The execrable CAIR tool and libelblogger Charles Johnson has posted a self-righteous laundry list purporting to explain why he betrayed all his principles, friends, and associates: "Why I Parted Ways with the Right."
You can find it here -- the adolescent libelblogger has blocked direct links from this site, but you can paste this in to your address bar:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right
The thuggish libelblogger incites his sycophants and whips them into a frenzy of hate with three lies about me and Pamela Geller:
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)
Of course, he does not, and cannot, produce a shred of evidence to support any of these libelous claims, but that is par for the course at this point for this man, who has long since kissed goodbye to the last shreds of his integrity.
One can only wonder what sickness of soul would lead this man to devote so much time and effort to lying about other people and trying to destroy them.
UPDATE: It is interesting that Johnson's hate list appeared just hours after I spoke at length with a New York Times reporter -- excited by his move leftward, they're doing a big story on Johnson. Coincidence? Of course!
lol, You think we would actually check out the repellent, idiotic, "loonwatch?"
Only loons go there, like you. Take your trash elsewhere, loonatic (misspelling deliberate).
The real reason is that he threw his lot with dastardly neoliberal-neocons such as Michael Totten who aided Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists in murdering Serb Christians and brutally eradicating Christianity from Kosovo.
He and the NN vermin aid the rabidly racist, sadistic, genocidal terrorists, the kidnappers, torturers, mutilaters, murderers, organ-harvesters, and they accuse others of "extremism" and "hate"?
No wonder CAIR approvingly quotes Johnson in their Islamist propaganda.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Muzzammill
I think you have lied about me just about enough.
Goodbye.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Nice to see Muzz walk the plank. Buh-bye, dirtbag.
Thanks Robert for posting this.
I have recently added an entry in my blog where I analyze Johnson-like dissociated mentalities. It’s long but you can start reading from the phrase “Fruit Cake”.
Cheers!
C.T. (a.k.a., "Chechar")
His attack on Rifqa Barry had to be a low point (if thats possible), like trying to smear Anne Frank as she is about to be shipped of to the death-camp. If it was 1940 Johnson would be outside Anne Franks house yelling "SHE'S IN THE CUPBOARD!!" Utter scum, and a very creepy guy is CJ.
1) I think Darcy was responding to muzzamill's idiocy.
2) Ruslan,
Labels such as "neoliberal-neocon" obscure rather than clarify.
I disagree with Michael Totten's analysis and (mis)understanding of Kosovo, but I do not believe he is the evil person that you assert above. He was insulted by an acquaintance of Robert Spencer (Julia...) and responded intemperately to her and to Andrew Bostom. It was a mistake by Totten (imho), and as I just wrote above, he does not understand the history of Kosovo and Serbia, and does not understand the scale and intent of muslim jihad, but he is not of-bad-will. He is not dishonest.
He supported the Iraq surge and considers it a success. That is in-good-faith, on his part, although I also consider him to be mistaken about Iraq, as I agree strongly with Hugh Fitzgerald's views about what the west "owes" the world of islam, and what western strategy should be.
Totten has provided a helpful interviews and accounts concerning Lebanon and Libya and Georgia. I realize that you may disagree with my inclusion of Georgia, as he tends toward an anti-Russian-invader view of that recent conflict. He is not interested (thankfully) in libeling others and mostly stays away from attacking other bloggers. The fact that he is on generally good terms with Charles Johnson does not mean that he necessarily agrees with everything Johnson writes. Same with that albanian-american blogger who became queen of the lgf comments. I think she and her clique were the ones who influenced Johnson significantly. Totten's views on Kosovo were influenced by her as well, but he does not, as far as I know, spend his time libeling or slandering Robert Spencer.
Be careful going to LGF. CJ has a nasty virus waiting for IPs he has banned.
The tone and theme of this website changed at some point in the past. I wonder whether the real Charles Johnson sold the site to someone else with a different agenda? This is just speculation of course.
Be careful going to LGF. CJ has a nasty virus waiting for IPs he has banned.
Why should I care about Charles Johnson?
I agree with Charles Johnson that a significant part of the right, like a significant part of the left, is loony. Johnson's list of right-wing loonies is one I agree with many parts of. But I don't see anything to support Johnson's slanders of Spencer. Spencer just strikes me as a a sort of anti-totalitarian hawk, and it just happens that today the biggest totalitarian threat is not communism or Nazism, but Islam. I see nothing that seems to me fascist or racist in Spencer's writings, not even hints. Obviously there are some people on the right who do seem to have such hints in their writings, but Spencer is not one of them, not in any of the books and articles I've seen.
For what it's worth (not much, I guess - a bit, perhaps, like a mouse peeing in the ocean while philosophically observing that "Every little bit counts") I'd like to provide a bit of counterweight representing movement in the opposite direction.
I've always been on the centre-Left in terms of political temperament and ideology, although I'm not electorally aligned with any parties on the established/official Left in my country (Canada) today. I vote on the Right because of my deep disenchantment with the Left's position on a considerable number of contemporary issues, not least among them their obscene alliance with political Islam and Jihadism, and because, unlike most on that part of the spectrum, I "get it" when it comes to Islam.
Because of that, I can state - without the slightest prejudice - that anybody who cares to view the issues with any rationality and honesty knows better than to suggest the kind of nonsense that Charles Johnson has alleged here. Robert Spencer is no supporter of bigotry, fascism or "Islamophobia" (whatever that is).
I owe a lot to this site, to its writers and many of its commenters, and to Robert Spencer especially, for enlightening me on these issues. I'm glad to be counted as one of Robert's converts.
Charles Johnson is obviously full of shit!
Well said, as usual, Traeh.
My feelings exactly.
Apparently, this was deleted, but let me repost:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/
It will be interesting to see Mr. Spencer's reply.
Muz has been muzzled! ...Yay! Charles, you're next.
The puzzle is not why Charles Johnson turned against Spencer, et al.; the puzzle is why he ever verged away from his foundational Leftism to take up the anti-Islam cause in the first place. The grotesque spectacle of Charles Johnson over the past year is merely a reversion to his original Leftist roots -- exacerbated, perhaps, by his sense that he had "betrayed" those roots by siding with a camp that was "bigoted" against all those Brown Muslims.
"One can only wonder what sickness of soul would lead this man to devote so much time and effort to lying about other people and trying to destroy them."
MONEY? $$$$
"One can only wonder what sickness of soul would lead this man to devote so much time and effort to lying about other people and trying to destroy them."
Follow the money
I can understand why people like CJ from LGF swing back and forth on the political spectrum; it's because both Leftists and Rightists are controlled by insane people. The FACT that Rightists are dominated by Creationist zealots speaks to greater problems within their political movement which makes them on par with irrational Leftists and violent Muslims who aid and abet Jihadism: Magical Thinking translates into Political Oppression and Bad Decision Making.
It's one thing to hold privately held religious beliefs, but to enforce those beliefs through political will is an exercise in force. I think CJ is repulsed by Magical Thinkers in general, and the steps they take to execute their political agenda. Historically CJ has been as critical of Leftists and their irrationality as he has been toward Rightists of late.
That being said, I hold Robert Spencer in the highest of esteem. He is a national treasure, and sees the importance of preserving our way of life by simply showing us within context of Islamic jurisprudence, why Islam, as a politial entity is directly opposed to everything CJ claims to hold dear. CJ has given himself over to the same kind of dogmatic and irrationalism he claims others use against him. That is a shame. It's a shame because people who love our democratic values should unite against the greater threat of Shariah and Jihad rather than quibble over semantics, and strategy. People under seige should put aside their minor differences in the face of an immediate and urgent threat. Not understanding that will contribute to their ultimate defeat in the face of a unified and aggressive enemy.
James Martel - I also noticed that. I only look when there is breaking news to see comments.
Comments on the Swiss vote banning minerets were against it. That proves to me there has been a change of people following the site. The ACLU seems to be hanging out there.
And he didn't even post about the Russian train attack. Like the mainstream media that mostly ignored it. He certainly would have posted about that before. Now, nothing.
I am not now and never have been a devotee of CJ...But it seems to me that he is primarily an attention getter, who has to be in the limelight all of the time...Shades of Bill Clinton and Rasool Obama...And like them, he seeks to destroy the credibility of those who disagree with him, even if he has to make stuff up...That's called 'thuggery'...When the psychopath adds thuggery to his bag of tricks, you have a Hannibal Lecter look alike...His behavior seems to be escalating, he may become dangerous...It would be best to not be in close proximity...You never know when he might 'snap' and have a Hannibal Lecter episode...
I no longer go to the CJ site either, but recall that he started accepting ads from mainstream organizations. His flight to the left may be largely -- and possibly even consciously -- an effort to improve his position in the world.
Charles who?
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide.
Facism, violence, and genocide.
*** 92:8 ***
Turnspeak has become the order of the day. The CIA cooked up the Big Lie theory decades ago in a brilliant piece of opinion engineering work. A lie can sometimes be just too big to fail. Obama, our cute new born Moslem president, has turnspoke dozens of times now, but that, like Islam and its Moslems, is above question.
*** 70:1 ***
You can question a Moslem or two, maybe even a group of a few hundred, but you can't question all Moslems collectively in the form of Islam and its Ummah.
Why, that would violate their rights as All Men Are Created Equal, it would be illegal and attract lawyers like bugs to discarded bad meat. Verboten!
I was banned from Hot Air Watch (formerly known as LGF) for being a "Spencer and Geller lover".
That was the worse thing they could say about me.
The statement and sentiment reminded me of an older, anti-black-person epithet.
Hector
It wasn't deleted. It was never posted. The other link that was removed was to a series of lies and libels about me. I am sure you're well familiar with them and don't need the link.
As for the one you did link, I took a look. It is an extended (very extended) example of the familiar tu quoque fallacy in which Islamic apologists always indulge: other people have done evil, and therefore our evil is not so bad or not to be spoken of. There are two chief problems with this:
1. I have never said or implied that Muslims have a monopoly on evil. Every group has been guilty of some wrongdoing. Does this mean we should not discuss the threats to human rights constituted by Islamic supremacism? I don't think so.
2. Even if what this person is saying were true, the whole premise is wrong: the church never had a "doctrine" regarding these matters. These were practices applied in various times and places, never universally, and not based on any church law. In fact, the Popes consistently opposed the persecution of the Jews. This is in sharp contrast to the laws of dhimmitude that are taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
And most importantly, no church is behaving in such ways as are described in this article today, but Islamic jihadists in Gaza and elsewhere have declared their intention to reimpose the dhimma on Jews and Christians when they are able to do so.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I wish I could remain as cool, calm, and collected in the face of Lizard-idiocy.
There is a reason that Spencer is highly respected.... and Chuck is not.
Peace.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
This is rather surprising coming from CJ.
In a 2007 post from LGF titled "Spencer vs. Armstrong" he says "Western apologists for Islam invariably resort to ad hominem attacks and obscure deceptions when they attempt to confront a knowledgeable critic like Robert Spencer;..."
You went from a "knowledgeable critic" to an "anti-islamic bigot" in just 2 years.
Has has consistently mocked Islam as the "Religion of Peace". He has posts titled:
"Religion of Peace vs. 3-Year Old Boy"
"CAMERA Blows the Whistle on CAIR"
"CAIR Sabotaging Anti-Terror Training in Seattle"
"New Hampshire Dhimmitude Watch"
Another post titled "Spencer Responds to Hooper's Smear" and states "Robert Spencer responds to CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper’s latest outrageous smears."
The list is rather "endless". Just search his site for "religion of peace".
I used to think CJ and LGF was a touch too right wing for me. Now I think he has gone way too far to the left.
Anyway I enjoy the site and keep up the good work.
Oh at last I found the secret for signing in!
Have to comment re Charles as I was barred from his site in June for sticking to my guns about liking Glenn Beck. (So he's emotional, etc. So what!) and in fact was signing up for his newsletter! Plus I thought his attitude toward Robert Spenser was wrong. WHACK!!!!! I was barred. Tisk Tisk! Never mind that Israel is my passion and I posted to LGF primarily because he supported Israel and at the time President Bush. Oddly enough no one there was interested in discussing Israel, though they were many Jews posting. I've learned more about Israel listening to Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, and they actually go to Israel! (Like me.)
I have revised CJ's words to be a Why I Parted Ways with the Left here.
After reading and sparing with Charles for four years I was coming to the conclusion that he is not just anti-creationist, I think he is anti-Christian. There was never one positive article about any Christian or group, it is as though he took a broad brush and painted us all the same. That could also be at the heart of his disparage of Robert, plus jealousy, because Robert is much better known and a far superior intellect.
After reading and sparing with Charles for four years I was coming to the conclusion that he is not just anti-creationist, I think he is anti-Christian. There was never one positive article about any Christian or group, it is as though he took a broad brush and painted us all the same. That could also be at the heart of his disparage of Robert, plus jealousy, because Robert is much better known and a far superior intellect.
Hector,
A pack of lying Muslims who blog in absolute anonymity is not a credible source of refutation of anything Spencer has presented over the years.
As others have alredy pointed out, that CJ is now lauded by the likes of loonybin watch and CAIR, whom LGF had castigated over the years, has become the pinnacle of irony.
With all due respect, Robert: "In fact, the Popes consistently opposed the persecution of the Jews" - really? I have a problem with that.
There were some pretty awful popes in the history of the church, and all the things that were done to Jews could hardly have been done without their consent. Throughout the history of the Catholic church we see consolidated efforts to reign in the bishops who were getting too powerful and who were also warlords, something which is probably very little known.
That aside, I don't think you can find much evidence that popes were opposed to the persecution of Jews....
Sheik
The record is not monochromatic, but actually, yes, I can find plenty.
First, the bad news. Pope Zachary reaffirmed a prohibition on intermarriage. Leo VII directed the archbishop of Mainz to expel Jews who refused to convert to Christianity from cities within his diocese. Pope Gregory VII forbade Jews to hold authority over Christians.
The Fourth Lateran Council decreed in 1215 that Jews must wear distinctive garb—a directive initially emphasized, then suspended, then insisted upon again by Pope Honorius III. Gregory IX led a campaign against Jewish books that led to a massive book-burning in Paris. Nicholas III required Jews to assemble to hear proselytizing sermons and ordered that those who had been baptized but then returned to Judaism be “turned over to the secular power”—which meant almost certain execution. Honorius IV wrote a letter to the English bishops warning them about Jewish efforts to convert Christians—which ultimately led to the expulsion of the Jews from England. Pope John XXII resumed the campaign against Jewish books, ordering the Talmud suppressed. Centuries later, in 1858, police of the Papal States seized a six-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, from his family because a Catholic servant girl who worked for the family had baptized him. Pope Pius IX refused numerous entreaties to return the boy to his family. Mortara became a Catholic priest and died in 1940. Many consider the incident one of the chief obstacles to the canonization of Pius IX.
But as I said, the papal record is not monochromatic. Historian and Rabbi David Dalin says this: “The historical fact is that popes have often spoken out in defense of the Jews, have protected them during times of persecution and pogroms, and have protected their right to worship freely in their synagogues. Popes have traditionally defended Jews from wild anti-Semitic allegations. Popes regularly condemned anti-Semites who sought to incite violence against Jews.”
This is not, as some might think, a strictly modern phenomenon. For instance, Pope Gregory I, who wrote harshly of the Jews’ rejection of Christ, nevertheless issued an edict dictating that Jews “should have no infringement of their rights. … We forbid to vilify the Jews. We allow them to live as Romans and to have full authority over their possessions.” When a bishop in Palermo seized a synagogue and converted it into a church, the building could not be returned to its former owner because it had now been consecrated; however, Gregory ordered the bishop to pay the owners a fair price, so that the Jews “should in no way appear to be oppressed, or to suffer an injustice.” He also forbade forced conversion of Jews, a prohibition later repeated by Gregory IV.
Pope Gregory I’s directives formed the basis of the Jews’ status in Western Europe for a considerable time thereafter. Pope Alexander II commended bishops in Narbonne and Spain for protecting Jews from attacks by Christians. When would-be Crusaders massacred Jews in Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Cologne, and elsewhere before the First Crusade, it is noteworthy that local bishops often acted to end these slaughters. Pope Calixtus II thereafter reaffirmed Gregory’s prohibition of attacks on Jews, and also forbade forced conversion and attacks on synagogues.
The popes also held fast against forced conversions and attacks on the Jews. Pope Innocent III, although he condemned Jews as “the sons of the crucifiers, against whom to this day the blood cries to the Father’s ears,” stated: "For we make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism.
Too, no Christian ought to presume…wickedly to injure their persons, or with violence to take away their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit. Besides, in the celebration of their own festivals, no one ought to disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. In addition to these, We decree…that no one ought to dare to mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried."
Those who dared transgress these prohibitions were threatened with excommunication. Innocent also noted that Calixtus and four other popes had extended the same protections to the Jews. According to Dalin, “Calixtus’s defense of the Jews, with its promise of continuing papal protection, was reissued at least twenty-two times by successive popes between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries.”
Of course, this reissuing wouldn’t have been necessary if Jews were not continually being attacked in Europe. Many of these attacks centered around the “blood libel,” the contention that Jews killed Christian children and mixed their blood into their Passover matzoh. Pope Innocent IV issued a strong denial of the blood libel, as did Gregory X, Martin V, and Sixtus IV. Paul III denounced those who “pretend, in order to despoil them of their goods, that the Jews kill little children and drink their blood.” That this had to be repeated over several centuries testifies to the persistence of the libel in Christian Europe, but nevertheless, excommunication was consistently the penalty for those who spread such stories or victimized Jews on such a basis.
Gregory X also affirmed the validity of Jewish testimony, declaring, “An accusation against Jews based solely on the testimony of Christians was invalid; Jewish witnesses must also appear.” Clement VI defended Jews from charges that they were responsible for the Black Death; Boniface IX granted full Roman citizenship to Jews; Martin V directed that “every Christian treat the Jews with a humane kindness” and forbade preachers “to preach against the Jews, to attempt to interrupt their normal relations with their neighbors, to infringe upon their religious rights, or to exclude them from normal activities (including attendance at universities).” He also reaffirmed the repudiation of the blood libel.
Leo X ordered the entire Talmud to be printed by a Christian printer in Rome so as to discourage anti-Semitic rumors about its contents. Clement VII commissioned a new translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, to be completed by six Christians and six Jews working together.
Innocent X and Benedict XIV both worked to end the blood libel and the persecution of Jews in Poland. Leo XIII spoke out in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, a French military officer wrongly accused of treason in a notorious case. Pius X and Benedict XV acted against anti-Semitism in Italian politics and media. It was thus not without justification that Pius XI was able to write in 1928: “Moved by this Christian charity, the Holy See has always protected this people [the Jews] against unjust vexations, and just as it reprobates all rancour and conflicts between peoples, it particularly condemns unreservedly hatred against the people once chosen by God: the hatred that commonly goes by the name of anti-Semitism.” Pius XI used his encyclical letter Mit Brennender Sorge — pointedly written in German instead of Latin, and directed to the German bishops — to condemn the anti-Semitism of the Nazi regime. The Nazis, in response, forbade its publication in Germany and denounced Pius XI as half-Jewish. That encyclical, drafted by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who two years later became Pope Pius XII, declared: "Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."
When Vienna’s Cardinal Innitzer rang the city’s church bells to celebrate Hitler’s entry into the city after the Anchluss in 1938, Pius XI called Innitzer to Rome and rebuked him — and, according to historian Michael Phayer, had the rebuke “communicated through diplomatic channels to the United States so that world governments would know where the Vatican stood regarding Hitler’s Germany.” On September 6, 1938, he told a group of pilgrims from Belgium that “anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually, we are all Semites.”
The record of Pope Pius XII is controversial, but there has been a good deal of misinformation publicized about it. In reality, he helped save many hundreds of thousands of Jews. The campaign to blacken his name began later. In 1985, when Cardinal Palazzini was honored at Yad Veshem for his efforts to save Jews in Italy during the Holocaust, he said: "The merit is entirely Pius XII's, who ordered us to do whatever we could to save the Jews from persecution."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
CLL1709 you got it.
I used to read LGF daily and I thought I had lost my mind because CJ changed the direction of the site under my nose.
We used to laugh about "work accidents","car swarms" and other happenings at the expense of "paleo-stinians". Then suddenly the original posters were unacceptable. More and more got the ban stick, I just went away because of the relentless anti-Christian crap.
Hey everyone, forgive me if you already know this or if someone's already posted it, but don't give that fool Charles any more site traffic. To view his site, go to Google and search this: cache:littlegreenfootballs.com. That will give you Google's cache of the page, and you'll have the satisfaction of not giving that lying idiot any traffic.
traeh~
I'm with you 100%. I do like Robert Spencer and have all of his books. I can't understand why acknowledging the threat of radical Islam is so politicized. I'm a liberal independent and I support thoughtful progressive politics which is why I stand fervently opposed to Islamo-fascism.
He is getting slow too, writing "4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)"
He hasn't about climategate yet? Or is he the denier now?
Del,
On the part of Totten, it is malice, not misunderstanding. It is important to raise awareness of neoliberal-neocons, because they are particularly insidious. Most of them are Jews or have some Jewish background, and they pretend to support Israel, when it suits their agenda. This, and their lip service to "opposing Islamic extremism" should not fool anyone, because their activity serves opposite ends. They are united in their pathological hate of Russia, that goes beyond bizarre. In case of the war criminal Gen. Wesley Clark, for instance, the reason, apparently, is a great-aunt raped in Ukraine nearly 100 years ago. So he takes it out on today's Russia. But because he cannot kill Russians yet (he tried, ordering British troops under his command attack Russian peacekeepers in 1999, but they refused), the Serbs are "close enough". The Serbs who suffered so horribly in both world wars for being loyal to the English, French and Americans. The Serbs who have always been pr0-Western. The Serbs who refused to join the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and kept Russia out of the Balkans which served the strategic interests of the US. And yet, because the Serbs are kin to the Russians and practice the same Orthodox Christian faith, the NNs sadistically torment them as "substitute Russians", and also see it as "realistic practice" for the "big job" on Russia. Another motivation for their unrelenting drive to bring about the demise of Russia is that they are part of the "Let American Empire Rule The World" crowd that seeks to eliminate any rivals of the United States in the world, first of all Russia and China, so our American Empire reign supreme. They articulated their grand designs in their Project for the New American Century manifesto. Needles to say, this global Great Game is an enormous distraction from the urgent task at hand, which is the fight for very basic physical survival against the Muslims, which is bad enough both for us and Israel. Even worse, the NNs blind hate for Russia has led them to unsavory alliances with other Russia-haters, such as the poisonous Brzezinski, an enemy of Israel, such as the Nazi Croats whose entire modern history consists of being allies to both German Nazis and the Islamo-Nazis, such as Nazistic West-Ukrainian UNA-UNSO who seek to serve as "Croats against Russia", and who are proudly boast of taking part in Islamic Jihads in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs and in Chechnya against the Russians. Such as the Nazi Estonians who celebrate their Waffen SS heroics in WWII. And Johnson with his NNs is accusing Robert of siding with "fascists". But the worst of all, NNs, Brzezinski and their Nazi allies are actively courting the Muslims as their allies against both Russia and China, and are eager to go to great lenghths to aid the Global Jihad, hoping to redirect it against Russia and China. Needless to say, this is a mortal threat to Israel, whom the Empire crowd sees as an annoing obstacle to their strategic Grand Alliance with the Global Islamic jihad. Just listen to Brzezinski's rantings. And the NNs, Jewish or not, are in his corner. The NNs are enemies of Israel and Western civilization. Their imperial adventures brought nothing but global disaster to the US, and caused serious harm to Israel, but they have no intention to stop.
A case in study is a dastardly neoliberal-neocon Jew "judge" Richard Goldstone who started by persecuting the Serbs, and now does the same evil unto Israel - both to please the Muslims.
Jewish Zionists and other friends of Israel: study this specimen and learn to recognize the NN vermin among the Jews! Isolate those traitors to the Jewish people and don't fall for their lies, even if they profess to be Israel's friends! Even Goldstone and his daughter have a nerve to speak about this scoundrel's "connection" to Israel, saying that he "cares" about Israel! Put a spotlight on those insidious enemies! Serbia is the litmus test to recognize an NN, all of whom are enemies of the Serbian people. The Jewish people: reject the NNs and embrace the Serbs!
Glory to Zionism! Down with the NNs!
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
C.J. should be nominated for dhimmi of the year, for he now poses as a classic handwringer , and attempts to curry favor with radical muslims . For what reasons ?
First off , Charles finally realized that he had created a following of right wing sychophants who would drule over his every word , but then as they went over the edge ,diversions were devised to deflect attention away from what even Johnson himself ,saw as idiotic and foolish .
So then the obsession with anti-creationism , an attack on the christian right , Charles became a crusader for pure science , and unknowingly exposing himself as an atheist .
After that became played out , Johnson propped himself up as The Champion of " anti-islamophobia " turning on and sticking a knife in the back of Robert Spencer .
And the sychophants faithfully followed in unison . Their views shift with the wind , and "the wind " of course is Charles Johnson .
In addition to selling out his freinds , lol...and his own sychophants who are probably choking on his views on Obama , there is that old common denominator of " gathering advertising bucks ....Amazon would not really want to be connected with anyone who would tell the truth about Islam , or atleaast a blog that may "anger the barbarians " .
So the diversionary targets become Spencer , creationists , and the right wing extremist idiots he helped to coagulate on his blog .
Now i can understand , trying to make money , and there are points both on the left and right which in my opinion are valid , just as those which are idiotic , but to sell your ass , like Charles has done in the past year , regarding something as SERIOUS AND GRAVE , like the TRUTH about Islam , and systematically attack the champions who have made invaluable contributions to exposing this national and worldwide threat [AT GREAT PERSONAL RISK]is ...well is just prostituting one's views and influence .
Keep up the GOOD WORK Mr.Spencer , you have more COURAGE in your little toe than Johnson has in his whole body -plus any hundred of his sychophants .
C.J. should be nominated for dhimmi of the year, for he now poses as a classic handwringer , and attempts to curry favor with radical muslims . For what reasons ?
First off , Charles finally realized that he had created a following of right wing sychophants who would drule over his every word , but then as they went over the edge ,diversions were devised to deflect attention away from what even Johnson himself ,saw as idiotic and foolish .
So then the obsession with anti-creationism , an attack on the christian right , Charles became a crusader for pure science , and unknowingly exposing himself as an atheist .
After that became played out , Johnson propped himself up as The Champion of " anti-islamophobia " turning on and sticking a knife in the back of Robert Spencer .
And the sychophants faithfully followed in unison . Their views shift with the wind , and "the wind " of course is Charles Johnson .
In addition to selling out his freinds , lol...and his own sychophants who are probably choking on his views on Obama , there is that old common denominator of " gathering advertising bucks ....Amazon would not really want to be connected with anyone who would tell the truth about Islam , or atleaast a blog that may "anger the barbarians " .
So the diversionary targets become Spencer , creationists , and the right wing extremist idiots he helped to coagulate on his blog .
Now i can understand , trying to make money , and there are points both on the left and right which in my opinion are valid , just as those which are idiotic , but to sell your ass , like Charles has done in the past year , regarding something as SERIOUS AND GRAVE , like the TRUTH about Islam , and systematically attack the champions who have made invaluable contributions to exposing this national and worldwide threat [AT GREAT PERSONAL RISK]is ...well is just prostituting one's views and influence .
Keep up the GOOD WORK Mr.Spencer , you have more COURAGE in your little toe than Johnson has in his whole body -plus any hundred of his sychophants .
Bob,
Nice topic. hehe
I knew there was something wrong with has-been jazz guitarrist for a while.
Robert,
The Vatican has a very 'two faced' policy regarding the Jews. It has an insanely powerful propaganda reach, which has scrubbed the history of its support for the Croatian Ustashe, its support for the forced conversion of Serbs, and its alliance with Islam's hatred of Israel.
I wish that Yad Vashem was a perfect barometer for 'good' vs. 'evil', but it too has caved at times to the revisionist history being told by greater powers. American RC's tend to be good people, unaware or in denial of much of the Vatican's history.
Some of it has been documented in books by Edwin Black and/or Christopher Simpson.
In 1948-49, the Vatican allied with Israel's Islamist enemies. The Vatican is one of several outside powers that has facilitated jihad against the Jews of the ME.
From Julio Alvarez del Vayo's 7 December 1946 Nation column, "The People's Front":
"The "war" between Jews and Arabs started later, as a result of the work done by Bishop Macinnes, a notorious anti-Semite who was sent by the British to Jerusalem, and by Cardinal Barlassina, the Vatican representative. With the aid of General Storrs, who was then governor of Jerusalem, they brought the Mufti's family to power, supplying funds and other forms of help in an effort to delay the logical solution of the Palestine problem."
Interesting articles I've uploaded:
http://www.box.net/shared/86jltj9p8i/rss.xml
'Vatican and Israel' from The Nation, 1950:
"As recently- as 1949 the Vatican’s radio station referred to Zionism as “the new Nazism.” Archbishop I Arthur Hughes, Apostolic Internuncio to Egypt, charged in the fall of 1948 that Israel’s policy toward Arab refugees was a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and destroy Christianity [sic) in. Palestine,” and quoted a Pdestine priest to the effect that “Jews are displaying particular hatred - against our Catholic institutions,”
a charge which was later proved unjustified."
Not saying that the Vatican is always 'evil'--only that it is one of many that has had the chance to rewrite its history.
Robert,
The Vatican has a very 'two faced' policy regarding the Jews. It has an insanely powerful propaganda reach, which has scrubbed the history of its support for the Croatian Ustashe, its support for the forced conversion of Serbs, and its alliance with Islam's hatred of Israel.
I wish that Yad Vashem was a perfect barometer for 'good' vs. 'evil', but it too has caved at times to the revisionist history being told by greater powers. American RC's tend to be good people, unaware or in denial of much of the Vatican's history.
Some of it has been documented in books by Edwin Black and/or Christopher Simpson.
In 1948-49, the Vatican allied with Israel's Islamist enemies. The Vatican is one of several outside powers that has facilitated jihad against the Jews of the ME.
From Julio Alvarez del Vayo's 7 December 1946 Nation column, "The People's Front":
"The "war" between Jews and Arabs started later, as a result of the work done by Bishop Macinnes, a notorious anti-Semite who was sent by the British to Jerusalem, and by Cardinal Barlassina, the Vatican representative. With the aid of General Storrs, who was then governor of Jerusalem, they brought the Mufti's family to power, supplying funds and other forms of help in an effort to delay the logical solution of the Palestine problem."
Interesting articles I've uploaded:
http://www.box.net/shared/86jltj9p8i/rss.xml
'Vatican and Israel' from The Nation, 1950:
"As recently- as 1949 the Vatican’s radio station referred to Zionism as “the new Nazism.” Archbishop I Arthur Hughes, Apostolic Internuncio to Egypt, charged in the fall of 1948 that Israel’s policy toward Arab refugees was a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and destroy Christianity [sic) in. Palestine,” and quoted a Pdestine priest to the effect that “Jews are displaying particular hatred - against our Catholic institutions,”
a charge which was later proved unjustified."
Not saying that the Vatican is always 'evil'--only that it is one of many that has had the chance to rewrite its history.
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)
Hmm, it looks like he's doing top ten lists now.
*** Ishaq 548 ***
The turn of Chaz and his precious LGF is notable not so much because it's so disgusting, but for how it symbolizes the whole cognitive dissonance thing. His flip-flop is about fear of the truth, fear of the directly available objective truth about factual reality. However, if you beget real bad discourse about the truth, as LGF did from the outset with its hundreds of banal idiotic posts on every thread, then you realize real bad developments. How can you dig into the truth about the Islam and the Moslems if you gone all fictive and dissonant?
*** 92:8 ***
The soap opera As Chaz Turns against a backdrop of turnspeak, a tableau made all the more disorienting with the appearance of our nation's first full-time turnspeak artist jpresident, the born Moslem Barry Osama, that's what Chaz was dealing with when he suddenly starting stabbing for a grip on reality, hoping for maybe a foothold in an acceptable reality. He didn't get it, he fell, so what he did was to sign on the Islam Fictive Reality.
*** Bukhari Vol 6 Bk 60 Nbr 662 ***
Too big to fail. Just like Citi, Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie. Like those companies, the Moslems manning Islam, Inc. are too big to fail, and much worse they're too scary to fail. So we prop them up in our minds, clinging to the shred of hope that these Moslems can do it, that they can somehow civilize themselves and raise themselves up from near animalistic behavior.
*** 92:8 ***
But Chaz's prop fell to the floor, and he went down with it. Way down.
To Robert Spencer:
I did a debate on the rifqa Bart case before which I lost horribly. I have come to the conclusion that you an your readers are smart, at the same time, very decietful. Don't feel too proud for beating me in debate; I'm only Fourteen years old. Anyways i would like you to explain this:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/robert-spencer-is-a-chicken/
Also I HAVE TRIED contacting u, but u never replied. My email is imadl95@gmail.com. Plz email me cuz I wanna start a debate with u on the topic of chapter one in your best selling book, The politically incorrect guide to Islam and the crusades.
Once again you will probably pummel me in debate, but I just want to try my chances.