Say it isn't so: Charles Johnson trivializes the Holocaust
Once upon a time, I was a mere commenter on Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs. Eventually, I posted so many well-received comments on LGF that I started this blog. I admired Charles Johnson as one of the righteous gentiles. Life was good.But like more than 1,500 other people, when Charles turned Left in November 2008, I became expendable and was eventually banned from posting on LGF. From what I can gather, since I was banned in August, LGF has continued to lurch Leftward.
On Monday night, Charles published a screed entitled Why I parted ways with the Right (Hat Tip: Memeorandum) in which he tries to explain what we bloggers on the Right see as inexplicable - unless the photoshop above is true. Among the reasons Charles cites for his parting of ways is
4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)It's almost beside the point to point out that the whole notion of whether 'climate change' exists has been called into serious question over the past week. But what the heck is 'climate change denialism'? Ron Rosenbaum explains.
When I started paying attention again to the controversy after the release of the pathetic CRU e-mails, I noticed the most desperate of the last ditch defenders of the CRU charlatans — and indeed the CRU charlatans themselves — would resort to calling any of those who disagreed “denialists.” That the use of “denialist” had grown as the failure of their predictions (the discredited “hockey stick” chart) increased.Indeed. Do you think the use of the term 'denialist' with respect to 'climate change' isn't intended to evoke images of the Holocaust? Consider this (Hat Tip: Clive Hamilton).
To me that shameful, trivializing word use alone is more exposure than any e-mail could be of their lack of critical intelligence of the sort that makes them unfit to call themselves scientists, or, in the case of many of their “green journalist” sycophants, ignorant of how actual science works.
Are they really so stupid they can’t see the difference? Let me try to explain it in simple terms for them: The holocaust happened. Already. It’s history. Up to six million were exterminated. They’re gone and their families still mourn. Climate scientists show us graphs and charts and predictions of terrible things that will happen (but have not or may not) because of human perpetrators. Unfortunately, many of their predictions have not come true. Others are based on (we now know) flawed or terminally tweaked models and dishonestly skewed data sets. There is doubt, there is room for skepticism. There may be warming, but it may not be caused or curable by man. So you see, denying every tenet of anthropogenic global warming is not the same as denying the Holocaust. Get it?
Having dealt with the question of Holocaust denial in my book, Explaining Hitler, and a number of later essays, I find it hideously offensive, this conflation of an unimaginably horrific history of mass murder with an alleged immutable “scientific consensus” that (if it isn’t dodgy and sketchy) is at best a majority vote, not the same thing as scientific truth. Using the bodies of the dead to stifle dissent when your “science” isn’t persuasive to some.
If the David Irvings of the world were to succeed, and the public rejected the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, then the consequences would be a rewriting of history and a probable increase in anti-Semitism.Is it a coincidence that Holocaust denier and White Supremacist Nick Griffin of Britain's British National Party (a group that Charles has correctly criticized for their neo-Nazi leanings in the past) will be representing the EU at the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen?
If the climate deniers were to succeed, and stopped the world responding to the mountain of evidence for human-induced global warming, then hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change.
They will die from famine, flood and disease caused by our unwillingness to act.
One of the things Charles has never understood is that very little in this world is black and white - it's mostly different shades of gray. Holocaust denial is one of the few things that is either black or white. Please Charles, tell us you haven't joined the deniers.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:15 AM
9 Comments:
Charles Johnson was never a righteous gentile. Those that stayed (only to get banned) after many already left were in a self imposed blindness. They and you took a good kick in the ass to make you open your eyes.
Charles created a robot society of minions on LGF which disabled good judgment by such minions.
Bottom line is when Charles got rid of much of his conservative minions he no longer needed to pretend. Ah, make no mistake, his loyal conservative minions got him to where he needed to be and that's about all.
Out with you!!
But really, why are you so shocked? You need to accept the reality of being a Jew means we need our eyes open, not closed. False belief in "friends" who appear to care in the end leave us grief stricken.
Hate to tell you Charles Johnson is no different than all the rest.
The whole world has trivialized the Holocaust to one extent or another. Saying never again is BS! I wish that slogan never became so overused for it is merely become a catch phrase bereft of meaning. If never again were truly embraced Israel would not have slowly and deliberately been turned into a pariah of nations.
There is a movement afoot in the world, exemplified by the religion of climate, that suggests that human behavior must be controlled and managed - for the betterment of humanity. This movement is superficially utopian but profoundly socialistic in nature. The underlying tenants of this movement are that everyone is entitled to their fair share of everything regardless of the effort expended to achieve it and, that there are a few select people in this world who are intelligent enough to discern what gets divided and who gets what.
You have to realize something about Charles, it is all about him. He used to get a lot of traffic from the right but when he started eating his own and getting full of himself the traffic slowed down and the people he banned turned away.
This is his bid to become the Next David Brock or Arianna Huffington. It is all about his own ego.
As I look back, I believe Charles was a leftist to begin with. He HATES religion and follows pseudo-philosophers such as Christopher Hitchens. Charles couldn't stand the idea of creation, instead he believed in evolution and hammered anyone with differing beliefs. Carl, I wrote you an e-mail awhile back about his descent into secular humanist darwinism. I could see it coming a mile away. One thing that the right is known for is their Bible thumping stump jumper fundamentalists who take the Bible literally (aka me) and Charles cannot stand this.
Charles' blog was an attempt to demean religion as a whole after 9/11, if Christians flew planes into the towers it would have been an anti-Christian blog instead of anti-Islam (despite his claims he is against hating the Islamic religion). With that being said I still think Islam is a false religion started by the adversary, but I digress...
With this latest news, I cannot believe his statements on the Holocaust.. You have to remember, for a secular humanist evolutionist, there is nothing objectively wrong with the holocaust and if evolution is true, then Hitler is right to destroy the weaker peoples to create a better race. For more I suggest www.mitchin dot com.
Also, notice how Charles lists creationism under "hate speech" or "conspiracy theories". Also notice how he points out anti-Abortion groups, and "entire religious-right". Let me say it again: Charles HATES religion (especially the Judeao-Christian G-d), his god is Hitchens and those types. It is a shame how close minded he is, yet, he thinks he is open minded because he denies any form of religion. I could go on and I apologize for my rambling. I had so much to say.
I agree that Charles is not now or ever really been a Righteous Gentile.The article in Arutz Sheva should be removed. I was also banned, and actually felt that I had been freed from those who still post there, and worship Charles, a false deity, at the very least. It has become a cult, rather than a blog.He has a number of followers who kiss his tush daily. My banning was actually a gift.
He has forgotten 9/11, and reverted back to 9/10, never to return to sanity. He should be ashamed, and he owes Carl a big, public apology for banning him.
Don't hold your breath, anyone.
It's a natural fit for Johnson, really.
He found out Democrats hate Jews more than he does, and off he went, leftward.
American Power tracked-back with, 'Charles Johnson Completes Auto-Excommunication From the Entire Conservative Blogosphere'.
i was one the early commenters on LGF as well.
I dont read LGF very frequently anymore, since CJ turned away from a focus on anti-jihadism, and dont know why people were banned.
I think it is not so much as Charles has turned leftward, but that he is now more interested in blogging about issues that depart from the right - especially as others have noted, on religious grounds.
I have not seen any evidence that Charles is now somehow pro-terror or now anti-semitic, and while the use of the term "denialism" with respec to global climate issues is unfortunate, it has widespread use over the climate change crowd, and I dont think you can imply that all who use it are INTENDING to cheapen the shoah (though that indeed is its effect).
As this episode has shown, broad labels are really useless and one can be right and right about one issue while being left and wrong about another.
Charles did not devote all that time an energy when he was on "our" side just to drive traffic, because he would have not been able to write what he did.
Lets recognize him for his contributions, and simply ignore him if what he is writing no longer interests us.
I imagine that people who believed in man-made climate change and "global warming" are day by day feeling more foolish, as much of the "proof" has been faked. - If not they "hate reality". Loons.
Post a Comment
<< Home