Holocaust Museum Shooting: What Makes Someone 'Rightwing'?

Start Thinking Right ^ | June 10, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

Today, an 89-year old documented nut entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. I have no idea what the politics of Stephen Tyrone Jones were, but the man serving as a guard died a hero: he died standing in the way of this evil man and the innocent and unarmed people he would have murdered.

A question immediately comes to mind: what side of the bowl did this nut inhabit? Obviously he was a nut. But was he a rightwing nut or a leftwing nut?

What the left want us to believe is that James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist. Why? Because he was an anti-Semite, and therefore a racist. And racists are rightwing.

This view became official government policy under the Obama administration. Consider how the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano defined "rightwing extremism" versus "leftwing extremism," according to the Associated Press:

In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the report said. [...]

The department's definition of left-wing extremism in the March 26 report includes a reference to violence, stating these groups that embrace anticapitalist, communist or socialist beliefs seek "to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes."

So, based on that, where do you pidgeon-hole an Anti-Semitic racist like von Brunn? Read both definitions and it's a no-brainer. "Hatred of certain religions, racial, or ethnic groups." Check, check, and check. James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist. Just ask Janet Napolitano.

Only that's completely asinine.

An article by Michelle Malkin shows just how profoundly dishonest and biased the "assessment" by the Obama DHS truly is.

Let's start with Antisemitism and polling data from a December 2008 Rasmussen survey:

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.

And this difference in views toward Israel and Jews is fairly established and consistent, as a Gallup survey from April 2002 shows:

The [04/17/2002 Gallup] survey of 1,009 adults conducted on April 5-7 found that 67 percent of Republicans side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared to 45% of Democrats. Support for the Palestinians is at 8% among Republicans, versus 21% among Democrats.

How can Republicans/conservatives be overwhelmingly more supportive of Israel than Democrats/liberals, and yet at the same time overwhelmingly more Anti-Semitic than Democrats/liberals? How does that even begin to make sense? As a conservative evangelical Christian, I support Israel precisely because it is a Jewish state. I pray for the shalom of Jerusalem according to Psalm 122:6. I believe in something called "evil" and realize that the history of Israel and of Jews reveals that they have been victims of it FAR MORE than perpetrators of it. I constantly refer to the "Judeo-Christian worldview" that respects and cherishes the influence of Judaism on my Christian faith.

Frontpage Magazine has an article that reveals why those on the left - who deny most of why I support Israel - end up embracing racist and Anti-Semitic views.

Let me say more. When Republican George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was "pro-Israel"; today under Democrat president Barack Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

The profoundly Anti-Semitic Nation of Islam has long and strong ties to the Democratic Party, and to Barack Obama personally via his 23 year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church and via his participation with the Million Man March. THIS VERY DAY, Jeremiah Wright said he's denied access to Obama. Why? Quote: "Rev. Jeremiah Wright says Jews are keeping him from talking to President Obama."

One article reads: "THE Rev Jesse Jackson and several other black American leaders are calling for a halt to the anti-Semitic rants of members of the black Muslim group Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan." And yet that itself is laughable; Jesse Jackson is a man who HIMSELF has displayed deep Antisemitism. He has been documented calling Jews "Hymies" and New York "Hymietown."

How DARE anyone on the left accuse the right of being Anti-Semitic. HOW DARE THEY!!!

And if Democrats want to label Republicans as "racist," perhaps they should either abolish the "Congressional Black Caucas" or find where Republicans are hiding their equivalent "Congressional White Caucus." And you might either denounce Congressional Black Caucus member Bobby Rush or find similar racist statements coming from Republicans. Show us where Republican leaders openly demanded that a Caucasian receive a US Senate seat.

An article on Examiner.com shows that von Brunn was more more leftwing than rightwing. Among other things, he despised George Bush, believed 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy, and railed against "neo-cons."

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 'truther' who hated 'neo-cons', Bush, McCain

The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.

The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most "white supremacists", many of von Brunn's political views track "Left" rather than "Right." Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.

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.

None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg's bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change , which clearly demonstrates that "fascism" of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect "leftwing" views as "rightwing" ones.

In fact, antisemitism is something the New Left and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.

That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama's former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed "the Jews" for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well.

I'm not going to answer the question posed by my title: "What Makes Someone 'Rightwing'? But I'll say ONE thing for certain.

It's most definitely NOT "racism" or "Antisemitism." There's just way too much of that crap going on on the part of the leftwing to possibly attribute it exclusively to the right.

[parsifal]

I agree that it takes more than racism to determine right or left wing nut. Most liberals are so racist it hurts, but they just don’t see, God bless their little brains. I blame a lot of this on Atticus Finch.

parsy, who is stll tryng to figure out how you do a non-violent citizens arrest with a sawed off shotgun?? Somebody’s PT Boat was missing a few torpedoes.

[livius]

Good points all. The coverage of this is bizarre, but then, what would you expect. In addition, I think Obama’s disruptive and disturbing policies are stirring up the nuts in general.

[Talisker]

Only Leftists need to generalize everyone into group associations. This guy acted on his own. Anyone who generalizes him across sixty million other law abiding citizens is only trying to create a political movement to criminalize those sixty million people - and history shows that’s exactly what the Left does.

Of course, if a Muslim, say, just starts shooting at some soldiers, then of course the Muslim acted on his own. But that’s an obvious exception, so Leftists don’t bother mentioning it.

[Michael Eden]

I have never been sure what the wings were wings of and it looks to me like communism and facsism are both just excuses for big gov’t power

I think conservatives really need to try to figure out what conservatism is

You answer your own issue in the former statement: one of the BIG ways we can know that both Marxism and fascism are leftists is because they are both for BIG GOVERNMENT POWER.

I'm not trying to "re-define" anything; what I'm trying to do is CORRECTLY define Nazism/fascism as it should always have been understood in the first place.

The latter statement I quote from you is spot-on. It is better to know what you stand for than what you oppose.

PS - I'm just starting to become increasingly fascinated with the Knights Templar.

[usmcobra]

I blame a lot of this on Atticus Finch.

No liberal would ever pick up a gun and shoot a rabid dog., nope the liberal would get Atticus to do it forhim.

[Michael Eden]

I think Obama’s disruptive and disturbing policies are stirring up the nuts in general.

I agree. Obama has been playing the politics of class warfare as I've never seen in my lifetime.

When you combine high unemployment with class-warfare, you are inviting nuts to come out and kill "the man."

Sort of like Obama's pal Bill Ayers.

[keats5]

NAZIs and fascists are socialists, from the left side of the spectrum. They want a strong centralized government.

Those on the right want a limited government.

[Inappropriate Laughter]

He hated and ranted about Israel, Bush, ‘neocons’, and Zionism. He said Christians ruined the Roman empire, he was a 9/11 truther...

True, but he was a white who was pro-white, if he was a white who was anti-white those opinions that would have made him left-wing.

Check out his website, he doesn't sound lefty. Of course he isn't in any sense a movement conservative (to the extent movement conservatives still exist.)

[Hugin]

A lot of confusion goes back to the European (especially French) definitions, where the whole left/right terminology started. Right generally meant monarchist/statist/class based social tradition. Conservatism meant upholding that status quo. Left meant classic liberalism, social equality, seperation of church and state, etc.

In America the European style right were the Tories, and they left after the Revolution. The country was founded on the classic liberalism of Locke and Jefferson. Conservatism in America meant conserving the classic liberal values on which the country was founded.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the left in both Europe and America changed from libalism to Marxism and other forms of socialism. Classic liberals in Europe became the middle, and in America, conservatives ironically became the sole defenders of classic liberalism.

Fascicm in Europe became associated with the right because of it’s statist authoritarianism. So neo-fascists in America are generally lumped in with “the right” because of that. They really don’t have anything to do with either the mainstream right or the left in America though.

[parsifal]

Yeah, but when Atticus walked in that courtroom and all the colored folk up on the second floor stood up with that hats in their hands. . . there went the civil rights movement. Millions of American liberals wanted that, to save the poor colored folk from injustice so they could get a standing ovation. I think for liberals it was never really about changing what was wrong—it was about personal glorification.

parsy, who gets cynical when drinks and pops valium (prescrbed-I use them when my shoulder or back seizes up.)

[Michael Eden]

When you understand the history of progressivism, you see that being a white supremacist racist goes hand in hand with being a progressive.

Woodrow Wilson, “the father of progressivism,” was a profound racist, as an example.

What Wilson loved was accumulating massive federal power. And then using that power to pursue his agenda.

Until the 1960s, the Democratic Party stood for racism. And then all of a sudden they switched. Why? Cynical me, I think it was so they could exploit blacks as a political voting bloc.

When you look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you see a LOT of fierce Democratic opposition. Howard Smith (D-VA) kept it bottled up in committee and vowed to keep it that way. Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster against it. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W VA) spoke on the Senate floor for 14 hours opposing it. Two Republicans and two Democrats rewrote the bill so that Republicans would vote in enough numbers to overcome the Democrat’s filibuster.

And then all of a sudden Democrats - the original Ku Klux Klansmen - became the party dedicated to civil rights for blacks, and Republicans - the party of Lincoln founded to oppose slavery - became the villains.

All that said, it is very easy to be a white Democrat who views blacks as “monkey children” who need support and guidance from their superiors, and be a liberal Democrat in good standing.

Robert Byrd - former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - is STILL a liberal Democrat in good standing.

[Michael Eden]

Fascicm in Europe became associated with the right because of it’s statist authoritarianism.

I would first ask you how communism was NOT "statist authoritarianism."

I have a rather different take on how fascism came to be viewed as being rightwing.

Part of the problem in recognizing fascism has been the assumption that it is conservative. Zeev Sternhall (in "Fascist Ideology" in Fascism: A Reader's Guide, pg 316) observed how the study of fascist ideology has been obscured by "the official Marxist interpretation of fascism." The Marxists defined fascism as their polar opposite. If Marxism is progressivism, fascism became conservatism; If Marxism is leftwing, fascism became rightwing; if Marxism championed the proletariat, fascism championed the bourgeoisie; if Marxism is socialist, fascism became capitalist. The massive influence of Marxist scholarship (to this day Western universities continue to be dominated by Marxist thought) severely distorted the understanding of fascism.

But the fact remains, Marxism and fascism were both rival brands of the same thing (socialism). Where Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communism and fascism opposed the bourgeoisie (remember "German WORKERS' Party." BOTH attacked the conservatives and destroyed them. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, artists, workers - the normal leftist groups. Both demanded strong, centralized governments and rejected a free economy and the ideas and ideals of individual liberty.

When you study the history of American progressivism, you find they were HUGELY supportive of fascism until Stalin literally gave them different marching orders. Many of the top progressives of the 1920s and well into the 1930s were huge Mussolini and Hitler fans. American progressives went to Italy and particularly Germany to study this "wonderful" new form of government.

It is very easy to understand Theodore Roosevelt as a fascist-style progressive.

[Michael Eden]

Fascicm in Europe became associated with the right because of it’s statist authoritarianism.

I would first ask you how communism was NOT "statist authoritarianism."

I have a rather different take on how fascism came to be viewed as being rightwing.

Part of the problem in recognizing fascism has been the assumption that it is conservative. Zeev Sternhall (in "Fascist Ideology" in Fascism: A Reader's Guide, pg 316) observed how the study of fascist ideology has been obscured by "the official Marxist interpretation of fascism." The Marxists defined fascism as their polar opposite. If Marxism is progressivism, fascism became conservatism; If Marxism is leftwing, fascism became rightwing; if Marxism championed the proletariat, fascism championed the bourgeoisie; if Marxism is socialist, fascism became capitalist. The massive influence of Marxist scholarship (to this day Western universities continue to be dominated by Marxist thought) severely distorted the understanding of fascism.

But the fact remains, Marxism and fascism were both rival brands of the same thing (socialism). Where Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communism and fascism opposed the bourgeoisie (remember "German WORKERS' Party." BOTH attacked the conservatives and destroyed them. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, artists, workers - the normal leftist groups. Both demanded strong, centralized governments and rejected a free economy and the ideas and ideals of individual liberty.

When you study the history of American progressivism, you find they were HUGELY supportive of fascism until Stalin literally gave them different marching orders. Many of the top progressives of the 1920s and well into the 1930s were huge Mussolini and Hitler fans. American progressives went to Italy and particularly Germany to study this "wonderful" new form of government.

It is very easy to understand Theodore Roosevelt as a fascist-style progressive.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well said.

[windsorknot]

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, cited in this piece, is a great read. It explains the close ties between fascism and socialism in authoritarian regimes.

[Michael Eden]

Anyone who doesn’t have Jonah Goldberg’s book should make it their next purchase.

It is INCREDIBLE. Goldberg massively interacts with original sources and writers of the period, and conclusively demonstrates his project. Liberals poo-pooh him merely because they don’t like what he documents and demonstrates.

[Michael Eden]

Btw, I paraprhased from Gene Edward Veith's book, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, page 26 above.

That's ANOTHER great book to read.

[Hugin]

I would first ask you how communism was NOT "statist authoritarianism."

Obviously it is. I never said it wasn't, at least in practice. The left adopted ststism implicitly when they became Marxist/socialist. Although in Marxist theory (as opposed to some other non-Marxist socialists) the state was supposed to "wither away" once Communism had taken over all the nations. Therefore nationalism wasn't glorified, except as an expediency, as in WWII when Soviet propganda abruptly changed from solidarity with the international working classes to fighting for Mother Russia. Fascism always promoted not just statism but hyper-nationalism for it's own ideological sake.

[Michael Eden]

Well, first I "paraprhased," and then I got serious about it and paraphrased.

[BerkeleyRefugee]

Great post, thank you. Hopefully more leftists will read things like this and think about what “leftwing” really stands for. As a former leftist I can attest that a lot of brainwshing is involved in subscribing to that belief system.