TR Harry
Submitted photo/TR Harry
By TR Harry | Scottsdale
The Town Bell and the Whisperers (a parable)
In a town nestled between two rivers, the mayor ordered the old bell tower restored. “We need a signal,” he said, “to warn of danger.” The bell had once rung for fires, floods and festivals. Now it would ring for threats — especially those from within.
One morning, the bell tolled loudly. “There are whisperers among us,” the mayor declared. “They wear no uniforms, hold no meetings, yet they sow unrest. They call themselves ‘the Unseen.’”
The townsfolk were puzzled. Some had heard of the Unseen — young people who questioned the mayor’s decrees, who planted pamphlets in library books and painted lanterns on alley walls. They were not violent, but they were vocal.
The mayor held a roundtable. Only his allies were invited. They spoke of chaos, of broken windows, of fear. No one spoke of the lanterns, or the questions, or the quiet acts of care. Soon, new rules appeared: no gatherings without approval, no speech that “undermined civic harmony.” The bell tolled more often. Some townsfolk nodded. Others whispered.
One day, an elder stood in the square with a small sign: “Who decides what danger looks like?” She was not arrested, but the bell rang anyway.
And in time, the town grew quieter — not safer, but quieter. The bell still stood, polished and proud. But fewer people looked up. More looked down. And the whisperers? They kept whispering — not to divide, but to remind.
Question: In times of uncertainty, how do we distinguish between genuine threats and uncomfortable truths — and who do we trust to make that distinction?
Considering today’s political environment (who is tolling the bell), here are three terms everyone should probably be familiar with:
• The Insurrection Act
• Martial law
• “Antifa”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president the authority to deploy military forces — such as federal troops or the National Guard — to suppress civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion. It’s federal law with deep historical roots and potent implications, one of the few legal exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which normally prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. The act can be triggered under three main conditions:
• At a state’s request — If a governor or state legislature asks for federal help to control unrest.
• To enforce federal law — If rebellion or obstruction prevents the execution of federal laws or court orders.
• To protect civil rights — If citizens are being denied constitutional rights and local authorities fail to act.
Historically, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act about 30 times. Notable examples include:
• Eisenhower and Kennedy using it to enforce school desegregation in the South during the Civil Rights era.
• George H.W. Bush deploying troops during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict.
Martial law involves the temporary replacement of civilian government with military authority, often suspending civil liberties like habeas corpus. Once declared, best keep your mouth shut, or your engine running. It’s distinct from the Insurrection Act, which allows military assistance but keeps civilian government intact.
“Antifa” is short for anti-fascist. The term comes from European resistance movements in the 1930s, especially in Germany and Italy, opposing fascist regimes. In the U.S., it gained visibility in the 1980s and surged into mainstream awareness after the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. It has become a polarizing symbol in American politics. Supporters see it as a necessary response to government extremism. Critics argue that antifa’s sometimes violent tactics can be counterproductive and dangerous (especially to those in power). However you define it, today it represents dissent.
Antifa is not an organization in the traditional sense. It refers to a loosely aligned movement of like-minded individuals and groups united by common interest. In this case, by opposition to fascism, white supremacy and authoritarianism. Under current political conditions, think of it this way: they believe pluralism as has existed in America, for almost 200 years, is threatened today by what appears to be the political ascendency of a conservative Christian minority to dominate government and impose their standards on national life.
Once any antifa “movement” is neutralized, or eliminated, their will can be established by authoritarianism, without serious threat or competition. That helps explains why the Antifa concept is under fire today.
In September 2025, President Trump signed an executive order labeling antifa a “domestic terrorist organization.” Legal experts note that U.S. law does not grant presidents the power to designate domestic movements this way, especially one without formal structure. That raises a worrying point, one that echoes historical patterns where governments, especially in moments of unrest or transition, have sought to define an enemy to consolidate power or justify extraordinary measures.
What happened at the Trump roundtable?
The Trump administration’s nationally televised October 2025 “Antifa Roundtable” highlighted, of course, the president and featured cabinet members, conservative influencers and right-leaning independent journalists. The discussion was framed around antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization,” even though it has no hierarchy, membership or headquarters. The FBI and Anti-Defamation League have previously described it as a decentralized movement or “ideology,” not an organization.
Nonetheless, roundtable officials compared antifa to ISIS, Hezbollah and drug cartels, and suggested prosecuting supporters as if they were part of a criminal enterprise. The roundtable excluded dissenting voices and Democratic leaders, some of whom were accused of “covering up terrorism” without evidence.
Considering antifa’s nebulous presence as a labeled active domestic terrorist group “all around the country,” it would suggest that anyone — “all around the country” — who voices contrary opinions, criticism or questions the current federal administration’s efforts to further consolidate authoritarian government control is a domestic terrorist. Therefore, they have no right to free speech. So — shut him, her and all such sympathizers up!
From the government-in-power position, that’s not an illogical strategy. But it leads to tension raising a core question: Can a movement, grounded in moral urgency, be it a religious inclination or anti- authoritarianism, for example, coexist with democratic pluralism? If fascism is intolerable, does that justify intolerance of fascists? If violence is sometimes used to resist oppression, how do we distinguish resistance from repression?
These are not just tactical questions, they are philosophical dilemmas about the nature of truth, justice and communal identity. They echo the challenge of fostering belonging without erasing dissent. Ouch!
It seems like our long-standing democratic political pluralism is slowly but surely giving way to the extremisms of polarized political options. How do we face this divisive future? If dissent becomes “illegal” and free speech denied, maybe we don’t?
How do I explain this to my grandchildren? Maybe a pastor will?
Editor’s note: TR Harry is the pen name of a Scottsdale-based author who writes primarily about politics and religion on his blog. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.