I am almost as sick of hearing the word "Extremism" as I am hearing the word "COVID" and because they are both such prominent topics we hear them more and more. Isn't it ironic that the left benefits from both?
If I remember correctly Thomas Jefferson as well as Barry Goldwater said that "extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice." Well, I would argue since the left and the right have their own "principles" would not the same quote apply to the right as for those on the left that march on to what they see as liberty?
The right believes that liberty is worth fighting for at any cost, the left believes that fighting for revolution is worth fighting for at any cost. So, in my mind, we have come to a crossroads between what some would call the "extreme right and the extreme left." But who ultimately defines "extreme" and is it the same entity as the one that defined "Conspiracy Theory?"
Webster's 1828 defines Extreme as: EXTRE'ME, adjective [Latin extremus, last.] Outermost; utmost; farthest; at the utmost point, edge or border; as the extreme verge or point of a thing.
1. Greatest; most violent; utmost; as extreme pain, grief, or suffering; extreme joy or pleasure.
2. Last; beyond which there is none; as an extreme remedy.
3. Utmost; worst or best that can exist or be supposed; as an extreme case.
In my travels when people mention extremism the first thing I ask is "How do you define extreme?" In just a few seconds it is clear that most cannot define it which only means one thing...they heard it somewhere and are mindlessly parroting it.
I follow up with, "If you don't know what extremism is how can you identify it?" Crickets...
Is freedom extreme? Is the Constitution extreme? Equal justice under the law? The duty for citizens to defend themselves from their government? Then they realize they are defenseless and have no ground for which to stand yet, self avowed "republican conservatives" and even democrats unknowingly condemn something they hadn't really thought about.
The left or Communist element in our country uses the communist tactics of labeling others for what they themselves are or are doing. It is sad more American's don't know of this tactic. If they call you radical or extreme, according to who they are, they are admitting they are what they call you. In many cases there are those that are also "useful idiots doing the bidding for the controlling entity. If they are speaking without understanding, can they not also just as well "do" without also understanding? Brief research into the CIA will prove that to be true.
Let's consider both sides. The right are considered extreme. I don't believe for a minute it is because of our views, I believe it is because their focus is on the revolution. The labeling is just a way to foment chaos and division- remember that. It is ALWAYS the revolution. How do I know this?
The left call themselves progressives and what it means is that things must always change. If things must always change, there are no longer any consistencies, no stability, no law and words change meaning as often as they come up with new genders. Nothing is static so in their minds, there are no goals because those would indicate a static point or some finality to their agenda and there isn't one. Everything they do is to consistently undermine everything that existed beforehand even if they created it and they use chaos, division, violence and destruction of property to "achieve these ends." To God fearing Americans, we would define their actions as extreme and dangerous. Their dangerous "outcomes" are manufactured and intentional.
The right however call themselves a variety of different names: "Conservative, Constitutionalist, moderates, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Ronald Reagan conservatives and Neoconservatives. The sad part of this is like the word "extreme" is that most "conservatives" throw the word around without even understanding what they are conserving and they vary so greatly in their "principles" that words like republican and "conservative" don't mean anything or mean different things to different people. How can a group unite under a banner or name where few of them even have anything substantial in common?
Sure they pray, go to church and pledge allegiance and speak principally but many times their actions differ greatly from their actions. it is also important to note that many have been coopted by the Neoconservative movement which means what we are fighting isn't between the left and the right but two wings of the same bird. A constitutionalist finds themselves between the left: Communist/Socialists and the right: the Neoconservative self avowed Trotskyite-style Marxists and variations thereof. When standing in the middle taking a Principled stand, it is easy to be called extreme because we are principled, we are consistent, we desire peace, prosperity, good will toward men and have limitations on actions and words and government power. To us, there are limits to everything, even freedom. As for others, well, they shift directions with the wind but their rhetoric always seem to stay the same.
The left doesn't pay too close attention to the principles of each group because they have no desire to be accurate, all they desire is to foment division in demanding the revolution. To people like me, words mean things and being consistent and accurate are hallmarks of a peaceful and prosperous country. This is why I find myself, as many others do, alone because neither the desires of the left and the words and actions of the right are anything I can defend.
So, now that you know "extreme" isn't really a legitimate characterization of a person or thing because it is subjective and just a tool like everything else to divide and conquer created most likely by your government. It should be a word that is really stricken from use because if words define things and they cannot do so accurately, they become arbitrary. It is like having imaginary property lines or national borders. Groups are defined by who they are and what they believe. Your property is defined by your property markers and a nation is defined by its borders. To abolish such consistency is a recipe for disaster and of course the abolition of all things good.
We need to be careful of the words we say and how they are understood by others. Often on the morning radio and conservative talk and news, the right has a horrible way of using the language of the left or shall I say your government. Take the Trump rally on DC. It was a rally in support of Trump, it was not a riot and attendees were not protestors or rioters they were Trump supporters and of course Agent provocateur's. What I mean to say is that "conservatives" instead of identifying the enemy and treating them as such, they carry their water.
From what I know about history, especially ours, we should know that Divide and Conquer is not usually implemented by one political rival against the other, it is created by the governing entity that desires to divide them both from each other. In other words, if true, the war isn't and never has been between Democrat and Republican, black or white, rich or poor... it has been corrupt government against the people working to extort and control those they were once created to serve.
In my mind, you cannot carry the water for your enemy on one hand and win a battle against them on the other unless, of course, you know what's in the water and/or where you are taking it.
When it all comes to the reality of it all, the Constitutionalists are not extreme at all, they are also not left or right, they are merely "Constitutional Moderates" and when anything advocates for division, the government should be the first to be suspect.