Validating The Fringe

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints“—The Rolling Stones, Sympathy For The Devil


In every complex society and culture it is normal for various fringe elements to develop over time. As a society grows in both population and complexity, or as shifts in the cultural zeitgeist occur, it is not unusual for various people or groups on the periphery to shrug off the general social consensus of norms, mores, values, identity, or political ideology. When you add the modern leftist promotion, encouragement, and overall worship of multiculturalism and cultural and moral relativism into the mix, the likelihood of such fringe or counter culture groups developing all the more increases. Sometimes a fringe element or group will arise as a backlash or in direct opposition towards a specific sociocultural or political trend, while at other times they may arise from more general and less specific reasons.

The development of various fringe elements or groups is not inherently a bad thing in and of itself. One could even make the argument that fringe elements actually help the dominant culture by isolating themselves as outcasts and serving as bad examples, thereby reinforcing the dominant sociocultural norms and values. One could also make the counter argument that the emergence of fringe or counter culture movements in direct opposition to the dominant culture is also a good thing, if the dominant culture is one deserving of contempt and opposition. It is really a matter of time, place, and perspective.

Some fringe elements or groups are inherently political in nature, in that they possess a specific political ideology or agenda. They may sometimes emerge as a direct result of current sociocultural or political trends, either in support or opposition to them, and often times these groups will have a specific political agenda and goal. These fringe elements may politically and socioculturally align with other larger more mainstream political elements or groups in society, but will still generally remain separate entities unto themselves. Often times these fringe groups are viewed with reservation or contempt by their mainstream counterparts.

Yet many fringe elements or groups are not even overtly political at all, and do not really possess any direct political motivations or agendas. They may just be representative of different kinds of counter cultural or sub-cultural trends or fads. Certain groups or elements may lean or vote a certain way politically, but the groups themselves are not inherently political in nature. It really just depends on the group and their goals. Many sub-culture groups or fringe elements are generally pretty benign to an overall dominant social culture, and just wish to be left alone. Different groups may dress a certain way, listen to different kinds of music, or shrug off various social norms, but they otherwise don’t cause too many direct problems.

Generally speaking, most fringe elements or groups, whether they are politically motivated or not, are not dangerous. Now don’t get me wrong, some may be extremely dangerous in a subversive cultural sense, as we have seen with toxic leftism and cultural-Marxism over the last hundred years, but many fringe groups are not overtly destructive and violent. Some may disregard various social conventions or norms, and may even promote minor criminality such as property crime, civil disobedience, and drug use, but most probably still agree with the general civil society ideals of basic human respect and decency. Many therefore do not openly advocate or initiate aggressive destruction, criminality, or violence.

And yet, there are some fringe, or better yet extremist, elements and groups that do openly call for serious and aggressive criminality, violence, and terrorism. These types of extremist groups may be motivated by radical ideological or political agendas—such as ISIS and Islamic terrorism—which in turn are used to justify and legitimize their calls for violence, or they may just be criminal enterprises—such as criminal street gangs, mafia, or drug cartels—motivated by power, competition for illicit market shares, and financial gain. In either case, both kinds of extremist groups are unabashedly willing to use aggressive and unjust violence and intimidation in order to achieve their goals.

It is also worth noting that an individual extremist does not always have to be a formal member of an extremist group in order to be considered dangerous. Often times being inspired and motivated by an extremist group or ideology   and then taking it upon themselves to carry out the action on the group’s behalf is enough. The so-called “lone wolf” extremist if you will. And finally, sometimes an individual extremist may truly be acting as an individual, as was the case with Ted Kaczynski, and is motivated more or less solely by their own personal ideology to carry out violence.

When The Extremist Fringe Becomes Validated      

I think it is safe to say that the kinds of extremist groups, views, and methods that I described above do not generally reflect the overall majority views or consensus of decent people, regardless of one’s political leanings—with the exception of Islam and Muslims. Even if a particular individual were to share in some similar ideological or political views as an extremist group, most people would still openly decry the radical and extremist violent means of achieving them—again with the exception of Islam and Muslims (one can choose to pretend that this isn’t so, but to do so is to be incredulously naïve to the point of dangerous ignorance. But that is a topic for another day). So then, if the majority of people, regardless of their political ideology, are decent human beings who reject, de-legitimize, and invalidate the violent extremist fringe, what happens when elements of the extremist fringe become validated? Actually, let’s get back to that in a minute.

If you are a traditionalist or true-conservative (this does not apply to cuckservatives) then congratulations, you have already been deported to the extremist fringe by our leftist overlords. If you are a traditionally patriotic man who believes in individual liberty, self-determination, the right to bear arms, free markets, limited government, the constitution, the rule of law, a hierarchical society, natural law, traditional values, and who opposes totalitarian leftism, then the left has already branded you as a Nazi-Klansman-white supremacist-xenophobic-racist-misogynistic-fascist-extremist. If you are a man who denounces unjust violence and would prefer to live in the peace and cohesion of a traditional civil society, yet one who also acknowledges the fact that there may come a day when you will have to fight for the above beliefs, then you are already a right-wing extremist domestic terrorist in the eyes of the left. And if you happen to be a military veteran who agrees with these things, well hell, you may as well already be Timothy McVeigh.

You see the left, to a large extent, controls the cultural message. They dominate the media, news, schools, and academia. Their subversive cultural-Marxist tactics have all but won the modern culture war. The leftist fringe may not truly be the overall majority consensus and ideological viewpoint, but their control of the message and cultural domination certainly makes it appear like it is. The inmates are now running the asylum, and as such, they get to decide who and what is considered the extremist fringe. And the traditionalist’s principles and opposition to the dominant leftist culture all but ensures this banishment to the extremist fringe by the left.

But I digress. As I stated above, I still believe that the majority of honest people, regardless of their political ideology and whether or not they ascribe to the dominant leftist culture, are still decent human beings at heart who reject, de-legitimize, and invalidate the real and true violent extremist fringe who openly and unabashedly call for unjust criminality and violence to achieve their ends. So my question remains, what happens when elements of the true extremist fringe become validated?

Over the last year, we have seen the anti-police sentiment in this country, along with overall racial strife, grow to a fevered pitch. Even many who lived through and can recall the tumultuous late 60’s and 70’s are now stating that the current atmosphere today is just as bad, if not worse, than four decades ago. What began with angry anti-police protests turned into riots and looting, and what began with violent anti-police rhetoric by some escalated into actual violence and ambushes and assassinations of police officers. And it is disingenuous at best, or complicit at worst, to believe that there is not a connection between the rhetoric and actual violence.

Now I have already written about how the subtle “dog whistle”—to steal a leftist term—anti-police rhetoric that has come out of the mouths of top officials over the course of the last year—to include the president and former attorney general—has lent credence, validation, and moral support to the entire anti-police movement. But such complimentary rhetoric spoken from the bully pulpits of power also lends validation to the most extremist fringes within those movements. It emboldens those who advocate violence as a means to achieve their goals, because they perceive it as a subtle “wink” and “nod”. When those in positions of power, who are supposed to stand for civility and law and order, rather plainly side with the agitators opposed to such, it sends a rather unambiguous message. One which can then be interpreted as approval by those compelled to violence.

And since I wrote that last article, the climate of anti-police sentiment and racial strife has only further deteriorated, especially on the fringe. Now I am not here to debate the causes or merits of the anti-police movement, or to discuss bad cops, accusations of police brutality, or policing in general. That is not my purpose here. A person can very easily support the police in general, staunchly oppose instances of bad policing, and staunchly oppose the murder of police officers all at the same time. To feel that way should not create any cognitive dissonance whatsoever. It is not a zero sum game. Hell, it is how I personally feel.

Yet the violent anti-police fringe clearly does not share this sentiment. Extremist fringe groups such as the Nation of Islam, The Black Panthers, The Black Lives Matter movement, and the FuckYoFlag movement—just to name a few—have all publicly called for violence against the police in the past, and are now currently ratcheting up the intensity of their rhetoric while publicly issuing such demands. The result of which, no matter how much the media wants to bury the motivations, has already been instances of police assaults, ambushes, and cold blooded assassinations.

And now the rhetoric from some of these groups—some of which have been classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center while others remain conspicuously absent—is now going beyond just calls for violence against the police, and is transitioning into calls for violence and revolution against all white people in general. Rhetoric that is clearly inflammatory and incendiary in nature, and would seem to indicate that certain hate groups are advocating for an all-out race war. And as I stated above, an individual who carries out a violent act in the furtherance of these goals does not have to be a formal member of a specific extremist group, they need only to be inspired and motivated by the cause and ideology. In fact, the specific group itself would probably prefer that they not be officially and formally tied to them, because it allows the group to keep their hands clean.

So as the rhetoric of these fringe extremist groups continues to grow more caustic, and as the blood continues to be spilled by those inspired by their words, I ask where is the unequivocal condemnation from the highest positions of power? Where is the president, in a direct address to the nation, harshly condemning the calls for racial violence and violence against the police? Obama directly spoke out several times against instances of police “brutality” that turned out to be factually false. He directly spoke out about a ridiculous YouTube video “insulting” Islam that no one even watched. And he directly spoke out about a white-supremacist murdering innocent black people in a church—as he should have. But when the rhetoric is from black hate groups, and the bloodshed involves attacks against the police or racially motivated violence against white people on live television, Obama is deathly silent. And his silence is deafening.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a social psychologist whom I admire, has a term for this. He calls it the “evil of inaction”. It is turning a willful blind eye to atrocity occurring right in front of you. And that is what Obama is doing. Yet Obama, and other high ranking officials, are not merely just regular bystanders. They are men in positions of high power, authority, and influence, and as such, their “evil of inaction” is multiplied exponentially. Not only was their past anti-police rhetoric inflammatory and viewed as moral support by the extremist fringe, but now their current silence in the wake of current and ongoing violence and racial strife can be further viewed as another silent endorsement by the extremist fringe.

What happens when the President of the United States remains utterly silent in the face of extremist calls for, and instances of, racism, hate, and violence? The extremist fringe becomes validated by proxy. That is what happens.

As I stated above, many extremist hate groups, of all ideologies and races, advocate violence and racism. This is nothing new. But if white-supremacist hate groups were publicly and brazenly calling for the murder of black police officers and innocent black people on television, podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media, or were chanting “kill the blacks” while marching down public streets, blocking highway traffic, rioting and looting in cities, and then were actually carrying out violent public attacks and assassinations on black police officers, there would be immediate hell to pay. Such white hate groups would be instantly labeled as domestic terrorists, and the full weight and wrath of the federal government would be brought upon them.

As I have already stated, Obama spoke out immediately after the actions of Dylann Roof. As he should have. But he should also be directly speaking out about the hate and violence being promoted and carried out by black-supremacist hate groups as well.


There is a blatant double standard here, and the leftist ideology of perpetual victim hood ensures and maintains this double standard. The truth of the matter is, this kind of civil and social unrest ultimately benefits Obama and the left. So whether he secretly endorses it or not, he and the left believe that they will ultimately benefit from the results. And so they remain silent. He plays the fiddle while Rome burns. But his past rhetoric and current silence has a more chilling effect as well.

What happens when those in the highest positions of power remain silent in the face of violent extremism? The violent extremist fringe becomes validated and emboldened. They no longer are the extremist fringe.


© 2015 By AB Frank, All Rights Reserved


Read More:  Fanning The Flames   


This entry was posted in Culture, Society, And Political Theory. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.