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 theNational 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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0459677508df.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

reply to post by WTFover


well, i stopped reading after you posted something claiming 'anarchists' are 'radical leftists.'



Thats so wrong i shot milk out my nose.

Go back to go, dont collect 200 dollars.

reply to post by justadood


Don't worry about actually putting some cognitive thought into a reply. Why do you disagree with that statement? What is wrong with stating that anarchist hold a far-left ideology? Do they not? What ideology do they most likely retain and adhere to?

But I do not expect you to actually be thoughtful and make every post count.

------------------------

As for the OP. Well thought out and I like how you built your case. I will be rereading it again to better engage in discussion and debate.

There was one part though that really stuck out for me. Your statement that rarely will any member of ATS ever change someones basic principles in regards to their political theories via this format and forum. You are dead on and those that think they are going to wash the great masses to their beliefs and principles have a very weak understanding of people in general.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Had that poster bothered to read any of the post, he/she would have seen the DHS report made that distinction and I just commented using that. But, you know.....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by justadood

 

Don't worry about actually putting some cognitive thought into a reply. Why do you disagree with that statement? What is wrong with stating that anarchist hold a far-left ideology? Do they not? What ideology do they most likely retain and adhere to?

N, they most certainly do not. Anarchists believe in LESS government and personal-community autonomy.

That`s about as opposite of `Leftist`ideology as one can get.

reply to post by justadood


But what is 'leftist' ideology? What is 'rightist' ideology? There are very few, in relation to the overall population. That is the main point of the OP. The propaganda pushing the left/right paradigm know that not everyone that believes in lower taxes wants abortions banned. Just as those that believe in social programs for the needy want the government to be as large as it is now.

The lines are blurry when you actually sit down and speak with one another and actually get to know a person. Rather than just cherry pick issues, get to know the whole person. We would realize that we would be more alike than not.

A classic liberal, would be more anarchist than the liberal of today. My view, the far-right wants to control you morally and the far-left wants to control you socially. To find someone that 100% fits those views, is very rare and very minute.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by justadood

 

But what is 'leftist' ideology? What is 'rightist' ideology? There are very few, in relation to the overall population. That is the main point of the OP. The propaganda pushing the left/right paradigm know that not everyone that believes in lower taxes wants abortions banned. Just as those that believe in social programs for the needy want the government to be as large as it is now.

The lines are blurry when you actually sit down and speak with one another and actually get to know a person. Rather than just cherry pick issues, get to know the whole person. We would realize that we would be more alike than not.

A classic liberal, would be more anarchist than the liberal of today. My view, the far-right wants to control you morally and the far-left wants to control you socially. To find someone that 100% fits those views, is very rare and very minute.

Well, you might find some use in learning what the ACTUAL definitions of Left and Right are, and not just your 'opinion'. My point was that Anarchists don't believe in a centralized federal government, which is a cornerstone of Left wing thought.

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. (The seating may have been influenced by the tradition of the United Kingdom Parliament, where the monarch's ministers sit to the speaker's right, while the opposition sit to his or her left.) One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp". However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.[11]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Rather than just cherry pick issues, get to know the whole person...

And, 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.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
There was one part though that really stuck out for me. Your statement that rarely will any member of ATS ever change someones basic principles in regards to their political theories via this format and forum. You are dead on and those that think they are going to wash the great masses to their beliefs and principles have a very weak understanding of people in general.

I've often said, in other threads, the vast majority of us (ATS users) are Type A personalities and are not easily swayed from our intrinsic beliefs. Unfortunately, that is what more often than not, causes threads to degenerate into insults and name calling. As already evidenced in this thread, it is easier to compartmentalize and label others than to attempt to engage in constructive debate.

Thanks for your input.

Oh well!

Can I be a radical centrist?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by justadood

 

But what is 'leftist' ideology? What is 'rightist' ideology?

'Left' and 'right' are substantive political terms that refer to differing approaches to government. "Right' is generally about fiscal conservatism and small government, while 'Left' is about utilizing the mechanisms of government for the good of the people. The use of 'Left' and "Right" has a long history, far beyond the last few years in popular American politics. Perhaps you could wiki it and learn a bit about the different meanings you are asking about.

I was merely pointing out that anarchism, although often lumped in with modern 'leftists' thought, is often not actually ry left-leaning at all. Notions of self-sufficiency and radical community direct democracy run counter to any sense of large, overarching government programs to house and feed the poor.

So, why are the terms used so recklessly, on a daily basis?

reply to post by WTFover

First of all, S & F. Well thought out, well presented post.
Personally, I believe that 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.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
1.) The MSM believes it NEEDS controversy to generate readers and viewers.

I appreciate your kind words and participation in this thread.

Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are duped by the facade on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are duped by the facade on a daily basis.

reply to post by WTFover

My friend, I seems that things haven't changed much, since coming back from a vacation from ATS. I guess it was too much to expect. It seems that ATS truly does reflect the dysfunction that exists in our country today. There are very few thinkers, very few unbiased minds, and very few people that bother to delve further than skin deep into any issue. Glitz and charades, just like the MSM. It's too bad there aren't many more members like you. Your posts are always well thought out, and usually right on the mark.
Peace, my friend.

Very well thought out and presented OP. The way I am seeing things right now here in the USA, the "Right" wants the fed to have no control, the states and localities all of the control, except for "Morality" issues, then there should be federal laws against that. The "Left" on the other hand, wants the fed to have all of the control, and states and localities to have none. Just my observation.

Here is the problem with local control, "Jim Crow Laws", does anyone remember those? I can legally smoke weed in one state, and go to federal prison in another? I can't buy sex toys in one state, but I can in the other 49? In my state we teach science, in another, they teach the bible. WTF, in our global society, does anyone besides me see an issue with this.

For a website who's slogan is "Deny Ignorance", there is much of it shown here every day. I have never seen such a collection of uneducated, ignorant, useless thoughts in my entire life. There are seriously some people that need to get out from behind their keyboards and engage the real world.

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by justadood

 

Don't worry about actually putting some cognitive thought into a reply. Why do you disagree with that statement? What is wrong with stating that anarchist hold a far-left ideology? Do they not? What ideology do they most likely retain and adhere to?

N, they most certainly do not. Anarchists believe in LESS government and personal-community autonomy.

That`s about as opposite of `Leftist`ideology as one can get.

Anarchy goes beyond left or right and to claim there aren't far left anarchists is incredibly stupid considering there are several large branches of anarchist thought that is on the far left, such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism.

For a website who's slogan is "Deny Ignorance", there is much of it shown here every day. I have never seen such a collection of uneducated, ignorant, useless thoughts in my entire life. There are seriously some people that need to get out from behind their keyboards and engage the real world.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

This is so true, as you can see from my previous post.
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.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

a.) Tailor your stance to the audience.

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...

a) Surely you couldn't have in mind the "Etch-A-Sketch" analogy, could you?

f) Refer to a)... And the Obama administration's catch phrase "Oh, that's not what the President said. What he said was...(substitute something completely opposite of the words that were originally uttered, here)"

g) A prime, current example is the First Amendment battle being waged in the health care arena.

Thanks again for your most astute contributions to the thread, Prof.

Surely you couldn't have in mind the "Etch-A-Sketch" analogy, could you?

reply to post by WTFover

To be honest, until you mentioned it, I hadn't heard about the "Etch-A-Sketch" incident, but I looked it up, and it certainly confirms my thesis.
Again, it's great talking to someone that uses reason and common sense, something in short supply in politics and society in general today.
Peace, and Good Night.

First of all, the mandate of the American Department of Homeland Security, broadly speaking, is the following.

a] To engage in counter-revolutionary warfare, and defend the American government against the domestic population. I didn't say "domestic terrorists," there, either; that's the DHS' term. I said the domestic population as a whole. The DHS knows fully well that the American government is currently overdue for revolution, according to Jefferson's instructions. Their primary objective is to ensure that that does not happen.

b] To keep the domestic population in a continual state of intense fear, by manufacturing an endless supply of threats. Part of the purpose of this is in order to achieve a] above, but it is also to create justification in the public's mind, for continuing the government's wars of aggression for corporate profit. The main reason for it is because that degree of fear, produces the energetic environment which the DHS' masters literally need to physically survive.

We're not in Kali Yuga any more, and as the energetic current becomes more and more positive, it is going to become more and more difficult for them to remain physically incarnate; they are going to need progressively more intense levels of fear, in order to counter the incoming levels of love to a sufficient degree that they are able to survive.

Secondly, it's important to understand that at this point, the DHS defines just about anything as extremism, if it doesn't conform with the UN/Illuminati/NWO globalist agenda.

That means people who use cash, because they want to transfer to a cashless society where everyone gets chipped, so that they always know where you are, and where the simplest means they have of controlling you, is if you do something they don't like, to simply turn off your chip, which means you will starve, because you won't be able to buy food, and you won't have any other means of getting it.

That means people who want privacy, because they want an Orwellian scenario where there is a CCTV camera in every room of every house. They want complete control, literally to the point of thought; and they want said control purely for control's own sake. They don't want that level of control because they care about you doing anything specific. The only real reason why they want it, is because they literally do not want life to exist AT ALL, unless it is purely according to their say so.

That means people who want to grow organic, non-genetically modified food, because they want to destroy the food supply, and largely render the environment sterile; not only in order to make the public entirely dependent on them in order to literally be able to live, but because the people at the top of their scenario are servants of pure entropy, and they like destroying or subjugating life in any form, purely for its' own sake.

reply to post by petrus4


Thanks for taking time to contribute. I'll reply in more detail, when I can give it the attention it deserves.