War on Terror

Charles Johnson Bashes the Right's Warblogging Idiotarians With a Little Green Moonbat

|

If the catch-phrases in the headline mean nothing to you, then 9/11 really didn't change anything (and you should read Johnson's Wikipedia page to catch up). A super-condensed version of the 150-minute movie: Soft-spoken professional musician-slash-software guy politically of the center-left who had long been wary of jihadism catapults to post-9/11 Internet fame in Act I, is denounced as an anti-Muslim hatemonger (and praised as a steely-eyed War on Terror supporter) in Act II; then, with Dan Rather's crusty scalp in one hand and the shed skin of a ballyhooed media startup in the other, unleashes a suprise Act III twist upon Barack Obama's America–"Why I Parted Ways With the Right." I'll give the viewers just joining us a moment to catch their breath.

Excerpt from Johnson's 10-point "I Break With Thee" brief:

Does Rachel Corrie still get to keep her LGF award?

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.) […]

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.) […]

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

McCain responds here; I'll add anyone else named above as they come in (please add links in the comments). Go poke the hornet's nest yourself.

Johnson's goodbye-to-all-that provoked a similar response from another warblogger-turned Obama-era right-basher, Andrew Sullivan. Excerpt from that:

The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts…may well mount…a fifth column

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

And so on.

As author of my own Farewell to Warblogging (and a committed fan of the freely flown freak flag) I hesitate to throw stones at complaints that certainly overlap with my own, other than to observe more generally that A) there was roughly nothing that we did know about George W. Bush's awful presidenting by 2004 and before, during which time many of his biggest 2009 critics were still focusing their ire on the moonbats who did not hold power, and B) Republicans right now do not hold power in Washington.

Doesn't mean that they should get a pass, nor that we shouldn't all be egging on whatever ideological civil war comes next (hopefully–though very doubtfully–one that produces a party that presents a legitimate limited-government alternative). But it does perhaps suggest that the heat of with-us-or-against-us polemicizing tends to careen people from one pole to the next, requiring ever-more dramatic (and entertaining!) stories of broken allegiances, party-left-me laments, and fresh rounds of shrill condemnations of Americans with whom you disagree. I'm all for throwing dog poop on shoes; here's hoping Johnson and Sullivan also point their considerable energies and withering skepticism at the people who actually run the country.

Advertisement

NEXT: Finally, a Freedom Tray That Holds Freedom Fries and Freedom Nachos

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Over-under for this thread: 400 posts

    1. I’ll take “Under” for $2,000, Alex.

  2. Charles Johnson is against bigotry and paranoia? Who knew?

    1. Rueters hates Israel, Jesse. Because they’re French. Don’t you know they’ll photoshop anything?

    2. He is also firmly against imagined bigotry. He is the osle arbiter of what is ‘unquestionably’ racist.

      He is firmly pro-science and anti-religion. But only in cases where bad science and bad religion don’t actually impose anything on me. He loves taking climate scientists at their word when it means they get to actually impose their beliefs on everyone.

      He defended the CRU decision not to share their data, lest they be ‘cherry-picked’ only to attempt to disprove their results. That’s high science there, hide from your skeptics.

      He thinks the FTC or FCC or whatever blogger rules about whether a post is paid or not are reasonable.

      In any case, he’s never been about freedom, so I can’t fault him for being inconsistent. He’s a pro-statist that was vocally anti-jihad. Amazing.

    3. He’s against any perceived slights towards approved peoples (Jews, blacks, latinos) but not against anti-Muslim and Arab bigotry of the most extreme kind. At least he let it run wild in his comment section during the early years.

    4. Also, I’m not aware of racist comments from Lew Rockwell. And calling him part of the “right” is certainly bizarre.

  3. Nothing is more pathetic than bloggers whining about which group they no longer belong to. The drama that takes place is enough to make Guiding Light fans blush.

    The funniest part to me is that if I go to my local watering hole tonight and ask twenty people who LGF or the Daily Kos is, I’d be SHOCKED if I get more than five people who know what the hell I’m talking about.

    And this is a bar right next to Vanderbilt University, that caters to pre-meds and other smart folk.

    People give don’t care as much about bloggers as bloggers think they do.

    1. My ho says the same thing. Long as I got da benjamins, she only use the ‘net fo buying da dopest dildos you ever touched man.

    2. Well, most people don’t know shit about anything relating to politics or culture. So that’s not saying much.

  4. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.) […]

    Um, weren’t these people around before 9/11?

  5. Little Green Follies.

  6. LGF has never been a great blog. The exposing of Dan Rather was the big claim to fame, and that was 7 years ago?
    The author is nothing more than a populist along the lines of Arianna Huffington. He wants to be accepted by “moderates” of both parties and bashes the “right” in order to do so.

    1. 2009 – 2004 = 5

      1. Thank you, my Pedant-O-Meter alarm has been cleared.

  7. The funniest part to me is that if I go to my local watering hole tonight and ask twenty people who LGF or the Daily Kos is, I’d be SHOCKED if I get more than five people who know what the hell I’m talking about.

    At Thanksgiving I mentioned Downfall parodies and drew a whole extended family full of blank stares. And I’m guessing the concept of Hitler ranting about funny shit packs more popular punch than the concept of fisking idiotarians.

  8. The checks and balances that New Media has on Traditional Media is well worth putting up with a few crazy bloggers, with their journeys of self-discovery (as well as their self-importance) on occasional display.

    1. Agreed. There will always be those outspoken kooks, and the more they believe their own hubris, the more they can be pointed to by their critics as exponents who illustrate the shortcomings of their ideology or politics.

      In other words, shit floats.

  9. I particularly like how Sullivan complains about the lack of respect for the “institutions of government” and then goes on to list several woeful policies embraced by BOTH parties which are a direct result of a surfeit of government. Sure doesn’t sound like disrespect in action, jackass.

    In fact, if you strip out the “they’re jackasses and moonbats” clauses, all that’s left are the abuses and excesses of government power. If you really cared about those issues – or the over-arching issue of power run rampant – why exactly would you be supporting Obama?

  10. I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

    wait which party is he talking about? the democrats?

    I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

    Sure sounds like the Democrats…

    1. “I cannot support a movement that would back a […]-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism”

      How is that not the Democrats?

  11. I had/still have a valid registration at LGF but every time I think of going over and punching the hornet’s nest, I decide not to bother. It’s really rabid over there and I’ll just lose my registration right away anyway.

  12. 7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

    I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

    Probably not the best bus for these to guys to jump on right now.

    1. Oh c’mon, you have to love the timing.

    2. Oh, does he mean the climate change that was going on before human beings existed was a hoax?

      Dense motherfucker.

  13. nutjob

    That’s…uh…a low-hanging pitch, let’s say.

  14. I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

    What a crock of shit. Sully would go insane if anyone ever actually proposed to cut Federal spending.

  15. I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

    Based on his backing of Bush and Obama, Sullivan must demand that his identity politicing empty suits be at the top of the ticket.

  16. Charles Johnson was never on the right to begin with: he loves government, and indeed considers “anti-government” to be a “crazy bad” epithet. When some of his crazier friends went openly fascist, he declined to follow them there, but, you know, SOME things never change:

    “The Government Press Office (GPO) is considering granting leading bloggers press credentials equal to those of journalists and reporters.

    Ron Dermer, a senior adviser to the prime minister, took the opportunity to formally recognize the work bloggers do in defending Israel and uncovering fraudulent claims against the Jewish state at the International Jewish Bloggers Convention last week.

    Lauding the work of bloggers in defending Israel, Dermer claimed that “The blogger [Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs] who revealed Reuters’ doctoring of images during the Second Lebanon War did as much as any Israeli intelligence officer did.”

    See this Jersusalem Post article:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S…..3627551894

    It’s all about power — who has it, and who can use it to benefit whom. The GOP is out, the Dems are in — and the Charles Johnsons of this world go with the winners.

    Yes, Matt, you and Charles have a lot more in common than your “warblogging” past. LGF has been smearing Ron Paul right alongside Reason, and, of course, he hates Lew Rockwell just as much as you and the Reasonoids do. Why not get him to write for Reason? He’d be a good replacement for the mysteriously missing Michael Young.

    1. Please give an example of a Reason “smear” against Ron Paul that Ron Paul himself has not admitted is true. ie, not the newsletter scandal.

      1. David Weigel’s insistence that the Austrian theory of bank credit expansion, as explicated by Rep. Paul, limns “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” about Jewish bankers, for one.

        Welch’s insistence that the “right-wing populist” strategy outlined by Murray Rothbard was really a plot to align libertarians with “racists.” What’s funny is that now Welch finds himself having to refute this crazed anti-populist argument when confronting leftist smears against the tea-baggers. How does it feel, Matt? Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy ….

        1. Seems odd, since the Austrian school of economics was predominately created by jews.

          1. Seems odd, since the Austrian school of economics was predominately created by jews.

            I knew it.

        2. Those are going to require links. I’m skeptical to say the least.

        3. “Welch’s insistence that the “right-wing populist” strategy outlined by Murray Rothbard was really a plot to align libertarians with “racists.” ”

          Uh, that can’t be a smear because it’s a fact.

          1. Yeah, like all those “racist” tea-baggers.

            Go back to Dailykos fool.

    2. Which was the worse smear, naming him one of our “35 Heroes of Freedom,” defending him on New York NPR (during the week of the newsletter scandal, no less), or having him (happily) contribute to an economic roundtable in the mag a couple of months after the alleged “smear”? So hard to keep track….

      1. What’s “alleged” about it? Are you denying that you and Reason magazine attacked Paul in the beginning, before it became clear that he was building a rather large, successful, and enduring movement? Then the complaints starting coming in — and maybe a few of your big donors objected. THEN you changed your tune.

        Don’t bullshit us.

        1. Jesus Christ, I’ve seen a lot of retarded attacks against us, but that’s really one of the dumbest. Congratulations.

          Read the February 2008 cover story and get back to me about precisely where that fits into your paranoid, grade-school fantasia.

          1. I don’t think that’s a refutation of what I said, so I’ll repeat it: are you denying that you personally penned a series of vicious attacks on Ron Paul, his political associates, and his candidacy for President? If so, I suggest you go back, read what YOU and your employee, David Weigel — who now sppears on MSNBC, smearing “tea-baggers” — wrote about Ron, and then get back to me. But of course you were among the loudest and most belligerent of the “war-bloggers,” and so none of this is too surprising. What’s surprising is that you would try to deny it.

              1. I ain’t Justin whoever he is, but I’ll tell him you miss him…

        2. Donderrooooooooo, is that you?

          1. Donderoooooo used to work for Ron Paul, until Paul got sick of him, probably for going to Mexico for hookers or for showing up drunk and canned him. Dondero would be the last person to write in defense of Paul.

        3. Hey, he spelled your name backwards.

        4. “What’s “alleged” about it? Are you denying that you and Reason magazine attacked Paul in the beginning, before it became clear that he was building a rather large, successful, and enduring movement? ”

          Moron. To “attack” him is to discuss his own newsletters? And that came WAY AFTER supporting articles and after he was popular.

  17. I refuse to support a movement that considers “over the top” the right way to hang toilet paper.

    I refuse to support a movement that glorifies shifting into neutral when braking in manual transmission.

    I refuse to support a movement that encourages women to give fake phone numbers to pathetically desperate men.

    I refuse to support a movement that considers head-butting to be a professional sport.

    I refuse to support a movement that allows convenience stores to stock 50 bottles of the blue gatorade and none of the white gatorade.

    I refuse to support a movement that values ridiculous breast implants juxtaposed with crustaceans and obsesses over mediocre sideboob at the expense of wonderful interboob.

    1. Over the top is the only correct way to hang toilet paper.

      That is all.

        1. I won’t use a bathroom that hasn’t hung the paper ‘over the top’

          1. Seriously who does it under-style? WTF is that?

            1. teh massiveIlegalimmigruntz!!

    2. I refuse to support a movement that values ridiculous breast implants juxtaposed with crustaceans and obsesses over mediocre sideboob at the expense of wonderful interboob.

      Side boob is wonderful. The greatest thing to happen to man since he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. I live for side boob. In seven hours and eighteen minutes there is a good possibility I will see side boob. Without that chance, man, I am not even sure life is worth living, but I don’t want to even think about that in case my suspicions are right. Think side boob. Think side boob.

  18. Alex Jones is a part of the conservative movement?

    I haven’t read Charles Johnson’s site in a long time, years, because it became filled with Islam-bashing that went to absurd and crude levels. And now suddenly he’s upset about other peoples’ comment sections?

    I suppose that he just likes to hate.

  19. I suppose that he just likes to hate.

    I think the point that he just likes the the guys in power no matter who they are is pretty close.

    Plus he is a pro-Bush warblogger and Obama’s war on terror policy is nearly identical to Bush’s.

    1. Apparently power cock tastes much better.

  20. Something about this post is driving my browser nuts. FYI.

    1. Me too. I much prefer the old format of comment threads.

      1. Have you ever tried browser nuts? They’re great roasted.

        I think it’s one of the ads killing my IE.

  21. WTF does Lew Rockwell have to do with bigotry?

    1. Exactly as much as ostrich eggs have to do with dog sweaters.

    2. Yeah, you gotta love how he snuck that bullshit in there. Probably in connection with RP for the RP newsletter nonsense.

    3. Southern and paleoconservative.

      1. @ anonymous, Oh thats enough now? Wow!

        1. All Southerners are bigots! I know this from watching Hollywood movies!!

  22. It looks to me as though Charles Johnson (though not Andrew Sullivan, whose story is different) fits into a pattern that I have noticed — formerly overzealous creatures of the right who decide to change their ways but then overcompensate. If you view every fact in the light most unfavorable to conservatives and then paint with a very broad brush, then you can reach many of these conclusions that he reaches. Otherwise, not really, no.

    Even though his statement of his reasons for declaring war on the conservative movement is wildly exaggerated, there unfortunately is some truth to some of them, and I would like to do something about it. Nevertheless, I have no idea what Johnson hoped to accomplish by posting this list. He could have made a list of grievances and invited thoughtful conservatives to stand with him, but instead, he condemned the entire movement. This does nothing for his ability to influence popular conservatism for the better!

    1. That’s a better description of David Horowitz than Charles Johnson, I think. Johnson is more of a Paranoid Center man: from pants-wetting center-right to pants-wetting center-left in one easy baby step.

      1. Damn good description, Jesse. That fits Chuckles to a T.

    2. Fanatical personality types tend to be given to radical “religious” conversion moments.

      My political positions have shifted over time, but I can’t actually define a specific moment when I suddenly “saw the light” in one blinding instant for any them. I can’t pinpoint when I became an atheist, for instance. I tend to think such moments are not the products of deeply considered reflection or careful consideration, and those who have them are not particularly thoughtful or careful thinkers.

      1. I’ve been anti-Democrat for a long time, but I’m pretty sure I became rabid after 6 months of this Obama joker.

      2. “Fanatical personality types tend to be given to radical “religious” conversion moments.”

        I used to be that way, but then I read the teachings of the Dali Lama and they changed my life.

  23. I have no proof or anything, but my guess is George Soros probably cut him a big check.

    1. Much as Soros deserves smacking, I doubt LGF made it on his radar. It sure as hell did not make mine.

      1. ah, that was me. Easy to forget the autowrite in stuff in the new format.

  24. As far as his bullet list goes, I don’t have much beef there.

    Didn’t someone here on Reason say they’d rather debate liberals on economic policy and size-of-government issues than with Team Red on evolution, creation science, and whether or not Teh Ghey is destroying righteous heterosexual marriage?

    1. TERRIST!

    2. pretty sure that was Brink Lindsey

    3. And that is stupid. Few people on Team Red care about that shit (at least I rarely run into them). Maybe 25% and they are vocal, but most Republicans and right-leaning independents don’t give a shit about that shit.

  25. There seem to be a lot of these — former creatures of the right who misbehaved (while on the right) and who now overcompensate for it in their criticism of conservatives.

    There is limited truth to some of his points, unfortunately (though he paints with too broad of a brush), but I do not know what he hoped to accomplish by posting this. Before, he might have been able to post a similar list of grievances but then ask fair, thoughtful conservatives to agree with him. He won’t have influence with conservatives anymore, though — he has now more or less declared conservatives as his enemy.

  26. Well, the original version of my comment was initially excluded by some sort of spam filter, so now, I guess you have two of them.

    1. I liked the other one.

  27. Andrew hyperventilates:

    “I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.”

    This is disingenuous about his position (and theirs).

    It is not that “the conservative movement” (if such a collective is definable) upholds torture as a “core value”; it is that it upholds torture as a potentially valuable _tool_ to use under appropriate circumstances – and in some cases with appropriate institutional checks – in a war against an enemy that has absolutely no respect for the real core western values of individualism, freedom and conscience.

    Rather, it is _Andrew_ that upholds “absolutely no torture”, independent of circumstances, as a core value. I thought he was proud of that position. The evidence of this distortion of his opponents’ views is that he may not be.

    1. Andrew Sullivan’s existence is torture for me so by his standard all US political parties condone torture.

  28. a) “I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.” – like Obama and the Chicago boys?

    b) “I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.” – did Obama get us out of Afghanistan or Iraq? Are his timelines any different from those of the previous administraion?

    c) “I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.” – Obama & the democrats are not legalizing drugs.

    d) “I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.” – delete the word vice, and see which party it applies to

    e) “I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.” – Obama’s position on gay marriage is the same as Bush’s

    f) “I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.” – you mean as anti-science and religious as the environmental zealots?

    g) “I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.” – Please refer to CRU hacked emails, then consider the certainty of your position. Plus, under what plan will we not need oil in the foreseeable future, and why would we want to shovel money to hostile regimes instead of developing our own resources?

    h) “I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.” – Bush I substantially raised taxes and the democrats used that to defeat him. If you are talking about the conservative “movement”, and not just the republican party, there are plenty of spending cut ideas.

    i) “I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.” – see Michael Moore, Van Jones, etc.

    There is one issue and one issue only which caused Sullivan to flip, and that is gay marriage. And on that point, the position of Obama is exactly the same as his predecessor (unfortunately).

  29. I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes

    Back in the 80’s New Mexico governor Toney Anaya stated that we had to raise the tax rate because of the rise in population of the state. Even young and stupid I realized the vast absurdity of that statement. At some future population size the tax rate would have to be 100%, by that logic.

    .. Hobbit

    1. The liberal defense of this is that government services are expected to grow in quality as well as size, therefore justifying higher rates of taxes along with increased size in tax base.

      No, that’s not snark. Had a liberal city manager tell me that once. With a straight face and everything.

      1. The solution is obviously a 1000000000000% tax rate. Government will be awesome then.

        I suggest we start by taxing registered Democrats first.

        1. No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Some of us are registered Democrats so that we can vote in the Democratic Party primary. I live in Maryland, therefore my vote in the general election does not mean anything because the Democrats are going to win. The only way that I can have any sort of say is to vote in the primary.

          1. Well, we have to start somewhere…it’s for the children.

            1. Do it, baby! Just make sure you make a law first forbidding them to change their registration without first giving twelve months’ notice. That way, we should have all the wealthier Democrats pretty well cleaned out by the time they escape.

  30. People still read pathetic Johnson’s blog?

  31. Andrew Sullivan also misrepresents the opposing position on homosexuality. I have heard critics of the critics of homosexuality characterize that position as having something to do with gays somehow being able to damage or break up the families of the critics (of homosexuality). However, I have never heard anyone who actually opposes homosexuality or gay marriage claim that either gays or gay marriage would have an effect on their own family (or on any existing family).

    Opponents of gay marriage arguably invite this kind of distortion by arguing that homosexuality and gay marriage are anti-family without giving any rationale for that claim. Still, it isn’t intellectually honest for Andrew Sullivan to choose the least plausible interpretation of their argument and then say, “Look how ridiculous it is!”

    1. The whole idea of gay marriage is to eventually have society instill in your children total sexual and gender confusion. To make any slutty lifestyle on par with the preservation of the species. That everything is “normal” and moral..and that the only bad and evil thing is for anyone to think otherwise.

      Cycle that through a generation or three and then complain to me about the effect on you.

      1. Are you asking me to cycle it through a generation or three and then complain about the effect on me, or are you using “you” to address a generic third person?

        1. I was speaking to the more abstract “you” than asking anything specific from you.

          1. This exchange was stupefying.

      2. “The whole idea of gay marriage is to eventually have society instill in your children total sexual and gender confusion.” Because when gays get married they have nothing else to do? I guess they don’t have jobs, kids and mortgages to keep them busy like the rest of us. Wait, I don’t have a job or a mortgage but I am at a loss as to where I sign up for the ” make any slutty lifestyle on par with the preservation of the species” class.

      3. The whole idea of gay marriage is to eventually have society instill in your children total sexual and gender confusion. To make any slutty lifestyle on par with the preservation of the species.

        Dude, I’m raising a young daughter in the gayest city in America, and you seem more worried about her than I do. Why is it that conservatives adopt the worst aspects of liberalism?

        Let the raising of the children be done by the parents, instead of the village.

        1. I presume, in keeping with this cavalier philosophy of yours, that you’ve not been sending your little girl to the “village” school, then? If you are, and you support the faggots who want to impose their programs and propaganda on the schools our tax dollars support, you’re a hypocrite and just as much of a fascist and totalitarian as any leftist is.

          It’s amazing (and appalling) how many of you loserdopians keep telling us the faggots’ special interest groups and their government bullies have no power over us or our children even as you keep sending what few children of your own you haven’t already aborted to the state-run brainwashing centers known as public schools to have their souls sucked out of them.

          If you are in fact sending your little girl to those statist hell-holes to suffer the ritualized child abuse to which they subject them, I hope you’re ready for the day she comes home to tell you that she’s turning you in to the local director of the Kevin Jennings Jungen because you’re a “pederaphobe” for disagreeing that all 7th graders need to be sent to the now-mandatory courses on all the finer points of fisting and tea-bagging and pegging and pearl necklacing. I hope you’re ready for the court hearing where you’re deemed unfit to be a parent because of any views you have that aren’t in line with the state’s.

          You loserdopians are the ones who’ve adopted all the worst aspects of liberalism. Your definition of “liberty” favors supposed “rights” the oppressors have to oppress us, rather than the right of the downtrodden to fight back and throw off cruel oppressors like those fascist faggots you want to allow to use the state’s power to redefine marriage and the family.

      4. Well, my sexuality is defined pretty much by two dimensions: I hate feet, and I hate cock, and I am not confused about either.

        However, Andrew over here, says that he loves feet, and he loves cock, he seems to be lucid in his sexual orientation without being confused about the parameters.

        So where is the sexual and gender confusion?

        1. What, you didn’t realize that not liking non-traditional sexual activities makes you a homophobe?

          Unless you starting liking feet and cock and taking things up your poop chute, you’re a hopelessly intolerant bigot and homophobe and we can’t have religious nuts like you out spreading your hate. We’re going to have to reassign your children to some more enlightened family and send you to a correctional facility to be reeducated, you bigot.

    2. I don’t like paying for gay marriages and I don’t like paying for straight marriages.

      Fuck all these people and their marriages.

      1. Who is making you pay for their marriage (besides whatever kids you may or may not have)?

        Don’t cry about the tax code. What rules there are about marriage there hace to do with the inherent injustice of the progressive income tax, rather than something inherent in marriage.

  32. Bah. You think Johnson couldn’t find plenty of hate speech and conspiracy theories on the left, if he wanted to? Anywho, he banned me for simply disagreeing with him. So count me as a member of the right because I believe in tolerance.

  33. So Charles Johnson is doing a reverse Dennis Miller?

    1. If by “reverse” you mean “humorless.”

    2. Not a bad comparison. They’re both long-haired pseudo-hipsters who want to have their ideological cake and eat it too.

  34. I’m kind of embarrassed that I know what things like “fisk” and “idiotarians” and “warblogs” even mean. One of those weird fads from the past you hope normal people don’t find out you were into. Luckily no pictures of me reading warblogs exist, that I know of. And I was too lazy to start one of my own.

  35. All you need to do to become a fascist is pop into LGF and vote “-” on a thread. That’s all it took for my account to get locked out.

    Charles has flipped his wig.

  36. Actually, the worst part of LGF isn’t Johnson or his blogging. No, the bad part of LGF is the comment crowd regulars (I randomly got in one day when registration was open to hoi polloi). It’s like a bunch of bums that got dosed with BZ in there. Conformity is a good and desired trait among that crowd, and, more than Satan, Robert Stacy McCain, and jihad, those people fucking hate libertarians. I mean I think some of them would shoot a libertarian on sight. Without conscious irony.

    1. Inhabiting irony-free spaces is common to raving nutters. Its one of the ways you can tell who drank the koolaid.

    2. Bullshit!! I entirely disagree!!!

  37. “A) there was roughly nothing that we did know about George W. Bush’s awful presidenting by 2004 and before,…”

    People forget what they “knew” and when.

    In 2004 a lot of really smart people were still preaching noble lies. Noble lies were still an imperative. Preaching them. Believing them. A lot of really smart people didn’t know they were lies. Very few people who dreamed that dream woke up until the midterms in 2006, and even then. …a lot of really smart people are just starting to catch on.

    Being someone who neither supported or opposed some of those noble lies put you way ahead of the pack, no doubt. But it wasn’t just an intellectual exercise back then, it was like a character issue.

    We had to be satisfied knowing that opposition didn’t really know what it was doing.

    1. I’ll admit it.

      In 2000 I thought Bush would be an amiable bumbler and that that would be fine.

      In 2002 I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

      In 2004 I became convinced that I had been right about the bumbler part but horribly wrong about the amiable part. Malevolent maybe, but certainly not amiable.

      1. I’m convinced that you and all the rest of the Bush bashers are idiots. The dithering incompetent you’ve helped put into office with all your demonization of Bush is very much the kind of leadership you deserve, as he’s the very kind of leader you fools thought you wanted.

        Bush always acted in the best interest of our country, at least according to what he thought it was. (His assessment–like everyone else’s–was not always correct.) 0bama acts only in his own interest, and as far as he’s concerned, to hell with the rest of us! Such is the leadership you short-sighted fools have earned for hating your cultural superiors: a fellow low-life combining all your worst traits in one package.

  38. So being against government spending trillions of dollars it doesn’t have is now crazy according to Charles Johnson?

    Chuck the fuck Johnson, you can take your government in every hole and get the fuck off this planet.

  39. Yeah. Well, I think this is a great example of what happens when you create a vast, self-congratulatory echo chamber that bans all dissent. Eventually all that’s left is you, your sock puppets, and sycophants. Then when someone has the nerve to disagree with you in public, why, they must racist bigots who’ve destroyed your beloved movement.

    I was on Salon.com today looking for a Cory Doctorow short story I know I read there some years ago. (Slow work day.) The commenters over there were lauding their new friend’s brave stand against racist, bigoted, right-wingery. I can’t wait ’til they find out he’s crazier than a sack of rabid possums.

    1. Cory Doctorow is another comment fascist.

      Post anything they even slightly disagree with at BoingBoing and they shit their pants and ban you.

      1. That’s not fair. Sometimes they only pee.

  40. “With-us-or-against-us polemicizing” is a perfect description of latter-day Charles Johnson. That screed is nothing but an enemies list.

  41. At first I treated this conversion news with a yawn, but now I’ve had an afternoon to mull it over, and I realize it’s like the discovery of the dodo bird: proof that the laws of the universe are totally different than you thought. To wit:

    How can Charles Johnson — of all people on this miserable, Islamophilic, dhimmitude-ridden, jihadi-coddling planet — not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim?

    1. Charles has always had an excellent sense for when a conspiracy is absurd. He values his image and is extremely careful about what he’ll support. He jumped all over the Memogate shit because he saw how plausible it in fact was.

      I observed LGF for a while out of fascination. Charles is a megalomaniac who loves his “lizardoid minions'” sycophantic behavior.

      But he’s not stupid. Not by a long shot.

      1. How long does the shot have to be?

    2. The difference between Osama and Obama is that one is trying to destroy America, the other is succeeding.

    3. Not very perceptive, are you Tim?

  42. How can Charles Johnson — of all people on this miserable, Islamophilic, dhimmitude-ridden, jihadi-coddling planet — not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim?

    ummm probably for the reason that Obama is in fact a christian.

    1. 0bama is not a Christian. He barely even pretends to be one. (Even Bill Clinton was better at pretending to be at all Christian than this dude.)

      If he belongs to any religion at all, it’s the splinter sect of Liberation Theology to which his vile mentor Jeremiah Wright belongs, a strange mishmash of Communism, Black Panther-style racism, and vague New Age mysticism.

      Moreover, he is a Muslim in the same way that anyone who’s ever been in the Mafia is of the Mafia forevermore whether he wants to be or not. The more radical Muslims probably already consider him marked for death as an apostate for all of his doctrinal squishiness.

  43. Wow how can this idiot couple Lew Rockwell with Coulter and McCain and other pro war types. Incredible. Just go to Rockwell’s site, it reads immediately: anti-state, anti-war, pro-markets. duh

    1. He linked them on bigotry, not on markets, war, or the state.

  44. Johnson is more of a Paranoid Center man: from pants-wetting center-right to pants-wetting center-left in one easy baby step.

    Jesse, in one of her non-fiction essays, Rand wrote about the “militant middle”. While it’s been years since I read that, I think it had a lot of parallels to your “Paranoid Center”.

  45. Hess flies to England…the Party is furious. Another hair in your teeth, Baggers.

    1. A Nazi flies to England to negotiate a more amiable surrender? Not sure if that’s the analogy you’re really looking for.

  46. Everybody’s got their own theories about what the hell happened to Charles Johnson. Somebody called my attention to this December 2007 article about Johnson’s departure from PJM management.

    I’m not sure what significance is there. The fact is that PJM was founded in late 2005, at the very zenith of Bush/GOP power. It was a commercial, for-profit venture. The general expectation, one might surmise, was that PJM would be as successful on the Internet as Fox News had been in cable TV news.

    That the venture has fallen short of those expectations, no one will deny. If Johnson expected to ride PJM to fame and fortune, he certainly must have been disappointed. And his exit from PJM management — scarcely two years after he helped launch the venture — followed by about two months his first attacks on Pamela Geller in October 2007.

    One could, from such a relatively small set of simple facts, derive many different theories. Nevertheless, one thinks of certain Shakespearean characters — e.g., Iago and Richard III — whose frustrated hopes led them to turn against friends and allies.

  47. I can’t wait ’til they find out he’s crazier than a sack of rabid possums.

    Which makes him different from Andrew Sullivan how?

    Sullivan can at least write good English. But his obsession with Sarah Palin’s fifth child? Rabid possum territory.

    1. Hey, Sullivan at least has enough of a grasp on reality to kowtow immediately when Krauthammer kicked him in the nuts in his WaPo column.

    2. The Other McCain:

      Sullivan does not write good English. Every third sentence begins with “And.”

      I’m not looking to enforce arbitrary grammatical rules. The problem is that Sullivan’s writing is the same, every damn time. His writing patterns are completely predictable. I call it “Halting Douchebag Earnestness,” and once you recognize his writing style, you’ll call it that, too.

  48. Charles Johnson is a liberal who has monentary slaps of reality-realization in regards to the people bent on destroying us.

    Like all Liberals, he’s completely unreliable in any sort of defense of the country.

    That would require not actively seeking to burn it down too.. but for different reasons than jihad.

    1. He never quite could forgive reality for mugging him. Like many a lefty, he now seeks to alter reality so that he doesn’t have to put up with it anymore.

      Some people are like that: the hippies’ peace movement brought no peace, did nothing to put an end to the war in Vietnam, and has never prevented any further wars, yet some of those fools still think screaming for peace somehow makes the world a more peaceful place.

  49. Say what you will about Sullivan, he broke with the mainstream of the American right before Bush’s reelection.

    There may be some bandwagon-jumping, but he isn’t the one doing it.

    Of course, the footnote to all of this is that he isn’t really breaking with conservatism at all, just admitting that he prefers the British version which, given that he *is* British, is perhaps not surprising.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.