Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it's not dodging the actual issue. No, it's not true that no one with influence condones violence; there are Republican members of Congress who are condoning violence these days and they are certainly not without influence.



No, it is not out of proportion to any actual threat, and there are virtually no violent lefties any more. That wasn't true back in the 1970s, of course, when outfits like the Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army were oprating, so it's not that violence is exclusively a right-wing trait. It's just that that's the only side from which significant threat of violence exists at this time.

Well, perhaps you're not a troll, just ill-informed.

Perhaps you missed the WTO riots in Seattle in 1999. Or the attacks by the ELF in the last ten years, or the riots that occured during some of the anti war rallies in the last decade. Lefties are just as violent. Stop being such a fool.....

Originally Posted by Weave

Perhaps you missed the WTO riots in Seattle in 1999. Or the attacks by the ELF in the last ten years, or the riots that occured during some of the anti war rallies in the last decade. Lefties are just as violent. Stop being such a fool.....

Unfortunately, you may be right, Weave. That's why this thread is called "The SPIRAL of violence." I can remember lots of folks during the '60's who were willing to resort to violence, and in some cases did.

I'd guess that the Boomer's have nicely divided themselves up between our two warring camps, and given sufficient frustration will go back to that same mindset.

I'm struck by our increasing inability on our forum right here, to adequately sort things into non-violent one camp vs. violent other camp. It worries me that irrationality is a contagious disease that may consume us all if random, poorly focused violence begins to erupt. To say nothing of the tactic where one side does fake violence to itself in the name of the other side in order to provoke their own people.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Well, you're you. Not so long ago weren't you expecting the Chinese to invade Alaska?

Nope...China invading Alaska has never been a real concern. A hypothetical or possibility, but not a real concern.

To clarify: as I said, violence is not inherently exclusive to the right, and one may, if one looks hard, find isolated incidents of left-wing violence here and there. But one will not find an organized subculture with thousands of members holding the belief that war between themselves and the government is inevitable and certain, nor a systematic folklore of violent revolution. That hasn't existed on the left since the days when the left's hardcore was actually Marxist.

Outside of Marxism, which has few adherents any more, there is simply no parallel on the left for these elements of far-right belief systems:

The belief that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment includes a right to armed revolt against the government.

The belief that each individual is a sovereign entity entitled to nullify the law on an individual basis.

The belief that a race war is inevitable and that white people must fight against the government which has been taken over by nonwhite races and/or Jews.

The belief that the end times in Christian theology are approaching and will include an epic battle between Christians and a government that has been taken over by the forces of Satan.

The belief that the U.S. government has been taken over by a conspiracy of foreign interests and internationalists and that American patriots must fight to overthrow it and "restore" government by the people.

Most conservatives don't actually hold with any of these beliefs, but a sufficient number do believe one or another of them that organized violence is a genuine danger. It's likely that the entire militia movement believes one or more of these things, although some of them (e.g. the race-war idea) are believed only by a minority even of the militia movement.

Not even Marxism, which does include an idea of violent revolution on behalf of the working class, has anything quite as nihilistic and potentially destructive as the above, and again, Marxism is out of favor on the left today anyway. There has never been a violent incident on the left that even begins to approach the body count of the OKC bombing, and that's not an accident. (For that matter, the 9/11 attack was an ultra-conservative job, too, although it was a foreign version of right-wing radicalism rather than domestic.)

So although the left is not inherently and absolutely nonviolent, although one can -- if one looks hard enough -- find incidents of left-wing violence, the greater danger by far comes from the right. That's especially true today, because progressives are winning the legitimate political contest.

As I've said either here or elsewhere, or both, the danger is not likely to reach boiling point until after this year's elections. Right now, a lot of the radical energy is going into legitimate political activism. But when the Republicans fail to retake either house of Congress, when next year's Senate changes the rules and accelerates the pace of reform legislation, and when Obama wins reelection in 2012, each step of this is a signal to the radical right that their agenda is going nowhere through legitimate channels. Each such step will propel some portion of those who are currently involved in legitimate politics towards either despair or violence. And a framework of both belief and organization exists to take advantage of that.

We are absolutely right to be concerned about what may happen. And the claim of an equivalency of violence is pure distortion. No such equivalency exists.

Originally Posted by TnT

BUT ... if they are truly anarchists, who will organize them?

Oh I get it, anarchism is anti-organization. Never heard that one before...

But one will not find an organized subculture with thousands of members holding the belief that war between themselves and the government is inevitable and certain, nor a systematic folklore of violent revolution.

Greenpeace:

"Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light:

The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.

The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism. If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

more here: http://bit.ly/cMOsoc

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Greenpeace:

"Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light:

The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.

The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism. If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

more here: http://bit.ly/cMOsoc

James50

Is this the same organization that claims 1st Amendment when caught? But then again, the Fort Hood shooter was just a confused boy searching for his way in life. The Michigan folks were terrorists to the highest degrees.

Originally Posted by TnT

Unfortunately, you may be right, Weave. That's why this thread is called "The SPIRAL of violence." I can remember lots of folks during the '60's who were willing to resort to violence, and in some cases did.

I'd guess that the Boomer's have nicely divided themselves up between our two warring camps, and given sufficient frustration will go back to that same mindset.

I am almost 60. I spent the day yesterday in the yard rototilling a garden like I have done most years. Jeez - I was whipped at the end of the afternoon. I can still do a lot of stuff, but not what I could do 20 years ago.

Perhaps what will save us is that the Boomers are just too old to rile themselves up anymore.

James50

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Is this the same organization that claims 1st Amendment when caught? But then again, the Fort Hood shooter was just a confused boy searching for his way in life. The Michigan folks were terrorists to the highest degrees.

Actually I was being provocative in the same way many on the left use statements from the right. This is one guy and not representative of Greenpeace as an organization. It is on the Greenpeace blog so you can say they at least allow people to talk this way, but is not the position of Greenpeace. It is easy to take the rantings of one person - whether left or right - and use a brush that paints too broadly. The comments are worth reading, to a point.

Needless to say, I disagree with Brian Rush that either side is less prone or more prone to violence. Wherever there is a sense of powerlessness on either side, the tendency to go violent exists. Watch what happens if the right is a significant victor in this fall's elections.

James50

Greenpeace? Nonsense. Greenpeace practices nonviolent civil disobedience. They break the law, sure, but they don't hurt anyone. No comparison. Bad choice.

Earth First! is a better example, in that they are willing to commit at least sabotage, but even they are nothing like what one finds on the right. Even geuinely violent leftist groups (more European than American, like Germany's Red Army Faction) aren't like what one finds on the right. There's a full-fledged potential terrorist insurgency on the right, already armed and organized, with an ideology that calls for armed resistance when times get bad enough. All that has to happen is for them to decide that times are bad enough. As I said, that's unlikely to happen before the election, but it's a ticking time bomb.

Wherever there is a sense of powerlessness on either side, the tendency to go violent exists.

You and several other people are making a fundamental mistake: you're looking at personalities, or willingness on the part of individuals to engage in violence. Sure, that's the same on the average with anyone regardless of political affiliation. I already said that. That's why you see ANY violence on the left, EVER. And of course you do.

But what you should be looking at instead is the organization and the beliefs on the extreme right. That organization and those beliefs channel the (universal) tendency to lash out when blocked, in a way that is NOT mirrored on the left even at its most extreme.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Greenpeace? Nonsense. Greenpeace practices nonviolent civil disobedience. They break the law, sure, but they don't hurt anyone. No comparison. Bad choice.

Earth First! is a better example, in that they are willing to commit at least sabotage, but even they are nothing like what one finds on the right. Even geuinely violent leftist groups (more European than American, like Germany's Red Army Faction) aren't like what one finds on the right. There's a full-fledged potential terrorist insurgency on the right, already armed and organized, with an ideology that calls for armed resistance when times get bad enough. All that has to happen is for them to decide that times are bad enough. As I said, that's unlikely to happen before the election, but it's a ticking time bomb.



You and several other people are making a fundamental mistake: you're looking at personalities, or willingness on the part of individuals to engage in violence. Sure, that's the same on the average with anyone regardless of political affiliation. I already said that. That's why you see ANY violence on the left, EVER. And of course you do.

But what you should be looking at instead is the organization and the beliefs on the extreme right. That organization and those beliefs channel the (universal) tendency to lash out when blocked, in a way that is NOT mirrored on the left even at its most extreme.

I stand by the point I was making. You keep talking about violent groups on the right as if we all know what you are talking about. I don't want to start a flame war, but as you so often say to others - you are wrong.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I stand by the point I was making. You keep talking about violent groups on the right as if we all know what you are talking about. I don't want to start a flame war, but as you so often say to others - you are wrong.

Why? Can you give me an example of anything on the left that is comparable to the militia movement? If so, I'll stand corrected.

When I say "you're wrong" to someone, there are reasons why they're wrong beyond my saying so. Present yours.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why? Can you give me an example of anything on the left that is comparable to the militia movement? If so, I'll stand corrected.

When I say "you're wrong" to someone, there are reasons why they're wrong beyond my saying so. Present yours.

This is pointless. You are looking for what you want to see to gain a political advantage. Google "left wing violence". I am sure there are ample examples. I have posted several recent ones in the course of this thread. I condemn them all as I assume you do.

My comment is based on my perception of human nature. There are unbalanced people in the world. Some of them exist on the left, some on the right. I think they exist in equal numbers. When given a chance, groups will form on either side. You have said as much yourself about the 60's violent groups such as the Weathermen. Powerlessness is the common factor.

Are there right wing militia groups? Obviously yes. They have been there for decades. In my part of the world, they are called the KKK. Thankfully, the FBI seems to have infiltrated all of them. It serves a political purpose to morph these extremist groups into some big boogey man. There is no "spiral of violence". There are powerless people who are looking to strike out at the system. They have always been there and always will be. As a society, we can deal with it.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

This is pointless. You are looking for what you want to see to gain a political advantage. Google "left wing violence". I am sure there are ample examples. I have posted several recent ones in the course of this thread. I condemn them all as I assume you do.

It is not pointless. I know of those examples, and I have never claimed that there was literally no such thing as left-wing violence. I have simply claimed that there is no parallel on the left for the militia movement, that ready-made engine of insurgency which exists on the right. Am I wrong? Is there? Googling "left wing violence" will NOT answer that question.

My comment is based on my perception of human nature.

I know. That's where you went wrong. It is not "human nature" that differs between the left-wing and righ-wing extremes, but a certain kind of organization and system of belief. You are asking the wrong questions, and thus getting the wrong answers.

Are there right wing militia groups? Obviously yes. They have been there for decades. In my part of the world, they are called the KKK. Thankfully, the FBI seems to have infiltrated all of them.

Hopefully, that's so. However, if it is so, it only means that the government is operating on my perceptions of reality rather than yours, and taking appropriate action.

In any case, as I said, there is no comparable network of organizations on the left.

There is no "spiral of violence". There are powerless people who are looking to strike out at the system. They have always been there and always will be. As a society, we can deal with it.

We can, but only if we recognize the danger for what it is, and don't become complacent.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We can, but only if we recognize the danger for what it is, and don't become complacent.

Complacency is never the correct course.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I stand by the point I was making. You keep talking about violent groups on the right as if we all know what you are talking about. I don't want to start a flame war, but as you so often say to others - you are wrong.

James50

Your example of Greenpeace was a poor one. Civil disobedience is not necessarily violent.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Your example of Greenpeace was a poor one. Civil disobedience is not necessarily violent.

Of course its not, and this blog posting is not a position of Greenpeace. Yet, it has unmistakable violent overtones, and was on their blog site. If this was someone on the right, the left would be using it as an unmistakable invitation to do harm to someone. I think the guy sounds like a nut and possibly dangerous. Fortunately he is in India.

Wanna get creeped out by Greenpeace? - watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4

James50

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I am somewhat puzzled - in what way do they feel socially excluded?

Great question. Your speculation is as good as mine and probably worthwhile if done with the intent of humanizing the 'other'. I think asking them (in a not so direct kinda way) could be even more worthwhile. What is your guess as to how they feel excluded & how might you play that hunch in asking them?

Originally Posted by TnT

Unfortunately, you may be right, Weave. That's why this thread is called "The SPIRAL of violence." I can remember lots of folks during the '60's who were willing to resort to violence, and in some cases did.

I'd guess that the Boomer's have nicely divided themselves up between our two warring camps, and given sufficient frustration will go back to that same mindset.

I'm struck by our increasing inability on our forum right here, to adequately sort things into non-violent one camp vs. violent other camp. It worries me that irrationality is a contagious disease that may consume us all if random, poorly focused violence begins to erupt. To say nothing of the tactic where one side does fake violence to itself in the name of the other side in order to provoke their own people.

..... I am really appreciating this post Tim.... It was breath of fresh air to the mid(dle)section. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but I did. I suspect that the irrationality has always been there under the surface. I'd speculate further that the perception of rationality as a powerful force only holds water so long as it goes uncompared to the power of the unconscious as a deeper source.. So, even if no one else responds to your post, the rationality of it still leaks in to some extent(to say the least).

.... I am also intrigued by your move to offer an alternative paradox to the left-right one. The violent vs. non-violent split seems like reasonable sized next step. It also seems like a step that could freeze the spiral of agression in place, while still offering the familarity of a polarization (to which we seem to be addicted).

On another thought... I think I will start a thread on the potentia of a Nomad-Artist Alliance in a 4T. I hope you will post there.

the unions are the left's traditional source of muscle. they have a long and proud history of violence and the icing on the cake is that they're "connected". we glimpsed their propensity to violence in st louis last august. give them card check, and we've given official sanction to a voracious group of intimidators and provacateurs.

Unions are not armed, although some individual members of them may be, and have never in recent history fomented or even talked about revolution. (The Wobblies did, but that was a LONG time ago.)

Nice try, though.

you scare too easily if you're frightened of a few dispersed armed men who live in shacks. i've been told by bush haters that his reaction to terrorism was irrational fearmongering. fearmongering, hmm, that's some pretty useful stuff isn't it, brian?

Originally Posted by Texas Curl

you scare too easily if you're frightened of a few dispersed armed men who live in shacks.

There's a difference between fear and caution. If someone is carrying a gun around, practicing military maneuvers, and talking about overthrowing the government, a certain amount of caution in their direction is simply common sense.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unions are not armed, although some individual members of them may be, and have never in recent history fomented or even talked about revolution. (The Wobblies did, but that was a LONG time ago.)

Hey, they're still around!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unions are not armed, although some individual members of them may be, and have never in recent history fomented or even talked about revolution. (The Wobblies did, but that was a LONG time ago.)

Nice try, though.

spoken by a guy who's never tried to cross a picket line.