The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 >
>>
Charles Johnson Derangement Syndrome?

Hmm: Almost completely retracted—See update below.


I'm generally quite supportive of ye Luton Lionheart, but I think that this might be taking things a teensy bit too far:

Foreword: I think that the declaration 'Where do you stand and who do you stand with' rings true with this excellent essay on the madness of the self professed King of the anti-Jihad movement - The Lizard King Charles Johnston and his pack of blood thirsty ravenous hounds.


You know, the funny thing about fighting amongst ourselves is that we are far too easily distracted from seeing who the real enemy is here.

Priorities, gentlemen, priorities.

Paul, we need to do our best to keep you out of Ye Olde Pokey, don't we? Tossing about overly-zealous anger probably isn't the best way to do that.

Charles, I think it's pretty clear that Islamic fascism (What's it at now, 10% of 1 billion are "extremists?") is a far greater danger to the world at present than race-baiting white fascists (of which there are what, a thousand or so?)—wouldn't you agree?

Just my two cents, y'all. If you want to keep on fighting, I'll just have to go nuke s'more popcorn.

"Noooooooooooooooooook. And I like popcorn!"


Update: After a series of compelling arguments, I'm pretty convinced, y'all. Josephine in particular has laid things out very succinctly here and here—Some of Lionheart's articles have been extremely unusual, to say the least, and there really isn't any reasonable way to explain these quirks away.

Death threats, charges of random and spurious treason, "accidental" deletion of entire posts—Google Reader sees everything, Paul—it's really far beyond the normal parameters of ordinary "discourse."

But hey, it's the first one of these that I've earned in quite a while:

Curses, foiled again!


Now how 'bout some popcorn?

Update x2: By death threats, I'm referring to this deleted post (courtesy Google Reader):

The battle for 'Hearts & Minds' across the World Wide Web begun along time ago with those bloggers around the World who are the cornerstone of bringing truth to our supressed world.

This with me is just one battle in our War on the Web.

Where do you now stand and who do you stand with is the question?

Step forward or step aside so that the real men and women of this generation can be counted and become the new defenders of our civilization for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason - Iam sure there are many who would have obliged!

My personal post for you is coming so I am sure your army of readers will make sure you get me message, my tiny stone for my slingshot - Read your Bible and see the outcome!


This was followed almost immediately by this one:

I know LGF wrote a supportive post about my plight, but in the same instance ripped it apart and did alot more damage than good.

God bless you Charles and may He continue to use you.

Lionheart


This seems to be quite a severe mood swing, considering we're back over on the death to Charles Johnson side of things as of yesterday.

  Daily Fodder


Comments:

#1 Jim C. 30-Jan-2008
You don't understand. The left is just waiting for some radical group they can call neo-Nazis and say that the fear of terrorism is really racism. We cannot let that happen. If it does, it's all over.

You do realize when they did the movie of "The Sum of All Fears" they changed the Islamic terrorists to neo-Nazis, don't you?
#2 Brian C. Ledbetter 30-Jan-2008
Jim,

See, that's the [i]first[/i] mistake: Liberals call conservative Nazis [i]just for existing[/i]. Don't believe me? See here, here, here, etc. You're probably familiar with Zombie's incredible work, there're plenty more where this sample came from.

And let's not mince words here:—This is [u]insanity[/u].

Personally, I don't think any amount of kowtowing to leftist sensibilities will [i]ever[/i] change their attitude towards we conservatives. No matter what we do, we [i]will be[/i] tarred as "fascists," "racists," "war-mongers," "evil neo-con Zionists"—the list goes on forever.

Haven't we read a book about the futility of fighting hopeless battles before?

;)

Respectfully yours,
Brian
#3 Jim C. 31-Jan-2008
You can talk about kowtowing to the left, but *everybody* agrees (I hope) Nazis are bad.

And yes, we all agree radical Islam is the enemy. And yes, I've seen everything at zombietime.

And the left can talk about us being fascists or Nazis, but so far that's all it is--talk. Insane rhetoric.

But actually being associated with neo-Nazis would be *proof*. The left would say, "See? We told you so! We were right all along!" We just can't knowingly walk into that association. That would be a big mistake that they would harp on forever.
#4 Brendan 31-Jan-2008
This is not about "priorities". No one is required to just "accept" a "few" neo-Nazis in order to stand up to Islamist facism. The point is to defeat a sadistic, militaristic ideology trying to drag the world back to the 7th century. Skin color quite literally has nothing to do with it - I would gladly welcome anyone from any race to the fold who is smart enough to see the Islamist garbage for what it is, just as I would (and do) roundly condemn even the most blonde-haired, blue-eyed radical Muslim (yes, there are some) and their dhimmi apologizers in the West. When I object to neo-Nazis and white supremacists trying to hijack our efforts to get the public to realize that Western civilization itself is at stake, I am not "fighting amongst ourselves". That's insulting - I am in no way associated with neo-Nazis and find their dreams of supremacy just as vile and disgusting as those of the Islamists.

It's more than just heading off liberal accusations of racism by association. Turn your argument around and see the real problem: what the hell would those "thousand" white facists possibly accomplish in helping us face down those "10% of 1 billion extremist Muslims"? Unless one of them has a magical button that teleports every Muslim into the 21st century and convinces them that "honor" killings and slaughtering infidels because of a poorly compiled book isn't the way to go, they will accomplish nothing besides marginalizing the entire argument and likely speeding up the process of Western Sharia-fication.

There is a reason people are worried about Islamists - there are valid and legitimate arguments against their disgusting brand of troglodyte violence and oppression. There is no reason to weaken those concerns by letting a bunch of neo-Nazis piggyback along - moreover, they're really just two sides of the same coin.
#5 Rebecca 31-Jan-2008
[i]While I was composing this "War and Peace of a comment, Brendan came in and said it all, better and shorter. (sheesh) I submit this anyway, because I promised myself I would.[/i]

Let me preface this with a *huge* precaution: I've read Charles' posts at LGF on this matter, but I admit that I have skimmed some and given up on following some of the links when they became difficult to follow. I'm not a poster there, and I'm really pretty new to political blogs. I was a usenet junkie for years, mostly on alt.folklore.urban (since everything found its way to a.f.u eventually and the company was far more stimulating than the denizens of alt.flame.flame.circumcision.is.evil.spam) but I took a brief sabbatical to my real life, and everything changed. Again. [b]Not so much really[/b], but I've had to catch up on the new intrigues and identify the latest members of the seekrit kabals. In all of this catching up, I've been a bit lax in checking up on every link posted, and the fact that much of the material is in languages I don't speak, trying to make sense of translations ala babelfish and people I don't know well enough to trust, it's been a slow go. My impression thus far is that Charles seems diligent in doing his research, and has no obvious motivation to smear anyone. Could he be wrong? Sure, and that's why it is up to me to examine his evidence carefully. Bloggers who are very quick to sneer at the nanny-staters, who claim to want to protect all of us from dangerous ideas, have complained loudly that LGF (and others) are doing harm to folks like Lionheart by questioning his past and present associations. Should I have to tell those people that I'm not a child (or a liberal) and I can make up my own mind? Why? Some of these people have made the point, quite valid in my mind, that the liberal press, both in Europe and North America, have controlled the dialog about these people, therefore the evidence we have is tainted. Fair enough. However, I've been disappointed by the lack of rebuttal, other than a plea to treat our Euro allies better, since we need as many allies as we can get. If Lionheart et. al. are being tarred by the infamous leftist brush, I want to know about it! Why else would I be here at this (truly great, btw) site, looking at evidence of how others are being tarred by that brush? But good lord people, give us something concrete to look at first. Part of the hard work of creating a movement is constructing a message that will draw others toward you, and allay their - natural - fears of being used in someone else's struggle. If I found myself in the position of being unfairly demonized by a monolithic propaganda machine, I'd be shouting my real message from the hilltops, eager to present the ways that I'd been falsely tarnished to anyone who would listen. When Charles started presenting the information he'd found, and asked for a rebuttal, there was a unique opportunity for those who presented themselves as misunderstood to clear the record, and a very willing audience built in, which made all of that exhausting hilltop shouting unnecessary. Whatever his motivation, Charles gave Lionheart and a few others an unheard of opportunity to either clear their names, or come clean about embarrassing errors of the past and explain why and how they had changed. Instead I've seen a lot of closing of ranks, counterattacks, and naive insistence that it was all lies and smears and meanness, and pleas to stop pointing fingers at their good friends or they might get mad and stop helping us.

And a lot of good people, people I really believe are not just good, but courageous, intelligent, and committed, lost me right there.

None of these people should welcome me to their cause without knowing why I want to join it, because very bad people are often drawn to "good" causes, for their own foul agendas. People who volunteer to coach your kids' little league team are devoting themselves to an excellent cause, but I doubt that many people would be comforted by that if they found out that the coach was a pedophile - who also happened to be devoted to passing on the principles of good sportsmanship to young people.

This isn't just about being "caught by the left" working with real neo-nazis and racists, this is about being caught by *ourselves* working with them. Right wing ideals are diametrically opposed to nazi-like controls. Conservative principles don't oppose immigration, for heaven's sake. Individual conservatives might for other reasons, but you can't make a case for restrictive government controls, designed to keep the "wrong elements" out of our society, based on conservative beliefs. We only ask that, people who wish to join our society, do so because they value the principles that our government is based on, and commit to upholding them. Many of our ally wannabes in Europe, and the US, have very different ideas about who should and shouldn't be allowed to participate in "their" communities, based on criteria that has nothing to do with that person's desire or ability to uphold those principles. Can we really excuse holding hands with those ideologies for any purpose, no matter how important or noble? Won't that association deform the nobility of our own cause? Are we still who we are if we ally ourselves with people who don't understand our core values any better than our enemies do? I'm not talking about moral relativity here, but the pretense of making a distinction between ideologies, with no real moral difference.

I'm still open to hearing another side to this story, if anyone cares to tell it, though my attention span on this issue has gotten shorter. There was a huge audience for any such message, I think, and I went back and forth between LGF, Atlas Shrugged, and Gates of Vienna for quite a while, hoping to hear more. I suspect that opportunity has passed, but such an explanation would still be welcome. Until it comes, though...

My answer is, no thank you. It does matter to me who's banner I march under, even if it means that I may lose the battle to an overwhelming force. For me, fighting a war for the sake of my beliefs, by compromising those beliefs, stinks of decadence; a self-serving conceit caught up in illusions of the glory of the moment, buoyed by the echo chamber of congratulations from questionable comrades in arms.
#6 Brian C. Ledbetter 31-Jan-2008
Jim C., Rebecca,

Just wanted to let y'all know that you played a major part in bringing me around on this one, too. Didn't want you to feel left out from the update above! :)

Thanks for keeping the discussion going, y'all,

Most Respectfully,
Brian "Curses, Foiled Again!" L.
#7 DJM 04-Feb-2008
Ay, there's the rub - what to do when an abhorrent racist group happens to share one reasonable objective with those who oppose the group's ideology?

The enemy of my enemy...

My personal feeling is we should accept all those who share our desire to reach a particular aim. That does not necessarily obligate us share their ultimate goals, which may go beyond our own, both realistically and morally.

Both Lionheart and LGF should take care not to cast the first stone...
#8 DJM 04-Feb-2008
Jim, Brendan, & Rebecca -

I think you all have posted some very insightful and informative comments. I agree for the most part.

But I think the real enemy here is not liberals or racists, it is *political correctness*. That is the real obstacle we face.
#9 Rebecca 04-Feb-2008
Ah, DJM, but I've caught this, somewhat condescending, act before.

In fact, this was a popular pick-up technique among young black guys when I was a teenager. I always wondered who was spreading the word that it was ever successful, but I suppose it must have been with some people.

It went like this: guy I hardly knew would approach me at the corner store, fast food place, or some other public place not usually thought of as a social mixer, and make his move as crudely and artlessly as possible. I wondered at first why any guy who was even remotely interested wouldn't at least go through the motions of making an effort - like telling me his name before asking for my number, or coming up with an opening line that went beyond, "Hey baby, your ass is fine.", accompanied by a head to toe "check out" that was so exaggerated that it was almost self-parody. I finally figured out that the offensiveness of the come on was deliberate, designed to induce a dismissive, if not disgusted reaction. Once that reaction was triggered, they followed up with the real tactic.

"Oh, you don't like black guys?".

Obviously - too obviously - this was intended to tap into my deep wells of white guilt. I was supposed to upbraid myself for those feelings of disgust by overriding the actual cause, his actions, with the suggested cause, my racism, and hand him my phone number as atonement and compensation.

It never worked then, and this same technique, turned on its head, won't work now. You see, I didn't feel guilty of racism then, and I don't feel guilty of political correctness now. I've rejected PC as vehemently as I've rejected any other form of racism, so this won't wash. I do know the difference between my feelings of disgust toward an insulting and crude pick-up line and any actual reaction to the color of his skin. I also know the difference between people who defend any popular victim group because they're on this weeks cause list, and people who seek to promote policies that condemn groups of people as inferior in the name of self defense.

I live in a city that has been racially mixed for many years. Nearby Dearborn has a higher number of Muslims in their Arab community than we do, but the large number of Iraqi-Chaldeans in this community is due to the welcome that they received from my Catholic church, which allowed our Chaldean neighbors to hold their services in the church until they were able to build their own, on adjacent property that was once part of the parochial school. The black/white ratio is nearly 50-50. This isn't new. This is the way we've lived, quite amicably since I was a child. Not only were mixed race couples common when I was in high school, but so were mixed faith couples. Since Judaism was the dominant faith here, that does include relationships between Jews and Arabs.

We haven't collapsed into a war zone established along racial and faith-based lines, nor have we given up and let our neighborhoods lapse into ruin at the hands of "lesser cultures". We have, in fact, continued to value our neighbors who share our values and mutually condemn those who behave badly.

I'm sick of people waving around IQ data and trying to use it in ways that such data is not suited for, and claiming others (yes, wrong and dishonest) suppression of that data as an excuse for misusing it, tactics that only make the case for the suppressors stronger and work against those of us who try to honestly fight political correctness.

I don't need anyone to tell me who my real enemy is, thank you DJM. I'm more aware than you think - aware enough to resist the twisting of my values by opportunistic teenage boys who were only interested in screwing me, and equally opportunistic racists who seem to be interested in the same thing. Both push false choices between their agenda and morally repugnant strawmen, but I have the freedom to choose something else. I've been thoughtfully exercising that freedom for many years and don't need anyone's help to continue.

And the pick-up lines haven't improved one bit.
#10 DJM 06-Feb-2008
Just stating my opinion. Didn't intend to sound condescending and it certainly wasn't an 'act'. My comment about "political correctness" was aimed at the current environment of denying the Islamic threat to America, not at your, or anyone else's, opinions about LGF or Lionheart.

The fact is, when Crusaders become splintered and begin fighting amongst ourselves, it weakens our collective stance against IslamoFascists. I am more than willing to overlook flaws in others if we share a mutual goal and can help each other achieve it.

Just my two cents. Good luck on the dating scene, there... ;D
#11 Rebecca 06-Feb-2008
I admit DJM, my comment came across, even to me, as more of a smackdown than your earlier remarks warranted. It was a response to a combination of arguments that I've come across, not just yours, and, as such, shouldn't have been so blatantly addressed to you. I apologize for that, and I thank you for your very civil response.

While comparisons of our current situation to the crusades work on some levels - which are eloquently expressed on GatesofVienna - I disagree with some of the finer... or maybe broader, points.

The Crusaders, for the most part, answered a call to defend their Christian brothers as they were being slaughtered and exiled from their homes, which also happened to be in places that Christians (and Jews) considered holy. There may have been individuals who just liked the idea of killing "barbarians", but they weren't organized as such, or marching under a "Kill All Brown-Yellow Or Whatever People" banner. Despite Hollywood's history re-writes. Feh.

I prefer a comparison to WWII. Even before the US entered the war, Churchill and FDR developed the Atlantic Charter, which clearly stated the aims and intentions with which they would choose to ally themselves. They couldn't guarantee that every country that chose to oppose Germany would adhere to the values set forth there, but they could make a strong statement clarifying their own beliefs (and that of their constituents) so that any alliance could not be misconstrued as support of ideologies held by individual allies that did not conform with those in that document.

I think that there have been, perhaps deliberate in some cases, misunderstandings of what people like me are opposing. When I say that I oppose racist ideologies, I mean those which are explicitly racist, not those that have been commonly called racist by political opponents. I guess I need to spell this out.

I can't address policies in Europe, which I admitted in my earliest comment, because I don't have as complete a background as I do in my country. I also commented there that I would welcome a clear explanation of the beliefs held by the Euro-nationalist party leaders that would set mind at ease about their disturbing associations. In the US, those who oppose illegal immigration are often painted as racists, and I would give much for the opportunity to explain why this isn't true to my fellow Americans. I support legal, strictly controlled immigration, which includes even distribution among nationalities of prospective immigrants, but makes exceptions in giving preference to those fleeing oppressive regimes where the life or liberty of the applicant is at stake. I also support preferential treatment for family members of immigrants who have established themselves here by taking legal steps toward citizenship, becoming financially self-sufficient, and following the laws of this country to the letter.

I don't support preferences for those who have benefited from coincidences of geography, as have Mexican citizens, particularly since the only hardship they seem to be fleeing is that of poverty, which is a national problem. I think that allowing this outlet to Mexicans has actually hurt the Mexican people as a whole, because it provides them no incentive to fix the problems of their own country while "escape" to the US remains the easier option.

I support allowing followers of any faith equal opportunity to immigrate here, so long as they understand - and agree up front - that they are bound by the laws of this country and that they will be deported if they indicate that they intend otherwise, by word or deed. If they can make it through the process to gain citizenship without breaking that pact, then we have to deal with any later transgressions as we would with any other citizen.

Upholding these standards would require diligent adherence to the law on the part of those whom we charge with the task, and I recognize that many of those we trust to police this process have failed - miserably - but I don't believe that the solution is to jerk violently in the other direction. From the little bit that I do understand about the immigration problems in Europe, it seems that the EU countries have suffered from just this tendency, to jerk back and forth between ridiculously liberal policies and stridently, and arbitrarily, exclusionist stances, generally based on race.

I hope that helps to clarify my position, and I take pride in the way that we, on the right, can discuss these differences, rather than feeling compelled to adhere to a party line that makes traitors of dissenters. I also hope that all of us, myself included, will remain open to examining ourselves, what we stand for, who we stand with, and what we hope to gain in the end.

The question Lionheart asks is one-upped by the B5 spinoff, Crusade.

[b]"Who Do You Serve, And Who Do You Trust?"[/b]

Oh yeah, and...
[quote="DJM"]Just my two cents. Good luck on the dating scene, there... ;D[/quote]
This gave me a laugh, especially when you notice what a sci-fi geek I am from the above. That's all behind me now. I haven't been a teenager for [i]mumble mumble[/i] er, 25+ years. But thank you - we all need a little good luck these days - though the fact that nerds like me do find true love should hearten us all.
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us