This is somewhat orthogonal to Glen's question, but might be used as context for thinking about it.
About six years ago, I spent the summer playing anthropologist among 'militias'. 'posses', and 'separatist' ultra-far right groups in Eastern Oregon and Idaho. I did not have the time or funds to extend my research to similar groups in the Southeast U.S. These people pose no threat. All of the groups were dominated by one quasi-charismatic bully and 4-6 sycophants and some number of "weekend followers." Yes, they have a lot of guns: grenade launchers, mortars, fully automatic machine guns, and "next week we will be purchasing a SAM or two." (Next week obviously never comes.) They spend a lot of time planning and scheming, but they cannot keep their mouths shut. Everyone in the community surrounding them knows all about any plans as fast as they are made. The FBI must know them as well. The only threat - multiple repeats of Ruby Ridge. To be a threat, in my opinion, some degree of zealotry and True Believer psychology has to be present. The only place I see this kind of mindset is among the far left. davew On Mon, Nov 2, 2020, at 8:44 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > > The Terrorist Threat from the Fractured Far Right > https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrorist-threat-fractured-far-right > > The "Salad Bar" or what I typically call "cafeteria style" > stochastically accumulated naturfacts has been a hallmark of the fringy > people I end up talking to. It's rarely, but sometimes, successful to > identify contradictions between the nuggets they've accumulated. > Consistency is simply not a core component of human reasoning, which is > why I like defeasible and paraconsistent logics. > > The question I have is whether or not we *have* to quell all the atoms > in which the far-right has blossomed in order for it to die out? The > whole "united we stand" rhetoric seems to be a form of > bureaucracy/consistency that is needed for large-scale engineering > projects but totally unnecessary for large-scale destruction and > violence. Is its atomization a sign that it's dying? Or a more intense > risk of its success? This "foam" of little right-wing bubbles seems > similar to free market innovation rhetoric ... or the diversity of > COVID-19 responses amongst the states, or even "evolution happens > faster under environmental stress". From an intelligence and homeland > security standpoint, can we afford to allow even 1 tiny bubble to > achieve its ends? Or do we have to squash them all? > > And if the latter, is this an example of complexity from simple rules, > where if we were to understand those core rules, we could squash them > all strategically? > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
