AHC: Right wing terror groups in the US

[ScrewySqrl]

I'll just point out that right Wing terror groups go back a long, long way in the USA. We just don't call them 'terrorists'.

The original Right Wing Terrorists in the USA would be the The Klu Klux Klan, obviously. And arguably the James Gang (started as Confederate raiders, then switched to Bank Robbery after the war), and

 

[ThePest179]

So I'm agreeing with LHB here, with the caveat that we won't necessarily see a huge amount of violence ex nihilo, we might have to connect the dots on what's already there.

Well, the Challenge did imply a fairly large amount if deaths, at least in the four digit mark.

Also I would appreciate it if someone judged how plausible the scenario I posted above was.

 

[ThePest179]

Bumping....

 

[overoceans]

Well, the Challenge did imply a fairly large amount if deaths, at least in the four digit mark.

Also I would appreciate it if someone judged how plausible the scenario I posted above was.

Okay.

Some 9/11 type event happens under Clinton, let's say shortly after Waco.

Clinton tries to mobilize the country more-or-less the same way that Bush did in OTL, albeit with a slightly more liberal tinge to the jngoism(Clinton is not beyond linking mainstream right-wingers to the terrorists for political gain), and institutes roughly the same Homeland Security measures.

All of this sends the militia movement into an apoplectic fit, since they're already convinced that Clinton is the Grand Poobah of the NWO, and his belligerent rhetoric and civil-liberty curtailments just seem to prove this. Things that would probably have happened anyway(eg. Democratic support for gun control) are viewed in an even more sinister light against the backdrop of militia paranoia.

The right-wing extremists respond as per your OP. And they would have no concern about being on the same side as Muslim terrorists, because they'd be convinced that the terrorists were actually acting under orders from Clinton anyway.

 

[ThePest179]

Okay.

Some 9/11 type event happens under Clinton, let's say shortly after Waco.

Clinton tries to mobilize the country more-or-less the same way that Bush did in OTL, albeit with a slightly more liberal tinge to the jngoism(Clinton is not beyond linking mainstream right-wingers to the terrorists for political gain), and institutes roughly the same Homeland Security measures.

All of this sends the militia movement into an apoplectic fit, since they're already convinced that Clinton is the Grand Poobah of the NWO, and his belligerent rhetoric and civil-liberty curtailments just seem to prove this. Things that would probably have happened anyway(eg. Democratic support for gun control) are viewed in an even more sinister light against the backdrop of militia paranoia.

The right-wing extremists respond as per your OP. And they would have no concern about being on the same side as Muslim terrorists, because they'd be convinced that the terrorists were actually acting under orders from Clinton anyway.

Now what exactly happens afterwards? With the possible discrediting of the right wing, would Bush win in 2000?

 

[overoceans]

Oh, and I would think your bonus scenario of the right-wingers taking the fight overseas would be somewhat unlikely.

To the extent that those guys perceive a foreign enemy, it's the UN, which they could attack simply by going to New York. Maybe the Rockefellers or the Bilderbergs as well, but even there, those entities have enough of a presence in the US to negate the need for any overseas travel.

Though burly, khaki-clad militia members from rural Idaho traveling to Europe to hit UN and other international targets in Switzerland, Paris, and Brussels might make for a good comedy movie.

POSTED BEFORE I READ YOUR LAST POST

 

[overoceans]

Now what exactly happens afterwards? With the possible discrediting of the right wing, would Bush win in 2000?

I was pondering that. Yeah, I think the political-cultural dynamic might send public-opinion rallying over to the Democrats for a while, possibly holding until 2000. If the Republican rhetoric is extreme enough, it'll help Clinton paint them as unpatriotic traitors.

Unless...

The mainstream Republicans are canny enough to support Clinton's War without supporting Clinton himself, and are able to distance themselves from the militias, neo-birchers etc.

But in this scenario, I might see an earlier rise of Ron Paulism, or something resembling it.

 

[ThePest179]

So now could you please consider the scenario for the 2008 election? Your scenario seems like it could be its very own TL, with a Gore presidency too. I just would like to know if the scenario I posted was plausible or not.

 

[dustbunny]

Militant movements tend to do best when the powerful and well-connected are giving them weapons and legal cover. This is as true in America as anywhere else. In order to have a surge of right-wing terrorism, you need to have at least one powerful section of society or government who, if not exactly sympathetic with their values, at least wants to use them as tools to further their domestic power. Otherwise, you'll just see a replay of the 90's: a minor uptick in violent activity, followed by a fairly effective crackdown.

So off the top of my head, here are a few quick scenarios.

- A "deep state" alliance between the FBI and pentagon forms, decides that the current order isn't to their liking for whatever reason, and starts using militias as proxy forces.

- A second "businessman's plot" forms, this time a bit more cautiously and smartly. Using their connections to the halls of power, they avoid prosecution while secretly supporting the militia movement as their own blackshirts.

- Local bigwigs, feeling threatened by the power of corporate titans and the feds, begin to quietly shift money and resources to their favored proxies. Think along the lines of a violent Tea Party movement.

The challenge then is to find a POD where something like this is feasible.

 

[overoceans]

So now could you please consider the scenario for the 2008 election? Your scenario seems like it could be its very own TL, with a Gore presidency too. I just would like to know if the scenario I posted was plausible or not.

Sorry, but to clarify...

Your OP said "...in the wake of Ruby Ridge and Waco".

So, when you ask about 2008, do you mean the ongoing reprecussions from right-wing terrorism a decade and a half earlier, in the 90s? Or have you switched gears and are asking about another scenario where there is a resurgence of right-wing terrorism(possibly unconnected to anything in the 90s) in the buildup to 2008?

 

[overoceans]

Militant movements tend to do best when the powerful and well-connected are giving them weapons and legal cover. This is as true in America as anywhere else. In order to have a surge of right-wing terrorism, you need to have at least one powerful section of society or government who, if not exactly sympathetic with their values, at least wants to use them as tools to further their domestic power. Otherwise, you'll just see a replay of the 90's: a minor uptick in violent activity, followed by a fairly effective crackdown.

So off the top of my head, here are a few quick scenarios.

- A "deep state" alliance between the FBI and pentagon forms, decides that the current order isn't to their liking for whatever reason, and starts using militias as proxy forces.

- A second "businessman's plot" forms, this time a bit more cautiously and smartly. Using their connections to the halls of power, they avoid prosecution while secretly supporting the militia movement as their own blackshirts.

- Local bigwigs, feeling threatened by the power of corporate titans and the feds, begin to quietly shift money and resources to their favored proxies. Think along the lines of a violent Tea Party movement.

The challenge then is to find a POD where something like this is feasible.

For your first two scenarios, you'd need the national top-dogs to feel that their power and status is mortally threatened by some force, probably revolutionary. That seems rather unlikely, assuming that the most viable party on the left remains the fairly milquetoast Democrats.

Your third scenario, specifying LOCAL paymasters, has more potential, because the whole militia thing always had more appeal to people who genuinely WERE outside the main corridors of power. You'd need to find some sorta "big fish in small pond" actors, guys who do enjoy a certain economic and social ranking in their limited spheres, but aren't gonna be invited to the White House any time soon.

I dunno. Maybe some state split roughly between liberal urban areas and conservative rural areas, and where Democrats are JUST powerful enough to keep Republicans from the governor's mansion for several elections in a row? Eventually, some of the local Republicans decide that all must be a federal plot(and behind that, UN) to keep "the people" from their rightful ascendancy, and start channeling funds in the direction of the extremist groups.

 

[ThePest179]

Sorry, but to clarify...

Your OP said "...in the wake of Ruby Ridge and Waco".

So, when you ask about 2008, do you mean the ongoing reprecussions from right-wing terrorism a decade and a half earlier, in the 90s? Or have you switched gears and are asking about another scenario where there is a resurgence of right-wing terrorism(possibly unconnected to anything in the 90s) in the buildup to 2008?

I switched gears and moved the POD to 2008 and Obama's victory.

 

[Simreeve]

I'll just point out that right Wing terror groups go back a long, long way in the USA. We just don't call them 'terrorists'.

The original Right Wing Terrorists in the USA would be the The Klu Klux Klan, obviously.

No, the 'Sons of Liberty'.

 

[sturmwurst44]

The problem with the original request is while both parties/left v right have extremists, the original poster stated fundamentalist/evangelical Christians be the terrorists. That's absurdly unlikely since the object of their religion, Jesus Christ, was largely non-violent. Unlike Muhammed, who cared a path of violence through the 880sAD. Most attempts of "Christian" violence in the US have usually vehemently discouraged by other Christians, who immediately chastise or distance themselves from anyone advocating that.

Most militias are nothing more than weekend shooting groups and or survivalist groups awaiting some sort of disaster or apocalypse (which both are and are not Religious or Christian based! More often not). Timothy Mcveigh was actually asked to leave the Michigan Militia Corp as being to violent and radical. I studied militia groups in college extensively (and this was before and after the OKC bombing and I was going to school in Edmond, OK) and found them ultimately , relatively harmless. I would caveat that some might consider direct reactionary action in the event of near total gun confiscation, but that's not a terribly popular idea in most of the Midwest and south and would cause issues among many in the populous at large.

No, right wing Christian violence, is for the most part, one big media/lefty wet dream.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

The problem is finding a hard core of competent leadership. When you look at most terrorist groups in the modern era, there is usually a hard leadership core. Usually they have a certain background - young, scions of the middle class, at least some college education at a reasonably good school, want to change things for the better, and so on. Now most young people are left wing to some degree or another - socially or economically. Of course, you still have significant populations that are still on the Right in that educated group. But typically they tend to prefer the means given to them via the political process, whether in formal party structures or other civic and special interest groups.

Which means that the fringe right with guns tends to be unorganized, and seems destined to consist of nothing more than random thugs. Add to that the fact that the Tea Party has bought into the democratic system by essentially joining a mainstream political party, and large scale right wing domestic terrorism seems very unlikely. You would have to convince right wing college educated types that they have no voice in the democratic process, and even then it's doubtful.

 

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

Frankly, most of the scenarios you guys are throwing out are just not really possible. I don't think this AHC is doable.

Keep in mind that most posters on this forum veer to the far-left, so your guys' view of American right-wingers is fairly warped.

There really is no base for right-winger domestic terrorism, aside from a few isolated instances. Sure, in the case of widespread domestic gun confiscation, there would be, but that's a whole different situation.

In addition, a religious fundamentalist terrorist streak is probably least likely at all.

 

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

A lot of wind went out of the sails of the militia groups and other extremists in the wake of Bush becoming President and 9/11. Take both of those away, get Gore into office and you've likely got a Supreme Court that is firmly pro-choice (no Roberts and no Alito) and while Gore was far from a radical, I doubt he would have strayed too far from Democratic orthodoxy when it comes to judicial appointments at the Court of Appeals level as well. Give Gore till 2008 and its possible that we could be 22 years into Democratic presidents at this point if the 2008 financial crisis is also avoided. Obama, after 8 years of Gore, might just push them over the edge and into overt action.

If this seems a bit far-fetched -- and it may well be -- the fact remains that the Republicans have won the popular vote just once in the past quarter century going back to 1989 and that win owed a lot to post-9/11 sentiment and the fact that we had two wars going on.

LOL at the notion that the 2008 financial crisis wouldn't have happened if Gore was President. It was going to happen no matter who was president, barring some huge butterflies. It may not have happened in 2008, but it would have happened sometime in the decade without large-scale changes well beforehand (which Gore wouldn't have made).

If Gore did win in 2000 and 2004, it is fairly likely we'd have a Republican president today, actually.

 

[Divergent54]

Wow, y'all do understand that there's already a terrorist group that bombs and held hostages of abortion clinics and gay pubs right? It's been there since the late 80s and throughout the 90s and 00s.

 

[Morty Vicar]

The problem with the original request is while both parties/left v right have extremists, the original poster stated fundamentalist/evangelical Christians be the terrorists. That's absurdly unlikely since the object of their religion, Jesus Christ, was largely non-violent. Unlike Muhammed, who cared a path of violence through the 880sAD. Most attempts of "Christian" violence in the US have usually vehemently discouraged by other Christians, who immediately chastise or distance themselves from anyone advocating that.

In my experience the Christians will tell anyone who will listen that Christianity is all about love and peace and tolerance, but you rarely find Christians standing up to the extremists, eg the Westboro Baptist Church, the anti-abortion extremists etc. In this modern age some Christians have this PR-savvy front, but despite the confused message of christianity itself, for the most part it is misogynistic, homophobic and self-righteous. The idea that Christians are nonviolent, with all due respect, is falsifiable with a cursory glance at the Crusades, witch-hunts, Inquisition, the role in slavery and so on.

Most militias are nothing more than weekend shooting groups and or survivalist groups awaiting some sort of disaster or apocalypse (which both are and are not Religious or Christian based! More often not). Timothy Mcveigh was actually asked to leave the Michigan Militia Corp as being to violent and radical. I studied militia groups in college extensively (and this was before and after the OKC bombing and I was going to school in Edmond, OK) and found them ultimately , relatively harmless. I would caveat that some might consider direct reactionary action in the event of near total gun confiscation, but that's not a terribly popular idea in most of the Midwest and south and would cause issues among many in the populous at large.

No, right wing Christian violence, is for the most part, one big media/lefty wet dream.

It's more of a right wing wet dream imo, the right wing love to have their demonstrations, show off their guns and threaten revolution, but in the end nobody turns up, or those that do don't actually do anything.

 

[mlp]

The problem with the original request is while both parties/left v right have extremists, the original poster stated fundamentalist/evangelical Christians be the terrorists. That's absurdly unlikely since the object of their religion, Jesus Christ, was largely non-violent. Unlike Muhammed, who cared a path of violence through the 880sAD. Most attempts of "Christian" violence in the US have usually vehemently discouraged by other Christians, who immediately chastise or distance themselves from anyone advocating that.

Most militias are nothing more than weekend shooting groups and or survivalist groups awaiting some sort of disaster or apocalypse (which both are and are not Religious or Christian based! More often not). Timothy Mcveigh was actually asked to leave the Michigan Militia Corp as being to violent and radical. I studied militia groups in college extensively (and this was before and after the OKC bombing and I was going to school in Edmond, OK) and found them ultimately , relatively harmless. I would caveat that some might consider direct reactionary action in the event of near total gun confiscation, but that's not a terribly popular idea in most of the Midwest and south and would cause issues among many in the populous at large.

No, right wing Christian violence, is for the most part, one big media/lefty wet dream.

As a Christian who has met plenty of Muslims, I'll first say there are as many belligerent American Christians as there are of peace-seeking Arab Muslims. And if you also know Muslims firsthand, you would hopefully agree with me.

I believe that we can further agree that the Middle East is plagued with chaos and conflict because they were forced into those situations after centuries of history going against them, with almost zero experience of peace and prosperity that Americans enjoy.

The Crusades proved how belligerent Christians can be, along with many other examples such as the Spanish Conquistadors and the rise of neo-colonialism.