The Colorado Confederatarian

Mr. Surace is a no-account, but I decided I needed t' ainswer him regardless, git this thang behind me, 'n move ohn.   I have recently sent him two polite e-mails askin' him t' acknoweldge th' case I make below regardin' th' racism charge, but he has either blocked my e-mail address or is simply not ainswerin' me.  No matter, as y'all'll see he's been given plenty of notice.

Ohn August 26, 2008, Mr. Surace banned ol Snaggle-Tooth’s IP address, so that I cudn’t see his site (which of course I still cain). Here’s wut he had t’ say:

Snaggle-Tooth Jones, your site is filled with promotions of Bob Barr and Neo-Confederate websites. You constantly attack Republicans for supporting Israel and now you have left a post containing a link to a website attacking John McCain for having support from Hispanics.

 

You have made your true colors known. Racism is not tolerated at Rocky Mountain Right and your account has been terminated and banned.

 

Have a nice day.

I mentioned Surace’s bannin’ me here, and e-mailed Surace invitin’ him t’ discuss it, but he wuzn’t havin’ any. Then, last Dec. 6-7 over at a comments box at The New Conservative, he ‘n I finally locked horns. Here’s th’ text of th' exchange: 

Snaggle-Tooth Jones: Wuddn't be th' first time ol' Tony Surace has been wrong. He's still got my IP address banned at his blog, simply cuz I posted somethin' negative once 'bout Juan Mequeno.

 

Thin thar was-att George Lilly thang. 

 

Seems ol' Tony got a problem in the "judgment" department.

 

Course, he's jus' a young feller. Better judgment will come with age, I suspect.

;-)

December 6, 2008 7:05 PM

 

 

RMR:

 

Actually, you were banned for posting a link to some nonsense about John McCain not being a conservative because he had hispanic supporters.

 

If you want to bash McCain's immigration bill, go for it and I'll even join in. If you want to bash a candidate based purely on the race of some of his supporters then you're not going to be welcome on my site.

December 6, 2008 11:46 PM

 

 

Snaggle-Tooth Jones:

 

Uh, I don't believe that was the case, Mr. Surace. I don't exactly remember the item about McCain I linked to, but my argument with McCain has *never* been that his conservative credentials were dubious because he had Hispanic supporters. I'm a Ron Paul guy, and Paul has supporters of every hue. My issue with McCain, generally speaking, was that he isn't a conservative. As for specifics, his support for amnesty was one of several things that drew my criticism and caused me to vote 3rd party.

 

So, one of two things is going on here: either you radically misinterpreted me, or you're libeling me. I really hope it isn't the latter, as that would seem to indicate something of a pattern of behavior with you.

 

However, it is good of you, after all this time, to finally explain yourself. May I suggest you that you produce the link I posted to see if there's any merit in your implicit claim that I'm a racist?

December 7, 2008 12:11 AM

 

 

RMR:

Here's the link:

 

http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2008/08/daddy-yankee.html

 

No mention of policies in that posting or in your comment at RMR. Though there are a bunch of comments on the site with such gems such as "the negro and white man cannot live under the same government."

 

Unless you were trying to be misinterpreted, you might have tried explaining your problems with McCain on immigration instead of dropping a post that consists entirely of a link to a post saying little more than "Oh no, Hispanics!"

December 7, 2008 1:51 AM

 

 

Snaggle-Tooth Jones:

As I suspected, you totally misinterpreted my intent in linking that Rebellion blog entry.

 

First of all, the text of the Rebellion post:

 

"Why does a Latino rapper support McCain for president? As, um, "Daddy Yankee" says, "He's a fighter for the Hispanic community." The young Latinas squeal, McCain grins, and the rest of us groan."

 

Mr. Tuggle is primarily demonstrating the inanity of the McCain campaign here, inasmuch as he stooped to this stunt involving a foul-mouthed rapper of all people. And, as the linked article about "Daddy Yankee" indicated, "Though McCain has sometimes shown surprising familiarity with rap stars and pop culture references because of the musical tastes of his daughters, it is unlikely that the conservative Republican would have made a point of mentioning the song had he known that (Daddy Yankee's) 'Gasolina' lyrics are loaded with sexual references. Although there’s some debate about what the word 'gasolina' means in this context, one thing is certain: It’s not a petroleum product.

 

Asked whether McCain knew about the sexual allusions, a campaign spokesman said he had no comment."

 

Ergo: Mr. Tuggle's point in posting the Rebellion blog entry, and my point in linking to it on your blog, was to show McCain supporters like you that their faith in McCain as a conservative candidate was misplaced. There was no suggestion whatsoever by Mr. Tuggle or by me that McCain's conservatism was doubtful because he had Hispanic supporters. Rather, his conservative credentials were dubious because, among many other things, he used this guy at a campaign appearance in a lame attempt to get votes. He pandered to one of the worst elements of popular culture (rap musicians) when, if he were a real conservative, he'd be a champion of the culture wars.

 

Secondly, regarding the "negro and white man" comment you reference. I guess it escaped your notice that those words were penned by a troll posting in the comments box. Inasmuch as the League of the South is oftentimes called a "racist" organization by the politically correct loons on the liberal-left, its official blog Rebellion gets a lot of these kinds of comments from people seeking to discredit the organization. I urge you this time to take a *careful* look at the discussion in the comments box there (where I chime in once, BTW)), and you will see clearly that certain commenters are identified as trolls there, including the one who penned the words you reference.

 

So how about it, Anthony: ready to unban me now? Hopefully you won't be one of those individuals duped by the scurrilous writings of the Southern Poverty Law Center about such secessionist organizations as the League of the South. Only the PC loons of the liberal-left believe what Dees and Co. have to say.

December 7, 2008 11:11 AM

 

 

Snaggle-Tooth Jones: A correction and an apology:

 

I urged you, Mr. Surace, to read that comments box carefully, but upon my own further careful reading I now see that Scott Goldsmith, the author of the "negro and white man comment" you referenced, is not a "troll" but a bona fide Southern nationalist. My apologies, therefore, for urging you to do what I did not. Nonetheless, this does not vitiate my point that trolls (such as "Beauregard P. Lee, VIII") do cause much trouble there in the Rebellion comments boxes.

 

Moreover, Scott's comments are incidental to Tuggle's post about McCain. There was nothing in Tuggle's blog entry that even remotely touched on the issue of whether "the negro and white man" could live under the same government. The blog entry was about one thing and one thing only: McCain's incompetence. My own comment there is illustrative of this.

 

One last point: Mr. Scott's sentiments aren't representative of all League members, as amply demonstrated by this article:

 

http://archive.boulderweekly.com/061004/coverstory.html

 

Goldsmith's sentiments most certainly are not mine, as I think Mr. Nielson will attest based on our discussions of our respective Cherokee ancestries. As Mac Aston asks, if the League is a "racist" organization, should we be burning crosses on our own lawns?

 

However, Goldsmith's sentiments were most certainly shared by our national demigod and GOP hero "Honest Abe" Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln's views against blacks and whites living together post-emancipation were so strong that he favored black repatriation to Africa. Would GOP icon Lincoln be welcome at your blog, I wonder?

 

Regardless of your answer here, I hope I've adequately explained why I should be welcome there.

December 7, 2008 12:02 PM

 

 

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

(I see he's busy posting on his blog today. Wonder if that means he's not going to answer me.)

December 7, 2008 4:31 PM

‘N att wuz it. Ol’ Anthony simply never ainswered my question thar at The New Conservative, ‘’n wuts more, as of today, January 22, 2009, I’m still banned from accessin’ his web site.

Certain words concernin’ Mr. Surace come t’ mind here: 1) Pigheaded. You’d thank-att aifter th' explanation I gave to him above, he’d relent and unban me, as I had made it abundantly clear: a) that I wuzn’t a racist; and b) that th’ linked Rebellion blog entry wuzn’t expressing any kind of racist sentamint; 2) Ignorant.

First of all, th' fact that he’d ban me fir havin’ positive references to Bob Barr is curious indeed. Thar are a total of two blog entries at my blog ‘bout Barr, only one of ‘em bein’ particularly positive. I thank maybe he means Chuck Baldwin, not Bob Barr, as at th’ time I had an advert in my sidebar expressin’ my support fir th’ Baldwin presidential bid. But wut has Surace got ‘ginst either Barr or Baldwin, ‘cept maybe that they true conservatives whereas he ain’t? Neither one of them is a racist. Does he not know that?

The next reason he gives is that I have promoted certain “neo-Confederate” web sites. Well, att’s true. I have. I’m a “neo-Confederate” myself. Nothin’ gits past ol’ Tony, att’s fir sure.

But it wud appear he’s drank th' SPLC kool-aid ohn this un. Surace appahrantly believes that ol’ SPLC hoo-haw that t’ be a “neo-Confederate” is ‘t be a racist. But such a belief stems from pure ignurnce, as a readin’ of th' article ‘bout Mac Aston linked above, my sidebar article ohn Confederatarianism, 'n my “Sheethead Free Zone” sidebar notice, and The League of the South's Statement on "Racism" (among other thangs) all show. ‘N all-iss simply goes t’ point out, I thank, how th’ typical neocon is infected with th’ same PC malady as are librul/leftist outfits like SPLC, once agin’ tendin’ to indercate-att neocons ‘n liberal/lefties are jus’ two sides of th’ same worthless ideological coin. In faict, neo-conservatism’s librul roots have been well-docermented, even by some neocons.

Frank discussion of race ain’t racism. It is, rather, intellectual honesty at its best, ‘n an express rejection of the political correctness-att is killin’ this here nation. As I say here in my discussion of Confederatarianism, the Southron paleocon view is fir every hue ‘n color. Are there racists ‘mong the neo-Confederates? Most assuredly, just as thar are many racists ‘mong the neocons, the Arab-hating Zionists bein’ perhaps th’ clearest example. Neoconservatism’s “lodestar” Abe Lincoln (t/ quote Jack Kemp) was a racist par excellence, far more racist than, say, Generals Lee and Jackson were. Even Tocqueville noted that Northern racism wuz much more virulent thin Southern racism in his observation. Racism manifests itself everywhar, from Jesse Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark to th’ death wished expressed at the neocon site Free Republic toward the brown-skinned Palestinians who have dared to oppose the Israeli behemoth.

Lastly, Tony wups my hide fir “constantly attacking Republicans for supporting Israel.” ‘L, I’m thankin’ some of my posts on Isrul below explains a little ‘bout that. Wut I “attack” is th’ false ‘n destructive ideology of Zionism ‘n BOTH th' GOP’s *AND* th' Ass Party’s support of it.  Ain’t nuthin’ “conservative” ‘bout supportin’ th’ Zionist regime, ‘specially with all th’ potential it causes fir “blowback” here in th’ US.  Nope, ain’t nuthin’ conservative ‘bout that at all.   And I look in vain at th’ history of conservatism fir any indication-att support fir th’ Zionists is in conservatism’s essence.  Nope, that idea is a new one, a “radical” one, which wuz illegitimately bootlegged into wut passes today as “conservatism.”

Now, I’m givin’ ol’ Tony th’ charitable construction here. I’m sayin’ that: 1) he’s bein’ pigheaded by not accepting my explanation, ‘n unbanning me; and/or 2) his “knowledge base” re: “neo-Confederates” and historic conservatism is lacking. That he’s “ignorant”, in other wurds, an unfortunate state t’be in but one which is fortunately remediable.

The ohnly other interpretation of Surace’s behavior here is that he’s a dimwit. I’m sure hopin’ it ain’t that.

You have a nice day too, Mr. Surace.

S. Jones