What you have are armed bands of reactionary, fundamentalist, authoritarian groups, many of whom have proven willing and able to carry out acts of terrorism against all sorts of targets, whether government buildings, or Planned Parenthood clinics, or banks.
However, what you don't see is an organized, systematic government backlash against these militia groups, despite their hostility (and declarations to overthrow) the US government! What's wrong with this picture?
In the US, even the intimation of being associated with Communism justifies harsh reprisals. The US has, in its history, consistently purged left-wing radicalism wherever it's arisen. The Red Scare of 1919-20, for example, the McCarthy Era of the early 50s, and the COINTELPRO operations through the early 70s. All of these showed an organized effort on the part of the feds to infiltrate and destroy popular radical groups whenever they appeared.
In fact, with the Criminal Anarchy and Syndicalism Laws, you find the US government specifically outlawed these left-wing political ideas, specifying that if you used or even talked of "violent overthrow of the government" you would suffer the full penalty of law.
Yet you don't see this kind of concerted action taken against reactionary groups -- that is, your hate groups, your neo-nazi groups, your reactionary militias. Rather, you find the FBI and BATF curiously confused as to how to deal with these groups. They say they need to wait until a criminal offense has been committed before they can act.
"The FBI leads the fight against domestic terrorism, but can't legally investigate radical groups until criminal activity is suspected." (Bill Morlin, from the Spokesman-Review ).
However, according to the laws they apply against left-wingers, the feds can act against them! Why the double standard? Why do the Feds only see Reds?
The US has shown itself to be willing and able to smash indigenous leftist radicalism wherever it appeared. But right-wing reactionaries continually evade government attacks, to the extent that the two most famous attacks, at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, are the Alamos of the American reactionary movement.
However, leftists have undergone so many events far worse than Waco, it's incredible that while militias bomb and terrorize, their crimes are treated not as political offenses (as they would absolutely be in these were committed by left-wingers), but are simply considered normal crimes.
As a result, the indigenous leftist movement in the US was destroyed, whereas rightist reactionaries have flourished in the comparatively lenient atmosphere.
Jailed militia leader Walter Thody: "We're willing to do virtually anything that has to be done because we are in a state of war, and those who are still active out there know that. War rules are in effect, which means you can kill, you can take the enemy's property and do whatever is necessary to stop the activities of the enemy.''
Charles Barbee, another militia leader, has said: "If the federal government sends in their armies to put women and children to death again, we will respond and put as many federal agents to death as possible.''
The above comments alone, had they been made by left-wingers, would doubtless involve shrill cries from the media (and government) about a "leftist conspiracy" which would necessitate enormous countermeasures (which, by now, are standard operating procedure with the government). Yet here's a representative response they give:
"I don't want it to appear to be some nationwide conspiracy or anything more grave than the charging documents show,'' [US Attorney William] Wilmoth said. "As far as we could tell, it was localized.'' (on a militia plot to blow up a West Virginia federal fingerprint database facility).
The above response is typical of federal authorities when dealing with right-wing political crimes. After all, it was right-wingers who blew up the building at Oklahoma City -- and yet we never saw calls to deport militia groups. In fact, the investigation stayed focused on McVeigh -- never were any calls for conspiracy raised.
Yet when the Galleanists (Italian anarchists) went on a bombing spree (killing no one, although certainly trying), the US government responded by a massive series of reprisals and deportations, the infamous Palmer Raids, which smashed indigenous leftist radicalism in the US.
Now, if the bombing of Oklahoma City had been instigated by left-wingers, or by minorities, you can be certain that the full fury and power of the federal government would be brought down on the "conspiracy."
The same thing applies with hate speech -- the sole purpose of hate speech is to hurt and ultimately destroy minority groups; to terrorize them and make them go away, or incite fellow thinkers to hurt and attack these people. Yet we see that this type of speech is protected by the First Amendment.
However, if you speak out about syndicalism, or anarchism, this type of speech can land you in the slammer, as many a left-winger has discovered.
So hate speech is okay, in government eyes, as is seditious speech by right-wingers, but if left-wingers engage in seditious speech, then they get jailed and fined. It's a complete double standard reflecting the bias of the government.
It isn't a conspiracy; rather, it's that there isn't much difference between a right-wing militia group and a right-wing federal agent, which leads to the double standard. Militiamen hate and seek to destroy communism; same with your federal agents.
We'll see how this develops, but the sure thing is that it is far safer to be a right-wing "extremist" or reactionary than it is to be a left-wing radical.
Here is an interesting article on militias, courtesy of the Covert Action Quarterly. Return to Anarchy for Anybody