The following is a repost from 18 September 2016.
There he goes again, fighting a dead man.
Andrew Breitbart enhanced Charles Johnson’s blogging career by introducing him to the players who in turn promoted Little Green Footballs and escorted Johnson into the Big Tent with fanfare. Instead of walking away with dignity, Charles chose the path of the pissant. Not only did he shun his former mentors, he turned on them, created and promoted lies, reposted invented unsubstantiated claims, and astroturfed his benefactors. Then, like a true coward, he still plays the victim when others call him on his own hypocrisy.
On 13 September 2016, Charles tried once again to erase his own history of astroturfing, but let’s roll back the clock to 18 September 2009.
Seven years ago today The Flying Monkeys of Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs began an astroturf campaign against HotAir. With no evidence to back up Johnson’s accusation that HotAir was a racist website, LGF operative Killgore Trout paid them a visit while the moderators were asleep and provided the “evidence” himself by posting offensive racial comments and daring the moderators to delete them… beginning at 12:34AM and running to 2:01AM. You can read the full diatribe here, but here’s a snippet:
Killgore’s Midnight Run set a precedent for Little Green Footballs that was recognized throughout the political blogosphere, and the running joke was that if racist comments showed up on someone’s website it was due to Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs.
Charles Johnson continuously accused Breitbart and others of not policing comments on their websites. Little Green Footballs typically garnered a couple of hundred comments, and Charles employed volunteer “Monitor Lizards” to do it for him. Breitbart’s “Big Journalism” had well over ten times the number of comments per post than Little Green Footballs, so it was impractical to expend the effort to review and/or edit all of them.
And Johnson’s astroturfing didn’t stop there.
Johnson holds the 2 of Clubs and four Post-It Notes, then claims he has 5 of a kind. The first liar never has a chance, Charles.
Military Strategist Charles Johnson Opines on Afghanistan Strategy: Let’s Get Out and Let the REAL Bloodshed Begin.Posted: August 24, 2017
One upding on teh ignancy. Cool.
Charles F. Johnson is now a self-proclaimed military strategist who is regularly included in convo with the CIC and the JCS and apparently believes that the US Military takes high-school grads and ships them to killing fields in the outskirts of Kabul. Never mind that Johnson can’t locate Kabul on a map and believes that Afghanistan is one great poppy field that leads to the Emerald City in the Land of Oz, complete with flying monkeys and a little green witch who sold coffee in the 70s.
Charles. This is about exterminating Islamo-Facists who want to kill you, us and others, and to do it as far away from Culver City California as possible. (If you don’t believe it, see how long your Magical Jazzy Ponytail lasts in Ryahdh.)
Meanwhile, Charles Johnson threw this unedited comment down the Memory Hole a long while ago under this awesome graphic header:
00001845 01580 2 charles Wed, Nov 7, 2001 4:59:27am
It’s a bit more complicated than that. For all practical purposes, Bin Laden is the Taliban; he financed their government to the tune of $100 million, and used their country as a training ground for terrorist attacks. It’s a very clear example of a nation that supports and harbors terrorists.
And McElvoy makes this point as well:
Action against Afghanistan is a necessary pre-condition of a wider campaign against terrorism.
“Action against Afghanistan is a necessary pre-condition of a wider campaign against terrorism.” – Charles F. Johnson 7 November 2001
Yep. There’s the nut.
Fetched from the RetroBin:
A few years later (2009) Jihad Watch posted this:
I first encountered Aziz Poonawalla during my dialogue of the deaf with the spitting, sputtering hateblogger Dean Esmay, as Poonawalla was and may still be a contributor to his blog. Poonawalla and I also have had several unpleasant exchanges, during which — as you can see if you read them — he didn’t demonstrate an overwhelming commitment of honesty or integrity. —Robert Spencer
Aziz Poonawalla is an anti-semitic muslim propagandist who’s been at it for a while, but that was then and this is now, at least according to Charles Johnson, and something happened. Now they’re best buds. Read the rest of this entry »
Wow. Breaking news: Obama’s father was a muslim, so Obama’s half-brother is a muslim. Brilliant sleuthing, Charles.
00663839 10636 79 Charles Tue, Apr 13, 2004 11:23:43am
00667375 10661 124 Charles Thu, Apr 15, 2004 3:18:02pm
00674921 10717 157 Charles Sun, Apr 18, 2004 3:20:20pm
00693460 10843 385 Charles Thu, Apr 29, 2004 3:49:31pm
00693930 10847 91 Charles Thu, Apr 29, 2004 4:59:10pm
Oh, brother. Read the rest of this entry »
LGF2.0, aka The Blogmocracy, had already left a welt on the soft underbelly of Little Green Footballs, if only by existing and attracting ex-lizards who’d had enough of Charles Johnson’s fascist blogging style:
Yes, you can post comments and opinions freely here unless I disagree with them, and I won’t tell you when you’ve crossed the line or where the line is until you’re gone.
Ludwig Van Quixote was Charles Johnson’s darling when he penned an LGF Tutorial for new “hatchlings” and gave his assessment of “The Stalkers” without having any idea who or what he was writing about. Here it is in its entirety.
In 2007, Charles Johnson was all over the 2008 Presidential campaign, cranking out posts like a kindergartner on a 3-day glucose bender with a mouth full of wheat paste and safety scissors. Everyone breathlessly awaited each brilliant assessment of the candidates, and we weren’t disappointed.
[Oops. Sorry. Forgot to crop the sponsored “Promoted Stories” before posting the screencap. Yeah, that’s the ticket.]
The first link leads to Yahoo News (it’s dead now).
The second “Update” was a headline lifted verbatim from HotAir & Allahpundit:
The CNN YouTube freak show debate; Update: Private jet show of hands video added; Update: Biden tells gun owner he “needs help”; Update: I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, says Obama
Charles Johnson blocked thread comments from public view on that post a long time ago, but the BRC has ways of resurrecting his hidden/memory-holed files. There was only one comment out of 510 posted by Charles Johnson on that thread, and here it is:
A couple months later, Johnson posted this:
Here’s the YouTube video, as appropriate today as it was in 2007.
“There’s medical evidence that Hillary Clinton is a man.” That’s a bit of a stretch, but apparently Johnson found it credible and linked to it anyway. One year later, the metamorphosis was complete:
Apparently Charles IS down with this:
That’s former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau on the left, and he thinks Donald Trump is “gross.”
Keep it real, Charles. Can’t wait until you jump on the Bernie bus and blow out the rear tires.
[Memory-holed LGF image recreations courtesy of the late Nil Stooge, BRC Engineer No 3. Content retrieved from the BRC Archives.]
Bonus: A Gates of Vienna commenter “flabslab” had some fun things to say about Charles’ “Nirth Certifikit” post here: “Charles Johnson Finally Reveals his Fascist Soul.”
From the LGF Archives:
75 Charles Fri, May 23, 2003 11:28:07am
Caton is right; I would prefer for the abortion argument not to happen here.
258 Charles Tue, Oct 12, 2004 10:48:07am
On the subject of abortion: I do not have a hard and fast rule about not discussing it. However, this topic is a very good example of why I prefer people to avoid the subject — because it inevitably causes hard feelings and vicious fights, among people who are otherwise on the same side, and nobody’s opinion ever changes.
There are plenty of forums on the internet where you can argue about abortion if that’s what you want. I’d prefer to focus elsewhere.
642 Charles Sun, Feb 13, 2005 2:53:55pm
Freedom Fan: I don’t have a specific policy on discussing abortion. I just know from years and years of debating the issue that: 1) there’s nothing left to say on either side, and 2) the debate invariably escalates into personal attacks, rapidly.
I’ve requested in the past that we refrain from bringing this issue into LGF, because of these reasons.
224 Charles Thu, May 5, 2005 10:56:19am
There’s no hard and fast rule about which topics can or can’t be discussed here. I’ve said before (and still feel) that arguments about abortion invariably escalate instantaneously to the point of nuclear fusion, and that I’d prefer (just for my own sanity) that if people can’t refrain from the issue, at least try to avoid meltdown and keep things reasonably civil.
And the same goes for homosexuality; I have nothing against discussing it, but if the tone veers into gay-bashing, then I have a problem because we have quite a few valued commenters here who are gay, and if it comes down to losing a gay-basher versus losing an intelligent commenter — well…
So no — there’s no taboo and you won’t get banned for talking about any subject. Just try to remember that there are people behind all these internet text blocks.
1024 Charles Mon, Oct 31, 2005 1:21:56pm
Sheesh. More than a thousand comments in less than seven hours? What the heck happened in here?
Oh, I see. Abortion again.
889 Charles Sat, Nov 4, 2006 8:09:39am
realwest: I actually don’t have a “policy” about discussing abortion, in the sense of a hard and fast rule. But I’d prefer that people don’t argue about it here, because it inevitably leads to the internet equivalent of a screaming match, and we have enough of those already. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can have that argument…
706 Charles Sat, Mar 24, 2007 3:56:28pm
Re: the scary abortion subject.
There’s no outright ban on abortion discussions. But after years of trouble and strife, I’ve learned that this topic invariably deteriorates very quickly into a flame war.
There are literally thousands of places on the web where you can get into a flame war about Roe v. Wade, if that’s what you really want to do. I’d prefer that LGF not be one of them.
172 Charles Fri, May 4, 2007 5:00:52pm
I should have known better than to try to ask a tech question in the middle of an abortion argument.
56 Charles Sat, Sep 22, 2007 6:25:56pm
And I really do not appreciate the effort to divert this important topic into another argument about abortion.
59 Charles Sat, Sep 22, 2007 6:26:57pm
re: #57 Killgore Trout
re: #52 cbinfluxI just turned it on a few days ago. Might turn it off again. Looks like we’re headed for an abortion fight on a friday night. This could get ugly.
There isn’t going to be an abortion fight, because I’m not going to allow it.
3 Charles Mon, Oct 8, 2007 6:34:56pm
re: #1 zombie
Dobson. Ay Caramba.
Well, we had an abortion discussion in an open thread a couple of days ago, and it was actually pretty sane, so I’m hoping this one won’t turn into a total meltdown.
I know, I’m an optimist.
427 Charles Fri, Oct 26, 2007 7:47:09pm
re: #411 Caliredst8r
How did “abortion” get into this discussion? Please take your agenda somewhere else.
Yeah, let’s keep the topic of abortion off of Little Green Footballs because it’s so inflammatory.
Charles, remember when you had “Crunchy Parts?” Nobody here does either. Go figure.
What I find ironic is that Charles F. Johnson is essentially defending Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, an undisputed racist and an adherent to the ethnic cleansing tenets of the eugenics movement. These tenets of racial purity were supported by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and many others of her time.
Sanger’s stated mission was to promote birth control and sterilization of blacks and other non-white people to limit the populations of those deemed to be inferior.
What’s also ironic was that Margaret Sanger was against abortion as a prophylactic. It wasn’t until her death in 1966 that Planned Parenthood took off their masks and began promoting abortion as a simple medical procedure with no regard to the sanctity of human life.
Yet Charles F. Johnson claims he’s not a racist.