The Holocaust Museum Shooting & the Persistence of Anti-Semitism
It should come as no surprise to those who follow left-wing blogs that some were quick to blame mainstream conservatives for the actions of the lone, loony extremist who opened fire earlier today at the Holocaust Museum in our nation’s capital, murdering security guard Stephen Tyrone.
At present, there is little (if any) evidence that this anti-Semitic white supremacist read, or was even familiar with mainstream conservative blogs, web-sites or ideas. He drew his inspiration from ideologies which we conservatives have regularly criticized. Indeed, he was critical of Republican presidents and the ideology left-wingers ascribed to the previous president’s foreign policy:
For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.
This is not to say he was a a man of the left. He definitely was not. He is a hateful extremist, steeped in ideologies condemned by those on both sides of the political aisle.
Today’s shooting remind us of the persistence of anti-Semitism, a hateful ideology which has found a home among extremists of all political and partisan perspectives. It is neither a phenomenon of the right or the left, but of certain deranged individuals looking for a group to blame for their own sufferings and on whom to project their own insecurities.
Those who would blame conservatives (with whom the shooter had no philosophical kinship whatsoever) for the shooting manifest a preference of blaming us for all manner of ills while ignoring the reality of the situation at hand. They would do better to condemn the man for his murderous deeds and acknowledge that in doing so, they are making common ground with others holding different political views and with different partisan labels than their own.
It was a disgusting deed. The shooter should be dispatched to the nether regions as quickly as the law allows. And we must redouble our efforts to root out and condemn anti-Semitism and other hateful ideologies wherever they occur.
34 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Thank you for stating the obvious, this is an evil man, who acted out of his own evil inclinations. He was not part of any mainstream political school of thought. For Kos to try and link him to honorable Americans who are peacefully protesting government policy is despicable.
I would like to see in writing here on the comments any of our critics who always demand we apologize for everything the Republicans do.
Here’s your chance to condemn some very bad rhetoric from your side.
I’m so sorry the guard, Stephen Tyrone died on the job. I am still hoping that this vicious killer dies before going to trial. I’d rather not waste our tax dollars finding the obvious -that he is a cold blooded murderer.
The last thing I want to hear is some lawyer or psychologist telling us some sob story about his life.
Comment by Leah — June 10, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - June 10, 2009
I just heard about the Holocaust Museum shooting. I didn’t know that left-wingers were trying to blame conservatives for it. Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure seems to me that most of today’s anti-Semitism is on the left, where it is disguised as “anti-Zionism”. On the other hand, most of today’s staunchest supporters of Israel and the Jewish people are conservatives, especially those in the much maligned Religious Right. By blaming the museum shooting on conservatives leftists are trying to pull another one of their Orwellian reversals of reality. I’m sick of that game and we can’t let them get away with it.
Comment by Seane-Anna — June 10, 2009 @ 7:58 pm - June 10, 2009
um, seane-anna, over 75 percent of american jews voted for obama. if the major anti-semitism was on the left, i don’t think the candidate of the left would do so well with the jewish population. also, you shouldn’t confuse israeli policy with anti- or pro-jewish sentiment. don’t forget, most of these religious right people are blindly pro-israel b/c of a passage in the bible having to do with having to do w/ the second coming of christ and the jews being in the holy land. they might be completely pro-israel, but in their minds, when jesus returns, the jews are not going to be partying with the big upstairs, if you know what i mean.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 10, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - June 10, 2009
As you quoted from the Examiner link:
The Examiner link further suggests that the guy was a 9-11 Troofer. He sounds to me a lot like some of the more extreme left-loonie commentors we get on this blog. It sounds to me like leftist bloggers, in trying to blame conservatives, are engaged in their standard games of deflecting and displacing the anti-Semitism that belongs to them and their side of the aisle.
Moreover, when I hear “white supremacist” I think “neo-Nazi” and it is worth noting yet again, in that connection, that the original Nazis formally hated capitalism and corporations and were, in fact, *socialists* or a phenomenon of the Left.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - June 10, 2009
But Obama played a double game, bob: making pro-Israel noises in front of Jewish audiences (large or small), then winking in front of his anti-Semitic audiences. That’s the key point, bob, which your analysis misses: the fact that Obama is a big liar… when he isn’t simply being a cipher who avoids saying anything.
Honestly, I think Obama is run by his staff more than anything. And right now, Rahm Emanuel is important on Obama’s staff. And he’s pro-Israel. So there’s that influence. On the other hand, Obama just “did more in three minutes to delegitimize the existence of Israel than any President in history”, according to some observers. So the double-game continues. I guess we’ll know, when Iran has the bomb and Israel is a smoking ruin, if Obama was really pro-Israel or not. In the meantime, bob, the anti-Semitism of large swaths of the Left – particularly of the so-called “anti-war” protestor types who hate “the Israel lobby” and “neo-conservatives” (read: Jews) so much – is undeniable.
Translation, out from under the cloud of bullsh*t: conservative Christians are mostly pro-Israel.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - June 10, 2009
Because doing so would clearly illustrate the left as the home of the VAST majority of antisemitism.
Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - June 10, 2009
[...] GayPatriot, an excellent commentary: …It should come as no surprise to those who follow left-wing blogs that some were quick to [...]
Pingback by Tragedy: Left-Wing White Supremacist Shootout at Holocaust Museum « Frugal Café Blog Zone — June 10, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - June 10, 2009
Bob (aka Boob) you evidently can locate a passage in the Bible; however, your reference “you know what I mean” doesnt make any sense. Check out the Book of Romans where Paul explains the natural branches, as well as, the wild branch that gets “grafted in.” In the 21st Century a number of Protestants are realizing that Jesus was definitely Jewish.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — June 10, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - June 10, 2009
It wasn’t Conservatives hanging out with pro-Palestinian groups in Crawford, TX. a few years ago. That was your beloved Cindy Sheehan and an assortment of other liberal douchebags.
Remember Isreal’s war with Hamas in Lebanon a few summers ago? The liberal MSM was the media mouthpiece for Hamas throughout, especially Anderson Vanderbilt. Nobody cared that Hamas was blending in with civilians and storing weapons and rocket launchers in neighborhoods, schools, mosques etc.
The left’s beloved “allies”, whom we’re supposed to drop trousers for, in the alleged “UN Human Rights Council” are always ignoring real human rights violations so they can attack Israel.
Couldn’t possibly be because Israel is the only solid ally we have in the ME. And could you please explain your “blindly pro-Israel” statement please?
I know you won’t. You’ll just go back to your cowardly lurking, as usual, until your next opportunity to make an ass of yourself.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - June 10, 2009
Oh, and that wasn’t Conservatives advising Jews to get back in the ovens a few months back.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - June 10, 2009
As a Jew and Blogger, I documented many, many times on how comfortable the Anti-Israel/Anti-Jew crowd were with the Anti-Bush crowd.
Ever take the time to listen to Pacifica radio? No Conservatives or Republicans work there, but they do delight in attacking Jews and Israel. And no one on the Left stands up and says this is wrong.
On the daily Kos, there are many posters who hate Israel and Jews (and also hate Bush — how unsurprised I am that the Left traffics in hate) and no one from the Left stood up and said it was wrong.
Have you seen the protests against the Iraq war during the lasyt 8 years? Also many anti-Israel/Anti-jew people, but because it comes from the left, no one stands up says it was wrong.
The blood from the museum can be laid at the Hateful Rhetoric of the Left, as they have been espousing for the last 8 years (and still do today, after all they need their Emmanuel Goldstein).
The left has had Hateful rhetoric for 8 years and shows no magnanimity in Victory. They should watch their back.
Comment by JSF — June 10, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - June 10, 2009
I sure noticed.
Have you also noticed how the kaffiyeh [sp?] and scarves resembling the kaffiyeh have become the “cool” accessory among libs?
Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - June 10, 2009
Let’s not forget their beloved hero Che Guevara. A particularly murderous bastard who slaughtered his share of gays.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2009 @ 1:39 am - June 11, 2009
Sorry, GPW, but you’re having pipe dreams.
An elderly wacko get the death penalty in Washington DC? Not likely. Besides, the way capital punishment works in the U.S., he’d die of natural causes long before being executed.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 11, 2009 @ 2:22 am - June 11, 2009
Check this out from the Washington Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain
“For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.”
“James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left”
Game, set, match — the Left enjoys their Hate (and their expressions of it), and they enjoy having an Emmanuel Goldstein. The man is a registered Democrat in MD. where Steele ran for the Senate and lost.
Until the Left cleans up their own act, they should STFU about how to dissent.
(sorry, I still cannot figure out how to Blockquote :{)
Comment by JSF — June 11, 2009 @ 2:47 am - June 11, 2009
Using your um… logic, since he was also a “birther” and anti-immigration you can add the Right to people who need to clean-up their act or “STFU about how to dissent.”
Oh, and MENSA too, since he was one of theirs as well.
He painted, so there’s one more group for that list….
Comment by Jody — June 11, 2009 @ 3:00 am - June 11, 2009
– Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2009 @ 5:40 am - June 11, 2009
As long as we include evolutionists.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2009 @ 6:19 am - June 11, 2009
Ok, can anyone explain to me on this one how adding ‘hate crime’ to ‘murder’ is going to enhance his punishment?
“We’re going to give you life w/o parole for murder, + 10 years for hate.”
Comment by The Livewire — June 11, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - June 11, 2009
Following the teachings of my favorite Jew, I don’t support the death penalty. Wanting to “dispatch him to the nether regions” only perpetuates the cycle of violence. We have the right to separate dangerous people from society, but we don’t have the right to take away their God-created life. We don’t have the right to end the life of the pre-born, the aged, or even those who commit horrible crimes. In doing so, we become like them. He believed his execution was justified. We can’t ever think that taking a life is justified. Venegeance is mine, says the Lord–the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - June 11, 2009
An Ash overstatement. The Bible has as much support for the idea that Jesus favored a death penalty for the horrifically depraved *in human law*, as the idea that Jesus opposed it. Just google “Jesus death penalty” and read some of the Bible-quoting lead articles. No rational person can claim to know, in other words, that their position on the death penalty is in fact Jesus’ position, one way or the other.
…but, also according to Ash, we *do* have the right to take away significant chunks of the lives (the work product) of people who are totally innocent of everything except the crime of having slightly better medical benefits than Ash. Yup. Such a consistent and inspiring and “life” ethic, there.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - June 11, 2009
P.S. My larger points being, Ash, that
1) Having a consistent life ethic is a good thing, and
2) If or when you have one, you will no longer think that you have the right to rape other people’s pocketbooks/lives for better medical benefits.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2009 @ 1:52 pm - June 11, 2009
“Translation, out from under the cloud of bullsh*t: conservative Christians are mostly pro-Israel.”
Translation of the translation – conservative “christian” pro-Israel stance is totally self-serving, is indeed a man made solution to a concept presented in Revelations, and has little to nothing to do with concern for the pople of Israel.
“Couldn’t possibly be because Israel is the only solid ally we have in the ME. ”
For true conservatives yes, for the properly identified religious right, no. Cheerleaders for the end days are not interested in stability in the ME.
Comment by a different Dave — June 11, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - June 11, 2009
This man killed the guard at the Holocaust museum because he believed he was justified in taking a human life. If that belief on the part of one man is evil, that belief on the part of a society is even more evil. We can protect ourselves nonviolently, but we can’t kill. If we do, we become like the Iranians who execute gays.
(Universal health care is part of this same life ethic. We as a society can’t allow people to die simply because they can’t afford insurance.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 11, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - June 11, 2009
Not at all. We as individuals have a right of self-defense. That right of self-defense includes a right to take others’ lives, *if it is really in self-defense*. Determining that last part *objectively* is the hard part. Therefore, we delegate our right to the government. The government, in the form of the justice system, peer juries and so forth, is supposed to act as an objective third party, determining the objective facts of the matter and (depending on the exact case or situation) whether an individual truly killed someone in self-defense; whether a victim would have had a right to kill in self-defense that society should now exercise in rational anticipation of future heinous crimes from the same criminal; and so forth. What is wrong about vigilante killing or a person appointing themselves as executioner is that it violates objectivity or, to say the same thing in another way, it violates what is supposed to be the People’s exclusive role in determining the who, why, when, where and how of who is ever executed. The wrongness lies in *appointing oneself* as judge, jury and executioner. If, however, the People investigate a crime, objectively and impartially, and find that (1) it was really heinous *AND* (2) the criminal really did it *AND* (3) there is a very high likelihood of the criminal doing it again, then execution of the criminal is not only an ethical course, it is the only truly ethical course. It is an instance of the People exercising rights of self-defense that all citizens have properly delegated to the People: retrospectively exercising the current victim’s right of self-defense and, simultaneously with and inseparably from that, prospectively exercising the next future victim’s right of self-defense.
None of that is inconsistent with a strong ethic and, in fact, it is an expression of a strong life ethic. Because you know what? Innocents have lives, too. We must protect the lives of the innocent.
That depends on your means. If *you* want to devote *your* time and resources to giving people health care, Ash, then you go right ahead. But that isn’t what you propose. You propose to rape the pocketbooks and lives of others. That is *morally* *wrong*. It is fundamentally inconsistent with a life ethic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - June 11, 2009
So, if the justice system says it’s OK to execute Jews or gays in what they consider to be self-defense, it’s OK? Iran believes it’s executing gays in self-defense, to protect itself from moral decay and disease. Is that what Paul meant when he said government has the right to use the sword to protect people?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 11, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - June 11, 2009
No. That’s not even close to what I said. But it doesn’t surprise me, that you don’t (or won’t or can’t) understand what I say.
You’ve talked in previous discussions, Ash, about collective morality, or judgment of people as a national collective rather than as individuals; logically, then, you should approve of it. (I don’t, of course.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - June 11, 2009
This is what you said:
“Therefore, we delegate our right to the government. The government, in the form of the justice system, peer juries and so forth, is supposed to act as an objective third party, determining the objective facts of the matter and (depending on the exact case or situation) whether an individual truly killed someone in self-defense; whether a victim would have had a right to kill in self-defense that society should now exercise in rational anticipation of future heinous crimes from the same criminal; and so forth.”
Iranians utilize this process in condemning gays to death. They believe that their executions are in self-defense against a deadly plague.
There are those who would argue, in our country, that the shooter at the Holocaust museum, the shooter at the military recruiter’s, and the shooter at the abortion clinic were all acting in self-defense. And acquit them.
That’s where you logic leads. But you’ll say I don’t understand you–probably because I read your words for exactly what they mean instead of what you want them to mean.
Incidentally, I am not “raping your pocketbook.” I am paying just as much as you are into the system. As flexible as I am, even I can’t masturbate and rape at the same time.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 11, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - June 11, 2009
Nope. Again, you’re not even remotely close. But you’re clearly too… something, I won’t presume to say what… to engage in rational conversation.
I never said you were raping -my- pocketbook, Ash.
I said, rightly, that you are *proposing* to rape *everybody*’s pocketbooks.
And Ash, it is *morally* *wrong*. Clear?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 12, 2009 @ 2:29 am - June 12, 2009
I’m afraid that’s not true, either.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 12, 2009 @ 2:31 am - June 12, 2009
Oh, what the heck. Out of charity, Ash, I will give you a big hint. You’ll have to concentrate. But here it is. You quoted me saying the following – and I’ll add some emphasis to give you preliminary clues:
Operative words: SELF-defense, i.e., defending oneself from actual harm; VICTIM, as in a crime that actually does have a victim; delegation of one’s individual RIGHT to self-defense against said victimization; a right that would exist TRULY and a criminal who is guilty of violating it TRULY, under FACTS that are determined under laws and court processes that are OBJECTIVE.
In a reprehensible perversion of English, you had the nerve to write:
Here is the big, big hint, Ash: NO – THEY – DO – NOT.
Oh, what the heck, I’ll throw in still another hint. You further wrote:
And here’s the further hint: SO WHAT? Belief is not truth.
Now take some time really, really, really think hard on those hints, Ash, before you make any further replies.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 12, 2009 @ 3:09 am - June 12, 2009
So, if the justice system says it’s OK to execute Jews or gays in what they consider to be self-defense, it’s OK? Iran believes it’s executing gays in self-defense, to protect itself from moral decay and disease. Is that what Paul meant when he said government has the right to use the sword to protect people?
Ashpenaz, I’m against the death penalty. But not because God allegedly said that vengeance was His. (Besides, putting people in prison is vengeance). Or because of dubious self-defense arguments.
If Iran was “only” putting these gay persons in prison for life instead of executing them, I’d still have a major problem with Iran’s sense of justice.
Ok, can anyone explain to me on this one how adding ‘hate crime’ to ‘murder’ is going to enhance his punishment?
“We’re going to give you life w/o parole for murder, + 10 years for hate.”
Livewire, murder is already by it’s definition, an example of a hate crime, although the hate does not necessarily have to target a class as provided by hate crimes laws. The penalty is much more severe for murder than it is for manslaughter.
Yeah, taking on 10 years to a life sentence doesn’t make sense, but I’ve heard of sentences that are even stranger.
Comment by Pat — June 12, 2009 @ 7:22 am - June 12, 2009
Thought about it really, really hard. I’m still right. Have moved on to other threads. Hope to see you there.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 12, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - June 12, 2009
LOL – Doubtful.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 12, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - June 12, 2009