R.S. McCain accuses me of being a violent militant

So, I wake up this morning all hung over and whatnot and thus decide to spend the day doing nothing, and then I see that there’s a trackback thingy on my most recent blog post here, and it’s ol’ Robert Stacy McCain having a go at me in his inimitable way. The main point seems to be that I’m arrogant and narcissistic, which should be news to exactly four people, but there are also some untrue and occasionally downright weird claims made that I should probably address. First, though, I should draw attention to this line he delivers in the midst of a prior discussion on trolling:

And Robin of Berkeley lays her finger on an important point in suggesting trolls “intermix trolling with downloading internet porn.”

As a longtime troll, I can confirm this. And speaking of trolling, a very old friend of mine who’s a news producer at an affiliate back east appears to have left a couple of comments over there in the guise of Marvin Olasky, as he likes to do for reasons that would take too long to explain but which involve a series of incidents from ten years ago coupled with the fact that Olasky looks funny and has an amusing name. He actually had Stacy going for a minute there, too, but then had to go and blow his cover by writing, “In fact, if anyone wants any dirt on the dude, just axe me.” The guy really does have dirt on me, though.

Anywho, allow me to go through all of this paragraph by paragraph:

This past summer, during the uproar over the Michael Hastings Rolling Stone article about Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Barrett Brown wrote an article for Vanity Fair‘s Web site criticizing National Review editor Rich Lowry for his dismissive attitude toward Hastings’ article. And then something weird happened. Three weeks later, Brown posted this video “challenging” Lowry to respond:

Then he posts a video in which I do just that. So far so good.

What Brown has dramatized here is his sense of his own importance, and his frustration at the refusal of the world to recognize that importance. There is a yawning chasm of cognitive dissonance between Brown’s grandiose self-concept and the feedback he is receiving from the indifferent world.

I don’t know how to go about disproving such a thing so I’ll let it stand. But here’s when everything gets wacky:

Notice, however, that Brown speaks of “my colleague Michael Hastings,” expressing a collegiality that probably exists mainly in Brown’s mind. Brown and Hastings both had blogs at True/Slant, the now-defunct site which, despite funding from Forbes Media and Fuse Capital, flamed out in 15 months after publishing such memorable works as Rick Ungar’s “Send the Body to Glenn Beck.” But while Brown and Hastings were both True/Slant contributors, it wasn’t like they were hanging out around the office coffee machine, swapping stories.

No kidding; Hastings was spending his time largely between Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vermont at that point whereas I wasn’t. What’s odd about this is that I actually mention in the article to which he links, by way of full disclosure, that Hastings and I have a professional relationship (as I’ll note in a moment, McCain is unfamiliar with the concept of full disclosure). We talked on the phone several times and exchanged some number of e-mails both before and after he came out with the McChrystal piece, as Hastings is interested in Project PM and the two of us have certain shared goals in terms of media reform and have had run-ins with some of the same publications (which is another story altogether). I did radio interviews immediately after the McChrystal thing because I knew some of the back story to the article as well as Hastings’ view on journalism. In fact, he even provided the cover blurb for my upcoming book. Again, some of this is noted in the very article to which McCain himself links in the course of making the case that I am crazy because I refer to Hastings as my “colleague,” and the rest can be confirmed by Andrew Sullivan, with whom I discussed the events after he linked to my piece. So, yeah, that’s weird.

So here is Brown, staring into the camera and addressing “Rich” as if he were talking to a buddy, while referring to Hastings as his colleague, in a video recorded July 15 — three weeks after the June 23 publication of the Vanity Fair piece that Brown references, and two weeks before True/Slant’s July 29 shutdown. The timing seems significant, as if this were a cry for help.

True/Slant was a fine little outfit but it paid less than any of the other outlets for which I write, so I’m not sure why its closing, which had been announced to us months before, should be the thing to put me over the edge. As for the video, not everyone shares McCain’s rhetorically convenient assessment of whether it was worthwhile.

You might get the idea that Barrett Brown is kind of a moody loner, isolated and alienated, attempting to invent a social context for himself where none exists. And if that’s your impression of Brown, you might find it highly significant that the primary subject of Barrett Brown’s online videos is . . . Barrett Brown.

Moody loner? I guess I have to assassinate someone now in order to impress Jody Foster or Michael Hastings.

You might also find it significant thatBrown has described himself as being “raised by a New Age single mother who suggested that I was an Indigo Child with an alien soul, required that I meditate with her daily, prompted me to learn the more potentially significant quatrains of Nostradamus, and had me keep a dream journal next to my bed in order to better divine the future by way of my eternal connection to the collective unconscious.”

Oh, I haven’t even begun dishing out the dirt on my mom, who wouldn’t let me go to this one block party when I was 9 because she thought I was going to get in a fight with some kid whose name I forget. Plus I’m now absolutely certain that she threw away a lot of my best t-shirts because there were little holes in them that you wouldn’t even notice.

Sarcastic? Tongue-in-cheek?

No, dude, I’m proclaiming myself to be the Moon Child. I am here to usher in the Golden Dawn. Read all about it in my next column for Skeptical Inquirer. Seriously, though, I hate when people misuse terms like “sarcastic.” Sarcasm is saying stuff like, “Oh, yeah, R.S. McCain’s definitely not a white nationalist, he just used to write for a white nationalist publication under an assumed name.” What I was doing was providing an amusing anecdote about my relatively bizarre childhood. You’re all lucky I’m not writing southern Gothic novels. Actually, you know what? I’m going to go write one as soon as I’m done here.

With the idea of cross-checking this biographical datum, I Googled and found another piece in which Brown said he was “raised by a single mother and a series of female cats.”

Yeah, it was rough. Plus we lived with my grandma for a while.

And in that column, Brown describes discovering at age 13 — circa 1995 — how to use online chatrooms to get sex.

To be fair, I only got to third base with the girls in question and did not actually lose my virginity until I was 16. I dry-humped them, though. That’s just how I roll. Not everyone uses the internet exclusively for purposes of advancing the white race, you know. Also, what does this have to do with my cats?

It was not in that column, but in an entirely different column, in a different magazine, on a different topic, that Brown wrote:

To the extent that one uses the Internet, then, one is subjected to a different array of stimuli than if one did not use the Internet.

Now it’s starting to get personal.

Indeed – as Brown so clearly demonstrated at age 13. Given his precocious mastery of online seduction, one might be tempted to wonder what effect this “different array of stimuli” had on young Barrett’s subsequent social development. But rather than engaging in such untoward speculation, let us contemplate the influence of that “New Age single mother” of whom Brown writes. We can consult a familiar source to explain the significance of this.

Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to engage in “untoward speculation.” McCain then quotes the author of a book called The Culture of Narcissism Revisited and continues to do so in a paragraph which I only skimmed because it didn’t include my name, as all paragraphs should.

At this point, the reader can be excused for asking, “So what? Where is this rambling discourse leading? What is the relationship between trolls and narcissism and New Age and Barrett Brown?” Your impatience is understandable, and now let me refer you to my March 16 essay, “Whatever Happened to Crazy?”

I haven’t read the essay in question but I imagine it’s awesome. Then McCain talks briefly about someone who is not me but who apparently exists in a “marijuana-induced fog,” so perhaps it is me after all. But probably not, because the fellow later “died at the Pentagon in what appeared to be a ‘suicide by cop’ incident.” So, McCain is comparing me to a guy who went nuts and attacked the Pentagon because my dad wasn’t around when I was a kid, my mom made me meditate, and I wrongly believe Michael Hastings to be my “colleague.” In fairness, there is more evidence of my impending murder-suicide, that being the explanatory video I posted yesterday in regards to the two internet networks that my, ahem, colleagues at Project PM are now programming. McCain helpfully provides a transcript of a portion of this in which I describe it as superior to other networks of the sort and refer in passing to Jim Hoft as an idiot.

Has Barrett Brown slipped a cog? Is he zany, daft, wacko, loony, bonkers, Froot Loops, and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?

If so, this is not a recent development.

Well, would you be surprised to learn that Barrett Brown began a July column about Sarah Palin by (a) recounting an incident in which he flipped off a female motorist, and (b) describing his gun collection?

McCain is referring to the following passage:

Tyler, Texas is in many ways the exact opposite of New York, for better or worse or both. The best coffee in Tyler is found at Jack-in-the-Box, as I finally discovered after hours of aimless marching – a practice which is frowned upon here, apparently. Traversing a cross-walk during one of many coffee-getting expeditions, I was nearly run down by a woman who really, really wanted to make a right-hand turn but whose plans were being stymied by my own entirely legitimate and fait accompli crossing-the-street agenda. After nearly hitting me, she honked and sped off. Not having a cup of coffee to throw at her car, I simply gave her the finger. This is something I never had occasion to do in four years of living in New York – the capital of Unreal America, devoid as it is of Wal-Marts, meth, and federal farm subsidies.

In the interest of full disclosure and self-indulgence, allow me to note that I myself am originally from Texas, de facto stronghold of Real America. My parents are from Texas, their parents were from Texas, and so on and so forth going back to the days when Texas was still Mexico. My mom’s family used to raise rabbits, name them, and then eat them. I own a .243 and a fifty-year-old shotgun and do so much hunting you’d think I was running for president on the 2004 Democratic ticket. My dad just bought a Blackwater-issued .45 for God knows what purpose. The less said about my extended family back in ranch country the better, as I don’t want the ATF burning them alive. In short, I am as Texan as one can be without getting shot at the Alamo, and thus I reserve the right to say mean things about my home state, which I have always regarded as being akin to a hot girlfriend who is also batshit insane.

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether or not this passage would seem to indicate that I am indeed planning some sort of violent attack on my political enemies.

Just coincidental, I’m sure. Far be it from me to play armchair psychotherapist,

but speaking of psychotherapy, let’s conclude byreturning to Robin of Berkeley’s column:

This Robin of Berkley person is then quoted as saying, among other things:

Many militants are devoid of an essential ingredient of being human: empathy. While they exude endless compassion for an endangered snail, they are contemptuous of living, feeling human beings. This is why they can cavalierly imagine snuffing out Granny, a late-term fetus, or, in fact, anyone who gets in their way. . . .

It’s no coincidence that God has also been shunned, because God is the thread that weaves together the rich tapestry of life. With Judeo-Christian values missing in action, the left engages in a manic free-fall-all. They afford themselves free rein to act out their basest of impulses.

Emphasis is McCain’s.

Significant? Barrett Brown is communications director of “Enlighten the Vote,” which began its existence as the Godless Americans Political Action Committee.

So, there you go. Robert Stacy McCain has now accused me of being a psychotic militant who is likely planning to carry out ideologically-motivated killings at some point in the near future.

I mentioned earlier that McCain is unfamiliar with the concept of full disclosure. I say this because in 2002, he wrote a “news” article for The Washington Times regarding an incident in which a black mathematics professor named Jonathan Farley wrote a column for a Tennessee newspaper in which he called the Confederates “traitors,” sparking a dispute with members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The article portrayed Farley in a rather negative light while meanwhile giving the SCV entirely positive coverage, despite the fact that Farley received dozens of racist e-mails, some of which included death threats, from members of the organization, including some who lived nearby and are ex-military men who presumably have access to weapons. McCain did not see fit to mention at the time that he himself is a longtime member of the SCV. A few months afterward, he even gave a speech to the SCV in which he notes that anyone who dishonors the Confederate “heroes” must be answered firmly.

Incidentally, that and other details about McCain’s unethical practices and white nationalist history will be revealed in my upcoming book, which includes an entire chapter on him, and which he has seen because I sent him the manuscript a few months ago in case he wanted to dispute anything I said about him. For some reason, McCain forgot to mention this.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.

41 thoughts on “R.S. McCain accuses me of being a violent militant

    • Yep. McCain is projecting. It should be obvious to everyone.

      The guy briefly enjoyed a prominent blog role where he would be regularly quoted as representative of the right…until everyone realized he was completely fucking insane. (As I recall, it was somewhere around the time he suggested the IDF should screw on their bayonets, line up, and not stop marching until they hit the Jordan river. This is not an exaggeration.)

      It would be a shame to see this site used for his comeback. Please return to just ignoring him.


  1. You seem more dangerous with allusion with C4.
    It’s interestng that McCain references Lasch. “The New Radicalism in America” was the first academic work I knew enough to read the introduction to, and it has stayed with me. I have not read “Culture of…”

    “Indeed – as Brown so clearly demonstrated at age 13. Given his precocious mastery of online seduction, one might be tempted to wonder what effect this “different array of stimuli” had on young Barrett’s subsequent social development. ”

    I’m sure that you noticed that the DSM V will not include, among other diagnoses, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Personally I hold that personality disorders in general are too normative to be primary diagnostic axes, but this is about YOU.
    Calling someone a Narcissist has become a very chic and often potent ad hominem. I have loads of pics of myself on my facebook page, mostly from boredom, some as a byproduct of fecundity rituals.
    Imagine, though, the hubris, not to mention utter recklessness, of a clinician diagnosing a multi-phasic behavioural pathology via this medium with its lack of plasticity…I think you and McCain should have a thumbwar. Beware though, I hear he bites. Not on purpose, but going to gnaw on his own ear.


  2. Well, in general I’m a mild fan of Stacy McCain, but I don’t think this episode does either one of you any credit.

    I’m with Stacy on the backstory. The quality of argument on sites where dogmatic Leftists of any stripe are the substantial majority of the commenters is just horrifically awful. I’m trying hard to think of exceptions and they are awfully thin on the ground. Maybe Ta-Nehisi Coates is one (I didn’t register with the site so I don’t see the comments there on my browser). And calling out Rich Lowry on a YouTube video? Say it ain’t so.

    I guess the takeaway is this: it’s easy to argue that some other guy’s political stances make him personally disreputable or unstable. Usually it’s a pretty cheap out, and I’d say that’s the case for Stacy here. What’s more important for me at least, is the way around that. If you can state a train of thought in complete sentences, with appropriate premises and conclusions, you can advocate for whatever you want. If you don’t, or can’t, you probably belong in the kiddie pool.


    • With all due respect, I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with Project PM to come to any such conclusion about it; contrary to what you’ve said here, it does not include, either in its membership or the bloggers who have signed up for the launch, any “dogmatic leftists,” much less do such people make up the “substantial majority” of their readership. Erik Kain has already signed up for our Science Journalism project and Mark Thompson just got involved (and is friends with one of our more active administrators, incidentally). You can find more information through Google and of course I’ll be providing some here at The League as well.


      • With all due respect, I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with Project PM to come to any such conclusion about it.

        Ok. I was talking about the discourse in Internet communities comprised of liberals/Leftists. If that doesn’t apply to your project then it doesn’t.


        • Well, certainly one probably won’t find much useful discourse in an extraordinarily partisan online environment, although I’m not sure I see what you were getting at in relation to this incident in particular. I’d also add that places such as RedState.com and Free Republic are not exactly populated by particularly intelligent or intellectually honest individuals, either.


    • Huh? You dont have to register to read TNC’s comments. Generally though, comments at all sites are worthless but what I am tiring of is how incoherent the main articles have become. This is primarily but not exclusively a right wing issue but I cut them some slack. It is very hard to have a coherent ideology that encompasses balanced budgets, trillion $ tax cuts, less government, more military, more security and whatever the f#$k Palin is talking about today. God bless them, they sure do try.

      As for this article, I thank the author for reminding me that I am behind on my trolling / porn browsing and provide me the opportunity for taking care of both on this fine morning.


  3. Barrett –

    I enjoy your writing and I don’t care at all for McCain. That being said, while I’m sure the detailed rebuttal laid out here was quite factually correct, it comes off sounding a bit on the obsessive side.

    Perhaps best to just ignore it?


    • I do ignore some of McCain’s attacks on me but in this case he made several claims about me that are factually inaccurate in addition to the overall message that I am a potentially violent threat to the republic. As has been mentioned, I serve as an advisor to congressional candidates as well as dir of comm for a PAC in addition to having founded PM, so I really can’t let those kinds of things remain in public view without correcting the errors. I can understand how I might seem “obsessed” with him, but I would suggest that’s largely because I have written a necessarily long post about him in response to a long post he wrote about me, and of course I’ve been researching him for quite a while since he is included in my upcoming book.


  4. I found your long post charmingly worded but would it have killed you to put it behind a break? Having Stacy McCain taking up this much space even if it’s an item rebuting him strikes me as somehow… … I don’t know wasteful?


  5. Also, and at the risk of exposing myself to some ridicule, I didn’t find that Pentagon shooter’s video to be ridiculous at all. The issue of how to monetize intellectual property transmitted across the Internet is a legitimate subject that interests many many people, not just Patrick Bedell.

    The narrator’s persona is vaguely creepy, but I strongly disagree with Stacy’s train of thought here. It’s too easy to accuse an adversary of being crazy, but more than that the really bad people are often quite rational. Therefore, we already have too many accusations about who is crazy, what we need is more clarity on what is bad.


    • Yeah, I agree with on your assessment of the video, having just gotten around to watching it. The guy’s kind of creepy and goofy and I can’t see such an idea being implemented, but the general subject is of legitimate interest and his proposed solution is itself somewhat interesting.


  6. “I only got to third base with the girls in question and did not actually lose my virginity until I was 16. I dry-humped them, though…what does this have to do with my cats?”

    It shows how you’re obsessed with pussy.

    (ha ha ha, ZING!)


  7. Incidentally, that and other details about McCain’s unethical practices and white nationalist history will be revealed in my upcoming book,

    Wow, an anxious world is just waiting for this sure best-seller to be released. I’m sure between royalties you receive from that and the $0.50 you win in your libel suit against McCain you’ll have, well, $0.50.


  8. Barrett,

    This is the first I’ve heard of a troll Olasky, and I’m curious: Sure, I do look funny and have an amusing name, but who is this person, and why? Please email me.

    “A very old friend of mine who’s a news producer at an affiliate back east appears to have left a couple of comments over there in the guise of Marvin Olasky, as he likes to do for reasons that would take too long to explain but which involve a series of incidents from ten years ago coupled with the fact that Olasky looks funny and has an amusing name. “


    • No, I will not send you an e-mail. The person is imitating you in such a way as to intentionally not give the impression to a reasonable person that he is actually you, as is quite obviously shown by what is referenced above, which is to say that he is covered by parody. The same thing has happened to me quite a bit but it has never occurred to me that I ought to investigate the person who did so because I am not a nut.

      If you have a question you may e-mail me, and I will answer any such questions directly, but only if those e-mails are forwarded to me directly from William Dembski, zomglol.


    • I understand that you don’t care for me as you’ve threatened to leave twice now over my posts and have criticized me from your own blog, and with that in mind I’d kind of appreciate it if you put less energy into trying to narrate my stint here.


      • Hmm, I don’t remember criticizing you from your blog, but I could have if you left a link here to follow. I didn’t know you had a blog, or, if I commented there, I forgot.

        A few weeks ago, I left because I thought the tone and content coming from you and one other was changing this place to something in which I have no interest — I won’t say what made me reconsider, but it wasn’t to read this type of stuff. So, I will honor your request and put zero energy into reading or commenting on anything you write. Is that good enough? We should both be better off by my doing so.


        • Not that it’s any of my business, but I hope, MFarmer, that you reconsider and continue to comment on any any and everything that interests you on this site. It’s always a good thing when the pot gets stirred up especially with thinkers like yourself, who stray from the beaten path. No doubt, Barrett would even agree with this. But then again…


          • I agree with your hopes for MF. But is it possible that one is turned off by a post not because it comes from a different point of view, but because it’s not a great post? I side politically more with Barrett than MF; however, this whole thread feels more like looking into a boring spat between two seventh grade girls.

            I mean, im all for bashing RSM, but hundreds upon hundreds of words about what blogger said what to who and who knows what other guy better and who really bought their prom dress at a bargain basement… Sheesh…


            • Yes, yes, Rtod–absolutely agree–I could not be less interested than in an endlessly dissected cyber soap opera, virtual spat, whatever than between Barrett vs McCain–please I beg of you, cease and desist! It’s a waste of your considerable brain power. Stick to solving the riddles of the universe. Such as, considering that the mind, consciousness, does not in any way function in an algorithmically manner, how will AI ever be able to digitize such a process? AIs zenith was almost putting Kasparov in a mental hospital with Deep Blue. AI will NEVER be able to replicate, intuition, nuance, creativity, inspiration, sense of beauty, etc. Speech recognition is not Wordsworth. Hey, that is a great name, Marvin Olasky. Could we have another Tony Clifton in the works? Please tell Mr. Olasky to post here–this could be quite funny!


        • No, I mean that you criticized me from *your* blog, which of course is absolutely fine, and obviously you’re well within your rights to express whatever opinion you may have about my tone – and in fact you’re right that my tone has sometimes incompatible with what this blog is trying to do, and perhaps even indicative of a lack of maturity on my part, which is something I’ve tried to reign in because of course I am a guest here. I guess I’d ask you what you are trying to accomplish by leaving such comments as these, especially when you’re also leaving sarcastic and not-entirely-constructive comments over at a previous post I did regarding information flow which many others have found to be helpful and interesting.


  9. Okay, one more reply, since you asked me nicely. I believe you are marketing yourself here in a way that’s disrepectful to the owners — they might be fine with it, but I wouldn’t be. It’s probably just me, but you remind me of guys who used to come to a writing site I belonged to in the late 90s, pumping up their credentials and acting as if they’d been published by major zines, only to find out that they were imposters making it all up in their mother’s basement apartment. You might be all you’re pumping, a radical genius with the next big thing, but I’m just saying what I detect. The schematic thing just seemed funny to me, like an SNL skit, as if drawn up with either the help of good pot or mescaline. To call what you’ve created a “think tank” is a little much. You might want to work on your video presentation, leave out the doucebag parts and stuff, ya know?

    However, despite Heidegger asking that I continue to comment on your stuff, I think I’ll refrain, because I’m probably not being fair.


    • Well, I certainly don’t want you to refrain from commenting on anything you’d like; I’d just ask that you make sure that your comments are fair and contribute to the discussions if you’re going to also be criticizing me for allegedly not contributing to the discussion myself. Whether or not you take Project PM seriously, the fact is that a lot of other people do, including the owners for whom you’re so concerned. It is also a fact that I and the owners communicate regularly and although they have indeed objected to certain things I have written here on occasion – quite understandably – they also respect my efforts in certain areas, and they do so because they are more familiar with those efforts than you are.

      I appreciate you acknowledging that I “might” be representing myself accurately, as opposed to the frauds that I remind you of.


  10. I remember the brouhaha with Jonathan Farley. Farley not only said that all Confederate soldiers were “traitors,” but that they should all have been hanged after the Civil War ended. Farley was a complete asshole, and I also challenged his ridiculous assumptions in that same Tennessee newspaper. I too am a life member of Sons of Confederate Veterans; you seem to think that this is proof of bigotry or racism; it is not. Those who think so are lazy thinkers who are also ignoramuses of that period in American history.

    I don’t know who Barrett Brown is, nor do I care. I was bored with McCain’s blog post about same, because Barrett Brown is of absolutely no significance to me or what I believe. However, his post most certainly did not state nor imply that Barrett Brown was about to commit violence.


    • Hey, Stogie.

      Most of my ancestors come from border states. We refer to it as “the war between brothers”.

      I can understand why some might argue about how we need to look at the confederacy from the bright spots and compartmentalize the bad things… but I have seen more teenagers wearing Che t-shirts than Confederate t-shirts and have come to the conclusion that… No.

      We need to stomp this shit out.

      In the same way that Stalin was, in fact, a follower of Marx and someone who was directly responsible for the deaths of millions and millions, we have to put aside our attitudes toward the Confederacy and stop looking at the nice parts that make us proud and instead look at the things that make us wince and explain “well, you have to understand”.

      It *WAS* about slavery, my man. It was about White Supremacy.

      We have to turn our backs upon it in the same way that we spit on the ground when we see a teenager wearing a shirt with Che on it.

      At the end of the day, the philosophy was poisonous. We can pretend that it was really about the nice, compartmentalized, parts… but it weren’t.

      It was about killing folks who disagreed.

      It’s time to move on.


      • Ah, c’mon JB give us a chorus of ‘Bonney Blue Flag!’
        ’bout the only ones participatin’ in that thar African Chattel Slavery thing was the rich plantation owners which made up a very small, though elite, part of the grand armies of the Confederacy. Them rich slave ownin’ fellas made up much of the officer corps and was always a-leadin’ the charge, unlike their Lincolnite counterparts who was-a quiverin’ behind a big, ol’ oak! A whole lotta of ’em rich boys ended up face down at Shiloh, Five Forks, Gettysburg, etc. I’m a-figurin’ you saw “Gone with the Wind?”
        Now I’m-a conjurin’ the real reason for the War of Southern Freedom was given by a reb captured early on in the “unpleasantness”. When asked why he was-a fightin’ Father Abraham’s blue bellies he replied, “…cause you boys is down here.”
        Now in these troubled times we are a-needin’ more men with the attitude of that ol’ reb and less of these here college edumacated sissy boys who does thar fightin’ on this here internet.


        • How easy is it to separate the “fighting against X” from the “fighting for Y”?

          In fighting against the North, they were objectively fighting for the South.

          This is sort of the problem with any war discussion, isn’t it? People who are against the war are for the status quo and it’s probably why “objectively Pro-Saddam” arguments had teeth.


  11. Wearing a Che t-shirt is an announced declaration that the wearer is a total ignoramus, worshipping a heartless, mass murdering butcher–he personally pulled the trigger on countless “subversives” and pretty much every thing he touched turned into misery and painful death. This utterly despicable man does not have a redeemable drop of blood in his body. and may he painfully rot in the hottest of hells.


      • Ha!! Good one, “compartmentalization”. True, nonetheless. Sort of like Marge Schott’s infamous words about Hitler, “Hitler was good in the beginning, but he went too far.” He went too far. Now that’s what I call compartmentalization! I don’t know if it’s possible to walk around a college campus and not see a few Che T-shirts somewhere–if you really want to get a good laugh, by all means, try and strike up a conversation with one of the Mythologists or Utopianists wearers–you’ll be guaranteed an attack of side-splitting laughter. Some even thought he was a musician! You’ll definitely hear him characterized as a”liberator”, “freedom fighter”, “rebel”–nothing like being liberated from Batista and executed by Ernesto! And Stalin was just running Fat Farms there in Ukraine.Wasn’t it Wilde who said something to the effect of, “youth is wasted on the young”?


  12. This is the first time I have read any of your work, and I have to say, that passage about Texas made me laugh out loud. I am fifth generation Texan and have lived here all my life. A hot girlfriend who is also batshit crazy indeed. Well said, good sir.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *