A Response to Attacks on Alan Johnson

Anything with moral authority with be mercilessly exploited by extremists and sanctimonious ideologues, an inevitability personified by the decision to let Tariq Ramadan give the London Orwell address. Extremists  appropriate moral authority and bestow themselves with imagined moral authority. If you want an example  look no further than shrill attacks on Alan Johnson for criticizing charlatan Tariq Ramadan by the blogs loonwatch and Bob Pitt's Islamophobia watch. Both blogs are outlets for people who are legends in their own minds and see themselves as warring against evil.

Pitt's loathsome blog has been established as a hate site, the Leicester Secular Society corrected identified it as "homophobic and anti-Semitic." Pitt has become notorious for praising for Hitler fan Yusuf Qaradawi (yet Billy Bob falsely accused others of being pro-nazi). Rational wiki described it as hate site that "just badmouthing anybody who criticises any aspect of the Islamic world" and documented how Pitt defended the illegalization of homosexuality. Muslims are hurt not helped by a man who defines bigotry against them as opposition to Islamic extremism as we can see from Pitt's insipid attack on Iranian democrats (a category including Shia clerics) as "Islamophobes."

There is much to critcize about loonwatch, it would require an entire article so I will focus on depravity that is only relevant to the topic. Loonwatch has condemned people as bigots for cross-posting and citing extremists which is more than enough to condemn them as bigots for cross-posting Pitt. They have cross-posted and praised taliban loving 911 twoofer Eric Margolis as a "favorite writer" and neo-Nazi 911 twoofer Franklin Lamb. They adore  and routinely cross-post Richard Silverstein who justified cold blooded murders of two Jews. Other people cross-posted and cited on loonwatch include Khomeinist Nima Shirazi who has ties to neo-nazis of veterans today and Allison Weir who believes the blood libel is historic fact.

Pitt and Loonwatch do not bother to engage with Johnson's arguments instead they libel him which only confirms Johnson's article, if he was so wrong and immoral they wouldn't have any need for ad hominem. A loonwatch blogger opens by placing Johnson into the category of  “liberals who have lost touch with what the ideas they positively stand for." It seems that the loon believes that a man like Pitt who defended criminalization of homosexuality as a true blue liberal, it must have taken restraint to avoid MLK comparisons. The loon dismisses the article as "slanders" which is projection since Pitt's rant is almost entirely slander and if that was true then Pitt and loonwatch would be able to respond to Johnson like adults instead of slinging insults.

Pitt opened by conflating criticism of Ramadan with hatred of Islam which shows extremists use false accusations of bigotry to serve any convenience. Bob believes that a less than worshipful opinion of Ramadan confirms that "Islamophobia has descended into complete dementia." Obviously thats a baseless claim that only merits dismissal as self evidently facile as alleging that criticizing Pat Robertson proves rampant anti-Christian hated. Loonwatch and Pitt defend obvious racism as legitimate discourse while casting criticism of Ramadan as bigotry against Muslims!

Pitt is a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami and called for readers to "defend Jamaat-e-Islami against secularism" Jamaat-e-Islami has "pogroms against non-Muslims, ‘tribals’, and secularists." JEI took active part in the 1971 genocide which makes Bob a supporter of ethnic cleansing and loonwatch thinks he's a true liberal for that. Even the guardian condemned Bob Pitt for defending female genital mutilation by arguing "that Type IIa FGM is merely an "anatomical equivalent" to male circumcision." False equivalence to defend or dismiss FGM is misogynist trope bordering on cliche and to trivialize the horrors of FGM with language like 'merely' is proves stunning depravity and utter lack of empathy. Pitt has produced a multitude of articles defending Tablighi Jamaat; an ultra-conservative hate group and attacked an Imam as 'Islamophobic' for criticizing the group.

Loonwatch attempted to legitimize Al-Quds day (a spectacle of hezbollah flags and straight salutes) as "controversial" protests against "Zionism and the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel."  Loonwatch endorsed Seumas Milne's defense of the racist hate group Hizb ut-Tahrir based on the group's 'non-violence' that would also legitimize peaceful groups like EDL which LW campaigns against. Israel Shahak is a notorious Anti-Semite (praised by David Duke) who has blamed the Holocaust on Jews, praised pogroms and defended nazi law. Loonwatch though described him as "Israeli professor and human rights activist" defended him as a legit critic of Israel being tarred with false charges of anti-Semitism after citing him as a source repeatedly. The obvious hypocrisy of a site that dismissing criticism against an obvious anti-Semite combined with the blogger's infantile self pity only makes their baseless libel against Alan Johnson more unintentionally comical.

Its almost as hilarious as how Pitt moves on to describe Johnson as a man who "waved goodbye to rational thought" yes lets all take lessons on rational thought from a Stalinist defending a stoning apologist. Next Bob discussed Johnson's views on Israel as if they're a sordid secret from there Pitt makes the leap that Johnson criticized Ramadan ("poured out hatred") out of anger due to Tariq's pro-Palestinians views. Thats not an arguments, thats a claim that can only be validated with telepathy and since that doesn't exist Pitt's accusation must be dismissed. Johnson didn't mention Israel in his article he laid out his reasons in clearer language than Pitt or loonwatch such as Tariq's stoning apologia. Which explains why they avoided responding to his arguments, dealing with Ramadan's darker views would be far more trickier than lies and insults.

The New Statesman's JFK Conspiracy Theories

Once a leading UK paper the New Statesman has become an outlet for fatuous identity politics and toxic extremism. If you visit the site you will have to suffer material like Laurie Penny blasting football as misogynistic; I thought she would love watching balls being kicked in. The paper published an issue with the Star of David on a Union Jack captioned "a kosher conspiracy" the editor issued a non-apology but defended the issue's anti-Semitic content. They routinely publish extremists like Stalinist Richard Seymour or Hezbollah fan John Pilger who praised the Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon as his idea of a good Jew in one of his New Statesman article.

The statesman published "Edward Snowden saw things he thought we, as Americans, should know. He valued the truth and thought you could handle it, says Alec Baldwin."  First Brand, then Baldwin at this rate Nicky Minaj will be guest editing next week. Celebrity status does not make someone's opinions invalid but Baldwin is a hysterical wreck whose views include praise for IRA terrorists and vicious homophobia.

Baldwin's opening paragraphing accused Obama of " attempts to silence, even hunt down, the press." Its a wild claim without evidence easily debunked by pointing to how journalists who broke the NSA stories are alive, well and free at home and abroad. Baldwin whines about what his fellow baby boomers experienced which seems like kids stuff compared to previous generation who endured the apocalyptic world wars and the great depression. Baldwin's generation enjoyed unprecedented prosperity while creating obstacles for coming generations.

Alec painted a sorry picture of "rampant obesity running throughout the country, gun laws that border on madness." Alec avoided mention of decline of obesity and violent crimes, in fact violent crime is rising in Europe along with support for neo-fascism. He expressed belief that "the Vietnam war and the assassination of President Kennedy" have "kept us in a type of karmic stall and prevented the US from growing into what it might have been."  Beliefs can be a nice thing but they have no place in non-fiction which depends on evidence and facts not "karmic stalls" whatever the dickens those are. After mourning Kennedy without mention that he got the US into Vietnam Baldwin went full retard. Alec's beliefs include the claim that "we still don’t know who killed" JFK.

He described the reality of the JFK assassination as one of the "the greatest lies any society has ever been asked to swallow in the name of moving forward in order to heal itself." He continued to reveal his nature as a deluded conspiracist: "no sane person believes Kennedy was killed by one bitter ex-marine. To be an American today is to accept this awful truth and to live your life with unresolved doubts about your country as a result." Context matters, the bulk of JFK conspiracy theories have been entirely debunked and the idea that a vast conspiracy in the FBI, Mafia, CIA - all prone to leaks.

                                                 Baldwin's Magic Mullet

According to Baldwin "Kennedy died because a hell-bent confluence of anti-Castro, pro-interventionist Vietnam war architects." I disagree with him about much but we have one thing in common we're both fans of American Tabloid, I just understand the distinction between fact and fiction; the same cannot be said about Alec. He insisted that "anyone with eyes can see that Kennedy was shot from the front" a statement made years after digital tech confirmed that Oswald acted alone.  Baldwin claimed that there is a fifty year history of "destroyed or altered records and vital evidence" the utter lack of evidence condemns his words as fantasy.

He continued to explain that his JFK trooferism is a motive for his support for Snowden, which doesn't put Snowden fans in a very credible light. Similarly Icke fan Alice Walker expressed her allegiance to Snowden, her praise was endorsed by Glenn Greenwald without mention of her anti-Semitism. Like a LARPer Baldwins wraps up his article by posturing against imaginary evil: "in honour of the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I stand for truth." Even open sewers like Al-Jazeera usually attach a pathetic, unconvincing  disclaimer at the end of insane articles unlike the New Statesman's staff who probably seem to think that JFK was  a documentary.