Friday, November 16, 2007

Nazi or Bolshevik?

As most readers already know, ever since the Counterjihad conference in Brussels ended last month, there has been a non-stop Whac-a-Mole game of accusations against the Flemish separatist party Vlaams Belang. Every time a new “neo-Nazi” mole of allegation pops up, it gets whacked back down. But instantly another one takes its place, and the old one is forgotten.

One of the remaining unwhacked moles has been a photo taken in 1992 showing a current EU Parliament MEP from Vlaams Belang named Koenraad Dillen with the 84-year-old ex-Nazi officer Léon Degrelle. Christine of CVF was able to locate Mr. Dillen today and ask him about the photo. Here is his response:

Yes I met LD on 11th of July 1992. I was 27 years old at the time.

I finished my studies in 1987 with a paper on the French writer Robert Brasillach. The director of my thesis was a left wing professor of literature, named George Adé. He died in 1992. I got “maxima cum laude” with my thesis.

Before the war, Robert Brasillach published a book on “Léon Degrelle et l’avenir de Rex”. Since my paper deals a lot with Brasillach and Belgium, I took a genuine interest in Degrelle and wrote about him. He was an important figure in prewar politics and played a major role during the war years. After the war, in exile, he continued his life in Spain as a writer.

Soldier on the eastern front, Degrelle was convicted, in absentia, for high treason. But he was never charged with war crimes.

I had neither sympathy, nor animosity for Degrelle in 1992. He was 84 years old at the time. He interested me as a person who played a historical role. No more, no less. I had no political functions at the time.

In May 1992, I started a weekly column on French intellectual life and politics in the newspaper ‘t’ Pallieterke. I still write my article every week. So I have a partly job as a journalist.

Degrelle talked to me. He explained me for example, why Franco did extradite Pierre Laval, the prime minister of collaborating France who was executed by De Gaulle and not him, the SS-general. (“Because I was Catholic, and Laval not”.) It was an interesting testimony, never published in any book. Why should I be blamed? I had a few drinks on his terrace. Fifty years after the war, it was not up to me to act as an attorney general ! He signed some books and photos. Did I have to refuse? I met the former Bolshevik commissar Lew Kopelev in 1987. He signed his memories for me. Does it make me a communist?
- - - - - - - - -
I published a book on [corrected] European Commissioner Louis Michel and on the accession to European Union of Turkey. A major book on François Mitterrand — on which I work since three years — will follow in some months. I had interviewed and toasted with many French socialists — e.g. the former minister of Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas. It doesn’t make me a socialist.

As we all know, Mr. Dillen could claim to be a Communist and wear Lenin pins and hammer-and-sickle insignia as much as he liked, and no one would mind except for a few fascists like us. A taint of Bolshevism does no harm to a politician or a journalist; in fact, it confers upon him that cachet of self-righteous and high-minded social justice that is so dear to the Left. Never mind the hundred million corpses left behind by Communism: if you want to make an omelet, you have to etc blah yak.

But don’t get within a mile of anyone who even knew a Nazi — then you’re dead meat.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

It’s unfortunate that we have to endure all this folderol about VB, because it’s heartening to read about what they’re doing in the European Parliament. Christine has collected some recent examples of Mr. Dillen’s speeches as an MEP; some excerpts are included below:

In terms of human rights, democracy and good governance, this forum is a faithful reflection of official EU policy and utterly fails to send out a powerful signal. A signal that demonstrates to the relevant countries that a refusal to respect human rights and apply democratic principles should be reciprocated with a reduction, or even scrapping, of all forms of development aid.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In recent years, we have seen some striking examples of the deliberate deafness of official Europe. In France and the Netherlands, in democratic referendums, the people said ‘no’ to the European super state. Despite this, the German Presidency simply carries on down the path already chosen. For Angela Merkel, and I am afraid for you as a Member of the European Council, the will of the people does not count. All opinion polls show that whilst the Europeans want to be on friendly terms with the Turks, they do not want a non-European and Islamic country to join our Union. Again, the pre-determined path is simply followed.

I should like to finish off by saying to Mr Prodi that the government of my country brought itself into disrepute last week by refusing, for commercial reasons, to allow the Dalai Lama to visit Belgium. Nobody wants to offend China. It is very unfortunate that the rule in these situations seems to be that of Erst das Fressen und dann die Moral . I therefore hope that, within the European Council, you will speak up to focus on the attitude of your government which, although it likes to wax lyrical about human rights, when the chips are down, lets its own economic interests prevail, and also to denounce Belgium in this matter. If Europe is serious about defending human rights, it should also have the courage to denounce the hypocrisy of some Member States.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The sanctimonious line is that a mutually acceptable solution must be found for Tibet’s future. To say that is to make victim and executioner equal partners in dialogue. It became once again evident on whose side the EU is when in November 2005, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, was received with much pomp and circumstance across Europe, yet it had, in fact, been he who perpetrated serious human rights violations when he was Secretary of Tibet’s Communist Party between December 1988 and March 1992.

The Tibet issue once again demonstrates that European rhetoric all too often amounts to nothing but moral wrapping paper and that in reality, only economic interests matter. We must continue to have the courage to denounce the cowardice and sanctimoniousness of this Europe, of this mercantile Europe that chooses to side with the oppressors to the detriment of innocent peoples.

Does this sound like someone we should shun? An unreconstructed neo-Nazi racist white supremacist?

Christine has more quotes over at the CVF blog.

Judge for yourself.

40 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Whac-a-mole pretty well sums up what's been going on. I've grown weary with the entire conflict among the various bloggers.

Today, during our first half hour, WC and I interviewed Elizabeth of Austria as to the meeting in Brussels, and both she and her husband spoke of some of their concerns regarding the dispute in which many of us have been engaged. In all the uproar, what has been resolved? Not much, as far as I can tell.

Pastorius said...

And yet, it must be worked out.

Conservative Swede said...

Here's another round of exchanges between me and Charles Johnson regarding sincerity and honesty:
A short note to Charles

Charles is of course put off, that I'm not sticking to the game of Whac-a-Mole.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

The descent continues with the adoption of the tactics of the far left with this THIS at LGF. Disgusting!

Conservative Swede said...

AlwaysOnWatch,

I'm listening to your interview. What's this thing about BNP being at the conference: "they were there". BNP was not there. I know, I was there. What are your sources? LGF?

Dymphna said...

aow --

I've grown weary with the entire conflict among the various bloggers.

Well since you lost neither time, sleep, money or had your integrity put up for public question in this conflict, why pay any more attention to it?

There are lots more issues that deserve your talents.

And we're not asking you to take sides, or to presume that there are only two.

I feel sorry for poor Paul Belien. He has been hounded for years by the Belgian authorities, even dragged to the police station to explain his homeschooling methods, for heaven's sake. It's an erosion of a person by Soviet methods...those are not nice people.

___________

Pastorius said...
And yet, it must be worked out...

Why? From what moral obligation comes this "must"? Have you never heard of acrimonious divorce in which each person betrayed by the other party?

Sometimes harm brings things to a point of no return.

Dymphna said...

Leonidas--

That was something, wasn't it? The simplistic reductio ad absurdum because people are in the same vicinity attending a funeral is a moonbat tactic.

I guess Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter really approve of George Bush's policies, considering the funerals they've been photographed at together...

I don't know if it's disgusting so much as it is plain old smear tactics. You take the source into consideration. In this case, the source has a humungo rottweiler in this fight.

In the end, it's not important. In fact, it's even amusing. The only people who would buy this here particular bridge Chas is selling are his loyal followers. To everyone else, it's transparent.

Conservative Swede said...

AlwaysOnWatch,

I'm now in the middle of the actual interview, and it's very good. A very good initiative to interview Elisabeth. I met her at the conference. And this is the kind of attention the conference needs to get. She's very clear in the interview and has the right focus on the bigger picture.

Excellent initiative!

Dymphna said...

AOW --

Someone has severely misled you. Not only was BNP not there, they would not have been permitted to come. Everyone there was carefully vetted in the months preceding the meeting.

You are confusing BNP with UKIP, the UK Independence Party, Gerard Batten. Perhaps you should interview him? He could tell you the difference.

Perhaps you could consider joining CVF and preparing for a future conference. There will be others, and they will be criticized. When you *do* something there are always the Monday morning quarterbacks ready to tell you how it really should have been done.

As for Vlaams Belang, do you think they really care what a bunch of Americans think -- a gaggle of folks who can neither hurt them or help them in their quest for sovereingty. David going up against the Goliath of the EU, to which sovereingnty is anathema.

Vlaams Belang were simply being good hosts because they were asked. We are not even on their horizon. I doubt they will submit to an interrogation from people they don't even know...people who have neither the cultural background nor the history to ask pertinent questions to begin with.

I suggest you read Paul Belien's book, written a few years ago. It exposes what an artificial, corrupt construct Belgium is. Just like those "states" the French and English carved up in the Middle East.

In fact, I'll send you my copy if you like.

Dymphna said...

By the way, the Lisbon Treaty is done now and the EU is about to finally obliterate sovereign countries and replace them with laws written by the EUSSR. Sarkozy's speech to the parliament was gloating.

Adios, Spain, England, France, etc.

Smart Switzerland stayed out. They're still a real country.

Chip said...

I posted this at LGF. Thought you should know. It's nice being the messenger in this idiotic pissing contest, not.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27949_Vlaams_Belang_and_the_National_Front_at_a_Funeral#c0198

I think I'll spend more time at Gatorsports.com forums.

-- Beagle

Always On Watch said...

Dymphna,
Well since you lost neither time, sleep, money or had your integrity put up for public question in this conflict, why pay any more attention to it?

Well, it's not true that I haven't lost time, sleep, or integrity in all this. I alluded to those problems on the air, though I didn't go into detail. All of my real-life friends have been subjected to listening to my concerns--for weeks now. I've read until my eyes water, and I've typed my fingers off--trying to get to the bottom of various discussions, mostly at IBA but reading elsewhere too.

And as I said on the air, I've been accused of being a white supremacist in all this mess, insulted in various ways, etc.

Europe's politics are Europe's politics. My concern is that a "bad reputation" for the counter-jihad movements could result from all this Whac-a-mole conflict.

Perhaps you could consider joining CVF and preparing for a future conference.

I am a member of CVF and listened to as much of the Brussels conference as I could, via the webcast. Because of the time difference and my work schedule, however, I didn't get to hear all of what was said. I'd loved to have attended the Brussels conference. Alas! Not possible.

Nor have I had time to read all the reams of material written about the conference. Today I hope to speak with Christine so as to clarify the questions I've had in my own mind.

You are confusing BNP with UKIP, the UK Independence Party, Gerard Batten. Perhaps you should interview him? He could tell you the difference.

I do not pretend to be any kind of expert in European politics. I so stated on the air yesterday.

Interview Gerard Batten? Have him contact me. We'll put him on the air as soon as the schedule permits.

Furthermore, if I mispoke about BNP, I'll do an on-air correction next week. I can also post a comment at the radio show's site--again, correcting the error.

I would very much like to read Belien's book. My email addy is at my web site.

Vlaams Belang were simply being good hosts because they were asked. We are not even on their horizon. I doubt they will submit to an interrogation from people they don't even know...people who have neither the cultural background nor the history to ask pertinent questions to begin with.

I get your drift. But have I advocated or conducted any kind of interrogation? Certainly not.

WC and I did have Elisabeth of Austria on the radio show so as to get to the truth of what's going on in Europe. Did we interrogate her? I don't think so. Both WC and I stated our concerns, then let her have the air time. We didn't have any callers, though a few listeners were present in the chat room--mostly negative comments as to the individuals parties which Elisabeth was speaking of.

Let me be clear here. I'm am not nor have I ever been an LGFer. For several reasons which I won't go into now, I spend very little time at that web site. I came to the blogosphere via Jihad Watch, where the overall tone is very different from that of LGF.

I'm sick of the dust-rolling and feel that it's not solving anything, at least for me.

Always On Watch said...

Conservative Swede,
Thank you.

Elisabeth needed more time on the air! I know, more or less, how bad "things" are in Europe. But I think that specific details we didn't get to needed to be brought out.

Always On Watch said...

Correction made to the TGS radio site.

See comments section at the link I provided.

Conservative Swede said...

AOW,

In you correction you wrote:
"The BNP was not invited to nor, to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom, in attendance at the Counter-jihad Brussels Summit."

"Not to the knowledge of..." BNP was simply not there. Why is that so hard to say that? I can give you a list of all British attendees and go through them one by one, until I have fully convinced you that they were not there. OK?

And by the way, you might as well add this equally true statement:
"Le Pen and Jörg Haider were not invited to nor, to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom, in attendance at the Counter-jihad Brussels Summit."

What do I know, anyway, they might have been hiding in the toilets or in the ventilation system. Or maybe it was those guys with the full beards?

I think it is simpler just to say that Le Pen and Haider were not there, but that's just me.

Conservative Swede said...

Also:

Benito Mussolini was not invited to nor, to the knowledge of...

My point being:
While your statement is completely true, quite as it still is if BNP is replaced with Benito Mussolini, it gives a somewhat strange image of the state of things. More precisely: it casts doubts where doubt is not possible.

Dymphna said...

chip/beagle--

carrying water for Gates, even if you don't editorialize, could get you blocked. But you know that.

Yeah, I think sports -- real sports instead of this game -- would be a more entertaining and engaging use of your time.

You call this an "idiotic pissing contest"...however I wonder if you would assign it the same name if it were your integrity, intelligence, and work that were being called into question, over and over and over and over again.

The conference ended a month ago, yet Chas is still on it, looking for Lord-knows-what.

When someone starts knocking you upside the head repeatedly do you just ignore it? Or do you respond in some manner?

We didn't call names, we tried to explain, and for that we have been banned, delinked from his site, mocked, and called all sorts of names.

It will die down eventually, but that won't be Chas doing.

lgfwatch, which I always found a kind of quixotic site -- tilting against windmills is essentialy what they do -- is enjoying the spectacle. Gates is called "the cess pool" by the blog administrators and I am "the Mad Queen" according to one of the commenters. It's a soubriquet I plan to adopt; kind of an amalgam of the Mad Hatter and the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland."

They warned me that all the glue-sniffing I did in adolescence would burn me synapses...

Heh.

Dymphna said...

AOW--

I'll get the details from your site and send the book this week. Take as long as you like returning it...it's not a "fun" book but it sure is revealing. Sometime in 2008 is reasonable. I'll send you an address tag to stick on for the return.

I'll wager it's one you won't get through quickly! And don't bother to keep all the minor characters straight, it's too confusing for us very-unroyal Americans. Unless you're a genealogist, anyway.

Here's one of the Baron's posts to get you started, at least indirectly, on the problems of the royal bloodlines of Europe's monarchies and their unfortunate decision to inbreed. Since all these folks are related, some say that WWI was simply a family brawl among cousins. It was certainly genocidal considering how many intelligent, fertile males it killed off. I think that's why England, France, Germany and Italy have sunk so low demographically. The cream of the crop of reproducers were cut out of the herd by the millions in both wars.

The Baron's post:

How to Avoid Intellectual Hemophilia

The full title of the book is: A Throne in Brussels: Britain, the Saxe Coburgs and the Belgianisation of Europe

I'd recommend that you read the last chapter first: "Bread of Tears, 1993 and After." It sets you up for the origins of this mess to read its culmination first, imho -- I do have an h.o. occasionally.

The lack of inbreeding may be why the Danish monarchy is still intelligent and sharp -- it is their great good fortune to marry commoners. I think that's why Queen Margarethe II is so very different from Queen Elizabeth II. Can you imagine Lizzie addressing her people and saying "we've been lazy about immigration, fellas. We need to make sure people assimilate and learn our language."?

I do wish her book were in English. I've only gotten tidbits that Danes have translated for me. But here's a good royal story that I think I'm permitted to tell: when the Baron was visiting Denmark, a friend told him of an incident from his youth, when he and a friend (I think they'd been imbibing) crawled thru some shubbery to find themselves -- *gulp* -- in the gardens of the Palace. And how should be there, taking a walk and smoking a cigarette but the Queen, who looked at them sternly and pointed to the shuberry: "Out! Out the same way you came in!" Which of course they scrambled to do immediately...

Can you imagine that happening at, say, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? I think Bill Clinton or Bush might have done a masculine version of Margarethe, but by then the Secret Service would have those boys in arm locks they would feel for days...

The Throne in Brussels will be shortly in the mail...

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

It was certainly genocidal considering how many intelligent, fertile males it killed off. I think that's why England, France, Germany and Italy have sunk so low demographically. The cream of the crop of reproducers were cut out of the herd by the millions in both wars.

Yes.

WWI in particular, by offing the bravest and best en mass, left England and France utterly devoid of talent in the aftermath. The feckless loss of empire and rise of communism in the 50's surely must reflect the loss of the folks who should have lead, but were killed in the Great War. Thats in addition to the debilitating cultural cost, and its hard to see how such losses can fail to negatively affect the gene pool in the long term. The superhuman efforts (losses) of the French in WWI are causal to their risible performance in WWII.

Think about it. Russia, for instance, killed off their own best and brightest in millions not once but fourfold. WWI, then the revolution, then the purges and finally again in WWII. Throw in the zekification effect of the camps and alcaholization of the culture. How could such things not leave a near permanent stain on a people? From this point of view their current death spiral is not only reasonable but inevitable.

Always On Watch said...

Conservative Swede,
"Not to the knowledge of..." BNP was simply not there. Why is that so hard to say that?

It's not hard to say.

But I checked with CVF about the presence of the BNP and got the info, phrased in a similar (but not identical manner). I'm in no way trying to cast doubt.

CVF can contact me if I need to add something more.

The other names you mentioned (Le Pen and Jörg Haider) were not a part of yesterday's radio show, so I did not address them in my correction.

Conservative Swede said...

AOW,

To say that BNP was not there, period. Or saying BNP was not there "to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom", is definitely not the same thing.

And even if you do not understand the difference, let me ask you:

Why do you feel the need to add "to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom"? This didn't come from nowhere did it?

Conservative Swede said...

AOW,

What I'm getting at is that your formulation leaves the opening for that BNP was there after all, just that CVF didn't know it. If you believe that such an opening is necessary for some reason, then of course your formulation is all fine.

Anyway, sorry to be force to nag about this. Your interview was great, and the initiative to make it was a very good one. Well done! We need much more like this. A hundred roses to you guys for this!

Always On Watch said...

Conservative Swede,
To say that BNP was not there, period. Or saying BNP was not there "to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom", is definitely not the same thing.

I know that. My original wording did not include that phrasing.

Why do you feel the need to add "to the knowledge of the Center for Vigilant Freedom"? This didn't come from nowhere did it?

The words did not come out of nowhere. I added that phrase at the direction of CVF--maybe not the exact words, but certainly the intent. I spoke directly with Christine about the issue of BNP and my mistake on the air.

Certainly the BNP was not a presenting participant at the conference. But other people were invited as audience for that first day--bloggers, for example. Could any of them have been secret BNP? I doubt it and certainly not as far as CVF knows--thus, the wording.

I think the concern now is that a blanket statement of "The BNP was not even present" leaves the door open to a possible Wack-a-mole cycle. Anyway, that's how I see it. The last thing that "we" need right now is further discreditation.

Do you follow?

Don't take offense at what I'm about to say. Please.

This little exchange you and I are having is a very small example of the confrontation I've faced in that past few weeks. I've been accused of racism, fascism, and stupidity--just to name three of the accusations and all from bloggers whom I respect and thought were friends and colleagues.

I'll repeat here a comment I left yesterday at IBA:

"I'm no quitter, but I seriously considered buzzing off and enjoying life--for a change. I'm very nearly burned out with all I've been reading and thinking about.

"I tell you this: I'm not going to let this rift and controversy spoil my Thanksgiving as this dust-rolling and agonizing have overshadowed the last few weeks of my life."

How did I get into this issue? Well, I posted my support of the Brussels conference. I did not get to go (work schedule), and I listened to as much of the web cast as I could--even getting up at 3:00 AM to do so. I took reams of notes from the portions I could access that morning. I even canceled the second half of my workday, forfeiting the pay, and rushed home only to discover that the time difference meant that the public portion of the conference was over.

I won't go on because I don't want to sound like "Poor little me."

The point I'm making is that I'm now feeling that anything I do or say about what I perceive as a very important issue on many levels is not good enough.

My entire experience in all of this has been most frustrating.

Pastorius said...

Well jeez, I don't like getting into pissing matches, because they are so unbecoming, but I think in this case I will do it anyway, because Conservative Swede is being so unreasonable and rude to a friend of mine.

As best as I can tell, from perusing his website, Conservative Swede has been involved with the counter-Jihad movement for less than a year, and in that time has written less than 75 articles on the subject.

AOW, on the other hand, has been actively writing, speaking, and doing radio, and has been involved with the counter-Jihad movement for at least six years. Additionally, I know that AOW has had friends who work in intelligence for years, and so, has always had an awareness of the problem which outstrips that of the average citizen.

Conservative Swede might do well to read up on people before he sets out on one of his insulting, pedantic lectures.

Conservative Swede, those of us who have spent massive amounts of time on this subject, for years on end, do not do so because it is fun. This is a tremendously depressing subject, and it takes a toll on the mind and body when one is immersed in it day to day for years on end. Additionally, AOW has had her life threatened on multiple occasions and has had to have security escort her in and out of lectures which she has given.

She made a mistaken comment on a radio show during a moment of technical difficulty. When she was advised that she made a mistake, she went to the leader of CVF and asked how to correct it. She then corrected it in the way the leader of CVF asked her to do.

That ought to be enough for you, son.

Or, do you want to continue on with your lecture?

Conservative Swede said...

Pastorius,

I've been in the anti-Jihad movement since 2002. In 2002 I went to my first anti-Jihad gathering in Denmark. In 2003 I worked as Ali Sina's right hand helping him managing and promoting his site, forum and news section.

I have been into anti-Jihadism longer than most people that I interact with -- e.g. I'm surely the only one who knows Fjordman's two previous nicknames -- but I do not judge people by how long they have been in anti-Jihadism, but by what they say and do.

I have applauded AOW for the interview -- which was truly a great initiative -- but in addition to that given criticism when criticism is due. I've sent her a hundred flowers and just one piece of criticism. I'm sure she can take it.

The answer by AOW above shows that I was right, and unlike AOW first claimed, she now admits that there is a substantive difference between the two formulations. And that she's not at this point OK with simply saying that BNP was not present. The shrieking witch hunt campaign we're facing is so massive that she's become weary of saying the simple truth straight-forwardly, that she thinks that just saying the plain old truth would be a tactical mistake. That planting a little mole-of-doubt ("Could any of them have been secret BNP?") in her statement is the best way to avoid a possible Wack-a-mole cycle. Well, it is a mole and it needs to be wacked. And that is all that I have been doing. Don't bring up moles, and I won't be wacking.

It is a problem if we give in to the spurious propaganda campaign that is attacking us, even if we just do it partly or indirectly. The lies that are repeated over and over from the biggest megaphones will appear as the truth to uninformed people. But balanced reporting is not to take a balanced position between the propaganda lies and what really happened. Balanced reporting is always to tell the truth, plainly and clearly.

I would be happy to go through the list of British attendees of the conference one by one, with you and AOW, to convince both of you that there is no doubt whatsoever about BNP not attending at the conference, secretly or not. I will also put you in contact with two or three British attendees that could speak for the people attending. I think the two of you are important enough to go through this trouble. And I'm not giving up until there is not a single shred of doubt among you about any sort of BNP attendance.

Whom to invite to the conference was a very carefully deliberated decision, and I took part of some of those discussions. It was very clear that BNP was not welcome. This distinction is very important, and it's very important that it gets reported correctly and clearly.

mega said...

I am very confused and disillusioned about the LGF campaign against, well, most of the AntiJihad blogosphere. I have (under an LGF screen name) around 800 posts over two years, but stopped posting, and only occasionally visit now (though his posts are still interesting and useful). Charles Johnson's increasingly personal and bitter campaign against the rest of the counterjihad seems very destructive and increasingly over-the-top, even if there might be some relevant points buried somewhere in there. Charles' site is one of the, if not the, most important counterjihad sites on the internet, and he has done more to get people thinking and aware of the whole issue than probably anyone else. That is why it is so disheartening to see what's going on. How and why did this issue turn into a personal bitter thing for LGF, and when will it ever stop? Those questions need answers. In the meantime, there are now many better places to go to stay up to date and informed about Jihad stuff, including this site. I really bemoan what has happened, and I believe if LGF would just take a f'ing break from this topic, it would all settle down. If LGF doesn't, I fear the entire counterjihad presence on the internet is going to collapse, and C. Johnson cannot possibly believe that would be a good thing. Separate from C. Johnson, who's important and useful, his posters, especially the ones with 10,000+ posts (for god sake, how many different ways and different times can you type the same things over and over), are really losing it. A choir singing to itself, at this point. LGF is in theory correct that the coopting of the counterjihad movement by fascist/antisemitic/neo-nazis will destroy the movement, but his evidence that this is happening, or is even planned beyond some sporadic activities, is, at best, circumstantial. As in, person A is a fascist because he had dinner with person B who once had a meeting in 1978 with person C who knew a Nazi named person D. I've carefully reviewed every CJ post and link about the so-called Euro fascists, and while these are not all people I'd want to hang out with, there's scant if any evidence that, TODAY, these people are pursuing an agenda other than protecting Europe from irreversible colonization. We Americans should be supporting the handful of brave people who are standing up to that colonization, because Europe is going to disappear if we don't. LGF's concern for infiltration of the counterjihad by fascists is a legitimate issue, but really all the posts and links at LGF add up to a big fat nothing. A lot of straw men, and a ginormous collection of LGF cheerleader posters agreeing, without have anything to say. I hope Charles reverses course on this whole topic before it's all gone, this blogosphere counterjihad thing. I still think LGF is the most important site on the Internet, but probably not for long if this doesn't end or at least quiet down. I think the European colonialization-fighters have gotten the message that they need to clarify their beliefs and be more precise about what they believe and don't believe, and LGF should at least give them a month or two to do so, with a moratorium on discussing the topic. That would seem to meet everyone's needs.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,
The tone of your criticism of AOW was unduly harsh, in my opinion.

One of the reasons I bring up how long she has been doing this is I know from experience that the more one does (the more one puts oneself on record), the more likely one is going to make mistakes.

As a person who has constantly been in the public eye since I was a teenager, I know how many times I have been unduly criticized for mistakes which were only human.

And, what's more, all too often that undue criticism comes from someone who never truly lays it on the line themselves.

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and yell at the guy on the field that he should have executed that play differently. Try being out there in the moment every day, and see how many times you might make a mistake.

Conservative Swede said...

Pastorius and AOW,

I'm sorry if my criticism of AOW was seen as unduly harsh. But I believe it was precisely to the point, and I cannot see how the point could have been made much differently. I believe that clarity on the issue of BNP attendance is very important, and I can only regret if you don't think it's of equal importance.

So once again, sorry if my criticism of AOW was seen as unduly harsh, but at least I didn't stoop to describing anyone as inferior for the anti-Jihadism movement, or describe them as waging "pissing matches" or "pedantic lectures". I stayed completely with pertinent facts, and didn't stoop to going after the person, as you did, Pastorius.

Do you truly think, Pastorius, that the attendance of BNP or not, is a pedantic issue? Then I do not understand at all what you write otherwise, and take issues with, in the comments here and at IBA.

I'm very sorry to hear about how AOW has been threatened and need security escort when giving lectures. She's a brave woman, and once again a hundred flowers to her for what she's doing.

Whenever did I say that we are not allowed to make mistakes? Of course we will make mistakes, all the time. And then we will help each other to get them corrected. And this is he only thing that I have done. I think it's best for us to leave prestige aside here.

I get to hear how I'm rude, insulting, pedantic, unduly harsh, inferior, do pissing matches, but I have also made my point abundantly clear, including the admission by AOW of it. Still the same formulation remains at your website. Why don't you correct it?

Henrik said...

BNP here, BNP there...

The problem with the "Not to the knowledge of..." phrasing is that it leaves a door of lingering doubt that could be used against us.

The conference participants were screened against BNP membership. Noone spoke on behalf of BNP. Noone I heard about came "Psst, I'm actually from BNP." BNP was, for all intents and purposes, not part of the conference.

BTW, it seems we're actually winning the LGF thing. Other bloggers are dismissing Charles' methods and are carrying links to the CVF material collection, including at JihadWatch. Charles, unfortunately, insists on folly. I've send him a few polite emails, but given that he's getting some 500 a day, they've probably been drowned.

Lots of material has been posted about VB. Even though I've known one of their MEP's through a couple years, I still get amazed by the integrity and the intellectual honesty of these people, as well as their intellectual capacity. If the average European politician was as good as these guys, we'd have a much better society already :)

Time to turn our attention to more real problems.

Pogo said...

OK ALL. In the words of the Spanish king Juan Carlos: ¿Por qué no vos callais?

Always On Watch said...

Well, I can't callarme as I have the following to deal with.

Conservative Swede,
The answer by AOW above shows that I was right, and unlike AOW first claimed, she now admits that there is a substantive difference between the two formulations.

I first claimed "otherwise"? I don't follow what you mean. I don't recall ever claiming that the two wordings were the same. Maybe I missed something here on that.

I have--again!--listened to the tape of the show. I used "apparently" in my first off-the-cuff statement about the BNP and then made the big mistake of saying "they were there."

Yet, when I asked CVF how to make the correction, I got, in essence, "to our knowledge." So, I'm not hedging, but CVF is. Why?

Always On Watch said...

Conservative Swede & Henrik,
Tell you what. I'll be reading the correction on the air this week (two interviewees scheduled: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and my friend Warren. I don't want to take a lot of time away from their air time. But both of you are certainly welcome to phone in to the show (646-915-9870), which begins at noon Pacific Standard Time (3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time). If you were at the conference, you can certainly come on the air and state so. You can also state that you did not encounter any BNP present, in any capacity.

Always On Watch said...

Here's something interesting....Last night, I spoke with one of my friends in the UK about my mention of the BNP on the air. Comment from that friend (accurate paraphrase): "I don't remember your talking about the BNP. You talked a lot about VB and AFP."

BTW, I am not so foolish as to believe that my involvement in the counter-jihad movements would not ultimately result in making enemies, having to look over my shoulder, etc. I weighed the risks and decided that the risks are worth taking.

But this infighting? I wasn't prepared for it--at least not to the extent I'm now experiencing and observing.

Now I'll callarme.

Kafir_Kelbeh said...

Okay, I'm going to jump in:

AOW, ConsSwede, & Pastorius -

Let's not let our tussle over semantics, etc. get in the way, okay?

You're all good folk...let's not throw in the towel now or argue to the point of no return.

I know you're all reasonable, but wanted to just let you know not to get overly frustrated.

Always On Watch said...

Another clarification....

This morning I have gone over with Christine what is meant by "to the knowledge of."

CVF and I went person by person from the Excel spreadsheet and assessed every attendee from the UK. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND THAT ANY ATTENDEES WERE BNP.

To the contrary, all the attendees oppose anti-Semitism and are all pro-Israel bloggers and activists. When we say "to our knowledge," we mean that we have this knowledge based on the attendees' actions and statements, not rumor.

Conservative Swede said...

If I would have continued now, then that would have been about semantics.

However, the substantive issue -- which was not about semantics -- is now resolved.

Thanks, AOW. Good work!

Conservative Swede said...

AOW:"If you were at the conference, you can certainly come on the air and state so. You can also state that you did not encounter any BNP present, in any capacity."

Thanks that's generous. But it would mean making too big a thing of it. Just reading a short correction is certainly enough. The statement is simple, and need no extra witnesses. Thanks anyway.

Always On Watch said...

Kafir Kelbeh,
let's not throw in the towel now or argue to the point of no return

Hear, hear!

Always On Watch said...

Conservative Swede,
CS,
Just letting you know that I've checked back on this thread.

You don't know me. I'm the type who strives to be accurate, to the point of craziness sometimes. Perhaps now I've been clear, clarity being my intention all along.

And obviously I care very much about this battle to preserve Western civilization. So much is at stake!

Conservative Swede said...

All good then :-)