* The morallyÂ superior lizards at LGF are showing their old canniballistic hatred again. Chief-lizard Charles Johnson Â smears Â anyone who opposes the Islamization of Europe as ‘racist, fascist’-and the ‘lizard army’ howls along in unison,Â again:Â “
This time Robert Spencer is the target of their attacks, just like they smear anyone who opposes the global jihad and who doesn’t fit in with their own faschist, morally supremacist narrow worldview as being “racist”. Our Islamic enemies, elated at the prospect of having the bastard son of a white Gramskian whore and a black Kenyan Marxist Muslim (a polygamous drunkard and womanizer also) run for POTUS, must be laughing their sorry asses off!/ed
We’re ALL Racist’s Now!
The counter jihad that never was…
I’m sorry to say that my old friend Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has writtenÂ this:
I’m done with Robert Spencer. And very, very disappointed in him.
Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are out of our RSS feeds. I’m not going to support people who link to vile sites like Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.
He also wrote me, asking me to take down the “Designed by Little Green Footballs” logo that had been up on this site.
What heinous crime have I committed? Last month I restored the links here to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, after speaking with Baron Bodissey, Paul Belien, and Geert Wilders in Washington, andÂ wrote that I doubted that Fjordman was a neofascist or race supremacist.
Of course, for many, many months my list of links has carried this disclaimer: “Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.” One might have thought that my linking to both LGF and Gates of Vienna was indicative of an openness to perspectives even from people who disagreed with one another and also with whom I might disagree, and not a blanket endorsement of either one or any other site. That, however, was too subtle for some LGF commenters, who dressed me up in jackboots right away, accusing me of an “apparent embrace of the neo-Nazi movement” andÂ claiming that I support genocide.
So apparently my doubting that Fjordman et al are racist neofascists who support genocide makes me a racist neofascist who supports genocide. Linking to groups that are accused of being neofascist, although they deny it, makes me one who embraces neo-Nazis. Unfortunately Charles himself has endorsed this loopy leap of logic in the past. Richard Miniter and Diana West both disagreed with him that several European parties, especially Vlaams Belang, were fascist. In responseÂ Charles wrote this:
I’ve learned recently that neo-fascists are much more prominent in conservative circles than I had previously realized. There are other well-known pundits who are sympathetic to the fascists, too — I’ve drastically revised my opinion of more than a few people, e.g. Diane West, Richard Miniter, and several others.
Whatever one thinks of Vlaams Belang, that just makes no sense. West and Miniter don’t think Vlaams Belang is fascist, and Charles is representing that as meaning that they are “sympathetic to the fascists.”
CharlesÂ did this also to Andrew Bostom:
I’m now getting hate mail from Andrew Bostom, who believes we should all be joining forces with European white nationalists, calling me all kinds of names and insults.It’s an eye-opener about Bostom.
Andy is less than diplomatic, but in one of his emails to Charles he was making a point that I think was compelling. In speaking this way about West, Miniter, and Bostom, Charles seems to have been assuming that anyone speaking favorably about European individuals or groups who are accused of being neofascist, or accepting their denials that they are neofascist, must himself be a fascist sympathizer, or one who believes we should ally with white nationalists.Â Andy accordingly notedÂ that Roger Kimball had commented favorably on a Diana West piece on people in Europe who are accused of being neofascist, and that National Review Online had also linked to the piece. He called upon Charles to be consistent and label NRO and Kimball as neofascists also. There are others also, besides Kimball and NRO.Â At LGF I put it this way:
The statement that I have “embraced the neo-Nazi movement” is false, and libelous. Charles, you and your friends here are now in the position of saying that everyone who doesn’t believe these people (Fjordman, Belien, etc.) are neo-Nazis must themselves be neo-Nazis. Well,Â Ian Buruma recently published an articleÂ in the LA Times saying that the European anti-immigration parties were not neo-Nazis. Diana West has written the same thing in articles that have been picked up at the National Review and quoted favorably by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media.Unless you all are prepared to say that Buruma, the LA Times, West, Kimball, and National Review have “embraced the neo-Nazi movement,” you can’t logically say it about me.
I forgot to mention John Rosenthal, who also wroteÂ a pieceÂ doubting that some of the European parties accused of being neo-Nazi are actually neo-Nazi.
Also, when we start playing guilt by association games, how much guilt do you incur for how much association? If one who links to the Brussels Journal has thereby become someone who “apparently embraces the neo-Nazi movement,” or at least someone who has done something so “disappointing” as to warrant being removed from RSS feeds, etc., then why does Charles still link to Pajamas Media? For onÂ PJM’s blogrollÂ you will find…Brussels Journal. Has Charles, by linking to PJM and appearing on PJTV, become one with whom we should be “very, very disappointed”? Has he become one who is “sympathetic to the fascists”? Why is PJM’s link to Brussels Journal not something that makes him “very, very disappointed,” but mine is?
Is that not absurd? I have gone on record many, many times explaining why I reject race-based approaches to the jihad threat — most recentlyÂ in connection with the Cologne conference. Hugh and I have been clear here in our rejection ofÂ LePen,Â the BNP, and all those who traffic in such approaches. We have been consistent in maintaining thatÂ anyone who advocates genocide in comments here will be banned and find his comment deleted. The controversy here is over whether or not some other individuals and groups belong in that category, not over whether one should support race supremacism and genocide or not. Charles has done a grave disservice by acting as if those who reject his judgments about these groups and individuals, or who even — like me — are willing to entertain differing points of view on these matters, are ipso facto neo-Nazi or white supremacist sympathizers. He is in this behaving much like theÂ Islamic supremacist bullies of East Tennessee, who are convinced that anyone who says something they don’t like must be a liar, a bigot, a racist hater.
I’m done with Charles Johnson. And very, very disappointed in him.
UPDATE:Â The links to LGF above no longer work; click on them and you’ll get a “Forbidden” notice. Well, Charles, old friend, you stay classy — this only confirms the impression that what we are dealing with here is the bully’s fear of actually having to answer for what he said. But his comments are still at LGF; you can go there and see them, or copy the link location from here and paste it into the address bar — it will become visible that way.
Meanwhile, I note also with sorrow thatÂ the mendacious Kejda GjermaniÂ (“medaura”) is spreading her libelous attacks on me at LGF yet again, as she has been allowed to do for months. It is telling.
SECOND UPDATE:Â The comments over at LGF are getting really vile — accusing me of actually posting pro-genocidal material there, or sending someone to do so, or inspiring someone to do so apparently by what I post here. As well as all the accusations of race supremacism, fascism, etc., that he has for months allowed to become standard over there when my name comes up.
Bear in mind thatÂ allÂ of these attacks are based on guilt by association.Â NoneÂ of them are based on anything I have actually ever said or written. And the case against those whose association so taints me is, contrary to Charles’s repeated and strident assumption, unproven.
Charles ought to be ashamed of himself, both for his bullying and inconsistency, and for his allowing this to go on. In any case, he has rendered himself irrelevant (at best) in the struggle to defend the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and Constitutional pluralism against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. His demand of an absolute ideological lockstep is ultimately at variance with those principles of freedom anyway.
Baron Bodissey comments:
Disclaimers are not enough. Absolute purity of association is required! And the Grand Lizard is the one who decides what is pure and what isn’t â€” the judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.
This time last year Charles was holding forth about who could rightfully be allowed in the Counterjihad. First Pamela was thrown off the sled, then Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, with Fjordman following in short order. Later on Diana West and Richard Miniter were ejected, and more recently Andy Bostom. Now we have reached the logical conclusion to all these purges, and Robert Spencer has to go.
All the old Bolsheviks have been airbrushed out of the group photo. There’s no one left butÂ Comrade StalinÂ the Grand Lizard.
As the arbiter of membership in the Counterjihad, Charles Johnson has finally made it official: he’s a Counterjihad of One.