Yes. I'm aiming for being objectively correct. I may not have a perfect understanding, but I am sure I have a better one than them.
As for being on their agenda, I disagree. Keep reading.
You might be right about the middle-aged part. Youngsters usually riot. But, it so happens that I'm in the midsts of reading a book about collective behavior, and just last I night I got to a section about the study of 20 some urban riots in 1967. The studies found that the rioters were on average more educated than no-rioters, and did not have a stastically singificanlty lower income. So, shit definitely happens.
Threat of execution.
I just wanted to note how much I like the choice of pitchfork.
And hanging, too? Ahh, lynching.
And watch this video!
[YOUTUBE="PWbmEUIQOCQ"]Paranoia, malice, and prejudice.[/YOUTUBE]
Now, in that video, truly only a minority was of the explicitly violent kind, but it was still there. Furthmore, other signs indicate what I consider a dangerous amount of delusion and hostility, even if they don't call for violence. And also consider that anyone who believe they are being threatened with death or slavery is a strong suspect for future violence, so it's not a stretch of the imagination to read violence into those signs, either.
And for future reference, try to count everyone of these flags you see with tea partiers.
What message could they possibly be trying to send?
And it's so obvious that I know about the civil war as to make that question stupid. If I can be faulted for anything, then perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are, at worst, at the 1850s right now, since the 1860s bearly got started before the civil war took place, and we obviously aren't in one yet. Even in the worst case, though, it wouldn't be like the civil war because that was regional succession. I mean, who knows, maybe that would happen, but I think if large scale conflict began, it would be more of the pan-national insurgent kind.
Spoiled: I'm not sure how this is defined.
Wealthy: Sure, why not? But I know many of them are blue collar and suffering from the affects of the recession, even if the group is on average wealthier than the norm
So far, none of these have even been mutually exclusive.
Mainstream: The people who are actual ideologues are not mainstream at all. The mainstream may, however, be non-committally coralled by these ideologues.
And it's worth noting that by many definitions of extreme, a position could be in the majority and still extreme. Relativity to others is not the only way to define extremism. But like I said, I do not think they are mainstream.
Roughly, I imagine it would look like a hyperbolous graph, if these things could be quantified.