Sunday, July 24, 2011

Why does ALL political, terrorist violence come from the right?

I'm overwhelmed with anger and frustration by the evils that continue to be perpetrated by right wing fanatics in this world. Innocent Labour party kids die in Norway because some right wing fanatic hates openness and his country's approach to multiculturalism?

It's time for conservatives to explain why ALL political, terrorist violence nowadays comes from the right side of the spectrum, be it Islamic or Christian or just plain fascist!

There's something inherently evil lurking in the hearts of far right conservatives, including an impulse to turn to violence and force to get their way when democratic means don't work. George W. Bush opted to go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people when he had other options (but the profits to be made from war by those around his cabinet table proved too tempting to resist). Anders Behring Breivik didn't have that kind of power, but he did have his rifle and a lot of material for making a bomb. It's telling the gunman in Norway disguised himself as a police officer to conduct his murderous crimes on that island.

How many more times are we going to see some right wing nutbar take his unregistered rifle and murder innocent civilians before we on the left start fighting back? When is some left wing fanatic going to take a rifle and go on a shooting spree at Goldman Sachs in New York and kill the people who truly are dangerous threats to the world's economic security (and responsible for the 2008 worldwide, economic meltdown)? Left wingers don't usually own guns, let alone go on shooting sprees. That reality keeps these evil conservatives safe in a world they continue to denigrate with their hateful ideology.


The Mound of Sound said...

Here's an academic explanation to your question. It's a 15-page paper by Douglas Pratt published in 2006 in the University of Marburg Journal of Religion. It examines why religious fundamentalism of any faith rejects tolerance, liberalism - and democracy. That leaves the authoritarian far right their natural constituency.

I urge all progressives to read this paper and realize that fundamentalism is a religious, social and political movement that we must oppose whether it is Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

Aodhgan Satyriander Merrimac said...

There is an "at any cost" aspect to fundamentalism of any stripe, any extreme position denies compromise and smothers rationality. So often the radical is informed by simplistic slogans rather than reasoned investigation.
There is violence perpetrated by those on the extreme left but I can't think of a single instance off the top of my head where it was aimed at people.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, it's time for moderate conservatives to answer for the horrible violence perpetrated by their extremist cohorts. The Majority of any party must accept some responsibility for its own extremities.

A.S. Merrimac

Rotterdam said...

He claimed in his manifesto that he is a Darwinian. Perhaps we should this as well.

Rotterdam said...

We must try to understand his anger.

Was he driven to violence due to the United States.

Was he driven to violence due to Israel.

Was he was driven to violence due to social conditions.

If only we had listened to his grievances.

And my favorite,
"And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

Our own former Prime Minister
Jean Chretien

Unknown said...

I agree with the general concept of the article, cons are crazy, there's just one thing that tweaked me a little bit. And it's probably just the wording.

You said that "terrorist violence nowadays comes from the right side of the spectrum, be it Islamic or christian or just plain fascist!"

I agree it comes from the right, but I don't like how that sentence implies that Fascism is a strictly right wing phenomenon. in the political compass, you can have fascist right or left wing ideologies, or you can have anarchistic/libertarian left or right wing ideologies.

but, yeah it tends to be individuals on the right that are the craziest. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

Wesley Ferris said...

Nice smear. Of course there is left-wing terrorism - Shining Path and FARC come immediately to mind. No ideology or faith has a monopoly on the use of terrorism. It would be nice (to say nothing of respectful) if people didn't jump immediately on every outrage/massacre to make their own ideological point (and for the record, that goes for those who thought immediately this was an act of Islamic terrorism).

Matt Guerin said...

Wes, you ignored my use of the word 'nowadays'. Your examples of left wing terrorism one could also just call guerrila or rebel groups fighting against corrupt regimes like Colombia. Are the rebels in Libya to be considered terrorists? Are NATO forces including the Harper government assisting a terrorist organization in Libya?

I meant to identify more lone wolf nutters who take violence into their own hands. Timothy McVeigh types. We might get violence conducted by organized rebels. But rarely if ever do we get one leftie lone wolf going on a shooting spree.

But the point is taken - one man's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

rabbit said...

I'm trying to think of recent large-scale violence from the political right.

There's Breivik in Oslo and Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma and ... well that's about it.

What's more, these were the acts of lone (or almost lone) people. So far as we know, neither were instigated by right-wing organizations.

Not much really.

Matt Guerin said...

Um Al Qaeda. The Toronto 18 weren't exactly liberals. Neither were the folks who bombed London in 2005.

rabbit said...

If one defines all terrorists as being on the right then sure, all terrorist violence comes from the right. But it sounds like begging the question to me.

Politically McVeigh and Islamist terrorists had nothing in common, and it's not particularly useful lumping them together under one umbrella for the sake of scoring cheap debating points.

Matt Guerin said...

They had much in common - both espoused extremist views that dehumanized the other. I can't how anyone could seriously argue both al Qaeda and McVeigh and many others came from the right of the political spectrum. Yes, they diverge in terms of religion, culture and background. But both come from the far right of their respective cultures, hence my point.

Rabbit, do you consider yourself a conservative?

Wesley Ferris said...

Both FARC and Shining Path are generally considered to be terrorist groups by Western governments, and their tactics have been criticized on humanitarian grounds for deliberately targetting civilians. Whether they are also 'rebels/freedom fighters' is rather moot - they use terror to advane their agenda.

More broadly speaking, I came across an interesting stat in a Macleans blog entry - in 2009, the vast majority of incidents labelled as 'terrorist' came from separatist groups. Of the attacks with a clear ideological basis, 40 were leftist/anarchist, and only 4 were rightist (also interesting - only 1 was Islamist). The blog entry is here:

The implication is that even though the 'heyday' of leftist terrorism has passed in Europe (i.e. Red Army Brigade, etc.), there are still more attacks from the left than the right.