Conservative, White Nationalist, and Christian Terrorism in the USA

Before 9/11, the worst terrorist incident was Oklahoma City.

If you feel threatened by wahabbis, but you do not feel threatened by the klan, ask yourself why. My point is not that the fundamentalist muslims are not a threat, but that fundamentalist American patriots are.

Some here on RoR -- and Objectivists and Libertarians generally -- feel the same affinity for the militias that so-called "moderate" muslims feel for their extremists: they have the right idea, but they go too far.

This thread is only a warning via catalog of the attacks on the American government carried out by rightwing extremists.

It is a false dichotomy to assert that either superpatriots or muslims are the terrorist threat. Both are credible threats. Which is "worse"? I have to ask, "By what standard, 'worse'?"

We have threads here warning about the dangers of centralized banking and quantum mechanics. Are they not valid caveats? Why does this thread attract rancorous attacks? Is it because there are conservative white nationalist christian terrorists within objectivism?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/11, 7:57am)

Post 61

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 2:50pm

Ominous Parallels!

Again, this is a repeated assertion, no matter how plausible - and conveniently distracting - of moral equivalence. And everyone knows that Jose "Abdullah El Muhajir" Padilla had nothing to do with Oklahoma. White supremacists do exist, and Hitler, (according to the left, the only ever genocidal dictator) but they have no mainstream support, and no current state support. Jihad, with its 13 century legacy is another matter. It is has mainstream and state support among its practitioners and advocates. Iran, not Idaho, is threatening us with these:

Post 62

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 5:40am

I could say that I "feel threatened" that I'll be killed a shark. It is true to a degree (when I'm in the ocean)... If I see a shark, I'm out of there.

I could say that I "feel threatened" that I'll be run over by a vehicle when stepping into the street. It is true to a degree... that is I have made it a habit to look both ways and not take chances.

Michael says,

Both are credible threats. Which is "worse"? I have to ask, "By what standard, 'worse'?"

Well, sharks kill people. And pedestrians get run over and killed. The very word "credible" gives us a hint - not just as "is this logical as a possiblity?" but also what is the probability? How many people have been killed by sharks? How many are likely to be?

The other main factor in risk evaluation is the cost to make good if the risk is realized. The standards Michael is asking for are simple: Multiply a reasonable measure of the probability of the event occuring times the estimated magnitude of the damage resulting (actually it's a little more complicated with factoring in cost of mitigation, prevention, etc., but not enough to change the fundamentals.)

That being the case it's clear that an article that put forth our home-grown terrorists in the context of Jihadists is likely to raise a fire storm of attacks from everyone who immediately see the difference in magnitude. So, it has nothing to do with the true facts that Michael provides along the way (e.g., people have been killed by the KKK, by abortion clinic attacks, etc.)

Michael says,

We have threads here warning about the dangers of centralized banking and quantum mechanics. Are they not valid caveats? Why does this thread attract rancorous attacks?

Yes, they may be valid caveats, but they were not put forth in a way that implicitly contrasted them in magnitude of danger with something else while ignoring that that IS what one is doing. People felt like an intellectual end-run was underway and common-sense being flaunted without justification. Michael is being disengenious in asking "Why does this thread attract rancorous attacks?" He is too smart not to already know why.

And suggestions that there are "conservative white nationalist christian terrorists within objectivism" is wrong-headed. It is not a valid form of argument in the absence of specific evidence and it is not good to use the word "objectivism" rather than "self-proclaimed objectivists" - so as to be clear as to whether one is talking about some people that really aren't Objectivists versus anything that would imply that the philosophy of Objectivism could justify terrorists of any kind.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/13, 6:15pm)

Post 63

Monday, July 14, 2008 - 12:45pm

Well said, Steve. I appreciate what you said about assessing threat. It is primarily a function of probability and magnitude of damage, along with some other factors you mention.

I might make the point that magnitude, under Objectivist philosophy, would probably mean the impact that it has on one's self. This view would be in opposition to the raw amount of damage caused or number of lives lost - what something like Utilitarianism would look at. This distinction is only important because we don't worry as much about a potential terrorist attack in North Korea as we do about the same attack in our home country.

1: I don't worry as much about stubbing my toe as I do about getting in a car crash, even though the likelihood of stubbing my toes is much greater. This is because stubbing my toe is fairly insignificant to my happiness.
2: I don't worry as much about an object from space destroying earth as I do about breaking my arm while on a step-ladder, even though the meteorite would kill me. This is because I believe the probability of a meteor hitting earth in my lifetime to be extremely low.

Michael, no one is saying that these threats are mutually exclusive. No one is saying that right-wing terrorists are not a threat. Put down your club and listen to reason.

If you truly believe that Islam is less of a threat to my life in terms of probability, I'd be interested to hear why. Case studies are nice, but they don't show frequency. You might start by refuting some of the figures in posts 34 and 49.

Post 64

Monday, July 14, 2008 - 9:22pm

Thanks, Joseph. Your point on Objectivism versus Utilitarianism is well taken. (In the case of my post, I was thinking from the point of an insurance company, or a project manager's planning approach - just to get my mind in the right context for grasping the process of judging risk. I should have said something about that but it didn't occur to me.)

Post 65

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 11:21pm

Steve, yes, of course, it is obvious that this Topic is a contrary to the constant bashing of Islam and Muslims that some here engage in without question.

I just finished a first carefully annotated reading of Aginst the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk by Peter L. Bernstein. As he pointed out, more people are afraid of being hit by lightening than the objective facts should warrant. (Having lived on the Florida Atlantic coast, I know that lightening can strike from a clear blue sky.) But what are the empirical facts, and what theory explains them?

Religionists who make usury a sin and who embrace gold currency are common enough. See here:

Launching the Islamic Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham in UAE The traditional Muslim coins and the deeper significance of their reappearance as currency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar
and here
http://www.islamicmint.com/

I point also to the cogent aphorism of Ernst Samhaber in Merchants Make History that a good merchant does not argue religion with his clients. While the trader might eschew such arguments, that deflection is one-sided. That side is the one we share and the one that others draw a line in the sand against.

I agree with you 100% that we "be clear as to whether one is talking about some people that really aren't Objectivists versus anything that would imply that the philosophy of Objectivism could justify terrorists of any kind." That is the point of this Topic.

Islam is fallacious on many grounds, fundamental and metaphysical as well as moral and political. Those errors in thinking are not limited to people far away, though, being far away, those people are easier to hate and fear.

While I do not sanction my destroyers, neither do I interrogate every clerk at every gas station before I fill up the tank. Yesterday, I had a nice lunch courtesy of a numismatist who announced that he is a Christian and a conservative. Should I have rebuked him, that would have been counter-productive on many grounds. He did not have a gun. In fact, he was a doctor, as, indeed, was at least one suicide bomber. (See here.) Do we codemn all doctors?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/15, 11:28pm)

Post 66

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:02am

Michael, I have a copy of Against the Gods on my shelf. I loved his perspective and the core ideas about the place risk estimation has played in history - but I have only skimmed the book and then put it back on the shelf with the intention of pulling it down sometime in the future for a good read.

I lived aboard a sailboat for a while in Fort Lauderdale and I have sailed up the inland waterway from there to Annapolis. Some my sailing has been in the Bahamas, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico and sometimes put me in lightning-infested passing weather fronts that were terrifying (Imagine sitting inside the base of a giant lightning rod that is not properly grounded to the surrounding water.) How's that for a context for risk? I'm not making argument, just remembering those lightning storms.

I don't buy any argument that our future values or physical well-being are at greater risk from home-grown nut jobs than jihadists. (Unless 'home-grown nut jobs' includes elected officials.)

The existence of posts that could rightly be seen as "muslim basing" doesn't make change that. Besides, I wouldn't think that an effective argument to improper attacks on muslims is made by listing of all the homegrown nuts as if they presented a greater risk.

I think you enjoy tweaking the sensibilities of the forum members on occasion with posts that you know will raise lots of yelps. And then you make this innocent cry of "Who me? What'd I say?" But that is just my imagination of what's happening and I often enjoy reading your posts even if I'm not in agreement. There are many people, myself included, that would benefit by noticing how much you get away with (read "effective" if you prefer) by polished, humorous delivery, creativity and originality.

Post 67

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 6:34am

Steve, there is a nuance here.

Whether and to what extent so-called "homegrown nut jobs" are mathematically as risky to your well-being as jihadists is, indeed, what prompted this discussion. I do not see much difference between the threats.

When I started his Topic, I also launched another terrorism Topic, "America's Most Dangerous Domestic Terrorist Group." It is about the ELF, the Earth Liberation Front. See here for that Topic. In my term paper for the School of Staff and Command (for which I earned an A+), I devoted some time to the leftwing clam that ELF is the victim of a "green scare" analogous the "red scares" of the 1920s and 1950s. I pointed to the fact that the rightwing militias and law enforcement officers often share common religions, traditional political values, family structures, etc. I make that same case here in this Topic because in that other topic about ELF, only Ted Keer came to protest just once -- and at that demanded that ELF be considered with the conservatives.

My point is that the Guns, God and Gold crowd finds a ready home here. The less godly of them enjoy Objectivist philosophy. And as proof of that, I point to the fact that the ELF discussion did not draw the same responses that this discussion did.

Steve Wolfer wrote above:
"I don't buy any argument that our future values or physical well-being are at greater risk from home-grown nut jobs than jihadists. (Unless 'home-grown nut jobs' includes elected officials.) "

That is precisely the anti-government sentiment that is not deeply thought out among the fundamentalist conservatives and superpatriots -- as well as within the radical left, which views government as a tool of capitalism. I know that you were kidding, in a sense. You meant only that we give up our freedoms before they are taken from us. You meant only that once elected, those in office follow an agenda different from their campaign rhetoric. You meant only that our democratic-republican constitutions engage separation of powers, checks and balances and enumerated powers to minimize government power, yet, after 200+ years, government at all levels encroaches on our lives in ways unexpected back then, but accepted as normal now. You meant much more. What you said was only a quip -- or so I took it. I hesitate to condemn you as a potential terrorist because, in fact, you seem pretty normal, not overly aggressive in your words, no ringing rebukes, etc.

... and yet... to my knowledge, no one is recorded as having engaged Timothy McVeigh in a discussion, either. He didn't talk much. It's always the quiet ones.

By the way, Ted Keer's suggestion that ELF be considered a rightwing threat is not to be dismissed. Consider this interesting confluence of opinion.
G. Edward Griffin's anti-UN monograph, The Fearful Master, quotes George Washington:"Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

(According to Liberty Tree, this is a false quote.
See http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/george+washington
According to Wikiquote:
"As quoted in The Cry for Justice: An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest (1915) Edited by Upton Sinclair, p. 305. No earlier or original source for this often quoted statement is cited by Sinclair, or has yet been found in research done for Wikiquote. "

Hitler's utopia, like that of the eco-terrorists and rightwing militias, was a green world of pastoral estates and cottages, without compound interest, international trade, or heavy industry. Consider that both the far left and far right invest in strange racial theories and glorification of ethnicity. Those, too, are to be found in Islam which touts the "Arab" over the "Bedouin." Islam, eco-terrorism, rightwing militias... these are all variants of the same retreat from reason and rejection of reality. On the other hand, among Muslims, as among Christians and Kantians, there are reasonable people, who live peaceful lives of productive thought and valuable labor -- in fact, most of them... The destroyers are always a minority, as they must be.

Post 68

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:29pm

Shooting killed two, injured seven; suspect says hatred of liberals was motive

Jim Adkisson, 58, has been charged with first-degree murder. Police said in an affidavit that Adkisson admitted to the shootings and told police the church's liberal teachings prompted him to attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/29/shooting.witness/index.html

Post 69

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 3:31am

The man was not a member of an organized movement of terror. He has no minions. He was a lone loser on a loser's mission.

Post 70

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 5:37pm

TSI: The man was not a member of an organized movement of terror. He has no minions. He was a lone loser on a loser's mission.

That profile applies to many such. That is the reason why we must not relax our vigilance just because of some surface-level similarities between their God-Guns-and-Gold beliefs and mainstream conservativism, including Objectivism.

The ultimate nature of the threats of terrorisms is that they are not organized. You cannot just bomb the capital city and hang the leaders, as in World War II.

Moreoever, the basic philosophy of the American right is one of "lone wolf" individualism and the "lone wolf" attacker is typical of their operations.

Post 71

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 5:54pm

Good luck with that.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 6:23pm

Michael,

You say, "The ultimate nature of the threats of terrorisms is that they are not organized." But they are organized - they have names for their groups, they actually have groups, they meet, they make plans, they have goals, they organize funding, they try to protect the group even when they sacrifice individuals.

Just because they are underground and not a government does not mean they aren't organized.

When you equate the violent behavior of a lone individual with terrorism and with no other criteria you make every paranoid schizophrenic into a terrorist. You are defining by non-essentials. How about this; rabid pit bull kills child in church yard, owner says the pit bull never did like the people at that church. Terrorist? Let us be vigilant.

You report, "suspect says hatred of liberals was motive," but that isn't a plan to use terror as a means to a political end. That is a nutcase, whose psychotic behavior was aligned with whatever ill-formed belief system he happened to have. He could just as well have killed little girls to save them from growing up into harlots - would that make him a Christian terrorist? Or an anti-feminist terrorist? No, just a nut, who became violent, and happened to have some beliefs that became the belief-like clothing draped over his psychotic outburst.

Hey, what about the lone individual who killed the homeless person because his aluminum-foil hat wasn't stopping the messages coming from aliens from outer-space? Alien terrorist?

"...the basic philosophy of the American right is one of "lone wolf" individualism and the "lone wolf" attacker is typical of their operations." When you say "their operations" you are referring to the American right terrorists who form up into groups of one and go wacko and this is somehow related to a basic philosophy of individualism? Come on, Michael, admit it - you just wrote this to troll for some reaction - right?

Just out of curiosity, have you every popped up and actually admitted something like, 'Okay, I went too far. I hit the post button before letting reason tell me I had typed some nonsense?' Are anarchists (who unlike terrorists can come as lone individuals - and may not be organized) allowed to say something like that?

Post 73

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 6:55pm

What's the Frequency, Michael?

Steve, you are naively underestimating the unorganized anti-alien terrorist threat. Why, right here in NYC Dan Rather was attacked by a lone wolfer for his part in the alien transmission conspiracy.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/30, 10:05pm)

Post 74

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:00pm

Jim Adkisson read books by Savage, O'reilly and Hannity!
Some of these same conservatives need to look at this event and take a look at the hate they preach on a daily basis. Below is the story from Knoxnews.
O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list4-page letter outlines frustration, hatred of 'liberal movement'
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/jim-adkisson-read-books-savage-oreilly-and-hannity

July 29, 2008
Jim Adkisson's library
During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands on the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets.
...
Still seized three books from Adkisson's home, including "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity.
http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2008/07/jim-adkissons-library.html

We make the rhetorical demand that "moderate muslims" denounce wahabbism, yet, here we have an on-going debate about whether or not rightwing terrorism even exists. I started a symmetrical Topic about the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI called America's most dangerous domestic terrorism group. That got no argument. It got no argument for the complete lack of tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping commie pinko globally warmed over liberals here on RoR. That is easy to understand.

On the other hand ...

Post 75

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 11:31pm

In Post 9, Michael says,

"Those who choose evil typically do so by default, by not thinking, by beginning with the evasions, repressions and blank-outs that lead to socially destructive and ultimately self-destructive acts. Sometimes -- especially in the modern world -- people who choose evil find convenient excuses nicely laid out as ideologies, religions and philosophies. Nazis, communists and wahabbis are easy examples."

Then he points out that one can read books with strong political POV, advocate for political positions, or even hold religious beliefs - without setting off bombs.

Yet here he is now in post 74 where having a copy of "The O'Reilly Factor" on your book self means you might be a right-wing terrorist, and having the Koran on your shelf might mean you are Jihadist. Would having "Atlas Shrugged" on your self mean you might be an Objectivist terrorist?

Why conflate people that have violent mental breakdowns with conservative, white nationalist and Christian terrorists - or with any terrorists? Is there some kind of affinity an anarchist feels for a beserker? Is there a reason to harm the definition of "terrorism" by removing any identification of essential traits?

Was there really a debate on this thread about even the existence of right wing terrorism, or did people debate about its size and the threat it poses in today's context?

It's cute the way you do this poor, poor me at the end of some of your posts. Like your last post, where you go, "I started a symmetrical Topic... It got no argument."

But then the sentence turns, and out comes the ominous, veiled damnation of the rest of us - we are all __________ (you don't say, but I guess it is something like 'secret, right wing, war-mongering, lovers of Sean Hannity - or something like that.)

------------

There was a software project manager that talked about the bozo-bit and the danger it represents. He said, you can be in a meeting and you hear this person make a really stupid statement and almost automatically, somewhere in your mind, you flip the bozo-bit on for that person. And from that point forward, you won't take in his statements - you'll just kind of skim past them. He said that was a danger - but only because you might be premature in your judgment and lose good input from that person thereafter. Michael, you push people towards flipping the bit when there is no need to. I could think of lots of ways to talking about home grown terrorists that would share common ground on an Objectivist forum - why do you choose not to? Is anarchy a state of mind that throws out even the rule of purpose?

Post 76

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 1:56am

"Is there some kind of affinity an anarchist feels for a beserker?"

Brilliant.

Post 77

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 2:09am

Bozo Bits and Chat Bots

The Turing Test, in a fit of subjectivity, teaches that the proof of consciousness is the ability to trick other people into believing you are conscious.

It's even more miraculous when a conscious being can trick other people into believing the truth, that he is conscious. Visibility - what else does any of us posting here seek?

Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that the idea of the Turing Test is to provoke. They become terroristic chat bots, rhetorical arsonists lighting little verbal fires. For them the drawback is, of course, that while at first we believed that such voices came from men, once the bozo bit is flipped, we may decide they weren't conscious after all.

Post 78

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 3:25am

Michael,

Equivocation is dishonest.

Post 79

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 5:02pm