• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas DA, wife killed -- 2 months after his deputy is gunned down [W:627]

Pretty good. I did not know that adherence to the authoritarian makes the wingnut. Of course, you do know? THat this now makes Stalin's old regime Right Wing, and it makes China Right Wing and, lets not forget North Korea, those are some submissive followers of authoritarian rule over there with "Dear Leader", they are now Right Wing too.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

To be fair, the definition of Right Wing Authoritarianism is based on psychological research and is loosely based on specific political positions. It is not meant as a complete definition of all things rightwing, but rather, one aspect (or maybe "genre" is a better word) of right wingerism.

As far as Russia and China go, the only thing "left wing" about them was their economic ideology, which they rarely followed. In leftwing economic ideology, the "people" control the means of production. This did not hold true in either Russia or China.

It is only because of the misguided notion that right means "small govt" and left means anything to do with "collectivism" that so many americans equate "right" with "conservative" and "left" with socialism. In Russia, the "conservatives" are those who want to return to Socialist govt.
 
Pretty good. I did not know that adherence to the authoritarian makes the wingnut. Of course, you do know? THat this now makes Stalin's old regime Right Wing, and it makes China Right Wing and, lets not forget North Korea, those are some submissive followers of authoritarian rule over there with "Dear Leader", they are now Right Wing too.

I'm not buying what you're selling.
Everything that Sangha said....with the addition that I thought you wanted to discuss the AB, not China or Stalin.

Lets keep the focus upon whether the AB falls into the RWA category. If you can show how they do not fit within the definition, fine, but you did not.
 
And that shooting very well might not be politically motivated. However, that doesn't mean that every crime they have committed had no political motive.

The fact is, they *have* committed politically motivated crimes. They were documented in the SDLC link I posted last night.




I agree that once it becomes more than a single instance, it represents a pattern of intimidating the govt, which is terrorism.

As far as rightwing, read the definition at Wiki (which is a fairly good one IMO) and see if it fits AB

Far-right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There's more at the link.
The Link also highlights the grey areas. In this respect, the AB definitely do not fit the mold in that they do not really cover the gamut. While they are anti-pluralistic, white supremacists with some respect for the authoritarianism within their internal hierarchy, they are not exactly nationalistic, anti-globalists or protectionists--hell, half of them probably don't even know what those terms mean.
...different scholars disagree as to the number and combination of ideological features that qualify a party as right-wing extremist as well as the different typologies used to distinguish between parties within this family. According to Christina Liang, this "academic field is especially peculiar about its terminology. Each label carries with it a specific understanding of this family of political parties as well as a particular set of assumptions regarding their origins and electoral success".[19] In an extensive survey of the literature, academic Cas Mudde found 26 definitions of right-wing extremism that contained 57 different ideological features.[20] Alongside the theoretical debate concerning the nature of these parties there is also an empirical debate concerning who speaks for right-wing extremist parties and how to measure their ideology given that many reject the right-wing extremist label being applied to them.

One issue when it comes to terminology is whether parties should be labelled "radical" or "extreme",[21] a distinction that is made by the German Federal Constitutional Court when determining whether a party can be banned. Another question is the what the label "right" implies when applied to the extreme right, given that many parties labelled as right-wing extremist tended to advance neo-liberal and free market agendas as late as the 1980s but can now advocate economic policies more traditionally associated with the left, such as anti-globalisation, nationalisation and protectionism. One approach, drawing on the writings of Norberto Bobbio, argues that attitudes towards equality are what distinguish between left and right and therefore allow these parties to be positioned on the right of the political spectrum. There is also debate about how appropriate the labels fascist or neo-fascist are. According to Cas Mudde, "the labels Neo-Nazi and to a lesser extent neo-fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich or quote historical National Socialism as their ideological influence". [21]
Jurgen Falter and Siegfried Schumann define right-wing extremism with reference to ten ideological features which they believe constitutes a core extreme right ideology, including hyper-nationalism, ethnocentralism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism and anti-pluralism.[22]

Cas Mudde identified five key features – nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy and the belief in a strong state – based on the fact that they appear in 50% of the definitions of the extreme-right that he surveyed.[23] However, in later writings he revisited his earlier assessment and argued in favour of a definition based upon three features: authoritarianism, populism and nativism.

According to Elizabeth Carter, the two defining features of a right-wing extremist party are: a rejection of fundamental human equality, which she asserts is what makes the party right-wing,[24] and a rejection of the fundamental democratic values of the state, which makes it extremist.
 
Everything that Sangha said....with the addition that I thought you wanted to discuss the AB, not China or Stalin.

Lets keep the focus upon whether the AB falls into the RWA category. If you can show how they do not fit within the definition, fine, but you did not.

You're going with one shoe-fits-all. Lumping all the racists into the RW because they are submissive to authority while ignoring that they are not nationalists nor have any opinions on economic systems in any way shape or form is a huge reach. By your definitions, the AB are as RW as is North Korea. Both are xenophobic racist regimes run from the top down, severely punishing those who do not fall in line.
 
You're going with one shoe-fits-all. Lumping all the racists into the RW because they are submissive to authority while ignoring that they are not nationalists nor have any opinions on economic systems in any way shape or form is a huge reach. By your definitions, the AB are as RW as is North Korea. Both are racist regimes run from the top down.
You are limiting the definition to one aspect, ignoring the rest while still trying to compare them to totalitarian systems.

You have already conceded that the AB is NOT "left-wing", so what are they? Centrist? I don't think so, they favor radical segregation, they view the white race as superior, they have a extreme hierarchy/class structure. You have to take all of their POLITICAL characteristics together to place them on a political map.

The Link also highlights the grey areas. In this respect, the AB definitely do not fit the mold in that they do not really cover the gamut. While they are anti-pluralistic, white supremacists with some respect for the authoritarianism within their internal hierarchy, they are not exactly nationalistic, anti-globalists or protectionists--hell, half of them probably don't even know what those terms mean.
So if they do not contain ALL aspects of your definition of what is right wing, then they cannot be such? Is this like being a little bit pregnant?
 
Last edited:
You are limiting the definition to one aspect, ignoring the rest while still trying to compare them to totalitarian systems.

You have already conceded that the AB is NOT "left-wing", so what are they? Centrist? I don't think so, they favor radical segregation, they view the white race as superior, they have a extreme hierarchy/class structure. You have to take all of their POLITICAL characteristics together to place them on a political map.

That's just it. They are not political.
 
The Link also highlights the grey areas. In this respect, the AB definitely do not fit the mold in that they do not really cover the gamut. While they are anti-pluralistic, white supremacists with some respect for the authoritarianism within their internal hierarchy, they are not exactly nationalistic, anti-globalists or protectionists--hell, half of them probably don't even know what those terms mean.

Yes, there are grey areas. The link also points out that scholars disagree as to the exact definition of "far right", as well as terms like "extremism" and "radicalism". That's because political science isn't a hard science. However, that doesn't mean that we should disregard everything they have to say.

And yes, AB doesn't hit all the points they mention, but if you look at the issue you'll see that no group meets all of the criteria. Should you then conclude that there are no rightwing (or leftwing) groups? I don't think so.

I think that reasonable people, such as you and I, can look at the various definitions and discern some common elements and decide for ourselves if (and to what degree) AB conforms to those common elements. Given AB's extreme beliefs in innate differences that justify a hierarchy with whites on top, their belief that these innate differences are the result of a natural order, and that this order is "ordained by God", I believe that they can safely be included under the term "far right".

Add in their racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy, anti-communism, anti-pluralism, and belief in a strong (albeit currently non-existent) state and we have a home run.
 
The Link also highlights the grey areas. In this respect, the AB definitely do not fit the mold in that they do not really cover the gamut. While they are anti-pluralistic, white supremacists with some respect for the authoritarianism within their internal hierarchy, they are not exactly nationalistic, anti-globalists or protectionists--hell, half of them probably don't even know what those terms mean.
"nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy and the belief in a strong state"

Uh, 4 out of 5.....and yet you still argue they are not right wing......shrug.
 
You're going with one shoe-fits-all. Lumping all the racists into the RW because they are submissive to authority while ignoring that they are not nationalists nor have any opinions on economic systems in any way shape or form is a huge reach. By your definitions, the AB are as RW as is North Korea. Both are xenophobic racist regimes run from the top down, severely punishing those who do not fall in line.

I think it is mistake to think that nationalism is required in order to be rightwing. And while AB hasn't explicitly stated an economic ideology, I think it's clear that they are capitalistic
 
Yes, there are grey areas. The link also points out that scholars disagree as to the exact definition of "far right", as well as terms like "extremism" and "radicalism". That's because political science isn't a hard science. However, that doesn't mean that we should disregard everything they have to say.

And yes, AB doesn't hit all the points they mention, but if you look at the issue you'll see that no group meets all of the criteria. Should you then conclude that there are no rightwing (or leftwing) groups? I don't think so.

I think that reasonable people, such as you and I, can look at the various definitions and discern some common elements and decide for ourselves if (and to what degree) AB conforms to those common elements. Given AB's extreme beliefs in innate differences that justify a hierarchy with whites on top, their belief that these innate differences are the result of a natural order, and that this order is "ordained by God", I believe that they can safely be included under the term "far right".

Add in their racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy, anti-communism, anti-pluralism, and belief in a strong (albeit currently non-existent) state and we have a home run.
If they were not a purely criminal organization, I would agree. If they at all expressed violence in effort to move forward ideology, I would agree. Even if they took some of their criminal money and used some of their gangster power to be political, advance the Aryan agenda, I would have agreed. But they do none of it. In fact, just the opposite, they form an alliance with Mexican gangs.
 
That's just it. They are not political.
They are not political in what sense? You keep pulling out of the discussion with comments like this. I never claimed they were running for office, if that is what you are now going for.

The question was what, when one examines their stated POLITICAL beliefs, political positions they hold.

You are trying to reduce down the discussion you resurrected. Nearly any organization, especially when they openly declare poli-sci positions, can be placed on a political map. You already removed them from the left wing camp......so you have made some kind of decision of what they are politically.
 
If they were not a purely criminal organization, I would agree. If they at all expressed violence in effort to move forward ideology, I would agree. Even if they took some of their criminal money and used some of their gangster power to be political, advance the Aryan agenda, I would have agreed. But they do none of it. In fact, just the opposite, they form an alliance with Mexican gangs.

They are not a purely criminal organization. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, they have engaged in political crimes that had no economic motive and have a political ideology.

However, there is nothing I can do to convince some who is determined to ignore the evidence of these political crimes.
 
Calamity, I hope you are familiar with the concept of a political map, where one axis describes economic beliefs and the other axis describes social freedom? Since we have little to go as far as economic beliefs (though one could argue they operate with a extreme libertarian view, ie no govt interference), we have to place them primarily on social standards. Clearly, they fall on the extreme right.

bothaxes.jpg
 
Last edited:
They are not political in what sense? You keep pulling out of the discussion with comments like this. I never claimed they were running for office, if that is what you are now going for.

The question was what, when one examines their stated POLITICAL beliefs, political positions they hold.

You are trying to reduce down the discussion you resurrected. Nearly any organization, especially when they openly declare poli-sci positions, can be placed on a political map. You already removed them from the left wing camp......so you have made some kind of decision of what they are politically.

In that I can easily define what they are not. Yes. But, they are not like McVeigh or even Koresh, in that their political objectives are on the table. They are apolitical, but they do fall into several Right Wing categories.
 
Calamity, I hope you are familiar with the concept of a political map, where one axis describes economic beliefs and the other axis describes social freedom? Since we have little to go as far as economic beliefs (though one could argue they operate with a extreme libertarian view, ie no govt interference), we have to place them primarily on social standards. Clearly, they fall on the extreme right.

True, in that they are indeed the polar opposite to the Far left.
 
They are not a purely criminal organization. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, they have engaged in political crimes that had no economic motive and have a political ideology.

However, there is nothing I can do to convince some who is determined to ignore the evidence of these political crimes.

The AB has not, to my knowledge, participated in any crimes not directly related to profit, revenge or retribution...exception being perhaps strictly racially or homophobic driven acts of violence. But, the Mafia did that stuff too. Were they Far Right? Of course not.
 
In that I can easily define what they are not. Yes. But, they are not like McVeigh or even Koresh, in that their political objectives are on the table. They are apolitical, but they do fall into several Right Wing categories.

The definition of far right does not require AB to be like McVeigh or Koresh.

And AB is not apolitical. They have a specific and explicit view and philosophy of how people should be ruled. It's becoming obvious that you are going to continue to ignore their political actions and beliefs in order to maintain your belief that they are not political.
 
In that I can easily define what they are not. Yes. But, they are not like McVeigh or even Koresh, in that their political objectives are on the table. They are apolitical, but they do fall into several Right Wing categories.
No, they cannot hold poli-sci views and be "apolitical".

If they fall into "several " rw categories and are "not left wing", then you are still placing them on a politcal map.
bothaxes.gif
 
The Ab has not, to my knowledge, participated in any crimes not directly related to profit, revenge or retribution.

That's because you continue to ignore the documented fact that they have participated in crimes that had no relation to profit, revenge or retribution.
 
The definition of far right does not require AB to be like McVeigh or Koresh.

And AB is not apolitical. They have a specific and explicit view and philosophy of how people should be ruled. It's becoming obvious that you are going to continue to ignore their political actions and beliefs in order to maintain your belief that they are not political.

Dude, the Brotherhood is in an alliance with the multi-ethnic Juggalos, who in turn are tied to the Bloods and Cripes. So, how dedicated to their ideology can the AB really be?
 
Leaders of Racist Prison Gang Aryan Brotherhood Face Federal Indictment | Southern Poverty Law Center

Once they're released, some Aryan Brotherhood members commit terrible hate crimes in the name of Rahowa. The most infamous racially motivated murder since the civil rights era occurred in 1998, when three white men, two of them ex-cons, tied a black man, James Byrd Jr., to the back of their pickup truck with a logging chain, dragged him to death over three miles of country roads outside Jasper, Texas, and then deposited his shredded remains in front of a predominantly black cemetery. One of the ex-cons testified at his trial that he and one his accomplices had both joined the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas for protection from black inmates while they were incarcerated. When he rejoined society, his arms were covered with Aryan Brotherhood tattoos, including one depicting a black man being lynched. "You look at his arms," the trial prosecutor said, "and you see what's in his heart."

In October 2001, another member of the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas who was enraged by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gunned down a Bangladeshi gas station attendant simply because the victim "looked Arab."
 
Dude, the Brotherhood is in an alliance with the multi-ethnic Juggalos, who in turn are tied to the Bloods and Cripes. So, how dedicated to their ideology can the AB really be?

Lets put it into terms you like to use.....

Hitler signed a peace pact with Stalin, so how dedicated to his ideology could he be?
 
That's because you continue to ignore the documented fact that they have participated in crimes that had no relation to profit, revenge or retribution.

Latino street gangs are attacking African Americans, running them out of neighborhoods. Does that now make them Right Wing? The Italian Mafia will kill associates who are gay. Does that makes the Gambino Family a RW hate group?

No. They are criminal gangs.
 
Back
Top Bottom