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.

[combat_boots]

I went and screen scraped writings I could find from von Brunn. He’s out there (from one of his writings): “It is the influx of this fiat money that causes the American citizen’s hard-earned cash to lose its purchasing power. That is inflation. That is usury. That is how TALMUDIC JEWS have debased U.S. currency.”

I don’t get his logic. I followed the wording about the effect of pushing out fiat money into the marketplace. I don’t get the cause of such an effect being Jewish.

[Michael Eden]

That’s a truly good distinction, Hugin.

That said, I think you would agree that it nonetheless boils down to what Marxism REALLY is and always has been (as opposed to the lying Utopian pipe dream fed to the masses) being virtually identical in EVERY way with fascism.

Marx said “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” But HE was the one zapped out on the opiates.

Communists are not among your more honest people. They tend to tell you what they think you want to hear until they can seize your property and stick you in a gulag.

Kind of reminds me of this (From Chapter II of the PRC Constitution):

Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”

Meditate on that in light of the Tienanmen Square Massacre.

The State Communism of the USSR was the inevitable result of Marxist thought. If Karl Marx didn’t see that, it merely shows he was profoundly naive.

[Michael Eden]

David Horowitz was a hard-core leftist until after the fall of Vietnam and then Cambodia.

The left had shrilly demanded for years that America abandon South Vietnam and allow “the heroic People’s Republic” to take over.

And when America finally caved in to the pressure of the left (both Republicans AND Democrats) and pulled out, that same “heroic People’s Republican along with Pol Pot in Cambodia moved in and wiped out millions of people.

David Horowitz was “converted” to conservatism when he saw his fellow leftists just shrug their shoulders and walk away from all the human carnage and misery their agenda had caused.

In other words, Horowitz still had the moral capability to consider the consequences of his views and realize how wrong he’d been.

Most liberals seem to lack such a compass.

I’m glad you were like David Horowitz.

Your “brainwashing” statement reminds me of something hilarious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/michelle-obama-named-maxi_n_203448.html

Michelle Obama has been named to “Maxim’s 100 hottest women in the world” list.

Michelle Obama is a vast distance away from being a truly beautiful woman. About the only way she would be “hot” is if someone set her on fire. Yet the left is compelled to view her as such, in “Emperor’s new clothes” fashion.

It’s like liberalism is a disease that rots the very visual cortex, such as one is only allowed to see the “party line.”

[Hugin]

The State Communism of the USSR was the inevitable result of Marxist thought. If Karl Marx didn’t see that, it merely shows he was profoundly naive.

He was indeed. It took a cold, cynical opportunist like Lenin, to turn his foolish ideology into a totalitarian state like the USSR.

[Michael Eden]

And if it hadn’t been Lenin, it would have been anybody else.

Marxism has now been tried repeatedly all over the world. It has a 100% track record: it results in totalitarian tyranny every single time it is tried.