Reactionaries don't like to be challenged. They think they have the right to pontificate without response, even if most of what they say is lies. Take Thomas Brewton (for example). After having been challenged on his untenable thesis that the IWW was once a "violent terrorist organization" and a haven for "organized crime" (see Part I), rather than own up to the fact that he was caught in several lies, he decided to throw a tantrum. His latest rant, "Labor Union Thug Tactics on the Internet (January 5, 2006)" is even more pathetic than his first attack on the IWW.

The title itself is revealing. I wasn't aware, Mr. Brewton, that free expression was a "thug tactic".

Brewton opens with the following:

The IWW, which still exists as a malevolent economic and political force, continues to use the bludgeoning tactics against its opponents that brought it notoriety in the early 1900s.

The only malevolent economic force that currently exists is capitalism. I guess freedom of speech (the "bludgeoning force" Brewton refers to) is somehow malevolent?

Demanding a retraction of falsehoods and lies is a form of Speech Mr. Brewton, or did you forget your basic civics? You are, of course, free to refuse, but don't expect us to simply shut up and take it.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that Brewton and his reactionary buddies (such as Rob Hood--but more about him later) would consider a response to their posts as an "attack". Publishing, uttering, and/or issuing inflammatory statements (generally composed of lies or quotations taken out of context) and then labeling responses to said statements as "stifling their freedom of speech" and/or "leftist bias" is a typical right wing ploy.

Brewton then says:

Anyone who actually reads what I wrote will discover that most of what I had to say about the IWW came from the IWW itself: from its constitution or from documents published by the IWW.

Here Brewton is referring to the Preamble to the IWW Constitution as well as texts by Vincent Saint John and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. While all of the sources he quotes call for militant tactics in resistance to capitalism, none of them argue in favor of violence against people. Since capitalism itself is a form of institutionalized violence against people (as well as property, as demonstrated by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, in "Sabotage"), the IWW clearly has the moral high ground in this case.

The remainder came from websites referenced on an American IWW website, from books written in the 1930s by liberal-Progressives who supported labor unions including the IWW, or from a University of Missouri website. In short, everything that I wrote came from the public record.

Again, these unspecified sources do not cite a single example of the IWW engaging in violence against people. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Part II, Brewton only quotes the University of Missouri Law School website selectively, leaving out the parts that do not support his thesis.

Clutching at Straws, "conservative" Brewton accuses the IWW of political incorrectness(!)

It's interesting that liberal-Progressive socialists invariably use the term "hysterical" to describe views to which they object.

Ignoring the fact that "liberal", "Progressive", and "socialist" are not mutually inclusive terms, the definition of hysterical that I intended is the following:

Hysteria (noun) - Unmanageable fear or emotional excess.

"Hysterical" describes Thomas E Brewton to a "T". One look at his blog and any rational observer would concludes as much.

One must therefore agree that fellow reactionary Rob Hood is equally hysterical. In response to the IWW's challenge to Brewton's original barrage of lies, Hood offers his own two cents worth in "When leftists (sic) groups attack"

(http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=11306)

First of all, it is a travesty indeed, that a reactionary such as Hood would take the name of a famous literary figure (Robin Hood) whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to his own. Right wingers defend an economic system that institutionally steals from the poor and gives to the rich, a complete contradiction of that famous outlaw from Sherwood Forest.

Hood's opening salvo reads:

I cannot believe that the IWW had the audacity to make such an inexcusable and vile attack on a fellow blogger and columnist like Mr. Brewton.

Like Brewton, Hood obviously considers freedom of expression (in the form of a written response to Brewton's initial entry) a "vile attack". Does freedom of speech mean so little to these people?!?

It appears to me that Mr. Brewton had his facts straight and that the IWW just couldn't handle the truth.

Yeah, sure Mr. Hood. The only "facts" Mr. Brewton presented were completely refuted by the documented factual evidence that were presented on the IWW website in response. Kindly cite a specific example of a single "fact" that Brewton has "straight". Enlighten the world, why don't you?

If they were really telling the truth then why were they so aggressive in their own defense and make the whole article public on their own site.

So the logic here is that lie should be ignored. Interesting theory.

Hood concludes with this doozy:

What really irritates me more than anything is that when a major News organization like CBS or recently, The Washington Post comes out with a story that actually damages our National Security, not much is said, but let a conservative do something even remotely important as a news story and the libs go mad. In conclusion, thank you Mr. Brewton for bringing to our attention that there are still leftist hate groups out there and once again, thank you for a TRUTHFUL and informative article.

Let me get this straight, Mr. Hood. If the Washington Post, a capitalist newspaper publishes a story detailing corruption by the President of the United States (George W. Bush), showing that he and his administration may have committed several treasonable offenses it "damages our National Security"?!? You gotta be kidding!!! NOBODY who believes in freedom and democracy could be that stupid. And don't feed us this nonsense about "nobody" responding. I can name at least a half dozen major media networks (Fox, MSNBC, CNN leap immediately to mind) that prominently feature legions of right wing pundits who do nothing but howl and screech about how the very networks that they own and operate are infested with liberal bias! I don't know what is more pathetic: the fact that this happens or the fact that people fall for this garbage!

No wonder idiots like yourself find liars like Brewton to be "TRUTHFUL".