21 thoughts on “RE: Hate Groups, Domestic Terrorism.”

  1. Nice post, Mr. Chandler.

    Risen is right: we should be opposing government interference in journalism, not supporting it.

    We’ve been down this road before. It took a Congressional investigation to reverse course. See the Wikipedia entry on Operation Mockingbird, for example, or Carl Bernstein’s article about it in Rolling Stone.

    Risen himself was a target of federal surveillance and legal harassment over journalism. Such things are not to be encouraged.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Not sure what the purpose of linking this story was but the troubling aspect is how easily some people can baselessly brand others as white supremacists or racists just for disagreeing with them or for merely being white. Is this the true backdoor approach of Democrats to initiate “gun control” aka confiscation?

    Like

    Reply

    1. RE: “the troubling aspect is how easily some people can baselessly brand others as white supremacists or racists”

      That’s a good reason to be skeptical of the idea that white supremacy, violent or otherwise, amounts to much of a threat to begin with.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Here’s a “good reason” NOT “to be skeptical”….

        Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American domestic terrorist who perpetrated the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured over 680 others.

        Rationalize away….

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. That’s ridiculous.

          The Timothy McVeigh story is so murky no one knows the truth of it. Wikipedia, for example, says his motive for the OKC bombing was “revenge against the government for the sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge,” and “there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups.”

          Like

          Reply

      2. …” to be skeptical of the idea that white supremacy, violent or otherwise, amounts to much of a threat to begin with.”

        Pretty easy for you to say, as I doubt, based on your historical postings, that you have ever been a target of hate. Like it is said about terrorist attacks on this country: ONE is too many. To those of us who have been targets based on color, religion, or national origin, it is real and not to be looked at skeptically.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. The point of the article was to caution people against placing too much faith in law enforcement or advocating for more sweeping power for them. Risen uses the Patriot Act as an example of how the government pounces on national emergencies to strip away civil liberties.

      Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) was a white supremacist, but the FBI and Marshals had no reason to murder his entire family.

      The Branch Davidians were fundamentalist creeps who were molesting and raping children, but the FBI and ATF should not have burned down their complex, trapping most of those kids inside.

      Anwar al-Awlaki was a jihadist who advocated terror attacks against American non-combatants. He was an American citizen who was killed without trial via drone strike. (A week or two later, the killed his teenage son, just for good measure.)

      The point is, this is what they do to actual bad people. Imagine how bad it will be for leftists and civil rights agitators if the FBI slap a “domestic terrorist” label on anyone they please. The FBI was formed to track down and neutralize leftists. Right wing and white supremacist groups have always had a large contingency within police forces at various levels. An emboldened and empowered FBI isn’t going to pursue them with nearly the zeal with which they pursue the groups we agree with. History demonstrates this quite clearly.

      We can begrudgingly agree with the reactionaries on this forum that more police power is a threat to civil liberties and diligently remind them of their pontificating the next time a black 5 year old carrying a pack of gum gets air holed by a cop with SS bolts tattooed on his neck.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. “point of the article was to caution people against placing too much faith in law enforcement or advocating for more sweeping power for them”

        And that point was certainly clear. However, I don’t see anyone advocating for more “sweeping powers” for them. An increased focus on groups that represent a clear and present danger to society has been at the heart of these discussions. Over-reach like those you reference should be investigated and those responsible held to account.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. RE: The Intercept, biased

      There is no such thing as bias free reporting. It is dishonest to present any reporting as such. There is a difference between having an ideology and using strict journalistic standards to support it, and having an ideology and lying to prove it (Fox), or lying in the service of the State (NYT), or lying in the service of the billionaire class (everyone, but WaPo in particular) and pretending to just be calling balls and strikes.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “No such thing”?

        Sure there is; “having an ideology” and selecting facts that support it and leaving out facts that do not support that ideology is by definition a bias…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. “’No such thing’?

          Sure there is; “having an ideology” and selecting facts that support it and leaving out facts that do not support that ideology is by definition a bias…”

          I agree. That was the entire point of my post. It is impossible to discuss anything in any depth without one’s personal or institutional biases making themselves present. The best you can do is acknowledge them (in the social sciences it’s called a “reflexivity statement”) and make your argument.

          The Intercept is a left-leaning publication that focuses on abuses of the security state. It was created as a means for Glenn Greenwald to publish the Snowden papers. It becomes dishonest, when a publication pretends to be non-ideological or “Fair and Balanced.”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  5. The point of this post (since some are having a difficult time with reading comprehension) is that a further empowered police state will disproportionately target non-violent leftists, even over violent right-wing extremists. The police exist to protect the interests of power, by definition. They can’t be relied upon to protect the vulnerable. They will be used to maintain the status quo, or even reverse course on civil rights, by force. History demonstrates this.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Comprehending something and agreeing with it are two different things. And for any individual to to believe that THEIR interpretation is the correct one is the height of arrogance.

      That said; your deep/police state perspective is depressing in the extreme and I personally don’t agree with it.

      I believe we are better than that and are continuing to go through “growing pains” that will result in a more tolerant and mature society.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. That part wasn’t directed at you. It was for the guy who somehow thought I was bemoaning white supremacists being correctly labeled as racists.

        “I believe we are better than that . . . ”

        I hope you’re right, but the history of this country doesn’t give me much to hope for.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I didn’t take it personally (thick skin), I just took the opportunity to make a general point that I felt was in-line with your broader points on bias, which I largely agree with.

          I hope I’m proved correct as well. I guess I’m lucky that the decades spent paying attention to the good, bad, and ugly in the world, have not killed my optimism..

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. “Comprehending something and agreeing with it are two different things. ”

        A point I try to make regularly. Yesterday it was our moderator, who felt that someone else’s interpretation was wrong. It isn’t wrong it is just counter to the one put forth.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  6. We ascribe punishment mitigated by motive or actions all of the time.
    Glance at your cellphone and kill a pedestrian and you’ll likely receive a sentence commensurate with negligence. Drive 20 over the speed limit, weaving from lane to lane, and do the same, and the sentence will surely involve reckless endangerment.
    If that pedestrian happens to be your spouse, and you rock the car on the body, you can probably be assured of a second-degree murder charge.
    Stiffening a sentence based on the heinousness, or motive, of the crime is already prescribed by law.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment