Micro-Be asked for this to be posted. It appears West Point believes that we are a danger to the country.
A new West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center is linking opposition to abortion and other “fundamental” positions to terrorism, and pro-life leaders say it’s just a way to paint them in a negative way.
The study, “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” says the major far right threats are from, “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
“The anti-abortionists have been extremely productive during the last two decades, amassing 227 attacks, many of them perpetrated without the responsible perpetrators identified or caught,” Perliger wrote. “And while, in both cases, the 1990s were more violent than the last decade, in the case of anti-abortion, the trend is much more extreme, as 90 percent of attacks were perpetrated before 2001.”
American Life League President Judie Brown believes this is a smear tactic.
“I can see exactly what is going on with reference to the pro-life movement. The use of two words expose the bias and hatred for what we stand for as a movement. Those words are ‘attacks’ and ‘violence’,” Brown said.
“When it comes to pro-life activism, the definition of violence is retooled to include screaming, sitting in or blockading, and in the situation when someone who is clearly mentally imbalanced does something actually violent at or near an abortion mill, the act is immediately attributed to a pro-lifer even when there is no evidence that the perpetrator was ever involved with the mainstream pro-life effort,” Brown said.
“All of us have issued statements condemning violence because abortion is the ultimate act of violence and in response we are called to imitate Christ, not the abortionists. So the paragraph is designed to paint pro-lifers in a way that scares others, whether or not the depiction even remotely reflects the facts, which of course it does not,” Brown said.
The report comes from a center at the institution where men and women are trained to be Army officers. While the center’s reports often address threats from al-Qaida and other extremists, the latest work addresses the cross-section of America that authors perceive as the “far right.”
It alleges “anti-federalists” are those who have strong beliefs about the government, “believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical,” and those Americans who support individual freedoms and self government.
It claims that those who adopt a liberal philosophy are “future oriented” while conservatives are linked to the violence of the “far right” and live in the past.
“Liberal worldviews are future- or progressive-oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” wrote the authors.
“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation…”
Another suspect group in Perliger’s study are people who support the sovereignty of the United States. And he concludes the anti-government movement is a recent phenomenon.
“Violence derived from the modern anti-federalist movement appeared in full force only in the early to mid-1990s and is interested in undermining the influence, legitimacy and effective sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations,” Perliger wrote.
“The anti- federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a New World Order in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government,” Perliger wrote.
“They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most [of] their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement,” Perliger wrote.
Herb Titus, a constitutional law professor, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and distinguished fellow with the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.
“Professor Perliger has adopted the strategy of many left-wing members of the professoriate, concentrating on the behavior of a few in order to discredit many who hold similar views but who do not engage in any form of violence,” Titus said.
“His theory is that of the iceberg, that which as seen may be small, but it hides what is a much larger threat just below the surface. Obviously, the professor disagrees with those who favor small government, cutting back of federal government encroachments upon the powers of the state and to discredit this movement focuses on a few gun-toting militia,” Titus said.
Titus turns his attention to who he believes is the source of the study.
“Like so many in the Obama administration, Perliger does not want to engage in any dialogue on the issues, but just discredit an entire political movement by ad hominem charged words,” Titus said. “Perliger is not a serious scholar, but a propagandist for the existing regime.”
Perliger turned his attention to Christian fundamentalism and asserts a connection between all three of his sub-groups.
“Unlike the movements discussed previously, the fundamentalist movement’s militant and violent nature was relatively late to develop. For many years the… fundamentalist movement did not produce violent sub-groups, but rather functioned as a source of intellectual inspiration and a moral justification for the violent activities and operations of ideologically related movements,” Perliger wrote.
“Hence, it is not surprising that many of the prominent ideologues of the white supremacist and anti-federalist movements intensively cooperated with – and at times saw themselves as part of – the fundamentalist movement. This dynamic allowed the penetration of non-identity ideas into the movement, and in many ways facilitated the narrowing of the gaps between the fundamentalist movement and other streams of the American far right,” Perliger wrote.
Former Army intelligence officer and NATO intelligence specialist Tim Tooman says the juxtaposition of all three groups in one paragraph is intentional and notes the frequent use of the words for Christianity.
“Christian and derivatives [are] used 75 times in the document, although often carefully qualified as in Christian Identity Group. Perliger’s writing is OK, but could be misinterpreted by the quick reader,” Tooman said.
“There is no problem with U.S. Christianity supporting domestic terrorism. Personally I think some in the mainstream media would like there to be as it would make a great headline – and distract from actual terrorism support from some Islamic groups,” Tooman said.
Tooman says the paper is directed at solving a non-existent problem.
“This seems to be a well researched research paper on a non-issue as far as the military is concerned. There are of course issues discussed within it relevant to local and national law enforcement agencies. So, it’s 148 pages of beating a dead horse that never really had any life in the beginning,” Tooman said.
Tooman also takes issue with Perliger’s frequent use of the two-word phrase, “far right.”
“I find the overuse of the term ‘far right’ objectionable – 410 times in a 148-page document. Pages 13-18 purport to define the far right, but fall short,” Tooman said.
Former FBI counterterrorism officer and terrorism analyst and consultant John Guandolo says the study is another example of the continuing ideological shift of the national security apparatus away from the real terrorism threat to the United States – Islamic terrorism.
“That shift has already been made. The Department of Homeland Security has codified it in their internal language. Veterans and Christians are the threat. Muslims are all peaceful and there is nothing more to see here,” Guandolo said.
He cited John Brennan, the nominee to be the next CIA director, and his vocal defense of Islam.
In a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies that is archived on the White House website, Brennan said using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’ – meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” – to describe terrorists “risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”
As WND reported, Brennan advised in the speech that U.S. foreign policy should encourage greater assimilation of the Hezbollah terrorist organization into the Lebanese government.
In a July 2008 article in The Annals, a publication of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Brennan argued it “would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.”
Terrorism analyst and Jihad Watch publisher Robert Spencer says the public should be aware of what the military and intelligence communities are saying to one another. Spencer says the West Point-released study is another obvious example of the government’s four-year campaign to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism.
“This is of a piece with the 2009 DHS report that identified right-wing extremists as a terror threat. It is another attempt to deflect attention away from the Islamic jihadists,” Spencer said.
WND reported that the April 2009 report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” openly says Christians are the main threat to the United States.
Islam and terrorism analyst and Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller says this is another insult towards those who love their country.
“This is another appalling attempt to demonize loyal Americans and whitewash the Islamic threat,” Geller said. “West Point probably is working on orders from higher ups. Or else it has bought into the dominant PC culture.”
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has not responded to WND’s requests for an interview.
Micro-Be says:
Thank you, Yojimbo! This article was up on drudge when I woke up but had been pulled when I checked again after a few hours. These types of stories never stay around for long. No one remembers them, most won’t ever know they existed. I just cannot even begin to describe my dismay. Officers graduating from the academy are very loyal and “patriotic” (whatever that currently means). They eat, drink, piss, and shit Army green and Old Glory, and I’m willing to wager a large majority of them could give a damn about the Constitution. Orders and America, no matter what America actually is, are their bread and butter. Goddammit I’m supremely angry right now. And what’s worse, I heard a new pop song when shopping today that is one of the worst pieces of shit I’ve heard in the last few months. How in the hell did we get from Beethoven’s 9th symphony to Diamond’s by Rhianna? Or Trey Sonz “LOL Smiley Face”. Yeah, that’s a real fucking song. Listen and cry, nay neigh, nay WEEP. Then, if you want to destroy the rest of your life, read the comments to the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUl-AUPWQo4
That song is concentrated Doom. Sorry for the tangent involving shitty music. We should probably stick to West Point assholes drawing the battle lines for civil war.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
18th January 2013 at 8:30 pm
AWD says:
Jeesus, the fucking liberal progressives have even infiltrated the military academies. How long until bloggers are considered terrorists?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:00 pm
Micro-Be says:
AWD –
That just happened. If the blog thinks the government is “bad” in any way, that blogger is a terrorist or potential terrorist. Terrorist seems to mean “person that doesn’t take well to chains”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
18th January 2013 at 9:05 pm
AWD says:
“Titus turns his attention to who he believes is the source of the study.
“Like so many in the Obama administration, Perliger does not want to engage in any dialogue on the issues, but just discredit an entire political movement by ad hominem charged words,” Titus said. “Perliger is not a serious scholar, but a propagandist for the existing regime.”
A propagandist for the existing regime (think Goebbels). When these Obamanistas are active at the military academies (think Hitler youth/SS training centers), brainwashing youngsters just like at the Universities and colleges, they’ll be fighting for socialism next. Scary shit indeed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:10 pm
Micro-Be says:
“Liberal worldviews are future- or progressive-oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” wrote the authors.
It doesn’t get anymore obvious than this. The entirety of the media is “progressive”. The state is progressive with hand-picked opponents. The narrative is that one is a fucking crazy inbred retard if they aren’t progressive. It’s so obvious the propaganda machine is in full spin mode. They are saturating the entire market with the message. West Point just said they are in. Who else needs to show their cards before the big moves start?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:10 pm
AWD says:
They’re getting rid of the senior officers (the ones that still represent the Constitution) and they’ll be replaced by card carrying progressives. Now, if they can only do away with the 2 term limit for presidency and crown our emperor/dictator. Forward!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:42 pm
AWD says:
Liberals and progressives used to despise the military, until the realized they could infiltrate and control it.
The Progressive Case for Military Service
There are two fundamental reasons for the present rift between progressives and the military. First is the emergence, during the twentieth century, of a rights-based philosophy on both the Left and the Right that sees government as a counterpoint and even a threat to the individual. Second is the Left’s reaction against the military after Vietnam, a reaction that was itself rooted in rights consciousness and, over time, solidified into a presumption that military values, and the members of the military themselves, are antithetical to progressive values.
While some may charge that these characterizations are actually caricatures of the dreaded “liberal, ” these attitudes do persist. Indeed, just this year, a group of liberals, including famed activist Cindy Sheehan, published a collection of essays titled 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military. At its core, the opposition to military service on the left fundamentally misconstrues the meaning of self-government and the role of the military in the United States today. It confuses military service with militarism, equating participation in the Armed Services with subscription to the fetish of military action as a policy tool (in fact, those with military experience are often the most cautious in supporting military action).
As a result, military service is left to an increasingly narrow slice of the U.S. political and economic spectrum, drawing disproportionately from military families, Midwesterners and Southerners, Christians, Republicans, and the working and middle class. In doing so, we have disconnected one of the most important arenas of national action from true democratic decision-making.
Given the likely centrality of military operations to American foreign policy over the next decade, it is time for progressives to reconsider both their attitudes toward service and their aversion to the military as a culture and value system. Indeed, the military itself–and the act of serving in it–are quintessentially progressive.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:50 pm
Micro-Be says:
It’s not like either the Dems or Reps haven’t tried to eliminate the two term limit within the last 25 years. A Dem rep just reintroduced the legislation not but a couple of weeks ago or so.
I think you’re right about there being a sort of soft purge going on in the military. I’ll tell you right now the Oath of Enlistment (and whatever the name for officers) is a fucking joke. Every person in the military swears to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But what does this mean? It means that there is some thing called the Constitution, and it means whatever the brass says it means.
Bradley Manning, love him or hate him, may just have been doing all a lowly Specialist could do as his way of defending the Constitution or whatever he believed it to be. I don’t think that the case, hell how could I know, but just look how they are treating him. Treason is a bitch. Wait, who gets to decide what treason is again? Oh yeah, the brass, TPTB.
I served with some knuckleheads that were as progressive as possible, or close enough. Several find their way to the rank of Sergeant Major and First Sergeant. One of the progressives was actually in charge of the Equal Opportunity part of life that every unit has to have. The words literally came out of his mouth that he was “basically a communist” and that “it is impossible for anyone but whites to be racist” or “blacks cannot be racist”, etc. A self-proclaimed communist, who is now a Sergeant First Class, in the fucking military! I heard the words with my own ears. They are all throughout the military and let me tell you, they know each other.
Now put these links together. 1. Increasingly progressive and antitraditionalist military 2. Disenfranchises many and drives them out of the service. 3. DHS proclaims returning war vets as potential terrorists. 4. Staff military with progressives 5. Presto, we’ve got ourselves a standing army of brownshirts! Anyone that disagrees with policy or popular sentiment will not be promoted, will receive unfair treatment from superiors, and is more likely to receive punishment from superiors.
The entire military is not yet compromised but it is evident the plan is in action. It seems they are trying to lock in political hegemony in the states by eliminating, impoverishing, or silencing about 50% of the country. After that is the “funny” part. The FSA turns into the Full Slave Army.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
18th January 2013 at 9:58 pm
Micro-Be says:
Nice article, AWD.
That photo makes me want to puke into all my combat boots. They are always preying on retards by using emotional issues for recruiting or by dangling small amounts of cash (which seem huge to poor idiots, such as myself). I think it is a lousy practice (hey, in the same situation I was in, knowing what I know now, I’d still join, I just wouldn’t have reenlisted).
Want to hear about professionalism in the military? You don’t. Trust me. It is dying away.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
18th January 2013 at 10:08 pm
Dorkus Maximus says:
What a disgusting smear. Arie Perliger is a filthy hack. That a worthless freak like this Arie Perliger can infiltrate west point just by regurgating the intellectually bankrupt claptrap is just sign no. 56,934 that this country is in terminal decline.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
18th January 2013 at 10:11 pm
Makati1 says:
West Point. The supreme center for indoctrination/brainwashing America’s future war monger/military industrial leaders. I know a W.P. grad and a more closed mind is not possible.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
2
18th January 2013 at 10:40 pm
SSS says:
“I know a W.P. (West Point) grad and a more closed mind is not possible.”
—-Makati1
Fuck you, asshole. I’m a military academy graduate, not West Point, and everyone who is a regular visitor to this site knows what an open mind I have about illegal drugs.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
5
18th January 2013 at 12:37 am
W says:
The academies are a waste of taxpayer money. Shut them down. This is just another reason to do so.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
18th January 2013 at 9:06 am
AWD says:
Have you noticed the U.S. military recruiting ads? A global force for good, army and marines helping people out in a disaster? Certainly a liberal slant; our military exists for humanitarian efforts, or so they would have clueless kids believe.
It’s not about drone strikes, cruise missiles, it’s about a “force for good”. Imperialism is good? Wars and boots on the ground around the world is good? Blowing trillions on the military is a force for good?
It’s perfect, wrap up trillions of dollars of defense spending with a big, happy humanitarian bow so the sheeple feel good about it. Brilliant propaganda.
Sailors take aim at new recruiting slogan:
The Navy’s new recruiting slogan, “America’s Navy: A global force for good,” was designed from the outset to motivate existing sailors as much as to entice young people to enlist.
But according to reactions by Navy Times readers in the week since the slogan was made public, that plan isn’t working.
“Holy cow! This is getting really stupid. Why do we need to change our slogan again? I don’t think it describes the Navy at all,” said Machinist’s Mate 1st Class (SS/SW) Michael Dayton, stationed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bangor, Wash.
Navy Times received 56 e-mails from readers, and all but six disliked the slogan.
Their reasons were many. Several sailors said they worried the new slogan was wrong for the Navy’s reputation as a combat force.
“This bumper-sticker jingle would look good on a flower-toting cart, but when an [aircraft carrier] that displaces over 100,000 tons pulls up off your coast, generally the thought is, ‘Oh crap, the U.S. Navy is here,’” said Information Specialist 1st Class (SW/AW) Joshua Forman, of the 2nd Fleet Military Intelligence Operations Center.
Others said they didn’t like what they saw as the Navy using too preachy a sales pitch.
“I think the new Navy slogan is utterly ridiculous,” said Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (FMF) Gabriel Michaels, attached to 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, in Camp Dwyer, Afghanistan. “It evokes feelings of moral superiority and control — which is not something we are or need — and completely brushes aside the fact that we are a vastly technologically superior Navy when compared to others.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th January 2013 at 10:17 am
Thunderbird says:
When one considers atheists taking over the country it all makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
18th January 2013 at 1:01 pm
Ron says:
This crap sure was in full swing during nam.Now long drawn out wars? where medals for not killing people is used. I keep think that it well be military personal up holding they’re oaths that would be protecting the american public.Now I’m not so sure,we have a new generation of young adults with funny thinking.The people leading them are kind of weird to.
I figure this strange breed of americans running the country and now the military well walk in lockstep.People,christians and people who believe in freedom and value life well be a problem to these evil folks. The steadily increasing surveillance well increase to help the government run your life(agenda 21)
You know these elitist folks think you just aren’t smart enough to run your own life.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th January 2013 at 4:09 pm
SSS says:
“The academies are a waste of taxpayer money. Shut them down.”
—-W
How so? Were Grant and Eisenhower a waste of money? Patton? Pershing? Lee? MacArthur? Jackson? Custer? The list of famous and distinguished graduates from the Long Gray Line is, well, long. Generals, presidents (both national and foreign), artists, actors, authors, senators, governors, Rhodes Scholars, you name it, West Pointers are there. And I haven’t even gotten to the Naval and Air Force Academy grads.
Now, please share your wisdom. Why shut them down?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
18th January 2013 at 7:54 pm
The Christian ” Threat “ « YouViewed/Editorial says:
[...] We Are Anti-federalists (theburningplatform.com) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
18th January 2013 at 7:22 am