Well, the big story yesterday was the nut job who attacked the Holocaust Museum, killing a guard. If anything is a “hate crime,” this is, though I don’t think that means he should be punished more harshly. Yes, it’s traumatic for those who appropriately hold the museum in high regard, but he should be punished for the act, not his state of mind at the time.
Of course, the slander has already begun. Not of him, but of “right-wingers” and “conservatives.” The standard media template — that he was a white Christian “right-winger” — has been trotted out, and the DHS report from last January has supposedly been vindicated. I just heard Ralph Peters, who I would have thought knew better, call the guy a “right-winger” on Cavuto.
But what in his bio makes him “right-wing”?
That he’s a racist? Nothing particularly “right-wing” about that. For example, most of the “right-wing” people I know are opposed to racial discrimination, such as job quotas, or voting for a president just because he’s black. Unlike “left-wingers,” they believe, as Martin Luther King did, that people should be judged “for the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”
That he thought people who work for the Fed are “treasonous?” That sounds nutty, but not particularly “right-wing” — if by that you mean someone who adheres to individualism, the values of the enlightenment, and limited government.
Ah, but he hated the government, I hear you say. Well, maybe, but that’s not a particularly “right-wing” notion, either. After all, a lot of leftists hated the government just a few short months ago, until The One arrived, and remade it in his image. Anyway, I’d be willing to bet that he doesn’t hate government in general — based on his writings (more on that in a minute) he wouldn’t have hated Hitler’s government, but there’s nothing “right-wing” about liking Nazis, who were leftists (and pagans).
He reportedly served on a PT boat — while a few of them saw service in the Mediterranean and even in the British Channel during the Normandy invasion, I’m guessing he was one of the vast majority who served in the Pacific, and could go fight against the “Nips” and “slants” instead of his Aryan, national socialist, “left-wing” hero in Berlin.
I actually downloaded the first few chapters of his “book,” so you wouldn’t have to. It has a slow connection, but that’s the least of its problems. He drank deeply, quaffing down the whole Kool Aid stein of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Let me head off the next slander, soon to come — as it did about Tim McVeigh, who was agnostic.
This guy was no Christian. Oh yeah, he uses the word quite a bit in the book, but only to repeat the various blood libels and to point out how the Christians have suffered at the hands of the Jews. Others, with stronger stomachs than me, waded through all the insanity and hate of the full volume, and verified that in fact he is anti-Christian. He believes that “socialism represents the future of the west,” and that the Bush administration was behind 9/11 — putting him firmly in the camp of the left, not the right.
Christians, to him, are just props on the stage of his hateful passion play. Which, of course, makes the Navy rear admiral who endorses him on the web site a dupe. No Christian could have written such a screed.
Yeah, I know — I sound like a Muslim apologist, who says that bin Laden was acting un-Islamic, and that Islam is a “Religion of PeaceTM, bla, bla, bla.”
But you know, while I don’t believe in it — and there were certainly a lot of religious wars fought by Christians, against both non-Christians and other Christians (but none recently) — the New Testament, and Christ’s words, really were those of peace. I find it very telling that I could find no quote from the New Testament in von Brunn’s screed. Just a lot of made-up stuff from the Talmud and Old Testament cribbed from the lies of the Protocols.
In light of all the information that we continue to unearth about him, some have suggested that, rather than fitting the traditional DHS/MSM notion of the deranged right-wing extremist, he resembles much more the president’s former (and future?) pastor. But perhaps the most amusing way that he breaks the established media template is that (assuming that he’s not lying), he majored in journalism. So perhaps we have a new extremist terrorist profile with which we should be concerned. Instead of looking under their beds for right-wing veterans, members of the press might keep a close eye on their own their hate-filled colleagues.
Punish this guy as a domestic terrorist, but please, don’t give us any slanderous blather about how he was a “right-winger,” or a “conservative,” or a “Christian.” He’s not, any more than the British National Party (basically a spiffed-up albionized version of the German National Socialist Workers Party also known as “Nazis”) is. Perhaps it’s time for both the media and the Department of Homeland Security to update their templates as to which side of the political spectrum represents the greatest threat to our security, and to stop libeling those “right-wingers” who have defended the Jews most vociferously, both here and abroad, for the past decades, by associating them with a vile leftist monster like James von Brunn.