Yesterday, just mere minutes after CNN reported that an Austin, Texas man had burned down his own house and then flew a plane into an IRS building, I speculated here that the whole story would be spun by leftists as some sort of proof of right-wing extremism. Obviously, it took no special gifts on my part to augur so accurately the reactions and cogitations of many.
But I want to explore -- briefly -- a convention often used by my leftist peers. That convention was ably displayed here yesterday by Contratimes reader and commenter, Ginx. Please note the convention as he presented it (here and here):
Eight years under Bush, and liberals don't lash out violently like immature babies. Doesn't take that long under a Dem for the conservative nut jobs to come crawling out of their buried school bus bunkers. ...Where were the crazy liberals blowing stuff up under Bush?
OK. I will stipulate that Ginx specifies the Bush years, that there were no left-wing acts of violence during the Bush regime. But the convention I am interested in is found in Ginx's claim that it does not "take long under a Dem for a conservative nut job" to turn to violence.
Let's see. The Black Panthers were known as a violent group in the United States well into the Nixon Administration. So too were the activists known as the Weather Underground. Conservatives, all?
A decade earlier, a known Marxist assassinated John F. Kennedy. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Tea Party prototype?
In the mid-Seventies, the Symbionese Liberation Army, described as a revolutionary vanguard army, went on a violent spree in California. Also, two leftist women, Squeaky Fromme and Sarah Jane Moore, were both convicted in separate and unrelated attempts to assassinate President Gerald Ford.
And then, of course, there is the recent shooting rampage (3 dead, 3 wounded) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Amy Bishop, who grew up in liberal Massachusetts and worked toward a doctorate at Harvard, is apparently at odds with Ginx's profile of violent offenders, or so reports the Boston Herald:
And then, of course, there is the recent shooting rampage (3 dead, 3 wounded) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Amy Bishop, who grew up in liberal Massachusetts and worked toward a doctorate at Harvard, is apparently at odds with Ginx's profile of violent offenders, or so reports the Boston Herald:
'A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.'
I imagine I could offer more examples, but why? The fact is clear: Leftists can be quite violent. In fact, they are often rather violent. Does anyone believe that protesting anarchists smashing windows in Vancouver or Seoul or London are conservatives?
Lastly, leftists also do violence in another way: they do violence to truth, and the historical record. This is especially damning, and it is at least arguable that leftist propaganda directed at the policies and practices of the United States has created more than a few enemies of this country -- violent and very angry enemies.
_________________
Please note that I AM NOT SPINNING THE AUSTIN STORY AT ALL. I have no interest in the matter in that way. I applaud Ginx for noting in his later comments that a case COULD be made that Mr. Stack, the alleged pilot of the plane that hit the IRS building in Austin, was driven in part by leftist attitudes. And I also want to acknowledge that right-wing writers and commentators have also spun this story. It will be interesting to see what the truth finally reveals.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
15 comments:
The fact of the matter is, the Austin perpetrator was loon, and his political views are irrelevant to the discussion.
Speaking of relevance, I'm reminded of my class in Evidence many years ago, wherein our professor posed this question: "In a prosecution for a common assault arising from a fist fight in a bar, where both parties are claiming self-defense, is it relevant evidence that one of the participants owned a firearm?" The answer to that question divided pretty much along the lines of those members of the class from urban backgrounds vs. those from rural areas, this being the University of Missouri, after all.
I mention that because the world view of some is tends to be tainted due to the limits of their horizons. Given the makeup of the MSM and its pundits, it is highly unlikely that they know any real conservative people outside of their professions. Thus, they've fallen prey to believing the caricatures which they themselves have created. For that reason, we see an ever greater reliance on the "generalizing from a particular" fallacy. We saw it on the left following the despicable murder of the doctor in Kansas who ran an abortion clinic, i.e. "Right To Life" people are all potential murderers," and we've seen it to a certain extent with the biology professor who murdered colleagues in a faculty meeting, i.e. "she was a left leaning Harvard Ph.D., ergo all such individuals are dangerous."
Of course, an alternate explanation is that the left's obsession with right-wing violence is merely psychological projection of its own hidden mental desires upon those it opposes.
[Insert Smiley-face, tongue-in-cheek emoticon here.]
Cheers.
I can't help but wishing that the American media had another Hunter Thompson type-rising star to dissect the craziness thats swamping this country, the same way that the original Hunter wrote so brillantly on the political meltdown in the 1960's,
It's funny that you have to reach back to before I was even born (1983) for any leftist crazies. Every murderous nut who captures our attention in my lifetime has been conservative and you wonder why I might assume...
Are left-wingers capable of violence? Of course. But they don't seem to be the ones bombing people, clinics, or federal buildings, or shooting doctors, Holocaust museums, or their own family before turning the gun on themself.
Ah, but Ginx, the reason Progressives don't go around shooting people is that they fervently hope the government will do it for them. That, and they refuse to own a firearm, what with the personal being political, and all.
As to the substance of your comment, making the assumption which you suggest is eminently reasonable is nothing more than a logical fallacy of the first order, along the lines of "every dog I've ever seen has been a dachshund, therefore all dogs are dachshunds."
Further, if I were to posit that because a "every murderous nut who captures our attention in my lifetime, has been [fill in the blank with whatever you want: Race, gender, religion, hairstyle]," my guess is that you would be leading the charge calling B.S. on such an assertion. And rightfully so, I might add.
Finally, your qualifier "who captures our attention" is interesting. Do you mean makes the news? Or, do you mean whose political views make the news?
BTW, Tim McVeigh cut his "nutty" teeth under Bush The Elder.
Cheers.
Ginx, great news! A left-wing crazy charged with crimes! Let the accusations fly!
[Smiley thing]
Cheers.
Hello, all!
I am about to update my article with something I completely forgot to add when I wrote it. I am upset with myself, because I promised myself that I would not forget it.
See the addendum that begins with "And then, of course ..."
Thanks.
Oops. Technically not an addendum, but so be it.
Assault is equal to inciting revolution?
Also, can I request someone besides Sean Penn to represent me? I would never date a woman like Madonna.
Liberals are the big bad government who use unnecessary force? How many times are you retards going to spread that lie after all the Republican bullshit we put up with under Bush? I think Jesus called that the beam of wood in your own eye...
Maybe it's just that the modern extremists ARE conservative. The fact that you pull out 30 year old examples and Sean Penn just drags a bright, fluorescent yellow highlighter over your denial.
Ginx,
Your latest comment is a pathetic counter-argument and clear denial of the facts. Progressivism as viewed with the widest possible lens shows that it often resorts to violence: historically, the regimes with the most blood on their hands are the "progressive" regimes, ones given to "equality" and other forms of redistributionism.
You completely ignore the facts of even recent American history: Progressives have been quite violent in this country. It's certainly irrelevant whether much of this happened before you were born. Besides, I've just shown in this piece that violence is an option for liberals even as recent as last week. Ms. Bishop was indeed a liberal, and her actions were surely reflective of the liberal meme: She believed herself ENTITLED, perhaps due in large part because she said she was -- it was her right to define success -- and tenure -- for herself. Clearly she acted out of ressentiment, no doubt the very motive of most, if not all, progressive action.
Why have you not at least conceded that your original assertion is a bunch of hooey? You claimed that it
""Doesn't take that long under a Dem for the conservative nut jobs to come crawling out of their buried school bus bunkers...
Surely you see that your remark is an absurd generalization that ignores recent history. Why not concede? Why not say with me that people can be inspired toward violence for a whole bunch of reasons, and that no party, ideology or political position is safe from violent extremism? Show some balance.
Actually McVeigh cut his teeth with the US Army, later with elements of the militia movement & his buddy Terry Nichols.
Recent history or at least that of the last 50yrs here in the US shows that politically motivated murder to be almost exclusively a rightwing thing. McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, murders of abortion doctors, Church of the Creator kill spree, Alan Berg killing by the Order, plus enough to fill another dozen pages or more. Think about it even al qaida and 911 is rightwing !
... and yes I won't ignore history by not mentioning those killed by Weather Underground, Black Panthers, and others on the left (between 10-20) starting from the Viet Nam era until today
Dear Anonymous,
First, it makes me sad you feel it necessary to protect your identity, because it is my hope that people feel safe here.
Second, it is indeed true that Timothy McVeigh "cut his teeth" in the US military, but RS's point was that Timothy McVeigh was showing signs of anti-American sentiment under the GHWB administration. RS offered this to counter Ginx's assertion that extremists work themselves into a lather during Democratic administrations.
Third, let us not forget UC Berkeley professor Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. NOT a conservative.
Regarding Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, the Church of the Creator recruit, why does anyone connect neo-Nazi racism with right-wing politics? It isn't. There is nothing right-wing about Nazism at all, at least in America. Do you know any right-wingers that believe in a totalitarian state or that ONE PERSON should have dictatorial powers over an entire nation? Right-wing extremists in America are isolationists: they mostly want to be left alone. They want power over their own lives without state intrusion. How is that Nazi-esque?
AL-QAIDA is also not right-wing. It in fact is very much like left-wing ideologies: it wants TOTAL control over the lives of people. That's an extreme left-wing position. These are not folks interested in being left alone.
Do you think the Nation of Islam is right-wing, or left-wing? I believe it a hybrid, but it is definitely left-wing in many ways. Louis Farrakhan was quite supportive of Barack Obama, was he not? Is Obama a right-wing president? What about John Allen Muhammad as the DC sniper, who was a NOI member?
Or what about Mark Essex shooting 19, killing 9, in 1973, during the Nixon administration?
As I recall these events -- any of them -- I feel sick to my stomach. It is clear to me that extremists exist irrespective of political affiliation; it is clear that any party can breed violent disciples. I am just reacting to the idea that right-wingers choose violence and left-wingers do not. Such is a pile of crap.
And yes, I recognize that I've conflated left and right here, but that's because they are limited terms and often deserve conflation. I have heard it said that one can be so left-wing as to be right-wing, and vice versa. There seems to be a point where seemingly opposing extremists meet; I do not pretend to know that point but it strikes me as undeniably real.
Peace.
BG
Ginx, my friend, the question is one of history. Alas, "retard" is not a self-contained argument. The constant canards of Bush-crimes becomes extraordinarily wearisome after a short time, simply because people refuse to acknowledge historical precedent.
If you are really interested in knowing the truth, I would strongly suggest you read and digest, Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid On America.
(I hate to post the link again, but when I discussed this book and the SCOTUS cases recounted therein, those of my readership on the left of the political spectrum contorted themselves into pretzels trying to absolve FDR of evil while maintaining the fiction that Bush the Younger was the Antichrist. I've not had such a good laugh in years.)
And make no mistake. I dearly love the Constitution. In point of fact, I've three documents on my wall demonstrating I've sworn an oath to "protect and defend" it. Indeed, I don't like the direction the former administration took, anymore than I like the present.
That said, what Bush did was not illegal. As much as you wish to ignore it, the simple, undeniable fact is that Bush relied upon constitutional precedent for everything he did.
Don't like it? Great! You and I are in agreement, believe it or not.
But don't change the history in order to suit your purposes or provide you (nebulous)comfort in your self-invoked holier-than-thou-ness.
Regards.
Bill, sorry about this, but I really had to respond.--RDS
RDS,
Please, no apologies. I defer to your judgment and your expertise. I find you an invaluable asset.
Blessings,
BG
Post a Comment