The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer

[salvorhardin]

The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer
An anti-liberal ideology is being created by groups who would once have been sworn enemies
Nick Cohen
The Observer, Sunday 14 June 2009

... Yet for all his roots in neo-Nazism, von Brunn was also a transitional figure who typified a wider range of forces than I can adequately squeeze into the "far right" label. He was an enthusiastic "truther", who went on the net to deny that the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington had surprised the conspirators in power who secretly controlled America. He hated Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and neocons as much as the New York Times and Obama. "It doesn't matter that you despise Jews-neocons-Bill O'Reilly," he declared in one of his incoherent internet postings. "You pay the kosher tax - or else you don't eat." ...

Whenever I argue with "truthers", I point out as gently as I can that they are the children of the Holocaust-deniers. Just as the old far right denied the crimes of the German fascists of the 1940s, so they deny the crimes of the clerical fascists of our day. Yet although I have no doubt some of them will end up in neo-Nazi parties, I sense that the majority are moving in a new direction.

In Voodoo Histories, his elegant evisceration of the paranoid mentality, David Aaronovitch points out that former fascists and communists, secular Ba'athists, radical Islamists, Russian nationalists and America firsters - people who would never have worked together in the past, and who indeed killed each other in the past - are fusing ideas and creating a new ideology. Their politics, he writes, is "a loose coalescence of impulses: anti-globalisation, broadly anti-modernist and anti-imperialist - with imperialism being inevitably and solely associated with American power".

If you think this fusion is limited only to cranks, consider how human rights groups and secularists are having to combat new and powerful alliances the new anti-liberal ideology has encouraged. Earlier this year, the dictatorships which dominate the United Nations' comically named Human Rights Council tried to pass a motion stating that defamation of religion should everywhere be a crime. For obvious reasons, Islamic states pushed the new blasphemy law and abused the language of liberty as they attempted to justify the punishment of Muslims and non-Muslims who criticised or mocked orthodoxy.
More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/james-von-brunn-far-right

[LARED]

1. Interesting

I find it often the case that the fringe left and the fringe right seem to have more in common than differences.

[salvorhardin]

2. I'm fascinated by the fusion

Much like evangelical/fundamentalist Christians adopted both paranoid conspiracy theories AND occult new age beliefs.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. We're getting into Time Cube territory here. n/t

[salvorhardin]

8. Haha. Yeah.

I meant to say in my comment, *some segments* of evangelic/fundamentalist Christians. Didn't mean to paint with such a broad brush.

[noise]

4. Conflation, authoritarianism, binary thinking, one size fits all lumping

One can question 9/11 and be opposed to Bin Laden/Taliban/Sharia law. Real life isn't a soccer match. This tendency to view the world in black and white leads to authoritarianism. It led to Bush/Cheney being championed as great leaders while they were held to an extremely low standard of conduct. It led to the acceptance of torture, indefinite detention, war profiteering, domestic spying, etc. The leaders' actions simply weren't up for review. Leaders always act in good faith. Anyone who dared claim otherwise must be an al Qaeda sympathizer, anti-American conspiracy nut. Who cares if the two countries with the closest ties to al Qaeda were deemed allies in the WoT? Who cares if al Qaeda operatives were being protected from arrest? There isn't room for complexity of any sort. Bush vs. Bin Laden. Choose one. Choose wisely.

One can question 9/11 without accepting the concept of Big Tent unity. This is the problem with one issue agreement. It isn't acceptable to believe that 9/11 views are the only thing that matters.

[LARED]

5. For the life of me I can't figure out what your

post has to do with the OP.

[noise]

7. Was this supposed to be a cheerleading thread?

"Yet their idea that the west can only be the criminal and never be the victim of crime is everywhere."

"Whenever I argue with "truthers", I point out as gently as I can that they are the children of the Holocaust-deniers. Just as the old far right denied the crimes of the German fascists of the 1940s, so they deny the crimes of the clerical fascists of our day."

One can question 9/11 and be opposed to Bin Laden/Taliban/Sharia law. Real life isn't a soccer match.

One can question 9/11 without accepting the concept of Big Tent unity. One need not join forces with hate groups simply because they too question 9/11. People question 9/11 for different reasons. Cohen doesn't seem to believe anyone could have a single good reason to question 9/11. I Googled his name and read through a few articles.

Feel free to add context to the OP by pointing out what Cohen believes are the proper views one should have of 9/11. These threads lack context when one doesn't know where the person is coming from.

[LARED]

12. Cheerleading?

I didn't see anyone cheerleading. Please point out any cheerleading.

[noise]

13. "Truthers are stupid"

Reply 1: "Yeah."

Reply 2: "Totally."

Reply 3: "And they are dumb."

Reply 4: "Dude. Don't insult the word dumb."

Reply 5: "Yeah. It's dumb to insult the word dumb."

Reply 6: "That comment was almost as dumb as truthers."

That kind of thread.

[SDuderstadt]

14. I'd love for you to find actual threads like that because...

they don't exist.

[LARED]

17. Again, what does that have to do with the OP? nt

[Theobald]

28. Truthers aren't stupid

There are many different types of truthers and lumping them all together is conterproductive.
Some specific types of truthers
Truther #1 "No planes hit the towers" aren't stupid, they are either ignorant or crazy
Truther #2 "Nuclear bombs took out the towers" aren't stupid, they are either ignorant or crazy
Truther #3 "LIHOP" certainly possible, but I have yet to see any evidence to believe that it is true
Truther #4 "MIHOP" certainly possible, but I have yet to see any evidence to believe that it is true
Truther #5 "Controlled demolition took out the towers" are ignorant of how controlled demolitions are carried out, what a controlled demolition sounds like, and what a controlled demolition looks like, this despite the fact that in many cases they have researched the subject extensively.

[salvorhardin]

9. Gee

Just like one can accept the consensus view of what happened on 9-11 and yet still think Bush and Cheney were evil bastards?

[SidDithers]

23. +1...nt

Sid

[jakeXT]

16. Nazis/Fascist knew how it worked

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


The phrase "the big lie" was also used in a report prepared during World War II by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8037

[CJCRANE]

6. An argument based on the confused rantings of von Brunn...

is not exactly credible.

[salvorhardin]

10. So you're saying von Brunn is an exceptional case?

That there are no other people like him in the Truth movement whatsoever? That there's no far right wing crossover of holocaust deniers/white supremacists and truthers?

[CJCRANE]

11. Do you believe in man-made global warming?

If Bin Laden does too does that make you part of al-Qaeda?

My initial impression of Nick Cohen is that he's an islamophobe, maybe not as bad as the anti-semites he decries but still a fairly distasteful person.

[Fainter]

19. So Let's Say Hypothetically Someone On Your Side Says Sibel Edmonds...

and other whistleblowers should be rapeboarded. Is my hypothetical concern that there may be other advocates of rapeboarding in your midst justified? If this concern is justified, would you then deny the self-evident proposition there must necessarily exist a "progressive" axis of Untruthers/First Amendment Denialists and Rapeboardists?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Who has said anything of the sort? n/t

[Fainter]

53. This Is The Post That Prompted My Hypothetical...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182140#182146

[JackRiddler]

57. You said something of the sort.

[Marksbrother]

21. Excellent reasoning, Fainter.

Your hypothetical is not only justified, but is strengthened, in my judgment, by the very fact that no one has shown why
it isn't.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Argument from ignorance....

Do you understand any of the logical fallacies you commit regularly?

[LARED]

26. How's this

Your logical fallacy is not only justified, but is strengthened, in my judgment, by the very fact that no one has shown why
it isn't illogical.

[Marksbrother]

29. Argument from goofiness

Do you understand any of the silly fantasies you make claims about?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Yeah...

let us know when you've discovered that smoking gun, dude.

[Marksbrother]

31. It was discovered long ago. It's called The Truth. You should

try some and leave the goofy claims, silly claims, and right-wing sources alone.

[salvorhardin]

32. Question

Is "The Truth" synonymous with independently verifiable facts or is it sometimes possible to know "The Truth" without corroboration? In other words, "I can't prove it, but I know that's what happened." And if the latter, how does this differ from faith?

[Marksbrother]

34. Ask the folks who support BUSHCO conspiracy theories

They seem to think that if Bush said it and the MSM reported it and a few right wing shills put their special spin on it, then

lack of evidence, manufactured evidence, circumstantial evidence, planted evidence, common sense, and historical precedent

are immaterial. It's faith-based True Beliefs and that's all that matters.

[salvorhardin]

36. So you decline to answer the question posed? eom

[Marksbrother]

37. You just didn't like my response.

BUSHCO supporters are the ones who believe in Faith-Based "truths". Those of us who have exposed BUSHCO lies use evidence,

reason, and precedent. It's BUSHCO supporters who are satisfied with fantasy "truths".

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...you're repeatedly asked for proof...

and you consistently fold. Should we assume it's actully YOU who believe in faith-based "truths"? Where's your evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Point to anyone here...

supporting "Bushco Conspiracy Theories", dude...

You can't. I think you've ridden that horse as far as it's going.

[Marksbrother]

41. Bushco Conspiracy Theories: who supports them?

Everyone who promotes and defends them, dude yourself.

Here's a common one:

"OBL was the mastermind of 9/11, which was carried out by 19 young Saudis"

[Fainter]

54. For Related Questions, See Post #22. n/t.

[SDuderstadt]

38. My sources are not "RW", dude...

more of your smears. It's not working, dude. BTW, if you've discovered this smoking gun, why can't you produce it?

[Marksbrother]

42. Bugliosi and McAdams sure are. Your other sources are

government reports and government-paid consultants. If they were paid by BUSHCO, think maybe there's a good chance they're

right-wingers like him?


If you have cited anyone that isn't covered in the above, let me know who they are.

[LARED]

52. Buglosi is not a RW'er

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xP79ReW8bk

[Fainter]

22. Are The 9/11 Widows Free Of The Von Brunn Taint?...

If you say yes, do you also allow that there are other 9/11 Truth Advocates who, sharing the same concerns about the Official Story as the Widows and no other(s), are also free of the Taint? If you agree the Widows and others are free of the Taint, is the legitimacy of their questions about the Official Story diminished in any way because of the associations other advocates of 9/11 Truth choose to make?

Similarly, do you consider it possible that a 9/11 Truth Advocate who believes in CD or Nukes or No-Planes can be free of the Taint? If you agree such people can be free of the Taint, does their freedom from the Taint confer any added legitimacy in your mind to their beliefs about 9/11?

Which of these propositions do you dispute? If you agree with my propositions, you are dangerously close to agreeing a "Truther" of any stripe can be free of the Taint, and dangerously close to admitting legitimate questions about 9/11, whatever the source, bear no relation to other beliefs held by the same, some, or all Truth Advocates.

Now look around the Dungeon. I don't know what you see, but I see "Truthers" of every stripe debating every aspect of 9/11 Truth. What I don't see down here is the Taint.

[Fainter]

46. Jiminy Crickets Sal! n/t.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fainter]

18. Pure ANTI-ANTI-ISM-ITISM, Congratulations. n/t

[BeFree]

24. ....

:puke:

[whatchamacallit]

27. So much for the fabled OCT high ground

Really fucking weak.

[spooked911]

33. this is bullshit propaganda

it's pathetic that you need to resort to this.

[Marksbrother]

35. You act as though you're surprised

Why? You're a sophisticated guy.

[spooked911]

44. I'm not surprised

it just pisses me off

[Marksbrother]

45. I understand. EOM

[number6]

43. lamest, shity-ist, opinion piece

I've ever seen

"Whenever I argue with "truthers", I point out as gently as I can that they are the children of the Holocaust-deniers. Just as the old far right denied the crimes of the German fascists of the 1940s, so they deny the crimes of the clerical fascists of our day. Yet although I have no doubt some of them will end up in neo-Nazi parties, I sense that the majority are moving in a new direction."

I'm a child of Holocaust-deniers now, eh

what shit ...

I like Glen Blecks, "ahhhhHHHa 911 truthers are going to destroy America" better run for the hills.

we're all meeting with Dr. Evil and Skeletor later to formulate our plans :eyes: :shrug:

[mrarundale]

47. I'm sure there are many despicable people

who adhere to the official justification for war(official 9-11 story). What blatant propaganda, what kind of a pinhead would write such a thing? -(for other pinheads to latch onto).
There has been a lot of anti-truth (pro lie?)rhetoric in the "news" lately. 9-11 was the first really major false flag operation (that we know about) conducted in the US, so the perpetrators were not really that good at it, I think that is why so many doubt the story and they are pulling out the big guns trying to scare people into not voicing their opinions (comparisons to Holocaust deniers, etc...)

[jakeXT]

48. Jon Stewart on Blame

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230675&title=blame

[salvorhardin]

49. Haha. John Stewart is funny.

And right as always.

Just not in regard to the OP since Cohen's article was not assigning blame.

[RainaldGoetz]

50. Nick Cohen

Hi!
I find this line of argument very bewildering.
Does Nick Cohen consider the Jersey Girls as "far right" as well?
Btw does anybody have actually seen entries in 911 forums of this guy (maybe Glenn Beck?)

[salvorhardin]

51. Aren't straw men so much fun to tear apart? eom

[Fainter]

55. And Aren't Real Questions Easy To Ignore? n/t.

[RainaldGoetz]

56. Straw men

Hi!
Sorry, but the simplistic world view "guilt by association" is certainly not a one way street.