Posted on 06/10/2009 2:43:22 PM PDT by LdSentinal
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, anti-semitism 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.
Compare the amount of coverage this will get and the descriptions of this guy vs the coverage and descriptions of the muslimfacist who murdered the soldier in Arkansas.
Anyone have links to him denouncing “neo-cons” or Bush? That would be most helpful in our rebuttal of DK and the HP.
“However, like those of most ‘white supremacists’, many of von Brunn’s political views track ‘Left’ rather than ‘Right.’”
Don’t tell that to a liberal; it’ll make their head explode.
ML/NJ
I figured he was an Obama voter.
Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan
This guy was way left as most white and black supremacists are for example:
Great moments in Democrat Racist History-Truman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaRZXzvZtK8
Great Moments in Democrat Racist History - FDR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X12hmwkVIUI
Racism in the Democratic Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FFCY7YNbS4
Great Moments in Democrat Racist History — Hugo Black
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1gXG1PY5bM
Great Moments in Democrat Racist History— the 1964 vote Count
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5YfMzQtb1Y
The new breed of left winger are this guy and his ilk.
Go to his web site (its linked in the column). It is all over it.
Ron Paul is a decent human being (with whom I disagree), but some of his followers are certified nutters.
I believe that’s what the poster was suggesting.
The shooter is a big government national socialist. He’d probably love all of obama’s policies except the skin color detail. von Brunn and obama both disgust me.
My guess as well.
I've had plenty Paulhroids call me "neocon" here on Freerepublic.
Ron Paul frequents the King Evangelists of American Truthers, Alex Jones' radio show.
This should be in Breaking, IMO.
this last line, wrapping up a story about a 88-yo nutter, is curious.
To me, someone this crazy is simply not located on a definable American political spectrum at all. He’s neither Left nor Right. He’s just a certified loon, and now a murderer.
A poorly informed writer unless he thinks Irving Kristol is a Jew hater. The father of neo-conservatism wrote in The Weekly Standard this linked article entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion":
Michael Tennant breaks it down in the following.
Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear
by Michael Tennant
Memo to Irving Kristol: Get yourself to a secure, undisclosed location immediately if not sooner. You are in grave danger. No, you needn’t worry about receiving threats from left-wing loonies like Al Gore or his disciple, the Unabomber. You don’t even have to fear the paleoconservatives and libertarians. You should, however, keep your eyes open for members of the National Review/Wall Street Journal crowd. IMPORTANT: If you receive a package in the mail from David Frum, call the bomb squad immediately!
Why do I say Irving Kristol had better keep a close eye on his allies on the “official” right? Simply this: He recently wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard in which he spelled out exactly what neoconservatism is. What’s worse is that ol’ Irv’s description of neoconservatism proves that it is everything its critics have said it is—and worse.
Now that “the ‘godfather’ of all those neocons,” as Kristol describes himself, has spoken on the subject (and written a book entitled Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea), the NR/WSJ crowd can no longer plausibly deny the existence of such a movement, as some have tried to do. In addition, they can no longer plausibly claim that neoconservatism is merely another form of traditional conservatism. Nor can they plausibly insist that neoconservatism has anything at all to do with the American founding and tradition of limited government and avoidance of entangling alliances. Kristol has blown all these arguments out of the water.
Kristol first points out that neoconservatism had “its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,” just in case anyone had any doubts about its ancestry. At this time the grassroots of the Republican Party, and indeed much of Middle America , was still largely wedded to the ideas of small government at home and a reasonably prudent foreign policy abroad. Barry Goldwater—who Kristol says is “politely overlooked” in the neocon pantheon of “20th-century heroes,” while FDR is included—had, after all, been the Republican presidential nominee in 1964; and Ronald Reagan, who at least espoused relatively conservative ideas even if he didn’t follow through on most of them once in office, was to be elected president in 1980. In other words, neocon ideas were not the ideas of the mainstream right at the time, and their prospects weren’t even looking very bright.
So, says Kristol, “one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” It’s easy to see the liberal—and, indeed, Straussian, as Kristol claims Leo Strauss as one of the forerunners of neoconservatism—mind at work here. We, the enlightened ones, will “convert” you, the unenlightened, from your backward, parochial ways to our progressive, global ways; and we will do so against your will, by deception if possible, by force if necessary.
The only genuinely conservative idea Kristol attributes to the neocons is an affinity for “cutting tax rates.” Even there, however, Kristol hedges. It’s not that “the particularities of tax cuts . . . interested” the neocons, and it certainly isn’t the case that they view tax cuts as a moral imperative. They are interested in tax cuts only insofar as those cuts “stimulate steady economic growth,” presumably so the natives do not become restless when their bread and circuses peter out and start clamoring for the emperor’s head. Kristol notes that the neocon “emphasis on economic growth” has led to “an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.” “Neocons,” he adds, “would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy [and here he may be onto something] . . . that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.” In other words, to heck with the future! Open the floodgates of the treasury while at the same time reducing the revenues coming in, and don’t worry about how your children and grandchildren are going to pay the bills. What matters now is economic growth to keep the sheeple fat, dumb, and happy so that we neocons can retain and expand our power at their expense.
In case what he has written thus far has still failed to convince the reader that neoconservatism is merely a variant on liberalism, Kristol then opens up both barrels with his description of the neocon view of the state. “Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study [note that he doesn’t say implement] alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on ‘the road to serfdom.’ Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.” Why, really, should they be alarmed? The state is their god, and they derive their power from expanding its reach. As far as Kristol is concerned, the “19th-century idea” of government as the enemy of human freedom “was a historical eccentricity.” Here again one can see the Marxist mind of “former” liberals at work: The total state is inevitable, so why fight it? Accept it, enjoy it, and get as much as you can out of it. Stop fretting about lost liberty. As a result, “[n]eocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.”
Now for the big subject of the day: “foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention,” as Kristol puts it. That, of course, is because neocon foreign policy is exemplified by precisely the foreign policy that the Bush administration has implemented, contrary to Bush’s paean to a “humbler” foreign policy while campaigning. It seeks to dominate the world at any cost, sending troops to far-flung countries ( Afghanistan , Iraq , Liberia ) in pursuit of, well, hegemony, in the guise of bringing liberation and democracy to the oppressed of the world. It is completely contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers and to the American tradition, which is why it had to be imposed on us against our will as well.
Kristol claims that “there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.” He lists three “theses” guiding neocon foreign policy and adds, parenthetically, “as a Marxist would say.” (The apple certainly doesn’t fall far from the tree. Does it, Irving ?) Those three theses—that patriotism is a good thing, that world government is a bad thing, and that statesmen should be able to distinguish friends from enemies—seem relatively harmless. To be fair, Kristol is right in saying that there are no core principles behind neocon foreign policy because these three “theses” seem to have little or nothing to do with the paragraphs that follow.
Essentially, neocon foreign policy is that might makes right. Oh, Kristol doesn’t come right out and say this, but his words add up to the same thing. For “a great power,” he writes, “the ‘national interest’ is not a geographical term.” That is, U.S. foreign policy should not be confined to safeguarding the territorial United States . Oh, no. We must be concerned with the entire world. “A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.” Yes, according to Irving Kristol, neocon foreign policy applies equally to the Soviet Union and the United States, both of whom have (or had, in the case of the Soviets) “ideological interests” which trump mere territorial concerns. Kristol further notes that since the U.S. “will always feel obliged to defend . . . a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces,” the neocons thus “feel it necessary to defend Israel today.” Apparently only the holding of elections, not what those elected governments’ policies are, matters to neocons, and even then they’re more than willing to give some leeway to cooperative dictators. Once again, I must give Kristol credit for being accurate in his assessment that no central principles (other than the one left unmentioned, spelled p-o-w-e-r) guide the neocons in their quest for “national greatness” (as Kristol’s equally arrogant son, William, put it). It’s clear, though, that this power-grubbing, world-dominating foreign policy is certainly not in the interest of the average American, which is why he has to be converted against his will by the neocons.
Kristol continues to celebrate the power of the U. S. , and he notes that “[w]ith power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.” The neocons, of course, are not content to let the world find uses for the power they’ve worked so hard to achieve. As a matter of fact, they’re more than happy to “find opportunities to use it.” Whether those “opportunities” are in the best interest of the country or the world is irrelevant; all that matters is that the neocons are the ones finding the opportunities and wielding the power.
Finally, in case any doubt remains as to whether the Bush administration qualifies as neoconservative—and there are still some out there who believe it remains fully within the American conservative tradition—Kristol puts all doubt to rest. Bush and his administration, he says, “turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did.” Face it, says Kristol: We’ve won, and you traditional conservatives in the Republican Party never saw it coming and still don’t know what hit you. Unfortunately, he’s right.
What's not to like about neo-cons? Their plans sound inter-denominational to me. There is no linkage between the neo-cons and the Jews and any attempt to say otherwise is said to whitewash a despicable political agenda called neoconservatism.
Good point!
I disagree.
If the Tiller the killer murderer can be labeled by the left as a representative of Christians and pro-lifers. And therefore we are directly responsible for Tiller’s death.....
Then howzabout the right wingers look at this guy as a typical leftist Bush hating - neocon hating - anti-semite liberal.
No doubt he voted for Obama. Those type always do. Right before they go on a killing spree in a museum.
Actually, there’s an article from this guy here on FR, from December last year, about Obama’s lack-of-birth-certificate. It’s in Bloggers and Personal, I don’t have a link handy to it. He didn’t post here, somebody else got it off another website and posted it. It was deleted at some point during the day and it was back a little while ago.
Little Green Footballs says the guy *was* a Ron Paul supporter. Of course, LGF sees fascists under every rock these days and Ron Paul’s a favorite whipping boy over there, so I take it with a whole shaker of salt.
}:-)4
No.
He's just another wild-eyed leftist like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, George Wallace, Fritz Hollings, Bull Connor, Sirhan Sirhan and Robert KKK Byrd.
The universe of political madness is immense.
Ron Paul is mainstream compared to von Brunn.
We have freepers playing a similar game, painting those who demand Obowma provide proof that he is Constitutionally eligible by birth ‘birthers’, and these slimers admit they use that term in a derogatory way meant to analogize to the ‘truthers’. I had one try that crap with me just this afternoon here at FR. He is proud of his slimey tactic, taking credit as the ‘originator’ of the term at FR ... for the lexicon don’tchaknow!
He is a Ron Paul Supporter.
He was a member of Ron Paul for president at Yahoo.
How do we know that those who are doing that are actually lurking liberal trolls... ?
Von Brunn in his own words, from his book:
We don’t know they’re liberal trolls. The one who went after me today is not a n00b ... and we have a platoon of n00bs with sign-on dates in the Aug to Nove 2008 range, many of whom spend a lot of posting trying to poopoo the demand to have Obowma prove his eligibility. I call them obamanoids (obama annoyance droids).
The accused wrote his manifesto on RonPaul.com
As I wrote, I never said all you Ron Paul supporters are like him, but many are - just like this guy.
And it doesn't help when Ron Paul doesn't condemn these types, but instead he honors them.
btt
Posting racist spam on a Yahoo! Groups list does not make Brunn a Ron Paul supporter, if he even posted that himself, it actually looks like it was posted by someone else, just like Brunn's article posted here at FR. Was the Yahoo! Groups list under the control of Ron Paul?...I doubt it since Ron Paul has RonPaul.com and Campaignforliberty.com.
And it doesn't help when Ron Paul doesn't condemn these types, but instead he honors them.
Where has Ron Paul honored anyone who posts "Heil Hitler"? You are a liar. You are using the same smear tactic (as it is reported upthread) that MSNBC and leftist websites are using against FR. You understand that a von Brunn article was posted here at FR? And it is possible he had an account here? By your unhinged "logic" we (at FR) are all guilty of the shooting.
As far as "many" Ron Paul supporters are "just like this guy," I was a Ron Paul state convention delegate... Ron Paul supporters were "just like this guy" --we were principled libertarian and constitutional conservatives, NOT racists, (maybe 3 9/11 "Truthers" but harmless and also for the Constitution)--YOU LD would have no doubt hung out with the McCain and Olympia Snow folks, but 90% of FR people would have been with us.
Wait, does he also:
- support auditing the Fed?
- believe the income tax is unconstitutional?
- support the original intent of the Constitution?
- oppose big government?
- support the 2A?
- believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy?
- invest in gold?
‘Cause that would just prove that all of the above are Nazi lunatic ideas too! /s
Coming to the evening news next week: a preschool massacre (probably perpetrated by a troofer Ron Paul supporter)
Casting central must be busy!
“The shooter is a big government national socialist.”
You must be an anti-semite loon! Everyone knows that the national socialists are all supporters of Ron Paul and limited government!
ping
It's quite apparent that this nut was a Ron Paul supporter, who are filled with ilk that believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" and despise Jews and Israel. This jackass supported another jackass, Ron Turd.
Where has Ron Paul honored anyone who posts "Heil Hitler"? You are a liar. You are using the same smear tactic (as it is reported upthread) that MSNBC and leftist websites are using against FR. You understand that a von Brunn article was posted here at FR? And it is possible he had an account here? By your unhinged "logic" we (at FR) are all guilty of the shooting.
Ron Paul last year spoke and honored a man's funeral, who personally believed that 9/11 was done by the Bush administration. This nutter also supported that.
Oh and congrats on being a delegate for Ron Turd, who believes that the US invaded Afghanistan to install an oil pipeline and supports the terrorist group (Hamas) over Israel. That 1% of Ron Turd's vote total sure was impressive.
Sounds like a Ron Paul delegate.
Ron Turd 2012 - Shoot the Jews Before They Shoot You.
I see it here all the time. My favorite was when someone here called Ben Stein a "neocon." Ben Stein was in the Nixon White House with Pat Buchanan, for God's sake, hardly "neo" anything.
Thanks for the ping. I see the RP-trashing nutcakes are out in force here... I do believe it’s a full moon, isn’t it? Mayhap that explains it.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but "this nutter" (Brunn) also wrote an article challenging Obama's citizenship credentials, which was posted here at FR, in December, which was approved of by FR posters, and the idea that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" is accepted by many here at FR. Are all FR posters who, like Brunn, challenge Obama's status as a citizen "just like" him?
Oh and congrats on being a delegate for Ron Turd, blah blah blah...
The real "turd" here is you, but I guess you deserve a "+1" for getting a response to your trolling. And Paul never supported Hamas over Israel, another LDTurdnianl lie.
Cute and nice try. Except that this alleged shooter supported Ron Turd for president. And most Freepers don't believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" and hate Jews. Nice try to demean them newbie.
The real "turd" here is you, but I guess you deserve a "+1" for getting a response to your trolling. And Paul never supported Hamas over Israel, another LDTurdnianl lie.
Either you were born this retarded or it came about naturally. Ron Turd routinely supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas over Israel. It's a shame a dipstick like yourself is too blinded to see that. Perhaps you will see the Swastika that will be sure to be inscribed on Ron Turd's gravestone.
Unless you are a communist, none of those beliefs prove insanity or even racism (eg. go research the Jewish sect(s) which do not believe in Israel).
“Sounds like a Ron Paul delegate.”
Are you trying to link RP supporters with violent racism?
The two “911 troofers” that I know are BOTH conservative Republicans and BOTH voted for McCain.
A majority of pro-gun Republicans that I know believe that OKC was an inside job and/or that the federales were complicit.
The shooter committed a criminal act. Why would the media make an issue of his beliefs other than to link unpopular (at least to the establishment) viewpoints with violence, racism and terrorism?
“Ron Turd 2012 - Shoot the Jews Before They Shoot You.”
What a completely juvenile & moronic comment.
“Except that this alleged shooter supported Ron Turd for president.”
How would lead a) the media and b) law enforcement to question a shooter about who he supported in the Republican primaries?
Why would a Ron Paul supporter who had just shot up the Holocaust Museum advertise that he/she was a Ron Paul supporter?
Complete BS.
I had no idea that your small circle of friends constitutes the country's opinion. Now I know most pro-gun Republicans believe the OKC bombings were done by the government based on your small circle of friends.
All of this Ron Turd drivel doesn't change the fact that the alleged shooter supported Paul.
What a completely juvenile & moronic comment.
Right back at you.
“Now I know most pro-gun Republicans believe the OKC bombings were done “
That you, Mr. Clinton?
“All of this Ron Turd drivel doesn’t change the fact that the alleged shooter supported Paul. “
Only in the wet dreams of you and your little circle of friends.
No, but much like Bill on Monica's blue dress, you left your stain on this thread.
Only in the wet dreams of you and your little circle of friends.
Yes, apart from that the alleged shooter supports Ron Turd. Oh, and make sure to keep drinking that laced Turd Kool-Aid.
My guess is that you’re an operative for the Southern Poverty Law center.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.