Thank you for your cogent responses, Paul. I'll try to paraphrase, to make sure I understand your analysis correctly. Extremism, whether RWE or LWE, is political violence. It can be based in any totalitarian/authoritarian political system or ideology, whether traditionally 'left' or 'right.' So it cross-cuts ideology. Fascism is a poli…
Thank you for your cogent responses, Paul. I'll try to paraphrase, to make sure I understand your analysis correctly. Extremism, whether RWE or LWE, is political violence. It can be based in any totalitarian/authoritarian political system or ideology, whether traditionally 'left' or 'right.' So it cross-cuts ideology. Fascism is a political system/ideology. Extremism is violent political action which is grounded in political belief systems. The state can be violent/extremist (fascist extremism, for example), or individuals/groups either contesting or supporting a given political system can be extremist, as in RWE or LWE in the US context. Let me know if I understood you correctly, or if I'm missing the point.
I try to understand clearly what people mean by specific terms because of the power of naming and framing, and because we Mercans tend to be pretty fuzzy in our political terminology (and beliefs).
Thank you for making me scratch my head to come up with some better and more succinct answers.
First, I agree with most of your understanding and appreciate that can follow what my wife says, "can be somewhat, ADHD thinking." Yes, she does it lovingly.
There are several reasons that I don't try to keep definitions too carefully defined. A couple of the primary are:
1. My long experience is as an operator or practitioner... mostly.
2. Here in the West and especially in the US national security community, we have a self-defeating habit of slicing up related pieces of the same puzzle and solving just each piece but not solving the picture as a whole. This applies to problems as well as different agencies/ entities both.
3. All problems revolving around narrative are dimensional which in short means that precise definitions are often more hindrance than progress.
4. There are many ways to be authoritarian but the end result for people at large is the same, regardless of whether it's a dictator, despot, populist, nationalist etc.
Now, back to your question:
On the arc of political beliefs, LWE, at the end of their side of the spectrum will eventually come full circle and meet RWE at the opposite end of the spectrum. That's where we find what today is called accelerationism. In other words, far left and far right, including all the other bad guys in between will work together to tear it all down.
If we only address one aspect of extremism, we allow others to move more freely towards combining as accelerationists. Of course, along the way, more powerful movements also can interrupt the transition and become the more powerful movements. At this point, the distinctions matter far less.
So, the extremist spectrum of radicalization is fairly simple. It begins with recruiters targeting vulnerable identities and slowly radicalizing them into fully accepting extremist ideology to the point that it becomes part of their identity. Once established, many will go that fatal step further and become violent extremists. In other words, they are willing to openly act on their extremist ideology. Based on my experience in the field, I rarely see those who've crossed the threshold into violent extremism, as recoverable. The odds are grossly stacked against them.
To be more succinct to one of your questions, Extremism can inspire violent extremist behavior. Those acts are the part we see on the evening news.
I try and not make violent extremism just about political violence. There are enumerable ideologies that inspire violence that are not about politics. Take INCELS for example. I'm still trying to get my head around this movement but recognize its strains in other movement like the Proud Boys who have as part of their belief system, toxic misogyny. It's the overlap between movements and their ideology that creates the most severe threats, simply because overlapping strains of extremist ideology increases the number of extremists aligned against humanity.
I agree with your point about "Mercans." Specific definitions are very important. Sadly, when it comes to operations against extremist movements, getting buried in definitions results in "paralysis by analysis." There is room for professional, carefully defined work so long as it doesn't hamper operations against similar but related movements. Just look at all of the violent extremists on Jan 6th. Narrow definitions would have failed to reveal the severity of the threat because we would limit our work to just one or two, carefully defined types of threats, when in fact, there were several far-right movements working against the US government collectively.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing. I'm a dimensional thinker and an operator. I look for the information that will help me succeed in my mission in support of the US Government. There are far brighter analysts than me that detailed distinctions matter to for different reasons.
Cheers Maggie and thanks for the ongoing discussions :)
Thank you for the very clear and helpful discussion above. I take your point about political ideology as only one type of ideology. I also take your point about analysis paralysis and government enactment. Having worked for our Uncle S. for a number of years, I've seen and lived that dream.
Several years ago I tried to build a grid map placing the various extremist groups and militias on a violence x-axis and an ideology (L->R) commitment y-axis with overlapping Venn group membership circles...HAH! that didn't work out so well. So, point taken in your response above.
My current research is dedicated to narrative warfare theory building, which is why I'm trying to understand the concepts you raise and use rather precisely and clearly. My own quest is analytic, to increase our understanding of this phenomenon of narrative warfare by attempting analytic distance and epistemological neutrality, but I applaud your dedication and passion in your practice - heaven knows, there's a place and a need in the world for our warriors.
Thank you for your cogent responses, Paul. I'll try to paraphrase, to make sure I understand your analysis correctly. Extremism, whether RWE or LWE, is political violence. It can be based in any totalitarian/authoritarian political system or ideology, whether traditionally 'left' or 'right.' So it cross-cuts ideology. Fascism is a political system/ideology. Extremism is violent political action which is grounded in political belief systems. The state can be violent/extremist (fascist extremism, for example), or individuals/groups either contesting or supporting a given political system can be extremist, as in RWE or LWE in the US context. Let me know if I understood you correctly, or if I'm missing the point.
I try to understand clearly what people mean by specific terms because of the power of naming and framing, and because we Mercans tend to be pretty fuzzy in our political terminology (and beliefs).
Maggie,
Thank you for making me scratch my head to come up with some better and more succinct answers.
First, I agree with most of your understanding and appreciate that can follow what my wife says, "can be somewhat, ADHD thinking." Yes, she does it lovingly.
There are several reasons that I don't try to keep definitions too carefully defined. A couple of the primary are:
1. My long experience is as an operator or practitioner... mostly.
2. Here in the West and especially in the US national security community, we have a self-defeating habit of slicing up related pieces of the same puzzle and solving just each piece but not solving the picture as a whole. This applies to problems as well as different agencies/ entities both.
3. All problems revolving around narrative are dimensional which in short means that precise definitions are often more hindrance than progress.
4. There are many ways to be authoritarian but the end result for people at large is the same, regardless of whether it's a dictator, despot, populist, nationalist etc.
Now, back to your question:
On the arc of political beliefs, LWE, at the end of their side of the spectrum will eventually come full circle and meet RWE at the opposite end of the spectrum. That's where we find what today is called accelerationism. In other words, far left and far right, including all the other bad guys in between will work together to tear it all down.
If we only address one aspect of extremism, we allow others to move more freely towards combining as accelerationists. Of course, along the way, more powerful movements also can interrupt the transition and become the more powerful movements. At this point, the distinctions matter far less.
So, the extremist spectrum of radicalization is fairly simple. It begins with recruiters targeting vulnerable identities and slowly radicalizing them into fully accepting extremist ideology to the point that it becomes part of their identity. Once established, many will go that fatal step further and become violent extremists. In other words, they are willing to openly act on their extremist ideology. Based on my experience in the field, I rarely see those who've crossed the threshold into violent extremism, as recoverable. The odds are grossly stacked against them.
To be more succinct to one of your questions, Extremism can inspire violent extremist behavior. Those acts are the part we see on the evening news.
I try and not make violent extremism just about political violence. There are enumerable ideologies that inspire violence that are not about politics. Take INCELS for example. I'm still trying to get my head around this movement but recognize its strains in other movement like the Proud Boys who have as part of their belief system, toxic misogyny. It's the overlap between movements and their ideology that creates the most severe threats, simply because overlapping strains of extremist ideology increases the number of extremists aligned against humanity.
I agree with your point about "Mercans." Specific definitions are very important. Sadly, when it comes to operations against extremist movements, getting buried in definitions results in "paralysis by analysis." There is room for professional, carefully defined work so long as it doesn't hamper operations against similar but related movements. Just look at all of the violent extremists on Jan 6th. Narrow definitions would have failed to reveal the severity of the threat because we would limit our work to just one or two, carefully defined types of threats, when in fact, there were several far-right movements working against the US government collectively.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing. I'm a dimensional thinker and an operator. I look for the information that will help me succeed in my mission in support of the US Government. There are far brighter analysts than me that detailed distinctions matter to for different reasons.
Cheers Maggie and thanks for the ongoing discussions :)
Thank you for the very clear and helpful discussion above. I take your point about political ideology as only one type of ideology. I also take your point about analysis paralysis and government enactment. Having worked for our Uncle S. for a number of years, I've seen and lived that dream.
Several years ago I tried to build a grid map placing the various extremist groups and militias on a violence x-axis and an ideology (L->R) commitment y-axis with overlapping Venn group membership circles...HAH! that didn't work out so well. So, point taken in your response above.
My current research is dedicated to narrative warfare theory building, which is why I'm trying to understand the concepts you raise and use rather precisely and clearly. My own quest is analytic, to increase our understanding of this phenomenon of narrative warfare by attempting analytic distance and epistemological neutrality, but I applaud your dedication and passion in your practice - heaven knows, there's a place and a need in the world for our warriors.