An 88-year old racist cretin named James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. on wednesday, killing one of the security guards, Stephen Tyrone Jones. Sigh. Another senseless tragedy committed by another senseless idiot, the third act of domestic terrorism by an individual gunman in the last couple weeks.
Brunn appears to be your classic white supremacist, neo-Nazi, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying bigot, the kind who worships Adolph Hitler and believes the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is proof positive that the Jews are involved in some dark conspiracy to take over the world.
In other words, he's a dumb-ass. Now he's a murderer too. I can't believe such people still exist in this country.
Speaking of dumb-asses, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wasted no time in politicizing the tragedy. Brunn's attack was Olby's lead story last night, and he called Brunn a "right-wing extremist" about 700 times to make sure his viewers got the message that 'it's them thar nasty conservatives what dun it.' Somehow, he even managed to blame the shooting on Rush Limbaugh (not kidding). Using that unique Olbermann anti-logic of his, Keith-boy said something to the effect of "Limbaugh criticizes Obama by using words, others hear words, so then they go kill Jews at the Holocaust Museum." I'm paraphrasing, of course. Olby wasn't quite that coherent. By tonight's show, I expect Keith Olbermann will obtain affirmative proof that James von Brunn is the de-facto head of the Republican Party.
For the life of me, I don't know why anyone watches that show (other than someone like myself, who watches it on occasion for blogging ideas. Olby's lunacy is an inspiration in that regard). For a guy who raves on about alleged right-wing haters non-stop, nobody pushes more hate than Olby (btw, last night's Worst Person In The World wasn't James von Brunn. It was Michelle Bachman (R-MN), who misspoke in a speech by saying the word "economists" where she should have said "economics." That made her worst in the world. Again, not kidding).
But enough about K. Ubermoron. I only brought him up as an example. The real question Olby brings to mind is:
Why are neo-nazis always referred to as right-wingers ?
This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Party in Germany. That's what 'nazi' means. Socialists are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from right-wingers. Socialists (and fascists and communists too) are all about government control. Right-wingers are about limited government. Socialists are about the supremacy of the collective good, as was Adolph Hitler. "Third Reich" translates to "Third Empire." Right-wingers are about the supremacy of individual liberty. When you talk about right-wing extremism, you should be talking about anarchist types, or at least anti-government types, like Timothy McVeigh. Brunn has some of those characteristics, but the neo-nazi stuff doesn't fit. Neither does some other stuff Brunn wrote, which you'll hear about later. Brunn often ended his political diatribes with "Heil Hitler." That kind of stuff makes my head want to explode.
A racist like James von Brunn is a person advocating for his collective, white people, over the interests of others. Racism IS identity politics, and it's not right-wingers who are it's primary practitioners. That comes from the other side.
It isn't right-wingers who are against the Jews either. Conservatives support Israel to a much greater extent than do liberals (though the majority of American Jews voted for Obama. Go figure). The examples of anti-semitic sentiment from the left are rife, but the latest comes from Obama's former pastor, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In a recent interview, Wright was asked if he has talked to Obama recently. Wright's reply was, "them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me."
Such a man of God, that one.
The Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln as the anti-slavery party, and during the civil rights era of the 60's, it was southern Democrats who still supported Jim Crow laws and fought against integration, not Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.
In spite of all this, scumbags like James von Brunn are always labeled as right-wing extremists. I don't get it. Maybe it's because the ones doing the labeling come from the left. I don't know.
James von Brunn's political views can be tracked, because Brunn has a number of unhinged political diatribes scattered around the internet. Brunn hated Obama, like any white supremacist would, and there is evidence he belonged to the Obama Birther movement, which claims Obama has never produced valid evidence of his American citizenship, thus disqualifying him from being President. Brunn apparently detested Marxism, lending credence to the right-wing label, but he also hated Bush, neoconservatism, and Bill O'Reilly (along with LOTS of other people. Brunn was a veritable buffet of hatred). Neoconservatism is equated with Jews by folks like Brunn. Brunn was also into conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement. If you want to delve into this guy's twisted brain, you can find some if his writings at the above link, or read one of his sick tirades here.
If you read James von Brunn's lunacy, make sure to take a shower afterward, so the filth doesn't stick. This is a public service announcement and a warning. I don't want to be accused of promoting violence by some fool like Keith Olbermann.
Conclusion – James von Brunn exhibits some traits of right-wing extremism, but he also exhibits some traits of left-wing extremism. In the end, he's just a twisted horse's you-know-what, as is Keith Olbermann and the rest of the dishonest political philosophizers (yeah, I said 'philosophizers.' I'm the Worst Person In The World too). But I won't be blaming Olbermann for anyone's murder. I still believe in free speech. I only blame James von Brunn. It's called personal responsibility, as opposed to partisan hogwash. If I was into partisan hogwash, I'd be asking the same questions liberals asked of Bush following 9/11 – Why isn't President Obama stopping these domestic terrorist attacks by known radicals ? Why is he asleep at the switch ? Why doesn't he care ? Because I'm not into partisan hogwash, I won't ask those questions. Oops, too late.
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
History didn't stop in the 60's. The Republican Party, starting with Nixon, baited southern whites by playing the race card. That's why today, southern states still lean Republican. Reagan carried the torch onward.
The KKK, also a racist outfit, found the post civil rights era GOP more to their liking. The KKK, unlike the GOP, hate everyone who is non-WASP.
The GOP, a conservative political party, through their southern strategy, has identified itself with people like von Brunn, like it or not. That is why no blacks represent the GOP in Washington today.
None of this is confusing or hard to follow. The conservative political party in America made a concerted effort to lie down with dogs…..and there's just no avoiding the fleas.
Your reaction to Olbermann is very similar to your reaction to the DHS report on far-right conservative lone-wolf terrorists……you simply mock them both.
Who are we to question the veracity of Keith Olbermann? Isn't he the self-appointed fountain of truth that once proclaimed "I am rarely, if ever, proven wrong"?
Labeling and the generalization of a larger group of people by a single person’s actions is a dangerous thing. James von Brunn is definitely a sick individual, and as sad as it is, he is far from alone out this world. The Republican Party has played a dangerous game of welcoming what I would term militant conservatives into their fold. Some Republicans have chosen to elevate the hates of these extremists into their platform for hte sake of votes. The anti-abortion, ant-gay, and anti-immigrant right wing nuts see this welcoming as affirmation of their behavior and giving them a political voice. The reality is that the majority of Republicans and Democrats do not approve of these “haters” and their actions.
Although I am not a Republican, I have seen movement in the party to separate themselves from social conservatives. I think that this is a critical movement that the Republican Party must make. They need to widen their circle to better their chance of survival. Social conservatism is not something that those under 30 align themselves with and those over 30 just keep getting older and older. Time will tell if the Republicans ventured too far to the right.
I take great umbrage to Ron B.'s comment that because a person has strong sentiments about illegal immigration he/she is therefore an anti-immigrant wingnut. Those that support open borders or at the very least support ignoring the laws of the this country are not labeled as anything other than supporters of immigration. But one that is adamently opposed to illegal immigration and has the facts to support their negative view of is branded with a negative name.
P.S. :Last time I checked those that are under 30 become at some point become over 30
there is a name for the political philosophy associated with guys like brunn who exhibit traits of the far right and far left.
it's called "third-position".
the news media and it's audience are too stupid to grasp complex political terminology.
There's another name for guys like Brunn. The word we're searching for is 'insane'. What if he'd been a flaming liberal, who stated on blogs that Jews should always be entitled to 3rd trimester abortions simply because the babies are Jewish and he'd been a very fanatical Obama supporter? Would him being a supporter of abortion and Obama (and therefore a left-winger) make him any less crazy? Would we then say, "Oh, well he was a liberal. That's why he went ape**** and shot up the Holocaust museum."
I don't understand how liberals or conservatives can take a single act of insanity, committed by a single person, and turn it into an indictment of either conservatism or liberalism. Olbermann is fanning the flames of his liberal viewers (I know of very few conservatives who can stand him) for what? He doesn't care about anything but ratings, since higher rating will mean a bigger paycheck. I can't stand Olbermann for the same reason I hate Coulter. Why be antagonistic to one side? (I know, still ratings.) Nothing's going to change, except to get worse, when you pull that crap.
Tom B. – Time will also tell if the Democrats ventured too far to the left, lol.
Also, just FYI, my cousin married a legal immigrant to this country. His family is from Mexico, and they oppose illegal immigration. They entered the country legally, as you should, and, though many of their views align with the Democratic party, they don't believe in open borders. So, it's not just conservatives who are opposed to illegal immigration.
I promise I'll stop posting after this, lol.
The Nazis *were* socialists. The swastika, while already an ancient symbol for good luck, was used by the Nazis to represent the letters in the party name, National Socialist German Workers' Party. http://rexcurry.net/nazism-national-socialist-german-workers-party.html
Socialism was the whole point of the Nazi Party. They made Jews their chosen scapegoat, probably because they were easier to identify as not being 'pure' Germans. The whole idea that a German family could have chosen to practice the Jewish religion just totally went over their head, I guess. But, I digress…
Don't stop posting, Tory. You are right on the money.
Taking an act of a lunatic like Brunn and using it to smear an entire political philosophy, as Keith Olbermann did, is disgraceful.
Rev,
Your comments really aren't worthy of a reply. You promote the same bigoted sterotypes as James Brunn does. The only difference is the target. Brunn goes after Jews. You go after Republicans.
Tom,
Being anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, or anti-illegal immigration does not make one some kind of bigot. I think we can agree on that much.
Extremists can be found under any political persuasion, but you're going to have to provide me with some examples of "Republicans…welcoming…militant conservatives into their fold" before I will accept that.
Contrary to Tory's calling Brunn "insane." Brunn was a member of MENSA. In no way was he insane. He was convinced of his own ideology. He wanted to go out with a bang at 88 years old.
Now….you conservatives can go on and on pointing the finger away from the political party you vote for regularly. It's called self-deception. Like Tom says…what you need to do is separate, once and for all, from the extremists the GOP has welcomed into the party in order to compete with Democrats.
I tried to give my GOP buddy, Ben Keeler, a roadmap forward for the GOP, …but alas, it wasn't to be. And I realize why the GOP can't do the right thing, breaking with the fanatical evangelicals and the cultural haters. The party would shrink drastically. But it's the only way forward.
The GOP, with it's FOX, Rush media devils leading the extremists forward, is coming apart at the seams before your very eyes. This is no time to defend a bunch of dangerous nuts.
Actually King, the Reverend also targets Jews in his bigoted stereotypes. He says it's cool, though, because it's all true.
King,
Thanks for your response. I did not mean to imply that being "anti" makes a person a bigot. What I meant to say was that it is the actions that may accompany "anti" behavior. Over time we have seen this anti sentiment whip itself up into hateful acts. It is that manifestation that is wrong. I support people who have convictions both anti and pro on any debate. It is the basis of our democracy. What I don't support is vile anti sediment that leads to harm.
I also do not believe in illegal immigration. What I do believe in is that we must come to terms on how to humanely handle this issue. Is it ok for vigilantes to patrol our border and threaten families whose only crime is to search for food and a life for their children? I know we agree that this type of vigilantism is not right. Immigration is not an easy issue to tackle. I have no solution.
King, I do believe that Republicans have welcomed militant conservatives into their fold. If you look at our 2 party political systems, the Republican platform is definitely the conservative voice. The issues of abortion, same sex marriage, high taxes, and illegal immigration are ones that social conservatives have the most interest in. Along with the 95% of law abiding, peaceful citizens, there is that 5% of far right nutcases (and yes, the same applies to the 5% of far left nutcases on the Democratic side) that are welcomed into the fold. Let's face it; they have money and supporters to bring to the table. Our political parties love that money and voters. They just don't get turned away. It’s the don’t ask, don’t tell political policy.
I’ll end by saying, I believe we all must be aware of the impact our actions have in this world. Hateful actions only grow hate. It's important to us to know when and where to stop in debates and our actions. People have lost lives and wars have ensued for years because people just don't know when to stop and when to compromise.
How much money do those "far right nutcases" bring in? Who are they? Klan members? How many supporters do they bring in? What are you talking about? Did you just make all that up?
Chip, being mentally ill doesn't mean 'unintelligent'. Sheesh, where did you go to school? I'm aware only of IQ standards pertaining to the diagnosis of mental retardation, not insanity. Not to mention guys like Van Gogh who are considered geniuses, but who are also considered to have been mentally ill.
Are you purposely trying to look like a fool, or is this just really the way you think?
Nazis might have policies from both the left and right but they DEFINITLY identified more to the right. True socialism is the idea of a classless society, Nazis society was very class-oriented with white warrior and leader as the highest class, and jews and workers as the lowest class. We are a country which balances socialism with capitalism.
Free Republic has now deleted the thread in which von Brunn's writings were free republic is a right wing web site isn't it? so wont you think that is where his allegiance was with ?
I tend to think of Nazis as right wingers, but Stalin didn't seem to, and this seems to have been true for a long time before the non addression pact of '39. The operative word is 'extremist' and Stalin and Hitler were brothers in that sense.
As long as everybody else is calling one another extremists, but denying being one themselves, I might bring up that I received a msg from Moveon last summer asking me to help them defeat 'that fascist Hillary Clinton'.
So, being Socialist doesn't make you left-wing. Am I understanding you correctly, Andrea? Interesting point of view… How do you explain the following, from the Nazi Party's 25 points, which could easily come from the mouth of our Democratic president today, when he's pandering to his voter base, as opposed to when he's pandering to the conservatives.
"13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. "
That's not socialist in principle? Try reading them, http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm. The points that aren't racist or insane come off remarkably… socialist.
I have no idea what Free Republic is. And so what if his allegiance went to the right? Does that make all conservatives nuts? Are you saying that every person who voted for Reagan or Bush as a potential killer? Man, the ladies at my Bible study had better watch their backs. It could be any one of us, lol.
Hey Rev,
I know you are rarely if ever wrong but please explain to me– because someone is in Mensa therefore they cannot be crazy? That was a joke right?
Tory….
Did you stop driving on American socialist highways yet?
Any problems with America's socialized national defense program?
Have you refused to cash any Social Secuirty checks? Has Medicare paid for any of your medical bills?
Are you boycotting socialized national parks?
Been picketing local socialized public schools lately?
If the answers are all "no's"…..maybe you could explain the obvious contradiction.
And to one liner larry….
"How much money do those "far right nutcases" bring in? Who are they? Klan members? How many supporters do they bring in? What are you talking about? Did you just make all that up?"
Republicans are telling me on my teevee that Sarah Palin is probably not presidential material…..but she sure can raise money from the GOP base. She's as intellectually capable ("real Americans in real America") as a box of rocks AND she is the right's biggest "star."
What's that have to do with my questions, Reverend?
Palin would be a much better president than Obama, by the way. That's why other Repubs are as afraid of her as lefties like you.
angry conserv, does the number of people who watch Olbermann, according to Nielsen, do anything to prove that not many people agree with him? LOL I think it does.
Your completely wrong in most of your explanation of why the natzi party were/are called right wingers.
The short answer to that question is because they were/are.
It's true the natzi party had it's roots in the national socialist german party but the word socialist in their name wasn't and still isn't accurate.
The natzi party was actually anti-communist and anti liberal. They were even anti parliamentary government not to mention racists.
In the political spectrum your refering to if you go "far enough" to the right you reach authoritarian and then totalitarian, this is what the natzi party actually was/is.
As a matter of fact if you go far enough left you also get to a form of totalitarianism as well it comes full circle. But the fact that the nazti's were/are anti-liberal and anti-parliamentarian puts it squarely on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Albeit the extreme right.
Apologies for miss spelling NAZI!
To put things in perspective,Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. However, the Republican party of Lincoln morphed into the DEMOCRATIC party we know today.
Thanks Fred. Please explain that to everyone, so they get it.
Chip, please note. The highways I drive are paid for by the state I live in. They're called state highways, and I don't think it's socialist for the state government to build highways. Why do you? BTW, my children attend private school, because I don't trust the public schools to provide much of an education for them. I don't demand that the government give back the property taxes I pay, so I'm actually paying taxes for a service that I don't trust to serve me.
I've cashed no social security checks, nor have I ever been on Medicaid. I'm not even forty years old, yet! My husband and I aren't counting on Social Security for our retirement. We know it won't be there. And can you please tell me WTF those programs have to do with the freakin' Nazis? I don't understand your logic. Do you, lol?
I think I'm somewhat of a right-wing extremist, at least in relation to where our government is today. I'm pretty far to the right of the creeping socialism/all-controlling government we have now. That doesn't mean I have ANYTHING in common with a James Brunn. His lunacy couldn't be more foreign to me. He's against everything I believe in. If somebody were to say my writings caused a person like Brunn to attack, I know that would be nonsense. Thus, when loons like Olbermann and Paul Krugman go around blaming people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for Brunn's attack, I know that is nonsense as well (and is also the reason I call Olbermann and Krugman loons).
After all the comments here, what I still don't understand is how far right ever became equated with fascist, socialist, or Nazi. I still maintain those are all far left ideologies. Under the Nazis, Hitler took control of German industry and told it what to produce. That isn't any kind of American right-wing philosophy I ever heard of. Right-wing philosophy maintains that industry remain in the private sector. Right-wing philosophy maintains free markets, not government directed markets like Hitler ran. Right-wing philosophy promotes limited government, just the opposite of what Hitler did.
One of the biggest reasons I'm against the creeping big government socialist policies is because they lead to authoritarian and totalitarian societies, by definition. Such societies are not right-wing. They are left-wing. Our own founding fathers, on the other hand, they had some right-wing ideas. Small government, low taxes, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc….that's what I believe in. The last thing I want is for government to run my life for me.
Re: Nazis left or right.
Yes, the Nazis started out as leftists of sorts. The difference I think came when they compromised with establishment elements including the old aristocracy of Germany who initially supported them. From this point on they became not revolutionaries but reformists, and thus anathema to hard line revolutionaries.
Another big difference would seem be that Nazis generally paid for their crimes; not all perhaps, but most, and we still seem fixated on ferriting out toothless old geezers like Demjanjuk. The world has seen the piles of bodies at Auschwitz and Belsen.
Aside from the mass Polish grave attributed to the Soviets, the world is not generally familiar with Soviet atrocities, and the press has never seemed terribly interested in digging into it.
It's against the law in some nations to deny the Holocaust, but we have battalions of intellectuals who deny or grossly understate the the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al. There is or was a historian at Miami U who suggested that the murders attributed to Stalin were more likely in the thousands or ten thousands rather than millions.
It sort of seems to me that as a rule of thumb, if you want to know what the Left is up to, read the news of what they are accusing conservatives of.
I think the amount of coverage given to the two soldiers killed as opposed to the emphasis on the Doctor and the Security Guard tells us what kind of bias the overwhelming maajority of the press actuates.
Agreed.
The other thing you never hear from the press is that the progressives were pretty impressed by the Russian Revolution back when it started. In the 20's, 30's, 40's, and even into the 50's, they thought communism was the great new way for the future. That's probably one reason the mass murders are downplayed.
iam german born and to the most stupid person that wrote this blog…hitlers parties name had nothing at all to do with socialism …hitler unseated the weimarer republic and imprisoned socialists and communist ..also homosexuals ..and killed what was then called undesirables ..like jews people of mixed race ectra ..its starting to sound more right wing now huh …but to help you out i have a teachers guide attached for you that teaches you idelogies …. http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html