Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Reverend Wright and the Holocaust Museum Murderer

They both believe Jews control Obama.


The Museum murderer:


“The Holocaust is a lie,” [his] note read.“Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America’s money. Jews control the mass media.”


Wright
:


"Them Jews ain’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 told the Daily Press of Newport News following a Tuesday night sermon at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers’ Conference.


"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."

UPDATE: Wright explains he meant "Zionists"--not all Jews.

Such attacks on Jews reflect hatred for people of faith generally. Consider Karl Marx’s early anti-Jewish screeds in this regard: His call to expunge Judaism anticipates his assault on Christianity and revealed religion in general. Marx of course inspires deviations from religious orthodoxy, including black liberation theology.

Discussions - 29 Comments

I know it's too much to wish for, but is it unreasonable to suggest that if, as the old establishment types suggest, this murderer is a right-wing extremist, then the people he hates--neo-cons, O'Reilly, etc. are not? And that Bush took steps which may have been misguided, but were nonetheless plausable. Ditto John Yoo's memos.

All of this is non-consequential. Marx is dead. Wright is a fringe character whose extreme statements keep extreme statements alive but little else. This museum murder is fringe and it does little to try to give coherence to his thinking and actions. The story on Spying for Cuba is also strange, but old and insignificant. The whole debate between Ken Lewis and Bernake is silly, and also antiquated as the Merill Lynch deal looks to be a major piece of Bank of America bottom line going foward.

The only interesting story are the televised Iranian elections and the fact that it seems Mir Hussein Moussavi will win and replace the tired old wipe Israel off the map/deny the holocaust mantra of Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

While the president of Iran may simply be a figure head, it still seems to be a significant shift, and may be the first real sign of exactly what victory in Iraq was about which is the ongoing effort to reshape the geopolitics of the middle east.

This story is less significant because if the vote is not manipulated, not even the president of Iran will hold such views.

On the other hand the importance of views that attribute a mysterious agency pulling Obama's puppet strings might not altogether dissipate. And it really isn't clear if it matters if folks attribute a muslim or jewish agency, or if they attribute special interests of a different identity group not centered around a religion. In some sense you aren't sure that saying Obama is beholden to jews means that he is beholden to certain business interests at Goldman Sachs. In other words the Jewish charge is meaningless appart from the meaning folks pack into it, and the most likely meaning and connotation is oligopolistic(I know this is ridiculous and that neither Ken Lewis nor Victor Pandit are jews, but Obama's pay Czar might be).

In so far as stories about who or what forces really control washington/obama are not likely to disapear it seems silly to draw comparisons between different lunatics with varying degrees of enlightment and connotations to charges. No one really has the empathy to sort out what is meant by claims that Obama is controlled by X(be it jews, muslims, hispanics, NOW, special interests, unions.)

So while there is a cloud of scepticism and plenty of opportunities for soft tyranny, in some sense the congressional will to get to the bottom of charges just seems fated for hopelessness and endless job opportunities for lawyers not occupied with Wall Street mergers.

Meanwhile the people of Iran seem to be voteing for a moderate president.

I will take green shoots in the recovery of reasonableness where I can find them.

Hitler and the Pope both enjoyed ice cream. It is the easiest little trick in the book to somehow equate two disparate figures on the basis of shared beliefs. The American people did not buy that sleight-of-hand during the election. This little clip was on the Limbaugh program. It seems custom made for tiny minds to connect Obama, Reverend Wright, racist murderers, liberation theology and Marx in one swooping sleazy smear statement. Right out of the posse comitatus handbook. Do you still insist that Wright speaks for Obama? I wouldn't be surprised if Fox news put an open mike on him for the next 3 years. "Such attacks on Jews reflect hatred for people of faith generally." Really? Does that include the anti-muslim remarks that populate this site? Any attack on religion reflects hatred for people of faith? That is not even a high school argument.You even manage to get Marx wrong, since he advocated for complete political emancipation and full civil rights for Jews. That he was a reductionist and equated religion to the background social conditions is an argument, not a screed. Ken Thomas' post is better suited for the murderer's web site than NLT.

Yes - I think your criticism of Marx as antisemitic is overdone. I'd also be careful when comparing a criticism of the Jewish faith to a criticism of Judaism as some sort of socio-cultural (dare I say racial) institution.



"Such attacks on Jews reflect hatred for people of faith generally." Really? Does that include the anti-muslim remarks that populate this site?



Zing. Point for ren.

Marx wanted Jews to be emancipated from their religion, just as he wanted Christians to renounce theirs. Marx's assault on religion finds its extreme point in his thoroughgoing denunciation of Jews, which some commentators unsuccessfully try to rationalize.

I have never attacked the Muslim faith as such, and I doubt anyone else on this website has.

So, Reverend Wright has "hatred for people of faith generally"? Can we expect him, in the coming years, to give up his current gig and become an atheist and/or start murdering Jews? I wouldn't rule out such possibilities, but then I wouldn't bet on them occuring, either.

Von Brunn and Wright might have similarly far-fetched notions about Jews, but only one of them took up arms and engaged in a symbolic, violent, fatal (as in a gun was utilized, not just verbal "assaults") attack - the white neo-Nazi.

"Inspir[ing] deviations from religious orthodoxy" is hardly tantamount to inspiring murder or genocide.

Since we're looking for
commonalities...


Von Brunn also saw Marx as part of the problem as his book "is hundreds of pages of conspiracy theories that include Holocaust denial, the ancient hoax of the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,' and wild webs of fantasy seeking to link the Federal Reserve Bank, the Illuminati, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx in a grand, centuries-long story of Jewish plotting against white people."

Then there's this:


"Von Brunn's book is dedicated to neo-Nazis such as Revilo Oliver and Wilmot Robertson. Robertson was the author of 'The Dispossessed Majority,' a highly influential work among white supremacists which argued that white Americans have been stripped of their natural position controlling U.S. society." That sounds quite similar to a segment on Bill O'Reilly's show, with guest John McCain.

Excerpt from O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have...

and this:


"Von Brunn considered himself a student and acolyte of Rear Adm. John Crommelin, an anti-Semite who worked with Pierce, the neo-Nazi whose novel, "The Turner Diaries," inspired Timothy McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995."

So, as for the possibility of further imminent attacks - like in the case of anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder, who's even suggested that more clinic/doctor attacks are on the way - that Von Brunn may well know about, can we expect pro-torture conservatives to call for this geriatric terrorist to be waterboarded, to prevent an OKC II?

Interesting item from Von Brunn's website:

He wrote, "The American Right-wing with few exceptions is totally Pacifist. The [right wing] does NOTHING BUT TALK. MORAL: America dies for want of men."

Just what we need, another John Wayne-type loser running the manliness schtick. (I'm guessing Von Brunn felt humiliated behind the wheel of the red Hyundai he drove into D.C. - a Hyundai!!!)

I've also read that he was wearing a Confederate cap at the time of his attack, too. I'm sure that he didn't mean anything by that...[As I'm sure John Ashcroft didn't mean anything in particular when he praised the southern "heritage" (wink-wink!) magazine, Southern Partisan, for "setting the record straight" and "defending Southern patriots" - a magazine which sold the same "sic semper tyrannis"/Abe Lincoln t-shirt that McVeigh was wearing when he was arrested for the OKC bombing.] Probably just a meaningless fashion preference.

Why isn't anyone here talking about that black Arab terrorist who shot one of our soldiers in Arkansas?

One of the oldest tricks in the book is to take the actions of an idiot and say they represent this group or that group. Did the cops who tasered the pregnet woman represent all cops? Or do these Jewish individuals represent all jews? caution, profanity used.

Mabye this guy's website can explain, if there is a 'jewish' conspiracy, why people named rockefeller and rothschild were instrimental in the building of Nazi war machine. Denying the holocaust is stupid. It's not about race or religion; it is about money and power always and forever. People like this character only serve to help the globalists because now they can all seem vindicated when they call people who want to see the fed audited dangerous terrorists.

Does that include the anti-muslim remarks that populate this site?

I don't want Muslims to be in America.

The left does not want Muslims to be Muslims, anymore than they want Christians to be Christians. All the people of the world are to be "educated" out of such superstistions. Whether they like it or not.

To paraphrase Mr. Thomas' original miserable post, such attacks on Muslims, John M, reflect hatred for people of faith generally. Go study the work of the architect Fazlur Khan and tell me you do not want Muslims to be in America. That is what American religious pluralism and tolerance yields.

The Holocaust museum shooter hates Christianity (as did the Nazis), plus neo-cons, plus Bill O'Reilly. Apparently he wanted to attack the offices of the Weekly Standard. One could just as easily blame MSMNB as FOX.

"Why isn't anyone here talking about that black Arab terrorist who shot one of our soldiers in Arkansas?"

Hal, if you're talking about this thread, I'd say the answer is because we're talking about the comparison that the blogger made between Von Brunn and Wright. If you're talking about the blog generally, I'd say give it some time.

"One of the oldest tricks in the book is to take the actions of an idiot and say they represent this group or that group. Did the cops who tasered the pregnet [sic] woman represent all cops? Or do these Jewish individuals represent all jews?"

Von Brunn's actions represent Von Brunn's actions. Many people share his beliefs, to one extent or another, but few do or would translate those beliefs into any sort of significant acts, let alone homicide. The cops who tasered the pregnant woman (which case? I think there's more than one, actually) don't represent all cops, or even most cops, but they might be a bellwether of sorts for some problems in police culture that need to be addressed. The Jews in the vid you linked to hardly represent all Jews. I've had several Jews send me that exact vid (it's viral, apparently), actually, expressing their absolute disgust with those in the vid. So, they don't represent all Jews, but they do represent a certain segment of Jews, surely, but it's a social and political type that can be found in other religions and among people of many nations, too - sadly.

John M said: "I don't want Muslims to be in America.

The left does not want Muslims to be Muslims, anymore than they want Christians to be Christians. All the people of the world are to be "educated" out of such superstistions [sic]. Whether they like it or not."

Well, John M, is it inaccurate to call Islam and Christianity superstitions?


"1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.


2. a system or collection of such beliefs."

"Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in magic, omens, prognostics, or the like."

I'd say those definitions seem applicable to most religions.

That said, I don't have the view that you ascribe to leftists, that they (Christians, Muslims, (etc.?)) should be "educated" (I presume you are implying something akin to brainwashed or propagandized, based on your use of the quotation marks - tactics which religions never employ, right?) by force. However, perhaps some sort of force would be needed and beneficial in some cases, say when a snake-handling Christian wants to put a rattlesnake into the hands of a child or something of that sort. Then I think facts and reason should win out over respecting the beliefs and feelings of the Bible-based Christian with the bag of snakes.

It's also worth noting that there are many Christians and Muslims who comprise the left which you paint so broadly as anti-religious. If your response to that is that liberal and leftist Christians and Muslims are not
real Christians and Muslims, then please see the definitions for superstition again, esp. this one:

"An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance."

===


Richard Adams said: "The Holocaust museum shooter hates Christianity (as did the Nazis), plus neo-cons, plus Bill O'Reilly. Apparently he wanted to attack the offices of the Weekly Standard. One could just as easily blame MSMNB as FOX."

Non-Christians, atheists, and agnostics, are often in the minority and if open about their viewpoints, can be seen as rebellious. It's fairly easy to find them populating all points on the sociopolitical compass. That Von Brunn "hates Christianity (as did the Nazis)" is a fairly cheap (in its intent) non sequitur.

The things you point out about Von Brunn are certainly interesting, but they do not a left-winger make. There is a thin zone to the right of Weekly Standard and apparently Von Brunn exists within it. Did you see my earlier quote of his? This one:

"The American Right-wing with few exceptions is totally Pacifist. The [right wing] does NOTHING BUT TALK. MORAL: America dies for want of men."

Now, I know that there are leftists who critique pacifism within various liberal and leftist movements, but I've yet to know a leftist who critiques the American right-wing for being "pacifist." He's clearly critiquing the right from further to the right (He's also laughably inaccurate, but that's beside the point here). His disdain for talk-over-action (especially when there are so many wars to be fought!) and the death of America from "lack of men" could easily come from the Harvey Mansfield fans here at NLT. But he hates the distinct groups that are Jews and neo-cons, so that sets him apart from NLT (among other things, hopefully).

He seems to hate Christianity more because of his warrior mindset than for any other reason. See the excerpt of one of his writings that's posted here on a right-wing Christian site that finds Von Brunn and his writings loathsome - I noticed these gems (emphasis in the original):

"The events described in the 24 Books are often contradictory, fail the time-line, defy both archaeology's and nature's immutable laws, and are suicidal if practiced...

The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews)...

'Christianity' destroyed Roman Civilization. The 'Holocaust Religion is destroying Western Civilization. The Aryan gene-pool dies, 'unwept, unhonored and unsung.'"

So, it seems that Von Brunn puts his Aryan Western Civilization first and foremost, and isn't about to buy any supernatural belief that requires him to love what he sees as the enemy of that civilization. It's certainly not exactly the same, but it has some similarity with Rove and Cheney's disdain for what they saw as liberals' response to 9/11 - recall Rove saying liberals wanted "therapy and understanding" for the attackers. Surely this is not far from Von Brunn's disgust for the Christian notion of loving one's enemies. Similar to the common right-wing blogger meme that if we follow the tolerant liberals' way of doing things "we" will tolerate ourselves right out of existence!

I also couldn't help to notice a distinct similarity in tone and some sentiments between Von Brunn's rhetoric and that of the blog (linked to above) by the respectable conservative professor. The blog, "What's Wrong With the World" [W4] is subtitled "Dispatches from the 10th Crusade" and lists its mission as follows:

"What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism..."

Well, seeing Jihadists as hostile powers is standard stuff, right, left, Christian and not. The interesting part is their description of The Enemy Within - the liberals (which one can hear about any day of the week on Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.):

But as for the other "hostile power" of liberalism the site says "In political philosophy its [liberalism's] mark is the reduction of all things to some strictly materialist standard, whether openly atheistic or more subtly economic."

So, Von Brunn wouldn't join this "crusade" due to its Christian starting point, but he did share a hatred of Marxism. From the preface of Von Brunn's 2002 book, "Kill The Best Gentiles" Von Brunn offered this:

"The purpose of this book is to present to WHITE YOUTH factual information conventionally suppressed or distorted by the mass media, and denied them by schools and universities -- which are forced to promulgate the Marxist line or lose their government subsidies."

Ironically, if you take out the single word "white" this could be a line from David Horowitz - someone I'm pretty certain Von Brunn wouldn't want to work with! It also reads like many a blog-post I've seen here at NLT, frankly.

"One could just as easily blame MSMNB as FOX." - What's MSMNB???

Anyway, Von Brunn is clearly of the right, as much as Jonah Goldberg and his "No True Scotsman" fallacy-offering disciples insist otherwise. See Chait, Kirchuk, and Linker's worthwhile discussion of the accuracy of this designation, with a one-stop source for the links, here.

Go study the work of the architect Fazlur Khan and tell me you do not want Muslims to be in America.

And you think the initial post was illogical.

I repeat, you don't want Muslims in America. You don't want anybody to believe in any God. To you Muslims are merely a weapon to use against the Evil White Man. So spare me your your constant holier-than-thou attitude.

John M said, referring to ren, "I repeat, you don't want Muslims in America."

What on earth are you talking about? In comment #10 you plainly stated:

"I don't want Muslims to be in America."

Your lack of clarity in making any sort of point is maddening.

Why is there a need to pin this moron on a group that has done or advocated nothing like what he did? He is a moron who shot innocent people, if he really believed in what he was saying why did he not go after someone who mattered politicly....because he was a moron and could not get to someone like that. It is disgusting to see both sides trying to pin an idiot to the other side so they can then downplay any serious arguments they have by saying: see what that leads to. If you need any more proof the guy is a self serving moron, someone said he hates the neocons yet his actions just gave credibility to their police state agenda.

"Hitler and the Pope both enjoyed ice cream". Again liberalism is a mental illness.

He was making a perfectly valid point about the logical legerdemain that Mr. Thomas employed in the original post. But I won't use the fact that you obviously missed the point to accuse you of mental illness. Slowness isn't necessarily an illness.

Equating Hitler and the Pope by citing they both like ice cream is a sign of mental illness given the fact that Hilter exterminated 6 million Jews, not to even mention the number of Christians, Poles, disabled and mentally retardard people and the Pope did not. I am sure that both Hitler and the Pope use toliet paper after using the restroom. Again, liberalism is a mental illness.

Goodness, cowgirl, you're a hard case, aren't you?

I believe ren's entire point was exactly what you were saying (only without the potty talk), in order to say that the comparison between Von Brunn and Wright was dicey, at best. Von Brunn is full of hate, and demonstrated that by using a gun on a black man (he hated blacks) who opened the door for him at a museum commemorating the Holocaust. Wright has spewed some silly, paranoid language, but nothing like any calls for elimination of anyone. If I'm wrong on this, I hope ren will return to correct me.

It must take a lot of work to miss the point time and time again like that.

Okay, I will play your silly game. Wright said that America deserved what it got on 9/11 which in the mind of someone who is mentally healthy, means: The 3,000 people killed that day deserved it and they were eliminated for a good reason. How's that for mental illness. Kind of like Obama's buddy Bill Ayers crying about not doing enough during his bombing days. What is Ayer's famous slogan: Guilty as hell and free as a bird.

Wright has spewed some silly, paranoid language, but nothing like any calls for elimination of anyone.

Ayers, on the other hand, wanted to "eliminate" about forty million people.

What on earth are you talking about? In comment #10 you plainly stated:

"I don't want Muslims to be in America."


Yes, you cretin, I did. And also in comment #10 I pointed out to your fellow totalitarian thug that he does not want Muslims in America either. I even repeated the point in comment #14 just in case you wandered in here and needed to have it pounded into your grantite skull. And you stll failed to see it right there before your blinkered eyes.

If you'd write with greater clarity, your point would come across a lot better. You said:

"I repeat, you don't want Muslims in America." (emphasis mine)

So, maybe you can understand how, when one looks back and sees your earlier comment, where you said "I don't want Muslims in America." - that could be a bit confusing.

So then, I guess this is your stance, correct me if I'm wrong:

You want Muslims to be Muslims and Christians to be Christians, but you just don't want Muslims to be in America. Where you disagree with ren (or at least, where you disagree with what you assume to be ren's viewpoint) is your respect for faith in general (or have I forgotten that you're an agnostic or atheist or something??) - as long as the non-Christian (or non-Judeo-Christian) faiths are kept out of the U.S. So you think that ren doesn't want Muslims in America inasmuch as he doesn't want Muslims to be Muslims anywhere, at all? Thus, ren also doesn't want Muslims in Indonesia or Saudi Arabia, too, whereas that's okay by you? Is that your take on the matter?

Here's the next thing that doesn't make sense about your take on ren:


"To you Muslims are merely a weapon to use against the Evil White Man."

If ren wants to utilize Muslims against the "Evil White Man" then why would he want Muslims to "not be Muslims" and to "be 'educated' out of such superstistions [sic]", possibly against their will? If they stop being Muslims (presumably you're talking of fanatical Muslim terrorists), will they be much use as a "weapon to use against the 'Evil White Man'"? Honestly, I'm just trying to follow your logic here, your train of thought. Right now I'm thinking your train has derailed disastrously, but if you can show me what track it's rolling on, I'm all ears (or eyes, in this case).

Just for the sake of variety John M, you should try to get through a post without any name-calling. Why not give it a try?

I would be glad to have muslim neighbors like the ones speaking out against tyranny in iran right now.

Say what you want about Karl Marx, but he was absolutely right about religion! It is indeed the opiate of the masses.

Karl Marx got so much wrong, but he correctly identified religion for what it is. A useful fabrication for the powers-that-be to exploit human fear and ignorance, and a socially reactionary control mechanism.

Of course, though I am personally antagonistic towards religion in principle, I fully support the freedom of religion. As a libertarian, I support the right of individuals to chose to use drugs, be they in chemical or spiritual form, even if I do not agree with them.

As for Judaism v. Zionism, I will grant that SOME anti-Zionism may be Antisemitism behind a smokescreen, and perhaps extreme anti-Zionism can inadvertently lead otherwise non-Antisemitic people to become Antisemitic. However, to equate anti-Zionism with Antisemitism is dishonest and idiotic. Anti-Zionism is not in itself anti-Semitism. I do not know enough about Reverend Jeremiah Wright to determine whether or not he is Antisemitic. He (correctly) identified Zionism as a form of racism, but that does not automatically make him an anti-Semite. I grant that his comments SOUND Antisemitic.

Unfortunately I can not expect a reliable answer from this blog, as it is infested with fanatical neoconservatives (many of whom are un-American apologists for the perfidious British Empire of old), who are thus zealous apologists for Zionism. Bigotry against any group of people, Jews included, should not be tolerated. However, that does not mean we as a nation owe anything to the Zionist state. (To say nothing of the constant kissing of Israel's arse by the neocons.)

John M, care to clarify your earlier remarks (by answering my questions in #24, above)??

Thanks.

Hmmm.... Von Brunn is a complicated man.

Hitler, Jesus art in alleged museum shooter's home

1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Authorities have taken more than 30 items, including an image of Hitler and Jesus, from the home of a white supremacist accused of fatally shooting a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The FBI searched the Annapolis, Md., apartment where 88-year-old James von Brunn lived with his son and son's fiancee.

FBI Special Agent Christy Shaffer says in a document obtained Tuesday that officials seized computers, disks, a handwritten will, a rifle and ammunition. The final item listed is a "painting of what appears to be Hitler and Jesus."

Von Brunn faces a first-degree murder charge in the death of 39-year-old Stephen T. Johns, who is black. Von Brunn was shot in the face by guards who returned fire and remains hospitalized. FBI officials have said he is likely to survive.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Oh, wish I'd seen this back when this thread was still alive.

Regarding Scott Roeder, the alleged killer of Dr. Tiller/"Tiller the Killer":

"'He didn't like taxation and overregulation,' Mr. Wilson recalled, adding that Mr. Roeder had outspoken views against abortion."

Guess Roeder had at least a couple of viewpoints in common with (at least most of) the bloggers here at NLT.

[Naturally, I point this out not to frighten anyone about the possibility of violence being committed by the NLT bloggers, but to show how problematic it is to simply note parallels that might, or even probably, have no real significance.]

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14037