. I put these terms in quotes because it's clear that what were once fringe ideas (conspiracy and red-baiting) are becoming more and more part of the narrative of American conservatism in general. So even if "card carrying membership" in hate groups weren't growing (it is), their ideas are gaining traction and being incorporated into the broader movement as a whole. Your point about these faux-libertarians simply being closet Republicans is well taken. Unfortunately, when the GOP regains power, mobilized dissent of the government transforms itself into a defacto extension and enforcement of State power. It ain't gonna be pretty.

[Doug]

Unfortunately, when the GOP regains power, mobilized dissent of the government transforms itself into a defacto extension and enforcement of State power. It ain't gonna be pretty.

 

You have to wonder though.....Politicians being Politicians, irrespective of ideology are basically lying dirtbags who'll say whatever they have to say to whomever they have to say it to in order to get elected. Until theses fringe and in some cases mainstream groups gain significant monetary backing, their agendas will be brushed aside within weeks of election. Of course, that could happen.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'd guess that the tea baggers and most certainly more fringe groups will remain 'volume rich, money poor'. These are...uh...not sophisticated folks we're talking here, and they're movement targets the lower social echelons. Dysfunction doesn't exactly help income level. The GOP will speak some of their language in order to lure them (back) into the tent, but that's about where it will end.

[prole]

Well, I hate to burst the "everything's going to be fine because the GOP's really just about economic exploitation and American Empire, not batshit crazy" bubble, but recent evidence suggests that the Teabaggers are increasingly running for public office, filling unelected and uncontested positions in local and state government and generally putting their money where their mouths are in terms of local organizing. In other words, they are becoming the Party. Michelle Bachmann, anyone? Recent hubbub around the Texas School Board textbook issue should clue anyone into the destruction that a few motivated morons are capable of wreaking. Furthermore, politicians still need to appeal to these organized if incohate constituencies. No, the GOP is not going to abandon economic elites, but they will likely increasingly appeal to fear, xenophobia, militarism, etc. to maintain the electoral numbers they need to get elected. The extent to which these threads conflict with each other will continue to shape the Party, but Republican politicians will find the populist genie hard to put back in the bottle.

[tvashtarkatena]

Perhaps they'll spark a fashion movement. That's your cue for a photo, Prole.

[prole]

Right now it's a toss-up between the Yankee Doodle Dumbass or the Founding Fuhrer.

[Stonehead]

Nice troll. This is where you expect to get an argument that the SPLC has a vested interest in trumpeting the threat of the white supremacy bogeyman. Certainly, there might be some truth in their message but the greater part of their message has the disservice of marginalizing popular discontent with the operation of government.

 

A more astute reader might see things differently but for the causal reader, the article has the effect of blackballing people with legitimate grievances by lumping them together with the extremists. Co-opted by extremists? Maybe the reality is that the very real emotional energy has been co-opted by authority. So, the tactic appears to be to effectively neutralize discontent through bomb lobbing from the media. In many aspects this tactic closely resembles the strategy of tension, sort of a cat and mouse game played by the one in control.

 

Actually, my question is: Is the phenomenon being dealt with in such a way as to address any real grievances then to seek and to incorporate viable solutions to yield the best reconciliation? Consider that opposition on the Left (not through the official halls of power but evidenced through the chatter on the internet) was very vocal during the Bush Administration but which has fallen presently to a barely noticeable whisper. What happened to those on the Left who voiced their concerns over encroaching government under the Bush Administration? Honestly, did the election of the Man solve all of their problems? How truly effective was the leadership of the Left in channeling the discontent? You may find that it’ll come back to bit you on the ass if and when the People get a clue. Banking reform, anyone?

 

The natural dichotomy in this case is populist versus elitist and furthermore, the identification has been: populist = wrong; elitist = right (because hey, topdown authority can’t be seen as wrong in the end despite its many missteps along the way. You just can’t lose faith. It’s a secular sin and it’s blasphemy to speak of a second Republic.).

 

[prole]

Nice troll. This is where you expect to get an argument that the SPLC has a vested interest in trumpeting the threat of the white supremacy bogeyman. Certainly, there might be some truth in their message but the greater part of their message has the disservice of marginalizing popular discontent with the operation of government.

This isn't a troll. Nice way to marginalize the post though... But seriously, I'd love to hear who among us doesn't have a vested interest in rooting out and keeping close tabs on white supremacists, neo-nazis, and other well-armed racists with established histories of violent and extralegal activity. The SPLC is virtually a service to humanity, if anyone there is getting paid, they probably deserve a raise. Please show where this organization has "marginalized popular discontent", you know, in real life.

 

A more astute reader might see things differently but for the causal reader, the article has the effect of blackballing people with legitimate grievances by lumping them together with the extremists. Co-opted by extremists? Maybe the reality is that the very real emotional energy has been co-opted by authority. So, the tactic appears to be to effectively neutralize discontent through bomb lobbing from the media. In many aspects this tactic closely resembles the strategy of tension, sort of a cat and mouse game played by the one in control.

 

Showing how the Tea Party "movement" is shot through with organizational links to white supremacists isn't necessarily "lumping them together" it's called "the presentation of data derived from research". Here's the most comprehensive piece that I've seen to date on the topic: Brace yourself, it's from It's from ::the New York Times ::. "Bomb lobbing" and "blackballing" aside, if the organizational links are there, if the narratives are identical in many respects, is that not news? Where do "legitimate grievances" with these people end and paranoid kookdom begin? From what I've seen, it's the former (in an objective sense) couched entirely in terms of the latter. You don't address real grievances (falling middle class, rising inequality, failing institutions, etc.) by appealing to or legitimizing insane rantings ("Soshalizm!"). You work to address the pathology that's creating them.

 

Consider that opposition on the Left (not through the official halls of power but evidenced through the chatter on the internet) was very vocal during the Bush Administration but which has fallen presently to a barely noticeable whisper. What happened to those on the Left who voiced their concerns over encroaching government under the Bush Administration? Honestly, did the election of the Man solve all of their problems? How truly effective was the leadership of the Left in channeling the discontent? You may find that it’ll come back to bit you on the ass if and when the People get a clue. Banking reform, anyone?

 

You've nailed it here. The Left has been almost entirely ineffectual in creating narratives, crafting alternatives, or channelling discontent to address any and all of the issues we're dealing with right now. Makes the absudist claims by the Right even more ironic, huh? The great misunderstanding on the Right and Left is that Obama is anything other than an centrist. The left is placed in the position of having to defend him against the idiotic claims of the Right which the mainstream media does virtually nothing to debunk. The Obama Administration has failed at every opportunity to take the offensive, craft effective narratives, and maintain the mobilized and energized citizens that elected him. There is a great deal of dissent from the Left against Obama, but it's tempered by the need to play defense against the insane clown posse that mainstream conservatism has become. Just walking away from existing politics isn't really an option for most liberals when doing so might mean the likes of Sarah Palin in any job with more power than town dog-catcher.

 

The natural dichotomy in this case is populist versus elitist and furthermore, the identification has been: populist = wrong; elitist = right (because hey, topdown authority can’t be seen as wrong in the end despite its many missteps along the way. You just can’t lose faith. It’s a secular sin and it’s blasphemy to speak of a second Republic.).

 

I don't follow.

[tvashtarkatena]

Sarah Palin carries a dog eared 3x5 in the shape of her ass with the word 'elitist' on it so she can remember how to pronounce it.

 

One lumping or two?

[prole]

Another day, another suicide attack by an insane rightwing domestic terrorist.

 

John Patrick Bedell: Did Right-Wing Extremism Lead to Shooting?

Authorities have identified John Patrick Bedell as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting. He appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.

 

By Peter Grier Staff writer

posted March 5, 2010 at 10:46 am EST

 

Washington —

John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.

 

If so, that would make the Pentagon shooting the second violent extremist attack on a federal building within the past month. On Feb. 18, Joseph Stack flew a small aircraft into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Mr. Stack left behind a disjointed screed in which, among other things, he expressed his hatred of the government. (For more on this incident, click here.)

 

Details of Mr. Bedell’s case are still emerging. But writings by someone with his same name and birth date, posted on the Internet, express ill will toward the government and the armed forces and question whether Washington itself might have been behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

 

However, law enforcement officials have yet to publicly state their theories as to Bedell’s motives.

 

“I have no idea what his intentions were,” said the chief of Pentagon police, Richard Keevill, in a Friday press conference.

 

According to Mr. Keevill, Bedell was a California native who slowly made his way to Washington by car over the past several weeks.

 

At about 6:40 p.m. on Thursday, Bedell, dressed in a business suit, approached an entrance to the Pentagon that is linked to the Washington’s Metro system. Asked for identification, he pulled out a semiautomatic weapon and opened fire.

 

At that time of day, that particular Pentagon entrance is teeming with people, as it is a main connection with both subway and buses and with the building’s vast commuter parking lots. Because of this, it is one of the most fortified points of a fortified building. Bedell would have had to make his way past several lines of security to reach the Pentagon interior.

 

He did not get far. Two officers immediately returned fire, with a third running to their assistance.

 

Bedell was fatally wounded in the exchange. Two officers were wounded but have since been released from the hospital.

 

“He just reached in his pocket, pulled out a gun, and started shooting” at point-blank range,” Pentagon police chief Keevill said. “He walked up very cool. He had no real emotion on his face.”

 

According to the Associated Press, an Internet posting made by someone using the name JpatrickBedell expressed a determination to see justice served in the case of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in his California home in 1991. Authorities have ruled this case a suicide, but it has become a cause célèbre among extremists who consider that ruling a coverup by the government.

 

The posting expressed general hatred of Washington and added that exposing the Sabow case would be “a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolition,” according to the AP.

 

The Pentagon attack and the destruction at the IRS building in Austin, Texas, come at a time of explosive growth in extremist-group activism across the United States, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks such organizations.

 

The number of US extremist paramilitary militias grew from 42 in 2008 to 127 in 2009, according to a just-released SPLC annual report.

 

So-called “Patriot” groups, steeped in antigovernment conspiracy theories, grew from 149 in 2008 to 512 in 2009 – an increase that the SPLC report judges as “astonishing.”--from CSM 3/5/10

[ivan]

whateva - dude was crazy first, then was attracted to right-wingism 'cuz ya know, its a big tent

[prole]

[ivan]

so...the republican party n' the evil forces of conservatism were responsible for 8-ball's maniac-depression?

 

this story is beneath you...move on!

[Serenity]

I wouldn't let talk radio get you too amped up. It's going to lessen your life span if you stare at this thing for too long. Civil unrest is a byproduct of both parties recent inefficiencies. Both sides have legitimate bitches and complaints at this point.

 

The guy at the Pentagon was just a regular wing-nut one each issue. Not a McVeigh type. They were a totally different beast all together.

 

Prole chill the f

[billcoe]

Every tie anyone questions or says anything different than you folks you marginalize them.

 

 

[prole]

Certainly not the reaction one would expect if the suicide attackers had been Muslim-Americans.

[billcoe]

Certainly not the reaction one would expect if the suicide attackers had been Muslim-Americans.

 

Well, God was there, probably the Christian one, but unsure from the articial anyway.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501659_pf.html

 

"The Associated Press

Friday, March 5, 2010; 11:07 AM

 

WASHINGTON -- One of the two police officers shot by a gunman outside the Pentagon says he is doing fine and credits God for shielding him."

 

[Stonehead]

Isn't the tactic of fear, real and imagined, used by both parties whether emphasis is from the Right (foreign terrorism) or from the Left (domestic terrorism)? The combined effect is effective control.

 

 

It wasn’t long ago to speak of a Pax Americana, an empire built on the back of the Bretton Woods monetary system. This monetary system rose out of the experiences of the Great Depression, to be constructed to liberalize global trade and to foster an international economy that relied on regulation to maintain tight control of the value of currencies (fixed exchange rate). In 1971, Nixon closed the gold window and the US dollar replaced gold as the de facto currency peg. The value of the dollar thereafter responded vis-à-vis its status in petroleum transactions. The hegemony of the dollar and by proxy American influence is maintained through legal means but is primarily underwritten by the full force of our military machine. Is the price of empire worth the sacrifice of the republic?

 

A short radical fiction of the not so distant future:

 

Northern Command was set up to allow the success of a military coup aimed at restoring the Republic and to reestablish the proper function of government following along the original dictates of the U.S. Constitution. The crisis was precipitated by the nexus of a variety of events but most importantly by the currency collapse of the Federal Reserve note. An Article V convention was then held to amend the Constitution for a more lasting union. Consequently, a second Republic was successfully established but the necessary severing of international agreements and the resulting realignment of power led to the outbreak of the Third World War.

 

Liberty is a two-edged sword…

[tvashtarkatena]

Good post and good points. Concerning the reaper drones: law enforcement agencies have tried to fly drones over urban areas for years. What's stopped them? The good old FAA...but how long can that weak insurance policy last?

 

The Delfly is a 3 gram (yes, you read that correctly) plane that can fly for 3 minutes under remote control...with a video camera. Insect sized drones are coming soon to a neighborhood near you: Moore's Law and our military industrial complex guarantees it. Will the FAA continue to object to drones the size of bees? Doubt it. Law enforcement invariably gets most of the toys the military uses. Right now a very high end processor costs about $400. According to Moore's Law, that same processor will cost 4 cents in about 12 years. Surveillance technology will be practically free. Unless we lay down some pretty strict civil libertarian ground rules regarding privacy and surveillance now...yeah, you get the idea.

Edited March 7, 2010 by tvashtarkatena