The more we learn about the deranged neo-Nazi who went on a shooting spree Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum, the clearer it becomes that he is neither of the left nor the right. Some on the left are still describing him as a right-winger. They seem to be dwelling not of the murderer’s own problems, but instead on his supposed right-wing ideology:
Of course, the slander has already begun. Not of [the shooter], but of “right-wingers” and “conservatives.” The standard media template — that he was a white Christian “right-winger” — has been trotted out, and the DHS report from last January has supposedly been vindicated. I just heard Ralph Peters, who I would have thought knew better, call the guy a “right-winger” on Cavuto.
He was anything but a conservative, as Rand Simberg, who wrote those words quoted above, found when he took the time to read the shooter’s writings: he doesn’t fit the “the traditional DHS/MSM notion of the deranged right-wing extremist“. The more we learn about him, the more we find that the reality of his life “doesn’t fit the narrative” of the left-wing blogs.
He was anything but a conservative.
All that said, I think my fellow conservatives are wrong to associate him with left-wing blogs.
Yeah, they had a few common notions, but the guy praised a few things conservative bloggers had done.
I also think it’s wrong to link the Holocaust shooter to the President’s former Pastor. Yeah, Rev. Wright keeps making deranged comments about Jews, er, scratch that, Zionists, but he has never advocated violence against us.
I agree with my friend John Hinderaker who doesn’t hold left-wing blogs responsible even if “anti-Semitism [has become] overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the Left in today’s world”
As hateful and misguided as many liberals may be, if they aren’t actually advocating violence (like Randi Rhodes, say) they shouldn’t be blamed if a lone nut takes their ideology to the extreme. Vigorous political debate is legal–as is bigotry, for that matter; murder is not. That’s a very bright line, and all that needs to be said on the subject. Who is to blame for murder? The murderer.
The same hold true for Wright. He may be a crackpot, but he has never encouraged his parishioners to take violent action against Jews.
So, once again, let’s not make a poltical point out of one man’s irrational behavior. Some on the left may be crackpots, but they’re not murderers. One man killed Stephen Tyrone Johns and were it not for that late security guard’s actions, might have murdered more people. He alone is responsible for the crime.
Without referencing any left wing blogs, if you look at the ideology of the murderer, he was not right wing, but in fact closer to left wing ideology.
The big fallacy happens to be that Nazism is regarded as extreme right wing when in fact it is extreme left wing, just the other side of the communist coin.
The man believed in Western National Socialism (whatever that means). Socialism is left wing ideology, with Communism or Marxism being its most extreme form.
Hitler was on the right of Lenin, but they actually believed in the same ideology – totalitarianism.
The killer is an idiot, who just so happens to hate neocons and Bill O’Reilly. And christians, jews, corporations, and stated that “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but my gay conservative self is not feeling like a kindred spirit with this man.
For what it’s worth.
the man doesn’t represent any mainstream conservative ideology or liberal ideology…but there’s no question he’s radical right, not radical left. he’s an anti-government, anti-immigrant, cultural purist and white supremacist. this isn’t difficult.
also, this guy was clearly screwed up in the head, and i don’t think we should be blaming any bloggers or even talk show hosts for his actions. however, here’s a good article related to the media:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/the-holocaust-museum-shoo_b_214133.html
Let’s play ‘disect the bob’
the man doesn’t represent any mainstream conservative ideology or liberal ideology…but there’s no question he’s radical
right, not radicalleft.he’s an anti-government,
Weather underground
anti-immigrant,
National Socialist.
cultural purist
Fred Phelps and La Rasa
and white supremacist.
KKK, Robert Byrd, Affirmitive Action “The soft bigotry of low expectations.”
this isn’t difficult.
No, it’s no more difficult than using captials. Oh, wait…
Take a kook, add a dash of qualifiers and a dollop of outrage, allow to bake for several news cycles and Voila! You have a conservative.
“He’s anti-immigrant.”
He’s a kook.
“He’s anti-immigrant.”
He’s a kook.
“He’s against illegal immigration.”
He’s a kook.
“He’s against immigration.”
He’s a conservative.
Yes, Rev Wright never called for killing Jews himself, just supporting Hamass and Hezbollah,(and Obama?) to do his dirty work.
At Ann Althouse’s site the other day, someone coined a term that I would like to see catch on: “six o’clockers.” In that, most of these crazy sorts share elements of the most radical of both side, and are nothing like the mainstream of either, so if 3 o’clock represents the right, and 9 o’clock the left, these sorts meet somewhere opposite but also between both, at six.
“…let’s not make a political point out of one man’s irrational behavior.”
I think that’s really the rub. To try to associate von Brunn with any major political ideology is really disingenuous. He is most certainly not representative of mainstream Democrats , Republicans or even libertarians.
That said, there are radical left and radical right groups. It’s largely a matter of semantics because, whatever their ideology, they’re ultimately murderers and/or terrorists. As Livewire noted, the Weather Underground is an example of a “radical left” group (see also http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf — note, reports have been prepared about the left, too!). On the “radical right” side are the KKK, neo-nazis and others. It is absurd to think that any of these are somehow representative of either the mainstream left or right. Don’t get hung up on the word that follows the “radical” label, because the radical (or “extremist”) part is what matters.
If someone seriously says von Brunn is representative of the American Right, then call them out on it. (I haven’t seen it, but I haven’t been following this story much either.) But if someone just says he was a right-wing extremist and that offends you, I think perhaps you’re being overly sensitive.