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.

“Even David Duke, the neo-Nazi and former Klan boss who is the closest thing the movement has to a real intellectual these days…”

They got a fistful of pseudo intellectuals with fancy degrees these days.

Jamie Kelso, Ian Jobling, Virginia Abernathy, Lawrence Auster, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Gordon Lee Baum, Marcus Epstein, etcetcetc…

SLPC is actually six months to a year behind the curve.

Their numbers have risen from a one time 1990’s low of around 20,000 to well over a quarter of a million in separate groups at last estimate. That’s just the US based groups.

One neo-nazi is a threat. Every neo-nazi is a threat.

Is that a difficult concept?



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 0

[deleted] 6/12/08 5:02:58 pm 0

#236 Charles 6/12/08 5:07:19 pm reply quote 1

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 against LGF for speaking out against those fascist groups. I’m curious about why you would stick up for someone like that?

And as for the SPLC, there are facts in this article. Deal with them.

[LA comments: Now consider that. I am “very much a supporter of Eurofascist groups.” In fact, the “Eurofascist groups” Johnson is referring amount to precisely one, namely Vlaams Belang, of which I knew nothing prior to Johnson’s own attacks on it last fall, when I looked at his charges and found them devoid of any facts. So there you have the Johnson technique. If you disagree with his baseless statement that X is fascist, then you are fascist.

Now notice in this next comment, #237, how Johnson quotes comment #234. He has actually deleted comment #234, but he neglected to delete his quote of it, and as a result we can see what it is. And what is this terrible comment that is deserving of being deleted and getting its author expelled? The statement that Ian Jobling and Lawrence Auster are not neo-Nazis. Again, simply challenging Johnson’s smears is sufficient to get you deleted and expelled from his site.]

#237 Charles 6/12/08 5:09:04 pm reply quote 2

re: #234 Q

You may disagree with their politics or philosophy, but it’s ludicrous to call Lawrence Auster or Ian Jobling, of all people, “pro-nazi”, let alone “neo-nazi” (unless your definition of a nazi is “someone I deem totally uncool”).

Auster is a traditionalist conservative and an outspoken critic of paleocon pathologies. (Also, he’s of Jewish ancestry.)

Jobling broke with American Renaissance over their failure to decisively disassociate themselves from the real nazi scum. He’s a supporter of Jews and Israel and an opponent of Ron Paul.

SPLC hysterics is a poor guide to the actual state of things.

I am learning exactly what you’re about, Q. And I don’t like it one bit. Ian Jobling is a flat-out racist.

#238 Charles 6/12/08 5:17:20 pm reply quote 3

After reviewing Q’s recent posts, and the links he’s been posting, his barely-disguised racism is no longer welcome at LGF.

#239 Typicalwhitey 6/12/08 5:20:03 pm reply quote 0

re: #238 Charles

After reviewing Q’s recent posts, and the links he’s been posting, his barely-disguised racism is no longer welcome at LGF.

Fast draw McCharles!

[End of excerpt]

It 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.

- end of initial entry -

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.

As I said some while ago, by his intolerance Charles has become that which he professes to most loathe.

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:


This scenario reinforces my view of the extraordinary dumbing down of the American (and in effect, international) intellectual arena (on the Net or otherwise).

If Johnson criticised you in a rational way for your race linked views, no problem. Instead, he refuses to have dialogue on those views and then proceeds to label you a Nazi.

Many of these e-mag editors think that they can do this sort of thing and still be part of the intellectual arena. And at this moment they are right. Johnson will continue unabated as the editor of LGF.

Until that arena rises up and condemns and ex-communicates the likes of Johnson and LGF, the same scenario will repeat itself over and over, to the detriment of real intellectual dialogue, on the Net or otherwise.

But does that intellectual arena have the will to do that? I have my doubts.

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.

It began as a thread about Melanie Phillips’s discussion at the (London) Spectator about Obama (she seems to have many about him). However, Charles came very quickly into the discussion (his remarks are helpfully listed in a colored bar, no pun intended!) to inform his Lizards about the disgusting fascists/neo/nazis/traditional conservatives over at the earlier thread on the White Supremacists. He writes at comment #48: “Another long-time LGF poster has come out as a fascist sympathizer tonight, and is no longer welcome at my site. It takes a long time to flush out these creeps, unfortunately.” Then between comment #108 and #135 Charles announces in quick succession several more fascist sympthizers whom he’s discovered. Everyone naturally takes their cue, ditches talk of Melanie Phillips and Princess Diana (?) and sets to rooting out any other “undesirables” on the present thread with no sense of self-irony. #140 Spartan Woman: “An infestation! Nobody I converse with, I hope. I would feel sullied.” Charles at #200: “Someone named “Megan” started down rating all my posts about the fascist sympathizers.” (At LGF, in the best kindergarten sandbox tradition, you may allot plus or minus to another Lizard’s comments but, apparently, one does not “minus” CJ) He later informs all that he has had quite a haul of fascists at the earlier thread and now at this one, too (12). Then, at #323 a Lizard comments: “I find it odd that Hugh (Fitzgerald) still posts Fjordman’s pieces on Dhimmiwatch” to which Charles replies at #324: “You’re not the only one.”

[LA replies: Uh oh! Trouble brewing. Spencer of course is friends with Johnson (who is the webmaster of Jihadwatch) and refused to criticize his attacks on Paul Belien and Vlams Belang last year, even though Spencer himself had been at the anti-Islamization conference in Brussels last October along with Belien and Filip Dewinter. In fact, Spencer to his disgrace sided with Johnson all through that fight. So what will Spencer, the endless trimmer, do if Johnson now goes after Spencer’s own number one contributor Hugh Fitzgerald? Will Spencer throw Fitzgerald under the bus?]

This is telling, because Charles has made it clear in statements on past threads that Fjordman, Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, are not to be linked to or mentioned by Lizards and that doing so will result in said Lizard’s banishment. He and his Lizards have since gone for Diana West, Bat Ye’or, Serge Trifkovic, Mark Steyn, etc but he has been careful himself not to allude to JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch. I think he is sending a message that DW (or, at least, Hugh Fitzgerald) will soon join The Others. This is where the recalibrating comes in: Charles does not accept the argument that there is no moderation in Islam’s theology/ideology because that would mean questioning the presence in the USA of the significant and seditious fifth column and actually having to consider courses of action that I assume he would interpret as “fascist” (proscription, deportation).

He is then forced in this same thread, once the subject of Fjordman is out (Charles had posted links to F’s articles when F was a Lizard) to broach the idea of putting up a “disclaimer” to links to any of F’s articles in LGF’s archives. At #551 a Lizard asks: “What is it with haters that they think their right to free speech means they have the right to spout their crap anywhere?” This is another point of recalibration, whereby LGF mimics the very words of Moslem leaders and imams, and the Organization of Islamic Conference, as to the effrontery of Western democracies allowing free speech to include comments which Moslems deem offensive.

I said some time back that LGF would become eventually a pro-Moslem (not pro-Islam) site on the grounds of mistaken tolerance and CJ confirms this later on in the thread when he talks of a code of conduct re “stealth accounts.” These are people who haven’t posted comments on LGF for a long time (some people have lives to live but if you’re a fanatic Lizard you only have LGF). In other words, either speak up and talk the accepted speech, or we will “out” you as The Other. At #594 CJ challenges a Lizard (“marsouin”) to answer CJ’s earlier question about something “within five minutes or lose your account.” “Marsouin,” who has popped out for a drink or to kick the cat or fallen asleep, does not answer the summons and is duly removed from the rolls of Lizard-dom five minutes later. Other Lizards then demand to know the names of all the other Lizards who have been removed on the Melanie Phillips thread and Charles obligingly offers them. They then talk about discarded ex-Lizards who are posting comments against LGF at some site called Discarded Lies; it does not seem to occur to those Lizards who mention that they have visited the DL site that Charles has probably noted, in his small black book, these Lizards as likely victims for a future banning, but I’m sure they will learn that straying off the LGF course, and site, is verboten.

I cannot shake off the impression of how similar LGF’s modus operandi is to Communism, Nazism and Islam. Tails of reptiles joined together in the destruction of free speech.

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.

Why Steyn? Is even he too right wing for Johnson?

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.

But again, how can I of all people be surprised? I’m the one who’s been saying that as the power of Islam in the West grows, the Western left would eventually choose to surrender to a Western caliphate, as the ultimate end of the path they’ve been treading all along.

Well, I may have predicted it, but seeing it actually happen is something else.

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).

The last I checked the LGF thread on Melanie Phillips’ Obama Derangement Syndrome, Charles was stating he would go through all the accounts and remove that of anyone who had not posted in the last six months. I had long since decided there was no point in making comments there, so Charles (who is a computer wizard) may devise a system whereby those whose accounts have been deleted may not then be able to view comments pages. I imagine his paranoia will know no bounds!

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.

You can follow it from this LGF comment and back.

Look at how many times Charles and his untrained minions say Abu Boo Boo is dumb and doesn’t know anything about science or about the “scientific” method, yada, yada.

Charles dings when he has nothing to say. He dings posts describing Einstein’s theories. He takes the side that says Einstein didn’t really contribute all that much; it was already known yada, yada. To me this is denigrating a great scientist and person.

I am a scientist and although I don’t know Abu Boo Boo, I recognize a fellow scientist or at least someone with advanced training. Charles believes he can tell trained scientists we don’t know what a hypothesis is and that we are trying to fool people and insinuating people should discount our opinions.

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.]

#543 Charles 6/12/08 10:12:06 pm reply quote -1

If anyone knows of any other Discarded Lies people who still have accounts here, please let me know.

#713 Josephine 6/13/08 10:18:59 am reply quote 0

What about the person who dinged down this comment?

#715 Charles 6/13/08 11:06:18 am reply quote 0

Now blocked.

Banned for voting down a single comment by Charles. I mean, come on!

Erich writes:

Your post today passed on an inaccuracy that was not caught by four different people, yourself included:

1) “K.” reported that

2) a “Lizard” on LGF said that “I find it odd that Hugh (Fitzgerald) still posts Fjordman’s pieces on Dhimmiwatch” to which

3) Charles replies at #324: “You’re not the only one.”

4) LA replies: Uh oh! Trouble brewing. Spencer of course is friends with Johnson… So what will Spencer, the endless trimmer, do if Johnson now goes after Spencer’s own number one contributor Hugh Fitzgerald? Will Spencer throw Fitzgerald under the bus?

Actually, all the Fjordman pieces published on Dhimmi Watch (including the most recent one, “Fjordman: Refuting God’s Crucible” on June 10) are published by Spencer and introduced by Spencer. (Indeed, Fjordman in the comments section of the latest piece thanks Robert for publishing it). So the support of Fjordman is direct, by Spencer, not merely indirectly through Fitzgerald. Apparently, Charles Johnson doesn’t read Jihad Watch that closely to know that Fitzgerald’s job on JW/DW is not to publish contributions by other people—that is Spencer’s job—, but simply to contribute his own essays.

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.

But surely Johnson, who is closely involved with Jihad Watch (as he created the site and is or was its webmaster), knows that Spencer himself posts Fjordman’s articles. Why then did he sign onto the idea that it’s Fitzgerald who posts Fjordman? My guess is that it’s because Johnson and Spencer are friends. So Johnson attributed Spencer’s objectionable behavior (objectionable from the LGF point of view) to an associate of Spencer’s, in order to avoid attacking Spencer himself.

People do this kind of dishonest shifting all the time, when they have a personal relationship which conflicts with their ideological position. Remember how John Zmirak, in the very same post at Taki’s Magazine in which he praised Peter Brimelow to the skies, attacked and totally dismissed from consideration all “racialists,” even though Brimelow himself is one?

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.

Also, I don’t follow your logic when you say that the onus of explanation shifts to Spencer. Your argument is, Johnson is such a fanatic he would not allow the prospect of lost friendship or lost influence prevent him from attacking Spencer if he felt that Spencer was one of the fascist sympathizers, along with, you know, Richard MIniter and Diana West. Since Spencer publishes Fjordman, who is on Johnson’s fascist list, Spencer is at the least a fascist sympathizer. Yet Johnson has refrained from attacking Spencer. The mystery still seems to be Johnson’s behavior, not Spencer’s.

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.

In the same way, even though Johnson has expelled Fjordman and called him a fascist, and even though Spencer has either supported Johnson’s campaign to drive all “Eurofascists” out of the anti-Jihad movement or has declined to criticize Johnson for it, Spencer also publishes Fjordman. So Fjordman has a reason to be nice to Spencer even though Spencer is allied with Johnson who has smeared and vilified Fjordman. And this might explain why, after I posted the entry “Orthographical dhimmitude” the other week, in which I criticized Spencer for deferring to Islam by using the spelling “Qur’an,” Fjordman wrote me a very critical e-mail denying that there was any legitimate point in my criticism of Spencer and suggesting that I was criticizing him purely for personal reasons. Without replying directly to Fjordman’s implied questioning of my intellectual honesty, I simply explained that in my view the point I was making was a legitimate one. As can be seen by perusing that thread, many people agreed with me.

Erich writes:

You wrote:

“I don’t follow your logic when you say that the onus of explanation shifts to Spencer. Your argument is, Johnson is such a fanatic he would not allow the prospect of lost friendship or lost influence prevent him from attacking Spencer if he felt that Spencer was one of the fascist sympathizers…Yet Johnson has refrained from attacking Spencer. The mystery still seems to be Johnson’s behavior, not Spencer’s.”

What I meant was that, since Johnson’s temperment and pathology are such that it is unlikely that he is supporting Spencer out of purely pragmatic concerns, then his support must have other explanations: perhaps there is a closer ideological sympathy between the two of them than we have heretofore suspected. Thus, the explanatory onus shifts to Spencer in the sense that Spencer’s ideological stance—heretofore not fully known by us—would explain why Johnson supports him (for we already know Johnson’s ideological stance all too well).

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.

I had a pretty good run at LGF, posting hundreds of comments defending the organizers and attendees of the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference in general, and Vlaams Belang in particular. (I even used the VB logo as my avatar on LGF, much to the outrage of CJ’s lickspittles, er, lizards.) I was finally banned on an unrelated post for mocking John “Open Borders” McCain. Oh well.

Please continue to expose CJ’s totalitarian tendencies and ridiculously thin skin on your highly intelligent and informative blog. As for his anonymous attack-minions (Hello Render), the less said the better.

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?

This can’t be. It’s too far out. It’s beyond a parody of totalitarianism.

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….

Well, it appears you have to be logged in on an account to access those buttons, but my understanding is the plus key denotes a thumbs-up on a post or comment, the thumbs-down denotes disapproval and the exclamation mark is to report it to the moderator as an inappropriate comment.

I don’t think Johnson bans people regularly for “dinging” his comments, but he certainly did so here, meaning that he would not tolerate even minor dissent to his decision that Discarded Lies is somehow a pro-fascist web-site.

LA replies:

So, there are different levels of Charles Johnson pronunciamentos. At the highest level is the dogmatic unfallible truth of LGF.

And, at least at first, the commenters probably thought their “dinging” was anonymous. Little did they know.

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.

The site certainly does not convey anything remotely conservative. And what about that intensely neurotic logo at the top of the main page, with a green football bouncing toward someone who is cowering in terror? Whatever the message is, it is not healthy.

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.

I have not read LGF in some time, but your description of its modus operandi (assertions of whim or opinion without objective analysis or reasoned conclusion) sounds like most of the blogosphere, not to mention most of the discourse throughout Western Civilization.

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.

So Johnson and the Lizards are liberals who think of themselves as conservatives, even though they’ve never had a substantive conservative thought or commitment in their lives. Knowing nothing about the different strands of conservative thought, including genuinely non-liberal types of conservatism such as paleoconservatism, as soon as they encounter any non-liberal conservatism, they don’t just think it’s too extreme or racist or whatever; they think it’s Nazi. Their responses to ideas and people on the right are indistinguishable from those at Huffington Post or Daily Kos, i.e., everything on the right is lunacy, “nutroots,” etc.

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.

But it occurs to me that Charles Johnson has his own one-drop rule: the One-Drop Rule of Neo-Nazism. Under the One-Drop Rule of Neo-Nazism, it doesn’t matter how non-Nazi or anti-Nazi you are. You could believe in ethical monotheism, you could believe in the God of the Bible, you could be a Christian or Jew, you could be a student of Plato and Aristotle, you could believe in objective morality, you could be a critic of anti-Semitism and a defender of Israel, you could be an opponent of Darwinism, you could be an opponent of eugenics, you could be an opponent of neo-Nazism. But, even if all these things about you are true, but you also think that racial differences are real and that they matter, then you’re a neo-Nazi.

Or, even if all these things about you are true, but you also want to stop the immigration of Jew-hating Muslims into the West, then you’re a neo-Nazi.

Furthermore, even if all these things about you are true, and you don’t believe in racial differences, and you don’t want to stop the immigration of Muslims into the West, but you defend someone else from the charge of neo-Nazism, then you are a neo-Nazi.

Under the Charles Johnson One-Drop Rule of Neo-Nazism, the only way not to be a neo-Nazi is to be a 100 percent pure Johnsonite.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 13, 2008 02:15 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):