The Left’s wrongheaded “fear” of the Right

This is mostly old news, but I was cruising around the web and came upon the “homegrown extremists” trope, most perfectly distilled in (surprise surprise) the NYT:

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

You and I know what the NYT is going to say, but I encourage a brisk read anyways. The comparison is between jihadist extremists, and every other extremist, or disgruntled postal worker, or otherwise.  The alt media has often pointed to stories that don’t match the national narrative getting slim coverage as proof of the narrative’s preeminence in controlling the media, so it’s always ironic when media outlets like the NYT bemoan “lack of coverage” on a story:

“Some killings by non-Muslims that most experts would categorize as terrorism have drawn only fleeting news media coverage, never jelling in the public memory. But to revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why.”

Gosh, these super important stories don’t get much coverage, but what can little ol’ me, the fucking New York Times, do about that?  I know the paper is struggling, but it’s still the Times for christ sakes.

The Times also mentions Jerad and Amanda Miller, the couple who shot two cops and a man in Walmart who confronted them with his own gun.  Of course, this being the NYT, we hear about their racism and “radical anti-government views”, leading up to their shooting two police officers.  What’s interesting is that they were also fans of cop block, and made much of police brutality videos.  Why would that be relevant?  Well, they shot two cops, and only shot the third man because he confronted them with his own gun. They didn’t go on a shooting spree in Walmart, they cleared it out with warning shots to the ceiling.  They wanted a shoot out with the cops. Why would the Times fail to reveal that?  Obviously, because the “homegrown terrorist” narrative is primarily a left-wing confabulation.  No need to confuse it’s readership with possible ties to anti-police groups.

Another important point to bring up, at least according to the Times, is that the “media” (not them, of course), see a non-muslim “terrorist” and jump right to mental illness, while muslim terrorists are assumed sane.  This, of course, ignores the very obvious fact that muslim terrorists are espousing a rational view of Islam, one that finds plenty of support in the middle east and elsewhere.  Most “homegrown” terrorism is half-baked 80s B-movie rampage plans executed as sloppily and ineffectually as they are justified.  Yet the Times wants us to believe there is some sort of white supremacist underground that is, apparently, analogous to modern day Islamist Jihad.

Modern Day Jihadists enjoy tens of millions of dollars in funding, through shell corporations and from oil magnates, training camps all over the middle east, and regular exhortations to violence justified by reference to the Quran and Hadith.  Eight muslims in France killed well over a hundred people using assault weapons and suicide vests.  In France, where guns are banned.  Contrast that with Jerad and Amanda Miller, who couldn’t even buy a rifle(likely because it was too expensive) in one of the most pro-gun states in the union.  In the first, the problem is a well-funded, well-organized movement with millions of adherents across the globe.  In the second, it’s two broke crack-pots.  Yes, there is a reason Islamic terrorism is treated differently.

Most disturbing politically, so far as I’m concerned, is the comments chosen by both the NYT and readers of the NYT.  I’ll post each one and point out why I think they either jump the shark or merely miss the point.

Homegrown radicals, right-wing Evangelicals, and Tea Party activists in the US are no different from the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They all share a desire to take our country backwards to a “better” time (read: a completely homogenous one with strict enforcement of religious law), where intolerance of any other ideas is the norm, and the way to solve problems is by violence.

This is the number one comment, chosen both by the NYT and 682 other readers.  Notice the claim that right wing evangelicals are no different from the Taliban.  Same with Tea Party activists.  Wait, you say, that’s taking it out of context!  He’s just talking about their “desire to take our country backwards”.  No, dear reader, read on, right wing Evangelicals and the Tea Party see that “the way to solve problems is by violence.”

This is jumping the shark, pure and simple.  I know we’ve had like, what, 15 or so suicide bombings from Evangelicals, and maybe 10 from the Tea Party, but surely the Taliban has been more active than that!  Oh, my bad, make that zero and zip respectively.

This is perhaps the most poignant and critical aspect of this article, and one which I think deserves more attention. The fact that conservative Republicans are suspicious of and/or hostile to government research about right-wing extremism says more than they probably wanted to.

This commenter is referencing a piece of the article regarding the administration’s attempts to investigate so-called right wing extremism and republican’s resistance to such efforts.  Rightly so, as there’s no pressing, public-safety reason to do so, and it’s highly suspicious coming as it is from a highly liberal administration.  If Obama was a republican, and the government attempted to investigate something as vague as “left-wing extremism”, I think the dems would cry foul, and for good reason.

It’s disturbing that some Republicans are blocking studies of right-wing hate groups because they think it makes conservatism look bad. It looks worse that they’d rather take the chance with another Murrah Building attack than to investigate radical groups. Why do we keep voting for people who clearly don’t care about the public?

Same point, similarly up-voted.  In case you weren’t aware, the “Murrah Building attack” was the oklahoma city bombing.  In 1995.  Two decades ago.  This is in contrast to muslim extremism, which in one event 14 years ago killed 3000 people.  More importantly, McVeigh was part of what group, exactly?  Which supremacist organization bankrolled his actions, such that a gov’t investigation would have prevented it?  Facts…

To attentive citizens, this article comes as no surprise. We live in a nation where some politicians, right-wing media, religious fundamentalists, and the NRA spend a vast amount of time stirring up resentment, anger, and paranoia among (often white) right-wing Americans.

This is only the first paragraph, but it encapsulates a mind deluded almost perfectly.  There is a shred of truth to this, but the context is where the true irony shines.  Who, precisely, is rioting in the streets over fabricated resentment, anger, and paranoia?  Is it white fox news viewers, or black democrats?

The domestic horrors we encounter are the result- abortion clinic bombings, the murder of doctors, the killing of Muslims and people of color, threats and violence against gays and lesbians, teams of home grown snipers pointing their rifles at Federal agents, bombings, and most recently, the horrific murders in Charleston.

Not much here, only notice that all societal violence gets filed under the result of right-wing politics and it’s subscribers.  Hold on to your breeches, though, here’s where this left-wing nut really gains his stride.

Hate speech and propaganda has an impact. The politicians and public figures who embrace and promote these hateful opinions bear responsibility. For too long we have refused to call out this behavior under the auspices of “fairness” and “freedom of opinion”. We must do so no longer. It is costing us precious lives.

It always seems as though if you let anyone talk long enough, left or right, you get to the bedrock of their opinions.  Here is the call to arms for “hate speech and propaganda”, which ostensibly means anything from the right.  He is, after all, referring to “some politicians, right-wing media, religious fundamentalists [here he surely only means christians], and the NRA”.  According to him, free speech and fairness are not worth “precious lives”.  Even if he’s right, and he’s not, it’s most definitely not at that point, nowhere close. This is his five paragraph essay, with the broad-brush platitudes and “no longer”, stand your ground climax.  D-minus.

This is missing the point, comically so, but with sinister underpinnings.  Notably, up-voted 371 times and stickied by the NYT.  Scrolling down through is a lot of the same, parrots parroting parrots, lots of ‘gun bad’ and ‘republican worse’ memes abound, but it’s not until you ignore readers and NYT picks that sanity starts creeping in.  I leave you with this, sane comment in a sea of shit:

No problem excluding 9/11. But does this guy really think we’re dumb enough not to see the clumsy manipulation of facts. 26 killed by folks belonging to the population of, being generous, somewhere near 3 million Muslims (according to the Arabic Bible Outreach).

He is shocked by the fact that, at most, a couple of dozen loons out of north of 310,000,000 Americans (U.S. census 2012) kill 48 people. He calls these idiots “domestic terrorists” and attributes ideological reasons for the killings. The only real thread tying these pitiful outcasts together is the fact that virtually all of them were taking prescription antidepressants.

So…3,000,000 divided by 26 = 1 in every 115,384. 300,000,000 (leaving out 10 to 12 million) divided by 48 = 1 in every 6,666,666. Enough said.

Thank you, Ron Watkins of Hillsdale, MI.