Monday, October 19, 2009

Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a neo-Confederate wacko extraordinaire

[See my comment about McCain's reaction to this article at the bottom.
Also, after you read this article, be sure to read this old item at Eschaton.]


[Necessary clarification, 22.12.2009: note that in this posting I never characterize McCain as a "white supremacist". White supremacism is a very specific subset of racism and one doesn't need to be a white supremacist to be a racist. One can even be a white separatist without being a white supremacist. I hold no position on whether McCain is a white supremacist, and this posting is targeting his wacky neo-Confederate views. I also think that his words and certain actions (like publishing an article about "racial suicide" in an openly racist publication) show that he has at least a racist past.]

While our little blog is devoted mostly to debunking the specific arguments of Holocaust deniers, from time to time we write on the topics only casually related to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial.

After all, when you're dealing with the Holocaust denial, you're dealing with a great many topics at once - the historical and scientific methodologies, antisemitism, racism, conspirology, etc.

Thus, we've skewered a Stalinist professor for his Katyn denial, we've compared evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers, we've exposed a far-right author Robert Boatman, who was hiding behind his alleged support for Israel (at FrontPageMag, no less!), for the vile antisemite he was (sic; thankfully, he has died since).

And now we will fire a shot in the blogwar that has recently erupted over the former Washington Times assistant editor and popular conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain.

But I guess an explanation is in order.



Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been doing a thankless job of bringing to light McCain's racist past. The conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue. [Note: see clarification in the comments section.]

Of course, most of right-wing bloggers preferred not to deal with the facts Johnson and other bloggers and researchers laid out.

Here are some key pieces of information:

1. McCain is the author of this quote:
[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.
Here's the whole exchange for context.

[Addendum: I've also found the archived version of the whole exchange as it appeared on Wheeler's site. Note that McCain confirmed the authenticity of the quote to the Founding Bloggers, only whining about how it was allegedly taken out of context. He also confirmed the authenticity of the material at Wheeler's site here:
By the time Signorile smeared me, in fact, I had forgotten all about Dennis Wheeler and that e-mail list-serv debate, and it was only because of Signorile's error that I learned that Wheeler had reposted excerpts of that discussion.
]

I fail to see how the context helps McCain. In fact, we see that he approvingly quotes a book by a Bircher and a segregationist Citizens' Council of America activist Kent Steffgen to make a point about racial relations. In fact, the unabridged version of the racist quote above begins thus: "As Steffgen predicted...".

The passage immediately after the above quote is no less interesting:
And so when we see an overreaction to this programme, with people urging a return to Jim Crow or even advocating the formation of separate racial nations, the first thing we must understand is that we're looking at a reaction that is not entirely illogical. What is necessary is to realize what is causing the reaction and to realize how emotionalism may prevent us from properly combatting the programme. WE MUST BE RATIONAL AND PRAGMATIC, for our adversaries are extremely rational and pragmatic in pursuing our destruction.
And in the same discussion McCain explains the origins of segregation thus:
Partly to protect blacks from white terrorism, partly to prevent interracial contact which could lead to incidents that might provoke such terrorism, CONSERVATIVE Southerners that is, the most eminent and most revered men in Dixie adopted the convenience of separate public accommodations for blacks and whites. Over the years, of course, the artificial estrangement which Jim Crow produced between the Southern races led to fear and suspicion, so that by the postWWII era, many poor whites were as ignorant of blacks as any Yankee.
Somehow this begins to remind me the twisted logic of Holocaust deniers. To his credit, McCain actually criticizes the Jim Crow laws, but that is hardly an excuse for the cited passages.

Then there is that place in the text when McCain rants against "promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines", meaning vulgar racism of Christian Identity and other similar groups, which are too obviously racist. This place is used by McCain's apologists to defend him. Except if we look at the context...
This goes to show why we should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines among our friends, because soon or later, our enemies are liable to coopt those same doctrines and use them against us.
Not because they're unethical and wrong, but purely for pragmatic reasons? Hmmm.

When confronted with the "natural revulsion" quote by Alan Colmes, McCain instantly became incoherent and tried to avoid the issue by questioning Colmes' definition of racism. I recommend our readers to listen to this "illuminating" exchange.

2. Robert Stacy McCain posted at the far right FreeRepublic site as BurkeCalhounDabney.

[Addendum: please note that he admitted this during the aforementioned call-in to Colmes' program.

Interestingly, FreeRepublic owner Jim Robinson notes that the postings by BCD were deleted at BCD's request. No wonder, considering the vile stuff McCain had been posting as a freeper.]

Robert Lewis Dabney was a Southern theologian and an active proponent of racism and slavery long after the Civil War ended.
Arguably the most significant early advocate of a theological perspective of the Civil War was Robert Lewis Dabney, who has been described by Simkins and Roland as a clergyman who, “[f]or three decades after the fall of the Confederacy in lectures and in books … energetically expounded the dogma that ... the Civil War was a Christian struggle of a justified South against a wicked North” (405). In 1865 Dabney published The Life and Campaigns of Lieut. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (Stonewall Jackson), in which he argued for secession, states’ rights and described some Civil War campaigns. The primary purpose of this text was to extol Jackson as a Confederate hero and an extremely pious Presbyterian Christian soldier. Soon after, Dabney wrote on the theological meaning of the Civil War in A Defense of Virginia and Through Her of the South. Utilizing Biblical passages to defend slavery and refute abolitionist arguments, he claimed that slavery was a necessary good for what he called the “depraved” lower classes. Dabney asserted in support for Confederate secession that “it is only the relation of domestic slavery as authorized by God, that we defend” (Defense 99). Further denouncing abolitionism as “infidel” and “anti-scriptural,” Dabney believed that the Bible legitimated slavery, and thus opposition to slavery was tantamount to rejecting Christianity (Defense 22; see also H. Smith).
(From: E.H. Sebesta, E. Hague, "The US Civil War As A Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," in Canadian Review of American Studies, 2002, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 253-284; PDF).

John C. Calhoun was, of course, the famous Southern defender of slavery, who extolled it as a "positive good".

BurkeCalhounDabney's postings include a story from a site of an explicitly racist organization American Renaissance, run by a certain Jared Taylor. We will return to Taylor a little bit later in this article, but let me just point out that, as has been pointed out by Johnson and others, Robert Stacy McCain actually wrote an article for the American Renaissance magazine under the pen name "Burke C. Dabney" in 2002. It is called "Race and Teenage Pregnancy. The “crisis” is hardly the same for all races." which concludes thus:
One might well wonder about indiscriminate anti-natalist propaganda when some groups in the country are already below replacement-level fertility. The “success” of such propaganda only accelerates the decline of the white population. If crusaders against teenage motherhood were serious, they would concentrate on the black and Hispanic girls who account for more than half of teenage births. Targeting whites as part of a general campaign is yet another form of racial suicide.
That McCain has been a long-time sympathetic reader of this racist rag is evident from his 1997 letter to the editor, part of which reads thus:
Sir — My warm congratulations to Victor Craig for his vigorous defense of Christian faith in the September issue. One point, however, that Mr. Craig failed to emphasize was that Christianity gives a firm and inflexible foundation to personal morality. It is no coincidence, I think, that the decline of white America in recent decades has gone hand-in-hand with a decline in moral standards.
As a commenter at Kejda Gjermani's site pointed out, this letter was praising an article "In Defense of the Faith", which praised the American South and South Africa, "both highly traditional Christian communities. They found nothing in their faith to curb racial awareness". Some choice quotes:
In fact, the literature of race that grew out of both these cultures (often written by clergymen) may still be profitably referred to today. It is stunning how prophetic the Christians of those two societies were in their predictions of the long-term effects of racial mixing. They did not have the scientific evidence for racial differences we have today, but the common-sense observations of these deeply Christian folk arrived at the same truths about race that the Jensens, Rushtons, and Levins would express in technical terms much later.

In the pre-Civil War South, slavery was thought to be a moral institution. However jarring this may be to modern sensibilities, Christianity endorsed an explicitly racial concept of bondage. Clergymen frequently invoked Noah’s curse upon his son Ham, who was to be “a slave of slaves to his brothers.” They also referred to the clear acceptance of and detailed regulation of slavery in the Old Testament. As Richard Fuller, an ante-bellum South Carolina Baptist declared in a dialogue with Francis Wayland, president of Brown University, “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New cannot be sin.”

The religious defense of racialism continued in the post-slavery period as a defense of segregation. Robert Lewis Dabney is probably the most famous of the thousands of preachers who found a Biblical basis for white supremacy. In his more than 50 years of professorships and pastorates he opposed everything from black suffrage to black schooling. The former was a “fatal innovation” that would eventually “destroy both American liberty and civilization.” The latter would “only prepare the way for the abhorred fate, amalgamation.”

Richard H. Rivers was the author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, which served as the standard work on ethics for Methodists. In it, he wrote that the duties of whites to blacks “are no longer the duties of masters to slaves. They are, however, the duties of superiors to inferiors.”

Many Southerners today recall how, even during the fervor of the 1950s and early 1960s, the battle to preserve segregation was often led by clergymen. Of course, by then mainstream Christianity had become so weakened by liberalism that many Southern clergymen could be found on the other side as well.

[...]

In the end, the question is one of identity. May a Christian have any identity other than that of Christ’s servant? May he be loyal to nation, culture or race? Traditional, European Christianity encouraged all these loyalties whereas liberal Christianity denies them. The denial is not only a recent aberration, it is a departure from Biblical teaching.
To repeat: this (and much more) Robert Stacy McCain called a "vigorous defense of Christian faith" which was worthy of warm congratulations. No wonder, as he is a fan of that same Robert Lewis Dabney, mentioned in the article.

[Addendum: it is also notable that McCain's coverage of AR conference for Washington Times has been quite sympathetic.]

(BurkeCalhounDabney also reposted an item from a notorious neo-Nazi Holocasut denier Bill White's overthrow.com at FreeRepublic in 2001.
It has been pointed out that, according to some sources, McCain was a friend of Bill White. Indeed, White himself called McCain "my good friend and comrade and longtime LSN [Libertarian Socialist News ~SR] reader" in 2001. However, I am willing to give McCain a slight benefit of doubt in this instance. In 2000-2001 overthrow.com/White don't seem to be explicitly neo-Nazi, if my reading of the old copies at archive.org is correct. Indeed, White, always the flake, seems to have vacillated between extreme left and extreme right fringes in that very period. He even had a Free Mumia page in 2000. The SPLC story putting McCain's and White's meeting in 2002 seems to be anachronistic. On the other hand, his friendship with McCain started already after White publicly praised the Columbine killers. Moreover, all that time White has certainly been antisemitic (see his FAQ). I would still classify it as a somewhat "murky" connection - they were friends (whatever that meant to them), but how much did McCain know about his "friend"'s neo-Nazi leanings and antisemitism? He should have known at least about the Columbine thing though.)


3. Robert Stacy McCain is a member of the League of the South, a Neo-Confederate/Southern nationalist organization. See the SPLC reports on the League and its founder Michael Hill.

McCain tried to imply (smoke and mirrors!) that he only had a professinal interest in the League as a reporter:
Nostalgia aside, the point is that I was pursuing my professional duty [McCain's italics ~SR] when I first came into contact with the League of the South, and of my subsequent involvement, there are many things that people think they know -- on the basis of SPLC reports -- which are not necessarily true. And there are many, many thinks[sic ~SR] that people do not know.
Well, we'll see about that.

[Addendum:

4. Here's a testimony of his former colleague at Washington Times:
I know Stacy McCain, an ill-tempered racist who sat on the other side of my desk for many years and carried on loud telephone conversations almost every day full of racist and ultra-right comments, and often got into loud verbal fights with both reporters and editors in the newsroom.
]

---

There is still a treasure trove of R.S. McCain's wisdom that hasn't been tapped yet. It's his Usenet postings. He posted only for a short time in 1996, but was quite prolific. His postings are available at this link.

Now, I will state upfront that among McCain's Usenet messages you can find several in which he a) mocks white supremacists and Bell Curve fans, b) condemns slavery (although I hesitate to add "in no uncertain terms"; you will see why), c) claims that he is not a racist.

Kudos for all of the above, but I think McCain's apologists should not use these postings to prove that McCain is not a racist. First of all, we have all the contrary information above. Second, condemning the "low-hanging fruit", maybe in order to score some points, does not prove much, especially when we deal with the public posting system like Usenet. Private mailing lists are a slightly better indicator. Third, it is not at all certain what McCain means by racism, thus his denial of him being a racist is rather meaningless. He certainly still had that definition problem ten years later, if you listen to his conversation with Alan Colmes.

Also, people's views change, and not always for the better.

Thus, in 1996 McCain wrote something with which I can only wholeheartedly agree:
But with Vietnam, it was somehow different. How many poor kids in Cape Girardeaux, MO, were shipped off to die in Vietnam, while Lardass Limbaugh -- his dad a prominent attorney -- stayed home with (by varying accounts) a bad knee or some kind of cyst. Ever since I learned about that, I've had ZERO respect for Limbaugh, Gramm, Gingrich, George Will, Dan Quayle or any number of other hawkish "conservative" Republicans who managed to avoid 'Nam. "Whited sepulchres," as I was taught in Sunday School.
Seeing how McCain currently kisses the corpulent behind of the Big Fat Race-Baiter it's hard to believe that it is the same man.

Another interesting example. Before 1996 McCain had no idea who Jared Taylor was:
I did not encounter D'Souza by accident. His work was recommended to me by an anti-racist student at the University of Georgia who wanted to inform me of the beliefs held by a certain Jared Taylor, whose American Renaissance movement forthrightly declares that "race is important" and that the future of Western civilization is dependent on the continued hegemony of the white race. In investigating Mr. Taylor -- I disagree with him on the issue, since his argument is largely Darwinian and I am a creationist -- I was directed to Chapter 10 of D'Souza's book, "Bigotry in Black and White." There I found D'Souza's citation of the crime statistics quoted above.
But as we have seen, by 1997 McCain was a sympathetic reader of the AR magazine and by 2002 ranted about "racial suicide" as one of AR authors.

---

From his Usenet messages it is clear that McCain is an unbrindled, fanatical neo-Confederate. Simply put, he fully supports the pro-slavery South over abolitionist North in the American Civil War and thinks that the Southern "cause" was just.

Historical "revisionism" is a part and parcel of neo-Confederatism and sometimes the texts of neo-Confederates read like the texts of other "revisionists", and often use the similar methodology. The usual contentions are that the war was not over slavery, the the Civil War was a war of aggression against the South, etc.

Once there was a large anti-neo-Confederate resource at templeofdemocracy.com. For some reason its author Edward "Crawfish" Sebesta removed lots of the material, but the CV page is still quite useful, and most of the old material is available through the Wayback Machine (I find the "Documents" and "Papers" sections the most illuminating).

It is in light of this information that the following quotes should be evaluated. Note that the bold headings are my "summaries”, not McCain's actual words. The emphases in the text are also mine.

In order to pre-empt the charges of out-of-context quoting and even of fakery, each quote is preceded by a link to original Usenet message, which can be examined for context.



Not a defense of slavery. Not at all, sir.

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
Okay, American slavery may not be a tale awash in blood but what does that matter?
Oh, it does indeed, if the conditions of slavery were so intolerable as to render the great-great-grandchildren of the freedmen necessitous of special consideration according to their ancestry (and some argue that it does), then an oppression factor becomes necessary, that these claims to consideration may be judged against any potential competing claims. And if slavery were sin, does it not follow that the slaveholders are now roasting in the fires of hell?
The basic evil of the whole shebang remains whether or not the most lurid aspects of the worst case scenario are true or no.
Yes, but "the most lurid aspects of the worst case scenario" are frequently cited by political leaders (former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson) and social leaders (major writers at the New York Times, et al.) in reference to various latter-day political questions. If it is for those lurid aspects which slavery must be condemned, the prevalence of those aspects should be determined. And if, as you suggest, it is "the basic evil of the whole shebang" which we condemn, let us ask: Evil how?
It doesn't matter if the situation was as bad as potrayed, it was still involved a basic violation of human rights.
Human rights, as defined by whom? I do not think that the Islamic Africans who sold their Kaffir slaves to the European traders considered that the Kaffir had any more human rights than would have Chief Justice Taney. And if the vendor recognizes no rights for this person, nor does the purchase, his Constitution or his Chief Justice, then who is the agent who may justly infer upon such rights upon the slave? We are at the baseline of political theory, you see, and must decide who is the best custodian of the slave's interest.
The problem, you see, is that slavery as an institution rubs roughly against some basic premises of republican government, contrasting the right of liberty to the right of property. It is only to egalitarian or collectivist social theory, really, that we may turn to find a critique of slavery. It was not subject to criticism by the Constitution of 1860, which recognized it. Nor is slavery condemned, per se, in Judeo-Christian scripture. So by the basic political and religious tenets of Americans in 1860, the existence of slavery should have been no evil, had it not been for the egalitarian phraseology of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, thus, is in direct conflict with the Constitution and Judeo-Christian scripture.
Studying the rise of abolitionism after the Missouri Compromise, I think we should be able to see that it was in mimickry of the British abolition of colonial slavery that the American fanatics came to their position.
alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
Intolerable abuses of the powers created by Northern interests, and reflected by the rise of the Republican Party, as detailed in Georgia's explanation of its secession:

[...]

3. Northern states' attempts to nullify fugitive slave laws, thus seeking to deprive Southerners of their property without due process of law.


[...]

Secession in 1860-61 was meant to pre-empt the usurpation of power by the federal government. Look at the manifest abuses of federal power today, and one must conclude that the South was correct in seeing "all the consequences in the principle" -- the heinous imperial principle that the states are mere "districts" or "provinces" of the central government -- and very wisely did they seek to avoid "the consequences by denying the principle."

You can natter on about slavery and racism and treason and such all you want to, but on the main point, the adherents of Leviathan were wrong and the South was right. Smaller governments, having less power, are less abusive than large governments.
Wow. Is the only thing I can say.


Abraham Lincoln as a war criminal

soc.history.war.us-civil-war

{source}
WANTED for WAR CRIMES: Abraham Lincoln

* Violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
* Unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties in Ohio and other states
* Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
* Disbanding the legislature of Maryland
* Aggression against the Southern Confederacy

[...]

So, then, if Lincoln was not an advocate of racial equality, and if hatred of black people was at the core of the "free soil" movement, why do Americans today continue to associate the Confederacy and the South with racism?

[Hmmm. Why would that be? ~SR]

[...]

Certainly, chattel slavery was no ideal economic or social system. [You think?! ~SR] Even many slaveholders such as Thomas Jefferson recognized that by stigmatizing labor, slavery encouraged sloth in both master and slave. Though most 19th-century white Americans, North and South, subscribed to racial theories that consigned blacks to an inferior status as "hewers of wood and drawers of water," it is incorrect to say that slavery was a system based upon racial hatred. Indeed, both white and black Southerners of the era have left us testimony to the cordial and affectionate relations which generally existed between the races in the Old South.

[...]

None of this is to excuse or apologize for slavery, but merely to point
out that it is wrong to confuse antebellum slavery with modern racism.

Assassination of Lincoln as entertainment

soc.history.war.us-civil-war

{source}
During the Olympics, we will host a cultural event called "Festa Roma," which will include among other things a wonderful series of War Between the States living history activities. Our city auditorium will be the site of "Our American Cousin" -- Mr. & Mrs. Lincoln will be in attendance and rumors are that this light comedy might be interrupted in the second act.

Southerners still a subjugated people

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
We see that only those sympathetic to the Union cause are allowed to speak of the location of the "bounds of rational debate." Forgive us our presumption, having forgotten that we are CONQUERED AND SUBJUGATED by the Yankees, carpetbaggers and their SCALAWAG ABETTORS who are actually allowed to reside peacefully in Alabama, in the employ of a state whose citizens are thus so malignly scorned. Reconstruction: 131 years and still going!

On reverence and reprobates

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
A native Southerner who does not revere Robert E. Lee or who badmouths "Dixie" is a reprobate of the most vile sort.
BTW, I wonder if he meant a native white Southerner.


Defending the slavery defenders

soc.history.war.us-civil-war

{source}
But to reiterate, when men defend what they view to be their own best interests, they are only being human. While I do not defend slavery, I at least will defend the 1830-1865 *defense* of slavery as being essentially no worse than any number of ordinary human follies (voting GOP, for instance) which persist to this day.

Those racist blacks slandering neo-Confederates like that

soc.culture.african.american

{source}
In article , m...@well.com (boohab)
writes:
But at the same time, I would want to keep in mind the point which folks are trying to emphasize when they say that Blacks can't be racist: there is still a difference between the political power which Blacks are able to exercise against others and the power which whites are able to exercise.
NBC TODAY SHOW: Bryant Gumbel and Virginia Governor -- both black — get together to discuss a planned "Confederate ball" in Richmond, given by descendants of Confederate veterans in the former capital of the Confederacy to benefit a museum which tells about the history of the Confederacy. Between them, these two powerful black men manage to make it sound like there's going to be a Klan rally, complete with a lynching or two.
This was a genuinely charitable event, to benefit a private institution which educates people about the history of one of the most important historical events ever to affect Virginia. Yet, because it was an event primarily attended by whites, Gumbel and the governor wanted to portray it as racist and, if the person watching that interview on TV knew nothing more of the event than what they heard there, they probably succeeded.
Question: Did these two men not effectively use their positions to create a negative attitude toward whites? Prejudice plus power equals .....?

RSMc

Grand Wizard on the monitor. No, not Dumbledore.

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
I called to order several screen savers and, before any of the others got here, the Nathan Bedford Forrest screen saver arrived and came with plenty of extra graphics.
Quite frankly, it got here firstest with the mostest.
When I loaded the Forrest screen saver, it immediately captured the hard-drive space formerly occupied by my Streight screen saver.
Warning: The Forrest screen saver is incompatible with the Bragg and Wheeler screen savers.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was, of course, a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and one of its early members. Granted, he might not have been an embodiment of pure evil (although there certainly is a question of his responsibility for the Fort Pillow Massacre [PDF]) and he is also famous for military accomplishments, but to admire a KKK Grand Wizard so much as to use a screensaver dedicated to him and to publicly brag about this?


Dixie will rise again!

soc.history.war.us-civil-war

{source}
But a growing number of Southern leaders say Dixie is still alive, and they mean to keep it that way. Led by such scholars as Dr. Michael Hill, Dr. Clyde Wilson and Dr. Thomas Fleming, joined by influential clergymen, authors, journalists and just ordinary working men and women, this burgeoning movement has led to the formation of The Southern League.

[...]

No, the Southern League is more than all this. The organization aims to resurrect and revitalize the moral and political doctrines to which such men as Davis, Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson dedicated their lives, including a free and independent South, either under the "paleo-federalist" principles of the 10th Amendment or by the "Southern National" act of secession.
“Davis” is, of course, Jefferson Davis, a “President of the Confederate States of America“. Here's his speech delivered in the US Senate on May 7, 1860. And here is his special message to the “Confederate Congress”. Just one excerpt from the latter:
As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. ... Emboldened by success, the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress. ... Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by al1 the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South [...] With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history. [...]

... In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well established, and so necessary for self-preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions. They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union.
From this not only the obvious reason for the secession is clear, but also the true “doctrines” of Davis and the rest of the gang. It should be mentioned that Robert Stacy McCain is such a fan of Jefferson Davis, that he named one of his kids “Jefferson Davis McCain”.


Calhoun, Dabney and Davis again

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
Do I expect Pitcavage or Brooks or Epperson to suddenly repent, join their local SCV chapter and start reading Dabney and Calhoun and Davis? No, I fully expect them to continue in their current opposition to Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition, feeding the wolf and hoping to be eaten last.

On the Southern League/League of the South

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
When this had transpired, I saw that my friend was still angry and agreed with him that, indeed, the idolatrous reverence to Lincoln in the public mind is somewhat myopic. Without saying a word to my friend, I undertook to write the "Wanted for War Crimes" flyer, which I thought might be handed out at Lincoln's next appearance in Rome: A true "living history," since it reflects -- in the mildest terms possible — what Confederates thought of Lincoln the man (not Lincoln the myth). And the pamphlet also points the reader to the Southern League, the only American organization which today advocates Southern independence. A visit to DixieNet is a valid educational experience, whether one agrees or disagrees with them ... er, us.
As we see, McCain's ties to the League of the South are not merely professional, not a result of journalistic duty.


Slavery not an outrage

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
I do not subscribe to myths. I suppose that slaves were no more happy with their lot in life than I am, and probably a good deal less happy. But there are many people in my station who are far more content, and others who are far more discontented, than I am. Happiness, you see, sir, is an individual attitude. Saint Paul was happy in prison, as were Thoreau and Dr. King. Some people are happy living in a ghetto, while some people who live in mansions are discontented.

The intent of ROOTS -- and your intent in endorsing Haley's fraud — seems to have been to say that those slaves who were happy were fools, and that all those who are not outraged by the historical fact of slavery are either fools or malefactors.
alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
And then I read very carefully Crawfish's [Ed Sebesta's ~SR] essay upon "neo-Confederatism" and realized that, as he says, the fight for this historic worldview is an important one. In other words, if the Confederacy and the principle of states' rights is indefensible (as Crawfish would contend), if secession is treason and if slavery was morally equivalent to the Holocaust, then one would arrive at a certain number of beliefs about the present and future condition of our republic.
While some people have compared the American slavery to the Holocaust, I think we can agree that the two are not qualitatively equal. If a comparison should be made at all to some latter-day horror, it is somewhat more reasonable to compare slavery to Stalin's GULAG. Both were economic systems/resources of utmost importance to the respective powers, which were exploited without any real regard for human rights.

But note the deliberate demagoguery - it is not necessary to think that slavery is equal to the Holocaust to find it absolutely repugnant and inexcusable. Thus one can arrive at "some conclusions" without such a comparison.


On “abolitionist propaganda”

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
The very pervasiveness of Uncle Tom's Cabin and other such abolitionist propaganda goes a long way toward explaining not only the war, but the sometimes ludicrous perceptions of slavery which flourish to this day. I have in mind one well-known author who begins his study of slavery with a ritual denunciation of the institution as immoral, a crime unparalleled in human annals, but who, once he actually begins to cite facts relating to slave life, exhibits little evidence of the "crime" except his own analyses of "paternalism" and "white supremacy."

Harriet Beecher Stowe compared to Goebbels

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
As for Mr. Haley, I would suggest that his sources were antebellum abolitionist propaganda, a la Harriet Beecher Stowe. Now as then, the purpose is to portray slavery as even worse than it generally was, to scapegoat and stereotype the white Southerner as an inhuman archvillain undeserving of empathy or mercy. Kill their sons, steal their property, burn their homes, conquer their land, dictate their laws: They're just dirty Southerners. This is Nazism, and the purveyors of the mythology which justifies such an ideology -- "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Dixie"? -- are latter-day Goebbelses.
True, McCain does not say so directly. But the logic of his statement inescapably leads to this conslusion. For McCain's definition is obviously meant not only for our contemporaries, but also for authors of "abolitionist propaganda a la Harriet Beecher Stowe", since he explicitly says: "now as then". Thus, according to McCain, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin was a Goebbels, and the same applies to other anti-slavery activists.

Also note his signature at the end of the post:
Robert Stacy McCain
Rome, Georgia
STOP THE HATE
STOP THE MADNESS
http://www.dixienet.org
DixieNet is, of course, the League of the South site.


Bad slaves were bad blacks.

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
Whipping and branding, Axel? How common were whippings? How common was branding? Did the slave who had proven his dilligence, honesty and trustworthiness -- and I think it would be racist to say that slaves were not generally so -- really have to face such treatments? I doubt it.
If this suggestion about the enslaved blacks who dared not to be “good slaves” is racist, then the only logical conclusion is that those slaves were bad persons, and the only good enslaved blacks were those who were well-adjusted slaves.


American secular Jews are basically commies

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
I'm glad to see, Lynn, that you are a religious Jew. As far as I can tell, much of the anti-Semitism in America today is directed at the secular Jews who worship the Modern Trinity: Darwin, Marx and Freud.
Shades of Bill Donohue.


A right-wing sexist homophobe.

alt.war.civil.usa

{source}
You could almost say I'm the redneck James Baldwin, except that he was a commie queer. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I forget to mention: I'm not a racist, but I AM a right-wing sexist homophobe.
“Just a joke” excuse in 3, 2, 1...




Update: McCain has responded! Well... kinda. Here's his full response interspersed with my WTF's:
Monday, October 19, 2009
Oh, the joys of Internet anonymity!
Kind of weird how I finish dealing with one troll, turn around and encounter even more. It's very difficult to "consider the source" when you've got no idea who the source is.

[SR: Bobbie, Bobbie, Bobbie... The source is the Almighty Google. Specifically, the Google Groups. My irrelevant persona should not matter. See these little "{source}" thingies? *Those* are the sources that should be considered.

But so that you know: your allegation of my anonymity is false. I do post under my real name. Just because you don't know about my occupation and home address does not mean I'm "anonymous" or "pseudonymous".]


Whatever. Some fanatically diligent character has decided to do the Ransom Note Method on me, using the familiar recycled chaff-cloud hodgepodge of This, That and the Other.

[SR: Well, I did give the link to all available Usenet postings of yours, didn't I? "You be the judge". "We report, you decide". How 'bout that? Heheheheh.]

Suggestion: Stop the obsessive Googling, and try Nexis-Lexis. Every byline I ever contributed to The Washington Times -- and there were hundreds over the course of a decade -- is available via Nexis-Lexis.

[SR: Suggestion: stop comparing the newspaper articles, in which you had to show at least some restraint, with your internet postings, in which you come off as an unhinged fanatic.]

There may be stuff you like or don't like, but at least you'll be dealing with authentic materials.

[SR: Ah, smoke and mirrors again. You don't deny that the postings are yours. But you make it *seem* like you do for those who are lazy enough to check out the primary sources for themselves. Except I don't believe many people will fall for your trick.]

At least the pseudonymous Ransom Noter was using his own bandwidth, rather than trying to smear me in the comments of my own site. That crap gets old, especially when its done at the behest of LGF's totalitarian dictator, who bans anybody who downdings Sharmuta.

[SR: Yawn.]

47 comments:

he who scoffs at danger said...

"Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been doing a thankless job of bringing to light McCain's racist past. The conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue."

hmm. not quite.

1) the excommunicating has been in the other direction. literally, charles will target a formerly allied website, work out a tendentious case for guilt by association twice or thrice removed and make an ostentatious display of delinking and dis-aggregating himself from them.

then, when they de-link him back, he makes another ostentatious display of his martyrdom on the cross of his moral consistency.

if they don't immediately delink him, he presses them until they do, adding them to his daily potshot list (e.g: "x blogger, which has not banned this commenter who participates in a group blog which once linked to white supremacist blogger, stacy mccain, ..."

2) johnson's awareness of stacy mccain's white nationalist blather is hardly the only thing going on over at lgf.

johnson has heaped equal moral approbation on conservatives for essentially every stand any conservative has taken on anything since 1/20/2009.

in the sequence of johnson's disengagement from the right, this stacy mccain thing is the most recent. his allegations came at the time they did at a point at which his credibility and assumptions about his good faith where at their nadir already.

he had expended all of his authority to tell conservatives their business by the time of the dhs memo which conflated the federalist society with combat88. johnson's ad hominem attacks, based on a deliberately selective reading of the document, became an asset for progressives who sought to whitewash a document which should have concerned conservatives and progressives, radicals and pragmatists alike.

johnson now believes that the tenth amendment to the bill of rights is a "racist dogwhistle". his criteria for identifying racism on the right is now as obtuse as once was his criteria for identifying antisemitism on the left.

agree or disagree with intelligent design advocates, or whether they actually comprise a "threat" to anything, but johnson's shrill stand on that issue drove more people from his blog much earlier than this stacy mccain thing.

3) he claims that the right he once knew has drifted afar into crazy land, while he is being punished remaining heroically consistent.

this is not merely self-serving narrative, it's an abject lie.

where he once endorsed global warming skepticism, he now considers it a crime against rational thought. he underwent this polar change without humility; without so much as a post saying, "gee guys, i once believed x, but now i see that i was completely wrong. some of the writings which convinced me of this new position are as follows...". he just went from one day saying that anthropogenic global warming is a commie plot to the next day saying that skepticism of global warming is a vile corruption which will not be tolerated.

even on matters of the "bad craziness" he now cites as prima facie evidence of racist, militia and bircherite sympathies, he was once a proponent. he was a birther before there was a word for it. he was part of the whole hyperventilation over the annenberg challenge. he was an original "death pannels" guy, publishing a huge piece about science czar holdren.

he now bans people on his cite, scolds people at other outlets not under his control, for subscribing to these views.

just as his range of what he finds impossible to tolerate on the right has become meaninglessly obtuse, his range of what he will breech criticism of on the left has become correspondingly acute.

he who scoffs at danger said...

CONT...

the real faith-breaker for most conservatives long before the stacy mccain thing was his treatment of the fact that obama's green czar, van jones, had been a public 911 conspiracy theorist. charles, who by this time opposed birtherism, defended jones by claiming that the fact that jones signed his name endorsing the notion that bush knew/planned 911 only meant that he was "just asking questions". for lgf's entire prior history, "just asking questions" was assumed, rightly, to be a dishonest trope thrown around by nutcases trying to elboe themselves into civil dialogue. in fact, that standard was still being applied to "birthers" even as charles exempted jones from it.


there are two other points worth exploring:

4) charles has gone beyond exhibiting a "bunker mentality" to actually be a parody of a paranoid in his bunker, deleting posters for having posting accounts at websites he disapproves of. everyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet of someone else and users use the comment rating system at their own risk, as charles monitors everyone's behavior closely and "up-dinging" or "down-dinging" incorrectly is a banning.

charles has banned nearly 2000 commenting accounts and deleted well over a million comments over the past couple of months. it is such that he has opened registration a half dozen times over the past month, an occurrence which once would only come about a half-dozen times a year, and yet the comment count for his threads are consistently a fifth of what they once were.

those who remain are afraid to use their accounts. those who still comment regularly tend to preface their comments with lugubrious praise of johnson for his clear-sightedness and indefatigably.

5) charles is still better known to the progressive blogosphere as the guy who ran a racist, eliminationist site which referred to arabs as apes and "oil ticks".

i don't know who this speaks more ill of: charles, who can't be taken seriously, or the progressives who are now eager to turn him into an asset.

i for one left charles' site back in 2006 because i couldn't any longer feel right about the racist calls to "exterminate" arab "vermin" charles would allow on his dime. in fact, the worst part of that was that charles' behavior was different then in only one respect: he would ban you for criticizing the racism on his blog.

Sergey Romanov said...

hwsad, thanks for the comment!

I see it somewhat differently. I do remember the outrage in the rightosphere when the "war" between McCain and Johnson first erupted after Johnson's comment at his blog. There wasn't such an outrage after he went after Geller, Spencer, GoV etc. It was clearly a watershed moment after which the rightosphere turned on him. Now, obviously there's more at play than a mere spat between Johnson and McCain, and you're correct about Johnson's drift "leftwards" (towards sanity, I would say), although at the same time the rightosphere did continue to sink in the crazy mud.

Probably it was just a proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The point is, they chose the wrong straw.

A couple of other points. I'm not Johnson's lawyer or fan and I prefer not to discuss LGF's past, since I don't have many nice things to say about it. However, I do have to say the following.

Johnson's "birtherism", if we classify it as such, stopped immediately after Obama released his birth certificate (and yes, COLB is a birth certificate). I think the term "birther" should be applied to much of the rest of the rightosphere (and crazy PUMAs) who were outright insane on this issue and did not stop after the BC had been released. I mean, Johnson did post the insinuating link exactly once, but compared to all the fake BCs, all the speculation about him murdering his grandma, all the dirty idiocy about him being a son of Frank Marshall or Malcolm X, this is nothing.

As for Holdren, frankly, after reading the material some time ago I did find his writings a priori disturbing, although of course it is all water under the bridge and he should be judged mostly by other criteria. And Johnson was quite critical about it soon after it had been posted, look at the updates.

Again, I don't mean to say that I find Johnson all "white and fuzzy", so to say, but much of the criticism currently going his way is unfair. As for bannings, I think it is simply great that he banned all the fascists who are now concentrated at lgf2 and elsewhere (which is not to say that anybody he bans is a fascist, but look at freaking Rodan or Iron Fist, for IPU's sake...). I see Johnson's main fault in tolerating these folks for a long time, not in banning them.

Also, at your blog you made a point about Palin's ghost writer. Frankly, as much as I despise Palin, this is one of the least issues I have with her. But I don't think your point is quite correct. Yes, we can't expect anybody to know about those Usenet postings, but Signorile's article has been available since 2002, plus McCain's statements popped from time to time in the blogosphere (case in point). These postings are but an icing on the cake.

But all the LGF meta aside, the fact remains: condemn Johnson as much as you wish, but the rightosphere fully embraced McCain, and this is the whole point.

liontooth.com said...

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been doing a thankless job of bringing to light McCain's racist past. The conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue.

Since you have the fact of Johnsons' excommunication wrong, there is no point of reading the rest of what you've written.

After your original post, your false facts regarding Johnson's critics and your extreme radical leftist views have only confirmed there is no point in wading throughn what you wrote. (bold emphasis mine):

"and you're correct about Johnson's drift "leftwards" (towards sanity, I would say), although at the same time the rightosphere did continue to sink in the crazy mud."

"I think the term "birther" should be applied to much of the rest of the rightosphere (and crazy PUMAs) who were outright insane on this issue and did not stop after the BC had been released. I mean, Johnson did post the insinuating link exactly once, but compared to all the fake BCs, all the speculation about him murdering his grandma, all the dirty idiocy about him being a son of Frank Marshall or Malcolm X, this is nothing."

but much of the criticism currently going his way is unfair. As for bannings, I think it is simply great that he banned all the fascists who are now concentrated at lgf2 and elsewhere... I see Johnson's main fault in tolerating these folks for a long time, not in banning them.

Note: Johnson HASN'T banned Kilgore Trout, who went on a racist rant at Hot Air. http://minx.cc/?post=292511

Frankly, as much as I despise Palin,

condemn Johnson as much as you wish, but the rightosphere fully embraced McCain,

Sergey Romanov said...

"Since you have the fact of Johnsons' excommunication wrong, there is no point of reading the rest of what you've written."

Oh boy, the first idiot is here! Fun!

Of course the real reason is that if you were to engage the primary sources, which were merely cited by me, you would be in a losing position, since you wouldn't be able to refute them.

And actually it doesn't matter what _I_ write about McCain. It is only important what _he_ himself wrote. If you so wish, you may omit my analysis entirely. It's McCain's words that matter.

"Note: Johnson HASN'T banned Kilgore Trout, who went on a racist rant at Hot Air. http://minx.cc/?post=292511"

Yeah, yeah, and FBI agents who infiltrate white supremacist organizations are, therefore, the real white supremacists. After all, according to your illogic, the intent doesn't matter.

d. said...

I come here to read about the holocaust - not about blogger pissing matches and definitely not about crazy charlie.

liontooth.com said...

"Since you have the fact of Johnsons' excommunication wrong, there is no point of reading the rest of what you've written."

Oh boy, the first idiot is here! Fun!


Instead of refuting the claim that you are wrong about Johnson, you insult. You are still wrong about why other bloggers have 'excommunicated' Johnson.

"Note: Johnson HASN'T banned Kilgore Trout, who went on a racist rant at Hot Air. http://minx.cc/?post=292511"

Yeah, yeah, and FBI agents who infiltrate white supremacist organizations are, therefore, the real white supremacists. After all, according to your illogic, the intent doesn't matter.


WOW, what a brilliant comparison.
Except for the inconvenient facts that Kilgore Trout is a vandal and and Hot Air expected people to behave and doesn't boast that it's comments are monitored 24 hours a day. Or maybe you really believe HotAir is in fact a criminal enterprise / racist site that needs to be 'infiltrated'?

Sergey Romanov said...

"Instead of refuting the claim that you are wrong about Johnson, you insult."

Um, hello? Why should I even begin to refute your claim when you didn't cite any evidence to support it? Sorry, pal, that's not how things work.

And your whole comment was insulting. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

"You are still wrong about why other bloggers have 'excommunicated' Johnson."

Says who?

"WOW, what a brilliant comparison.
Except for the inconvenient facts that Kilgore Trout is a vandal and and Hot Air expected people to behave and doesn't boast that it's comments are monitored 24 hours a day. Or maybe you really believe HotAir is in fact a criminal enterprise / racist site that needs to be 'infiltrated'?"

You're deliberately missing a point here. You obviously implied that KT is a racist because of his rant. Except from your own source it follows that the rant was a deliberate provocation in order to expose racism at HotAir. It may or may not characterize KT in some way (if anything, it was certainly stupidly executed), but it certainly does not prove his racism and, therefore, Johnson's hypocrisy in not banning him.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Sergey Romanov said...

" d. said...

I come here to read about the holocaust - not about blogger pissing matches and definitely not about crazy charlie."

You're free to skip this posting.

d. said...

You're free to skip this posting.

Defensive and intolerant. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

Sergey Romanov said...

"d. said...

Defensive and intolerant. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not."

Who the f are you, anyway? Seems like a troll. Go away, troll.

d. said...

Troll? No. I've been reading this blog since it got started, including the discussions to start it. I've posted infrequently.

What's next? You going to get your full crazy charley johnson on and ban me? Again, it would not surprise me.

Sergey Romanov said...

"I've posted infrequently."

Would you care to link to those comments?

"including the discussions to start it."

Well, let's check. Who gave the idea for the blog, and where were these discussions?

"I've been reading this blog since it got started"

So what you're saying is that you appreciate the info this blog has been supplying you for years, and yet you're so ungrateful as to get your knickers in a knot over a single posting you could have easily skipped, and then post something as arrogant, assoholic and snotty as "Defensive and intolerant. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not."?

Sorry, I don't believe you, and even if I did, I wouldn't care about such an ungrateful asshole anyway.

"You going to get your full crazy charley johnson on and ban me? Again, it would not surprise me."

Blogspot does not allow banning. And anyway, I enjoy a good troll now and then. You're boring, though.

liontooth.com said...

"Instead of refuting the claim that you are wrong about Johnson, you insult."

Um, hello? Why should I even begin to refute your claim when you didn't cite any evidence to support it? Sorry, pal, that's not how things work


You are the one that made the claim that because of Johnson 'bringing to light McCain's racist past' this resulted in The conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue. You posted your claim with zero evidence. Now, somehow, the burden of evidence is on the questioner of your claim? It's become my responsibility to provide evidence to refute your undocumented claim?

Post evidence that Johnson has been 'excommunicated' by the "conservative blogosphere" becaise he was 'bringing to light McCain's racist past' You made the claim, the burden is on you to PROVE IT.

My 'evidence' was already posted in this thread. All you need to do is read what he who scoffs at danger wrote.

Sergey Romanov said...

"liontooth.com said...

You are the one that made the claim that because of Johnson 'bringing to light McCain's racist past' this resulted in The conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue. You posted your claim with zero evidence. Now, somehow, the burden of evidence is on the questioner of your claim?"

And here I sit thinking you can't get even more ridiculous...

You would be correct if the the history of falling out between LGF and nutosphere were the topic of my posting. Which it wasn't.

If we look at this formally, it's a "he said, she said" situation. I stated my opinion without citing evidence, that's true. And it's perfectly normal. But you claimed that my opinion is false also without citing any evidence. And that's fine too. It's your opinion. Opinions differ and all that stuff.

But then you had the gall to write: "Instead of refuting the claim that you are wrong about Johnson, you insult".

To repeat, why should I bother _refuting_ the opinion for which you cited no evidence at all? Just as you don't need to formally refute my opinion (as opposed to hard facts) about the blogwar to dismiss it (which you are free to do), I don't need to formally refute your opinion about my opinion (which I choose to do).

Now, if you were to actually refute my opinion (which you are not obligated to do), I would have to respond with hard facts. But to demand that I refute your mere opinion with hard facts, when you yourself have not cited any hard facts, is beyond arrogance.

"My 'evidence' was already posted in this thread. All you need to do is read what he who scoffs at danger wrote."

Um, no, that's just a series of opinions too. But I see that you're not urging hwsad to prove _his/her_ opinion true. Why would that be? Hmmm...

Sergey Romanov said...

I also see that you dropped the KT matter. Very wise.

Sergey Romanov said...

When writing about the right-wing blogosphere "basically excommunicating Johnson over this issue" I was merely verbalizing the impression I had of the state of affairs as I saw it with my own eyes as the events unfolded.

This sentence certainly does not express all the complicated stuff that went on before the McCain debacle. Certainly, many right blogs already had "given up" on Johnson, many of them silently. They spoke up and/or delinked when this blogwar started.

Others were already quite vocal before the "fight", and merely took McCain's side during the "war". Johnson certainly would be excommunicated by the nutosphere sooner or later, and yes, it is not a single issue that got him excommunicated. The blogwar not so much started the excommunication, as it made it complete. I think his postings about RSM were the straw that broke the camel's back. The problem is, they chose the wrong straw.

The right-wing blogosphere wholly supported McCain in this "war", and most of the right-wing blogs (with a couple of exceptions) that hadn't loudly denounced him before, did it this time. Like Confederacy, they were on the wrong side of history.

Below you can see several links which should serve as an illustration of the state of affairs in the blogosphere during the blogwar in question, the state which formed my impression of this blogwar. Judge for yourself whether I was right, wrong, or somewhere in-between.

The bottom line is, though: Charles Johnson turned over a large rock, and what crawled from underneath it was not pretty.

---

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/14/right-wing-blogger-war/

Right-wing bloggers have declared a former ally of theirs persona non grata for linking another conservative blogger to the white supremacist movement.

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/09/forgot-mah-johns-really-acorn.html

Stacy has both greater history available and more professional concern about reputation, as it affects his livelihood. Thus, in the present tense, scurrilous allegations receive all the affection due a rabid dog at a Louisville Slugger sale.
This blog tried to capture immediate and copious support offered by Blogs That Know the Difference, but, out of sheer love for your goodness, we cheerfully re-hash that affection.
[a long list of blogs supporting McCain over Johnson followed]


http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/09/lgf-delinks-pajamas-media/

The blog wars are out of control right now. First Powerline Blog made a point to publicly de-link Little Green Footballs:[...]
The public de-linking and addition of Gateway pundit prompted the following comment by Charles in one of his comment threads [emphasis in red added]:
[...]
This is on top of a bitter exchange over the alleged racism of Robert Stacy McCain. You can follow that exchange by visiting the following links:[...]
Now Charles has reported that he has removed all links to Pajamas Media because, among other reasons, they are headlining a McCain article on their front page:[...]


http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/23/out-of-power-going-bonkers/

"The plight of Charles Johnson of the centre-right Little Green Footballs is a case in point. He is presently being attacked by a white supremacist blogger called Robert Stacey McCain, who in turn is being linked to approvingly and hosted by what I might once have thought of as the ‘mainstream US Right’. Well, if that’s the mainstream, the Right is lost."

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198887.php

Ah, So That's Why Little Green Footballs Has Gone South!

First, Stacey McCain and now Dan Riehl are racist? I've met Stacey McCain, hung out with him. There are a lot of adjectives I think he'd accept as describing him, some of which might not be the most flattering ... but racist?

Sergey Romanov said...

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2009/09/date-night-with-charles-johnson.html

It's all over for Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. His descent into madness is finally complete; finally, most mainstream bloggers realize that there's been something amiss at Little Green Footballs for years now.

Robert Stacy McCain's put Charles in his place. You'll have to read his post. Warning...there's ruthlessness involved. Savory ruthlessness, it's what's for dinner.

(Oh, and remind yourself not to ever get on the wrong side of RSM!)


http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/09/12/a-response-to-charles-johnson/

A Response to Charles Johnson

Over at LGF (no link, sorry) Charles Johnson notes that I’m taking phone calls from “white supremacist” Stacy McCain. (Thanks, Darlene.)

Now, I’ve worked with Stacy in person a couple of times, at the DNC last summer and at CPAC in February. Both were crowded, high-stress situations. At no time did I see Stacy treat anyone — of any color, creed, whathaveyou — with anything less than respect and good humor.

So, is Robert Stacy McCain a white supremacist? Hell if I know. But he enjoys breaking bread with agnostic half Jews like me, which would certainly make him a different kind of white supremacist.


http://www.thepiratescove.us/2009/09/19/pajamas-media-demotes-charles-johnson/

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but, I do believe I had checked Pajamas Media’s About Us page back on Thursday after Mad King Charles had banned any mention of Pajamas Media on his site, and he was still listed right under Roger L. Simon as co-founder of PJM, as you can see in this Wayback Machine version from February 2008. Unlike now, where his entry was moved all the way to the bottom, and now says

Charles Johnson – musician and editor of the Little Green Footballs weblog – co-founded Pajamas Media in 2005. Although he has not been part of the company since early 2007, Pajamas is grateful to Charles for helping us get started.

All sidebar links to Little Green Goofballs have been removed, as were available in the Wayback Machine version, though, I can’t say if that is new or has been going on for awhile.


http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/tossing-little-green-footballs-out-of.html

Last week though, Charles finally crossed the line and went certifiable .

He started out by attacking Pajamas media for headlining a story by Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain, calling him a racist and white supremacist and smearing Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit as - wait for it - ' a borderline illiterate bigot'.


http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/09/15/stacy-mccain-a-racist-yeah-like-im-a-slender-reed/

Charles Johnson is about to find himself in an entirely new dimension of pain once Stacy’s friends jump in on this.

http://justgrits.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/delinking-is-so-hard-to-do/

Not really. It had been over a year since I’d even been over or linked to Little Green Footballs. When he started attacking fellow bloggers, for some pretty petty and imagined slights, I just took my business elsewhere. But then he came after Stacy. Robert Stacy McCain – loud of mouth but big of heart. [...] So I delinked him.

http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/here-comes-the-pollyanna-in-me/

Meanwhile blog after blog has sided with Robert Stacy McCain very loudly indeed this while the only person who seems to have had a kind word for Charles is of all people Andrew Sullivan.

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=23325

The Charles Johnson saga continues unabated, this time with Stacy McCain returning fire for the first time. And a substantial piece of artillery it is, too. [...]

The fact of the matter is, Charles is out of his depth. Delinking Pajamas Media, (whom I also write occasional articles for) was what really caught my attention on all of this. He’s lost it; there’s no other way to read this.

Sergey Romanov said...

http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/2009/09/17/read-john-hawkins-on-the-descent-of-little-green-footballs/

However, by the time Charles got to denouncing Stacy McCain of The Other McCain (see below for his recent replies); Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit; and Pajamas Media, the group blog he co-founded with Roger Simon; THEN I knew I was on solid ground in questioning his judgment, and possibly his sanity.

http://dailypundit.com/?p=36022

Although I haven’t so much as looked at Charles Johnson’s site in several years, I noticed that I was still carrying him on my blogroll.

So I delinked him, and what was his link now connects to this [RSMcCain's attack piece] , which explains why I delinked him in the first place.


http://dailypundit.com/?p=36035

The Other McCain: LGF Boycott HQ

(Maybe if Joseph Farah had a Pimp And Ho Assistance Program . . .)

Charles Johnson would slurp his ass, too.

Stacy has a neat Boycott LGF sticker up, too, if you want one. Me? My LGF link now points at Stacy’s joint. Poetic justice, ya know.


http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/i-guess-i-was-wrong-about-that.html

Life would be so easy without principles. I'm afraid I must make one of those posts I honestly wish I didn't have to make. But principle simply won't allow that. While I recently posted that I respected Stephen Green aka VodkaPundit, I rather wish I hadn't made the claim and I'll leave it somewhat at that, speaking to it only as I feel I must.

Via lgf in response to Stephen Green. Evidently Charles has pronounced Stacy McCain a white supremacist. [...]

For better or worse .. worse, at times!! heh! Stacy McCain is my friend. He doesn't deserve to be accused as he has been by Johnson. And he certainly deserves strong support from me and any other of his alleged friends, or colleagues that want to make any claim to actually knowing the man a bit. It's Johnson that is now obviously unworthy of any more of my time. And, lastly, I do find that, as I also find Charles these days, to be somewhat sad.


http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/ending-the-rs-mccain-as-racist-debate-hopefully.html

Ending The RS McCain As Racist Debate, Hopefully

I remain mostly done with some of the unfortunate behavior I continue to see playing out in certain quarters out here. I defended Stacy McCain early on because I know him somewhat, do not believe him to be a racist, and find it reprehensible that certain people seem intent on continuing to fuel that myth. That is a rather vile, pathetic act that can only be driven by the worst in someone and man himself. It is the tactic of either the deranged, or morally repugnant, weak and cowardly sort of man.


http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2009/09/robert-stacy-mccain-i-know-him-better.html

Robert Stacy McCain: I Know Him Better Than Charles Johnson Does

[...]

We were both members of a heritage group, the League of the South, that has also subsequently been slimed by the SPLC.

[...]

Robert Stacy McCain is a fine man of outstanding character and hasn't a trace of racism or white-supremacist philosophy anywhere in his soul. I know, because I knew him and worked with him long before most of you ever heard his name. He has consistently supported racial equality and opposed race hatred.

Charles Johnson, whatever else he may be or believe, is a reckless and careless reporter. He deserves no credibility whatsoever.

Sergey Romanov said...

http://honestyinmotion.blogspot.com/2009/09/and-winner-by-knockout.html

And the Winner by Knockout...
If you read conservative/libertarian blogs with any frequency, you know about the recent spat initiated by flyweight Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs, with the right's heavyweight du jour, RSM, The Other McCain. CJ repeatedly went out of his way to attack friends of the conservative movement in general, and Mr. Robert S. McCain in particular. The results were predictable. RSM played a waiting game, letting CJ swing himself out before delivering the knockout early in the 5th. Lessons? CJ has lost it, destroying a perfectly good blog that I used to enjoy reading. Also, stay on that Other McCain's good side, or you could wind up like Mr. Johnson.


http://snappedshot.com/archives/4029-Revealed-The-Rather-Curious-Reason-for-Charles-Johnsons-Demise.html

Revealed: The Rather Curious Reason for Charles Johnson's Demise

TNOYF has solved the mystery. And then they were subsequently banned by "Charles." Tsk tsk!
[picture]
One wonders if this explains the sudden animosity towards Robert Stacy "Slugger" McCain.


http://www.thecampofthesaints.com/2009.09.13_arch.html#1253127172393


DEFENDING OUR FRIEND, STACY MCCAIN
BACKGROUND: Charles Johnson, proprietor of My Little Green Johnson Footballs, has called Stacy McCain a 'rascist' and 'white supremacist'. Many of his friends and acquaintances have come to his defense.


http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/charles-johnson-attacks-robert-stacy.html

Charles Johnson Attacks Robert Stacy McCain as Racist
As of this moment, Charles Johnson has over 1,000 comments on a "private" afternoon comment thread devoted to smearing Robert Stacy McCain as racist:[...]

Charles Johnson's free to do what he wants with his own blog, but he strains legal and moral boundaries with his libel-blogging against Robert Stacy McCain. And I am happy to disabuse Charles of the notion that R.S. McCain is an "open racist who associates with white supremacists and neo-Nazis." There is no proof for the allegation, not one shred of it. I have known R.S. McCain for two years now, and there's nothing in him that remotely reeks of racist sentiment. Indeed, R.S. McCain represents the epitome of a gentleman and a scholar, and I testify to his unimpeachable integrity on civil rights.


http://americanglob.com/2009/09/15/the-top-10-reasons-robert-stacy-mccain-is-smarter-than-charles-johnson/

The Top 10 Reasons Robert Stacy McCain is Smarter Than Charles Johnson

Have you heard that Charles Johnson of “Little Green Intellect” is attacking Robert Stacy McCain? Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has the story.

For now, forget the fact that RSM is a real conservative and Chucky is a dunce who likes to pretend on CNN.

Perhaps it’s just the inspiration provided by Ace’s contest to re-name ACORN but I’m feeling creative.

Without further ado, I offer the Top Ten Reasons Robert Stacy McCain is Smarter than Charles Johnson:


http://carolyntackettscloset.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-in-labeling-stacy-mccain-is-not.html

Truth in Labeling: Stacy McCain is NOT a Racist, But Charles Johnson is an Asshole
I read Stacy McCain’s posts here, here, here and here and while I admit to curiosity, my initial reaction was “Stacy can handle himself just fine without my help.” The more I thought about Stacy being called a racist the more ticked I got. But still, being tired from standing for hours in the rain yesterday, my lungs hurting like there’s no tomorrow and just general crankiness, I let it go. Yet it kept nagging at me.

So I did something that I really shouldn’t have done-I went over to LGF to check this Charles Johnson guy out and after more perusing than his site deserves, I have come to the conclusion that Johnson doesn’t like anyone. That’s okay, some people were just born to be miserable pricks, but making hate and smug superiority central to one’s life doesn’t excuse batting ugly labels around at will.

Sergey Romanov said...

http://carolyntackettscloset.blogspot.com/2009/09/charles-johnson-theres-some-things-you.html

Charles Johnson: There's Some Things You Can't Take Back
Not that Johnson appears inclined but even if he were, there are some lines you just don't cross. If you take aim at a man's reputation, as Johnson has taken aim at Stacy McCain's, you better know what you're talking about and who you're dealing with. Sadly, Johnson put fingers to keyboard without being very well informed on either point.


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/charles-johnson-and-robert-stacy-mccain.html

Charles Johnson and Robert Stacy McCain
When I first started this blog just under a year ago, I was ignorant of who was who in the blogosphere. Believe it or not, Memeorandum is not the world.

But I did know about Little Green Footballs. I'm not sure why.

Over the months, it became obvious that no one provokes or responds to blog wars better (or worse, depending on your perspective) than Charles Johnson who runs LGF. Given the legend of "don't cross Charles Johnson" I stayed out of those things because ... who cares and what's the point?

But the blog war started yesterday by LGF against Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain deserves comment.

[...]

The false accusation of racism is a despicable tactic. It damages the person against whom it is made and the victims of true racism.

And that is why I felt it necessary to speak up this time.


http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/09/17/some-of-you-may-noticed-the-familiar-looking-ads-in-the-sidebars/

Some of you may noticed the familiar looking ads in the sidebars

Those two free ads are running for two weeks. Basically in support of a friend of mine; who is being attacked by a person, of whom I believe to be a traitor to the Conservative movement, the anti-jihad movement and Anti-Islamic Fascism Movement. Further more, attacking those of us who dare to speak out against the Current administration as racists.

[...]

My advice to Charles Johnson is this. Take the fucking idiotic stupid blog of yours down and go the fuck away. Whatever you do, do NOT fuck with me. Believe me when I say this. I have the means and the fucking gonads to plunk down some cash and get my hands of every piece of personal information about that is available about you, via most information services of this sort. Do not think that I am above posting every god damned piece of personal information about you sir. Including, Address with an aerial shot of your house. Telephone numbers, Social security number, Credit Card Numbers, Driver license numbers, Vehicle Vin Numbers and anything else, that I think that the American people should know about it.


http://powip.com/2009/09/charles-johnsons-done/

Charles Johnson’s Done

Charles Johnson’s gone completely off his rocker. I wondered, when I started writing at my own site, where all the commenters were coming from accusing Stacy McCain of being a neo-Nazi crypto-racist, and now I’m pretty sure I know, because Charles has made that accusation towards Stacy. All of those visitors had one thing in common: when I pressed them for evidence, they didn’t have any.


http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/the-daley-douchebag-is/

The Daley Douchebag is

Charles Johnson, who seems to hate anyone who is actually Conservative, a supporter of the second amendment, pro-life, Southern, or who dares to fight for their principles has lost his marbles!

Chucky has now decided to pick a fight with Stacy McCain. Yeah, THAT will work out well for Chuckles! Chuck might as well have stuck his head into a wasp’s nest or tried to get in between Je$$e Jack$on and a photo-op. Trust me, this will not end well, just as things did not go well for this Meghan McCain Republican.

So, BEFORE his ass is handed to him, I bestow upon Charles Johnson, the Daley Douchebag Award! Because ONLY a doucher, and an intellectual fraud, would choose the course Johnson has chosen.

Sergey Romanov said...

http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2009/09/alan-colmes-viciously-attacks-blogger.html

At the same time Robert Stacy McCain is having to defend himself from Charles Johnson, who blogs as Little Green Footballs. Stacy has points to make, and make them he does.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/15/excitable-chuckys-continued-trip-in-the-downward-spiral/

LGF’s Charles Johnson continues to swim down the toilet of craziness as he makes enemies with each rightwing blogger, one by one. Most recently he delinked Powerline, smeared Vodkapundit and Stacy McCain as racist bigots.

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-09-17-0001/

If Charles Johnson is crazy, does that mean those Rathergate memos were real...?

Just the latest in the saga-I-haven't-been-paying-any-attention-to, via The Other McCain.

For all you former Lizards or whatever they used to be called.


http://fishfearme.blogs.com/fish_fear_me/2009/09/i-generally-avoid-blogspats-but-im-going-to-weigh-in-on-one-here-not-that-he-needs-what-little-help-i-can-give-but-im-goin.html

I generally avoid blogspats, but I'm going to weigh in on one here.

Not that he needs what little help I can give, but I'm going to stand up here for Stacy McCain of The Other McCain against the charge of "white supremacist" that has been leveled at him.


http://bonzai.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/16/more-frivolous-gutless-charges-of-racism.html

More frivolous, gutless charges of racism

[link to McCain's post]

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has joined the gutless crowd of "racist" slingers who are placing themselves in the position of approbium in the eyes of all reasonable people who give a damn about fairness and the evil of real racism. May his stupidity make him invisible -- now, he is to me.


http://www.southtexian.com/2009/09/repetitive-regret.html

Regular readers of my blog are well aware that one of my favorite denizens of the conservative blogosphere is Robert Stacy McCain. Occasionally, Stacy and his friend Christopher L. "Smitty" Smith have been kind enough to throw me a link, for which I am always deeply appreciative. Loyalty and friendship being a two-way street, I feel obliged to say a few words in defense of Stacy McCain in light of scurrilous attacks launched at him by one Charles Johnson, purveyor of a blog named Little Green Footballs.

http://physicsgeek.mu.nu/archives/292446.php

Whack job moved into the dustbin of history

I've more or less ignored the preening of self-righteous prick CJ, proprietor in chief of Little Green Moonbats these last couple of years. I'd actually forgotten that his demented little blog was still over in my sidebar; I'm terrible about updating links. Well, I've finally decided to move CJ into the dustbin, as he's decided to make himself an historical footnote, a blogging cul de sac, a veritable echo chamber in which he stands waist deep in his own poo while claiming to be the Lord Ruler of the blogiverse.


http://texasscribbler.com/blog/2009/09/lgfs_gone_loopy.html

LGF's gone loopy

I used to enjoy Little Green Footballs, back when proprietor Charles Johnson mainly defended Israel against the jihadi Musselmen. Then he began to get rather shrill about people who disagreed with him about evolution. Lately he's become a fulltime assaulter of the Tea Party movement, and tosses around words like racist and white supremacist to describe his enemies. He's become, as one commenter here, puts it, a Kos Kiddie Day Care Center. My blogroll is already full. He won't be missed.


http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/2009/09/17/r-i-p/

Frequent visitors may notice the new blogroll category, added in loving memory of Charles Johnson’s Sanity.

May it rest in peace.

Happily, The Other McCain explains, saving me the trouble of having to wash my hands after this post.

Sergey Romanov said...

http://conservativeshemale.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/boycott-little-green-footballs/

Boycott Little Green Footballs?

There seems to be a movement afoot. Personally I disagree with Johnson about 90% of the time but I doubt he is worth the energy of boycotting. He seems to be driving his readers away on his own and that’s fine with me.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/stacy-mccain-is-a-genius.html

Stacy McCain is a genius!
It took two years, and now the useless and damaging blogwar is finally over. Field Marshal Robert Stacy McCain is marching triumphantly into Berlin, having left the libel-and-hate site Little Green Footballs a smoking ruin with his rollicking, witty, and intelligent posts -- enjoy them here.


http://www.nationofcowards.us/?p=1520

Inside Bloggy Baseball: LGF Loses G-D Mind!
In the several years I’ve been blogging I try to avoid these stories as assiduously as possible for reasons that I think Mr. Other McCain himself would appreciate, I’m a story whore, willing to get the story from anyone even my most hated enemy. So inserting myself between feuding bloggers feels like fail all day long.

Having said that I’ve been aware of the LGF meltdown for some time now and its metastasized on The Other McCain, one of my favorite blogs. I’ll let him handle his own defense and I’ll add one comment after his links…


http://novatownhall.com/2009/09/16/other-mccain-flogs-the-bike-fairy-who-was-grooving-on-john-coltrane-after-58-miles-up-the-coast/

Other McCain Flogs The Bike Fairy, Who Was Grooving On John Coltrane After 58 Miles Up The Coast

No doubt concerned about sullying the area behind the woodshed, Stacy McCain slaps down the ridiculous Charles “Bike Fairy” Johnson in full view of God and all the world right out in the sidewalk:


http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-cabbages-and-kings.html

A “meltdown” is occurring on the Intertoobs.

Robert Stacy McCain, of The Other McCain blog wrote, “Those who have tuned in late or who have tried to avert their eyes from the disastrously self-destructive Madness of King Charles must be reminded that, from start to finish, this has been about Charles Johnson repeatedly attacking people who were minding their own business.”
[...]
I stand with Stacy and all the other bloggers who have come under attack from this man because I was raised to believe that a friend advises justly, assists readily, defends courageously and continues unchangeably as a friend.

Zimri said...

What triggered the mass bannings in September was not RS McCain. RS McCain is an opportunist who has piggybacked upon LGF's (ongoing) controversy.

The mass bannings occurred because LGF had supported, firstly Van Jones the hard-left "ex" Truther, and shortly thereafter he supported the Alinskyist criminal enterprise ACORN. This was called out not by McCain but by Ace of Spades. Hundreds of LGF's commenters viewed that as a betrayal of all LGF had stood for.

My own account at LGF, "Zimriel", had been banned already in 30 June because I diagnosed his site as "anti-Conservative". He did not rebut my points; he just let 10 sycophants hit the "down-ding", called my post "crap", and banned me.

Before that I was a strong supporter of his efforts, including against Robert Spencer. After that I was still supporting his efforts. Witness here and here. Note the date on the latter.

Yes, Conservatives are an inherently non-intellectual movement with a pack mentality. Yes, Johnson has turned over a rock. But Johnson's swift move over to the hard Left, and the tyrannical way he runs his blog, have discredited him, and bolstered his enemies.

As mentioned here, Johnson is an accessory after the fact for the deliberate act of racist sabotage by one Killgore Trout. And he's deleted at least hundreds of thousands of comments I know of, maybe millions; in some cases in mere spite against, for instance, buzzsawmonkey who was a supporter of LGF too. He has turned dozens of critically-thinking commenters into slavish sycophants and bullies; hundreds more are lurking in fear and sorrow wishing they could have their community back. It's like Ukraine shtetls in the 1800s over there.

To put it in computer terms, Little Green Footballs is to be Considered Harmful.

He's just using McCain, and you, to get his credibility back and this time from the Left. He'll stab you in the back too once his site crawls back up in the Alexa ratings.

Thank you for allowing these comments to go through, and for placing that much-needed asterisk by Charles Johnson's name.

Sergey Romanov said...

"What triggered the mass bannings in September was not RS McCain. RS McCain is an opportunist who has piggybacked upon LGF's (ongoing) controversy."

Um. We're not talking about bans on his blog.

---

The rest is quite offtopic, but I'll respond anyway.

"The mass bannings occurred because LGF had supported, firstly Van Jones the hard-left "ex" Truther"

So Charles pointed out that mere appearance of VJ's name on a document on a truther site (which is known for putting other names there of people who did not give their consent) doesn't necessarily prove that he is a truther. He is right. Such a crime! He also noted that Van Jones is too far left to be in the admin. Somehow you omitted this.

"and shortly thereafter he supported the Alinskyist criminal enterprise ACORN"

Since when is ACORN a "criminal enterprise"? And please, don't bring up videos of a few individual ACORN employees being naughty. It doesn't prove that ACORN is a criminal enterprise. (Not that I give a damn about ACORN. But let's not be ridiculous.)

"As mentioned here, Johnson is an accessory after the fact for the deliberate act of racist sabotage by one Killgore Trout."

Somewhat. Except it was a clumsy act of anti-racist sabotage.

"And he's deleted at least hundreds of thousands of comments I know of, maybe millions; in some cases in mere spite against, for instance, buzzsawmonkey who was a supporter of LGF too."

That is all well and good, but has nothing to do with Johnson's excommunication from the rightosphere. Surely most people don't give a damn about comments at LGF.

"He has turned dozens of critically-thinking commenters into slavish sycophants and bullies;"

Oh wow. I envy his hypnotic powers!

"hundreds more are lurking in fear and sorrow wishing they could have their community back"

Don't they have a life or something?

"It's like Ukraine shtetls in the 1800s over there."

Yes, with Kossacks just over the corner.

"To put it in computer terms, Little Green Footballs is to be Considered Harmful."

Well, it certainly is... in a certain sense ... to certain people.

"He's just using McCain, and you, to get his credibility back and this time from the Left. He'll stab you in the back too once his site crawls back up in the Alexa ratings."

Somehow I think I will survive.

liontooth.com said...

Sergey Romanov said...

I also see that you dropped the KT matter. Very wise.


I didn't 'drop' the matter. It's clear that you simply accept at face value the word of a racist vandal who CLAIMS they are not a racist AFTER he trashes a website with racist epithets. Why are we supposed to believe the 'Kilgore Trout did it to prove a point' exactly? Because he, Johnson, and you say so? More like here's a chance to let my inner Klansman come out. Racist Kilgore Trout is the one that used the 'N' word. Here's a refresher of his work.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/09/17/the-race-card-bs/#comment-86570

Nigger’s n’ wookies iz socialism!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:25 AM
——————
C’mon. Where are the moderators?

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:25 AM
——————
Where are the moderators? How good is the paycheck to run a blog that allows openly racist comments about wookies and Niggers?
Man this wookie stuff is hilarious and hilarious!
/Give me a job monitoring the blog where blacks are called wookies, it sounds like big fun!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:33 AM
——————
Wookies iz niggers!
/Brilliant political commentary

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM
——————
Let’s take responsibility for out own racism!
Black people look and act like monkeys!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:37 AM
——————
Let’s deal with the problem!
Wookies iz niggers!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
——————
C’mon, Ed/AP
Nobody’s goin to speak up against blatant racism?
Can I get a job? I’d like to run a racist blog. It seems like big fun!
Hook me up!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
——————
Wookie jokes iz so funny!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
——————
Niggers look like monkeys and monkey look like niggers!
Get it?
Soooooo Funny!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
—————-
Ok, I’ll conclude my experiment….
Nobody’s minding the store. Hot Air, like so many other right wing blogs doesn’t care. Nobody’s minding the store. Absolutely nobody else chimed in and saif that they were uncomfortable with the Michelle Obama/wookie comparisons. Nobody cares and nobody finds this slightly unusual. This is the direction that conservatives have chosen. Good luck with your openly racist agenda.
/I’d still like a job that pays well enough to ignore this shit.

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM

liontooth.com said...

And here I sit thinking you can't get even more ridiculous...

You would be correct if the the history of falling out between LGF and nutosphere were the topic of my posting. Which it wasn't.

If we look at this formally, it's a "he said, she said" situation. I stated my opinion without citing evidence, that's true.


You stated it as a fact, but I'm to blame because I dare questioned it.

Starting with your first link:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/14/right-wing-blog
Raw Story is a leftwing website.

What is raw story's proof?
Charles Johnson’s claims ... have been met with personal attacks against Johnson by numerous right-wing bloggers.
The only 'proof' of "numerous' right wing bloggers they provide are:
1. Blogger “Doug” at the Daley Gator.
2. Blog POWIP, blogger Dan Collins.
WOW these 2 NUMEROUS bloggers I've never heard of represent the right-wing blogosphere. Thanks raw story!

VodkaPundit, blogger Stephen Green only comments on his personal interaction with McCain and makes no mention of Johnson.
Notice what you didn't include.

"Johnson’s apparent excommunication from the movement was a long time coming." Funny, where have I heard that term before? That's right you were stating as a fact raw story's undocumented, phony talking point. Way to go lefties!


As your second 'proof' you post a link from McCain's site and claim:
[a long list of blogs supporting McCain over Johnson followed]
WRONG!
First, most of the bloggers are smaller bloggers that are inconsequential and several of them were already friends of McCain. Of the major right0sphere blogs:
- Vodkapundit Stephen Green NEVER said anything about Johnson.
- Ace of Spades says nothing about McCain. The link went to a thread about the racist Kilgore Trout.
- Atlas Shrugs was previously against Johnson.
- Stop the ACLU does support McCain and is against Johnson.
- The Political Cesspool viewed the CJ fracas from a very wait-and-see vantage. Ultimately, James Edwards is unsatisfied with Stacy's responses.
Surprised to find:
- No Quarter, Larry Johnson's site. He was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
"Probably the most entertaining blog about Sulllivan’s pot bust was theOtherMcCain, who writes from experience about being caught with the evil weed."

Your next link was to founding bloggers which
Powerline delinked Johnson and said nothing about Johnson. Founding bloggers said, "again because we have profound respect for many of the people involved in this fight, including Charles Johnson, " "People ought to also remember that Charles has been plenty right about a whole lot of things in the past. It seems to us unwise and completely unwarranted to write him off over these disagreements."
"Lastly, recently we have been asked to de-link this person or that person for various crimes against blogmanity related to this fight. We refuse to de-link anyone. This blog prides itself on staying connected to views and opinions we agree with and ones we do not agree with."

So far, all you've shown is that of the top conservative/rightwing blogs, Stop the ACLU sided with McCain over this issue.
TO BE CONT...

Sergey Romanov said...

"I didn't 'drop' the matter. It's clear that you simply accept at face value the word of a racist vandal who CLAIMS they are not a racist AFTER he trashes a website with racist epithets. Why are we supposed to believe the 'Kilgore Trout did it to prove a point' exactly? Because he, Johnson, and you say so? "

Haha, you silly puppy. Repeating bullshit about a "racist vandal" will not suddenly make him into one. You know, you actually have to prove such accusations.

Now, what do we have here.

A - an anti-racist representing a very public blog which also strives to have an anti-racist image.

B - a blog in which there are many racist and sexist commenters ("Michelle Obama = wookie" etc.).

A goes to B and explicitly says that he will provoke them with racist messages. Here's PDF of the whole unredacted thread, BTW. You can look at the very first message A posted there. In fact I will copy it here:

"Oh, man. You guys crack be up! Comparing the president’s wife to an ill-mannered space ape is the funniest and least racist way to oppose socialism that I can’t stop laughing. What’s really funny is that space monkeys looks like black people in the White House and the people in the White House look like space monkeys! Isn’t that the funniest and least racist thing ever? You guys are bound to win elections now that you’ve discovered that the president’s wife looks like a wookie! HA HA HA! we’ll laugh our way to victory! Hooray!

Killgore Trout on September 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM"

Now, how will a primitive creature react to this situation?

"Ooga-booga! He said a racist word! I don't care for no context! He's a raaaaacist!"

What will be a thinking person's reaction?

"It is clear from both from immediate and larger context that A merely posted the crap because he tried to test the owners of B and/or to teach them a lesson. Thus, this crap cannot serve as evidence of A's racism. Could A still be a racist? Everything is possible, but where's the beef?"

You can choose your side now :)

"You stated it as a fact, but I'm to blame because I dare questioned it."

Um, no. You not merely questioned it, which would be fine. You wrote: "Instead of refuting the claim that you are wrong about Johnson, you insult".

To repeat, why should I bother _refuting_ the opinion for which you cited no evidence at all? Just as you don't need to formally refute my opinion (as opposed to hard facts) about the blogwar to dismiss it (which you are free to do), I don't need to formally refute your opinion about my opinion (which I choose to do).

Now, if you were to actually refute my opinion (which you are not obligated to do), I would have to respond with hard facts. But to demand that I refute your mere opinion with hard facts, when you yourself have not cited any hard facts, is beyond arrogance.

Also, I advise you to re-read my clarification. And stop making things up. For example, you write:

"Your next link was to founding bloggers which Powerline delinked Johnson and said nothing about Johnson."

Actually the link was about Johnson delinking PajamasMedia because of the McCain debacle.

If you will continue with making crap up, you won't be welcome here and your comments will be treated as spam.

liontooth.com said...

Haha, you silly puppy. Repeating bullshit about a "racist vandal" will not suddenly make him into one. You know, you actually have to prove such accusations.

Did Kilgore Trout post those racist statements at HotAir? YES OR NO?

Sergey Romanov said...

Um. Are you blind or what?

liontooth.com said...

Actually the link was about Johnson delinking PajamasMedia because of the McCain debacle.


Your point (the one you got from raw story) was about Johnson being excommunicated because of McCain. At the link that YOU posted the first sentence mentioned Poweline.

"The blog wars are out of control right now. First Powerline Blog made a point to publicly de-link Little Green Footballs:

We have slightly updated our blogroll for the first time time in a long time. We have deleted Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs. We long ago stopped reading LGF Suffice it to say (suffice it for me to say, anyway) that Charles’s political inclinations and interests now diverge widely from our own.

At the same time we welcome Gateway Pundit and Big Hollywood."


Where is McCain mentioned regarding Powerline delinking?

Sergey Romanov said...

"At the link that YOU posted the first sentence mentioned Poweline."

Oh, now we should only look at the first sentence. What can I say. Wow!

liontooth.com said...

Um. Are you blind or what?

No, do you always defend racists when they have a so called excuse for it?

Interesting fact. AFTER the Kilgore racist rant, Johnson banned african-american baldilocks, but NOT Kilgore Trout. Very curious.
http://www.luoamerican.com/baldilocks/2009/09/clean-break.html

Sergey Romanov said...

"No, do you always defend racists when they have a so called excuse for it?"

1. Do you always beat you wife? Or do you let her rest on Sundays?

2. You start with the assumption that the person we're discussing is a racist. This is an unproven assumption. Yet you repeat it over and over. Ergo you're a doofus.

"Interesting fact. AFTER the Kilgore racist rant, Johnson banned african-american baldilocks, but NOT Kilgore Trout. Very curious."

How interesting that people like you stoop to such never-quite-explicit but still odious insinuations. Yet you fail to condemn the obvious racism at Hate Air. Very curious.

liontooth.com said...

You start with the assumption that the person we're discussing is a racist. This is an unproven assumption. Yet you repeat it over and over. Ergo you're a doofus.

Someone spews racist epithets and the burden of proof is on me to believe whatever excuse he claims?

How interesting that people like you stoop to such never-quite-explicit but still odious insinuations. Yet you fail to condemn the obvious racism at Hate Air. Very curious.

So now Hot Air is Hate Air and is a hate site? This must be your opinion, since you've shown no evidence just like your 'excommunication' opinion, which you inadvertently revealed came from left-wing site raw story.
But people 'like' me are the ones insinuating?

Gabriel Hanna said...

Because of the things you linked to, I had to come to the conclusion that Robert Stacy McCain is a white supremacist, or was up until a few years ago.

I asked him point blank whether he'd said those things or not; I'd have taken his word for it if he'd said he hadn't.

It's not that the other conservative bloggers approve of his white supremacism. They don't believe he was ever a white supremacist, won't believe it, and won't look at the evidence. Because the Left has played that card too many times.

he who scoffs at danger said...

sergey, you seem intent on stealing this base, but it doesn't stand up.

time moves in one direction, and the facts are these:

9/5/2009 - ace's first discourteous post directed at charles' bizarre stance toward the van jones issue.

9/7/2009 - powerline delinks lgf amidst the van jones issue.

the interim - charles attacks the right for the obama school speech and the tea parties.

9/11/2009 - charles writes his first anti-r.s. mccain post.


i understand you want to steal that base. i would too if i were a man of the left or if the poles were reversed. but it's simply not a fact.

you can't factually say that "he conservative blogosphere basically excommunicated Johnson over this issue (of r.s. mccain)."

the conservative blogosphere doesn't know or care about r.s. mccain's racism because r.s. mccain designed to conceal it. the conservative blogosphere has not heeded johnson's allegations because johnson had shredded his own credibility and fellowship with conservative bloggers.

they did not "choose the wrong straw". the camel's back was already broken.

and, we can discuss this at length if you like, but charles' drift towards the left, understood in terms consistent with those on which he now condemns the right, is not a drift toward "sanity". it's a drift towards "bush/jews did it" 9-11 conspiracy theories, deranged notions about rigged evs's and tsunamis caused by secret underwater nuke tests.

i say this becuase there is no parity between the pitch and volume of bush derangement syndrome and obama derangement syndrome. the former came much earlier and was far more splenetic and vile than the latter has been. the bush era progressives have a head start which beck fans would need four obama terms to surpass.

Sergey Romanov said...

hwsad, I believe that the clarification I posted above will be my last word on this "excommunication" business, which is only slightly relevant to the topic at hand (for whatever really happened between the nutosphere and Johnson, they still took McCain's side even after the damning facts had been exposed). Just as I wrote above, you're free to disagree.

Sergey Romanov said...

"Someone spews racist epithets and the burden of proof is on me to believe whatever excuse he claims?"

Ahh, for the last time (for the idiots).

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the racial epithets used for the explicitly stated purpose of provocation by a person who is known for his public disdain for racism and with no previous public record of racism were actually some sort of manifestation of that person's inner racism rather than his ruse, as explicitly stated in the very same comments.

If you propose that the mere act of uttering a racial epithet makes one a racist, then the actors uttering such epithets in movies are racists, FBI agents infiltrating the racist groups are also racist, and anti-racist researchers quoting white supremacists are also racists, etc.

"So now Hot Air is Hate Air and is a hate site?"

The commenters at Hate Air are certainly full of hate. The evidence? You can find it in LGF's "Hot Air comments of the day" postings.

In the end it is notable that you defend the racist statements by Hate Air commenters (calling Michelle Obama a "wookie", etc.), yet you denounce a person who tried to expose (if only clumsily and inefficiently) this racism as a racist.

This certainly raises a question about your own motives. Hmmm...

Aaron said...

> There may be stuff you like or don't like, but at least you'll be dealing with authentic materials.

its seems like to me that this is a denial that these are authentic quotes. What is your proof that he actually said this? i mean, crap, it would be very easy for me to go into one forum or another and claim i am him.

I think if you can't prove it, you have a problem. probably not a defamation law problem, but still a problem.

Sergey Romanov said...

> What is your proof that he actually said this?

How about you click on the links?

> I think if you can't prove it, you have a problem.

The only one with the problem is scumbag McCain.

Sergey Romanov said...

Oh, and one more thing:

"i mean, crap, it would be very easy for me to go into one forum or another and claim i am him."

This betrays your ignorance of Usenet/Google Groups.

Very simply, check the dates on those messages. Then explain why anyone would impersonate McCain in 1996 (when he was a nobody), by writing hundreds of long, often elaborate messages, sometimes of very specific topics (e.g. dealing with Civil War minutiae), all in his inimitable style, betraying a good knowledge of McCain's tastes (Dabney, Calhoun etc.), biography (wife, kids, etc.), and somehow using his AOL e-mail address; and yet not all, maybe not even most of these postings have such an extreme message, and anyway, if anybody would impersonate this nobody in 1996 to somehow discredit him, wouldn't there be a more effective way, like peppering the messages with the n-word?

Sorry, buddy, given all this the burden is on McCain (and "skeptics") to prove that these are not his messages, just like it is a burden of proof on the Holocaust deniers that documents in the archives are fakes.

As for McCain's non-denial denial, it is targeted exactly at lazy people who wouldn't want to dig deeper but would simply accept this wink-wink-nudge-nudge as the last word on the issue.

Except when McCain can refute something, he does, with a vengeance. For example, he castigated Signorile for claiming that McCain had posted on "Reclaiming the South" site, which McCain never did. If he used such a secondary point to beat Signorile with, wouldn't you think that he would use hundreds fake messages to make me a good example to all critics and to suppress the issue once and for all?

But he can't, of course, for the messages are real, and thus he is reduced to dark hints for his "choir".

liontooth.com said...

"(calling Michelle Obama a "wookie", etc.), yet you denounce a person who tried to expose (if only clumsily and inefficiently) this racism as a racist.

This certainly raises a question about your own motives. Hmmm..."

30 years ago I heard males refer to NON-BLACK woman as wookies because a wookie is a space dog. Ugly woman = dog.

"This betrays your ignorance of Usenet/Google Groups."

Which links go to an actual archive of usenet or to google groups? The links of yours I looked at ONLY went to what someone said McCain posted.

Sergey Romanov said...

Oooh, way to go! Now you're justifying calling Michelle Obama a wookie (besides calling her ugly)! You're such a racist loser.

"Which links go to an actual archive of usenet or to google groups? The links of yours I looked at ONLY went to what someone said McCain posted."

All the links to McCain's Usenet messages go Google Groups, as anyone with eyes and even minimal Internet browsing skills can see.

Frankly, you're so stupid I wonder how you even know how to breathe.

liontooth.com said...

Oooh, way to go! Now you're justifying calling Michelle Obama a wookie (besides calling her ugly)! You're such a racist loser.

You defend someone's alleged CLAIM that
they only called black people the N word on hotair to expose supposed racism. A few days later black female bloggers afrocity and baldilocks are banned at LGF. How does anyone know that Kilgore Trout didn't ban them, when he has those privileges at that site? Because your Kilgore Trout's character witness on his reputation?
Aron said,
"its seems like to me that this is a denial that these are authentic quotes. What is your proof that he actually said this? i mean, crap, it would be very easy for me to go into one forum or another and claim i am him."

This betrays your ignorance of Usenet/Google Groups.

You led off your article with the McCain interracial comment. Where is the the original source?

Aron said,
I think if you can't prove it, you have a problem. probably not a defamation law problem, but still a problem.

There isn't a problem until: someone state something as a fact and not as his or her opinion, it is stated maliciously (knowing it's not true), and damages could be collected. When Rachel Maddow was on Meet the Press, this is how she so confidently stated McCain is a White Supremacist:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33145321/ns/meet_the_press/page/5/
"--the last person who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics."

Sergey Romanov said...

Sorry, but after your racist defense of racist slur against Michelle Obama you have no business accusing others of anything else "racist".

Also, now you're trying to hide your idiocy.

At first you wrote: "Which links go to an actual archive of usenet or to google groups? The links of yours I looked at ONLY went to what someone said McCain posted."

Then I pointed out that the Usenet messages I posted were all supplied with proper links to Google Groups Usenet archive, and thus made a total fool of you.

Now you're trying to wiggle out of your predicament:

"You led off your article with the McCain interracial comment. Where is the the original source?"

Aron was clearly talking about the bulk of the material of my article, namely, the properly sourced McCain's Usenet postings. Thus you're being disingenuous.

But even the interracial marriage quote in the introduction is properly sourced TWICE:

1. Signorile's article.

2. The copy of the WHOLE ORIGINAL EXCHGANGE. I.e., McCain's own words, and not what someone said about him.

Are you blind? Cannot you see the links?

(BTW, now I've found the archived version of the original Wheeler page; I relied on another copy, but I will add this link too.)

McCain confirmed the authenticity of the quote to "Founding Bloggers", only whining about how he was misunderstood and it was allegedly out of context (well, I did link to the whole context, in which McCain approvingly quotes a segregationist ideologue Steffgen; didn't help him much, did it?).

Thus, I don't know what your issue is. Nor I don't want to know.

And - enough of this. I've tolerated you long enough and engaged all of your silly arguments at length. I will not waste more time on you. You're beyond redemption and are no longer welcome here. Don't bother commenting again.

Sergey Romanov said...

And idiotic wingnut comments:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/patrick-frey-attempts-walk-back-of.html

"Oh, but of course, he's only scouring the web looking for evidence of WHAT ROBERT SAID, so he'll have evidence to support HIS INSINUATIONS IF NOT OUTRIGHT ALLEGATIONS of Robert's racism. I mean, the post cited by Patrick's not a giveway, eh?, "Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a neo-Confederate wacko extraordinaire." And note that's a leftist blog, so no one would find anything favorable to conservatives there. Clearly, Patrick is comfortable searching for smear sources in the radical left's hate dumps."

This is from the blog's masthead:

"Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!"

These are a coupla banners:

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/marx-brothers.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/commradeobama-1.jpg

I mean, if I were on a level of that creature, I would probably call him a Mussolini, or something.