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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Militant anarchists mostly, some radical marxist-leninist splinter groups and a couple of terror organizations. They are all not your typical "left wing" groups there far out there on the extreme left. While radical marxist-leninist groups merely preach the overthrow of the government by violent means they rarely act on it, because the conditions are not mature enough for a revolution yet. Nevertheless, they strive to prepare for it. The militant anarchists are the biggest problem. They usually tag along on any protest march walking in block at the end. Then out of that block groups will break out of the march and start attacking buildings, banks mostly, breaking the windows and throwing molotov cocktails in. When the riot police arrives they will clash with them and engage in urban guerrilla warfare, i.e. throw stones and molotov cocktails, retreat, regroup and resupply, attack again etc. The strange part is that rarely is one of them caught and convicted. While there are a lot of arrests during violent demonstrations, usually it's just innocent protesters who were caught while trying to escape the danger zone.

The most dangerous are the terror organizations. From 1975 to 2002 we had the infamous Revolutionary Organization 17 November. They were finally busted when a detonator went off accidentally just when one of them was about to assemble it into a bomb and place on target. The guy was severely injured and he was interrogated in hospital and rat out some of the others. We thought that terrorism was a thing of the past then, especially since another group had given up violence in the early 90s. We were wrong. It took only couple of years and a new group emerged: The Revolutionary Struggle. They are responsible for the bombing of the Athens stock market among other things.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by WalterRatlos]

I would like to point out that there are drastic differences in the interests of majority left vs. majority right. It was largely the left that won us most of the freedoms we now enjoy. The communist and socialist parties largely supported the lower class and african american community through much of american history in their fight for such things as black freedom and equality, womens sufferage, labor laws, and other things that protect people from persecution from business or descrimination. The left has also historically been the driving force against our wars of foreign oppression and theft of resources. Traditionally it has been the right that has fought to KEEP people from having protection from industry. The right has pushed us to GO to war with others for their resources. The left generally fights to protect civilians from industry while the right generally fights to protect the profits of the wealthy. Name a single war that the LEFT has tried to instigate? I can name you several pushed by the right, including all three we are in right now. Name one social change that the right has tried to push to help the average civilian? The left took bullets, prison, and abuse in order to bring us the freedoms we enjoy now, all while the right was fighting to keep us from getting it.

This is how it seems from my perusal of history, and im not truly a "leftist" as i support some issues from both sides. just my $.02

Just a few points to add to my previous post and the discussion of left-wing extremism. I lived through the 1960's, so I'm speaking from personal experience.

The SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) was an organization mostly for college students. It ranged in degree of radicalism from mainstream Democrats to militant communists. The further left faction (Bernardine Dohrn, etc.) eventually took over the leadership. The SDS, while it had members who used extreme rhetoric, was never outright violent (at least not to my knowledge). They were, however, many times subjected to violence from law enforcement and other people in positions of power.

The radicalism of the 1960's, which was in large part led by educated young people, has to be understood against the backdrop of the Vietnam war. The vast majority of people who demonstrated in protest were non-violent in principle and practice (remember the famous picture of the young man putting a flower in the upraised barrel of the MP's gun?)

There was, however, violence against them. Two examples were Kent State University, where four protesting students were killed by national guardsmen called in to put down the strike, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago. There was a very large turnout of protestors (again, mostly anti-war) outside the convention who were met with violence by Chicago police.

After Kent State, I went to hear a student from that school speaking to a very large crowd in Chicago. Her message was basically to answer violence with violence, and she exhorted us to get guns and take to the streets. I was appalled and walked away, and that is the response that most of us on the left had to the violence that was advocated by some. This is much the same response, I think, that thoughtful conservatives have toward extremism in their own ranks (they just don't get the media attention of the more radical elements).

The most violent of the groups in theory -- which several of us have mentioned--was the Weather Underground, which grew out of the more radical elements of the SDS. They were violent in rhetoric and principle. They believed they were spear-heading a revolution that others would join once they led the way. As I mentioned earlier, they mostly blew things up and, in one case, a bomb maker blew herself up. There was one other incident, a bombing of the lobby of the Mobile Oil building in New York, which did kill two people. It was never determined for sure whether the Weather Underground was responsible for that or not. But, to be honest, I wouldn't put it past them.

Just a word in defense of the radicalism of the 60's: they never committed as many violent acts or murder as Timothy McVeigh committed in one stroke when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma, or the Ku Klux Klan committed for many decades, or the bombings and murders of abortion clinics and doctors today. And what violence they did perpetrate was largely in response to violence used against them.

The difference, as I see it, is that violence today is most likely to come from a fairly large populist element in our society, an element that is armed and whipped up to a frenzy and not afraid to shoot anybody they see as traitors to what they believe are the only true patriots left in this country. This group is potentially larger and can do more damage than the tiny factions on the radical left in the 1960's.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by Sestias]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Sestias]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Sestias]

For some reason it was a time when the radical left and the Radical right were easily distinguishable because their individual believes, goals and programs.

One side will be linked to the pursue of an established system and support for capitalism.

The other side will be linked to socialism and more government influences and control.

But for the last 25 years all this has changed, the fight between what is considered liberal or conservative left or right has become so intertwined that is difficult to separate one from the other.

In other words both are now pursuing their own agendas and more often than not they are the same.

But what no one seems to understand is that the people who are truly dangerous to the MSM, the government and the elite, are the people that are a little bit of both. A little right and a little left, just enough not to let either side brainwash them with their lies.

The last group the government has any fear off, is any right or left group the other side can discredit by calling crazy. No one ever gains enough support to make a difference against the evil empire.
Edit to add star N flag, great post!

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Sundancer]

Left wing--right wing.....it's all the same bird!!!

There is no real choice.

The left hand, er...wing is perhaps a bit more sophisticated and covered under a lot of umbrellas.

But the same off world entity is still at the very top and the key personnel in the capstone is directing both ends against the middle.

reply to post by Sestias

I said earlier in this thread that the FBI specifically sought out, spied on and destroyed radical left groups in the 70's and early 80's regardless of whether they were violent or not and that such actions have not been preformed on most of the corresponding hard right groups.

I cite this from my personal life as an example of what I am talking about. I will not give any names but if you were curious enough you could find out who I am talking about. I was friends with one of the people involved so this is how I know about the details.

Back in the 70's the conditions in Maine's Thomaston prison were terrible by all accounts. Several attempts at reforming the place had failed. Finally some inmates formed a group called SCAR (the Statewide Alliance for Correctional Reform) with the intent to keep tabs on the conditions there, inform the media about abuse and as the individuals were released to work as a lobbying group up in Augusta to force through meaningful reform. And, as I understand it they had some success.

While most of the group was still behind bars a fellow joined them and soon became a very active member indeed. Now mind you none of these people were saints but to my knowledge none were murderers or anything like that...most were in for larceny and crimes of that nature. None of them were very educated either.

When they got out the organization continued and as I understand it exists today. But a group of them...four that I know of including the fellow who had joined late...well its easier to quote from my autobiography that I am writing:

...formed a kind of study group within it and they began educating themselves on social and political issues. Like many young people who became politicized in the late 60’s and 70’s; they drifted towards Marxism and its critique of western style capitalism, and the various social consequences of it. The denouncement of the Marxist/Leninist ideal with the fall of the Soviet Union and its allies was still fifteen years away. So, states like Cuba became models for many of these young idealists as it did for this small group of ex-cons as well. At some point they got in contact with the United Freedom Front (UFF) a underground leftist group. As a result they were visited a few times by UFF leaders Thomas Manning and Raymond Luc Levasseur, both of whom were on the run, and both of whom I met.

It must be said that in these post 9/11 days that most rebels; which includes both those who take up arms, and those who turn to terror, are usually idealists. Their actions are sparked by a deep and abiding sense of moral outrage. This is not to condone the violence. I am merely trying to point out what should be obvious. It is something that has to be considered if we are to ever truly address the issue. This is true of all political revolts... the Patriots of the American Revolutionary war were terrorists to the Tories who supported the crown. The Jewish freedom fighters were terrorists to both the English and the Palestinians in the lead up to Israeli independence and so on. Its also an issue that a knee jerk conservatism likes to gloss over because to admit it would be to admit that our nation is not perfect and has done many wrongs both at home and abroad. That our actions fuel terrorism, not suppress it. Violence is always born out of desperation and a sense of frustration. Terrorism is almost always the weapon of choice the poor use against a more powerful foe. That is not to say all terrorists are poor; rather, it is often the tool of the weak and oppressed against the established elite.

The reason I bring this up is what happened with these guys. They may have been ex-cons but they were also idealists. They wanted to change things; first in prison and later in society at large, and for whatever the reason, they felt powerless to effect a change. So, as their studies became increasingly politicized they became more radicalized. That would have been fine if study was all they, did but they drifted (or were coaxed) into action instead.

Unfortunately for them, this was also the years that the Justice Department and the FBI was systematically snuffing out leftist political cells in this country.

I am a little confused by what happened next. I was out in California and Washington State when it all went down. I learned about the events of fall 1976 from ____ when I got back.

Between September and November 1976 they went on a crime spree that included a couple bank robberies; a bombing at the Northern Maine Power Company plant in Bangor, and another one in Seabrook New Hampshire near the hotly contested nuclear power plant being built there. Boston’s Logan airport was also bombed. There was a botched attempt at the kidnapping of an executive at Kodak. I think there were a few other actions as well. How these acts were supposed to foment revolution is beyond me but that is generally the rhetoric that justifies them. They had become a media sensation and were known in the press as the mad bombers of Portland Maine. Then _____ (who was the fellow who had joined last) was arrested running guns from (or to, I have never known exactly which) the Canadian border. He turned states evidence and that blew the whole thing open. The rest were arrested shortly afterward.

I learned about all of this when I returned to Maine when I was discharged from the Coast Guard. I offered to help on the pre-trial phase. During it we learned that______the one who turned state's evidence had been an FBI plant from the very beginning while they were all in prison and by all accounts it had been he who had suggested, helped plan and carry out all of the actions that they did. In short they had been railroaded. Were they innocent? Of course not...they went along with his suggestions and helped carry them out but still it was entrapment. When we tried to bring this fact up in court the judge refused to allow it effectively barring the one bit of evidence that could at the very least gotten them a lighter sentence if not aquitted. Then something really weird happened and I quote from my autobiography again:

In early March ____ and a few friends decided to have a fund raiser for the trial down in Biddeford south of Portland. There would be a band and food and they invited the famous radical lawyer William Kunstler to come up from NYC to give a talk and he agreed. Well, the big day arrived. It was a sell out and everyone had a good time but Kunstler never showed up. The next day ___ got a call from him asking how the blizzard up our way was. She told him that we hadn’t had any snow for two or three weeks. He told her that when he got to Boston he’d been told that the flight to Portland Maine had been canceled because of a blizzard and when he called the bus line he’d been told the same. So, he turned around and went home. It seems he had been intercepted and prevented from coming. It was then I realized I was in way over my head and started distancing myself from the trial.

So the point I am trying to make in all of this is that in some cases...the government was the one inciting these small groups (and they are all small...far too small to ever actually threaten the government) of leftists towards violence and in this case actually helped carry them out...then stomped down on them as hard as they could.
this was how the so-called leftist threat was destroyed in the 70's and 80's.

Is the extreme radical left any worst than the extreme radical right?

Well it depends which side of the wing you belong or favor.

Warning, most Radical left in history will end leaning into socialism or communism.

Yes many are afraid of the extreme right movement and their theocratic view of a Christian nation, but the extreme left leaning into a socialized or communist society could be as dangerous.

If history doesn't like or is prof wrong many of the actually terrorist act in the US are linked to extreme left.

So when it comes to violence they seem to be in the top of the ladder compare to the extreme right.

While right extremist are linked to white supremacy the left have a past of selling the nation for political gain.

At the end both wings seems to share an equal amount of violence and persecution against their fellow Americans in the nation that doesn't lean to any type of extremism.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just to be clear, I have no problem with the "Impeach Bush", "Bush is a murderer" pictures. That's free speech. It's the "Death to Bush" talk that disturbs me.

I feel the same way.
And I think much of the extreme hatred is presented in subtle remarks or jokes.
For example, when the shoe thrown at Bush was headline news, I remember seeing comments such as - "If only that shoe had been lined with explosives, lol."
And I've seen the same sort of remarks from right-wing extremists as well.
And I believe much of the hatred is caused by the media.

I think Obama was right on the money when he said:
“The 24-hour news cycle and cable television and blogs and all this — they focus on the most extreme elements on both sides,” Obama said. “They can’t get enough of conflict. It’s catnip to the media right now.”

Originally posted by marg6043


Warning, most Radical left in history will end leaning into socialism or communism.

I agree. The radical left I was talking about definitely leaned toward socialism and/or communism. But the majority of left-leaning people are not radical.

I don't think there will ever be complete socialism and definitely never communism in this country.

Some people say we already have socialism with Social Security and Medicare.

But as far as I can see this will always be a capitalist nation. Capitalism isn't synonymous with democracy. There can be democratic socialism. But not here, never in a million years.

Originally posted by grover

this was how the so-called leftist threat was destroyed in the 70's and 80's.

What about the leftists that saw the writing on the wall, became "citizens" to work within the system to achieve their objectives?

reply to post by pexx421


You wrote what I would have written.

When I met far right wing Christian Millennium Survivalists in my local foothills, I knew better than to go on their property 12-31-99, while they were waiting for the United Nations tanks to roll up the Main Street (honest, I'm not making this up!). I would have been shot. They said that they would shoot anyone from outside their group, who so much as tried to snatch a carrot from their garden.

OTOH the far left hills group would celebrate the new millennium by the river smoking marijuana, meditating, drumming, welcoming anyone to join in the celebration, and sharing the food they brought.

Even the tree spiking of the early forest protection groups was not meant to harm or kill people, although that was debatable for some in that movement. Monkey wrenching also was meant to destroy property, not harm or kill.

Going further back in time, there were leftist bombings (banks), but I can't remember any to compare with the destruction of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Maybe there was a bombing in the 1930's compared to the abortion clinic bombings 60 years later, but I don't know.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

I also agree with Desert and pexx421.

I would say this...most of the so-called leftists I have known over the years don't want to tear the system down...those who felt that way joined the cells like the one I described...they just want to make this nation and the world a better place...a laudable goal in my mind...and they are not the hysteric radicals many on the right would have you believe. There are those but in reality they are few. They are just left of center. Remember its a circle...

...the left of left is far right.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by grover]

This has become an extremely interesting and educational discussion for me! Thank you all! Even though it has strayed a little from the main intent, I really appreciate the input here as I am learning things I never expected to learn as I approach this issue with a view from both "sides".

I just want to make a few comments for now relating to thoughts swimming around in my head. .

Left vs Right, in an economic sense, is basically Socialist vs Capitalist (these have somewhat loose definitions that have changed over the years) and the "desperate and dangerous extremes" meet, not in ideology, but in the willingness to use covert and sometimes corrupt means, including force, violence and even terrorism to achieve their goals. I think most of us can agree that the extremes are a problem to the health of the nation.

I think both extremes are connected and associated with the more extreme members of the 2 political parties in our government. But I'm not sure these higher government officials are the most visible ones or the people we might think they are. I'm pretty sure that Obama is a lot closer to center than many might think. Sure, he dabbled in Socialism in his college years, but how many of us experimented with some sort of extremism in college?

I'm not eager to live in a purely Socialistic or Capitalistic society, but it's becoming more clear to me why I tend to lean left, philosophically and ideologically.

One big difference I see in the right and left is the coupling of religion with a political stance. People on the left are religious, but generally, their religions aren't attached to their politics. I wonder how that happened... I have no problem with people exercising their religion, but when faith tangles with politics, I think it's a very dangerous brew. I think political views require logical reasoning. If we take the principles of faith (unquestioning belief) and apply them to politics, we get people "believing" in a political viewpoint as a fact instead of approaching it with a logical and questioning mind. I see danger there.

One thing many might be surprised to hear me say is that I believe it's very possible that Obama wanted to become President so he could pull in some of his peeps who have similar (or even slightly "radical") beliefs in order to "change the country from within". What president doesn't have that goal? Not to "take down" the country, but to bring change? I won't be surprised if, over the next few years, we see some pretty big changes in this country. If he ever decides to give up the idea of bipartisanship, that is. How much does it take to realize that the right isn't going to support him?

Originally posted by grover
I said earlier in this thread that the FBI specifically sought out, spied on and destroyed radical left groups in the 70's and early 80's regardless of whether they were violent or not and that such actions have not been preformed on most of the corresponding hard right groups.

(grover, I look forward to your book)

This would have been the time Obama was in college. In my reading about the Weather Underground, I found this:

So, what was the intended relationship between Weatherman/WUO and the black revolutionary struggle in the United States? If one takes a look at their founding document “You Don’t Need a Weatherman...” one finds these words:

The only third path is to build a white movement which will support the blacks in moving as fast as they have to and are able to, and still itself keep up with that black movement enough so that white revolutionaries share the cost and the blacks don’t have to do the whole thing alone.

With this in mind, it's EASY to see that this may be why Obama had connections with Bill Ayers. If Ayers saw Obama as an up and coming star in the political world, he would have wanted to latch onto that star to further his purpose. Just a thought.

Thing is, I don't have a problem with that goal. I have a problem with using violence to achieve it, but the goal, considering the history of this country, is an honorable one, in my opinion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

BH...I am not writing my autobiography for publication...I am writing it to get my life history down on paper before my brain cell finally gives out.

My memory used to be like a sieve but lately it has come to resemble a colander. It was either way too much sex, drugs and rock n roll in my youth or not enough...I can never remember which but I hope it was too much...I would hate to be in this shape and it not been enough.

I am actually surprised how much I actually remember of my 53+ years...the autobiography is up to 335 pages, 208,000 words and 61 photographs. It is currently at the fall of 1991 when I bicycled from Portland Maine to Charlottesville Virginia.

But thank you anyway.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

One big difference I see in the right and left is the coupling of religion with a political stance. People on the left are religious, but generally, their religions aren't attached to their politics. I wonder how that happened... I have no problem with people exercising their religion, but when faith tangles with politics, I think it's a very dangerous brew. I think political views require logical reasoning. If we take the principles of faith (unquestioning belief) and apply them to politics, we get people "believing" in a political viewpoint as a fact instead of approaching it with a logical and questioning mind. I see danger there.

I would disagree with this view, through history The Religious or Christian Left has had a large influence in American politics exaples include the Abolistionist movement, John Brown, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Jerimiah Wright, Cornel West, Helen Prejean, so there are plenty of folks out there on the Religious left, they just tend to get better media coverage than the Religious right.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I would disagree with this view, through history The Religious or Christian Left has had a large influence in American politics exaples include the Abolistionist movement, John Brown, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Jerimiah Wright, Cornel West, Helen Prejean, so there are plenty of folks out there on the Religious left, they just tend to get better media coverage than the Religious right.

I was talking about present time AND in general terms; as a rule. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule, Reverend Wright being one. But generally, the left's values and religious beliefs are not tied to their politics in current times.

I don't know why you think Obama fits this category, but I haven't seen any indication of that.

Barack Obama is a student of Black liberation Theology ala Reverend Wright, I think you would find that many on the left have their views influenced by their religion, I am not saying its a problem, all folks politics are a result of their social interactions. African American Churches, Jewish Temples , and even Catholic Institutions are active on the Left. I just dont think it recieves the attention that the Religious right does. Most of the names on the list I provided previously are folks that are active today.

Anyone who goes to church can be said to be a student of ____________ (fill in the blank), but that doesn't mean that that way of thought is inexorably tied to their politics. I see no indication in Obama's politics that they have anything to do with Black Liberation Theology.

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0cedefb9a426.jpeg[/atsimg]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by calcoastseeker]

I beg your pardon.

I am a 100% disabled retired military veteran. I served my country well and proudly for almost 20 years and would not have hesitated for a moment to die for the beliefs outlined in that document I presented and the Constitution I swore to up hold.

But for the time period and the present form of government that they were reared in and found themselves living under and the radical action they took to remedy the situation,they were considered extreme radical's.

There was a debate and discussion from many of them that they saw this country expanding and evolving as time went on.

I receive FREE health care for the rest of my life.The medicine I take to stay alive is over $20 grand a year alone.I pay nothing.

I receive $2000 a month TAX FREE from the government.

I went to school all paid by the government.

Are system is flawed and needs to EVOLVE to meet the changing times and situation.

The Democrats want to do that. The Liberals want to do that.

It probably needs to be.

I do not claim to be neither.

While in the military I never registered to vote because I believe I would faithfully follow the leadership of whom ever made the decisions.

I am a registered Independent now.

With that said how do YOU think the Ruling government in England viewed these gentleman?

Not how we do.

All I was attempting to do was make those realize that, those considered our founding fathers, the "foundation" of this country were considered so extreme so far left of the normal form of government that the king sent armed troops to eliminate that threat.

If some of those cannot see the analogy them I am sorry.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by calcoastseeker]