| Subject: Re: mccain |
| From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
| Date: 12/15/09, 00:28 |
| To: barriticus@gmail.com |
obert Stacy McCain
Few would disagree that it'd be a fine thing for everyone involved in the national discourse to act in a manner that, if not necessarily pleasant or in accordance with anyone's religious beliefs, abstains at least from goofy Internet threats. Let it be asserted and subsequently proven, then, that (a) Robert Stacy McCain has fallen short of the standard that I just sort of pulled out of thin air, that (b) he is nonetheless almost certainly a white supremacist, as has recently been alleged by the Charleston Gazette, that (c) he is perhaps the worst-behaved mainstream pundit in operation at this time, as evidenced by his threats towards the Gazette and his colorful comments regarding myself and an organization with which I serve, and that (d) the fact that this fellow has been successful within the confines of the modern conservative movement is as indicative as anything that the modern conservative movement operates under a more ridiculous totality of influence than even the sort of people who give you "365 Dumb Bush Quotes" calendars for your birthday would probably have guessed.
As noted, McCain is a mainstream figure. He did a stint as a features editor of The Washington Times and is co-author of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party, which he wrote with partner Lynn Vincent, who herself just ghosted Palin's Going Rogue. He has meanwhile developed into a popular conservative blogger known for the relative cleverness of his turns of phrase as well as his, uh, pugnacity.
Which brings me to his pugnacity. Stacy McCain is a pugnacious fellow. He's threatened several times to actually drive over to the offices of the Gazette and do some sort of thing. And upon learning that I myself had pointed to his evident racism a few weeks back, he subsequently wrote: "Barrett Brown -- he'll get his in turn." Can you imagine Mickey Kaus or Matthew Yglesias doing something like that? Who does that? Stacy McCain does. An hour or so later, the fellow found that I serve as director of communications for a secularist political action committee called Enlighten the Vote and linked to our website with the following bizarre toy fascist incantation: "Thanks for this helpful information, sir. How many Philistines did Samson slay with less?" What the fuck? Sometimes a person will pretend not to understand what someone else means in order to convey that that someone is incomprehensibly foolish. That's not what I'm doing. I've actually thought about this for a long time and I have no idea what he's saying other than that it involves violence.
Incidentally, McCain has been accused of racism from so many directions largely because the totality of the facts clearly indicate that McCain is not only a racist but also not very good at concealing his racism. As I recently noted, he expresses concern over reports of teenage pregnancies among minorities while elsewhere laughing off reports of teen pregnancies in general. He's a member of the League of the South, which advocates for the legal secession of the southern states and otherwise celebrates the virtues of the Confederacy. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's sympathetic to racism. He could be really revved up about southern succession for reasons of something else. Other reasons. An eccentric taste for agriculture, perhaps. Incidentally, the president of that organization recently referred to this nation's sitting and former presidents as "domestic terrorists" and to our federal government as an "organized criminal enterprise."
A fellow editor at the Washington Times once characterized McCain as "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." McCain admits to having in the past carried on a long association with William White, the neo-Nazi writer and activist who threatened blogger Charles Johnson and harassed columnist William Pitts -- and whose articles have appeared in The Washington Times. Indeed, to be singled out at the Times for being a racist is a hell of a thing; even the former managing editor's wife has gone public withher assertions that blacks are born with collectively lower IQs than whites, and is otherwise tied to a variety of white supremacist organizations and outlets. All in all, McCain is simply more apt to find himself tied in some way to any given racist than is the average Joe except in such case as the average Joe is a racist like Robert Stacy McCain.
Even then, the problem with McCain and those who have joined him in stripping the conservative movement bare of dignity is not one of racism, but of incompetence. A political movement can survive the deserved enmity of a few ethnic groups; it cannot survive more than a couple guys running around threatening newspapermen to duels or whatever the fuck is going on these days.
Former Washington Times editor Robert Stacy McCain has requested a retraction this morning from the Charleston Gazetteregarding a recent editorial in which the popular blogger is characterized as a white supremacist. And in the best tradition of the emotionally stunted internet tough guys who make up a large part of the conservative blogosphere, he has since implied that, rather than sue, he would be more inclined to actually go over to the offices of the Gazette in order to settle the matter himself in some manner that, while left unspecified, would reportedly be in line with the modus operandi of certain duel-happy frontier statesmen and their mothers. Meanwhile, he has predicted that your not-so-humble correspondent will get his in turn, which is probably true.
As I have just informed Mr. McCain, one of my recent articles notes that his transparent concern over minority teen pregnancy contrasts quite tellingly with his expressed lack of concern over teen pregnancy in general. Coupled with his stint at the Washington Times, which itself has been a hotbed of blatant racism for years, McCain would probably have difficulty winning any libel suit even if he were inclined to initiate such a thing. And thus his current strategy of talking a great deal of nonsense, which has proven successful so far, is probably the best way to go.
Updates will be added here as the situation develops, as situations are wont to do.
A rare occasion, Mr. Brown, when any of those who've chosen to attack me even bother attempting to contact me. Of course, no one ever contacts me in advance: "Hey, did you actually write X, Y, Z? If so, why? What did you mean? What are your opinions about these things?" Instead, they leap to assumptions (if it's on the Internet, it must be true) and the fact that certain things have been endlessly repeated online leads to the assumption that these things are true.
How often, since Charles Johnson began attacking me, have I emphasized that, during the years I was at the Washington Times, I was not permitted to address these allegations? And how often have I remarked that "white supremacy" is quite contrary to my observed conduct among those who actually know me?
I don't know. Twice? More than twice? That is between you and The Washington Times. Insomuch as that publication is owned by the self-proclaimed king of the universe, I can understand why you followed their orders on this. "Pick your battles," my dad always said.
You are, I gather, a young man, and quite arrogant.
This is true, unfortunately.
Not an unusual combination, really, but neither should you mistake your own arrogance for knowledge. Try Googling my name in combination with the phrase "Hayekian insight." There are in the near-infinite number of things you don't know certain facts that may, I suspect, be far more important than those tacts you know. And it may be that you are mistaken about some things you accept as facts.
Very well.
Well, I've had more time to study all this sort of thing than you could imagine. You desire to make me look like a villain, for whatever selfish motive, and therefore assemble a prosecutor's case -- the Ransom Note Method. This you present with a lot of noise and clamour: "A-ha! I have exposed the dangerous villain, whose stealthy evil had never been fully known until now!"
And then I twirled one end of my handlebar mustache in satisfaction and took a pinch of snuff, the single vice I allow myself.
Now, what is *expected* of me in response is that I will address your "evidence" point-by-point or, failing that, that I will Deny, Denounce and Repudiate: "Oh, I'm not actually friends with Person A, and I abhor the thought of being associated with Person B."
I don't expect you to do anything of the sort.
Ah, but there is never an end to it, you see? Were I to answer charges A, B, C, you would then proceed to interrogate me about D, E, F, etc. To address your accusations in such a manner would ultimately avail me nothing, while tacitly acknowledging your authority to act the part of the interrogator. Further, such a response would suggest that there is some legitimate cause to suspect my good faith, to cause others to believe that perhaps I harbor a hidden hatred which must be rooted out and renounced.
Now see here, Raskolnikov, a student or formerly a student - all I'm doing is pointing out things that you have done. I haven't summoned you to my crazy Eastern European interrogation chamber in order to demand answers without telling you with what you are being charged. I'm just writing things about you - you know, that thing you yourself have been doing for years in opposition to your own enemies.
You invite me to a Maoist re-education camp, with yourself playing the role of commissar.
Why does it have to be a Maoist re-education camp? Maybe I'm inviting you to a party.
The cloud of suspicion is thrown upon me, and I must prove myself innocent!
Zounds!
Except that I don't. We live in a free society and I am not even a candidate for public office. I am not paid for having the correct opinion about anything. Opinions might be profitable to Bill Kristol or George Will, but I am not one of those big-shot pundits. It is my skill and hard work, and not my opinions, which are my stock in trade.
That's all very well and good. So why not simply admit that you're a white supremacist and then reinvent yourself as a white supremacist pundit? You have every right to express whatever views you may on anything you like. Likewise, I have the right to point out that you clearly hold such views.
What you and Johnson and others apparently wish to do is to cast upon me a stigma, which you may then use as part of a campaign of guilt-by-association smear against various of my friends. You seem to assume that my friends are fools and cowards, and will automatically disassociate themselves from me, lest you then say, "A-ha! So-and-so associates with Robert Stacy McCain, who is a hateful racist!"
What your various political allies do is none of my concern. That's a matter for the conservative punditry, not for me.
Except that I'm not a hateful racist. And this, sir, is the big point that you seem to have missed entirely.
I've never called you "hateful."
People know me, and the people who know me know that I have no hate in my heart, and if they felt it necessary to speak up on my behalf, you might be surprised at who would sing my praises. Their silence you mistake for fear, is rather an expression of their contempt for your malicious behavior.
Again, that's between you and your buddies.
Whatever you say about me, I am certain you will fail to convict me of hate, Barrett. I don't even hate you.
I don't hate you, either. I simply think that you have contempt for the Enlightenment principles upon which our republic was founded, and your past writings seem to bear that out. Sergey Romanov in particular has recently unearthed some staggering amount of things you wrote before you were in the public eye, and the general thrust of these writings is very clear - you are an apologist for slavery, an advocate of white control over non-white populations, and a proponent of the theocratic basis of government. You are not an American - you are a Confederate. This merits pointing out insomuch as that you are two degrees from such figures as Sarah Palin by way of the book you wrote with Lynn Vincent, as well as a single degree away from hundreds of conservative pundits, activists, and politicians.
Anyway, welcome to the 21st century.
Few would disagree that it'd be a fine thing for everyone involved in the national discourse to act in a manner that, if not necessarily pleasant or in accordance with anyone's religious beliefs, abstains at least from goofy Internet threats. Let it be asserted and subsequently proven, then, that (a) Robert Stacy McCain has fallen short of the standard that I just sort of pulled out of thin air, that (b) he is nonetheless almost certainly a white supremacist, as has recently been alleged by the Charleston Gazette, that (c) he is perhaps the worst-behaved mainstream pundit in operation at this time, as evidenced by his threats towards the Gazette and his colorful comments regarding myself and an organization with which I serve, and that (d) the fact that this fellow has been successful within the confines of the modern conservative movement is as indicative as anything that the modern conservative movement operates under a more ridiculous totality of influence than even the sort of people who give you "365 Dumb Bush Quotes" calendars for your birthday would probably have guessed.
As noted, McCain is a mainstream figure. He did a stint as a features editor of The Washington Times and is co-author of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party, which he wrote with partner Lynn Vincent, who herself just ghosted Palin's Going Rogue. He has meanwhile developed into a popular conservative blogger known for the relative cleverness of his turns of phrase as well as his, uh, pugnacity.
Which brings me to his pugnacity. Stacy McCain is a pugnacious fellow. He's threatened several times to actually drive over to the offices of the Gazette and do some sort of thing. And upon learning that I myself had pointed to his evident racism a few weeks back, he subsequently wrote: "Barrett Brown -- he'll get his in turn." Can you imagine Mickey Kaus or Matthew Yglesias doing something like that? Who does that? Stacy McCain does. An hour or so later, the fellow found that I serve as director of communications for a secularist political action committee called Enlighten the Vote and linked to our website with the following bizarre toy fascist incantation: "Thanks for this helpful information, sir. How many Philistines did Samson slay with less?" What the fuck? Sometimes a person will pretend not to understand what someone else means in order to convey that that someone is incomprehensibly foolish. That's not what I'm doing. I've actually thought about this for a long time and I have no idea what he's saying other than that it involves violence.
Incidentally, McCain has been accused of racism from so many directions largely because the totality of the facts clearly indicate that McCain is not only a racist but also not very good at concealing his racism. As I recently noted, he expresses concern over reports of teenage pregnancies among minorities while elsewhere laughing off reports of teen pregnancies in general. He's a member of the League of the South, which advocates for the legal secession of the southern states and otherwise celebrates the virtues of the Confederacy. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's sympathetic to racism. He could be really revved up about southern succession for reasons of something else. Other reasons. An eccentric taste for agriculture, perhaps. Incidentally, the president of that organization recently referred to this nation's sitting and former presidents as "domestic terrorists" and to our federal government as an "organized criminal enterprise."
A fellow editor at the Washington Times once characterized McCain as "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." McCain admits to having in the past carried on a long association with William White, the neo-Nazi writer and activist who threatened blogger Charles Johnson and harassed columnist William Pitts -- and whose articles have appeared in The Washington Times. Indeed, to be singled out at the Times for being a racist is a hell of a thing; even the former managing editor's wife has gone public withher assertions that blacks are born with collectively lower IQs than whites, and is otherwise tied to a variety of white supremacist organizations and outlets. All in all, McCain is simply more apt to find himself tied in some way to any given racist than is the average Joe except in such case as the average Joe is a racist like Robert Stacy McCain.
Even then, the problem with McCain and those who have joined him in stripping the conservative movement bare of dignity is not one of racism, but of incompetence. A political movement can survive the deserved enmity of a few ethnic groups; it cannot survive more than a couple guys running around threatening newspapermen to duels or whatever the fuck is going on these days.
Former Washington Times editor Robert Stacy McCain has requested a retraction this morning from the Charleston Gazetteregarding a recent editorial in which the popular blogger is characterized as a white supremacist. And in the best tradition of the emotionally stunted internet tough guys who make up a large part of the conservative blogosphere, he has since implied that, rather than sue, he would be more inclined to actually go over to the offices of the Gazette in order to settle the matter himself in some manner that, while left unspecified, would reportedly be in line with the modus operandi of certain duel-happy frontier statesmen and their mothers. Meanwhile, he has predicted that your not-so-humble correspondent will get his in turn, which is probably true.
As I have just informed Mr. McCain, one of my recent articles notes that his transparent concern over minority teen pregnancy contrasts quite tellingly with his expressed lack of concern over teen pregnancy in general. Coupled with his stint at the Washington Times, which itself has been a hotbed of blatant racism for years, McCain would probably have difficulty winning any libel suit even if he were inclined to initiate such a thing. And thus his current strategy of talking a great deal of nonsense, which has proven successful so far, is probably the best way to go.
Updates will be added here as the situation develops, as situations are wont to do.
A rare occasion, Mr. Brown, when any of those who've chosen to attack me even bother attempting to contact me. Of course, no one ever contacts me in advance: "Hey, did you actually write X, Y, Z? If so, why? What did you mean? What are your opinions about these things?" Instead, they leap to assumptions (if it's on the Internet, it must be true) and the fact that certain things have been endlessly repeated online leads to the assumption that these things are true.
The fact of the matter is that you did indeed write X, Y, and Z, and in fact you do not even dispute writing X, Y, and Z, and X, Y, and Z happen to consist of such things as you writing bizarre apologies for the institution of slavery, jokingly proposing bumper stickers with messages such as, "Have you whipped your slave today?", and claiming that viewing mixed race marriages with "revulsion" is a natural thing. The rest of the alphabet continues in a similar vein.
How often, since Charles Johnson began attacking me, have I emphasized that, during the years I was at the Washington Times, I was not permitted to address these allegations? And how often have I remarked that "white supremacy" is quite contrary to my observed conduct among those who actually know me?I don't know. Twice? More than twice? That is between you and The Washington Times. Insomuch as that publication is owned by the self-proclaimed king of the universe, I can understand why you followed their orders on this. "Pick your battles," my dad always said.
You are, I gather, a young man, and quite arrogant.This is true, unfortunately.
Not an unusual combination, really, but neither should you mistake your own arrogance for knowledge. Try Googling my name in combination with the phrase "Hayekian insight." There are in the near-infinite number of things you don't know certain facts that may, I suspect, be far more important than those tacts you know. And it may be that you are mistaken about some things you accept as facts.Very well.
Well, I've had more time to study all this sort of thing than you could imagine. You desire to make me look like a villain, for whatever selfish motive, and therefore assemble a prosecutor's case -- the Ransom Note Method. This you present with a lot of noise and clamour: "A-ha! I have exposed the dangerous villain, whose stealthy evil had never been fully known until now!"And then I twirled one end of my handlebar mustache in satisfaction and took a pinch of snuff, the single vice I allow myself.
Now, what is *expected* of me in response is that I will address your "evidence" point-by-point or, failing that, that I will Deny, Denounce and Repudiate: "Oh, I'm not actually friends with Person A, and I abhor the thought of being associated with Person B."I don't expect you to do anything of the sort.
Ah, but there is never an end to it, you see? Were I to answer charges A, B, C, you would then proceed to interrogate me about D, E, F, etc. To address your accusations in such a manner would ultimately avail me nothing, while tacitly acknowledging your authority to act the part of the interrogator. Further, such a response would suggest that there is some legitimate cause to suspect my good faith, to cause others to believe that perhaps I harbor a hidden hatred which must be rooted out and renounced.Now see here, Raskolnikov, a student or formerly a student - all I'm doing is pointing out things that you have done. I haven't summoned you to my crazy Eastern European interrogation chamber in order to demand answers without telling you with what you are being charged. I'm just writing things about you - you know, that thing you yourself have been doing for years in opposition to your own enemies.
You invite me to a Maoist re-education camp, with yourself playing the role of commissar.Why does it have to be a Maoist re-education camp? Maybe I'm inviting you to a party.
The cloud of suspicion is thrown upon me, and I must prove myself innocent!Zounds!
Except that I don't. We live in a free society and I am not even a candidate for public office. I am not paid for having the correct opinion about anything. Opinions might be profitable to Bill Kristol or George Will, but I am not one of those big-shot pundits. It is my skill and hard work, and not my opinions, which are my stock in trade.That's all very well and good. So why not simply admit that you're a white supremacist and then reinvent yourself as a white supremacist pundit? You have every right to express whatever views you may on anything you like. Likewise, I have the right to point out that you clearly hold such views.
What you and Johnson and others apparently wish to do is to cast upon me a stigma, which you may then use as part of a campaign of guilt-by-association smear against various of my friends. You seem to assume that my friends are fools and cowards, and will automatically disassociate themselves from me, lest you then say, "A-ha! So-and-so associates with Robert Stacy McCain, who is a hateful racist!"What your various political allies do is none of my concern. That's a matter for the conservative punditry, not for me.
Except that I'm not a hateful racist. And this, sir, is the big point that you seem to have missed entirely.I've never called you "hateful."
People know me, and the people who know me know that I have no hate in my heart, and if they felt it necessary to speak up on my behalf, you might be surprised at who would sing my praises. Their silence you mistake for fear, is rather an expression of their contempt for your malicious behavior.Again, that's between you and your buddies.
Whatever you say about me, I am certain you will fail to convict me of hate, Barrett. I don't even hate you.I don't hate you, either. I simply think that you have contempt for the Enlightenment principles upon which our republic was founded, and your past writings seem to bear that out. Sergey Romanov in particular has recently unearthed some staggering amount of things you wrote before you were in the public eye, and the general thrust of these writings is very clear - you are an apologist for slavery, an advocate of white control over non-white populations, and a proponent of the theocratic basis of government. You are not an American - you are a Confederate. This merits pointing out insomuch as that you are two degrees from such figures as Sarah Palin by way of the book you wrote with Lynn Vincent, as well as a single degree away from hundreds of conservative pundits, activists, and politicians.
Anyway, welcome to the 21st century.