THE STALINISTIC LGF IS DEAD - KILLED BY CHARLES JOHNSON.
READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE.
THOSE HE HAS BANNED (SEE BELOW; CLICK TO ENLARGE)
ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIM AND HIS LIZARDOIDS.
ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIM AND HIS LIZARDOIDS.
PITY: A FEW YEARS AGO IT WAS A GREAT BLOG. SIGH.
15 comments:
Does this mean you think Ann Coulter's defense of the CCC is a good thing?
READ S&L AND WHAT COULTER SAID/WROTE.
DON'T GO BY WHAT CHARLES REPORTED.
CHARLES IS A MORON.
I'D GUESS THAT THE YEARS OF POT/DRUGS/WHATEVER AND LOUD MUSIC AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM HAVE FINALLY ERODED HIS BRAIN.
OR - WITH PJM IMPLODING - HE'S REALLY LOOKING TO RECOUP SOME IMAGE AND PULL AND $$$$ IN THE MUSIC BIZ AND THEREFORE HE NEEDS TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM HIS RECENT HAWKISH PAST.
READ SWEETNESS AND LIGHT.
THEY ARE LIGHT YEARS SMARTER THAN CHARLES.
COULTER IS BRILLIANT.
Have you read it? If it doesn't say what he says it says, why don't you counter the argument?
Have you visited the CCC site and seen the White Power t-shirts?
OH PLEASE!
IF JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND CONGRESSMAN RUSH CAN BE OKAY WHY CAN'T THEY!?
WHY CAN BLACK HAVE BLACK AWARDS TV SHOW ETC, FOR EXANPLE, BUT IF WHITES DO THEN THEY'RE RACISTS!!??!!?!??
WHY CAN'T JEWS HAVE PRIDE IN OUR JEWISHNESS AND ITALIANS IN THEIR ITALIAN-NESS AND WHITES IN WHITENESS!??!
READ WHAT COULTER ARGUED.
READ S&L.
S&L:
Ann Coulter, The SPLC, LGF And The CCC
February 15th, 2009
Perhaps you have seen this latest alarmist screed from Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, by way of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Huffington Post:
Ann Coulter and the Council of Conservative Citizens
Feb 15, 2009
In her new book, does Ann Coulter actually defend a white supremacist hate group, claiming they’ve been unfairly branded as “racist?”
Unfortunately, she really does. I’m not taking the Southern Poverty Law Center’s word for it, either; I have the book and I’ve confirmed that everything they say in this article is accurate.
Coulter spends the better part of three pages defending a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which The New York Times had described as a “thinly veiled white supremacist organization.” Coulter begs to differ. The CCC, Coulter opines, is “a conservative group” that has unfairly been branded as racist “because some of the directors of the CCC had, decades earlier, been leaders of a segregationist group.” “There is no evidence on its Web page that the modern incarnation of the CCC supports segregation,” she says. “Apart from some aggressive reporting on black-on-white crimes — the very crimes that are aggressively hidden by the establishment media — there is little on the CCC website suggesting” that the group is racist. Indeed, its main failing is “containing members who had belonged to a segregationist group thirty years earlier.”
Coulter could hardly be more wrong. And even if she can’t find time to read beyond a page of the CCC’s website, she really ought to know — after all, the organization where she frequently speaks, the Conservative Political Action Committee, has publicly banned the CCC from its annual gathering because it is racist. Also in the late 1990s, Jim Nicholson, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, asked GOP members to stay away from the CCC because of its “racist and nationalist views.”
How could conservative Republicans be inspired to say such ugly things? Let us count the ways.
The CCC’s columnists have written that black people are “a retrograde species of humanity,” and that non-white immigration is turning the U.S. population into a “slimy brown mass of glop.” Its website has run photographic comparisons of pop singer Michael Jackson and a chimpanzee. It opposes “forced integration” and decries racial intermarriage. It has lambasted black people as “genetically inferior,” complained about “Jewish power brokers,” called gay people “perverted sodomites,” and even named the late Lester Maddox, the baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, “Patriot of the Century.”
This is completely beyond the pale.
I won’t link to the CCC website, but it takes about two seconds of looking at their front page to see that it’s a white supremacist site; prominently displayed as I write is an advertisement for “White Pride T-shirts,” apparently run by the neo-Nazi website Stormfront, and a host of articles with a blatantly racist slant—including one that touts the Eurofascist groups (Vlaams Belang, BNP, National Front) that have been the subject of many LGF posts. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to think that Coulter simply missed all of it.
So much hand-wringing over a fairly innocuous couple of pages from Ms. Coulter’s (great book) Guilty.
Rather than take the Southern Poverty Law Center’s word for what Ms. Coulter says, you can read it for yourself.
From pp 24-26:
Chapter 1 – Liberal Motto: Speak Loudly And Carry A Small Victim
… According to his devoted media claque, Obambi was a victim of "guilt by association" whenever anyone mentioned his two-decade association with a racist preacher or his ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Being offended by "guilt by association" was another new posture for liberals, who heretofore had specialized in making guilt-by association charges.
Republican politicians who had given speeches to a conservative group, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), were branded sympathizers of white supremacists because some of the directors of the CCC had, decades earlier, been leaders of a segregationist group, the Citizen Councils of America, which were founded in 1954. There is no evidence on its Web page that the modern incarnation of the CCC supports segregation, though its "Statement of Principles" offers that the organization opposes "forced integration" and "efforts to mix the races of mankind." But mostly the principles refer to subjects such as a strong national defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the traditional family, and an "America First" trade policy."
Apart from some aggressive reporting on black-on-white crimes—the very crimes that are aggressively hidden by the establishment media—there is little on the CCC website suggesting that the group is a "thinly veiled white supremacist" organization, as the New York Times calls it in one of its more charitable descriptions. At least the crimes reported on the CCC’s Web page actually happened, as opposed to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s claim that the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill blacks.
Republicans Senator Trent Lott and Representative Bob Barr did nothing more than give speeches to the CCC, yet they were forever damned by their association with it. Neither man even belonged to the CCC, nor did they attend CCC meetings once a week for twenty years. They certainly didn’t have their daughters baptized by CCC activists.
But according to the establishment media, Lott and Barr were fully responsible for the decades-old affiliations of some of the directors of a group . . . because they spoke at the CCC. As the media’s hysteria about the CCC reached a fever pitch, a Times editorial howled about "fresh evidence of the persistence of racism" on the part of Lott based on his "links to the white separatist group called the Council of Conservative Citizens." The New York Times was shocked by the group’s "thinly veiled white supremacist agenda," but was somewhat more accepting of the completely unveiled racism of Obama’s preacher. One surmises that the CCC’s thin veil of white supremacy would have become a bit thicker had Democratic congressman Dick Gephardt ever been a serious candidate for president. In the 1970s, he had spoken to a branch of the related, but more outre, Citizen Councils of America. That, and the fact that he’s a preposterous boob, are probably the only two things that kept Dick Gephardt out of the White House.
After the initial flurry of articles, editorials, and news stories in the Times excitedly reporting that Barr had spoken to the CCC, Democratic representative Bob Wexler introduced a resolution in Congress for the sole purpose of denouncing the Council of Conservative Citizens. Other than the 9/11 terrorists, the CCC may be the only group ever singled out for denunciation in a congressional resolution. How about a resolution from Obama porn-porn girl Wexler on Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ?
When Barr later gave a speech on the House floor favorably citing President John F. Kennedy, Senator Ted Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy, got in Barr’s face, shouting, "How dare you! Anybody who has been to a racist group has no right invoking my uncle’s memory!’ Liberals are now reserving the right to tell us which former presidents we can mention by name.
Barr had given a speech to a group that, even assuming everything that the Southern Poverty Law Center says about it is true, does not hold a candle to the racism of Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama was married by the Reverend Wright, his daughters were baptized by the Reverend Wright, Obama gave his second autobiography the title of one of the Reverend Wright’s sermons. And yet after decades of majoring in Guilt by Association, liberals were indignant when an ad on cable television linked Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. The Times produced a blistering editorial decrying the "hate mongering" and calling the ads "the product of a radical fringe that has little regard for rational debate."
Liberals, who will attack with whatever is available because they have no principles, were also appalled by any attempt to link Obama to Bill Ayers. In an op-ed so clever she couldn’t stand herself, New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote that if Obama was responsible for Ayers’s actions then she was responsible for the banking scandals of the eighties by virtue of the fact that savings-and-loan king Charles Keating had spoken at her high school thirty years earlier. Collins’s satirical chain of causation did not, however, apply to Republicans speaking to a group containing members who had be-longed to a segregationist group thirty years earlier, which, come to think of it, pretty much describes Collins’s connection to the banking scandals.
Can Trent Lott and Bob Barr get an apology now?
As any sentient being can tell, Ms. Coulter was writing about the power and dangers of ‘guilt by association,’ as it is selectively applied by our watchdog media.
Ms. Coulter was not defending the CCC, but describing it as no more racist — and quite a bit less racist — than Mr. Obama’s preacher of 30 years.
Nothing in the subsequent attacks upon her contradict her characterization of the CCC. They are just the worst kind of (liberal) moral posturing.
The Reverend Doctor Jeremiah Wright was far more racist and Mr. Obama’s ties to him were far more immediate and direct. And yet mentioning Mr. Wright’s connections to Mr. Obama was deemed to be out of bounds during the campaign – and ever since.
It is cited as yet another despicable instance of the (imaginary) ‘Republican attack machine’ practicing (the underrated) ‘guilt by association.’
Indeed, the CCC could actually be a lot more racist and Ms. Coulter’s points would still be accurate.
Mr. Obama attended Trinity Church going on 30 years, and is now the sitting President.
Messrs. Lott and Barr merely gave speeches to the CCC, and neither ever ran for President on major party tickets, much less won their party’s nomination.
Obviously Ms. Coulter’s comparison was too subtle for some.
Meanwhile, Discover The Networks provides a handy refresher course on the background of both the Southern Poverty Law Center and its con artist boss, Morris Dees.
And FrontPage Magazine spells out some more specifics of their doings here.
LGF USED DISINFO FROM LEFTWING MULTICULTI ASSHOLES TO ASSAULT VB.
AND MORRIS DEES OUTFIT IS ALSO A LEFTIE OUTFIT.
DISCOVER THE NETWORK, PASTO.
AND READ COULTER,.
WHO IS SMARTER:
S&L AND COULTER OR CHARLES AND THE LZARDOIDS!?
Pastorius,
Charles Johnson has picked up a nasty character trait of dogmatic leftists -- if you don't agree with him 100% on each and every issue that interests him, you are purged. The idea of building a broad-based movement against the jihad is anathema to him. If you aren't absolutely pure, then he doesn't want you. He wants the counterjihad to function only if all of its members are laid back youth-cultured, Californians with the one exception from the norm, that they oppose the jihad. He is not willing to accept that effective opposition to the jihad will have to include nationalists and Christians, even Christianists, if you will. He is contributing objectively to the victory of the jihad. This is the same way the jihad defeated the thriving, multicultural, polyglot cultures of North Africa in the 7th century of the Crhsitian Era. Divide and conquer. The jihadis were absolutely united on the main point, while the defenders of the status quo were divided into many camps: Christians, Jews, pagans . . . it was easy for the jihadis to divide them and conquer them. Charles is contributing to that same process today. If you aren't perfect enough for him, you must vanish. Big mistake. Not to mention, his dime-store Darwinism and "village atheism" is a colossal bore.
I read the Sweetness and Light post. I do not agree with it's perspective.
I think Jeremiah Wright is a racist, and I think the CCC are racists.
Ann Coulter says, "Apart from some aggressive reporting on black-on-white crimes—the very crimes that are aggressively hidden by the establishment media—there is little on the CCC website suggesting that the group is a "thinly veiled white supremacist" organization, as the New York Times calls it in one of its more charitable descriptions. "
Here's my question: Why should the New York Times be more charitable than that? They are a white supremacist organization.
As any sentient being can tell, Ms. Coulter was writing about the power and dangers of ‘guilt by association,’ as it is selectively applied by our watchdog media.
Ms. Coulter was not defending the CCC, but describing it as no more racist — and quite a bit less racist — than Mr. Obama’s preacher of 30 years.
As any sentient being can tell, Ms. Coulter was writing about the power and dangers of ‘guilt by association,’ as it is selectively applied by our watchdog media.
Ms. Coulter was not defending the CCC, but describing it as no more racist — and quite a bit less racist — than Mr. Obama’s preacher of 30 years.
As any sentient being can tell, Ms. Coulter was writing about the power and dangers of ‘guilt by association,’ as it is selectively applied by our watchdog media.
Ms. Coulter was not defending the CCC, but describing it as no more racist — and quite a bit less racist — than Mr. Obama’s preacher of 30 years.
Indeed, the CCC could actually be a lot more racist and Ms. Coulter’s points would still be accurate.
Mr. Obama attended Trinity Church going on 30 years, and is now the sitting President.
Messrs. Lott and Barr merely gave speeches to the CCC, and neither ever ran for President on major party tickets, much less won their party’s nomination.
I generally agree with Punditarian's point. Charles wants to be the hall monitor, but in my opinion he's right on this as well as the VB issue.
Here's the thing that gets forgotten: All Charles said about the VB in the beginning is that maybe we ought to be careful who we ally with.
In response, Atlas Shrugs accused him ( of writing Press Releases for CAIR. Admittedly it was a figurative claim. However, it was a wholly unjustified attack.
In the aftermath of that attack, GOV, Christine Brim and Atlas went on a tear making the claim that clear instances of racism, on the part of the VB and it's followers, were not racist in nature.
And, at the same time they repeated their mantra that the VB can change.
So, which is it, did they change, or were they never racist in the first place?
It's a pile of shit argument. Racists don't change their stripes without undergoing a psychological paradigm shift, a conversion experience.
No one in the VB power structure has explained their conversion story so I don't buy it.
Ask yourself this, what would it take to convince you that Obama is not an Ayers-following Alinsky-ite?
Why would you give the VB more of a chance than Barack Obama?
RP,
I know you well enough to know that you don't like white supremacists any more than I do. Instead, it seems you are set on tearing down Charles Johnson because you don't agree with his mockery of the counter-Jihad movement.
I don't agree with him on that either. His post today on the Hannity interview with that Mawyer character is a case in point. So what if Sean Hannity interviewed an idiot on his show? Should that surprise anyone? Sean Hannity himself is an idiot.
But Charles Johnson used it as a jumping off point to demean the anti-Jihad by framing the loose affiliation of our association (against Islamic fascism) in "scare quotes". Additionally, he made the completely vacuous point that if Mawyer is a member of our group, then our movement is dead.
Of course, no one has ever heard of this man, and my opinions about Islamic fascism are not any less true because of some Jerry Falwell-following asshole.
Charles was way off base with that attack, as he has been off base in many of his attacks.
Stiil, your attack on him with regard to Coulter is off-base, because Coulter did, indeed, state that there is nothing really wrong with the CCC. What you are doing here is attempting to tear down Johnson by belittling any point he makes. His point in this case is valid.
It seems to me that he and you are both guilty of the same thing.
---
demagogue
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
A leader of the common people in ancient times.
U R WRONG ABOUT ME.
APOLOGIZE.
I AM NO CHALRES JOHNSON.
APOLOGIZE.
VB IS ZIONIST.
END OF STORY.
YOU BELIEVE CHARLES.
THAT;S A BIG MISTAKE.
HE'S A MORON.
ARE SOME IN THE CCC RACIST?
PROB.
SOME IN THE GOP ARE AND SOME THE THE DEMS TOO.
SO FUCKING WHAT!?
GROW UP PASTO.
ACCEPTING THE ALLIANCE OF SOME GROUPS DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO ENDORSE EVERYTHING THEY OR THEIR DIVERSE MEMBERSHIP LIKES.
OR THAT WE SHOULD BE ACCUSED IOF IT.
BY MORONS.
KASPAROV MARCHED WITH THE COMMIES AGAINST PUTIN.
THE RUSSIAN COMMIES KILLED WAY MORE PEOPLE THAN THE KKK. OR HITLER.
DOES THAT MAKE KASPAROV WRONG!@?
ONLY TO MORONS.
GROW UP.
I ALLY MYSELKF TO PRO-CHIOCE PEPLE IN THE COUNTER-JIHAD.
ABORTION HAS KILLED MORE THAT HITLER.
BUT I KEEP MY EYE ON THE MAIN ENEMY.
YOU SHOULD TOO.
AS PUNDITARIAN SAYS.
LOOKIT PASTO:::::::
WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PRIDEFUL OF THEIR RACE AS MUCH AS BLACKS - WITHOUT BEING CALLED RACISTS.
NOBODY CALLS THE NAACP RACIST.
BUT THEY ALL CALL THE CCC RACIST.
YOU AND I AGREE THAT WE NEED A MERITOCRACY WHICH PAYS NO ATTENTION TO RACE.
I ARGUE THAT THIS IS MORAL AND THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS IMMORAL.
IT HAS HURT WHITES!
IT HAS LOWERED OUR STANDARDS.
IN MANY QUARTERS THIS MAKES ME A RACIST.
IN MOST LEFTIST CIRCLES IF YOU OPPOSE AFFRIMATIVE ACTION YOU ARE A RACIST.
JUST AS IF YOU ARE PRO 2ND AMENDMENT YOU ARE A MURDERER.
DON'T FALL INTO THE LEFTIST TRAPS.
DON'T USE THEIR CATEGORIES.
CHARLES USED LEFTIST PROPAGANDA AGAINST VB.
AND AGAINST COULTER ET AL.
THE SHEER NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HE HAS BANNED - LIKE ME - PROVES THAT HE IS A STALINIST.
AND HURTING THE COUNTERJIHAD.
AIDING THE ENEMY.
THE CCC IS NOT.
CHARLES IOS LOWER THGAN THE CCC.
Post a Comment