The supreme irony of this current round of the Little Green Pogrom is that all the people who sat idly by while Charles Johnson slandered some very good people are suddenly finding themselves the target of Johnson’s hate cult. Perhaps unwilling to build the bridges they burned while tacitly supporting Johnson’s outrageous attacks, many of those people are looking for allies in all the wrong places. Case in point, Robert Stacy McCain, a blogger of widespread fame and dubious medical knowledge, linked to a neo-Confederate site called Old Rebel in a post he wrote which was designed to illustrate his willingness to engage with people he disagrees with, which would of course stand in stark contrast to noted smear merchant Charles Johnson. Or as McCain (ironically it turns out) put it:
My willingness to consider the arguments of people with whom I do not always agree is deeply implicated in my imbroglio with the Mad King of LGF, whose totalitarian theory of Charles Johnson supremacism does not permit him to tolerate the presence of anyone he suspects of doubting his theory. His protestations of his own “tolerance” are just so many more self-serving lies that Charles tells himself to justify his sadistic cruelty toward those who dare disagree with him.
A fair point that I would think could be made without linking to a man who thinks Republican support for the 1964 Civil Rights act was wrong (now we darkies are drinking from the Whites Only fountains!) and is calling for secession, but I could be wrong and it really isn’t my business who he links to.
But the real story begins when said Old Rebel drops into the comments on that post recycling a paragraph that he’s used both on his blog on and no doubt all over the web where he yammers on about neo-cons (Jews), lefty atheists, and “War Fetishists” which is a term he uses frequently to describe avant-garde political blogger Great Satan’s Girlfriend. We know this because in his comment and on his blog when he uses the term he links to G.S.G.F’s front page. This too would have been inconsequential except that G.S.G.F was not allowed to respond. I know this because I keep up with the blogger, who I blogrolled when I first came across her because I frankly like to see something different on this big, boring Internet. But even if I didn’t I’d know now because McCain petulantly announced he wasn’t going to let her respond on a separate blog post.
I say petulantly, but I could also call the post childish, heavy-handed, and snobbish. To be sure G.S.G.F. is a wild ride not to everyone’s liking, but hardly worthy of the insults he bandies about:
Which brings me to the subject of CourtneyME109, a/k/a “Great Satan’s Girlfiend.” What’s she all about? Where’s she coming from? Beats me. Without any attempt at complex political analysis, I’d recommend she cut down on her Red Bull intake.
[…]
Courtney, I’m at a loss to understand the meaning or purpose of the comments you keep trying to leave at my blog, which is why they are not being approved.
Nothing personal, you understand, but when I see terms like “Totenkopf” and “Confauxderate” in your comments, with wild assertions about connections between unrelated historical events, the choice between “publish” and “reject” isn’t really difficult.
I left a comment on that post that, in a nutshell, says that whether you like her writing or not, a gentleman allows a woman who is being insulted with a sexualized term like “war fetishist” to defend herself. I also pointed out the irony of posting about how tolerant you are while not allowing comments to be published on your site that you don’t like the style of. This did not sit well with McCain’s newest groupie Old Rebel; he decided to take this one outside, so to speak, and fired off this direct to email missive:
I decided to send this to you directly rather than hijack McCain’s site for an off-topic discussion.
BTW, I might object to the tern “neo-Confederate,” seeing as how that’s the term the leftists use to smear Southerners who actually want to defend their heritage, but that’s another issue.
As to “war-fetishist.” What’s a better name for it? Anyone who glories in the death of innocent civilians, as she did when 45 Afghan civilians scrounging for fuel were murdered from above this month, has a “thing” about violence. Toss in all the soft porn that decorates reports of US mayhem, and we have a site that normal people shun.
“Chickenhawk” is over-used, though accurate in its condemnation of armchair-bound patriots cheering on overseas violence, and “ballistophilia” may be more accurate, but neither conveys the depth of depravity we’re discussing.
Make your own suggestions.
Mike
And here is my response to Mike and any other McCain groupie/neo-Confederate/cretin who emails me for no reason when it comes to the “depravity” of “chickenhawks” and other asinine faux-rightism:
How about something that doesn’t sexualize a teenage girl due to some disagreement with her, after all I doubt you would have called Reagan, the man who defeated Sovietism by threatening military intervention and supporting many foreign wars, a “fetishist.” The pseudo-pacifistic foreign policy based on a complete misunderstanding of the Imperialist impulse of Islam that you share with both communists and White Nationalists could be best described as a peacenik circle jerk and your definition of soft core porn to include fully clothed women has been described by me in other places when used by other hippies, sorry I mean rebels, as Buchanan-esque Christianized Communism. However, if either of those things were posted about you in my comments section I’d allow you to respond.
And that is the point here. Whether McCain finds her writing pretentious or not, after being called a war fetishist out of the blue in a discussion not concerned with her Courtney deserves the courtesy to a response. McCain just Charles Johnsoned her. That you aren’t concerned with that speaks to your character, or more precisely lack of it.
You come here and call me depraved and a chickenhawk, in private of course like the degenerate coward you are, because I support defending American interests abroad, standing with our allies and at 38, haven’t joined our all volunteer military? I suppose since you won’t join the border patrol but complain about illegal immigration you too are a “chickenhawk” but perhaps also in the original meaning since you display an unseemly interest in some teen girl.
If you object to neo-Confederate being a term applied to you I suggest you stop masturbating to thoughts of secession and pining away for the days when traitors and terrorists (Confederates and Klansmen who were also Confederates) sought to defend the State’s rights … to keep slaves. I’m proud to now call South Carolina my home and have no interest in telling people not to feel a healthy dose of southern pride, but when I saw your blog the top post was about the time for seceding from the Union being nigh, and another post decried the Republican support for the 1964 Civil Rights bill which outlawed racial segregation in public places. The Republican form of government is designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, you seem to support the tyranny of the majority suppressing the individual.
Which explains why you and Stacy McCain have no problem acting like Charles Johnson and not allowing someone you attack in his comments an opportunity to respond. In those same comments you proudly call yourself a Confederate, then cry like a stunted shut-in when I call you a neo-Confederate. Aside from being a Falangist whose “conservatism” seems to keep him on the side of communists, neo-Nazis and various other scum on most policy issues, you are also a hypocrite. I’m not surprised.
While you call me a “chickenhawk” and depraved, Red Alerts has worked with child advocates to support victims of child molestation and expose pedophiles on the Web. It was Red Alerts, working with Pagans Against Child Abuse, that exposed child exploitation on the Ning networks and due to our work changed the way Pagan sites were run, and P.A.C.A. with which Red Alerts is proudly affiliated, has gotten several child porn trading Ning networks shut down. What have you done while we “chickenhawks” kept children from being sexually exploited? Stalked some teen on the web like the racist pervert you are?
I’ll post this conversation on my site so you can respond there because as the RedAlertstips email account would suggest, this is an account for tips for Red Alerts not an outlet for some misogynist’s latency. Which reminds me, Anton LaVey wrote an excellent essay on misogyny you should read. I believe it is in the otherwise mediocre The Devil’s Notebook. Anyway to sum it up he says that when men attack women in a sexualized or misogynist manner it’s because they are either undeveloped sexually or are suppressing their homosexuality, both of which causes them to lash out angrily at women because they lack the ability to compete for straight men’s attention as well as the awareness of their desire for that attention. Rather un-PC and mostly tosh of course but as a neo-Confederate, oh I’m sorry you prefer the term Pro-freedom (except for Black folk) Confederate sympathizer, it seems right up your alley.
Thanks for reading Red Alerts!
Rob Taylor
I must admit that though I know of The Other McCain I am not a reader of it. I had thought of blogging about his Charles Johnsoning of G.S.G.F. prior to Old Rebel contacting me in a cursory way but frankly he and all the other big name Conservative blogs on the web now under fire by Johnson after watching him slander Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and dozens of others are reaping their virtual rewards for their perfidy and moral cowardice. But this goes beyond the hypocrisy of McCain and his ineptitude at digging up allies that will help him defend himself against charges of racism.
His tolerance of human garbage like Old Rebel does not make him better than Charles Johnson. In fact, since he and Johnson share similar levels of pettiness (was the post about G.S.G.F. really necessary? Only if you’re a big name blogger looking to humiliate a young girl) his tolerance of Old Rebel is slightly worse. But that’s not what galls me the most.
Red Alerts will never be as big as the some of the more shameless promoters (McCain) and won’t be getting links from Hot Air after my first mention, but I have done some good with it and I’m proud of that. While the Old Rebels of the world go around claiming people like me and G.S.G.F. are “chickenhawks” and “war fetishists” lusting after innocent Muslim blood I’ve helped raise awareness of child sexual exploitation, organized for political causes, and just as importantly, played a small role in getting the word out on some of great sites and writers, G.S.G.F. included.
When McCain plays an admittedly minor role in denigrating those things, by giving an unchallenged platform to a degenerate traitor who wants the United States to break apart, wishes Blacks were never granted the right to enter White-only public spaces, and more importantly, runs an electronic smear campaign on a college co-ed he doesn’t like, he exposes that Charles Johnson’s anti-McCain hatchet job may have accidentally stumbled onto something in pointing out McCain has an affinity for unseemly characters. Maybe this is Johnson’s broken clock moment.
That McCain can produce enough venom to spew at G.S.G.F. over a relatively minor inconvenience (I receive incoherent emails and comments fairly often) which may or may not have happened at all (we are never shown the comment in question, so we don’t know how incoherent it even is), but is warm and congenial with a neo-Confederate he supposedly disagrees with is eyebrow raisingly similar to Charles Johnson’s cozy relationship the violent communist and anarchist groups he uses as sources for his hit pieces, and his unprovoked attacks on even his own readers who deviate from his expectations. Which is amusing since McCain was pointing out that flaw in Johnson’s character when this started.
Of course I’m not saying that McCain has anything to do with Old Rebel and his attacks on G.S.G.F. or me except to point out that he’s McCain’s newest groupie, and he’s no different than Killgore Trout. Maybe McCain should change his blog’s name to The Other LGF.
Funny how someone like Charles Johnson in a Leftist manner lumps Robert S. McCain and his groupies as part of the “Right”. Yet the “right-wingers” Johnson seems to be upset about also hate advocates against sexual predators?
Mah29001
I have a problem with anyone who is upset with people fighting sexual predators, regardless of what they label themselves.
He should have just written a post titled “LOL WUT?” with those comments as the body of the post and let others interpret it for him. It was definitely bizarre and I could respect his reason for not wanting to allow the comment. But you are right in that going through the effort he expended to poke fun at GSGF was poorly handled. But comparing him to Chas Johnson? Ouch. Isn’t that a bit much?
And thanks for pointing out another great blogger at GSGF.
u c mountains
i c molehills……….
I see an adult using textspeak like a teen. But beyond that how does your hipster douching of some old fashioned “wisdom” even apply. Old Rebel is a racist who thinks states should have had the option of remaining segregated (in defiance of the Constitutional rights all Americans have) and McCain published him to prove he was more open minded than Charles Johnson.
But his treatment of G.S.G.F was Johnsonesque to say the least, so I pointed out his hypocrisy. Where’s the mountain or the molehill?
A……you don’t know I’m an adult.
B…..that ain’t textspeak, it comes from a semi-faux rape case round about 1990. (u c Bears i c rapists)
C…..you’re doing it again. Totally overreacting, that is. This isn’t “hate mail.” I’m not attacking you. I’m just saying that that is one hell of a long post with one hell of a lot of links just to say that you think McCain was kind of rude to whoever this girl happens to be………..and by the by, I’ve visited her site and I have to admit that I find her to be about 90 percent incomprehensible……too much “hipster douching” or something………..
A) I do.
B) Semi-faux rape isn’t a term I understand. Are you saying it was a falsely reported attempted rape or case that was almost proven false, but is assumed to be true. In any case this isn’t middle school so let’s spell things out.
C) You’re projecting. I didn’t say this was hate mail, or that you were attacking me. I said I disagree that I’m making a mountain out of a molehill.You’re crying about it.
War fetishists is a sexualized term Old Rebel only uses to refer to one college coed. Whether you find her writing comprehensible or not it’s simply poor form to not only keep her from responding, but to announce it in a post designed simply to add to her humiliation. Why it upsets you that I think this is beyond me.
If my posts are too long for you that says something about you, since this particular one was shorter than an essay or magazine article.
I’d give you the same advice RSM gave “Great Satan’s Girl Friend” — lay off the stimulants.
Yes, I’m appalled at the bloodlust of the pro-war, any-war crowd, who glory in the exercise of military power, totally unconcerned about the suffering of innocent civilians — and that’s DC’s chief export, not “freedom,” which is whitewash for its war crimes. When someone mocks desperate peasants scrounging for fuel with the caption, “Love it to Death!”, that’s sick, and nothing you say will make it otherwise. And yes, to decorate a site that glorifies war with topless photos and suggestive fantasy cartoons is making a fetish of bloody mayhem. If that’s your thing, fine, but do not pretend there’s anything benevolent or good about it. It’s sick, pure and simple.
Your juvenile gibes about the conservative Southern tradition sounds like something from the playbook of the far left — just another example of a muddled mind at work.
“Yes, I’m appalled at the bloodlust of the pro-war, any-war crowd, who glory in the exercise of military power, totally unconcerned about the suffering of innocent civilians — and that’s DC’s chief export, not “freedom,†which is whitewash for its war crimes.”
Yes, I read that same thing when Code Pink wrote it. Like most “Conservatives” of your ilk you’re simply a tool for Communists. You’re literally saying our brave men and women of the military are blood thirsty barbarians killing civilians for fun when facts show differently. Our rules of engagement are the strictest and most life saving in the world, and only the vilest person would pretend that our troops do anything but try their best keep innocent civilians alive.
“And yes, to decorate a site that glorifies war with topless photos and suggestive fantasy cartoons is making a fetish of bloody mayhem. If that’s your thing, fine, but do not pretend there’s anything benevolent or good about it. It’s sick, pure and simple.”
What’s sick is the overlay of sexuality you put on the site after making false claims about it. G.S.G.F. doesn’t fetishize war, you fetishize G.S.G.F. There are no topless photos on it, and there is nothing more risqué than you find on Stacy McCain’s blog. I notice he isn’t a “fetishist” according to you. Am I not supposed to find it odd that even while insulting me you make no sexual references, but continue to make one particular teenage girl?
Let me tell you what the real fetish is here. You are the one who put a link to G.S.G.F. in the comments of a blog that had nothing to do with her. You do this on a regular basis no doubt, which is in part an anonymous attempt to humiliate and degrade a young girl (or an anonymous blogger who you think is a young girl but could certainly be a man with a great gimmick) who you are both attracted to and repulsed by. This virtual sadism is usually combined with porn surfing for violent images. You claim she’s putting up nudity when there is none, suggesting to me that you’re overlaying what you WANT to be on her site with reality.
This activity takes the place of the sado-masochistic relationships you actually desire. You find a girl who is “wrong” and punish her on the Internet through what you see as public humiliation. This is just the latest in a string of “relationships” you’ve had based on similar dynamics. Prior to you being on the web you harassed women either by spreading rumors about them or making false reports to civil agencies. You have a history of abusing women, but only in the most passive aggressive ways.
I made no gibes at southern culture, only at anti-Republic confederalism. But because of your passive aggressive nature you set up a more easily arguable straw man and bring the true object of your hatred, young women, back into view. You’re much more submissive in your comments to me than either to “Courtney” or when commenting about her. Why is that? Again, it’s because your true goal in all of this is misogynist. You are simply trying to get men to take your side against the representation of what you despise the most. I theorize that this is due to some unresolved latent homosexual feelings, that you are in essence trapped in the pre-adolescent “I hate girls” phase of your sexual development. All the women I’ve shown your comments to concur.
Am I right? Don’t bother answering we all know I haven’t said anything you haven’t heard before. But it doesn’t feel good to have your online activities used to have a person make assumptions about your sexual dysfunctions does it? Of course the difference here is that I’m correct. But if you were a decent person you might take this lesson and apply it to your dealings with women online in the future. But since you’re simply a racist pervert of some type I’m sure you’ll claim I’m the lefty (even though you recycle Marxist propaganda on your site) and I hate southerners (even though I moved to South Carolina because I love it here) rather than address the odd sexualized fixation you have on some girl’s blog.
It’s sad really…
I know it’s racist, misogynist, and communist to provide facts in a debate, but I guess I can’t help myself:
http://greatsatansgirlfriend.blogspot.com/search?q=britney
Google. It’s your friend in a debate. That is, unless you’re talking nonsense, which you can’t seem to help.
My “fixation” is to rein in an out-of-control, increasingly authoritarian government which is hell-bound to project its control over its subjects at home and establish hegemony abroad. If you’re happy with the socialist system taking shape in DC, then may your chains sit lightly upon you. The greatest threat to our liberty lies within the District of Corruption, not from peasants in Afghanistan resisting invaders.
And for you information, I have the highest respect for our troops — Southerners have long disproportionately filled the ranks of US armed forces. My cousin was one. He’s back from his third tour, and is a nervous wreck, so changed from the happy-go-lucky man he used to be that his wife could not live with his mood swings. She and his two daughters have left him. And that’s one of thousands such stories. And for what? What?
Anyone who glorifies such an evil regime must be made to see what they’re promoting, especially when they attempt to package militarism and bloodshed in a sexy package. It is not a sin to observe what such people do.
*Gasp* Half a nipple! By the Gods! And all you had to do was go back to December of 08 on a post completely unrelated war! You know a post about…Brittney Spears. Your claim is that G.S.G.F. uses topless photos (in the plural) to promote murder and war. The reality is that on a post about a celebrity G.S.G.F. ran a commonly available photo of that celebrity. You call this “porn” but you and I both know Brittney Spears makes no porn, that tasteful (or not) semi-nudes are only porn if you also consider statues of Venus porn and this post on her blog had nothing to do with what you accuse her of, which is receiving sexual enjoyment from images and reports of warfare which is what a fetishist does.
“”My “fixation†is to rein in an out-of-control, increasingly authoritarian government which is hell-bound to project its control over its subjects at home and establish hegemony abroad. If you’re happy with the socialist system taking shape in DC, then may your chains sit lightly upon you. The greatest threat to our liberty lies within the District of Corruption, not from peasants in Afghanistan resisting invaders.””
No your fixation is on what you think is an 18 or 19 year-old girl. Your politics are separate from that, except in this case where you use them as a cover for your sexual perversion. You aren’t calling the government or D.C> war fetishists, you’re calling some teen girl that. One that is not part of D.C. so even if this sentence was true (it isn’t) you’re basically admitting to transferring your animosity from D.C. onto her.
“If you’re happy with the socialist system taking shape in DC, then may your chains sit lightly upon you. The greatest threat to our liberty lies within the District of Corruption, not from peasants in Afghanistan resisting invaders.”
Another straw man. I’m to the right f you and you have not only promoted socialist propaganda but the Marxist agenda of Europe and the Bolivarian revolution in Latin America. Those afghan peasants sheltered Al-Qaeda before and after the first WTC bombing (which my mother was in the area for) the attack on the U.S.S.Cole, 9/11 (which my mother was also in the area for) and other terror attacks. You’re answer to this is that we could simply stop Islamic expansionism by “minding our business” but that’s a position that literally ignores history. There is currently a Jihad against Buddhists. I dare say Buddhist have not expanded into Muslim lands. That Jihad exists because Islam is an imperialist religion that judges cultures by their reactions to it. Weakness is exploited, strength is respected.
But this is a distraction from the issue. You’re cyber stalking some teen because you’re an impotent (metaphorically speaking) pervert. You call me a communist to distract from that point. I’m not “in chains” because I point out how unseemly you are.
“And for you information, I have the highest respect for our troops”
No, you don’t. Anyone who accuses our troops of murder does not respect them.
“My cousin was one. He’s back from his third tour, and is a nervous wreck, so changed from the happy-go-lucky man he used to be that his wife could not live with his mood swings. She and his two daughters have left him. And that’s one of thousands such stories. And for what? What?
As for your cousin, since you’re prone to lying I don’t doubt that this to is an embellishment. But if it were true having people like you claiming he participated in murder for no reason wouldn’t help him now would it?
“Anyone who glorifies such an evil regime must be made to see what they’re promoting, especially when they attempt to package militarism and bloodshed in a sexy package.”
So America’s evil, the Taliban is innocent and everyone who doesn’t repeat communist propaganda like that are actually communists. That’s what you’re saying? That wanting other countries women to be free from being sold as child bride, raped when they are toddlers is evil. That demanding the Middle East stop exporting Jihadists to Africa is evil. That sitting back and watching Muslims destroy the world would be good.
And to prove it you follow a teen girl around the web calling her a fetishist. You’re not just a pervert, you’re craven. You won’t confront Islam even as it is poised to destroy Western Civilization, but you can spread rumors about some girl like you’re the eight grade drama queen snubbed for a party. Again this is passive aggressive nonsense. You should be ashamed to be a supposed adult involved in this sort of psychodrama.
But the reality is that you don’t really care about any of that, it’s a mask. What you care about is using this hodge-podge of political beliefs as an outlet for your racism, misanthropy and most important for you misogyny. Even after I’ve insulted and berated you your correspondence with me remains much more cordial than with Courtney. Why? Because you want to turn me against the girl. Why? Because I, as a man who seems stronger and more confident than you am the object of your affection, my “relationship” with Courtney, and my defending her, makes you jealous. It was Anton LaVey who said people who hate women are secretly harboring Homosexual feelings and their hatred is caused by the desire to compete with women for straight men’s attention. It’s the one thing he wrote that he was 100% correct.
It’s also funny, in this light, that you reserve so much venom her and use the term “sin’ to describe your behavior. Clearly you know that you are sinning, perhaps in your heart when you think about me! But lying, bearing false witness and generally attacking women are all sins in the Bible aren’t they?
You should send me your address so I can mail you a bill for all this therapy I’m giving you. I’m betting I can fix you in a couple of more sessions.
Yeah, you’re a strong and confident man with a masterly command of facts and logic. Great grammarian, too. Oh, and a mind-reader! My cousin, a master sergeant, doesn’t exist. Got it.
So why can you can only offer mis-aimed personal insults instead of a rational argument?
Here’s something to think about. Who’s supporting a government that’s actively importing Muslims to colonize our country? Who’s really clueless about the Muslim threat to our civilization?
Pathetic.
Because the point I made isn’t about Muslims, it’s about you. I wrote a post about you and your attacks on someone, you’re deflecting. I don’t care what you think about Muslims or anything else. I care about a supposed man running around spreading sexualized insults about some girl. You’re the pathetic one who has yet to explain how you can possibly think this is appropriate behavior.
And indeed I am a mind reader. My insults were not mis-aimed and in fact were based on deductive reasoning. Your comments are a collection of anti-American agi-prop I’ve literally seen on communist sites and attacks on the character of a teen girl. Who is pathetic then?
When you want to talk more about that subject, or something I’ve actually posted, we can have a discussion. If you want to distract everyone by regurgitating arguments you’ve lifted from Code Pink do it n your own blog.
Ohhh — deductive reasoning! And a mind reader! Oh nooooo!
How did I ever think I could stand up to you?
Listen, Sparky, you raised the issue: “You won’t confront Islam even as it is poised to destroy Western Civilization.” So I responded, and apparently, you’re not able to answer back, so you whine again and toss out insults instead of argument.
I love chewing up mediocre debaters, but you’re not even up to that level.
Keep swallowing those government lies. Meanwhile, our liberties and tax dollars are being swept up by the evil empire. Enjoy your status as loyal subject.
If you want a real debate, post some rebuttal at my site — all in the interest of fair play. I promise to be gentle.
No “Old Rebel” you raised the subject as a distraction from my original point, the unseemliness of a “man” going around making sexualized references about some girl he disagrees with online, often in venues that are unrelated to her.
Let’s focus. Why is the teen girl a “war fetishist” while I am not? Why is Stacy McCain not a war fetishist? Why is he not peddling pornography since he posts scantily clad women on his site? Why duck these questions and make it a political debate?
You tell me why it is acceptable for you to post this sexualized smear of G.S.G.F. in random comment sections and why is it unreasonable for someone to allow her to respond? Why is your answer to any question about this outrageous behavior to vomit out Ron Paul’s foreign policy couched in communist anti-American rhetoric?
“Those afghan peasants sheltered Al-Qaeda before and after the first WTC bombing”
What an ignorant and hateful thing to say.
These are poor people scavenging for a living. What control did they have over al Qaeda fighters holed up in remote mountains?
Clearly you think they had it coming. And I suppose you feel the same way about the innocent civilians who were murdered in wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s contemptible. Does judging who should live or die make you feel powerful? Do you understand Christian just war doctrine? This bloody globalist empire violates it every day. And you’re cool with that.
I can see that words have no meaning for you and that rational argument has no effect. I observe someone glamorizing mass murder, and I’m a pervert. I oppose the destruction of Western civilization, and I’m a Marxist.
As I said before, you really need to cut out the stimulants.
Fact remains Old Rebel — you slammed her and then stood by as RSM shut her out. Hardly impressing.
Especially as RSM himself published a link to her Britney essay – in fact – if you check both their sites chronologically – seems like RSM may have got the Rule 5 from her.
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/01/britneys-titneys.html
Glamorizing mass murder? Got a link for that? She supports ‘Great Satan” and all America’s interventionist and military operations worldwide.
All that shows is that 911 impacted her tremendously and her observations are generally dead on. Her cutting edge style, use of codewords, lack of tags and hot pictures enhances her appeal and that of her message.
Why not ask RSM to post her response?
Infidelis Maximus,
RSM has never told me how to run my blog, and I don’t tell him how to run his.
Yes, “glamorizing mass murder,” with soft porn images adorning a site that cheers on the exercise of DC’s military power. The illegal and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed 5,000 Americans, at least 50,000 Iraqis, and 20,000 Afghanis. And that blog promotes an attack on Iran, which has not threatened us. Of course, neither had Iraq or Afhanistan — those wars were based on government lies, and here we are about to do the same in Iran.
Enough is enough!
Old Rebel does your back hurt carrying around all those straw men? Let’s stick to the point. Aren’t you the hateful and contemptible pro-Jihadists stalking a teen on the Internet to satisfy your misogyny? Aren’t you the person making up lies about G.S.G.F. and now about me because we won’t call the greatest nation in the world an “evil empire” the very same term Hugo Chavez and William Bloom use? Aren’t you the person who is siding with Communists but calling me a communist?
I’d say you were just a troll but it is clear you’re much more pathological. I see that you have never responded to one of my charges but you expect everyone else to take your, which are based on a fantasy world you’ve created, seriously. Focus. You make sexualized false charges about G.S.G.F., why is that appropriate? Because you think she peddles “soft porn” and bloodlust? But if you’re promoting the idea that someone’s behavior not being to your liking means you can treat them in uncivilized and disrespectful ways aren’t you promoting an un-American discourse? Aren’t you spitting in the face of the idea of competing ideas by supporting Courtney being shut out of RSM and by attempting to humiliate her out of the blogging world?
And why shouldn’t I go from place to place where they wouldn’t allow you to post responses and spread rumors about your sexual peculiarities?
Old Rebel, I’m curious to know why you’re so insistent that GSGF be a one dimensional blog focused on either titillating pictures or war in the Middle East? Certainly Stacy McCain writes about everything from homeschooling his kids to religion to crime. And yes, like GSGF, Stacy’s blog has political stories and pictures of scantily clad women, gasp, sometimes on the same day!
The same observation could be made of any of the blogs that participate in Stacy’s “Rule 5 Sunday,” not to mention influential blogs like Ace of Spades HQ. So why is it so offensive when a woman you happen to have political disagreements with adorns a few posts with pictures of attractive women? And why no outcry when male bloggers do the same?
Rob Taylor,
You’re hallucinating. Again.
When did I call you a communist? You’ve dropped that laughable insult at me several times. Which is understandable, since you don’t have anything else.
However, when someone describes helpless peasants getting blasted by brave heroes in jet fighters with the caption, “Love it to Death,” I have to call that glorifying war and violence.
Jenn Q. Public,
Actually, I’m an equal-opportunity blogger who calls all sofa samurai and laptop bombardiers hypocrites. For example, you could check out Americaneocon’s comment sections, and you’ll see I’ve strenuously objected to his warmongering, too.
When someone starts debating by commenting on their site, as GSGF did on mine, they’re inviting rebuttal. No sane person can look at Great Satan Girlfriend’s site and not conclude that war is not only glamorized, but advocated, as she’s doing now against Iran, so “war porn” is apt.
Old Rebel,
How convenient for you! You get away with a drive by slur and then merrily duck any responsibility.
You are in the wrong here, Old Rebel – regardless of what you think of The Great Satan’s Girl Friend – to go out to a different site – slam her – then disappear when she’s banned from responding.
It is deceitful.
I think RSM didn’t have a clue what she was going on about – “confederate” and ‘totenkof” do seem confusing.
But I bet you knew. And you let it happen. Why? Are you so fearful of what her response might be?
Wouldn’t Southern Chivalry demand that you at least ask RSM to allow her a response?
Infidelis Maximus,
I haven’t gone anywhere. Anyone who wants to comment on my blogs is cordially invited to do so. I even publish the insulting comments — and actually, those can be the most fun to rebut. I’ve published every one of GSGF’s comments at Conservative Heritage Times, even when she was ‘way out of line. But I’m used to it — you gotta develop a thick skin if you want to be a blogger.
Anyway, since you were (relatively) more civil than the excitable Mr. Taylor, I will agree to ask RSM to publish her response. She may take her best shot at me.
Old Rebel, I have zero problem with individuals expressing ideological differences on the necessity or advisability of overseas warfare. I’m all for strenuous debate. But your reply to me doesn’t explain how the juxtaposition of eye candy and pro-war commentary is somehow more egregious on GSGF than on any other hawkish blog that posts Britney in a bikini (or Obama in swim trunks, for that matter.)
GSGF has a very successful shtick that helps her reach a lot of readers with her opinions. Sexy photos are part of that shtick. You don’t have to like what she’s doing. It just seems to me that your prudish reaction to the imagery on her site undermines your ideological arguments, whatever they may be.
And here’s a tip: don’t ever visit Theo Spark’s site. You might have to gouge your eyes out in a public display of puritanical righteousness.
It’s telling that you think I’m “excited” by what is boilerplate faux-rightism. More so that you are ducking the real issue. Why are male “neo-cons” (Jews?) warmongers while the teen girl you stalk is a war fetishist? Why is G.S.G.F. peddling “porn” disgusting, but just recently you’ve cyber-fellated Stacy McCain on your site when his is very much involved in disseminating glamour shots and promoting our “evil empire” as you call it.
My point is, and continues to be, that you’re using politics as a cover for unseemly and unmanly behavior. Your answer is to pretend I’m hysterical about it. You’re partially right, as your textbook latency and comical hypocrisy do leave me in hysterics. But don’t flatter yourself into thinking we’re debating anything other than how long it’ll be before you’re picked up on a domestic violence beef.
Pingback: Stacy McCain Knows I Didn’t Compare Him to John Wayne Gacy : Greenville Dragnet
Pingback: ‘Cult of Degenerates’ : The Other McCain
Pingback: Self-Proclaimed Pagan Rob Taylor Lectures Conservatives on Morality? : The Other McCain
Pingback: With ‘Friends’ Like These… « The Camp Of The Saints