Charles Johnson casts his buddy Robert Spencer into the outer darkness—am I supposed to care?

(Note: as a special service to VFR readers, further down in this thread I have copied the key comments in the LGF thread where Charles Johnson and his followers denounce Robert Spencer as an ally of white supremacists and neo-Nazis . You will find it far easier and less time-consuming to read than the original thread, which contains over 1,000 comments. How anyone can bear reading such a website regularly, I have no idea.)

Many readers have told me about Charles Johnson’s inclusion of Robert Spencer in the long list of neo-nazi sympathizers whom Johnson has already denounced, thus ending his long friendship with Spencer. The parting of the ways is not surprising, given the obvious contradiction between Johnson’s fierce attacks on various anti-jihadist writers and parties as neo-fascists, and Spencer’s own association with, or his failure sufficiently to denounce, or his defense of, various of those writers and parties. In reality, it’s all personal, given the fact that last year Spencer supported or remained silent about Johnson’s attacks on Vlaams Belang and others, including myself, as neo-Nazi types, and only began to take exception to Johnson’s campaign of vilification when Johnson attacked Spencer’s personal friends such as Andrew Bostom and Diana West; and, finally (according to Katya’s account below), Spencer’s true break with Johnson, during the past day, only happened because Johnson and his Lizards attacked Spencer himself, and did so, apparently, in very brutal terms, calling him a supporter of genocide, etc. So it’s hard to feel that this latest parting of the ways means very much, except as a further indication of Johnson’s extremist brand of liberalism, and of Spencer’s apparent inclination never to criticize his friends no matter how outrageously they behave, unless they attack even closer friends of his—or attack Spencer himself.

In addition, it is humanly impossible for me to take further interest in anything to do with Robert Spencer, given his repeated libels of me, including his repeatedly calling me a liar, his description of me as “despicable, deeply dishonest, and highly unbalanced human being,” and his e-mail calling me “the lowest form of character assassin.” There is also Spencer’s active cooperation and partnership with a thuggish commenter of his who has said such things as that I was “attempting a holocaust on [Spencer]” and who talks about knocking out the teeth of Spencer’s critics.

Indeed, even in the midst of Jihad Watch’s current discussion of the Johnson-Spencer controversy, an issue that has nothing to do with me, the attacks on me continue. One commenter writes:

[Johnson] and Lawrence Auster are 2 sides of the same coin.

Another says:

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Johnson is an unrestrained ego-maniac, similar to Auster. If you are not in perfect lock-step with [sic] He is most fortunate in his estimation to have the perfect moral and ethical compass in these matters.

While Spencer has posted personal replies to numerous comments in that same thread, he does not reply to these comments or do anything to correct the impression that I am to be equated with the crazed tyrant and smoker-out-of-neo-fascist sympathizers Charles Johnson. Only an idiot or a bigot could see any resemblance between the sub-intellectual bully Johnson and me, who have been one of his main critics (see my articles about him). It was evidently beyond Spencer’s reach to say something like, “While I don’t like Auster, it is ridiculous to say that he and Johnson are two sides of the same coin.” Instead, he let the smears stand.

I would also remind readers of how I defended Robert Spencer from Ralph Peters’s deranged attacks on him and other Islam critics in 2006, and of how, when my own readers in defense of me have made criticisms of Spencer that were untrue or unfair, I have corrected them.

In any case, the libels against me at Jihad Watch—posted, promoted, and uncorrected by Robert Spencer—continue, as payback for my legitimate intellectual criticisms of Spencer’s writings. Those who regret this split between anti-jihad writers ought to direct their concerns to Spencer, not to me.

- end of initial entry -

Katya writes:

I was reading my way through a long LGF post [copy this address into address bar: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31764], mainly to do with Hallowe’en and the Election (not really much difference between those two subjects) when, lo and behold, my grim fate struck again and I found myself at Comment #183 Kilgore Trout reading a negative comment about Robert Spencer. This quickly developed into an open attack on him by inferring that he, and a previous Lizard, the essayist, Fjordman, are racists, neo-fascists and supporters of genocide. You know, all the usual from all the usual suspects. I tend to ignore them because they are who they are and one doesn’t expect much from them. Then, at #420 Charles Johnson commented on Robert Spencer that he sadly noticed that RS “has chosen his side,” followed by further comments from CJ at 461, 473 and carrying on with CJ noting that Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal are now both, once again, in the list of linked websites at JW and finally culminating at #556 with CJ saying “I’m done with Robert Spencer and very, very disappointed in him.”

Robert Spencer also arrives to offer comments in his own and Fjordman’s defence and to criticise the quite weak line of argumentation against him on the thread by several posters, who have criticised his stand on the Crusades, for example, or who have stated that he has “slipped over the edge into sheer hatred” in his book, “The Truth About Muhammad” (excellent book, not a sign of any such “hatred” but this has become typical of pro-Moslem and pro-Islam comments at LGF).

There are hundreds of comments attacking RS but the culmination of it comes in those of the particularly loathsome “medaura 18586” who at #1124 (I warned you about the length of this thread!) attacks RS for his Christian faith (he is Eastern Catholic which the bigot says is the same as Eastern Orthodoxy; we’ll leave her to her theological confusion with that one). At #1129 CJ comes in to chide her for her “gloat” about RS without a word about her bigotry. I did comment to you sometime back that Little Green Footballs would eventually, from being a rather open site with many differing viewpoints, descend, after “cleansing” itself of certain perceived “isms,” actually become a pro-Moslem, pro-Islam site and that is actually in the process since the site has over the past two years become rather hostile to Europe, Christianity and, by extension, the counter-jihad attempts to oppose and thwart Islamisation of the West.

I find this thread as fascinating as previous battle-royals at LGF because of the control over expressions, vocabulary, and even thought (one Lizard asks CJ to remove the Lizard’s post because it actually mentioned the word “genocide”—the Lizard was actually speaking against genocide but did not even want his own post saying so to be kept up simply because the word was mentioned; how’s that for self-censorship?). Several Lizards, unfamiliar with past history of this war at LGF, ask who R Spencer is and this is the opportunity for quite disgraceful and inaccurate statements to be made, disparaging Spencer’s intellect and scholarly contribution to a correct understanding of Islam.

The other aspect of this is that, cold-hearted warrior that I am, I find it all a necessary one in order that those seriously concerned with fighting Islamisation should come together on the central issue even if they disagree on other aspects while, at the same time, jettisoning those parties (like LGF) that are not helpful to the cause and are actually counter-productive.

[End of Katya’s comment.]

* * *

Below I quote and comment on the key comments in the LGF attack on Spencer. The LGF thread is at this address.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31764

(I’ve spelled out the address rather than embedded it as a hyperlink because Charles Johnson has rigged any hyperlink to his site from this site to display an insulting cartoon instead. He does this to everyone he doesn’t like.)

Here is the comment, comment #420, in which Johnson first denounces Spencer. Note that it’s not about anything Spencer has done, it’s about some unspecified “extremely hateful anti-semitism at [Brussels Journal],” and on that basis Johnson says:

I guess Robert has chosen his side.

I’m sad that it’s come to this.

But we have no way of knowing what Johnson is referring to. In his usual laconic manner, he describes something as “hateful” or “ugly” without linking or quoting it. We’re just supposed to take the Illustrious (that’s Spencer’s word for him, November 2007) Johnson’s word.

Then, at comment #461, Johnson writes:

This is the kind of thing Robert is apparently ok with:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2615

It’s a year-old post by Paul Belien, November 2, 2007, not an easy post to follow as it consists of lots of quotes,. It features a large photo of a demonic-looking homosexual demonstration, a scene out of hell, and it quotes Bruce Bawer complaining to Johnson about something Belien wrote:

“Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war between the defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the proponents of secular hedonism and the forces of Islamic Jihadism.”

Bawer comments:

“Secular hedonism” is plainly his term for secular liberalism. Plainly he identifies with what he calls “traditional Judeo-Christian morality.” And the structure of his sentence suggests that for him both “secular hedonism” and “Islamic Jihadism” are equal enemies.

And what about those of us who foolishly think this is a war for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY? Are we just supposed to sit back and shut up and take orders from a bunch of little Euro-fascists?

Now as I remember this post was one of the things that was fought over one year ago. What does it have to do with Spencer, and what does it have to do with anti-Semitism? Belien does say something about the causes of anti-Semitism, but he’s taking the side of Jews against anti-Semites.

The upshot is that one is at a complete loss as to Johnson’s statement that this post shows unspecified “extremely hateful anti-semitism.” The only reason I can think that Johnson would be hostile to this is the graphic picture of and criticism of homosexual liberation, a.k.a. secular hedonism.

Then at comment #469, Johnson says:

Ok, I’m over being sad about it. Now I’m getting mad.

But there’s no further information. We don’t know what he’s talking about.

Then at comment #473, Johnson says:

Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are out of our RSS feeds. I’m not going to support people who link to vile sites like Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.

At comment #556 Johnson writes:

Paul Belien of Brussels Journal is deeply connected with the Vlaams Belang, and Robert knows this. The fact that he’s put them back in his blogroll speaks volumes about the choice he’s made.

And Gates of Vienna has turned into a reeking sewer of racism. I’m done with Robert Spencer. And very, very disappointed in him.

So apparently this has nothing to do with anything Spencer has said, but with the fact that Brussels Journal is included on Spencer’s blogroll! That’s it!

From this point on, some commenters back up Johnson’s attack on Spencer:

#611 Iron Fist

I liked the Truth About Muhammed. I think it is pretty spot on. It is hard to keep from hating the Islamonazis when one understands what they are all about. Frankly, I am prejudiced against the Mohammedans. I’m also prejudiced against neo-Nazis and the Klan. I don’t need to know any more about them other than the beliefs that being in these kind of groups represent.

So I wasn’t (and am not) troubled by Spencer’s book. I am troubled with his apparent embrace of the neo-Nazi movement that we are seeing with VB, BJ, GoV, etc. We can win this war without the “help” of those kind of people bring. I have always suspected that the reason people are embracing these groups it that they want to have access to hard-core thugs if it comes down to it, but they don’t want to get their hands dirty. [Emphasis added.]

I have no need of that (if it comes to it, I have no qualms about getting my hands dirty), and have no desire to soil myself with these types of “allies”. We could very easily “win” the War with their help only to lose the next war against out putative allies when they decide that they can come after us.

We don’t need them to win, and have a lot of downside to being associated with them. We don’t need them.

Comment #666:

I am entirely clueless on this. How did he turn?

Read Charles’ links above. Robert is now linking to known racist radicals like Paul Belien of Brussels Journal & Vlaams Belang. I’m not as up on it as Charles. All I know is that Robert used to be someone we respected. So it’s a disappointment to say the least

Then at comment #689 Robert Spencer himself posts:

# 689 Robert Spencer

This will, obviously, be my last post here.

I am not a racist or a race supremacist, and oppose all racism and race supremacism. I have explained many times that I believe a race-based approach to the jihad resistance is wrong. I explained in my post about Fjordman that I didn’t believe that he was a racist or a race supremacist. If you all believe that that judgment in itself makes me a racist, I respectfully suggest that this is a logical leap that is unwarranted.

The jihad threat is very large, and has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with ideology. I don’t agree in every detail with all those who are fighting it, or with every wording they have ever chosen, or with every emphasis they have. But I am more interested in building alliances and coalitions than with anathematizing those who don’t agree with me on every detail. And no, this does not mean that I am interested in building alliances or coalitions with any actual race supremacists, neofascists, or neo-Nazis. Such people are always and everywhere to be opposed.

That’s all. Good luck.

I can’t help but notice that Spencer doesn’t want to anathematize those who don’t agree with him on every detail. But look what he has done to those, like myself, who have criticized him on certain issues while agreeing with him and expressing gratitude to him for the main thrust of his work. He anathematized and smeared me and turned me into a pariah among his own followers. And now he remains silent while commenters at his blog say that I am the moral equivalent of Charles Johnson.

Then this comment:

#694 Sharmuta
re: #689 Robert Spencer

Fascist apologist would be closer to the truth.

Then Johnson writes:

#718 Charles
re: #689 Robert Spencer

You’ve chosen a different path than I have, Robert. I refuse to be associated with sites like GoV and Brussels Journal, but if you don’t see why, and pretend not to notice the reasons for it—you’re making a choice.

And that choice obviates my support.

#722 Killgore Trout
re: #689 Robert Spencer

Say Hi to Vlaams Belang and Le Penn for me.

See ya in the funny papers.

#727:

Fjordman has promoted mass deportation of Muslim citizens. That is more than just a “detail” about him. It defines his whole grand strategy.

Then Spencer again:

#735 Robert Spencer

One last—pardon me, I know I said I was done, but I had not read all the comments above, particularly from Charles, which comments deeply sadden me.

The statement that I have “embraced the neo-Nazi movement” is false, and libelous. Charles, you and your friends here are now in the position of saying that everyone who doesn’t believe these people (Fjordman, Belien, etc.) are neo-Nazis must themselves be neo-Nazis. Well, Ian Buruma recently published an article in the LA Times saying that the European anti-immigration parties were not neo-Nazis. Diana West has written the same thing in articles that have been picked up at the National Review and quoted favorably by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media.

Unless you all are prepared to say that Buruma, the LA Times, West, Kimball, and National Review have “embraced the neo-Nazi movement,” you can’t logically say it about me.

Now that really is all.

#744 Robert Spencer

mich-again

Please show me where Fjordman has promoted the mass deportation of Muslim citizens. I have not seen him say that.

In any case, whether he says it or not, I do not support the mass deportation of Muslim citizens. You all seem to be assuming that someone who supports one thing someone else says supports everything he says. That is a false assumption.

827 Killgore Trout

jdow-antijihad,

Please take the genocide crap over to Spencer’s blog where it’s welcome.

One other observation. Notice how polite and subdued Spencer is in defending himself from these outrageous smears. Compare that to his usual lofty, contemptuous responses to those who criticize him from the right. Why the difference? My guess is that here he is being attacked from the liberal side, as a racist, as an ally of neo-Nazis etc. And because his own core beliefs remain liberal (his highest ideal being the “equal dignity of all people,” a phrase he reverts to continually), he treats attacks of himself from the liberal side more respectfully and in a more restrained manner than criticisms of himself from the right, which he despises.

* * *

Tommy writes:

Comment #1145 accuses Spencer of being hateful for “regard[ing] Muslim immigration as a national security threat,” and advocating the deportation of illegal Muslim immigrants. Ironically, this is the kind of thing Spencer mentions only in passing. That underemphasis earned him no credit with shrill lizards.

Killian Bundy dispenses the conventional kool-aid in comment #973:

There is no such thing as “race.”

For the folks at LGF, Islam is the only problem with immigrants from the Maghreb and the Near East. Worse, Islam is merely a malevolent political ideology, a new incarnation of Communism, and not a cultural/religious phenomenon.

In the end, I suspect Johnson and Co. feel that having one heroic, defiant, and politically impotent Ayaan Hirsi Ali among us is worth millions of Muslim dregs and fanatics residing in the West. Such is the depth of their commitment to any counter-jihad.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 01, 2008 02:05 PM | Send