Pro-Terror Extremist Voters: Harris

Pro-Terror Extremist Voters in the U.S. Election (full series)
Harris | Trump | Third Parties
Pro-Terrorism Voters

The pro-terrorism and anti-Israel extremist movement in America is divided in eight ways over the U.S. presidential election, and it has the potential to dramatically alter American politics and life.

The extremist groups and their supporters disagree over which presidential candidate’s tenure is preferable, just like the election-meddling foreign adversaries they side with and in many cases are tied to.

However, what’s playing out isn’t an expression of rival affections for the candidates, but a debate about the best way to manipulate the political system, civil society, and the election-industrial complex for the sake of the overall pro-terrorism seditionist movement (or “insurgency,” as they typically prefer to call themselves).

Hundreds of Marxist, anarchist, Islamist and white nationalist groups within this infrastructure have been identified and exposed by the Capital Research Center, particularly through its October 2024 report on the over 150 pro-terrorism groups driving the anti-Israel protests and its investigation of nearly 300 groups involved in protesting the Republican and Democratic conventions this year.

The extremist groups and associated activists fall into eight categories based on their varying strategic calculations:

1. Advocates of voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
2. Advocates of voting for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
3. Advocates of voting for Jill Stein and Butch Ware.
4. Advocates of voting for Cornel West and Melina Abdullah.
5. Advocates of voting for Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia.
6. Opponents of voting who prefer a Harris victory.
7. Opponents of voting who prefer a Trump victory.
8. Opponents of voting who do not care who wins.

The differences are rooted in desires to coerce and seduce the Democratic and Republican Parties into appeasing them while not wanting to legitimize them or to promote any kind of faith or hope in the American system.

The biggest faction of the pro-terrorism and seditionist network favors voting third party or not voting at all.

The calculation behind this act of strategic self-harm is that failing to vote for Harris and effectively assisting Trump will enable them to shake down the Democratic Party by demonstrating that this extremist movement has the power to decide the outcomes of elections, particularly in swing states with large Muslim and Arab populations like Michigan and Minnesota. If Democrats don’t appease their radical agenda enough to motivate them to vote for their candidates, then Democrats lose. By this calculation, every second of trauma resulting from a Trump victory is a gift.

The first two categories are making a lesser-of-two-evils judgment call based on which candidate will most advance the terrorism-supporters’ agenda. They vote either for the candidate whose policy proposals most closely align with theirs or for the candidate whose detrimental effects will most benefit the movement’s political power, such as by inducing strife that they can then exploit.

Category 1: Harris as the Lesser of Two Evils

Case in point, the Houston chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which supports Hamas and the government of Iran’s assaults on Israel, participated in a fiery protest against “Killer Kamala” that was so hateful that a protestor dressed as a Hamas member and simulated a bloody beheading of President Joe Biden. It happened without any sign of objection and, in fact, one of the protesting groups even chose to post it on Instagram.

However, DSA celebrated Harris’s choice of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate and took credit for making it happen. DSA boasted that it had undermined the prospects of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who was arguably more politically beneficial to Harris than Walz but was unacceptable to extremists because he is clearly pro-Israel, sharply critical of student protestors who support Hamas, and proudly Jewish.

DSA’s website currently features an article acknowledging that “it may make sense to vote for Harris in a short-term strategic sense,” but most of its words are dedicated to condemning her as a “psychopath,” making a case against “liberalism,” and declaring that the “genocide in Palestine” can only be stopped through “militant, revitalized unions” and not through voting.

The Muslim voter mobilization group Emgage Action, an advocacy arm of Emgage Foundation, has a radical history, Emgage Action’s endorsement of Harris was less hostile but still strongly disagreed with the Biden-Harris Administration’s support for Israel and emphasized its endorsement was based on a conviction that she’s a significantly superior option than Trump.

An Islamic activist named Mohamed Elsanousi arranged an endorsement of Harris by 25 Islamic clerics and leaders that made an Islam-based argument for backing her because she “far outweighs the harms of the other options” and undertook various actions that they appreciate.

Elsanousi is a former senior official of the Islamic Society of North America, which was identified by the Justice Department as an “entity” of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and designated as an unindicted co-conspirator during the Holy Land Foundation trial regarding illegal financing of Hamas.

The Uncommitted National Movement tried to straddle a delicate line by refusing to endorse Harris but still endorsing voting for her by urging supporters to not vote for a third party or decline to vote because doing so would increase the chances of a Trump victory. The group condemns Israel’s response to the October 7 terrorist attacks, blames Israel for provoking the attacks, and tellingly does not condemn the attacks or Hamas or Hezbollah. Focus on Western Islamism’s examination of the Uncommitted Movement concluded that its effort amounted to a “power grab” by Islamist extremists hoping to unify their ranks and overcome separate internal gravitations toward the conservative and liberal ends of the political spectrum.

This author’s monitoring of white nationalist communications found a similar dynamic. Almost all of the white nationalists detest Harris and Trump. Most white nationalists are pro-Putin, but some of those who favor Ukraine are urging voting for Harris because of concerns that Trump will minimize or eliminate aid to Ukraine and be friendlier toward Russia.

In the next installment, some Islamist extremists are voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils.