a fundamental point, I think, when talking about the 'extreme right and how to deal with them' issue is that most of us, me included, don't consider the left and the right 'morally' equal, quite obviously you might say. but clearly this affects how we analize every situation and therefore when speaking of 'democracy', for example, we are clearly biased: the extreme right should NOT be given a platform, for almost 'moral' (trying to use this word as less as possible!) reasons, if not clearly for the practical ones, such as the violence their ideas incite to, for which we have many obvious examples in the past. this 'bias' is not necessarily a problem, and many will agree it's perfectly justified, but often I find many people are reluctant to admit that. especially when talking to someone in the 'mainstream'. I guess we could ask ourselves if 'morality' should be a part of the 'democratic' system at all? freedom of speech is freedom of speech. full stop, some would say. who decides what can be said and what cannot. and what will that lead to? maybe too often we follow our instincts and refuse to address what seem to me pretty important issues. are the other ways of fighting the 'extreme right too, such as education (considering that the 'far right' politics play a lot on ignorance). after all, even in the true democracy I hope to see one day, there's nothing to say the same threats won't arise. and how would we deal with them then? just to make it clear, I AM in the streets confronting the nazis, as I believe sometimes we do have to take the matter in our own hands against a real threat, I'd just like to understand better something that's been in the back of my head for a while.

does this make sense?

In Solidarity,

kon4m