Skip to main content

Of Holocaust Museum Murders and Lame-Brained Definitions of "Right-Wing Extremists"

The man who committed murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday is being deadpanned by hordes as a "right-wing extremist". The murderer was certainly an extremist, as, blessedly, these things are the exception rather than the rule. But the murderer was far from being "right-wing". Defining "Left" vs. "Right" with regard to what side of the aisle of parliament you sit on is meaningless. The worthwhile definition of left vs. right has nothing to do with political parties. Rather, it all depends on how you feel about freedom.

Share/Save/Bookmark

"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

If you say it enough...it still won't be true. Yet somehow, if you search for "holocaust right-wing" on Google News, you'll find a plethora of "news" articles calling the Holocaust Museum murderer a right-wing extremist. Like this one, from Paul Krugman, that says that right-wing extremist radio talk show hosts incited the right-wing extremist Holocaust Museum murderer to commit murder.

For another example, the Washington Post quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding the recent murder at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.:
"This is a longtime white supremacist and anti-Semite approaching the end of his life who may have decided to go out shooting," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit group in Alabama that tracks right-wing extremists.
Ah, so that's what a right-wing extremist is: a white supremacist who hates Jews. Based on the murderous incident, The Post also claims that the Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism was probably right after all.

The Museum murderer, James W. Von Brunn, idolizes Hitler.

It's just like when progressives call conservatives fascists. If you say it enough...you still look stupid when you don't know the real definition of a word.

He hates Fox News. He threatened to blow up the Weekly Standard. He hates neo-cons. Uh...not so fast, you right-wing extremists. Media Matters knows what you're thinking. Rest assured, however, that Hitler hated communism and liberalism, so had to have been a right-wing extremist!!

It's just like when progressives call conservatives fascists. If you say it enough...you still look stupid when you don't know the real definition of a word.

The meaningless, and oft-perpetuated "definition" of right wing is based on where the members of various parties sat in European parliaments.

The terms originated in the French parliament, where those who sat on the right generally supported authoritarian government control in the form of a king. Interestingly, those on the left generally supported authoritarian government control, too, albeit through a self-anointed oligarchy.

In other parliaments, communists sat to the left side of the hall, while fascists sat to the right. What

The terms "left" and "right" originated in the French parliament, where those who sat on the right generally supported authoritarian government control in the form of a king. Interestingly, those on the left generally supported authoritarian government control, too, albeit through a self-anointed oligarchy.

further confuses the issue among minds already muddled (like Media Matters) is that communists and fascists hated each other.

Importantly, the left and the right didn't hate each other based on where they sat in parliament. They hated each other because they saw each other as death-grip adversaries in the quest for universal power. It's unfortunate that "left" vs. "right" has come to mean in so many minds simply the difference between political parties.

When it comes to sides of the hall, French rightists and leftists, as well as-- elsewhere--communists and fascists, were opposites. When it comes to their abhorrence of liberty, they are blood brothers.

America's founders recognized early on that the two extremes worth

The left and the right didn't hate each other based on where they sat in parliament. They hated each other because they saw each other as death-grip adversaries in the quest for universal power.

contrasting are anarchy on one (right) side, and tyranny on the other (left) side. They saw the need for a balance between the two.

Stalin was on the left of the Founders' yardstick because he lusted for power. Hitler was also on the left for the very same reason. James W. von Brunn idolized the power that Hitler wielded. As a white supremacist, he wanted that same power over other people's lives.

In the end, using his weapon of choice, von Brunn wielded the ultimate control by taking away the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from a Holocaust Museum security guard.

That's as far from the right side of the continuum as you can get.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...