The New Klan

Bill O'Reilly: "It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." Here, for reference, is the kind of thing the Klan used to do:

MoveOn, by contrast, is currently touting a petition calling on politicians to boost America's use of alternative energy as a method of generating electricity. Chris Hayes' excellent article on MoveOn at ten years old makes clear, these efforts to marginalize MoveOn by painting it as an unhinged radical outfit are both extremely common and also way off base. Ideologically and temperamentally it's much more a descendant of the Common Cause reformist impulse than of any strain of radicalism whatsoever.

Comments

Please find another picture.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 8:58 AM

Yes Jeffrey, I agree.

We can't have a picture of something which actually happened and which actually shows what a joke O'Reilly's statement is.

Posted by James | July 25, 2008 9:03 AM

This picture is particularly disturbing because there is no fore-warning of it. It's shock value is a lot to take at 9:00 am on a sunny Friday in NY. I know where you're trying to go but it's just one extreme reflecting another.

Posted by JessicaElaine | July 25, 2008 9:04 AM

This picture is particularly disturbing because there is no fore-warning of it. It's shock value is a lot to take at 9:00 am on a sunny Friday in NY. I know where you're trying to go but it's just one extreme reflecting another.

Posted by JessicaElaine | July 25, 2008 9:05 AM

Actually - I think this is a perfect photo to debunk the lunacy of the right. I mean the Klan vs. Move on. Comparing Obama to Hitler, Iraq is like Japan and Germany, etc. No one ever calls these mofos out on their phony historical comparisons and it's about damn time. As Truman said to his "friends" on the right, "If you stop lying about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you."

Posted by karen andrews | July 25, 2008 9:07 AM

The difference is that this is what the Klan actually did, so there is no reflection, save O'Reilly's nonsense with reality.

Posted by James | July 25, 2008 9:07 AM

Vicious photo. About to ruin my day. Ugh. The guy staring at the camera and pointing to the action seems particularly disturbing to me. Like he's showing off a big catch from a fishing trip. Yikes.

Anywho, point well taken. I haven't personally seen MoveOn do anything like this.

Posted by Brent | July 25, 2008 9:16 AM

The fact that people are complaining about this picture explains in a microcosm why the thugs and animals are winning.

Some of you think I go to far. I don't think I go nearly far enough. If there is any hope for the salvation of this nation it will be when when vermin like O'Reilly can't leave their houses for fear of being torn apart by an angry mob.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 9:16 AM

"deologically and temperamentally (MoveOn is) much more a descendant of the Common Cause reformist impulse"

Comparing an organization whose main thrust was to take the money out of politics with an organization that aims to spend money to achieve political goals?

That's the truth-allergic propagandistic Matthew we've all become familiar with over the past six months.

The difference between the current version of Matthew and O'Reilly is one of polarity, not one of kind.

Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:18 AM

Well, first off, not a fan of the picture. A picture of a burning cross would have served the same purpose without punching me in the gut.

Secondly, you are on a roll this morning. I read you because I want to have a liberal to counterbalance my conservative proclivities, and you serve very nicely. Today, however, I've agreed with your posts more often then not (the passing aid for Iraqi refugees is another example). MoveOn as the new Klan?!?! That doesn't make any sense. Call me when MoveOn is calling for violence rather than working the system - then I might (MIGHT) believe that claim. O'Reilly is a buffoon, and I've never liked him - but this is over the top, even for him. I disagree with MoveOn a lot, but they have absolutely nothing in common with the Klan.

Posted by B. Minich | July 25, 2008 9:19 AM

Well, I'm sure he'll be taken off the air in short order as a result of this thoroughly researched debunking, especially given his 1.5 million viewers' demonstrated concern with accuracy and fairness towards people they're told to despise for no reason.

Posted by norbizness | July 25, 2008 9:21 AM

Apparently the distinction is a level of nuance O'Reilly doesn't do.

Posted by Aleks | July 25, 2008 9:25 AM

Isn't it interesting how the right wing is constantly charging some left wing group with being just like some demonized right wing group? The Klan was a nativist, racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, and anti-communist. Clearly on the rigth. And of course, Liberalism is fascism. Obama is like Hitler.

I believe this is called projection.

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 25, 2008 9:26 AM

"Well, I'm sure he'll be taken off the air in short order as a result of this thoroughly researched debunking, especially given his 1.5 million viewers' demonstrated concern with accuracy and fairness towards people they're told to despise for no reason."

Sure. Just as Matthew will be fired from CAP for comparing Common Cause to MoveOn.

Again, the difference between Matthew and O'Reilly is one of polarity, not of kind.

Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:27 AM

Thank you, Matthew, for graphically representing what clowns these people are.

O'Reilly's statement is almost as ridiculous as Doughy Pantload's statement that "The white man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism".

If I had the time and the money, I'd take Doughy Pantload over to Auchwitz in a straight jacket and hold his eyes open, Clockwork Orange-style, to show him what a fucking asshole he is.

The assholes on the right need to have their faces rubbed in their shit at every opportunity if my beloved country is to have a chance.

Posted by calipygian | July 25, 2008 9:31 AM

I don't like the picture either. Please make the event photographed not have happened.

Posted by Njorl | July 25, 2008 9:33 AM

The chutzpah of many on the right continues to amaze me. O'Reilly and many others have hijacked the victim language of some on the left, and now we're told that moveon.org is like the Klan and Daily Kos is a "smear site." They thundered endlessly about Rev. Wright's "racism." And most brazenly, O'Reilly denounces "Bush bashing" and "Bush hatred," as if our preznit is a protected class all by himself.

All in the name of stifling dissent.

Posted by mwc | July 25, 2008 9:36 AM

Sure. Just as Matthew will be fired from CAP for comparing Common Cause to MoveOn.
Again, the difference between Matthew and O'Reilly is one of polarity, not of kind.
Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:27 AM

Yes, Matt is of a polarity causing him to analogize media groups he admires to generally admired media groups. O'Reilly's polarized to analogize media groups he doesn't admire to murderous terrorists.

I've reads statements that Petey used to be an intelligent person. I don't believe those statements.

Posted by Aleks | July 25, 2008 9:37 AM

The creepiest part is the young couple on the left holding hands. Seriously, the photo is shocking but serves the purpose of showing just how offensive - not absurd, but offensive - anyone with a modicum of decency should find O'Reilly.

Posted by Dan | July 25, 2008 9:40 AM

*I've read statements . . .

Posted by Aleks | July 25, 2008 9:40 AM

This is a very old game of O'Reilly's. He's been calling everyone on the Left "Nazis" for years.

Here's multiple examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-swAcidXHyM

Posted by Doug | July 25, 2008 9:41 AM

This is a very old game of O'Reilly's. He's been calling everyone on the Left "Nazis" for years.

Here's a clip with multiple examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-swAcidXHyM

(Corrected for grammar - Sorry, it's early.)

Posted by Doug | July 25, 2008 9:42 AM

comparing Common Cause to MoveOn

So, Petey, you're making the following analogy

MoveOn : Klan :: MoveOn : Common Cause

Matt, I'm fine with you straightforwardly calling Petey a racist now.

Posted by hlah | July 25, 2008 9:45 AM

"Yes, Matt is of a polarity causing him to analogize media groups he admires"

Matthew admires Common Cause? The group that espouses the kind of campaign finance reform he's being rabidly inveighing against for the past six months?

Like O'Reilly, Matthew has very "flexible" admirations.

Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:50 AM

"So, Petey, you're making the following analogy MoveOn : Klan :: MoveOn : Common Cause"

No. That's not the analogy I'm making in the least. I'm not a fan of the Klan, and I like Common Cause a lot and MoveOn a little.

But I think it's pretty clear that the current version of Matthew and O'Reilly share a willingness to lie through bared teeth if they think it'll help their "side". That's what propagandists do, and that's what Matthew and O'Reilly are.

Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:56 AM

Keep the picture up. People need to be confronted with the offensiveness of O'Reilly's comparison.

Posted by dwhite10701 | July 25, 2008 9:57 AM

We must first denounce this epithet as beyond the pale. Then we can get back to calling Republicans Nazis and Bush Hitler.

/irony

Posted by Al | July 25, 2008 10:13 AM

The grotesque thing about O'Reilly's language isn't just that his analogies are offensive and preposterous; it's that his fellow wingnuts routinely anthropomorphize America into a flawless heroine whom you dare not criticize lest you be viewed as a traitor, a slanderer, a terrorist, an appeaser.

They don't want to see photos of what the actual KKK actually did, not just because doing so blows their insane analogies to smithereens, but because they never want to concede that Americans are sometimes horrible human beings or that America itself sometimes does horrible things. For wingnuts, it is always '39, D-Day, Pearl Harbor, 1945, or September 11. That's what America is to them: heroism, victory, sacrifice. Slavery, racism, illegal wars, Abu Ghraib... That's all unpleasant, anomalous, "bad egg" stuff that's not to be mentioned in good company. Unless, of course, you need a ludicrous analogy for a TV show or a book proposal, in which case MoveOn = KKK and Liberal = Fascist, and so on.

And then when you call them on their bullshit, they whine that liberals make similarly inapt analogies too. And even though their assholes are much louder and more popular than ours, they think it's all even because for every O'Reilly or Hannity or Dobson or Hagee——multimillionaires with audiences in the millions and accesss to the fucking White House——there's a Janeane Garofalo or a commenter on Kos or a Cindy Sheehan. And of course, Fox News Channel shouldn't be scolded any more than MoveOn, since we all know both groups are equally popular, wealthy, and influential....

Posted by tinisoli | July 25, 2008 10:22 AM

It's clearly overstating to describe MoveOn that way, however - the Global Warming activists want to define skepticism as a crime against humanity.

Now, what do you suppose they'll end up with as a preferred penalty if they get their way? And bet on MoveOn cheering all the way.

Posted by James Robertson | July 25, 2008 10:23 AM

"Yes, Matt is of a polarity causing him to analogize media groups he admires"
Matthew admires Common Cause? The group that espouses the kind of campaign finance reform he's being rabidly inveighing against for the past six months?
Like O'Reilly, Matthew has very "flexible" admirations.
Posted by Petey | July 25, 2008 9:50 AM

I suppose if you cut me off in mid sentence like that it does leave ambiguous which group I'm saying Matt admires.

Posted by Aleks | July 25, 2008 10:36 AM

Calling everybody a Nazi or a Klansman helps the Right protect actual Nazis and Klansmen.

For example, "Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer!" sounds unhinged rather than factual, because it sounds like unhinged arguments sound.

Similarly, the touring Bodies exhibit is the work of "the son of a Nazi scientist!" Of course, the guy's father was indeed a Nazi scientist.

Making these things abstract absolute pejorative erases the actual concrete history and absolves the culprits.

Posted by Luke | July 25, 2008 10:38 AM

It's clearly overstating to describe MoveOn that way, however - the Global Warming activists want to define skepticism as a crime against humanity.

Now, what do you suppose they'll end up with as a preferred penalty if they get their way? And bet on MoveOn cheering all the way.

Wow, that's even better! Instead of just pointing to a Cindy Sheehan or some other marginal liberal of minimal influence as a means of distracting attention from the immensely popular and influential wingnut who just said something incredibly awful, point instead to the unknown future, where some liberals just might call for something unpleasant to happen to somebody for some reason, or something.

What else do you see in your crystal ball, Mr. Robertson?

Posted by tinisoli | July 25, 2008 10:39 AM

I'm curious. Did the lynching pictured here actually have anything to do with the Klan?

In any case why do you all assume that the white mob pictured here was conservative? They may have been Theodore Bilbo type liberals. My impression is that in Virginia, dominated by the conservative Byrd machine, lynchings were much rarer than elsewhere in the South. I wonder if that was an anomaly, or whether lynchings were generally more likely to occur in liberal areas than in conservative areas?

Posted by Sam | July 25, 2008 11:02 AM

I myself I'm disturbed by Yglesias' rather carefree use of this picture. It's not because I "can't handle the truth" or because I deny that O'Reilly's statement is ridiculous.

It's because a blogger can so casually yank this image from cyberspace and glibly post it -- a gruesome, shocking document of our nation's shameful past -- to score points against a target who doesn't deserve the attention, and whose comparison is patently false to anyone with half a brain.

Would Yglesias post pictures, without warning, of JFK's skull coming apart? Of Iraqi children in pieces after a US airstrike? He should grow up and treat his audience and the dead with much more respect. Images of dead black people don't exist for us to harvest at random for petty purposes. There is a time and place for such powerful statements, but a cheap shot at Bill O'Reilly of all people is not one of them.

Think about your responsibility, Yglesias.

Posted by scantron | July 25, 2008 11:03 AM

I myself I'm disturbed by Yglesias' rather carefree use of this picture. It's not because I "can't handle the truth" or because I deny that O'Reilly's statement is ridiculous.

It's because a blogger can so casually yank this image from cyberspace and glibly post it -- a gruesome, shocking document of our nation's shameful past -- to score points against a target who doesn't deserve the attention, and whose comparison is patently false to anyone with half a brain.

Would Yglesias post pictures, without warning, of JFK's skull coming apart? Of Iraqi children in pieces after a US airstrike? He should grow up and treat his audience and the dead with much more respect. Images of dead black people don't exist for us to harvest at random for petty purposes. There is a time and place for such powerful statements, but a cheap shot at Bill O'Reilly of all people is not one of them.

Think about your responsibility, Yglesias.

Posted by scantron | July 25, 2008 11:05 AM

Bill O'Reilly is a Malignant Media Carcinogen who is polluting the body politic with his lies, distortions, and disinformation.

The O'Reilly Factor is a super-sized, putrid, steaming pile of excrement.

Fox News Channel is an obscenity, abomination, and a cruel insult to journalism.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 11:08 AM

Yglesias is not the one who brought up the Klan. O'Reilly is. Complain to him about the picture if it offends you so.

Posted by Jason | July 25, 2008 11:10 AM

Hey Matt I agree that O'Reilly is a scumbag but please but an NSFW or some kind of label before we get to the picture, if my black coworker saw it over my shoulder he'd get the wrong impression.

Posted by Blogger Please | July 25, 2008 11:15 AM

Sam - it's a very famous picture of a lynching that took place in Marion Indiana in 1930. Google or look up "Abram Smith" in Wikipedia.

As to whether the Klan itself had anything to do with this particular lynching is irrelevent (although the Klan was very powerful in Indiana during that particular time period). The point Matt made by using the picture is that is the "kind of thing" that the Klan used to do. Or do you want to challenge the idea that the Klan ever had anything to do with actual lynching?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 25, 2008 11:16 AM

Anywho, point well taken. I haven't personally seen MoveOn do anything like this.

You haven't 'personally seen'...? I hope that's some sort of joke.

Petey said:

Comparing [Common Cause] whose main thrust was to take the money out of politics with [MoveOn] that aims to spend money to achieve political goals?
That's the truth-allergic propagandistic Matthew we've all become familiar with over the past six months.

MY said:

'...[Moveon] much more a descendant of the Common Cause reformist impulse than any strain of radicalism...'

THAT is categorically the same, in terms of propaganda, as the stuff that O'Reilly says? I too have much more affection for CC than for MO, but both orgs are products of their times. Political horizons on the left were *much* more constrained in the 90s than they were in the 60s (actually, taking money out of politics *would* be radical, but 'radical' has different meanings depending on context); I don't think that makes MY's statement incorrect, or somehow an example of inter-teeth lying.

But I think it's pretty clear that the current version of Matthew and O'Reilly share a willingness to lie through bared teeth if they think it'll help their "side". That's what propagandists do, and that's what Matthew and O'Reilly are.

The unhinged-personality version of Petey is being a provocateur here. A provocateur accusing someone else of being a lying propagandist is amusing, but unless this frothing is also an attempt at comedy, it's not going to be effective at convincing anyone about anything. I have to wonder if Petey - assuming all Peteys are the same person - is actually old enough to ('personally', of course) remember the country before the Reagan Revolution, or if he's just read about it. I would guess it's the latter.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 25, 2008 11:17 AM

"Images of dead black people don't exist for us to harvest at random for petty purposes."

I agree. A warning would have been appropriate. We want these images to continue to shock and remind people of our not-to-distant past. Tossing them around, particularly with no reference to the particular event pictured is disrespectful to those who lost their lives and their loved ones.

Posted by CParis | July 25, 2008 11:18 AM

What do you want from a guy who jerked off over the phone to a woman who vomited at the sight of him?

Posted by Trevor | July 25, 2008 11:23 AM

I think I see a young John McCain in the foreground.

Posted by Rob | July 25, 2008 11:24 AM

Actually, tinisoli, many people critical of this administration have frequently lied about American history, in an effort to portray this administration as being uniquely evil in it's misrule, by ignoring previous misrule every bit as egregious, especially by Democratic presidents.

People who lie about the past, in an effort to score political points today, are scoundrels, no matter where they lie on the political spectrum.

Posted by Will Allen | July 25, 2008 11:32 AM

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, the photo is of the 1930 Marion, Indiana lynching. There are three books about this most famous lynching, the latest being Cynthia Carr. Our Town: A Heartland Lynching, a Haunted Town, and the Hidden History of White America (2006). Carr appears to claim that 1) there was a significant KKK membership In Marion, but with less KKK activity by 1930 than before, 2) significant prior planning of this lynching, but not -- as far as can be found out -- by the KKK.
See http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=108871160756320

This is not to defend the KKK, just to point out that this particular lynching doesn't appear to have immediate KKK involvement, thought it clearly is the sort of thing the KKK supported. This lynching was used to go after the KKK, in part I assume because the photos are so powerful.

Posted by stefan | July 25, 2008 11:46 AM

When is the last time the Klan lynched anyone? 50 Years ago? Liberals always bring up these absurd right-wing groups that have zero power and haven't been players for 40-60 years. There are no significant number of *real* Nazi's in this country and there never were. And KKK was destroyed as a significant political entity in the 1960s - i.e 40 years ago.

So, if Liberals can act like the KKK is some of kind of threat and call Conservatives "KKK" and 'Neo-Nazi's' then BOR has a perfect right to call Move-on.org a left-wing 2008 KKK. Of course, Move-on smears, destroys and threatens anyone who disagrees with it.

Same with fascism. You want to use "fascist" as an insult, then everyone gets to use it. As in "Liberal fascism".

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 11:49 AM

Whats funny about the photo is that was the last lynching of a Black person outside the South - That was 1930. 78 years ago!

And the Klan wasn't involved. See any white sheets?
Even more ironic, is the two hanged were murder/rapists. The third black man involved (not shown) was set free by the Mob. He later served 4 years in jail for his crime. He later confessed that the other two committed the Rape/Robbery but he wasn't responsible.

So the photo doesn't even apply to Matt's point.

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 11:59 AM

I wrote above that lynching "clearly is the sort of thing the KKK supported." Like any use of the term 'clearly', this suggests I don't actually believe this claim fully. Like any decentralized mass movement, the KKK most likely had a range of views on goal and means, including a range of views on lynchings. Indeed, it is my impression the Indiana KKK was a pretty middle class organization with many female members and went into decline by 1930 in part due to its association with violence that made some of its members uncomfortable.

There is a pretty big historical literature on this, not that I have a more than cursory exposure to it. For instance Blee, Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s (1992).

But it would be nice to know how and why the KKK rose and declined in the Midwest. And no, just knowing that they were evil isn't an explanation.

Posted by stefan | July 25, 2008 12:03 PM

Sheesh, pablo, talk about missing the point. You sound like a fucking idiot. The Klan being involved with this particular lynching is irrelevant.

You do seem to like mob justice a bit, though.

Posted by Stacy | July 25, 2008 12:05 PM

Whats funny about the photo is that was the last lynching of a Black person outside the South - That was 1930. 78 years ago!

And the Klan wasn't involved. See any white sheets?
Even more ironic, is the two hanged were murder/rapists. The third black man involved (not shown) was set free by the Mob. He later served 4 years in jail for his crime. He later confessed that the other two committed the Rape/Robbery but he wasn't responsible.

So the photo doesn't even apply to Matt's point.

pablo H,

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Or that innocent black men were often accused of rape. If you did then you would not have written the ignorent comment above.

Even if what is depicted in the picture does not relate to the KKK per se, they are intertwined because they stem from white supremacy.

Posted by Micheline | July 25, 2008 12:08 PM

Justice delayed is justice denied. Almost all liberal support illegal immigration, so spare me "rule of law" crap.

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 12:11 PM

The first thing that pops into my head when I see this picture is - Where are they now? Or, at least their descendants. Men and women having just a good 'ole time... How much of this hate was passed down like other family traditions?

Then I wonder, what is their party affiliation (circa now) and how will they vote? Are they more likely to be McCain's base or Obama's? Just wondering...

Posted by eaglecapri | July 25, 2008 12:12 PM

When is the last time the Klan lynched anyone? 50 Years ago? Liberals always bring up these absurd right-wing groups that have zero power and haven't been players for 40-60 years.

Who brought up the Klan, dipshit?!

Tossing [these pictures] around, particularly with no reference to the particular event pictured is disrespectful to those who lost their lives and their loved ones.

I believe it was Bill O'Reilly who was doing the 'tossing around' here, comparing the Klan to Move On.org. Trivializing what the Klan did in this manner is incredibly disrespectful. I think ignoranti like O'Reilly ought to look at a whole library of photos like this for a good long time. What is disprespectful is a.) lynching people, and b.) trivializing lynching. These pics have been in the public domain for a long time. Do you think MY has a secret stash of them?? Keeping this shit hidden serves the lynchers (and the Moral Null Set, of which O'Reilly is a member), not the victims.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 25, 2008 12:12 PM

"Liberals always bring up these absurd right-wing groups that have zero power and haven't been players for 40-60 years."

Actually, Bill O'Reilly is the one who brought up the KKK. You just live in a fantasy world. Your post reads like you haven't interacted with an actual liberal in the past 30 years. Moron.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 12:13 PM

Justice delayed is justice denied. Almost all liberal support illegal immigration, so spare me "rule of law" crap.

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 12:15 PM

eaglecapri - you want to be very, very careful with inherited guilt. That's the sort of reasoning that has led to many, many awful things in history. The sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers.

Posted by James Robertson | July 25, 2008 12:18 PM

"Trivializing what the Klan did in this manner is incredibly disrespectful."

Very true. O'Reilly, a racist, is trying to piggyback on the sympathy any sane, moral person would have for the KKK's victims. This is just disgusting. It would be like if I accused conservatives of supporting the Holocaust because they disagree with my position on marginal tax rates. The number of people lynched by the terrorists in the KKK was roughly equal to the number of people who died on 9/11, yet O'Reilly thinks that such deaths are just a debate talking point. He has no real sense of morality.

"Even more ironic, is the two hanged were murder/rapists. The third black man involved (not shown) was set free by the Mob. He later served 4 years in jail for his crime. He later confessed that the other two committed the Rape/Robbery but he wasn't responsible."

The difference between liberals and yourself is that you take the accusations of racist lynchers at their word.

"Justice delayed is justice denied. Almost all liberal support illegal immigration, so spare me "rule of law" crap.

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 12:11 PM"

Non sequitor strawman. No liberal supports illegal immigration. Some liberals support making it easier to immigrate here, thus making our laws conform more to the reality of how people immigrate and thus reducing the incentive to pursue illegal means and thus increase the rule of law. Others are worried about higher rates of immigration depressing wages and thus favor stricter immigration laws. You attack liberals, yet you have no idea what liberals actually say.

In conclusion, you have shown yourself to be a disgusting human being.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 12:24 PM

We wrongfully convict many, many men in this country every year. You could look at Dallas County alone if you want to be disgusted with our justice system. This is with a judge and jury. Yet, pablo H is convinced that these men who were strung up a day after the crime was committed received REAL justice.

pablo H, trust me, I don't agree with Matt all of the time, but you are making some of the least intelligent posts I've seen on this site in a long time. Quit now.

Posted by Stacy | July 25, 2008 12:29 PM

Ha, ha, ha, ha

Will, ha, ha, Allen, is (gasping here), complaining about people (oh my God this is funny), re-writing history.

Hey Will, tell me, how has that invasion of Iraq gone? How are the people there doing now that you've decided to murder them in order to improve their lives?

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 25, 2008 12:49 PM

In general, I'm opposed to Lynch law. However, the arguments against it sometime seem rather overblown and emotional rather than a desire for justice. Sometimes lynching (as in the old west) is the only way to ensure justice.

As for our Criminal Justice System: guilty men, like OJ, go free and innocent men are convicted. It seems like a crap shoot. No doubt it was the same in 1930s Marion, OH. As a result, are we to blame the mob for ensuring justice was served?

R.M.

Liberals don't support illegal immigration? Really? You need to read Matt more often. Or maybe you're just playing word games. As in, "It depends on the meaning of what "is" is".

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 12:55 PM

rambling... incoherent... spittle...

Posted by pablo G | July 25, 2008 1:08 PM

Meathead, just like the many of the people in the picture of the lynching, you believe some folks are genetically incapable of ruling themselves, and actually are happier and better off when they don't have the chance. Congratulations.

Posted by Will Allen | July 25, 2008 1:09 PM

"Liberals don't support illegal immigration? Really? You need to read Matt more often. Or maybe you're just playing word games. As in, "It depends on the meaning of what "is" is"."

Actually I read him plenty. I also have this thing called "reading comprehension." You lack that. You just live in a fantasy world. You don't actually respond to people's points because you lack the ability to read critically and understand what people say.

"However, the arguments against it sometime seem rather overblown and emotional rather than a desire for justice. Sometimes lynching (as in the old west) is the only way to ensure justice."

My god you are an idiot. You're like a fart in church without the humor.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 1:42 PM

That photo should be on the cover of every American history textbook as a reminder of where we have come as a nation, and how much distance we still need to cover.

Posted by The Guilty Carnivore | July 25, 2008 1:44 PM

As for our Criminal Justice System: guilty men, like OJ, go free and innocent men are convicted. It seems like a crap shoot. No doubt it was the same in 1930s Marion, OH. As a result, are we to blame the mob for ensuring justice was served

Hm, let me think about this one for a moment...YES!!!

Posted by Lamenter | July 25, 2008 2:28 PM

"In general, I'm opposed to lynch law"
- Pablo H

LOLROFLMAO! I want to put that quote on a t-shirt and sell it at Klan rallies.

Oh, and I agree with those who object to Matt's posting of this picture. Norjl is absolutely right that the proper thing for Matt to do is to make the event at which the photograph was taken to not have happened.

Posted by LaurenceB | July 25, 2008 2:46 PM

Yep. That's my hometown. Marion, Indiana.

In the 90s, there was a debate about the tree. The tree was decaying, and needed to be cut down, so the city was planning to remove it.

A number of citizens protested, claiming that the tree should remain. "It's our heritage" they said.

Heritage, indeed.

Posted by Murray | July 25, 2008 2:48 PM

Yep. That's my hometown. Marion, Indiana.

In the 90s, there was a debate about the tree. The tree was decaying, and needed to be cut down, so the city was planning to remove it.

A number of citizens protested, claiming that the tree should remain. "It's our heritage" they said.

Heritage, indeed.

Posted by Murray | July 25, 2008 2:49 PM

Will Allen is afraid to answer the question. Instead he addresses some strawman construct he calls "Meathead." Apparently he thinks Rob Reiner circa 1974 is posting here. You know Will, they have a new wonder drug called pennecillin. It will eliminate the syphilis. It will not, sadly, undo the brain damage.

How many Iraqis have been lynched, or worse, as a result of your efforts?

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 25, 2008 5:57 PM

MY should have posted a different picture, one which shows kids laughing and playing, people having picnics, etc. - at a lynching.
This one is way too mild.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 25, 2008 6:30 PM

Meathead, is that some sort of pasta with antibiotic qualities?

Word of advice; when making a sarcastic remark meant to insult a party by denigrating his intelligence, get the spelling right, or at least limit the mistake to one letter, ya' ol' racist lunatic, you!

Posted by Will Allen | July 25, 2008 7:03 PM

Since the post was about "The "Klan". Matt should have posted a picture that had something to do with, well, "The Klan".

Posted by pablo H | July 25, 2008 7:06 PM

Aw...poor idiot Will Allen, reduced to picking on a spelling error. Even so it might have more effect if he didn't stupidly attributes it to this racist "Meathead" character of his imagination. Will Allen has neither the wit nor the courage to respond to the content of my post.

So Will Allen, how many Iraqis have you effectively lynched with your actions?

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen - even with the wrong spelling of penicillin | July 25, 2008 10:06 PM

Somewhere Chris Ford is masturbating to this image.

For those complaining about it, tough shit. It's the Intertubes. Get used to it. Or next time I might post a link to goatse.cx...

Same morons who want to censor "television violence" or "video game violence" or just about everything that offends their precious little perceptions.

Go to Iraq - get offended there when a suicide bomber blows up a hundred people and body parts are everywhere.

Go to Israel and get offended there when IDF soldiers beat ten year old kids with rifle boots resulting in broken bones.

Morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 25, 2008 10:47 PM

Couple things. In 1995 I met James Cameron at a Black Expo in Milwaukee. IIRC it was some white person he knew who somehow talked the crowd into not lynching him that night. His buddies are the ones in the photo.

It's true that the KKK wasn't necessarily directly responsible for this lynching - but it's impossible to know if there were individual Klan members involved. Given the time and place, it's highly likely. Remember, the KKK basically ran the state of Indiana five years earlier.

People don't seem to understand that this sort of thing went on all throughout the North, as well as the South. Similar things happened in Southern Illinois (Cairo, I think), in Minnesota, in other Midwestern and Northern states. This was all part of a pattern of widespread racial terrorism and ethnic cleansing that happened between Reconstruction and WWII. Folks don't get that there is a specific reason that rural areas in the Midwest are so overwhelmingly white; they just assume that Black folk preferred city life. The truth is that lynchings and riots intimidated the population into leaving rural areas...check out James Loewen's book Sundown Towns for more on this topic.

Anyway, the point is that this kind of racial violence wasn't localized or unheard of. There's a reason this photo is so widely known; photos like this were used on postcards at the time. It wasn't really the province only of the KKK; society at large lent a helping hand here.

Posted by Jon L | July 25, 2008 11:08 PM

Only a tiny fraction of the number that you wish to make your slave until the end of time, meathead. Now go clean your sheets.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 12:23 AM

"Only a tiny fraction of the number that you wish to make your slave until the end of time, meathead. Now go clean your sheets.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 12:23 AM"

It might be time to look up "class" in the dictionary. Also, no one is amused of you calling anyone "meathead" in a thread about the KKK because, after all, Archie Bunker was quite friendly with Klan members in his neighborhood (they even wanted to burn a cross on Rob Reiner's character's lawn). It also makes you look out of touch and makes it obvious your understanding of politics is stuck in a 1970's paradigm when "meathead" would have been a zinger.

There is a difference between democratization that occurs indigenously and democratization that is forced at the end of the gun, often as an afterthought of imperial rule (we only held elections in Iraq when we did, after all, because al-Sistani threatened to turn explicitly against us if we didn't because he saw it was a great time to consolidate Shi'ite political control). The first type, when successful, is based on a rejection of the norms of the old social-political order, which has often been imperialism (the US, India, Spain, South Africa, Korea, Chile, Portugal, Poland, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, etc.). The second type is rarely successful and failed all over Africa and the post-colonial world in general, most famously in Nigeria (a country with oil and three major distinct ethnic-linguistic-religious controlling three regions all battling for control), which has often descended in civil war and seen many military coups. Kenya under Kenyotto is also famous as another example, as is Rwanda.

Of this type, pretty much only Canada, Germany and Japan saw any real success, but even then that was both of those ex-fascist countries' second attempts at democracy. They are also both rather homogeneous. Canada had the benefit of being part of the same ethnic group as the Brits and thus less likely to be subject to ethnic violence at the hands of British troops, thus making democratization easier.

Democratization in a diverse society under occupation is more likely to be successful if it flows out of an anti-imperialist struggle (India being the most famous example and even then Partition was rather bloody). Otherwise, you end up seeing the negative consequences of indirect rule on ethnic relations compounded over generations, thus leading to any type of democracy that emerges to be an ethnic democracy, not a liberal democracy. The sad thing is, looking at history, the best chance for a real liberal, pluralist democratic order to emerge in Iraq under American occupation would be for there to be a multi-ethnic movement to kick the US out and thus bring the people together. Of course, no one in the US wants this to happen and for the US to be a target of popular discontent in Iraq. However, even the likes of David Brooks has recognized that this is probably necessary for a real united Iraqi nationalist narrative to take place leading to democracy.

In the end, it just seems that you use Iraqi democracy forced through at the barrel of a gun as a type of therapy for yourself.

Posted by Reality Man | July 26, 2008 3:24 AM

@Richard Steven Hack:

If you're talking to me you missed the point of my post. I'm not "offended" by the image. In fact, I said, "There is a time and place for such powerful statements." The question is not about the content but the use. If you want to play the part of seasoned veteran by defending MY's use of the picture on the basis that any and every use of such pictures is some sort of "statement", "speaking truth to power" or something, that's fine, but it's not very interesting. The question is whether Yglesias is not treating this important images seriously enough. It would be good to get his input here, because otherwise his thought process is irretrievable.

Posted by scantron | July 26, 2008 4:48 AM

Sadly, I see that Will Allen has posted again referencing his imaginary opponent "meathead." Odd. Is it because poor demented Will Allen can't bear the responsibility for all the Iraqis he's helped die?

After all killing them for their own good, as Will Allen has just agreed he supports, is a pretty racist strategy.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 26, 2008 8:05 AM

Reality man, the fact that your knowledge of etymology is limited to '70s television shows is unfortunate, but not my problem.

As to the motivations of why various people acted in the manner they did, I couldn't care less. Unlike you, I don't view this situation as a means to identify good guys and bad guys. That's childish. The only thing I care about is seeing a large population the Persian Gulf gain control, via ongoing democratic methods, of the oil revenue produced from the extraction of the resource below the population's feet, for that is the only way the near permenant cycle of tyranny in the region will ever be broken, at least until the oil runs out, and quite likely the only way a much, much, more violent conflict involving the region will be avoided. If that means having the Iraqi people's elected representatives kick us out, I'm all for it. As long as the Iraqi people are in control of their oil revenues, they will quite likely come to the conclusion that the first or second largest oil consumer in the world is a country that it is better to have non-hostile relations with.

George W. Bush and Co. hasn't mattered for about a year and a half now. The Iraqi people are closer now to controlling their mineral wealth than they have been in decades, or perhaps ever, and no, that doesn't mean that success is guaranteed. There is a chance, however.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 11:25 AM

Will Allen,

The basic problem here is that no one here believes you as to your professed motivations. But I guess it is just barely possible that, instead of being a lying murderous sack of shit, you are an incredibly stupid murderous sack of shit.

That is, in the unlikely event that you actually think that the mini genocide that the United States is waging in the Middle East will lead to the people there controlling their own mineral wealth, you are too stupid to fucking live.

But even in the unlikely event that you are in favor of murdering innocent Iraqis as a way to help the non-murdered Iraqis control their own oil, you are still an inhuman insect that deserves a bullet to the back of the head.

Die painfully, and burn in hell forever.

Posted by voice of reason | July 26, 2008 11:48 AM

We've seen Will Allen's argument before. "We had to destroy the village to save it." It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now. Unlike the drooling racist moron Will Allen, everyone else on the board recognizes that not a single one of those Will Allen has murdered will be sharing in the mineral wealth. Unlike the childish Will Allen the rest of us recognize that his motivations (or at least the ones he ascribes to himself) don't make a bit of difference to the mountains of dead he has generated.

How many Iraqis does Will Allen think should be lynched to make him feel better about himself? He doesn't care. Their deaths aren't important to him.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Keep advocating slavery, meathead. It's what you most favor.

Voice of reason (and isn't that an ironic moniker), how in the world did you come to think that I cared whether anyone here believes me when I assert what it is that I'd like to see happen? Yes, I understand that you think Arabs are only fit to be your slaves.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 1:56 PM

Good job Will Allen. You really told off that racist in your imagination.

And Will? No one has expressed support for slavery you dimwitted troll. That construct comes straight out of your racist imagination.

Now, how many Arab bodies will slake your bloodlust you murderous racist fuck?

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 26, 2008 3:59 PM

In fact, never mind answering Will, you aren't smart enough to understand the notion of false dichotomy, you aren't smart enough to understand cost benefit analysis, you aren't smart enough to understand the immorality of murder, you aren't smart enough to converse with me.

We both know what's what. You support murder, I don't. You are a racist scumbag and I'm not. All else is commentary.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 26, 2008 4:09 PM

Meathead, you have repatedly stated or implied, along with others', that Arabs can't govern themselves. Unless you are living in a yurt, and walking or riding a bike for transportation, and having all the goods you consume delivered in that fashion, you are transferring your wealth to the field bosses, to keep the slaves oppressed while you benefit from the oil. You performed a cost benefit analysis, and determined it was best that you benefit from slavery for at least several more decades, or at least until the oil runs out. You would have fit in quite well with the Afrikaaners back in the days of apartheid, given you really do belive that tens of millions of people are better off and happier as your slaves. Congratulations.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 4:47 PM

By the way, meat (see, I'm really getting colloquial now, and I could educate you on the etymological history of that colloquialism as well!), it is odd that you remark that I'm not smart enough to converse with you, given that nearly every single one of our interactions has occurred when you have chosen to address me. Not for the first time, it must be noted that you are a raving lunatic.

Posted by Will Allen | July 26, 2008 4:56 PM

"As to the motivations of why various people acted in the manner they did, I couldn't care less. Unlike you, I don't view this situation as a means to identify good guys and bad guys. That's childish."

When in my analysis of how democratization is successful did I "identify good guys and bad guys?" Once again, you're arguing against a strawman.

"The only thing I care about is seeing a large population the Persian Gulf gain control, via ongoing democratic methods, of the oil revenue produced from the extraction of the resource below the population's feet, for that is the only way the near permenant cycle of tyranny in the region will ever be broken, at least until the oil runs out, and quite likely the only way a much, much, more violent conflict involving the region will be avoided."

And a pony! Good intentions does not mean that success will come. It all depends on doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. We would all like this outcome that you outline. However, it is unlikely to come as the result of an American occupation, especially in a diverse country like Iraq with distinct ethnic enclaves and having a major ethnic group in Iraq, the Sunnis, sitting on relatively little oil. This is the type of thing that has to grow out of an indigenous movement to be successful. Nigeria, after all, followed generations of British imperialism (in which the British, like us, tried to micromanage internal events by supporting the elites of certain ethnic groups against others) with an imperfect democracy in which the distinct ethnic-linguistic-religious-geographic groups battled for control of the center, which soon devolved into genocide, the Nigerian Civil War / Biafran War (in which millions were starved to death) and a whole series of military coups.

In addition, if the Bush administration really cared about Iraqis taking control of Iraqi oil, they wouldn't have helped well-connected American oil companies basically grab control of so much oil. After all, one of the deals between an American oil company and the Kurds only made ethnic tensions worse and undermined attempts to draft and enact a mutually beneficial and agreeable oil revenue sharing law. They also wouldn't be pushing for things like immunity for the likes of Blackwater, whose employees have been known to go kill Iraqis for fun. When the occupier brings such violence to the occupied country, such violence often becomes the modus operandi of the government once the occupier leaves, such as seen in Kenyotto's Kenya after the British violently put down the anti-British Mau Mau insurgency.

"If that means having the Iraqi people's elected representatives kick us out, I'm all for it. As long as the Iraqi people are in control of their oil revenues, they will quite likely come to the conclusion that the first or second largest oil consumer in the world is a country that it is better to have non-hostile relations with."

Al-Maliki has pretty much said he wants us out by 2010, but you are backing the guy who doesn't exactly seem to want that, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim. So much of your argument is based on smears and deliberate misreadings combined with a total lack of empirical evidence or historical parallels that I have to wonder if you are arguing in bad faith. You also have supported the Bush administration, which has decided pissing off major oil producers like Russia was good policy, so I have to wonder if you aren't just pulling out whatever argument is convenient. Venezuela under Chavez, after all, has seemed to decide that good relations with the US can easily take a backseat to politically benefiting at home via nationalist anti-American demagoguery. Why would Iraqi nationalists who took pride in anti-American rhetoric decide that political benefit was no longer something they liked? After all, the US is the country responsible for Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, selling arms to Saddam, etc. There is too much material ripe for use by any politically ambitious Iraqi nationalist to pass up.

Posted by Reality Man | July 26, 2008 5:10 PM

Will Allen is the guy in the crowd going "Hey, mob justice was the only way, otherwise people like them aren't going to ever learn not to do bad things."

As evidence, I present his support for murdering Arabs "for their own good."

Yes, he's a nasty piece of work our Will. Thank God the thugs he helped elect and promote are going away along with the murderous and racist racist policies he supports to this day.

Morons like Will Allen like to preen and show how virtuous they are by "opposing slavery" even if it means a few of "those people" will be killed. After all, a few hundred thousand dead is a small price to pay in Will's sick mind.

In the end it doesn't matter what's in that pile of shit between Will's ears. He can justify his support for slaughter using whatever he likes. It just demonstrates his inhumanity. But the justifications don't change reality.

The reality is that Iraq is a disaster. The reality is that, by any rationale measure, the people are worse off after Bush started terrorizing the population with bombs. Only a sick racist like Will Allen can ignore the facts.

Even if one assumes the purest of motives for Will Allen it doesn't matter. He has expressed support for the United State using military force to enforce his views of the world. The United States should not be in the business of murdering people for living under the wrong government. That right is reserved for the people living under that government.

There was, and is, no justification for Bush's assault on the people of Iraq. We can all hope that Iraq succeeds despite Bush and Allen, but even a successful result would not absolve them of war crimes. The blood of hundreds of thousands of living human beings is on their hands.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 26, 2008 5:38 PM

Ooh, reading my post again I see that I made an editing mistake and kept the word "rationale" in a sentence that needed "rational." Proof that I don't know English. Or something.

It won't change the fact that Will Allen explicitly supports war crimes.

All the preening and posturing of Will Allen claims doesn't change this fact. Were our dimwitted friend interested in the fate of the Iraqis, as he claims, he would not have supported Bush in 2004. Once the invasion was done, there was no reason to support a candidate whose actions had led to the deaths of so many. Someone whose concern was for the Iraqis would have cheered regime change at home in the hopes that someone competent would change the brutal course of the occupation.

It is also important to note the motivations of those who started this massacre. Not, as the preening idiot Will Allen posits, because of some great need to feel morally superior (more projection on his part), but because if they did the wrong thing for the wrong reason then they are monsters who should be run out of politics on a rail.

The wrong thing for the wrong reason is the definition of this assault on the people of Iraq. Read the AUMF. See how much it dwells on improving the lives of the Iraqis. See how much it dwells on fanciful notions of a national security threat from Iraq.

It doesn't matter if Bush will leave the scene of politics. So long as the people who created the mountain of bodies in Iraq still have a voice in our system we will have a cancer on our souls. Their cheerleaders, too, sully our national discourse.

It is not enough to simply accept that Iraq has been invaded, hundreds of thousands of its citizens have been murdered, and millions of them displaced. Those who committed such atrocities should be brought to justice. It will not happen, any more than Will Allen will suddenly become human.

What happens in Iraq is important, and I wish the Iraqis the best. But preventing further Iraqs is vital. No President should feel free to commit war crimes.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 27, 2008 12:56 AM

I've decided that a bullet to the back of the head is (much) too good for Will Allen.

The funny thing is, aside from the stupidity, up/downism, projection, and murderous genocidal hypocrisy that Allen engages in constantly, he has me in particular hilariously wrong. I'm the guy who wants the Arabs to unite together to expel the invading Americans by any means necessary, not limited to killing them to a man if that's what it takes.

Now, at that point I personally would hope that they would come over here and execute Will Allen and animals like him. The irony is that I believe that most Arabs are more civilized than most Americans, and would never do so.

Posted by voice of reason | July 27, 2008 1:58 AM

Reality Man, reduce the peyote dosage. I've never said I'm backing anybody. What is with people who can only think in tribal terms? Geez, can you go one post without expending energy making assertions regarding the motivations of people who will have essentially zero power in five months, which means they really are powerless already? Read very slowly. The motivations of people who had power five years ago don't matter anymore.

Meat, you just spent several hundred words informing us that the Iraqis are only fit to be your slaves, decade after decade. You have already stated that this is your belief as many as a hundred times. It is understood. Now go sleep in your comfortable bed. We get it.

Yes, VOR, I understand that you wish to see me killed.

Posted by Will Allen | July 27, 2008 2:28 AM

Yeah, Will is nothing if not consistently wrong (it doesn't help matters that he takes phenomenal liberties with other people's words - creating meanings that are irrational and stupid - if it weren't for strawmen and outright lies Will could never post). But as I said in another thread, even his vile promotion of mass murder doesn't suggest that he should be killed. Instead, I prefer to leave the eliminationist rhetoric to the Will Allen types who propose it for (in this case) Iraqis.

Such talk really is over the line. Will Allen, for all his promotion of genocide, doesn't amount to much.

What Will needs is a long time in a mental institution and some counseling to overcome his irrational hatred of the Iraqi people. With enough time he might be made a productive member of society.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 27, 2008 3:50 AM

This photo, while shocking, is actually mild compared to several others I have seen. The KKK liked to torture people before they killed them - use your imagination, then add it to your worse nightmare. Then you will start to get an understanding of what those sadistic cowards are capable of doing.
By the way, the KKK doesn't just hate blacks - they hate anyone that isn't white, and they don't like a lot of whites either.

Posted by Daniel | July 28, 2008 2:37 AM