Benito's brothel of missing link whores

These days, we live in a world of missing links. I've become quite used to it. But I don't like it when links are missing because they have been deliberately pulled under duress -- like this.

Nor do I like it when links are deliberately omitted when those links present the other side of the very opinion being attacked!

But what about the pesky issue of not linking to someone because you don't want to give him traffic, even though you disagree with him? According to an angry post ghost-written by "Karl Rove" for Ace (and linked by Jeff Goldstein), it's not a good idea to link Glenn Greenwald, because he's a troll and a link whore. I agree that Greenwald is a troll and probably a link whore. And I'd like to take Ace's advice and ignore him, except this is a complicated situation because (as you'll soon see), I am the one who is being ignored.

And not just by Glenn Greenwald, but by Austin Cline, who's not only much more famous, but whose recent ferocious attack on Glenn Reynolds is inextricably intertwined with Glenn Greenwald, but which provides not a single link to Glenn Reynolds. While I was more bothered by Austin Cline's opinion than by Glenn Greenwald's I see no way to discuss the former without mentioning the latter.

And if I mention the latter, and I don't provide a link, doesn't that put me in the same category as Austin Cline? Hell, it might even put me in the position of committing a Wolcott! (And much as I enjoy Wolcott's style, the deliberate non-linking of things under discussion just doesn't work for me. Plus, even Wolcott might have turned over a new leaf.)

Anyway, according to Austin Cline, itís now official. Glenn Reynolds is a far right extremist. And not just any old far right extremist; he's a far far right, far right extremist's extremist!

That's right, Glenn must now be considered far to the right of the Republican Party and to the right of "the conservative movement" itself. Not only that, his extremist rhetoric is so beyond acceptable political discourse that even the right wing should be shutting him out and loudly condemning him:

There's a better-than-even chance that someone will get hurt or even die because of the rhetoric of people like David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds. Their rhetoric is well outside what is acceptable in political discourse; the fault for this, however, lies not just with them but with the entire conservative movement in America. Conservatives and members of the Republican Party have had the moral and political responsibility for shutting such people out and loudly condemning them. Instead, they have welcomed ever more extremism into their ranks and are thus complicit not only in the current situation, but also in whatever violence is perpetrated as a consequence of it.

If you read that for the first time, you'd almost think Glenn had just recently been discovered to be a mouthpiece for Nazi sympathizers or something.

Searching in vain for the Reynolds rhetoric which is going to get people killed, I found only a link to this post by Glenn Greenwald (there! I enabled his link whoring with apologies to Karl Rove):

In order to avoid criticizing his comrades on the Right who are engaging in thug tactics, Reynolds actually equates discussion of the vacation homes of top government officials (who enjoy the most extensive and high-level security on the planet) with publication of the home addresses of private individuals and journalists (who have no security of any kind). By his reasoning, mentioning that the Vice President has a vacation home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland is no different than publishing the home address of private individuals who are publicly identified as traitors.
I'll say this for Glenn Greenlinkwhorewald. Unlike, at least he provided a link to what Glenn actually said, even if he ignores it.

Logically, providing but ignoring a link beats launching an attack with no link at all, so that means Glenn Greenwald is fairer than Austin Cline at About Atheism. Still, neither one of them is really being fair -- or most importantly, original.

I think that I am the one who is being ignored, as this post will attempt to prove.

Parenthetically, as many people don't click these links (assuming they are there to click), I think it's fair to point out that they're building the case against Glenn Reynolds out of hot air, as he simply did not say what is being attributed to him above. From the missing link:

. . .I don't argue that. Greenwald is arguing with himself. I think he's got his Glenns confused. And for those who don't follow links, here are the Online Integrity principles on this stuff:
Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private personsí professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.

Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.

Clear? Well, I think so.
It seems quite clear to me, but I guess if the goal is to accuse Glenn of being responsible for people getting killed, nothing will ever be clear.

But at the risk of engaging in the same type of "me first!" narcissism that they're engaged in, I do think there's something else going on here. I admit, I'm a little annoyed, because the arbiters of far right extremism won't give me any credit. I repeatedly warned the blogosphere about this far right business long ago -- back when Glenn Greenwald was just a plain old lawyer whose main contribtion to humanity had involved representing unusual clients.

Why, I even provided the following scary picture to document my claims:

glenno e benito01.jpg

What more could any reasonable person want?

And am I being given any credit for it? Hell no! These self appointed judges of all right wing extremism seem to think that they came up with the idea, when the original research -- the long tough hours of backbreaking work, the joyless task of speaking truth to authority -- all that and more was mine! And the final victory -- in the form of a confession by the Instafuhrer himself -- all of this happened long before people like Glenn Greenwald and Austin Cline came along with their so-called "discoveries."

Who do they think they are?

No, seriously. And I really should be a lot more pissed off about this than I am, but who ever said life was fair? If these people won't acknowledge me as the original source -- the mother of all missing links to Glennocidal Instafascism -- then I'll just have to show them that not only have I been proving Glenn's extremism for a lot longer than they have, but even now I do an infinitely better, and above all, more comprehensive job.

As most experts on right wing extremism (especially libertarian fascist conservatism of the Reynolds variety) will agree, it's hardly enough merely to assert that someone is "just like" a noted fascist figure -- however true the claim may be. To really connect the dots and really prove the historical case, there can be no more substantive and meaningful methodology than a list of verifiable similarities.

Let's start with the damning and incriminating noise factor.

Above all, both Glenn Reynolds, and his mentor Benito Mussolini are known for shouting at people. Reynolds shouts so loudly that (to quote decibel expert Andrew Keen) he's "drowning out mainstream opinion" by "shouting louder and blogging more often than the rest of us."

Benito of course simply screamed at crowds from his emperor pulpit, but isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Might this just as well be Glenn Reynolds, drowning out mainstream opinion (and receiving millions of hits) while cravenly shouting us down?


The same cruel and empty slogans, the same attitude towards all who might even think of disagreeing! (Notice the intimidated wingnuts cowering in the background -- just the way Reynolds' trembling chickenhawks cower today.)

Haven't we seen it all before, and haven't I already proven it repeatedly?

And if the noise factor alone isn't enough to convince the few remaining skeptics, let's take a look at disturbingly similar content -- and (most damning of all) disturbingly similar silence.

Let's take a look -- an objective, unbiased, scientifically verifiable, reality-based look -- at some of the important issues of concern.

Table 1A -- showing verified Reynolds-Mussolini similarities.

disclosing public email addresses failed to condemn failed to condemn
Tom DeLay's Senate departure suspicious silence complete and continued silence
ice cream policy discussed religious objections to ice cream banned ice cream altogether
war supports supports
obscure but famous legislator failed to condemn failed to condemn
fascist designs on coins linked by Reynolds minted by Mussolini
Election of Kerry did not support did not support
Impeachment of Bush failed to support failed to support
Reputation for Truthfulness "lies every day" "habitual liar"
sex on the internet failed to condemn failed to condemn
Featured in Wikipedia article yes Si

I could go on and on. Do I really need to? I mean, other than the slight policy difference over ice cream, their positions are nearly identical on nearly every major issue.

I think I have more than made my point. No one has done a better or more comprehensive job of proving Glenn Reynolds far right extremism than I have. These leftist Johnny-cum-latelys owe me apologies, which I'll kindly accept in the order they are received!

The problem is, I'm not the only one who's owed an apology, so I guess I'll have to stand in line . . .

UPDATE: After reading Snarky Bastard's post, I'm adding Andrew Sullivan (who also relies on Greenwald) to the list of people who have failed utterly to credit my tireless documentation.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds cannot hide the appearance of fascism!

Welcome all -- and viva Il Instapundo!

UPDATE: Link fixed above. While the first one was right, the second "missing link" went to the right wing delinking campaign against Glenn, which is worth reading. (My thoughts on that here.)

UPDATE (07/15/07): As if anyone needed further proof of his appetite for fascism, Glenn Reynolds has now made insensitive remarks about malnutrition in the United States! (The insensitivity, IMO, is heightened by the undeniable fact that the victim is a woman of color.)

UPDATE (07/15/06): For the most meticulous and thorough fisking of Glenn Greenwald's claims I've seen to date, do not miss this post by damnum absque injuria. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) At the risk of sounding down and dirty, is there such a thing as a douchefisking?

UPDATE (07/17/06): More proof of the scope and influence of Glenn Reynolds' extremism in this description of the "right-wing blogosphere":

. . . their usual relaxed and carefree attitude toward the espousal of murder, genocide, and the dismantling of the American political system in favor of an authoritarian one-party state.

UPDATE (07/18/06): Ken from it comes in pints? thinks I might be missing a distinction between Reynolds and Mussolini:

. . . so far as I know, Mussolini never put puppies in a blender or murdered a hobo.
There are a couple of problems with the idea that this is a distinction of any merit. First, although Reynolds' bizarre and lamentable tastes in food are well known, I don't see how this makes him any less a fascist. If anything, it only adds to the case. Second, can we state with any confidence that Mussolini did not eat puppies?

posted by Eric on 07.14.06 at 04:13 PM


"Anyway, according to Austin Cline, itís now official. Glenn Reynolds is a far right extremist."

I only see Glenn described making an unethical defense of unethical conduct. I see others described as adopting a usually extremist tactic. Setting aside whether Glenn's actually innocent, it's possible to be a bit of an apologist for extremists without also being an extremist - you just have to be a bit naive about them, perhaps.

But maybe I'm biased because I think Reynolds was wrong not to criticize publishing private addresses of private individuals and to compare publishing those addresses with the "Travel" article. Even if the latter is problematic, it's not comparable. Not even the Secret Service saw it as a problem, and boy can they be touchy.

Joe   ·  July 14, 2006 6:03 PM

Glenn Reynolds is "wrong not to criticize publishing private addresses of private individuals"? That's not my reading of this:

Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private personsí professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.
Obviously, you don't think he believes the above. I disagree.

But it is one thing to fail to criticize Glenn for failing to adequately criticize something; it is quite another to say that "there's a better-than-even chance that someone will get hurt or even die" for such an alleged failure of criticism.

"well outside what is acceptable in political discourse"? Glenn Reynolds? Are you kidding?

"Conservatives and members of the Republican Party have had the moral and political responsibility for shutting such people out and loudly condemning them." Again, Glenn Reynolds? The Republicans and conservatives should shut him out and condemn him? Because Greenwald disagrees?

These things are way, way, over the top.

You raised unethical conduct, and I'm assuming you'd include posting home addresses on the Internet. As such unethical conduct goes, few things can top this:

Reminds me of the abortion doctor lists.

Eric Scheie   ·  July 14, 2006 10:23 PM

"Glenn Reynolds is a far right extremist. And not just any old far right extremist; he's a far far right, far right extremist's extremist!"

Oh, yeah? Then why isn't he ever at the meetings?

I'm telling Karl!

ScottM   ·  July 14, 2006 10:49 PM

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize, (but I'd be ignored).

Warren   ·  July 14, 2006 11:21 PM

Reynolds is a far right extremist from Greenwald/Townhouse's position, which puts Reynolds pretty close to the American center.

Andy Freeman   ·  July 14, 2006 11:53 PM

Glenn: Caught the train on time.
Il Duce: Made the trains run on time.

Yes, it just goes on and on.

Justme   ·  July 15, 2006 12:15 AM

I've been reading Andrew Sullivan almost as long if not longer than I've been reading Glenn. I'm sorry to say his posts concerning Glenn are approaching "Jump the Shark" status.

I think it is the media side that makes the difference here, Andrew was a media man long before he was a blogger and is in my opinion drifting toward his MSN roots more. That doesn't make him any less of a nice guy or a person with opinions worthy of respect, but as he has picked up more face time it seems to have changed him a bit.

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt since I've read him a long time and he in my opinion comes by his opinions honestly (no matter if I agree or not) but his opinions on Glenn simply seem divorced from the man I've been reading for years.

I am a conservative Republican (although the Republican part is of recent mintage), Glenn Reynolds is not. The amount of things I disagree with Glenn are fairly long, most of them under the category of social conservatism. That being said I've only seen him lose his temper (at least in my opinion) online twice, once concerning our Arab friends in the west bank and Gaza a couple of years back and a little while back concerning Mr. Greenwald, who from what I've read so far doesn't have or deserve the volume of Glenn Reynolds.

I am not inclined to read Mr. Austin Cline and that might be unfair to him, but I have read enough of Mr. Greenwald to know that his writing and opinions are not worthy of my limited time on this earth. If others disagree with me that is their right and privilege and they should take all the pleasure they can from their writings.

I think the big difference between all of this comes down to who Glenn Reynolds is: He is a normal person who has a hobby of blogging. He enjoys that hobby and has helped and inspired people who agree with him and people who don't to explore and enjoy that hobby for both fun and profit. He has no agenda; he has opinions and states them. He carries his own water and doesn't ask anybody else to do it for him. I don't think he was or is looking to be the blog celeb that he is. I think he would enjoy his blog if he had 100 people reading it instead of thousands. Time and time again he has linked to people who disagree with him and has used wit or argument to make his own points. He has not had to use vulgarity to make these points and has conducted himself as a gentleman as attacks on him have become more and more hysterical.

I have had the pleasure of having him as my home page for most of the time that I've had a home page to go to on the net. He has linked the blog of the company I work for twice and I am grateful for it. I've seen my letters posted on occasion and have been flattered by it but I've been more flattered by the occasional answers to e-mails I've sent when I know he receives thousands. I think a lot of us would miss Glenn if he stopped blogging tomorrow and we should be grateful we've had years of quality writing and linking without charge.

I've never met Glenn Reynolds, I don't know him personally; I suspect I would like him if I did. I can't claim that Glenn is a friend of mine, but from what I've read and seen over the last few years, any person who can honestly make that claim is a lucky bastard.

Peter Ingemi   ·  July 15, 2006 12:16 AM

Glenn: Caught the train on time.
triticale: Caught the train on track three.
Il Duce: Made the trains run on time.

triticale   ·  July 15, 2006 7:27 AM

Peter that was a hell of a good analysis. I think you may be speaking for a lot of Glenn's readers.

I think a major reason the left hates him so much is that he draws thoughtful people from both sides, and will not fit neatly into a category.

Eric Scheie   ·  July 15, 2006 9:41 AM

OK, I'm a atheist, and a long-time resident of Austin Cline's chat room when he was hosting it from his site. But (insert frustrated cuss word here), Austin simply embarrasses me sometimes with his crass and ignorant politics OK, I'll be honest--he embarrasses me frequently.

Not all atheists are left wing zealots (just too damn many of us are). I'm just a sort-of center libertarian myself. I believe in small government, like the Republicans say they do and have proven they don't. I believe in freedom for everybody, not just for the DHS, the IRS, and the record companies. I just don't believe in the supernatural.

speedwell   ·  July 15, 2006 9:45 AM

Important Issue: Tom DeLay's Senate departure

Tom DeLay was a Representative, not a Senator.

Maybe that's why Il Pundit is silent about the matter.

Robert R.   ·  July 15, 2006 11:26 AM

I think the reason the left hates Glenn is because on some things he doesn't agree with them, and he has lots of readers.

WRT Benito: you have succeeded in proving that Glenn is no right-wing extremist, since Mussolini was in fact a totalitarian leftist.


I'm just saying. ;)

mariner   ·  July 15, 2006 11:52 AM

Sure, Reynolds reposts the "Online Integrity" b.s., but he still links to people who violate those rules.

So, where's the integrity in Reynolds' integrity?

nitpicker   ·  July 16, 2006 1:21 PM

And yet, so far as I know, Mussolini never put puppies in a blender.

Ken S   ·  July 17, 2006 10:10 AM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits