
There are more troubling signs of a growing fascist movement not only domestically, but internationally. It seems that the problem is far more advanced than I would have originally thought. Once again, the sum total of recent history (Clinton impeachment, Bush v. Gore, the 2004 election), current social conditions, rising street level right wing movements, disaffected soldiers coming back from Iraq, the history of fascist movements, and the piss poor track record of declining powers, paints a very grim picture of a growing fascist movement both at home and abroad. The Democrats will not protect you. The only way to stop them is through militant action in the streets.
I had recently reported on a particularly disgusting group called The Oath Keepers. I have yet to see a group quite as dangerous as I consider the Oath Keepers. Groups like the 9-12 Project and the Tea Party movement certainly have all the right moves- nationalist imagery, rhetoric about returning to a non-existent Golden Age, racist code words, inflammatory propaganda, and open calls for street fighting. Further, based on both my personal encounters and media reports their base of support seems to be from the Golden Triangle of Fascism- infuriated members of the middle class, lumpenized proles, and stepped on non-commissioned officers.

However, the Oath Keepers are even more troubling than the aforementioned groups who in comparison could easily be laughed off. The Oath Keepers are particularly troublesome because of their strong base among active and inactive military, as well as law enforcement, always fertile ground for fascist recruitment. Also troubling is the especially shrill pitch of their rhetoric. Again, their list of orders they won’t obey isn’t troubling… if you think that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim communist preparing to confiscate guns, force people in gay marriage, and have United Nations troops penning all resistance into internment camps. For my own part, I’m far more concerned about my liberties being taken away at gunpoint by people like the Oath Keepers, or a naked military coup d’etat.
Klintron made a really interesting point over at Mutate that these people were (un)surprisingly silent as George W. Bush continued the gutting of the Constitution that began under Clinton. It’s also worth noting that they make no comment on not arresting people for the non-violent drug offenses that make up most of the prison population, disproportionately effecting Blacks and the poor. For my own part, I wonder precisely what the response to groups like the Oath Keepers would be to a right-wing military coup that ousted the President.

An excellent analysis of why the Oath Keepers are troubling can be found here. I also find this article sent to me by BSG ally Tate to be worth a read. It seems that there are active duty soldiers in Iraq wearing tabs showing support for the Oath Keepers. What will become of these soldiers when they return to a place where they can’t shoot people with relative impunity? How would the military brass react if soldiers began wearing tabs reading “Workers of the World, Unite!”? What are we to make of the “three percenters” referred to in one of the tabs? The Oath Keepers website tells us that a “three percenter” is:
“The narrowest definition is that three percenters are hard-line gun owners who are done backing up and will not comply with more infringements of their right to bear arms. A broader definition would be that they are hard-line Americans who are done backing up and will not comply with further infringement of any of their rights. It also alludes to the three percent of the colonists who took to the field against the King during the Revolution, and the estimation that at least three percent of modern Americans will actively fight, if it comes to it, to preserve liberty.”

Keeping in mind the laundry list of things considered “infringement of rights” by the broader fascist and proto-fascist right- gay marriage, integrated public schools, teaching of science in public schools- this should give anyone concerned with civil liberties concern. Further, What the “three percenters” are saying is that three percent of the American population has no problem with imposing its will, at gunpoint, on the rest of us. These aren’t loons meeting in a basement, discussing radical ideas among themselves. These are highly trained men and women with the means to do to me and you precisely what they accuse the government of secretly plotting to do to them. And by all accounts the military is riddled with them.
Again, if nothing were happening in the real world, this would still be cause for concern. But there are things happening out here in the real world. Repeated provocations and threats against civilian government, a military brass which increasingly forgets that it is subject to civilian overview, and a number of street level movements which have no qualms about resorting to violence against workers and open discussion are things which cannot be ignored.

Nor can we ignore the role of the media in emboldening these political vermin. As a final note, I would like to draw your attention to the head of the racist, fascist, anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying British National Party and his recent appearance on the BBC. To give some context, this would be like inviting the head of the KKK to speak on 60 Minutes as if he were the leader of a legitimate political movement and not a terrorist group directed at Blacks, homosexuals, and foreigners. For his own part, Nick Griffin seems to have a better understanding of the PR coup he has pulled off than do the people at the BBC. It doesn’t really matter if he is savaged with questions. The BBC has effectively said that fascism is as legitimate a point of view as liberalism or conservatism- both of which anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I abhor. But at least the Brits have some clue how to deal with it.
Fasten your seat belts, kids. The 2010s are going to be a bumpy ride, indeed.










Posts
Also troubling is the fact that modern weapons, and warfare tactics could easily allow a 3% to wage a very devesating campaign of violence against a majority it opposed, especially if they had the tacit approval of standing military, and law enforcement. Paramilitaries, as you pointed out before Nick, are what keeps the rightist terror going in South America (trained by whom?) I wonder what perecentage it took to plunge the former Yugoslavia into civil war? I’ve seen the proliferation of small arms, like the ones readily available all over the US, blamed for the cycles of violence, and warlordism in Africa. Arms makers flood that continent with assault rifles, and other small arms, sow chaos, and reap a profit. I’ve had relatives in the south told in all seriousness that their neighbors will do their best to protect them in the coming “race war”, as if this it’s a done deal already.
| October 22, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
During the weeks following hurracaine katrina the bush administration allowed the confiscation of legaly owned firearms from people who were trying to protect their property and belonging’s. This group of people are made up of police current and retired and current and retired military . there is a wide variety of races and faiths represented by the oath keepers.I personely am glad to see that any law enforcment officer would be willing to disobey an order to try and take a legaly owned firearm from any american and what is so bad about refusing to obey an order to confiscate food or property form it’s rightful owner.. These sound more like the acts of a logical compassionate person than a facist. a facist would take legaly owned firearms . a facist would try and take property that did not belong to him.why is it every time some one in america tries to do something to protect our 2cnd amendment rights and our 4th amendment rights they are automaticly branded a gun nut or racist.I know just as many black people who own legal firearms as i do white people who own legal firearms. protecting our property from seizure and standing up for the bill of rights and constitution is not the act of a facist but labeling people who protect those rights as dangerous is the exact thing a facist would do to gain control of the publics opinion of any one standing up for freedom and the right to privacy and to bear arms and petition the govt.
| October 23, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Something can definitely be said for those willing to abide by the constitution. And I don’t personally believe that most of these people within these groups see themselves as anything but upstanding Americans in the traditions of their forefathers and founders. That said, the problem is the rise of these neuvo-militia and psuedo-populist groups has been alarmingly fast. The opportunity for charismatic leaders to cease control and direct even a small sect of followers into violence could be the spark. The current situation is a powder keg, and most people are still reeling from the rapid pace of disasters and changes that have taken place since the dawn of the millenium and somewhat prior. There are basically 4 groups of people in regards to the changing landscape.
1.Those with their heads in the sand still (a vast majority)
2. Those on the “left” or center, some center-right who have realized the gravity and are on the lookout for troubles/solutions ahead
3. The formerly disinterested, largely politically uneducated mass now flocking to psuedo-populism after realizing that the world has undergone major changes (this group is the most important to sway, along with those still denying reality)
4.The budding racists, sexists, intolerant facsists. They are a very small minority, smaller than 3%. The problem with this group is that their insane arguments and worldviews now have a wider hearing, due to the breakdown in progress of the mass media machine.
Now more than ever, talk to people. Educate them, and do your best not to turn them off lest they go listen to the guy with a gun and a plan.
| October 23, 2009 @ 7:48 am
Greg you said “4.The budding racists, sexists, intolerant facsists. They are a very small minority, smaller than 3%. ”
I say- “BULLSHIT!” what fucking country have you been living in? Scratch the very thin veneer of alot of these pigfuckers, and you’ll see an eruption of bigotry from a to z.
| October 23, 2009 @ 9:46 am
I could be off on that less than 3% remark, but I firmly believe that the majority of Americans, although they may espouse popular racist sterotypes, are not hardcore racists or fascists in any sense. I believe that even those who might label themselves “racist” or right-wing, are not the type of people who would commit violence…..on their own. Thats why advocating better ideas is so important right now. The less than 3% are the totally unrepentant assholes. They have always been here, the danger is in labeling people on the fence facsists and lumping them in with the true nutjobs.
| October 23, 2009 @ 10:25 am
I dunno. I’m just not buyin’ it. Your attempt to associate bigoted, xenophobic wackos with this group seems irresponsible. You imply that they’re planning some kind of coup. This is straight from the “About Oathkeepers” page, in the “What We Are Not” section:
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.
We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.
We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.
We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.
– Now, you can play the “they don’t really mean any of that shit” game all day long, but where does that get us? Additionally, I think you’re missing the other major component of the word fascist, which is the corporate state part. Sound familiar?
| October 23, 2009 @ 9:44 am
John: “Additionally, I think you’re missing the other major component of the word fascist, which is the corporate state part. Sound familiar?”
Huh?
Have you been reading the same blog? I don’t get it.
Do you live here in the US? Because even if you’re viewing our situation from some country with extremely state censored media I am uncertain how you could have missed the fact that corporate control of our society is just about complete.
Sarcasm?
| October 23, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Sarcasm indeed. What I meant to imply was that the system the Oath Keepers seem to oppose could just as (maybe more?) easily be labeled as fascist.
| October 23, 2009 @ 10:16 am
I agree with John. If anything, further radicalism amongst these new movements could provoke or serve as the justification for a movement towards an outright police state instead of the police state with due process we have today.
| October 23, 2009 @ 10:29 am
So all the references to the American Revolution are just there for show then? The bit about the three percenters must be equally meaningless, o ye who is easily impressed by rhetoric. And speaking of rhetoric, the corporate state stuff in fascism was not typically part of the rhetoric and only came after the fascists came to power.
Your method of analysis is to talk about what the Oath Keepers “say.” Mine is to talk concretely about their social role and the historical role of fascism. These people were noticeably silent when Bush was leading people into an illegal war. They’re talking about open revolt now that Obama is very cynically talking about giving people health care.
Your analysis of the Oath Keepers is incredibly superficial.
| October 23, 2009 @ 11:37 am
I’m sorry, in my opinion you don’t seem to be able to back up your extreme position of “I had recently reported on a particularly disgusting group called The Oath Keepers. I have yet to see a group quite as dangerous as I consider the Oath Keepers.” with facts. There are certainly dangerous extremist groups out there, but I’m not sure on what basis you are associating this group with the characteristics that you ascribe to them. Certainly your descriptions of them seem to flatly contradict many of their stated principles (admittedly, I’ve never met a member of the Oath Keepers, so I don’t know what other general beliefs they may possess).
“It seems that there are active duty soldiers in Iraq wearing tabs showing support for the Oath Keepers. ” Thanks for backing that up with a reference, but I have to say that I’m skeptical about whether that actually takes place on duty since it would a clear violation of military regulations (believe me the military is strict about uniform regs). The photo could be either a civilian contractor or simply done off duty.
Finally, you try to characterize these people as racist, but perhaps you didn’t realize that the gentleman with the “assault rifle” in your last photo is African-American? (See http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCVideo ). Not that it or any of the photos other than the first one have anything to with the Oath Keepers. You seem to be doing exactly what the folks in the second photo are doing: “If you are not scared you are not paying attention”.
| October 23, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Wow. Their “stated principles.” You people are really impressed by this group’s sugar coated rhetoric. I’m guessing there are a lot of Alex Jones listeners in the mix here.
I put it to everyone here- what do yo think (merely speculating) that the Oath Keepers would do in the face of an open right wing military coup d’etat that ousted Obama and installed a Cheney-Patreaus junta (or whomever you think they might prefer) in its place? What do you think the reaction of the Oath Keepers would be?
| October 23, 2009 @ 11:40 am
No, I’m simply stating that if you are going to cite this group as “particularly disgusting” and that you “have yet to see a group quite as dangerous as I consider the Oath Keepers” then you need to back up those positions with documented facts and rational arguments, not baseless speculation and out-of-context associations.
Please don’t try to smokescreen the issue by pretending that I’m defending the beliefs and objectives of these “Oath Keepers”; I am not. I am just holding you to the same standard that I hold anyone else regardless of their position on an issue or their place on the political spectrum.
| October 23, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
“It’s also worth noting that they make no comment on not arresting people for the non-violent drug offenses that make up most of the prison population, disproportionately effecting Blacks and the poor.”
It’s not only this, but drug suspects have been commonly searched without a warrant. So even if you agree that drugs should be illegal and that the militarization of the drug war is legitimate, you still have to account for the fact that US citizens have been prosecuted and imprisoned based on evidence collected without warrants, and that minorities and the poor have been disproportionately targeted for these searches. Law enforcement has been not only complicit in these searches, but have actively encouraged it and fought for their “right” to do it.
| October 23, 2009 @ 11:05 am
It turns out that at the very least the founder of the Oath Keepers has made public statements against the drug war and the militarization of the police:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2007/01/military-gives-police-parkas-guns.html
I comment on this in the update on my own post about the Oathers here: http://mutateweb.com/archives/2009/10/20/oathkeeper/
| October 24, 2009 @ 11:08 am
There was also a great article on Disinfo about the increase of neo-nazis joining the army to get weapons training and practice killing people. There was military provision about restricting people with tattoos from joining – to prevent gang members from joining. Now that provision has been relaxed and the military recruiters let new recruits explain the motivation behind there tats i.e. swatstikas become Hopi or Hindi peace symbols and Norse or Celtic symbols become merely ethnic pride. Theres a disturbing trend hear folks. Not everone who opposes the government is heroic or even principled. Mussolini railed against the the state before taking it over, Hitler was imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the Weimar Republic and a cadre of Japanese military officers railed against the Mikado for not going far enough in the wars against Russia, Korea and China.
| October 23, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
This tactic was used during the civil war in Serbia/Bosnia/etc. neo-nazi organizations encouraged members to go get combat training by working with various nationalist militias. There were several segments on the cable show “Gangland” about gangs in the military, including one about white supremicists who commited ethnicly motivated murders while enlisted. They had several segments about other gangs in the military as well, one included a segment where a gang member used his marine training to kill several police officers with an assault rifle. They pointed to the tactics he used which he learned in the marines as enabling him to outmanuver and kill several civilian police before he was outnumbered, and killed. These are the same skills that these folks are after.
| October 23, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Patrick Buchanan recently wrote an article connecting the rise of the Oath Keepers to white resentment in the face of multiculturalism: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113463
Oath Keepers linked to the article on their front page.
| October 23, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
What’s really frightening is how little you know about fascism. Fascism is not a finger you use to point at and belittle that which you do not like or agree with. Fascism is the merger of corporate and government power, and in fact the US has been a fascist state for some time. The poster boys for fascist America are Blackwater/Xe, not the Oath Keepers, who are in effect anti-fascist and libertarian. Their other shortcomings from your perspective I won’t comment upon, although the very nature of libertarian thought espouses tolerance of other viewpoints and opinions which one might not necessarily agree, so long as these viewpoints and opinions are not forced on others.
| October 23, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
1) Fascism isn’t any point of view I disagree with. That much should be clear if you’d take fifteen seconds to read the rest of the blog.
2) The US isn’t a fascist state. Such claims are utterly simplistic and dangerous.
3) Blackwater are a possible candidate for fascist movement. As they currently stand, they’re just a mercenary army.
4) There is a long documented link between alleged “libertarians” and the fascist / racist right. Don’t believe me? Four words: Ron Paul Survival Newsletter. Libertarianism was long ago co-opted from gun toting potheads by Christian Nationalists and other assorted shit bags.
| October 23, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
People seem to be missing the fact that what someone sees themselves as and what they ARE can be different. People seem to be listening to what they say (propaganda?) rather than looking at what they are doing.
For example, It’s funny how many racist remarks I’ve heard prefaced with, “I’m not really racist but…”
| October 24, 2009 @ 7:04 am
Fascism has historically risen from industrialized democratic nations. I cannot come up with one off the top of my head that hasn’t. There are simple historical facts or patterns that one can apply. The fall of the Weimar Republic, can be noted. The decline of currency, unemployment, military/civilian displeasure are real events. This is applicable to other states as well.
These groups are a thin line. They can fast evolve or bind to serious fringe groups. Southern Poverty Law did a good article on the subject. The rise of these groups in some cases natural, constructive? Not to sure. Everyone should tread lightly about the configuration as a society we have found ourselves in. Again the marriage of a group like this to a radical fringe is easy, logical and horribly eventual.
Middle class US citizens would gut, murder and kill if it meant they got to keep their i-pods or SUVs. It is horrible to say but there is a serious compromise of morality for personal comfort. Again, evidence in history. These groups are a reaction to the government, again another cycle.
| October 24, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
“Fascism has historically risen from industrialized democratic nations. I cannot come up with one off the top of my head that hasn’t.”
Depends how strictly you define Fascism. If you define it as a millitant right-wing movement originating in (and supplanting) a liberal state, then perhaps. If it’s any right-wing millitant movement, then there are plenty of other examples- the Chinese & Taiwanese Guomindang (before the democratic reforms of the 80’s and 90’s), the Park Chung-hee regime in South Korea, the America-backed Suharto regime in Indonesia and Pinochet in Chile all come to mind. Likewise, there are authoritarian regimes that are extremely hard to classify ideologically, such as the Neo-Confucian People’s Action Party of Singapore (which was part of the Socialist International until they were kicked out in the 70’s, but never really adhered to socialist economics; arguably, as it’s based in a tiny city state not known for militarism, and multiculturalism is a major part of their platform, calling them fascist might be a stretch, though most of the other trends are there; we’ll just say that Lee Kwanyew is the Gaddaffi of the East and leave it at that). All of these arose in underdeveloped nations; the Guomindang and the Park regime managed to develop their countries and eventually segued into democracy, however, and both Suharto and Pinochet eventually gave up power willingly.
| October 25, 2009 @ 1:18 am
I’m finding it difficult to comprehend your connection of fascism and the Oath Keepers. To me Oath Keepers isn’t about protecting “the state” as much as it is about protecting the rights of the people under the Constitution. A young man does not join the military to fight a war he does not believe in he joins the military because he cares about his country and the freedom in which it serves. FREEDOM would be the connection to Oath Keepers and not FASCISM. PEACE.
| October 25, 2009 @ 12:10 am