Home / Brownshirts for Bush?

Brownshirts for Bush?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There are some evil people on the Blogosphere. Al-Muhajabah has had to disable comments from her Islamic Blog after some fascist moron decided to crapflood her blog with several hundred comments like the example below.


If anyone actually reads Al-Muhajabah’s blog, you’ll find that she’s consistently posted robust condemnations of terrorist acts.

I believe we’re going to see more of this sort of thing as the US election approaches. There appears to be no shortage of unpleasant thugs that only believe in democracy and freedom of speech when it applies to their side. I wonder how many more liberal (or conservative) blogs will be hit by DOS attacks in the next few months?

Powered by

About Tim Hall

  • debbie

    I had never heard of David Yeagley before now, I had never been to his web site before now, and I will never go there again….

    That was absolutely disgusting!

  • Shark

    Just for the record: Shark is against censoring words on this site.

    Let the morons, racists, etc. have their say; if their ideas suck, either point it out or ignore them.

    It’s that simple.

    I like it when someone immediately announces, (explicitly or implicitly): “Hi, I’m an idiot racist,” etc. Makes my job much easier — and I believe it’s important to know your enemy.

    It’s those STEALTH morons I fear; ya know, the ones you end up voting for by mistake or who sign your paycheck…

    Besides—sometimes, a fool’s post becomes his own worst punishment

  • Barger has been working up (perhaps it should be working down) to this. The attempt to smear Lincoln. Promoting Ghettopoly. His thread attacking Rosa Parks. His invitation to a libertarian pol from Indiana with views similar to Yeagley’s to comment here. And, now Yeagley himself. If Barger can wangle a chat with David Duke that will be next up on Blogcritics. Afterward, he will go into his usual ‘What racism? I didn’t do nuthin’ pose.

    Meanwhile, Yeagley is busy attacking the Japanese, today. There’s some sneering at Mexican-Americans thrown in, too.

    I’m well aware of the Oriental rip-off of the American system. Everyone think’s he’s entitled to whatever America has. Just by being born.

    Who made them think this way? White “liberal” Communist American statemen and NGOs.

    He is one of the most pan-racist people I’ve observed. For him, any group that is not white just ain’t right.

  • Thanks, Eric, just got caught up.

    Of course the response from you and most responding Blogcritics was predictably sane (and by “Blogcritics.org” up above I hope you know I didn’t mean you–I meant the site, meaning all of us), but the controversy over on that thread actually represents what I’m talking about.

    The Blogcritic who posted the link to a racist site in his article has been roundly condemned.

    The problem is–this Blogcritic lives to be roundly condemned. He hasn’t been put in his place by the criticism. He’s been rewarded with exactly what he wants. And an extremely foul idea got significant airtime on Blogcritics.org.

    I’m not proposing any solutions or action, because I can’t think of any. I’m just highlighting a problem. I feel a certain amount of discomfort being associated with a site that has even entertained this discussion (again, the site–not pointing the finger at any individuals who felt compelled to respond, as did I). What’s next: “Jews: Evil?” Do we just let ourselves get provoked into semi-entertaining these ideas for the amusement of the provokers?

    I just don’t know where this goes. Clearly the best response to racists is to ignore them. But how do we ignore them when our fellow Blogcritics link to them?

  • Eric Olsen

    Please refer to the actual post in question to see my unequivocal condemnation adn disgust with this racist insanity.

  • Holy shit.

    I just went to that entry. I have a habit of not acknowledging those who throw fits to get attention here at Blogcritics, as it only encourages them, but I have to say this is really, really sick.

    The writer whom Blogcritics.org approvingly links to opens an entry on his blog with this:

    “Around white societies, some “black” people apparently have doubts about their sexual desirability. They still feel unaccepted, and unwanted, so in the name of “equality,” they’re determined to assert their bodies as sexually desirable. They want to force themselves in everyone’s face, like it or not.

    Immediately following that is a picture of a female gorilla, clearly cropped to resemble the famous Janet Jackson Superbowl shot.

    Part of the deal with Blogcritics is that there is no editing, a characteristic that definitely has its advantages. I like being able to say whatever I want here in an article that will appear on the front page at least for awhile.

    There are many disadvantages to an unedited, invite-just-about-everyone publication, though, and this is one of them. Am I approving of this racist garbage by being a Blogcritic and linking here from my blog?

    Usually the answer to bad speech is more speech. But sometimes it does absolutely no good to engage someone who is simply looking to raise his repellent views to the status of controversy. (On my own blog, I had a Holocaust denial advocate repeatedly spam the comments on this post about Mel Gibson with pre-written propaganda recently and had to ban someone for the first time.)

    If racists are going to come to Blogcritics so that they can enjoy the status of being a ‘dissenting point of view’ in a community where they are tolerated and given that status, I absolutely do not want to be here.

    This isn’t a question of tolerance or open-mindedness. It’s a question of being known by the company you keep. Blogcritics looks to the outside visitor, especially at first, like a community of people who know and respect each other. By seeing my name on the blogroll here, someone could easily assume that I am willing to tolerate the company of those who compare black people to gorillas.

  • Maybe. My post is really a spittle-flecked rant at someone who (successfully) managed to silence another’s voice.

    But I somehow doubt that it was a Howard Dean supporter.

  • Tom, you don’t have to look that far to find evil people in the blogosphere. Al Barger has invited one of the most virulent racists on the Internet, David Yeagley, to Blogcritics. Barger has been praising Yeagley for writing entries in which he ranted about African-Americans being an inferior race, loosely linked to Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl stunt. A picture of a bare-chested female gorilla was used to depict Ms. Jackson. I will not personally link to this disgusting material, but the URL is included in Barger’s entry.

    As long as Blogcritics allows garbage like this to be posted here, I don’t believe it is in a position to criticize disrupters of other blogs, including Brownshirts. And, don’t think for a moment people will not see it. Barger’s entry is included in the large font, bold refer to coverage of the Super Bowl caper. Gee! What a great way to improve the site’s image.

  • Or you can apply Occam’s razor, or “logic,” in other words, and deduce that it’s likely some anti-Muslim sicko with too much time on his hands. It’s not as exciting as trying to place blame on Bush and the entire Republican party, but at least it makes sense. Or were you going for “paranoid reactionist”? Because if so . . . good job!