This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Should Extremist Parties Be Banned?

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Following the slaying of two members of Greece's far-rght Golden-Dawn party (and wounding of a third) on Friday evening, the Greek government’s crackdown on the country’s 'extremist' party has revived a vexing question that seemed to have disappeared with the Cold War’s end: Is there a place within liberal democracies for apparently anti-democratic parties?

 

Via AP,

Police investigating the slaying of two members of the far-right Golden Dawn party and the wounding of a third say the gun used in the Friday evening attack had not been used in previous terrorist attacks.

 

The assailant fired 12 rounds from a Zastava Tokarev type semi-auto pistol, police say.

 

A police source, speaking on condition of anonymity because officers were not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation, said Saturday that a video from a nearby security camera confirmed accounts from Golden Dawn lawmakers that the assailant started firing from 15 meters (yards) away and finished off his victims from point-blank range. The gunman fired at a fourth Golden Dawn member, who managed to enter a building unharmed.

One can't help but get the sense their is a growing 'instigation' of more killing in Greece, which got us thinking of the following discussion...

 

Authored by Jan-Werner Mueller, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

Should Extremist Parties Be Banned?

To be sure, liberal democracies have felt threatened since communism collapsed in 1989 – but mostly by foreign terrorists, who tend not to form political parties and sit in these countries’ parliaments. So, should extremist parties that seek to compete within the democratic framework be outlawed, or would such a restriction on freedom of speech and association itself undermine this framework?

Above all, it is crucial that such decisions be entrusted to non-partisan institutions such as constitutional courts, not other political parties, whose leaders will always be tempted to ban their competitors. Unfortunately, the moves against Golden Dawn are mostly identified with the government’s interests, rather than being perceived as the result of careful, independent judgment.

On the face of it, democratic self-defense seems a legitimate goal. As US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (who was also the chief US prosecutor at Nuremburg) put it, the constitution is not “a suicide pact” – a sentiment echoed by the Israeli jurist Aharon Barak, who emphasized that “civil rights are not an altar for national destruction.”

But too much democratic self-defense can ultimately leave no democracy to defend. If the people really want to be done with democracy, who is to stop them? As another US Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, put it, “if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It’s my job.”

So it seems that democracies are damned if they ban and damned if they do not ban. Or, in the more elevated language of the twentieth century’s most influential liberal philosopher, John Rawls, this appears to be a “practical dilemma which philosophy alone cannot resolve.”

History offers no clear lessons, though many people like to think otherwise. In retrospect, it appears obvious that the Weimar Republic might have been saved had the Nazi Party been banned in time. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, famously gloated after the Nazis’ legal Machtergreifung (seizure of power): “It will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provided its mortal enemies with the means through which it was annihilated.”

But a ban might not have halted the German people’s general disenchantment with liberal democracy, and an authoritarian regime still might have followed. Indeed, whereas West Germany banned a neo-Nazi party and the Communist Party in the 1950’s, some countries –particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, where dictatorship came to be associated with the suppression of pluralism – have drawn precisely the opposite lesson about preventing authoritarianism. That is one reason why Greece, for example, has no legal provisions for banning parties.

The fact that Greece nonetheless is effectively trying to destroy Golden Dawn – the parliament just voted to freeze the party’s state funding – suggests that, in the end, most democracies will want to draw the line somewhere. But just where, exactly, should it be drawn?

For starters, it is important to recognize that the line needs to be clearly visible before extremist parties even arise. If the rule of law is to be upheld, democratic self-defense must not appear ad hoc or arbitrary. Thus the criteria for bans should be spelled out in advance.

One criterion that seems universally accepted is a party’s use, encouragement, or at least condoning of violence – as was evidently the case with Golden Dawn’s role in attacks on immigrants in Athens. There is less consensus about parties that incite hatred and are committed to destroying core democratic principles – especially because many extremist parties in Europe go out of their way to emphasize that they are not against democracy; on the contrary, they are fighting for “the people.”

But parties that seek to exclude or subordinate a part of “the people” – for example, legal immigrants and their descendants – are violating core democratic principles. Even if Golden Dawn – a neo-Nazi party in appearance and content – had not engaged in violence, its extreme anti-immigrant stance and its incitement of hatred at a moment of great social and economic turmoil would have made it a plausible candidate for a ban.

Critics warn of a slippery slope. Any disagreement with a government’s immigration policy, for example, might eventually be deemed “racist,” resulting in curtailment of freedom of speech. Something like the classic American standard – the speech in question must pose a “clear and present danger” of violence – is therefore essential. Marginal parties that are not connected to political violence and do not incite hatred should probably be left in peace – distasteful as their rhetoric may be.

But parties that are closer to assuming power are a different matter, even if banning them might automatically appear undemocratic (after all, they will already have deputies in parliaments). In one famous case, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the banning of Turkey’s Welfare Party while it was the senior member of a governing coalition.

It is a myth that bans turn leaders of extremist parties into martyrs. Very few people can remember who led the postwar German neo-Nazis and Communists. Nor is it always the case that mainstream parties can cut off support for extremists by selectively coopting their complaints and demands. Sometimes this approach works, and sometimes it does not; but it always amounts to playing with fire.

Banning parties does not have to mean silencing citizens who are tempted to vote for extremists. Their concerns should be heard and debated; and sometimes banning is best combined with renewed efforts at civic education, emphasizing, for example, that immigrants did not cause Greece’s woes. True, such measures might come across as patronizing – but such forms of public engagement are the only way to avoid making anti-extremism look like extremism itself.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:19 | Link to Comment Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Who defines extremist? Socialist Democrats?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

By definition, the status quo power structure defines extremists.  Also by definition, anyone who challenges the status quo is labeled an extremist by the status quo.   They also like the word "terrorist*."  Nice neat little circle.

*England just declared carrying documents that expose the State's lies an act of terror.  And 90% of the population doesn't give a flying fuck.  Go read the comments on any major MSM site, liberal or conservative, doesn't matter.  

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Ban the cause of all this: government.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:31 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I won't go in circles with you on this today, but the sad reality is that you cannot.  Government exists whether it is voluntary (preferred) or involuntary (most of history).  Human beings are tribal and the large majority of people want to be led by someone and told what to do.   Reality is a bitch but ignore it at your peril.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:33 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

on a related topic ... is the Obama administration throwing Israel under the bus?

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-furious-with-white-house-for-leak-on...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:35 | Link to Comment logicalman
logicalman's picture

That would be the first good idea they've had in a long time.

Under a bus is where the Israeli government deserves to be.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:36 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Just the current government, or all the parties, or also the people too?   What about about the 2 million or so natural born arab israeli citizens?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

This question seems a bit douchey.

Don't be douchey.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 03:19 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Um, your comment actually uses the term "douchey".   Twice.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:48 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

In related news, Israel angry at U.S. for confirming sky is blue.   Why does Israel pretend that anyone who cares doesn't know it was them?  Okay, maybe there was one guy in a cave somewhere who was thinking, "I wonder who just launched a bunch of missiles at Syria."   Just man up, Isreal.   

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:09 | Link to Comment Canadian Dirtlump
Canadian Dirtlump's picture

yeah it is just theater. I mean, a rogue nuclear apartheid state needs to keep itself in a perma victim scenario don't ya know LOL!.

 

In other news, ever find it odd al ciada doesn't go after israel?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:48 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

have you ever been to Tel Aviv?  TSA is a joke in comparison ... no way hose .... alkaida can never break in ...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:33 | Link to Comment Canadian Dirtlump
Canadian Dirtlump's picture

considering they somewhere between hold the door open for them or drive them in domestically, I don't see the point. The thing about there is.... they can walk there... like israel is letting them do into syria after patching them up in hospitals.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 11:59 | Link to Comment TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Ever dawn on anyone that Wall St, Hollywood and DC are all pretty much the same thing...theatrical magic! Those wiley "East Germans" are good and I mean really good...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:50 | Link to Comment mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Reality is what we make.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:58 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, with the operative word being "we."  Your fellow man by and large likes to be led around by their nose and told what to do.  It is a objectively true fact proven by all of human history.  Whether you like it or not, they will follow "rulers" and allow them to form government that will control you unless your plan is to live by yourself on top of a mountain.  This whole debate about everyone living in a free society with no government is tilting a windmills.  I'll give you an example -- why can't people just all agree not to commit crimes?  Well, why can't they?  Is it a valuable debate to figure out how best to get everyone to agree not to commit crimes, or would it make more sense to acknowledge that some people are going to break the rules and figure out the best way to deal with that?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:58 | Link to Comment mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

I dream of things that never were and ask Why not?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:07 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

That is only true because government claims a monopoly and backs it with force. Force paid for by its victims.

In Chile, they made participating in a social security plan voluntary. I think 95% opted out.

Do that with government and see how many opt out. Probably everyone but those living off taxpayers.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:31 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Non-taxpayers voting creates a conflict of interest.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:33 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

They don't need to vote.  They have lobbyists and think tanks and they select candidates for us who like horses and flags and we vote for them because we're stupid and gullible and we like actors who say what we want to hear.  Oh, you meant poor people and you are limiting your comment to income tax.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:40 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Besides banning the whole lobbying process which is necessary.  Can't we start with little changes, like terms limits so we don't have career politicians? 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:49 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

We found a point of agreement.

How about this:  term limits (1 for Senators and 2 for the House, 1 for President); ban all lobbying; ban appointment of anyone to regulate an industry in which he worked in the last 5 years or in which he plans to work in the next 5; no corporate money to support political causes; no legislation may be written by anyone other than elected officials and their immediate staff (no more legislation written by corporations and lobbyists); end the primary system which favors the two party system; cap individual contributions to any political entity such as Moveon.org to $2K.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:58 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Yeah, you're going in the right direction.  But right now political spending by Unions exceeds any direct private donations.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:04 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I include unions and any other non-individuals.  Individuals are capped for the obvious reason that otherwise the wealthy would just step in effectively corner the candidate market.  Special interests are the problem, period end of story.  Take money out of politics and get rid of career politiicans and I think we'd have a system that even the no-government crowd could probably live with.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 03:50 | Link to Comment Vigilante
Vigilante's picture

Golden Dawn is our very own Tea Party..only with more cojones...much more

The only anti-systemic party right now in Greece ....hence the dirty tricks against it.

btw....the recent killings, stink of security agencies.

An attempt to terrify ordinary GD members.....i.e 'stay at home or you might get shot'

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

The smallest, most restricted government turned into the largest empire in the history of the world in just over 200 years, and you guys think term limits and lobbying bans will fix things?  Get real.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:38 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, I think these things would fix it.

Where you are I agree is that these things will never happen.  TPTB already have far too much power to ever allow it to happen.  So I suppose I'm tilting at windmills myself in having this discussion.  Maybe I should join the no government guys at the bar and buy them a drink and say fuck it.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:26 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You're Gen X like me right? maybe a few years older.  Do you expect permission from TPTB?  I expect failure from them and opportunity for change.  If we were siblings, I would have to give you a wedgie all day for telling me how mommy wouldn't approve.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 04:20 | Link to Comment 0z
0z's picture

I once realized there are only individuals.

I suggest you give that a try; it turns everything on its face.

You could also try exploring; "anarchy" exists today in many places.

Ever read "Heart of Darkness"?

"TPTB already have far too much power"

I don't know about that. Go check out Shan state in "Myanmar."

Ever heard of Khun Sa? He laughed in their faces.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:43 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

So does receiving money from, or being in, government.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:57 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

"In Chile, they made participating in a social security plan voluntary. I think 95% opted out. Do that with government and see how many opt out. Probably everyone but those living off taxpayers."

That's kind of what happened in Detroit.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:59 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

It is not the fact that they are tribal, it is the fact that some people have to control others and those people are the ones that should have the least control. I'm all for you having whatever shitty, evil government you want, but at least try and fake being human and allow those who do not have your ant genes to be free from YOUR control.

Unfortunately for freedom lovers, daydream believers like yourself are completely incapable of accepting that. Please tell me why - are you God and you know what's best for everybody?

Four hundred million deaths because of government in the 20th century, and people still want it because they think it's necessary.

You can't make this shit up.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:06 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey, if it were up to me you could live in a free zone with no government and I wouldn't bother you.  But I'm here on ZH bitching about the NSA, Red Team/Blue Team BS, oligarchs, the Fed, etc.  90% of the population doesn't even know ZH exists and they think the Fed is a government entity trying to save the economy.  My proposed solution is to focus on the least offensive government possible, and one which does more good than harm.   And I would much prefer an elected government to a dictatorship, with the obvious caveat that our current system is so corrupt that it looks a lot like the latter.  History teaches me that if we don't have an elected government, we have a pure dictatorship.

My beef with you is that by spending all of your energy wishing for something that will never exist (that the entire population leaves you alone and lets you live w/o government), you are avoiding a much more difficult problem of devising a real solution.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:14 | Link to Comment balanced
balanced's picture

That's because no real solution can be found in this context. The solution is freedom and liberty. Any entity which "governs" the people, by definition is in direct opposition to the solution.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:37 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yeah, too bad no guy with a white wig can dream up a document that would create government by the people for the people.  That would be dumb and would be anti-liberty and freedom.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:45 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The day you become a Constitutionalist and recognize the greatness of the document, I'll wear a white wig in my avatar and stop calling you lola.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:55 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This from a Reagan defender?  Look in the mirror sometime. 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:03 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"Reagan defender?"  Not me, that's your obsession.  They shot the bastrd as soon as he came into office to keep him in line.  And the USSR would have collapsed like every other socialist scam with or without him, so drop your grudge.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:34 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

And I'm bitching about the fact that government, something you support, can steal everything I own, including my life, at its discretion.

If you accept that others (me) should choose their particular political situation, then why are you "bitching about the NSA, Red Team/Blue Team BS, oligarchs, the Fed, etc." when you should be allowing them their political choices, even if you don't agree.

If your choice is better, they will look like idiots. In the situation we have now, we are all being dragged down to the lowest level, ensuring the worst possible outcome.

My guess is that you prefer being 'in control' of others.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 23:34 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE!" -- George Washington

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:09 | Link to Comment balanced
balanced's picture

"Ban the cause of all this: government."

Logged in just to give this comment +1

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Government, as a basis for civilization, is a poor choice compared to freedom.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:47 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Dictatorship by thugs, as a basis for civilization, is a poor choice compared to elected government with a Constitution providing for checks and balances.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:04 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

We have an elected government with a Constitution providing checks and balances AND we have a dictatorship of thugs. Where is the choice?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:44 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

They aren't following the Constitution now.   The president does not faithfully execute the laws, announces that he will not, is in our face about it, and yet is not impeached.   Congress, for its tolerance of this, gets to run for five years straiht without passing a budget(a basic duty in the Constitution) and they also get to pull nasty tricks like omnibus bills, or revenue bills originating in the wrong house becoming "law", "conference committees" and all the rest of it that gives us Obamacare, "continuing resolutions", unreadable several thousand page bills that generate tens or hundreds of thousands of regulations having the jackbooted force of law, written by unfirable technocrats, Congress having illegally abdicated its function. 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 22:16 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Like I said, where's the choice? Are you so mentally challenged that you can not put cause and effect together? They aren't following the constitution now, oh boo hoo! That is what criminals do. They hijack the process, they bribe the judges, they write the laws and regulations and laugh at you sorry fucks that whine, "they're cheating! Teacher, they're cheating, it isn't fair!" I have a constitution, it says you have to do this!

They kill presidents, congressman and judges. They blow up multiple high rises, they shoot down Korean Jetliners, they blow up their own navy, they kill their own people. But you don't want to look too close, it might shatter your dream world.

That's the point in the movie when the muscle gives you a dime and says, "get the fuck outahere, before I have to hurt you".

This is how power and influence function and government is their SOP. 

Grow up.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 03:30 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Well, it doesn't sound like you are on board with the American experiment in human liberty, the institutions of which were designed under the explicit assumption that human nature is flawed, and so human institutions are flawed, and so must be built to prevent their excesses and mistakes from leading to permanent tyranny.   It worked for most of two hundred years, and can continue working, as proven by the recovery following the proto-fascist Wilson regime, or the massive lowering of taxes ushered in by JFK...but it doesn't sound like we can count on you to be helpful....

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 08:37 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

America has NEVER been an experiment in human liberty. Every check and balance in the Constitution, besides the house of representatives, were designed to control democratic passions, throw in the first and second central banks, Lincoln's dictatorship and you have to realize that Americans have NEVER seen liberty, regardless of how much we scream and shout. 

Unfortunately, some people are too ignorant to figure this out.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:31 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

Instead of spewing platitudes you should read "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Professor Hoppe.

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 23:31 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Both sides of my family left the Austro-Hungarian Empire to come to the US.

They were freer there under a monarchy than I am here now under a democratic republic of constitutional absurdities.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 10:05 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Whoever wrote this article needs to fuck off and die. Why use the language of our masters to feign we have a say in whether our masters ought to have to bother with insurrection, by the people they've been fist fucking in the first place. If government employees are serving their sponsors in the way they were meant to, they wouldn't have to fear extremist groups. These groups only emerge when absolute crooks and fuckheads, decide that they have risen so far, as to become untouchable to their constituents. This shan't last long. In the not too distant future, we will see the smug faces of wretched cunts like mc Caine, Obama, bush, Kerry, etc, wrenched in terror as they are led to the gallows.
Mr. Author, please be so kind as to go fuck yourself. It's not your place to wonder if extremely fucked over people should be banned from trying to pull the cock from their assholes.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:22 | Link to Comment IllusionOfChoice
IllusionOfChoice's picture

It seems like the US would have done fine without political parties. If we took them away, it would remove the hard and fast labels people hide behind instead of thinking about each issue as it comes. If you're going to ban political parties, save the trouble of defining extremist and ban them all.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:38 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

Gordian knot. But "status quo", like so called "extremist", is answerable before history. Often "extremist" points to future and new mantra, "status quo" to past and past mantra. They represent two political alliances in name of two ethos or ideologies.

Once you have "acted" your  ideology, put knife to task, MAcbeth's gesture, your facade is naked. As before history you are not what you say but what you DO. That is western tradition.

So from then on its a fight between political power structures in name of historical message behind the ACT, ethos vs ethos. Always has been. 

Now things become clear as the debate is about finality. About objectives not about means.

What do we represent and what is our ethos which is NON NEGOTIABLE, the line drawn in the sand. 

Today we hide the truth of VALUES, of ETHOS, from ourselves. Which makes the issues opaque.

Modern society is Schizophrenic; two faced.We see it here at ZH like elsewhere.

In the use of words that confuse the ethos behind the facade.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:22 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

history and past acts instilled by same mindsets or ethos.

But your question is valid : do we have the right to say history repeats BEFORE the event?

Nope, but after...hmmm.

Kristall nacht.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 21:41 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

But parties that seek to exclude or subordinate a part of “the people” – for example, legal immigrants and their descendants – are violating core democratic principles. Even if Golden Dawn – a neo-Nazi party in appearance and content – had not engaged in violence, its extreme anti-immigrant stance and its incitement of hatred at a moment of great social and economic turmoil would have made it a plausible candidate for a ban

I'm wondering if the people of Greece, not its elites, really ever wanted a multicultural cesspool to begin with. How about the indigenous people in any euro country? Did they really want to be inundated with Africans, Turks, Arabs, Pakistanis? Of course not. Would these countries, or at least unemployment figures, be better, if non-Europeans were sent packing? Of course.
And hate crimes. Whoever gave authorities the right to enforce people to love those they don't, and to criminalize hate? That's just over the top insane, and against human nature.
At this point in time, with the options of Greeks to self determination at nil, I find myself supporting Golden Dawn, rather than them rolling over and dying, like good proles.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 06:52 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

In addition, extremist groups never find traction in a system which is not absolutely corrupt and/or, grossly mismanaged. So, for the author to even suggest that the regime in charge has any legitimate moral high ground to even consider banning anything, is laughable and beneath contempt.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Oracle 911
Oracle 911's picture

According socialist democrats everybody who blatantly says the truth (or what he/she accept as truth) is extremist, racist, antisemitic etc, for example calling Obummer incompetent and inept or criminal is mark of racism.

 

Fuck the system especially fuck Berry.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:02 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

All this philosophical bullshit is just another manifestation of pretense that all is well and there exists the luxury of indulging in time spent philosphizing.  Yeah, let's lean back and expound on democracy and unpopular parties and maybe even get televised showing the populace that all is so comfortable and calm and normal that we can pontificate on the condition of our condition.

You want philosphy?  I'll give you philosophy.

US shale oil is very temporary.  It's not like Ghawar's 60 years of longevity pumping at high rates.  China and India's AND Saudi Arabia's oil consumption growth rate is mind boggling, and just about all if it is coming from US consumption decline.  

So you want philosophy?  Here it is.  The day the US consumption rate drops below the amount needed not just to run an economy, but also to transport food to shelves, and the US asks China and India to slow down their consumption so Americans don't starve . . . do you really think China and India will say, okay?  Rather than . . . you need 15 million bpd to live and we're now consuming about 11 million bpd with a bigger population so why in hell do you think we'll back off?

That's philosophy.  When the pie isn't growing and you discover you need a bigger slice, you take it from someone else's slice and fuck them.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:01 | Link to Comment Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

What, Crash, you're telling us that you've never heard of abiotic pie and all that? You're kidding?!   ;-)

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 23:40 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

So, might makes right then, gotcha!

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 06:51 | Link to Comment Oracle 911
Oracle 911's picture

WTF, I just merely stated the facts.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 12:04 | Link to Comment HoleInTheDonut
HoleInTheDonut's picture

Well, there is all that other oil in Alaska and various places off shore that the USSA won't drill for.  Maybe China and India should be PISSED OFF about that first?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:00 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

And who shot who in this story?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:31 | Link to Comment Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Who? I think that is not the particular question. The people who come to mind mostly are dead. What defines it? Where could it be defined? A good start would be the respective country's constitution, right?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:34 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Government lovers.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:09 | Link to Comment Questan1913
Questan1913's picture

"Who defines extremist?  Socialist Democrats?"

 

 

Yes.  The ruling oligarchy resident in every country defines "extremist".  The Republican party in this country is only allowed to exist as long as it does not really threaten the ruling oligarchy.  It does not challenge the current status quo and is thus allowed to exist.  The two groups within any society that are the backbone of Socialism are organized labor and organized capital.  The latter group runs the United States.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:19 | Link to Comment chemystical
chemystical's picture

"Who defines extremist?"

I say give the ADL or the SPLC 1st crack at it.  They've done such a bangup job of telling police forces and the FBI and DHS exactly who an extremist or terrorist is:

  • veterans
  • people who believe the Fed should be audited
  • people who believe the US Constitution should be followed by the US Govt
  • people concerned about border security
  • people who read Tom Clancy novels
  • people who believe in the 2nd Amendment (not to mention the other 9 of the BOR)
  • people who support Ron Paul
  • people who oppose abortion
  • people who oppose the UN

and parenthetically:

  • people with more than 2 brain cells clicking
  • white gentile males
  • Boy Scouts
  • people whom the Semitic-impostors decide are anti-Semitic
  • people who prefer to think for themselves

Google: SPLC AND MIAC  I'd bid Morris Dees and Abe Foxman an all-but-fond farewell in their way to Hell, but they'd thank me for wishing them well on their way to serve their master in-person.

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:58 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Uparrow for calling out the evil lying SPLC, downarrow for whining about ADL

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:14 | Link to Comment chemystical
chemystical's picture

6 versus a half dozen.  they admittedly coordinate efforts in many ventures. 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 20:21 | Link to Comment FightingtheFed
FightingtheFed's picture

Jews do of course.

 

Any challenge to Jewish Supremacy and their Marxist Ideals is pure hatred and must be banned for the welfare of mankind!

 

Just the facts.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 03:33 | Link to Comment sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Gringo Viejo    "Who defines extremist? Socialist Democrats?"

 

And why is a socialist a democrat?

There seem to by quite a few socialist republicans.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 05:21 | Link to Comment Max Damage
Max Damage's picture

Liberals are amongst the worst. They don't believe in democracy, and believe in the we know best, and we will bring in laws to force it. They have also brought in so many laws against free speach and democracy, that they should be the ones in the dock

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:19 | Link to Comment holgerdanske
holgerdanske's picture

You should not ban anyone.

But hang anyone that takes a life, unless in self defence.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:17 | Link to Comment chemystical
chemystical's picture

and it's good to be king because then you alone get to decide what is self-defence.  (and if you don't get to decide, then a secret court that you appoint and that you don't have to tell anyone about and that has never rejected a single one of your applications...will decide).  dang that sounds familiar. 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:19 | Link to Comment Selah
Selah's picture

We should ban everything that we do not agree with.

 

Then replace "we" with "I".

 

Then put "I" in charge.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:35 | Link to Comment Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Apple accomplished that. What's next?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:24 | Link to Comment drooley
drooley's picture

I support banning extremist parties, particularly those who believe in wackjob conspiracy theories such as "man-made climate change"

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:32 | Link to Comment logicalman
logicalman's picture

I support banning people from posting when they are as incapable of logical thought as you obviously are.

Assuming you are serious!

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:27 | Link to Comment chemystical
chemystical's picture

aw, c'mon, every boogey man is anthropogenic (and anthropically wielded).  better to tax you with my dear.  better to kontrol you with my dear.

not much different than many other parent-child relationships where some unimaginable peril will befall if you: don't eat your vegetables, clean your room, go to bed, blah blah blah.  Most parents, however, do not prevent their children from learning or from growing up.

Dang, there's a paradox.  What if the erstwhile "abusive" parents homeschooled their kids but told them that guns are bad (except government guns), and that paying taxes is everyone's patriotic duty, and that abortions should be free and plentiful, and homosexuality is statistically normal?  Why do the separatists always have to be Randy Weaver types?  Are there no such separatist "extremists" in the Liberal camp?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.  When you see that trading is done,
not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need
to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is
flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get
richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against
them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and
honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.
Money is so noble a medium that does not compete with guns and it does not make
terms with brutality.  It will not permit a country to survive as half-property,
half-loot.”

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

I'm a Roman Catholic, gun owning, Constitutionalist patriot.
Am I an extremist? Or am I simply a threat to Communists?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:28 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

You're a threat to society.  Off to the Perpetual Happiness Education and Work Camp #7 for you.
And anybody else deemed to be like you by whatever definition they so choose at any moment in time.
Now, all of you like Ron Paul, please raise your hands.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:38 | Link to Comment Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

You are a simpleton who has a belief system based on a fictional book and a 200 year old document crafted to suit the needs of 18th century elites. But I do honor your right to believe these things. USA! USA! USA!

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:25 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

So individual liberty and limited government are not your thing eh? You must feel you deserve more than you can make on your own and that someone should be forced to provide you those things.

After all, if you are entitled to things you cant afford that means someone else is obligated to part with what they have and give it to you.

That is playground level morality of a child.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:33 | Link to Comment logicalman
logicalman's picture

Where did that come from?

Your comment has nothing to do with what you are supposedly commenting on!

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:53 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

This is the standard argument from the left. "Old white menblah blah blah elites blah blah blah antiquated constitution blah blah blah. Therefore it is moral to take other people's money and give it to me"

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:29 | Link to Comment Questan1913
Questan1913's picture

"You are a simpleton who has a belief system based on a fictional book and a 200 year old document crafted to suit the needs of 18th century elites. But I do honor your right to believe these things. USA! USA! USA!"

And you are a 20th century elitist, and socialist/leftist phony with an outsized ego, and little to no justification for the existence of that  appendage: out for yourself, with not a scruple anywhere in sight. Your only real belief is in your own self advancement.  In short, a sociopath.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:28 | Link to Comment Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Just because I reject religion and the idea of the constitution as this magical document drafted by superhumans, it doesn't make me an ego maniac or void of scruples. I don't need a man in a dress to tell me not to steal, murder or fuck my neighbors wife. I also don't need to talk to a man in a dress in a secret box to get my "sins" absolved. I am a man who lives an honest, fruitful life. If you need a crutch or extra help to be a good person, so be it. Whatever it takes!

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:57 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

Lol. Why dont you go ahead and finish those thoughts. I agree with you up to the point where the "elites blah blah blah constitution blah blah blah opression blah blah blah. So give me some of that OPM"

Other people's money.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 20:56 | Link to Comment Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Where did I say anything about other people's money? You fuckers think everyone is on the gubmint tit! Free your mind and your ass will follow!

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 01:37 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

He's into golden showers... err... dawns, not tits...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:25 | Link to Comment EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:28 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

I fear who gets to make those judgments that I or anybody is intolerant.

If Golden Dawn can win a majority they will evict all illegal immigrants with as much force as necessary. They have stated they will put a lot of government workers , bankers, and politicians in jail for corruption.

Is that extremist? Is that intolerance of democracy or playing by the rules of majority rule?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:56 | Link to Comment DaveA
DaveA's picture

Except for wealthy expats and charity doctors, why keep any immigrants at all? It's not like there's a labor shortage, and if Greece is the best country you can get into, you're not exactly top-shelf talent.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:02 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And cowardice's downside is that Weakness is a provocation.    H/T  to St. Rumsfeld

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 08:56 | Link to Comment Tulpa
Tulpa's picture

Ear-tickling claptrap.  Who gets to define intolerance?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Unstable Condition
Unstable Condition's picture

Well that's why we were set up as a republic, not a fucking democracy.

the 16th & 17th amendment and the Federal Reserve act took care of that in 1913.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:30 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

If you allow people to vote you have to allow them to vote in fools and despots.

You either allow people to vote or you don't.

It's what the police & military do that matter.

Might follows sentiment, not the law.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:30 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

If Golden Dawn killed a bunch of innocent kids with a drone to further their economic interests, they would be rounded up and hanged for murder.  

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:30 | Link to Comment One And Only
One And Only's picture

Should extemist parties be band? YES SIR!

Ban the democratic party in the USSA.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 03:39 | Link to Comment sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

So banning a label is the solution?

Societies throughout history have repeated this same situation. Over time, the masses become dumbed down, propagandized and dependent on a central authority. Rinse, repeat.

 

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:32 | Link to Comment Platinum
Platinum's picture

This could spark something major, especially if there is a sense that nothing is being done by the Police because of who was killed. GD are also rising in polls and I doubt this will do anything but help them.

Everybody has their breaking point, and when real poverty sets in, people will look for change, regardless if the system that governs them declares it legal or not.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:44 | Link to Comment Martel
Martel's picture

Now that left-wing anarchists have killed people, will Greece ban the said organization, whatever it is? Somehow I doubt it. In Europe, only "right wing" qualifies for bans. This was the case when Austrians were punished for voting wrong in the elections of 1999, also when banning the biggest party in Belgium (Vlaams Blok) in 2004. In Sweden, for many years the powers that be have harassed the "right wing" Sverigedemokraterna party. This continued demonizing against a political party has even lead into acts of violence against them. Yet, Sweden's many violent far-left organizations enjoy open public support.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:34 | Link to Comment besnook
besnook's picture

is a democracy a democracy or a republic a republic if it decides to ban the voice of some people because they disagree or interfere with the zeitgeist? isn't that the main argument against those who claim israel is a democracy?

that is why i believe the chinese .gov is one of the most honest .govs in modern times. they don't hide behind an illusion of freedom. as a chinese person you know you are not free and if you get out of line you will pay for it. in the usa, dissent of .gov is suppose to be a god given right protected by .gov(courts). in practice you may have a tragic accident. who is freer? the chinese guy or the american?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:36 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Certainly, You start with the Banksters, then the globalists, then the Washington D.C. Republican and Democrats, the CIA, FEMA, DHS, The Council on Foreign Relations, RAND corporation, The Carlyle Group, Bilderberg, The NSA, The Department of Justice, The entire City of London and Wall Street.

That's just to get to a balanced budget..

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:39 | Link to Comment W74
W74's picture

Trawling through the Stratfor files on Wikileaks I have found interesting things.

http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=168370

Unfortunately these e-mails are 2½ years old now, but I'm still trying to get insight into how these people think, what motivates them, what their hiring practices are (note: they are highly suspicious of infiltrators and therefore suspect even very mundane applicants), how they make money (seems like the bosses get quite a bit), and in general trying to gain insights into the future for myself, etc.

Also, trying to find out the overall connection to Israeli spy agencies, not from these jokers, but how they interact with US federal agencies.  Lots and lots of infiltrators.  They are our biggest threat, truly, and I wouldn't be surprized if they controlled or made up the bulk of key players.

http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=126745

http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=378147  This one seems to think that kids are taught in schools and that gives them license to use the media and academia to combat her people's crimes.

http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=1565006

Also interesting are some of their Intern applications, and e-mails from their selection committees; how they bash applicants, insult some, sexualize others, and make decisions based on completely arbitrary matters.

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:42 | Link to Comment Hail Spode
Hail Spode's picture

JFK said "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."   If the response to Golden Dawm members being murdered is for the establishment to ban Golden Dawn, I am struggling to understand on what basis one could condemn Golden Dawn if they respond with violence and revolution.  Can anyone help me out here?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:57 | Link to Comment Martel
Martel's picture

The Golden Dawn was banned already before this. They were banned on the basis that the party leadership knew about a murder of one left-wing journalist. This recent murder of two Golden Dawn members was probably a left-wing response. So, there's violence going both ways.

The real culprits are EU politicians who did not kick Greece out of eurozone. Instead they opted for bailout packages, which mainly enrich the powers that be in Greece. A common man is living in misery. A decent and honorable way for Greece would have been to re-introduce their own currency, default on their loans, and earn money through tourism (devaluated prices would bring a boom).

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 22:20 | Link to Comment Escapedgoat
Escapedgoat's picture

" This recent murder of two Golden Dawn members was probably a left-wing response."

 

 That assumption is too quick for anyone but.

The execution style murder according to reports points to PROFESSIONAL KILLING. The Gun never used before, the term that was used was "clean" meaning they know that the few times there were killings with guns in Greece  that particular gun was never used. How come?  if the perpetrators were non governmental operatives????

Also lately the government circles and their foreign instructors use the term Extreme Left and Extreme Right. When the majority of the Greeks want to hang the entire political treacherous class from Left to Right. The German Istructors and Troica in general do not care for the plight of the Greek population (more than 6000 people commited suicide), When they spout Human rights for other Places that they desire to RAPE but not in Greece itself. At the moment the Greeks are mightily pissed off. We can't possibly predict what this will bring, but when they act, everything is off the charts. The Mighty Moussolini and Adolf Hitler found out in 1940 & 1941. The surprising fact is that even the Metaxas Dictator at the time wanted to surender but couldn't. When they finally were occupied the COLLOBARATORS (prime Minister and Judge Pikramenos)  did worst than the occupiers . NOW  the children of those that worked with the Germans, surprise ,surprise  ARE  the children or Grandchildren of those Collobarators. And after the Liberation very very few were charged with any crimes , The British made sure of that 12/1944- to 1945.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment bilejones
bilejones's picture

The real culprits are

1. The Greek politicians who lied to get into the Euro.

2. The Banksters who prenteded to believe that just because they shered a currency, lending to the Greek could be done as cheaply as lending to the Kraut.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 

                     Our 'Founding Fathers' were extremists.  In a world where a 6 year old boy get's suspended from school for making a " Pop Tart ® " gun, you have to question the sanity of the retards that write and enforce the laws...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:48 | Link to Comment mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Does ZH publish morons now?

Tylers -- what the fuck is wrong with you guys?

Are you losing it?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:51 | Link to Comment Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

You are aware that this is weekend-Tyler you talk to?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:03 | Link to Comment stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

agreed, the article is rubbish.

i believe the intent was "news", as in some assassinations in greece.

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment kiwidor
kiwidor's picture

Yes, entire thing reads like a shilling, direction-primer to support the 'new laws' which come in after all kinds of trivial actions.   for example,  child falls and breaks neck in playground.  article appears "are our playgrounds safe enough?"  and 2 years later all playgrounds have fun-less equipment and rubber mats and so on , depriving the poor kids of real risk, real fun, and providing legions of wankers with regulation-monitoring 'labour'.

so, we can't have these poor extremists killed like this so we'll ban extremist parties (anything that isn't like the status quo)

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:51 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Democracy is for democrats and everyone else need not apply <period>

Otherwise, democracy is nothing but (suicidal) lyricism. The problem is not "extremism" (what?); the problem is the position on the democratic system, itself.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

So is Golden Dawn against democracy?

Or do they just wish they can win a majority vote so they can evict all illegal immigrants with whatever force necessary, and put a lot of Bankers and government in jail and end corruption?

Also that is not a nazi salute. It is an ancient salute for a thousand years from the greco roman classic period.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:20 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

That's the point - would they be so liberal about opposing ideas as they demand others to be about theirs?

evict all illegal immigrants with whatever force necessary, and put a lot of Bankers and government in jail and end corruption?

Yeah, right; just that... (and all for the childrin, btw) - as if every dictatorship didn't came about with the oh so righteous pretense of moralizing public life (nope, it's not a nazi bug; it's a dictatorial feature).

Also that is not a nazi salute.

Right... just an unfortunate coincidence.... same as with the symbol; nothing to do with the swastika, just yet another sad coincidence they're so similar; fortunately, the colors leave no doubt about their, well, true colors - oh, wait... http://natalt.org/nataltblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Golden_Dawn.png

Btw, tell me what a nazi salute is...

Keep getting high on your own (koolaid) supply; after all, if you don't drink it, who will?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 20:02 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

The romans and greeks used that salute for close to 1000 years. The nazis about 20 years. So whose salute is it?

Any problem with pushing out every illegal immigrant?

If we are gonna argue slippery slope i can argue the leftist parties are not going to stop with a few "reasonable demands" either but will carry it to a dictatorship. Speculation is no reason to ban a party

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 01:33 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Yeah, sure... those hacks just happened to be one bright shiny morning strolling all along the Parthenon columnata, when that eureka moment of how fitting those ornatures would look on their so democratic flags just downed (haha..) on them, all the while being completely oblivious to the unfortunate coincidence bad evil german nazis just happened to use all the very same symbology for all the very same reasons (vaterland überalles, filthy evil foreigners and so forth), some 80 years before - yessiree, coincidence....

No, couldn't possibly be that they both drink from the same source, could it now? Nah, impossible; otherwise, why wouldn't such macho organization just man the fuck up and OWN their actual fucking real ideals, instead of hiding behind ridiculously faggoty eufemisms, like major little sissy pansy wussies?

Btw, nazi symbology had nothing to do with ancient Greece; it was all about their imperialistic roman "cousins" - everything about the nazis was nothing but an attempt to reenact the days of ancient imperial Rome (with the Holy Roman Empire on top)...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:35 | Link to Comment chemystical
chemystical's picture

"Or do they just wish they can win a majority vote so they can evict all illegal immigrants with whatever force necessary, and put a lot of Bankers and government in jail and end corruption?"

Step 1: Squash that notion right fucking now before anyone on the other plantations gets that uppity idea.

Step 2:  See Step 1.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:51 | Link to Comment NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

As long as I get to say who is an "extremist", I'm good.

 

Let's start with the US Dems.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:21 | Link to Comment Blazed
Blazed's picture

Ban this, ban that, ban him, ban her, ban them, outlaw discussion, outlaw debate, outlaw historical review.....tells you "someone" is hiding truths and doesn't want to be called out on their own criminal behavior, actions, and fraudulent scams, because they are massively profitable.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”---- Voltaire

 

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:56 | Link to Comment pupdog1
pupdog1's picture

And what the fuck are we gonna do about those other two lunatics--Jefferson and, uuhh... Adams?

--George

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:01 | Link to Comment NoTTD
NoTTD's picture
Of course it should be illegal to hold certain beliefs. Ignorance is Strength.
Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:00 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The tyranical parties are precisely the "democratic" ones, because they want a democracy (majority mob rule, demogoguery, voting free stuff out the public purse) instead of a REPUBLIC where what the government can do to you and your family is not at the whim of a majority or plurality of opinion.    The USA is a Republic...on paper, but for the last six or seven years we've abandoned the rules, under populist/demagogic rule.   If we were follwoing the fucking rules, Congress would have passed a proper budget for the last six years, and the president would have to faithfully execute the laws Congress has passed(immigration, Obamacare, and so many other areas), or face impeachment.   The president obviously should be impeached, but we are too democratic for that now.  Past the tipping point and falling into tyranny.   Take the federal reserve...please.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:53 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

I applaud your staunch support for that mythical "republican" ideal (hint: it's not an alternative system to democracy, unlike you imply), as naive as it may be; after all, wasn't the US devised and defined entirely and exclusively by elitists, without any input or consultation whatsoever with the affected (blessed?) "we" at large?

As for "for the last six or seven years", I suggest you look up some old (19th century old) satirical political magazines...

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:10 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

There have been populist, demagogic, crooked small d "democratic" politiicians operating in the USA since before the civil war.   It has taken a long time to get to the point where Chicago and Tammany Hall type corruption became pervasive and anchored in at the federal level.   That final transition to total, end game corruption and tyrannical collapse was signalled by the "most transparent Congress ever" being sworn in, in early 2007.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 20:33 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

You obviously didn't bother looking it up, otherwise you'd find it just didn't happen overnight (as in, not in the last 150 years, at least).

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 16:59 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

This is a very dangerous discussion, where reasons are provided to limit political viewpoints.

It only leads to totalitarian control, never mind that on the way the excuse is “democracy.”

It is democracy that destroyed the American Republic. Our forefathers meant only for those to vote who had a stake in the country.  Democracy essentially is mob rule which easily comes under the control of despotic rulers. And, eventually, the laws are made by the tyrants whose main purpose is to crack down on dissent.

A country that has laws that the people can agree upon can easily punish crimes of murder and assault. But this is hardly the same thing as punishing political viewpoints.

The Republican Establishment already is using this excuse to stop Tea Party candidates.

Already it has happened in Ohio and you can see it forming nationwide as Karl Rove and others listen to the pressure of the Washington lobbyists to raise money and create PACS to stop Tea Party candidates from gaining traction in GOP primaries.

Everywhere, the Establishment Republicans are tightening restrictions to keep Third Party and maverick Republican candidates from even competing, following Greece’s path.

In Ohio, the AP reported October 8 that “a measure to set new election rules for minor political parties passed the state Senate despite concerns from members of the Libertarian and Green parties that the changes would obstruct their access to the ballot and create hurdles for their candidates.”

Says AP: “The proposal comes as Ohio Republicans face growing competition from tea party supporters who say they may support a third-party challenger to Republican Gov. John Kasich next year.”

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:01 | Link to Comment NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

The best response to offensive speech is always a ban.

 

Freedom is Slavery.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:05 | Link to Comment NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

When those saying things you disagree with are being murdered, the proper response is a ban on the victim's speech.

 

War is Peace.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Bugsquasher
Bugsquasher's picture

And how many times has Nigal Farage warned these Euro-trash Statists in Brussels that if you rob people of the right of economic self-determination you will get extreme nationalisn and violence in its place?

 In one ear and out the other.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:51 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The Europeans will revert to form.   Nationalism.  Ethnic conflict.  Authoritarianism.   Scapegoating the "other" for their own failures.    Aaaaand all that goes with it, such as civil wars, genocide etc.    It has been around twenty years since the last massive murderous rampage of some government over there, and like forty years before that.    They wlll be overdue for that in about five or ten years.   The signs are all there.   Economic troubles and hatred brewing.   Demagogues and control freaks doing their thing.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:12 | Link to Comment kurzdump
kurzdump's picture

States are terrorists, the label doesnt matter.

Sun, 11/03/2013 - 00:03 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

+1

More blood on their hands than anyone else buy far.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:14 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Yes, the extremely undemocratic Republican and Democrat parties should be banned.   The Libertarian Party appears to be the only major democratic party in America left.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:54 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Do not walk, Run, away from parties that claim to be democratic.   An excess of democracy is what brought us here, to the point of tyranny descending inevitably upon us.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:15 | Link to Comment cohiba smoker
cohiba smoker's picture

How can it be labeled anti-democratic wanting to destroy socalled liberal democracy when the latter has absolutely nothing to do with real democracy?

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:19 | Link to Comment agent default
agent default's picture

For one thing it is damn near impossible to ban a political party.  They will  just change their name and run for the next election.  You can resort to violence and physical measures, like imprisonment or murder."His name was Robert Paulson" is relevant here.

Second, you are repeating the mistakes that brought extremists to power in the past by not addressing the fundamental problems and resorting to naked oppression based on some moral authority you have arbitrarily bestowed upon yourself.  Case in point: the Bernank and the Fed circus consider Ron Paul to be an extremist.

Third, if discontent persists, then it is guaranteed that these so called "extremists" will come into power one way or another.  Then be prepared for your "anti extremist" legislation to be used against you, and you will have no right whatsoever to cry oppression.  Because you started it and you have demonstrably been no better.

 

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:21 | Link to Comment GreatUncle
GreatUncle's picture

1. Those who are currently have power will never allow another to take it from them through any peaceful means.

2. Anybody who does not agree with them being in power, doing whatever they want has to be prevented.

30 years ago a communist was the one to be reviled, now we call similar opposition groups neo-nazis all to achieve the same of effect to preserve the status quo. The attempted perception of revulsion is greatly increased the worse the economy gets because of the detrimental impact on many peoples lives making them likely to switch votes.

So who is more detrimental in your life? A gun toting terrorist, neo-nazi, communist or is it just maybe ...

The current status quo? Who then manipulate the economy for their own advantage alone and never yours.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:25 | Link to Comment Professorlocknload
Professorlocknload's picture

Liberal Democracy?

Constitutional Republic?

Where?

Corporatocracies, all 'round, continuing their ultimate evolution to Fascism.

There will be no systemic reset until war "brings it on."

 

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:26 | Link to Comment ZH Snob
ZH Snob's picture

The people will treat each other harshly;
men will oppose each other;
neighbors will fight.
Youths will proudly defy the elderly
and riffraff will challenge those who were once respected.

Isaiah 3:5

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:31 | Link to Comment Reaper
Reaper's picture

Extremists oppose your ruling class. Democracy is choosing which of the ruling elite will rule. Extreme is the word the Ministry of Truth uses to cause an emote of fear. Moderate is a word the Ministry uses to cause an emote of happiness. The sheeple were trained to emote on verbal stimulus.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:48 | Link to Comment debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

Extremist parties are needed to throw over other extremist parties.

Edit: excuse me, to overthrow other extremist parties.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:55 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture
 
Why Greece Arrested Golden Dawn

The Greek government arrested the leaders of the Golden Dawn Party because the Golden Dawn is fascist. For example, the Golden Dawn is fascist because it might try to arrest other political parties.

In spite of the people having already been disarmed by the Greek government, the leaders of the Golden Dawn had a few firearms. Therefore, the Greek government also disarmed the leaders of the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is fascist. As another example, the Golden Dawn is fascist because it might try to disarm the people.

Like the Greek government, the German government also bans fascist groups and disarms the people.

It may seem like the actions of the German and Greek governments are themselves fascism, but we know they are not fascist ... because Anderson Cooper doesn't call them that.

The self-appointed Elites do not fear the Golden Dawn, or fascists, or communists either. In fact, they probably support the Golden Dawn Party given that they back just about all sides in order to keep us fighting among ourselves. They do not fear the Golden Dawn. They only fear zero squads.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:48 | Link to Comment Joe A
Joe A's picture

Could be a clever ploy to ban Syriza as well.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 17:51 | Link to Comment monad
monad's picture

Banning extremists is censorship. They exist either because there is an extreme need for change, or because people are stupid. Either way they are a vital indicator...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!