You Are the Enemy
Update, May 20, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A7672-2003May18.html?referrer=emailarticle

"You prosecute what you can prosecute," says a "law-
enforcement" official. He's talking about a midnight 
raid on someone's house in search of evidence regarding 
-- copyright violation. Specifically, unauthorized use 
of the Nike "Swoosh" symbol:

> Armed federal agents slipped silently into 
> place around Byron Calvert Cecchini's Leesburg 
> home. They pounded on the door, rousing the 
> self-described white supremacist from bed. For 
> several hours, the agents scoured the house, 
> loading his computer, Rolodex and files into a 
> Ryder truck.
>
> The FBI began investigating Cecchini because 
> of his ties to one of the largest neo-Nazi 
> groups in the United States. In an > affidavit 
> seeking a warrant for the pre-dawn raid this 
> year, an agent wrote that Cecchini had a 
> "violent criminal history" and probably owned 
> weapons.
>
> Agents found no weapons, but they found 
> something they were looking for -- T-shirts 
> with a Nike swoosh logo that substitutes the 
> word "Nazi" for Nike. Cecchini is facing 
> possible charges of trademark violations, said 
> law enforcement sources, who spoke on the 
> condition that they not be named. 

When I was a callow lad some 30 years ago, I remember 
the popularity of another T-shirt emblazoned with the 
unauthorized modification of another trademark. In that 
case a famous Coca-Cola slogan was changed to read: 
"Enjoy CoCaine." Its popularity among stoned-out 
druggies surely infuriated the buttoned-down suits at 
Coca-Cola headquarters -- after all, they're known for 
siccing lawyers on people selling miniature soft-drink 
machines emblazoned with the Coke trademark for 
furnishing dollhouses, model railroad layouts, et 
cetera. However, I've never heard of SWAT raids on the 
long-haired manufacturers of that notorious shirt, nor, 
more recently, the makers of tiny bootleg Coke machines.

The implications of the raid described above are 
chilling. Armed -- no doubt heavily armed -- police 
agents surround a house, before dawn, before pounding on 
the door and rousting an unarmed man -- for copyright 
violations.

It's similar to nothing so much as the way the KGB used 
to arrest dissidents. The Soviets well knew how to take 
advantage of the time when a person is the most 
vulnerable --the hours before dawn. His body is at its 
alowest ebb, and when the victim is wakened suddenly, he 
is groggy and disoriented -- not to mentioned terrified 
and humiliated. Of course, our modern-day Dzerzhinskys 
and Berias have added their own touches that no doubt 
enhance the terror and humiliation, such as the modern 
police tactic of shouting abuse at the top of their 
lungs, throwing him on the floor, and planting a knee on 
his neck while the cuffs are put on him. How satisfying 
it must be to know that, even if their victim is found 
innocent of all charges, he's had an experience that 
will give him nightmares for the rest of his life.


> It is a tactic being used with increasing 
> success nationwide as authorities step up 
> efforts to curb domestic hate and terror 
> groups: prosecute any illegal activity by known 
> extremists and, at the same time, work to 
> infiltrate potentially dangerous > groups to 
> guard against future attacks.

This is an interesting paragraph when read in light of 
the previous ones. There is no indication that this guy 
Cecchini was planning any kind of "attacks." The writer 
of the story just accepts that he's a potential 
terrorist because he's an obnoxious white supremacist, 
and because he praises the tradition of lynching on his 
web site.

Let's step back and take a look at this for a moment. 
What the Secret Police are doing is going after so-
called "hate" and "terror" groups, not on evidence that 
they have done -- or even are going to do -- anything 
illegal. They are busting in doors because of what their 
victims SAY. They are "curbing" people who think the 
wrong way. And the "tactic" the above paragraph glibly 
talks about is using whatever legal pretext they can 
find or twist into shape to justify it. Find a charge 
-- any charge -- that will stick, even momentarily. So,
even if you can't put the victim in jail, you can, 
hopefully, destroy him with the costs of defending 
himself in today's "legal" system.

And the News Media, our informal Ministry of Truth, 
reports this deliberate contravention of the First 
Amendment uncritically, unlike what they did in the time 
of my youth, when the Secret Police's COINTELPRO 
operations raised a firestorm in the press when 
uncovered.

The story doesn't say what Cecchini's "violent criminal 
history" is, and perhaps the warrant doesn't either. 
For all we know, it may consist of one drunken bar fight. 
Elsewhere in the story, another white supremacist is 
mentioned as having been prosecuted on a "weapons" 
charge. The nature of the charge is not elaborated upon, 
leading one to suspect that they found a revolver in his 
nightstand or something equally negligible. Today, even 
the legal possession of weapons can get you thrown in 
jail, as this story shows:

http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=4541

Now, you may be wondering why this incident is filed 
under the "You are the enemy" title. After all, you're 
thinking, I'm no Nazi. Well, neither am I, and I view 
Nazis with the same distaste I regard Commies, 
pederasts, neo-Trots, Congressmen, and, come to think 
of it, the FBI. But, they're not only going after 
Nazis:

> The terrorism task forces are homing in on all 
> groups, including militia movements and even 
> environmental and animal rights organizations.

In other words, they're "homing in" on any inconvenient 
group they can pin the "hate" or "terror" labels on. To 
put some perspective on this, note that there have been 
no major terrorist incidents carried out by domestic 
organizations for a quarter of a century, since the 
demise of the Weather Underground and the Symbionese 
Liberation Army. Tim McVeigh supposedly acted with one 
or two accomplices, but there was no identifiable group 
or network involved with his terrorism that has been 
revealed to us. The 9/11 incident was caused by a 
foreign organization. And the anthrax attack on the U.S. 
Capitol was apparently perpetrated by a lone scientist 
who worked for a U.S. government biological weapons lab! 
So why, all of a sudden, go after domestic groups?

Still not impressed? Then think about this. Recently, 
the web filters used by libraries, government, and 
business computer networks, and concerned parents to 
prevent their charges from viewing pornography and 
racism, have begun to block the web site of THE 
WANDERER, a traditional Catholic periodical. THE 
WANDERER's main agenda is the reform of the Catholic 
Church in the United States, which it regards as having 
drifted dangerously away from vital traditional 
teachings and practices under the leadership of liberal, 
irreligious bishops. It is not racist. It most 
emphatically does not call for violence in any way, 
shape, or form. And yet, it is now, apparently, a "hate" 
publication in the eyes of the shadowy figures who make 
these determinations.

Possible reasons for THE WANDERER's hate classification 
include:

* Being Catholic, it's anti-abortion, which among our 
  arbiters of correct thinking is morally akin to 
  advocating child molesting (ironic, that).
* It does not support gay rights, or any other trendy 
  political cause that goes against Catholic teachings 
  (e.g., ordination of women to the priesthood and 
  marriage of priests).
* It runs columns by Joe Sobran, who has been labeled 
  an "anti-Semite"   because he is critical of the 
  state of Israel and its numerous supporters in 
  America. (However, as of yet, Sobran's own site has 
  not been blocked.)
* It's Catholic.

Other than those astoundingly weak reasons, I'm stumped.

How about you? Do you hold views that are regarded as 
unacceptable by our betters? Do you advocate ideas or 
practices that might make things inconvenient for 
certain groups if widely adopted -- however improbable 
that eventuality may be? Have you ever modified a 
copyrighted logo or slogan? If so, you too may be a 
Hater. It may be years before the "task forces" work 
their way down to you, but, just to be safe, you might 
want to start cleaning up your hard drive, dumping those 
copies of THE WANDERER, and getting rid of those 
questionable T-shirts and bumper stickers now.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David T. Wright's original article "You Are the Enemy" 
may be found at: 

Updates are posted as events come to Mr. Wright's 
attention.

Copyright (c) 2003 by the Thornwalker.com 
www.thornwalker.com. All rights reserved.