Int'l sponsorship for right-wing domestic terrorism in US

[overoceans]

Like it says on the tin. Have some foreign entity, be it a government or a non-state actor, fund, arm, cheerlead etc. right-wing terrorism in the USA, analagous to the way Libya used to support left-wing and anti-imperialist terrorism.

Right-wing groups here can include white-supremacists, anti-government militias, and anti-abortion terrorists, among others. For my purposes, I'm not accepting black-nationalist groups(eg. the Nation Of Islam) or the Jewish Defense League, even if they theoretically qualify as right-wing.

And you can posit post-Soviet Russia as the sponsoring entity, but stay away from anything to do with the 2016 elections or subsequent events.

There is some slight precedent for this, since the assassination of Orlando Letelier was carried out in DC, likely under the direction of Chilean intelligence. Wasn't part of an ongoing campaign, though.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Wouldn't Apartheid South Africa count, given its racialist nature?

 

[overoceans]

Wouldn't Apartheid South Africa count, given its racialist nature?

Yeah, but would they be likely to sponsor any domestic terrorists in the US? I'm sure they had diplomats and lobbyists, but that would have all been legal.

 

[overoceans]

Anti-Castro Cuban groups were known to engage in violent actions, but I think they were largely self-sufficient. And for the most part, they weren't trying to influence domestic politics. (Some of them were apparently involved in the Letelier murder, under Chilean direction.)

 

[𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗼t]

Radical islamists are pretty radical, but we all know that it’s not the answer we want. Anyways, here’s a semi-crack idea:

“The conclusion of the Polish Border Crisis had left Zhirinovsky incensed. Although outright confrontation with the West was out of the question, ‘domestic-interference’ was still within the bounds of acceptable actions for the National State. Thus began a truly unprecedented campaign in Russo-American history, as Zhirinovsky covertly aided and trained militants from Sacramento to Charleston. While Zhirinovsky’s ‘assets’ were, for the most part, useless, a select few were successful in inducing bloodshed; the Portland Massacre being the most notable example. Ultimately, the apex of Zhirinovsky’s campaign came with his militant’s assassination of presidential candidate Jeb Bush…a action that would prove to be the program’s downfall as the assassin failed to destroy his Russian connections. The discovery of said connections would cause the downfall of Zhirinovsky, and indeed nearly all of the National State’s teetering empire…..” - Amazon description of Among Us: A History of Zhirinovsky’s Interference in American Society

 

[Don Corleone]

Extreme right groups in OTL, although detestable, generally aren't interested in exporting their revolution. If they're ethnonationalist, they want minorities out of their own country. Even if they're expansionist they don't need the entire world for lebensraum.

The challenge is to find a fascist regime that benefits from killing black or Jewish Americans. There really isn't one.

 

[overoceans]

@𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗼t

Not bad. But if you really wanted it to dovetail with Zhirinovsky's stated geostrategic ambitions, have him sponsor Alaskan separatism. It would almost certainly be right-wing, and even if the terrorists weren't consciously trying to further slavic irredentism, any move away from US control would be considered a point in Russia's column.

 

[overoceans]

Extreme right groups in OTL, although detestable, generally aren't interested in exporting their revolution. If they're ethnonationalist, they want minorities out of their own country. Even if they're expansionist they don't need the entire world for lebensraum.

The challenge is to find a fascist regime that benefits from killing black or Jewish Americans. There really isn't one.

Well, there could also be realpolitik considerations at play, eg. in response to Ted Kennedy turning a blind eye to Bostonian support for the IRA, British intelligence funds Scotch-Irish separatists in the Appalachians.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Well, there could also be realpolitik considerations at play, eg. in response to Ted Kennedy turning a blind eye to Bostonian support for the IRA, British intelligence funds Scotch-Irish separatists in the Appalachians.

Could be one possibility but what about having it be a surviving JFK regarding Portugal and Angola instead? Say, for whatever reason Camelot decided to support decolonization and turn a blind eye to the rebel's suppliers ITTL, emphasizing that America should be committed to ending any renemants of colonialism as a policy.

In retaliation, Portuguese intelligence alongside Rhodesians and South Africans conspired with segregationists especially the most ardent Klansmen
to conduct a guerrilla campaign in Dixie, beginning in Mississippi and gradually expanding across the deep south. I'll stop here as it might be ASB but needless to say depending on how inflamed the south is among others I could argue that with the right spark and butterfly it could

 

[juanml82]

Extreme right groups in OTL, although detestable, generally aren't interested in exporting their revolution. If they're ethnonationalist, they want minorities out of their own country. Even if they're expansionist they don't need the entire world for lebensraum.

The challenge is to find a fascist regime that benefits from killing black or Jewish Americans. There really isn't one.

The political objective would be to cause enough domestic unrest in the USA that the USA becomes unwilling to focus in foreign interventions as it prioritizes solving the domestic agenda. The obvious downside, of course, is that the moment the US government realizes the domestic terrorists are being sponsored by a foreign country, then it will focus very narrowly and very destructively in said foreign country.

 

[Boss Tweed]

A victorious (or at least "victorious", AANW-style) Nazi Germany funding the German-American Bund seems like an obvious choice.

 

[AmericaForever]

For my purposes, I'm not accepting black-nationalist groups(eg. the Nation Of Islam) or the Jewish Defense League, even if they theoretically qualify as right-wing.

Lol what's the difference in national assertion whether in the minority or majority? Either way it's a movement for the benefit of an ingroup against the outgroup..

 

[overoceans]

Could be one possibility but what about having it be a surviving JFK regarding Portugal and Angola instead? Say, for whatever reason Camelot decided to support decolonization and turn a blind eye to the rebel's suppliers ITTL, emphasizing that America should be committed to ending any renemants of colonialism as a policy.

In retaliation, Portuguese intelligence alongside Rhodesians and South Africans conspired with segregationists especially the most ardent Klansmen
to conduct a guerrilla campaign in Dixie, beginning in Mississippi and gradually expanding across the deep south. I'll stop here as it might be ASB but needless to say depending on how inflamed the south is among others I could argue that with the right spark and butterfly it could

Yeah, that would work. You'd really need to re-orient US foreign policy, though.

 

[overoceans]

Lol what's the difference in national assertion whether in the minority or majority? Either way it's a movement for the benefit of an ingroup against the outgroup..

I wanted groups that public and elite opinion generally recognize as right-wing. When the media reports on "right-wing violence", called by that name, they don't normally include the NOI and the JDL.

 

[Sam R.]

So either we esteem a scholarly position on what is what and we relate this topic to that; in which case, the variety of Islamic pseudo-fascisms society-of-the-spectacle-spectacularly met the ambit; or, we let the cretinistic mass media decided what is commonly socially agreed for a moment in which case we just search the newspaper archives.

Either way: the terroristic and violent non-state right have been active in the past 40 years domestically in the United States historically; so there's no reason to run to allo-history.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[YYJ]

The sponsor in this scenario need not be in ideological alignment with the politics of the terrorists. If the sponsor's goal is to sow chaos, and they have a utilitarian moral compass, then arming anyone who will blow stuff up will achieve their ends.

 

[overoceans]

So either we esteem a scholarly position on what is what and we relate this topic to that; in which case, the variety of Islamic pseudo-fascisms society-of-the-spectacle-spectacularly met the ambit; or, we let the cretinistic mass media decided what is commonly socially agreed for a moment in which case we just search the newspaper archives.

Yes, but "the cretinistic mass media" and allied entities affect perceptions, which in turn affect political dynamics.

In the 1980s, Republicans tried to link Jesse Jackson(a leftist) with Farrakhan, because Scary Black Man. On the other hand, Democrats never really tried to link any Republicans to Farrakhan.

So, if some Farrakhan-allied group started launching terrorist attacks in the 1980s, to the extent that the public is going to make any partisan connections at all, they'll likely connect it to Jackson, and via Jackson, to the left. That Farrakhan's pro-business economic policies and de facto dixiecrat racial policies would be classified as conservative in a PoliSci textbook wouldn't matter one whit. As far as the political impact of the attacks goes, they might as well be carried out by the Weather Underground.

Back to the direct topic, there may be little difference between the NOI and the KKK, basically just two sides of the same coin. But whereas Mummar Qaddafi supported the NOI for a while in the 80s, there's no way he would have supported the KKK. Because the latter patronage would absolutely wreck his cultivated image as a left-wing hero to suffering brown people the world over.

 

[overoceans]

The sponsor in this scenario need not be in ideological alignment with the politics of the terrorists. If the sponsor's goal is to sow chaos, and they have a utilitarian moral compass, then arming anyone who will blow stuff up will achieve their ends.

US support for the Fenian Raids(such as it was) would be an example of cross-ideological sponsorship, since I doubt that the dour old WASPs in charge of the USA at that time would have seen much to celebrate about Irish Catholic terrorism, in and of itself.

Though, of course, this sort of utilitarianism only goes so far. Had the Fenians saw some value in torching stuff in the USA(eg. in response to anti-Irish prejudice), it's not likely the British would have been willing to support that.

 

[athgtq16129]

A victorious (or at least "victorious", AANW-style) Nazi Germany funding the German-American Bund seems like an obvious choice.

Nazi Germany saw the German-American Bund as a bunch of idiots and never gave support for them, Nazis saw the US as an unsalvageble country doomed by miscegenation, democracy, capitalism, and an artificial national identity, contrary to most Axis victory fiction, they had no plans to annex/turn the country into an "Amerikan Reich" modeled after their own, other than just make sure that the US would be weakened (or destroyed) and unable to challenge their post-war influence.

If pro-Nazi German-Americans wanted to make the Nazis happy, they should just move to the Reich altogether rather than try to mix Nazism with American-centric ideas and aesthetics that their idols despised, especially since in this scenario Germany would be needing Volksdeutsche from outside of the Reich to colonize and fight in their recently conquered territories in Eastern Europe, though even German-Americans were hated, and the ones who decide to migrate to the Reich would probably have to endure loyalty tests to prove that they weren't stained or assimilated with Americanisms.

 

[mariano kant]

cheerlead

I´ll let you know that the round of punitive sanctions that happened after Gaddafi´s Gals smoked the hell out of the Texans´ cheerleaders was a direct contributor to the Libyan civil war.
Nato imperialism ruining it for everyone yet again smh