Sunday, June 14, 2009

Is James von Brunn The New De facto Leader Of The Gop?

Andrew Breitbart has a great piece in the Washington Times about that nutjob James von Brunn and how some in the media are trying to link him to the Republican party.

9 comments:

SSG_E said...

I find this attempt to blame the Conservatives somewhat funny. Unfortunately, it is also dangerous. If the media was intellectually honest, and did any investigative journalism, they would discover that this loon was a socialist. He hated Bush, he hates Obama, and he hates himself. Why do we try blaming other people? This guy was mentally unstable. He suffered from a profound disturbance and was a stupid racist. This guy had no Conservative views that I am aware of, based on what I have read thus far. I know it is disturbing to read the kind of racist hatred found there, but read this guy's words. The attempt to link him to Conservatism is dishonest and ignorant. It is like I said in a previous post about the left and right. It is a bogus game meant to keep most of the people too busy arguing amongst themselves. Meanwhile the politicians tighten their grip. Racism is a product of the left. Conservatism, properly defined, is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation. If a person claiming to be conservative possesses racist views, they are betraying their own principles. I want nothing to do with that kind of person. Leftists are all about grouping people together into various factions. Racists have a communal hatred of one group and tend to flock together and share the same warped world view. Hitler was a socialist too. He hated capitalism. People try calling him a right-wing nutjob when in reality he was left-wing. The mis-representing of left-right political extremes began early in Hitler's career in Germany. The communists and fascists decided to define themselves as opposites, when in fact they were basically the same thing. They did so to create a false choice. They figured that if they defined themselves as opposites, they would be the only game in town. It worked and the rest is history.

R said...

mmm, the first half of SSG_E's 'explanation' is about some guy I care not to read about...

"Conservatism, properly defined, is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation."
Where do you get this from?

The rest seems like a whole lot of assumption, generalisation, and confusing the Left and communism as interchangeable.

"Hitler was a socialist too. He hated capitalism".
lol. your forgetting that he held communists and socialists in similar regard to Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally defective (the S.A. before 'the night of long knives' were principle agents of persecution against Left groups).

"Racists have a communal hatred of one group and tend to flock together and share the same warped world view."
?

"Racism is a product of the left."
?

"Leftists are all about grouping people together into various factions"
?

"If a person claiming to be conservative possesses racist views, they are betraying their own principles. I want nothing to do with that kind of person."
does that make them a de facto Leftist in your opinion?

I don't care to debate your ideas about 1930's Germany
...but would dearly love to know where you got this 'proper definition' of Conservatism from?
...that "is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation."
the origins and the basis for this definition being a proper one - this I'd be interested to see.
(It's not just another one of these 'the Left is...' therefore Conservatism is... syllogistic nonsense that is two a penny around here?
...because while you allude to being aware of that problem, I can't imagine which rabbit you are going to pull from what hat
The reason being is that I could find it more plausible that you might get a definition of NeoConservatism that fits that description, but it would also require the inclusion of addendum that is not fit to print in polite company)

SSGE_ said...

"Conservatism, properly defined, is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation."
Where do you get this from?

-I interpret my definition of Conservatism from the orignial principles of the Constitution and the philosophy of the Framers of the Constitution. True Conservatives uphold the limits on government and stress the importance of self-regulation so that the government has no excuse to grab more power. Individuality was important to the Founding Fathers as it should be to Conservatives. I am also drawing from the philosophes and ideas of Polybius, Cicero, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Hooker, and others which our Founders synthesized into the first governmental system in the world based on People's Law. Early on Thomas Jefferson warned about political extremism, even within his own party. The far left meant tyranny, the far right meant anarchy. There were problem solvers and those who want to preserve freedom and resources. The Founders knew that they needed to keep each other honest.

"confusing the Left and communism as interchangeable."

-I referred to the left as communism simply as an example. I know not everyone on the left is a communist. I was talking about what most consider to be political extremes today.

I know Hitler hated the communists, but only because they were his competition. He did not have any philosophical quarrel with them. He had a lot of political prisoners whom he at one time had aligned with.

"Racists have a communal hatred of one group and tend to flock together and share the same warped world view."?

-I am referring to how the racists all get together in the Klan, on hate-spewing websites, etc.

Racism is a product of the left."?

-I am referring to the American left here. Most KKK members were Democrats early on. Democrats (Led by Robert "KKK" Byrd) tried filibustering the Civil Rights Act back in the 1960s. Also, the left here in American (especially the media) tend to lump people into groups: ie "the rich" "the poor" "blacks" "latinos" and so on.

"If a person claiming to be conservative possesses racist views, they are betraying their own principles. I want nothing to do with that kind of person."
"does that make them a de facto Leftist in your opinion?"

-No.

I think the left v. right thing is a game. The real struggle is between statists(tyranny) and Conservatives or any freedom loving human being. There are those who call themselves Conservative that are in truth statists themselves. I am about small government and personal freedom AND responsibility. Our government has been about neither for most of the last 100 years. It is just getting much worse very fast right now.

R said...

Thank you for taking the time to explain your ideas, statements, assumptions, and interpretations...

"Racism is a product of the left."

-I am referring to the American left here."

...and making a massive generalisation from some very specific and isolated examples.
While the examples you cite may well be true, they are selective, and point to a conclusion that I believe is disingenuous. Surely you are not seriously asserting that by identifying some connection between isolated cases of racism in The Left, excludes it from being rife elsewhere?
So how does racism and the Right work?
"If a person claiming to be conservative possesses racist views, they are betraying their own principles"
Does equate to 'a real conservative can't be racist?'

How is the strong feelings about illegal immigrants and conservatives not racism? In the US there is porous borders to north - no one fussing about Canadians entering the country when compared to southern borders, and the menace beyond?

We had NeoCons blitzing about that a few elections ago in Australia, the thing is, the overwhelming majority of 'illegal immigrants' (I use inverted commas as local definitions/federal legislation of the time broke UNHCR law) were English citizens, yet long-term mass-incarceration behind razor-wire only applied non-Anglo 'offenders'. Not racism? in the second most successful Conservative government in Australia's short history? The Howard gov embodied the values you ascribed to 'true Conservatives' with yet with the tyranny you posit in the Left (re-introducing 'sedition' as a crime being a good example).

This "racism is a product of the Left" is almost as cosy as the 'left vs right is BS, but 'real conservatives' have a monopoly on all things warm and fuzzy'.
On one hand you've written-off both the Left and Right for their faults, but defined 'a true Conservatism' that exists outside such a spectrum. This 'true conservatism' seems remarkably like an attempt at what post-modernists call a meta-narrative or grand-narrative... it's bigger than left vs. right, more wholesome than Superman (the comic character, not Nietzsche's notion of an 'Ubermensch') and contains all the good things from all your fav thinkers/writers.

"The real struggle is between statists(tyranny) and Conservatives"
statists? with Conservatism 'defined' with the suspiciously vague "all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation".

A definition of these "statists" might be interesting?
...hopefully not as an equally vague collections of negatives that make this the new artificial binary opposition to replace 'Left vs Right' now that you've retired it (I feel you might be alone there... not so many Americans ready to give-up 'the enemy that defines them').

Again, I thank you for taking the time and effort to explain the origins of your belief system, and politely suggest that perhaps you've made Conservatism in your own image - you do acknowledge that it is your interpretation... making it seem far more like one person's utopian fantasy with 'call to authority' thrown in for good measure than a 'proper definition' of conservatism. A 'definition', yes, but uniquely your definition. I would think this hardly makes a good basis for a claim to be "Conservatism, properly defined".
Apart from the origins and the nature of this 'definition' (it is a bit vague too - the Left would lay claim to much of that 'definition')... except how those ideas be understood.
This "Conservatism, properly defined, is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation" sounds like coy way of suggesting that some folks should be above the law, or more accurately, laws should be moved out of the way to allow 'individuality' to be expressed by those with the means to utilise it - but really only the chance to concentrate wealth in a smaller number of people (but not as funny as 'the trickle-down effect', remember that gem?).

SSG_E said...

No I do not assume that racism exist only on the left. It was not my intent to give that impression. In American politics I have found racism to largely originate from the left. To some extent it comes from my experience. The biggest racists I have encountered in my life were union members and democrats.

I would say that a Conservative that has racist views is simply not showing consistency with the concepts they purport to believe in. No one is perfect. Human beings are often contradictory creatures. I see your point though.

In reference to illegal immigration, the real racists are the ones that tolerate what amounts to enslavement of the Mexican people. We allow Mexico to export their political and economic problems to the US. Meanwhile the Mexican people live in what amounts to feudalism in Mexico. I actaully want both borders secure for national security reasons. I want illegal immigration stopped, but I want the legal immigration process streamlined so that if good people want to come here they can. I don't want a bunch of illegals in here working for slave wages. Its not good for America, its not good for Mexico, and it is not good for the people involved. This reply is going to get too long if I keep going in to this, so I will have to save it for another time.

I won't comment on Australia's internal politics because I know little of them. Statists can come from both sides though. I understand that tyranny comes in many forms.

I do not think that Conservatives have a "monopoly on all things warm and fuzzy". I want the left and right to keep each other in check. They should keep each other honest. In America the left has been running rampant, however, with little to no opposition for many years. There has been no balance. I am just sick of the politicians from both sides. No one cares about the country. They only care about the power of their party.

I wasn't clear on some of my definitions. I am trying to be concise. If I keep going into this stuff I will be typing all day. Basically I want People's Law. Precisely balanced between tyranny (left) and anarchy (right). I want the minimum amount of government. I want just enough to protect us and to maintain a civil society.

A statist is simply a politician who wants big government and centralized control of nearly every aspect of our lives.

You are right that many people will not easily give up their "enemy". It is part of the game I guess.

Yeah, a lot of this is my philosophy. I feel that Conservatism "ought to " cover many of these areas. In that way I guess I am being normative. I do not want a utopia, just freedom to pursue our own destiny.

Instead of calling this a definition of Conservatism maybe I should be referring to it as a call for the return of common sense and core principles. Both sides seem to have lost too much of both.

Thanks for the thought provoking conversation. I probably missed something, but I should cut this off. I could spend all day going over this line of reasoning.

R said...

"I would say that a Conservative that has racist views is simply not showing consistency with the concepts they purport to believe in"
I get that, but are alarmed that a racist Conservative is betraying his values(paraphrase), but you seem to just expect and are OK with the Left being racist... aren't they also betraying their values? is it who they are? ...or is notion of 'Left v Right is a game/false' only works one way?

I have far more questions than there is room for, so will choose one (the question is the last bit, after contextual example):

Is there a 'true Conservative' in a US public office of note (now or recent past eg pres, gov of large state etc), the reason I ask, and how it relates to "Conservatism, properly defined, is all about individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation."
(If anyone mentions Rudolph Giuliani then we are taking about two different things - 'zero tolerance' sits a long way out 'liberty' and 'personal responsibility').
Is the rate of incarceration in the US combined with disproportionate Black rates of imprisonment (lets leave comparative gun ownership vs. gun murder aside eg. Canada has many guns but few murders) makes america seem like a poor model of 'representational democracy' - large (growing larger) number of people in jail - can't get a job with a criminal record, and a legal system that seems remarkably flawed regulating it.
"The Governator" sees the answers as more prisons (try comparing cost of incarceration with employment - yet in his back yard between Bev. Hills, Hollywood, and damn disneyland there is a greater rate of PTSD in children than in Bagdad (The Lancet + rand corp.)
LA - iconic for these values of " individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation" has a 60+ year history of failure. The factories opened during/post WW2, close a generation later, taking a sustainable city with it - the 'bandaid' is jails - how do you make those four magical values a practical solution? (I'm guessing Arnie's 'not a real conservative').
I don't believe that there is such thing as 'an opposite', but 'liberty' and 'record levels of imprisonment' don't have a strong resemblance.

Please show how these values (individuality, liberty, personal responsibility, and self-regulation) can/have be used by a nation/state in a positive example, an the 'real conservative' leader who instigated the praxis?

SSG_E said...

I have no doubt that there are principled people on the left that have values and common sense. Racism is a scourge that should be the antithesis of any human beings values and principles. The problem is there are very few people that even have principles or values. Everyone seems to think them to be old-fashioned I guess.

Rudy and Arnold are not Conservatives. Rudy might be Conservative on a few issues, like national defense, but Arnie is about as liberal as they come (to use today's terms). There is a reason we call that part of the country the left coast. It is very much controlled by the American left and well, you listed the consequences.

Many of our Founders applied these principles well in the early days of the Republic. Lincoln did to an extent. Most recent example off the top of my head would be Reagan. He inherited a nation in turmoil. The US was in quite a malaise from the Carter years. Economy was terrible and the Soviets and other hostile countries smelled weakness. People said America's best days were behind her. Reagan changed all that and led out of principle. He was a moral boast to America and furthered the cause of freedom around the world. Along with Thatcher, Reagan was pivotal in collapsing the Soviets. He wasn't perfect, but he was a force for positive change in America and the world. The best part is he did it mostly through peaceful means. Peace through strength. If we had a Reagan today, or when the so-called war on terror started things would be quite different. And we certainly would not be in the economic mess we are in now. I use Reagan's example because he put principles ahead of party. He was a democrat that did not like the way the party was turning so he got out. I am certain he would not be happy with the direction the republicans turned the last 10 years or so either. No leader has ever been perfect, but I am not looking for perfection.

Again, thanks. This has been a catalyst for a lot of interesting thought. I could go on and on.

R said...

cool. I get what you are saying, but comprehension of context and greater understanding of US history prevent me from really taking this much further. Like Reagan - governor of "left coast" state of California being an example of what you've got in mind seems like a paradox to me - but that's something I'll happily put down to my ignorance of greater complexities.

"The best part is he did it mostly through peaceful means. Peace through strength"
- not perfect as you say, but could have been a lot worse.
"Along with Thatcher"
Best keep Thatcher out of it - we probably have very different understandings of what Thatcher achieved.

...but I get the idea, some histories call them the first of the NeoCons, and while benign compared to more recent developments (eg. the 'war of terror'), were a shock to many as a significant 'course correction' - you allude to the need for those course corrections - legacy previous admin. (the UK suffered a lot more different preconditions ? as result of more heavily unionised vs. Thatcher's 'zero tolerance' attitude? eg destroying the mining industry rather than simply remove unionism + other industry destroyed... then there's the Falkland's war - the most retarded war in a long history, also Nth Ireland etc ).

"No leader has ever been perfect, but I am not looking for perfection"
Amen.

SSG_E said...

When Reagan was governor of California it was not quite the leftist "mecca" it is today.

I do know little of Thatcher's history and policies. But from what I understand she undid alot of damage that had been done by previous leadership who socialized Britain's economy. But I only have some of the story it seems.

Sometimes I feel that we are in heated agreement on many of these issues.