While I've never been to the fine land of Australia, I've noticed a similar pattern elsewhere. Generally, right wing hate groups go unhindered because they are articulations of the will of the state. Furthermore, right wing hate groups are usually anti-Muslim/anti-progressive, which fits neatly with states who criminalize Muslims as well as animal-rights activists. Right-wing hate groups can engage in the 'dirty work' a state might be officially condemned for among International circles. In this way, a repressive state can 'have it's cake and it eat it to', by tacitly condoning groups whose actions a state could not openly perform. This question makes me feel I should read up more on Australian politics, as I sadly know next to nothing >.

I'm curious what others think of this question. It is a heated issue that is often misreported in Australia's media. I was doing interviews with research subjects recently, and a young man was telling me in detail about his associations with an Australian branch of the KKK. And he's a black Australian. He was questioning, as much as I was, just how he survived. But what he described was a complex network of right-wing hate groups with a strong culture and set of rituals that he successfully emulated to gain acceptance of peer, despite his own colour. And he made them a lot of money as a drug-mule. Serious stuff and under-reported.

I agree for the most part. There are notable exceptions, like the 'Incident at Ruby Ridge'. But compare to the MOVE incident at Philadelphia, where there was not even an imagined threat of violence or any criminal charges. America's historical support for Nazi's and the KKK is well known. The CIA even hired Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and helped him evade prosecution by fabricating documents for him to travel to Bolivia. Everyone initially thought that the OKC bombing was Muslim-inspired, but rather Neo-Nazi inspired. Neo-Nazi's are probably the most dangerous domestic terrorist group in America, but not especially profiled.

It seems, quite indeed, that the universal pattern is the shift to the (extreme) right. Most recent example being Ukraine. If the question is to address contemporary issues from the very standpoint of law, perhaps that this bk is better than Gross, Wolin, Postman etc : Paye, Jean-Claude, Global War on Liberty [2004]. Translated by James H. Membrez, New York, Telos Press, 2007

So if, as Michael states, the universal pattern is to shift to the (extreme) right, is it time for our society to confront this very real threat, and if so, how?

I'm partial to education, particularly the education of women and girls. My understanding of the social benefits includes a more active and engaged citizenship which contributes to a more balanced society. Don't infer that I'm saying women have some essential linked to biological function. Rather, its a numbers game. The more educated a population is, the more chance and opportunity for fairness, equity and non-bigotry, and therefore, a demise in the strength of the extreme right and fundamentalism.

I like your thinking, Ann Stephens. However, there are reasons to suppose that education is not precisely the solution. I was born in 1950 into the segregation of US society. I witnessed and participated in a small hippy way in the cultural revolution of my late teens and early 20s. I saw the revolution make its way into education and mass media: seemingly there were huge strides. However, these days it is obvious that the messages of mass media and education fell on a good many deaf ears. Beginning with the issue of busing students across district lines to integrate schools in the late 1970s, it became obvious that there were significant numbers of bigots who continued to resist changing their minds. Now there is a resurgence of racism in our right wing politics as well as a concealed racism in our centrists. Writers like Cornell West suggest that the problem is a lot more deeply seated than overt law or education can address, no matter how well intended.

I suggest that the reasons are ideological and interwoven with hegemonic notions of identity (as in Butler or Zizek). Your anecdote about the Australian who belonged to a white supremacist organization though he was the wrong color goes right to the heart of the issue. It is completely paradoxical. One possibility for it is commodity fetishism, that the white supremacists of this group, as well as the man you interviewed, say one thing and do another. We think or say we believe certain things, but our actions argue that we really believe in a different reality. Another possibility lies in how it is these people construct their own identities v. how their identities are constructed for them.

Hi Anne:

Perhaps appropriate rephrase your question:

Where to turn political opinion in Australia?

The turn accentuates the right turn?

Australian society tolerates the right turn?

Australian society turns a repressive and selective tolerance?

The answers to these questions allow an answer to your question.

Joaquín