from my perspective there seems little in charles johnson’s “little green footballs” to get excited about, usually, one way or another. the writing from johnson himself seems of little consequence, usually devoid of much content or intellectual fire, not very far sighted: it seems to me bland and rather pedestrian. serviceable, but bland and pedestrian is a fair verdict. johnson is not by any stretch of the imagination to be confused with caroline glick, or victor david hanson, or mark steyn, all of whom are wordsmiths distinguished by dynamic, vibrant, lucid, persuasive and powerful prose which finds its inspiration in the preservation of western society: it is hard to discern any similar fire in the big lizard’s belly.
the chief feature of little green footballs seems to be the legion of acolytes who submit endless comments on his sparse paragraphs trying with the utmost fervor to sit closest to the throne, aspiring to a quasi religious orthodoxy such as they divine from the meager flow of his pen. this spectacle, the chief entertainment value of the blog, reminds me very much of a very funny t.v. advertisement from several years past, showing a couple of cowboys herding cats: in this johnson exhibits his chief talent, guiding his acolytes toward and revealing by terse hints the orthodoxy he sometimes uses them to enforce, as they slide in a chaotic group over the landscape of his thought, much as that cat herd. there is a strict orthodoxy enforced there, that much is obvious from even a cursory view of the blog, but i will be hung if i can discern much of a coherent plan or world view in it. it just seems to be what charles johnson wants to enforce: the game for his acolytes, apparently, is to follow it without being too transparent about it.
in sum, i have never but glanced at little green footballs and never sought it out to learn anything of substance there, because, in my assessment, there is nothing of any originality or insight to be gained there. there are opinions which i may happen to share with greater or lesser degrees of conviction, but hardly anything which ever provides much by way of an exegesis or exploration of how those opinions came to be or how best to validate them in real world discourse. even in his most recognized triumphs, for which he does deserve credit, that being the exposure of rigged photos from al reuters and the outing of the fraud dan rather, there really wasn’t much that could be described as a triumph of intellect, merely the virtues of the good proof reader and copy editor on display.
so, to me, charles johnson is nothing more or less that a herder of acolyte cats, scratching and clawing one another for a show of favor from the font. i do not, therefore, go to little green footballs expecting to learn anything, and for this attitude i have never been disappointed. his writing fails to influence me because it fails to elucidate, explain or persuade: for a committed conservative, it serves little other purpose than to repeat and confirm perceptions perfectly obvious at least since the days i took my degree in political science. it is the intellectual equivalent of looking at the bread recipe one knows by heart.
the blog has seemed simply pedestrian, and, while its tendency towards predictable orthodoxy has done very little to excite my sensibilities it has done nothing much to offend them, either. it just wasn’t much worth paying attention to, in any particular.
that is, until recently.
lately, i am offended by the antics at little green footballs, and, as a result, i am declaring limited hostilities upon charles johnson, his acolyte crew of attack lizards, and a pernicious silliness which they insist upon trying to impose upon the rest of the conservative community much to the harm of our long term interests, as conservatives and as members of our great nation, as adherents to our civilization. when i was growing up, it was common to hear the expression, who needs enemies when you have friends like that, and i believe that may be said now of johnson and his followers: they are quite one and the same, sort of like the borg. as a matter of fact, the acolytes ought to rename themselves the borg, any semblance of their individual thought processes having been abandoned some time ago, from all indications.
my umbrage relates to the fight against the jihad and johnson’s hampering of the same upon the alter of doctrinal purity.
this is the part in the simpson’s where avery burns yells, to his little sycophant, you know, the little guy with the glasses, loose the hounds!! i just know that somewhere in the pack of little green lizards who live at johnson’s feet, there is a guy just like avery burns’ assistant, wearing a bow tie and crew cut, glancing adoringly up at charles johnson as he slips the attack dogs, …, oh, excuse me, lizards, from their collars. while another acolyte, who must look a lot like marty feldman in young frankenstein, sidles over to johnson and glances up with the same adoring expression and says, “who has such effrontery, master?” this is said with the appropriate lisp, of course.
charles johnson and his minions, who seem legion, are offended that certain european nationalists, who they describe as ultra far right wing conservative nationalists, e.g., fascists, have the temerity to try and shoe horn their way into the fight against the jihad. johnson and his minions in perpetual tow, and i can hardly describe him in any fashion other than that, because he apparently does not leave the house nor go anywhere without his little mob, apparently feel that no one can join the fight against the jihad without his approval, or, more precisely, without meeting the stringent requirements of the lizard orthodoxy, whatever it may be at the moment.
the problem is compounded by the fact that johnson also feels compelled to attack anyone who might have the temerity to associate with the europeans without his imprimatur of approval.
by so doing, johnson has set himself up as the sole arbiter of american conservative thought. ordinarily, one might limit that observation to the issue of “to whom do we associate,” but when he realizes the extent to which people are giving in to his frontal assaults on reputation and influence in the blog, it will not be long before he begins to be arbiter on all things else relating to orthodoxy. he has chosen not to do so by the brilliance of his writing, because it has no such brilliance, nor the force of his persuasion and logic, for it has no such elements, but has decided that it is a fit and proper thing to do to enforce his edict on such matters by loosing as scurrilous an ad hominine attack upon the persons he disagrees with, through his web blog comments page, as i have ever witnessed. these attacks have precisely nothing to do with content or merit of argument or position, but are simply smears and innuendo: and, they are painted with large and careless brushes from what i can see.
and, apparently this approach has given johnson an influence he does not deserve, as certain american thinkers have backed away from their initial association with this nascent european anti-islamic movement, and come to heel under johnson’s threat.
this i think horribly unfortunate, horribly stupid, and perhaps horribly fatal.
the implications are profoundly disturbing.
let us look at some of the more unfortunate aspects of this enforcement of the charles johnson bully boy orthodoxy.
in the first instance, the disputation undertaken by the lgf’ers is not in the form of a discussion of the merits of any political or historical or philosophical issues presented by american conservatives undertaking a cooperative stance with european nationalists in the fight against jihad, although the condemnatory conclusions against doing this are couched in language to that effect. no, the disputation is precisely in the avery burns mode of losing the hounds upon those who darken the visage of charles johnson, who draw his ire and his wrath for daring to depart from his strictures. the attacks so launched by the lizards, with an occasional and brief remark from johnson shaping the attack, suggesting the form of the battlefield and in an oozing sanctimony condoning the most scurrilous and unconscionable personal attacks, are a welter of unsupported accusations and arguments coming from every angle, with no form or substance or sustainable logic behind them, and in their tangle, impossible to defend against or refute. they are, however, unified in one respect, and that is in the vehement, vitriolic and unrestrained fervor of their attacks upon personality: it is an ad hominine attack of the death of many small, insulting, puerile and cowardly cuts.
there is no dignity or substance to it, it is as though the personality of james carville has completely overtaken political discourse in this country: that johnson should treat people who in the main respect him is scurrilous.
in the second instance, the disputation ignores and obscures salient realities about the nature of the fight to be undertaken in europe against the ravages of the jihad, and just who is going to undertake the fight, if there is to be a fight.
in their zeal to denounce the association of any american conservative with european nationalists in the fight against the jihad, the blathering and slathering mob at little green footballs ignores the very real issue of just who the hell else there is in europe or england to rally with. and, without consideration of this issue, it must also be observed that charles and his minions have given very short shrift of any consideration of what it means to loose europe to islam: of this issue, there is no consideration whatsoever that i can see.
let us consider for a moment, just who is going to rise to europe’s defense against the demographic conquest of islam.-- will the bureaucrats and advocates of universal sameness who wrote the legislative enactments opening europe up to almost unlimited muslim immigration and occupation, and who have made it illegal for europeans to even speak out against this, or to speak derogatorily about any aspects of islam, will they rise up against their legislative efforts? will they speak out against islamic immigration? will the socialist and communist politicians who find in these immigrants a ready voting block for their perpetuation in office be the first to speak to the defense of europe by islam?
well, we can engage in this series of rhetorical questions until we work our way well over to the right of the political spectrum, before we find any likely candidates to rise to the defense of europe from islam depredation. the key point to be considered in this little exercise, and it seems entirely logical to me, is that we might very well expect european nationalists to be some of the very first people to rise up and vocally demonstrate that they have no liking for the prospect of having islam overrun europe. is there something surprising about this, something so wholly sinister about this situation that i have missed?
more importantly, what is wrong with it?
is charles johnson saying that it is per se unreasonable to be a nationalist? i have read perhaps 300 or so of the comments at lgf pertaining to this subject, and i have seen perhaps one (1) comment that would suggest one of these nationalist political parties might pass ideological muster, and that person was quickly squelched. is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchman or frenchwoman being proud of being french, and wanting to preserve the attributes of his or her ethnicity and heritage? is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchperson being proud of being a child of the reformation and the enlightenment and a civilization stretching back to greece, something wrong with being proud of being an adherent to western values and not giving a whit about the values of islam? is there something wrong about taking pride in these things, even in a world where we are supposed to accept the worth of the other fellow? and, if we cannot admire our own heritage, then why in the hell do we have to give a fig for the other fellow’s?
what harm can befall us from association with european nationalists, for it might be expected that as these people gain some influence with their fellows, and most likely to their left because there are just not a whole lot of them to their right, that a more centrist flavor, a more centrist hue, might attach itself to their attitudes, and that they might become indeed more acceptable to their fellow citizens and to us.
now, there are legitimate concerns that can attach to such a process, but i will be hung if i can discern any of these concerns attaching themselves to the cacophony and expressions of bile from charles and his lizards. usually, the level of elegance in their observations about these matters is for someone to type the word “fascist” in a comment, to be followed by 50 other comments repeating the scandal to be followed by another 50 uttering uhs and ahs over the brilliance of the observations. i am sorry for my recalcitrant attitude, but i see absolutely nothing impressive or logical or productive by this display of fawning obsequiousness. i can tell you, as a literal matter of fact, that i observed one of the lizards this morning describe as a prescribed departure of orthodoxy, apparently, the fact that someone who has been posting since christmas has chosen to criticize charles, twice: he counted. my good g_d, when are morning vespers?
well, what in the hell is a european fascist? before wwii the swedish parliament awarded one of the bastards a nobel prize in philosophy, or literature. look it up.
the reflex tendency is for charles and his minions to look to the person or party in question, and call for their ostracism on the mere chance that they might have some unholy taint. the sin of this knee jerk reaction is compounded by a totally ad hoc determination of the imposition of the banishment. you would think given the long months that this has been going on, that some aspiring fellow from within the fold would draw up a list of parties which do pass the litmus of persons with whom it is o.k. for americans to associate, and to whom it would be wise to extend help, support and sympathy, if not the offer of a basement to stay in when and if islam does completely overrun the whole mess. but, no, charles and his fellow bushwhackers lie in wait until some poor offending soul, on this continent or the next, makes the mistake of associating with someone who does not possess the requisite moral and doctrinal purity to meet charles’s “standard”, whatever it might be, and then the lynching proceeds again renewed fervor. it is not pretty to watch.
in this day and age, with the marvels of communication and demographic analysis that we have, with our sophisticated appreciation of history, might there not be some more sophisticated method of making an appraisal of the suitability of association with a european political party rising at least a modicum above the level of hysteria. this reaction on the part of charles and his apprentices is like the old cartoons where the housewife sees a mouse and screams in utter terror, and jumps up on the chair. at such times, the reactions grossly exceed that called for by simple prudence, and the same is true of the knee jerk reaction of those worthies over at little green footballs.
they scream like a room of frightened girls at the apprehension of a mouse.
might not a prudent appreciation of the issue associated with trying to help european nationals and nationalists suggest the establishment of criteria to determine when it might be alright to link up with them, to offer them help, to work in league to establish policies and postures by which to oppose islamic expansion. it would not be unreasonable to take a detailed look into the history and current status of party platforms and party goals be in order. it would be prudent and cautious to see if the party recognizes the right of the state of israel to exist, to call for or extend complete diplomatic recognition, to spell out its commitments for its country or the european union to come to the aid of israel if israel is attacked. to satisfy the reasonable concerns of persons worried about attitudes such parties or person have with regards to jews and judaism, it would be prudent to examine the pronouncements of parties and persons with regard to the holocaust.
we are smart people. we understand how to perform these functions, as they are part and parcel of our procedural and institutional lives. all of us know the “ins” and “outs” of advise and consent hearing, background checks and the like.
do we not have the ability to formulate a screening litmus to be applied in a logical and procedurally adept way to make these determinations, to come up with some methodology besides ad hoc panic and hysteria? the damnable aspect of the ad hoc system used by charles at lgf, and remarkably similar to the structure of new england witch hunts, is the remarkable nature of the unsubstantiated and most probably unsubstantial hearsay accusation that someone has said this or that or associated with this or that person in the past: the assertion of these kinds of accusations becomes the unalterable proof of such things in the hysteria that governs the proceedings. when i grew up there was a marvelous t.v. western called wagon train whose hero was major adams, the wagon train leader, played by ward bond, a regular in john ford movies. every now and again the wagon train would be held up by someone, indians, rustlers, deserters, a crooked lawman, and they wanted the major to turn a person seeking refuge with the train back over to them. the major would always talk it over with the wagon train members, and there was a lady who always played in scenes where things were tough, and people were going to have to stand together on principle and it would be hard, and always she screamed, turn ‘em over major, for the love of god, give ‘em up. i loved that lady, she became mrs. olson in the m.j.b. coffee commercials later on in life, and she taught me more about morals and courage and rectitude than any college class I ever took, simply by her bad example. watching charles’s minions call for blood is like watching 100 shrewish ladies in the wagon train yell, 100 mrs. olson’s in training, give ‘em up major, give ‘em up.
surely there must be some process that could be adopted by persons of good will that would be more orderly and procedurally gifted than a lynch mob mentality run roughshod.
if a political party is burdened by a spokesman who is a ring-tailed unrepentant lunatic, but the rest of the party seems reasonable enough, ought we not in the interests of garnering more people to our cause, allow the party some procedure whereby the offending person is excised from the midst?
surely if legitimate concerns are raised about the suitability of parties or persons, appropriate remedial measures can be crafted to address those concerns, and, if possible cure those concerns.
the point is, we ought to be looking for ways to be inclusive, rather than indulging in raucous ad hoc mob scenes whose preordained result is casting someone else out into the cold. pretty soon, we will have no one to talk to in europe who is not a radical leftist or a communist or a nationalist who has been cast into charles’s system of ideological exile, and purgatory.
and, why, to address the matter head on, should american conservatives such as ourselves vest the authority to make the decisions as to who passes this litmus and who doesn’t, who passes muster, in terms of legitimate association, in charles johnson.
and, why should we allow the authority to make and enforce that assessment to be abrogated by one person who is demonstrably fallible in regard to basic issues of fairness and process? as the matter works right now, one man and his minions govern the determination of who the rest of us are allowed to deal with, govern the determination of who is a legitimate conservative consecrated to fight the jihad, in the estimation of little green footballs. this is not a good situation
in the third instance, i take extreme umbrage in the utter failure of charles johnson and his lgf’ers to have the proper consideration of what is at stake here. now, i don’t like the europeans very much, myself. but, has anybody noticed that europe, though decidedly not the europe that it used to be is still an economic and industrial colossus, possessed with and capable of manipulating and manufacturing the most complicated industrial machines and artifacts in the world? has anybody given any thought to what an incredible prize this is for islam, and what a crippling loss it is to western civilization to have europe leave our column? look, it was one thing for the muslims to be allowed the conquest of lebanon, as horrible in human terms as it was. but, to be callous about it, given the arab and muslim presence in syria and iraq and jordon, the loss of lebanon was of very little geopolitical or strategic consequence. and, I doubt very much if its gross national product was in the trillions.
the loss of europe to the economic, social and political control of islam, however, is entirely another matter. has anybody at little green footballs given the slightest consideration to this factor?
right now, the muslims, after 60 years of economic bonanza, provided them absolutely free by the west in terms of cash and by the oil companies in terms of infrastructure, still have no industrial or economic or inventive capacity: they are as industrially inept and incompetent as the first day they stepped from camels to cadillacs. the iranians cannot keep their aviation in the air because in sixty years they haven’t even figured out how to make spare parts. to the same obtains for all the arab militaries, as the arabs have never bothered to figure out how to make anything. have you ever seen one item of arab commerce in any store that you have ever shopped in, except something made with a rhino horn. by contrast, the israelis stole the entire plans and blueprints to a french fighter, and had the thing in the air and operational in a short number of years. by contrast, the israelis have one of the most modern and advanced computer industries in the world, and arms manufacturers, and so on.
by what virtue should the muslims succeed to the power and wealth of europe: in centuries, they have not risen above subsistence economies, and we are going to turn europe over to them without a struggle, or helping in a struggle to prevent it, because we cannot get our white patent leather gloves dirty associating with undesirables?
there is a moral inversion here, alright, and it is with the lgf’ers.
do charles and his munchkins at little green footballs contemplate turning the bonanza of europe over to islam without a fight? i do not know, because to the best of my knowledge, charles and the minions have never really detailed just exactly who we deal with in europe if we chose not to deal with the nationalists, or how we deal with the islamic conquest of europe: it is quite one thing to observe that such conquest is regrettable, and it is quite another to figure out what to do about it and to take concrete steps to try to prevent it. while they have been bashing the europeans for their perfidies, real and imagined, and while they have been savaging american conservatives for trying to establish some lines of communications, some bridges between people and parties, from what i can discern charles and the lgf’ers have said precisely bupkis about what is to be done.
the only thing they have said is that “we” at lgf are too good doctrinally to involve ourselves in this fray with any nasty old nationalists. if i have missed their pronouncements on this, if they have something of value to offer as an alternative to the efforts of others, i fall all over myself in apology, but i am not aware of it.
this is totally unacceptable. this cannot be tolerated or condoned or met with silence by the rest of the conservative movement. if charles and the lgf’ers are going to use the cudgel to prevent the intervention of american conservatives in this european fight, then they had better be suggesting alternative means to join the fight. they have not, insofar as i am aware.
this posture of supercilious moral aloofness and superiority is not defensible, and it is doubly flawed by the insistence of the morality police at little green footballs that americans not be allowed to help those who ask for it, in the fight against the jihad.
france and england and germany make some of the best fighter planes in the world, and england makes one of the best fighter/attack bombers ever to take flight. france and england and germany make tanks that are state of the art, and though they might not be quite the main battle tank that the m1 abrahams is, they are not that far behind, and in head to head battle they would inflict casualties on the abrahams, and given enough of them, they could perhaps come out ahead in a war of attrition. france and england and germany and spain, given the airbus consortium, also have the capability of making airplanes with extremely heavy lift capabilities. does that mean anything to anybody in terms of the ability to manufacture strategic bombers?
france, germany, england, spain and the rest of the eu are an economic colossus; again not what they might be were they not staggering under the weight of eu social programming and taxes, but a still respectable economy. think, if you will but for a moment, at the technological riches available to islam at the conquest of europe.
and, oh yes, that other little matter.
france and england have the ability to make nukes, and they have the ability to deliver them, either by air, or by nuclear submarine.
does that give anyone pause?
if you, gentle reader, are reading this and you have not stopped to consider this, than you are probably just a bit obtuse.
france and england have about 200-300 warheads apiece, and the ability to launch them, from off of our shores, from off the shores of israel. given the distances involved in a sub-surface launch from the confines of the mediterranean, israeli citizens would not have a chance to finish their breakfast eggs before the arrival of a nuclear strike.
we cannot give this up to the muslims, not without helping those who would fight it. if charles insists upon blocking efforts to help the only europeans to ask for help thus far, then he has a moral obligation to suggest alternatives, and thus far, he has proven morally bankrupt in this regard.
if i am wrong, i will apologize on this point, abjectly: all that is required by me is that i be provided substantial proof that charles has addressed these points.
let me ask this rhetorical question, for both your consideration gentle reader, and also for the consideration of mr. johnson and his minions. what if it devolves that the european nationalists are the only ones in europe who have the stomach to stand up and fight the muslim demographic wave sweeping over the continent.
who do we deal with then?
we already know that a considerable segment of the social and political spectrum of those countries will not fight. the left will not, as their intellectual blinders prevent them from seeing the problem, and will do so right up until the curved knives lie against their throats. will the t.v. reporters who perpetuated the fraud of al dhura, will they fight islam? will the leftists who lionized yasser arafat, will they fight the muslims? the politicians and social elites will not, because they think they will ride the matter out: after all, they are saying to themselves in the dark corners and recesses of their minds, not all of us will be killed, some of us will survive.
in the immediately preceding post in this blog, i spoke of stupid choices, and the fallacy of supposing that someone would actually chose the dumber course of action when a better choice fell immediately and obviously to hand, right there for the taking. i rather sharply rejected that possibility, saying it was nonsense.
but, here we have charles johnson, who has given pause to my previous position.
here are the choices, it seems to me, which mr. johnson seems to perceive as having been presented himself.
--be ideological pure and abandon europe to the tender ministration of islam.
--consort with people you wouldn’t invite home for dinner, but fight to save europe from islam.
he seems to have chosen ideological purity.
is this the best choice under the circumstances?
what is the worst conceivable thing that could happen by consorting with european nationalists? another hitler? give me a break, the chances of another hitler rising out of all of this is so remote as to be ridiculous. it is preposterous. even so, the chances of this are exacerbated by isolating the nationalist parties, offering them no other recourse than extremism: cooperation with american conservatives who will help them fight the jihad also serves to have persons in place, the americans, who will moderate any tendency towards extremism. let me say it again, isolating the euro’s only increases the chance of fulfilling charles’s fear, and charles’s policy is ill designed to achieve its end of preventing euro nationalistic extremism: and, that is putting the matter quite charitably.
it might be conceivable that if europe were to be saved by the help of euro nationalists then european nationalism might be strengthened somewhat, that they would have more influence and take more legislative seats than they have right now, but it seems unlikely that they would be given real institutional influence. what, for instance, has been the reward to french nationalists for supporting our hero sarkozy? i would suggest, precisely nothing.
what is the worst thing that could happen if islam took control over europe? then, my friends, the prospect of another holocaust looms not as an unlikely possibility, but as a scenario which takes on the magnitude of an eventuality.
what is the fate of israel if europe comes under the sway of islam?
well, in all probability, israel ceases to exist. if italy and france go islamic, then almost of a certainty turkey has become a fundamentalist islamic state well before, and israel’s fate is sealed. her strategic and tactical situation is absolutely untenable, and the only thing she can do is be destroyed where she sits.
to my way of thinking, the ideological myopia displayed by little green footballs if adopted as policy or attitude almost guarantees the demographic conquest of europe by islam, and of a certainty makes the continued existence of israel a very dim prospect.
charles johnson’s insistence on ideological purity, backed up by his little vociferous gang of bully boys, is an intellectual cul de sac. it is a dead end.
it eschews a path, which while not risk free and which cannot completely foreclose the possibility of betrayal or disappointment, which offers at least some hope of preventing the conquest of europe by the crescent wave, in favor of a path amounting to a complete absence of american conservative action in europe, which is really more accurately described as the total abject abandonment of europe. if charles johnson intends to fight the jihad, then he means to fight it on our shores, and without the cooperation and involvement of europeans, because by the time our fight comes here they will have experienced complete and entire vanquishment.
charles johnson, by forcibly doing everything he can to prevent american conservatives from helping european nationalists, is advocating the complete abandonment of the europeans. who else, on the face of the planet, will help the euro nationalists? and, rest assured, charles johnson is not using sweet reason to advance his argument, he is using the cudgel and threat of intellectual ostracism and loss of career and income, and the good company of other conservatives, to impose his will on this matter.
this is a plan of the abject surrender of europe to islam.
let us look at what his position really is, stripped of its hyperbole and the threat of incessant diatribe from his trained lizards. what is comes down to is this.—
charles and his little ideological purists say that it is wrong for some blond haired blue eyed scandanavian, or for a green eyed auburn-tressed jewish lady, to extol the virtues and continued existence of their ethnic and cultural identities, and to try and preserve themselves and their kind, even at the cost of no harm to any other group or person on the face of the earth. and, that it is wrong for them to organize peaceably and under the laws of the countries where he or she might live under the banner of a nationalistic party. and, that it is wrong for them to associate with americans, and that it is wrong for american conservatives to associate with them unless it is under the sanctioning authority of charles johnson and his lizards (pleasant prospect, that?).
he says the prospects of anti-semitic and fascist leanings make it so, even in the absence of any concrete evidence to that effect.
yet charles and his ideological bully boys say that it is right to stand idly by, while islam by the use of law and the force of the arms of the state, carries out a scheme whose design is the imposition of multi-cultural mix and a pleasant hue of brown skin and brown eyes, and just coincidentally muslim, at the cost of the demographic extermination and extinction of the very diversity and tolerance which islam exploited to gain entry into those countries in the first place. and that this idle posture is all in the name of avoiding the risk of racism and fascism.
johnson and he lgf’ers would condone the imposition of muslim conquest and all that such would entail, as opposed to recognizing the right of people to simply preserve who they are, their heritages and beliefs.
at the improbable risk of a resurgence of european fascism, charles johnson would idly witness the certain imposition of islamic fascism upon europe. this makes no sense, pardon me, but this makes no sense.
to avoid a slight risk of the resurgence of european fascism he would impose muslim conquest upon europe, replete with every intellectual, religious, and social fanaticism now plaguing the middle east, including honor killings, fratricide, female genital mutilation, and all of the horrors and inanities of the sharia.
charles johnson and his minions are wrong.
it must be said, at every turn and at whatever personal cost, until in this silliness is stopped.
every blogger and every commentator who knuckles under to the threat of charles johnson and his thug’s cudgels is complicit in his totalitarian imposition of his view of the matter, by force and by threat; is cowardly in his or her submission to him; and is craven in his or her efforts to hide their moral turpitude. that is harsh. it is also true. we cannot have the courage to stand against islam, if we haven’t the courage to stand against johnson and the lizards: a simple, hard fact.
there is, finally, a fourth aspect about this which is wrong, and must be opposed vociferously.
the behavior of charles johnson and his bully boys, calls into question the continued viability of the exchange of free information, values and argument on the internet.
what johnson has asserted here is his ability to determine and control conservative thought at first by the cudgel, and then by edict.
in johnson’s model of the blog universe he is the final authority on what may be thought, and who may be associated with. in the past, he has demonstrated that he will ostracize and ban from his presence anyone who does not agree to him or who does not bow and scrape before him: he has banned his little lizards for being of an independent mind, and he has threatened banishment to others but held out the olive branch, on his terms, to reenter the fold.
in this he is a louse, but hey, even a lice can say who enters his abode: if charles and minions want their own little play pen that is fine with me.
in this latest contretemps, however, johnson has upped the ante, and he is now insisting that it is within his reach and prevue to determine who is respectable in the world, and with whom bloggers may associate without fear of reprisal, without the threat of his cudgel hanging over the determination and expression of their thought. if he determines that you are wrong, he will unleash the hounds of hell, actually, a swarm of irritating gnats is a more accurate description, but hounds of hell has a nice ring to it, upon you in an effort to disparage you wit, your intelligence, to impugn your integrity, and to say any vile thing the protection and anonymity of a computer keyboard will afford them the security to say. they are, quite simply, as a pack of ravenous dogs, when the scent of blood is upon them.
in a very real sense, johnson and his bully boys seek to become intellectual dictators. he knows it and they know it, and they are smug about it.
will i be getting an email from mr. johnson and his minions, telling me which hand to use to wipe my ass, for the expression of my views? i wonder which of his wally cox clones has sufficient sense of humor to make that suggestion to me. at my doorstep?
*** tully bascomb led the expeditionary forces of the duchy of grand fenwick in an invasion of the united states, to redress fenwickian grievances concerning the wine trade. (the novel was originally called “the wrath of grapes.” pretty funny.) chosen for his incompetence bascomb bumbled to an unexpected victory, necessitating a lengthy diplomacy to set things right. so goes the story of “the mouse that roared,” and the moral of picking fights that you might somehow inadvertently win, through no fault of your own.
this day little green footballs will have nearly 70,000 visits with 1,500 or so messages left behind: the little counter says lgf has had nearly 4,700,000 messages left at the blog. by contrast, this blog has had nearly 2,500 visit total, and some 27 total messages left. my blog has experienced one (1) track back, whatever that is.
i will remind you of what lord cromwell told the parliament that ordered his death by drawing, quartering and head chopping, if i remember correctly, “i beseech you in the bowels of christ, pray consider that you are wrong.” i like that “… bowels of christ …” part, i always have.
now you have some idea of the sort of person who would advance into battle against charles and his horde of minions, my one tattered banner fluttering in the breeze. it should be a good dust up. for you see, i am right and charles johnson in wrong, in this particular instance. he should redress and correct his wrongs, as recounted hereinabove. he should just make a clean breast of it, admit his error, and we can be done with it.
i will go back to grand fenwick a happy person. i hope i go back to fenwick whole, and not in quarters, guts in arms, or, arms in guts, whatever the case may be. laughing.
“the mouse that roared,” by leonard wibberley.