My piece at PJM is up now. It got delayed because the story is moving so fast I had to do a bunch of updates this morning after writing it last night.
54 thoughts on “A “Right-Wing,” “Christian” Hate Crime”
Comments are closed.
My piece at PJM is up now. It got delayed because the story is moving so fast I had to do a bunch of updates this morning after writing it last night.
Comments are closed.
Hey, Rand, you got a lot more hair in the byline photo- pretty cool 🙂
(Obviously they put the wrong pic in the srticle.)
It’s the right pic, it’s just not a pic of me. It’s a pic of the perp, in better days.
The most appropriate short description of the museum attacker as far as I can tell is
“racist left wing extremist”
And that is the term that should be spread in blogs
Why do I think this?
He hated Jewish people the most
Was a virulent anti Zionist and hated Israel
He hated banks and finance
He was a 9/11 truther
He hated Bush, O’Reilly et al
He was a socialist (of a sort)
In short he had far more in common with Garofolo and Roseanne Barr than anyone on the right wing side.
Jim C from Portland Me
(Please leave my email off any postings)
Of course you’re whistling in the wind Rand. He’s heinous, so he’s right wing and that’s all the media will allow to be heard.
It would be good to hear somebody in the media actually call him a left winger and defend it.
We can all agree he’s a whack job.
Rand – it is nearly impossible to find a professional historian or political scientist who thinks that Nazis, neo- or otherwise, aren’t right-wing. There may be a few, but hardly a plurality, and definitely not a majority.
If all the experts say X, and one individual (Jonah Goldberg), not even known as a expert in his field, says the exact opposite, who would the average person believe? Why would the average person even listen to the non-expert?
Until you change that equation, Nazis will be right-wingers.
Rand – it is nearly impossible to find a professional historian or political scientist who thinks that Nazis, neo- or otherwise, aren’t right-wing. There may be a few, but hardly a plurality, and definitely not a majority.
Really? Have you tried?
This isn’t about “history.” It’s about political science, and what words mean.
I’ll bet you still haven’t read the book. Do I win?
If all the experts say X, and one individual (Jonah Goldberg), not even known as a expert in his field, says the exact opposite, who would the average person believe? Why would the average person even listen to the non-expert?
Until you change that equation, Nazis will be right-wingers.
Historians and polical scientists (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are not without their own bias.
“If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”
– variously attributed to Bertrand Russell and to Anatole France
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Yes, Chris is quite susceptible to logical fallacies.
Political Science is little more than History taught badly, and both are taught badly in the US. Keep in mind that PolSci succumbed to creeping PC even before history did…
As to Charles’ appeal to authority, just how does the opinion of a Women’s Historian (for instance) have any relevance to the question of whether Nazism was/is right wing or left wing?
As to Jonah Goldberg being the ‘only’ one making these claims, why not engage his arguments, rather than simply throw around poorly constructed ad homenims…
Rand – first, I was explaining why nobody believes Goldberg.
Second, no have not read Goldberg’s book. I don’t need to read it to debunk it, just like I don’t need to read a book claiming a flat Earth to debunk it.
Nor have I tried to find historians who support Goldberg’s BS. The burden of proof is on somebody who wants to re-write history, not on the folks who wrote it. You think Goldberg’s word is gospel – find somebody who supports it.
Claiming that political scientists and historians are part of some conspiracy to keep the truth out is, well, a conspiracy theory.
Second, no have not read Goldberg’s book. I don’t need to read it to debunk it, just like I don’t need to read a book claiming a flat Earth to debunk it.
So you are as close minded as most leftists, and fear having your views challenged.
…find somebody who supports it.
Many people support it. You’re sounding desperate.
It might be more challenging to find somebody whodoesn’t support it, despite having read the book.
The shooter was a white supremacist. That isn’t a position associated with the left in the last fourty-five years; you can guess which party has been attracting white supremacist votes since 1964.
I found this comment in the PJM article ridiculous:
For example, most of the “right-wing” people I know are opposed to racial discrimination, such as job quotas, or voting for a president just because he’s black.
This is like talking about someone being “anti-drugs” without distinction between aspirin and crystal meth. Job quotas for minorities and voting for a president just because he’s black are nothing like supporting a system of white supremacy that for centuries included slavery, second-class citizenship, wanton murder, etc. Many voices, such as the National Review, slipped easily from supporting the second to opposing the first. In both cases their primary interest was supporting the prerogatives of the white race.
We should drop the words “racist” and “racial discrimination” and instead talk about whether something is “whitist” and “whitism”; it’s the only sort of racialism in the history of our country to deserve such a pejorative.
So you are as close minded as most leftists, and fear having your views challenged.
It’s the Flat Earth thing – if you can refute the basic concept in five minutes, why spend 5 hours reading BS?
Many people support it. You’re sounding desperate.
Fine. Show me a professional historian who does support it.
Facts are stubborn things.
Tonight I heard a survey that says conservatives are more likely to read opposing views and progressives are more likely not to.
Comments above seem to support this.
Actually, Chris, you are advocating the Flat Earth position. It’s just that your priesthood tells you the world is flat, and that National Socialism is “right-wing, and therefore you believe as ordered.
It must be easy, allowing others to do your discernment for you. It makes being a tool much easier.
Jim, Democrats are still the party of racism, even since 1964. They even count a Klukker among their valued members. Members of any other race are ony tolerated by the Democrat if they follow the party line. One step outside that, and the racial attacks begin, just as their sexist attacks against non-leftist women.
Face it, you support the party of hate, fear, and demagoguery. Own it.
John:
The “priesthood” also told me that the principal political opponents of the Nazis were socialists and communists, that Hitler came to power with support from conservatives and the business community, and that nearly all political prisoners sent to the camps in the 30s were from the left. Were they wrong about that?
Andrew Ian Dodge emailed this to me: Holocaust museum shooter had links to BNP!
Andrew ‘s got an article on the British National Party at PJM – we’ve been having fun battling BNP apologists in comments.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/for-britain-these-are-interesting-times/
Does it actually matter whether the Nazis were left or right wing? They were totalitarians, that’s what matters – as were the Soviets and as many countries in the world are now. And as Obama, and the wannabe-Stalin called Gordon Brown, would like to be.
There seem to be two schools of thought on this issue – that the political spectrum is a circle and Left and Right meet at the back, or that there are two axes on the graph and not one. (Authoritarian versus libertarian and collectivist vs. individualist, perhaps.)
I think that there is actually a third axis, not necessarily correlated with the other two – the matter of authoritarianism regarding personal morality. (There are plenty of people who think others should have no say in what you do in business but a lot of say in what you do in the bedroom and what substances you put in your body.)
It matters if the left insist on calling conservatives fascist and uncaring when they are the ones wanting to control what people think and do while robbing them at the same time.
The “priesthood” also told me that the principal political opponents of the Nazis were socialists and communists, that Hitler came to power with support from conservatives and the business community, and that nearly all political prisoners sent to the camps in the 30s were from the left. Were they wrong about that?
Jim’s ignorance of history is showing again. He seems to forget the socialists (Nazis was short for the National Socialist German Workers Party) and communists (Russia) that he calls “principal (sic) political opponents” were allies throughout the 30s. So out of 3 adjectives, Jim got 1 right, there was politics involved. They weren’t principled, they changed their opinions when it became advantages. They were opponents in the 40s, but again, only when it became advantages.
Jim also fails in history on the white supremacists. It was not the republicans that resisted civil rights. The Democrats were the ones who instituted segregation after the civil war. In more recent times (1964,1965) democrats tried to stop the civil rights movement.
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=5625
Leland:
Jim’s ignorance of history is showing again. He seems to forget the socialists (Nazis was short for the National Socialist German Workers Party) and communists (Russia) that he calls “principal (sic) political opponents” were allies throughout the 30s.
I have to say, Leland, that to be accused of historical ignorance by you is a badge of honor.
To review: The Nazis came to power in Germany with the support of the German Centre Party (a Catholic party), the German National People’s Party (a conservative-nationalist party) and and over the opposition of the Communist Party of Germany (which Hilter banned) and the socialist Social Democratic Party. His support came from the right, and his opponents were on the left. “Throughout the 30s”, as you put it, the Nazi filled their concentration camps with socialists and communists, because they were the only notable political opposition to Nazi rule.
Internationally, the Nazis spent the 30s fighting a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Spain.
It was not until 1939 that Hitler, reluctantly concluding that it was better to fight on one front at a time, proposed the Nazi-Soviet pact. Stalin, having recently murdered much of his officer corps, was only too willing to buy some time (and grab half of Poland). The pact did not make them ideological allies, any more than our alliance with the Stalin made Harry Truman a Stalinist.
The pact did not make them ideological allies
Yet another straw man. No one said it did. They weren’t ideological allies — they were two different and competing flavors of leftist totalitarianism.
Leland – Hitler and Stalin became allies in 1939 with a pact that was a shock to everybody. Watching Communists reverse themselves and support Hitler was a popular pastime. It also caused the Communists a lot of members, as the true believers came to see Stalin as an opportunist. Then Hitler double-crossed Stalin.
Mussolini was never allied with Stalin, and in fact both fought the Communists domestically and in Spain, where Franco (the 3rd major Fascist) got his start fighting against the communists and for the monarchy. Even Rand admits that communists and fascists fought, although he badly mis-characterizes the nature of the fight.
George – Both American political parties abandoned the blacks after Reconstruction. See the election of 1876 Equal rights for blacks was a radical idea. The Democratic party ripped itself apart in the 1960s to support civil rights.
That’s how the Republicans ended up with Strom Thurmond, who started as a Democrat. It’s also why the Republican party is now strongest in the Old South, and why the Republicans lost places like California, home of one Ronald Reagan. The timeline you cite is a masterpiece of selective history, skewed to the 1800s.
McGehee – people who buy Goldberg’s book want to believe it – it’s called self-selection. Atheists don’t buy many Bibles.
Rand – still waiting for those herds of professional historians.
Edit – my last should read “cost the Communists a lot members.”
Rand – you keep asserting, with no evidence whatsoever, that communists and fascists were leftists. Jim and I keep providing evidence that they were not. Who are we to believe – you or our lying eyes?
George:
Read my post again — I referred to the last 45 years. By pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act the Democrats drove away their white supremacists. The GOP nominated an opponent of the Civil Rights Act for President that year, and ever since has been the political home for whitists.
Jim and I keep providing evidence that they were not.
No, you keep thinking that you are providing evidence that they were not. And even if you have, it has to be weighed against the much greater evidence that they were.
still waiting for those herds of professional historians.
And we’re still waiting for you to point out an actual historical inaccuracy in the book. Surely it shouldn’t be difficult, if it’s so “flat earth.”
Rand – see my last bunch of posts in which I show the historical inaccuracies of “Liberal Fascism.”
If the argument is based on facts, I’ve won. If the argument is based your irrational beliefs, you win.
I can’t use facts and reason to argue against a religious belief. Religious beliefs are inherently irrational.
Call me whatever juvenile names you wish.
…see my last bunch of posts in which I show the historical inaccuracies of “Liberal Fascism.”
How did you manage that without reading the book?
They [Naziism and Communism] weren’t ideological allies — they were two different and competing flavors of leftist totalitarianism.
Does the word “leftist” add any information to this sentence (other than your distaste for leftism, and interest in smearing it by association)?
Does the word “leftist” add any information to this sentence
Yes, it makes the point that both were the opposite of “conservative” or “right wing.” Both were radical ideologies that were going to remake society and man in their own image, and both could be traced back to Robespierre and were children of Rousseau. Hitler had a comprehensive welfare state, with compulsory unionism, but he was a “right winger”?
Please.
he calls “principal (sic) political opponents”
Leland: You might want to check your dictionary before putting “(sic)” in other people’s prose.
To your mind has there ever been a sort of totalitarian that was not “leftist”?
To your mind has there ever been a sort of totalitarian that was not “leftist”?
Of course not. As I said, totalitarianism, and the accompanying utopianism that denies the existence of human nature, all descends from the left side of the French revolution.
totalitarianism, and the accompanying utopianism that denies the existence of human nature, all descends from the left side of the French revolution.
Scotsman #1: “All true Scotsmen love haggis.”
Scotsman #2: “I was born and raised in Scotland, and my family back to the Romans, and I hate haggis.”
Scotsman #1: “Then you’re not a true Scotsman.”
Rand – you’re making an argument by definition, and one in which you’ve changed the definitions to suit your ends.
Of course not. As I said, totalitarianism, and the accompanying utopianism that denies the existence of human nature, all descends from the left side of the French revolution.
In that case why bother with the redundant adjective “leftist”, why not just call it totalitarianism and leave it at that? Unless the objective is to smear leftist non-totalitarians by association.
This lumping of all totalitarians together is not at all helpful when one wants to understand, say, the Spanish civil war. The Nationalists and the Republicans saw themselves as polar opposites, and their conflict was seen by rightist and leftists around the world as a conflict between the right and left. But you are saying that both sides were of the left, and that Franco and his supporters around the globe were wrong about who the Nationalists were, and that fervent anti-leftists such as the Catholic Church were duped into supporting his leftist movement. Does such a viewpoint shed any light, or does it distort the conflict beyond all recognition?
Unless the objective is to smear leftist non-totalitarians by association.
Not to “smear,” but to point out a truth of the ultimate destination of their goals, even if they don’t realize or admit it. And to end the smear that has been going on since Stalin demonized Trotsky that such totalitarian movements have anything to do with “the right.”
This lumping of all totalitarians together is not at all helpful when one wants to understand, say, the Spanish civil war. The Nationalists and the Republicans saw themselves as polar opposites, and their conflict was seen by rightist and leftists around the world as a conflict between the right and left.
That’s because Franco really was of the “right.” He was an authoritarian monarchist, not a totalitarian. He wasn’t even really that much of a fascist (for instance, he strongly supported the Church and traditional values). Yeah, Hitler helped him out, but that was more because he was at war with the competing totalitarian communists.
But again, why can’t we call two opposing totalitarian movements totalitarian? You have to be completely unfamiliar with the history of the left to think it impossible for two leftist factions to fight each other.
You and Chris try to focus on the (to me) insignificant ways in which Nazism (and fascism in general) and communism differ. I’m pointing out the very important similarities, including the fact that they were both ultimately derived from Marxism.
Communism and Fascism are certainly on the left when it comes to economics, as both oppose free markets. Economic fascism allows for private ownership of the means of production, but insist that the State dominate the decisions of production. (That doesn’t preclude fascist states from employing some degree of socialism.) The Communist dictatorship of the proletariat nationalizes both the means and the decisions of production.
I have to go to work, so I don’t have time to lecture on the misapplication of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
Not to “smear,” but to point out a truth of the ultimate destination of their goals, even if they don’t realize or admit it.
And telling leftists that their goals inevitably lead to totalitarianism isn’t a smear?
Besides being offensive, this idea is patently ahistorical. Post-war Western Europe has been dominated by the political parties of the left, and yet the signal accomplishment of those decades is the the fact that totalitarianism did not spread to the West, and did not reappear in West Germany. By your formulation at least one Western European country should have reached totalitarianism by now, but it hasn’t happened.
> By pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act the Democrats drove away their white supremacists.
The Democrats didn’t push the 64 Civil Rights Act. Johnson did but almost half of his party opposed him. Byrd, who is still a respected Dem, filibustered in opposition.
The vast majority of the votes against came from Dems. They stayed in the party until they died or retired.
Here’s a historian: Zeev Sternhell. He’s an expert on fascism. He says it’s Neither Right nor Left.
Yours,
Tom
The Democrats didn’t push the 64 Civil Rights Act. Johnson did but almost half of his party opposed him.
Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1. The leader of the Democratic party, and most of his followers, supported the Civil Rights Act.
Byrd changed his tune on civil rights. Other anti-civil rights Democrats either switched parties (i.e. Thurmond), or held onto their seniority and fought a rear-guard anti-civil rights action until they died or retired, at which point their cause was taken up by GOP successors (e.g. Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott, who went from working for Democrats to running as Republicans).
Meanwhile, the wing of the GOP that was most supportive of civil rights (e.g. Nelson Rockefeller and other Northeast Republicans) has been driven from the party by the new Southern GOP and the heirs of anti-civil rights Barry Goldwater.
Leland: You might want to check your dictionary before putting “(sic)” in other people’s prose.
Fair cop. I thought you were refering to values, rather than prime opponents. But since they were allies, its pretty easy to see why I’d be confused with your usage.
Rand, I’m sorry to interrrupt the fun you’re having taunting leftists , but…
If Franco was on the right (as I agree he was), doesn’t that suggest something’s lacking in your definition of the right as “adheres to individualism, the values of the enlightenment, and limited government”? How do monarchism, the Church and traditional values relate to enlightenment values?
I’m home from work now.
The No True Scotsman fallacy, in a nutshell, stems from the false assumption that all members of Group A meet Definition X. When Rand says this…
totalitarianism, and the accompanying utopianism that denies the existence of human nature, all descends from the left side of the French revolution.
…Chris does not counter by offering an example of a totalitarian philosophy that does not have roots in the French Revolution.
Who’s right? Well, to find out we have to first ask this: what is totalitarianism? According to Karl Loewenstein (cited in Wikipedia):
“The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.”
Assuming this definition is suitable, are there any totalitarian philosophies that do not fit the mold that Rand offers?
What about Sharia? Is it pervasive enough to qualify as totalitarianism? Or is it just a highly legalistic authoritarianism?
If Franco was on the right (as I agree he was), doesn’t that suggest something’s lacking in your definition of the right as “adheres to individualism, the values of the enlightenment, and limited government”? How do monarchism, the Church and traditional values relate to enlightenment values?
Just another demonstration of how unuseful one-dimensional directional words are for capturing political philosophies.
What about Sharia? Is it pervasive enough to qualify as totalitarianism?
It is, and I have to admit that it’s much older than Rousseau, but the notion of government running people’s lives is probably as old as civilization. It’s the opposite notion that’s new.
So a white supremacist shooting a black man at a holocaust museum while wearing a confederate flag cap and duster marks him as a liberal? LMAO.
Yep, I always envision folks who hate jews and blacks and wear confederate flag iconography as liberals.
Just stop it man. You know that’s bullshit.
Vonn Brunn lamented that the american right was all talk and no action, so he took action, but now all of a sudden he’s a lefty liberal democrat? Funny how that works.