“Combating Terrorism” – Another Stab Wound In The First Amendment

The way to defeat the First Amendment is not to cut it off at once, but to make it bleed to death from a thousand wounds. The government does this not by law, but by funding. It creates a military industrial complex that possesses a high demand for studies and plans and white papers and “research” (and I use quote marks because I am being sarcastic) about issues of importance to the state. Once you have this nexus of think tanks and government departments and NGOs, then all you need to do is create an environment of gossip.

Yes, all it takes is gossip. By pumping out a number of documents that redefine free speech as “low level terrorism” and redefine loyalty to the constitution as “violent extremism” the First Amendment can be neutralized in a word-driven military coup.


“A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about ‘far right’ groups such as the ‘anti-federalist’ movement, which supports ‘civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.’ The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled ‘Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.’… It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as ‘a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.’… The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent ‘far right,’ and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past. ‘While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.’ The report adds: ‘While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.’”

I’m not going to respond to this transparent attempt to criminalize political opinions. It is one of several such reports that has come out and its objective is to create a monolithic bullying culture that can justify the use of force on people who do not submit to the liberal paradigm. It is a manifesto for those who, in the future, will kill Americans for being non-statist conservatives or libertarians or Christians.

But I notice that the perspective the Washington Time’s article is completely naïve. It also says:

“The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence… ‘A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: ‘If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.’ ‘Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?’ the staffer said.”

But anyone who reads in the newspaper about Libya or Syria knows that we actually use terrorists and fund them to overturn other nations. The point of the “war on terror” was never primarily about really defeating terrorism overseas. The point was to have a popular support for indefinite detention, Presidential kill lists of American citizens, drone attacks, warrantless wiretaps, and all the other tools of the totalitarian state to be used on American citizens. Now that it is all in place, it is time to redefine terrorism as loyalty to the Constitution and love for the American Republic.

We’ve known for at least three years that the Pentagon considers protesting to be “low level terrorism.”

The noose is around our necks. Are we still going to pretend that it landed there by accident?