Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
That "Isolated Incident" at the Holocaust Museum
As you have probably now heard, an 89-year-old anti-Semite with a Prussian junker name (James W. von Brunn) shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust museum this afternoon. Little surprise that he is a 9-11 truther, an Obama "birther," and a neo-Nazi psychopath.
At The New Republic's group blog, Jason Zengerle makes an eminently sensible point:
What I Hate About Our Warp-Speed News Cycle
At 12:52 P.M., an 88-year-old white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and opened fire. At 2:56 P.M., Greg Sargent was arguing that the shooting means "it's time to revisit criticism of 'right-wing extremists' report." Sheesh. I really miss the good old days--when it took at least three hours before the cheap political point-scoring started.
Asked whether tourists should be concerned about doddering fascists carrying shotguns, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty stressed to reporters that the shooting was an "extremely isolated incident." I suppose it is true that this type of incident is rare—an attack at the Holocaust museum, motivated by a Wagnerian anti-Semitism—but Mayor Fenty might acknowledge that, in 2008, there were 186 such "isolated incidents" in the district.
Pedant|6.10.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Given that he's 89, wouldn't this guy qualify as a plain old "Nazi" rather than a "Neo-Nazi"?
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 6:22PM|#
Michael:
What's with the cheap shot on Wagner? That guy wasn't an
anti-semite so much as he was just generally certifiable. Low blow
man... low blow.
*disclaimer: I am a Wagner fan.
24AheadDotCom|6.10.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Another good job by Reason, sure to earn them two tickets to
Sally Quinn's next shindig!
Meanwhile, the attempt to use a LogicalFallacy (GuiltByAssociation)
to smear those who have questions about where
Obama was actually born falls flat. All I did was make a few
phone calls, but see the link for more real reporting than Michael
Moynihan is capable of. And, if anyone disagrees, there's a
challenge at the end of that summary: simply pick up the phone and
ask those questions. The fact that no one has yet taken up that
challenge tells you all you need to know about them and this
issue.
hmm|6.10.09 @ 6:31PM|#
DC needs to ban shotguns. They are clearly tools solely designed to exterminate Jewish people.
|6.10.09 @ 6:36PM|#
24AheadDotCom,
Again. You keep dodging my questions.
1. If you support freedom then shouldn't you be able to vote for
who ever you want?
2. Isn't their multiple examples of Presidents who would have not
have fulfilled the "natural citizen" requirement? The first 5 or 6
Presidents come to mind, and Goldwater was born in the Arizona
territory. Isn't what defines a citizen always been a shifting
vague standard?
3. Why isn't his mom being a citizen good enough?
I need to just copy these questions some where so I can paste them
when Lone shows up. You refuse to discuss these issues, which
suggest a weakness in your position.
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 6:37PM|#
I was talking about Richard Wagner... A man who hated virtually
everyone, was chronically paranoid, spent most of his life running
from his own debts, had an affair with, then married the daughter
of a colleague and by many accounts actually drove performers who
worked with him to either permanent injury or mental breakdown. The
fact that he also hated Jewish people seems pretty
irrelevant.
Oh... plus as a bizarre addition, he actually hired Jewish
musicians from time to time as well.
I'm just saying, Wagner was just nuts and calling him an
anti-semite has always been silly to me in context of the rest of
his beliefs. It's really just something that came about as
guilt-by-association with Hitler. Besides, Wagner was long dead by
the time the 3rd Reich were around.
He also never killed anyone as far as I know.
hmm|6.10.09 @ 6:41PM|#
You refuse to discuss these issues, which suggest a weakness
in your position.
You refuse to go away, which suggests an inability to recognize no
one fucking cares about you or your website.
thoreau|6.10.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I've always feared the day when a nutjob attacks the guys at the security checkpoint. What will the response be? A checkpoint before the checkpoint?
|6.10.09 @ 6:49PM|#
I really miss the good old days--when it took at least three
hours before the cheap political point-scoring started.
This is not a sensible point at all.
After all the OUTRAGE by the right based on an accurate and eerily
prescient DHS report, we have had 2 shootings by extremist right
wing nut jobs in the last 2 weeks.
Now somehow it's "cheap politcal points" to point out that all that
outrage was misplaced? I think it's more like pointing out the
fucking obvious. The DHS report was right and extremism (esp. the
militant right wing variety) is a legitimate threat.
Even Shepard Smith on Fox News notices the writing on the wall and
the tone of many on the right and thinks it's dangerous (Link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI
Oh and by the way, Von Brunn had written an anti-Obama screend at
the Free Republic that has since been taken down (Cached version
available
here )
|6.10.09 @ 6:56PM|#
I'm MIA for a few days, and you guys have already browbeaten L-Dub out of using his fail-safe disclaimer? How do you expect him to protect against AdHoms now, libertards?
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Chicago Tom;
We've also had an "isolated"
Muslim terrorist attack on soldiers in Arkansas (not to mention
the more obvious acts of Muslim extremism). Does that mean that we
should assume that every Muslim needs to be on a watch
list? Or for that matter, that Bush was right about everything
"trrr" related?
KT|6.10.09 @ 7:02PM|#
If wondering about the "right-wing extremists" report in light of recent incidents is wrong, then say why. I don't think the temporal proximity is relevant. If Sargent had waited a few hours or days or weeks, would his point somehow be better or more valid?
thoreau|6.10.09 @ 7:04PM|#
While it is true that the report warned of violence from the
right that has since materialized, one should still be careful in
whom we cast pre-emptive suspicion on. There are millions of people
who like to turn it up to 11 and say crazy shit on the intertubes,
but 99.99% of them use it to relieve stress, not ramp it up.
Personally, I'd rather see the wackjobs nice and comfy on their
couches, wearing their pajamas and typing to their hearts' content
while munching on pizza and watching pr0n. For 99.99% of them, this
will calm them down. They might act like jackasses, but they'll be
fat and happy and benign.
|6.10.09 @ 7:10PM|#
We've also had an "isolated" Muslim terrorist attack on
soldiers in Arkansas (not to mention the more obvious acts of
Muslim extremism). Does that mean that we should assume that every
Muslim needs to be on a watch list? Or for that matter, that Bush
was right about everything "trrr" related?
Sean Malone,
are you stupid? Or just playing dumb? (I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume the latter)
You realize there are these words called qualifiers.
Yes I think we should keep an eye on extremist and
militant Muslim groups as well as
extremist or militant right wing
groups (and left wing ones as well).
Did ANYONE advocating keeping an eye on "every" right wing group ?
No so your straw man argument fails. Feel free to try again
though.
Now let's turn it around. Do you advocate the government keeping an
extemist/militant muslim groups? If so, why not extremist/militant
right wing groups?
Maybe you could also explain, in light of recent events, why you
the DHS report is wrong, or it is wrong to say to all the people
that were outraged "the DHS report was right and your outrage was
misplaced and wrongheaded" ?
Also, to the people who have defended water boarding....the killer
of Dr. Tiller, once in custody said "there's more killings to come"
-- shouldn't the government water board him to find out more about
whats to come? Sounds like a ticking time bomb scenario to me (or
at least closer to one than the scenarios of the "enemy combatants"
who were waterboarded in military custody) -- how come no one
advocates water boarding Right-Wing Christian terrorists?
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 7:11PM|#
You know, regardless of the violent extremists out there who are "right wing", exactly where was the justification in those memos for the Ron Paul/Campaign for Liberty business... of course I'm annoyed with libertarians being lumped into "right wing" categories period.
Elemenope|6.10.09 @ 7:12PM|#
That's fucked up. I just visited the Holocaust Museum for the
first time two months ago. They had a neat exhibit on axis and
allied propaganda. I do recall there being some metal detectors at
the door though. How did this guy get through them...or did he just
attack the guy at the door?
FWIW, the notion that Wagner's antisemitism was somehow besides the
point of his general irascibility is laughable. How it relates to
this case escapes me, though.
jimbo|6.10.09 @ 7:12PM|#
Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all a bit more
scared of each other? Muslim, neo-nazi, Earth First!-er, I'm not
going to taunt you because I'm worried you will shoot me.
Let's face it, lots of people will climb all over this guy because
in reality the neo-nazis are pretty lame. You don't have to worry
about them too much.
On the other hand, I'd love to make fun of the muslims a lot more,
but I'm real worried they might be pinning their latest unreadable
tracts - they invented pens don't you know - to my corpse with a
knife.
It is sad to say, but if the neo-nazis want to be taken seriously,
they better start killing any editorial columnist who dares mock
them in the paper. Or do you think the courageous newsies at the
paper will refuse to run them out of sensibility for the
bigots?
Screw brotherhood! Let's get serious, arm everyone and start to get
our manners in line because we are worried about getting shot.
|6.10.09 @ 7:18PM|#
Yes I think we should keep an eye on extremist and militant
Muslim groups as well as extremist or militant right wing groups
(and left wing ones as well).
So what's your definition of an "extremist right wing group" that
ought to be monitored? One that advocated the criminalization of
abortion? Would the John Birch Society qualify? How about the
NRA?
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Tom;
Those DHS memos threw a VERY wide net, and many of those
potentially caught in it had nothing to do with the kinds of
extremist movements you're talking about.
Where are the libertarian anti-abortion bombers/murderers?
Holocaust-denying security guard killers?
Your qualifier of extremist groups and limiting the government net
to people who actually are a threat is one thing, but the DHS
report really wasn't like that at all. It just lumped people like
*me* (and many other regular Reason commentors) in with people like
Tim McVeigh. It also blurs the line of people like various friends
who are seriously worried about things like hyper-inflation and who
have recently bought guns to protect their families when things
start to get a lot worse around here.
Frankly, I think those people are going to be wrong, but they're
not terrorists, or extremists who are going to go kill anyone. But
the DHS report bullshit results in stuff like this, and much
worse. My point was that those reports are as right about
"extremists" as any Pentagon preparation memos trying to keep
law-enforcement ready to go... but they were also so broad that
they push us toward a police state where walking through an airport
with a box of cash and the wrong bumper stickers can get you thrown
in jail.
Rex Rhino|6.10.09 @ 7:28PM|#
Yes I think we should keep an eye on extremist and militant Muslim groups as well as extremist or militant right wing groups (and left wing ones as well).
I suppose it is too much to expect a totalitarian to understand and
acknowledge, but I will give it a try:
The concepts "extreme" and "militant" are pretty damn vague and
subjective... and virtually every political group has been accused
of these things at some time. In reality when you authorize the
government to keep "keep an eye" to people, you are essentially
giving them free reign to spy on any and all U.S. citizens.
For most freedom loving people, the fear of having a political
speech police force looking for "potential militants" is a lot
scarier than the astronomically unlikely attacks they are designed
to prevent.
But then again, you already know that. What people like you are
really looking for is a pre-tense for a totalitarian police
state.
Do you advocate the government keeping an extemist/militant muslim groups?
No.
If I mercilessly kill your strawman, does that count as militant
behavior?
hmm|6.10.09 @ 7:31PM|#
We should just have the government watch everyone equally then these sorts of things wouldn't happen. We could all be safe.
hmm|6.10.09 @ 7:32PM|#
My wife calls me militant and I use extreme deodorant. Does this
qualify me for watching?
Come to think of it half the shit I use or buy is extreme, damn you
marketers.
LarryA|6.10.09 @ 7:35PM|#
After all the OUTRAGE by the right based on an accurate and
eerily prescient DHS report, we have had 2 shootings by extremist
right wing nut jobs in the last 2 weeks.
The DHS reports, right and left wing, covered a couple hundred
million people. That's really useful in figuring out that these two
individuals were going to snap.
Note that once again these two shootings were in "gun-free" zones.
D.C. prohibits concealed carry generally and Kansas prohibits
carrying in "any church or
temple." (PDF)
|6.10.09 @ 7:50PM|#
how come no one advocates water boarding Right-Wing
Christian terrorists?
Goddamn, you ChicagoTom! I hate having to choose been principles
and entertainment.
EJM|6.10.09 @ 7:58PM|#
Come to think of it half the shit I use or buy is extreme,
damn you marketers.
And the other half may simply be "xtreme".
JW Gacy|6.10.09 @ 8:13PM|#
LMNOP, I think your comment says something interesting about our
society. People can actually do all kinds of reprehensible things,
and we'll forgive them. But, if somebody has racist ideas, even if
they never ever act on them, then that's just too much.
I dunno. Racism's pretty bad, but I'm with Sean on this one.
Wagner's other character flaws seem to be what caused all of his
really bad actions. In that context, his anti-semitism really was
"beside the point."
|6.10.09 @ 8:26PM|#
Has anybody checked out the two links posted in the last
sentence of Moynihan's first paragraph?
I have. First, as to Moynihan's assertion of fact that Mr. Von
Brunn is a 9/11 truther, Moynihan supplies a link to signature page
92 out of 167 signature pages of a petition drafted by a group
named Justice for 9/11. I see that a Mr. James von Brunn of
Maryland is listed. I guess because he apparently lent his name to
a petition seeking that the state of New York convene an
independent grand jury to look into possible 9/11 crimes means he
is a so called "truther." Moynihan provides no examples of Mr. von
Brunn's writing on the subject, nor any videos.
Second, as to his assertion of fact that Mr. von Brunn is an Obama
"birther", Moynihan supplies a link to a QUESTION a person claiming
to be Mr. von Brunn, from Olso, Norway-not Maryland, posed in the
reader comments section of the Economic Times. In the question,
there is no mention of Obama's birth certificate.
How about Moynihan's baseless, unfounded, group associations? Not
the most critical of thinkers.
The upshot: Moynihan is sloppy and can not be relied upon to get
the Who, What, When and Where right. Getting the Why right is
beyond his pay grade.
Fluffy|6.10.09 @ 8:32PM|#
Did ANYONE advocating keeping an eye on "every" right wing
group ?
Actually, ChicagoTom, you stupid cunt, that's exactly what the
report did say.
The report said that law enforcement personnel should pay special
attention to people associated with the Ron Paul presidential
campaign.
I missed the part of these recent news reports where either
Tiller's murderer or this von Brunn guy worked on the Ron Paul
campaign.
And unless they did, then the report wasn't "prescient" at all, but
bullshit crap that was the work of douchebag statist cunts.
Fluffy|6.10.09 @ 8:39PM|#
And I think the "truthers" are crazy, but since they're 30% of
the public, isn't there a 30% chance that just about any
crime will be committed by one of them? Isn't it a little shitty to
say "of course" this guy was one of them?
I'll betcha Bernie Madoff wasn't a Truther. Should I go around
finding everything he has in common with Moynihan, and advance this
as evidence that Moynihan is somehow dangerous and corrupt?
"Moynihan is a staunch supporter of Israel, like Bernie Madoff,
of course"? Would that be fair?
|6.10.09 @ 8:41PM|#
I sign all sorts of things. If I'm ever wrongfully accused of
eco-terrorism, will all the petitions I've signed on campus be fair
game?
I'll sign any old thing. It honestly warms my heart that people are
out there trying to put things on ballots or just raising awareness
in general.
Profiling me based on the petitions I've signed over the years
would be tedious and misleading. I'd even sign a fire Michael
Moynihan petition.
hmm|6.10.09 @ 8:49PM|#
Hmm: This kind of EXTREME!?
Pretty much. I have always wanted to see Vagisil, Summers Eve, or
Tampax get on the extreme marketing band wagon. Now that would be
entertaining.
I live in MO where one of the absurd papers was written concerning
extremists. I've wanted to make a bumper sticker with everyone of
the identified symbols listed, I just haven't gotten to it.
Robert Kelly|6.10.09 @ 8:49PM|#
The killing at the museum make me feel very depressed. What is
happening? I know there are many people who also think this
anti-Jewish feeling is getting worse. I've heard things in public
that I didn't use to hear about Jews and Israel. It's all over the
internet. And it used to not be this way.
Von Brunn probably held these views for many years, but only now
did he act on it, setting an example. He was a "lone wolf" per
terrorism parlance. But I can't help but think this is part of a
larger pattern of anti-Semitic violence and rhetoric. I think many
people, a lot more people than most of us probably realize, are
using Jews as a scapegoat for their problems.
I don't want to be the pessimist, but I doubt this is just a blip,
but something more sinister that's growing and developing. And
there's nothing I can do about it to prevent it from spreading.
What can we do? It's the sense of helplessness that's most
depressing.
hmm|6.10.09 @ 8:51PM|#
I prefer not to sign anything. Arguing with people asking you to sign a petition is much more entertaining. If you get someone who isn't a tard it's a good conversation and can actually be fun, if you get a tard it is almost nirvana as you make them melt down.
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 8:55PM|#
Thanks JW!
Also - I might note that also with respect to Wagner, his
Anti-Semitism wasn't really all that odd for a mid 19th Century
German. That again makes it interesting to me that people associate
Wagner with being a racist more than they associate him with just
being generally crazy.
Within the context of 1840s Europe, hating the Jews just seems like
a given... Hardly the most notable thing about anyone. It'd be like
saying that General Robert E. Lee was a racist as if that was
somehow made him different from 99% of his contemporaries and is
more important than his other ideas or abilities.
It's always just seemed odd to me. And again - the only reason we
really do that is just because of the Hitler connection... and in
what universe is it a composer's fault that some murderous dictator
liked what he did? I bet FDR liked John Philip Sousa, should I now
associate Sousa marches with the imprisonment of Japanese
people?
|6.10.09 @ 9:02PM|#
Fluffy-
You're making my point.
Furthermore, Moyniham, as well as far too many H&R posters,
conflates any one or more individuals or groups who proclaim that
they have the right story or the truth as to what happened with all
those who question the official government conspiracy theory but do
not have a specific theory as to who orchestrated and who
assisted.
|6.10.09 @ 9:06PM|#
Robert Kelly, did you have such thoughts after the rape of Gaza with the slaying of hundreds of women and children and the deliberate targeting of schools and UN and Red Cross relief workers?
Robert Kelly|6.10.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Really, libertymike, you fascist crackpot, that didn't occur to
me.
@ S. Malone
You write:
"You know, regardless of the violent extremists out there who are
'right wing', exactly where was the justification in those memos
for the Ron Paul/Campaign for Liberty business..."
As you point out, the DHS report may have too broadly labeled Paul
supporters as extremists, but from what I understand indication of
support for Ron Paul was presented as a sign that may fit into a
larger pattern. It's not: Ron Paul supporters are to be watched by
the feds. But: Support for Ron Paul is not a sign of anything by
itself except support for Ron Paul, however, it is one of numerous
signs that this person may be an extremist. It's simple
intelligence work.
And frankly, the reason it's such a warning sign is because nearly
every cornpone wannabe fascist in this country has latched on to
him. I mean, the ongoing "rEVOLution" is hardly libertarian. It's
more hypernationalist anti-immigrant loathing, flag waving
middle-class resentment. A lot of these folks think they're
carrying on the rebirth of the Founding Fathers (our national
origin myth). If they were British they'd be waving Excalibur. If
German, they'd be blathering about the volk. Really it's blood and
soil mythology and the animating spirit of an incipient fascism and
should be called out for what it is.
In any case, Von Brunn
was a fan.
Michael Ejercito|6.10.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Let's face it, lots of people will climb all over this guy because in reality the neo-nazis are pretty lame. You don't have to worry about them too much.
I have read messages posted by neo-Nazis on Usenet.
Von Brunn probably held these views for many years, but only now did he act on it, setting an example. He was a "lone wolf" per terrorism parlance. But I can't help but think this is part of a larger pattern of anti-Semitic violence and rhetoric. I think many people, a lot more people than most of us probably realize, are using Jews as a scapegoat for their problems.
Jeff Jacoby wrote about history's
oldest hatred .
|6.10.09 @ 9:44PM|#
Robert Kelly-
Crackpot, perhaps.
Fascist? Yeah, if you want to call one who supports the abolition
of the income tax, the abolition of the drug war, the abolition of
immunity for public officials and the abolition of the military
industrial/national security/surveillance state, a fascist, go
ahead.
Brilliant.
Colin|6.10.09 @ 9:48PM|#
My favorite anecdote about Wagner's antisemitism is when
Nietzsche, just to fuck with him, put some Brahms' sheet music on
Wagner's piano.
Wagner went epileptic -- screaming at Nietzsche for putting that
Jew's music on his piano.
What's funny about this was that Brahms wasn't even Jewish --
Wagner just thought he was.
|6.10.09 @ 9:50PM|#
"After all the OUTRAGE by the right based on an accurate and
eerily prescient DHS report, we have had 2 shootings by extremist
right wing nut jobs in the last 2 weeks."
I love how lefites like Tom have spent the last 8 years telling
anyone and every one that 9-11 is not worth so much as changing a
law over. Now some crazy coot shoots a single armed guard at a
museum and he is ready to declare a police state and lock everyone
who questions the Obama up. Fuck you Tom. No really Fuck you.
Jesse Walker|6.10.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Wait. Back up. Did Lonewacko just acknowledge that guilt by association is a logical fallacy?
|6.10.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Robert Kelly,
You call LibertyMike a fascist, (and don't really explain
why)
And then you seem to condone US Government oppression of political
dissent, based on their ideas alone.
BTW, speaking of Anti-Semitism, before all this came out today, I
was just hearing about a comment made by reverend Write, about
Obama not being able to speak the truth because of the Jews.
Odd.
I was expecting that to be the main headline of the day.
|6.10.09 @ 9:53PM|#
This clown was a truther, a Nazi and a Obama birther. How long
before every reasonable person, left and right admits that it is
all just one sick swamp on the extreme of the Left and Right. There
is really no telling them a part or holding the reasonable elements
of either side responsible for them. Pro life people are not
responsible for nuts like Eric Rudoph. Environmentalists are not
responsible for the unibomber. And lefty anti Isreal types are not
responsible for this clown.
Lets not give in to people like Chicago Tom's authoritarian
paranoid instincts.
|6.10.09 @ 9:57PM|#
"But: Support for Ron Paul is not a sign of anything by itself
except support for Ron Paul, however, it is one of numerous signs
that this person may be an extremist. It's simple intelligence
work."
No its not. It is called spying on Americans for exercising their
1st Amendment Rights. Being against the war in Iraq is not by
itself a sing of anything. But it is one of the numerous signs tha
this person may be an extremist. How does that sound jackass? It is
just simple intelligence work, you authoritarian fuck.
Elemenope|6.10.09 @ 10:00PM|#
LMNOP, I think your comment says something interesting about
our society. People can actually do all kinds of reprehensible
things, and we'll forgive them. But, if somebody has racist ideas,
even if they never ever act on them, then that's just too
much.
I dunno. Racism's pretty bad, but I'm with Sean on this one.
Wagner's other character flaws seem to be what caused all of his
really bad actions. In that context, his anti-semitism really was
"beside the point."
I was reacting to this:
"That guy wasn't an anti-semite so much as he was just generally
certifiable."
Which is literally untrue. He *was* an antisemite. He also happened
to be generally certifiable. And his antisemitism was directly
related to at least one great social rupture in his life (that
between him and Nietzsche), so it isn't "beside the point".
It's one thing to say that in the context of his total crazy his
antisemitism "isn't a big deal" and it's another thing entirely to
claim that he was wasn't one. Which is what you did.
alan|6.10.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Between MNG and Lonewacko, why is MM the go to Reason staffer to
fuck with?
You got crazy magnetism, man.
Mr. Chartreuse|6.10.09 @ 10:06PM|#
I really don't understand how you can say that a group that is
anti-militarist, anti-imperialist, anti-police state,
anti-corporatist, & for the decentralization of government,
carries with it "incipient fascism", when those ideas don't meet
the usual definitions of fascism.
I also don't know where you're getting the "hypernationalism" from
either, as at least in comparison to the Fascist version of
natonalism I doubt most people who support Ron Paul would put the
nation before the individual.
phalkor|6.10.09 @ 10:10PM|#
Now some crazy coot shoots a single armed guard at a museum
and he is ready to declare a police state and lock everyone who
questions the Obama up.
Well that is the well-reasoned approach, isn't it?
Crazy isn't illegal and I will fight to defend the rights of us
crazy people to say what they want about who they want in private
and public. Still being certifiably crazy does not excuse harming
anyone. If only crazy people could learn the difference between a
real danger and schizo-paranoiac illusion.
This crazy killer does not represent you or anyone else. There are
no assemblies of crazy folk organizing and advocating this sort of
attack. To infringe on the rights of everyone to pursue the tiny
handful of crazies among us is a different and equally horrifying
type of crazy.
alan|6.10.09 @ 10:14PM|#
how come no one advocates water boarding Right-Wing
Christian terrorists?
Maybe because you thought it up first. I'll put in on the to do
list. Water board Right wing Christian terrorist. There. All set.
Thanks a million.
|6.10.09 @ 10:16PM|#
This clown was a truther, a Nazi and a Obama birther. How
long before every reasonable person, left and right admits that it
is all just one sick swamp on the extreme of the Left and
Right.
My theory on this is that conspiracy theories are the inevitable
result of non open, deceitful government practices. And also the
result of government policies favoring one group over another.
alan|6.10.09 @ 10:20PM|#
After all the OUTRAGE by the right based on an accurate and
eerily prescient DHS report, we have had 2 shootings by extremist
right wing nut jobs in the last 2 weeks.
Good gawd. This is a lame and cheap attempt to lump libertarians in
with a killer. If we object to the point you are making about the
DHS report we must also be defending anti-Semites and terrorist.
Whatever doubts I had about you being a hack are out the window for
good.
|6.10.09 @ 10:33PM|#
Wagner's "general craziness" left no impact the moment he was
gone. His explicit, racial anti-Semitic writings lived on, and
strongly influenced Hitler and other Nazis.
The Wagner family warmly supported Hitler, who loved Wagner music
and used it in his own propaganda. It was played in the death
camps.
I don't know if the term is relevant to the current shooting or to
the murderer. However, it seems silly to try to "defend" the Wagner
name against the charge of anti-Semitism.
But didn't the DHS report talk about the danger that soldiers
returning from Iraq would commit violent extremist acts? Wasn't
that the most controversial part? Looks pretty stupid in light of
the actual murderers in the recent cases. Eg: an 89 year old German
Nazi. Even sane people don't change their minds at 89.
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 10:34PM|#
Exactly where did I say that Wagner wasn't an Anti-semite? I believe I've explained myself perfectly well... and one would think, not to be a dick, that my goddamn masters in music would have some bearing. Thanks for missing the point LMNOP.
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 10:38PM|#
I wasn't saying that he was NOT one, just that his anti-semitism had more to do with his overall craziness, I thought that was clear. And again, within the context of the times, being an anti-semite is hardly an interesting character trait.
Seward|6.10.09 @ 10:40PM|#
OT:
I really hope that we get some blog posts about this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/
|6.10.09 @ 10:51PM|#
Exactly where did I say that Wagner wasn't an Anti-semite? I
believe I've explained myself perfectly well... and one would
think, not to be a dick, that my goddamn masters in music would
have some bearing. Thanks for missing the point LMNOP.
Masters in music?
I like Wagner but Mahler was far superior. Did the Third Reich ban
Mahler or Mendelssohn?
Elemenope|6.10.09 @ 10:51PM|#
I wasn't saying that he was NOT one, just that his
anti-semitism had more to do with his overall craziness, I thought
that was clear.
Ahh. I got it now. Sorry about that. I was misinterpreting
your original comment. I was taking umbrage with what I thought was
you claiming he wasn't an antisemite. If you weren't claiming that,
then we're pretty much on the same page.
What's bugging me about the whole thing is why Moynihan brought up
Wagner in the first place; it doesn't seem to connect with or be
apropos of anything related to this octogenarian psychopath
murderer who shot up the Holocaust Museum. I mean, did the guy
listen to Der Ring des Nibelungen or Parsifal in
his fucking off hours?
|6.10.09 @ 10:59PM|#
I was certain that this event would explode into a gun debate, not a debate on the connection between conservatives (including libertarians) and nut jobs like this geriatric neo-nazi. After all, this happened not long after the ruling of Heller v DC. But, this guy was a convicted felon and would be breaking the law by owning the gun regardless of DC law.
|6.10.09 @ 11:02PM|#
Wagner himself was certainly anti-Semitic, but perhaps more importantly, the Nazis took up his views regarding both Jews and the mythic origins of "Germania." His influence on Nazi ideas and culture was profound.
Sean W. Malone|6.10.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Yes, Shrike. And Mahler and Wagner are really different breeds
of thing, I would say. Unless he wrote some 16 hour epic operas I'm
not aware of :P
And LMNOP, cool.
It's always been a little annoying to me to see Wagner equated with
the Hitler crowd cause, for one thing, I like Wagner. But also,
because he was so clearly just a product of his time on that issue
and he had a bunch of Jewish friends even - which is really just a
great demonstration that Wagner's internal beliefs were completely
and utterly contradictory. All that fits way more into him just
being kinda nuts and remarkably mentally unstable.
But you really can't blame Wagner for Hitler any more than you can
blame J.D. Salinger for Mark Chapman or John Hinckley Jr.
Psychoaths, dictators, murderers and other unsavory types will
always happily accept any information that "supports" their
authority. By Wagner or anyone else (see below).
As I said - who wasn't an anti-semite in mid/late 1800s
Germany?? People wrote ridiculous screeds all the time about that
kind of thing.
"Wagner's writings on race and his antisemitism[21] reflected some trends of thought in Germany during the 19th century. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, expanded on Gobineau's and Wagner's ideas in his 1899 book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, a work proclaiming the superiority of Aryan races, which had a wide circulation and later became required reading for members of the Nazi party. Chamberlain greatly admired Wagner's work and married Wagner's daughter, Eva, becoming a central part of the Bayreuth Circle, and thus contributing to the association of Wagner's name and works with racism and anti-semitism.
Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Wagner's music and anti-Jewish sentiments and saw in Wagner's operas an embodiment of his own vision of the German nation. There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi thinking. As with the works of Nietzsche, the Nazis used those parts of Wagner's thought that were useful for propaganda and ignored or suppressed the rest. For example Joseph Goebbels banned Parsifal in 1939, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, due to the perceived pacifistic overtones of the opera.[22] Although Hitler himself was obsessed by "the Master," many in the Nazi hierarchy were not and, according to the historian Richard Carr, deeply resented the prospect of attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence.[23]"
Wagner has all the halmarks of crazy-old-man syndrome which just
capped off a life of being one of the world's first megalomaniacal
auteurs.
Annnnnnyway, I really didn't mean for this bit to go on this long.
Wagner really has no bearing on this jerk who killed the security
guard. And the real story here is the discussion about police
states that ChicagoTom brought up.
IceTrey|6.10.09 @ 11:25PM|#
Shouldn't he be called anti Caucasian since everyone knows modern Jews aren't Semites but Khazars from the Black Sea region?
Robert Kelly|6.10.09 @ 11:26PM|#
It is called spying on Americans for exercising their 1st Amendment
Rights. Being against the war in Iraq is not by itself a sing of
anything. But it is one of the numerous signs tha this person may
be an extremist. How does that sound jackass? It is just simple
intelligence work, you authoritarian fuck.
Listen, I never condoned it, I just gave my reason why (I think)
the feds would factor in political support for Paul as one factor
among many other factors in analysis of potential domestic
terrorists. I didn't say I agree with it, and I made it
clear that the analysis might have too broadly characterized Paul
supporters as extremists, which is not an accurate
assessment.
I really don't understand how you can say that a group that is
anti-militarist, anti-imperialist, anti-police state,
anti-corporatist, & for the decentralization of government,
carries with it "incipient fascism", when those ideas don't meet
the usual definitions of fascism.
I also don't know where you're getting the "hypernationalism" from
either, as at least in comparison to the Fascist version of
natonalism I doubt most people who support Ron Paul would put the
nation before the individual.
My co-blogger and I have written about this
here,
here,
here and
here.
Fascism is the extremism not of the left or right, but of the
center. As G.M. Tamas has noted: "Fascism had very little to do
with passéiste feudal, aristocratic, monarchist ideas, was on the
whole anti-clerical, opposed communism and socialist revolution,
and--like the liberals whose electorate it had inherited--hated big
business, trade unions, and the social welfare state."
And I don't think it's very useful taking what they say for
granted. Yes, Paul is "anti-militarist" but he's perfectly fine
with sending the military to the border to enforce immigration
laws, or repealing the 14th Amendment so we don't have to grant
citizenship to children of immigrants. So he's in favor of
decentralizing the government, so what? The British National Party
claims to want to reduce government "to the lowest possible level"
and they're an outright white supremacist and fascist organization.
And so Paul is antiwar, so what? So was Charles Coughlin and
America First. I mean, they are nationalists. Central to their
world view is that the nation is being undermined within by
international organizations, the United Nations, etc. I should
remind you that Paul did not endorse the libertarian candidate Bob
Barr in 2008, but the Constitution Party, that, while we're looking
at Wikipedia, is listed as a "Christian Nationalist" party.
To be perfectly honest, what they say is of little interest to me
insofar as it can be studied as part of the movement's image and
rhetoric. What the Paul movement represents is a "revolutionary"
short bus filled with would-be reincarnations of some mythologized
origin of the pure nation -- the patriot and militia movement
waving continental flags. If they were Germans they'd be prancing
around in viking costume or going on about the German race. But
we're Americans so our fascist movement finds alternative forms of
myth-making with the exception of geriatric Prussians like von
Brunn, who go the distance.
Anyways, I don't want to mischaracterize Paul supporters across the
board. It's a broad group. What I'm referring to is the "patriot
movement" and Paul specifically. I think Hit & Run is one of
the finest political blogs on the net. But getting in bed with
these folks is a major error.
|6.10.09 @ 11:34PM|#
John you wrote:
No its not. It is called spying on Americans for exercising their
1st Amendment Rights. Being against the war in Iraq is not by
itself a sing of anything. But it is one of the numerous signs tha
this person may be an extremist. How does that sound jackass? It is
just simple intelligence work, you authoritarian fuck.
I have to tell you, as soon as I found out about this tragedy, I
thought immediately of that recent action by DHS lumping in
libertarians with extremists, etc.
Moynihan mentions it rather flippantly in his piece, but if people
are talking about spying on right-wing groups, they're also talking
about spying on libertarians. They don't seem to be able to
negotiate the difference between someone who is anti-government and
who will commit violence and someone who is simply
anti-government.
I have an anti-government bumper sticker on my car. I guess this is
cause for suspicion.
|6.10.09 @ 11:38PM|#
Reasons to hate Wagner:
1) his music
2) his anti-semtisim
3) his music
4) his music.
-jcr
|6.10.09 @ 11:46PM|#
I love how lefites like Tom have spent the last 8 years
telling anyone and every one that 9-11 is not worth so much as
changing a law over.
There wasn't any reason to change laws over 9-11. What those perps
did was already illegal.
It's just like Sarbanes-Oxley as a reaction to Enron. Fraud was
already a crime.
-jcr
24AheadDotCom|6.10.09 @ 11:54PM|#
jayjayhawker: I didn't realize I owed you answers; if I missed a
previous comment from you asking me questions perhaps it's because
I rarely bother reading the comments here. For that I apologize
completely.
As for your questions, what makes you think I support freedom?
Unlike Reason's other commenters, I'm not a 14-year-old comic book
fan. I realize there are limits to freedom. And, I realize that for
the good of the country one of those is avoiding electing those who
might have DividedLoyalties. That's just good old plain American
common sense. I realize that's a foreign topic to libertarians, but
do your best to understand.
As for the rest, you obviously have no clue about my argument.
Maybe you could find someone smarter than you to read my argument to
you. Hint: the most patient elementary school students are
Quakers. Try and find one of them.
Richard Hoste|6.10.09 @ 11:57PM|#
Hey, did you hear the one about the black Muslim who shot up the
army base?
HBD Books
|6.10.09 @ 11:59PM|#
24AHead:
If you want to be taken seriously, at a minimum your website should
look serious. Without even reading much of the content it just
screams "I'M A PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORIST" to me. Not saying you
are, but the look of your website looks like you are.
Rex Rhino|6.11.09 @ 12:06AM|#
Robert Kelly:
Democrats hate Ron Paul because they worried about him splitting
the anti-Bush vote. They realize that the only thing they usually
have going for themselves is that they are not Republicans.
Ron Paul was extremely popular with the left-wing anti-war campus
crowd. So the Democratic Party propaganda machine created the FUD
smear campaign you are now repeating.
If you look at the Democratic Party, and their rhetoric, favored
policy, etc., they are somewhere to the far right of Ron Paul on
virtually all issues except for the welfare state (and the welfare
state is as important a part of fascist as socialism).
publius|6.11.09 @ 12:11AM|#
"should I now associate Sousa marches with the imprisonment of
Japanese people?"
Certainly. I always have
Shawn|6.11.09 @ 12:16AM|#
Sorry, Wagner's music was not piped in to the death camps.
That's a common misconception. And the Nazi rank-and-file were not
generally mad for Wagner. They listened to much more
straightforward brass-band music.
He was a bad person and an anti-Semite. But his anti-Semitism was
not of some special flavor that warrants naming it after him as MM
does.
Jesse Walker|6.11.09 @ 12:30AM|#
jayjayhawker: I didn't realize I owed you answers; if I
missed a previous comment from you asking me questions perhaps it's
because I rarely bother reading the comments here.
As long as you're acknowledging questions that you've been
ignoring, maybe you could finally give us your replies to these?
FreddieFeelGood|6.11.09 @ 12:43AM|#
Shouldn't we all be concerned with doddering fascists carrying shotguns? And how the hell was an 89 year old able to even carry a shotgun, much less shoot one? At least he didn't have an "automatic weapon".
|6.11.09 @ 12:57AM|#
24AheadDotCom,
"jayjayhawker: I didn't realize I owed you answers;"
You are advocating a position. I am asking you questions about it.
To me it is not a matter of "owing" me anything.
"I realize there are limits to freedom. And, I realize that for the
good of the country one of those is avoiding electing those who
might have DividedLoyalties."
K, but why in this specific case should I be prevented from voting
for who I want? Is Obama an agent of another country?
Please note: I think Obama is a shitty President, but if you are
going to argue about "DividedLoyalites" then you better have some
specific evidence that his loyalty is divided.
Also, if loyalty is the issue, how does someone being technically a
USA citizen prevent "DividedLoyalites?"
Your argument seems to consist largely of technicalities (and very
tenuous ones at that), and then someone calls you on this it
becomes a "DividedLoyalites" issue.
Also
"As for the rest, you obviously have no clue about my argument.
Maybe you could find someone smarter than you to read my argument
to you. Hint: the most patient elementary school students are
Quakers."
Ummm...none of these answered my questions. Assuming that the
majority of your points are correct it answers none of my
questions.
I also found you position problematic because let us say you are
correct and Obama can no longer be President...what then? Does
McCain get it? You are aware he was born in Panama right? So
according to your own logic how does McCain magically become
eligible to be President?
JohnGalt300|6.11.09 @ 12:57AM|#
Robert Kelly: You make some good points about the general Ron Paul movement. A major caveat however, is the overall diversity. While there is certainly a group that very much reflects what you are talking about, the truth is that support for Paul comes from very broad quarters. I myself saw it principally as a movement that was gaining some popularity that at its base had at least some anarchist principles. I don't agree with Paul on everything, and I think the movement was more dvierse during the campaign, but you are broadly categorizing a large group of people. Especially Adam Kokesh, whom I have met and know of through friends. He is very much a libertarian anarchist. He has nothing to do with the groups you describe (in fact when he spoke to us he sent some time mocking the constituion party and Baldwin.) He certainly has a "militant" tone, but that is his rhetorical style and his personality. His principle ethic is non-violence, and if you listen to all of what he had to say, you would see he makes that quite evident.
Jordan|6.11.09 @ 1:10AM|#
Speaking of joos, apparently they're targetting Rev. Wright now.
It turns out that Obama's spiritual mentor really was a complete
nutjob.
Wright told the Daily Press he had not talked with Obama since he entered the White House.
"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright was quoted as saying in an article posted Wednesday.
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do," he said.
|6.11.09 @ 1:14AM|#
Well, people have pointed this out already, but 1)von Brunn is
arrested 2)underzog and H.H. Wolff don't show up.
Draw your own conclusions.
On a more serious note, Lonewacko responded to somebody. Good job,
LW! Progress!
|6.11.09 @ 1:16AM|#
Jordan,
When I start to go insane, I want paranoia more original than just
"the j00s".
Fluffy|6.11.09 @ 1:29AM|#
I mean, the ongoing "rEVOLution" is hardly libertarian. It's
more hypernationalist anti-immigrant loathing, flag waving
middle-class resentment. A lot of these folks think they're
carrying on the rebirth of the Founding Fathers (our national
origin myth). If they were British they'd be waving
Excalibur.
This is absolute nonsense.
Perhaps you were too busy "studying image and rhetoric" to do
simple things like actually listen to the fucking words spoken at
the GOP primary debates, but Paul's immigration position [one I
don't share, being an open borders man myself] was the vanilla
mainstream GOP position in 2008, and was certainly more mild than
that voiced by Tancredo, and even Romney. Strictly speaking, Paul
was and is always careful to specify that he favors restricting
immigration because of the presence of the welfare state. Since the
necessary implication of that is that he would not favor
restricting immigration if the welfare state were eliminated, it's
pretty clear this is just another instance of Paul finding a way to
support a libertarian position in a twisted manner that his Texas
consituency can return him to Congress to support. If there was an
anti-immigrant element to Paul's supporters, it was no larger than
that of any other GOP candidate and it was dwarfed - I mean
absolutely crushed, by several orders of magnitude - by
anti-war-on-terror, anti-Patriot Act Bush haters, and by
goldbugs.
I also have to point out that your "Excalibur" nonsense reveals
nothing so much as your own hatred and withering contempt for the
revolutionary principles that went into the founding of the United
States. You may not realize this, but the members of the
revolutionary generation weren't Arthurian myths - they were real
human beings whose lives are actually fantastically well
documented, and we are still governed by the Constitution they
wrote and the institutions they created. That means that if someone
holds up a "Don't Tread on Me" flag at a Ron Paul rally in 2008, it
probably represents their attempt to articulate a love of liberty,
or an admiration of the principles the founding generation wrote
down [and then failed to live by], and has basically nothing in
common with putting on a fucking Viking helmet and dancing around
Bayreuth.
Sean W. Malone|6.11.09 @ 1:52AM|#
Fluffy shoots... he scores.
As much as I ever consider myself a part of any group, I'd say I
belong somewhat to the rEVOLution crowd. I suspect many of us
around here do to one extent or another. The idea that Ron Paul is
an anti-immigrant movement is patently laughable.
Anecdotally speaking - the one anti-immigration ad Ron
Paul's campaign put out was incredibly poorly received by everyone
I ever met who was a supporter of his. It was a silly pander to his
Texas constituents that I for one couldn't completely even
understand, but there was certainly no rallying cry around that
issue of all things.
Besides, when RP goes to speak, what's he talking about time and
time again? The Federal Reserve, the gold standard, liberty.....
Usually it
goes something like this.
|6.11.09 @ 2:50AM|#
"When Obama is declared ineligible Biden becomes POTUS."
Well, yea, I kind of assumed that. However, LoneWacko's position
(and other bithers) have varied.
Leading up to the actual commencement of Obama many of them
contended that if Obama is declared not to be a citizen then the
election of him (and Biden) is invalid and McCain (since he came in
second) should win.
I agree, that logically Biden would be the choice, but I am trying
to get a grasp on LoneWacko's position on the subject.
Elemenope|6.11.09 @ 3:19AM|#
I am trying to get a grasp on LoneWacko's position on the
subject.
You're gonna hurt yourself in an irreparable way if you keep trying
to do that. The guy is a Gordian knot of the temporal lobe: just
cut through that shit and go have a beer. It'll save you the
headache.
..|6.11.09 @ 8:10AM|#
When Obama is declared ineligible Biden becomes
POTUS
What's wrong with saying "president"? Too many letters?
Xeones|6.11.09 @ 8:56AM|#
What's wrong with saying "president"? Too many
letters?
Because "President Biden" is one of the most terrifying phrases in
the English language.
Citizen Nothing|6.11.09 @ 9:29AM|#
On NPR this morning the reporter mentioned that the shooter had
"once lived in Idaho."
I think that explains everything.
|6.11.09 @ 9:41AM|#
I just gave my reason why (I think) the feds would factor in
political support for Paul as one factor among many other factors
in analysis of potential domestic terrorists.
If they're idiots, they would. It has such low utility as a
predictor of terrorist activity that it would junk up their
analysis to do so.
|6.11.09 @ 10:11AM|#
also have to point out that your "Excalibur" nonsense reveals nothing so much as your own hatred and withering contempt for the revolutionary principles that went into the founding of the United States. You may not realize this, but the members of the revolutionary generation weren't Arthurian myths - they were real human beings whose lives are actually fantastically well documented, and we are still governed by the Constitution they wrote and the institutions they created.
I don't think recognizing that, yes, America too has national
origin fables is the same as having contempt for revolutionary or
American founding principles. The point isn't how factual the myths
are but whether they're idealized to an extent that deviating from
(what is said to be) the wishes of the Great Founders is considered
heresy. Even the most pragmatic and liberal governing philosophies
are prone to romanticizing. I mean how often is American
exceptionalism excused because of the supposedly uniquely
enlightened circumstances of our founding? I think if we tallied
the bodies stacked up in our history we'd not fare much better
morally than any other major power.
|6.11.09 @ 10:48AM|#
Because "President Biden" is one of the most terrifying
phrases in the English language.
Not really. President Biden would be too stupid to get anything
accomplished (and watching him try to govern would be as much fun
as watching Colbert 24/7). Unfortunately, you can't say that about
Obama.
Gimlet|6.11.09 @ 11:10AM|#
"I rarely bother reading the comments here. For that I apologize
completely.
You don't read us and we don't read you.
So why are you even here?
|6.11.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Only 186 homicides in a year. Where I am from that would be
considered peace and tranquility.
New Orleans native here. The town that billions of post Katrina
Federal dollars could not fix, although the press releases say
those dollars prevented a local recession.
Newsflash for the media. New Orleans has been in a recession since
the late 1960s.
Fluffy|6.11.09 @ 12:07PM|#
I don't think recognizing that, yes, America too has
national origin fables is the same as having contempt for
revolutionary or American founding principles.
Expressed in Robert Kelly's manner, yes it does.
It's one thing for us to sit around and discuss the personal and
political failings of the men who made the American Revolution. We
do that all the time. They killed Indians and owned slaves and
denied the poor and women the vote. Hell, I have had quite heated
discussions with people here when I advanced the argument that if
slaves had risen up to slaughter Washington and Jefferson they
would have been morally in the right. So I certainly don't idealize
the revolutionary generation to the point where I can't recognize
their flaws and am somehow unaware of the myriad ways in which they
failed to live up to the ideals they gave uniquely eloquent voice
to.
But Kelly isn't saying "Let's inform ourselves about our history to
the best of our ability and keep some perspective on it." Kelly is
saying, "I can immediately tell if someone speaks too stridently
about the Constitution or about the Founders, or if they utilize
revolutionary war imagery or rhetoric, that the person is an
incipient fascist and a retard who rides the short bus. Because we
all know that no one could ever actually engage the absurd and
outdated ideas of the revolution seriously, and we all know that
anyone who does so is cracked in the head and tremendously
unsophisticated and out of touch with current political dialogue,
so they must be crackpots who hate minorities and aspire to purify
the nation using the American equivalent of the Arthur myths or the
Ring cycle." That's what he's saying, and everyone here knows I'm
characterizing him accurately.
|6.11.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Fluffy, include me in the "everyone here knows I'm
characterizing him accurately" group.
Look, he called me a fascist on the basis of my 9:06 pm post. Go
figure.
|6.11.09 @ 1:05PM|#
The brilliant DHS reports gave us a warning that has been ignored once too often! Ever since this scary "Ron Paul reLOVEution" got started it has been mainly a movement that was intended to coordinate with Al Qaeda extremist. Now we see that the tree is starting to bear wack fruit and it will be the job of the fed to chop down the extremist trees that are bearing the poisonous fruit. The threat to the republic is great and we need to IMMEDIATELY act to fight this scourge of nutjobs. Whatever it takes, torture, secret prisons...This is war, we cannot let ACLU pansies lose this war or the country will be destroyed.
|6.11.09 @ 3:55PM|#
"""No its not. It is called spying on Americans for exercising
their 1st Amendment Rights."""
John, it's not called spying anymore, it's domestic geospatial
intelligence. We don't "spy" on our citizens. Bush repeatedly said
so.
LarryA|6.11.09 @ 4:55PM|#
I was certain that this event would explode into a gun
debate, not a debate on the connection between conservatives
(including libertarians) and nut jobs like this geriatric
neo-nazi.
I was also pleasantly surprised that it didn't. However, the
anti-gun folks have gotten leery about their "See! Gun=Violence!"
diatribes where we can respond, "Yet another shooting in a
'gun-free zone.'"
BTW, the Kansas shooting was also in a "gun-free zone" as that
state prohibits concealed carry in "any church or temple."
And how the hell was an 89 year old able to even carry a
shotgun, much less shoot one?
Not that hard. A couple of years back I interviewed someone who at
87 had just won a skeet tournament trophy.
How he got it into D.C. is a good question, though. They have
laws.
|6.11.09 @ 6:22PM|#
I don't consider myself a rEVOLutionist, because my libertarian creds predated the 2008 campaign by twenty five years. Hell, I walked for Ron Paul in 1988!!! But because I don't have a C4L bumper sticker on my car, a certain subset of the rEVOLution consider me to be a traitor. I'm not a member of their personality cult, and thus am an apostate.
Mr. Chartreuse|6.11.09 @ 8:55PM|#
And I don't think it's very useful taking what they say for
granted. Yes, Paul is "anti-militarist" but he's perfectly fine
with sending the military to the border to enforce immigration
laws, or repealing the 14th Amendment so we don't have to grant
citizenship to children of immigrants.
I don't agree with Paul on immigration, but I believe Fluffy has
adequately explained the reasoning behind Paul's position. I will
say that if I had to choose between the US's current system of $1
trillion yearly on defense related spending and controlling an
empire versus a greatly reduced defense budget, which would then
lead to the military patrolling the border (which honestly would be
a legitimate function of any army), instead of overthrowing
governments or finding other kinds of dragons to slay, I would
choose the latter.
So he's in favor of decentralizing the government, so what? The
British National Party claims to want to reduce government "to the
lowest possible level" and they're an outright white supremacist
and fascist organization.
IIRC, fascist governments end up taking power away from the
states/provinces/regions in order to get more power and to build
"national unity." The BNP may want to do that, but they are also in
favor of giving police carte blanche to crack skulls, in favor of
nationalization of companies, and increased social and health
spending, all things that lead to bigger and not so decentralized
government.
And so Paul is antiwar, so what? So was Charles Coughlin and
America First. I mean, they are nationalists. Central to their
world view is that the nation is being undermined within by
international organizations, the United Nations, etc
Except that American First didn't want to be a part of any war and
weren't using a call for national unity to invade Poland. I also
don't see how United Nation is bad=the hypernationalism of
incipient fascism. There's a difference between the "Ein Volk, Ein
Reich" kind of nationalism and the idea that sovereignty shouldn't
be undermined by an outside force and we shouldn't get involved in
other people's messes.
I should remind you that Paul did not endorse the libertarian
candidate Bob Barr in 2008, but the Constitution Party, that, while
we're looking at Wikipedia, is listed as a "Christian Nationalist"
party.
While Paul considered both Barr and Baldwin to be friends, I
believe he made the decision after Barr snubbed Paul at an event
and wrote a letter to Paul saying that he should his running
mate.
|6.12.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Hey, Mick,
Lay off us Prussian Junkers, would you. You'll get us on some
profiling list of DHS and TSA. "[Von] Brunn" could be from any
non-Prussian German-speaking area. Furthermore, the "von" does not
necessarily convey noble heritage. There are many families, with no
pretense to nobility, who have a "von" in their name, indicating
place of origin.
I.e., "von Brunn" may be neither "Prussian" nor "Junker." I don't
know about this particular case.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245