Friday, November 16, 2007

A short note to Charles

Charles Johnson answered to my blog post yesterday:

Here's another attack on me:


Apparently, something about my statements that I missed the invitation to the Brussels conference offends Conservative Swede (another brave anti-jihad warrior who doesn't use a real name). But it's a fact -- I saw several emails from GoV about the conference, but don't recall specifically seeing an invitation. With 500+ emails in my Inbox every day, it's impossible to read every one.

None of this matters anyway, it's just more peripheral crap to distract people's attention away from the real issues. Note that "Christine" and her friends are now scouring LGF comments for any hint of contradiction, so they can play "Gotcha!"

The issue is not whether Charles understood that the emails from Gates of Vienna were invitations or not. The issue is whether he was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang before October 19th or not. Charles claimed in the Shire interview that he was "paying attention to the story" of those emails. It seems incredible that he could have payed attention to the story, while missing that Vlaams Belang were attending. In fact, Vlaams Belang was all over the story of those emails since the conference took place in their home turf, and they took care of the arrangements for the venue and security of the conference. This just couldn't have been missed by someone paying attention to the story in those emails.

If Charles was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang at the time he got the emails, it will make him look less than serious as an anti-Jihadist. A valid question then is why he didn't bring up his concerns as constructive criticism to the organizers before the conference took place. The way he dismisses such a valid question as an "attack" and "peripheral crap", and the way he continues to tell different stories about what happened, makes him look even less serious and honest. The issue is of course irrelevant to whether Vlaams Belang are neo-Nazis or not, but it's all relevant for assessing Charles' sincerity regarding the cause of forging a common anti-Jihadist movement. And I think this issue is important enough, and so should Charles, for his own good.

Regarding the way Christine is keeping a record of LGF comments: The thing is that one cannot search among LGF comments without having an LGF registration (by Charles' design). And most people on the other side of this argument with Charles have been banned from LGF (also policy by Charles). So this has been setup to more easily facilitate web searches. Surely Charles Johnson is a man who can appreciate the value of web searches, when investigating a matter. Or is there a special reason why web searches are unjust if they concern Charles and LGF? Is there a special reason why investigation of the statements of Charles Johnson are morally objectionable and shouldn't take place?

[End of post]


USorThem said...

Here's my take on Johnson's reaction:

Johnson new barely a thing about VB and the SD when he made his first post about them "hitching a ride" to the anti-jihad europa confrence. He thought he may have heard or read something somewhere but never said anything specific in the first few days. He made a calculated guess on a hunch. Next, he got his shorts all knotted up when Atlas posted about him taking the same tack as CAIR. Pam's post led to comments at Atlas that were unflaterring of Charles. Because Pam would not back down, he began a personal campaign to validate his hunch and he has been trying to validate his hunch ever since.

His purging ensued in part because those whom disagreed were trying to disprove his theory, in good faith I should add. Johnson made his mind up without substantial evidence and did not want anyone, or anything thing, that would force him to deviate from his pre-ordained conclusion. Thus, mass purging of dissent from LGF and promotion of his position under the guise of keeping his blog clean and pure from those contaminating his site with defenses of "racist" and "supremacist" political parties.

There is also a commercial aspect to this that is also overlooked. I understand Johnson makes a living from advertisers on his blog. He knows CAIR and other opponents use tactics that result in advertisers pulling back sponsorship (see CAIR on Michael Savage). So, his opposition in not so much based on principles as much as it is based on his bank account.

It is a shame a person of such mediocre leadership skills was able ever able to attain such recognition, stature and popularity in the blogosphere/Islamosphere that made him comparable to other online anti-jihadist, such as Spencer and Belian.

He thinks he has done the world a favor when he has (temporarily) distracted the leadership of a critical political movement from their work at a time when, well, there is so little time time to take action before the "point of no return" arrives.

I think it is important to keep on the attack now. This site, GoV and CVF have now offered the proof needed to prove to Charles his original hunch was misguided. He offers no rebuttle to any of the proof that has been put forth. But we know what he will do anyway. He is not honest enough to say he was wrong, or perhaps admit that he had over- emphasized stale evidence. He has dug himself a hole and is looking up for help out of it. The anti-jihad europa members have a rope to toss him. Let him ask for it first.

USorThem said...


Johnson knew...

Conservative Swede said...

Thanks USorThem,

I haven't speculated much about what went on inside Charles, I have found it more useful just to juxtapose his different utterances to each other.

However, as a general description of what probably went on inside Charles, yours look very plausible.

PRCalDude said...

I couldn't believe he wouldn't bring up the VB and SD attendees BEFORE the conference either. Perhaps he simply wasn't paying any attention to the conference beforehand. Perhaps he was simply setting up those who organized it, as Dymphna suggested. Either way, I wouldn't want him watching my back.

Simon de Montfort said...

Good point the combo of Johnson's mediocracy & ego conflating to produce this Huge Distraction.

The commercial aspect is probably an even greater factor than ego, and that is sad. You cannot call it a Cult of Personality because Johnson lacks a personality.......

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

CJ made pretty clear what he has become when he bans someone, then comments that “I noticed who gave him high ratings” (We are watching you!!!) and then allows and participates in a jump-on after the banning.

The cult of personality is pretty obvious too. Reminds me of Michael Savage, who seems to encourage his screeners to let callers on who spend the first 5 minutes of a call praising him and practically giving him fellatio over the phone, and then really has nothing intelligent to say.

The bleating sheep on LGF is beyond me as well. I think that what happened is that once LGF got big, Charles wanted to be liked by the libs and RINO’s, and invited to their virtual tea parties. The only way to do that is to conform to their standards of newspeak. He caved.

1389 said...

If you want to see just how low Charles Johnson can go, and just how much of a racist he really is, see this article, and especially the comments that follow:

Little Green Footballs - Hitting New Lows One After Another

Wow. Just wow.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Anyone not posting anon is subject to the wrath or the New Brownshirts.

I am starting to wonder if LGF is a troll site to collect names.

Nobody said...

I don't read LGF (somehow, their layout is too ugly), and haven't followed this controversy. Nonetheless, one thing that is worth noting is his criticism above of those who don't use their real names. Anybody with half a brain knows that Mohammedans aren't detered by the law when it comes to hunting down critics of Islam, as was the case with Theo van Gogh or Pym Fortuyn, and which is why people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan et al are heavily guarded. Unfortunately (or maybe even fortunately for Charles), most of us ordinary posters/bloggers are less prominent, and couldn't afford our own security - not to mention family being put on the line. That's why only a moron, or someone trying suicide by Jihadist, would put his or her real name down.

An important distinction to note - one who is pro-Islamic can put ones own name down, and has nothing to fear - there isn't an international Infidel mafia out to hunt them. But an anti-Islamic poster does have to fear for not only his/her own safety, but also that of his/her family, and not everyone is a political bigwig like Geert Wilders who can afford it.

A lot of ex Muslims, like Abul Kasem, Ibn Warraq, et al go by pseudonyms - even they aren't stupid enough to appear on TV or put their real identities out there. Does Johnson think thay are cowards as well?