Charles Johnson did a lot of good early work in exposing Islam. However, Charles is now in an awkward place ideologically due to his own homosexuality and the contradictions of this position vs the outlook of the rest of Western Conservatism/Rightwing thought.Interestingly, I've actually noticed something of a meeting of the minds recently between Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan, who is gay (see, "Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at Birth?"). I don't see any mention of Johnson's sexual orientation at his Wikipedia entry. Neither is there mention at a Washington Post essay cited therein. It notes at the New York Sun that Johnson was "profoundly scarred by a bitter divorce in the late 1990s." But as he's in California, it's safe to assume that was a heterosexual marriage.
Johnson's sexual orientation is his own business. AND TO REPEAT: To each his own. My interest here is that a confirmed homosexual orientation would tell us a great deal about Johnson's blogging. Like Andrew Sullivan, Johnson's a Catholic who's losing his religion (Wikipedia identifies him as "agnostic").
A Google search turned up a mention of Johnson's possible homosexuality here: "I had heard several times that Johnson is homosexual, but knew nothing about it and never commented on it."
Apparently, the readers there were involved in a flame war with Little Green Footballs, and Johnson redirected the incoming links to A BRIGHT FLASHING WEBSITE WITH THE MESSAGE "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" (so, DON'T CLICK the link if you're a photosensitive epileptic). As a result, one reader with a neural disorder suffered a seizure. Check the entire thread, here.
In any case, I was thinking about Charles Johnson's blogging in the wake of the shooting at the Holocaust Memeorial. At his first post, Charles reports that "A white supremacist is the suspect in a shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum." In the updates, he notes that the suspect, James von Brunn, is a "nirther" (an Obama birth certificate activist) and a Holocaust denier. Yet he concludes by noting that how Brunn's attack would "vindicate" the DHS report warning of right-wing extremism.
If so, that would "vindicate" all the agitation against the extreme right at Little Green Footballs. Funny, notice how Johnson introduces his post on Nick Griffin, the new British National Party MEP who was egged the other day:
The Holocaust-denying leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, now a member of European Parliament, was forced to abandon a press conference today when demonstrators showed up throwing eggs.Basically, a U.S. Holocaust denier gets a boost if he "vindicates" widely rebuked the DHS report, but a British Holocaust denier get a Scarlett Letter before his name, since such identifcation would further Johnson's jihad against Pamel at Atlas Shrugs, Robert at Jihad Watch, and Sammy at Yid With Lid.
I'll have more later. As my friend Shoprat once said of Johnson, at this post, "He's done an Andrew Sullivan. No other way to put it."
And that's that thing. If he's really done an "Andrew Sullivan," then he's not really a conservative blogger any more ...
See also, "Charles Johnson and the Truth about Atheism."
6 comments:
Johnsons’s statement is disturbing, if not just for the tacit suggestion that the GOP alter fundamental principles to win an election:
Johnson: “If the GOP decides to go in the Bobby Jindal direction (fundamental Christianity, creationism, hard-line anti-abortionism, aggressively anti-gay rights), it will be committing political suicide. As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.”
The Gay question aside (BTW, I am more annoyed at the homosexuals for managing to redefine the word “gay” from its prior social and literary usage than I am for much else), while we may differ on some details over neo-conservatives, social-conservatives, etc. we should never change our basic principles. And, I would argue over the use of the accuracy of the suggestion of “aggressive.” He is not one of us I would guess just based on this tirade.
Gutsy post, Dr. D.
As I have said before, Charles Johnson is going to be the next David Brock.
Its only a matter of time now.
-Dave
I don't care if he is "happy" or not. LGF is a waste of time. Andrew Sullivan is a futz. I pay them no attention worthy of comment. I don't have time to babysit Obama drones.
Seriously? You're going to make an issue out of his alleged homosexuality? Look, I'm a fire-breathing right-winger, but just leave it alone. It makes you--and by extension, us--look bad.
Yes. Charles is gay, and his sexual orientation is a factor in his ideological positions.
Charles Johnson's quite open ideological switch in recent times is related to the gay marriage debate (by proxy), and Johnson's own sexual identity.
Charles is not openly gay. However, if he was, things would be a lot clearer for the people who are scratching their heads as to why he 'flipped'.
Johnson's later-day attacks on 'creationists' etc, is his attack-by-proxy against the religious forces he views as denying gay rights. His sudden interest in Christians and creationism, time wise, aligns with the rise of the gay-marriage debate on the national (& international) stage.
Johnson's position has developed into a frustration and personal estrangement with the wider US Conservative movement.
Johnson's original focus upon radical Islam was sparked by similar concerns (for him personally) about Islamism's threat to liberal democratic values (which of course, include gay rights).
It is for the same reason that Johnson later began attacking segments of the European anti-Jihad movement - because these groups were also opposed to wider acceptance of homosexuality (some strongly so).
When you approach Johnson's changing views from this vantage point, there is consistency in his motivation.
Others have also come to the same conclusion, that yes, Johnson is gay.
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-thats-it-lizard-is-gay.html
Consider this. When did Johnson ever mention interest in a woman, a potential new relationship, or any heterosexually grounded personal expression at all? As in a simple "She's hot"?
He doesn't. Just many, many photos of bike seats...
Post a Comment