RSS Feed MenuAn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.jpgHe looks like one of those “To Catch a Predator” guys
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.jpgBTW, 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$
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 realityfurther 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 assignpolitical affiliation. White supremacists are generally insane or incredible ignorant. They usually tryand 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 movethe 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 Warwhere two equally despicable groups fought over who would have the power. The same two power hungryentities went at it in WW2 when Hitlers paranoia caused him to attack his inspiration. Hitler publiclygave credit to Marx as one who inspired him. There was not two cents worth of real difference betweenhow the Nazis ran Germany and how the Russians ran their nation. Since Spain and it’s absurdly romanticizedhistory (by Hemingway and so many others) the left began to use fascism as an invective for anyone opposingthe 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 thisvariously 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 majorityof the progressive doctrine. When asked for their specific positions on constitutional issues liberalsare 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 admiredsome presidents (eg; TR) I know he mixed some very good desires and actions with some extremelytyrannical (leftist) actions. If we can’t nail down some of our leaders to a clean political position how silly is itto attach a well defined political doctrine to some guy with too many pigeons on his antenna?
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 [...]