Little Green Monsters

Amen, brother. Amen!

I stumbled upon Little Green Footballs after the attacks, and was under the mistaken impression that it had always been that way it is now -- one-sided, propagandistic, etc. In my mind it was a site that, once obscure, had gotten some traction (and attention) as a result of people's reactions to Sept 11.

That it used to be a decent, balanced weblog makes it all the sadder.

I appreciate the fact that there are folks like Anil willing to offer up commentary about other weblogs. (sarcasm: no). Too many personal Web sites exist in this kind of vacuum - it's good to remind folks that when they muse aloud about a subject, they're not musing in an empty room.

I feel the same way Anil. I used to enjoy reading LGF, but I can't stand it anymore. Charles used to also be a great resource on the webdesign-l list (where I initially found out about LGF), but I haven't been on that list for a while so I couldn't say whether he's still there or not. Once he jumped into warblogger mode, I haven't been back to LGF.

I still go back to LGF about once a month, "just to see" whether Charles has rejoined the ranks of the sane. Or, if not sane, let's say interesting. I don't understand how anyone can think what LGF's current form is worth reading. Come back, Charles!

Like Graham, I remember what LGF was like before and have visited a few times since. Each visit has left me disappointed and disgusted and so I've decided not to ever go back.

I agree completely. Thanks for actually having the cajones to say something. The tone of LGF became intensely angry and hateful post 9/11. Which is a human response, I guess, but for the tone of his weblog to STILL be this angry 11 months later just kinda saddens me.

Although, I think with all the new press he has received, I don't ever think the weblog will get back to its pre-9/11 ways.

This sort of peer-group-shaming is what keeps many from being frank about their [true] feelings. Many pre-9/11 bloggers put up a facade of "nothing-ever-happened" and are overly concerned about losing their 300 hits or hurting the feelings of unknown browsers.

Dan Hartung routinely gets panned in MetaFilter for his thoughts on the war. While I disagree with him more frequently now, but I still read his site almost daily (or when he updates). He tries to write his reasons for his opinions. That is an admirable quality. I respect that. Warblogging has been especially good for Steven Den Beste. He now gets twice as much hits as Kottke, and that too, ever after closing off his message boards. Reading SDB feels like Tom Clancy Lite. Also, without as much actual research.

Charles Johnson made a decision to be frank and open about what's in his mind. Why criticize him for it? I had never read LGF pre-9/11, and still don't read it now. My only thought on him was not too positive. Consider this, what radio people call, a "format change." I have always considered the blog-format to be the textual version of talk-radio. Lot of yapping, but entertaining to those who care. At some point soon after 9/11 Charles Johnson decided that he'd drop his "All Things Considered" format and be "Rush Limbaugh." Why exactly is that so deplorable?

It's not deplorable, and I don't mean to suggest that it is. I'm very leery of this becoming a "my team vs. his team" pissing match in the comments. I'm not saying Charles can't write about whatever he wants to, but rather that he seems to have lost the balance that made his site more human in its old incarnation.

To put it another way, the only success I've ever seen anyone appreciate while maintaining a weblog is when an author writes in a manner that pleases himself. Charles appears to be pandering to an audience that he wouldn't want to be associated with. I find that troubling, and I find it troubling that no one wants to discuss it.

To address your other points, I think this kind of post is the opposite of censoring one's feelings. Too many people are afraid to offend someone by pointing out objectionable behavior or critiquing another's writing. I don't have the luxury of pretending the attacks never happened, and I would be astounded if someone thought I feared my traffic going down or someone's feelings being hurt.

For what it's worth, I've noticed a decided rightward movement in Dan Hartung's writings, too, but I have no problem with that. He's stayed balanced, interesting, and literate. He still clearly writes for himself. Those are the points I'm trying to raise, not the specifics of someone's politics.

But Anil, unlike you, and until Charles Johnson comes out and says otherwise, I think he is writing his own words; and not just "pandering to an audience that he wouldn't want to be associated with". (Then again, I think the same of Bill O'Reilly.)

it's sortof funny how nearly all liberal [news] media views conservative media as narrow-minded and as having unbalanced arguments & reasoning. of course, me being a liberal, I think that a lot of media outlets (blogs, newspapers, magazines, cartoons) have taken the opportunity to retain their audiences while being more right-leaning/one-sided since Sept. 11. (stopping to think, liberal &/or radical media has also become more outspoken post Sept. 11 too. look who's one-sided.)

It's funny you mention Dan Hartung, tamin. He was the first person I saw that noted the shift at LGF. I couldn't find his original post, but I found a post about the same thing at Perpetual Beta. I used to love the old LGF, charles had some serious php kung fu and knew how to use it, but I remember the day I saw right-leaning Mike at perpetualbeta and left-leaning Dan at lakefx writing about their opposition to charles' new views, and I knew something serious had changed. What really, truly surprised me was seeing someone whose opinion I trusted and admired calling for all out racial profiling, and instead of meeting with opposition, there were a couple dissenting opinions, but the vast majority were in full support of his new found perspective. At that point, I stopped visiting the site, because it changed drastically for me as a reader. I check it every once in a while just to see if he's dropped his viewpoint, but it's always still there.

I guess it's just like a radio format change, but such a serious one that he might as well be posting in spanish, as I'm never going to read it regularly again.

Charles Johnson: In His Own Words

On being quoted by Mark Steyn:
"Coming from one of our favorite writers, this is quite an honor. Thanks, Mark." - 8/20/2002 @ 9:00 AM PST

On Matt/MetaFilter:
"There was a time when I would have cared what Matt Haughey thought. Now I realize he's just a juvenile know-nothing, with an irrelevant web site frequented by some of the web's most fluorescent idiots." - 8/20/2002 @ 11:03PM PST

"I was laboring under the obviously mistaken assumption that Matt Haughey had a bit of sense. Now I know he’s just another asshole in a crowd of assholes." - 8/21/2002 11:10AM PST

Unfiltered quotes, straight from the horse's mouth. I really don't see where he is "pandering to an audience that he wouldn't want to be associated with". Unless I am reading him wrong, and his site is a satire, I think he speaks what is in his mind and doesn't mind the company of his frequent visitors.

I see the point you're making, Tamim. That Charles is comfortable in the company of a large group of people, a significant minority of whom are unabashed racists. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What's interesting to me is that I'm not slighting Charles or his (non-racist) audience, or their beliefs, yet I've no doubt I'd be considered a fluorescent asshole, or whatever the epithet du jour is, by a rather signficant number of those people.

To put it another way: Those who believe, correctly, that contemporary Islam has lost its way in many countries and become a negative influence in its followers' lives, will not be helped by the rhetoric on LGF, and would not be served by being grouped with the extremists that frequently post comments there.

In accepting that audience over a more critical, but more thoughtful and productive audience that he used to have, Charles does himself and his abilities a disservice. And I think he's compromising the intellectual tone of his site in favor of a larger, less critical, more unthinking mass audience.

As for "Now I realize he's just a juvenile know-nothing, with an irrelevant web site frequented by some of the web's most fluorescent idiots." ...isn't that all of us? The difference is that some of us are aware of that fact.

Charles and his site are unquestionably racist. I am not someone to use that term lightly, I don't even think its true of many other conservatives who write in the same vein as Charles. But on Sept. 11th a switch was flipped and the man was unable to see clearly, and instead sees everything through a distorted, racist prism. I have read the site extensively for the first few months after 9/11, and kept waiting for it to change back to where it used to be-- reasonable and rational.

Now it is entirely irrational, he sees everyone who doesn't agree with his extremist point-of-view as "crazy" or an "asshole." He is consigned to the dust-bin of the intelligent blog world, and its too bad.

* As a disclaimer I read and have no problem with any of the other major "warbloggers". I may disagree with their opinions, but don't see the obsession bordering on mania that Charles has for certain racial/religious groups and any detractors.

I read LGF a little before his tone changed, I thought he was quite interesting then. I still read it every day, it's an educational experience.

But what I've noticed is lots of people, on- and off-line have changed too. People who once professed to be liberal, tolerant and open-minded have become chest-beating American patriots. Sometimes they aren't even American.

Maybe you folks who are condemning LGF should read it and learn something. Instead, you turn away because you don't want to have your pre-conceived beliefs challenged.

To those of you who say that LGF is racist, I say that speaking the truth is NEVER racist. Denying the truth in the name of multi-culturalism is ALWAYS racist.

Judging someone on their DNA is ALWAYS wrong. Beliefs are the only valid basis for judging people. What the folks at LGF have found is that Islam is a belief system that teaches hate of all non-muslims. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoarastrians are all targets of Islamic hate and we therefore judge Islam accordingly. Stating this fact is not racist. Denying this fact because most muslims are not white is racist.

So there you have it. You guys are the racist bigots.

Now, please return to your previously scheduled morally and intellectually bancrupt head-nodding.

"...intellectually bancrupt head-nodding."

Nah, too easy.

More on topic, I too remember LGF pre 9-11. Charles' was one of the first weblogs I frequented and taught me a great deal about the medium. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't seem very far from your generic hate site.

I still visit and occasionally post a dissenting view, my posts are quickly drowned in a sea of name calling (idiotarian seems to be a favorite). I had always considered comments being enabled on a weblog as a means of fostering discussion, Mr. Johnson seems to view them as a forum for those he agrees with to post increasingly strident rhetoric. It seems redundant and futile.

Certainly he can put whatever he wants on his site, but I don't have to read the hate filled meanderings of the lunatic fringe and that's exactly what it has turned into, a niche site filled with racist nutcases. I feel that Mr. Johnson *is* responsible for the comments he allows, as is the webmaster for any other such site (including the Islamic extremist sites they are so quick to attack. pot:kettle:black). One is judged by the company he keeps and Charles is keeping some pretty ugly company these days.

Nah, too easy.

You started off well. I actually thought you might rise to the challenge and make a point of substance or argue against my comments.

Alas, I was to be disappointed with a few paragraphs worth of head-nodding about the "racists nutcases." Did you really need to waste the electricity to reiterate this mindless drivel?

One is judged by the company he keeps

Wouldn't you call that profiling? I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King that one should be judged by the "content of his character." I judge yours to be lacking.

Actually, I don't see LGF as racist. What I see is someone saying "What we've been told for years about these folk (IE believers in Islam) being peaceful and kind and tolerant is just plain wrong, and we've been ignoring evidence to the contrary." And he's been posting pretty conclusive evidence to back up his assertions.

If he were, for example, holding up KKK sites as examples of the complete hatefulness of the Christian religions, it'd be easy enough to find other information where they've been condemned and disavowed by the mainstream Christian religions.

But you don't see that condemnation and disavowal in mainstream Islam. You hear an echoing silence - which makes you (or at least me) wonder if they're staying silent because they agree, or because they don't want the wrath of the fundamentalist Islamics coming down on them...

LGF brings up a lot of questions that need answers badly about how Islam operates and believes. Just because we don't like the answers we're expecting to get doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked - it makes it all the more vital that they be looked at.

J.

J, these are valid points. But I don't see condemnation and disavowal of the KKK by mainstream Christianity. And, honestly, I've been a lot more threatened in my life by people who identified as Christians than I have been by people who identified themselves as Muslims. That's just the truth of my life.

I'm not arguing that LGF doesn't raise important or valid points, I'm saying that the points are raised in a way that prevents discussion, instead of encouraging it. There's no debate over how these attitudes can be changed, how we can find a solution for fundamentalism of all stripes, or anything like that.

There's a lot of back-slapping congratulatory exhortations about how bad they is and how we oughtta go get 'em. I think it's ridiculous to claim that any religion is peaceful, but I don't see a willingness to call out extremist Christians, Jews, or Hindus, for example.

I've posted some more comments on Charles' site on a related thread.

Hi, Anil!

The KKK groups are pretty well ignored at this point for two reasons - they're exceedingly small subsets of the population, and their message does not strike a popular chord because the ignorance that allows such viewpoints is hard to maintain if someone's been raised with an open mind.

This is not to say that there's possibly mainstream folks and even politicians who believe that crap, but they'd never express it because they know it's a sure way to make themselves social pariahs. Expressing support for KKK ideals these days is sure death for a politician.

Witness Cynthia McKinney here in Atlanta - she started trying to play the race card and religion card, and lost bigtime.

As far as LGF discouraging discussion goes - I'll be honest. I'd LOVE to see some positive stuff on Islam there. Hell, I'd love to see positive stuff on Islam ANYWHERE. But to me, positive stuff isn't "We're a really peaceful religion, honest." It'd be more on the order of "Those nutcases who smashed into the WTC? We condemn them. The folks who insist on second class citzenship for women? That's not Islam."

And anyone who wants to can post info and links - LGF's gotten a fair bit of attention from Islamic sites, as you're likely aware - but there haven't been many who even attempt to refute what is posted.

Does silence = consent? Or, given the apparent tendency of the fundamentalists to label anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretations of Islam apostate, is the majority silent because of fear of their own religion?

The forum asks questions. The answers are lacking..

J.

Wouldn't you call that profiling? I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King that one should be judged by the "content of his character." I judge yours to be lacking.

This is exactly the type of thing that is so frustrating about this medium. After reading your post I can choose to ignore it, I can respond in kind and lower the tone of a productive thread or I can attempt to refute your points.I do admit to finding a certain irony in your beginning your participation by calling others 'racist bigots' and 'intellectually bancrupt (sic)' and then refuting my response with more of the same.

It was my hope to discuss whether one can assume a webmasters concordance with views posted on his site by virtue of their existence, or whether he/she is simply providing a forum. There is some pretty ugly stuff posted on a regular basis and when that is tolerated for a lengthy period of time I have to wonder about the complicity of the owner. I am interested in the distinction between discussion and graffiti scrawled on a wall. If dissent is muted and smothered in a flurry of ad hominum attacks and the recitation of pat buzzwords, I have a difficult time seeing the point of even enabling the feature.

By the way, the folks I invite into my home and offer sustenence to are an accurate reflection on my character. How that is related to profiling I fail to see. We don't choose our DNA, we do choose the people we interact with.

Anil,

There's no debate over how these attitudes can be changed, how we can find a solution for fundamentalism of all stripes, or anything like that.

Do you extend your condemnation of fundamentalism to postmodern-fundamentalism, multi-cultural-fundamentalism. I define fundamentalism as believing in discredited ideas in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Surely postmodernism and multi-culturalism are discredited.

Your writing here and on LGF indicates that you subscribe to these fundamentalist views. Your basic argument is to draw moral equivalence between Islam and other religions/cultures when all the objective evidence indicates there is no moral equivalence. Is this not fundamentalism?

The reason you got the reaction you did at LGF is not that you proposed alternative ideas for finding solutions. Rather, you waded in with facetious arguments about profiling with the insinuation that the participants on LGF were nothing but racists.

And of course all the head-nodders here agreed with you. They can't get past their indoctrination that if someone disagrees with them they must be racists. What complete nonsense.

So here is your chance. You say you want to find ways to change attitudes. Instead of sauntering in and making baseless accusations of racism, let's hear some of your ideas on how to solve problems. It is much easier to sit back and attack proposals made by others than to create and defend your own.

So how are you going to change attitudes? How do you propose to deal with Islamic terrorism?

And be prepared to defend your ideas.

I remember reading lgf daily before 9/11 and found it amazingly entertaining, even though I disagreed with many of his views.

I remember almost daily jokes about dubya, which, regardless how you feel about the man, served no real purpose.

After 9/11 the dubya jokes stopped and lgf changed in content and scope.

I didn't see anil or anyone else complaining before. Put quite simply, he was preaching to the converted. Now his preachings have changed and no longer subscribe to some readers views.

So A-listers, such as anil and haughey, condemn charles as close minded and no longer worth to read.

Which if fine. It's just too bad that those who disagree with charles make it into some kind of racist deal, though I'm not surprised, at least from this website.

Just because charles maybe more right leaning now, he's described as racist and close minded, and you decide he's not worth listening to anymore. Why? Because you don't share his views.

Now who's close minded?

This is exactly the type of thing that is so frustrating about this medium.

What you find frustating is that people disagree with you rather than nodding their heads in agreement. Maybe you are frustrated because your ideas are being challenged and failing. Dissonance is frustration.

This isn't Berkeley where debate is about leaving everybody with a warm and fuzzy feeling about how they "respected" everybody else's ideas. This is the real world where bogus ideas are picked apart, shredded, beaten, kicked and stomped. Get used to it.

The problem isn't the medium. The problem is that your message has no merit.

Maybe you are frustrated because your ideas are being challenged and failing.

The only problem here is that nothing I've said has been challenged... unless you count some silly name calling as a challenge.

The problem is that your message has no merit.

I wasn't even aware I had a message. By all means if you can find an idea to pick apart, shred or otherwise mutilate feel free. I ask specific questions about the role of discussion on a particular weblog and recieve generalizations that have no bearing on anything I wrote in response.

Your entirely right it's not Berkeley, they have some funny ideas about substance and reason.

Has it NEVER occurred to you that something may have happened in Charles' life that deeply connected him to this issue? Perhaps, for example, someone he knew and loved was on one of those airplanes that smacked into the buildings? Sometimes something happens after which life can never be the same again. How lucky you are and blessed by good fortune that you can sail through life as a disconnected spectator so that nothing that happens-- no current events, tornedos, floods or horrors-- ever touches you and causes you great pain. But you are being small-minded because you are not equipped with the inner resources to appreciate this in a mature manner. If you were so equipped, you could empathize with this kind of experience.

"Come back and join us."

In other words, think our way.

How lucky you are and blessed by good fortune that you can sail through life as a disconnected spectator so that nothing that happens-- no current events, tornedos, floods or horrors-- ever touches you and causes you great pain.

You're joking, right? Of all the particular straw men I've seen constructed, that might be among the most ludicrous.

Surely postmodernism and multi-culturalism are discredited.

Uh, what? You're saying that recognition of the fact that multiple cultures must co-exist is something that's been discredited? You stating it's so, or even assigning those names to some extremist goofballs as "proof" of its discredit, does not make it so.
"Come back and join us."
In other words, think our way.

No, I wouldn't want my anyone to agree with me if it weren't true. I would just like to be able to engage in a dialogue without being labelled unamerican or being treated as if I had nothing to contribute.

Al S.

I wasn't even aware I had a message.

If having a message means proposing ideas for dealing with Islamic terrorism, then no you don't. At least we agree on that.

However by making the statement - and I quote - that LGF is "a niche site filled with racist nutcases", you certainly are sending a message. The message you are sending is that criticising Islam is racist. I challanged your message by pointing out that Islam is a belief system that has nothing to do with race. When you discover the Islamic gene, I'll concede that criticising Islam is racism.

Just about all the arguments you left-wing-fundamentalist-extremists make fail when challenged. In desperation you guys resort to charging those who disagree with you with racism.

Perhaps you should be more judicious about making such charges. If you keep crying wolf you are providing cover for real racists.

Anil,

Uh, what? You're saying that recognition of the fact that multiple cultures must co-exist is something that's been discredited? You stating it's so, or even assigning those names to some extremist goofballs as "proof" of its discredit, does not make it so.

I'm not falling for your straw man Anil. The basis for postmodernism and multi-culturalism is that there is no objective basis for making value judgements about different cultures. It should be self-evident that this is patently ridiculous.

Let's consider the issue of slavery. You postmodern-multi-cultural-fundamentalists love to criticize America because a segment of our society practiced slavery. However, you fail to point out that as recently as 200 years ago, slavery was practiced and culturally accepted by most societies around the world. Using the concepts of postmodernism and multi-culturalism, right-minded people could not question this culturally accepted practice.

Moving on, let's consider the suttee which was practiced by your ancestors. For some reason, your ancestors thought it was a great idea to burn their widows on their husband's funeral pyres. It was only under British colonial rule that this barbaric practice was stopped in a decidedly non-multi-cultural way. There is a famous incident about a British officer who stopped a suttee. The people engaged in the suttee pleaded that this was part of their culture to which the British officer replied that it was part of his culture to hang people who burned women alive.

In the interest of equal time, it was the culturally accepted practice of my ancestors to burn "witches". Based on postmodernism and multi-culturalism there is no basis to question this hideous practice.

I could go on endlessly about barbaric culturally-accepted practices that could not be challenged based on the principles of postmodernism multi-culturalism. However, I think you get the idea.

Now let's consider your statement about co-existence of multiple cultures. I think this is a great idea as long as the concept of co-existence is reciprocated. However, what do you do if the fundamental concept of one of those co-existent cultures is that it must destroy and displace all other cultures?

That is the problem with Islam. It doesn't allow for the co-existence of other cultures. Unless you equate dhimmi status with co-existence.

"You're saying that recognition of the fact that multiple cultures must co-exist is something that's been discredited?"

Hypothesis: A meme has evolved in a multicultural atmosphere which demands the abolition/destruction of all competing memes/cultures. No competing meme is allowed to exist, according to the internal structure of this meme. To this end, the evolved meme includes internal approval and reward of any acts or methods necessary to eliminate competition to the main meme, and an error-correcting mechanism that discourages drift from the primary focus of spreading the meme and assimilation of other memes.

This meme is rapidly gaining members - to the point where (from a time when the meme was little to no threat) to a point where it actively threatens other memes.

Question 1: If a pre-existing meme emphasizes (or requires) cultural tolerance and acceptance as a part of it's structure, should that meme be allowed or encouraged to change to deal with a destructive meme?

Question 2: If a pre-existing meme explictly rejects the possibility that other memes may be harmful and/or destructive, and explicitly rejects ideas of the defense of the meme, what will the end result be if that meme runs up against a destructive meme?

Question 3: If it is possible for pre-existing tolerant memes to modify the internal structure of the destructive meme so it is no longer a threat, do the existing memes have the right to do so to ensure their own survival?

Question 4: Do memes exist?

Happy Monday!

J.

Perhaps you should be more judicious about making such charges. If you keep crying wolf you are providing cover for real racists.

Your entirely correct, my use of the term racist will poorly considered and a sweeping generalization. I have little doubt based upon reading LGF that there are racists that frequent the site (like there are anyplace else you go) but it was wrong of me to attribute the behavior to everyone. I apologise to anyone offended, especially those who have truly been persecuted on the basis of race.

In my defense I can only say Mr. Johnson and much of his readership paint the terrorist threat with very broad strokes. When Arab becomes a synonym for terrorist, charges of racism is not all that big a stretch. Similar to the all too common assumption that all Jews support Isreali policy and are Zionists.

As far as not providing solutions the reason is quite simple, I don't have any.However, I never claimed that I did and in my posts was making an effort to remain on topic; that being the evolution of one given site.

Let me get this straight: You're arguing that the British occupation force taught the people of the Indian subcontinent about nonviolence?

I don't doubt that there were some British soldiers who acted in good conscience to save those religious nuts from themselves, but I'd say the majority of the reason that idiotic practice was stopped was due to the leadership of Hindu priests who forbade it. Or do you think that violently fundamentalist zealots were more willing to listen to the British Christians than to their own religious leaders?

If you're making the argument that religion causes people, especially poor uneducated people, to institutionalize violence and oppression against women, well.... duh. That's one of the few things religion's really good at.

And your halfhearted inclusion of witch burning doesn't mask your xenophobia very well. It's clearly a bone thrown so that you can argue that you've given equal time to both cultures. Next time don't bother; It'd be more honest and would make the debate more compelling.

I think that you're defining postmodern multiculturalism in a way that I never would. I'm certain you could find people who define it as you're trying to, and well, they're idiots. I think that most sensible people recognize there's a balance, and that there is value in seeing a culture through its own perspective rather than an outsider's.

Or do you think that everyone should be an absolutist against some moral code (what, the Bible?) that we all enforce? If so, then I'm glad the barbarians in Ireland have temporarily relented in their mindless violence. Else we'd have to have the Indian army invade those savages and impose some order, saving them from themselves.

Is contemporary Islam intolerant of other cultures? Well, see, that's the thing. There's no monoloithic "contemporary Islam". The contemporary Islam that's the friends my parents would have over for dinner when I was younger, or that's my coworkers who are 5 percenters, or that's the faith that Saima follows in between our transatlantic "swooning at your accent" exchanges don't seem to be intolerant.

But you don't seem to think those exist. And that's why you marginalize yourself. That you're limited to seeing it as a zero sum game is why you're not helping the dialogue. (Could it be that idiotic Hindu extremist practices were stopped due to the efforts of some Indian people and some British people? Perish the thought!)

There are going to be contemporary muslims involved in solving the violence that plagues the world right, along with jews and christians and hindus and those of us who have the sense not to indulge in any of that horseshit. That you're unwilling to differentiate within a group, or to recognize that there are good and bad in any group, is exactly the kind of self-marginalization that I'm trying to rail against.

You'd be surprised to know I don't disagree with most of your ideas. A few weeks ago, Nick Denton posted the assertion that the western world needed to humiliate muslim fundamentalists, I didn't disagree. But I can still carry on a conversation with people who do. And you can't do it without demonizing and antagonizing, and the whole point of my plea to Charles was to have him rise to that level of discourse which he is capable of, where those who disagree on finer points aren't shunned.

The suggestion that all those who pray to Allah deserve the same vengeance and punishment, or even hold the same toxic worldview, as the members of Al Qu'eda is plainly, incontrovertably racist.

QED.

Look there are lots of sites that have a somewhat similar message at LGF-- but virtually none of them draw the clearly and unflinchingly hateful crowd that LGF does. Why is this so? Why does his site have people advocating and supporting terrorism against certain types of people? Charles himself may not make these calls, but he provides the tone and place for them to go on.

Unfortunately, it seems that Charles is intelligent (great site design, code, and more-or-less well-written) but has a small mind. He has been forced into a box which ignores the complex reality of the world, instead favoring a cartoonish vision which is bound to excite the lowest common denominator.

(Personally, I'm just getting a kick out of seeing whole classes of people lumped into the "head-nodder" group...)

I dunno, Dean. I think it might be more accurately labelled xenophobic than racist.

Al S.

Thanks for the apology. Likewise, I would also like to apologize for questioning your character. Obviously I was wrong. In any future dialogue with you, I’ll keep the rhetoric at a lower level.

I just want to add something about the consequences of reckless charges of racism. Are you familiar with Pim Fortuyn? In case you’re not, he was the Dutch politician who founded a political party primarily interested in curtailing Islamic immigration into the Netherlands and promoting assimilation of current immigrants. Fortuyn was vehemently attacked in the European press as a racist out of the Jean Marie LePen mold. The problem was this characterization bore no resemblance to reality. Fortuyn was in fact a homosexual libertine. His deputy was a black immigrant. Their concern about Islamic immigration was that it was changing the demographics of the Netherlands to such an extent that it threatened the liberal foundations of Dutch society. He and his deputy would have been among the first victims of such an outcome.

Fortuyn was assassinated by an “animal-rights activist” just before the recent Dutch elections. If I recall correctly, his party’s support was in the 20-25% range. I suspect Fortuyn’s assassination had little to do with his position on animal-rights. Maybe I’m using too broad a brush, but I associate animal-rights activists with the unsavory stew of far-left extremists. It is clear that Fortuyn’s assassination was motivated by the attacks against him from the political left.

Beyond the assassination itself, there are far-reaching consequences. No matter how you characterize Fortuyn, the threat to Dutch society is real. Sooner or later, this threat is going to be confronted by somebody. The Dutch are not going to stand by and become an Islamic state by virtue of demographics. If the left keeps demonizing rational politicians like Fortuyn, the problem will be dealt with by someone like LePen. And then things are going to get real ugly real fast. You’ll see how thin the veneer is between societies like the Serbs and the Dutch. And this time America won’t step in to stop the genocide. We wouldn’t want to be accused of unilaterism. The other European nations won’t step in either. They’ll be joining in.

Let me get this straight: You're arguing that the British occupation force taught the people of the Indian subcontinent about nonviolence?

Boy, I touched a nerve with my suttee comment. Of course that was the intended response. It was gratifying to see you fall for the bait and reply with a xenophobic and nationalistic defense of your cultural heritage. How does it feel to have the tables turned? It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change? And that was just one comment. I can only imagine what your response would have been had I also reminded you of the caste system and sacred cows.

Since you have identified yourself as a Hyphenated-American, bear in mind that being an American brings many benefits. The problem with Hyphenated-Americans is that you want to enjoy the benefits of what comes after the hyphen with none of the baggage and responsibility. Before you impugn those who defend American culture, just remember that the modifer before the hyphen can carry some cultural baggage as well.

As a non-hyphenated American, the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do. In the past it didn't bother me because I happen to agree with you that there are aspects of American culture that could be improved. The problem is that now things have changed, and Americans are dying at the hands of people who justify their actions using the criticisms made by left-wing extremists. Words and ideas have consequences.

And by the way, I won't bother responding to your strawman argument about the British occupation force.

If you're making the argument that religion causes people, especially poor uneducated people, to institutionalize violence and oppression against women, well.... duh. That's one of the few things religion's really good at.

*Sigh*. Yet another strawman. I'll respond in kind. Is it your argument that in the absence of religion that violence and oppression would be eliminated? You've heard of communism haven't you? I hope you agree it's a good thing America saved the world from that form of evil.

And your halfhearted inclusion of witch burning doesn't mask your xenophobia very well. It's clearly a bone thrown so that you can argue that you've given equal time to both cultures. Next time don't bother; It'd be more honest and would make the debate more compelling.

There you go again. I suppose being xenophobic is a step up from being racist. Is this progress? I'll make a deal with you. If you stop hurling ad hominem attacks, I won't dwell on the fact that your moral and intellectual foundation is insufficiently developed to identify causal relationships, draw correct conclusions and make proper value judgements.

At least Al S. had the integrity to apologize for his accusations.

I think that you're defining postmodern multiculturalism in a way that I never would. I'm certain you could find people who define it as you're trying to, and well, they're idiots. I think that most sensible people recognize there's a balance, and that there is value in seeing a culture through its own perspective rather than an outsider's.

At last we get back to the original point. It doesn't really matter how one defines postmodernism and multi-culturalism. What matters is the effect. The effect is that postmodern-multicultural-fundamentalism is like a ball and chain hampering our ability to defend Western and American Civilization. I happen to to think that my civilization is worth defending. I assume you do too since you've adopted it. You appear to agree with me about this left-wing strain of fundamentalism. Yet your arguments are based on it. Can't you recognize this?

Or do you think that everyone should be an absolutist against some moral code (what, the Bible?) that we all enforce? If so, then I'm glad the barbarians in Ireland have temporarily relented in their mindless violence. Else we'd have to have the Indian army invade those savages and impose some order, saving them from themselves.
]
Where'd that come from? Is that xenophobia I see peeking through your cosmopolitan facade? I suppose you see some clever point in this. Further moral equivalence nonsense.

Is contemporary Islam intolerant of other cultures? Well, see, that's the thing. There's no monoloithic "contemporary Islam". The contemporary Islam that's the friends my parents would have over for dinner when I was younger, or that's my coworkers who are 5 percenters, or that's the faith that Saima follows in between our transatlantic "swooning at your accent" exchanges don't seem to be intolerant.

Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief. Next time you are with your presumed moderate muslim friends, ask them which part of the Quran, Hadith or the Sharia they reject in order to achieve their moderate status. Would it be the parts about killing infidels? Stonings? Beheadings? Amputations? Slavery? Gender apartheid? I repeat - which part of Allah's final revelation do they reject?

I hear very few moderate voices coming from muslims. I see some boiler plate condemnations of terrorism that are always accompanied by the insinuation that 9/11 was the result of our foreign policy. Where is the unqualified shame or remorse? I grant you the possiblity that there may be a significant portion of the Islamic community that doesn't speak out due to fear of being labelled apostates. Nothing like the threat of a fatwa to keep your mouth shut.

And that's why you marginalize yourself.

Charles claims he is getting 10,000-15,000 unique visits per day. How many dozens are you getting? Who is being marginalized?

You'd be surprised to know I don't disagree with most of your ideas. A few weeks ago, Nick Denton posted the assertion that the western world needed to humiliate muslim fundamentalists, I didn't disagree. But I can still carry on a conversation with people who do. And you can't do it without demonizing and antagonizing, and the whole point of my plea to Charles was to have him rise to that level of discourse which he is capable of, where those who disagree on finer points aren't shunned.

You aren't interested in conversation without demonizing and antagonizing. If you were, you wouldn't make baseless accusations of racism and xenophobia. Rather you posted on your little blog here and on LGF in order to pick a fight. Well, you got one. Don't play coy now.

JLawson,

Excellent post on memes. Are you playing Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy?

Thanks - but not really. I just thought that if the 'cultural' aspects of the argument could be disarmed with a more neutral term like 'meme', perhaps some 'thinking outside the box' and consideration of what would otherwise be unthinkable (the idea that there COULD be threatening memes/cultures) would occur.

Doesn't seem to have helped much...

J.

HA: You aren't interested in conversation without demonizing and antagonizing.

Yawn. Scroll up and reread yourself.

You've done nothing here but parrot feel-good jingoist aphorisms cooed daily by attention-starved hacks (retyping part of Mark Steyn's giddy multiculturalism = gangrape fantasy was particularly trite) who flatter themselves and their audience as free thinkers and revolutionaries who taste blood and, um, believe everything their government tells them.

If you must keep grinding this axe, say something new, or at least something that doesn't align you instantly with the legions of disposable chickenhawks.

Dean,

You just can't resist profiling those who disagree with you as a bunch of racist, redneck hicks. More of the same tired platitudes. Is there any analytical ability in that brain of yours?

All you guys do is sit on the sidelines and criticize those who support decisive action based firmly on historical precedent. You offer no defensible solutions.

So, Foghorn, let's hear your ideas for solving the problem of militant Islam. Or are you too busy making machet puppets to propose and defend your own ideas?

Oh, and if you do, make sure you get your facts straight. I don't believe a lot of things my government says, and I sure as hell don't believe one damn thing you might say. Be prepared to be fact-checked.

At least you've convinced yourself of your own moral superiority you ignorant fool.

Dean,

I just took a few minutes to look at your blog. What a waste of electricity. Do you think posting your daily minutia is interesting? I do have a guess as to what you're doing from 23:00 onwards - more bong hits.

BTW, since you claim you are residing in France, why don't you take a weekend trip to Normandy.

Go have a look at the graves of better men than you. Go look at the graves of those who were willing to sacrifice so that future generations could live free. Go look at the graves of those who provided you with the freedom you abuse. Go confront your cowardice.

If no men are willing to make that sacrifice today, future generations won't be so fortunate.

Got nothin', eh?

Figured as much.

I'll take a break from rhetorically beating you guys up to offer my vision on how to deal with militant Islam.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were students of human nature. As such, they had insights into the nature of those that were oppressing their peoples. They knew that Great Britain and America were sinful, yet fundamentally moral and therefore redeemable nations. They knew that non-violent resistance would succeed by holding a mirror up to their oppressors. This mirror triggered the human response of shame and remorse they knew was there. They understood the Christian concept of redemption through shame and remorse and the application of the Golden Rule. I can't read MLK's speeches without getting chills. The scope of his understanding is breathtaking. I recommend you guys read all his speeches, but I especially appreciate his "Promised Land" speech with its sweeping view of Western Civilization.

http://www.mlkonline.com/

Redemption in Islam isn't achieved through shame and remorse. It is achieved through jihad and martyrdom. Islam is a cult of hate and death that dehumanizes its followers. Consequently, it is a far greater challenge to tap into a Muslim's human response of shame and remorse because it is buried under layers of hate of the infidel. Therefore, non-violent resistance alone will not stop militant Islam. A two-tracked approach is needed.

One track is the military response. The other track is the mirror. The mirror is the ideological battle to make Muslims understand the truly ugly aspects of their religion. LGF is one such mirror. It reflects just how ugly Islam is. The only way to achieve a truly moderate variant of Islam is to trigger Muslims' sense of shame and remorse. Only after this trigger has been reached in a critical mass of Muslims can Islam experience its own Reformation and Enlightenment to truly become a great religion of peace and tolerance.

Anil, you don't approve of the mirror that Charles holds up to Islam through LGF. If those who believe in Western Civilization fail to engage in the ideological battle, then the only approach left will be war. War in the 21st century will make the 20th century wars seem civilized. The toll will be measured in the hundreds of millions rather than the tens of millions. The longer we attempt appeasement and defer taking action, the greater the toll will be.

I urge you and your readers to reconsider your criticism of Charles and LGF. I acknowledge the rhetoric gets heated but I truly believe that LGF serves a profound public service.

As a non-hyphenated American, the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do.

Oh, you poor baby. How dare such hyphentated people have gall to question and even assault the pristine cultural practices of Europeans. For as well all know, Europeans have been the world leaders for such a long time now in human rights, morality, and treating ones fellow man with respect and kindness.

Islam is a cult of hate and death that dehumanizes its followers.

In that case, it ought to be close to impossible to defeat this army of over 1 billion dehumanized hate-filled followers. It sounds more like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings than with actual people. Out of those billion haters of the infidel, it is astounding that we have just begun to taste their murderous rage. That 99.9% of all Muslims in the world, myself included, have not yet risen up to slaughter all who remain in our path is primarly, obviously, a matter of luck. Sooner or later our evil Lord Allah will call us into battle, unless, somehow, some way we are defeated in our evil quest of evil.

The mirror is the ideological battle to make Muslims understand the truly ugly aspects of their religion. LGF is one such mirror. It reflects just how ugly Islam is.

So is LGF one of the rings of power, or could it be the one true ring? LGF's power to shame Muslims is quite impressive indeed, reflecting back a fringe world that few of us recognize and coupling it with ignorant and uninformed commentary about our way of life and religion is also a dynamite way to expose the truth that we have been blind to for so long. The comments section, with its calls for bloodshed and vengance against innocents is also a welcome respite from the values of Islam, which overwhelmingly teach (a clearly false) peace, love, and tolerance.

Redemption in Islam isn't achieved through shame and remorse. It is achieved through jihad and martyrdom.

Hmm, now I'm confused. Are you saying that in order to redeem ourselves we must attack, kill and be killed? If so, doesn't that mean once the force of the LGF ring of power holds sway over us Orcs, we will be forced to redeem ourselves through more violence? If this is a fundamental aspect of our faith, we are both sore underachievers (you Europeans have a solid lead on spilling blood, especially since your 'reformation' and 'enlightenment', something we must clearly rectify if we are ever to gain parity with Western Civilization) and in need of not just a change, but a wholesale makeover.

It is my proposal that LGF, son of Punditor and heir to the throne of Blogistan, one of the world's leading scholars in Islam and Islamic thought, with almost a year of MEMRI training, and holder of the one true URL of power, be elected Pope of Islam, in order to shame its sub-human followers into a new realm of understanding, free of the hatred of the infidel that lurks so deep in our hearts that virtually all of us are unable to even locate it. Only though the wisdom and power of the learned few, such as yourself, Dr. Charles Luther Johnson, Jr, and other experts on Islam and Muslims will we be able to achieve your level of compassion, understanding, and technologically superior violence. Together we can pave a new road. Remember that Orcs were once Elves. We can get there, but only if we work together using extreme violence to stamp out hatred forever.

Charming. So far, people like me who criticize religion for influencing government are the reason for the attacks, forgiveness and tolerance (as Gandhi preached) are Christian ideas, and you assign a hyphen where there is none: I'm the American son of Indian parents who are citizens, and it's said so on my site for years. I bet it just fucking burns you up that I can write my name on my site in two languages and have it look damned good either way.

Your world is small. Your view is simple. You ask, "It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change?" and, given that my cultural background is American, you're damned right it feels good. It's what I do best, and I'm not as much of a fucking coward as you are, hiding behind an anonymous pair of initials without even so much as an email address. Hiding behind groupthink. Hiding behind meaningless rants against concepts that you don't even know the definition of.

Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief.

Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.

Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures.

Where, indeed, is the unqualified shame or remorse? From you and people of your ilk, who treat my moderation and my convictions as something less than valid, as a danger to America, as a threat to Our Way Of Life.

Understand: This is my country. Mine. I am not wrong. I can see that we disagree, and I can do it without saying you're a danger to the United States. I can do it without saying that you're the reason the terrorists attacked us. It's because I'm a better, kinder, more moral person than you. I don't treat any group as a monolith. I know that any group of a billion people, of a hundred people, of a dozen people, has extremists and moderates, lunatics and geniuses, lovers and fighters.

You're terrified, and it shows in your rhetoric. You ask if I know what's in the hearts of my friends. Not only do I know it, I know what's in yours. An unwillingness to concede that someone different from you might not be trying to destroy you. You've admitted your fear:

the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do

And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members. I think it's immoral to insult someone for trying to be tolerant. I think it's immoral to present the murder of thousands of innocents as being equivalent to my pleas for nuance and differentiation in the description of groups that consist of hundreds of millions of people.

Let me ask you something: Why do you need to see this as an "us or them" situation? Even if I grant the false assumption that this preposterous monolithic enemy that you've created exists, and that they all, all one billion of them, think that it's an Us vs. Them situation, wouldn't you still want to be the one to say it's not? Isn't that what being an American is? To be a person from a culture that is made of all of the parts of the world?

You're spoiled. You've forgotten why your immigrant ancestors came here. You've forgotten what they went through when they did. I am ashamed of you, but I still know you're an American, I still know you didn't cause the attacks a year ago. I'm still willing to accept you, flawed and flailing though you are.