Help Identify "The Desperate and Dangerous Far-LEFT Extreme Sub-Culture"

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by grover
(1) The most important in my mind is that the far left has never had a serious chance at threatening the government and the American system. Never.


Good point. Maybe that's why I have such a hard time getting a handle on it. We don't see the Democrats (one of the two major political parties in this country right now) supporting PETA, the New Black Panthers or the SLA, etc... (correct me if I'm wrong.) The organization and associations necessary to make these groups a threat to the government or our way of life are lacking, as far as I know. And there are no political commentators out there preaching their gospel for the followers to absorb and regurgitate.


The government IS the threat




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

If I recall my history correctly the only time the far left has ever poised anything like a serious threat was in the late 30's when a considerable minority (I want to say 39%) of Americans polled identified themselves with the Communist party...but I would argue even then mostly it was a reaction to the great depression and all but a handful were ever serious members. Again its the top down rigid system the party had...that and the fact that its alligence was to the Soviet Union and not to America.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Simple.
I am pro military.
I smoke.
I drink.
I eat red meat.
I wear pants.

I am anti abortion.
I am anti carbon "whatever"
I am conservative.

The big difference. . . .

I don't expect nor desire you or anyone else to believe the same way. I will argue my side. I believe my "side." But I respect other points as well.

Never, ONCE would I want your beliefs to be made illegal. Never once would I make your beliefs punishable by prison. Never once would I think that because of your beliefs, you should pay higher taxes.

'cept for the pants part. Everyone should wear pants.

But that's the difference. And you could apply it to the extreme right as well. No one should be punished just because they believe differently.

Again, except for the pants-thing.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hmmm - I have a min or two at the moment and ready search engine at my fingertips. Lets see what I can come up with.

The ADL lists various "eco-groups" that could fit the bill. Ones that have engaged in vadalism, arson, etc. (ALF, ELF, etc)..

Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

I see the Weather Underground has already been mentioned. Here is a PDF from 2001 that gives details some of their exploits along with those of the BLA, M19CO and others.

PDF from 01 - Left Wing Extermism

Hmm.. lets see. Possibly some "anarchist" type groups (Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68, etc.) could fit in some instances?

Though they don't usually resort to such things (I think?) remember the protesters from the AFL-CIO ransacking the Orlando Bush/Cheney HQ in 04?

Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

I also found quite a few instances of sign burning and vandalism from election time in the Bush years. Also some from the recent election aimed at McCain / Palin supporters. A link below from the recent election just to show it does happen.

Anti-McCain vandals strike Gainesville

Sometimes thoughts are even put to music as in this toe-tapper from the East Coast Avengers called "Kill Bill O'Reilly"

** Warning ** - Violent Lyrics / profanity

You-Tube - East Coast Avengers - Kill Bill O'Reilly


The "eco groups" and "anarchists" could probably be defined as a sub-culture.

The others - I'm not sure and if they are what would be the label? I'm guessing their actions could be considered "extreme left" as well as they either advocate or enact extreme actions? However, they don't appear to be "organized" rather they seem to be actions of inviduals or very small groups.













[edit on 18-9-2009 by Frogs]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 

That attitude I can respect. Sadly a lot on your side of the aisle would not extend the same courtesy to those on my side.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Which is why I'm a registered independant. I got sick of republicans.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
There's defintely a few left-wing extremists. Few and far between - PETA and ALF come to mind easily.

However, the problem is when extremism starts to become mainstream, especially in the form of a populist movement.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


I understand your position and I appreciate your participation. But I'm looking to identify a Left-wing Extremist subculture or cult. "The government" does not qualify as a subculture or cult, defined as "followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Thank you for your response, but allow me to clarify my question.


As regards this far-left group you identify as the green/environmental/no-smoking/no red meat/no war/no pants/ loons, can we answer these questions?

Who are they talking about killing or ousting?
Who do they hate?
To whom do they present a danger?
How do they display their desperation?
What is their propaganda?
How is it disseminated?
Who are their leaders/organizers?
Who are their propagandists?

reply to post by Frogs
 


Great response! Thank you very much. I definitely think some of these would apply. The label isn't so important (IMO) as the FACT of their existence and their potential to threaten.



However, they don't appear to be "organized" rather they seem to be actions of inviduals or very small groups.


And I think this is where the similarity breaks down and where I come up against a wall. These left-wing groups exist, certainly, but how real is the threat to us? Our government? Our way of life? Our "leaders' " (such as they are) lives? How dangerous and desperate are they? Who are their propagandists? Without the organization and propaganda machine to feed and support them, they're little more than "PETA Wanna-be's" throwing temper tantrums.

They're about as dangerous as these here people.

Let me just say that I don't condemn ALL who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but there is a segment of their listeners currently, who are holding these men as icons in the movement of the Right-wing extremists that I'm concerned about. The Left-wing extremists groups have no such icon, organization or power, than I am aware of. Still open to hearing otherwise.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the kind words BH.

...and its ok, I don't condem everyone who listens to Olbermann or reads the Daily Kos either.


In some ways I'm wishing your two threads could merge or possibly spawn a 3rd thread - something along the lines of the tendancy to paint with a broad brush and the encouragment of some of the media to do it.

I am not accusing you of doing such painting. Rather, it is something I see both sides doing at times.

I'll give an example from real life. Just the other day I was talking with a man who was really hoping Obama's health care got passed. I asked his reasons. He said there were many without insurance that needed coverage. He knew many poor that although they had coverage they still stuggled with med. care and costs. Lastly, he had a personal reason - his very own job did not provide any type of health plan.

Ok - to play the role of the late Paul Harvey and tell the "rest of the story". This man's job is that of a minister in a Pentacostal Evangelical chruch. He is about as much of a "bible thumper" as you will find. He and his church believes in (and pratices) speaking in tongues, etc. The most I've heard him say in a sermon about Obama is actually the same as he said about Bush. Which was "Pray for the leaders of our country."

So, even with the organization of relgion on the right - it cannot be said that all even in the pentacostal / evangelical movment, can be painted with the political extremism brush. Some certainly - but not all.

One question is - is there enough on either side to pose a danger?

The other question is - Don't they both really do the same thing in the end?

One of the best articles I've seen on this recently happens to be from the Huff. post.

The Dangerous Joining of the Far Right and Far Left

One difference I see between the exterme groups (or even individuals) on the right would the organization offered. In the one (the right) it is the religious beliefs (and groups) you mentioned. The other (the left) seems more "loose". Certainly there are some causes that far left groups form around (environment, anti-goverment, etc). However, most of individuals that seem to form the far left.. hmmm.. I'll admit I'm stuck for a unifying cause other than "anti-right" and would welcome help here. By these smaller groups or individuals I'm talking about the ones in my earlier post that wrote the song, busted up the Bush HQ, etc.

As for the propaganda of each side. That isn't too hard.

From the right there are the ones you mentioned (Beck, Rush, etc) also O'Reilly various websites (WND, Free Republic, etc).

For the left - just flip the coin over and you'll find much the same (Olbermann, Maddow, Daily Kos, etc.)

The blogsphere on both sides has plenty of exterme views.

My two cents - not everone who doesn't approve of all Obama does is a racist or a relgious nut. Not everyone who thinks trees are pretty good things in an enviornmental whacko.

My theory is there are way more moderates on the left AND the right than there are extremists. So, why do we let the extremes get so much air-time and influence on each side? Why do we let the squeakiest wheels keep getting so much grease? I mean, if we look at these wheels we have one on the left and one on the right that just really cause chaos and throuble. Maybe if we just stopped giving them grease they'd fall off and we could be on our way without all that noise.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This reminds me of a video I watched in a high school class..

Part of it included where animal rights activists bombed a place that raised animals (Minks I think) for fur..

But they ended up bombing all the animals they were trying to save.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


I understand your position and I appreciate your participation. But I'm looking to identify a Left-wing Extremist subculture or cult. "The government" does not qualify as a subculture or cult, defined as "followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."



EXCUSE ME but before you attempt to patronize me why don't you connect my replys to the associated comments you made and keep them in context !

I never said "GOVERNMENT" was a subculture. I responded with "government WAS the threat" to a part of your question "The organization and associations necessary to make these groups a threat to the government" Obviously it went over your head.

Although after you bring it up and thinking about it I would have been right if I had said "this government/administration IS part of an extremist subculture/cult"

But to answer your original post, I gave you cult followers of a subculture when I listed some of obamas czars. Here they are again as you apparently missed or ignored it.

Holdren
Sunstein
Lloyd
Koh
Van Jones (RIP)
Etc



[edit on 18-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
One observation I have is that in general the folks participating in this thread seem to be able to discuss this issue in a fairly calm and civilized manner. One of the characteristics of extremists of any stripe is that they seem to lose that ability and instead try to make their points by screaming and bullying and doing whatever it takes to drown out the voices of anyone who disagrees with them. For a couple of examples I'll suggest that recent PETA billboard (the "Save the Whales" one) which attempted to characterize any non-vegan as a meat-eating fatty loser. An example from the far right is the behavior of just about any of the radio talk-show hosts (Hannity and Savage especially), who ask provocative questions of their opponents and then cut them off when they try to reply.

Such behavior is clearly inappropriate and in an earlier time would have gotten the talk show hosts punched in the nose. Thanks to wildly skewed media coverage of these extremists though, society is now coming to consider screaming and yelling at each other as "normal" debate. Instead of marginalizing extremist behaviors we are now learning to consider that to be the norm. Instead of believing that our neighbors are good honest people like ourselves, we are starting to believe that anyone who doesn't totally 100% agree with us is either ignorant, evil, or just plain crazy.

I would like to think that there aren't that many extremists around, but I really don't know how to tell anymore.

I know this post wasn't really directly related to the OP's question, but maybe it's related enough?


[edit on 18-9-2009 by total_slacker]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by total_slacker]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
So, even with the organization of relgion on the right - it cannot be said that all even in the pentacostal / evangelical movment, can be painted with the political extremism brush. Some certainly - but not all.


I could not agree with you more! I don't care if people are freaking snake-handlers or holy rollers. I support their freedom to exercise their religion just as much as I support mine to free speech and firearm ownership, etc. I do not include them as the dangerous extremists. There are no brushes in my hands.
I am talking about particular people. That's why I think the label is unimportant. (Though I had to have labels as a place to start that would fit in the title bar)



One question is - is there enough on either side to pose a danger?


You know? I don't know. I mean, of course, the potential is there on both sides (or where the Venn diagram meets). But I don't think we will really know until the damage is done, And to be honest, my concern is a presidential assassination. Not only because I think it would be horrific to endure, but I think the after effects would be substantial and even debilitating for the country. I'm not sure we could come back from that.



The other question is - Don't they both really do the same thing in the end?


I can't answer that, either. Since I don't feel that a Left-wing subculture equivalent (with the same power to mobilize and leadership to back it) has really been identified, I am still of the opinion that right now, the Right-wing extremists have both the motive and means to do some serious damage.



One of the best articles I've seen on this recently happens to be from the Huff. post.


Excellent! I love it! I very much wish I had thought to do this as a single thread... but my original source in the other thread was my inspiration. If I had given it more thought, perhaps.

The Dangerous Joining of the Far Right and Far Left



When the far left and the far right join in the Politics of Hate and Demonization, it is time for the vast center-left and center-right of this country to speak up and call them out equally.

It is time for responsible liberal and conservative political leaders and talk show hosts to denounce these extremist haters who stand in direct opposition to President Obama's call for respectful discourse and debate and who threaten our democratic traditions and institutions.

Silence is no longer acceptable by responsible liberals towards the reckless far left or by responsible conservatives towards the reckless far right.

Silence is complicity.




One difference I see between the exterme groups (or even individuals) on the right would the organization offered.


That's one sticking point for me, too.



For the left - just flip the coin over and you'll find much the same (Olbermann, Maddow, Daily Kos, etc.)


You know, I thought about Olbermann and Maddow, but I see them in the same arena as Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and that's why I didn't mention them. I see them as fairly innocuous. They're TV personalities and harmless, politically-biased commentators. Whereas I see a darker and a covert purpose behind what Limbaugh and Beck are doing with their "audience". It might just be because of my own personal politics, but these guys are serious. They don't just want people to vote Republican next time. They want Obama OUT. They want him to fail. They are tapping into people's patriotism and loyalty to our country and using that to give Obama-hatred more power.

That's my perception and I admit it could be biased.



So, why do we let the extremes get so much air-time and influence on each side? Why do we let the squeakiest wheels keep getting so much grease?


I have been fairly clear about why I'm concerned. And I think the reason I am talking about this now is that I have some kind of hope that people will see through what the propagandists are saying. But I wish the MSM would stop reporting on it. I wish they'd take Frank Schaeffer's advice and walk on by. Let them do their thing and let US get on to more important stories. If I have to see the "Rush Limbaugh bounce" one more time, I think I'm gonna puke.


Originally posted by total_slacker
Thanks to wildly skewed media coverage of these extremists though, society is now coming to consider screaming and yelling at each other as "normal" debate.


I think your post is definitely related and thanks for it! I agree that we are forgetting how to talk to people with differing opinions. This is change I do not believe in! I refuse to follow this fad of personal attacks and shouting down my opponents. I just really think we're better than that. I'm sure the founding fathers had no intention of dissent to be drowned out. I have no problem respecting people of differing opinions. I'm not sure why so many do... It's a mystery to me.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
To be honest not really sure what extreme far left really means today.

Groups have differing opinions at different times in our countries or any countries history.

Our form of government is always evolving and changing as it matures.

You could remove all the conservatives and Republicans from office and sooner than later the liberals and Democrats would be broken into separate factions calling each other incompetent and crooks.

We used to have political parties called Whigs and Federalists. Internal fighting and bickering caused them to dissolve.

But not all is lost.

I can tell you of some extreme left wing liberals.For their time.

If you want to know their names,you will have to read their signatures.



[edit on 18-9-2009 by calcoastseeker]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   



I can tell you of some extreme left wing liberals.For their time.

If you want to know their names,you will have to read their signatures.



To equate our founding fathers with the radical left wing liberals of today, you are either woefully misinformed, really bad at analogies, seriously delusional or unforgivably insulting.

Liberals yes in the classic sense, the bleeding heart definition of today definitely not. Left wing???.....speechless.....

If you are one of the "left" persuasion you most certainly have unmitigated gall to equate yourself with the great men who's spirits your buddies are trying to defile.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Who are they talking about killing or ousting?

evangelical extremist racist pedophile drug addicted 70IQer sheep

Who do they hate?

evangelical extremist racist pedophile drug addicted 70IQer sheep, dirty corporations, warmongers, lobbyists, billionaires who climbed their way to the top over dead bodies

To whom do they present a danger?

evangelical extremist racist pedophile drug addicted 70IQer sheep, dirty corporations, warmongers, lobbyists, billionaires who climbed their way to the top over dead bodies

How do they display their desperation?

Who says they are desperate, pissing off the right does not = being desperate

What is their propaganda?

truth

How is it disseminated?

typical channels

Who are their leaders/organizers?

rationalists

Who are their propagandists?

pissing of the right with facts does not = propaganda, etc etc



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes - point taken. One person could be just as dangerous as a group in the right circumstances.

It does really only take one lone nut to fall off the machine of society at the right place and time to cause incredible damage. You could look at any of the Presidental assisnations (or attempts) as proof of that. Likewise the Tim McVey, the Unibomber, etc.

The extremists who basically only make noise on either side serve to fuel them.

As for the propaganda - I can see what you say about Olbermann, Maddow, Bill O'Reilly and Hannity. I've honestly heard each make very valid points at times. I can also say I've heard each get way out there at times too.

As for Rush and Beck both are at their "best" the "top of their game" when they have a target to rant and rail against and Obama certainly provides that. I have to admit with thim both I wonder how much of what they say is what they really think and how much is just for "the show". There is certainly no shortage of left voices in the media. My perception is if you counted leanings in the media you'd have more left than right. However, there is also certainly no left wing equivliant of Rush or Beck that I can think of.

Either way - Mrs. Frogs is telling me dinner is ready and I must go for now. BH you admit you lean left (with some right leanings). As you've likely guessed I tend to lean right (with some left leanings). But, I agree the point you make is very valid. Somewhere along the way discussion, and negotiation got replaced by shouting, name calling and attacking in far too many cases.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I don't live in the USA, so my answers will be based on my experience as a European citizen.

Who are they talking about killing or ousting? First of all, fascists and then all things government, especially cops.
Who do they hate? Fascists, capitalists, the government, cops.
To whom do they present a danger? To all the above, plus to innocent civilians in the case of terrorists who don't care about civilian casualties.
How do they display their desperation? With fanatical speeches mostly, but also with violence, eg. riots, and terrorist acts, i.e. bombs, assassinations etc.
What is their propaganda? That the government must be violently overturned and that all capitalists must be disowned and the wealth distributed equally to the people.
How is it disseminated? Speeches, leaflets, newspapers, magazines, books, happenings, demonstrations
Who are their leaders/organizers? I have no idea.
Who are their propagandists? Every member in theory. It's like all religions: to gain more believers every believer is required to proselytize whenever and wherever possible.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
Tax me for my CO2?!?!

Make cigarettes illegal?!?!?!

Stop me from eating animals?!?!?!

there are a lot of examples of far-left extremists, let me know if you want 500 more.


I think those are policies, but how about groups?


[edit on 18-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Dang, uuuuhhhhhhh, Social services???

Green peace?

Red cros... no

I don't know really


Help me





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join