That political
genus is divided into two species "white supremacist and anti-government
groups" with the latter further differentiated into various sub-species,
including immigration reform activists, "disgruntled military veterans,"
gun rights advocates, members of citizen militia groups, anti-globalists,
constitutionalists, "hate groups," and others deemed politically
unsuitable by the Regime.
This means
that for the first time in American history, the federal government
has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to
scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this development
as a milestone in our nation's apostasy from its founding as a constitutional
republic.
The ERB report
concludes with the observation that the Department of Homeland Security
"will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the
rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with
a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors
that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."
This is significant
chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency
in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage,
of the Homeland Security State.
Echoes
of a decade ago: A
"terrorist threat" assessment issued in 1999 by the Phoenix
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force identified "constitutionalists"
as a potential threat but didn't mention the possibility of
a backlash from Muslim radicals riled up by Washington's foreign
policy.
As partners
with the Department of Homeland Security, your thoughtful and friendly
"local" police and state police will be expected to gather intelligence
on "extremists" within their jurisdictions and provide it to the
Feds. And in the event that they're required to do so by their "partners"
in Washington, those same state and "local" police will be expected
to question, arrest, or detain those designated to be severe risks
to "homeland security."
In this connection
it's useful to remember that the Obama administration has taken
care to preserve all of the necessary Bush-era precedents regarding
the summary imprisonment of those designated "unlawful enemy combatants"
by presidential decree, the suspension
of habeas corpus, and even the
practice of torture as a means of "enhanced interrogation."
The prospect
of the exercise of those powers by the incumbent is causing
a loss of bladder control among many of the same GOP-aligned polemicists
who insisted that they were perfectly
safe when placed at the disposal of his predecessor. This development
was as predictable as the "plot" of a porno film. And as Salon's
admirable civil libertarian columnist Glen Greenwald emphasizes,
the report on the "radical right" was actually begun under
the Bush administration.
In the institutional
memory of the American Right, the early Clinton years were characterized
by two entirely unnecessary atrocities involving culturally isolated
"extremists": The attack on the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge,
Idaho which led to the murder of Sammy and Vicki Weaver and
the 51-day standoff at Mt. Carmel, Texas, which culminated in the
holocaust of April 19, 1993.
Putting
a meme into play: This
magazine cover, which appeared roughly a year ago, anticipated
one of the themes of the recent Homeland Security Department
assessment of the "right-wing threat" namely, that there may
be a violent, racially motivated "backlash" against the Obama
administration.
The unbearable
memory of those episodes, exacerbated by the "assault weapons" ban,
did much to catalyze resistance to the Clinton administration. Prior
to the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a widespread, and growing,
appreciation for the lethal potential of what we could call the
federal government's "Waco gene" its latent tendency to isolate,
dehumanize, criminalize, and even annihilate those considered to
be incorrigible internal enemies.
But although
this early Clinton-era anti-government backlash was rooted in worthy
and entirely justified sentiments, it was poorly focused in one
fairly significant respect: Clinton and his properly maligned Attorney
General Janet Reno had relatively little to do with the planning
and execution of the ATF's assault on the Branch Davidians, and
nothing at all to do with the criminal assault on the Weaver family.
Those were anti-"extremist" initiatives planned and/or carried out
by the administration of George Bush the Elder.
(It's not my
intention to demolish a straw man by mentioning Ruby Ridge in this
connection; on many occasions I've heard that incident paired with
Waco when people have recited the litany of the Clinton administration's
crimes.)
During the
reign of Bush the Dumber, the GOP-aligned punditocracy insisted
that only "peace creeps" and people who perversely sympathize with
suicide bombers were outraged over the executive branch's assault
on the Bill of Rights.
When Bush put
the chainsaw to due process guarantees running back to Runnymede
and mowed them down like so much overgrowth on his postage-stamp
"ranch," some principled voices with Ron Paul, as always, leading
that tiny chorus took up a refrain similar to that
put in the mouth of Sir Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons"
after his son-in-law William Roper urged a similar clear-cutting
approach to the law.
More, suspected
of disloyalty by King Henry VIII, is approached in his home by Richard
Rich,* a contemptible opportunist known to be
a royal spy. Rich fishes for a bribe, baiting More with the implied
threat of blackmail, only to be rebuked and sent away. As Rich leaves,
More is urged by his family to place him under arrest.
When More points
out that Rich hadn't committed a crime, and that even "the Devil
himself" is entitled to the protection of the law, Roper angrily
exclaims that he would "cut down every law in England" to get to
the Devil.
"And when the
last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would
you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" More inquired. "This
country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws,
and not God's and if you cut them down and you are just the
man to do it do you really think you could stand upright in the
winds that would blow then? Yes I'd give the Devil benefit of
the law for my own safety's sake."
Transfixed
by the demonic evil of Islamic terrorism, intoxicated by a sense
of vindictive righteousness, the Republican Right eagerly collaborated
in the effort to mow down legal protections for those designated
enemies of the state. With the frustrated puzzlement of dimwitted
children they now find themselves naked and shivering in the wind
and that chill blast is a mere zephyr compared to the Force
Ten gale thats coming.
For a long
time, conservatives have extracted much undeserved pleasure from
the aphorism that "A law-and-order conservative is a liberal who's
been mugged." Now they're given an opportunity to learn the truth
of its counterpart: "A civil libertarian is a law-and-order conservative
who suffered an ass-beating at the hands of the police." Perhaps
this lesson could be learned but, given the propensity of conservatives
to miss the obvious and resist admissions of error, I'm not optimistic.
One
aspect of the ERB's "Intelligence Assessment" that offers cause
for unintended mirth is the concern it expresses over the possibility
that the ongoing economic collapse is being "exploited" by "rightwing
extremists." The unspoken corollary here, of course, is that our
rulers would never exploit economic or political upheavals
in order to aggrandize their own power the well-documented eagerness
of both the Bushi'ites and the Obamatrons not
to "let a serious crisis go to waste" notwithstanding.
You see, according
to the Collectivist Lexicon, when those exercising the powers of
government suspect the worst of the people they rule, it's called
vigilance; when those on the receiving end of government
power suspect the worst of their rulers, it's called paranoia.
In the interest
of clarity, I should point out that, as the term is typically used
today, a "paranoid" is someone who notices things without government
permission. Similarly, a "conspiracy theorist" is anyone who draws
unacceptable anti-government conclusions from politically inconvenient
facts.
A "hate group"
consists of any group of people who are hated by collectivists.
And a "terrorist"
is anyone, anywhere, who is imprisoned, tortured, or killed by the
state with extreme prejudice. In the near future we may see some
interesting applications of that infinitely flexible definition.
When citizens
are hyper-vigilant toward government, liberty is one possible result.
Where government is hyper-vigilant toward is subjects, tyranny is
the inevitable outcome.
*A painful
personal admission: Richard
Rich, the despicable invertebrate who betrayed the heroic St.
Thomas More, is a distant ancestor (by adoption, I hasten to point
out).