So, just what was the Buffalo shooter's political ideology? [in his own words]

[essentialsaltes]

I simply offered the words of the shooter

Well, apart from the stuff he cut & pasted from the Christchurch manifesto.

 

[durangodawood]

You misunderstand.

I simply offered the words of the shooter ... as he described his own ideology. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me about his self-description.

If he just went out and did socialist activism, no one would care.

But no, he did a horrible racist mass murder, and his rationale for that is the "replacement theory" we hear coming out of the new American right, with deeper inspiration from anti immigrant murderers in NZ and Norway.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You misunderstand.

I simply offered the words of the shooter ... as he described his own ideology. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me about his self-description.

You offered a selection of the words of the shooter, describing a portion of his ideology that doesn't relate to his reasons for killing people, and then attempted to paint him as a left-wing terrorist.

 

[JosephZ]

Is it really that "extreme" anymore? (the theory, not the killer's actions)

Unfortunately it's becoming more and more mainstream.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You offered a selection of the words of the shooter, describing a portion of his ideology that doesn't relate to his reasons for killing people, and then attempted to paint him as a left-wing terrorist.

Again, you misunderstand ... or are oblivious to the implications of his self-described national socialist (i.e., Nazi) and communist background.

It's front and center in what I posted ... and absolutely does "relate to his reasons for killing people". Not sure how it could be any clearer. In fact, that's what Nazis and communists have a history of doing ... repeatedly.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, you misunderstand ... or are oblivious to the implications of his self-described national socialist (i.e., Nazi) and communist background.

It's front and center in what I posted ... and absolutely does "relate to his reasons for killing people". Not sure how it could be any clearer. In fact, that's what Nazis and communists have a history of doing ... repeatedly.

Problem for you is his specific reasons for killing people are currently being spouted by the new American right wing.

 

[JosephZ]

I simply offered the words of the shooter ... as he described his own ideology. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me about his self-description.

In the OP you included the following words from the shooter, "you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.”

Etho-Nationalist, Eco-Fascist, and National Socialist are all far right ideologies. In addition to what you quoted in the OP, he also said the following:

Once more, far right ideologies. Sure he may have had a few places in his manifesto where he stated some things that could be taken as left leaning positions, but they are overshadowed by his intense focus on Replacement Theory, those who he admired and inspired him, and his intentional targeting of minorities during his shooting rampage using a weapon with neo-Nazi inscriptions.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Again, you misunderstand ... or are oblivious to the implications of his self-described national socialist (i.e., Nazi) and communist background.

It's front and center in what I posted ... and absolutely does "relate to his reasons for killing people". Not sure how it could be any clearer. In fact, that's what Nazis and communists have a history of doing ... repeatedly.

Nazis are considered far-right. It's only been in the last few years that I've seen people try to re-frame them as left-wing, based solely on the inclusion of the word "socialist" in their name. This seems to be an effort by the political right to paint themselves as the good guys and the left as the bad guys - the very thing that you decried.

Communist ideology is all about economics - workers owning the means of production. Yes, there have been some horrible butchers who called themselves communists, but that doesn't make their beliefs a part of communism. Based on your logic, we could call Christianity a murderous ideology - ever hear of the Crusades?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Unfortunately it's becoming more and more mainstream.

Indeed -- Definition of stochastic terrorism | Dictionary.com

1. The public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted:The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.

Talk long enough and loud enough that a group of people are "the enemy," and sooner or later some nutjob is going to take a potshot at them for you... while your own hands remain squeaky clean.

This is especially true when you make a point to gather, empower, and encourage nutjobs.

 

[Bradskii]

Expecting anyone that has voiced their political opinion either on the left or the right that the young man echoed in his "manifesto" to feel guilty of something other than expressing their opinion is unwarranted.

It's because what is being promoted is not based on reality. It's because what is being promoted is racist. It's because what is being promoted is that unless you are 'legacy' Anglo American, you are not welcome here. It's because it's no different than the white supremacists at Charlotsville marching with torches and chanting 'The Jews will not replace us'. When was the last time we saw anything like that!

But now it's not just white thugs chanting this. We have people in positions of responsibility promoting it as fact. They are warning those whonsupport them that 'the other side' is intentionally tryingnto disenfranchise them.

I've been following politics for decades and this is by far the lowest point anywhere that political discourse has reached. It's not even gutter politics. It's beneath that. It's beneath contempt.

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately it's becoming more and more mainstream.

We mustn't allow that. We cannot begin to accept that this is a theory that deserves to be debated. It simply adds credence where there is none at all. It must be rejected in toto. We need a line in the sand. We must demand honest political debate and reject anything less.

 

[Yttrium]

Wow, according to that chart it looks like I'm about as far from communism as you can get. Works for me.

As far as the shooter goes, I get the distinct impression that he follows nutty conspiracy theory ideology, rather than any standard political ideology.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Wow, according to that chart it looks like I'm about as far from communism as you can get. Works for me.

This is one of those graphics that looks pretty but really doesn't make much sense once you start examining it - it was created to justify an argument rather than accurately categorize political groups. Specifically, the economic axis (Socialism-Corporatism) is complete baloney - a significant number of the ideologies on the chart have nothing to do with economic systems. Politically correct? Totalitarianism? Theocracy? Piously correct? None of these care what the economic system is - they're all about leadership structure or social mores. And placing fascism and communism next to each other on the economic scale makes no sense at all.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Nazis are considered far-right. It's only been in the last few years that I've seen people try to re-frame them as left-wing, based solely on the inclusion of the word "socialist" in their name.

A couple of points deserve to be made here:
1) The shooter self-described as being both left-wing and embracing National Socialism. He viewed National Socialism as being more to the "right" than his earlier communist stance but still saw National Socialism as being left-wing.
2) Here's what Wikipedia says about the creation of the moniker National Socialism:
Nazism - Wikipedia

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.​

Even Wikipedia recognizes the socialist origins of National Socialism.

This seems to be an effort by the political right to paint themselves as the good guys and the left as the bad guys - the very thing that you decried.

It seems to me that most people see themselves and their beliefs as with the "good guys". That's usually true regardless of how evil their own individual actions actually are. The ends justifies the means, don't ya know.

Communist ideology is all about economics - workers owning the means of production. Yes, there have been some horrible butchers who called themselves communists, but that doesn't make their beliefs a part of communism. Based on your logic, we could call Christianity a murderous ideology - ever hear of the Crusades?

Thanks for making my point, yet again.

Powerful government inevitably leads to horrendous abuses. The pattern has been consistently repeated throughout history. Powerful government often cares little about individuals and more about certain goals which must be met, regardless of the cost.

Less powerful government and individual freedom is the way. The catch is that without a powerful government to police every detail of people's lives, the people must have the moral character to recognize the inalienable rights others have and to uphold a civilized and just society. It's not really very complicated, but it's not really all that easy either.

 

[essentialsaltes]

an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.​

Even Wikipedia recognizes the socialist origins of National Socialism.

Haha, like two peas in a pod. Where one pea is an alternative to the other pea.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Haha, like two peas in a pod. Where one pea is an alternative to the other pea.

LOL ... two rotten peas.

 

[durangodawood]

A couple of points deserve to be made here:
1) The shooter self-described as being both left-wing and embracing National Socialism. He viewed National Socialism as being more to the "right" than his earlier communist stance but still saw National Socialism as being left-wing.
2) Here's what Wikipedia says about the creation of the moniker National Socialism:
Nazism - Wikipedia

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.​

Even Wikipedia recognizes the socialist origins of National Socialism.


It seems to me that most people see themselves and their beliefs as with the "good guys". That's usually true regardless of how evil their own individual actions actually are. The ends justifies the means, don't ya know.


Thanks for making my point, yet again.

Powerful government inevitably leads to horrendous abuses. The pattern has been consistently repeated throughout history. Powerful government often cares little about individuals and more about certain goals which must be met, regardless of the cost.

Less powerful government and individual freedom is the way. The catch is that without a powerful government to police every detail of people's lives, the people must have the moral character to recognize the inalienable rights others have and to uphold a civilized and just society. It's not really very complicated, but it's not really all that easy either.

Youre right about state communism being inherently tyrannical - just because of the degree of state power needed to centrally plan and administer a whole economy in detail.

But that has zero to do with why this guy murdered 10 black people because they were black. Thats because of his racist notions of a grand plan to sideline white people, which you can hear all about on Fox and other right wing media.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A couple of points deserve to be made here:
1) The shooter self-described as being both left-wing and embracing National Socialism. He viewed National Socialism as being more to the "right" than his earlier communist stance but still saw National Socialism as being left-wing.

This is meaningless. People describe themselves and their beliefs inaccurately all the time.

2) Here's what Wikipedia says about the creation of the moniker National Socialism:
Nazism - Wikipedia

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.​

Even Wikipedia recognizes the socialist origins of National Socialism.

About the only thing it retains from socialism is the authoritarian government, which is neither "right wing" or "left-wing". As far as the US is concerned, the right and the left don't have any significant disagreements about how much power the government should have - they just disagree on what that power should be used for.

It seems to me that most people see themselves and their beliefs as with the "good guys". That's usually true regardless of how evil their own individual actions actually are. The ends justifies the means, don't ya know.

I don't disagree, but you were the one bemoaning it.

Thanks for making my point, yet again.

Powerful government inevitably leads to horrendous abuses. The pattern has been consistently repeated throughout history. Powerful government often cares little about individuals and more about certain goals which must be met, regardless of the cost.

Powerful government is not a core tenet of communism - in fact, it's pretty much antithetical to the idea of the workers controlling everything. You do need a powerful government to make communism work on a national scale, but that generally results in a system more closely resembling socialism (see China and the USSR). If anything, most "true" communists would probably consider themselves anarchists.

 

[NightHawkeye]

This is meaningless. People describe themselves and their beliefs inaccurately all the time.

No. Not meaningless at all. There is considerable meaning in the shooter's self-description.

That you are dismissive of his own words in one instance while embracing them in another instance indicates perhaps a lack of awareness as to their meaning.

About the only thing it retains from socialism is the authoritarian government, which is neither "right wing" or "left-wing". As far as the US is concerned, the right and the left don't have any significant disagreements about how much power the government should have - they just disagree on what that power should be used for.

Incorrect on both counts.
1) While National Socialism changes a few aspects of socialism, it retains the collectivism and "common good" in all its glory.
2) There is a considerable push from the "right" in the US to minimize government. That can be seen in the ongoing widespread ouster of long-term so-called "establishment" Republicans who have become all too comfortable accepting the dogma from their leftist counterparts.

I don't disagree, but you were the one bemoaning it.

Meh.

Powerful government is not a core tenet of communism - in fact, it's pretty much antithetical to the idea of the workers controlling everything.

An apparently irreconcilable difference.

FWIW, "democracy" seems to be a core tenet of Marxist/communist regimes, as evidenced by the number of such nations using the word in their name. "Workers controlling everything", as you say, would seem to simply be mob rule, even if "democratic". Such is the dark side of "democracy", per se. Mob rule inevitably leads to individual rights and lives being extinguished.

You do need a powerful government to make communism work on a national scale, but that generally results in a system more closely resembling socialism (see China and the USSR).

It's for the "common good", don't ya know? The end always justifies the means. (Sadly, many convince themselves of this.)

If anything, most "true" communists would probably consider themselves anarchists.

Which brings us full-circle back to our shooter's philosophy of life, doesn't it? He had learned to care little for the rights, or even the existence, of others.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No. Not meaningless at all. There is considerable meaning in the shooter's self-description.

That you are dismissive of his own words in one instance while embracing them in another instance indicates perhaps a lack of awareness as to their meaning.

I put little stock in self-analysis without reasoning. We know his beliefs (or at least what he says those beliefs are). Independent analysis shows those beliefs to be largely right-wing (at least with regards to the racial theories that prompted his attack). His own analysis of them as "left-wing" is given without any supporting evidence and is therefore meaningless.

If I say that I support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, trans rights, a strong social safety net, relaxed immigration restrictions, and strong international trade relationships, but that I identify as "right-wing", you'd probably doubt the "right-wing" bit, no?

Incorrect on both counts.
1) While National Socialism changes a few aspects of socialism, it retains the collectivism and "common good" in all its glory.

In a political rather than economic sense, which is a pretty important distinction. There's a significant difference between "Lets collectively work together and share resources." and "Let's collectively work together for the good of the Party." Collectivism and "common good" can be used to promote anything, and are not inherently "left" or "right" philosophies.

2) There is a considerable push from the "right" in the US to minimize government. That can be seen in the ongoing widespread ouster of long-term so-called "establishment" Republicans who have become all too comfortable accepting the dogma from their leftist counterparts.

There's certainly a lot of talk about minimizing government, but in practice, policies pushed by the political right over the last few decades have required Big Government. At best, they shift governmental control from the federal system to the states, but that doesn't decrease the size of the government - it just moves it around. It can also result in an overall larger government due to the redundancies between 50 separate state systems and a need to coordinate between them.

Regardless, the point is that neither side in US politics wants an authoritarian regime or total anarchy. Our disagreements about the size of the government are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Meh.

Ah, I see. It's only wrong when the "other team" does it.

An apparently irreconcilable difference.

FWIW, "democracy" seems to be a core tenet of Marxist/communist regimes, as evidenced by the number of such nations using the word in their name. "Workers controlling everything", as you say, would seem to simply be mob rule, even if "democratic". Such is the dark side of "democracy", per se. Mob rule inevitably leads to individual rights and lives being extinguished.

Any system has flaws when taken to its extremes.

Which brings us full-circle back to our shooter's philosophy of life, doesn't it? He had learned to care little for the rights, or even the existence, of others.

That has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchists simply want no government.