I saw the above quoted by NT in the Ann Coulter thread* and in light of recent developments here in Denmark I felt I had to react to it, but since my reaction would have been OT, I've decided to ask my questions in a seperate thread.

For those of you unaware of the further context of my questions, let me explain that Denmark has just been witness to several days of civil unrest and urban violence as self proclaimed anarchists and left wing radicals battled the police in the streets of Copenhagen.
Here is the BBC's reporting on the subject.
Here are some of my own musings.

I often see people from one side demonising the other and since I like to think of myself as occupying some sort of political middle ground, I often find myself in agreement with both sides on this issue. In other words, both sides have their black sheep. Where I disagree is in the scale though for it seems to me that whilst right wingers talk foul, left wings act it. It may be I am more to the right than I care to acknowledge so I'd like to pose some questions and see how others regard this issue:

Questions posed for debate:

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)

Is either side actually worse than the other?

Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?


*Note I make no objections against NT's characterisation of Ann Coulter

edited for grammar

I saw coverage from Denmark – looked ugly.

Questions posed for debate:

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)

Each party has its left and right “wings” but overall few are what I would consider extreme including Coulter. To me “extreme” are people who advocate outright violence (not legal civil disobedience). We have little of this in the US because Socialism/ Communism are really quite weak. This is not the case in Europe and Scandanavia.

Is either side actually worse than the other?
No
Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)

Yes. One study I read documented that people from different sides of an issue often interperate the same facts very differently.

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?

Not much in the US but far more so in Europe where the far left sill has some significant support. A resurgence of Communism could be ugly considering its horrendous past.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)

Like Ted, I think the dividing line between views that are, shall we say acceptably divergent form the mainstream, and those that are unacceptably extremist is drawn at the point where people start talking abut the use of violence to further their political views.

Is either side actually worse than the other?

Not really. If I were to split hairs, the extreme right tend to foment hatred against people for who they are or what they look like, whereas the extreme left do the same thing against people based on what they think or how they act.

Given that nobody has any control over who they are or what they look like, but has a modicum of control over their thoughts and actions, I'd say the extreme right are very marginally worse than the extreme left.

Though it's like a competition to find out whether cow or buffalo chips taste better - no doubt there is a difference between them, but nobody in their right mind should swallow either to find out.

Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)

Yes. Since I am on the political left myself (the mainstream left, I hasten to add - I'm not about to argue for the use of gulags any more than someone here on my right - Ted, say, is ever likely to proselytise racism), I probaly am more inclined to feel less threatened by the far left than the far right. Not that I'm going to fall into the old European Communist groove of trying to make out like the Soviet Union was not as bad as it was painted and that even Stalin had his good points - no way. Easily as bad as Hitler, if not worse.

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?

Given history, I'd have to say that it's potentially about the most dangrous form of extremism it's possible to have. However, at the moment, that potential looks set to remain unfulfilled for some time yet.

Like Ted, I think Europe is more at risk of serious extremism that America (for now). Unlike him, I think it more likely that the extreme right becomes resurgent in the face of immigration than that the extreme left will. Quite apart from anything else, the moderate centre and mainstream left has had the something of the upper hand in recent times, and giving political extremists a bit of what they want tends to keep them in check somewhat.

But then, this might be because of my leftward bias. (Just as Ted's fear of leftists is probably influenced by his right-leaning position, at least compared to me )

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)
Violent actions are completely beyond the pale, but IMHO anyone, including Coulter who promotes and incites violence is an extremist as well.

Is either side actually worse than the other?
Right now, conservative extremists, from abortion clinic bombers in the US to the taliban in the middle east are by far more extreme and dangerous.

Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)
I don't think so, really. There are extremists on all sides, but you won't find representatives of ELF speaking at major liberal gatherings.
I am strongly in favor of gun ownership rights, which is generally a conservative political position in the US. You can't go to a gun show in the united states without seeing genuinely extremist right wing groups having a large presence. I'm talking KKK types. They are welcome at gun shows in a way that genuinely extremist groups like the ELF are not welcome at liberal organizations.

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?
Political extremism is all of a stripe, and is all dangerous. To stipulate "western" political extremism in order to give an out to groups that aren't as bad as the taliban is to set low expectations for humanity, and to give them room to move in that direction.

Problem is how you define violence. Civil disobedience is a traditional American mode of political action, going back to the Boston Tea party, through Thoreau's night in jail, the women's suffrage movement, and the Civil Rights movement. The fact is much of the progess in this country in aligning our laws with the Constitution wouldn't have happened without civil disobedience. African Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus and women wouldn't have the right to vote, had it not been for protestors who had the courage to break the laws then in effect and demonstrate "illegally."

Needless to say, all these people were called "extremists" by the people in power who wanted to keep their privileges.

That's a lot different for Contra Death Squads, whose whole purpose was to make sure people didn't obtain their rights by using murder and intimidation by armed gangs.

I don't look at property damage in the pursuit of protecting or expanding the rights of American citizens as violence, but rather as Civil Disobedience, which is as American as apple pie.

Another whuuu????

Conservatives judge people based upon how they look? Good Lord. This is a good one. Please provide examples, as I don't see this one to be even close to reality in my opinion.

I think BOTH sides are judgemental based upon what each other thinks, and most importantly this is why there are two parties. In my opinion, conservatives are most concerned with issues centering around morality, while liberals are concerned with issues revolving around social consciouness (& other social issues). Liberals are most often the champions of the minority, while many conservatives tip their hat to the majority.

I would never say that conservatives or liberals are better or worse, but I suppose we'll see how this board reacts. I'd say there will be a number of liberals and a handful of conservatives who make inane statements of value about this....



WHAT THE _ _ _ _ ????
Grendel, this is bordering on absurd. First of all, Gun Shows don't welcome the Klan. Texas is the home of the gun show, and really most of the time it's a huge redneck gathering and/or (depending on the show) a very high end collectors show. Every now and again manufacturers sponsor shows and it's a little more industrial (cops, fed agents, etc). Hunting and personal protection are big industries in the US, BUT NOT conservative political gatherings. I dabble in collectables, and even have sold at shows. I've never in my time in Texas ever even seen a skin head or Klansman.

Seriously, I think the Taliban and abortion clinic bombers are good examples... but what about people like guys like Timothy McVeigh. I surely wouldn't say he was conservative by any stretch... in fact quite the contrary.

When it comes to most zealots, I don't know that you can blame a party or ideology. Christianity, for instance, might contain a fruit cake or two. Are they conservatives or just fruit cake Christians? Muslims in contemporary history are most likely to blow things up for God, but realistically that's not an American issue (i.e. American Muslims generally aren't bombing things).

[quote]
I don't look at property damage in the pursuit of protecting or expanding the rights of American citizens as violence, but rather as Civil Disobedience, which is as American as apple pie.[/b]

I definitely disagree. Did Martin Luther King's sit in's and marches destroy property? Of course not. In America in 2007, destroying property just might cause violence. Civil disobedience isn't lowering yourself to the levels of those you oppose (or worse). I think you can cause a ruckus and still retain class.

I don't know, the protestors who ended the Vietnam war and saved thousand of lives seemed to disagree with your claim, and history seems to be on their side. As I recall there was more than a riot or two in the anti-war movement. Looking back, if that what it took to end such a useless destructive conflict, it was well worth it. As a famous man once said, "Democracy's a messy thing" -- I guess he meant it's OK for Iraq but not us.

One of the factors I think is most compelling with regards to political extremism is an ignorance of the other. It seems that often people form opinions on personal perceptions that rely on an intepretation of available information. So, for example, Julian see's conservatives as being people more likely to make decisions based on ethnic identity or skin colour where as aevans is amazed at this observation.

I'm not sure Julian is either right or wrong because I can see the reason why he might think that (its also a pretty common perception in the UK left) but at the same time I think I disagree with him. Opposition to Islam in the UK for example is often regarded as a racist perspective, and yet Islam is an ideology that transcends race and the distinction between those opponents of the Islamic ideology and mere racists is deliberately ignored in order to indirectly associate the one with the other. This continued trend of labelling all opponents of Islam as racists is an example of what I deem to be extremism.

For, the other point to consider with regards to political extremism is the meaning of the term 'extreme'. What does it mean? For me an extremist is not just some one who will resort to volence but actually some one who is unwilling to compromise. I think that is my definition of extremism. The unwillingness to even entertain consideration of an opposing perspective.

Obviously I have my own bias. I try to stay in the centre and entertain any and all persepctives so for me, extremism is the opposite of my own personal approach.

Regarding the two main political ideologies at the fore in western politics, I find that European socialism is far more extreme than any European conservative perspective and that the opposite is true in the USA. This would also explain why there is so much bad blood between the two at the moment. Europe's socialists hate the USA (hate is not too strong a word to describe the depth of emotion I am witness to these days) and I feel the opposite may also be true for many American conservatives, though not possibly to the same extent.

There is a popular line in Europe that runs: "I don't hate America, just Bush". I hear this one a lot and I don't believe it any more. A lot of the time people who make this statement go on to list all the things that that they hate about the USA and the gist of it revolves around over indulgent self-consumerism. Something which GW Bush might promote, but can hardly be held responsible for.

I also find socialists are much, much more apt to resort to violence as a means of political control and a testament to this lies in the fact that I have never heard of any conservative advocating revolution. I have heard of abortion clinics being blown up and stuff like that, but I'm not convinced this is an action based on any conservative ideology. I don't agree that religious extremism is a conservative ideology either, nor even nationalism. The recent rise of the nationalists in Europe has not happened at the expense of conservative parties but at the expensive of main stream socialism and most of Europe's religious extremists (and 90% of our Muslims) vote social democrat (Labour)

Revolution however, is violent extremism, and the left wing in Europe has a fondness for revolution, militant political action and revolutionary movements. In this regard one can understand why so many socialists feel a sympathy for the Palestinian, and Islamic cause. They identitfy, rightly or wrongly with what they perceive as a justifiable struggle against the great crime of the capitalist western world. The riots we've just witnessed in Denmark were not unique. Such things happen all the time in Europe and the pattern is always the same. Youths in black and denim, often sporting 'Arafat style' scarves attack the police and any symbol of the USA they can find (McDonalds being the favoured).

In the UK there is a different trend. Under Thatcher, the militant left wing organized nation wide strikes that pitted people against the police. I was a child during that period and I remember the miners strike and the righting that took place when left wing extremists rose up against the conservative government. Its a poigniant contrast that today, under a labour government equally set in its ways and equally distrusted by the British public, there are no right wing militants organising violent protests that lead to street fighting and clashes with the police. That in fact the most ardent and outspoken opponents of the Blair government are left wing.

One of the justifications for using violence as a political tool bandied about by European far left socialists is 'nazism'. It is made abundently clear that these rioting left wingers see themselves as engaged in a struggle against such dark forces as capitalism, nazism and the main stream right wing parties they believe unite the two.

I have never seen a right wing riot happen in Europe. Never. No matter how extreme a right wing group or person may become, I have not seen any of them move from belligerent language to actual violence. I have seen neo nazi's marching but I do not recognize nazism as being akin to conservatism. I see nazism as its own thing, as an ideology that attracts people on the basis of an idelogy that transcends left or right wing thinking and appeals to people from right across the spectrum. A lot of people see nazism as being conservatie extremism, but I don't. I believe this is a deliberate generalisation used by extreme left wingers to excuse their own revolutionary fervor and which has taken root in the common left wing perception due to the cold war dichotomy and repetition.

At the same time, the link between socialism and communism is far more blurred and so the association between the main stream left wing and the extreme left wing is both harder to identity and easier to ignore. Its also easier to cross. Thus you get mainstream left wingers regarding a communist dictator like Fidel Castro almost with affection but viewing a creep like Robert Mugabe (apparently devoid of any political perspective beyond personal ambition) with honest disdain (and even calling him a conservative on occaision). I've seen it remarked on and I agree that western socialists are often hypocritical with regards to where they direct their condemnation. Right wing dictators, like Pinochet and Franco, get the full force of anger where as more left leaning dictators, like Saddam Hussein and Ho Chi Minh get a free pass ...and then there is Hugo Chavez

If extremism is being unwilling to compromise then I say each side is equally guilty. But if extremism is a willingness to use or accept violence then I'd say the left wing were the the more extreme of the two.

I was part of same and property was not deliberately destroyed in most cases. Fires might have been started in the street and college buildings were “occupied” but NOT trashed. The very far left “Weathermen” branch of the SDS was the exception not the rule and their membership was very small. Chicago go out of hand because the police over reacted IMO. So as one of the protestors let me be clear - you don't know what you are talking about.

Now, now, enough of your ad hominem attacks. Even a brief google results in showing various incidents of violence flaring up in the anti-war movement. I didn't say it was necessarilly unrelated to the Weathermen, so your comments on that are irrelevant. But not all the violent conflicts during protests were in fact Weathermen-related.

It's a peculiar thing how conservatives seem to feel the need to revise history at every turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A715042

Want to point out the deliberate violence outside Weathermen. I was there and I can tell you that 100s of thousands of people protested for years with very little violence. Yes we took over buildings but they were not trashed and this was not violence. Chicago gut out of hand because much of the very far left was there and looking for a fight – and they found one. Again the exception NOT the rule. I was there – you obviously were NOT.


And FYI I was not a conservative in those days. Not even close.

You're attacking a straw man. I never claimed most prostestors were violent. I pointed out that some were, and that certainly had an effect in the public mind. Reread my post.

Whether you were there or not doesn't change historical reality, so stop trying to personalize everything and attack people who disagree with you. It's a bad habit you demonstrate in virtually every post.

Why is everything personal with you. I am not attacking you but disagreeing with what you say.

Like “I don't know, the protestors who ended the Vietnam war and saved thousand of lives seemed to disagree with your claim, and history seems to be on their side”

I say your implication here is that violent demonstrations ended the Vietnam War. – is that a correct reading? If it is I disagree, its that simple.

Nice try, but not convincing. Claiming "you were there" at the protests (all of them?) and I wasn't was a cheap attempt to personalize an otherwise defective argument. Historical facts are facts. Whether you were at a protest or not doesn't change that. It is at best irrelevant, at worst an ad hominem attack

As to my assertion, it was simple: the protest movement that ended the Vietnam war invovled civil disobedience, including what was clearly violent property damage, as the days of rage in Chicago clearly were. The differential impact of the violence and the civil disobedience and the peaceful protest is hard to piece together, but they were all elements as an historical fact.

I was at many of the largest demonstrations including Chicago, DC, Boston (numerous). And “civil disobedience” and minor property damage at most – some of which was actually caused by police tear gas canisters going through store windows – was not IMO violent protest. IMO violent protest does not work. The Weathermen were disowned by the mainstream at SDS. Chicago did more harm than good. Millions in the street peacefully ended the war.

I did not know the term 'Weatherman' so I looked it up on Wikipedia and what I read there brought me back to reread what was being said here.

Landru Guide Us, I am not convinced that the anti war protests ended the Vietnam war. I see no evidence that supports such a claim. The war spanned ten years and the student protests were ongoing through out. Despite the peace marches and rallies, the war continued until it could no longer be continued. It was lost, not ended. South Vietnam was not a viable endeavour and nothing the US military did was going to change that. The collapse of South Vietnam was inevitable and the understanding of this is what ended the Vietnam war, not the protests. If South Vietnam had been stronger then the US military would still be camped in Vietnam today.

Its interesting though that the USA had such a group as the Weatherman. I never realised the anti Vietnam war movement was quite so politicized. I am not surprised however to learn that this group Link.

This fits the pattern I see all over. Both sides resort to violence (war) when in power, but there is a willingness on the left to resort to violent action to acheive political goals even when not in power that I do not see on the right.

That might be due to composition of groups. I mean why resort to violent protest when you can just win at the wallet level.

I think there is a reason the right has slowly over time become a political body for religion and big business pretty much, and its via those channels that such political moves are made.

This is probably what feeds into the idea of elitism amongst many viewers of the right. Big business and the church, though not all of it(religion in America) are the primary supports of the right in America today. Why else is the republican party so bent on going against global warming for instance? The reality though is big money, which has a base in the right is a supreme minority in numbers when looking at population. I think such also today is why you find a static in the gop because sects like libertarians are finding themselves with less and less of a voice. Plus these groups, like the neo cons, which are powered by big business and the church typically are blighting our system with partisan politics, but such is not considered close to violent protest or extremism?

I think this is why the democrats are selling out to the church more and more with candidates that have the supreme moral values of hypocrisy and so on, along with a rather almost non existent stance on global warming. Its all tactical or strategical warfare really. The composition of the respective groups leads to various actions though. The GOP really could not sell itself to the common person like the democrats attempt to because it could conflict highly with the primary interest holders in that party. Overall composition relates to actions, which is evident in how the groups pander politically for votes, they both are basically consumed and used like tools also by such bases.

I also disagree that we would still be in Vietnam. Bushco wont budge on Iraq because he has to power to basically not have to listen currently to anyone but his own company that he accepts, but thanks to votes, which don’t count in Florida(thanks jeb you good old boy), this can change. That’s what Vietnams future would have been, also the strenuous amount of political corruption at the time which evolved into something that allowed an actor with a bible to be elected

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)

Many ways, I think. Obviously, the use or advocacy of violence to obtain one's political goals. (I suppose there are very extreme situations where the use of force may be a necessary evil; when one must rise in rebellion against an oppressive government; but this kind of thinking is very dangerous. You and I probably think that force may be necessary when concentration camps are operating; but someone else may feel that force against abortion clinics or slaughterhouses is also justified. To avoid falling into this kind of trap, one must always doubt one's own convictions and submit them to constant scrutiny.)

Which brings me to another sure sign of extremism; lack of doubt. The person who has no doubt at all about her political beliefs is a fanatic.

Other signs of extremism include a great deal of anger when one expresses a political opinion; a tendency to attack persons rather than ideas; a willingness to bend the rules in order to obtain the desired political end.

I might point out that it is possible to have political opinions which are far outside the mainstream, and not be an extremist in the sense we are discussing here. For example, the fact that I support legal recognition of any form of marriage among genuinely consenting partners makes me quite a radical. However, I would never advocate the use of force, or any method outside the law, to obtain this goal, and I am quite willing to accept the fact that this goal is an unrealistic one.

Is either side actually worse than the other?

It depends what you mean. I'm willing to accept your experience that the political left, in Europe, is far more willing to resort to violence than the political right. The situation here in the USA is somewhat different. For one thing, there hardly exists a true left in the United States. Even someone like me, who stands to the left of the Democratic Party, is still firmly middle-of-the-road compared to European leftists. There are, of course, a few violent thugs who call themselves "anarchists" (and who sully the name of that political philosophy, which can be a peaceful objection to all forms of government.) There are slightly more violent thugs on the far right here in the States, I think, of the KKK variety.

An issue which might be raised here is the question of religious extremism, which is inevitably mixed up with political extremism. Worldwide, there is no doubt that fanatical Islam is the most dangerous and most common form of religious extremism. Here in the USA, where this sort of thing is much less common, the Religious Right is probably more of a problem. I hasten to say that, with the exception of a few fanatics, the American religious right does not make use of violence or advocate its use. In this sense, they are not truly extremists. However, they hold very conservative opinions, and wield political power in ways which are often alarming to those of us who favor a secular state.

Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)

Well, sure. We all see the world through distorting lenses. I hope, however, that we are able to reject those who would pervert our opinions into fanaticism. I may be a strong advocate of animal rights, but I do not support the actions of the Animal Liberation Front in any way.

By the way, it's interesting to note that the dichotomy offered here is "conservatives/socialists." This may apply in Europe, but it doesn't quite work here in the States. I would generally be considered an extremely liberal American, but I am not a socialist. (There are some who would argue that anything except a completely unfettered dog-eat-dog free market is socialism, but this is a distortion of the term.)

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?

I'll restrict myself to the USA. In terms of mass movements -- large riots and the like -- there is very little danger. However, the violent actions of fanatical individuals -- the murders of persons on the basis of sexual orientation and so on -- are shockingly common.

Questions posed for debate:

What is the dividing line between main stream and the extreme (in other words how can you know when some one has crossed the line from the former to the latter?)
Throwing tea into the harbor. In one sense, that pretty much covers it. Deliberate incitement or commission of violence. Knowingly, willfully and willingly assisting and supporting those who commit violence.

Is either side actually worse than the other?
Over the last 40 years, i.e. 2 generation, in the West/aka "Free World" aka "First World Countries", i.e. Western Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, the Left is far, far worse. This is especially true over the last 20 years.

If somebody can point to "right wing" riots in the above countries on the scale of the WTO riots that are now routine, have at it.

If somebody can point to Left wing political commentators being assaulted on college campuses, have at it.

Tree spiking, arson, theft, piracy, these are acts of left wing political militants.

And finally, we have that bulwark of the Left, the unions.

The fictional Irish-American philosopher, Mr. Dooley, said, “This country is ruled by courtesy—like the longshoremen’s union.” This comment gets at the heart of the continuing controversy over unions, which remain the most controversial private (or quasi-private) organizations in our society. Controversy derives from the fact that unions are departures from a naturally competitive labor market and their power to extract economic concessions ultimately rests on their ability and willingness to use force. Unionists promise to deliver monopoly advantages to their members and their power to deliver on their promises rests on the ability to deny businesses and government agencies access to labor, the crucial input in the production process.

Even when all members unanimously agree to withhold their labor services from an employer in order to enforce demands for more pay and better working conditions, a union controls very little of the available labor in the economy. Simple withdrawal of labor by organized workers is rarely sufficient to enforce their demands, and therefore, they resort to violence or threat of violence to prevent other workers from entering the labor market and “undermining labor standards.” Unions and Violence - Morgan O. Reynolds

Does political bias cloud the issue of judgement with regards to one's own political opinions? (By which I mean, are conservatives/socialists unable to disassociate themselves from the extremists who share some of the same opinons?)
Sometimes it "clouds" their judgement, other times, no. If a particular observer determines that the injustice/danger/whatever of the situation requires violence to redress, then he is unlikely to be disassociate, and there's no "clouding" going on. Conversely, if one fails to disassociate when violence isn't necessary, especially by one's own judgement, then yes, their bias is likely clouding their perception of the matter.

How dangerous is western political extremism anyway?
To individuals unlucky enough to get in the path, fairly dangerous. For western societies as a whole, moderately. I suspect that the danger is greater currently in Western Europe than it is over on this side of the Pond, and even less so in the Pacific.

now, to respond to what others have written...






I may be mistaken, but I'm not entirely sure that the Taliban qualify as "western poltical extremism."

PETA? Or here's one of my absolute favorites:

Paul Watson, elected to the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club in 2003. highlights from his resume...

Co-founder of Greenpeace
Board member of the Sierra Club
Is responsible for ramming, scuttling, and sinking a slew of fishing boats
Oversees the anti-logging-industry group - Coeur du Bois
"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win."

Of his 1979 sinking of a commercial whaling vessel, Watson stated, "I set out from Boston in the Sea Shepherd with a crew of 19 volunteers…I hunted down, rammed, and disabled the pirate whaling ship Sierra…[We] fired up the engine and made for the Sierra, which was in the middle of the harbor. I hit her at full speed…." Although this attack failed to sink the Sierra, Watson and his crew returned for a second attack on the vessel and "blew the bottom out of her and permanently ended her career."
...
In 1992, despite his animals-first/humans-last stance, he threatened to sink a fleet of ships reenacting Columbus' voyage of the discovery of America on its 500th anniversary if the participants did not sign an apology for Columbus' mistreatment of American Indians.

Please, lets see your list of folks in the West with similar violence in leadership of a major organization on the Right, after their violence.


So you don't consider deliberate arson to be violence?
Ramming and sinking ships isn't violence because its property damage?
Rioting, as long as they restrain themselves to torching cars, tossing bricks through windows, etc as "violence"
I guess that means you must consider bombing an abortion clinic as "Civil Disobedience".

You might be a political extremist if:

Your room is plastered with posters of some big political hero, Adolf or Che'.

The weekly shopping list includes fuel oil, fertilizer, pipes and stick matches.

Your blog title includes one of these terms: Stop the, Save the, Preserve the, Americans for, Institute (of any kind), or Holy Crusaders.

The common response from you when any crisis hits is either nuke 'em or protest 'em.

When you suggest world domination by the United States, you look around and say, "What?" When you suggest that we abandon all modern tech in favor of a 17th century lifestyle, you look around and say, "What?"

There's a shrine to Mama in your walk-in closet.

There's an evil-doer around every corner, or everything everywhere is totally screwed.

It's all their fault.

Extremists on both sides of politics are equally as dangerous, for they suffer from the same derangement of believing themselves to be absolutely correct beyond any shadow of a doubt, and are thus god-like. It's very creepy to be near one of these types. When your skin crawls in the presence of derangement, that's a pretty good sign that you are not an extremist.

I can't draw an absolute line, as I see degrees of derangement. Some types simply talk too much. Others take action but don't do violence, only annoying and sometimes infuriating things like shout in your face or torch a flag. The really bad ones kill people, most commonly with bombs, sometimes with guns, and less often by booby traps. Arson's used too, and I categorize it as a subset of bombing.

The psychology of extremism is probably pretty close to murder. It starts out slow, builds and eventually blows up. Poverty seems to be correlated, especially for far-left extremism. Far-right has a distinctive military character about it. Here's where lines really blur, especially in a country where the Constitution supports a well-regulated militia. I guess the FBI and ATF do the regulating, sometimes with undesirable results. And then we have the freedom of speech thing that extends to living in trees to stop the logging, family planning clinic demonstrations and the like.

When it comes to which side has done the most harm, I can't get Oklahoma out of my head. It seems to me to be the worst thing done so far, if we restrict it to just Western extremism. The GWoT and 9/11 seem to have distracted extremists in this country, or more likely, the law enforcement has gotten stronger.

So another sign that you might be an extremist are the guys in black suits who keep hanging around your house. Or that might be schizoid paranoia, which isn't good either.

Landru, your view in my earnest opinion is very slighted. Maybe you saw the end of the war as a personal victory because you were a protestor, but frankly the war ended because politicians weren't willing to put forth the effort to win it. Vietnam was a debaucle because the US government was 100% involved in the operational effectiveness of the soldiers on the ground, and forced the military leadership to adhere to protocol that crippled long-term effectiveness. Consider this. In Vietnam, the US Army and Marine Corps won 90-95% of all battles, but we still left Vietnam as perceived losers. It would be like if the Dallas police dept was tasked to get rid of Crack dealers, and they could beat them on the streets but could never go into their homes or cars to arrest them.

We left Vietnam because the leadership came to understand that the war's ineffectiveness was costing too much financially and in terms of human lives... consider that the President that began the departure from Vietnam was Nixon, and the President that got us into that mess was Kennedy. Protesters might've helped to sway congressmen to make the war a "more humane" and " less invasive" war (for Cambodia and Laos, etc), but that really probably had a less auspicious effect. Then as the war became less effective, of course our nation came to the conclusion that the war wasn't going to get any better under current circumstances.

Read General Westmoreland's biography by Samuel Zaffiri. You might garner a better understanding of what really happened in Vietnam, on the ground as opposed to what someone told you in a classroom.



HAHAHAHA.... Good one Author. One time in high school I worked at a supply store in Bossier City, LA (years and years ago) and some of our neighbors came in to buy supplies (1/4 sticks of dynamite and fuses I think) to blow up stumps. Back then all you needed was some cash and a handshake. I think now you have to get a background check, give dna, hair samples, etc, etc....

It sucks because last summer we took up a tree where the roots where about to tear into our foundation and had already messed up a plumbing pipe. Do you know how long it took to chop that thing up? 1/4 stick of dynamite and a Bud Light would've fixed that dude in 'bout 30 seconds flat. (Bud light is of course to be held in one hand while you light the fuse w/ the other).

I'm glad someone noticed the most pertinent sentence in my reply to "who's worse - the extreme right or extreme left".

Before I reply in detail, can I draw the attention of aevans176 and moif to this - the gist being that it would be hard to get a cigarette paper between the two extremes when measuring their "badness".

However, you did raise interesting points in your replies I wanted to address



I didn't mention conservatives at all. While conservatives are clearly to the right of the centre politically, I don't think of "conservatives" and "extremists" in the same way. It sounds to me like you define everyone that is to the right of centre as a conservative. I don't - but for the sake of argument I will.

In this light, do you think of the KKK, the fascists, the Nazis or the Taliban as being politically on the left, or (as I do) on the right? If so, then we have a fundamental disagreement on one of the assumes premises of this debate, which would explain the misunderstanding.

I consider racism - the most obvious way to judge people based on how they look - to be a human failing, but the left (generally) is unlikely to politicise it, in the sense of making racist poilicies part of their platform. Even leftwing extremists don't usually consider race, or skin colour (or religion, to be honest, at least not in the sense of one religion being right and one being wrong; if they make a distinction, it's that ALL religions are wrong and atheism is the only approved position) to be important in framing their worldview.

Mainstream conservatives don't generally make much of it either (occasionally they are accused by the left of "playing the race card", but that's simple politicking as often as it is creeping racism).

Stalinesque communists do things that are just as bad - indeed, Stalin often sent people belonging to one race or other visually identifiable group to the Gulags, but his justification for doing was usually because they were somehow subversive or acting against the interest of the state. Hitler's justification was the other way around - Jews, gypsies and homosexuals were acting as enemes of the state because their status as Jews, gypsies or homosexuals made them inferior.

To the poor victims, the public justification made little difference to what they had to face (hence my comparison of buffalo and cow chips - it's all the stuff at the dirty end of the muck raker), but there was a difference in the justifications used when the extreme right wanted them out of the way, and the one used when the extreme left did.



I think you should re-read the debate questions. We aren't talking here about the left and right, but about the extrem left and the extreme right.



The automatic labelling of opponents of Islam as racist is a problem, granted. But so is the automatic labelling of Muslims as a problem. I find it interesting that you criticise the demonisation of a whole group based on what they believe (that Islam is a problem) as racist by defending the demonisation of a whole group based on what they believe (Muslims) which you (rightly, in principle) say transcends race. In practice, where are all the blond, blue-eyed white Muslim suicide bombers? To my knowledge, the non-Arab/Middle Eastern, non-black, non-South Asian, Muslim troublemakers are small in number and are certainly not at the forefront of any news reporting, even aside from the leftie Muslim-hugging BBC.

Plus, your line of argument would be much easier to sustain across the board for all opponents of Islam if there hadn't been well documented assaults on brown Sikhs and Hindus (both faiths have white adherents as well as brown ones, just like Islam) because it was assumed by their attackers that they were Muslim. 'Cos after all, they're all "pakis" aren't they?



Tony Benn, who you may remember form your time in the UK, hasn't compromised very much, but I wouldn't say he was an extremists. Even Iain Paisley - the poster boy for uncompromising politicians - I wouldn't say was an extremist, especially. The people to his right in loyalist paramilitaries certainly ARE extremists.

That said, I agree with your definition in certain contexts.

So maybe the definition of what is or isn't an extreme position depends on context in the first place?

Intuitively, it should, because one can only be extreme relative to everyone else. If everyone else's position on some matter is skewed in some way (for good or ill), having a contrary opinion marks one out as an extremist?

In a way, but I'm not sure how useful it is to WORRY about such extremists - the only ones we need to WORRY about are the ones who either have power and intend to implement their extremism (the Hitlers & the Stalins of the world), or the ones who don't have power but intend to implement their extremism anyway (who we usually end up calling terrorists, or their supporters).



I suspect this is one of the intractable problems of extremism. Everybody thinks their own opinions are reasonable, because we've all had the time to come up with reasons why we have them. Very few of us (and I include myself in this) ever arrive at our opinions through reasoning, we just use reasoning to justify our (intuited or learned) opinions to ourselves and others.



If European socialism were the dominant world power (as if!), which could steamroller its ideas through without regard to contrary views, I daresay you'd find American conservatives to be much more vocal (and extreme).



Again, "a lot of the time" people disguise dislike or hatred of America with the fig leaf of dislike of President Bush. Which doesn't preclude them geniunely liking America, or perhaps just bits of it, while disliking Bush so much they want to mouth off about it. Which, in turn, makes your disbelief something of a generalisation.



Again, I think small-c conservatism, while on the rightward part of the spectrum, is not an all-encompassing thing for all right-wing views. Here, the common parlance is at fault rather than any commentator, because politics is more complicated that a single straight line with everyone spaced along it somehow. I remember a website called "political compass" from a while back which had two axes, the traditional left-right from side to side, and a "libertarian/authoritarian) axis from top to bottom, so you'd plot people's positions on a graph.

Generally, political extremists from ALL parts of the left-right spectrum are found near the top of the "authoritarian" scale - self-evidently, you can't be an extremist if you don't see yourself having the right to tell anyone else what to do!

But to your point on revolution, generally speaking where revolutions happen the political right is in power at the time. Certainly, small-c conservatism cannot possibly be revolutionary, because how can you revolt against the status quo when your primary political motivation is to keep the status quo? (One can, of course, revolt against Status Quo by not buying their albums or wearing denim waistcoats.)



I was a teenager at the time, the leftwing rose up to defend itself against a planned assault from the Thatcher government with the objective of breaking the power of the unions. It was a well-planned assault, the left wing lost, and the unions were broken.



You fail to realise, or remember several things.
1. The Labour party drew most of its power and ideology from the old-style trades unions, which Thatcher broke, so breaking the old-style left-wing Labour party, and requiring a realignment with the centre and the realities of Thatcherite market economics which had become the dominant factor in British politics.
2, Hence Tony Blair and the attacks he receives from the Left both inside and outside his party, because his government does not govern from the Left, but from somewhere in the centre that is, objectively, slightly to the right of the old Major government. They not nationalised anything, and have privatised several things. They've implemented the PFI which came out of a Major-era think-tank. etc.
3. Hence, the past 10 years have felt more or less the same as the previous 18, meaning that the Thatcherite market-economy consensus has continued unbroken, so after the initial euphoria of getting rid of the same tired old ideas, the nation woke up and realised they were still being used to run the country.
4. There HAVE been violent protests from the right against this government - the "fuel crisis" of 2000, the Countryside Alliance marches and demonstrations against the ban on foxhunting. The main differences have been that the government under Blair capitulated to the fuel protestors at the first sign of trouble, and have been chasing after tomorrow's (right wing tabloid) headlines ever since.



Okay, but that speaks to me more of the bankruptcy of using a single left-right delineator to describe politics and political extremism. Neo-nazis are certainly authoritarian, but can anyone really say they aren't right wing.



Can't find much wrong with this, but then I'm not here to try and apologise for the extremist left. They're a cigarette paper away from being as bad as right-wing extremists.



Here I just have to speculate that, if the left is more prone to violence in Europe, and the right is so in the USA, perhaps it's because Europe as a whole leans to the left, and America as a whole leans to the right, and the propensity to apply violence for political ends is just something that is stronger in a small percentage of all people? So you end up with more violent lefties in Europe, and more violent righties in the USA.

Just a thought.

I said klan types. Anyone who's been to a gun show in the US knows what I'm talking about; any gun show I've ever been to or seen there will be people selling literature about race war and the like. They're not the majority but it always creeps me out.

Here I must disagree most profoundly with you Julian. At least in the US, racist policies are one of the cornerstones of the Left. Affirmative Action is racism. A foundation of modern Leftist/Progressive thinking is that "because of your skin color and/or ethnicity, you are oppressed." Now, it can be said with some justification that the Left practices a "soft" racism, in contrast to the KKK or Aryan Nation. Unfortunately for the Left, their racism is widespread, adopted by almost all organizations on the Left, which is again in contrast to the racism of the KKK, which is broadly repudiated on the Right.

Over here, identity politics is one of the pillars of Leftism. Look at high profile racial or ethnic political organizations not considered to be on the fringe, they're all on the Left. The NAACP is the flagship and model of such groups. By and large, Democratic candidates court the NAACP endorsement, Republican candidates do everything they can to distance themselves from the KKK.

Then there is anti-Semitism, which, by my reading, is becoming something of a fixture on the Left over there in Europe. Not so here in the US, as explicit anti-Semitism is still pretty much a flaw of the fringes on the Right, but the step from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a very short one, and the Left here is very much into the anti-Zionism.

Said troublemakers are small in number because the population of "blond, blue-eyed white Muslims" is likewise pretty small, and very few of them hail from societies steeped in Islam.

FWIW, I do know a blond, blue-eyed white Muslim, a truckdriver. He's scary, not in a "he's gonna blow up a truck stop" kinda way, rather "he'll cheat anybody he can" kinda way. I consider his attitude to be a heritage of how and where he was raised (as a Syrian Muslim), rather than exclusively a result of his religion, as two other Muslims I know (both raised here in the States) are pretty upstanding. Of course, one has essentially abandoned her faith and is functionally secular, and the other is a casual adherent last I heard. Admittedly, a small sample.

I hear ya man... I also find it interesting that you correlate gun shows to conservative (or right wing) political gatherings. I'm not sure where you're going to gun shows, but I've never gotten a race war flyer in my life (except one time on a business trip in Pike Place Market in Seattle... that was weird). Then again, that's Seattle I'd suppose. I really wasn't surprised. Anyway- maybe you live in the midwest. It seems that neo-nazi groups have a hay day in small town USA.

Anyway, I'm not sure what angle you're trying to push. Frankly, I can't see how you've shown that conservative groups are more violent. Maybe the Taliban or Al Qaeda are good examples, but whatever. They're not in the US and surely aren't Republicans.

So if people in general were not conservative with there stances or ideas the world would be the same? I mean from my point of view if we did not have a bunch of hardcore extremists running around typically attempting to rule the universe the planet might be a nice place to live in general. Just look at America, with conservatives that feel the need to make "camps" were homosexuals can go to be cured or what not. Ideologically to me most of its a mess, fact is second hand to feeling and for the most part you get people that do become very conservative with ideological fixation really. Such as in both parties that rule our political scene. Regardless of this, if people per say were more liberal maybe WW2 or war period might not occur to the point in which we need to make enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

Just as the history of race relations in America, and everyone wanting to conserve there culture, it leads to a great many problems, chronically I would say. Its almost like choking to death slowly.

As for the hi fives and all that jazz, last time I checked the world is not some utopia, neither is America, but of course you have groups pointing fingers saying its there fault and not mine, makes you wonder, being I don’t know about how you feel but I don’t think the word dormant could be used to describe behavior of either of our major political evils. Also in some chronic fashion a supporter of some ideology will be quick to point out that nothing wrong can be done by such people, or moreover that such an ideology is perfect and so fourth and so on.

To simply draw a nice parallel, what’s the leadership in Iran and the republican party have in common, they both hate secularism and basically want to rule via a theocracy, but hey, its only American, though of course statements like god told me to invade should simply be brushed aside, or the countless other facets one could bring up historically to support this idea of mine.

Anyways, anything objective or fact related typically comes last in anything political, yesterday, today and tomorrow it will be like this.

You are correct, gun shows are not political gatherings, I was mentioning them just as an example from personal experience of someplace where conservative politics are the norm.
Let's go with CPAC, then. Ann Coulter makes the satirical point that Isaiah Washington is somehow a victim because he faced some extremely minor consequences for physically assaulting his co workers while shouting slurs.
Hell, you want to talk extremist; who was it that bussed in thugs to physically intimidate vote counters in Florida in 2000? The right relies on the thuggishness of a certain subset to accomplish their ends. They can't make abortion illegal but in most states you'll have a hard time finding a doctor to perform one. Not out of any moral qualms, but because they know there is a good chance they'll be murdered if they do. "Conservatives" couldn't get John Edwards' bloggers fired, but they ensured the bloggers quit in the face of harassment and threats.

Abortion clinic bombings and contra executions on a grand scale suggest otherwise. And of course historically, the Nazi's and Mussolini's brownshirts organized street violence at every turn as part of their scheme to attain power.

But of course in general, rightwingers tend to have limited support in populations since they almost always support the rich against the weak and powerless. So it isn't suprising you don't see mass protests in support of conservative ideology. They simply don't have the numbers and have to acheive power by selective violence - assassinations, killing nuns and priests, and so forth.

Are you saying I'm 'bad'?


I don't know because I'm not sure what it is you are saying here.

I have a problem with Islam, yes. I have that problem because I've become aware of Islam due to violence carried out by Muslims. If there hadn't been so much violence then I would not be aware of Islam as a problem. I am not aware for example of any Buddhist problem, specifically in Denmark, or Sikh or Hindi. Christianity is the majority religion in Denmark, yet, and even though we have our fair share of Christian extremists I don't see them plotting terrorism, shooting each other dead in the street, attacking Jews with eager enthusiasm or carrying out a wave of sexual violence against the rest of us.

Having looked deeper at this new problem I have found Islam to be an oppressive ideology. I do not care what ethnicity a Muslim is, Whether he be an Asian from Pakistan or a European from Bosnia is all one and the same to me. I don't even care that he is a Muslim. What I care about is when that person justifies extremism against me and my nation by virtue of his personal belief. And having looked closer at the ideology behind that belief, I can't see how any one can call themselves a Muslim and not be an extremist. Its an extremist ideology that essentially has no moderate form.

Its the only religion I know that puts a moral obligation on its followers to oppress and even kill non believers.


By my measure, Benn is an extremist. He may not be militant but that doesn't change his unwillingness to compromise.


Well the 2,000 or so autonome who just spent a few days burning Nørrebro district have no political power what so ever, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. This is whom I worry about. These are largely the same people who came out in sympathy with Hizb'Allah a few months back, only there were more mainstream left wing politicians in their number then.

Thats partly my concern with the left wing. I can't see where the dividing line is. When the left marches, its the same sight that greets me eye. Left wing politicians gladly march alongside religious fanatics to protest against the evil of the Jewish state. Not one of them has marched against Darfur or spoken out against the Iranians.

There is a clear, unmistakable bias that is so skewed from reality as to be frightening. The left wing speaks of the right as if all conservatives were evil racists and yet thats exactly how the left wing manifests its one sided anger at Israel. Worse yet, there is an oft stated perception in the European left wing that violence is legitimate if used against a right wing government that does not conform to the left wing perception of what is justifiable.

Its a hypocrisy plain and simple. The left wing has demonstrated itself willing to stand alongside people like Hizb'Allah and yet then complains about the use of military force in Iraq. Why is wrong for us when its just A OK for Hizb'Allah. What makes us different from them that we must be held to a different standard? Our laws? The left wing goes out of its way to break laws when those laws go against the left wing. Thatcher may have attacked the Unions but she did it with a mandate from the people. Scargill and his ilk had no such mandate.


The difference I think lies in that I constantly question my own belief's and I am willing to change my perspective if I am shown cause enough to do so. I inhabit the middle ground as much as possible because I do not see either side has having all the answers. I am right wing in this particular context but for most of my life I've voted to the left. It all depends on the issue and whats at stake. If I feel my country is at risk, I have no problem with adopting a nationalist stance.

All that stuff about being born some where gives you no right to be proud means nothing to me. I am Danish and proud of Denmark. I am that way because I feel this is where I belong. I am not a nationalist in the sense of race or ethnicity. My philosophy is I support those who support me. For this reason I support the USA despite my disregard for GW Bush.


What worries me is the willingness of European socialism to surrender to Islamic ideology. I don't understand how socialists can suddenly be seduced by religion, but that is what I am seeing. I'd support any right winger who took a stance against such an abject surrender. I am horrified by the sight of Islam being foisted onto us without so much as a by your leave, because it has become a cause celebré for the left





It was also legal was it not? Governments are put in power to govern and to arrange and rearrange as they see fit. If Thatcher had been wrong then the next election was where to fight her. As it turned out the unions reacted with predictable stupidity. They did what they always do, They used 'direct action' instead of using political action. Thatcher was unpopular her whole time in office and yet she was put back in power. Why? In my opinion, Thatcher, Major and now Blair all stayed in office because the British people had no viable alternatives. Better the devil you know.

I hated Kinnock. Even as a child. His lunatic edge was so blatant that even I at 12 years old could see it. Its surreal for me now to see him orbiting Danish politics and playing the grand old man from Bruxelle because his daughter-in-law (and hows that for political in breeding!?) is now the head of the Danish Social Democrat party.


Yeah, so Blair is not 'left enough', I understand that perfectly.


Is the Countryside Alliance really right wing? What is your definition of right wing here? Because it seems to me that your saying any one who is not left wing must be right wing. I don't see that the fuel crisis or the land owners belong to any sort of right wing ideologic movement. These are merely protestors who do not identify themselves as being left wing.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to with regards to how the European socialists continue to refer to nazism as being right wing. It isn't. Nationalism is a very different thing. There are plenty of left wing nationalists. All studies into voting patterns in Europe have shown that the nationalist surge we are witness to is due to left wing supporters moving to the far right as they rebel against their own party's willingness to sell out to the Muslims.

And look closer at the more realistic nationalist parties (not the BNP for example) and you'll see most of them have social policies which contradict right wing thinking. In other words, nationalism is not right wing. The left only refers to it a such because the left doesn't want to admit that its sharing/losing voters with the nationalists!

In the UK the pattern is blurred because land owners and farmers are regarded as being right wing when they complain against a fox hunting ban. They are not right wing. They are simply not left wing. Their cause stems from an entirely non political slant, but goes against left wing thinking so they become labelled right wing. This willingness to label all opposition as right wing is a part of the reason why I consider so many left wingers, people like Benn, to be extremists. Because they refuse to see why people oppose them and lump all opposition into one great big right wing evil enemy.


YES!!!! a thousand times over. Neo nazi's are racists. They have no legitimate political ideology at all and look closer and you'll see they seldom share the same political reasons for their racism. The majority of neo nazi's regard socialism as an enemy, but many express socialist idea's. The left regards all neo nazi's as right wing because the left needs an enemy by which to exist. Struggle against an 'oppressive elite' is central to the revolutionary ideal so the left foists a biased perspective on to the right, lumping them in with religious fanatics and nationalists. It doesn't matter that half the nationalists are spouting left wing opinions, it doesn't matter that left wing politico's openly march in sympathy with Hizb'Allah, what matters to the left is identifying with the 'struggle' against the 'oppressive elite'. Even when that elite is largely a construct in the left wing mentality.


I'm still not seeing anything that puts the American right wing on a par with the European left wing for a propensity to use violence as a political tool. Some one mentioned the Oklahoma bombing, but that was the work of nationalists as far as I have understood.

I asked myself how do I identify who is who in politics? Can you seperate people into categories by means of a simple theory? Would it be accurate? I see people in politics in five distinct groupings.
1. Those who put themselves first.
2. Those who put humanity first.
3. Those who put their nation first.
4. Those who put their god first.
5. Those who refuse to take a stand.

Now, you can move back and forth or belong to different groups on different issues, but essentially I think this is h