Terrorists or Freedom Protestors

One country’s terrorists are another’s freedom fighters. We use that “t” word with abandon to describe those who are willing to riot, fight or politically/physically resist for a cause with which we disagree. The notion of a willingness to inflict unrestricted violence, often even against innocents (“collateral damage”), for a cause is at the core of the word. Instilling “fear” in the hearts and minds of the general population is part of the “get their attention” demand for change. It can be a relatively mild destructive act – like seizing crates of tea and throwing them into Boston Harbor – or it can be the horrific destruction we witnessed on 9/11/01 as the Twin Towers fell to suicide attackers flying large purloined aircraft into those buildings.

Even though the FBI testified before Congress of the explosive growth of domestic extremists willing to engage in ultra-violent acts against the United States – clearly creating more death and destruction in this country today than any outsider Islamist attacks. The groups are overwhelmingly comprised of “white nationalists,” labeled clearly by the FBI as “domestic terrorists.” White supremacists. Anti-Jewish. Anti-Black. Anti-Brown. Anti-Asian. Anti-Immigrant. They often carry torches when marching, are particularly fond of large-capacity semi-automatic assault rifles and are bound together in a maze of conspiracy theories on the dark web.

Far and away, they unabashedly support Donald Trump, who is acutely aware that without the vote of white nationalists, there is no way for him to be reelected in 2020. Well-armed with weapons never designed for civilian use, they chant and rave, rally and cheer, at the president who never blames their political movement – he never uses the term “domestic terrorism” no matter how heinous the assault. It’s always about the mentally ill, video games and movies, notwithstanding that the research into causation has already proven those assumptions false.

If Donald Trump does not himself believe in superior and inferior races – and while it may not be popular to say so, we really cannot know without a deep psychological inquiry – he is at least politically attuned to know that without the support of those who believe passionately in the superiority of the white race (not generically “Caucasians,” which would include many darker-skinned peoples), his core constituency would diminish considerably. He believes that if he can embrace economy-driven voters (taking credit for an income-inequality-boosting effort) with those in his base, if he can label his opponents with the “s” word (“socialism”), he can cruise to victory in 2020. He may be correct. Time will tell. His supporters can never be linked with “domestic terrorism.” He will slip his support of racists under the radar and deny that he harbors racist feelings.

To understand how that “terrorism” word is applied, it is useful to look at the developments in another part of the world: Hong Kong. When China’s President Xi Jinping ascended to the leadership position in 2012, he vowed to reinforce state rule, becoming the most rigid and authoritarian PRC leader since Mao Zedong. Although the 1997 treaty between the U.K. and China released Hong Kong into a “one nation, two systems” agreement under PRC control until 2047, when the former Crown Colony would be absorbed under the current one-system government, that British legal system is a thorn in China’s side.

In June, when the local, PRC-approved government was about to adopt a rule that would allow the extradition of criminally charged individuals arrested for activities in Hong Kong to be tried in China itself, all hell broke loose as the above picture will attest. Protests, violent confrontations with local police, windows breaking, cars trashed, streets blocked, bonfires, police with tear gas and rubber bullets, massive arrests and thousands and thousands of demonstrators erupted across Hong Kong.

Beijing was enraged but equally aware that global public opinion favored the Hong Kong locals. HK Chief Executive Carrie Lam backed off the extradition proposal, but local residents seemed to have awakened to the hard fact that Beijing was intent on bringing the former British colony to heel, long before the 50 years expired. Local Hong Kong residents were startled both by the audacity of the Chinese leadership in even suggesting greater PRC control, which had long been seeping into the former UK colony, but what life under direct Chinese rule would likely look like.

Even when Lam withdrew the extradition proposal, the disturbances continued. Beijing wrestled with sending in regular Chinese forces to crush this rebellion… versus what the rest of the world, which China was courting as a replacement for American hegemony, would think. After protestors shut down the airport, the situation became untenable… and seemingly unsolvable. China was stuck. To China, outside agitators (encouraged by the U.S.) were pressuring locals to rebel against China and engage in local terrorist actions. The locals feared the true PRC governmental system.

“A day after protesters shut down the international airport here, the Hong Kong government’s top official said that the Chinese territory was falling into chaos and that her ‘utmost responsibility’ was to return ‘law and order… It would take a very long time to restore Hong Kong,’ Chief Executive Carrie Lam said Tuesday [8/13] in a televised news conference, at one point appearing to choke up. ‘Look at the city, our home — do we really want to push it into the abyss?’

“There was little sign that calm would return any time soon. Monday [8/12] brought new levels of disarray, with thousands of demonstrators occupying the terminals in a peaceful sit-in… ‘Reclaim Hong Kong! Revolution of our times!’ the protesters chanted as travelers carrying backpacks or pushing suitcases tried to figure out where to go… It was the fourth straight day that they had filled the Hong Kong International Airport — and the first that they succeeded in bringing operations to a halt to draw attention to their 10-week-old movement.

“The government canceled all 180 flights that were scheduled to depart after 4 p.m., a move that was announced just as a spokesman for the Beijing government said protesters showed ‘signs of terrorism.’… ‘These violent, illegal actions must be met with a determined legal crackdown, with no softening of hands or any sign of mercy,’ said Yang Guang of Beijing’s highest government office for Hong Kong affairs. ‘Hong Kong has arrived at a critical point.’” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2019. That Beijing has begun to refer to “signs of terrorism” tells you all you need to know about their ultimate willingness to respond with force. It is the beginning of their justification.

In the United States, there are a lot of people who believe that a race war here is both inevitable and necessary. An extension of our Civil War which, after the Emancipation Proclamation continuing through the civil rights movement and to this very day, clearly left a lot of issues unresolved. As the United States is becoming a majority of minorities, as urban diversity defines our contemporary reality, it is equally clear that a surprising number of Americans want to go back to an era when whites ruled and other racial and ethnic minorities “knew their place.” The cry that mass shootings in the name of white supremacy seems to take on the mantle that if our Confederate War combatants could fight for white supremacy, they clearly were not mentally ill, just willing to fight and die for their political views. So, say the new generation of white nationalists, are we!

With well over 15 million military-grade assault weapons in civilian hands, with a president who finds white supremacists as including some “fine people” and refuses to label militant actions, mass killings, by such individuals and groups as “domestic terrorism,” it is clear that he has opened a path, a legitimization, to racial and ethnic strife… that could easily lead this nation into an all-out civil war. Again.

            I’m Peter Dekom, and exactly who would be the winners if the United States unraveled with legitimized white nationalist violence against minorities and immigrants?