An unfortunate tendency on the right these days is to attempt to win arguments through tendentious and shallow redefinitions of what constitutes “left” and “right.”
That tendency flared up in recent days with efforts to rebut any notion that the Holocaust Museum shooter was a right-wing extremist and, instead, to rebrand him as a leftist – or “vile leftist monster,” as Rand Simberg put it in one such creative feat of ideological legerdemain at Pajamas Media.
According to Simberg, there’s nothing in James von Brunn’s biography that qualifies as right-wing, “if by that you mean someone who adheres to individualism, the values of the enlightenment and limited government.”
That, however, is an absurdly limited and ahistorical view of what constitutes the right. Historically, “right” and “left” became political affiliations with the French Revolution, when those seeking continuity with the old regime sat on the legislature’s right side and those pressing for change sat on the left. Thus began the longstanding convention of labeling as “right” various efforts to preserve some earlier order (or idealized version of one), and as “left” efforts to bring about some new arrangement (typically presented as breaking away from a benighted past).
By that common understanding, the right includes advocates of limited government and the free market (key elements of the United States since its founding) as well as defenders of traditional religious morality (who may not be enthusiasts of the “enlightenment values” that Simberg doesn’t define). Being a libertarian-leaning conservative, I consider myself part of the right.
But right, like left, is also a broad term, one that includes all sorts of ideas outside the mainstream of American politics. Left-wing extremism would include, say, Maoists or anarchists (at least ones of a collectivist, anti-Starbucks persuasion). What might right-wing extremism include?
To ask such a question threatens to unleash a blog comments debate, heated to the point of sterility, about whether Nazism and fascism sprang from the right or left stretch of the political spectrum. It’s become a common theme of conservatives, particularly since the publication of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism, to emphasize the socialistic aspects of putatively right-wing totalitarian ideologies. Similarly, quite a few conservatives these days like to use the term “fascist” to describe the direction that America is supposedly heading under the current administration.
Such redefinition comes in reaction to a facile and misguided left-wing tendency to throw around “fascist” and even “Nazi” as pejoratives for conservatives. But asserting that these ideologies were simply manifestations of the left is also facile and misguided. Nazism and fascism were very much about restoring an earlier, idealized order – the very definition of the right, as it has long been understood. Mussolini harkened back to the lost grandeur of the Roman Empire. Hitler sought to restore the mythical purity of the Aryan race. The nationalism of these totalitarians was far more extreme than their socialism, and their cultural predilections looked largely backward (build classical columns, ban “degenerate” art). Their appeal to their followers was in no small part that they would reestablish order against modern decay.
Latter-day admirers of the Nazis and fascists, such as James von Brunn, typically emphasize racial or national chauvinism over socialistic economics by a wide margin. They want to recapture a lost (and generally bogus) past, rather than remake the world according to a future vision. As such, they are on the extreme right. It does no credit to current-day conservatives, and adds nothing to understanding, to redefine the extreme right out of existence by claiming that it’s just another bunch of leftists.
115 responses so far
1 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I knew Frum was going to have one of his “moderate” columnists continue the politicizing the Holocaust Museuem shooting by falsely asserting the man is a right winger.
The guy said he was for socialism, he was a 9-11 truther, he hated neo-cons, and he had the address for the Weekly Standard, which is near the musuem, in his letter. He thought Christianity was a joke.
There’s nothing rightwing about this guy unless you accept the false premise that because he is a racist he’s a rightwinger. That’s absurd…see Robert KKK Byrd.
This guy is shameless to politicize a shooting…this MSNBC hack stuff here.
2 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I mean to say the killer thinks Christianity is a hoax started by the Jews.
I shoudl also point out that most of the anti-Semitism in this country is found on the Left. A lot of hate for Israel among leftists.
3 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:31 pm
How does it do credit to present day conservatives to allow the Left to smear us by asserting this guy is an extreme version of our beliefs? IT’s simply not possible for a Nazi sympathizer to be inspired by advocates of small government, and it’s absurd for this guy to assert conservatives should just bend over and accept this attempt by the Left to make this guy out as a right winger to score political points and to justify that silly report put out by the Obama adminstration.
4 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:38 pm
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
I don’t hear much in that about recapturing a lost past. Sounds like boilerplate socialism to me.
5 Realist // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm
This guy is more concerned with racial purity than political alignments. Like his idol Hitler, he views Jews and blacks as subhuman, worthy of extinction. I think his political agenda, if he even had one, would be to wrest control of the nation from the ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) and form a country for whites only. Beyond that, I don’t think he cares much for either the Right or the Left in this country.
6 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:48 pm
–Hitler to Rauschning
“The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism–not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production.”
“Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper….”
“Private property” as conceived under the liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This “private property” represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the nation.”
“I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun…. I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.”
How do you get more extreme in your socialism than Hitler’s sentiments there? Don’t see anything about “recapturing” a lost past there.
To deny that Hitler was a socialist extremist is Orwellian.
7 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Here are some excerpts from an American Thinker piece about Hitler and the Nazis. This doesn’t jive with this colunists assertion that the Nazis were far more extreme in their nationalism than socialism…it’s apparent that they were extreme in both, and this demonstrates the socialist aspect of it.
“The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies. Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on. Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party. In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”
Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left:
“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
8 Dr. Tesla // Jun 14, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Realist,
If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Jefferson thought blacks were subhuman. Given Jefferson’s support for the French Revolution that was taken over by leftwing fascists……
9 palomino70 // Jun 14, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Tesla, sorry to interrupt the long conversation you’re having with yourself.
Some of von Brunn’s views can be superficially labelled either conservative or liberal. But this man was clearly so insane and his worldview so over the top that he bears virtually no resemblance to mainstream conservatives or liberals. Trying to to pigeonhole him as one or the other is just the latest example of the hollow daily exercise of scoring political points, regardless of the issue.
10 palomino70 // Jun 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm
DrT is right about Jefferson though. Read his “Notes on Virginia” in which he actually argues that blacks are lazy and foul smelling.
TJ was a genius, but you wouldn’t know it from his writings on race. If he had been forced to pick cotton and tobacco 14 hours a day, I think even Jefferson would have taken long naps and smelled pretty awful.
11 JamesK57 // Jun 15, 2009 at 12:48 am
Keep in mind that the effort to point out the many parallels and even alignments between today’s modern left and folks like Von Brunn is largely a defensive reaction to forever being called “Nazis” and “Fascists” — often for no reason other than disagreeing with the idea of expanding government forever and ever.
Von Brunn may be correctly technically defined as “right-wing” in a traditional historical context, but when it comes to being able to find him in an emergency, the better place to look might be in Jeramiah Wright’s living room cheering on Chris Matthews as he rants about “Neocons”, rather than at a the local “Tea Party” organizational meeting.
12 balconesfault // Jun 15, 2009 at 3:17 am
Isn’t it an oxymoron to talk about neocons who favor limited government?
13 midcon // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:01 am
Kenneth, Although the point of the article is Von Brunns placement on the political landscape, you adequately make the point that nearly all discussions seem to culminate in accusations regarding someone’s “liberal” or “conservative” ideas and actions. The name calling and labeling is often employed as an evaluation factor in assessing the validity of an idea and just as often is used as means to denigrate the individuals who may be source of the idea.
This is an effective shortcut for simple folk to determine if they are supposed to agree or disagree with something. But really does nothing to facilitate debate. I often wonder what would happen if we were to strike terms such a liberal, conservative, left, right, fascist, and socialist from our vocabulary. I am sure there are many who would be effectively speechless.
A man committed the crime of murder because of his feelings regarding certain groups and his perception of their responsibility for the current state of the union. That’s contrary to our American ideals and principles. There are those who will attempt to use this to create guilt by association, thus condemning one side or the other and their ideas. There may even be some attempts to explain his act by as a reaction to perceived slights or actions by the other side.
It serves each side’s purpose to portray the other side in as unflattering light as possible. It doesn’t do much to solve problems mind you but sometimes I don’t think it’s about solutions. Rather it often seems to be about power and winning.
14 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:18 am
Thank you for having the courage to tell the truth and putting out in a very simple, understanding way.
Clearly this guy was the far right fringe. And the far left gave us Rev Wright’s anti-semitism in the last few weeks.
Anti-semitism transcends right and left but somehow the right’s anti-semitism more often leads to violence against the Jews.
I wish we spent more time studying the life of the hero security officer. I’d like to know more about him, his beliefs, his values, his family and how we can support them survive this madman’s actions.
The sooner we contain and give no press to the perpetrators of this hate, beyond exposing them, arresting them and putting them away, the better.
Is there a fund to support this hero’s family? I am sure the Museum is honoring him in some way. If anyone has any information, I’d appreciate it.
15 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:21 am
PS. A very close friend’s Mother was murdered in Binghamton a couple months ago as part of that senseless massacre.
She helped me undersand that the media focused on the perpetrator and not the victims. I will never do that again. She couldn’t pick up the paper without reading about the killers life, etc. She said to me, “I have zero interest in knowing anything about him.” It was like cold water in my face in understanding how victim’s families are not supported and understood.
Never again will I try to understand, beyond wanting them put away, these type of perps.
16 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 am
PS. A very close friend’s Mother was murdered in Binghamton a couple months ago as part of that senseless massacre.
She helped me undersand that the media focused on the perpetrator and not the victims. I will never do that again. She couldn’t pick up the paper without reading about the killers life, etc. She said to me, “I have zero interest in knowing anything about him.” It was like cold water in my face in understanding how victim’s families are not supported and understood.
Never again will I try to understand, beyond wanting them put away, these type of perps.
17 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:53 am
palomino70,
Not sure how I am having a conversation with myself if you are responding to it. I’m simply challenging this guy’s desperate attempt to paint this guy as a right winger. Seems like Frum can get all the comments and traffic on here that he can get.
I’ve pointed out in several posts already that it’s the Left that has tried to politicize the Holocaust Museum shooting. Their goal is both to suggest that conservatives are a bunch of racist Nazis and to justify the Obama adminstration’s attempt to smear critics of his policies as right wing extremists..that report was specifically designed to imply that the people at the Tea Parties were extremists.
I do not seek to politicize the shooting. I’m just responding to the left’s attempt to do so, and pointing out that Nazis were socialists and thus they have far more in common with the Left in American than they do the Right. I think this is a logical and undeniable argument if you just examine what Hitler said.
The columnist wants to assert that a right extremist wants to recapture a lost past.
Doesn’t Obama always say that America has lost it’s way and he wants to restore America to the values it hadd prior to Bush, or something along those lines? That kind of sounds like trying to “recapture the past”, so by this columnist’s own sloppy logic, Obama is a right wing extremist. Obama also doesn’t have a problem with black racists like J. Wright and others given his assocation with them.
18 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:57 am
I meant to add that the columnist does present a false choice….he suggests that if the Nazis were extremist in nationalism and “recapturing a lost past”, that they were not realy all that extreme in their Marxist / socialist idealogy.
I assert they were extreme in both….they are not mutually exclusive as the columnist asserts. One can be both a radical nationalist and a radical socialist.
I’m rather curious as to why it was so important for this columnist to label this kook a right winger, and I think he does understand that when the Left says right winger, they are talking about American conservatives, not some European definition of right winger.
19 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:03 am
I’ve gotta agree with Tes; what’s Silber’s purpose and how does this “contribution” fit into Frum’s stated objective of “Building a Conservatism That Can Win Again?”
Except for InTheMiddle12, everyone is making sense here and frankly, agreeing with each other more than not.
This Von Brunn guy is a frigg’n nut – period.
BILL
20 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:14 am
barker13
wrote 5 minutes ago”I’ve gotta agree with Tes; what’s Silber’s purpose and how does this “contribution” fit into Frum’s stated objective of “Building a Conservatism That Can Win Again?”
…….That’s easy. His purpose is exposing the nonsense typically peddled by people like you and Tesla which is totally detached from reality in the minds of most people. And it fits in to building a conservatism that can win again ensuring that it form no part of conservatism’s message because if it did it would repel rather than attract people.
21 ChristianMiller // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:17 am
In reading Mr. Silbers BIO, I see he has a PhD in History and another in Psychology, and has been categorizing the ideology of fringe actors for decades. Yes, whenever folks are looking to categorize crazies, this Silbers fellow is who they go to.
A quick google search tells us much about Mr. Silber. It seems he has successfully categorized ideologies of many famous crackpots and madmen heretofore unexplained . His first successful diagnosis was for the ideology of Charles Manson, who in Mr. Silber’s breakthrough thesis, can be traced back to the philosophy of Sesame Street. Mr. Silber’s theory in Manson’s case, in it’s basic elements is that, essentially, an undue emphasis is placed on the importance of counting to ten, thereby deconstructing human beings as abstractions. It’s all explained cogently in his research. Mr Silber has spent the last 5 years researching working on the origins of pop star Marylin Manson’s political ideas for an article in Rolling Stone Magazine.
So this guy’s an expert. He’s up for a Nobel Prize. Don’t try to debate him. What he says goes.
22 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:24 am
Franco
wrote 2 minutes ago
…….Having read your attempt at humor and the contributions of Tesla and Barking I’m confident that had you three been around in the thirties no one would ever have heard of the three stooges.
23 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:28 am
No offense, but I kind of think the columnist looks like the right wing extremist character that a liberal Hollywood director would cast in his movie.
24 Brutus1776 // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:34 am
I have a slight question I would like to throw out there for some conversation (or more like throwing brandy into a fire). We seem to be doing a lot of pontificating regarding this guy Von Brunn; what he stands for, is he right or left, what drove him to shoot the officer as that officer demonstrated personal qualities von Brunn was certain African-Americans didn’t possess (by holding the door open for him).
Why was this not asked, or this topic not approached in a similar fashion, regarding the man who shot one of our soldiers dead in Arkansas? The correlations seem to be there, the media and attention seem strangely absent.
25 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:50 am
Brutus1776
wrote 9 minutes ago
“Why was this not asked, or this topic not approached in a similar fashion,”
………Quantity and angles!…..This is the forth shooting incident in the past four months where some right wing nut case has run amok (the church in the south, the three Philly cops, Tiller). It was also in Washington, at a very emotive place, and came hard on the heels of a campaign by the right against Napolitano for publishing that report forecasting an uptick in violence from the right.
26 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:56 am
For what’s worth,
I’d like to apologize to the columnist for my last comment.
My parents raised me not to disparage people’s looks, and I shouldn’t have gone there. That’s something a person like David Frum does…see he attacks on Rush Limbaugh’s weight.
He does look like a southern good ol boy, and those are the kind of actors that Hollywood seeks to cast as right wing extremists. It was not my intention to suggest that he is ugly, but I can see how some might make that inference.
27 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:59 am
I think the important thing about the shooting is that it’s my understanding that the security guards quick action at the musuem saved a lot of other people’s lives.
Rather than using this nutjob as a political prop as the Left wants to do, I think the focus should be on praising these security guards for a job well done, and making sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again as much as is possible.
28 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:02 am
Dr. Tesla quotes Hitler thus: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries…..”
Hitler was one of the world’s worst pathological liars, ever.
Don’t quote what he said.
Look at what he did:
Hitler made deals with the big corporations, so that they would carry out his military buildup. His regime financed them as much as necessary for that. In return:
Hitler issued decrees banning collective bargaining and strikes by workers. And workers were considered traitorous for quitting their jobs, effectively turning them into serfs, bound to their corporate masters. Real wages dropped by 25%, while the big corporations, particularly armaments manufacturers like Krupp, enjoyed unprecedented profits.
In most industries, businesses combined into giant cartels, and engaged in price-fixing, screwing over the consumer, while the Nazi regime looked the other way.
Hitler issued another decree simply dissolving most “mom-and-pop” small businesses, leaving their proprietors no choices other than to work for the big corporations or be drafted into the Army.
Unlike the Soviet regime, the Nazi regime strongly encouraged women to be stay-at-home moms.
That does not resemble the actions of a socialist state. It sounds like corporatism, the economic program of a Fascist state, like Italy under Mussolini.
With one big exception: Hitler’s eugenics program. Eugenics is never part of a socialist state, with its own (specious and false) appeals to the brotherhood of all workers. Hitler believed in the superman theory: That in any field of endeavor, a few extraordinary individuals set the pace for everyone else. Nurture the very best, and the rest would take care of themselves. That was how Hitler saw economics.
29 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:02 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 3 minutes ago
“My parents raised me not to disparage people’s looks, and I shouldn’t have gone there.”
……..Perhaps you should have told Limbaugh when he was comparing Chelsea Clinton to a dog…..or the other RNC buffoon currently comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla.
30 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:07 am
midcon sez: “It serves each side’s purpose to portray the other side in as unflattering light as possible. It doesn’t do much to solve problems mind you but sometimes I don’t think it’s about solutions. Rather it often seems to be about power and winning.”
Of course that’s what it is.
Leftists like our own “ottovbvs” here are trying to paint all conservatives as somehow responsible for having “created a climate” that encouraged this Von Brunn character.
But the ultra-right-wing extremists tend to live in a cocoon of their own. I’ve read their claptrap. They think virtually all mass media (yes, even Fox News) is Jew controlled. The notion that Von Brunn somehow got “inspiration” from Bill O’Reilly or Mark Levin is absurd.
Still, the Left thinks they’ve got a weapon they can use against the Right, and they’re going to keep slashing away with it.
31 ChristianMiller // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:14 am
“Nazism and fascism were very much about restoring an earlier, idealized order the very definition of the right, as it has long been understood.”
What deep insights this guy has! Oh my god, he is a genius! He has such nuanced definitions he must be some kind of political scholar.
How did this guy get so erudite? I’m in awe…..
32 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:15 am
ottovbvs & barker13: Frum and I both believe that a “conservatism that can win again” must necessarily be reality-based again, as it was decades ago. That means not ignoring–or even worse, trying to discredit–the best that history and science have to teach us.
Historical revisionism used to be a characteristic of the Left. But Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” was part of an attempt at right-wing historical revisionism, and the reaction of some conservatives like our own “Dr. Tesla” here is more of that.
33 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:16 am
sinz54
wrote 1 minutes ago
….Hitler, as anyone who has ever picked up a respectable history book knows, was a rabid right wing nationalist whose rise was backed by big business and who ultimately came to power with the tacit support of the army (not a notably left wing institution in thirties Germany) and an alliance with various right wing parties led by by people like Hugenburg and Papen. Such early resistance as there was to Hitler came mainly from the Social Democrats or communists many of whom were imprisoned or had to flee. It’s true that in its early days the NSDAP was mixture of right wing nationalism and socialist populism. Hitler never bought into any of the socialism and gradually purged the party of these socialist elements either by forcing out people like the Strasser brothers or coopting them as happened with Goebbels. Tesla’s Irvingesque denials of all this are on that fine dividing line between being funny and rather disgusting.
34 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:25 am
The conservatism that won landslides was Reagan conservatism. Reagan was a social conservative and he supported cuts in income taxation.
Frum wants to throw social conservativism under the bus, and he has proposed that cosnervatives embrace higher income taxation as well as a carbon tax.
It seems to me that he wants to go in the opposite direction of Reagan, and for him to say he is a “realist” is both arrogant and stupid.
35 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:27 am
I would argue it’s leftist extremists that assert the media is Jew-controlled. Conservatives are very pro-Israel, liberals tend to be pro-Palestinian and tend to whitewash and/or justify their terrorist attacks on Israel.
36 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:27 am
sinz54
wrote 1 minutes ago
“Historical revisionism used to be a characteristic of the Left.”
………Not really……If the “who lost china campaign” in the forties/fifties wasn’t a piece of historical revisionism I don’t know what was. That’s not to say the left haven’t practised it too but they certainly didn’t invent it…. rather it’s just a commonly used tactic by political factions of any sort. The problem for today’s GOP is that it has become a central part of their messaging. And at a time when people have more access to info than they ever have so re writing history is not as easy as it used to be.
37 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:30 am
Hitler nationalized big business….kind of like Obama is doing. You say look at what Hitler did….I just did.
You cannot deny that Hitler was a leftist on economics. Well, you can, but it doesn’t fly with the facts. He had the support of big labor and he was constantly attack capitalism and suggesting that corporations were exploiting “the people”. This is leftist dogma. He rose to power on the backs of socialists. Liberals live in this fantasy world in whcih they believe that a socialist cannot be a racist.
38 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:32 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 1 minutes agoI would argue it’s leftist extremists that assert the media is Jew-controlled.
………You mean like all those leftists such as Barbara Streisand or Rahm’s brother working in Hollywood and the media. Yes that makes sense.
39 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:35 am
otto,
Just because a majority of Jews vote for democrats in America doesn’t mean that there is not a faction of leftists that are anti-Israel and anti-Jew.
I do not claim all or even most liberals are anti-Semitic, but to deny that there is a faction of liberals that despise Israel is laughable. There are no doubt some conservatives that don’t like Israel, but I would argue they are more of the Ron Paul types that are a minority of conservatives today.
40 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:40 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 2 minutes ago
…….You’re ignorance of events in Germany in the thirties is astonishing. The social democrats were the party of big labor. Perhaps you could give us a list of the big businesses in Germany that Hitler nationalized. Obviously that’s why the Krupps, the Thyssens, the I. G. Farben’s gave him all that money ….so they could be nationalized.
41 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:47 am
Tesla: I know facts and precision aren’t your thing but you said”
“I would argue it’s leftist extremists that assert the media is Jew-controlled.”
……Which is nonsense. I don’t deny that there is faction within the Democratic party who questions the policies of Israel but that doesn’t mean they are anti Jewish. It may come a surprise to you that half the population of Israel is uncomfortable with it’s policies.
42 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:50 am
Otto,
You obviously did not read the things that I posted about Hitler. He did nationalize industries in Germany, and if I’m not mistaken, that included the auto industry. I seem to remember pictures of him visiting auto plants under state control.
Who has nationalized much of the American auto industry…..Obama, no?
43 midcon // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:53 am
Look Von Brunn, was winger. In my opinion it does not matter if he was a left or right winger. People like him do damage. Von Brunn bears personal responsibility for his actions. If I like listening to Levin (which I don’t), I may hold certain views, but only I and not Levin are responsible for my actions that result from those views. It is a rather simple concept, that I am in charge of myself not Levin, Limbaugh, MSNBC, Fox or anyone else.
Charges that these sources incite others to act irrationally, excuses the individuals. The devil made me do it, the twinkie defense and other such drivel is nothing more than creating a climate of victimhood and the sense that people cannot take care of themselves or act in a rational manner effectively suggesting that an all powerful presence (the government) must think and act in the people’s best interests because the people are incapable or can’t be trusted to do it for themselves.
This is the same crap that is shoveled out the door about predatory lenders, when a large part of the problem is predatory borrowers, who knew they did not have the income to be able to pay their mortgage.
Now I probably sound like more and more like a libertarian but I am just sick and tired of this sense of victimhood that has infected our society which has created a herd of sheep who do things like vote based on a card given to them by one organization or the other and expects the government to bail them out of their inability to be responsibile for themselves, even to the point of being unable to turn the channel or eat the right foods. We have turned into nation of AmeriCAN’TS instead of AmeriCANS. It’s embarrassing!
Hey, I hardly ever rant, but every once in awhile it feels good.
44 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:56 am
Otto,
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
We wouldn’t be talking about this if leftists like you and those in the old media were not seeking to politicize the shooting. I’m offended by this attempt to smear conservatives by suggesting this guy was a right winger, and I chose to look at what he believed and what the Nazis believe, and I think that I’ve made a convincing case that he was a leftist and that Hitler was a leftist on economic issues.
There ain’t no bad guy, there ain’t no good guy, there’s just me and you and we just disagree.
45 mlindroo // Jun 15, 2009 at 8:20 am
Regarding the “true” political identity (extreme left or extreme right?) of Von Brunn’s peculiar brand of fascist racism,
I think TNR’s Damon Linker hits the nail on the head
[ http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/linker/archive/2009/06/11/who-s-right-what-s-left.aspx ].
His argument is that mainstream liberals and conservatives both accept the legitimacy of liberal democratic government.
Illiberal left-wing extremists (hardline communists) and illiberal extreme right wing extremists (fascists) do not.
Both groups favor strong government restriction on personal as well as economic freedom, in addition fascism tends to oppose both communism as well as capitalism so it regards itself as some sort of “third way”.
So what has historically been the key difference between totalitarian communism and fascism?
Linker says fascism is about exclusionary particularism, i.e. you race,color,creed and country is superior to anybody else whereas communism is its direct opposite in this regard (=radical universalism without national or ethnic boundaries … the IDEOLOGY of communism should apply to everybody).
The bottom line is that Von Brunn undoubtedly is an illiberal right-wing extremist according to the traditional definition above.
I would argue that Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski was an illiberal luddite left-wing extremist too.
Neither person has much in common with mainstream right-wing conservatism or left-wing progressivism so I would urge Dr.Tesla & co. to take a deep breath and calm down.
MARCU$
46 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 8:52 am
Re: Sinz54; 7:15 AM –
“…barker13: Frum and I both believe that a “conservatism that can win again” must necessarily be reality-based again, as it was decades ago. That means not ignoring–or even worse, trying to discredit–the best that history and science have to teach us.”
History and SCIENCE teach us that James Von Brunn is a Right Winger…??? I think not, Sinz. (*SNORT*)
Again… Von Brunn is a NUT. He’s a hateful damaged human being. He’s neither “Right Wing” nor “Left Wing” in the sense of any comprehensive, reasoned ideology.
“Historical revisionism used to be a characteristic of the Left.”
It still is, Sinz. (*SNORT*)
“…Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”…”
Haven’t read it; no comment. (*SHRUG*)
Sinz… repeat after me…
VON BRUNN is a nut. Period. Any “ideology” the man might be said to have is purely window dressing to the real focus of his enmity… racism and hatred.
BILL
47 balconesfault // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:00 am
Good call, Marcus.
I do question this one comment earlier in the thread:
“Charges that these sources incite others to act irrationally, excuses the individuals.”
No, nobody “excuses the individuals”. But it does recognize that there will always be some subset of the population that is so estranged, so prone to extremist thought, that talk that resonates with their estrangement can help them move towards violence.
Von Brunn’s son was on TV this morning. He said that it is completely a mistake to call his father “crazy”. Rather, he regards his father (who he doesn’t consider his father anymore) to be simply filled with hatred that consumed him, and drove him to step across the boundary that keeps us from killing except in self-defense.
When we kill for an ideology (or for personal gain) instead of simple self defense, it’s not crazy. It’s evil.
Looping around, that was what the much-decried HS report was about last month – concern over groups that were brewing hatred, which could generate a Tiller or Poplawski or Abdulhakim Muhammad or Adkisson or Von Brunn. Even if they acted alone, each of these killers was deeply interconnected with a subset of our society that feeds on hate.
If there is a common thread between all of these people, I suspect that you’d find a perception among each one that their side is “powerless” to oppose changes that will inevitably lead to destruction of something they value. That the ballot box doesn’t work, that society is filled with sheep who support what they consider evil, and thus democracy can’t be trusted to protect their values.
Thus, the gun. The bomb. The ultimate statement that their values are superior to all others.
The danger is the tipping point. At what point does someone shoot up a mosque? When does an enraged Jewish teen shoot a skinhead? When does some pro-choice advocate respond by rolling a fragmentation explosive into a crowd picketing an abortion clinic?
When does invective hurled across the internet and the airwaves turn into bloody Kansas?
48 midcon // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:38 am
balconesfault,
Therein lies the crux of the problem – the tipping point. Since we are all human (some less so than others I suppose) each of us has in us the capacity for behavior that is reprehensible. The tipping point will vary widely from individual to individual (or group to group) to include the spectrum of responses from extreme passivity to extreme (violent) activity. So given the human condition, does society bear responsibility to censor behavior that may trigger that tipping point?
Oliver Holmes said in part “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. … The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
It is clear that the Supreme Court recognizes that there are limits and that Congress is empowered to establish those limits. I would hope that those who avail themselves of free speech would consider the possible reaction to that speech because I cannot envision any logical way of defining those limits given the range of human reaction to that which might be limited.
49 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:38 am
I wanted to point out that I posted the excerpt to the Pajamas Media column on the Holocaust musuem shooting thread that this columnist now seeks to refute.
Obviously it got under the skin of the “moderates” in here hellbent on making conservatives out as extremists.
50 R.E. Munn // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:46 am
Has Silber lost his job? Or does he make so much money that wasting his time on such piffle is sop? With such useless analysis as this, is it any wonder that NM can’t get advertisers, let alone serious discussion.
51 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:51 am
mlindroo,
I find it amusing that you would engage in this pretentious lecturing of me on “taking a deep breathe” and calm down.
I”m not in any kind of emotional state here (how could you possibly know unless you read minds and/or can see me). I’m simply refuting this columnist’s rather silly assertion that the killer was a right winger. And I’m only talking about it because leftwingers sought to politicize it and use it as a smear against conservatives and to justify that Stalinist report put out by the Obama adminstration prior to the Tea Parties with the intention being to depict anybody that protests Obama as a right extremist.
52 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:53 am
Munn,
I never heard of Silber prior to this post. Was he writing for some other publication? Newsweek maybe?
53 Jim Pier // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:56 am
Your point is well taken that the attempts by Goldberg and others to demonstrate the connection between socialism on one hand and nazism and fascism on the other are given their impetus by the frequent charges of Hitlerism leveled by the left against conservatives and/or Republicans such as GWB. That doesn’t take away from the legitimacy of that connection. The Nazis were socialists. That means ‘Leftist.’ That socialism leads inexorably to tyranny was powerfully attested to by Hayek a long time before Goldberg, and by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao before that.
Your reaching back to the French Revolution for the origins of Right and Left in politics, while accurate as far as it goes, no longer applies to the current usage of these terms. Just as ‘liberal’ means the opposite of what it meant until the end of the 19th Century. There is nothing progressive anymore about Progressivism – it is a rehash of century-old failed prescriptions for the expansion of government power. And the Right today does not include monarchist and aristocratic, and certainly not white supremacist, philosophies. WF Buckley led the purge of the John Birchers from the conservative movement 50 years ago. Efforts by Goldberg and others ought to be commended and expanded in order to facilitate a meaningful and productive ongoing political conversation. Attempts to associate von Brunn with conservatism ought to be debunked vociferously as the libel that they are.
54 Jim Pier // Jun 15, 2009 at 10:26 am
“If they were to learn that their own designs are guided by spurious theories and would not bring about the beneficial results expected, they would change their programs.”
– Ludwig von Mises
A parting thought: most politically active citizens believe that the policies and principles they advocate are right and true. Our efforts will contribute to the betterment of the nation only to the extent that they serve to inform and educate people about those ideas. In the ‘marketplace of ideas’ we battle it out. If we do it well, some on the other side, and some on neither side, may come to accept our positions. A site like this is the last place that harmful and pointless smears against the opposition should find expression.
55 mlindroo // Jun 15, 2009 at 11:02 am
> The Nazis were socialists. That means ‘Leftist.’
Sorry, but the Nazis did not regard themselves as ‘leftist’ and nor did their contemporaries. That is a fact. Hitler himself reportedly regarded the “national socialist” moniker as misleading and unfortunate. Fascists claimed to represent a “third way” between communism and capitalism.
> That socialism leads inexorably to tyranny was
> powerfully attested to by Hayek a long time before
> Goldberg, and by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao before
> that.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all illiberal socialists. Hitler was not.
> Your reaching back to the French Revolution for the
> origins of Right and Left in politics, while accurate as
> far as it goes, no longer applies to the current usage of
> these terms.
Well, I agree the current definition of “liberalism” has changed greatly and one might argue that mainstream American conservatism also has evolved significantly during the past 60-70 years for example regarding attitudes towards Jewish people/Israel or military interventionism abroad. But if you have to reduce political ideology to just a single left/right dimension, I still like Damon Linker’s definition. Does anyone here disagree with his claim that, IN GENERAL, left-wingers still tend to favor international/universal ideals whereas right-wingers tend to favor exclusionary particularism (e.g. nationalism, patriotism) of some kind or other? Now, neonconservatism in America and republicanism in France do borrow some elements from both, since both claim the ideals and founding principles of their beloved respective nations are also universal. But in general. I would say left-wing and right-wing attitudes versus (for example) nationalism and multiculturalism are remarkably similar in just about any country.
MARCU$
56 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 11:33 am
Re: Mlindroo; wrote 3 minutes ago –
“…the Nazis did not regard themselves as ‘leftist’ and nor did their contemporaries.”
True.
Fascism is fascism. It’s totalitarian (to one extent or another) but economically speaking… it’s neither “Right” (as in “Right Wing CONSERVATISM”) nor “Left (as in “Left Wing Radicalism”).
“Does anyone here disagree with his claim that, IN GENERAL, left-wingers still tend to favor international/universal ideals whereas right-wingers tend to favor exclusionary particularism (e.g. nationalism, patriotism) of some kind or other?”
What sort of “Left Wingers?” Do you the Western middle and upper classes or do you throw in… say… China?
Certainly nationalism is a key component of the Communist Party’s strategy to retain power. Also, while we’re discussing China, can’t forget the military. I mean, it’s the official and unofficial coupling between the CCP and the PLA that defines in large part Chinese domestic, foreign, military, and economic policies and the boundaries of such policies.
If we call the same exact country “Communist China” on the one hand and “Fascist China” on the other, are we arguing that China is both “Left” and “Right” are are we arguing neither or are we arguing both…???
(*HEADACHE*) Yeah… I deliberately phrased it that way in order to get us back to the basic point of this discussion, namely, that like China the state, Von Brunn the individual is not easily pegged as “Left” or “Right.”
(Oh… btw, Marcus… to clarify, China right now is gobbling up as much of the world’s “leasible/buyable” raw materials as they can; they’re doing this out of pure national self-interest, not as an effort to help out the developing world. So, no, I wouldn’t agree that “Left Wingers” across the globe are united in internationalist/universalist ideals which run counter to nationalism and self-interest.)
“Now, neonconservatism in America and republicanism in France do borrow some elements from both, since both claim the ideals and founding principles of their beloved respective nations are also universal.”
Agreed.
“But in general. I would say left-wing and right-wing attitudes versus (for example) nationalism and multiculturalism are remarkably similar in just about any country.”
Caution: Beware looking at the entire world through “western” glasses.
(And heck… I didn’t even bother to bring up the role of religion in different societies!) (*GRIN*)
BILL
57 KL7212 // Jun 15, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“…Von Brunn the individual is not easily pegged as ‘Left’ or ‘Right.’…”.
Wrong. He’s easily pegged as “Right Wing” by any historical or contemporary definition of the term.
Much like the liberals you frequently bash, you’re attempting to change the definition of clearly established terms to suit your own political ends. But it’s a wasted (and rather pathetic) effort.
As far as I can tell, nobody has linked Von Brunn to the contemporary conservative movement. Republican leaders have been as quick and as forceful in their condemnation of Von Brunn’s crimes as anyone.
You can’t have it both ways: Bashing liberals and leftists as “socialists” and “communists” while denying “fascism” has any links to the Right is not merely hypocritical but cowardly.
58 ctsa // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
This nut was left wing. Period. End of story. Nice try though.
59 MFarmer // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“That, however, is an absurdly limited and ahistorical view of what constitutes the right. Historically, right and left became political affiliations with the French Revolution, when those seeking continuity with the old regime sat on the legislatures right side and those pressing for change sat on the left.”
So, since American politics has been trending statist since the beginning of the 20th century, now the right would be the Democrat Party which seeks continuity with the old regime, and libertarians seeking change to create a limited government would be on the left? I get so confused with right and left. I’m it matters greatly which side von Brunn is on, I just can’t figure why. There’s so much riding on the determination, hopefully we’ll soon reach a conclusion.
60 MFarmer // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I’m sure
61 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Re: KL7212; wrote 33 minutes ago –
“Much like the liberals you frequently bash…”
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
Who is this clown…?!?!
Yo… clown… if I “bash” anyone frequently it’s Dr. Tesla. (*CHUCKLE*) Next on “my list” is Sinz… a self-identified moderate on social and environmental issues and conservative on fiscal and national security issues.
On the other side, Marcus and I frequently present some of the most reasonable discussions between “Right” and “Left” that you’re ever going to see on any blog anywhere.
(*SNORT*)
“You can’t have it both ways: Bashing liberals and leftists as “socialists” and “communists” while denying “fascism” has any links to the Right is not merely hypocritical but cowardly.”
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
* Tes… sick’em boy! Go get him!!!
(*CHUCKLING*)
KL. You’re apparently lost. Head on over to Slate, Salon, or Huffington Post. We’ve got Otto already… we don’t need two of you.
BILL
62 ltwpolitics // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Dr. Tesla’s reasoning.
1. the right is awesome
2. von Brunn wasn’t awesome
3. von Brunn is a leftist
How about?
1. the left is awesome
2. Stalin wasn’t awesome
3. Stalin was a right-winger
This howling that von Brunn is a leftists makes ya’ll look like historically ignorant idiots. Is that part of right wing ideology too? I’ve heard that book learnin’ has a well-known left-wing bias.
63 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Hey… various one on one pissing contests and dramatics aside… did Silber ever address any of the key points made in response to his contribution?
BILL
64 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:43 pm
barker13 sez: “Von Brunn is a NUT. He’s a hateful damaged human being.”
I agree with you.
I really don’t want to get into this discussion about whether Von Brunn was left-wing or right-wing.
Von Brunn was a crazy Jew hater. That’s it.
There are crazy Jew haters everywhere: Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, David Duke, Ahmediijad, are just four from the contemporary scene that come to mind.
Instead of this “Right wing-left wing” jazz, maybe we should discuss why, 60+ years after the Holocaust, Jew hating is still around–and can still find rationalizations for hate.
65 senor // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hell, he probably opposed higher taxes, liked Sarah Palin, was a member of the NRA. Sounds like a perfect Republican to me.
66 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm
An example of learning from history:
Hitler liked to talk about the dignity of the worker and rant about exploitation of the workers. But Hitler was a pathological liar, and you couldn’t believe a word he said. (It was probably prudent for one to believe the exact opposite of what he promised.)
For example: Hitler had ordered a “Labor Day” celebration in Germany. Lots and lots of speeches extolling the worker. Lots and lots of celebrations. Everybody went home drunk and happy.
So they didn’t notice when, the very next morning, Hitler had all the labor union leaders arrested and sent to concentration camps. And the Germans’ love for their Fuehrer anesthetized them to Hitler’s decrees abolishing labor unions and collective bargaining.
One group of Hitler’s followers, the storm troopers led by Ernst Roehm, really did believe in the “socialist” part of National Socialism. They started demanding that Hitler carry out his promises of reform, to break up the big agricultural estates of the Junkers, and hand over the land to them to set up their own “people’s farms.” They also demanded that they be the nucleus of a new “People’s Army.”
If you don’t know how Hitler responded to those demands, google for “Night of the Long Knives.”
67 KL7212 // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm
barker13:
“Von Brunn is a NUT. He’s a hateful damaged human being.”
Von Brunn is also a right-wing nut by any historical or contemporary definition.
And stow the ad hominem attacks. They only weaken an already weak argument.
sinz54:
While Anti-Semitism and utopian schemes abound on both sides of the ideological divide, Von Brunn’s neo-Nazi views are clearly not a product of the Left by any measure. Neither is fascism despite its statist and “socialistic” elements.
68 mlindroo // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:08 pm
> So, since American politics has been trending statist
> since the beginning of the 20th century, now the right
> would be the Democrat Party which seeks continuity
> with the old regime, and libertarians seeking change to
> create a limited government would be on the left? I get
> so confused with right and left. I’m it matters greatly
> which side von Brunn is on, I just can’t figure why.
LOL!
I guess there is a simple answer: ‘left’ or ‘right’ depends on whether you are watching towards the past or the future:-)
—
Seriously, though, maybe there’s been additional confusion since about the 1950s or 60s when economics ceased to be the only truly important factor to middle/upper class voters in the West…? Nowadays you really need two dimensions on the political map when discussing the concept of personal freedom.
MARCU$
69 balconesfault // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm
sinz: full agreement. I think that it can be reasonably argued that Hitler and Stalin both commandeered ideologies in order to provide cover for them doing whatever the hell they wanted – which was largely grabbing as much power as they could get their hands on. Hitler, first and foremost, was a propogandist – and propogandists don’t tell you what they believe – they tell you what they think will make you believe something that is convenient to them.
I think we both agree that the best test of Hitler isn’t his words, but how he was regarded by various political observers of the time.
70 KL7212 // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:18 pm
sin54:
We tend to forget that Hitler, at least initially, had to operate within a democratic, parliamentary system. As such, he had to engage in the sort of politics we associate with popularly elected leaders, namely, courting constituencies and making campaign promises.
One of my favorite professors in college, an unrepentant German Social Democrat who was born in the mid-30’s and grew up in the Germany of the 40’s and 50’s, was fond of skewering the popular myth of the Post-War European Left that the “proletariat” in Germany, had nothing to do with Hitler’s ascension to power by pointing out the obvious: Hitler never could have come to power without considerable support within Germany’s large and politically engaged industrial proletariat.
71 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:18 pm
ltwpoiltics’s strawman is easily deconstructed.
My reasoning.
1. Liberals assert von Brunn is a right wing extremist to smear conservatives and to justify Obama’ Stalinist report depicting his political critics as extremists.
2. I examine the killer’s beliefs, and learn that he is a socialist…he stated his belief in socialism, he hatred of “neo-cons”, his belief that Christianity was a hoax by Jews, his belief that 9-11 was an inside job by Bush, etc.
3. I then learn that he had the Weekly Standard’s address in his pocket. They are located near the HOlocaust Museum, and are a conservative publication run by “neocons”.
4. I find quotes by Hitler in which he clearly advocates socialism to include anti-capitalism, anti-big business, class warfare, the “common good” over the individual….socialist boilerplate rhetoric. You chose to ignore this.
5. I then examine the National Socialist party’s platform. It reflects Hitler’s rhetoric….socialism down the line, which I have posted in here and you chose to ignore.
6. I conclude that Von Brunn was a leftwing extremist.
7. Liberals get angry.
Here’s your logic.
1. You think conservatives and fooseball is the devil.
2. You think that conservatives are racist and Nazis.
3. You assert Von Brunne is a right wing extremist because he was a Nazi and a racist.
I’m a mechanical engineer, so I’m confident that I own you in IQ, guy. My book learnin’ no doubt much more impressive that that big sociology degree that you received, or that $20K year teaching job you got at a community college in Podunksville, Vermont.
72 ltwpolitics // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Dr. Tesla: Anyone who brags about their IQ probably needs more book learnin’.
This isn’t about “smearing,” but instead the fact that von Brunn thought of himself as conservative and posted on conservative websites like freerepublic. Nazism is most definitely an extreme right wing philosophy, and your defense is to say “but Nazis were anti-individualism.” Well Stalin was anti-civil liberties, and the left wing favors civil liberties, so that makes Stalin a right winger?
You can talk about “liberal fascism” all you want, but you seem like an idiot to the rest of America.
73 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:38 pm
You chose to insult my intelligence, bro.
I’m entitled to a self defense, and I think the fact that I’m a mechanical engineer is a particularly good defense.
If you are going to distort my logic and construct strawmen and attack those, you do lose any crediblity. You are a dishonest and smarmy person, and you need to practice your debate skills.
I understand liberals are not use to having to debate their socialist ideas…you’ve been sheltered by your college professors and a Democrat-controlled old media. You are going to have to get better at debate if you expect to persaude anybody. Liberalism only makes sense if there’s no conservative around to challenge and deconstruct it.
I don’t think the left favors civil liberties. I think the left favors the “common good” over the individual, which is about as anti-civil liberties as you can get.
You can believe Nazism was a right wing philosophy all you want, but I think the Nazis and Hitler would strong disagree.
You leftists sought to politicize the shooting, much like you did Hurricane Katrina, so don’t get angry when it blows up in your face.
74 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Dr. Tesla
7:50 AMOtto,
You obviously did not read the things that I posted about Hitler. He did nationalize industries in Germany, and if I’m not mistaken, that included the auto industry. I seem to remember pictures of him visiting auto plants under state control.
Who has nationalized much of the American auto industry…..Obama, no?
1. Which industries did Hitler nationalize? I’m still waiting for the list. Your “seem to remember” doesn’t cut it. He did NOT nationalize the German auto industry. He encouraged Dr Ferdinand Porsche to design a small sedan that became the Beetle. That’s it!!
2. Obama has not nationalized the US auto industry. He’s rescued it by injecting public money so that it could go through a controlled bankruptcy…..in return we have an interest in GM and Chrysler as does the Canadian govt which is conservative but not as blinkered as you…..who started this process…..George Bush!!
75 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Re: Sinz54; wrote 50 minutes ago –
“Instead of this “Right wing-left wing” jazz, maybe we should discuss why, 60+ years after the Holocaust, Jew hating is still around–and can still find rationalizations for hate.”
I proposed that early on over at the “Mommy, Why Do People Want To Kill Jews” thread. Neither Mrs. Frum nor David deigned to respond – nor do I recall more than perhaps one or two fellow posters addressing the issue.
Oh, well… (*SIGH*)
Re: KL7212; wrote 27 minutes ago –
“…stow the ad hominem attacks.”
KL. As all honest folks who call NM one of their internet homes will concede – regardless of their own ideology and in fact regardless of their own personal “style” preferences – I only launch what you refer to as “ad hominem attacks” on those who fire the first shot at me or someone else.
(Yes… I’ve been know to “butt in” to “private feuds” and give my unsolicited opinion; or as Tes would have it… I’m prone to lecture.) (*WINK*)
“While Anti-Semitism and utopian schemes abound on both sides of the ideological divide, Von Brunn’s neo-Nazi views are clearly not a product of the Left by any measure. Neither is fascism despite its statist and “socialistic” elements.”
Well THAT I agree with. If you bothered to read the thread prior to shooting your mouth off – inserting foot simultaneously – you’d have noted that I never said nor inferred that Brunn’s views were “a product of the Left.”
KL. Earth to KL. Again… reality… I don’t “bash” liberals (at least any more than I “bash” those who claim the mantle of conservatism) nor do I engage in calling liberals communists nor even except in very specific circumstances use the “socialist” label.
Perhaps you simply got me confused with Tes? No matter. YOU started with the personal “attacks” and if you wanna change the tone of future discussions you have with me… the ball’s in your court.
BILL
76 ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm
KL7212
wrote 37 minutes ago
…….Hitler never got more than 42% of the vote in Germany in free elections. Basically his support was the lower middle class, the middle classes and the upper classes. The Proletariat as you call it was basically either communist or Social Democrat. I strongly suggest you and Tesla whose ignorance about German politics in the thirties is in inverse proportions to the length of his comments on the subject go down to the library and get out a few books on the subject. I recommend those by Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest. The Fest book is particularly interesting because it’s by a right wing German historian but because he’s a German he has very good insight into the German character.
77 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Don’t get how a person can read those Hitler quotes and the Nazi political platform and conclude he was a right winger.
But hey, a lot of Americans think we are going to die from CO2, so it’s clear people want to believe what they want be believe, facts be damned.
78 sinz54 // Jun 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Dr. Tesla sez: “Don’t get how a person can read those Hitler quotes and the Nazi political platform and conclude he was a right winger.”
The fact that, despite the accumulated historical research of 60+ years, you still think Hitler should be taken at his word, tells me something very interesting about you.
That there can be such a thing as a right-wing dictatorship, is not disputed by any serious historians, but is apparently something you refuse to accept.
Right now, in Iran, Ahmedinijad and his mullah buddies are busily going about crushing dissent over his scripted “election.” The people are being denied their rights and their freedom to choose their nation’s course. Is the Iranian government “left-wing” as well?
79 palomino70 // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Tesla, it may indeed be unfair for the MSM to portray von Brunn as a right-winger. But that doesn’t make him a leftist either; arguing as such is a huge stretch, part of the “always attack, don’t play D” rhetorical mode employed by the loudest, least articulate voices in today’s political discourse.
As for Hitler, socialism was a pretty minor feature of his ideology compared with nationalism, militarism and racism. (It wasn’t even classical socialism anyway, certainly not Marxism-Leninism; remember what Nazis did to socialists and commies?)
Thus it’s silly to equate von Brunn with peacnik multicultural Dems–you know, the party that wins 90% of black, 80% of Jewish and 70% of Latino votes, not to mention sizable majorities of gays and women. Hard to imagine von Brunn in league with them.
80 palomino70 // Jun 15, 2009 at 5:56 pm
A simple straightforward question for those calling Obama socialist: Does this also make FDR (social security), LBJ (medicare) and for that matter Dubya (med. part B) socialists as well?
If not, what’s the distinction? And, if it’s just a matter of degree, the label is non-unique with respect to Obama vs. every other president, and thus its application is disingenuous.
81 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Re: Palomino70; wrote 12 minutes ago –
“…if it’s just a matter of degree…”
Yes, Pal, it’s a matter of degree. (*SMILE*)
“And, if it’s just a matter of degree, the label is non-unique with respect to Obama vs. every other president, and thus its application is disingenuous.”
Huh…??? No. Back up. Simple because we talk in relative terms doesn’t mean that relative terms are in and of themselves disingenuous.
You’ve lost me… care to clarify? Surely you don’t mean that one can only be an “absolute” whatever.
Right…???
BILL
82 palomino70 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:09 pm
barker, If it’s just a matter of degree, pal, then why–in conservative circles–was there so little anti-socialist outrage directed at Pres. Bush circa 2001-2008? Where were the voices warning that Bush was a socialistic scourge imposing an evil on the American public?
My point is that it’s disingenuous to pretend that socialism was introduced into the US by Obama. Many on the right talk as if they have amnesia regarding the last 70 years of presidential action.
If other post-WWII presidents were also socialist, then the proper rhetorical construct would be “he’s more socialist THAN…” rather than “he’s socialist as opposed to.”
In short, he’s not really “making us socialist” if we already have a long tradition of socialism.
83 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I like how leftists keep insisting that somehow Hitler’s socialism was a minor aspect compared to his nationalism. He was extreme in both…this notion that a socialist can’t also be a nationalist is a false choice…the two are not mutually exclusive.
My point isn’t to suggest that the von Brunn is anything like an American liberal, but to suggest he’s much closer to you idealogically than he is a small government conservative. In my humble yet accurate opinion, a right wing extremist would be an anarchist, for no government at all.
Chew on that.
84 Chrisc23 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm
There are wackos in both political parties and it appears that this person belongs to the “right”. Although I don’t know if he is a registered Republican.
The question I have is why did he decide to act out now? President Bush was pro-Israel and so was Bill Clinton. And I doubt that this would have happened if we had a President named Colin Powell or Condi Rice.
I blame a few things. The internet, news media, economy, and President Obama’s rhetoric add up to make this person hate. The first 3 are self explanatory.
President Obama’s rhetoric is frightful. When he says he wants to reshape our economy, national security, healthcare, and more, people become nervous. Especially someone this man’s age. Older people find change difficult. And the unknown is what makes people even more nervous. We really don’t know about the future.
President Bush had many flaws. But after 9/11 I felt comfortable with his rhetoric. He was like a ‘father figure’ made me feel safe. President Obama has much to prove. And when we begin to see some results I will feel more comfortable.
85 barker13 // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“Barker, If it’s just a matter of degree, pal…”
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
Oh, Pal… you crack me up! By “Pal” I mean (and meant) “Pal” as short for Palomino – not “pal” as in buddy.
(*STILL LAUGHING*)
Now I can see how you would take my form of address as the later and thus your opening tone, but…
(*STILL LAUGHING*)
Can you see how you misconstrued my reply to your post? (*SMILE*) Com’on… it’s kinda funny… admit it!
Anyway…
“Barker, If it’s just a matter of degree, pal, then why–in conservative circles–was there so little anti-socialist outrage directed at Pres. Bush circa 2001-2008?”
HUH…?!?! Where the HECK were you during the two Bush administrations – particularly the last year of his second term?
Hell, I was blasting CANDIDATE Bush back in 2000 for his pledges to ensure that “no family of four earning less than $45,000/year would pay federal income taxes” under his administration’s proposed tax policies.
(I’m quoting by memory… it might have been $40G… in any case, you probably remember what I’m referring to.)
Pal (as in Palomino)… I was a Forbes man in 2000! I only voted for Bush in contrast to Gore!
Seriously… real conservatives like me bitched and moan about every more towards “socialism” that Bush took. Surely you remember the grass roots conservative opposition to his medicare drug bill?
And pal (this time as in “buddy”)… surely you can imagine my reaction to Bush’s stimulus bill(s), Bush’s bailouts, Bush’s weak dollar policy (which I often refer to in the most negative terms possible), Bush’s support of artificially and (as it turned out, and as I warned) disastrously low interest rates and resultant housing price inflation and irresponsible debt assumption…
(*SIGH*)
Pal. Palomino. None of what I’m saying comes as a surprise to you… I mean… I haven’t exactly been shy in bashing Bush and RINOs and the 2000-2006 RINO Congresses since I’ve been posting here.
(*SNORT*)
“My point is that it’s disingenuous to pretend that socialism was introduced into the US by Obama.”
(*SHRUG*) OK. If as a qualifier you clarify that it’s only “disingenuous” coming from the people who didn’t call Bush and the 2000-2006 RINO Congresses on the carpet for the same behavior (but to a much lesser extent).
MY POINT is simply… don’t tar ME – and folks LIKE me – with that big ‘ol broad brush of yours. (*WINK*) Fair enough?
“Many on the right talk as if they have amnesia regarding the last 70 years of presidential action.”
As much as I’d like to be King…
(OK, who’s kidding who… “As much as I’d like being God…)
…I can’t be held responsible for these unidentified (unnamed? better?) “on the Right with amnesia.”
Again… fair enough? Am I being reasonable…???
“If other post-WWII presidents were also socialist…”
With respect… don’t be obtuse. Com’on. I suppose we could argue which president was “furthest” to the Left economically speaking (FDR, Johnson, Obama) (Nixon or Dubya for that matter), there’s just no way of avoiding the reality that SOME presidents have been MORE “socialist” than others, just as some have been more “capitalist” than others.
(*SNORT*)
So yeah, pal… (or Pal)… when we get down to it we ARE and always have been talking about “a matter of degree.”
“In short, he’s not really “making us socialist” if we already have a long tradition of socialism.”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*) (*LAUGHING*)
Really? You’re serious? At it’s root this whole decision revolves around the absence of the word “more,” as in “more socialist…?”
That’s it? That’s what you’ve been obsessing over…?!?!
(*CHUCKLE*) (*FADING CHUCKLE*)
BILL
86 Dr. Tesla // Jun 15, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The guy was 90 years old. As much as I dislike Obama, I don’t think Obama’s rhetoric inspiried him to go shoot up some people at the HOlocaust museum. I don’t think anybody inspired him. to do so….it’s dangerous to start blaming other people for the actions of one man. Von Brunn is responsbile for the murder, nobody else.
It was the Left that sought to politicize this murder. That’s why we are having the debate about his idealogy, as Leftists are seeking to use this nutjob to demonize conservatives, despite the fact he supported socialism, thinks 9-11 was an inside job by Bush, hates neo-cons that supported the Iraq war, etc.
87 Mike K // Jun 15, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“Latter-day admirers of the Nazis and fascists, such as James von Brunn, typically emphasize racial or national chauvinism over socialistic economics by a wide margin. They want to recapture a lost (and generally bogus) past, rather than remake the world according to a future vision. As such, they are on the extreme right. “
This is the last straw for me with this site. Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the left since the 1967 war. Anti-black and the Klan have always been manifestations of the Democratic Party’s less modern elements. Most important is that this poor idiot is a member of the crazy caucus. To allege that he represents the right wing (or the left wing, for that matter) belongs on the DailyKos. I could tolerate all the left wing comments but this is a post by an approved member of the site.
Goodbye.
88 Dustin Ferrell // Jun 15, 2009 at 8:07 pm
“An unfortunate tendency on the right these days is to attempt to win arguments through tendentious and shallow redefinitions of what constitutes left and right.”
Well Ken, perhaps we don’t like being lumped in with fascists, psychopaths and murderers. I don’t think you’d have written this if Goldberg didn’t have a point.
89 FRANKCOLLATT // Jun 15, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Left or Right, James Von Brunn allowed his personal feelings, deep seated resentment, anger and hate to fester thereby motivating him to lash out violently and take the life of an innocent security guard working to pay his bills. Either way you wish to classify Von Brunn, you might want to consider the comments in the News Media from his son. His father’s actions were WRONG. Violence never settles anything.
Further, what does hate promote? What does violence accomplish? Especially in a purported advanced social society? Perhaps the author in this article is much like VON BRUNN in his editorial, perhaps he has some rage, anger and deep seated feelings or emotions he needs to sort out. I wonder after reading the article, how can you classify MURDER as LEFT or RIGHT, when in actuality it is WRONG?
90 JJWFromME // Jun 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm
mlindroo: “Nowadays you really need two dimensions on the political map when discussing the concept of personal freedom.”
And Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were all about personal freedom… NOT.
Warrantless wiretaps about personal freedom? Elective wars about personal freedom? These are the first two that come to mind, but there are many others where conservatives haven’t exactly been the promoters personal freedom…
91 mlindroo // Jun 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm
>> Barker, If it’s just a matter of degree, pal, then why–in conservative circles–was
>> there so little anti-socialist outrage directed at Pres. Bush circa 2001-2008?”
> HUH…?!?! Where the HECK were you during the two Bush administrations – particularly
> the last year of his second term?
Yes, I distinctly remember the lack of enthusiasm for those policies over at the NRO Corner
and (much more rarely-) the Weekly Standard. But there was never any huge outcry either…the focus was on
“remember Reagan’s 11th commandment: never criticize another Republican” and “support the
War President”.
—
Now, I understand perfectly well the rationale for biting one’s tongue. Politics is the art of
compromise and coalition-building, and the Bush Administration had to maintain a 51% coalition
to ram its policies through Congress. Some conservatives also made fairly good points about the
necessity of “compassionate conservatism” after the debacle of the Newt Gingrich years. You
have to remember that the Republicans won only one House/Senate election out of six in 1996-2000
after the 1994 landslide, and the overall perception was that small government conservatism
had fizzled out spectacularly with voters.
But STILL…
BTW, I suspect some of the current anger in Republican circles is due to the realization that they
have been reluctantly supporting some domestic Bush policies they never really liked, and
now it comes back to haunt them as everybody is saying “oh, but conservatives had no trouble
approving big government spending and budget deficits before!”
92 Sara123 // Jun 15, 2009 at 10:18 pm
It is inappropriate to refer to European history when speaking of political descriptions in the present day. In European history National socialists (fascists) were “right” and communists with global intentions were Left. By today’s standards in the US both of these leftist ideologies are “left.”
The socialist left in this country supported slavery and supported segregation. The right opposed that racism and the right opposes liberalism’s new and improved multicultural racism and discrimination today. Although leftists today reject white racism in equality with the other racisms they promote, white racists consider themselves socialists and they tend to agree with liberals in hating Christians and Jews.
In the U.S. the right is for a constitutional government and for individual rights. The left pursues big government in the form of global socialism and national socialism and it is not tolerant of most of the constitution and rejects individual rights.
Both the Republican and Democrat Parties have left wingers. Conservatives (right wingers) constitute the majority of the voters as they identify themselves.
So it is you who are trying to redefine what left and right mean in the US through imposing the history of a different era and of a different continent and people on present day America. Americans – right wingers – designed and established this country’s freedom; including limited government, the right to bear arms and the individual’s right to pursue LIFE, liberity and happiness.
93 mlindroo // Jun 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm
JJWFromME:
> And Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were all about personal
> freedom… NOT. Warrantless wiretaps about personal
> freedom? Elective wars about personal freedom?
I would agree that few people confuse modern mainstream conservatism with “classical liberalism” (libertarianism) these days.
Typically, social conservatives such as Michael Novak tend to favor restrictions on personal liberty at least when it comes to moral issues, although they also enthusiastically embrace the concept of economic freedom.
MARCU$
94 mlindroo // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:05 am
Sara123 wrote:
> The socialist left in this country supported slavery and supported segregation.
> The right opposed that racism
Er, that’s an interesting claim to put it mildly:-)
By your logic Martin Luther King was a strong advocate of capitalism and loathed all forms of socialism, including social democracy. And J.Edgar Hoover of course was deeply worried about the rampant socialism and radicalism of the Ku Klux Klan (known for the strong communist sympathies as everybody knows), and southern whites in general! Etcetera.
—
Really, wouldn’t it be easier to just state the obvious (=von Brunn has little in common with contemporary American conservatism) and leave it at that? Why these absurd attempts to rewrite history, a la “liberal fascism”?
MARCU$
95 palomino70 // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:06 am
barker, you mean we’re not pals?
anyway, dude, i tried to make my initial question simple, and i addressed it to those “now calling Obama socialist.” If you’re not part of that group, why even respond? If you are part of that group, then I’m sure you realize how many of your political bedfellows were silent for the last eight years.
“HUH…?!?! Where the HECK were you during the two Bush administrations – particularly the last year of his second term?”
(OH, NO, STARTING TO GET NAUSEOUS!)
Well, bro, I was listening to the right say VERY LITTLE about Bush’s deficits and lack of fiscal restraint.
“I was a Forbes man in 2000! I only voted for Bush in contrast to Gore!”
(OOPS–I JUST THREW UP A LITTLE IN MY MOUTH)
Which lost cause are you supporting for 2012? Palin? (We had stupid in Dubya. I don’t think we’re ready for retarded.)….Gingrich? (a 69-year old blimp deferral baby isn’t an improvement on a 73-year old war hero)….. Romney?! (yeah,that’s the ticket)
(OOPS–I JUST THREW UP A LOT IN MY MOUTH)
“None of what I’m saying comes as a surprise to you… I mean… I haven’t exactly been shy in bashing Bush and RINOs and the 2000-2006 RINO Congresses since I’ve been posting here.”
Sorry, charlie, I don’t keep detailed notes on the political positions of commenters here at NM, so I’m not familiar with your record. Maybe I should look you up. Are you on the Google?
“If as a qualifier you clarify that it’s only “disingenuous” coming from the people who didn’t call Bush and the 2000-2006 RINO Congresses on the carpet for the same behavior (but to a much lesser extent).”
Maybe that doesn’t include you, cuz, but loyal Bushies– and by that I mean most of the GOP–kept its powder dry. So it rings hollow when they now scream that all western civilization is threatened by Obama’s healthcare plan.
“…I can’t be held responsible for these unidentified (unnamed? better?) “on the Right with amnesia.”
Again… fair enough? Am I being reasonable…???”
(RETCHING BLOOD NOW)
Um, not exactly, chum. If you’re not a member of the group I’m critiquing, then why take the critique as if it’s aimed at you? Certainly no reason to take it personally. I’m not challenging your manhood, such as it is or was, just someone’s ideas…if they’re not yours, why defend and get all pissy?
“At it’s root this whole decision revolves around the absence of the word “more,” as in “more socialist…?”
That’s it? That’s what you’ve been obsessing over…?!?!”
(BARKING UP EVEN MORE BLOOD)
Yeah, man, words matter. Sometimes a simple phrase or even a single word significantly impacts a debate. Remember “Mission Accomplished” or “what the meaning of is is”?
The larger point I was hinting at was that the right (again, that doesn’t necessarily mean you personally) likes to throw “socialism” around as an epithet, but doesn’t really want to have an honest debate about what it means.
96 palomino70 // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:19 am
Tesla: “palomino70,
Not sure how I am having a conversation with myself if you are responding to it.”
Tesla, you put up the first 27 comments on this post before anyone else could get a word in edgewise. Who were you talking to?
97 palomino70 // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:24 am
Tesla,
As for this Hitler guy you keep speaking of, I think you’re right: he just loved socialists. Commies too, all leftists for that matter.
Which is why he helped them all get together in remotely located resorts where they could hang out and talk. And then starve and die.
98 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 16, 2009 at 4:23 am
I wonder how many of those defending Von Brumm as a leftist have actually visited Germany, concentration camps and studied WWII history.
Hitler burned down the German Reichstag and blamed the Left. It was an orchestgrated step on his march toward absolute power. He hated the communists and the left. It’s not a question to be debated, it’s pure fact.
The longer right leaning people, especially in forums like this, continue to deny history and facts, the longer the GOP will live in wilderness.
Again, I think the issue here is the hero security officer that saved countless lives. I couldn’t care less about the perpetrator beyond wanting him thrown into the justice system.
Can we learn more about the victim here, please? What do we know about this man, his courage, his family, his beliefs? Why did he choose to work at the Holocaust Museum? I’d love to hear his spouse interviewed, if there is one, or other family members about what he believed and why.
99 Dr. Tesla // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:23 am
pal,
Not sure how I prevented anybody from posting in here. I did post 5 times before anybody else saw the post, but I happen to be posting on this website late at night when this particular column was posted.
Hitler had the support of the Communist Party in Germany as well as the big labor, anti-capitalist socialist party. He was a leftist, as his quotes and the Nazi political platform clearly demonstrate.
You are in denial if you think Hitler was some kind of extension of free market, small government, pro-life conservatism.
I never made the claim that the American left were Nazis. The American left, people like you and in the media, has been using this shoot to assert that the American right are Nazis, which is absurd, and I simply challenge it by pointing out that Hitler was a sociailst/Marxist extremist in his views.
100 Dr. Tesla // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:27 am
pal,
You and other leftists make this smarmy contention:
“Um, not exactly, chum. If you’re not a member of the group I’m critiquing, then why take the critique as if it’s aimed at you? Certainly no reason to take it personally. I’m not challenging your manhood, such as it is or was, just someone’s ideas…if they’re not yours, why defend and get all pissy?”
I can redirect this at you…why do you get so pissy when I assert Hitler was a leftist and that there is evidence that the von Brunn guy is a leftist. Certainly no reason for you to take it personally if his ideas don’t not reflect American liberalism.
Let’s keep in mind that it’s your leftists that started this war. If you are going to politicize this shooting, don’t get angry at us for responding in kind.
101 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:43 am
Mike K
8:06 PM
“This is the last straw for me with this site. Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the left since the 1967 war. Anti-black and the Klan have always been manifestations of the Democratic Party’s less modern elements.”
……..This would explain why most American Jews vote Democrat. The Klan in in modern times ie. since the passage of civil rights in the sixties, is a manifestation of the Democratic party’s less modern elements…..By their words shalt thy know them.
102 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:49 am
Tesla continues to entertain us with his versions of German history and his claims that Brunn was “really” a leftist. In the process he provides yet more evidence of his and the far right’s firm grip on reality.
103 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:53 am
And Tesla: I’m still waiting for that list of industries you claim Hitler nationalized. I won’t hold my breath.
104 Dr. Tesla // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:57 am
I’m never going to convince a leftist that Hitler was a leftist.
I’ve made a persuasive case with the man’s own quotes and his political party’s platform that is was a Marxist extremist. And he did nationalize corporations….he was anti-corporations, and as he absolute power in Germany, it’s rather silly to argue that he did not also control the corporations. This is a man that was burning Jews alive.
105 palomino70 // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:03 am
DrTbag: “Hitler had the support of the Communist Party in Germany as well as the big labor, anti-capitalist socialist party. He was a leftist, as his quotes and the Nazi political platform clearly demonstrate.”
Again, I guess this is why he constructed those spas all around Germany and eastern Europe–for his leftist buddies to relax in before they were tortured, starved and killed.
Seriously, what historical universe did you pull this from? Your ass? Even a great man of letters such as yourself is not entitled to his own facts. Here’s an unimpeachable source–you can read up on your hero. http://www.conservapedia.com/Hitler
106 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:26 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 21 minutes ago:
” And he did nationalize corporations”
…….Tesla just back up your claim with a few names….even when they seized Jewish businesses it was done quasi legally with Aryan takeovers……Tesla you clearly have no knowledge of what happened in Germany but that doesn’t matter because you have your prejudices to fall back on.
“Here’s an unimpeachable source–you can read up on your hero. http://www.conservapedia.com/Hitler “
I don’t know about an unimpeachable source but even they are not stupid enough to argue that Hitler was a left wing politician.
107 barker13 // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:36 am
Re: Mlindroo; 10:17 PM –
(*WINK*) (*NOD*)
Thanks for acknowledging that a fair number of us (libertarian leaning conservative nationalists first, Republicans second… if that!) actually have principles and stand by them.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Palomino70; 1:06 AM –
Sure we’re “pals,” Pal – civility uber alles! (*WINK*)
“If you’re not part of that group, why even respond?”
A sense of fair play and a desire for accuracy and specificity. (*WINK*)
Seriously… don’t allude… don’t infer… just say what it is you wanna say – name names. (*SHRUG*) Is that such a burden…???
“Well, bro, I was listening to the right say VERY LITTLE…”
(Is there an English teacher in the house…?)
(*GRIN*)
Well… dude… (*GRIN*)… again you come up against my objection. This whole “the Right” thing you’ve got going is exactly what you seemingly object to when that two word phrase is switched to “the Left.”
* Hey – btw… appreciate the riff on my style! Very good…! (*CHUCKLE*)
“Which lost cause are you supporting for 2012? Palin?”
(*SMILE*) I wonder who out of the two of us has voted for more winners?
Anyway… not sure who I’ll be supporting in 2012. I like Sanford. We’ll have to see who runs for the nomination and then of course when the general election comes that’s another decision. (*SHRUG*) How’bout you… for all intents and purposes are you a lock for Obama?
“We had stupid in Dubya. I don’t think we’re ready for retarded.”
Nice… (*SIGH*)
“Gingrich? (a 69-year old blimp…”
Keep going, pal. (*SMILE*) Show us all exactly who you are. (*SHRUG*)
“If you’re not a member of the group I’m critiquing, then why take the critique as if it’s aimed at you?”
(*SNORT*) Again… because while the likes of you may consider throwing mud against a wall hoping some will stick to be high debate… me… I’m trying to raise the bar. Somehow I doubt you’ll ever make it… at least based upon your tactics as of now.
Hey… B- for having a bit of a sense of humor… but it’s clear the “jokes” are hiding some real red meat partisanism willing to smear all in order to (hopefully) tag some.
(*SHRUG*) Again… your choice. We each stand behind what we write.
“Yeah, man, words matter.”
Yeah… they do. (*SMILE*)
“DrTbag…”
NICE…! (*SMIRK*) Real nice, Palomino. Classy.
(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)
BILL
108 palomino70 // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:52 am
otto, the conservapedia reference was meant to be sarcastic, as is at least 42% of what i say.
Is there a bigger doofus on the planet than andrew schlafly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AndrewSchlafly.jpg
He looks like one of those “To Catch a Predator” guys
109 Tom B // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:55 am
I don’t need to get all lefty or righty about this. The author has to go back to Medeval France to support his assertation.
I would propose Von Brunn aquired his opinions about Jews the same place that Jerimah Wright did. One likes to preach against “tem Jews” and in fact fills an entire church with sermons against them. Possibly Von Brunn got the video copies and acted on them.
110 sinz54 // Jun 16, 2009 at 10:20 am
Dr. Tesla asks: “why do you get so pissy when I assert Hitler was a leftist”
Because you’re attempting to rewrite history, history that was painstakingly researched by scholars for 60 years.
You’re doing to world history exactly what Howard Zinn and the Marxists tried to do–shoe-horn all of history into a giant Mancheistic morality play, in which YOUR side is always, always right and moral and the OTHER side is always, always wrong and evil.
If competent scholars of German history disagree with you, why don’t you learn what they had to say about it? Who first convinced you that Hitler was a leftist?
111 Jamie // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
InTheMiddle12 wrote:,
“Hitler burned down the German Reichstag and blamed the Left. It was an orchestrated (spelling corrected) step on his march toward absolute power. He hated the communists and the left. It’s not a question to be debated, it’s pure fact.”
He blamed the Communists, not the left. THAT is a fact. The Communists were a separate political party. There is a big difference between an ideology and a political rival. And seeing how Hitler was planning on creating a “living space” for Aryans within western Russia, is it really that surprising that he would blame the Communists? You can have parties / groups on the same side of the ideological spectrum who don’t get along. In Canada, the Bloc and NDP are both socialist parties, yet they compete because they have other interests. Prior to the formation of the new Conservative Party, there were 2 mainstream conservative parties in Canada who did not like each other very much. So what is your point?
Hitler hated the Communists because they challenged the basis of his support… Mussolini did the EXACT same thing. Do you honestly believe that libertarians or economic conservatives would support someone who called for the reorganization of society by the government in a way that lessens individualism and strengthens collectivism??? That’s crazy! Read Mein Kampf or any other pieces of NAZI propaganda and then tell me that the nonsense and rhetoric Hitler spews is right-wing.
The more a government controls it’s population, the LESS conservative it is (in terms of modern politics).
As for the “spas” palomino70 writes about, consider the following…
What other regimes created work and death camps to punish it’s opposition? The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea. What do they have in common? So even though the NAZIs (also known as the National SOCIALISTS) did the exact same thing to it’s population, there is not ideological similarities with other barbaric leftist regimes? Give me a break.
Remember, just because Fascism is a product of the left, doesn’t mean that the ENTIRETY of the left is evil. Think of it as more of a cult springing from a mainstream religion. You don’t have to feel bad about this religion because a cult does wrong.
112 Michael B // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:32 pm
A self-affected silliness. If you need to categorize people, especially so queer extremists in the Brunn mold, whatever.
But von Brunn was something of a sui generis kook, anti-GWB, anti-Neo-Con, anti-Illuminati, etc.
There’s the additional fact of Hitler’s Nazism, it’s prominent historical and ideological lineage, its lineage of praxis, with Mussolini’s fascism and the antecedent lineage with Mussolini’s decade-plus Marxism, throughout the first decade of the 20th century.
But, we need to pose as serious chin-pullers, undaunted in the face of supposedly hard realities that others are not willing to face, so, again, whatever.
“Whatever” being the most elemental subtext in Ken Silber’s commentary, at least so in this instance.
113 mlindroo // Jun 16, 2009 at 2:22 pm
palomino70 wrote:
> otto, the conservapedia reference was meant to
> be sarcastic, as is at least 42% of what i say.
> Is there a bigger doofus on the planet than
> andrew schlafly?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AndrewSchlafly.jpg
BTW, the most amusing part of the Conservapedia article about Hitler is that they accuse Der Fhrer of being …. a Darwinist!!! Lots and lots of quotes and speculation about it too.
—-
I read somewhere that one church in Tennessee reportedly has a sign on the yard which proudly proclaims “The Titanic was built by ‘experts’; the Ark was built by amateurs of faith” or something along those lines. To me this encapsulates the whole worldview of the GW Bush years fairly nicely…
MARCU$
114 mitch77 // Jun 17, 2009 at 4:11 am
Sir;
Wrong. Even progressives call up imagery from the past to paint the picture of their version of utopia.
Also, the simple fact that these “good old days” constructions are usually at extreme variance with reality
further diminishes their relevance to, or identification with, any particular political ideology.
It is also worth mentioning the utter foolishness of using the actions and beliefs of a wing nut to assign
political affiliation. White supremacists are generally insane or incredible ignorant. They usually try
and use the Bible to justify race hatred. How can a sane person justify any hatred using the Bible?
While calling Hitler a hero they call socialism evil. While proclaiming Nazism they go rabid at any move
the government makes that seems to give it power over them. To call them confused would be generous.
The simple fact is the Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, are by definition political systems
that have pretty well defined operating principles.
The entire delusion of the commies on the left and the fascists on the right started in the Spanish Civil War
where two equally despicable groups fought over who would have the power. The same two power hungry
entities went at it in WW2 when Hitlers paranoia caused him to attack his inspiration. Hitler publicly
gave credit to Marx as one who inspired him. There was not two cents worth of real difference between
how the Nazis ran Germany and how the Russians ran their nation. Since Spain and it’s absurdly romanticized
history (by Hemingway and so many others) the left began to use fascism as an invective for anyone opposing
the utopia dream of collectivism. WW2 only fed this deception and made the fallacy mainstream.
The three ‘isms’ above all demand centralized government. The power of the state to control the people,
the creation of wealth, and the distribution of wealth. These are central immutable tenets of this
variously named doctrine. There are others tenets to be sure but these alone make my case.
There are NO unconfused, non-insane, conservatives who would for a second consider these as acceptable.
The fact is that in American political conversation ‘conservative’ usually indicates the prefix ‘constitutional’.
I have found that many who call themselves liberals and democrats, when, when quizzed reject the majority
of the progressive doctrine. When asked for their specific positions on constitutional issues liberals
are often voting in direct contradiction to their beliefs and are blissfully unaware of it do to the MSM.
We can’t go about defining political systems by peoples use of them or their names. As much as I admired
some presidents (eg; TR) I know he mixed some very good desires and actions with some extremely
tyrannical (leftist) actions. If we can’t nail down some of our leaders to a clean political position how silly is it
to attach a well defined political doctrine to some guy with too many pigeons on his antenna?
115 James Von Brunn | Most Popular Searches - webmastereye.net // Aug 15, 2009 at 12:13 am
[...] Yes James Von Brunn Is Right WingAccording to Simberg, there’s nothing in James von Brunn’s biography that qualifies as right-wing, “if by that you mean someone who adheres to individualism, the values of the enlightenment and limited government.” … Read more [...]
You must log in to post a comment.