The Real Nature of Extremism

By John "Birdman" Bryant


One of the most popular terms used to describe the beliefs of those who share my particular side of the political fence is 'extremist'. While the term is evidently intended as a smear, it is revealing to inquire as to its possible basis.

To begin, it is certainly true that the views held by myself and my cohorts are outside the mainstream, altho in some ways these views may be much more mainstream than our opponents are willing to admit. It is a mistake, however, to label beliefs outside the mainstream as extremist; for the meaning-in-use of the word is broader than this definition, since it includes a suggestion that the holder of 'extremist' beliefs has something seriously wrong with him. What is more, this implication of 'serious wrongness' changes the term from an objective observation to a subjective denunciation intended to cover the object of its disaffection with muck. Needless to say, most people who hear the term are unaware that it is being used as a smear term; and it is this very subtle piece of baggage that makes it not merely unfair, but dangerous.

But if this is not bad enuf, it is actually those making the accusation of extremism who are themselves extremists in a much more reasonable and objective sense of the term. This becomes apparent when we recognize that the list below describes not only those whom most people would recognize as extremists, but also describes the liberals, leftists and anti-racist types who are accustomed to use the term as an accusation against us. The real extremist will:

* Never concede a point to opponents

* Refuse to debate opponents under any circumstances

* Ignore what they can't refute

* Characterize opponents as not merely wrong, but EVIL

* Depict the issues as black-and-white, rather than involving varying shades of gray

* Behave in an emotional manner

* Behave in an unmannerly fashion

* Call opponents names

* Parrot slogans rather than mount arguments

* State their case emotionally rather than rationally

* Make claims that they never document

* Never qualify their claims

* Overstate their case

* Attempt to suppress any effort of opponents to state their case publicly

* Use any kind of unethical tactics to interfere with opponents

* Viciously react to any form of criticism, particularly when it comes from allies

* Have no hesitation in drumming allies out of their own movement who fail to adhere to the Party Line

* Exhibit absolutely no sense of humor

* Use any means necessary to prevail, including especially physical violence

Here, then, we have the characteristics of the real extremist. The origin of this list is not speculation, but rather actual experience with extremist opponents. There are numerous letters on my website illustrating most of these points, and plenty of instances in the real world illustrating the remainder. For someone who attempts to be as rational and reflective as I do, it always comes as a shock to be exposed to my opponents, because they are so diametrically opposite to me not just in opinions, but emotionally, behaviorally and intellectually. Interacting with these people is somewhere between arguing with a brick wall and trying to parry the lunges of an attack dog.

But if interacting with genuine extremists is both futile and unpleasant, there is something important that their behavior tells us, namely, that they are insecure in their opinions. That is, men do not need to shout down their opponents, or suppress their speech, or refuse to debate, or use any means necessary to make themselves prevail in the marketplace of ideas, when they are confident of the truth of their own position. It is only people who are insecure -- who are afraid of being shown up as ignorants or liars or worse -- who feel the need to behave in the ways which we have identified as extremist.

But if our opponents are insecure in their opinions -- or indeed, if they understand on a subconscious level that they are wrong, as is probably true in many cases -- we have to ask what it is that is driving them. One thing which drives many of them, I think, is the liberal tendency to favor the short-term easy solution over the long-term but more difficult one: To let the would-be immigrants come to find a better life rather than deal with the fact that this will end up destroying our nation, to feed the starving Africans rather than deal with the fact that this will lead to even MORE starving Africans, to release the criminals from prison rather than deal with the fact that this will cause crime to escalate, etc.

But if the sentiment which favors the short-term easy solution motivates many of our opponents, another which also motivates many of them is the fact that many liberals and leftists are Jewish, and the instinct of Jews is to impose liberalism and leftism on the West because -- as Prof Kevin MacDonald has discussed in his trilogy on Jews -- it undermines Western civilization and makes it easier for Jews to be dominant. Jews, with the superior intelligence which they possess, cannot be ignorant of the harmfulness of liberal programs; but since Jewish intentions are destructive, it is necessary for Jews to lie and dissemble in order to create support for them. No wonder, then, that Jews don't wish to debate, that they respond to rational arguments with slogans, that they smear their enemies and otherwise behave childishly and often violently; for it is precisely the fact that they know they are wrong which is the source of their behavior.

Or to put it another way, Where is Hitler when we really need him?




Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *