Brian Ross: Neo-Nazi Sikh Temple Shooter “Right Wing”

Spread the love

Loading

Ace @ Ace of Spades HQ:

There you go.

fter explaining Wade Page’s link to violent, racist groups, Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos wondered how Page could have purchased a gun, Ross insisted that the FBI did not have “enough evidence to open a full field investigation because of his links to these right-wing, neo-Nazi groups.”

Note the media never calls the black bloc anarchists, or the Occupy cop-car shitters, “left-wing.” They get called — besides being called “mostly peaceful,” of course — specifically what they are, be it anarchists or vandals.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

123 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You nazis are funny. Who does this sound like?-
“Social Justice for White Working Class people…..
We demand equality of rights for the American people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Bank, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. …The restructuring of social security and welfare to include drug testing for welfare recipients…All non-White immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Whites currently residing in America be required to leave the nation forthwith and return to their land of origin: peacefully or by force…. We demand the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens….The right to vote on the State government and legislation shall be enjoyed by citizens of the state alone….We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand. …By creating conditions to make possible the reestablishment of the nuclear family in which the father works while the mother stays at home and takes care of the children if they so choose.”

All ideas based on Hitler, according to the experts here and on other white suprematist websites.

It gets better! Does this sound like the right wing of today? This link IS NOT to a neo-nazi site. I included the authors since some want to play the “appeal to authority game.”

http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/How+Green+Were+the+Nazis%3F

The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature. How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich is the first book to examine the Third Reich’s environmental policies and to offer an in-depth exploration of the intersections between brown ideologies and green practices.

Environmentalists and conservationists in Germany welcomed the rise of the Nazi regime with open arms and hoped that it would bring about legal and institutional changes. However, environmentalists soon realized that the rhetorical attention they received from the regime did not always translate into action. By the late 1930s, nature and the environment had become less pressing concerns as Nazi Germany prepared for and executed a global conflagration.

Based on prodigious archival research, and written by some of the most important scholars in the field of twentieth-century German history, How Green Were the Nazis? examines the overlap between Nazi ideology and conservationist agendas. This landmark book underscores the fact that the “green” policies of the Nazis were more than a mere episode or aberration in environmental history.

——————————————————————————–
Franz-Josef Brüggemeier is a professor of history at the University of Freiburg, Germany. He has published extensively in the field of environmental history in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe.

——————————————————————————–

Mark Cioc is a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz and the author of The Rhine: An Eco-Biography, 1815–2000. He is a coeditor of How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich.

——————————————————————————–

Thomas Zeller is an associate professor at the University of Maryland, where he teaches the history of technology, environmental history, and science and technology studies. He is the author of Driving Germany: The Landscape of the German Autobahn, 1930–1970 and coeditor of How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich and Rivers in History: Designing and Conceiving Waterways in Europe and North America.

Thomas Zeller is available for interviews on the following topics: Oil and the social cost of commuting. Find out how to contact Thomas Zeller and other Ohio University Press experts.

Well what do you know? heidegger makes an appearance on environmentalism.
http://gulagbound.com/17582/the-green-nazi-deep-ecology-of-martin-heidegger/

More links between enrironmentalism and nazis.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/7-8/the-roots-of-green-politics-in-german-romanticism

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/
This link certainly sounds like today’s anti-Capitalist left.

Ummmm brian, who was talking about “this century”? Hint: It was you. You tried moving the goalposts trollboy, and just got them shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

@Hard Right:

Actually this sounds like a bunch of right-wingers trying to make out that the nazis were leftist. You make up a fantasy and then point to it to prove your point.

You claim that the Aryan Nation and the National Alliance and Stormfront are all liberal leftist? You really are pathetic. Quote some more bs that proves that you guys are trying to distance yourselves from your right-wing nazi nut brethern, but which changes nothing.

@Hard Right:

I was quoting YOU and what YOU posted, and you see that as me moving the goalposts? Man….. and quit thinking about my azz.

I have posted many quotes and a links. Yet you come back with, “nuh uh”. Go away little troll boy. Your testicles have not descended and you don’t belong here with the intelligent people.

@Hard Right:
I quote YOU, and you say it’s “nuh uh”. Agreed.

And now you’re dreaming of my testicles…dude…come out of the nazi closet already.
(though “Hard Right” as a name suddenly makes a whole lot more sense)

More still.

National Socialist Stance on the Issues: Environmentalism
Jun 6, 2011 White Power National Socialists are vehemently opposed to the destruction of our world, our wildlife, and our natural resources in the name of consumerism and greed. The excessive materialism in America has led us to think that we NEED things that we would be just fine without. A National Socialist government in America would not only encourage its citizens to recycle, but also to USE LESS in the first place. As National Socialist Germany was able to make numerous advances in fuel and other products, so will an NS America push for better, cleaner, and more efficient technologies so that demand for our precious natural resources will become greatly diminished. These technologies are currently being discouraged by the capitalist greed of global oil companies (now being subsidized with US taxpayer money to the tune of $4 billion per year) and other monopolistic international corporations whose outrageous profits would suffer if more efficient and advanced products replaced theirs. National Socialism works for the good of the common citizen, rather than for the few ultra-wealthy.

National Socialism also would end cruel animal experimentation for consumer products such as makeup. Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to promulgate laws protecting animals from uncontrolled vivisection and other cruelty. In 1934 Berlin hosted an international conference on animal protection. The motto draped over the speaker’s podium stated: “Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals for their value and service.” In 1936 the German Society for Animal Psychology was established, and in 1938 “Animal Protection” was introduced as a subject for German public schools and universities.

Fritz Todt, Nazi Germany’s head roadway architect, had this to say about protecting the environment and natural landscape: “The German landscape is something unique that we cannot disturb and have no right to destroy. The more densely populated our ‘living space’ becomes with settlements, the greater our hunger will grow for unspoilt nature. The ever increasing spiritual damage caused by life within the big city will make this hunger practically uncontrollable … when we build here on this the landscape of our homeland we must be clear that we will protect its beauty; and in places where this beauty has already disappeared, we will reconstruct it.” That sentiment represents clearly the National Socialist take on how humans should coexist with nature without having to destroy it.

Oh. and here is your quote brian.

Hey, anyone read anything about some shooting that took place at a Sikh temple? It took place this century, I think.

So you went from the nazis of the past when it was proven they were a type of socialist, to modern nazis where you tried to move the goalposts.
So I post the statements of modern nazis and then you try to go back to the nazis of Germany. Really, you make it too easy and show how mentally ill you are, dishonest, or both.

You modern nazis brought up the nazis from the past to show how different you are now, even though so many of the nazi quotes you have memorized reflect right-wing wetdreams. You keep talking about Hitler. The right-wing nazi nut from this century who shot the non-Christians, now that is mentally ill, but you wouldn;t recognize that, not in one of your own.

Yawn. Another hate based ad homenim attack because you can’t disprove what has been posted. Have a good night you leftist troll.

@Hard Right:
I use your quotes, the ones you provide, and that is trolling, and whatever else babies cry about.
Someone disagrees with you = troll.
Now that is some gutsy, tough intellectual stance.
Good night to you, conservative scholar and right-wing genius.

@Brian Miller:

Hey Brian…would you consider FDR to have been a Leftist or a Right wing conservative?

@Aye:
nothing to do with the article, but then I’m used to the posts here being that way but -“Hey Brian…would you consider FDR to have been a Leftist or a Right wing conservative? ”
I would consider someone who was elected President that many times to be somewhere in the midst of the American electorate, neither far extreme, a liberal conservative (though extremism is the only way some people can see things).

@Ron H.: @retire05:

We have found the dog whistle in Ron H.’s selection. Now let us take a page from Sherlock Holmes and find the dog that didn’t bark.

[David Weinfeld] Yet (Fascism) can and did exist alongside capitalism, as was the case in Nazi Germany. Though Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi), Hitler was not a socialist

The question at hand is: were the Nazis socialists? the question at hand is not: were the Nazis Marxists?

David Weinfeld compares the German Nazis to Soviet Marxists, which is a polemical artifact from the 1920’s and 1930’s. However during the 20th century Germany fielded several socialist parties notably including the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany), or SPD. The SPD is today a full member party of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. It is Germany’s oldest political party, established in 1875, in the German Parliament.

The current party platform of the SPD espouses the goal of social democracy, which is seen as a vision of a societal arrangement in which freedom and social justice are paramount. According to the party platform, freedom, justice, and social solidarity, form the basis of social democracy. The coordinated social market economy should be strengthened, and its output should be distributed fairly. The party sees that economic system as necessary in order to ensure the affluence of the entire population. The SPD also tries to protect the society’s disadvantaged with a welfare state. Concurrently, it advocates a sustainable fiscal policy that doesn’t place a burden on future generations while eradicating budget deficits. In social policy, the SPD stands for civil and political rights in an open society. In foreign policy, the SPD aims at ensuring global peace by balancing global interests with democratic means. Thus, European integration is one of the main priorities of the SPD.

David Weinfeld goes on confusing fascism with Nazism and writes:

[David Weinfeld] Third, the Nazi regime did not completely take over all large businesses and industries, but rather colluded with them, most famously with chemical company I.G. Farben. This is a crucial mistake people make about fascism: businesses in fascist states like Hitler’s Germany are not necessarily government owned, and can to some degree function within a market-oriented capitalist framework subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Clearly Germany’s other socialist party did not completely take over all large businesses and industries either when it came to power in the post WW-II era. Clearly businesses in socialist welfare states like SPD’s Germany are not necessarily government owned, and can to some degree function within a market-oriented capitalist framework subject to the laws of supply and demand.

That is the dog that didn’t bark!

David Weinfeld’s essay is constructed of a Straw Man.

Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

@Mike O’Malley:

Someday Mikey you will find that proof you so long for, sure……….

Mikey, before he goes off on his rant- “The question at hand is:….”

And now, back to the question at hand- “After explaining Wade Pageâ��s link to violent, racist groups, Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos wondered how Page could have purchased a gun, Ross insisted that the FBI did not have â��enough evidence to open a full field investigation because of his links to these right-wing, neo-Nazi groups. Note the media never calls the black bloc anarchists, or the Occupy cop-car shitters, â��left-wing.â�� They get called â�� besides being called â��mostly peaceful,â�� of course â�� specifically what they are, be it anarchists or vandals.”

@Ron H.: @retire05:

Our deconstruction demolition of Dr. David Weinfeld’s essay continues. We have seen Dr. Weinfeld: begged the question, employed circular reasoning and use Straw Man argument. Now we will find Dr. Weinfeld’s Red Herring. We also find more and more factual errors and omission. One is left to wonder not just from where Dr. Weinfeld earned his doctorate in history but how such an intellectual hack was admitted to an advanced post graduate program to begin with!

.

Red Herring
Explanation

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.

The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.
Example

Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand:

“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

@Ron H.: @retire05:

Three days ago it was Yom HaShoah, the Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Day. It’s a solemn occasion, one that should not be politicized. On this next day, however, I’d like to address a political pet peeve of mine, namely the view that fascism, specifically Nazism, was somehow an ideology of the Left. It was not. … Second, and equally obvious, Nazism divided Germans along racial rather than class lines. Jews and other enemies of the state were enemies regardless of class, and the Aryan ideal could be achieved at any socioeconomic level.

http://phdoctopus.com/2012/04/22/nazism-and-fascism-were-ideologies-of-the-right/

Whether or not the Nazis divided Germans or the human race on other than class lines is irrelevant to whether the Nazis or anyone for that matter were/are socialists. What matters is whether Nazi ideology and Nazi political/economic practice sought to create a socialist welfare state. This is Dr. Weinberg’s Red Herring.

Like any biased polemicist Dr, Weinfeld assures his readers that:

My point here is not to politicize, but to de-politicize

However like any biased polemicist that is exactly what Dr, Weinfeld intends to do. Otherwise he would not have framed his essay as an attack of that decades old bogeymen of the left: ” right-wing talk radio”.

One might note that Russian Soviet apparatchiks earned a bad reputation in Black Africa because they were unable to conceal their contempt for African blacks whom they viewed as inferior. Russian Soviet apparatchiks and military personal divided Soviet society along a Russian vs: Ukrainian and Baltic, German Russian ethnic divides. Chinese socialism also maintains and promotes a Han vs. non-ethnic Han divide with Tibetians an Uigers as victims of acts of genocide.

Dr. Weinberg equates Fascism and Nazism. Italian Fascism notably did not maintain the same racial antisemitic ideological policies as did the Nazis. As Dorothy Rabbinowitz of Wall Street Journal Editorial Broad used to point out the Italian Fascist Army over and over again refused to assist in the Nazi round ups of Jews. The Italian Fascist Army had a pat rebuke of the German Nazis; they said rounding up Jews for the death camps “is beneath the dignity of the Italian Army”!

The Italian Fascist Army was in fact the only military in Europe that actually engaged in large scale military action with the sole purpose of RESCUING Jews. In particular in France the Italian Fascist Army forcibly prohibited collaborationist French police from shipping thousands of Jewish children to the Nazi death camps. Which bring up a topic that I doubt Dr. Weinberg wishes to address. During the Nazi occupation of France many French socialists collaborated with the Nazis and shared the Nazis antisemitism and the continue to do today.

Mike O’Malley
hi,
I see, that OBAMA USED THAT along the black propaganda, we just have to remember the mentality of many, naming one teacher saying to the class in majority black;
they are not like us, and other words to incite the young, which end up torching one boy 13 years,
just because he was white, and more other stories telling of the same wide spread mindset, being allowed to be fed to the young teens,
I think it could be a mindset of a leader who fear and is not comfortable with his position because he is lacking ability to lead and want to to grasp control he would like as a HITLER PURSUE EXTREME MEASURES
we also must keep in mind the same influence on OBAMA from the MUSLIMS, HAD BEEN STRONG ON HITLER and played the big part in the acceleration of the extermination of the JEWISH PEOPLE,
GIVING THE WORLD THEIR HOLOCAUST MASTERMIND BY BOTH HITLER AND
HIS COZY FRIENDS THE MUSLIMS.
doesn’t it make you think of the danger of four more years with OBAMA IN POWER COZY WITH HIS FRIENDS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THEIR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, HE IS HE HAD HE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP THEM GAINING DANGEROUS POWER
under the cover of his position,
yes dangerous
FOR THIS AMERICA

@Mike O’Malley:
“The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.”

Hey Mikey, speaking of……how about that right-wing nazi nut who shot up the SiKh temple. Ya know, what the article is about, not what you drag out as, how you say, red herrings.

@Mike O’Malley:
“Whether or not the Nazis divided Germans or the human race on other than class lines is irrelevant to whether the Nazis or anyone for that matter were/are socialists.”

Yeah, it didn’t matter if you were a Jew or Gypsie to the Nazis, according to the expert here….
I bet the Jews and Gypsies wish they were as insightful as Mikey here is with the Nazis…….

@Brian Miller:

Hey Mikey, speaking of……how about that right-wing nazi nut who shot up the SiKh temple. Ya know, what the article is about, not what you drag out as, how you say, red herrings.

How embarrassing for you again Brian. You see my posts have been right on topic. We find this is so by checking the discussion at Ace-of-Spades-Hdqrs. linked in Curt’s opening post above. I’ll quote:

Comments

1 I thought I heard that the shooter was a socialist.

Posted by: Mindy at August 07, 2012 12:45 PM (6JLpG)
2 Indeed, when I saw the tattoos and the shaved head, I immediately thought left-wing socialist ala Occupy Oakland/San Francsisco.

Posted by: john b at August 07, 2012 12:46 PM (sSaDX)
3 I thought I heard that the shooter was a socialist.

Neo-nazis are socialist. The Nazis were the National Socialist party.

When they say “right-wing” they mean “racist”. When they call nazis right wing, they are saying that racism and hate are right wing.

Posted by: entropy at August 07, 2012 12:46 PM (TULs6)
4 I guess when you compare National Socialist German Workers Party to Obama and the democrats, everything else is considered to the right because there nothing to the left of communism.

Posted by: newmike at August 07, 2012 12:47 PM (YCfAX)

5 Posted by: Mindy at August 07, 2012 12:45 PM (6JLpG)

But a RIGHT -WING socialist!

Posted by: Hrothgar at August 07, 2012 12:47 PM (rI5Q7)

@Brian Miller:

@Mike O’Malley:
“Whether or not the Nazis divided Germans or the human race on other than class lines is irrelevant to whether the Nazis or anyone for that matter were/are socialists.”

Yeah, it didn’t matter if you were a Jew or Gypsie to the Nazis, according to the expert here….
I bet the Jews and Gypsies wish they were as insightful as Mikey here is with the Nazis……. @Mike O’Malley:
“Whether or not the Nazis divided Germans or the human race on other than class lines is irrelevant to whether the Nazis or anyone for that matter were/are socialists.”

Yeah, it didn’t matter if you were a Jew or Gypsie to the Nazis, according to the expert here….
I bet the Jews and Gypsies wish they were as insightful as Mikey here is with the Nazis…….

One of your logical falacies here is

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument’s position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one’s reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring

.

According to your reasoning it would not matter if one were a Nazi or an Italian Fascist general who refused to round up Jews for the Nazis?

Moreover you why limit your appeal to emotions to Jews and Gypsies? The Nazi’s also treated racial groups such as Czechs, Slovaks, Serbians, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians with genocidal intent and deed. The Nazi’s killed quite a number of Greeks. The Turkish Caliphate likewise treat Czechs, Slovaks, Serbians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Jews, Armenians, Chaldeans, Aramians and others with genocidal intent and deed. However, the Third Reich’s mistreatment of , Czechs, Slovaks, Serbians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Jews and Gypsies is as irrelevant to the question of whether of not the Third Reich was a Socialist welfare state as the 20th century’s genocidal mistreatment of Czechs, Slovaks, Serbians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Jews, , Armenians, Chaldeans, Aramians and others are relevant to a question about whether the 20th Century Third Reich and Turkish Caliphate were modern industrialized states.