The Radical Right’s One Per Cent Solution

About the Author

author photo

Ohg Rea Tone is all or nothing. He is educated and opinionated, more clever than smart, sarcastic and forthright. He writes intuitively - often disregarding rules of composition. Comment on his posts - he will likely respond with characteristic humor or genuine empathy. He is the real-deal.

See All Posts by This Author

The Radical Right’s One Per Cent Solution

We have recently done a series of posts, with progressive concern, about the danger posed to this country by the Extreme Radical Right Wing.   What is the Radical Right Wing?  If we are to believe the media ratings companies like Nielsen – and we look at the ratings for Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity – we can project some numbers.  If we assume that the preachers like John Hagee and Kenneth Copeland and others tell us the truth about their following, and if we assume these are the very same people who follow Limbaugh and Hannity – then we can firm our numbers to around 20,000,000 in the radical right wing.   So what?  Who cares?  It is not enough to win any national elections – what’s the problem?  Let’s apply the one percent solution rule and see what happens.

The one percent rule reduces fanaticism by increments of 99%.  If we have 20,000,000 on the radical right, and only one percent of them arm themselves with modern military weapons – that gives us 200,000 well armed people.  Now let’s focus on the most radical fanatics – take one percent of the armed people; that leaves us with 2,000 well armed extremely radical fanatics.  This 2,000 is the most extreme and the most dangerous – and it is a very small representation of the radical right – but they are driven by a desire to find acceptance and heroism within their chosen culture.  They are not  emotionally different than the extreme radical left – except that a big part of their culture revolves around guns.

So what is the fanaticism about?  We have to understand the value base of the radical right.  Thefiresidepost.com has had a number of comments on our series – one was particularly articulate and we will quote from that comment.  The comment was in response to a post titled, “Why Fear Matters:”

“We are talking about 20,000,000 armed and dangerous people who believe they are the angels who will deliver a Totalitarian Christian Theocracy ”

Um, just who is talking about that? This Radical Right you are talking about doesn’t seem to exist. Who of any consequence advocates a Christian Theocracy at all, let a lone a Totalitarian/violent one? This just isn’t reality.

“The radical right defends the 2nd Amendment with language of revolt, language of fear of the United States”

You mean, Radical Right speakers such as the founders of the United States? The very founding of the United States focused around usurpation of the rights of the people (including confiscation of their arms), and the rights of people to use force to repel such usurpation (such as being turned into colonial serfs by the British Crown).

I’ll grant you, there are plenty nutjobs out there such as the Alex Jones/911 Truthers who are indeed a risk because they promote violence without justification. That however does not apply to every single person who would advocate for support of our protected rights to keep and bear arms (including arms of military character), or raise concern about lawmakers looking the other way to aid infiltration of foreign nationals for labor/political exploitation contrary to the rule of law, or raise concern about a clear sweeping movement of global violence in the form of totalitarian islamic supremacy.

If anyone is fearmongering here, its you. You are painting with a very broad brush, people with very American ideals, as a population to be feared.

There are several warning signs in the language.  This person distances themselves from what they call ‘nutjobs … such as Alex Jones/911 Truthers… ‘  They cannot see themselves honestly.  Let’s take this point by point.  Our commentary is in bold lettering:

  • “Who of any consequence advocates a Christian Theocracy at all, let a lone a Totalitarian/violent one? This just isn’t reality.”   The reality is that Mike Huckabee, a Republican Presidential Contender, advocated the constitution be subordinate to the Bible.  Huckabee is not alone.  That sounds like a Christian Theocracy.
  • “The very founding of the United States focused around usurpation of the rights of the people (including confiscation of their arms), and the rights of people to use force to repel such usurpation (such as being turned into colonial serfs by the British Crown).”  Is this a direct suggestion that we may have to use violence against the present day government of the United States of America?  Are our rights being ‘usurped’?  We lost more civil rights under Bush/Cheney than in any Democratic administration.
  • “I’ll grant you, there are plenty nutjobs out there such as the Alex Jones/911 Truthers who are indeed a risk because they promote violence without justification. That however does not apply to every single person who would advocate for support of our protected rights to keep and bear arms (including arms of military character).”  These folks believe they must have access to any necessary military weapons necessary to fight our government if they decide the need arises.
  • “… or raise concern about lawmakers looking the other way to aid infiltration of foreign nationals for labor/political exploitation contrary to the rule of law.”  What in the world is this about?  Are our lawmakers in a conspiracy to secretly promote illegal immigration?  This points to the paranoid delusions that reinforce the ideal of armed revolt against the United States.
  • “or raise concern about a clear sweeping movement of global violence in the form of totalitarian islamic supremacy.”  More paranoid delusions.  There are over one billion Muslims in the world – is the radical right suggesting all of these people are conspiring to take over the world with violence?  A Christian Totalitarian Supremacy is acceptable – but not Islamic?

Here’s the deal.  20,000,000 people preaching paranoid ideas about the United States of America – all in the misguided ideal that they are the true patriots of America.  Being a patriot does not mean planning for an armed revolt.  Certainly, being a patriot means speaking up – even shouting from the rooftops – if something is wrong.  Being a patriot means working within the system of laws, defined by out constitution, to address grievances.

We believe most of the 20,000,000, who we do not agree with, are misguided and wrong.  Most of these folks are frustrated with the slow process of change.  Many of these people wish for the days of Ozzie and Harriet (Did anyone ever notice a gun cabinet in the Nelson home)?

The problem is with the one percent solution.  This suggests that there are 2,000 well armed people in America with the attitude of Timothy McVeigh.  When a McVeigh tips the balance of sanity and does some horrific act against the United States – the cowards of the radical right denounce them.

I say cowards because they preach and advocate for armed violence against the United States but run away when someone actually takes them seriously.  The radical right advocates arming ourselves to protect us from the government they claim to be defending – nothing in this argument makes sense.  The logic fails the test of coherency and of consistency.

When the one percent of one percent rises up with violence – the advocates of armed insurgency should stand up and be counted.

There Are 2 Responses So Far. »

  1. “We have to understand the value base of the radical right.”

    You haven’t clue one. Lefties with their ever more strident calls for restrictions on people they dislike (like gun owners, see above and on some of your more shrill anti-gun screeds) are whacking a hornet’s nest with a stick… and will be aghast when the hornets take offence.

    Leave us the f*ck alone liberal douchebag. We’ll get along just fine.

  2. Don’t you just love the intellectual ramblings of people who love guns?

Post a Response