July 14, 2006
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.Yawn.
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.
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 About.com, 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: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.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.Clear? Well, I think so.
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:
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.
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: Glenn Reynolds cannot hide the appearance of fascism!
Welcome all -- and viva Il Instapundo!
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
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood