It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:45 AM
Everyones Religion or lack thereof has an effect on their politics, you cant sit in a church or temple for 20 years and not have the beliefs taught not have some effect on your worldview. Baracks Obama's early career with community organizing for social justice and what have you are definitely influenced by his religious beliefs.


posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Everyones Religion or lack thereof has an effect on their politics

Sure, but they are not inexorably tied to their politics. There's a difference between one's religion "having an effect" on their politics and one's religion "driving" their politics.

The Right and Christianity are inexorably tied. The right (in general) supports the idea of a marriage between church and state and uses the bible to drive political issues such as abortion, homosexuality, "family values" and the environment.

Obama said:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

I’m a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law.

I see a clear separation. You don't. We're going to have to disagree on this and let it go.

On Faith
On Principles

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?

Here's a quiz. At the D.C. Tea Party (and town halls of late) what far left group joined with the right there? The followers of Lyndon LaRouche. Now, how many at ATS (or the gen pop) have even heard of LR? Lately, grover...that's showing our glorious age

My point being, that virtually no one discusses LR in political/social discussions, but who doesn't know the leader(s) of the other group of followers represented, Rush Limbaugh. There're also the likes of Hannity and Beck. The far right has been mainstream for years. While RL is listened to by many of any political/social stripe, a group has coalesced around him (his dittoheads) with such presence, that they have finally pushed the center and right of center right wing out of the GOP.

Notice the GOP leaders and former leaders who spoke/promoted the DCTP.

Even Nixon is seen as close to a Marxist by the LaRushies, they are so far right on ideology. The lie (which is the same as viewing Nixon as far left) promoted by the right wing/GOP during political campaigns was that Obama is far left (Bill Ayres, etc). When I first learned of Obama years ago, while he was a great orator and could inspire a new vision for America (ala Ronald Reagan), he was to me a corporate Democrat along the lines of Clinton, the difference being he was more of an organizer than the Clintons (who were political from the get go).

Originally posted 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.

The coupling of conservative religion began in the 1970's. culminating in the election of Ronald Reagan. The GOP took on for the "third leg" of their party stool, conservative culture/religion. Because of their Southern strategy politically, the third leg was built primarily of Southern Baptist traditions, but because the insistence on anti-abortion in the party platform, conservatives of any religion joined in.

The GOP third leg was seen by them as the antidote to their perceived notion that the Dem liberal culture and godlessness
would be the downfall of America. I also laugh (or should I cry)because I see Jimmy Carter as more of a Christian than any pres since.

This type of authority based religion is also useful in an increasingly authoritarian based political ideology. Keeps family members in line as good "Christians" and Republicans. A group willing to follow whatever the authoritarian leader feeds them.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?


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.

Very interesting thought about Ayers! Also, this also links up with the demonization of the Alinsky model for change through organizing the white middle class. If all this sounds racist, it's because these ideas were formed at a time of great overt racism, when the white middle class held the monetary thus political power in this country. Hey, don't have to worry these days about a middle class with monetary and political power

Obama is an intellectual who can nuance. Intellectualism has been derided by the right for decades, to the point of them holding beliefs but no intellectual basis. Sound like Sarah Palin? God, I miss the old right intellectuals! Seems like the intellectuals on both sides forgot about the beliefs of those in the trenches.

Actually, Obama is what this country needs at the moment to pull us back out of the morass. Unfortunately, he has to contend with the "more asses" of the unthinking conservative thought process. He is too young to remember the cultural/political times of his GOP opponents, who turned to their own brand of dirty tricks to gain and keep power. When left politicians wanted to resort to organizing, the young Karl Roves and Pat Buchanans wanted to attack, ala Nixon dirty tricks. By the 1980's Republican dirty tricks did not include putting names of dead people on voting rolls, but tended to being not transparent but "stealth" candidates, personal smears, and using fear images to persuade voters (Willie Horton ex).

You know, one last thought, we all filter our thinking and beliefs through our experiences. I hear too often the false claim, by the right, that liberals fear conservatives. I see this as coming through their filter of fear. It is they who are afraid. Their cultural/political experiences have been through fear. Fear of God, fear of Communism, fear of the black man taking over what the white views as theirs (white entitlements) (Ronald Reagan and the Southern strategy picked off many a white man's vote.)

They also talk of the cult of Obama, through their own filter of "cultness", their own preference for a style of leadership, ala Ronald Reagan, Rush, Sean, Glen, an authoritarian religious leader, whether Catholic or Southern Baptist.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by desert
Here's a quiz. At the D.C. Tea Party (and town halls of late) what far left group joined with the right there? The followers of Lyndon LaRouche.

I did not know that! Very interesting... (you and grover aren't the only "old ones" around here. I just had a birthday this week that brings me to within months of his age.

When I first learned of Obama years ago, while he was a great orator and could inspire a new vision for America (ala Ronald Reagan), he was to me a corporate Democrat along the lines of Clinton, the difference being he was more of an organizer than the Clintons (who were political from the get go).

Same here. He seems fairly supportive of corporate, which I don't like.

This type of authority based religion is also useful in an increasingly authoritarian based political ideology. Keeps family members in line as good "Christians" and Republicans. A group willing to follow whatever the authoritarian leader feeds them.

That was my point exactly.

Actually, Obama is what this country needs at the moment to pull us back out of the morass.

I agree IF he is on the level; if he is true to what he speaks. And for the most part, indication are that he is. In reading about his history, it's easy to see that he has been fairly consistent in his politics and beliefs his whole life. So I have a pretty good idea that he's not going to surprise us by performing some massive take-down of the country's long-stnading operation. I don't think we have that to "fear".

Very interesting point about fear, too. I tend to agree. Great post!

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:21 PM
I wish I had your optimism. It seems to me that he has appointed all right wing neo con supporters since he got in office. If he was truly left leaning he at least would have appointed SOME left center people into key positions. Most of his appointments are the same rightists who served under Bush and Clinton.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:23 PM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I just dont think it recieves the attention that the Religious right does.

Yes. True. Because the dominant religious view (even dogma!) has been directly aided/promoted by right wing political power. The right wing political power needed to keep its right wing religious base with them.

It goes further. Right wing military power backs right wing religious views, even to the point of the justification of war to further religious views (end times, kill Muslims ex)

Groups such as Ploughshares and Quakers are viewed with suspicion. Religious groups that try to help people are viewed in the worst possible political ideological light by the right, as "Communists", anti-American, traitors.

This stems from the 1950's-1990 fear of the "godless" Communists. There were Americans truly afraid that America would be taken over by these godless communists, who would mass at our southern borders even.

reply to post by calcoastseeker

nah, another one
'cause you said a lot

Our Founding Fathers new that there would be blood for what they had started against England, but they started a system whereby such blood would no longer be needed to solve internal problems. Alas, we needed to shed blood to bring back the secessionists during the Civil War.

But we don't need to shed blood over ideology; we can do that every four years, have a bloodless revolution. That is why we must take voting seriously. Unfortunately, too many Americans bought into the ideas over time that their vote doesn't matter and govt is the enemy. This has been unintended self fulfilling prophecy, as it paves the way for corporate control of govt.

On another idea, the house I grew up in was built by my father, with a VA loan. He never found need to use the VA medical system or GI loans. He was buried in a National Cemetery.

The idea of the home as a center of American middle class values is at the center of our financial collapse, with all the fraud emanating from home mortgages. Housing by the 1970's was no longer viewed as a home with family values in place, but as an investment to be mined for all its worth.

But, I digest
... sorry, don't often get a chance to say that...

You are right, we need change. And the change is soooo massive, to drag this great country into the 21st century on a global scale, with all the kicking and screaming by those who don't want change (because change can be scary or it can go against the type of change one wants but is no longer viable this day and age), that I don't want to despair, only maybe not even in my lifetime, but possible. It is change, or dishonor the Founding Fathers notion that great change is possible, but without blood.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:00 PM
Interesting to add to the thread that when it comes to how we view religion and their role in politics, The far right always tend to come more into the picture as "dangerous because their religious views and influences in politics", still the far left have their fair share of "dangerous religious" views and intervention just like the right.

What can make them different?

Well It depends on control when it comes to political parties, but when polls are taken both parties comes even on how the people
perceive the religious influence.

Many fundamentalist see the Left as not very friendly to religion and personal religious freedoms, but many others see the right as having too much religious influences attach to them.

It has to do mostly to how both groups the far right and the far left is seen when it comes to issues that the people believe to be important.

More often enough the left is seen as promoters and lovers of issues that do not sit well with what a Christian nation should be in the eyes of the far right radial fundamentalist.

There comes abortion, gay rights and how much influences should be allowed in schools concerning religious teachings.

The right have a tendency to support the Christian view for those issues even if they only show interest during election times.

And as usual politics in the right tends to push religious issues when they need the fundamentalist right votes.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:09 PM
The LaRouche cult ain't no left-wing organisation. He has painted himself as a democrat at times (starting out as a trotskyist) and the group have inflitrated democrat circles in the past. Similarly, they have inflitrated republican circles, and even advised Ronnie Raygun in the 80s. During the 70s they attacked socialist and communist groups.

And now they are 'inflitrating' the teabaggers, with whom they seem pretty comfortable. The LaRouche cult is deeply beset with conspiricism and is explicitly anti-liberal and anti-intellectual, and mixes with neo-nazis in the US.

Russ Bellant's articles on LaRouche have appeared in liberal Michigan weeklies and progressive publications, while John Rees tills the right side of the journalistic garden. But both agree LaRouche's ideology is now neither Marxist nor conservative. Rees, who for years has written for conservative, anti-communist, and New-Right publications (including several magazines published by the John Birch Society), thinks it is unfair ever to have called LaRouche a conservative simply because he has tried to woo that political block.

"He is emphatically not a conservative," says Rees, "he is a totalitarian extremist with a cult of personality to rival Joseph Stalin's." Rees concedes that LaRouche's politics are distorted and strange, saying "he is difficult to categorize--in a sense LaRouche is a remedial Fascist. At least Mussolini could make the trains run on time. I doubt LaRouche is capable of doing that." Rees claims that "when LaRouche was rejected by the totalitarian left, he simply tried the other side of the totalitarian spectrum." According to Rees, ties between the LaRouche network and several racist and anti-Semitic groups are well-established. "Former LaRouche organizers report cooperation with elements of the Aryan Nations Network," adds Bellant who says the LaRouche network is a "neo-Nazi type of cult."

Even a conservative commentator (John Rees) can see they are not left-wing at this time. He's a cult-leader and an opportunistic totalitarian, who can be best viewed as a form of neo-fascist.

ABE: must say I agree with much of your analysis, though, desert. Far right extremism is effectively now mainstream in the US. And the populist nature of the current state of that group should make people take notice.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by melatonin]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by pexx421

Consider the alternative! Hell, at the millennium when all my friends and family were bunkered down with all their cans of beans and flashlights, my husband and I were out partying, like it was 1999
. We had a lovely oco buco dinner, and the fine champagne flowed.

And, BH, I found out this year that I am considered an elder by the local tribe, imbued with wisdom and authority beyond my wildest dreams. I am an "honored citizen". Not a bad deal.

I, too, am going to trust Obama on this one. I think that the most treasonous, the most destructive, the most harmful to a democracy is to promote the IDEA of not trusting your govt. And, now, because of the fraud allowed to perpetuate in the financial world (oh, maybe also that pesky WMD fiasco), our good name has been dishonored worldwide, nations not willing to trust us, our friends even viewing us with suspicion.

Yes, pexx, he is appointing more conservative people than I would like to see, but they are not far right. Sometimes, a backfire needs to be set to burn out a fire.

Obama has his intellectual sensibilities about him and can see the ideological problems he has with the right. A lot of us craved a more "bomb thrower" in style, but that is not what we got. However, he is correct; it may just take longer. Life is complex nowadays, open to too much nuance sometimes, but also way beyond an ignorant word or two, such as "death panels".

He is fighting against corporatism. That is what we all must understand. Just look at that Fauckus All Bill. Remember and recognize we all just came off an administration dependent on servility and lock step to keep their power, not thoughtful debate.

What most younger people have grown up with is seeing a govt run in an authoritarian, dictatorial manner, where not going along with is seen as subversive and wussy. It's actually just the opposite. He who stands alone is not wussy, but powerful. Acting like lemmings is dangerous and cowardly.

The anger of the DCTPers and t-hallers was real, just hitched to the wrong cart, a cart that would just as soon run them over if they got in the way of corporate power. Perhaps they will never get it, just as my family member will never get over his beliefs that Obama is a Muslim, not an American citizen, hell bent on destroying America. Feel sorry for them, but don't expect them to ever agree with you. Move beyond them. Make your voice louder. Call them out on lies they've heard and spout.

I am old enough to remember a time when fair and balanced did not mean preaching that a pound of gold equals a pound of horse#. When a scratch was not the same as a deep cut. That there was a difference between a fracture and a compound fracture.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by melatonin

On a political spectrum, fascism is found on the far right, where authoritarianism exists more easily. The left spectrum is where one finds less of a need for an authoritarian style leader or govt, not wanting a leader who asserts control over those deemed weaker.

The problem then is when a left group galvanizes around a leader who is the end all and be all of that group, where one must be in lock step/not question the leader. A leader who espouses certain far leftist ideas but is authoritarian by nature or leadership style. Hence, calling the Larouche group proto-fascists.

Trust me, a far left group can quickly devolve into a fascist group or splinter, because some ONE wants complete control or power. There is no arguing, just accepting. Hmmmm, far left women (and enlightened men) sometimes found this to be a problem with male leaders. But... I digress again...

The LaRouchies are so far left that they have fallen of the spectrum, so far that Obama is a Hitler to them. They are the outlier of outliers.

On another note, Obama is not the authoritarian leader style. In fact, the current GOP don't understand why he cannot "control" his fellow Democrats, because, by golly, that's what they did as leaders. They controlled their perceived "weaker" followers.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: must say I agree with much of your analysis, though, desert. Far right extremism is effectively now mainstream in the US. And the populist nature of the current state of that group should make people take notice.

All of your post added much to the discussion.
Your last sentence says it all!

A group that is roused to so much fire and hatred by corporate interests, who are only interested in keeping their control of govt is not good. Capitalism can be used for the good of a nation, to build its wealth with ethical, decent actions. Or it can highjack govt for its own use, creating a financial crisis the envy of the 9-11 highjackers.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by grover

grover, I had skimmed your "autobiography" post, then went back and read in detail, of which there is much. So keep on writing, 'cause you still got it!

You are correct re the idealism. It is found across the political spectrum. It is how we are compelled to bring forth these ideals which matters. Do we give birth to our ideals in the powerful non-violent manner of a Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, or reducing ourselves to violence against others as a Timothy McVeigh or bin Laden.

One of the conclusions I make after using up all these years is that injustice is injustice, no matter upon which side it is set. We must not ignore each other, hate each other, and refuse to defend injustice against one another.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

May each of us in this great nation always have a fellow citizen to speak out for us. It is better to suffer together repairing a financially bankrupt nation, than to suffer together from a nation bankrupt of compassion.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in