Someone once told me that political power is as much concerned with punishing one’s opponents as it is with rewarding one’s constituents, and possibly more so. Although this is a somewhat disturbing way to look at it, history – both ancient and modern – confirms the truth of that statement. So, it is instructive to take a close look at who governments choose to punish, because that reveals who they see as their opponents.
In the latest sensational bust, a small but well-armed Christian sect was effectively dismantled by the FBI and BATF for “seditious conspiracy,” among other charges, all of which concern plots and potential rather than actual crimes. Although, according to a marine I know, the Hutaree appear to be trained in military tactics with the ability to carry out staggered patrols and advance as a squad, and from what I saw they appeared to have some fairly high-end equipment, they are not all that sophisticated. Their website features some recruiting videos set to Christian rock songs that depict patrols, tactics, and, amusingly, the burning of the UN flag:
From some brief reading and research, it appears that they are a Christian survivalist group preparing for battle with the Antichrist and/or some political upheaval in the US. They have allegedly compared themselves to John Brown, the abolitionist who led an insurgency against southern planters and local governments prior to the Civil War. According to other militia groups, the Hutaree were reckless in their radicalism, but have not – as far as anyone knows – committed any violent or financial crimes. I would tentatively identify them as “neo-Puritans.”
One might expect these arrests to ramp up under a Democratic administration, but the timing in this case is rather significant, and I doubt it’s coincidental. For the last few weeks, the political strain surrounding the health care law has allegedly resulted in a number of senators receiving death threats, and Sarah Palin has been making the rounds, trying to capitalize on the Tea Party movement with belligerent rhetoric. I have long heard leftists claim that the right “fans the flames of radicalism,” and for the most part it’s been ridiculous fearmongering, but as things stand today, they may actually have a point. However, before they assign sole blame to the right wing, they might want to take a long, hard look at what their policies have wrought as well.
As for what this means to men regardless of party affiliation or ideological stance, I see a system that is increasingly strained and unable to hold the confidence of enough Americans to promote long-term stability. As I’ve written many times before, a police state can only be maintained at enormous expense, and resources will never be allocated evenly across the board. If, as the renewed focus on “homegrown radicals” indicates, law enforcement resources are increasingly used to target domestic political opponents, there will necessarily be fewer resources devoted to tracking and preventing foreign terrorists from carrying out operations on US soil. This could have far-reaching consequences.
Back in the late 1990s, as the Taliban were consolidating power in Afghanistan and hosting radicals from all over the world, the US was on top of a globalist wave during the Clinton administration, which focused considerable energy on mopping up various domestic radicals while all but ignoring the growing terrorist threat abroad. The tensions surrounding Afghanistan were fairly clear to see, and I personally saw some evidence of this while in Beijing back in 1998, when conflict between Iran and the Taliban nearly broke out into war. One night, while walking along embassy row, I noticed heavy patrols with police dogs (only time I ever saw K9 units in China) and soldiers around the Iranian embassy, and later found that there had been threats of attacks. Anyone in the know would have realized at that time that trouble was brewing.
Later, a couple years after my return to Seattle, the 911 attacks brought a number of local terrorist networks to light. These had been flourishing virtually in my back yard: a local Muslim activist named James Ujaama had been acting as an international courier for Abu Hamza al-Masri, a one-armed Egyptian mullah with strong ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In 1999, along with al-Masri, Ujaama had set up a training camp in Bly, Oregon, where Al Qaeda operatives stayed for months at a time plotting attacks on US targets. Eventually, Ujaama balked at some suggestions or otherwise proved himself incompetent, and nothing much came of the Bly cell, but disturbing plots included, among other things, the proposed poisoning of Seattle’s reservoirs. Immediately after this, security fences topped with barbed wire were quietly installed around all the local reservoirs, which had previously been easily accessible.
Prior to 911, foreign radical groups in America were flourishing almost in broad daylight. Anyone tracking the situation would have known that an attack was coming, probably sooner rather than later. Careless assessments and the attitude that the most dangerous enemy came from within almost guaranteed that outside enemies could operate in a less restricted environment. We all know how that worked out.
At this point, however, the stakes are even higher than they were at the dawn of the new millennium. The economic recession, increasingly polarized political climate and paranoia on both sides of the political divide could lead to further destabilization of American society in the case of a terrorist campaign, no matter where it came from. If the recent past is any indication of what leads to domestic terrorism, the current administration’s renewed focus on domestic opponents suggests that we will see acts from either domestic radicals responding to government provocation or foreign terrorists taking advantage of the lower level of scrutiny.
So rather than take sides, I’d suggest that men take a cautious look at the situation as it evolves, and prepare for a tense few years. Personally, I’d recommend avoiding engagement with the primary actors on either side of the debate, acting in our own self-interest and living according to the principle that “the last man standing wins.”
