Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


The Mystifying Election




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar
You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story

You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story

Richard Schickel (Director)
$26.99

more items

 
Report

The Lone Wolves Among Us

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 11, 2009

By Eugene Robinson

    We are blessed to live at a time when violent acts of hatred based on race, ethnicity or religion have become rare, at least in this country. As the act of terrorism committed Wednesday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum should remind us, though, rare doesn’t mean nonexistent.

    James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist who allegedly took a rifle into the museum and killed security guard Stephen Johns, is more than a bitter, demented old man. He is a known figure in the domestic hate industry, a venom-spewing polemicist whose Web site offered readers the chance to download the opening chapters of his racist, anti-Semitic tome for free—and to buy the rest of the book for the bargain price of 10 bucks.

    Apparently, there weren’t enough takers. The Washington Post reported Thursday that acquaintances say von Brunn had become virtually destitute and was complaining that “someone in Washington” had cut his Social Security benefits as punishment for his political views. His recent e-mail blasts were apocalyptic. “It’s time to kill all the Jews,” said one.

    It’s easy to surmise that von Brunn, a rabid Holocaust denier, could have chosen the Holocaust museum as a target because he thought it would offer the opportunity to kill Jews. His writings show that he also hates black people with great passion, however, so perhaps he took some measure of sick satisfaction in allegedly gunning down the 39-year-old Johns, an African-American.

    In April, a prescient Department of Homeland Security memo predicted that the election of the first African-American president and the advent of economic hard times could worsen the threat from “right-wing extremist groups.” In particular, the memo warned of an increase in anti-Semitic activity by extremists who buy into the whole Jewish-banker-secret-cabal paranoid fantasy—and would blame “the Jews” for engineering the global financial crisis, just as they blame “the Jews” for everything.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    For days, some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating “right wing” with “terrorism.” It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn’t matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn’t to illuminate a subject by putting it in the light but to blast it with heat.

    And it wasn’t just the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world who pretended to be outraged. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused the administration of trying “to segment out Americans who dissent from this administration, to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration, and labeling them as terrorists.” Steele seems to have decided that telling the truth isn’t nearly as important as the high-temperature exercise known as “firing up the base.”

    The thing is, though, that words have consequences.

    There’s profit for the pundits, and perhaps personal advantage for some politicians, in calling President Obama a “socialist” and calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist Latina” and claiming that Democrats want to “take away your guns”—in creating and nurturing a sense of grievance among those inclined to be aggrieved. But what about those who might not understand that it’s all just political theater? 

    The Homeland Security memo made the assessment that “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” It recalled an April 4 incident in which three Pittsburgh-area police officers were killed, and said “the alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in anti-government conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’ ”

    It’s clear that James von Brunn was a firm believer in this whole insane scenario long before the financial meltdown or Obama’s election. Maybe it was his personal financial situation that allegedly pushed him over the edge. Maybe he reached a point of no return years ago, when he made a bizarre attempt to take members of the Federal Reserve Board hostage.

    What we don’t know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer—the next “lone wolf,” preparing to howl.
   
    Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

PGG:

You keep walking the line coyly between admitting you are a Holocaust denier and saying you’re not. I have NO idea where you got that quote from Hilberg: His “Destruction of European Jewry” and “Documents of Destruction” were the first major seminal works on the Holocaust.  Hilberg’s MAIN point is unlike most events in history where documentation is hard to come by, for the Holocaust, the problem for the scholar is untangling the MOUNTAINS of documents that were preserved after the War.  How does the scholar wade through such a mass?

The Holocaust museum isn’t about hating Germans or Germany. Why would I care or castigate modern Germans for what their parents and grandparents and GREAT-grandparents did that ENDED nearly 65 years ago?  And most Germans have a real terror of returning to those times—Millions of THEM died in the War, too. 

I was raised to despise Germans and Germany, and not to buy ANYTHING made in Germany, so when I first went to Germany as a teen in 1971 and I was nervous.  What I quickly noticed was that the number of men my Dad’s age seemed surprisingly small, and the percentage of them who were amputees was surprisingly high.  Buildings all over still had marks from the War.  That was when I had the epiphany that a) Germany suffered too, even though the wound was self-inflicted b) we Americans subscribe to the concept that we deny a “corruption of blood” (it’s in the Constituion).  That means we do not blame family members or descendants for a person’s crimes.  IOW, the children of the Nazi generation cannot be held responsible for the Nazis’ actions.

Many, even most Jews believe this, even Torah Orthodox in Israel.  The Nazis were our enemies.  Germans and Germany are not.  But those who defend the Nazis and seek to return them to power are the enemies of every Jew, Black, Brown, Yellow, Olive-skinned, and any freedom-loving person in the world.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 13, 2009 at 1:42 am Link to this comment

Re: hippie4ever

Your comment: ““We are blessed to live at a time when violent acts of hatred based on race, ethnicity or religion have become rare, at least in this country.”—Eugene Robinson

I respectfully disagree.”

I’ll second that.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 13, 2009 at 1:39 am Link to this comment

Re: pgg804

“The holocaust museum was built to generate hatred and disgust towards everything German and German people like von Brunn.  It, like the holocaust museum in Los Angeles and the hundreds of other smaller holocaust museums built in the US were also built so Israel could murder as many Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs they want without receiving any criticism.  A few months ago Israel murdered 1,400 Palestinians without a peep from our government.

pgg804,  Get over yourself.  WWII was not about “hating Germans”, it was about the crazy-ass NAZI’s taking control of THEIR country and in turn unleashing a progrom of death and destruction throughout Europe.  You are a NAZI.  Admit it, don’t give us your supposed “scholarly” bullshit.  Buck up, asshole.

Re: Paracelsus

Your comment: “I suppose many of these revanchists have connections nationalist groups, neoaryan, Neo-nazi or plain conservative. I find that whatever is repressed the most seems to have cache. Also the membership of these organizations aren’t easy to classify as their issues are connected to globalization, unrestricted immigration, and class inequities. A good many of the victimized classes become skinheads, and they are quickly labeled as racist.

Good try, now try again.  The Feds are looking for ya’.  Get your head out from where the sun don’t shine and FACE IT, YOU are a fringe NAZI.  Buck up!  Are you not proud?  Why do you speak “around an issue” when it is so readily apparent you ENDORSE it? 

Sucking off the bottom of the tank, just like all bloodsuckers.  Why don’t you BOTH LET US ALL HEAR, your true feelings….. Are you “worried” that you might be “labeled” THE FRINGE and CRAZIES….?  You betcha!  Let me quote you again….“Skinheads, and they are quickly labeled as racists”...... C’mon, how DUMB do you think people are?

JANET NAPOLITANO…..Oh…JANET!!!!, we have a couple of “live” ones for ya’.  Check out their ISP’s.  Yep, there aren’t any “lone wolves”.....

C’mon….you scum-suckers.  Tell us how you really feel.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 13, 2009 at 12:35 am Link to this comment

If I remember correctly, British police didn’t even carry guns.  That’s probably changed by now.

Report this

By hippie4ever, June 12, 2009 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

“We are blessed to live at a time when violent acts of hatred based on race, ethnicity or religion have become rare, at least in this country.”—Eugene Robinson

I respectfully disagree. I have seen nauseating photographs & accounts of torture committed by this country against Muslims at Gitmo, Bahrain and other rendition sites. As a gay man I have been attacked by homophobes and police within the United States and my experience is typical. Much of that hatred was whipped up by clerics sprewing the sick tenets of an intolerant religion. It’s all “in the bible” only they never say where, because they haven’t actually read it.

Then there is the violence committed by the rich against the rest of us. In 1980, one percent of the population owned eight percent of the national wealth; today it has tripled and with the recent rip-offs it’s probably even worse.

Hunger and poverty in a society with available resources for all, is truly the ultimate violence. Children bear the brunt of this pathological & sociopathic greed, and often abandon childhood for crime. Why? Because crime pays—just ask Tim Geitner or anyone on the BofD of Citibank, AIG, GM, Wachovia.

And should that child use physical force, society will violently slap him or her down like a bug, all the while lamenting the violent acts of the defendent. So you see, taking the lone wolves out of the equation, this is still one of the most violent societies on earth.

Report this

By AFriend, June 12, 2009 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, - “AFriend—I should add that I was very pleased to be noted as someone you become angry upon reading”

—-

Anger is not the context. Far from it. You mistake anger for an overall disrespect in how you go about pursuing your goals.

And people don’t have to necessarily agree for them to be of like mind or personality.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

@ pgg804

2 million German women were gang raped before many were murdered with the rest of their family.

I remember hearing about that in a book read by Gunter Grass. Hordes of Soviet soldiers invaded Germany and many raped German women. There was one passage of the novel where a German woman seemed grateful for it as she had not sex in years. That little story I found disgusting. Perhaps Grass had a strange sense of humor. There is much I don’t understand about the novel as I am unfamiliar with German culture and folklore. I do recall hearing about ethnic Germans outside the orbit of Germany, who were killed in Russia and East Europe. I think these communities of Germans were remnants of second Reich Germany as well as the descendants of Hanseatic merchants. Contrary to popular thought there are no neat and clean borders demographically in Eastern Europe, and ethnic Germans as well as other ethnic groups tend to clump in little smatters, kind of like the spray from a paint gun. In Gunter Grass’s novel Oskar’s family lived in the free city of Danzig. Much of today’s Poland owes its land mass from WWI and WWII. I had heard some controversies about some in Germany who want their old borders back. I suppose many of these revanchists have connections nationalist groups, neoaryan, Neo-nazi or plain conservative. I find that whatever is repressed the most seems to have cache. Also the membership of these organizations aren’t easy to classify as their issues are connected to globalization, unrestricted immigration, and class inequities. A good many of the victimized classes become skinheads, and they are quickly labeled as racist. Problem is that there are no jobs, no entry positions into the economy. The image of the 35 year old graduate student is popular comedic stock character. You can get all the education you want. Getting hired, that’s the rub. I remember seeing a documentary about Sweden’s “racist” white youth, and I think that this globalization has left a deep scar on modern Europe.

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

Continued from previous post: 

The third purpose of this monument of hatred is so Jewish organizations could continue to extracts billions of dollars from European governments. (this is where the guilt comes in).  Read Norman Finkelstein’s book “The Holocaust Industry” on how Jewish organizations used blackmail and extortion to rob Europeans of 20 billion dollars so they could build holocaust museums, holocaust university programs and enrich themselves personally.  Finkelstein is the son of holocaust survivors who resents how his parents suffering is being used.

Besides the obvious problem that the US government helped fund this monument of hatred, the US has shown itself to be the most hypocritical country in the world.  It will build a memorial to the suffering of Jews that occurred thousands of miles away from its shores, but it ignores the hundreds of years of slavery, rape and murder it inflicted on African Americans and the genocide it committed against the American Indian in its own country.  Perhaps Germany should build a memorial to the murdered American Indians and Africans.

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind, Anarcissie, et al.

I’m not going to argue with people whose only weapon is to insult someone by calling them an anti-semite.  I’m not an anti-semite, but Americans use the term so frequently they obviously think an anti-semite is worse than an anti-Muslim, anti-German, anti-Russian, etc.  That explains why Americans don’t kill Jews, but they fly to all corners of the world to kill Muslims.

Regarding WW II, most Americans are completely ignorant (as with many other subjects).  Why not?  It was fought thousands of miles away from your shores.  President Obama, an intelligent man that I respect, thought his uncle who was an American soldier that helped liberate Auschwitz.  When he was told Americans were never near Auschwitz (the Russians liberated it), he called his uncle to straighten out his confusion.  This is not surprising.  Americans don’t know of the war because you were nowhere near it.  You didn’t suffer any physical damage to your country and no American civilians experienced the war.

Regarding the Holocaust, the first important book published on the subject was written by Raul Hilbert in the early 1960’s.  He is considered by many the founder of “holocaust studies”  He is an American Jew that came to the US from Austria.  Hilbert said, “there is no doubt the holocaust happened, but to prove it is very difficult”.  Contrary to what Anarcissie said, the evidence is not overwhelming.  Some pictures that are are published over and over again in every American history book and documentary don’t prove everything associated with the holocaust.  I never said I was a “holocaust denier”, but the other statement “the curious thing about most Holocaust deniers is that they are usually anti-Semitic” is an opinion that you have formed because that is what you have been told repeatedly by the press.  A few historians (one has been called the most knowledgeable person regarding WW II - David Irving) have been put in jail just for questioning certain aspects of what is said regarding the holocaust.

My parents were from Europe and experienced the war first hand.  My mother and her side of the family suffered greatly.  About 50 million Christians died in the war including about 25 million Soviets and 8 million Germans.  2 million German women were gang raped before many were murdered with the rest of their family.  Where is the memorial to these people?  Obviously, similar to how Muslims are regarded, Americans consider them less less important than Jews.

The holocaust museum was built to generate hatred and disgust towards everything German and German people like von Brunn.  It, like the holocaust museum in Los Angeles and the hundreds of other smaller holocaust museums built in the US were also built so Israel could murder as many Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs they want without receiving any criticism.  A few months ago Israel murdered 1,400 Palestinians without a peep from our government.

The non-stop discussion of the holocaust garners sympathy and support for Israel and Jews from the US and creates feelings of guilt in Europeans.  The result is Israel can get away with bloody murder and Jewish interests get their way.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 12, 2009 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

I’ve just started reading this thread and I can’t let this pass.

ITW wrote:

“Hey, Gene! Haven’t you been reading the posters at TD, many of who make EXACTLY the same claims as right-wingers?  The archives of TruthDig are FULL of posts making exactly the same claims and increase 100x if you replace “Jews” with “AIPAC” and/or “Zionists”.
********************

I would like to refer you to this long article about the difference between Judaism and Zionism, written by a Jew.

The people here, IMO, refer to Zionism, as I do,and I have been aware of the difference for some time.
****************
take note of the last sentence. 

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html

The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism
G. Neuburger

Where the Torah tells about the creation of the first human being, the most prominent Jewish commentator, Rashi, explains that the earth from which Adam was formed was not taken from one spot but from various parts of the globe. Thus human dignity does not depend on the place of one’s birth nor is it limited to one region.

  The greatness or worth of a person is not measured by his or her outward appearance. Jews believe that Adam was created in G-d’s image and that he is the common ancestor of all mankind. At this stage in human history, there is no room for privileged people who can do with others as they please. Human life is sacred and human rights are not to be denied by those who would subvert them for “national security” or for any other reason. No one knows this better than the Jews, who have been second-class citizens so often and for so long. Some Zionists, however, may differ. This is understandable because Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: If one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew.

Report this

By omop, June 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

In an ideal world “A” has an equal right to hate “B” as “B’s” right to hate A.

In a world that adheres to the dicta of “An eye for eye can only end-up with the whole world eventually become blind.”

So there!

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

@ KDelphi

Paracelsus—I become offended by the supposed link between Socialism and Nazism. They are almost polar opposites. Just because Hitler said it, doesnt make it so.  (Further, early Jewish immigrants were some of the boldest Socialists , especially in NYC, although many felt betrayed by Stalin as did most real Socialists—many are still Socialist Activists, like a family member of mine who is a law professor)http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/holo-j1 2.shtml

I believe you will find that Hitler was one variety of National Socialism. There were some NS that were more socialist than nationalist. In the end German industry was beholding to Hitler under the penalty of state confiscation. Ultimately he was the benefactor/dictator to protected industrial monopolies. The wealth of his enemies was confiscated by the state, and “redistributed”. They had excellent healthcare as long as they considered you a productive citizen. IBM gave them excellent database technologies, so it was possible to manage large populations of people. In order to keep costs low, the government hounded tobacco users. The German regime had many elements of totalitarian socialism. This was the era of Busby Berkeley type entertainments in the USSR and Germany with synchronized marching, flag twirlings, and other happenings. People think Woodstock was so novel. Group consciousness has a powerful effect. For some reason large groups of people doing a synchronized effort of some sort seem to lift their collective morales. They feel organized and cheered by the experience. This is as old as the hills and yet folks fall for these est therapy groups, and walking on coals.

I know there are many flavors of socialism. I am not saying that the old system that came before socialism was any better- in many ways it was a lot worse. I can list fascist socialism, international socialism, national socialism, Fabian socialism, democratic socialism, and anarchic socialism. With all of these socialisms, citizens give up some sort of autonomy in contracting that the group or government take care a need or needs of theirs. Such government needs to keep costs low. It helps to be able to monitor the data on people. The people need a uniform indoctrination as that keeps things efficient and low cost as well. Competition in ideas may be the ideal of capitalist constitution republic, but it makes hard to govern as a collectivist oligarchy. Such an oligarchy has plans and targets to keep on schedule. Freeform education as happens in home schooling makes for clients/consumers that are hard to manage as these hosts in a network don’t fit inside a protocol. A special protocol has to be made just for them. The whole history of oligarchy has been one of inexpensive herd management.

As to eugenics and socialism, it is only natural in a system that sustains humans through taxation that the powers that be should work out ways of rationing care. I think you will study the works of such Fabian socialists as Aldous Huxley, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Charles Galton Darwin, and Bertrand Russell, you will find what I have to say rings true.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

Cont’d

As to democratic socialism, I have heard it said that it works well in small countries with homogeneous populations. For some reason large migrations of economic refugees into the porous borders of such a country tends to be self defeating. Democratic socialism works fine with the assumption that the people will voluntarily assimilate into a common volkgeist, which would keep costs minimized, but subject that population to an influx of clannish, tribal, and religiously fundamentalist unassimilateables, and you have problems. Like it or not, liberalism, democratic socialism or the mixed system is innately nationalistic, for the government looks out for its people above the interests of other nations and peoples. If it weren’t for the empire, the subjects of Britain would be starving instead of Bengalese of India or the Irish of West Ireland. There has always been a type of national socialism before Hitler. It is just that the Germans have a sense of precision in labeling things as well as outdoing the other guy by one better. I would say socialism started out as a national enterprise, but those would who ran the show always had an eye toward making it international.

Report this

By Zero_Hour, June 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh come on. Enough of this. Just because Stalin was a right wing authoritarian and his Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was built on a far-right nationalist movement does not mean that all right wingers want to kill (at least constantly). Can’t you accept that?

And for the record left wingers really are incapable of anti-Semite racist beliefs. That is the origin of the term “rightwing” after all.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 12, 2009 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

ITW—In my post, I stated that Stalin betrayed Socialist ideas completely. He has poisoned the West to any Democratic Socialist ideas for a generation, although, where he struck most horrifingly, in Europe, they seem to have overcome it. Must be the educational system.

And I do resent Perecelsus implication that the Socialist Prty today is in any way related to Natl Socialism.

I hear it all the time. Yet Perecelsus is aghast when Olbermann blames Ron Paul’s supporters for things like that which happened at the Holocuast Memorial—talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I dont think that either one is true.

I disagree with Paul on many things, agree on others. But, I dont think that his supporters are fascists…

Report this

By jackpine savage, June 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t say that the left wing supported him in any way.  And i only repeated what i read of his personal beliefs.  The problem is that individuals don’t always fall into perfectly definable categories, but editorial writers seem incapable of working in medium other than perfectly definable categories.

Furthermore, i find the idea that an anti-Semite racist must be right wing stupid, because it’s based on the false proposition that the left wing is incapable of such beliefs.

Report this

By diamond, June 12, 2009 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

Every year 1.2 million people die in car crashes or from being hit by cars. On average, each year, in the entire world, 900 people die as a result of terrorism. Get it in perspective: and calling every event like this terrorism is just fear mongering. This man was angry, bitter and destitute, had some fanatical ideas and possibly a persecution complex and he killed someone. It’s tragic but is it really ‘terrorism’? The real threat the entire world faces is from state terror and the unholy alliance between the military, the intelligence ‘services’ and organized crime.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

Hate to say it but Paracelsus is right: Stalinism was nearly as brutal as Nazism. The numbers of muzhiks that Stalin deliberately killed mainly by starvation was as staggering as the concentration camps.

The original relationship between International Socialism (Marxism) and National Socialism was not historically that broad at the start. In fact, Hitler did not found the National Socialist party, and was in the “National” wing rather than the “Socialist” wing (I believe the Stroesser Brothers led the latter).  Hitler later purged the party of that left wing, then purged it again in the Ernst Roehm purge.

Stalin did the same, first purging the party of the far Left, the Trotskyites, then of the Right, who had supported him against Trotsky.

Of course, to be fair, Stalin was a truly warped version of a Marxist—so much so Lenin despised him and warned the Party about him.  One of Stalin’s BIGGEST deviations was he was just as much of a racist as Hitler, and his policies reflected that.  The mistrust of non-Russians outlasted him.  Of course, Stalin wasn’t Russian as Hitler wasn’t German.  Stalin was Georgian and Hitler was Austrian.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 12, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

AFriend—I should add that I was very pleased to be noted as someone you become angry upon reading, although the people you named could scarcely disagree with each other more—I think that we can live with that….dont get paranoid, it leads to rash acts.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

This man was imprisoned for a pretty short period of time, considering his pasat violations! What did they do, let him out to lock up a pot smoker?

Yes, the idea of other ways of killing is interesting, and all too true. The acts themselves may be symptomatic.


Paracelsus—I become offended by the supposed link between Socialism and Nazism. They are almost polar opposites. Just because Hitler said it, doesnt make it so.  (Further, early Jewish immigrants were some of the boldest Socialists , especially in NYC, although many felt betrayed by Stalin as did most real Socialists—many are still Socialist Activists, like a family member of mine who is a law professor)http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/holo-j12.shtml

“...Both Carto and Von Brunn backed the 1968 presidential campaign of George Wallace, the Alabama Democrat who ran as an independent pro-segregation candidate. Carto later founded the Populist Party, which ran national presidential campaigns in the 1990s, and supported the political campaigns of former KKK leader David Duke, who won the Republican nomination for governor of Louisiana during that period….

According to a report in the Washington Post Thursday, Von Brunn regularly associated with a former Reagan White House aide, Todd Blodgett, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Blodgett was a co-owner of Resistance Records, which distributed racist music, but also worked as a paid informant for the FBI, an indication that the agency was well aware of Von Brunn’s return to fascist circles after his release from prison. One recent activity bringing Blodgett and Von Brunn together was a fundraiser in Arlington, Virginia to benefit the fascist organization in Britain, the British National Party..”

Socialism is in no way race-based. It is in no way religious based. It does not, as some think, call for the establishment of a “state”, but calls for cooperative ownership, by workers. There is disagreement over how this is to be accomplished, but, it could hardly be differnt from Nazi-ism.

Some speakers at the Socialism 2009 conference, in Chicago (June 18-21)will be: Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman,Brian Jones and Laura Flanders…such hateful people..http://socialismconference.org/.

Present day Socialist Democracies were swallowed up by Hitler and the Nazis and, as someone said here, often imprison people for anti-Semetic speech. While I dont agree with that, I just dont see how you make that link. I know that it has been attempted over and over but it is just not true.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

What is overlooked about Marxian socialism is that it is naturally eugenic; it tends toward genocide. Engels and Marx felt that there were peoples who were too backward in social evolution to be include in the evolution of humanity toward the communist utopia. They needed to be liquidated. Hitler’s National Socialist Party had advertised the similarity between Hitler and Lenin. These declarations were made near the end of the Great War. But the Nazis later repressed this early campaign as it proved unpopular. There was an earlier genocide that was just as awful as the destruction of the Jews. This was the liquidation of the Ukrainians. Some 6 to 7 million people died in that. Many of the leading progressives and liberals of the day said little of the 1933-1934 murders of Ukrainians. All this I learned from the film, The Soviet Story.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

I remember the issue of Zyklon B being used to kill lice on the concentration camp prisoners. The Holocaust revisionists argued that the dose needed to kill the lice was different than the dose needed to kill humans.  Yes the dose levels are different to kill lice as opposed to humans. It takes less cyanide to kill humans than lice. Oops. Another argument is that it was impossible to clean the bodies out of the showers that applied the cyanide without Germans themselves being killed if the dose needed to kill humans was used. Also the schiessmeisters that cleaned the showers afterward could not have done it without dropping dead themselves, and why would the Germans use their own soldiers to do this? Problem is that they would use other untermenches or undesirables to do that dirty work as well. Oop. On top of that the US army has so much file footage of the camps that the evidence is insurmountable.

So I can’t see how anyone would take the revisionists seriously. But the problem is when the government forbids speech or thought on the revisionist issue, it gives the revisionists a false sense of intellectual credibility.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

pgg804, June 12 at 11:00 am #

Is a “rabid holocaust denier” like a rabid vegetarian?  If he doesn’t think the holocaust happened or he doesn’t think it happened as it is generally told, he still has that right as far as I know.  In Europe they put people in jail that downplay or say the holocaust didn’t happen, but as far as I know free speech is still allowed in the US.  I know the US press tells us what they want us to think, but are they now going to tell us what is legal to think?

By the way, there are some historians and other people (remember the Catholic Bishop a few moths ago) who agree with him.
*****************************************

Let me guess: You are one of those “other people”.  You’ve been dropping little toads all over hinting at it.  Why don’t you just come out and admit you are a Holocaust denier?  Or say, straight out, that you are not?

But if you think you can test the water to see if anyone picks up on your posts, forget it—you’re not that subtle.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 12 at 11:32 am #

  pgg804:
  ‘Is a “rabid holocaust denier” like a rabid vegetarian? ...’

The curious thing about most Holocaust deniers is that they are usually anti-Semitic.  In other words, while they deny in the face of overwhelming evidence that large numbers of Jews were killed with genocidal intentions, they also seem to believe it ought to have happened.  So why not just enjoy the belief that your wishes have already been fulfilled?  But I guess it is superfluous to accuse an anti-Semite of being illogical.
*******************************************

Remember Lewis Carrol’s Humpty Dumpty: “Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more, no less.”  In other words, his words are pure and simply weapons.

So they are with the Holocaust deniers.  They are not simply illogical—it’s much more diabolical than that. I believe, in their hearts, they ALL know it happened. Why? Because their “scholarship” consists of lots of quoting each other—so you’ll see quotes from the NYtimes, and other media to look legit, but they’ll always be something innocuous.  For the juicy stuff, they quote a trail of references that key back to one or two publications created of totally questionable scholarship.  It’s like Enron’s system of shell corporations, shell upon shell built on nothing but the desire to fool people.

So…why?  Well, the answer is blatantly obvious: To posthumously rehabilitate Hitler and the NSDAP, The National Socialist German Workers’ Party—the Nazi Party.  See, if there was no Holocaust, then the MAJOR charge against the Nazis collapses—that they were genocidal murderers. Now Hitler becomes more like Napoleon or Bismarck.  This of course would then justify lifting the anti-Nazi sanctions in Europe and the American and Canadian Nazi movements’ claims to actually being legitimate, not the murderous bastards they were.

THAT is what Holocaust denial is all about: Rehabilitating Hitler and the Nazis.  This is why many neo-nazi sites are castigating Von Brunn—he has set their movement back with his insane plots.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

AFriend:
If the press coverage of this matter is correct, that Von Brunn, hated President Bush, Sen. McCain, The Weekly Standard and Neo-Con’s then what is it that makes the press assume and report this man to be Right Wing Extreme?...’

Journalists assign people to the political Right and Left according to convention.  Among those who play with poli sci, racists are supposed to be rightists because race is a way of hierarchicalizing a community and rightists are supposed to be interested in stratified, authoritarian social orders.  But that sort of political analysis isn’t really practiced by reporters.  If Von Brunn had shot up a corporate headquarters they could have just as easily called him a left-wing extremist.

‘I do not know if Sotomayor is a racist. I simply don’t know that much about her. BUT, and this cannot honestly be denied, if a white male jurist were to say that he could better adjudicate due to his racial background, that white man would be blasted mercilessly on this site for being a clear racist. He would not be considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.’

I took her to be saying that a “wise latina” might have a broader experience of life than would tend to be the case with those in more privileged categories.  Likewise, an upper-class White male who went the prep school, Ivy League, corporate lawyer route might claim he had the broader experience of life, although it wouldn’t go over very well with our numerous populist and pseudo-populist fellow citizens.  Neither remark would be racist.  In either case, it seems like a dumb and irrelevant thing to say.  But I don’t know the context—maybe someone told Sotomayor she didn’t know anything because she was a Puerto Rican and grew up in the Bronx.

Report this

By LA, June 12, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“What does/will it take (in all seriousness) to “kill” The Constitution of the United States of America…..?”

All it takes is justification in one’s own mind. “The devil made me do it.” “I ate too many twinkies.” “He/she had it coming.” “God told me to do it.” “It’s in the Bible/Koran/Talmud/et al.”

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 12, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

No, anyone is capable of racism or any other negativism of anyone else for any reason. No one is necessarily immune from it automatically.

If he was ‘Pagan’ than why did he have such an extreme view of Jews? Aryan-Christian types do, Pagans don’t. He was firmly in the reich-wing of it from the Freemen to his general tone and word choices. Or was he found in the fringe, left-wing sites and groups and publications? I don’t think so JackPineSavage. If you can find such left-wing sites that supported him, his way of seeing the world then please give us some sites to peruse. Socialism isn’t just for the left wing you know.

Sounds like the entire American Nazi spin machine lead by Fark News is making the same claims on Brunn. “He ain’t one of ours, he’s a liberal.” And we know that they advocate for liberals…see Dr. Tiller for an example.

Report this

By jackpine savage, June 12, 2009 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Ok, what makes him “right wing”? Is it his anti-Semitism, his racism, what?

Are we saying that the left wing is incapable of racism? Because if we are then there are a lot of people fooling themselves.

Von Brunn wasn’t a Christian; in fact, he abhorred Christianity as a descendant of Judaism. He was a professed pagan. How right wing is that?

And from some of the tidbits i’ve been able to read, he also appeared to be a socialist.

You won’t hear any argument from me about the vile hatred spewed by right wing talking heads, ultra-conservative churches, etc. But simply assuming that someone is right wing because they hate Jews and blacks is more than a little disingenuous as it requires believing that the left wing is incapable of such thoughts…and that, quite frankly, is bullshit.

Report this

By AFriend, June 12, 2009 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

If the press coverage of this matter is correct, that Von Brunn, hated President Bush, Sen. McCain, The Weekly Standard and Neo-Con’s then what is it that makes the press assume and report this man to be Right Wing Extreme?

These adolescent labels, far too common on this Web site, are useless.

And it’s demented to believe that only white people, or republicans, or Jew haters, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists can be racist. Humans are human. Period.

—-

Anarcissie:

I do not know if Sotomayor is a racist. I simply don’t know that much about her. BUT, and this cannot honestly be denied, if a white male jurist were to say that he could better adjudicate due to his racial background, that white man would be blasted mercilessly on this site for being a clear racist. He would not be considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.

It’s not an issue of being one of the political “Right” to hold this opinion. It’s a matter of intellectual honesty.

Ask an Hispanic or Negro about the animosities amongst their races in America. As a group these two tend to overwhelmingly vote for democrats.

I am a gun controlling, pro choice, anti death penalty white male who tends to vote just right of center. But on this site I am labeled a villainous neo-con.

The hatred spewed toward me on this site is both closed minded and extremely small in depth of thinking. And the haters here think of themselves as “fair”, “open minded”, “all inclusive” “progressives”.

—-

I would not be surprised if one of the regulars here on TruthDig suddenly stops posting. But that would be about the hatred and bigotry I witness here. Not about race or political ideology.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

pgg804:
‘Is a “rabid holocaust denier” like a rabid vegetarian? ...’

The curious thing about most Holocaust deniers is that they are usually anti-Semitic.  In other words, while they deny in the face of overwhelming evidence that large numbers of Jews were killed with genocidal intentions, they also seem to believe it ought to have happened.  So why not just enjoy the belief that your wishes have already been fulfilled?  But I guess it is superfluous to accuse an anti-Semite of being illogical.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 12, 2009 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

His name is Ezra Nawi

06.10.2009 | FreeEzra.org

By Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Neve Gordon

Dear Mirene:

“Every so often someone comes along who is so brave and so inspiring that you just can’t sit by and remain silent when you learn they need your help.

We’re writing to you today about one of these rare people.

His name is Ezra Nawi.

You’ve probably never heard of him, but because you may know our names, now you will know his name.

Ezra Nawi is one of Israel’s most courageous human rights activists and without your help, he will likely go to jail in less than 30 days.

His crime? He tried to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinian Bedouins in the South Hebron region. These homes and the families who live in them have been under Israeli occupation for 42 years. They still live without electricity, running water and other basic services. They are continuously harassed by Jewish settlers and the military.

Nawi’s friends have launched a campaign to generate tens of thousands of letters to Israeli embassies all over the world before he is due to be sentenced in July. They’ve asked for your help.

His name is Ezra Nawi.

We keep saying his name because we believe that the more people know him and know his name, the harder it will be for the Israeli military to send him quietly to jail.

And Ezra Nawi is anything but quiet.

He is a Jewish Israeli of Iraqi descent who speaks fluent Arabic.

He is a gay man in his fifties and a plumber by trade.

He has dedicated his life to helping those who are trampled on. He has stood by Jewish single mothers who pitched tents in front of the Knesset while struggling for a living wage, and by Palestinians threatened with expulsion from their homes.

He is loved by those with little power, to whom he dedicates his life, and hated by the Jewish settlers, military and police.

Now that you know Ezra, you have a chance to stand up for him, and for everything that he represents. Especially now, as Israel escalates its crackdown on human rights and pro-democracy activists.

He needs you. His friends need you. Those he helps every day need you. So please send a letter to the Consulate, to the media, to your family and friends.

Take just a moment to write your letter. Do it now. And then share his name with a friend. Do it for Ezra Nawi.

Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Neve Gordon “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Click on link to watch this short video. Watch Israel’s brutal/racist IDF. Watch them laughing at Ezra Nawi and at what they have just done. Watch the IDF’s Zionist methods of upholding/respecting “Human Rights”:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/what-we-can-do-19/

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 12, 2009 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Sure it was just the likes of Bill O’Reilly who kept talking about “Tiller the Baby Killer” over and over. I’m sure that was what you meant, right? When anyone of them say that abortion is “killing a baby” or anything like that then it is considered, by them, murder. Which in the Bible mandates that the murderer can be killed in retribution, i.e. “blood for blood.” All of those facilitators on the rabid wrong wing has been aiding and abetting them psychologically. Egging them on so yes many of them have helped the ‘lone wolf’ killers. So we have a free speech dilemma. Not one easily answered.

By-the-way, the various groups promote their more serious members to quit and become those ‘lone wolves’ to leave the flock for “god’s labor of love.”

Oh and calling out AIPAC and the fanatical Zionists on what they are does not mean one is anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. I am neither. [It is the canard cynically used by Israelis and others when anyone dares to say that some of what Israel does is wrong and criminal.] I point out any criminality with anyone else including Palestinians too. Don’t all of you? We must all be humanists or we lose our empathy and become psychopaths (no empathy) and some other lesser factor becomes more important like constituency or nationality or religion or profit.

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Is a “rabid holocaust denier” like a rabid vegetarian?  If he doesn’t think the holocaust happened or he doesn’t think it happened as it is generally told, he still has that right as far as I know.  In Europe they put people in jail that downplay or say the holocaust didn’t happen, but as far as I know free speech is still allowed in the US.  I know the US press tells us what they want us to think, but are they now going to tell us what is legal to think?

By the way, there are some historians and other people (remember the Catholic Bishop a few moths ago) who agree with him.

Report this

By Bud, June 12, 2009 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have a neighbor,and both he and his wife are avowed racists.They will tell you right to your face that they HATE N****s!!!The next time he spouts off with his racial slurs and garbage,I intend to ask him ;Do you know how many black soldiers died so that he has the right to hate them??It is totally obscene,and twisted!!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

I agree the Right has been somewhat wacky lately, describing Obama as a Muslim, a socialist, and a non-citizen, and Sotomayor as a “racist latina”.  I believe that this is because Obama has continued most of Bush’s policies, while the public has moved somewhat to the Left on cultural matters, so that the Right cannot attack him on issues and is floundering around trying to get a handle on something they can use.

The supposed Left (actually, the other Right), the Democrats, don’t have a similar problem because, by and large, they don’t stand for anything except getting elected.  They’ve succeeded by letting the passionately ideological Republicans destroy themselves.  Their platform is “We may be conservative and corrupt, but we’re not crazy.”

However, none of the above constitutes incitement to violence.  None of the major spokesmen of the Right, however odious they may seem, told anyone to kill doctors who perform abortions, or shoot up the Holocaust Museum.  I think this line of reasoning is extremely overextended already, and will soon become an object of satire and backlash.

Report this

By artie, June 12, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Terrorist” is the most common hate word these days, promoted by President Bush, Secretarys of State,Prime Ministers, and other prominent persons, worldwide, , and used many times in one paragraph or speech. .

Report this

By omop, June 12, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Killing is admitedly a “hateful” act. (to most normal humans). The killer of the doctor who performed abortions is as heinous an act as the act of Von Brunn.

  Hate has been defined as,  “the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action” so tagging one killing as just “murder” and another killing as a “hate crime” is almost absurd.

  Almost as absurd as this quote;- “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” —Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994.

  Or this quote from a John Wayne movie;- “A good Indian ma’am is a dead Indian.”

  It should be apparent to all then that that “emotion of ahtred” is what separates homo sapiens from the regular four legged animals.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, June 12, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Unfortuantley, in my experience, people seem to try and understand falty thinking, with their own falty thinking. This is why at times the public goes back and forth between opposing points of view like a steel ball in a game of pin ball.

Von Brunn was clearly suffering from paranoid delusions, and is psychotic if not criminally insane. In point of fact he has an elaborate system of thought based on his delusions.

Extreme political views, are always tempting to those with severe psychopathology. But pointing a finger, at others whose political beliefs you disagree with and trying to make someone else responsible for this man’s actions only obscures the issues.

Severly disturbed people should not have access to firearms. Right now in this country we’re having about an incident or two a week of someone with mental problems decompensating, then killing others in a fit of rage.

Law enforcement needs legal help in having the ability to remove firearms from the possession of people who suffer from severe psychopathology, before they hurt others.

Report this

By Rodger Lemonde, June 12, 2009 at 6:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Calling hate merchant rouges “lone wolves” is an insult to wolves who have a rational value system.

Report this

By AFriend, June 12, 2009 at 4:45 am Link to this comment

A self-described artist, advertising man and author living in Annapolis, Md., Von Brunn wrote an anti-Semitic treatise, “Kill the Best Gentiles,” that he said no one would publish. He decries “the browning of America” and claims to expose a Jewish conspiracy.”

Von Brunn also wrote, “The ‘Holocaust’ Religion is destroying Western Civilization”.

Hitler’s “worst mistake” was that “he didn’t gas the Jews.”

—-

Upon reading these words I was immediately struck by how they sound a great deal like half a dozen or so TruthDig regulars. Perhaps using labels such as “left wing/right wing” is not as meaningful as some like to believe.

I have long thought that using such easy labels is both childish and, potentially, dangerous.

Has anyone recently seen posting by ardee, ed harges or kdelphi? How about the vile bigot, cyrena?

My hope is that more people pay attention to how hate speech has far reaching effects on everyone.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

In particular, the memo warned of an increase in anti-Semitic activity by extremists who buy into the whole Jewish-banker-secret-cabal paranoid fantasy—and would blame “the Jews” for engineering the global financial crisis, just as they blame “the Jews” for everything.
**********************************

Hey, Gene! Haven’t you been reading the posters at TD, many of who make EXACTLY the same claims as right-wingers?  The archives of TruthDig are FULL of posts making exactly the same claims and increase 100x if you replace “Jews” with “AIPAC” and/or “Zionists”.

In this case it’s a two-front war because the Von Brunns are coming into alignment with the so-called, self-styled “Progressives”.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 12, 2009 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

“InfoTainers” is appropo
What’s the difference between Pitching the “natural cures” book and pitching the Right wing ‘Koolaid’....The Broadcasting outlet is required to have a disclaimer prior to and throughout the “Natural Cures” show. This discalimer states quite clearly the ‘Views and opinons are not necessarily those of the networks’. Why are they compelled to have such a proclamation- because what is container can not be substantiated by facts, not to mention they network wants to cover it’s own ass from liability.
But not so with these ‘Infotainers’, because the opportunity to distance themselve is poosible. These are Contracted employees of the network, granted EXPRESSED Authority to speak as their representative via their contract and the nation wide ability to expound their ‘product’ via Golden microphone, studio,cameras,staff….By signing those contracts, providing the necessary means to spew their ivews and opinions, these networks become liable for what is said. Essentially the network has Implied these ‘Infortainers’ ARE Representing the network and it’s Management (boards, shareholders) Views an opinions.
Further since these Infotainers are given a priviledge not afforded your average barroom soapbox Drunk- it appears to the public these people possess some expertise or authority on whatever subject they delve into. This gives the appearance to the general public that these have earned some legitimate claim to an authoritative position- IMPLIED Authority.
Thus since these media outlets have provided these Hate/fear mongers with both Expressed and Implied Authority without so much as a disclaimer that these are not necessarily the networks views or opinions, it is the outlets, it’s management and it’s board and shareholders who are Ultimately responsible for the actions (violence) which results from their broadcasts.
The Constitutional Right to Free Speech is a Right/Freedom granted to Citizens, not Corp entities.BillO may be able to claim the right to that guaranteed freedom, but FOX/ Newscorp can not.They are granted the right to be abroadcasting network as a means to provide a Public service. When their content endangers or is detrimental to the Public it should lose it’s priviledge and be held legally responsible.
If a woman begins flaunting her breasts in a bar- she is usually asked to leave. If however the establishment provides a stage for her ‘act’ they then become legally responsible for the content and her actions

Report this

By C. Curtis Dillon, June 12, 2009 at 3:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Throughout history, movements have used the radical, deranged fringe of society to advance their causes.  Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and the Sandinista’s in El Salvador are just a few that encouraged violence as part of their “struggle” against the establishment.  In the present day, we have the “right to life” movement (except when we decide you should lose your life ... our call because we have God on our side) and the white supremacists who nurtured this killer.  What usually happens is the intelligentsia of the movement stand on high ground, disclaiming any connection to the violence but using the rhetoric they know will incite a strong reaction to control and enable the very actions they claim to abhor.  This is a slow process as we have seen.  The movement becomes more radical and violent the longer it is denied its “rightful” place in the political pecking order of the country.  The right wing is angry because their agenda blew up and they were marginalized after having a finger on the power centers of this country.  They feel (I’m sure) that their rightful control of America was stolen from them by the same Jews and other “regressive” races that they are now attempting to destroy.  It is not possible for any of them, intelligentsia or fringe players, to admit that their politics are just not where America wants to be now (nor do they care).  Right wing ideology is a failure but they cannot admit this.  As the Obama agenda plays out and the progressive wing grows in strength, the right feels more and more isolated and more desperate to regain their former glory (which they never really had but believe they did and are entitled to).  In their desperation, we see even the more moderate of the right wing resorting to stupid and inflammatory actions which are intended to “invigorate” their base but also to enable and fuel the radical and violent among them.  Of course these same elements are horrified when a crazy actually snaps but are probably privately pleased that these actions are happening.  “The revolution has begun” would be their cry if it were politically palpable.  History has shown that those who are marginalized politically will resort to violence and fear in an attempt to establish themselves in positions of power.  The legitimate segments of the right need to repudiate the incitement of hatred and start being part of the solution.  While we spit at each other, our country is lagging further and further behind the world.  Pretty soon, if we don’t stop this stupid behavior, we will just be another banana republic viewed as the morons of America.  Is that the legacy we really want for our grand experiment?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 12, 2009 at 1:02 am Link to this comment

Re: Virginia777

Your comment: “I would add here that killing can be done in ways besides murder.”

I would like to endorse your premise, and add: What does it take to “kill” an individual?  What does it take to “kill” a society?  What does it take to “kill” reason?  What does it take to “kill” those unlike you?  What does it take to “kill” dissent?  What does it take to “kill” objectivity?

What does/will it take (in all seriousness) to “kill” The Constitution of the United States of America…..?

It is my conjecture, that these are the “bigger” questions.  To my way of reasoning, there can be no consideration of the lessor points, UNTIL the larger issues are settled.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 12, 2009 at 12:22 am Link to this comment

I would add here that killing can be done in ways besides murder.

The overflow of Hate on the internet (much of it not monitored at all) is “killing” some of the most fragile citizens of our country,

racist hate directed at children of color, their families and their schools (check out some of the public education online “debates”).

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 11, 2009 at 11:48 pm Link to this comment

Article quote:

“What we don’t know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer—the next “lone wolf,” preparing to howl.”

Well… Eugene, some of us KNOW, yes…we do.  We’ve heard it, witnessed it and may have, (without acknowledgement) become embroiled in it.  So it is in this preponderance…... I address your presumption or quandary (any port in a storm).

Firstly, I would surmise that these are not (in the true sense) “lone wolves” as you have aptly quotated.  Secondly, I would discern that they are not specifically nor necessarily, “lone”.

Regarding this, I would also “wonder” if other “forces” were acting upon ideologies specifically MEANT and inherently TRAINED psychologically to endorse these outcomes.

That said….. I would like to add only this,,,, who do our community police forces defend, the RIGHTS of the citizens who pay their wages, or the SUPPOSED rights of the FRINGE?

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook