A friend of ours sent me an email from another friend of ours. The email was part of a larger conversation they had been having about the recent rift between Pamela, at Atlas Shrugs, and Charles, from Little Green Footballs.
(And, just to be clear, by "friend of ours" I mean a former contributor to Infidel Bloggers Alliance.)
I post this email here because I want to demonstrate exactly what it is we are getting ourselves into when we decide that we will ally ourselves with supremacists of any kind (such as, perhaps, the BNP, the Swedish Democrats, and the Vlaams Belang).
They don't make very good allies because, sooner or later, you will find yourself to be among a group of people that they want to eliminate.
Read and learn:
... my take on it is that Charles Johnson of LGF is full of it. He uses "guilt by association" to tar VB. Vlaams Belang's Filip DeWinter appeared on a internet radioshow together with some unsavory types (including David Duke). For this Johnson regards first VB and DeWinter and then Paul Belien and BJ as Neo-Nazi's.
I am sick and tired of idiots (including you) screaming "Nazi, fascist, KKK" without giving any usefull definition of those terms just because its so usefull and saves you from actually thinking about things and society.
... tell me: why is it that the KKK or the Nazis are bad? Why does Charles Johnson think they are bad? Have you actually considered the moral question at all or are you just screaming along with the rest of this unreflective liberal-dominated society?
You may take your time."
Ok, thanks, my friend. I shall do so. I'll think about what you said for a long, long time.
Read and learn:
... my take on it is that Charles Johnson of LGF is full of it. He uses "guilt by association" to tar VB. Vlaams Belang's Filip DeWinter appeared on a internet radioshow together with some unsavory types (including David Duke). For this Johnson regards first VB and DeWinter and then Paul Belien and BJ as Neo-Nazi's.
I am sick and tired of idiots (including you) screaming "Nazi, fascist, KKK" without giving any usefull definition of those terms just because its so usefull and saves you from actually thinking about things and society.
... tell me: why is it that the KKK or the Nazis are bad? Why does Charles Johnson think they are bad? Have you actually considered the moral question at all or are you just screaming along with the rest of this unreflective liberal-dominated society?
You may take your time."
Ok, thanks, my friend. I shall do so. I'll think about what you said for a long, long time.
P.S. I think this email is also an object lesson in why Freedom of Speech is a good thing.
We now know exactly how our friend thinks. He is ok with Nazis and he's ok with the KKK. We can now take that under advisement when he expresses other opinions.
And, if you want to learn about the seamy underside of the BNP, read the comments in this post. Many of them echo our old friend above (although I must say, no one is quite as blatant as the former Infidel).
21 comments:
why are they bad?????
one only need to read the "Jack Acid Society" by Walt Kelly to answer that, but it's obvious that our "friend" neglected to study the classics during s/he/its education, such as it may have been.....
"friends" like this we don't need.
evil is evil.
redc1c4
Consider for a moment, "Reality". Humans are created with the ability to know and to love, with a rational capacity to use in the experiencing of knowledge and love.
In other words, all humans are human.
Whenever ANYONE, of ANY COLOR, tries to lift up ANY group, sub-group or skin-color, they are moving AWAY from goodness, AWAY from reality.
Making efforts to impose unreal ideas, beliefs and biases on humankind is evil, and creates suffering, pain and abuse BECAUSE of its IGNORANCE (lack of knowledge) and HATRED (lack of love).
redc1c4,
The amazing thing about this email is it comes from a guy I consider to be one of the most intelligent and, seemingly, educated people I have met in the blogosphere.
I will not lie about the guy. I respect his education and intelligence. At the same time, I do not respect his moral sense.
Or maybe, somehow, he can explain himself.
Hey Past, long time no see.
It is nice to be back at IBA.
Wow, it would be interesting to know why your friend asked such bizarre question and what he was trying to do. - Either he meant the horror he appears to be saying, loves to talk like an extremist or missed his shot badly at being subtle.
Fascinating question about intelligence, education, moral / ethic. Intelligence is divided of many components, but all are rarely developed equally of course. Moral is also a big part of intelligence. One who lacks moral, must lack good judgment, common sense, understanding... For sure something is not working well in his mind.
A Sunni friend who is now learning surgery was saying that he liked sometimes to remind his highly educated and specialized colleagues that a smaller amount of knowledge well organized is more powerful than a big amount of disorganized knowledge.
That comment triggers all kind of questions on the subject, don't you think?
Anyhow, fascists on the right are as mad as fascist on the left.
That's all I can say about that.
Loved seeing you Past.
Nice comment Karridine.
Hey D.C.,
It's good to see you too. I thought you had completely disappeared from the blogosphere. I hope things are going well for you and your latest endeavor.
:)
Not at all off topic:
Creepazoid alert, part I!
Slightly Fascist (old article, still relevant!)
I have gotten quite a lot of that kind of mail too
This is the first time I have rec'd this kind of thing from a person I considered to be a friend and an ally.
Have you ever heard an adult say to a child (or a teacher to a student, and so on) "Why is that wrong?".
Maybe a hundred times?
My read of what you quoted is that he is challenging Johnson to explain what we, as a society, despise in those groups. As you quoted it, it no more expresses approval of the KKK or Nazis than your parents "Why is that wrong?" did of stealing and bad name calling.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is simply challenging Johnson to examine his own behavior and postings for the same pathologies that we find repugnant in the KKK etc.
Charles Johnson provides a valuable service in holding Muslims accountable for what they say. But he is clearly Islamophobic, what with the constant snarky Religion of Peace references. Seriously, folks. Would you condider a website as anti-Semitic if it constantly made sneering references to The Chosen People whenever an Israeli or Jew was involved in killing or crime or some immorality? Of course!
You don't post the email, so there is no way to know whether you have presented and framed his comment to you as he meant it.
To Mike Johnson,
First, you intentionally misrepresent the emailer's question. This is what he wrote,
"... tell me: why is it that the KKK or the Nazis are bad? Why does Charles Johnson think they are bad? Have you actually considered the moral question at all or are you just screaming along with the rest of this unreflective liberal-dominated society?"
Clearly, he is not just asking a rhetorical question of "what's wrong" about the the KKK and the Nazis. He is challenging the reader to consider that there really isn't anything wrong, that our objections to these vilified groups is "unreflective liberal" conditioning.
Secondly, Charles is not Islamophobic. His ironic use of the term "Religion of Peace" is always in the context of yet another murderous terrorist attack by Islamic extremists. Charles is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who defend or excuse or deny such uncivilized behavior carried out in the name of Islam.
Pastorius (even though you seem to have removed your post about this...), if he was saying it to a person who feels the same way as Mike about "vilifying an entire religion", then it is doubtful he meant to point out that their postings have similar intolerant sentiments ("Islamophobia") as any neo-nazi they criticise.
If you want to read the email in a favourable light, the best way to do that is to assume that the writer only wanted the receiver (and Charles) to examine and identify exactly what it is about nazis and the KKK that they find morally repugnant in order to then see if the people they are accusing of being nazis actually possess those traits. If they don't (and the writer seems to think they don't: "He uses "guilt by association" to tar VB"), then it is simply dismissive name-calling and libel.
I posted that at 5:00 AM California time. I immediately realized I had misread the email from Mike Johnson. Therefore, I took it down. I took it down so quickly, I didn't think anyone would have had the chance to read it.
Good to see so many beautiful infidels discussing the morality of fighting one form of Primitive tribalism (Islam) with another primitive tribalism (ethno supremacism). Modernity versus tribalism...well done all. Well done! I think it is a fearful panic Knee jerk reaction to retreat into an Ethnic fortress where only those who look like ones self are a friend and those who don't a foe, thus weakening the cumalitive strength of our efforts to resist Islam, taking our eyes of the ball as we fight amongst ourselves. This is a core strength and tactic/strategy of Jihad here in the multi ethnic secular West.
Kenneth,
You say that, "Secondly, Charles is not Islamophobic. His ironic use of the term "Religion of Peace" is always in the context of yet another murderous terrorist attack by Islamic extremists."
I don't read LGF enough to know if this is true, but anyone who consistently defines criminals on the basis of religion is, at the very least, revealing a bit of bias.
I'm sure that there is no shortgage of Jewish or Baptist dirtbags out there, but how long would it take for a site documenting spousal abuse in Israel to be branded anti-Semetic? How would a site devoted to chronicling incest and meth addiction among Southern Baptists be perceived?
Why does Johnson get a pass and has he ever used his RoP schtick to mention a mosque feeding the hungry or a doctor caring for wounded children?
Pastorius, us Lurkers see all you do, bwahahah!
To answer Anonymous: the difference is that Jewish wife-beaters don't point to the Torah to justify their behaviour and Southern Baptist meth addicts don't shoot up in the name of Jesus.
When people do something bad out of belief in an ideology, their actions need to be not only criticised, but also critically examined from that angle. If it turns out there is some truth to what they're saying (that their actions are supported by this ideology), if it turns out they're not some isolated, crazy wackos with idiosyncratic views but instead part of a growing, global movement that threatens fundamental human rights, then attempts to paint things otherwise by using misleading euphemisms and insisting it's just a small problem with a fringe group in some foreign country ought to be mocked with copious amounts of sarcasm and irony.
But as Watcher71 pointed out, when fighting PCism and Primitive Tribalism, we should not assume that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. We don't need to turn to the radical right to find opposition to Islamization. It's popping up in the oddest places, like the late Dutchman Pim Fortuyn who, though accused of being far-right because of his views on Islam, never quite fit that profile, being openly gay and supportive of euthanasia and same-sex marriage. And there is out-in-left-field Quebec, which has become rather suspicious of how the concepts of "reasonable accommodation" and "multiculturalism" are being implemented, the most recent eruption of their suspicions happening in small town Hérouxville. And there is Swedish Nyamko Sabuni from the Liberal People's Party, which was campaigning with anti-swastika posters even before WWII commenced.
Oddly enough, it seems we can look to Liberals with about the same frequency as we can look to Conservatives for opposition to Islamization. I think this is because Liberals see that, in order to protect the rights, freedoms, and liberal social institutions and liberal culture they hold so dear, they have to oppose efforts to Islamize their countries.
Oops! I forgot to address one part. In Anonymous' last paragraph (s)he seemed to ask if Charles Johnson has ever portrayed Muslims in a positive light. Please see this LGF post from just yesterday: http://tinyurl.com/3bkbtf (it's not a rickroll, I promise.)
It is a photo by Michael Yon of Muslims helping Christians place a cross back atop a church in Baghdad — a poignant image of cooperation and religious tolerance in Iraq. The post got a higher than normal rating (88) and responses expressed hopefulness for Iraqis and cynicism over whether such a photo would ever get published in the mainstream media.
Now what were you saying again about bias and invariably portraying Muslims in a negative light?
PBUH,
Man, do I ever hope you are correct that Liberals are finally coming to the plate in our fight against the Islamists. Obviously, there have always been a few Liberals on our side, but I have never seen many.\
What am I talking about? I am a Liberal.
:)
DUH!!!
No duh.
PBUH yes absolutely spot on ! Good post....exactly why Liberals should instinctively be a part of the resistance....exactly my position
DUH!! For me !!! LOL!!!
Post a Comment