The best hiding places are always in plain sight. On June 15, the Biden Administration’s National Security Council released a document entitled National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, outlining its plan to combat what the Administration claims is a rising threat of domestic terrorism, driven by the nebulous concepts of white supremacy and/or white nationalism. The document appears to be nothing of significance at first. It’s a 15-minute read, consisting of 32 pages with large font, broken up by pictures and slick graphics. It’s formatted more like a brochure for a new, high-quality line of patio furniture than a government document. However, when it’s read carefully and considered within the context of the current state of affairs, a much more sinister plan, hidden just beneath the surface, begins to come into focus.
This document lays out the basic framework for an insidious plan to weaponize the federal government against the citizenry, by casting garden-variety political dissidents, namely those of us on the Cultural Right, as “DVEs” (“domestic violent extremists”). That characterization will be used as a pretense to ‘lawfully’ disregard our constitutionally protected rights in the government’s effort to constrain our ability to disseminate ideas, communicate with one another, organize in a politically efficacious manner and physically defend ourselves. The Radical Axis, a term I use to describe the defacto partnership of the Democratic Party, Silicon Valley and the entrenched bureaucracy of the federal government, is colluding to suppress the political momentum of the Cultural Right by applying frighteningly over-broad definitions of “domestic terrorism” to include anyone right of Mitt Romney, and expanding the breadth of intelligence resources available to the government by re-framing “domestic terrorism” as an inherently “international” problem.
I will offer three primary points to defend this claim. The first, is the NSC’s definition (or rather lack of definition) of who, exactly, this new class of domestic extremists is made up of. The second is the document’s persistent and awkward attempts to tie international affairs to ‘domestic’ terrorism. The third is the inappropriately partisan endorsement of Democrat talking points and policy objectives.
I will discuss them all in turn, but we begin with the first and most important.
1.) Who exactly are these new “DVEs (Domestic Violent Extremists)”?
Let’s back up a little bit and establish some context. The President has been pushing the narrative that white supremacy, a term that he often conflates with white nationalism, is the biggest threat the country presently faces. He has said so on numerous occasions over the past year, most recently at an event in Oklahoma commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the Tulsa massacre, professing in his speech:
“We must address what remains the stain on the soul of America. What happened in Greenwood [where the Tulsa Massacre occurred 100 years prior] was an act of hate and an act of domestic terrorism, with a through-line that exists today, still… Remember what you saw in Charlottesville four years ago, on television, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the KKK, coming out of those fields at night in Virginia, their lighted torches, the veins bulging as they were screaming… Well, [massacre survivor] Mother Fletcher said that when she saw the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, it broke her heart… A mob of violent white extremists, thugs, said it reminded her of what happened here, 100 years ago, in Greenwood. Look around at the various hate crimes against Asian Americans and Jewish Americans, hate that never goes away… We can’t give hate a safe harbor. According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today.” (emphasis added)
President Biden, along with the entire Radical Axis, is painting a false picture of America. He’s telling the public that neo-NAZIs and the KKK are the most lethal threat to America, which is completely untrue, but the most insidious thing he is doing is linking the January 6th protest (the “insurrection”) and Trump supporters in general, to white supremacy. In addition, he tosses-in the increased violence against Asian-Americans and Jews, insinuating that this too is caused by white supremacist, Trump supporters, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The Administration has offered no evidence to back the claim that “white supremacists” are the biggest threat we face, or in fact any significant threat at all. That’s because no such data exists. Anyone who is remotely tuned-in to the current affairs of the country understands that ‘white supremacists’ are nowhere near the top of the list of the nation’s current problems. Yet, the Biden Administration insists that this is indeed the biggest threat we face. Not the burning down of American cities, not the Chinese Communist Party, not the monopolization of new media platforms, not the complete loss of faith in the American dream, not the corona-virus, not ‘climate change,’ not the potential for runaway inflation; no, no, no… it’s “white supremacists.”
For most right-of-center Americans, the term “white supremacist” conjures up images of violent young men; neo-NAZI types, with shaved heads and ugly tattoos of swastikas and other NAZI symbolism – like the character famously portrayed by Edward Norton in the popular movie American History X.
But for those on the left, these terms are simply synonyms for ‘Trump supporters.’ This is because the Administration’s Radical Axis partners in the Mainstream Media have spent the last 5 years using these terms interchangeably, effectively re-shaping the lexicon of the left. This is a crucial point and the Administration is well-aware of this language gap. They have been exceptionally adept at exploiting it.
With all of this in mind, let’s get back to the document at issue here – the National Security Council’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The document carefully echoes the Administration’s position that ‘white supremacy/white nationalism’ is the greatest threat the country faces – without actually saying it. It states that the threat posed is “serious and evolving” (p.8) as well as noting that the threat “…increased last year and that it will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021” but it offers no affirmation that this is the “most serious” threat the US faces, as President Biden claimed in his Oklahoma speech earlier this month. As a matter of fact, the document does not cite a single source to illustrate the seriousness of the threat posed by white supremacists or any other domestic group of extremists. Not one. Nevertheless, It goes on to articulate a comprehensive, government-wide plan to address a problem that doesn’t exist.
In its introduction, the document references an “Assessment of the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat” from March of 2021, a separate, smaller document which is itself included within this larger document at page 10. This is the closest they come to defining who exactly these “Domestic Violent Extremists” are. It reads in part:
“The Intelligence Community (IC) assesses that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) who are motivated by a range of ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal events in the United States pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021. Enduring DVE motivations pertaining to biases against minority populations and perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence. Newer sociopolitical developments–such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence–will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.”
Notice there is no mention of the summer of riots that swept across the nation. Not a peep about about the lives lost and the hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage done by organized groups that actively promote violence to further a political agenda – like ANTIFA for example. The “domestic extremists” they are concerned with are connected to the last year’s Primary Election, January 6, CoVid and “conspiracy theories.” They go on:
“The IC assesses that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent extremists (MVEs) present the most lethal DVE threats, with RMVEs most likely to conduct mass–casualty attacks against civilians and MVEs typically targeting law enforcement and government personnel and facilities. The IC assesses that the MVE threat increased last year and that it will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021 because of contentious sociopolitical factors that motivate MVEs to commit violence.”
Here, the NSC singles out “racially or ethnically motivated” extremists and “militia violent extremists” as the most dangerous and most likely to cause harm. This will include anything branded “white nationalist” (e.g. Proud Boys) and anything that identifies itself as, or is otherwise labeled as, “militia” (e.g. Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, etc). It should be noted that the Proud Boys strongly rebuked its classification as a ‘white nationalist’ group and its membership is open to men of all races. In fact, the current head of the group is a Cuban-American man named Enrique Tarrios. A Hispanic white nationalist perhaps? The document goes on:
“… U.S. RMVEs who promote the superiority of the white race are the DVE actors with the most persistent and concerning transnational connections because individuals with similar ideological beliefs exist outside of the United States and these RMVEs frequently communicate with and seek to influence each other.”
Remember this bit about “transnational connections” – I’ll get to that shortly. Also notice how attenuated this point is. In other words they are saying: Racists have “transnational connections” because there are people overseas who are also racist, and they could influence each other on Facebook and stuff.
The NSC presses on:
“…several factors could increase the likelihood or lethality of DVE attacks in 2021 and beyond, including escalating support from persons in the United States or abroad, growing perceptions of government overreach related to legal or policy changes and disruptions, and high–profile attacks spurring follow–on attacks and innovations in targeting and attack tactics. DVE lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms.”
When reading this document in light of all that has happened recently, it is absolutely undeniable that the term “DVEs” (“domestic violent extremists”) is a thinly-veiled, left-wing dogwhistle for “Trump supporters.” The authors of the document couldn’t even be bothered to pretend otherwise. It would have been easy enough to throw out a few innocuous references to ANTIFA just for appearances; maybe cite some phony-baloney study about ‘white nationalists’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League, if only to keep those pesky conservatives off their backs. But no, the National Security Council didn’t find that necessary. That says a lot about the mentality of this Administration.
2.) Why is the Administration putting so much effort into linking “Domestic” terrorism to International affairs?
After even just a passive glance at the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism document, it becomes apparent to the reader that there is an awful lot of discussion about international affairs, including several seemingly out-of-place, attenuated connections like the one referenced above. In fact, the document consists of 8,692 total words, excluding the introductory letter by President Biden and the table of contents. Of those words, 44 of them are either “international,” “transnational” or “global.” Those three words account for .51%, or greater than one-half of one percent, of all the words in the entire document. Why does a document that purports to deal with “Domestic Terrorism” place such an clear emphasis on international issues? After all, “Domestic” terrorism is, well… domestic, isn’t it?
The answer has to do with the government’s attempt to thwart jurisdictional lines that exist to protect American citizens. The FBI was set up to be the law enforcement arm of the federal government, dealing exclusively with domestic issues. The CIA, NSA and myriad of Military Intelligence agencies, on the other hand, were set up to deal with international issues. The primary reason for the difference between the two is the U.S. Constitution, specifically those pesky “civil rights” it confers upon American citizens. The CIA and NSA don’t typically have to deal with those obstacles because they are generally prohibited from collecting information regarding “US Persons.” Some exceptions to those rules exists by virtue of the Patriot Act of 2001 – a controversial piece of legislation passed in the wake of 9/11, designed to make tracking terrorists easier for the CIA and NSA. But for the most part, those jurisdictional lines between investigating “US Persons” and foreigners still exist today. My friends in the legal community may balk a bit at this oversimplification, but, generally speaking there is one set of rules for “US Persons” (which includes American corporations and some other entities) and another, much more lenient set of rules, for foreigners. The Biden Administration is setting the stage to apply the ‘foreign’ rules to Americans.
The NSC’s intention to blur these lines is plain to see; they say so right in the document itself. The first of its four “strategic pillars” is “Understand and Share Domestic Terrorism-Related Information” (page 15). That “pillar” is divided into three “Strategic goals:”
Strategic Goal 1.1 – Enhance domestic terrorism–related research and analysis.
Strategic Goal 1.2 – Improve information sharing across all levels within, as well as outside, the Federal Government.
Strategic Goal 1.3 – Illuminate transnational aspects of domestic terrorism.
These goals can be summed up as follows: the first goal means building mechanisms to identify and track political dissidents, and the second goal (“[i]mprove information sharing across all levels within, as well as outside, the Federal Government”) means collaborating with Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the rest of the “Big Tech” members of the Radical Axis. The third goal is the aforementioned blurring of jurisdictional lines; it specifically states on page 19:
“Finally, illuminating the transnational context relevant to aspects of today’s domestic terrorism threat can, in appropriate circumstances, allow us to bring to bear relevant authorities and tools specifically focused on international terrorism. When domestic terrorism threats become international through connectivity to foreign actors or otherwise, the full range of tools applicable to understanding international terrorism threats become potentially available, such as intelligence collection tools.” (emphasis added)
The very next sentence goes on to state, “We will apply such tools, where the facts and law support their use, in an ideologically neutral, threat–driven manner.” Yeah… right, we’ve all seen this act before. The federal government will find a way to circumvent the constitutional rights of political dissidents by finding some tangential foreign connection to use as a pretext to treat its own citizens like Al-Qaeda members.
Let’s run through an example of what that actually looks like in practice. John Q. Citizen sends a funny meme he saw on Facebook to his Uncle Frank, a Trump supporter who will probably find it funny. The meme itself is nothing crazy, maybe a little off-color by today’s standards but not the sort of thing that people typically get fired over. Unbeknownst to John, that meme was posted by an account “known” by the FBI or NSA to be controlled by a member The Silly Guys, a fictional group that the FBI has determined harbor white nationalist sentiments. The Silly Guys have a loosely affiliated chapter in the UK as well as a Bitcoin account in an offshore cryptocurrency exchange (because they have been thrown off all the traditional payment networks). That makes The Silly Guys an “international terrorist organization,” and more importantly, it means the John is being radicalized by an international organization and is actively participating in the propagation of that organization’s ideologically-charged recruitment material. That means John, and his Uncle Frank for that matter, are now subject to the ‘international’ rules, not the domestic ones – same as Al-Qaeda.
Do you see how that works? I repeat: The government will find some tangential foreign connection to use in justifying its unlawful spying-on of Americans. In fact, they could use this justification to spy on just about anyone; let’s face it, any one of us could be John Q. Citizen here. No tin-foil hat is necessary to understand this – it’s right there in black and white.
3.) The NSC inappropriately advocates for Democrat policy positions
The agencies that make up the Intelligence Community are supposed to be non-partisan actors. Of course, that axiom seems to have gone out the door in recent years. We see examples of that in the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism document.
The NSC adopts the language and policy positions of the left on pages 27-28, stating:
“Individuals subscribing to violent ideologies such as violent white supremacy, which are grounded in racial, ethnic, and religious hatred and the dehumanizing of portions of the American community, as well as violent anti–government ideologies, are responsible for a substantial portion of today’s domestic terrorism… That means tackling racism in America. It means protecting Americans from gun violence and mass murders. It means ensuring that we provide early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others. It means ensuring that Americans receive the type of civics education that promotes tolerance and respect for all and investing in policies and programs that foster civic engagement and inspire a shared commitment to American democracy, all the while acknowledging when racism and bigotry have meant that the country fell short of living up to its founding principles…. And it means ensuring that there is simply no governmental tolerance – and instead denunciation and rejection – of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change.” (emphasis added)
Really? Like the violence we saw as a “…mode of seeking political change” in every major American city last summer? No, of course not. They go on:
“…tackling the threat posed by domestic terrorism over the long term demands substantial efforts to confront the racism that feeds into aspects of that threat. We are, therefore, prioritizing efforts to ensure that every component of the government has a role to play in rooting out racism and advancing equity for under–served communities that have far too often been the targets of discrimination and violence. This approach must apply to our efforts to counter domestic terrorism by addressing underlying racism and bigotry.” (emphasis added)
The NSC is clearly choosing a side here; they are not only propagating the lie that “white supremacy” is the greatest threat to the country (or any threat to the country), but they target the nebulous social issues of “racism” and “bigotry” to further the agenda of “advancing equity.” This is far from an ideologically neutral statement. One might think that the leadership at NSC would have had the good sense to refrain from using language that clearly aligns with, or gives the perception of aligning with, one side of the ideological divide over the other – even if only to maintain the appearance of neutrality. But they chose not to. That is not an oversight on their behalf; it’s a signal.
All of this represents a huge paradigm shift in the Intelligence Community (including the FBI). They’ve articulated a campaign against “Domestic Terror,” but they consider half the country to be Domestic Terrorists! Defining the term ‘terrorist’ is indeed a subjective endeavor. As Petra Bartosiewicz, a well-known author and expert on the subject of terrorism said in her 2014 TedTalk, a terrorist is “the enemy of a state, as defined by the state.” It’s not hyperbolic to conclude that the federal government currently views half of the American citizenry as enemies of the state.
They are not hiding this – it’s right out there in plain sight. In today’s extraordinarily polarized society, people are either talking over each other or are so completely fed-up that they are ignoring the news altogether. The Radical Axis is betting that those on the left will allow this to happen because it’s ‘for the greater good,’ while those on the right will scream from the rooftops, but to no avail, because everyone in between is so fed up with the current state of affairs, they have completely tuned-out all the noise.
This is going to become a huge problem in the very near future, and it is not likely to end well.
UPDATE: This story was written the over the course of several days – almost a week. Before the final draft was finished, Tucker Carlson broke the following story:
On Monday’s episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox News host Tucker Carlson reports that he has been contacted by a whistle-blower at NSA and has confirmed that the agency has been unlawfully spying on him, specifically by reading emails from his private account. That story can be read on Breitbart, here.
On Tuesday’s episode he reported that the NSA issued a statement in which they did not deny reading his private emails.
When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about Carlson’s report, she essentially refused to provide an answer, instead just providing a bizarre, textbook-style definition of the NSA’s purview, before punting back to the NSA, stating:
“Well, the NSA has, I think you are well aware, everyone’s aware, everyone on this plane is aware, I should say, is an entity that focuses on foreign threats and individuals who are attempting to do us harm on foreign soil. So that is their purview, but beyond that I would point you to the intelligence community.” – Jen Psaki, June 29, 2021
Prediction: At some point, perhaps years from now, we will get an answer from the NSA as to why they were reading Tucker Carlson’s emails and it will sound a lot like the example I gave above, with John Q. Citizen and his Uncle Frank. The NSA has found a way to circumvent the constitutional rights of political dissidents (Tucker Carlson) by finding some tangential foreign connection to use as a pretext to treat its own citizens like Al-Qaeda members.