This evening I was watching Bill O'Riley and he was trying to show that violence on the left was where all the political violence was occuring. To that end he had to go to Canada to find "liberals" protesting the appreance of that notable bastion of the American right, Ann Coulter. I had to chuckle, to find "liberals" protesting he had to go to Canada. And nothing I saw was violent, loud yes; but violent no. It was nothing like the videos of people being assualted or being spit upon here in the US by the Tea Bag people. For some reason, O'Riley could not find video of violence perpetrated by the right. He should have called CNBC because they were showing that video just an hour earlier. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think we have all seen many stories about the right wing militias in this country in the press. So since Fox wants us to believe that political violence is something the left engages in exclusively, where are the left wing militias?
Even there, the threat of violence was from "clashes", especially involving Muslims, between Coulter supporters and demonstrators against her appearances. Considering that Coulter herself incites and threatens violence, from her supporters and against the "liberals", the Coulter incidents in Canada would be more accurately labeled examples of right wing, not left wing, violence.
You could include radical environmentalists, like the ALF, but I don't think there are many actual militias. People on the left form cooperatives in woodsy places, practice organic farming, and put up solar panels. Are Anarchists leftist?
As odd as it may sound, that all depends on how you define violence. Does an act of vandalism count as violence? I seem to recall certain anti-war protestors blowing shit up as 'acts of extreme vandalism' to protest against the US involvement in Veitnam. Arguably they exist, it simply depends on where you want to set the bar for what constitutes violence.
How is that implied? Oh wait, it's not. I was simply citing an example I recalled coming across recently in relation to something else I was reading at the time.
That was good Doreen. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I hear the Tea Party people are going to march on Washington with their guns in a few weeks (per Fox News this evening).
I am sure the Lefty Militias will counterprotest with their cannisters of organic pepper spray close at hand.
ALF has already been mentioned. ELF probably isn't far behind. There was the Red Army Faction (the Baader-Meinhoff Group) active in Germany until 1998. Potentially Earth First! - Tree Spiking, for example, then there is the explosion of Judi Bari's car (at the time she was thought to have been acrrying it elsewhere). Any of the Central American communist guerilla groups (eg Tupamaros, Shining Path, F.A.R.C). I'm sure there are others as well - consider that some would class anarchism as being a leftist philosophy so any of those 'Free Republic of Texas' or what have you nut job groups could be considered to be left wing militias.
But here is the thing, you like O'Riley have to go outside The United States to find real left wing militias. You can find protest groups...groups of tea huggers to engage in local protests. But I don't think you can find an armed leftist militia out to violently overthrow the government residing inside the US at this time.
I don't have to look outside the US, however, to find left wing extremist groups willing to resort to violence - and you've been given examples of this, and I've already pointed out that any of those anarchist militias advocating the independence of the southern states could be considered left wing (even though they might have some right wing policies with regards to immigration).
Subtlety and Morons A few examples. • P. J. O'Rourke once described (Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut) his falling away from liberalism. Apparently, it is the fault of a guy he knew who, in the middle of a riot, clocked a police officer with a two-by-four. While I think this is a mewling, bullshit excuse on O'Rourke's part, there is no question that there were violent leftists at the time. • Anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman attempted to kill industrialist Henry Clay Frick in retaliation for miners killed during a strike. • A few years ago, in Seattle, a jury convicted a young woman of being an accessory to the burning of a research lab in an animal-rights action. • I remember a notorious perpetual student at the University of Oregon being arrested and tried after he, for some reason I no longer recall, hurled a trash can through the front window of the federal building in Eugene. Nobody disputes that the left is capable of violence, but I do find it odd that we might consider such incidents and people equivalent to organized militias training for warfare and stockpiling weapons. It was a right-wing militia participant who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Domestic terror arrests in recent days brought down a Christian, right-wing cell that allegedly intended to murder police officers and then attack the funerals. The present call for armed revolt in the United States originates on the right wing. Indeed, some Anarchists plot and operate together, but I have yet to see among them a functional equivalent of the various militias we've encountered over the years. I don't see them out playing wargames on a friend's reserved acreage each weekend. Or maybe they're just better at staying invisible until zero hour. I don't know. But part of what seems to complicate this sort of discussion is a conservative tendency to ignore details because generalization better serves their political needs. There are subtleties conservatives prefer to ignore. And it's not that these subtleties necessarily excuse or justify violence, but as with greed and corruption, yeah, I know people are human, but one side of the argument actually promotes certain questionable behaviors, and in those cases I am more wary of those who prescribe such disgrace than those who fall into it like idiots. Yes, it makes a big difference to me. But I also understand that if one actually promotes idiotic behavior, subtlety is the last thing they want to deal with.
Quite, my point was simply that "Violent political left" (Oh, and that leftist militia do exist, even if they're not neccessarily active in the US) isn't just a Faux News synthesis. Violent left exists, violent right exists. I was just re-reading the first post: Violence is not the exclusive realm of militias. Although, I'll be honest, sometimes American Politics confuses the snot out of me with things seeming to mean the opposite of what I would expect, as I underdstand it, most left wing militias regard themselves as freedom fighters, and the left wing was orginally about political and social reformation (in favour of the people rather than the elite), and anarchism and leftism share many common philosophies, so, as I understand it, although they might not stand for communism, seccesionists are inherently left wing, which would make seccessionist militia left wing militia.
Notes on something Indeed. In a year that has seen a doctor gunned down by a right-winger, the Holocaust Museum shot up by a right-winger, and an airplane deliberately crashed into a federal building by a right-winger, a Congressman's office has been hit by white-powder terrorism from the right wing, and a bunch of right-wing zealots just got taken down for alleged terrorist machinations, it just seems strange that people have to reach out to Canada, where someone pulled a fire alarm at an Ann Coulter speech, to establish some sense of equivalence. I don't dispute your examples or argument. Mostly, I'm just making a point on my own behalf. But, to pick up on your note to Joe: It is difficult in the American context to divide according to notions of issues and principles insofar as the surface issues and the underlying principles will, within a given political label, often contradict themselves. There are plenty of inconsistencies within each. For instance, leftists might claim free speech, but only the fringe left, among liberals, believes it; mainstream liberals, after all, have long promoted political correctness, and even I'm on the bandwagon to a certain degree. On the right, they rail about big and intrusive government, yet if we take some of their social policies to heart, we'll expand the size and authority of government tremendously. The best dividing line I've ever devised is still somewhat vague, and has to do with individuals and society. Liberalism focuses on the relationship between individuals and society; conservatism focuses on individuals and presents a not-quite arbitrary "fuck society" attitude. Or, to be more blunt, liberalism looks at society as something to participate in, while conservatism looks at society as something to be conquered and exploited. In that sense, to consider your exaple, secessionism is considered right-wing while revolutionary politics are left. The modern American secessionist rejects their obligations to society, which leaves one to wonder how they will cope if we let them go. Or, as Jeff Danziger put it, "But, then, who can we blame when things go wrong?" In that sense, the revolutionary left would sooner overthrow the whole society than simply splinter out. Maybe it's greed, maybe it's conscience. As with secession. Part of me says, "Let the stupid fucks go." But another part of me thinks about the innocent people—children, for instance—who will be hurt by the actions of their greedy, stupid parents. Of course, I couldn't say the damage would be any worse whether Texas or Florida or whichever stayed or left. But I couldn't secede from the U.S. That would be like deserting the line. ____________________ Notes: Danziger, Jeff. "Texas Elections, Perry, Bill White". Danziger Cartoons. March 3, 2010. DanzigerCartoons.com. March 31, 2010. http://danzigercartoons.com/?p=2651
Aren't military establishments in general mostly right wing? No shock then that there aren't too many "left wing militias". It's one of their biggest perceived faults that they don't know what's worth fighting for or how to go about it when the time comes.
Yes, I have to agree with you Clusteringflux. I just don't see equivalance between right wing exteremists/militias and left wing extremists. The left wing extremists in the US seem to be pretty tame. They are not out practicing paramilitary exercises for assaults on the American government. They have conducted limited attacks on individuals in the past to defend animal rights, etc. But they are not preparing for or attacking government officials.
I'll give this the kind of response that joepistole's political threads deserve: Militia members generally believe (or at least claim to believe) in the Constitutional principles of individual rights and limited government. They generally dislike the current/recent governments for blatantly betraying those principles. We all know how left-wingers feel about individual rights and limited government, which is why we don't see any left-wing militias. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
