.

Another Crazy Right Winger

According to the media, Sikh Gurdwara shooter Wade Michael Page is a "far-right" lunatic. Since when did National Socialism become a "far-right" platform?

I often refer to myself as a "journalist" in conversation. When I'm asked to cover an event for a publication or website, I tend to check my opinions and political leanings at the door. This sort of objectivity should be expected from those claiming to be journalists. Separating one's self from opinion and emotion, in order to provide readers with the facts required to form their own opinions, should be the paramount goal. To report, is not always to opine. Aside from moonlighting as a journalist, I also dabble from time to time in "Radical right wing blogging," though I draw a big distinction between the two. Journalists have a responsibility to not take sides in the events they report, bloggers have no such restrictions.

In the days since the tragic shooting that left six dead at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee, I have been watching the media coverage with just a fair amount of contempt. Want to be thoroughly disgusted? Watch network coverage of a tragedy during an election year. Once again, network anchors and analysts seem to be falling all over themselves to paint shooter Wade Michael Page as a "right-wing" lunatic. This leads to the usual vitriolic nonsense about right-wing extremism, and the need to disarm law abiding citizens by implementing gun control legislation that would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Rahm Emmanuel taught us to "Never let a good crisis go to waste," the media seems to be taking heed. After hearing the term "right wing" attached to the majority of news reports on Page's ties to the Neo-Nazi movement and white supremacist punk music, I decided to reject the premise that that there is anything "right wing" about either Nazis, or their music. I also decided to back up my opinions, and take the foundations out from under any opinion basing itself on the assumption that the Nazi party is on the right of the American political spectrum.

At the heart of good investigative journalism is the ability to ask good questions. A good question is one that demands an answer from which you can draw logical conclusions with little ambiguity. When considering whether Wade Michael Page should be considered a "right winger," here is a good question:

"Is it more likely that Mr. Page would attend a TEA Party rally, or an Occupy Wall Street rally"?

Let's answer this question with absolute accuracy. Did you know that the Nazi Party USA openly endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement? No? You must have missed it in the network media coverage. Here is a link to the Nazi Party's own statement;

For those of you who don't follow links, tell me if you consider this to be a right wing statement;

"As I have so often in the past spoke on - the White Working Class - is going PAST, the BOILING POINT, and is quickly reaching ULTIMATE EXPLOSION! THEY want ANSWERS! THEY want RESULTS! All of which this evil corrupt, decadent JUDEO-CAPITALIST SYSTEM is incapable of giving them. WHY? Because its BOUGHT and SOLD to the CORPORATE ELITISTS who are fast turning America into a "South American" style - THIRD WORLD WAGE-SLAVE STATE - ( complete with MILLIONS of BROWN illegal aliens willing to ACCEPT YOUR JOB for LOW WAGES and NO BENEFITS ) where, currently 3% of the population CONTROL 85% of the nation’s WEALTH! And the "GREAT DIVIDE" is GROWING each and every year that passes."

— Official statement, Nazi Party USA

This is the reason that truly racist signs and literature were turning up at Occupy rallies, and not TEA Parties, much to the dismay of the national media. If you consider Occupy to be a far-right movement, how many Occupy activists do you think would agree with you? Another good question. It should be general knowledge that a Nazi is, by definition, a socialist. Do you consider socialism to be a right wing platform? Another good question.

To those who would subjugate our Constitution to international law, or advocate gun control legislation that only disarms law abiding citizens, I would point out that the Nazi Party was especially fond of strict gun control laws. Gun control legislation was used to systematically disarm not only the civilian populations of occupied Europe, but the German population as well. This was achieved by first requiring all civilian owned firearms to be registered, making said registrations increasingly difficult to obtain, and finally enacting increasingly severe punishments for disobedience. Does this sound familiar?

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.

New York Times, Nov. 9 1938 

 I'm not sure most "right-wingers" would fall in line with Nazi policies. Most TEA Party activists would agree with Gandhi when it comes to gun control;

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

— Mahatma Gandhi

I am an evangelical, Bible-believing, Christian conservative, right-wing Army veteran. This is my right-wing blog, where I sound off with my opinions. It enrages me that "journalists" like ABC's Brian Ross continue to try to make comparisons between myself, and every lunatic who goes on a racist shooting rampage. I deserve more respect, Brian. I also find it disturbing that Americans have stood by idly and allowed the slanted media to frame every debate in this country, often contrary to critical thought and common sense. I find it shameful that news organizations use every human tragedy to push a political agenda, instead of reporting the facts in an objective, respectful manner. We can all apply political spin to these events by ourselves, without the help of the national media. This is the difference between drawing our own conclusions, and being force fed propaganda.

I never once referred to Wade Michael Page as a left-wing, socialist extremist; I have more respect for my liberal friends than that. I'll just call him a psychotic murderer, far outside of political leanings. As I sat at a local restaurant with many of my liberal friends, I threw out a good question, "Why are neo-Nazis considered to be far right?" It was a simple enough question, and no one had a good answer.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Joe Blowski August 10, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Tony thank you for your insightful comments. I've given up on both the MSM and the left when they can't see how 2 + 2 = 4. The only thing we can do is out vote them.
Jen August 11, 2012 at 03:06 AM
I have often wondered how one can be a Bible believing right winger? Don't kill the babies but let me have my weapons so I can kill someone if they try to take my stuff. It just doesn't make sense! There is one time in scripture that even mentions a fetus being killed and it compares it to the mother being killed. The mothers death would require the death of the killer but if the baby died, a fee would be set by the father as to what should be paid. This shows that while the fetus has value, the mother is of more value. The right is notoriously against socialist ideals and spreading the wealth but Jesus taught to share and love one another. We are to help the widow and Ill among us. One can not be a good Bible believing Christian and hold dear the republican goals. It is impossible. If you believe you can, you have deceived yourself.
Sharon August 11, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Sorry Jen - yes the Bible does teach us to share and love one another. But the idea is to "teach" us not force us. I am a Christian and have given plenty of money, time and talent to those less fortunate than but that is of my own free will and what I know I can afford and still take care of my own family. It gets a little tough to take when someone who doesn't work has a phone, heat, air-conditioning, food stamps, housing, schooling, and now if things go the way the president wants - doesn't even have to prove they are looking for a job. And about the weapons - wonder what the Jews in the concentration camp thought when our soldiers showed up to free them? It's not always about someone taking "my stuff." Look at Greece - nice example of socialism at work.
Jen August 11, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Again I say you have deceived yourself. You don't want government decide for you when it comes to helping the poor but you have no problem using the government to force your beliefs on those who may not believe as you do on gay marriage and abortion. Jesus took NO position on abortion or gay marriage when on earth but he did help the poor and needy! Any judgement calls He made were because He is in a position to judge. How do you decide which poor people are worthy of your help? How do you judge?
Jen August 11, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Just reading over what you posted...those people have those things because we help them. So you believe we should leave our poor, homeless, in the cold and extreme heat, hungry and uneducated. If you have ever lived in a low income neighborhood, you would understand it's not the ritz Carlton. It's often dangerous and drug or violence infested. Those cell phones are needed for emergencies which happen Often in these places. They might not be working but they are not living the American dream either.
Joe Blowski August 12, 2012 at 08:07 PM
This is my last volley - I actually lean a little Libertarian in that I don't want anyones beliefs forced on anyone else - within reason. That's the problem - deciding what is reasonable and what is not. To vote for the liberals just because you disagree with some GOP platform items is like trying cut your fingernails with a chain saw - its excessive to the extreme in the other direction. I could care less about gay marriage as long as it doesn't effect me and I think the GOP is wrong on their hard stance on abortion - while I find it abhorrent it too is none of my business what you do with the contents of your uterus. Other conservatives find my view offensive - do I abandon the rest of my conservative principles because of that disagreement? NO. I say NO POOR PEOPLE are worthy of government help - that's what churches and private charities are for. It's what families are for. "Those people have those things because we help them" ? WHAT? I would say that the government has done a wonderful job of leaving the poor in dangerous, drug infested neighborhood full of crime and violence and its BECAUSE they're uneducated they choose to stay there. It's a CHOICE. If you're able to work - get a job and get out - and don't expect someone to do it for you. It's a generational problem of decade after decade of welfare handout mentality, and its not fiscally sustainable and has to stop. Will people die in the transition? Perhaps - but is it FAIR to allow the status quo?
Jen August 13, 2012 at 06:37 PM
I find it amazing that you are unaware of the economic situation here. There are no jobs available that pay a living wage! Minimum wage at full time won't even pay my utilities! As for working hard - ha! I have never worked harder than when I worked minimum wage at dollar tree! I just about killed myself to make the big wigs a buck and follow the impossible regulations and requirements they set up. Its fortunate for me but a sad statement about our world that I was blessed to fall into a job that pays more and is a thousand times less stressful than dollar tree was. You want people to work, then give them a livable wage! Why kill yourself for minimum wage if all you can do with it is pay for daycare! Then you lose out on being able to be a parent and raise your children right and you still can't pay the rent!
DCC August 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Tony wrote "I threw out a good question, "Why are neo-Nazis considered to be far right?" It was a simple enough question, and no one had a good answer." That's a shame that not one of your friends, nor you, had this lesson in history to guide you. Consider: the fascists in Italy and NAZIs in Germany formed an alliance during WWII. One of their common enemies was Communism. If you consider political and economic philosophies on a straight continuum, communism has always been considered "far left", and the philosophies diametrically opposed, Nazism, would be "far right". Of course, part of the problem is that philosophies really aren't a straight continuum. Tea Partiers happily claim being on the "right", but are they further right than Libertarians or those who swear by laissez-faire capitalism? Nevertheless, if you are talking about left vs. right, you can see even more evidence on Nazism's wiki page: "National Socialism ... was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. ... Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into Völkisch nationalism." Ergo, it is correct to call Nazism "far right". Bon appétit.
Tony Lollio August 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM
I'm impressed with your knowledge of history, Darryl. Your long winded answer, however, only served to place national socialism to the right of communism, a far cry from far right.
Brad Jensen August 17, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Sorry Tony, the definition of "right-wing" vs. "left-wing" has to do with where the various parties sat in the French Parliament after the French Revolution. It has been a tradition since that the Nationalist/Conservatives sit to the right (on the right-wing) and Progressives/Liberals/ Socialists sit to the left. This has been true throughout history and throughout the world. Where did the National Socialists sit in the German Reichstag? You guessed it - in the "right-wing". Therefore, by definition the Nazis were right wing. Oh, and the National Socialists are no more Socialists than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic. Just putting it in your name does not make it so. It would be hard to tell the real Socialists who were sitting in Nazi death camps that it was "common knowledge" that the Nazis were Socialists. If you want a real answer to why the Neo-nazis are considered right-wing, then use your journalistic training and give them a call and ask them who they identify more with. I doubt that they will tell you that they vote for Obama.
Tony Lollio August 17, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Brad, if you honestly believe that this is about a political spectrum based on the French parliament, you are deceiving yourself. We have our own political spectrum here in the United States. As much as Liberals would love to associate Neo-Nazis with TEA Party folks, anyone with the slightest amount of intellectual honesty can see through the verbal gymnastics. If we really defined the spectrum by European standards, plenty of liberals here in the U.S. would proudly wear the "right wing" tag. Perhaps you failed to follow my link to the Nazi Party website. Would you consider their statement Progressive? Do the Occupy Wall Street folks consider themselves on the right or left of the American political spectrum, be honest, Brad. When the Media here in the U.S. labels a Neo Nazi murderer a "right winger," it has nothing to do with the French revolution, and everything to do with American politics.
Brad Jensen August 17, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Sorry, you cannot redefine words to fit your agenda. The term "right-wing" has a definition and a historical context - both in Europe, the US and the rest of the world. If you want to use the term, you accept this definition. If not, you are free to make up your own terms but do not misuse existing ones. If progressives (liberal is actually an inaccurate term, but I digress) label themselves "right-wing" then they do not understand either the term "progressive" or the term "right-wing". Both the Occupy movement and the Tea Party have claimed to be bi-partisan, but practically they are not. Both are upset at the balance of power in the United States, they just do not agree on who is too blame. But your argument is a red herring regardless. Just because a group of people might agree on one issue or the other (e.g. libertarians agree with liberals/progressives on the issue of gay marriage for the most part) does not make them alike (look up the term Reductio ad Hitlerum). The media labels a Neo-nazi murder "right-wing" because that is correct. Just like the nut that just shot up the Family Research Council is correctly labeled "left-wing". Both sides have their fanatics. Trying to lump all the crazies on the other side of your political viewpoint is intellectually lazy and potentially dangerous.
Denis Curran August 17, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Communists? Nazis? Both were the parties of Big Government control of the people. Note that both called themselves "Socialist". Where we live, in America, who is the party of Big Government control (now approaching the cradle-to-grave nanny state)? Draw your own conclusions.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something