Re: charles johnson

I'll address your points in turn.

Johnson is a propagandist for Israel, pure and simple: that's the only consistent message that he's projected in all his years of blogging. A recent post touts a commendation from the Israeli government about the "services" he's rendered to them. That this particular Israeli government finds his activities and writings so commendable should tell us a lot -- if not all -- we need to know about him.

Johnson described himself to me recently as "pretty pro-Israel," which doesn't bother me at all, and I'm unaware of anything that he's written lately on that or any other subject that would cause me to be reluctant to work with him. At any rate, Israel is not particularly important to me.

Yes, he hates religious fundamentalism -- but we hear nothing from him, or his somewhat more talented doppelganger Christopher Hitchens, about the rising tide of fundamentalism and religious fanaticism in Israel. Some "secularist"!

I'm the director of communications of a PAC that's oriented towards atheism, and I haven't really said anything about "the rising tide of fundamentalism and religious fanaticism in Israel" either, as I don't follow Israeli culture very closely and at any rate it's hard to get excited about religious fundamentalism in a country that's already intertwined with religion as it is. Still, I'm clearly a secularist, to say the least. Do you think that Johnson is not really a secularist because he doesn't talk about religious Jews in Israel?

He also pushes an obnoxious form of militant "centrism" -- anything out of the box is smeared as "extremism." The only change is that he's now focused on the "right-wing" variety instead of the "left" variety. His whole method is guilt by association" his treatment of Ron Paul and the campaign to audit the Fed is particularly offensive, especially for someone who knows nothing about economics.

I haven't gotten any indication that Johnson is a "centrism" fetishist. Rather, he appears to be rather technocratic semi-libertarian. I don't agree with Johnson about the mentality of Ron Paul supporters and in fact am fond of the fellow myself. I don't consider the mentality of Ron Paul supporters to be some extraordinarily important issue on which my working relationships depend, though.

And I might add that he is still pushing the same war-mongering agenda he's always pushed: war with the entire Muslim world. Is that what "secularists" really want? I don't think so.

I don't think Johnson wants war with the entire Muslim world. Is there something he's written that would prompt you to think he does want such an improbable thing as that?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Justin Raimondo <raimondo.justin@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah, a friend of Jeremy's!

Johnson is a propagandist for Israel, pure and simple: that's the only
consistent message that he's projected in all his years of blogging. A
recent post touts a commendation from the Israeli government about the
"services" he's rendered to them. That this particular Israeli
government finds his activities and writings so commendable should
tell us a lot -- if not all -- we need to know about him. Yes, he
hates religious fundamentalism -- but we hear nothing from him, or his
somewhat more talented doppelganger Christopher Hitchens, about the
rising tide of fundamentalism and religious fanaticism in Israel. Some
"secularist"!

He also pushes an obnoxious form of militant "centrism" -- anything
out of the box is smeared as "extremism." The only change is that he's
now focused on the "right-wing" variety instead of the "left" variety.
His whole method is guilt by association" his treatment of Ron Paul
and the campaign to audit the Fed is particularly offensive,
especially for someone who knows nothing about economics.

And I might add that he is still pushing the same war-mongering agenda
he's always pushed: war with the entire Muslim world. Is that what
"secularists" really want? I don't think so.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Justin-
> Good to make your acquaintance; I've read a number of your articles over the
> years. I believe we have a mutual friend in Jeremy Sapienza.
> I've spoken with Johnson at some length over the past couple of months and
> have found him to be a reasonable and intellectually honest person; that he
> has abandoned the conservative movement and repudiated his past mistakes
> leads me to admire him to that extent, largely because none of the nation's
> more "serious" commentators seem to be in the habit of acknowledging their
> extraordinary errors, whereas he himself has been willing to go where his
> observations take him.
> I don't think Johnson "hates" Muslims. He is very hostile towards Islam and
> all forms of religious nonsense, as am I; the big three monotheistic faiths
> are all fascist and patriarchal to the extent that they are actually take
> seriously, and we happen to be at a point in history in which Islam tends to
> be taken more seriously by its adherents than does Christianity or Judaism,
> both of which still manage to do great violence to the proper aspirations of
> humanity even in the twilight of their influence. I'm assuming he has
> contempt for many religious practitioners who infringe on the rights of
> others in reference to their particular deities, and so do I.
> I am working with Johnson on the project mentioned in the Vanity Fair piece
> because I am tired of simply writing books and articles pointing out the
> nonsense put forth by the nation's commentators without having any real
> effect on the system that has brought such commentators to prominence. I
> hope that you will consider working with me as well after such time as the
> project is made more explicit.
> Thanks,
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Justin Raimondo <raimondo.justin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Your fawning profile of the Muslim-hating Charles Johnson overlooks
>> the really awful stuff he posted in the run-up to the Iraq war and
>> afterwards. He was shocked -- shocked! -- that the "movement" he
>> helped start made alliances with European fascists and other unsavory
>> types here in the US, but that's because Johnsonian anti-Muslim
>> rhetoric and its fascist equivalent are nearly identical. Oh, but
>> since he's a "secularist," I suppose that makes it okay in your book.
>> Or, conversely, maybe you just didn't research Johnson's past
>> writings. In any case, his assertion that he's a "classical liberal"
>> has got to be one of the biggest jokes ever.
>
>