The following is from a Salon article. The enumeration is mine; I did, however, preserve the order of the bulleted list in the Salon piece. After each item you will find brief and not-so-brief commentary by your humble correspondent.
The XRW chart contains 20 examples of behavior which could indicate right-wing extremist values and suggest that a person is being radicalized into joining that dangerous movement.
Some of these warnings are:
1) Describe themselves as 'Patriots'
A patriot is one who loves his country. Patriotism is a good thing, a virtue. Like any virtue, it is a mean between two extremes. One of the extremes is excessive love of one's country, while the other is a deficiency of love for one's country. The patriot's love of his country is ordinate, measured, within bounds. The patriot is neither a chauvinist (jingoist) nor a neutralist. Both are anti-patriots. He loves his country with an ordinate love. He loves it and seeks its improvement, but not its "fundamental transformation." One does not love that which one wishes fundamentally to transform. One who does seek such a "fundamental transformation" is no patriot.
The patriot is also not a xenophobe since ordinate love of one's country does not entail hatred or fear of other countries or their inhabitants.
Patriotism, defined as the ordinate love of, and loyalty to, one's country is morally justified. It is justified analogously as love of, and loyalty to, one's family is justified. You love your spouse and you are loyal to her. The partiality this implies is not only morally permissible; it is also morally obligatory. Similarly with the partiality the patriot displays toward his country.
There is nothing 'extreme' about being a patriot.
2) Refers to Political Correctness as some left wing or communist plot.
Political Correctness does in fact originate with the Communist Party.
Communism as a political force, though not quite dead, is moribund; but one of its offspring, Political Correctness, is alive and kicking especially in the universities, the courts, in the mainstream media, in Hollywood, in the Democrat Party, and indeed wherever liberals and leftists dominate. To understand PC one must understand the CP, for the former is child of the latter.
In her fascinating memoir, Dorothy Healey Remembers: A Life in the American Communist Party (Oxford 1990), Healey mentions the tendency leftists have of purging one another on grounds of insufficient ideological purity: it is almost as if, for a leftist, one can never be too far left. Healey writes:
The great irony of the McCarthy period is that we did almost as much damage to ourselves, in the name of purifying our ranks, as Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and all the other witch-hunters combined were able to do. One of the most catastrophically stupid things we ever did was to choose this moment to launch an internal campaign against white chauvinism. (125)
'White chauvinism' was the term used in the '50s in CPUSA circles for racism. After singing the praises of the Party for its commitment to racial equality, Healey continues:
However, with the white chauvinism campaign of 1949-1953, what had been a legitimate concern turned into an obsession, a ritual act of self-purification that did nothing to strengthen the Party in its fight against racism and was manipulated by some Communist leaders for ends which had nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of the whole campaign. Once an accusation of white chauvinism was thrown against a white Communist, there was no defense. Debate was over. By the very act of denying the validity of the charge, you only proved your own guilt. Thousands of people were caught up in this campaign — not only in the Party itself, but within the Progressive Party and some of the Left unions as well. In Los Angeles alone we must have expelled two hundred people on charges of white chauvinism, usually on the most trivial of pretexts. People would be expelled for serving coffee in a chipped coffee cup to a Black or serving watermelon at the end of dinner. (p. 126 emphasis added.)
Healey goes on to describe how she herself was brought up on a white chauvinism charge, was forced to admit guilt, sign a statement, etc. She details how it was impossible to criticize even the most incompetent of Black party members. (pp. 126-129)
Not much has changed in this regard. There is nothing a liberal fears more than to be labeled a racist, and, like 'fascist,' 'racist' is a term they apply indiscriminately to their political opponents as an all-purpose smear word.
3) Describe multicultural towns as 'lost'
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. No comment.
4) Looks at opponents as 'Traitors'
Surely some of the political opponents of conservatives are traitors and are rightly viewed as such by us. But not all. Some are stupid. Some are ignorant. Some simply lack life experience and knowledge of history. Some have been brain-washed, or to put it more mildly: ill-served by their supposed 'educators.'
No 'extremity' here.
5) Use the term 'Islamofascism'
Well, Islam, a combined political-religious ideology, is in fact totalitarian. If one conflates fascism with totalitarianism, then 'Islamofascist' is an accurate descriptive term. If so, it is not 'extreme.' The calm and measured Michael Medved, no extremist, used 'Islamofascist' some years back and so did I. I no longer use the term because I reserve 'fascism' for the political ideology of Benito Mussolini.
6) Make generalisations about Muslims and Jews
Generalize we must. There is no thinking without generalization. But one can generalize well and arrive at truths or generalize poorly and promulgate falsehoods.
True generalization: Most of the terrorist acts in recent decades have been perpetrated by Muslims.
False generalization: All of the terrorist acts in recent decades have been perpetrated by Muslims.
True generalization: Jews as a group are more intelligent than blacks as a group.
False generalization: Jews for centuries have been murdering Christian children and using their blood in religious ceremonies.
Clearly, there is nothing wrong or 'extreme' with generalizing about Muslims and Jews — and everything else — so long as one does it correctly with attention to fact.
7) Have XRW extreme group stickers or badges on clothing and personal items
What, for example, the MAGA logo on a hat?
8) Make inaccurate generalisations about 'the Left' or Government
I need an example of one of these 'inaccurate generalisations.' Everyone is, or ought to be, opposed to inaccurate generalizations.
9) Talk of an impending racial conflict or 'Race War'
Who is talking about a 'race war'? Examples needed. There is of course much talk nowadays about the possibility of a hot civil war, and some of this talk emanates from the race-baiting Left.
10) Threaten violence when losing an argument, although claiming that XRW groups protest peacefully
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The threats of violence are mostly from the Left. Consider the threats against President Trump.
11) Become increasingly angry at perceived injustices or threats to so called 'National Identity'
This is another example of a deep lack of self-awareness on the part of leftists. It is certainly rich to hear identity-political leftists complain about those who speak of national identity. As a matter of fact, nations do have their own unique identities, and every nation has a right to preserve its identity. There is nothing 'extreme' about that.
Salon article here.
One response to “Intrinsic Intentionality and Merely Possible Thoughts”