"The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public." -- SPLC on "Hate and Extremism."
Extremist, noun: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Synonyms: fanatic, radical, zealot, fundamentalist, hard-liner, militant.
In "The Further Adventures . . . of the Molon Labians" the other day I highlighted Alan Gottlieb's characterization of the I-594 resisters as "a few stupid extremists."
Gottlieb, as I have said before, is a smart guy. He knows what words mean, and, more importantly, how value-loaded a word like "extremist" is in the present environment. "Radical extremists" is what the Obama administration calls people like Islamic State and Boko Haram (always omitting "Muslim" for that would not be politically correct) -- you know, the people who cut other peoples' heads off just for fun and Allah.
An anti-594 activist emailed me saying, "The propaganda war rages. It worries me that Gottlieb is so freely using the extremist term. It has psychological implications in our society that could put us in a seriously bad position."
Indeed, such fears are not unfounded. By using the pejorative extremist, Gottlieb is consciously trying to marginalize and demonize them and he is speaking in a language that the militarized police of the SPLC-influenced fusion centers understand perfectly.
In the same post, I pointed out how Gottlieb's Igor-in-a-cowboy-hat, Dave Workman, was very successfully doing his best to whip up folks on the Northwest Forearms forum, to attack me as someone who was predisposed to violence and who would kill judges, telling one approvingly that he had "broken the code."
Dave Workman, Alan Gottlieb's Igor-in-a-cowboy-hat.
In my speech in December (text here) and this post the other day, "A little free advice for Alan Gottlieb: 'People who live in grass houses shouldn't throw lawnmowers,'" I tried to get across the point to Gottlieb that it would be far better to reach across the divide and at least coordinate anti-594 efforts with the I Will Not Comply folks. With these latest amped-up rhetorical attacks which do nothing less than greenlight the repression by the state of I-594 resisters, Gottlieb is declaring all out war on them. He is raising the chances of misadventure by mistake which could have deadly consequences. In this he is doing nothing less than establishing a de facto alliance with Michael Bloomberg and the citizen disarmament crowd. And what motivates him to do so?
I rather expect that it was this post at the Patrick Henry Society "The Myth of WA Gun Rights Groups: Adina Hicks and Alan Gottlieb," on 17 January. What Gottlieb is fighting for, first and foremost, is his own rice bowl -- that is, to preserve the money flow from his donor base -- and when, responding to Gottlieb's earlier attacks the I Will Not Comply folks decided to look into the strange case of Adina Hicks, Gottlieb was enraged. How dare they threaten his money stream?
So now we have Gottlieb and Bloomberg agreeing on a mutual enemy. The Bloomberg crowd is trying to deal with it by ignoring the armed civil disobedience to I-594. Gottlieb, on the other hand, is going after them directly, dishonestly, even savagely. Why would Bloomberg's minions need to attack the "extremists" who have continued to defeat by nullification the unconstitutional abomination that is I-594? They have Gottlieb, the "official opposition," to do that for them. And if the resisters get slandered as "violent extremists" and conveniently killed by the cops so much the better for both sides, Bloomberg and Gottlieb. Bloomberg gets his unconstitutional infringement and Gottlieb preserves the illusion upon which his money stream depends. A de facto alliance indeed.