Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

New Study Highlights Threat From Far Right-Wing Groups In U.S.
By Hayes Brown on Jan 18, 2013


A new study from a think tank connected to the West Point Military Academy highlights the threat of violent far-right movements in the United States, leading to the conclusion that, while diverse in in their causes, they are similar in their use of violence to achieve their aims.
West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and has primarily focused its research on international terrorist threats. Titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” this new report instead looks as the risk that domestic groups pose to the U.S. Breaking down these groups into three categories — the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement — allows the study to examine the background ideologies and methods of each subset thoroughly, opposed to lumping them all together as most studies have.
Each of the groupings in the study represent competing ideological views, with none of them likely to cooperate in achieving their aims. The chances that each of these groups will use violence also varies. What they share, however, is a use of violence against their chosen targets — be it minority races or abortion clinics — to draw attention to and emphasize their given ideology. After charting out the various instances of violence carried out by each of the categories, the paper offers up several policy recommendations on responding to their actions:
From a theoretical perspective, this constitutes a further indication of the perception among some parts of the academic community that terrorism is an instrument of symbolic discourse which is shared by violent groups and their adversaries. Target selection is thus not based just on operational considerations, but is one component, among others, which allows violent groups to shape their message using violent practices—timing, weapons used and target locations, are only a small measure of the other components which contribute to the shape of the symbolic message conveyed via the attack.
In this context, policy implications are clear. If the numerous far right groups are driven by different ideological sentiments, and are thus also engaged in distinguishing tactics, then the response in terms of counterterrorism policies must be flexible and group/movement oriented.
The study is already coming under attack by Republicans for not properly defining what constitutes a member of the “far right.”
A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.
“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”
This pushback is unsurprising, given the unwelcome response a 2009 report on the same topic received. Titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the Department of Homeland Security-commissioned report drew attention to the fact that right-wing groups have proved more of a threat than Islamic extremists during a similar period. Secretary Janet Napolitano withdrew that report under harsh criticism from conservatives at the time, but there is no sign that the CTC will pull this study any time soon.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/18/1467741/west-point-study-right-wing-threat/?mobile=wt


Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right
Jan 15, 2013
Author: Arie Perliger

In the last few years, and especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics. These incidents cause many to wonder whether these are isolated attacks, an increasing trend, part of increasing societal violence, or attributable to some other condition. To date, however, there has been limited systematic documentation and analysis of incidents of American domestic violence.

This study provides a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends. Through a comprehensive look at the data, this study addresses three core questions:

(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?

(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?

(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?

It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify. While the ability to hold and appropriately articulate diverse political views is an American strength, extremists committing acts of violence in the name of those causes undermine the freedoms that they purport to espouse.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/chall...ines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

 

I would say violent groups, on either end of the spectrum, are dangerous....fleabaggers of OWS & Bill Ayers come to mind.

 

How could you miss Teddy. After all, he is going to burn down the Wisconsin State Capitol building.

 

While the study is about "far-right" groups, the government is also concerned about "far-left" groups.

The difference between the republicans and the Democrats on this issue (domestic "terrorism") is that the vast majority of Democrats in our government concede that there ARE "far-left" groups committing violent acts, and take measures to protect citizens from those acts, where a larger portion of the republicans in government refuse to acknowledge their "far-right" element and are therefore, in some ways, defending the acts committed by those "far-right" groups.

 

And lets face it, the number of armed far Right extremist groups dwarfs the number of violent Left-wing "individuals". The Right actively encourages these types of crazies while our local far Right extremists can only name a guy from the 1960's, some unarmed individuals protesting social inequities, and ME of course the known terrorist I happen to be in their opinion. While this is all they can come up with, there are thousands of Right-wing extremists groups to the point where they have to categorize them by "area of anger".
We have the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement all with direct ties to the Right-wingers and support from those Right-wingers. If the local wackos didn't have their false equity beliefs to fall back on, they'd realize that their just is no equivalency on the Left to the scores of Right-wing hate groups in this country. They choose to live in ignorance.

​

 

Ignorance? Ignorance of this?

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/the-right-wings-problem-with-racism.4166/page-2#ixzz2VpPAsoS9​

 

RLM, I have a feeling that Moron Joe would really, really enjoy it if we would stop bringing up his violent rhetoric especially now that we know the government is watching our every word. "Burning down the capitol", "Torching the place", Violence... is justified". These are the types of statements the government is searching for to weed out potential terrorists. Just sayin'.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting if he got caught in the reaches of his own hero?

 

You idiots are Sooooo... pathetic. First, you can't figure out the meaning of the word "if" then you think one comment I made justifies all the multitudes of Right-wing hate groups. How pathetic. Well, here is a fact you can't twist, I have never burned anything down while the countless violent Right-wing groups you continue to refuse to acknowledge has done untold harm. You weasels look so pathetic trying to worm your way out of taking responsibility for your own ilk. Focus on an "if" statement all you want but the fact is that violent Right-wing groups are out there and in large numbers, they are growing, and they belong to your side and if my little hypothetical statement is your only counter argument you have already lost the argument. Personal attacks are all you have when you can't point to Left-wing violent groups. You just try to use the personal attacks to weasel out of the facts again. How utterly pathetic you Righties continue to be.

 

Indeed. Oh, and I forgot to add, "Not opposed to violence". I'm sure the government will hone in on that one.

The government is watching you, Moron Joe.

View attachment 1740

 

We don't know that for certain. Your violent rhetoric would suggest otherwise.

 

Personal attacks? You have got to be kidding. After all the BS from you and I quote your posts. Therefore I am attacking you! NO! Here are personal attacks;

You want more? They are very easy to find. These are just some of the not so nice ones

 

They take Reagan's words seriously. He emphasized the idea that republicans shouldn't speak ill about other republicans. They glorify Reagan, for some reason, and worship his words as gospel.

In theory it's fine, in practice it produces a maniacal disconnect from reality. Today it's morphed into an insane ignorance, with very serious consequences.

They know they have severe issues within their party regarding groups using weapons, particularly guns, while committing or threatening to commit violent acts, but they can't comment on them out of fear of harming their party.

It's insane because the opposite is true.

By not confronting those hateful, violent elements within their party, they are in fact encouraging those hateful, violent groups to continue using violence as a tool. If they confront these groups, and show them that they will no longer support their violence through acts of ignorance, more people would join their party. If republicans can manage to accept the reality that they have some really nasty, violent elements within their party that must be dealt with by the party, they would have more people interested in joining.

That'll hurt the Democrats, and our desire to assist people in need, but if republicans can realize just how far they've committed to denial they just might be more reasonable regarding issues like assisting the poor.

Fat chance on either of those things happening though, they worship the words of a mediocre actor turned President. They worship at the alter of ignorance, and love every minute of it.

 

People abuse the right of free speech.

There is a term called "fighting words" that allows violent responses to particular words. republicans hide behind their words and assume no violence is justified. I disagree wholeheartedly, and so do some courts.

Violence does indeed have it's place, even against people limiting their abuse to words themselves.

 

Nailed it IQ!!!! They can't even admit to themselves that these hoards of Right-wing hate groups even exist. They dance and twist and cite people from 50 years ago. The issue is today, not in the 1960's, and they just can't admit to the insane wing of their own political party. It almost borders on a psychosis at this point.
In their heads they are thinking, "If I just don't talk about it and deflect reality with personal attacks, I don't have to see what is happening right in front of my own eyes." How f@#*ing weird it must be to go through life with that kind of denial. No wonder their party is failing so badly. They are failing it first.

 

The "violence" comment rimmer takes out of context and cites regularly was in reference to Thomas Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote, but rimmer always seems to leave that part of the thread out. This is not unusual from the Breitbart ilk. They don't care for facts as much as they care for sound bites that will influence stupid people.

 

If violence is your way of getting what you want, that's your business. Democrats have always had a way of forcing their will upon those who oppose them.

 

Sorry Teddy, but that is your entire post. It is linked. All you have to do is click on the arrow and you will see it - in its entirety - just as posted. The second reference is also linked. Sorry, but I could not link the third. You got too naughty so they closed the thread. However, I did post the ulr.

Now, just what part of my quotes of you have been other than exact quotes of you rantings? You are accusing me of messaging the quotes. In stead of your words, show me what I have changed! Go look. It is right there in black and white just as you put them there.

Now, back to the topic you seem to be avoiding. You have been totally unable to show a single proven incident of violence at a tea party meeting and you have been totally unable to unprove the violence of Ayers and the OWS. Unlike you, I will admit that there are fringes of the right who tend to violence, but I doubt you will find them as committed Republican members. However, I will bet that there were significant percent of active Democratic party members among the teachers, who you supported in their violence, storming the Wisconsin Capital building. I will bet that there were significant percent of active Democratic party members among the OWS protestors, who you supported in their violence, in any city you choose.

 

Nailed it, RLM!!!!!

 

There are groups on both sides. But the difference is the groups on the left are generally educated, free-thinking folks who strive for peaceful solutions, while those on the right call those people hippies and shoot them point blank. I guess it all comes down to who you trust...someone who's willing to work out problems intellectually, or someone who's going to go in shooting in the dark and hope it works out. I can tell you, the later solution has never worked...not once.