Confederate Group League of the South Gets All Up in My Face and Whatnot

There's a bit of good news for those various conservative commentators who've been defending Robert Stacy McCain in the wake of mounting evidence that he's a degenerate white supremacist weirdo with connections to various neo-Nazi movements and a penchant for flamboyant metaphors -- you fellows have some powerful new allies!

The folks at League of the South -- the nation's most prominent consortium of degenerate, pro-Confederacy, anti-American traitors -- have just now thrown in their hoods with the good people at American Spectator, Hot Air, Protein Wisdom, The Pirate's Cove, and all of those other nodes of conservative commentary that have either defended McCain and attacked his detractors or provided him with an outlet for his relatively well-written bullshit.

In a message that appeared Monday evening on the organization's website, some Confederate fellow who goes by a pen name -- much as R.S. McCain did when composing most of his own white supremacist scribblings -- explains that I have heedlessly provided him with some very valuable information with which he will further the Confederate cause by presumably convincing all of those on-the-fence moderates who frequent his radical southern secessionist website to rise up against the Union in support of slavery theocracy a particular interpretation of McCulloch v. Maryland. As our southern cousin do declare:

I just love it when the other side tosses ammunition into my greedy little hands. This epiphany about Charles Johnson, the pro-war left-globalist blogger, comes from Barrett Brown, an oh-so-politically correct atheist. You'll agree it's a gem.

Apparently I'm politically correct because, in contrast to McCain and his stated defenses of American slavery, I don't think it's all that appropriate to subject an entire ethnic group to perpetual forced labor and a comprehensive denial of basic human rights. Look at me, I'm fucking Al Sharpton.

Anywho, the Confederate fellow cites a paragraph I wrote the other day in which I note that Charles Johnson was never much of a conservative in the usual sense; Johnny Reb here seems to think this constitutes proof that Johnson supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars simply in order that government might grow as a consequence, thus advancing his "revolutionary agenda," which apparently involves communism. That would certainly explain Johnson's ponytail. Perhaps it would also explain why the vast majority of those same southerners that the League of the South would like to form into a new nation also strongly supported both of those wars and are even itching for another one against Iran for good measure -- southern conservatives want government to grow, too. How long, then, before the Neo-Confederacy turns into the People's Republic of Crackerland?

So, there you go. These are the people who support Robert Stacy McCain, white supremacist.

Update! Now With More Confederate Blog Drama!

The representative of the League of the South has responded to my response to their response to Charles Johnson's response to McCain's response to black people.

First off, I am sorry to say that I have actually lost this exchange; the League of the South fellow has correctly noted that the original title of this blog post made reference to their organization denouncing "myself" instead of "me." The Confederate is correct to mock me for this. I will note in my own defense, though, that I was drunk, as someone had brought over a bottle of tequila last night, and that at any rate I very rarely make grammatical errors, even when drunk. Still, I'm ashamed.

As to the rest:

1. I don't think one could really go so far as to call Charles Johnson a neo-con, whether or not he thinks Irving Kristol is swell. Or maybe one could. You'd have to ask him.

2. I'm sorry, but People's Republic of Crackerland is funny. I don't care who you are. Incidentally, I'm a fifth-generation Texan or some such and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy, so I can call people crackers or even crackerjacks. Lol, crackerjacks.

3. What were we talking about?

4. Oh, right. Robert Stacy McCain is a racist and, seriously, guys, the Confederacy? What the hell kind of thing is that to support?

5. I don't so much "bristle at McCain's alleged insensitivity toward other ethnic groups" as I do point out that he's defended the institution of slavery and coordinated with neo-Nazi groups while writing about related issues for The Washington Times.

In conclusion, the Confederacy surrendered.

Comments

[twinkletoes]

Concerning your conclusion, you confuse the surrender of the Confederate military with that of the Confederate government. Certainly, the army surrendered and the Confederate Government became moot, but it didn't surrender.
The question is not whether the Confederacy supported slavery. The question is whether the principles of the Declaration of Independence were more than just rhetoric. Do people have the right to self-determination? May the people alter or abolish government that becomes destructive to those rights it was created to protect? Is government justified in using force against people who no longer consent to be governed by it? Or, as Lincoln advocated, is the minority required to accept the dictates of the majority because the alternative is anarchy?
Perhaps, it is you that advocates slavery. What is slavery other than the coercive theft of a man's property and labor? The military imposed a coercive Union that replaced a voluntary Union: the enslavement of everyone to government taxation and regulation became the national reality.
If you have a distaste for slavery, you should have one for Washington, D.C.
The Confederate soldier fought for the right for people to govern themselves. Mr. Lincoln fought against it with the view that voluntary cooperation between the ruled and their rulers was anarchy. He went to war against his own people rather than allowing any of them to leave in peace. He thereby rejected the founding principles of the republic which have yet to be restored.

[pdog]

Just goes to show you there's not much difference between the Confederate Party of the civil war and the Republican Party today. The love to hide their racism behind a thin veneer.

[russell mattingly]

what about those left wing groups? how many tea baggers have been arrested? how many left wingers were arrested in pittsburgh.? how many at the imf in turkey? why is it ok for the left to cross the line yet the liberal limbaubh mr. olbermann never calls these groups out. if it is wrong when one side does it why isnt it the same when the other side does it

[Barrett Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

Ah! You have many question, Mr. Sparkle! I send you premium - answer question 100 percent!

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh, but the Confederacy was so much more snappily-dressed when they surrendered.

[Decipherer]

At least their generals were. The rank and file foot soldiers? Not so much.