Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
While still reeling from the murder of Dr. George Tiller we get yet another case of right wing extremist violence, the killing of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington. The 88 year old shooter is a longtime neo-Nazi and white supremacist:
The suspect in Wednesday's fatal shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist from Maryland, two law enforcement officials told CNN.Von Brunn served six years in prison on federal attempted kidnapping, assault and firearms charges after what he called a "legal, nonviolent citizens arrest" of members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
And there's more:
On his Web site, "Holy Western Empire," von Brunn said he was "convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge.""He is in our files going back way into the 1980s," said Heidi Beirich, a researcher for the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center.
"He has extremely long history with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He's written extremely incendiary publications, raging about Jews, blacks and the like."...
The suspect's site proclaims itself "a new, hard-hitting exposé of the Jew conspiracy to destroy the white gene-pool."
But interestingly, he appears to be anti-Christian:
A posting attributed to von Brunn on another Web site, antichrist.net, calls both Christianity and the Holocaust "hoaxes.""'Christianity' destroyed Roman Civilization. The 'Holocaust' religion is destroying Western civilization. The Aryan gene-pool dies, 'unwept, unhonored and unsung,'" the item states.
This is a different strain of the white supremacist movement than the KKK and Christian Identity folks. He probably held to some sort of Nordic religion, as many other white supremacists do. This element of white supremacy has not been studied well enough, I think.
Politics
Comments
Another martyr to the cause. Prussian Blue ought to do a song.
At least he had the right idea with the Fed.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 11, 2009 9:51 AM
Your article missed an important piece of information.....
"The elderly man who allegedly triggered a fatal shootout today at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has a long history of racist and antisemitic anger, but is also an artist with a special fondness for ducks, according to people who know him."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7811476&page=1
Posted by: Daffy Duck | June 11, 2009 9:52 AM
A commenter to my blog tried to suggest that von Brunn was really a "left wing" extremist. His views were just like Jeremiah Wright's. Or something.
Posted by: Doug | June 11, 2009 9:52 AM
David Klinghoffer from the Discovery Institute is, unsurprisingly, blaming this on evolution:
Oh, yeah. I get the drift. The drift is that Klinghoffer is an idiot.
Posted by: Wes | June 11, 2009 9:55 AM
I'm not sure it is completely accurate to label this sort of individual "right-wing." There are clearly more white-supremacists on the right end of the political spectrum (ignoring for now the inherent definitional problems) but once you are talking about a white supremacist, Odin-worshiping conspiracy theorist it isn't very clear what is "right-wing" about him.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Actually, it's been well known for a long time among those of us who take a special interest in Holocaust deniers and the white nationalist movement that a lot of members of the white nationalist movement are not Christian. In fact, many are strongly anti-Christian, mainly because they view Christianity as nothing more than a religion of the weak designed by the Jews to keep the whit man passive. (They also don't like Christianity because it evolved from Judaism.) A significant number are atheist or agnostic, as well.
As you point out, though, quite a few of them adhere to a strange mish-mash of Norse religion, sometimes even going so far as to seriously invoke ancient Norse gods like Thor and Odin. Whether this is an affectation based on a fantasy world where white men ruled or real belief, I don't know, but if you peruse the dark underbelly of white nationalist sites like von Brunn's, as I have done for the last decade, you'll find all sorts of allusions to Norse gods and Nordic mystical beliefs.
In other words, sadly, Von Brunn is not at all unusual.
Posted by: Orac | June 11, 2009 10:03 AM
It also isn't clear the the vanBrunn listed in the antichrist web site is necessairly the same one.
Given some of the quotes from that site (not sure they are still there), he may turn out to be an atheist right wing kook. But that's assuming those writings are the same von Brunn.
Posted by: FastLane | June 11, 2009 10:05 AM
A possible winner for stupidest claim for why this happened, a rabbi belives that it is Obama's fault for being nice to muslims
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_holocaust_museum/2009/06/10/223863.html
Posted by: Ramel | June 11, 2009 10:15 AM
Joshua Zelinsky,
Your argument is very weak. There is no inherent connection between religion and right-wingism, such tht you can't be the latter unless you are the former. Anyone who believes in the superiority of the white "race" and the need to destroy other "races" (t'aint no such thing as race, of course) is a right-winger, by definition.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 10:20 AM
Wes: thanx for showing us that vile piece of shite from Klinghoffer. Here's the reply I posted there:
"So, Mr. Klinghoffer, do you always take the self-justifying excuses of murdering bigots at face value?
"And did it ever occur to you that, by using his self-justifyng excuses to support your agenda, you are, in effect, excusing his vile actions?
"Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible: UR DOIN IT WRONG!"
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 11, 2009 10:21 AM
Others have touched on the pagan/occult side of Naziism (there is a lot of material out there, but only small fragments of the belief system are historial and/or even coherent - and yes, many of them are quite hostile to a certain middle-eastern peacenik and teacher) so I have little to add except that we now know why it was important to the shooter to "die in battle," and why his advanced age made his choices easier for him to rationalize.
I feel very sorry for the brave security guard, and for his family. I am sure that he had no idea he was about to be ambushed by an elderly gentleman in a delusional state.
Posted by: threetorches | June 11, 2009 10:29 AM
Am I the only one who, upon hearing the breaking news about this, worried that it might be that loon Larry Fafarman who used to troll here?
Posted by: Mel | June 11, 2009 10:32 AM
I have a friend who, with all sincerity, worships Odin. (Family tradition, apparently.) She has many the tale to tell about these sorts of white supremicists. Basically, she does not seek out other Odin worshippers, because there's too much risk of them being neoNazis.
Posted by: Personal Failure | June 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Orac: There's a big scism in the Asatru (Norse-gods-worshipping) community between the white-racists and the non-racists (the latter callng the former "Nazitru," pronounced "not so true"). I used to go to rituals with one Kindred in the latter category, and the leader thereof got so fed up with the crap he became a Bhuddist.
A lot of racists find themselves attacted to Asatru because of the White Germanic origins, the emphasis on heroism and strength (as their weak and decidedly un-heroic hearts understand it), the whole "pillage the village" Viking raider/warrior/explorer/man's man image they romanticize, etc. etc. It's all a huge embarrassment to a lot of people who are trying to update the Norse gods and make that pantheon, and its legends and values, relevant in the modern age.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Like Raging Bee, I too commented at the blog Wes linked.
I stated there:
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 11, 2009 10:40 AM
I feel compelled to point out that at 88, Mr. Von Brunn is old to do without the neo-.
Posted by: konrad_arflane | June 11, 2009 10:51 AM
...but is also an artist with a special fondness for ducks...
That must mean he supports gay marriage...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 11, 2009 11:34 AM
It's not so important to me that his particular brand of crazy makes him hard to classify... but he was a 'Birther' and the rabble at Free Republic had no problems praising his 'work'. Plus he had a Bush-Cheney '04 sticker on his car. That's right wing enough for me...
See the Republican party is a big tent! They take Nazi Odinists, extremely militant Jews, crazed Evangelicals, and rigid Catholics. It takes all kinds to tea-bag.
Posted by: BenA | June 11, 2009 11:44 AM
Is he right wing?
A general rule of thumb I use for determining left wing from right wing is that the left promotes equality, while the right promotes liberty. Ironically, this often leads the right to promote the state in order to preserve liberty (the current strain of right wing thought in the US is, no matter what they may say about wanting small government, heavily invested in this idea). Since racism is inherently against equality, racists can generally not be thought of as leftist (though not always; some racial separatist groups made heavy use of far left philosophies such as communism).
Moreover, in this case, von Brunn is stated to be a neo-Nazi, which would make him an authoritarian rightist of the kind described above (taken to extremes; most conservatives aren't Nazis in the same way that most Christians aren't creotards). Of course, many neo-Nazis are self-described as such purely as a matter of antisemitism, without any real association with the tenets of fascism, and so a thorough examination of his views would be necessary to determine whether he was in fact a true Nazi. Nevertheless, current evidence would seem to suggest that the gunman was indeed on the right side of the political spectrum (that's right in terms of direction, not in terms of correctness).
Posted by: wazza | June 11, 2009 11:49 AM
...while the right promotes liberty.
You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 11, 2009 12:03 PM
James von Brunn would have been around 20 years old in December 1941*. Any bets he had an exemption from service on some pretext or rather? - DJ
*If indeed Mr Brunn was ever an actual American citizen, either born or naturalised.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 11, 2009 12:07 PM
The right promotes liberty? Come on, you really need to share whatever weed you just smoked. They may support liberty for the "right" people, but it seems to me that most people who would describe themselves as right wing would support authority much more than liberty.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | June 11, 2009 12:09 PM
wazza - seriously, take some poli sci classes. Your notions are light years from reality.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 11, 2009 12:14 PM
So is he part of the World Church of the Creator, the "Rahowa" people? That's an atheistic white supremacist movement.
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 11, 2009 12:31 PM
I seem to recall a series of stories a couple of months ago in which most of the right wingnut talk-show hosts had their panties all in a wad because they had learned about a set of watch lists that included (focused on) ultra-right-wing, anti-semitic, white supremacist organizations. They were frothing at the mouth that the government would have the GALL to keep tabs on God-fearing Amuuricuns...
Does anybody remember that?
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | June 11, 2009 12:37 PM
Well, now. "Liberty" is one of those words that has been dragged and pulled through the right-wing Newspeak machine so many times that its original meaning is essentially nil when used in right-wing contexts. When wazza claims that the right promotes "liberty," you can be sure that he/she is referring to something decidedly antithetical to what we liberals (and moderates) consider the term to denote. "Liberty" in this instance appears to be the legislative and societal sanctioning of white, non-Jewish, heterosexual males maintaining absolute hegemony at all costs.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 11, 2009 12:49 PM
Wazza,
There's a good reason there's so many surprised reactions to your classifications. The right:
If you think the right supports liberty, you're not looking closely enough. Or, like the letter writer mentioned in another of today's post, you mean the "liberty to follow the law."
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 1:19 PM
On June 11, 2009 9:55 AM, Wes linked to a post that blamed this attack on the theory of evolution. How does the anti-science crowd explain all the violence that happened before the publication of "The Origin Of Species"?
Posted by: Blue Nine | June 11, 2009 1:43 PM
Wazza,
The right-wing historically has supported the status-quo, and more recently a return to "traditional" political arrangements. They are generally more authoritarian, fear change, etc. The original term came about during the French Revolution to describe the monarchists and royalists in the French assembly who wanted to maintain, then restore the monarchy.
Today the term comes to describe everyone from Republicans to theocrats, Nazis and fascists to run of the mill nationalists and militarists.
That's why when someone questions whether this guy is right-wing, those of us who study political science and history sort of guffaw, this guy is the definition of right wing.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 1:50 PM
Re dingojack
According to information, Mr. Brunn was in the navy during WW 2 and served on PT boats like a former president. He later was employed by an advertising agency in New York. He apparently also showed promise as a painter. In fact, he appears to be an intelligent individual who some time in the 1950s went off the rails and turned into a nutcase.
Posted by: SLC | June 11, 2009 2:25 PM
If you have any beef with Tom Clancy, your opinion of him will shoot straight up after reading this discussion he had about a defender of Von Braunn, long before this latest rampage happened.
Posted by: Drew | June 11, 2009 2:45 PM
...He apparently also showed promise as a painter. In fact, he appears to be an intelligent individual who some time in the 1950s went off the rails and turned into a nutcase.
Sorta like Hitler himself.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 11, 2009 2:48 PM
Actually, I think wazza might be referring to a much older notion of liberty. In its feudal form, a 'liberty' was a freedom from a certain restriction, typically related to caste; this is where the phrase "taking a liberty" comes from, the idea that certain social classes have the right to flirt and be cheeky while others don't. In that libertarians and other rightist movements emphasize this Randian concept of caste and "merit"-based rights, wazza is somewhat correct, at least in regards to the justifying philosophy of Union conservatives.
As regards policy in practice, however, he is pretty far off, but I don't think he was discussing practice.
Posted by: Julian | June 11, 2009 2:53 PM
@James Hanley- You accidently put a 'd' instead of an 's' in your first bullet point
Posted by: Ramel | June 11, 2009 2:55 PM
Last I heard, they're called the "Creativity Movement" now, and they're probably not very active since their leader is in prison for soliciting a hit on a judge. Apparently, there was a real Christian church by the name of "World Church of the Creator," and they sued the white supremacist group over the name, so they had to change it to "Creativity Movement."
Posted by: AL | June 11, 2009 3:03 PM
This is probably an inappropriate thread to express much happiness in, but when I saw Ed's headline and the number of comments I felt gloomily sure that we'd have at least one person arguing that this lunatic was a liberal because of that abysmal book by Jonah Goldberg. I am relieved to see that such muttonheads keep away from this site.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | June 11, 2009 3:26 PM
So, Frederick Engels was a right-winger too, I presume? (Read the last paragraph if you can't take all of the nonsense. Basically he argues that nations who failed to develop as a result of oppression need to be wiped out so they can't continue to live in their counter-revolutionary ways.)
Posted by: lukas | June 11, 2009 3:36 PM
Lukas,
Engels wrote that in 1849, even left-wing liberals used phrases and terminology that we would consider racist and right-wing today. That's why you'll have morons talking about the racism of Darwin and Lincoln, because they ignore one of the cardinal sins of history, taking a man out of their time.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 3:43 PM
In Wazza's defense, a more traditional definition of conservatism might actually be in favor of fewer governmental restrictions on individuals, and then from that perspective what he said is not entirely crazy.
Of course, there are two problems: One is that moral conservatism (which means more restrictions on the individual) has gotten all bound up with this political idea of small government, and basically blown it away. The other problem -- and it took me a long time to accept this, I must admit -- is that too few governmental restrictions allows nefarious/greedy individuals to increase their power until it actually in practice limits individual freedoms after all.
Anyway, I don't think Wazza's position is that crazy in theory. But in practice, what is called "Right" these days has absolutely nothing to do with Liberty. Or really, nothing to do with anything good at all...
And I don't say that lightly, or with partisan fervor... Ten years ago I could say I knew a number of quite intelligent Republicans whose political positions I respectfully disagreed with. In the intervening years, every single one of those intelligent people whom I respected has disavowed themselves of the GOP. The only people I know who are still Republicans are either crazy or deeply misinformed. Or both.
It would be nice if there were actually legitimate political alternatives, but... not these days.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 3:46 PM
If you have any beef with Tom Clancy, your opinion of him will shoot straight up after reading this discussion he had about a defender of Von Braunn, long before this latest rampage happened.
Wow, this "birdman's" knowledge of history could fit in a thimble.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 3:50 PM
Having now read some of von Brunn's material, he explicitly self-identifies as right-wing. Given that and other arguments made above, I think I'll agree that calling him a right-wing extremist is accurate.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 11, 2009 4:01 PM
dogmeatIB,
yet some supposedly "left-wing" movements have a tradition of racism/antisemitism ever since. So do "right-wing" movements, but racism is not exclusively a right-wing problem, and racism does not automatically qualify one as a right-winger.
Posted by: lukas | June 11, 2009 4:29 PM
The fact that he served in the Military in WWII does not rule out the possibility that he was a Nazi. (There was a draft, remember, and many Amrican Nazis submitted to it.)
It is more likely that he was a 'convert' in the 50s, someone who decided 'we'd been fighting the wrong enemy, that we should have allied with Hitler against the Communists.' But remember that the US Senator who defended the Nazis in the Malmedy Incident had himself been in the Military, and had used his service as a springboard to his initial election as a Judge -- even campaigning illegally in uniform. That's where he got the nickname "Tail-Gunner Joe." Last name, McCarthy.
There were a number of Nazi groups in pre-War America. Fortunately they were all led by egotists who couldn't arrange to share power. And each of them had difficulties in trying to be Der (American) Fuhrer. Fritz Kuhn of the Bund was too muchy the picture of the cartoon Cherman, Fr. Coughlin was both a Catholic priest and Canadian born -- there is a good argument that if he had been born in America he might have been the 3rd Party Candidate against Roosevelt in 36, and would have done better than the 'stand-in' the hapless Congressman William Lemke. And the two Congressional leaders who might have been selected were, while viciously anti-Semitic (John Rankin of Mississippi posted things in the Congressional Record that were close to some of the murderer's writings, and many people saw Sen. Reynolds of NC as the most likely American Fuhrer), actually patriotic and supported the War -- at least Rankin did, Reynolds disappeared from view.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton)) | June 11, 2009 4:32 PM
yet some supposedly "left-wing" movements have a tradition of racism/antisemitism ever since. So do "right-wing" movements, but racism is not exclusively a right-wing problem, and racism does not automatically qualify one as a right-winger.
Traditional racism and antisemitism? You'd have to provide examples. Though they tend to be reflected in the right-wing today, racism and antisemitism aren't the domain of any part of the political spectrum. In fact they were pretty much the mainstream attitudes in most industrialized countries prior to WWII (post enlightenment for the most part).
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 5:44 PM
Brilliant, lucas. The best you can do is dredge up a guy who died in the 19th century when the whole context of this discussion is set in the 21st century?
I imagine in you try real hard you can come up with a Greek guy who was real liberal for his day but thought all Turks should be exterminated, thoroughly eviscerating my claim via incontestable historical evidence.
If you know enough about history to know what Engels thought, you surely know enough to know the events since his time that have influenced most non-right wingers' views on race.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 6:09 PM
Examples? Here we go.
Prevailing wage laws, lobbied for by white unions to shield white jobs from black competition.
Cuba. You wouldn't know it's >50% black by looking at its government. Or its tourism industry.
And Israel. There's a thin line between criticizing Israel and Antisemitism, and people on the Left have crossed it many a time.
Need more?
Posted by: lukas | June 11, 2009 6:33 PM
Prevailing wage laws, lobbied for by white unions to shield white jobs from black competition.
Unions also lobbied for lower wages for women when they were in direct competition for jobs as well. A financial, not traditionally racist position. Many of the supporters of these laws espoused or adopted racist positions, but these are more a facet of the times than an ideological position held by the union itself. You're blaming a segment of society for the overall nature of the society at the time.
Also the racial nature of unions has been generally overblown. Early unions actually allowed minorities and women when they worked in the fields, it was generally the skilled labor unions that were discriminatory, but that started more because their occupations were discriminatory, not the union or its philosophy. The IWW, arguably the most philosophically "left" union that ever existed, allowed women and minorities, which rather shatters this as evidence for "traditional" leftist racism.
Cuba. You wouldn't know it's >50% black by looking at its government. Or its tourism industry.
Again you have a reflection of existing society that you are transferring to the current regime. Given the state of race relations pre-Castro compared to what they are today and, again, your argument falls like a house of cards.
And Israel. There's a thin line between criticizing Israel and Antisemitism, and people on the Left have crossed it many a time.
This is an opinion argument, not an objective one. According to whom do "the Left" cross the line into anti-semitism? Specific examples?
Need more?
Still looking for one, so yes...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 7:40 PM
Yes, lucas, a lot more. Your argument is weak for all the reasons dogmeatIB points out, especially your Israel one. I've seen plenty of left-wing criticism of Israel, but don't know of any left-wingers who express hatred of Jews.
As to unions, you do realize that tens of thousands of African-Americans migrated from the south to work in the auto factories of Detroit and join the UAW?
Can you give me an actual example of a race-baiting left-winger? Show me someone who supports issues such as national health care, abortion rights, environmental issues, same-sex marriage or some other set of traditionally leftist political issues, and show some of their specific racist statements along the lines of von Brunn's "I was sent to jail by a Jew judge"?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 9:01 PM
James Hanley,
Perhaps some African American nationalist might fill the bill. You know--kind of like Malcom X before his trip to Mecca. Although I don't think that they would be supportive of gay rights or any of the other issues you mention.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | June 11, 2009 9:16 PM
Charles Manson comes to mind.
Posted by: Leni | June 11, 2009 9:37 PM
Also, dogmeat, I think there was a fair amount of anti-semitism among the Russian communists. I could be wrong about that and I'm too lazy to google just now.
Posted by: Leni | June 11, 2009 9:42 PM
Have you guys ever heard of the 1933 film, Gabriel Over the White House? It portrays a fictional president who has a religious experience after a wreck and decides to enact drastic authoritarian measures to cleanse America of its many vices. Here it is on YouTube (with Spanish subtitles and about 3 minutes of introduction):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkWVUJOujow
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 11, 2009 9:45 PM
In answer to everyone... yeah, I'm a pol sci student, so I was speaking at a fairly high level of theory. In practise the modern right has returned to its authoritarian roots, but still uses the rhetoric of liberty, describing the left as big-statists who want to take away peoples' rights.
Posted by: wazza | June 11, 2009 10:05 PM
Charles Manson comes to mind.
Manson was a career criminal, threatening lives as a teenager, theft, prostitution, etc., as both a teen and an adult. While he spent some time in the hippie scene, I haven't seen anything in his stated "ideology" that would suggest ties to anything but what made Charlie happy.
Also, dogmeat, I think there was a fair amount of anti-semitism among the Russian communists. I could be wrong about that and I'm too lazy to google just now.
Russia was highly anti-semitic long before the Russian Revolution, pogroms? So, like Cuba, we're talking about an existing culture that was carried over to the new regime (if it actually existed). Officially Russian communism rejected anti-semitism, many early leaders of the communist party were Jewish. A number of historians have argued that Stalin was anti-semitic, problem with this argument is that two of his children married Jews.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 10:27 PM
The Charles Manson thing was more of a joke. But if I had to peg him as either left or right, I'd go left.
I've heard that about Stalin, but I know next to nothing about Russian history. I'm not certain how much it matters if the point is simply that there are racists on the left. Officially the Republican party rejects racism, but you know how that goes: it doesn't mean there aren't racists on the right, obviously.
Anyway, I don't think these examples are even remotely comparable to anything like what we've seen coming from the right. They were just the first examples of leftist, racist, shitheels that I thought of. And keep in mind that I actually had to think for a minute or two before I come up with those. That would not have been the case were I looking for race-baiting, right-wing shitheels- except for the fact that they are so numerous it would have take me several minutes just to rattle off the few dozen I am familiar with.
Posted by: Leni | June 12, 2009 12:36 AM
Leni,
I said earlier in the thread that racism can be seen throughout the political spectrum, that while it tends to be more right-wing in the modern era, it isn't purely a right-wing phenomenon. My only argument thus far has been against Lukas' claim that the left has a "traditional racism" for which he has yet to produce a single viable example.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 12, 2009 11:57 AM
I personally know many right-wing folks who hate capitalism, Christianity, William F. Buckely, Necons, Bush, McCain, Fox News and the Weekly Standard. Sure these right-wingers also post on DailyKos and voted Obama, but anyone who is LESS communist than me is considered to the "right" of me. Makes sense, no?
Did you von Brunn was also a registered Democrat voter? As is noted anti-semite Lyndon Larouche. But beyond this, we know the whole IDEA is to slime normal libertarians/conservatives, so I support this plan entirely.
Rock on comrades, Joseph Stalin
Posted by: Joseph Stalin | June 12, 2009 12:20 PM
Basically he argues that nations who failed to develop as a result of oppression need to be wiped out so they can't continue to live in their counter-revolutionary ways.
Engels was referring to the regimes and social structures, not the people who lived under them. If that's lukas' idea of an example of "racism from the left," then he's too damn stupid to merit any further response.
...yeah, I'm a pol sci student, so I was speaking at a fairly high level of theory.
Yeah, you sure weren't speaking at any level of reality.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 12, 2009 1:57 PM
Wazza,
What theory? I didn't recognize any particular theory there, much less one pitched at a high level.
A high level of abstraction, perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing.
Sayeth I, as a fellow student of political science.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 12, 2009 8:28 PM