Oh goody, the DHS (Sieg Heil)
thinks that I'm a right wing extremist. I think that their boss is
at least a left-wing extremist. So there.
David
"Free
speech is meant to
protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition,
needs no
protection."—Neal
Boortz
On 4/22/2012 4:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
abovetopsecret.com
![]()
The Name Game -
"Far-Right" v. "Far-Left"
I've been thinking about the increase in the use of these
two terms, in recent years. I suspect, most of those who use
the terms, particularly as insults, really don't know why
they use them, other than to describe someone who does not
agree with them on a single specific political standpoint.
So, in order to determine the applicability of the labels
"Far Right" and "Far Left", lets look at a couple of documents.
The Department of Homeland Security issued a report in which was included this
definition
Rightwing extremism in the
United States can be broadly divided into those groups,
movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented
(based on hatred of particular religious, racial or
ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local
authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It
may include groups and individuals that are dedicated
to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or
immigration.
A DHS report includes these groups in their
explanation of leftwing extremists
Animal rights and
environmental extremists seek to end the perceived
abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the
natural environment perpetrated by humans....
Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of
radical philosophical components of anticapitalist,
antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements...
Specifically, it names such groups as the Animal Liberation
Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First, Crimethinc,
the Ruckus Society and Recreate 68.
(Bold emphasis by me)
So, how many Americans actually fall into any of these
groups and fit the published DHS profiles of Far Right and
Far Left? That is impossible to quantify, because of their
underground nature, but there are estimates.
KKK - 5,000 or 0.00162 of the total population (includes
40 factions and over 100 chapters) ADL
Christian Identity - 37,500 (ADL says 25K to 50K) or 0.01215
of the population ADL
These numbers, of course, include those members who are
simply loud mouths and are unlikely to engage in acts of
violence, however do contribute to the rhetoric that
inflames and incites others to act..
If we combine those and multiply by a factor of 10, the
total is still just over one-tenth of 1% (0.13) of the U.S.
population. The factoring should more than account for those
who are radically anti-abortion and radically anti-illegal
immigration, if you make an estimation based on actual
incidents of violence, from the following sources.
According to the National Abortion Federation during
the 30 year period of 1977 to 2007, there were 7 related
murders and 17 attempted murders. That is an average of
about 1 per year. If you include all incidents the NAF
considers violence, the result is 5,622 over the 30 year
period or 188 per year. Even if you assume each event, over
the entire 30 year period, was committed by a different
person, that is only 0.00182 % of the population.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report says this about
hate crime offenders
Law enforcement agencies
reporting hate crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program
in 2008 identified 6,927 known offenders in 7,783
bias-motivated incidents.
That amounts to 0.00224 % of the U.S. population.
That should provide a pretty clear view of who are really
the "Far Right". Now, on to those identified as "Far Left",
in the previously cited DHS report.
The FBI estimates that the
ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the
United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess
of 43 million dollars.
The Threat of Ecoterrorism 2002
So, here we have an average of 100 criminal acts per year,
officially attributed to ALF and ELF. Using the same methods
as above, allowing each of those to be at the hands of
different individuals, the number of radical
"eco-terrorists" equates to 0.00003 % of the U.S.
population.
Now, how to measure membership in such anarchist groups as
Crimethinc, Ruckus and Recreate 68? One of Crimethinc's
webpages indicates 300 attended its annual " Convergence"
meeting. I think it would be safe to say, those are the
hardcore members. I won't even attempt to enumerate the
membership of Ruckus, but its Facebook
page has over 3,000 followers. Similarly, Recreate 68's
numbers are difficult to estimate.
Though many may not be familiar with these organizations,
past leftwing groups included the Weather Underground (of
Bill Ayers fame) and the Symbianese Liberation Army.
Again, those who can truly be considered "Far Left" are
small in number.
Now considering who is truly "Far Left" or "Far Right" and
their true numbers, where do the rest of us lie, on the
imaginary left/right scale? Personally, I consider myself to
be mostly liberal on personal freedoms. Of course, for those
who have read any of my posts regarding the
decriminalization of drugs, I have exceptions, though they
are very limited. (But, honestly, my good friend and ATS
giant, Jean Paul Zodeaux, has recently presented arguments
which have me a little off balance in that stance.) However,
I consider myself very conservative on fiscal matters. So,
on a single scale of 10 in either direction and zero in the
center, I would have to say I believe I would fall
somewhere between the 1 and 2 on the conservative side.
Rightwing extremism in the
United States can be broadly divided into those
groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented
(based on hatred of particular religious, racial or
ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local
authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.
It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated
to a single issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration.
A DHS report includes these groups in
their explanation of leftwing extremists
Animal rights and
environmental extremists seek to end the
perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the
degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by
humans....
Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number
of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist,
antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements...
Specifically, it names such groups as the Animal
Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth
First, Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society and Recreate 68.
(Bold emphasis by me)
So, how many Americans actually fall into any of these
groups and fit the published DHS profiles of Far Right
and Far Left? That is impossible to quantify, because of
their underground nature, but there are estimates.
KKK - 5,000 or 0.00162 of the total population (includes
40 factions and over 100 chapters) ADL
Christian Identity - 37,500 (ADL says 25K to 50K) or
0.01215 of the population ADL
These numbers, of course, include those members who are
simply loud mouths and are unlikely to engage in acts of
violence, however do contribute to the rhetoric that
inflames and incites others to act..
If we combine those and multiply by a factor of 10, the
total is still just over one-tenth of 1% (0.13) of the
U.S. population. The factoring should more than account
for those who are radically anti-abortion and radically
anti-illegal immigration, if you make an estimation
based on actual incidents of violence, from the
following sources.
According to the National Abortion Federation
during the 30 year period of 1977 to 2007, there were 7
related murders and 17 attempted murders. That is an
average of about 1 per year. If you include all
incidents the NAF considers violence, the result is
5,622 over the 30 year period or 188 per year. Even if
you assume each event, over the entire 30 year period,
was committed by a different person, that is only
0.00182 % of the population.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report says this
about hate crime offenders
Law enforcement agencies
reporting hate crime data to the Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program
in 2008 identified 6,927 known offenders in 7,783
bias-motivated incidents.
That amounts to 0.00224 % of the U.S. population.
That should provide a pretty clear view of who are
really the "Far Right". Now, on to those identified as
"Far Left", in the previously cited DHS report.
The FBI estimates that the
ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in
the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in
excess of 43 million dollars.
The Threat of Ecoterrorism 2002
So, here we have an average of 100 criminal acts per
year, officially attributed to ALF and ELF. Using the
same methods as above, allowing each of those to be at
the hands of different individuals, the number of
radical "eco-terrorists" equates to 0.00003 % of the
U.S. population.
Now, how to measure membership in such anarchist groups
as Crimethinc, Ruckus and Recreate 68? One of
Crimethinc's webpages indicates 300 attended its annual
" Convergence"
meeting. I think it would be safe to say, those are the
hardcore members. I won't even attempt to enumerate the
membership of Ruckus, but its Facebook
page has over 3,000 followers. Similarly, Recreate 68's
numbers are difficult to estimate.
Though many may not be familiar with these
organizations, past leftwing groups included the Weather
Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) and the Symbianese
Liberation Army.
Again, those who can truly be considered "Far Left" are
small in number.
Now considering who is truly "Far Left" or "Far Right"
and their true numbers, where do the rest of us lie, on
the imaginary left/right scale? Personally, I consider
myself to be mostly liberal on personal freedoms. Of
course, for those who have read any of my posts
regarding the decriminalization of drugs, I have
exceptions, though they are very limited. (But,
honestly, my good friend and ATS giant, Jean Paul
Zodeaux, has recently presented arguments which have me
a little off balance in that stance.) However, I
consider myself very conservative on fiscal matters. So,
on a single scale of 10 in either direction and zero in
the center, I would have to say I believe I
would fall somewhere between the 1 and 2 on the
conservative side.
But, what if we imagined two scales, rather than one?
Where do you think fellow "liberals" would place you
on a zero to 10 liberalism scale, with ten being
completely anarchistic and radical? Would others see you
as a "right wing extremist" simply because you do not
advocate burning down every bastion and symbol of
capitalism? Or, would a person who fully supports the
welfare system, but is fundamentally opposed to
abortion, consider you a "left wing radical", because
you are a pro-choice advocate? How about you
"conservatives"? If you think abortion is a personal
choice, but staunchly oppose using taxpayer money to pay
for elective abortions, would you be labeled "left wing
loon"? What if you stolidly oppose the criminalization
of drugs, as an assault on your natural and inalienable
rights? Far-left? But, wait. You are also, adamantly a
freemarket capitalist? "Right wing nut-job"?
Things are seldom almost never black
and white.
So, why are the terms used so recklessly, on a daily
basis? Why does the media attempt to portray so many as
extremists, while only offering seconds long soundbites and
simple utterances as justification for their claims? Is it
appropriate to label someone as "Far Left" simply because
they carry a sign that says "No WTO", "WTO Scum, Your Time
Has Come" or "Bush=Hitler"? Is it acceptable to refer to
someone as "Far Right" simply because they carry a sign that
says "Taxed Enough Already", "When They Jumped the Fence,
They Broke the Law" or "Obama=Hitler"? No, it is not and it
really is ridiculous. But, why does it continue and why is
it becoming more pervasive?
In my opinion, and apparently that of several other ATS
members, the only reasonable answer is, to further divide
the populace. The greater the divide, the less likely it
becomes that We will figure out that We have
more in common about the problems facing our country, than
what we think. If you can be convinced that every person
with a single conservative position is against everything
that you stand for, "they" have won. If you can be convinced
that every person with a single liberal position is
determined to destroy everything in which you believe,
"they" have won.
But, as is seen on the pages of ATS, every day, our energy
is focused on the small things upon which we disagree. You
see, if we actually "got along" long enough to identify
commonalities, it wouldn't take long for us to determine a
corrective course of action, through compromise and logic.
Instead, we have page after page arguing back and forth
about whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen. How much time
is spent in atheism vs. religion or creationism vs.
evolution threads, when neither side has any intention
whatsoever of changing their minds? Why? Because we have
been programmed to believe that those who do not share our
beliefs are the enemy, must be defeated and have absolutely
nothing to contribute, in any way, whatsoever. Though I am
not a student of psychology, it appears that the more
vitriolic a debate becomes, the debaters begin to only
recognize key words they want to attack, often ignoring or
completely missing items on which they can easily agree.
Take the Health Care Reform debate, for instance. While
everyone I know agreed our health care and health insurance
systems were in dire need of improvement, we all bought into
the divisive politics of the elite. The Republicans told us
the Democrats wanted to deny us any and all control of our
own health care, by having complete government management.
The Democrats told us the Republicans only wanted to help
enrichen their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
The Republicans said the Democrats wanted to kill the
elderly. The Democrats said the Republicans wanted the poor
to die, by denying them any health care. And what did we end
up with? The same health care system we had before the 18
month long debate. And do you know why? Because that is
exactly what the lot of them wanted us to have. And how did
they achieve that? By causing further chasms in the populace
and convincing us that we will never come together to solve
a problem.
How do you get problems resolved in your personal
relationships? Do you just stand on opposite sides of the
room and call each other names? Or, do you compromise? Or,
sometimes do you just give in to end an impasse? What about
on the job? If you and a co-worker disagree on how a project
should be accomplished, do you just send nasty emails
back and forth calling each other names and regurgitating
the same points of contention over and over? If you do, I
would keep a jobs listing close at hand, because you're
going to need it.
So, what do we do about it? How can we begin to
reverse the trend of division? How can we get others
to recognize that most of the chasms and schisms are merely
illusions.
Well, how about our time on ATS? What if I had retitled one
of my threads, "This is America, Not Europe", and more
carefully censored my defensive posture? Maybe my thread
would not have contributed to the division, which it
obviously did. We need to recognize this is a place for
debate and not intended, I don't believe, as a forum
for editorialism. I understand it is unlikely we will rarely
convert other members to our different ideologies, but by
expressing our views more tactfully and respectfully,
constructive debate will permit us to recognize our
similarities, and focus less o the antithesis.
But, maybe not. I've been wrong before and will be again.
Even then, we all breath the same air, drink the same water,
ail from the same diseases and suffer the same heartaches.
We are all, elementally, human, with no illusory scales,
until we label ourselves or allow others to label us.
============================================
Selected Comments :
... part of the problem is single issue voters. Rather
than educate ourselves on the whole of the candidate's
platform and/or voting record, decisions are made on hot
button issues we allow the media and political marketers, or
more appropriately, merchandisers convince us are important.
------------------------------------------
...the reason the terms are used so recklessly, is do to
2 primary factors:
1.) The MSM believes it NEEDS controversy to generate
readers and viewers. It's a variation of the old adage "When
dog bits man, it's not newsworthy, but when man bites dog,
it is."
2.)Politicians need to generate this mythical difference
between the parties to generate heightened fervor, in order
to attract voters. When you look at the two parties, there
really is no difference in what they DO, but there is a
great difference in what they SAY they stand for. I would
challenge anyone that thinks that Obama's actions on, say
foreign policy was substantially different, from G.W. Bush's
policy. Yes, there are cosmetic differences, which both the
MSM and the parties, play up, such as Obama's apologies to
foreign powers. However, when you really think about it, is
there a real difference, even there, when G.W. Bush BOWS to
a Saudi King, while Obama apologizes to a leader? Obama
started or agreed to as many wars as Bush did, but the
rhetoric of the MSM would make you think otherwise.
As many on ATS have wisely concluded, there really is very
little difference in substance between the two parties,
because the alliance between the corporate world and
government will not allow it, As the wizard said, "Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain".
Pay no attention to what they say, but observe carefully,
and you will easily be able to see that their actions show
that they are cut from the same piece of cloth.
---------------------------------------
I think the problem that you cite has two primary
contributors:
1.) Some people just like to be contrarians. If you say
white, they say black. What percentage contributes to the
above? I haven't the slightest idea, but we know they exist,
and I'm leaning to this being the minor factor.
2.) The second contributor is, I believe the larger factor,
although I cannot prove it. Many people have "bought into"
the left-right PERCEIVED difference of the two parties. I
say perceived, because, when you examine the issue, you see
that they both use the exact same tactics:
a.) Tailor your stance to the audience.
b.) Raise issues and stances that you know, via studies,
will energize your base.
c.) Raise issues that will exude strong reactions in favor
of your stance, and against that of your opponent.
d.) Use the MSM to push your views.
e.) Pay an "independent research group" ( a complete
oxymoron!) to find results that favor your position.
f.) Find ways to "back out" of a position you previously
held, if that position becomes unfavorable.
g.) Deflect the argument at hand, if you cannot support your
position using reason and common sense. This would include
changing the subject, going into a long winded discussion
that obfuscates your position, or starts confusing people,
take an "emergency" call, or other such tactics.
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
|
