Neoconservative Means Jew: How Malkin And Morrissey Are Excusing Their Ideological Idiocy

Last night, amongst the seemingly endless streams of information coming in about James von Brunn, you could almost feel the forced shift that right-wing, conservative, bloggers were creating. They had been called on their bluff about how the DHS report on Right-Wing Extremism was an attack on "conservativism" and their show-cards didn't look any better. And once von Brunn went all in, things got a little interesting on the internet.

Michelle Malkin, ever eager to shove her foot sideways into her gaping maw just to see how much attention she can garner, wasted no time in making excuses for why von Brunn doesn't meet the criterea of a "Right-Wing Extremist".

Through a list of quotes, some jabs at Markos, and several inverted flips of logic, Malkin concludes that von Brunn is a "loon" and has no real ideological affiliation.

Brilliant deduction there, ma'am.

Even though von Brunn's profile matches what the DHS reported listed ( anti-semite, anti-government, radicalized veteren, neo-nazi ) Malkin's citation of Kathy Shaidle is what struck me as not just out-of-place, but a blatant attempt at redefining the word "neo-con" in place it on the same level as anti-semitic speech.

As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”.

What Malkin leaves out is Shaidle's own leap of logic by not only citing "Liberal Fascism" as credible source material, but claiming that the "Left" and "radical Islam" are essentially "allies":

None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg's bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change , which clearly demonstrates that "fascism" of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect "leftwing" views as "rightwing" ones.

In fact, anti-semitism is something the New Left and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.

-----------------------------------------

Ed Morrissey at HotAir continues ranting about the DHS report and seems to think this wouldn't all be that bad had von Brunn been named in the report.

...our criticism was that the DHS report didn’t focus on known, specific threats, instead making generalized threats about abortion opponents and other vague and broad generalizations about conservative issues.

Morrissey seemed so rushed to make his own, ill-informed, judgement on this issue that he claimed that the DHS report never mentioned anti-semitism, when in fact it did.

His entire thesis is predicated on the fact that the DHS didn't "name" a right-wing extremist group.

Perhaps it's just me, but this says alot about the consumerist nature of our culture. We don't believe in something unless it has a brand-name stamped on it. We won't consider the validity of anything unless it has some sort of logo, a clever name that somehow creates a mental picture of what it does. Malkin and Morrissey believe that if a deomestic terrorist doesn't have enough "commercial value", then they aren't domestic terrorist.

But what of von Brunn's motives?

If we are to get overtly technical about it, von Brunn's a strange character to have to classify as explicity "right" or "left". But that doens't matter to Malkin or Morrissey. They have their metric and they are sticking to it. It doesn't matter to them that he displayed characteristic detailed by the DHS report. It doesn't matter that his writings and actions have been on the "radar" of respective authorities for years. It doesn't matter, because Malkin and Morrissey will do and say anything to keep from admiting that they are wrong.