Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Charles Johnson Browbeat Forbes' Abigail Esman After She Correctly Noted That Anders Breivik Voluminously Cited Little Green Footballs

"I've never seen such craven, dishonest spinning."
That's Charles Johnson attacking Bill O'Reilly. But it's actually a perfect self-description. And a textbook case of psychological projection. King Charles has been working feverishly to not only destroy his political enemies following the Norway massacre, but to also obliterate the facts of his post-9/11 counter-jihad blogging. And it's astonishing, but I don't think there's a single person more invested in the crass exploitation of these murders — and that's saying a lot. The other day, Forbes writer Abigail Esman wrote an analysis of the Norway killings: "What Really Lies Behind The Oslo Attacks – And Why It May Happen Again." Discussing Anders Behring Breivik, Esman wrote:
... he frequently praises a writer who goes by the name “Fjordman” and who is well known on the conservative, largely anti-Islam circuit; and he often cites posts from the site Little Green Footballs and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugged, both of which are popular not only among anti-Islam activists, but amon[g] even more moderate types concerned about the rise of radical Islam in the West.
She linked to both Little Green Footballs and Atlas Shrugs at the quote, and The Lizard King fired off a blog post as soon as he checked his traffic stats: "Forbes Writer Gets Oslo Terrorist Story Very Wrong."

Actually, no. Folks should cruise around at Diary of Daedalus blog, which has chronicled just how intimately the work of Little Green Footballs played into the deranged mind of a killer. See "Rescued from Memory Hole: The Lost LGF “Fjordman” Articles," and especially, "Little Green Footballs, Anders Breivik’s and the United States Blog-based Anti-Jihad Movement":
The political left has been gleeful poring over the many references to certain anti-Islamist blog personalities mentioned in the document, and these sites have been diligently mining the 1500 plus page manuscript for juicy references to their favorite adversaries on the conservative right.

Unfortunately, most of these leftist bloggers and news sources are either myopic in their journalistic skills, or worst, just plain dishonest actors. Over and over they have pounced on every reference in the manifesto to persons such as Bat Ye’or, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, the mysterious writer “Fjordman,” Daniel Pipes and MEMRI, while at the same time, almost totally ignoring the former leader of this “movement” of anti-Islamic sentiment, the blog Little Green Footballs and it’s founder Charles Johnson.
No doubt. (And continue reading here.) Diary of Daedalus notes that since 2007 Charles Johnson has been aggressively attempting to "convince people that he was never the person imagined on LGF, pre-2007, that he was always “fair and balanced” and that he never harbored any animosities toward any aspect of Islam or the political left." It's a mind-boggling thing.

In any case, Little Green Footballs is cited a number of times by Anders Behring Breivik. Abigail Esman was absolutely correct to note that Charles Johnson's blog was a major source for the murderer. But King Charles couldn't handle the truth. He apparently berated and browbeat the Forbes author, harassing her by e-mail on several occasions, until Esman removed his name hoping to end the abuse. See the comments at Esman's essay:


I can understand Esman's desire to prevent further attacks from Charles Johnson. Yet it serves as one more example of those who stand for the truth being beaten down by the progressive destroyers of reason. At his post calling out Esman, King Charles writes:
I’ve had nothing to do with the “anti-Islam” blogosphere for years — in fact, they absolutely hate my guts. And Breivik did not cite posts from Little Green Footballs — he republished old articles by “Fjordman” that cited LGF, and he also cites many articles viciously attacking me.
That's an epic lie. Breivik did indeed "cite posts from Little Green Footballs." The fact is, Charles Johnson was one of the very most important counter-jihad bloggers and it was less the four years ago that he initiated his abandonment of the right. I mean, seriously. Breivik cited Little Green Footballs voluminously. Check this one again: "Little Green Footballs, Anders Breivik’s and the United States Blog-based Anti-Jihad Movement." Also: "The Charles Johnson / LGF Connection."

Folks can also go right to the source: "2083 – A European Declaration of Independence."


Zilla said...

Great job, Donald! What a creepy creep that LGF guy is!

Jason Pappas said...

Excellent point. LGF was one of the major "salons" in the counter-jihadi movement. Many of us met there and have fond memories. I was overjoyed that a left-leaning fellow (Charles Johnson) was part of the coalition (like I welcomed Bruce Bawer, and several feminists as well as Paul Berman). We understood that our differences are minor compared to the intolerance and illiberal nature of fundamentalist Islam.

I met many wonderful people on my blog in its heyday but I was saddened when many of our more left-leaning slowly departed or moved on to other concerns. I miss those days. The counter-jihadi movement was much healthier as a broader coalition.

It is interesting that no one mentions Ibn Warraq. He is virtually the primal source of counter-jihadi literature. But he is a "secular humanist" whose first book, "Why I am not a Muslims" was purposefully named after Bertram Russell's "Why I am not a Christian." The counter-jihadi movement was born not as a Christian Identity Movement but as an Enlightenment Affirmation Movement. Reason and rational discourse are it's founding principles.

are said...

Here's the thing about this situation: Johnson claimed that Breivik did not quote him. That's actually untrue. What I cited in my piece was not Breivik's manifesto, but, and Breivk's posts to that site, in which he linked directly to a post by Mr. Johnson. In turn, that post by Johnson referred to an article about Muslims overrunning Christians.

It was, however, not (as he claims) because he "threatened" to contact my editors (who wouldn't have paid much attention, since what I stated was true), but because he wasn't worth fighting with that I removed the reference. The larger point of the piece was more important. But I thank you for pointing out that my research was accurate, my reporting was on target, and that the manipulations of truth on the part of LGF were, and remain, irresponsible.