Almost three years ago, after writing a Gawker post in which I casually referred to the neo-Nazi Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn as a "right-wing extremist," a got a voicemail message from Andrew Breitbart. He was angry.
I'd previously had a friendly relationship with Breitbart. We chatted occasionally—I kept in touch with him largely in the hopes that one day he would drop his guard and begin dishing about his mentor Matt Drudge—and even argued amiably about politics. But my post—which implied that Drudge and the New York Post covered the Van Brunn and George Tiller shootings less enthusiastically than they would have had the shooters not been motivated by right-wing hatred—enraged Breitbart. He accused me of "fucking slander" for calling Van Brunt an extremist on the right, and argued that the neo-Nazi was in fact a "multiculturalist just like the black studies and the lesbian studies majors on college campuses."
I posted the audio on Gawker. That action resulted in what stands to this day as the most epic, grueling IM fight I have ever had with anyone other than my wife. In two chats over three days, Breitbart and I went back and forth for nearly 10,000 words. Most of it was spent fighting over whether it was fair to describe a neo-Nazi as "right-wing," something I regarded as self-evident. Over the course of it, Breitbart repeatedly called me a "fucking liar," said I was working to censor him and "emboldening the Napalitano narrative," and accused me of working in concert with the Obama administration to "warm up" the public for the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine.
Looking back, I'm not sure that either of us came out of it looking very good. But the doggedness, obsessiveness, and rage that suffused Breitbart's ideological ballet says a lot, I think, about who he was, for good and ill. Needless to say, irrespective of who he was and what he did, I wish Breitbart were still alive and feel awful for his children. Here are the chats, unedited. The first one begins with me sending a link of the voicemail post to Breitbart.
AIM IM with Andrew Breitbart 6/11/09 5:03 PM
John Cook: http://gawker.com/5287371/andrew-breitbart-holocaust-museum-killer-was-a-multiculturalist
Andrew Breitbart: put the whole voicemail
AB: not the selct one
JC: it's all there
AB: i am saying that there is no clear distiction between white supremacy and the multicultual mindset
AB: he is a_ anti- bush
AB: anti mccain
AB:anti neo CON
AB: as in neo CONSERVATIVE
AB: hates israel — unlike the right
AB: he fit the CURRENT LEFT in the way his mind thinks than anyone on the right i can name
AB: he thinks RACE MATTERS
AB: i sure the hell dont
JC: so it's a smear to try to use it for political gain by aligning him with an end of the ideological spectrum
JC: but he's got a lot in common with the left
AB: i believe in mixed marriages. perhaps more than racially pure ones. just to get this separate but equal PC crap out of our lives.
AB: i am fighting back your slander
AB: and you are not alone
AB:but you are politically motivated, thats for effin sure
AB: he hated BUSH CHENEY, NEO CONS
JC: and if you're unfamiliar with the ling history of anti-semitic right wing anti-israel ideology, i don't know what to tell you
JC: john birch society? were they right wing or not?
AB: yet now people that support bush, cheney and neo cons are on the defensive?! thats crazy!
JC: he tried to kidnap members of the fed
AB: thanks for making the distinction
AB: you SLIKME traditional right wingers without making a MASSIVE MASSIVE firewall
AB: and its intentional
AB: you are enjoying it
JC: is anti-fed thinking a strain of right-wing thinking?
JC: michelle bachmann
JC: ron paul
AB: it's ANTI LEFT TOO!
JC: that's not a part of the conservative spectrum
AB: no, it isnt
AB: no, it is not.
AB: .IT ISNT
AB: PART OF CONSERVATIVE THINKING>
JC: i wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if you called animal rights terrorists left wingers
AB: its not true
AB: i would
JC: or shining path or whatever
AB: there are animal rights people
AB: who are righties
AB: its not ideological!
JC: own your ideas
AB: they are for animals
AB: not individual rights
AB: VS collective rights
JC: every political position would end in violence if taken to it's illogical extreme
AB: which is the current RIGHT vs left paradisgm
AB: GROUP RIGHTS
JC: there's no ideology that's immune from the lure of extremism
AB: vs INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
AB: read up on it
AB: read the founding fathers, cook
JC: to ID him politically is simply descriptive
AB: and thats what makes PC so EVIL. is that it applies the EVIL thinking of white supremacists wherein their blood line takes greater import than the individual.
AB: and hence my analogy!
JC: i agree with you on group rights
AB: to being a multiculturalist.
AB: thats my point
AB: i have ZERO lineage with the john birchers
AB: im a fucking Jew.
AB: he wanted to pop bill effin kristol
JC: is pat buchanan a right-winger?
AB: and you cant see why im otraged that WE HABV?E TO EXPLAIN FOR THE GUY?!
AB: ask pat what he thinks about this guy.
JC: is he on the right wing politically?
AB: that could do some reporting if you can find an aberrant right winger in the maisntream that sympathizes with him.
AB: copare hi to buchanan
AB: be my guest and enjoy the lawsuit.
JC: is pat buchanan on the right wing of the ideological spectrum?
AB: i dont think of buchanan as a white supremacist. but you could slander him as such.
JC: but is he right or left?
JC: i mean, i'm not saying the guy was a mainstream republican
AB: my point is
JC: i'm saying he is situated on the EXTREME right side of the political spectrum
AB: in the current formulation
AB: of groups rights uber alles
JC: so pat buchanan is a leftist?
AB: just because the left abhors when WHITES do it, but its OK when 'minorities' do it.
AB: its still the same way of thinking.
AB: make the argument how buchanan and this asshole are on the same ideological side. Please.
JC: pat buchanan has minimized the holocaust
JC: he has rationalized the rise of nazism
AB: so that is a right wing POV?
JC: he opposes the policies of israel
JC: i'm asking you
AB: minimizing the holocaust is a right wing phenomenon?
JC: i'm giving you the ideas that pat buchanan and this guy have in common
AB: there are MORE on the left who do that.
JC: and asking you if pat buchanan is a right winger
AB: but those are not RIGHT WING ideas
AB: MANY LEFTIES deny holocaust
AB: and im not saying buchanan does.
JC: he doesn't deny it
AB: lefties side with islamists that want CURRENT destruction of israel.
JC: ok so you're furious when you're associated with this guy
JC: and then you associate leftists with islamists who want to kill all jews
AB: im furious at your intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
AB: von brun is not a conservative.
AB: and you are doing the lefts bidding
AB: by creating a relationship between obaama's right wing political enemies and this guy.
AB: david duke was against the iraq war
AB: so were you
AB: i wouldnt associate you and him
JC: that's because it's self-evident that we don't share any other ideas
AB: you are fIXATED in your piece on associating this guy with the current right.
AB: and the best you can do is: pat buchanan.
JC: von brunn's ideas are part and parcel of a long and illustrious string of right wing EXTREMISM
AB: so what ideas does this guy share with those on the right?
JC: hatred of the fed
JC: michelle bachmann
AB: left has that too!
JC: et al
AB: you are being so ridiculosuly disingenuous
AB: this is about trying to attack the current right wing critics of the admin
AB: when they share NOTHING in common with this guy.
AB: that is your posts intent.
JC: you should own your ideas
JC: i don't think you want to hurt or kill anyone
AB: my own ideas have nothing in comon with his.
JC: and that's not what i'm saying by calling the guy a right wing extremist
AB: you are trying to tie, like KOS, huffpo, this act
AB: with the admins current ideological enemies
AB: and on substantive issues of the last decade the s called far right have AGREED with the hard left on issues of iraq, anti-government fervor.
JC: what anti-government fervor?
JC: where's the left wing ruby ridge
JC: where's the left wing freemen?
JC: where's the left wing waco?
AB: WTO rallies galore
JC: ok i take your point on WTO
AB: just admit it: you wanted to attack us righties
AB: a ceap shot
AB: CHEAP ASS SHOT
JC: and if a WTO protester killed someone, and you called him a left-wing extremist
JC: i wouldn't freak out about it
JC: because it would be true
AB: you are trying to embolden the clamp down on our free speech and dimunition of our points of dissent by drawing a line between US and EVIL.
JC: who's clamping down on your free speech?
AB: this is emboldening the napolitano narrative
JC: by the way i find it hysterical that one of the people who spent the last decade equating dissent from Bush policy with support for terrorists is complaining about the drawing of lines
AB: of the right out of control
JC: yeah where would anyone get that idea?
AB: FIND ME ONCE DOING THAT!!@#!#@!
AB: thats a canard and a strawman
AB: changing the subject
JC: ok i've got an appt at 6
JC: i don't want to stop
JC: but i've gotta go
JC: when i have more time i will try to write a substantive response
After that chat, Breitbart wrote a column about what he regarded as the "specious ideological slander" of associating Von Brunn with the extreme right wing. In it, he acknowledged that the right had flirted with racism and anti-Semitism in the past. I IM'd him with a quote from that column.
AIM IM with Andrew Breitbart 6/15/09 3:11 PM
JC: "It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century."
JC: So there was a time when it was appropriate to refer to anti-Semitic neo-Nazis as right-wing extremists?
JC: But just not anymore"
AB: dude, the dems have robert byrd. if it is foud out von whatever his name is is a registered DEM i STILL won't use it to besmirch the left!
JC: When von Brunn was in his 30s, he was a right-wing extremist?
AB: your entire point was to make the right answerr for him when he has more in common with the left when analyzed.
AB: im not comparing him to the left to make the left answer for him.
AB: im responding to your standing slander
JC: But you admit that he had something in common with what the right wing USED to be
AB: which is motivated by a pandering desire to hurt the right, and give your DUMB readership its feelgood leftist jollies.
JC: 50 years ago
AB: there were RACISTS ON THE LEFT TOO!
JC: You don't get anywhere arguing my motivations
JC: Byrd is a democrant
JC: he is most certainly not a leftist
JC: at least in any sense i can see
AB: is a leftist construct
AB: and socialism is a populist default for populist racists
JC: I think leftism is a bit overdetermined in your analysis
AB: to say that the republican party has a RACIST past it needs to apologize for is a very narrow and opportunistic way of looking at things, especially with the dems history.
JC: So Byrd and Bill Ayers are ideological compatriots in your view?
AB: i stand by my piece. thoroughly.
AB: youre the one trying to tie the right to this, im not.
JC: But you acknowledge that there was a time when the term "right wing extremist" would have been appropriate
AB: it doesnt fit well on your incorrect political map.
JC: just not in the past 50 years, right?
JC: It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century.
JC: When it was Lindbergh's party, would it have been appropriate?
AB: right, but i am not saying this guy AND von brunn have anything in common other than racism.
AB: i have NO IDEA if they have similar views
AB: on enough things to constitue him right or left
AB: you are working off ONLY RACISM
JC: is there such thing as a right-wing extremist?
AB: as your reason to slander the right as being the only place where racism has ever existed
AB: and it's STUPID, really stupid/
JC: seriously—describe a right-wing extremist?
AB: your the accuser!
AB: my piece explains itsself
AB: try to rip on it at gawker
AB: find the weakness in my column
AB: i am NOT accusing him of being a leftie
AB: i am analyzing him on WHAT WE KNOW OF HIM
AB: and MORE THINGS ADD up to the current left
AB: than the current right
JC: which is the same thing as accusing him of being a leftie
AB: and all you can hang your hat on is he is a rACIST
JC: and anti-semite
AB: therefore he must be a right wing extremist
JC: and fed-hater
JC: and neo-nazi
AB: enjoy yourself.
JC: i was asking a serious question
AB: my column speaks for itself.
JC: about the lindhberg party
AB: it wasnt HIS PARTY
AB: im simply stating that there was a time
AB: when BOT parties had racists in it
AB: when the country has regressive attitudes
AB: that were accepted in both parties
JC: so even then, it wouldn't have been appropriate to describe him as a right-wing extremist
AB: but the GOP has absolutely hoovered itself from any vestige of racism
AB: obviously not
JC: there are no racists in the GOP?
AB: he is against bush, fox news, pro socialism
AB: he is a lone nut conspiracy theorist whose politics is complicated by his madness and you are tryig to make the right be held to account for it.
AB: 3and it wont fly
AB: you are wrong to have perpetuated the slander
AB: but you are in large, bad company
AB: so feel good you have strength in numbers
AB: of disingenuous leftists
AB: who want to create free speech problems for peopel like me
JC: so i'm censoring you?
AB: this is about warming people up on legislation
AB: like fairness doctrine
JC: or is obama censoring you?
AB: i didnt accuse me of CENSORING YOU
JC: you're trafficking in conspiracy
AB: jesus. you are putting the MAINSTREEAM RIGHT IN A BOX
AB: a racist box
AB: so that we can be legislated into obscurity
JC: no one is bringing back the fairness doctrine
AB: becauee our thoughts are HATE CRIMES in the making.
JC: your tilting at windmills
AB: this is the BS that passes as education
AB: .no, you are.
AB: read my column. it is airtight.
AB: you want the right to ADMIT it has a lineage with this guy.
JC: i want you to acknowledge reality
AB: so you can draw the correlation that the right is OUT OF CONTROL and countenances anti-semetic crap and racism.
AB: BUT WE DONT. PERIOD.
JC: i want you to understand the meaning of the word "extremism"
AB: you're the one who lives in a gawker snark fest of unreality.
AB: where you can just insult people
AB: and throw ad hominens
AB: .and call it journalism
JC: and understand that describing him as an extremist in and of itself distinguishes people like you from him
JC: and if you want to get into motivations
JC: you're not arguing rationally or earnestly
AB: why are you DEMANDING that right wing media embrace him as one of their own?
JC: you're desperate to distance yourself from this guy
AB: when he has nothing in common ideologically
JC: so you're inventing history and inventing ideological curlicues
AB: WHAT DOES HE HAVE IN COMMON IDEOLOGICALLY
AB: WITH THE MAINSTREAM RIGHT?
JC: HE'S AN EXTREMIST
AB: when he has TONS IN COMMON
AB: with the mainstream left.
JC: no one said he was mainstream
AB: you live in a leftie media bubble, dude.
JC: he comes from a long line of anti-semitic, nativist thinking that has forever been associated with the right wing in this country
AB: i used to be a liberal.
AB: left leaning.
AB: ROBERT BYRD
AB: you only know he hates blacks and jews
JC: am i saying robert byrd's not a racist?
AB: why are you not asking robert byrd to disassociuate himself from him?
JC: the fact that robert byrd is a democrat is irrelevant to your argument
AB: and DEMS for their KKK history?
AB: this guy is a KKK minded guy
JC: he's the last of dozens of nativist, racist RIGHT WING democrats that used to dominate the south
AB: why arent souther dems held to account?
JC: BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY ANYMOER
AB: yes there are
JC: they're all republicans now
AB: ROBERT BYRD
AB: thats not true!
AB: fucking liar
JC: same tradition
AB: stop this
AB: you are annoying me, you already tried to frame me like a loon
AB: when i have only been helpful to you
JC: i didn't frame you like a look
JC: i posted your VM
AB: my column speaks for itself.
AB: Crazy voicemails, James von brunn, AB, Terrorism, Top
AB: We were going to draw up a reasoned response, and talk about the roots of right-wing radicalism, nativism, the John Birch Society, etc. But you know what? He's right. James von Brunn is exactly like a lesbian studies major. Well played, Andrew.
AB: FUCK OFF
AB: you have ZERO self knowledge
JC: let the record show i actually tried to argue this with you
AB: you continue to try to be rude to me using your public forumn
JC: and not hurl all caps insults
AB: you are trying to put me in this guys camp
AB: and i will not accept it
AB: i havent assaulted you verbally. or put my politics in the same space as a NAZI!
JC: you regularly put my politics in the same space as stalin
JC: but that's ok?
AB: i tie you to it?
AB: thats insane
JC: ok hold on—you're going to make me find you talking about leftists and communism?
AB:make you find?
AB: you just made the assertion!
AB: FREE MARKET THINKING
AB: individual liberties
AB: that which the right stands for
AB: has EXACT opposite to do
AB: with this guy
AB: and you are asking people who stand for "FREE MARKET THINKING
AB: to account for a non existent ideological relationship.
AB: we dont countenance the von brunns in ANY WAY>
AB: yet you make us have to account for it.
AB: that is what spawned the righteous and factually correct voicemail
AB: that i elaborated on in an airthight argument.
AB: in wash times.
JC: "Funny - or maybe not - how the Left doesn't contribute a well-orchestrated propagandistic effort to argue against the likes of Saddam. Or Arafat. Or Mugabe and Mobuto. Or, well... supply your own out-of-control murderous world leader. For that matter, they don't much like looking back at such like-minded monsters of the past as Stalin or Pol Pot, whose paths to utopia demanded the extermination of those who dissented."
AB: i will not write a column expalining why you and stalin are not related. or how i never made the comparison either.
AB: yes the CURRENT left
AB: has a DIRECT relationship
AB: with apologizing for murderous socialist totalitarian thugs
AB: AS IN NOW
AB: as in lefties STILL apologizing for alger hiss
AB: and countless other collaborators
JC: ok so let's review:
AB: sean penn going to cuba
AB: THERE IS NO CURRENT CONNECTION
AB: between von brunn and the people you are tryingto tie him to.
JC: i'm not tying him to people
JC: i'm tying him to a political tradition
AB: the only reason you would demand they play him up is to be held accountable for his existence when they have NOTHING to do with itl
AB: the political tradition of which i speak is ALIVE and well.
AB: it is the left on the CURRENT college campus
JC: so we're back to my question
AB: and is self avowed left
AB: the only reason you would demand they play him up is to be held accountable for his existence when they have NOTHING to do with
JC: there WAS a branch of right-wing thinking that was nativist, racist, and ant-semitic
JC: when did it die?
AB: READ MY COLUMN
AB: i wrote over 50 years ago
JC: some point more than 50 years ago
JC: so when von brunn was in his 30s
JC: he ceased to be right wing
AB: we dont know that
JC: at some point in his thirties
AB: you are only using what little outline
AB: we have on him
AB: the CALL was based on you asking people who have nothing to do with his line of thinking to own up to an ideological relationship.
AB: and it DESERVED a SLAPDOWN.
JC: so you claim to know that the right-wing became cleansed of nativism, anti-semitism and racism
JC: but you don't know when?
AB: you are expanding the context of my 'crazy' VM
JC: i'm asking you questions based on your column
AB: you tried to make MURDOCK
AB: and DRUDGE
AB: who are the OBJECTS of his hatred
JC: was it cleansed of antisemitism when richard nixon was complaining about "cheap kikes" in the white house?
AB: to have to apologize for him!
JC: when he complained that the "IRS was full of jews"?
JC: the right wing, at that point, when richard nixon was saying those things, had been cleansed of anti-semitism?
AB: isolate the context
AB: of my VM
JC: i'm talking about your column
AB: my column is dead on
AB: .and your slur to murdoch and drudge was lame as hell.
AB: and i stand by every 'drunken' word on the VM.
JC: your column claims without evidence that the right-wing poltical tradition had been cleansed of anti-semitism nativism and racism at some unspecified point int he past
AB: of course it has
JC: you acknowledge that those strains were there
JC: and now they're gone
AB: IT HAS BEEN CLEANSED
AB: there is ZERO evidence of it being accepted or acceptable
JC: so why was richard nixon talking abotu "cheap kikes"?
AB: i guarantee you that TODAY
AB: 1 million democrats used that word
AB: and that the dem party leaders TOO are
JC: i'm not claiming that the left is free of anti-semitism
JC: it's obviously not
AB: it is not an ideological component
AB: of nixon's LEGACY
AB: it was private discussion
AB: and not a platform
AB: or a policy derived from that sentiment.
AB: in fact he wasa great friend of ISRAEL!
JC: so he wasn't an anti-semite?
AB: look at the conext
AB: of my message
JC: jordan is a friend of israel
AB: it matters not a whit!
AB: both sides have assholes
AB: but you are tying murdock and drudge to the guy
AB: for NOT calling him a right winger
JC: why can't you admit that von brunn is a right wing asshole?
AB: all you have on him is that he is a racist
AB: and anti israel
JC: i don't care if murdoch and drudge call him a right-winger
AB: you wrote that
JC: my point was they downplayed it
AB: that was the context of the VM!
JC: not that they called him by the wrong name
JC: go read the post
AB: you want the right to have to own up to him
AB: when he has nothing to do with them
JC: i want them to pay attention to him and alert their readers
AB: and his current philosophies more resemble people in control of the left
AB: but we didnt do that!
AB: people on the right
AB: because he is a lone nut!
JC: think about what you're saying
AB: whose philosophiesare crazy
JC: so the nyt is in your view a left wing paper, right?
AB: and across the ideological spectrum
AB: and we still dont know everything about him let alone THAT DAY
AB: when there was only sketchy info
JC: the nyt should only cover the things that the left acknowledges responsibility for?
JC: i wasn't saying that the post and drudge should own up to it
AB: you are tellign me that they didnt ocver those stories?
JC: i was saying they should cover it
JC: they downplayed that story
JC: drudge did a one-line link
JC: and gave bullshit about exec pay a siren
AB: CULPRIT: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
JC: you're right
AB: you are nuts, dude
JC: my bad
JC: i meant that he didn't give it a siten
JC: but he did give an exec pay story a siren
AB: double headline! above fold?
AB: how often does THAT happen!
JC: and the post didn't give it the cover
AB: dude you are crazy
AB: look in the mirror
AB: GUNMAN, SECURITY GUARD IN D.C. HOLOCAUST MUSEUM SHOOTOUT
X X X X X CULPRIT: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
AB: is NOT DOWNPLAYING IT!!!!!!
JC: you're right about drudge
AB: fucking a
AB: all ive asked for is context of my vmail
AB: and this is it!
AB: BAD REPORTING!!!!
AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST' '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'
AB: thats as exclamation point as you are going to get
AB: when singular acts of murder happen EVERY DAY
JC: go look at the post
AB: hundreds of times
JC: a screengrab of the drudge headline about von brunn is there
JC: when i just said it was a one-line link
JC: i was confusing it with tiller
JC: which WAS a one-line link
AB: you exhaust me
AB: i continue to prove your logic wrong
AB: and your assertions
AB: my VM was a contextually based LOGICAL response
AB: to your MISSING one bigtime
AB: over von brunn
AB: and trying to make people held to account who have DONE NOTHING WRONG
JC: yes it was exceedingly logical, andrew
JC: i was accusing matt drudge and rupert murdoch of murder, obviously
JC: and you as well
AB: the logical mindset of the post structural 'studies' grad
AB: validates the worst aspects
AB: of the supremacist mindset
AB: but because they are 'victim' groups its OK!
JC: so here's my question
AB: look it up
AB: it is centerpiece of the chicano studies programs
AB: supremacy minded education
AB: my comparison takes into account the IRONY
AB: of this
AB: you understand that i get that it is IRONIC
AB: but it is true nonetheless
JC: can you name a chicano studies or lesbian studies or black studies major who's ever shot anyone?
JC: seriously asked
AB: countless black panthers
AB: why shoot someone when you are IN POWER!
AB: they control the education depts
AB:white trash racists are actually on the outside looking in
AB: they are the lower class dregs
JC: the black panthers control the dept of education?
AB: who are the one disempowered group in the multicultural pantheon.
AB: is a hero
AB: on the college campus
AB: for shooting a 'pig'
AB: so dont tell me there isnt a murderous component to the left
AB: by those motivated by their racialist minded righteousness
AB: my sister is mexican FYI
JC: i was actually asking whether any chicano studies or black studies or lesbian studies major had shot anyone
AB: im sure they have
JC: and mumia to my knowledge wasn't a black studies major
AB: what does that have to do with anything?
JC: and the black panthers predated black studies depts
AB: im talking about their MINDSETS
JC: i think
AB: not on how they act on the mindset
AB: because the majority of white supremacists dont shoot people either
AB: i AM NT DEFENDING WHITE SUPREMACISTS FYI. my values system is pro death penalty
AB: and i hope von brunn is put to death
AB: so you are showing a leniency i wont.
AB: and where were you on the army muslim killer?
AB: why not compare drudge's treatment of that
AB: to the tiller
AB: effin GIS gunned down by a self avowed jihadist
AB: SAME PAGE
AB: 3 on abortion near top of 3rd column
AB: NOT A 'single' link
AB: as you falsely claimed
AB: and MUCH lower
AB: a single link to the recruitment story
JC: that was an isolated incident—there aren't waves of homegrown jihadis killing GIs
AB: yes there are
AB: killing PEOPLE!
AB: killing infidels
JC: in the states?
AB: THREE LINKS!!!!
AB: 3you said one
AB: you AGAIN lied, er, misreported
JC: i said "one link" here, in this IM chat
AB: and thats only ONE snapshot
JC: obviously i was wrong
JC: i put up the screengrab and made the point that he was underplaying it
AB: there's multiple days of coverage of the story
JC: that was from the morning of
AB: yes, selective and wrong.
AB: but i could care less about you and your drudge obsession
JC: well of course it's selective
AB: selctively as in wrong
JC: everything that goes on every site is selected
JC: what did i get wrong, exactly?
AB: you make a false asseriton
AB: link me the piece
JC: And we didn't see it last week, after an anti-abortion jihadist murdered George Tiller. Susan Boyle got top billing on that morning.
AB: i was workignoff your IMs
AB: on single link
AB: Nothing to see here, people. Move along.
AB: is hardly the case
AB: when for multiple days he multiple links it
AB: but isnt that the glory of having your own sites
AB: to play up what matters to you how you want
JC: and they played down an attack by a right-wing extremist
AB: he is NOT
AB: its pathetic
JC: your position is that there's no such thing as a right-wing extremist
AB: undermines your argument
JC: someone who loves freedom too much i guess
JC: look at the post!
AB: id say timothy mcveigh
JC: it's screengrabbed
AB: is a better example of a right wing extremist
JC: TIMOTHY MCVEIGH WAS A RACIST ANTI-SEMITE
AB: because he was anti government
AB: ask the libertarians to explain it away
JC: mcveigh was every bit the neo-nazi that von brunn is
AB: they have more in common
AB: but you arent at war politically with them
JC: jesus did anybody call von brunn a republican extemist
AB: why not ask ron paulites to explain it away
AB: ron paul is more akin
AB: to von brunn
JC: it's part of the political continuum
JC: you are on it
AB: TONS of lefties
JC: von brunn is on it
AB: in R. paul camp
AB: but you wanted CONSERVASTIVES
JC: you admit that mcveigh is on your side of it
AB: to have to pay for him
JC: but on von brunn
AB: not paul and the kooks
AB: murdoh is a fucking australisn
JC: even though mcveigh's and von brunn's politics are virtually identical
AB: thats not true
AB: my column stands
JC: rupert murdoch is an american
AB: so the second you become an american
JC: he renounced his australian citizenship
AB: and you are a conservative
AB: who reads milton friedman
AB: you have to apologize for racists
JC: there are right and left wings in australian politics
AB: for whom you have no ideological lineage?
AB: where is bobby jindal to explain away von brunn?!
JC: am i asking you to apologize?
AB: you are asking us to embrace him as one of our OWN!?
AB: its worse
AB: and we wont do it.
AB: he ISNT
JC: but he would have been at some undetermined point more than 50 years ago
JC: before the Great Cleansing
AB: whereas the racialism of the leftie terrorist like ayers is CLEAR and present in current mainstream liberal politics.
AB: your entire point is to TAR neo cons with him
AB: when they are the exact opposite
AB: nothing to see here, move along!
AB: as in: they are ignoring what they are connected to and continue to propogate.
AB: when its NOT TRUE!
AB: neo cons are an enormous reason why the lindberghs are no longer in the party.
JC: they were able to keep nixon out
JC: and pat buchanan
AB: and you are asking for drudge, a jew, and murdock a pro warrior to PLAY UP a guy as one of their own!
JC: who cares about the party?
JC: no one's talking about the republican party
AB: ITS completely screwed up reasoning and a slander by sleight of hand!
JC: i'm talking about the right wing of american politics
AB: and im telling you that the left has MORE IN COMMON with him now
AB: conservatives prop up israel
AB: leftists want to bring it down
AB: for better or worse!
JC: so support for israel is inconsistent with anti-semitism?
JC: didn't you just say that nixon was a huge friend to israel?
AB: very much so. by defintion!
AB: you are parsing to try and get you a place you arent going to go.
AB: the left has more to explain in current atmosphere for fomenting anti-israel
AB: anti jewish sentiment
AB: that would enrage a von brunn to act last week
AB: than the collective rigth leaning mainstream writing and politicies of last 40 years
JC: jesus you don't understand what extremism is
AB: von brunn would get an erction from teh anti semitism on a college campus today
JC: no one said he was mainstream
JC: or influenced by mainstream right wing thought
JC: at least i didn't
AB: you are asking people to openly connect to their POV who are openly repulsed and have the exact opposite POV.
AB: its insane
AB: drudge defined him for what he was
AB: a white supremacist
AB: in MASSIVE BOLD LETTERS
AB: ABOVE THE FOLD
AB: NOT MUCH MORE HE COULD DO
JC: Or in other words, a lesbian studies fanatic
JC: he could have done a siren!
AB: grwat job
JC: i think you just don't get that there is such a thing as extremism, which can be distinguished from mainstream political thinking
AB: it is ANYHTING but the definition of your 'nothing to see here , move along!!!!'
AB: EXACT opposite
AB: his MOTIVATION AND IDENTITY WERE MADE FRON TOF CENTER!
AB: how often does that happen
AB: in RAREST OF RARE
JC: i don't know
AB: double above the fold headline
JC: how often does a siren happen?
AB: far less than siren
JC: only when someone DOESN'T rein in exec pay?
AB: and i have NO IDEA
AB: if there was a sirten or not
AB: some times he does siren
JC: and then gets accused by drudge of reining in exec pay?
AB: for 3 minutes
AB: do you know for sure he didnt do siren?
JC:if he did it's not in the archives
JC: go check for yourself
AB: answer the question
AB: do you know for sure he didnt do siren?
AB: are you a reporter?
AB: what is a reporter supposed to do, john?
JC: i think they call this proving a negative
AB: how many sources do you have that there was no siren?
AB: you made the assertion
AB: and made it seem like he was playing it down
AB: ABOVE THE FOLD
AB: is not playing it down
AB: DOUBLE HEADLINE is not playing it down
AB: playing up he is a WHITE SUPREMECIST
AB: is not playing it down
AB: CASE CLOSED
AB: in fact
AB: it is PLAYING IT UP! BIGTIME.
JC: he played it beneath a bullshit story about exec pay that was the opposite of his headline
AB: no he didnt!
JC: he thinks claiming—falsely—that obama wants to rein in exec pay is more important than von brunn
AB: what are you talking about!
JC: where's the siren?
AB: you are not well.
AB: theres nothing to see here
AB: move along
AB: my god
AB: that is a CRAZY misreporting
AB: on how he DID play it up
AB: your report is FALSE
AB: as to how he played it up
JC: but it didn't merit a siren
JC: when lies about exec pay do
AB: are you some drudge alogist?
JC: don't follow you
AB: he PLAYED IT UP — BIGTIME
AB: im not him so i cant get into the MINUTIAE
AB: of what is more important
AB: a RARE
AB: above the fold doubleheadline
JC: he played it up right to the point where it gets a siren and then stopped
AB: why would drudge feel that this needs to be played down?
AB: when he PLAYED IT UP
AB: it was only after the FACT
AB: that you guys are saying hes a RIGTH WINGER
AB: i would imagine he only saw RACIST ANTI SEMITE!
AB: and given drudge is a jew
AB: would think he was a BAD GUY
AB: the right wing thing is your after the fact response — and its delusional.
AB: you were trying to make the event something that its WASNT
AB: when it was happening!
AB: and what it was when it was happening was SIGNIFANCT
AB: very significant
AB: and not seen as it was happening in the right left spectrum
AB: it was a BREAKING STORY
AB: and the double headline MADE IT SO PROMIENT
JC: no of course there was no political element
AB: that people treated a lone shooting by a lone nut
AB: out to be MASSIVE story
JC: absolutely he was a lone nut with no political beliefs
JC: i mean sorry
JC: he did have lesbian studies beliefs
JC: but that's IT
JC: no other political element to it
AB: you lost, so now you are resorting to 3rd grade tactics
JC: which one of us has been engaging in ad hominem attacks?
JC: who told whom to fuck off?
JC: i'm trying to have an argument with you
AB: my public debate with you has been far less damaging to you than to me
JC: you're yelling at me
AB: you made me look like an ass.
AB: on purpose
AB: i stand by what i said
AB: but you tried to frame me as nuts
JC: you framed yourself
AB: and i havent done shit to you in response
AB: CRAZY CALL
AB: it wasnt crazy
JC: no it was a reasoned response, andrew
AB: it had the contxt of our continuing to talk abou tit
AB: it is reasoned
AB: my column explains it
JC: your column explains that, fifty plus years ago, it would not have been a FUCKING SLANDER to call von brunn a right-wing extremist
AB: your initila report is now shown to be an erroneous hitjob
JC: but that at some indeterminate point, it became one
JC: for reasons that you refuse to explain
AB: the gola of your column
AB: was to make people who are not guilty
AB: of his shame
AB: and for sharing similar ideology
AB: and they dont. period.
AB: it was the CONTEXT
AB: of you calling him a right winger
AB: to make of all people — neo-cons — have to explain away the guy!
AB: neo-cons of all people should be PRAISED by you
JC: who said neocons?
AB: for getting rid of them from the right!
JC: by fiat?
AB: when you isolate murdock and drudge
AB: they are pro israel
JC: by proclamation?
AB: and pro jew
AB: and you want to make it appear as if they have blood on their hands
AB: when it is EXACT OPPOSITe
JC: fine so you've redifined anything that's not pro-israel and not pro-jew as no longer right wing
JC: because you said so
JC: so pat buchanan is not right wing
AB: the context is you saying they IGNORED it
AB: when drudge didnt
JC: so show me where i said they ignored it
AB: and your parsing descrption of him playing it under another thing is simply stupid.
JC: i said "these images show how they covered it"
AB: move along, theres nothing to see..
AB: drudge drew more attention to the story, in all likelihood, than ANYONE!
AB: and the double headline sure told people: uh oh, big deal: white supremacist SHOT up holocaust museum!
JC: why won't you answer me how and when the neocons expelled all racists and antisemites from the right wing?
AB: what an esoteric thing that has NOTHING to do with anything in the context of my factual column AND factual VM.
AB: i would say that the 50s, where neo cons were made prominent
AB: in the movement
AB: the first anti-communists
AB: norman podhoretz
AB: irving kristol
AB: if there is a political goal to be MADE of this given CURRENT political alliances
JC: so there were no racist right-wingers in the 1960s?
AB: is how dangerous the LEFT% IS
AB: in its pursuit of appeasing terrorsits
AB: in iraq
AB: and palestinians
AB: and the left has a MOVE ALONG THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE mentality
AB: about the bed theyve made with sundry antisemetics wihtout a home
JC: George Wallace wasn't a right-wing politician?
AB: he was populist
AB: socialist policies
JC: so there's no such thing as a right-wing populist?
AB: wanted to give poor white people government goodies
JC: all populists are left-wing?
AB: you would like to make all racists right wing
AB: i am saying the political spectrum is VERY expansive
AB: and you wan to simplify it
AB: 3to hurt the right
JC: does it have a right and a left?
AB: it's not a straight line chart
JC: ok so you are disputing the idea of putting political thinking on a right-left spectrum
AB: this one
AB: that one is editorialized
JC: so von brunn is a liberal, then
JC: and george wallace was a liberal
AB: im not making that point
AB: im saying the political chart
AB: and political time confuse these things
JC: you're showing me a chart
AB: and you are tryig to make him something he sint
JC: on which von brunn could be one of three things on the left-right axis: liberal (left), centrist, or conservative (right)
JC: so was he a liberal, a centrist, or a conservative?
AB: big govmnt
AB: as were most
JC: but look at the chart
AB: WHITE TRASH
JC:it has two axes
JC: you can't place him only on one of them
AB: no, you can BE THERE!
AB: you dont have to be one or the other
JC: if you situate him on that chart, he has to either be liberal, centrist, or conservative
JC: this is your chart, not mine
JC: of you put him down on a statist, he has to be SOMEWHERE on the left-right axis
AB: things that would suggest left:
AB: he had a desire to get a pension
AB: .i would imagine
AB: and govmnt money he felt was best his
AB: and his kind
AB: and thinks HIS government
AB: is paying for THEM
AB: .not HIM
AB: and screwed up his pipe dream of US of a racially directed big government that kept the other DOWN so he could live the good life
AB: and milton friedman and abraham lincol, the founder of the GOP reject that.
AB: was abraham lincoln an anti semite?
JC: i have no idea
JC: he was a racist
JC: he was a racial seperatist
AB: well, ill grant you fitting in with the democrat media complex.
AB: we dont think similarly.
JC: "there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality."
AB: well, im pro miscegenation
JC: so am i
Photo via Getty