Silly Jesse!  Obviously those IslamoDemocrats are all terrists.

The white guys who go nuts are just examples of what happens when Democrats have any influence on society.  In fact, James von Brunn — according to the Goldberg Theory of Non-Conservative Convergence (“That which is not Conservative is by definition Liberal.  The definition of Conservative expands/contracts/changes-shape as necessary and does not include people who might reflect badly on Conservatism.”) — is certainly a Democrat, just like George Bush Jr., John McCain’s mother, and Colin Powell.  After all, no True Conservative would behave like that…

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. You know the rules are different when the situation applies to them.

Wow. That last link is truly astounding.

I learned it by watching you, Hamas! I learned it by watching you!

This is a man who tried to take the Federal Reserve Board hostage in the 1980s. With a shotgun. He’s had ... issues ... for a while. If any one thing set him off, I think the most likely suspect is watching a black president of the United State publicly denounce Holocaust denial and visit a concentration camp. Two great tastes that would have been bitter ashes in his mouth.

Schlussel takes the prize. Anti-Semitism came into full flower during the Crusades when at a minimum, Christians murdered tens of thousands of Jews. It was almost a millennium later when Christian Europeans taught Anti-Semitism to the Moslems.

It was almost a millennium later when Christian Europeans taught Anti-Semitism to the Moslems.

Not quite exactly right ... things were not completely hunky-dory between Jews and Muslims back in the day, but for most of Jewish history, it has, indeed, been better to live among Muslims than among Christians.

But you’re right about Schlussel. Who know 9/11 ushered in a new era of tolerance for Islam in this country? What. The. Fuck.

knew, not know

You guys should get one of those fancy, schmacy editing things, now that we all have to register.

As much disdain as I have for the various Know-Nothing fantasists who truly believe in this nonsense (to the point of ignoring obvious contradictions in fact and logic), I reserve my bile for those confidence artists who squeeze these very deserving marks for every last drop of money and power.

You criticize people who lump all Muslims together as “terrorists” when one crazy person kills in the name of Allah, then you go ahead and lump all conservatives together as people who invariably lump all Muslims together as “terrorists” when one crazy person kills in the name of Allah.

You can’t call out someone for stereotyping while writing a post about “conservatives,” invariably stereotyping them.

A white-supremacist killing people because he’s crazy does not implicate politics in this country in any way. It says nothing about conservatives any more than some communist spying for the USSR back in the 50’s implicated all Democrats. The fact you even try to make a connection, in any way, is ludicrous.

Conservatives and liberals disagree on a lot of things, but not anti-Semitism. Unless you want to disagree with your own words above, I assume you agree with me. One crazy guy means nothing.

My point being, if you can say one crazy guy somehow implicates all right-wingers, then there is no fallacy in saying one crazy Muslim implicates all Muslims.

PrivatePigg—The matter here isn’t conflating Von Brunn with all conservatives, everywhere. It’s that CERTAIN conservatives, such as Bill “Here’s Why George Tiller Kills Babies, Pt. 27” O’Reilly, Glenn “Obama Is Leading Us To FASCISM! FASCISM, I Say!” Beck and Michelle “Hey, Folks, Here’s The House Of The Kid Who’s a Spokesperson For S-CHIP! Just Saying…” Malkin refuse to take responsibility for the fact that their speech has consequences. They point to their critics, calling them everything from “fascists” to “traitors” to “murderers,” and then, when somebody points out that language like this might encourage people to harm said targets, scream “OMG YOU’RE TRYING TO SILENCE ME!”

Sane conservatives, like sane Muslims, aren’t a problem. It’s just that the crowd of yapping hyenas has spent the last eight years pointing at their critics like they’re some sort of uniform “other” that seeks to tear down all that is right and good in America… and then when some of their listeners actually ACT on this rhetoric, they go all doe-eyed and say, “Who, me?”

“My point being, if you can say one crazy guy somehow implicates all right-wingers, then there is no fallacy in saying one crazy Muslim implicates all Muslims.”

Both of those are wrong.  Individuals are still individual and still responsible for their own actions. 

That said, just like being a Muslim in some radical madrassa that advocates violence against the West, being a fringe wingnut — immersed in Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. is plenty bad for the easily influenced.  Combine that with groupthink that labels abortion, feminism, and anything to the left of Joe Lieberman as outrageous and intolerable crimes against society and some of them are going to come unhinged.

A traditional Conservative like William F. Buckley, or George Will would never advocate murder as a way to advance their otherwise bent philosophies.  But there are those who call themselves “Conservatives” who are actually radicals determined to reshape America by any means necessary.  The Aryan Nutcases want America to be White from sea-to-sea, while the Kill-For-Lifers want all Americans to be narrow-minded and intolerant fundamentalist Christians living in Gilead.  They are the counterpart to the bin Ladens, etc., in the Muslim world.

The radicals who act out do not represents their major groups.  But they do point out problems with the philosophies they adhere to.  And tolerance of their existence still condemns some aspects of the movements they belong to…

Also:

Do a Jonah Goldberg and claim white supremacists who post on Stormfront are left wing. Don’t think about that too long, or blood will begin shooting out your ears.

I have not been so angry in weeks.

At least with Tiller they didn’t try to blame anyone other than the victim. Here, they blame the victims (quietly, at home) while also blaming an entirely unrelated group.

Gorin:

After spending his whole life trying to be content to just badmouth Jews and running a website to galvanize people against them — while watching another culture actively killing them as world bodies and leaders reach for a common, middle ground with that culture — Von Brunn finally picked up a weapon.

Other than that other time he picked up a weapon, before.

I seem to remember a bible verse ... something about reaping what you sow?  Whirlwinds and all that?

At this point, one could make the asinine argument that Schlussel should be thanking Hitler for the existence of Israel, and that Nazis and Zionists are really, therefore, the same thing!

chigora - “Not quite exactly right ... things were not completely hunky-dory between Jews and Muslims back in the day, but for most of Jewish history, it has, indeed, been better to live among Muslims than among Christians.”

1. “not completely hunky-dory” does not equal anti-semitism; Jews paid their extra tax like other non-moslems

2. I was referring to the particular theories of Jewish inferiority and secret plans to dominate the world that were taught to the Moslems by Christians.

A white-supremacist killing people because he’s crazy does not implicate politics in this country in any way.

Maybe you should read up on what your side has been saying before you decide that Bill O’Reilly’s hands are completely clean because, hey, he didn’t really think anyone would go through with murdering Dr. Tiller.

Of course, I know you won’t, because you’re too busy back-pedaling and trying to pretend that when conservatives called all liberals “traitors” who should be killed, they were just joking around.  Can’t you people take a joke?

I was referring to the particular theories of Jewish inferiority and secret plans to dominate the world that were taught to the Moslems by Christians.

Exactly.  It wasn’t a Muslim who created The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—it was a Russian.  It’s a little scary how every single one of the tropes of European anti-Semitism, right down to the blood libel, have been transplanted to the Middle East.

What the Balloon Juice community said about Deb S.

1. “not completely hunky-dory” does not equal anti-semitism; Jews paid their extra tax like other non-moslems

I don’t want to derail this, but it went beyond paying their extra tax. You certainly are correct that modern anti-Semitism is a European invention, and I didn’t suggest otherwise. But violence - including pogroms, race riots, whatever you want to call them - and suspicion against Jews existed in the Muslim world before the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you really want to get into this, I can start giving examples, but it seems like a big derail.

I don’t think we need to whitewash history to say that the connection being made here - that Von Brunn somehow thought what he was doing was okay because we’ve been too tolerant of Muslims - is complete rubbish.

No true Conservative would physically harm their domestic enemies. They all understand that this talk is just talk to properly define the issues and supporters.

There are no sane conservatives.  Eight years of Bush and Cheney have taught us that.

Punditus Maximus if you are responding to me then you neglected to read my link about No true Conservative.

If you spend your whole life telling people that we need to kill the Jews, you don’t get to act all surprised and innocent when one of your buddies up and tries to kill some Jews.

And yet that’s exactly what Stormfront is doing. There’s a two year old post (no link, obviously) talking about how Von Brunn is a “White Racialist Treasure” with a few lauding comments; then as of yesterday there’s a bunch of posts about how much of an asshole he is for setting the movement back. It’d be hilarious if, well, you know.

A white-supremacist killing people because he’s crazy does not implicate politics in this country in any way. It says nothing about conservatives

Aw, geez. I guess you’re right…that would be most unfair, unnuanced, unsporting…what kind of simple, trollish mind would ever conflate categories for political puffery like that…?

...any more than some communist spying for the USSR back in the 50’s implicated all Democrats.

Now wait a minute. Who the heck ever said that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to be recruited by the KBG?

Because you know, throughout the last decades of the Soviet Union, there were quite a few spectacular spy cases where it turned out CIA agents in this country had been working for the KGB, with disastrous results, and while no one ever mentioned the partisan affiliation of these dudes I’d bet they were generally Republicans insofar as they took any public stand whatsoever.

Ah, you said the “1950s” and are probably thinking of the Rosenbergs, who definitely were progressives of a radical bent. And who were probably guilty, but it is hard to say for sure because their trial and appeals were incredibly tainted with blatant political manipulation. They were ballyhooed to the heavens as evil, traitorous scum and you bet the implication was that all liberals were the same, and “liberal” meant “Democrat.”

Never mind that in the 1950s there were a whole lot of reactionary Democrats in power, notably the Dixiecrats and people like Chief Justice Vinson, who made a mockery of Supreme Court procedure precisely to deny the Rosenbergs a stay of execution, manipulating special emergency sessions (the Court was on summer break, and the more liberal Justices were farther away…) to rig the results.

Funny thing, when the spies in question turned out to be buttoned-down Republican types, in it for reasons of money and ego like any good Republican, never mind the fatal consequences—the whole thing was handled quietly, according to due process.

The fact you even try to make a connection, in any way, is ludicrous.

Right, because as your own analogy and accurate history of it indicates, only Republicans are allowed to make such broad-brush “connections.” And they do, endlessly, on any number of topics. That’s OK unless you get caught at it in an embarrassing moment like this one; then it’s suddenly not—as a general rule, not that you are admitting y’all ever did any such thing.

Nor will it stop you from doing it again as soon as the embarrassment of this particular situation is forgotten.

Which may be a while, if this spate of killings continues—as it seems quite likely to do, because darn it, it seems to me that there is an inherent, logical connection between “conservatism,” whatever coherent definition you can try to give it (it is very difficult for conservatives to agree on a definition of what they stand for—one they care to articulate anyway…) and violence and the terroristic threat of violence.

The way I define “conservatism,” so-called in this country, violence and terror are at its center. Defining in-groups and out-groups to demonize is what reaction is all about, and you my friend are a reactionary.

Conservatives and liberals disagree on a lot of things, but not anti-Semitism. Unless you want to disagree with your own words above, I assume you agree with me. One crazy guy means nothing.
PrivatePigg on 06/10 at 05:58 PM

Oh, just listen to yourself! Are you saying that “conservatives aren’t antisemites, or that liberals are? Or they disagree among themselves in similar proportions?

The bastion of antisemitism in this country is and always has been on the reactionary side—in fact it’s generally an indicator of reactionary thinking anywhere.

That was a big part of the hate campaign against the Rosenbergs after all.

Which you referenced in your words above…

Conservatives and liberals disagree on a lot of things, but not anti-Semitism

The only reason that many extreme conservatives don’t express their fear/hatred/mistrust of Jews is because they hate Muslims even more.  Certainly not all conservatives are anti-Semitic, but plenty of them are openly anti-Semitic, and plenty of others are secretly so.  Pat Buchanan is an example of one who is openly anti-Semitic.

You remember those faked pictures of palestinian kids supposedly dancing with joy after 9/11? Instead, you see real posts of people celebrating murderers on the wingnut blogs.

Jeffrey Goldberg took Schlussel down pretty well:

Maybe this was meant to be a parody, I don’t know. I’ve never read Debbie Schlussel before. But if it’s meant seriously, then it’s ridiculous. White Christians have done an excellent job being anti-Semitic for several hundred years—almost a couple of thousand, actually— without any help whatsoever from Muslims. In fact, it is Muslim Jew-haters who rely on the publications of European and white American anti-Semites—most notably the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the International Jew—for inspiration. I hope Schlussel retracts this absurd piece of “analysis.” Does she have any idea what this country was like in the 1930s? I don’t think Muslims dominated the German Bund.

Conservatives have been distancing themselves from Von Brunn by saying:

1. Von Brunn is a Nazi and Nazi has “Socialist” right in the title. So obviously Von Brunn is left-wing because he’s a Socialist.

2. Von Brunn is left-wing because lefties hate Israel while righties just love Israel to pieces.

[R]ighties just love Israel to pieces.

Considering the dispensational millenialist belief that all the world’s Jews have to be in Israel for the events of Revelation to kick off, this is in fact literally true.  With an emphasis on ‘pieces.’

Because you know, throughout the last decades of the Soviet Union, there were quite a few spectacular spy cases where it turned out CIA agents in this country had been working for the KGB, with disastrous results, and while no one ever mentioned the partisan affiliation of these dudes I’d bet they were generally Republicans insofar as they took any public stand whatsoever.

Case in point, Robert Hanssen, guilty of one of the biggest security breaches in FBI history - all for some sweet KGB lucre.  And the man was a textbook social conservative (even down to his own sexual hypocrisy):

According to USA Today, those who knew the Hanssens described them as a close family. They attended Mass weekly and were active in Opus Dei. His three sons attended The Heights School in Potomac, Maryland, an all-boys preparatory school. His daughters attended Oakcrest School for Girls, a Roman Catholic parochial school. Both schools are associated with Opus Dei. Hanssen’s wife, Bonnie, taught religion at Oakcrest.

The priest at the Oakcrest School said that Hanssen had regularly attended a 6:30 a.m. Daily Mass for more than a decade. Opus Dei member Father C. John McCloskey III said Hanssen also occasionally attended the daily noontime Mass at the Catholic Information Center in downtown Washington, D.C. After going to prison Hanssen claimed he periodically admitted his espionage to priests in confession. He urged fellow Catholics in the Bureau to attend Mass more often, and denounced the Russians (for whom he was spying) as “godless”.

However, there was a second side to Hanssen’s private life much as there was a second side to his professional life. Unbeknownst to his wife, he secretly videotaped their sex life and shared the videotapes with his close friend, Jack Hoschouer. He also explicitly described the sexual details of his marriage on Internet chat rooms, giving information sufficient for those who knew them to recognize the couple. At Hanssen’s suggestion, Hoschouer would sneak outside when he was visiting their home and watch Robert and Bonnie having sex through a window. Later, Hanssen hid a videocamera in the bedroom and hooked up a closed-circuit television line so that Hoschouer could peep on the Hanssens from the comfort of his living room.

Hanssen frequently visited D.C. strip clubs, often with Hoschouer. He spent a great deal of time with a Washington D.C. stripper named Priscilla Sue Galey. She went to Hong Kong with Hanssen on a trip and on a visit to the FBI training facility in Quantico, VA. He gave her money, jewels and a used Mercedes, but cut off contact with her before his arrest, when she fell into drug abuse and prostitution. Galey said that although she offered to sleep with him, Hanssen declined, saying that he was trying to convert her to Catholicism.