Ah, I misunderstood part of what you were saying. I thought that all the examples you provided were meant to be right-wing groups. My fundamental point, however, still stands. There are groups (on the right and left) who are violent nutbags. However, I do not believe that any of them represent an existential threat to the United States as it currently stands. Were a group the size of the Tea Party to go in that direction, we might see a serious threat to the fabric of the country, ala the Civil War. But given the nature of our country and the corporate backing of the groups at this juncture, I'd deem that unlike. Too many people with too much to lose and too little to gain.
At the end of the day, I believe that the Tea Party has strong fundamentalist, theocratic leanings. They are anti-democratic and opposed to a secular republic. They share that with the Taliban as traits. However, the Tea Party also tends to oppose centralized rule and has a much stronger bent towards individual libertarianism. Those are not differences you can just dismiss out of hand. I also do not believe that they, in their current form, have a willingness for violence that you see in the Taliban. Pissed off? Sure. But largely still involved in the political process and not engaged in violent insurrection. So let us be careful with generalizations. Judah On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > Friends of Earth. > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Out of curiosity, who is FOE? I'm not familiar with that acronym, as far > as > > I know. > > > > As for destroying cars and SUVs, left-wing environmental orgs and animal > > rights orgs have done plenty of that over the years, not to mention > > torching a ski area in Colorado. They have not targeted human killings, > > only property destruction, unlike Army of God, but it is certainly the > case > > that there have been terrorist groups on multiple areas of the > > socio-political spectrum. None of them have amounted to a serious threat > > against the nation, even in the case of major incidents like the Oklahoma > > City bombing. > > > > The Tea Party has a larger and better sustained following than any of the > > previously mentioned groups. But, at this point, there is not an > > identifiable consistent message of directed violence or mayhem outside > the > > political process and definitely not an implementation of such violence. > > You may be scared of them, and their rhetoric, but that is not the same > > thing as groups who have moved on from rhetoric to action. > > > > We don't need more bogey men, we have plenty. There are any number of > > reasons to dislike the Tea Party and even to compare them to > fundamentalist > > forces from history. But if you really want to understand them and deal > > usefully with them in a modern context, it is important to avoid unworthy > > generalizations and focus on real insight instead of lazy sweeping > > comparisons. > > > > Cheers, > > Judah > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:368383 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
