more on charles johnson ... more on "the mouse that roared," though it is seldom remembered ...

more on charles johnson at atlasshrugs2000 and jihadwatch, as they take broadsides at the left's attempts to "rehabilitate" johnson as he tries to regroup, after having divulged his true liberal sympathies, and as the left tries to bring his reputation safely intact into the fold.  as his reputation isn't much, it will be something of a task, in my estimation.

but, to the point at hand.  for me, at least.--

though not remembered nor remarked upon nor much acknowledged one of the first overt attacks on johnson came from this blog in a post entitled "herding cats  ...  the mouse that roared at little green footballs ***  ... the lizard wars on 'personality'  ... european nationalists and civil behavior."   that post was published nearly two years ago, on 27 january 2008.  you will read a lot of polemic, and a lot of prejudicial comment in the next few days about johnson, most of it pretty seriously re-hashed from previous remarks.  but, you will read nothing earlier from anybody, saving pamela geller, and you will read nothing so cogent and analytical as my post.

read it.  see if i brag, or simply speak fact.  remember that date.  27 january 2008.

i followed that screed with another broadside on charles johnson on 24 september 2008, entitled "huck chuck  ...  it is time to throw charles johnson off the life raft  ...  he eats too much, he drinks to[o] much, and he does none of the heavy rowing  ...  get shed of him  ... " 

loud, vociferous and enthusiastic will be the chorus of those who join pamela geller and robert spencer in the attack upon charles johnson.  i have to admit that i have no sympathy for him, and i will probably agree with almost everything negative said about him.  he single handedly destroyed any efforts to try and establish a joint european and american effort to defeat jihad, and his efforts, his entirely & wholly destructive efforts last to this day: even yet the stigma that he cast over the whole effort prevents what is a most logical union of interests.  for that i will never forgive him, and i think that his contributions in this regard hasten europe to its demise.

well, johnson will have california.

but, i will make this remark.  when i wrote my little articles back then, pamela geller linked them and very graciously and gratefully brought attention to the articles and to me.  baron bodissey at the gates of vienna also linked my first post, remarked upon the logic and strength of the writing, and gave it an extensive excerpt.  i do not think that he remarked upon the second article.

robert spencer did not mention the first or the second article, and i think that he never has acknowledged them in any way.  he did not have much to say about charles johnson at the time of the first post, and my memory just doesn't serve me very well if he had opened public hostility at the time of my second post.  he has gotten on the band wagon now, and makes good and trenchant criticisms of johnson's intellectual failings: he was just a little late to the opening of festivities.   you can look it up, as to the timing of spencer's entry into the fray, and if i am mistaken, i am open to being corrected by robert, and i will apologize to robert spencer for any misstatements of fact in this post.  publicly, and without equivocation.  period.

none of the bloggers who will now join pamela geller and robert spencer in an anvil chorus of condemnation and vitriol directed towards johnson said one word in support of pamela geller and baron bodissesy when the initial battle was joined.  he is down now, if not mortally wounded at least pretty defenseless, and so the attacks upon him are now made entirely without personal or professional risk, and to my way of thinking, somewhat gratuitous on the part of those reluctant to join the first battles.  fighting from safe haven may be prudent, but there is no particular virtue to be pretended in it. 

it wasn't always so.  at one point, it took courage to go up against him, and the only people i saw do it were pamela geller and baron bodissey.

and, i have passed quietly from notice in all of it and seldom if ever get any credit for my involvement in the battle as it was first joined.

i think that unfortunate.  i fired one of the first volleys, and it was a telling analysis of his deficiencies.  i joined the battle later, again, ... , and again, pamela geller was the only person to give my article any notice at all.

it was never linked or acknowledged by any of the stalwarts who now join in kicking the living snot out of charles johnson, after pamela geller took him on, and took him down, and when it posed a serious risk to her career, and to the career of baron bodissey, and when it was no mean task to do so.

on her own.  with an able assist from me.  which now passes unnoticed, and unremarked upon.

but, not forgotten entirely.  i remember.

and, i hate to be tedious about it.  but, ... , if you will read my articles you will find them much superior in analysis, and much more well thought out, then the chest beating that goes on from those who stand triumphant over a foe fallen to the ground, and who had not much to do with putting him there.

some of them might take exception to that.  i am small.  and, this post will go largely unread.  that's o.k.  i remember what happen.  i have it in writing.

john jay @ 01.24.2010

Comments

[Just Another Richard]

Don't like him much then, eh!! jj ;)

[Just Another Richard]

Actually, as I seem to recall, and as expressed by Robert himself, most recently. As the conflict of words erupted, Robert initially tried to act as an intermediary, (obviously, quite unsuccessfully as events would clearly demonstrate). Some were simply more prescient than many others ... take a bow jj.

As you have stated elsewhere, writing takes a lot of effort, what is more so, is sticking to one's principles in the face of an onslaught of contrary opinion. Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, he fell into the trap of his own self importance ... it happens to lots of people. A measure of real character is, can they climb out of the mess of their own making; sadly for many, 'tis a labor too far.

[john jay]

richard:

it is a matter of respect for the historical record.--

i can easily establish what i wrote, and when: i have the dates, the links and the writing. and, it was for public consumption.

it does not require characterization, or interpretation or explanation, it speaks for itself. very clearly, and very well, if i do say myself.

those who kick charles johnson around these days with impunity have never come even remotely close to handling the issues raised by my pieces.

i don't like my efforts being ignored, but i have become rather resigned to it. i do not like the preening and the posturing of those who now delight on stomping on johnson now that he has been defanged, yet were nowhere to be found when he savaged geller at the time it was serious business, and johnson was a force to be reckoned with.

and, as i have said, if people or persons do not like my version of events, all they have to do to kick me into the gutter (i would so richly deserve)is to come up with dates, links and writing.

thanks richard, for the read, and for the thoughtful comments.

you should read the original essay here on the mouse that "roared at lgf." it is the best writing i have ever done.

i should have quit right then and there. laughing.

john jay

[Robert Spencer]

I publicly acknowledged that I was late to the party in my own post on the New York Times article. I don't see why you want to make an issue of that at this late date, but have at it.

[Robert Spencer]

In particular I find this to be rather gratuitously offensive: "i do not like the preening and the posturing of those who now delight on stomping on johnson now that he has been defanged, yet were nowhere to be found when he savaged geller at the time it was serious business, and johnson was a force to be reckoned with."

If I do say so myself I believe he was still very much a force to be reckoned with when he turned on me also.

I was certainly wrong not to have called him on his behavior earlier, and have said as much.

But I am puzzled as to all this coming from you, whom I had counted as an ally.

[dymphna]

Here's a link to an essay on John Jay that I think you'll like. It's from the most recent quarterly of City Journal...

Shoot. Never mind...

I just went over to the site to grab the URL and it's still behind the subscription wall.

However, keep an eye on the page and it will be available eventually(I just got my copy in the mail yesterday so it may be a week or so till the whole mag is available.
=================
Myron Magnet
"The Education of John Jay:
America’s indispensable diplomat"
================
http://www.city-journal.org/

The essay is in the "Urbanities" section.

If you're not subscribed to this mag, I highly recommend it. Without a doubt, it is the most aesthetically pleasing magazine being produced today. And the articles are top notch.

[Our subscription is for 2 years. Good thing, too, since we won't be getting it again unless the Baron finds other work. We have maybe 3 more issues to go]

[john jay]

re: robert spencer

dear robert:

when i read your emails i was a little taken aback, because it was most certainly not my intention to take you to task about anything haveing to do w/ charles johnson.

you were in fact in attendance and participation at the brussels conference which cause johnson to attack first pamela geller and then you some time later.

so, i acknowledge your efforts to establish a working partnership with th european anti-jihad movement, which efforts at brussels caused johnson to go off his rocker on the subject, and to use the most scurilous name calling for all in attendance.

he most assuredly "included you in" during the height of his polemic.

i did note that you were a bit late in joining the battle, however, just after that observation i wrote:

"none of the bloggers who will now join pamela geller and robert spencer in an anvil chorus of condemnation and vitriol directed towards johnson said one word in support of pamela geller and baron bodissesy when the initial battle was joined."

that would be a curious sentence structure to use, to join you & pamela in common interest, then to compare you to the people who i do think take advantage of johnson being mortally wounded, if i were trying to lump you into the latter category.

i think, by contrast, that i was at some pains to distinguish you from those who now profit by their pot shots at johnson.

i have read your post which is linked in this one, and accept your position that you attempted to be a peace maker between charles johnson and pamela geller.

i did not challege that assertion at your blog, i did not challenge that assertion in the above piece, and i do not challenge that assertion now.

i do stick by my chronology and memory of things.

you were later joining in battle than was pamela geller.

but, i have not drawn any inferences from that w/ regard to my observations of the others who now join in the chorus. and, indeed, i have consciously and purposefully included you in as an ally of pamela geller in this fight: i don't think i suggested otherwise.

i have not intended to insult you in this piece, nor, particularly to excite your ire. if i have inadvertantly insulted you, i apologize, and do so unequivocably, though i am not too concerned about the ire, as much of christendom seems irate or displeased with me, in some form or another.

my point in the post, if not obvious enough, is to express my disappointment over my role as having been largely forgotten and left behind.

if you will read my piece on the roaring "mouse," you will find it a good piece, and i think superior to anything else written on the subject. all writers feel that way, i suppose.

i do not question the yoeman like contributions that pamela geller, robert spencer and baron bodissey made in taking charles johnson down a peg or three. it is a contribution much greater than mine: i just wish my part were not forgotten.

i did not mean to insult you or to imply that you have not played an important role in this.

i hope this suffices.

i will not change the piece, however, and i do not think that it requires change. it is accurate, and i don't think it insults you, and it surely was not intended to do so.

john jay

[Davin]

How the times have passed.
From excitement in being a little green hatchling some 3 years back then the entire Vlaams Belang affair that brought fierce anger anddrove me away from posting/following the lgf site. cj flipped and as was posted by either Atlas or yourself, it was one of the greatest flipps since scott ritter.

Anyhow, well said as always jj.

[オテモヤン]

http://oppao.net/n-ona/
http://oppao.net/navi/
http://oppao.net/new-d2/
http://oppao.net/fd3/
http://oppao.net/soap2/
http://oppao.net/bg2/
http://oppao.net/host2/
http://oppao.net/lesson2/
http://oppao.net/op2/
http://oppao.net/fl3/
http://oppao.net/bb2/
http://oppao.net/s-este/
http://oppao.net/rd2/
http://oppao.net/kawa/
http://oppao.net/n-club2/
http://s-auc.net/

[オテモヤン]

http://oppao.net/n-ona/
http://oppao.net/navi/
http://oppao.net/new-d2/
http://oppao.net/fd3/
http://oppao.net/soap2/
http://oppao.net/bg2/
http://oppao.net/host2/
http://oppao.net/lesson2/
http://oppao.net/op2/
http://oppao.net/fl3/
http://oppao.net/bb2/
http://oppao.net/s-este/
http://oppao.net/rd2/
http://oppao.net/kawa/
http://oppao.net/n-club2/
http://s-auc.net/