Posts
Exit question: Is Charles Johnson a chicken?
UPDATE: E-mail from a reader in Mobile, Alabama:
Attached is a photo I took on my patio this summer. I thought it was cool. I deleted King CJ a while back, too nutty for me. Reading your blog this morning the Idea struck me, might as well use that picture. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words . . .
While I am currently working on a long, slow, hard, deep response to this problem, interested readers are encouraged to see artful commentary on the latest LGF shenanigans at StopTheACLU and ChristmasGhost.
Meanwhile, keeping in mind that a link is not necessarily an endorsement, League of the South blogger Old Rebel offers his own idiosyncratic of Chronic Degenerative Lizardmania:
Charles Johnson hasn't changed. What's happened is that [Johnson's conservative allies] were fooled. In fact, now that DC's splendid little wars aren't fun anymore, the unnatural coalition that backed them is falling apart. What else but a nation-building crusade wrapped up in patriotic language could induce well-meaning, patriotic Americans to do the bidding of lefties such as Christopher Hitchens, Charles Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Irv Kristol?Old Rebel here expresses the kind of non-interventionist, anti-imperialist "Old Right" perspective held by Albert Jay Nock among others, and quite similar to Murray Rothbard's stance against the "Welfare-Warfare State" policies of Vietnam-era liberalism.
You don't have to agree completely, or approve of all the opinions of Nock, Rothbard, et al., in order to appreciate how much truth there is in this perspective. When war fever takes hold, wise leaders ought to give thoughtful consideration to the voices of those who warn -- as Nicias tried to warn the ancient Athenians about the Sicilian expedition -- of the potentially disastrous consequences of any war, even a victorious war.
While I agree with Da Tech Guy (now proudly banned from LGF) on the advisability of winning whatever wars we fight, that task would now be a lot easier had it not been for the unwise haste with which the Bush administration mounted the Iraq invasion, at a time when the business in Aghanistan (and, let's face it, the business in Pakistan) had by no means reached a stable conclusion.
My willingness to consider the arguments of people with whom I do not always agree is deeply implicated in my imbroglio with the Mad King of LGF, whose totalitarian theory of Charles Johnson supremacism does not permit him to tolerate the presence of anyone he suspects of doubting his theory. His protestations of his own "tolerance" are just so many more self-serving lies that Charles tells himself to justify his sadistic cruelty toward those who dare disagree with him.
Old Rebel may have many opinions with which I disagree, yet still be a gentleman of goodwill who deserves to be addessed with courtesy. On the other hand, there is the gutless God-hater Charles Johnson, and I will heed the advice of Ernie Anastos (and Clan Cameron) in that regard.
The animal daemon that best represents Charles Johnson is a little cat, also known as a...
ReplyDeleteI have to take strong exception to grouping CJ with Christopher Hitchens and Irving Kristol.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not agree with Hitchens on everything, but I respect Hitchens, know where he is coming from, and the man can write. Competency goes a long way, so does a man who can hold his whiskey.
Irving Kristol was a former lefty who changed, or rather was "mugged by reality," similar to Michael Medved and David Horowitz. I do not care where you start out, but where you end up. RIP Irv.
Charles Johnson is more like Ariana Huffington, they both started off from the left, flirted with some conservative issues for a while when it was trendy to do so, and then moved back to the left. I do not know or care about CJ's personal life (other than he seems to get sexual pleasure by banning people from his vanity blog)* and I am not sure if Ariana's ex started off gay or was turned gay by being with Ariana. Nature or nurture, so to speak.
Then again, perhaps CJ is trying to bump up traffic so he can get a new toy.
Well, those of us who've been unfairly attacked for being racist have to stick together. It's the smear of last resort these days for all defenders of Big Government.
ReplyDeleteAnd how appropriate that Charles Johnson defended the SPLC-based Department of Homeland Security report condemning all who homeschooled, went to church too often, and opposed Open Borders, Big Government, and gun control as "haters" and potential terrorists. But then, the SPLC has long served as Big Government's Inquisition and defender. Little wonder people like Charles Johnson trusted that report.
Amen Old Rebel! These last 8 years have been very frustrating for those of us on Taft end of the Right...aka...true conservatives.
ReplyDeleteTo those who fell for the LGF, Frum, Neo-Con garbage...welcome back.
Frum is Frum. I don't think Frum changed a bit, he was always been a moderate. I do not dislike him (I do not personally dislike David Brooks either), as much as I am not going to trust either of them on how conservatives can find their way.
ReplyDeleteI might as well ask the dog or the cat what to do or perhaps my six year old (she would pick pink and anything involving ponies--which might be better advice than Frum or Brooks would give).
The Indentured Servant Girl,
ReplyDeleteHey, thanks! We Pro-freedom Confederate sympathizers (true conservatives) gotta stick together!
(Loved your take on the Gadsden flag, btw!)
This is a good Hitchens article...
ReplyDeleteI dunno. We attracted jihadis to Iraq like flies to flypaper. It was terrain conducive to American strength. Tanks. Jets. Heavy arty. And we beat the snot out of them. Osama is no longer touting Iraq as THE PLACE for jihadis to congregate.
ReplyDeleteThey (what is left of them) have gone back to Afghanistan. And Obama bought that war.
So Iraq is now a democracy (as much as you get in the ME except for Israel) and Saddam is no longer around to pay for Jew killing. Looks like some fairly positive outcomes.
And Obama owns Afghanistan.
Seems like it turned out pretty good to me. YMMV.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYes, I read the Hitchens piece. He wants more war, in Afghanistan and Iran, or wherever he can get it. While atheist ideologues like Hitchens and war fetishists may lust for more blood, regular Americans are (finally!) grasping the illegality and futility of this war. Public support for this ill-considered war is sinking, our military is worn out, and we and our children's children are in hock to the People's Republic.
And wanting to continue down this road is the "patriotic" thing to do?
I've just stumbled onto this site (from Jihad Watch), and find myself puzzled by "real conservatives" such as Old Rebel and apparently RSM.
ReplyDeleteOR, what exactly do you propose we do differently post-9/11 to minimize the likelihood of a repeat performance, if not use military means? International organizations are hopelessly stacked against the US, and when, say, the UNSC has any effectiveness, it's only because the blather is backed with US military force. If you talk about "illegality," I assume you have such organizations in mind.
If militarily defeating and reorganizing an totalitarian-Islamic regime via troops and military infrastructure will not improve things (i.e., improve US safety), is the alternative to use missiles and bombs to devastate military, political, and population centers preferable? I don't ask this frivolously. I supported dropping A-bombs on Japan. I do not doubt that sufficient megatonage would also have "solved" our Afghanistan/Iraq problem. (No point in trying to avoid "civilian" targets in Afghanistan.)
sk,
ReplyDeleteGood question!
9/11 could not have happened without Islamic footholds in THIS country. Those are the Muslim militants I worry about. Indeed, DC's Open Borders policy is THE greatest threat to our security. Don't forget that two illegal Latino immigrants helped some of the 9/11 terrorists obtain documentation to set up camp here in the US, including Virginia drivers' licenses. Opening the gates to whoever wants to come in is not a sane immigration policy.
Next, we must start minding our own business and give up the Neocon dreams of a global empire. We can't afford it, and it does more harm than good.
In short, stop DC's policy of "Invade the world/Invite the world."
Interesting response. Let's consider an analogy, though. It is a commonplace that an effective anti-ballistic missile defense is "layered," with counterattacks at all phases of the missile's path, from launch to reentry. It would seem that your approach to Islamic terrorism is not similarly layered, as it focuses only on reentry (new Muslims coming in) and destroying missiles already based here (existing Muslim terrorists).
ReplyDeleteBut let's consider the issue more broadly, from the perspective of a non-layered approach, which I take to be your own. Is it practical to prohibit Muslims from entering this country? And what of the Muslims already here? If you believe, as I do, that "domestic Muslims" are an inevitable threat--and that "creeping Sharia" is a fact of Islam--it would seem that the only efficacious approach would be to remove domestic Muslims and prohibit new ones.
Absent such an approach, we must find some way of eliminating domestic Muslim capability to wage war on us. How is this to be done? One way is to cut off the domestic sources of funding. How exactly will we do this with sufficient commpleteness? But what about foreign funding and foreign expertise in terror planning?
Bush's plan, as originally conceived (I suspect) went after the piggy banks and expertise, first in Afghanistan (the funding came from outside), then in Iraq. If the plan really was implemented, the next stop would have been Iran, and eventually Arabia. Coupled with domestic measures (tremendously, and I mean tremendously, inadequate as they were), this would be a layered approach.
I find your "next" step unconvincing, certainly with respect to Islam. Your argument seems to be that we piss people off, and if we stopped doing it, they wouldn't bother us. Yet this is inconsistent with canonical Islam, which is inherently expansionist and tyrannical. I am even more skeptical of your next step than I was of a similar argument regarding the USSR, or regarding Nazi Germany.
Then there is the issue of the consequences of Islamism taking over Europe, which I do not think is a good thing. Today's Muslims are scienfically (and culturally) primitive, but so were Muslims 1000 years ago. One can gain expertise and resources from war. Europe has both. And there is the issue of American need for secure resources such as oil. A Russian-Muslim-Venezualian cartel is not sommething I take lightly.
Personally, though I suppose you would call me a neocon, I'd be happy not to waste resources elsewhere, much preferring peaceful capitalism. The problem is that not all the world's players have an interest in seeing this happen.
Finally, I admit I am not pleased at American statecraft. It's wasteful and ineffective. But I do not see you providing a plausible alternative.