DoD Training Manual: Today’s Terrorists Talk About Making The World a Better Place. How Nice!

According to a new DoD training manual, people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.

The document defines extremists as ‘a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.’” Then, it goes on to say that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” So, terrorists are people who seek to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights, but potential terrorists are those who talk of individual liberties and making the world a better place? The lengths to which the government and hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center will go to present propaganda as truth are astonishing.

Equally astonishing is the mention of our Founding Fathers as extremist groups, on par with terrorists. It says “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

This is another example of a long string of propaganda by the government to discredit liberty-loving individuals and organizations and brand them as radical extremists who are likely to commit terrorism. (see here, herehere and here). The government wants nothing more than to expand its power over its citizens by maliciously branding large domestic groups as terrorists or potential terrorists so as to create a non-existent terrorist threat in our own backyard. This is how they can justify and get away with spying on hundreds of millions of Americans communications; they create a “terrorist threat” where there is none, and then usurp vast swaths of extra-Constitutional powers to deal with this “unprecedented” threat that doesn’t even exist in the first place. Then, when they falsely claim that the non-existent threat is getting worse, they build off of previously unconstitutional and immoral laws as precedent for their new grasps at power that are viciously destructive of our civil liberties, but are okay because we could not have these civil liberties at all if they weren’t protecting us. The old adage about liberty and security is being turned on its head; it now reads ‘We cannot have any liberties without total security.’ We must be forced to be free. What a load of rubbish.

Government Propaganda

The Concord, New Hampshire police department requested an armored vehicle to deal with “domestic terrorist” threats. Whom are these domestic terrorists? The libertarian ‘Free Staters‘! Any government intent on preserving its power will inevitably engage in a propaganda effort determined to label any group that opposes its ever expansive power as a threat; in the 21st century, this means slandering these groups as terrorists. It’s especially ironic when the groups being labeled as potential terrorists are libertarians whose central axiom is the non-aggression principle which condemns the use of aggressive force!

The application reads:

The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type. We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges. Outside of officially organized groups, several homegrown clusters that are anti-government and pose problems for law enforcement agencies.

It is not even propaganda to state that New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism has been of the domestic type, it is a downright lie. New Hampshire has never, and will likely never, experience a terrorist attack, so the thought that they have “experience” with domestic terrorism is a falsehood. They are one of fifteen states who has not convicted a single individual since 9/11. They are also “one of 15 states and territories that the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. intelligence agencies assess as having no specific foreign or domestic terrorism threat…and is one of 18 states that have no metropolitan area that has been designated by the federal government as “high-threat, high-density” with regard to acts of terrorism.”

I’m sure they’ve actively been engaging in surveillance of groups they believe to be terrorist threats, which in all seriousness they claim libertarian groups to be, but this in no way amounts to any “experience” with terrorism. If this amounts to experience, I can watch my neighbor cut his lawn and claim to have experience with terrorism too, since based on his clear history of violence (toward grass) I think he could be a potential terrorist.

This scheme isn’t in any way original. Not too long ago, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point published a report concluding that today’s anti-federalist groups were potential terrorist groups. It is a typical fear-mongering tactic by which the government finds any excuse it can to protect its own neck (figuratively) and scare everyone into a police state. Governments act on the commonly-held democratic viewpoint that “we are the government.” They rely on us to believe that a threat to the government is a threat to the citizenry; that these individuals are treasonous or are traitors (see Edward Snowden). In reality, there is a sharp disconnect between our own security and the security of government power which they will never acknowledge and are deathly afraid we will find out. This is why anytime someone advocates cutting spending anywhere, they malign these views as harmful and dangerous (see Christ Christie). This trend is most pronounced in military spending, but happens across the board.

 Propaganda campaigns have always been determined to paint an antagonistic picture of those “outsiders” who either don’t conform to the typical government ideal of a servile citizenry or are physically different. Whether it’s Nazi propaganda through WWII of the Jewish “threat,” American xenophobia, or racism, the campaigns rely on ignorance or just plain stupidity in order for the message to engross the masses. Don’t be so naive and fall prey to these delusions.