< 2. Organizational History | AnalyseIndex | 3.1 Basic Definitions >
A conclusive evaluation of the seemingly impenetrable thickets of LO activity is more difficult than for other, more structurally stable, extremist groups. This is especially true because the propaganda often deals with real problems, and superficially seems at times to offer reasonable suggestions and professionally recognized facts. 9 This is precisely why the LO group is an interesting case for analysis using the strict criteria of scholarship on extremism.
9 Some statements by decision makers in the US administration cited by King are characteristic: on the FEF in the American debate on the SDI program see King (fn.2) (pp .66-74); on contacts in the US administration see King (pp. 121-134 and pp. 159-164). Serious attempts by some members of the LO group to develop expertise in specific subjects (for example, Middle East analysis, terrorism/extremism or agriculture) have been labeled “pragmatism” and “specialized idiocy”, and rejected and undermined by the leadership. This rejection is due to the justifiable fear that such specialized branches could move toward more independence.