{"article":{"id":228071,"heading":"Try Listening","author":"Ciaran Dubhuidhe","created":"2009-06-13 01:11:08","modified":"2009-06-13 01:11:08","last_modified":"Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:11:08","article":"

In recent weeks the media has had a field day sensationalizing what\r\nappears to have been three politically motivated murders.  On\r\nJune 1, Scott Roeder allegedly stormed into the church attended by Dr.\r\nGeorge Tiller, an abortion doctor, assassinating the doctor by gun\r\nshot.  On June 2, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad is alleged to\r\nhave killed a soldier just outside of a basic training site.\r\n He then went on to shoot another at a military recruiting\r\ncenter in Arkansas.  And yesterday, a nearly moribund old man,\r\nJames W. von Brunn, is alleged to have run into Washington's Holocaust\r\nMuseum and to have murdered\r\nStephen Johns, an African-American in a gun fight.  These\r\nthree events have several things in common.  Amongst those\r\ncommon things is that all three events were motivated by hate.
\r\n
\r\nHate is a normal human emotion.  No doubt, hate serves an\r\nevolutionary purpose.  However, normal hate comes and goes the\r\nway other emotions come and go, but the kind of hate that motivated\r\nthese three men was the kind of hate that takes over one's life and\r\nleads to destruction, both of the self and others.  While the\r\nmedia revels in demonizing these three hate filled men, people of all\r\npolitical stripes seek to profit from these sad events.  These\r\npolitical vultures circle above the carnage, giddy with self\r\nsatisfaction, as they feed upon tragedy so well timed it almost seems\r\nplanned.  Gun control advocates point to these crimes as a\r\nreason to ban guns.  Thought police are seizing upon these\r\ncrimes to advocate the criminalization of promulgating beliefs that\r\ncontradict the official version of history.  The Southern\r\nPoverty Law Center is clucking about how\r\nits intelligence unit knew of\r\nMr. von Brunn years ago (which seems to have had no impact on Mr. von\r\nBrunn's trajectory).  In this midsts of this morbid political\r\nfeeding frenzy, I'd like to point out a few things and then ask a\r\nquestion.
\r\n
\r\nNone of these murderers appear to have been sociopaths.  All\r\nthree were assassins with a cause.  In a civilized society it\r\nis possible to address grievances without resorting to\r\nviolence.  We should ask ourselves why it is that these three\r\nindividuals, each with a different cause, chose to address their\r\ngrievances with bullets.  Are we a civilized society?
\r\n
\r\nMy father is a conservative Republican.  I am an\r\nanarchist.  We do not see eye to eye.  Over the\r\nyears, I've discovered that I cannot discuss politics with him without\r\nthe discussion turning into a screaming monologue.  It is my\r\nfather who does the screaming.  My father is a very\r\nintelligent and well informed man.  You would think that he\r\ncould have a civilized conversation about political matters. \r\nSince the advent of Fox News, his favorite news channel, my father has\r\nbecome less and less able to tolerate \"liberal\" views (\"liberal\" is the\r\nconservative catch-all phrase for all views that are not conservative\r\nRepublican).  Fox News has convinced him that the socialists\r\nhave taken over, that Muslims with bombs lurk around every corner, that\r\ngays are destroying the institution of marriage, and that our economy\r\nhas been over-run by illegal immigrants.  All of these beliefs\r\nentail hate and desperation.
\r\n
\r\nShortly after George Bush became President, at the beginning of 2001, I\r\nnotice the rise of this hateful attitude.  When the events of\r\n9\/11\/2001 occurred, the political hate mongers of the right seized upon\r\nthe tragedy and circle our heads like vultures for a period of eight\r\nyears - eight years that seemed like an eternity.  In this\r\nenvironment of hate, our Government waged an unforgivable genocide\r\nagainst Arabs and Muslims.  A Hell was unleashed upon the\r\nworld at an expense so great that it destroyed our moral standing, our\r\neconomy, and our place in the world.  The only country that\r\nappears to have benefited from this slaughter is Israel, the same\r\ncountry that now demands we attack Iran, another of her many enemies.
\r\n
\r\nIt is of little surprise that Mr. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad\r\nwould conclude that he, as a Muslim, was at war with the United\r\nStates.  His attacks upon U.S. Military personnel seem to be a\r\nlogical outcome of our Government's genocide against his\r\nbrothers.  Likewise, is it at all surprising that racist James\r\nW. von Brunn, now close to the end of his life, would snap when he sees\r\nthat his country has become another country's provider of\r\nsoldiers in a bloody proxy war that has destroyed the\r\neconomy?  I am not saying that either of these men did the\r\nright thing.  I am not saying that I agree with either of\r\nthese men.  What I am saying is that given the circumstances,\r\nit is inevitable that a Muslim man and an old white man would each\r\nstand up and take aim at those they believe responsible for horrific\r\ninjustice.  In a world where a Muslim cannot openly express\r\nhis beliefs and argue his cause without becoming a target of Homeland\r\nSecurity, what do you expect?  In a world where a man who\r\ndisagrees with the official version of history cannot speak freely\r\nwithout becoming the target of the SPLC, the ADL, and countless other\r\nthought police, what do you expect?  When the free expression\r\nof thought becomes impossible under the weight of hate – hate\r\ncreated by dictatorship, hate created by an intolerant and hateful\r\nmedia – violence will become the expression of thought.
\r\n
\r\nNow, let us consider Mr. Roeder.  Have you ever attempted to\r\nhave a discussion about abortion with someone from either end of the\r\nabortion-rights spectrum?  Few topics of debate seem more\r\npolarized than the abortion-rights debate.  Each camp takes a\r\n\"my way or the highway\" stance on the issue.  The way the\r\ndebate is framed, abortion is either murder and nothing more or an\r\nexpression of free choice and nothing more.  On one side we\r\nhave hateful foaming at the mouth Christians incapable of independent\r\nthought and on the other side we have hateful foaming at the mouth\r\nradical feminists who see half the world as their mortal\r\nenemies.  Somewhere between the two is the no-person's land of\r\nreason, where any rational voice is hated with vengeance. \r\nThis is to be expected because in the United States there is no space\r\nfor rational and calm discussion.  In the United States, we\r\nare all at war with one another.  This war is so extremely\r\nhateful, that there is no one a conservative Republican hates more than\r\nhis fellow Americans.  Likewise, there is no one an American\r\nliberal sees as more contempt worthy than a conservative. \r\nOutside of these two viewpoints, the rest of us do not exist.
\r\n
\r\nRather than continuing this blind shit-fest, I ask you this. \r\nWhy is it impossible to ask, in this country of ours, whether Mr.\r\nMuhammad, Mr. von Brunn, or Mr. Roeder may have a grievance that could\r\nhave been addressed?  Is Mr. Muhammad completely wrong in\r\nseeing our Government as genocidal with respect to Muslims?  There\r\nis evidence that says he is correct. \r\nThat evidence shows that President Bush went to war with Iraq to\r\nfulfill what he saw as Biblical prophesy.  For Bush, this was\r\na holy war and killing Muslims was one of its objectives. \r\nAccording to this Bible prophesy, this war was a war to protect\r\nIsrael.  As I mentioned above, only Israel benefited from this\r\nwar.  In that sense, Mr. von Brunn was not without a\r\ngrievance.  This particular grievance, whenever expressed,\r\ninevitably results in attacks.  It is a fact of life that we\r\nare not permitted to discuss whether Israel was the cause of this\r\nwar.  When a person with a strongly held belief cannot speak\r\nhis grievances without suppression, violence results. \r\nMoreover, Mr. von Brunn disagrees with the official position on the\r\nholocaust.  Personally, I have no idea whether or not the\r\nofficial position is correct.  It seems likely to me that most\r\nof it is correct, but I cannot understand why it is that a person\r\ncannot question the official story on any topic without being\r\nclassified as a criminal.  Isn't it likely that the\r\nsuppression of Mr. von Brunn's beliefs had something to do with his\r\nviolent rampage at the Holocaust Museum?  Those who are not\r\nallowed to express their dissent resort to violence.  Perhaps\r\nit is not the denial of the holocaust that leads to violence but the\r\nsuppression of denial of the holocaust that leads to\r\nviolence?  If the official position is correct, or even nearly\r\ncorrect, the facts alone should be enough to fight off the views of\r\nthose who agree with Mr. von Brunn.
\r\n
\r\nAnd now we come to Mr. Roeder.  Mr. Roeder targeted one of the\r\nonly doctors in the United States performing partial birth\r\nabortions.  There are strong non-religious arguments that\r\npartial birth abortions are akin to infanticide.  It is\r\ndifficult to argue that some magical thing occurs that confers rights\r\nupon a viable fetus when it is moved a few centimeters outside of its\r\nmother's womb.  Whatever rights a viable fetus has outside of\r\nits mother, it has inside its mother, at least logic would lead one to\r\nbelieve so.  Once again, I am not arguing that what Mr. Roeder\r\ndid was correct.  I believe that Mr. Roeder is a\r\nmurderer.  However, his belief that Doctor Tiller in\r\nparticular was engaged in murder is not an insane point of\r\nview.  Perhaps there should be room to consider early abortion\r\na right and late abortion something that is only done if the mother's\r\nlife is threatened by giving birth.  Combined with that,\r\nperhaps we need a means to ensure that a woman who discovers late in\r\nher pregnancy that she is pregnant will be cared for through the\r\nprocess of birth and that her child, if she does not want it, will be\r\ngiven to someone else.  Why can we not have laws that protect\r\na woman under such circumstances and provide her with the means to give\r\nbirth without destroying her life?   Naturally,\r\nmaking such a statement puts me in the cross-hairs of both poles of the\r\nabortion debate because in American you're either with one intolerant\r\ngroup or another.
\r\n
\r\nJust as international terrorism will not be ended by repression,\r\ndomestic terrorism will not be ended by shrill denunciations, sweeping\r\naccusations, political opportunism, or fanatical mutual\r\nhatred.  If we wish to oppose the rise of white nationalism\r\nwithin the United States, we should attempt to understand what drives\r\nit and ask ourselves whether, somewhere in the trash heap of hateful\r\nrhetoric, there is a real grievance that catalyzes the hate. \r\nIf such a real grievance exists, then it should be addressed.
\r\n
\r\nAt the other end of the spectrum, we have naïve attempts by\r\nwell meaning leftists to \"come out and fight\" against neo-nazis and\r\nother fascists.  Every time a group of white racists throws a\r\nconcert, calls to shut down the concert go out on alternative\r\nmedia.  I find it difficult to believe that these actions\r\ndiscourage racists or cause them to give up their hate.  There\r\nare better ways to deal with hate.  Rather than fighting them,\r\nwhy not debate them?  Rather than stop them, why not try to\r\nbefriend them and reach them on a personal level?
\r\n
\r\nBack in 1988, I was living in Garden Grove, California, close to Little\r\nSaigon.  My wife and I were working on opposite sides of the\r\ncountry at that time.  She is Vietnamese and I am\r\nwhite.  One day, when leaving the house I was renting, my\r\nwhite next-door neighbor, a man who did not know I was married to a\r\nVietnamese woman, was working on his truck.  We made some\r\nsmall talk and he went off on a tirade about \"gooks\" and how \"gooks\"\r\nwere taking from all of us white people.  I could have took\r\nhim to task, but I ignored his remarks and waited until my wife came\r\nout to visit me.  My way of fighting his racism was to make\r\nout with my wife in front of him while he was working on his\r\ntruck.  He never made a racist remark to me again.
\r\n
\r\nMy point is simple.  Let us not be stirred up by politicians\r\nand the media about the recent hate attacks.  Rather than\r\nresponding with more intolerance, derision, and more hate, let's work\r\ntowards open discussion of all grievances, even those of white males\r\nand Muslims.  Telling people to shut-up does not make people\r\nshut-up, however it does make people violent.
\r\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/insolentmediacenter.com\/node\/44","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Discussion is an alternative to lone-nuts.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2009\/06\/228071.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}