Oct 20 2009

I Stand With Charles Johnson, And In Total Opposition To Robert Stacy McCain

Published by at 1:19 pm under All General Discussions

Addendum: Sadly I have lost one reader I respect a lot. So I want to put some perspective on this decision to make a stand. I grew up amongst a lot of racists during the 60’s and 70’s. They are family members whom I care deeply for, despite their serious short comings. But I can never abide their hate or hold them up as exemplary Americans.  They are seriously flawed people, to their own detriment.

They are good people – to a point, a tragically limiting point that doesn’t allow their goodness to shine through to all human beings. McCain has friends and family, but he too clearly has tragic limitations as to where any positive side of him will travel. This flaw is his to bear, not mine. And no amount of goodness can offset even one act of racism. He cannot be a standard bearer for conservatism. He has not earned the right.

It is important that we as a people deal with irrational hate front on, and not let it become a cancer in our society. McCain’s own words indicate he is not worthy of respect or following. Those who side with him make their own choices, but first decide if McCain is even worth the commitment. – end addendum

I have seen the blog wars ongoing between Charles Johnson over at LGF and too many top conservative blogs who seem to be backing one Robert Stacy McCain. I am a centrist conservative who tries to be tolerant of differing views. But I have to say I must make a stand here between two camps. One camp promises hope for the conservative movement, the other is a cancer leading to its inevitable death.

I disagree with Johnson on many subjects (e.g, he and I are on opposite sides of the Global Warming debate – but I swear I could demonstrate to him how the science and math are clearly against the alarmists). But we also agree on many other areas (e.g., the mythology of Creationism in its opposition to Evolution and Biology – personally I don’t see why Evolution is anything other than the handwriting of God).

But when I look at what The Other McCain has written over time, I find myself repulsed well beyond my moral limits of tolerance. Anyone who thinks “race” verses “human beings” is off track. Way off track. And anyone who defends slavery is plain insane. LGF noted a detailed analysis of McCain blathering which has pushed me to the point I must make a public stand. Some disturbing excerpts of the thinking of a sick mind:

The problem, you see, is that slavery as an institution rubs roughly against some basic premises of republican government, contrasting the right of liberty to the right of property. It is only to egalitarian or collectivist social theory, really, that we may turn to find a critique of slavery. It was not subject to criticism by the Constitution of 1860, which recognized it. Nor is slavery condemned, per se, in Judeo-Christian scripture. So by the basic political and religious tenets of Americans in 1860, the existence of slavery should have been no evil, had it not been for the egalitarian phraseology of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, thus, is in direct conflict with the Constitution and Judeo-Christian scripture.

Studying the rise of abolitionism after the Missouri Compromise, I think we should be able to see that it was in mimickry of the British abolition of colonial slavery that the American fanatics came to their position.

Anyone who cannot distinguish between ‘property’ and a ‘human being’ is sick. There is no rub at all. And note those who see humans verses races are simply “American fanatics”.

Certainly, chattel slavery was no ideal economic or social system. [You think?! ~SR] Even many slaveholders such as Thomas Jefferson recognized that by stigmatizing labor, slavery encouraged sloth in both master and slave. Though most 19th-century white Americans, North and South, subscribed to racial theories that consigned blacks to an inferior status as “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” it is incorrect to say that slavery was a system based upon racial hatred. Indeed, both white and black Southerners of the era have left us testimony to the cordial and affectionate relations which generally existed between the races in the Old South.

Warped and sick logic. Slavery is not an “economic system’ it oppression. McCain seems to be saying that love of one’s ‘property’ negates the interest of basic human rights. He continues this madness into other streams of ‘logic’:

Do I expect Pitcavage or Brooks or Epperson to suddenly repent, join their local SCV chapter and start reading Dabney and Calhoun and Davis? No, I fully expect them to continue in their current opposition to Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition, feeding the wolf and hoping to be eaten last.

You need to read the analysis to see that McCain equates “Western Civilization” and the “Judeo-Christian tradition” with these white supremacists. Davis is Jefferson Davis, and there is quote from Davis I can only assume McCain wishes to be a cornerstone of “Western Civilization” and the “Judeo-Christian tradition”:

In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South

This is not Western Civilization. This is not America. McCain even seems nostalgic to the dark days of slavery in America:

Whipping and branding, Axel? How common were whippings? How common was branding? Did the slave who had proven his dilligence, honesty and trustworthiness — and I think it would be racist to say that slaves were not generally so — really have to face such treatments? I doubt it.

Read the whole thing. And realize the GOP and conservatives cannot be a force of good in today’s America with such Neanderthals holding any place of respect or leadership in the movement. He should go the way of David Duke. One last sick statement from a sick mind:

[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

I see two human beings sharing their lives. McCain sees races and is repulsed. I have made my decision. I stand with Charles Johnson, and I will stay away from any party or group that this person is connected to.

53 responses so far

53 Responses to “I Stand With Charles Johnson, And In Total Opposition To Robert Stacy McCain”

  1. Alert1201 says:

    One more thing AJ.
    “Forget about what is in or out of the bible.”
    You cannot just forget about the bible in this discussion AJ. That is why it was brought up. The bible was the cornerstone of Christianity and Western civilization until the 18th century Enlightenment. So you cannot just forget about what it says, that is if you want to have an intelligent discussion about this issue. I am speaking strictly from a historical perspective not a religious one.

  2. AJStrata says:


    Answer my question and stop dodging. Is slavery the cornerstone of Christianity

  3. Alert1201 says:

    Not dodging you AJ, just correcting your interpretation of what you said about my comment and your historical distortion of the role the Bible plays in Western Civilization. Quit trying to read my mind. Throwing out the bible in a discussion about this is like throwing out the Federalist Papers out of a discussion on the formation of the Constitution. You are seeking simplistic answers to a complicated question.

    No, slavery was not the cornerstone of Christianity. Was it important? Did it have influences? Yes! The cornerstone, no. The question of whether or not it influenced Western civilization, yes it did. Read any of the histories of Spain, Portugal, America, England and you will see that it was important in creating much of the wealth these countries possessed, at least until the industrial revolution. It was prominent in Rome and Greece, Solomon used slave labor to build the temple, it was used in Africa and Islam. Like war it is one of the pock marks of a fallen human race, not just Western Civilization.

    Have you ever read a history of slavery like Walvin or Meltzer? I would suggest you do so before making emotional comments and condemning people who disagree with you.

    Crosswalk gave an excellent summary. Why don’t you give an intelligent response to him instead of reading my mind? This is not what we think about slavery (which is what you are making it) rather it is strictly a historical question about the role of slavery in history.

  4. Brickmuppet says:

    I was where you are a few months ago. I liked CJ’s defense of evolution and his calling out of people conflating all Islam with the islamofacists. I know better now.

    I don’t know RSM, I find his blog often off-putting and vulgar.
    However, since the kefuffle with LGF I’ve been reading his blog more than usual.I see nothing to indicate that he is a racist.

    You Quoted him:
    “The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.”
    AJ, this is true.
    I don’t agree with the sentiment he’s talking about here, I happen to think miscegenation is a grand thing and good for the country. I gather from his blog that RSM does too….but a LOT of people, white and black, have a`problem with that last hurdle. It is non productive in the extreme to ostcracize them and call them racist, which is now, to our nations great credit is one of the most dreaded words in our lexicon.

    His other statements were talking about the way people rationalized slavery….and yes….the Southern Baptist Church did use the Old Testament to rationalize it. I find this abhorrent. But this was a different time…I think that was his point.

    Rather than cherry pick quotes about the past. Lets talk about the N word…used today specifically by CJ’s right hand man in the comments section of Hot Air. LGF dropped the N bombs around 3 AM and when they weren’t immediately removed accused HOT AIR of racism…quite loudly.
    If he did not approve of the Mobeying he should have banned the perpetrators….instead he thanked them.This was a vile libelous Mobey operation. Nothing more clearly demonstrates that LGF is on the other side than that.
    He hates Palin.
    He really hates the tea parties.
    He despises religion in general and, it seems, Christianity in particular.

    You may despise RSM, that is your right. However to stand with Johnson is no demonstration of good judgment or character.


  5. Brickmuppet says:

    It occurs to me that what’s got peoples backs bowed up (mine included) is your simplistic notion that this is a digital equation.

    You may believe what the lefties are saying about RSM. We can disagree on that.
    It does not follow that you must therefore ally yourself with Charles Johnson.

    Johnson is not the fellow who once inspired us. In a remarkably short time he has turned vile, dishonorable and crazy…I’m pretty sure he is waaay to your left.
    What happened to avoiding the crazies on either side of you?

  6. Alert1201 says:

    It occurs to me that what’s got peoples backs bowed up (mine included) is your simplistic notion that this is a digital equation.

    Great point. If you read history you will note that most good historians seldom use words like “cornerstone” in describing significant historical events. Most historical occurrences are brought about by a number of different degrees of influences. History is complicated and is seldom simple enough say one thing was the cornerstone of something else, especially movements as complicated as Christianity and Western Civilization.

    This was my point with sbd and his view of slavery and the bible. It has to go beyond the question did or did not the bible support slavery. Its the point that AJ needs to see about slavery being the cornerstone. Forcing somebody to say whether slavery was or was not the cornerstone of Christianity or Western Civilization is not framing the question properly. If I say no it was not, then it appears I agree with AJ, if I say it was then I agree with McCain. Both would be wrong. The discussion needs to be on the degree of the the influence of slavery.

  7. Sue says:

    If he was he wouldn’t be talking to me.

    Does he know your stance on the global warming hoax?

    Anyway, CJ is good company for me.

    Very true.

  8. combat18 says:

    Two issues:

    Do you consider yourself morally superior to our slave owning Founding Fathers?

    Where did matter come from; did it always exist or was it created?

    Furthermore, if evolution is the hand of God, then what does it matter if there is a debate over whether evolution occured? Unlike the global warming hoax, the world, this nation and a free economy will survive whether evolution is believed or not. We will not survive believing the global warming hoax. In any event, who votes on the evolution issue? Who cares about it? No one, except those who believe in global warming, affirmative action, and a government monopoly on healthcare.

    You have surrendered to the Al Sharpton Jesse Jackson race mongers for no reason. You are intimidated by the radical left and their racist Democrat functionaries who controls the media. Affirmative action and race hustling cannot win elections for Republicans or convert those to the benefits of free enterprise and honest government. That is what the racists like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and their white liberal supporters want, to surrender to their ideology and their domination of the debate.

    The fact is that racists on the left, including their anti-semetic pals, have an Anti-American agenda, whether it is destroying freedom here or destroying it overseas. Those who support affirmative action are also those who support radical Islam. Find me one proponent of affirmative action who does not also support CAIR, Achmidinjahd, sharia, socialized medicine, silencing talk radio and suppressing the free speech of those who disagree with them.

    And how will supporting illegal immigration and affirmative action get you elected? Just ask John McCain.

  9. AJStrata says:


    yes he is aware since I waging that very war on his site as we speak.

  10. Rick C says:

    The error you have made in this post is in judging 1850’s morality in light of today’s morality. That is a fools game in that todays morality will be judged just as harshly in 150 years as is the 1850’s morality today.

    Reading the excerpts you have provided, it seems McCain is looking at slavery in terms of 1850’s morality. In that light, slavery was an institution as old as civilization. Hence, there was no inherent immorality in owning slaves. Now, the term was “owning” and hence “property rights” were in play. Since the founding of the country, there was an uneasy truce between the slave states and the free states. In fact, the total value of the slaves in the South was about $3 billion while the total US wealth was about $16 billion.

    So, the question of slave and free states came to a head as the western territories were opening. The free states wanted no slavery in the new territories and slave states wanted to be able to take their “property” into the new territories. And, that was the “rub”. How can a slave be property in some states and a person in other states? What happens, then, when the slave as property crosses into a free state? That was the “House divided” Lincoln talked about. There is no way to divide that baby.

    That is all McCain is saying.

    Then, when you complain about McCain’s comments on interracial marriage, you really need to consider how religious parents feel about their children marrying outside the faith. I think you will find strong similarities. You will also note McCain used the word “may”, not “will”.


  11. Sue says:

    yes he is aware since I waging that very war on his site as we speak.

    We’ll see how long this new found friendship lasts. He doesn’t cotton to flat earthers.

  12. Jeff Z says:

    The role of the Bible in slavery is extremely important, for many reasons, not least of which is the window it gives into the day-to-day realities of ancient life.

    There is no question that there were laws regulating slavery, hence on some level accepting it, but there is equally no question that there is an endless, overwhelming, and unequivocal moral condemnation of slavery.

    To understand the revolutionary morality that the Bible brought to the ancient world, it is imperative to read other sources and compare them. In doing so, the reader will discover that the laws regulating slaves, especially regarding sexual relations, were, well, the term revolutionary is inadequate in the extreme.

    The reader will also learn that there were essentially two forms of slavery, voluntary and involuntary. The voluntary form was done to pay a debt, or in extreme situations, simply to survive. This is the reference above to the treatment of “Hebrew” slaves and was the model for indentured servitude.

    Involuntary refers to those who became slaves by war, conquest, and kidnapping. Read any account of a sacked town in ancient times (or modern, come to think of it, Berlin or Nanking) and compare to how the Torah rules a female slave taken in war must be treated sexually and you will observe a change that goes far beyond, as I said, revolutionary.

    Also, even taking the slavery laws of the Bible to their most extreme does not in any way, shape, or form justify the way slaves were treated in the CSA–or anywhere else for that matter.

  13. stevevvs says:

    Why even bring in a whack job like Charles Johnson into the discussion? Why not just say I, [insert fake name] don’t agree with RSMC?

    I just finished a great book on Lincoln, Slavery, the Civil War. It’s the best I’ve read to date. Finished it last week:


    Under $11.00, worth every penny.

    I’m now reading The Road To Surfdom, which is under $12.00.