|
Lawrence “Springtime for Hitler” Auster gets the LGF treatment
(Note: the opening part of this thread is unavoidably somewhat intricate, as I am describing the unfolding of a discussion at Little Green Footballs that went through several stages and branched off in a couple of different directions, as well as VFR’s earlier thread about that discussion; but it proceeds sequentially and is not hard to follow.) (Also note: Charles Johnson has put up an insulting display that comes on if you click links from this site to his site. To see what I’m talking about, click on this link to his thread where I and others were called neo-Nazis. Therefore, in order to get to any LGF pages linked at VFR, right-click the link and copy the address, then paste the address into your browser.) It began with a Southern Poverty Law Center article, “President Obama? Many White Supremacists are Celebrating,” that was linked and quoted by Charles Johnson at an LGF thread entitled, “White Supremacists for Obama.” The SPLC piece concerns “the assortment of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites and others who make up this country’s radical right.” Examples of these groups mentioned by SPLC included Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and the Klan. Thus the article only dealt with figures and movements on the Nazi-like, seriously anti-Semitic right. The piece had nothing to do with traditionalist conservatives, immigration restrictionists, paleocon race realists, and so on. However, the article contained a sentence that turned out to be the hinge of fate on a wild crazy day. It described David Duke as “the neo-Nazi and former Klan boss who is the closest thing the movement has to a real intellectual these days.” That sentence set off LGF’s insane Auster-hater “Render,” who at comment #170 in the LGF thread said:
I only saw one line in that piece that I would really quibble about.Thus according to Render, the eight named persons are neo-Nazi intellectuals, of the same ilk as the hyper-anti-Semitic David Duke, Vanguard News Network (with its slogan, “No Jews, just right”) and Stormfront! And of these eight neo-Nazi intellectuals, including me, Render says, “EXPECT NO MERCY,” meaning that I and the seven others are merciless enemies of humanity. At comment #180 Charles Johnson approvingly quoted Render’s comment in which the eight named persons were called neo-Nazis from whom no mercy could be expected, and he added: 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.In an earlier VFR thread on this, I expressed astonishment that Johnson had described Diana West and Richard Miniter as fascist sympathizers. I had not yet taken in the importance of the list that included me among the supposed neo-Nazis. But a little later in that same VFR thread, reader K., a European woman, informed me that LGF commenter “Q” at comment #234 at the LGF thread was defending me from the charge that I’m a Nazi. She added: “I don’t imagine ‘Q’ will last long as a Lizard.” I replied, half jokingly:
Thanks. But you know what happens now, don’t you? “Render” will endeavor to prove that I really am a Nazi…It turned out not to be a joke. Johnson, Render, and other Lizards launched into a full bore attack on yours truly, which, following the pattern of Johnson’s past attacks on people like Paul Belien and Filip Dewinter, had zero factual content, but lots and lots of scary adjectives. The upshot was that as a direct result of Q’s defending me, I was graduated from one name among eight to the prime target. At the same time, Johnson proceeded to expel from LGF both Q and Kevin V., the latter being an occasional VFR commenter who has been an LGF commenter for six years. What was their crime? They said that Lawrence Auster is not a Nazi. They made intellectual distinctions between race realists (i.e., people who recognize the existence of racial differences that matter) and Nazis. To Johnson, Q.’s and Kevin V.’s explanation of a non-Nazi belief that race matters and their claim that I’m not a Nazi proved that they are Nazi sympathizers, and so he kicked them off his site. He also deleted their comments. Kevin V., in a telephone conversation with me at midnight Eastern time, gave me a full rendition of his deleted comment that led to his expulsion. It consisted of (1) his statement that I’m not a Nazi, and (2) his thoughtful and erudite explanation (based on a previous posted comment which he sent to me) of the traditional, non-Nazi, ethnicity-conscious European right, as exemplified by Vlaams Belang, and how it is different from modern, liberal conservatism while also having in common with it an opposition to Islamization. In the LGF thread, starting at around comment #230, you can read attacks on me that will either make you laugh out loud at the insanity of it, or chill you—at the insanity of it. To give a flavor of the discussion, here is one brief section of the attack on me and on my defenders, going from comment #236 to comment #239:
[deleted] 6/12/08 1:12:42 pm 0It goes on and on like this. You know, I’m thinking of getting in touch with my old pal Heidi Beirich, SPLC’s investigator of souls, and asking her to straighten out Johnson about me. I’m not being naive. Beirich, I’m sure, doesn’t like me, she thinks I’m a racist, of course, but we’ve had some one-on-one exchanges and I think she has enough familiarity with the issues and with me to know that I’m not a Nazi and in fact am a relentless critic of anti-Israelites, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers. The same cannot be said for LGF. There is evidently no one at that site remotely capable of making the distinction between Nazis, and conservatives who are concerned about how mass nonwhite immigration is affecting the West. Nor is there anyone there who can distinguish between Nazis and people who defend people from false charges of being Nazis.
K. sent this comment while I was still drafting the initial blog entry above:
War is hell, as they say, and I am getting rather good at prophesying. Comment #234 by Q was deleted and said Lizard was then banned, followed, it seems, by quite a few other Lizards. Comment #236 by Charles: “Lawrence Auster is a lunatic. And he is very much a supporter of Eurofascist groups. He has launched some really ugly attacks against me and LGF.” #238 “Q no longer welcome at LGF.” Another Lizard comments at #240: “It seems that one of his (Auster’s) readers has drawn his attention to this thread. It is featured on his (Auster’s) blog. CRIPES.” Asks one lowly Lizard beseeching knowledge of the Lizard King at Comment #242: “Auster is described on the web as a ‘traditional conservative’. Is that a code for something?” To which HM Charles replies at #243: “Yes, actually…it’s code for ‘fascist sympathizing scumbag.” Followed by massive deletions. (Sigh) At #256 Charles asks: “Anyone else want to come out of the woodwork?” (They apparently have a termite problem at LGF.) At which point, they are off and running on a discussion about Nazism and whether it is socialist. Render, you will be heartened to learn, has remained true to your expectations.Kevin V. writes:
Larry—It was good talking to you…. The final total over at LGF’s banning party was 12, 7 of which are connected to Discarded Lies. The lizards seem to think that they have overthrown some secret cabal of fascist sympathizers who were this close to discrediting the Great Leader but for his heroic and timely action. It takes a bit to move me to anger on this kind of stuff, but the way in which Johnson is treating people really shocks me.Evariste writes:
Hi Larry-I thought you would like to read this, since it involves not only Charles Johnson, but some of your correspondents, like Kevin V, me, and the guy Q who defended you on LGF. KevinV, “Q” (who is the same person posting as “solus rex” on my blog and who frequently links to VFR, by the way) and about ten other people got banned by Charles from LGF tonight, as a direct or indirect result of defending you or trying to make a distinction between you and, say, Adolf Hitler. At one point he realized that leaving up all the rational, thoughtful comments to which he replied with hysterical rhetoric, mindless insults and bans was making him look bad, so he deleted all the comments that were posted to protect his flock from cognitive dissonance. I regret that I didn’t get a copy of everything that got posted, but some of the comments are reproduced on the thread I’ve linked.Evariste continues:
Addendum. He didn’t just delete the comments, even went to the lengths of deleting portions of comments that he’d quoted and replied to, just to make sure that no one can fully appreciate his shameful antics. He behaved in so many outrageous ways that I forget to mention everything that’s worth mentioning.LA replies:
Well, I saved the web page on my computer at about 12:15 a.m. so if he kept on deleting stuff after that point, I have it.Evariste writes:
Just saw your post! I had no idea you’d been on the phone with Kevin, or I wouldn’t have bothered emailing you to let you know what had been going on. Awesome. By the way, the “full LGF treatment” is when Charles links to you on his front page, sending his “Lizards” forth to post hundreds of insane, frothing, rabid comments. He really enjoys and encourages that sort of thing, rewarding especially persistent “lizards” with front page mentions honoring their “service”. He takes joy in the idea of his followers swarming and intimidating anyone who dares to cross him, and has been nourishing this sort of mindless mob mentality for many years. I suspect the only reason he hasn’t bothered doing this to you is that you don’t have automatic comments. I already really liked your comments because they’re manually vetted and of unprecedentedly high quality as a result, but the fact that it makes impotent one of Johnson’s favorite modes of attack is a pleasantly unexpected bonus.Jeff in England writes:
JUST CAUGHT UP WITH THIS.K. writes:
I find what is happening and what is being said at LGF quite fascinating, and I would urge people to have a look at the thread “Melanie Phillips and the Obama Derangement Syndrome,” and read all the way through the comments (over 600, gulp!) because they illustrate perfectly how a body of people are directed, channelled, controlled, punished and kept in a state of watchful, and nervous, obeisance to both a person and a concept.LA replies:
It is indeed like nothing I’ve seen before. A true totalitarian-type manifestation at an American “conservative” website, with the Leader and his followers in a shared hysterical state rooting out one ideological suspect after another from their ranks, and congratulating themselves and pumping each other up over each new suspect that is found.LA to K.: You say that LGF has gone after Steyn.K. replies:
I caught Lizards criticising Steyn in some thread ages back but didn’t read the whole thread (they do go on a bit!). It may have involved the issue of Steyn and Mcleans publisher being hauled before the Human Rights gang in Canada over a remark Steyn had quoted in his book, America Alone, from a Moslem who had commented on the demographics in Europe of Moslem births. Trying to use faulty LGF “logic,” perhaps some Lizards think that Steyn, by highlighting the demographic reality in Europe of Moslem births outdistancing European ones, could be guilty of implying a solution to the problem which, in Lizard minds, recalls Nazi plans of breeding “a master race.” (Steyn had made a most apt comment either in his book or on his own website: “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”) I think LGF expresses perfectly the situation which arises when even the very mention of a problem becomes, instead, The Problem and must be silenced. This does not bode well for our civilization’s future.LA replies:
Is LGF then siding with the Muslims against Steyn in the human rights suit?? That would really be news.K. replies: Sorry, I don’t remember when or in what thread I saw it at LGF. I don’t recall if Charles was in on that conversation. It caught my attention when I saw it because it seemed to be part of a growing list of those courageous people who are the real spokesman against Islamisation being demeaned at LGF and absurd political aspersions being cast on their views and motives (Bat Ye’or, for example, being regarded as a conspiracy theorist).Karl D. writes:
Obviously Johnson has never read “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller? He is obviously not a conservative but a collectivist ego-maniac who cant seem to unload his socialist tendencies.A reader writes:
But folks are missing the real melt down.Michael P. writes:
This entire situation is truly bizarre. I never much paid attention to LGF since I never considered the site to have much in the way of intellectual content. However, the behavior of CJ, as retold at VFR, is strange indeed. Johnson’s behavior reminds me, anent his so-called Lizards, of Lyndon Larouche. At this point in the game you are likely correct. He is not playing with a full deck.Kevin V. writes:
More LGF fun. Check out this exchange from today: [No link.]Erich writes:
Your post today passed on an inaccuracy that was not caught by four different people, yourself included:LA replies:
First, I was not aware that Fjordman’s articles are posted at JW or Dhimmi Watch, I’ve only read his articles at Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.Erich writes:
Yes, I wouldn’t put it past Charles Johnson to engage in that kind of deceptiveness. But this raises a larger question: Given Johnson’s evidently unhinged and efficiently fanatical hatred of those with whom he disagrees on these issues, why would he suppress all that in favor of Spencer? Johnson strikes me as a person so fanatical, he would not be mentally and emotionally capable of making pragmatic compromises in the interest of, for example, not wishing to burn a bridge with someone as influential as Spencer because he knows it might hurt his own influence. This speculation would shift the onus of explanation to Spencer—perhaps Spencer himself is closer to Charles Johnson than even we have surmised to date. Either way, though, the Fjordman factor throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. It would be nice if someone could ask Fjordman directly what he thinks of all this.LA replies:
Fjordman regularly reads this site, and he is welcome to reply to Erich’s question, publicly or privately.LA continues:
However, on further thought, I don’t agree with Erich’s premise. I don’t think Johnson is as fanatical as Erich supposes, and I think it does come down to personal and professional relationships. People have the ideologies they have. But, in some cases, they suspend their operation if it would damage a valued relationship. So Johnson makes an “exception” for Spencer.Erich writes:
You wrote:James Pillman writes:
I wish Charles Johnson hadn’t previously banned me from LGF so I could post comments mocking his hypersensitivity to “fascists” like you, West, Miniter, Belien, Fjordman, etc. Of course I’d be banned for doing so as were your other correspondents, but it certainly would have been good for one last laugh at Dear Leader’s expense.LA replies:
I remember our lively e-mail exchanges about Johnson a while back and your involvement at LGF, as “jeppo.”James P. replies:
If you remember our previous exchanges then you’ll recall that it was your good advice to me to demand proof that Vlaams Belang were fascists from the LGF cultists. Which, of course, they were never able to provide.LA replies:
Yes, they kind of went crazy on you, as I remember, they kept insulting you, saying, “How can you not see it?”, but you wouldn’t budge and you kept demanding the evidence. To them, the fact that you were asking for evidence was proof of bad faith, stupidity, or madness.LA asks Kevin V.: You mentioned “dinging” at LGF. What does that mean?Kevin V. replies:
“Dinging” in this context refers to the plus and minus keys that Johnson has attached to his threads and all comments so one can express general approval or disapproval, like or dislike, etc. What happened here is that someone clicked the minus button on Charles’ posting at #543, this was pointed out to him at #713 and at #715 Charles responded by finding out (through his administration of the system) who “dinged” his comment with a minus key and then banned that person’s account.LA replies:
You’re telling me that there’s a “vote” mechanism that he makes available on every comment, thus soliciting participants to vote yes or no, but if they vote no on HIS comments, they’re instantly expelled?Kevin V. replies:
The “vote” mechanism post-dates my regular involvement at LGF, but that is my understanding from reading the threads and figuring out the context of the comments mentioning the system. Perhaps there is something at the site that goes into more detail on the system….LA replies:
So, there are different levels of Charles Johnson pronunciamentos. At the highest level is the dogmatic unfallible truth of LGF.Brandon F. writes:
Thanks for taking on this obnoxious character. I have had experience dealing with him on his discussion board. Basically he and all his followers are anti-Muslim pot-head liberals.LA replies:
That would explain a lot.Alan Roebuck writes:
Your latest discussion of Charles Johnson reminds me of an insight I recently had: Under liberalism, the objective is banned, and discourse consists of people sharing their whims and opinions. But observe: my whim or opinion feels like more of a part of myself than an objectively reasoned conclusion, and therefore when you disagree with my whim or opinion, it feels much more painful than when you disagree with my reasoned opinion. When you contradict my whim, you are attacking my person, not just something outside of myself (an objective fact or reasonable argument) that I happen to agree with.LA replies:
But perhaps Brandon F.’s simpler explanation is closer to the mark. That Charles and his Lizards are basically hyper liberal/libertarian types who happen to oppose Muslim terrorism—like, say, a bunch of lower-IQ versions of Jamie Glazov?LA continues:
My comparison to Glazov was not quite right. But I do think that Brandon has supplied the best explanation for the LGF people. Let’s put it this way. Johnson and his followers have virtually zero conservative background and formation. Their “conservatism” consists in wanting to defend America from radical Islam and terrorism. But because the left in today’s America does not believe in defending America from terrorism, a person who does believe in it is considered a “conservative.” It’s the one-drop rule of conservatism. Just as, in a white majority society, a person with even a tiny amount of identifiable Negro features is a Negro, in the same way, in a liberal-ruled society, a person with even one conservative position is a conservative, even though he’s liberal in every other respect.Carol Iannone writes (June 15):
Render’s phrase at LGF, “EXPECT NO MERCY,” to me means that YOU CAN EXPECT NO MERCY, you are a Nazi worthy of merciless treatment, possibly even death. I don’t think it means, “these Nazis are merciless enemies of humanity,” as you interpreted it.LA writes:
I spoke in a current thread of the One-Drop Rule of Conservatism: in a liberal society, if a person has a single conservative position, even though all his other positions are liberal, he will be considered a conservative. Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 13, 2008 02:15 AM | Send Email entry |