Friday, September 25, 2009

Remember, a link is not an endorsement

I sometimes link the New York Times, which has never seen fit to repudiate Walter Duranty, whose Stalinist propaganda amounted to a cover-up for the "terror famine" and the show trials.

I sometimes link Andrew Sullivan, who . . . well, do I really need to specify exactly what kind of demented wackjob Sully has become in the past few years?

So the bloody LGF wars have come to this: I got an e-mail from Paleo Pat demanding linkage. It seems the old boy has finally had it up to here with Charles F---ing Johnson, and composed The Most Purposefully Offensive Blog Post in the History of the Internet.

Don't click that link. Whatever you do, DO NOT click that link. I do not support, condone or endorse the foul language -- including offensive racial terms -- employed by a Georgia good ol' boy when he's been called a "racist" once too often. Paleo Pat describes himself as a "fellow brother in Jesus Christ," so I reckon he figures the Good Lord can forgive him, but I expect a few other folks would be kinda judgmental, you might say.

Therefore, please, I beg you, don't click that link.

Once the name-calling starts, you never know where it's going to end. This is what I've tried to explain to people who like to throw around casual accusations of raaaaacism. If the word loses its meaning from overuse, if people figure out that, merely because they vote Republican, they're going to be called "racist" no matter what they say or do . . . well, all bets are off, see?

So while I understand the blind fury of Paleo Pat's outraged indignation, I again remind you that a link is not an endorsement. Whatever you do, don't click that link. You have been warned.


  1. Wow, Dude!

    Personally, I have G-G-Grandparents who served on both sides. So I can be a member of the SCV, the "Sons of Union Veterans", and the "Sons of The American Legion". (Charter member in the last. My old Daddy signed me up when I was about 3 months old.)

    Nyuck, nyuck!

    Whatever. I'll fight my own wars, if I have to, and respect, but not revere, any of my ancestry. But no one, Rebel or Yankee, has any more dice in the game than I do. They talk of the War of Brother against Brother?

    That's not any worse than the war of Grandpa against Grandpa. The Late Unpleasantness is History, and should be treated as such. We are where we are, and rehashing the 1860's is not helping anyone, regardless of their political persuasion.

    But my Confederate G-G-Grandfather reminds me to note, for the record:

    "Fergit? Hell!"

    And the Yankee one waives the Star Spangled Banner at the same time. I'm bipartisan on the War Between the States.


  2. Why don't you link to my blog? You racist.

  3. Wow. I'd call a "ransom note method" violation on that post.

    Lincoln was playing a very delicate game in the Lincoln-Douglas race. Douglas, who was the fight of his political life after the failure of Kansas-Nebraska and the judicial activism of Dred Scott, made a decision to save himself mostly with race-baiting. He repeatedly accused Lincoln of being part of a conspiracy with radical abolitionists to destroy the Whig Party and replace it with a Abolitionist Party with the express intention of demographically swamping Illinois and bringing about immediate social equality between black and white.

    (This campaign tactic lives on among the Democrats of course: note Creigh Deeds desperately shouting about McDonnell's "extreme social agenda." I will note that Douglas ran the same campaign in the entire state, though, UNLIKE Deeds.)

    Now, where was I? Right. Lincoln had earlier made some statements essentially about how we all need to get beyond race and do the right thing for the country, so Douglas harped on those as the absolute proof of his conspiracy theory. Lincoln needed to shore up support among anti-Abolitionist Whigs, so he said what he had to say without ever compromising on the core issue of re-containing slavery and putting it back on a glide-path to its eventual abolition. To continue my metaphor, he did the equivalent of the politician who says he opposes abortion except in the cases of rape and incest. Approximately 80% of Americans support abortion in those cases, and approximately 80% of Illinoisans opposed social equality for blacks. And just as the Christian Right today generally supports those inconsistent politicians, so did the abolitionist Christian Right of Illinois of 1858.

  4. For more background on LGF, may I suggest the following websites: (now woefully out of date!)