Life In Wonderland – Part II (Actually Part I)

May 2, 2009 – The government has published a comprehensive dictionary of potential “extremists.” And guess what? We’re all in it.

By The Cerebral Aesthetic Vagabond

It turns out that the report cited in Life in Wonderland was published about a week after another report titled Domestic Extremism Lexicon, likewise published by the Department of Homeland Security. The earlier report is a dictionary of sorts containing 52 “definitions” of extremists, evidently also serving as a warmup for the latter report, yet the earlier report includes some equally inflammatory insights, such as:

aboveground – A term used to describe extremist groups or individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as law-abiding.

In other words, anyone who operates “overtly” and abides by the law is inherently suspicious.

alternative media – A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

In other words, any media forum that offers “interpretations” that differ from those of the official propaganda organs is considered “alternative,” and presumably “extremist.” After all, this report is titled the Domestic Extremism Lexicon.

anarchist extremism – A movement of groups or individuals who advocate a society devoid of government structure or ownership of individual property. Many embrace some of the radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements. Anarchist extremists advocate changing government and society through revolutionary violence.

So if one opposes the expansion of government into every nook and cranny of our lives, or opposes the clearly economically destructive globalization agenda, they are now considered an extremist. In other words, if one is anti-fascist, one is an extremist.

animal rights extremism – A movement of groups or individuals who ascribe equal value to all living organisms and seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals. They believe animals are sentient creatures that experience emotional, physical, and mental awareness and deserve many of the same rights as human beings; for example, the right to life and freedom to engage in normal, instinctive animal behavior.

Horror of horrors, people who are compassionate toward animals are extremists! What does that make Buddhists?

anti-immigration extremism – A movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.

Oh my god! If we oppose extending social benefits to “illegal aliens” we are extremists? I had no idea. Next we’ll be considered extremists for wanting to put criminals in jail. Such a stance makes perfect sense, actually, when one examines the characters of those running the country today.

green anarchism – A movement of groups or individuals who combine anarchist ideology with an environmental focus. They advocate a return to a pre-industrial, agrarian society, often through acts of violence and terrorism.

Violent, “green,” anarchists? I have yet to run across anyone who advocates violence as a means to return to a sustainable model of existence. Nevertheless, advocating sustainable lifestyles is apparently now extremist.

Jewish extremism – A movement of groups or individuals of the Jewish faith who are willing to use violence or commit other criminal acts to protect themselves against perceived affronts to their religious or ethnic identity.

I’m surprised this one slipped past AIPAC’s censors. This sounds like a subset of a broader form of extremism known as Zionism.

patriot movement – A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.

Oh, how could anyone support the “extremist” ideals of that awful American Revolution! What’s next, people who support the ideals of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to be regarded as extremists?

rightwing extremism – A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Reject federal authority in favor of state authority? You mean, as in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Conclusion

What is startlingly clear about this report, its successor and the Missouri MIAC report is that people who support the Constitution, limited government and individual freedom are considered extremists today. That should really come as no surprise because for a long time government has seen itself as distinct from the people. Hence, any effort by the people to resist the encroachment of government into their lives must necessarily be viewed as threatening by the government.

What is also increasingly clear is that we live in a fascist state, in which the interests of the government and big business are inextricably intertwined. Each new government report of this nature makes it ever clearer that resisting the goals of big business is as much an affront to the new world order as resisting the goals of government itself.

Finally, this “lexicon” gives “authorities” the tools with which to declare anyone an extremist. It mentions “left wing” extremists, as well as “right wing” extremists; “aboveground” extremists and “underground” extremists (what other “ground” is there?); “lone terrorists” and organized groups; “primary targeting,” “secondary targeting” and “tertiary targeting.”

Remember that movie, Six Degrees of Separation? By declaring people who attempt to “influence” “tertiary” targets to be extremists, virtually anybody can be declared an extremist. Do you complain about the high price of food to the checkout clerk? Then you are attempting to influence a tertiary target and therefore you must be an extremist opposed to the globalist agenda of the grocery store corporation.

The frightening thing about these reports is that they are disseminated to underlings who may not possess the wisdom or experience to use good judgment in applying this information. As one observer put it, these reports serve to “radicalize” the police against the citizenry. One need only note the epidemic of tasering citizens for the most trivial and absurd reasons to see this “radicalization” in practice.

The End