Why Does LGF Lend Credibility to Eurabia Deniers?
by Baron Bodissey

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

I notice Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs are at it again with their biweekly — or is it daily? — bash Fjordman/Gates of Vienna/The Brussels Journal/Fascists/Euroweenies post, which is by now becoming as predictable and exciting as watching paint dry.
I admit my initial reaction to all this was a desire to yawn, ignore it, and watch the latest Harry Potter movie on DVD. CJ made another post a couple of weeks ago where he made up claims from scratch with the sole purpose of discrediting me. As was later confirmed by external sources, the claims CJ made were 100% without any factual basis whatsoever. The upstanding thing to do would have been to admit this and perhaps apologize, if not in public then at least in a private email to me. Johnson has had ample time, yet has failed to do so. If CJ and his crowd at LGF cannot even admit it when they publish blatantly false information then I see no point in having any “dialogue” with them about the situation in Europe. Besides, having a rational conversation with LGFers about the threats to freedom in Europe and the West in general is like having a rational conversation with the average Muslim about “Zionists”. I simply have better things to do with my time.
For the most part, I will therefore try to ignore the rantings of LGF as much as I can. However, even though dialogue with CJ may be pointless, there could still be independent readers and third parties who can be reached. I notice that CJ has ceased his attacks against the Sweden Democrats and concentrates on the Vlaams Belang. Is that an indirect admission that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing regarding the SD?
As blog reader Zonka comments:
Another good reason to continue this fight against CJ and LGF, is that if LGF doesn’t succeed in squashing the Counter-Jihad movement, somebody from the MSM and/or the left will pick up the fight using the writings from Charles and his followers as ammunition against the Counter-Jihad movement, painting LGF’s view as the mainstream rightist view, and confirming their claim that everybody who is fighting the islamization of the West is Fascists, Neo-nazis, Racists or worse. So in effect what Charles is doing is not just rattling on in his echo chamber, he is deliberately sabotaging the efforts of countering islamization. His efforts have nothing to do with Vlams Belang, they were just a convenient target for his campaign. The proof of that is that he silently dropped the charges against SD, when it became apparent that he couldn’t use them as a vehicle to smear the Counter-Jihad movement. If his main complaint had been the involvement of the Counter-Jihad movement with VB and SD, he would have stated openly that SD had been cleared or at least that there weren’t sufficient charges against them to continue to oppose them into the Counter-Jihad movement. But no such statement have been made implicit or explicit. The conclusion thus must be that it was never about VB or SD, but to smear the Counter-Jihad movement with any means at his disposal.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to CJ’s every whim, but I will write a reply every now and then if I have the time and feel that some matter of substance is touched upon. In this case, this is Eurabia, the deliberate merger of Europe and the Arab world, conducted by the leaders of the European Union.
The website quoted by LGF’s latest post is run by the Norwegian Leftist Øyvind Strømmen. Mr. Strømmen called me a Fascist long before the current debate began. He has also stated that Bat Ye’or’s writings about Eurabia are “conspiracy theories,” and he is extremely critical of Oriana Fallaci for her views of Islam. This is now linked to approvingly by the “anti-Jihadist” Charles Johnson, who has a photo of Fallaci posted on his website.
So the question to Mr. Johnson becomes: If you link approvingly to “Eurabia denial” websites, what next? Will you also link approvingly to sites claiming that there is no global Jihad, no Islamic threat to the USA and that 9/11 was an inside job? If you discredit Bat Ye’or, perhaps the world’s foremost expert on dhimmitude, the repression of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, is there anything at all left of LGF’s supposedly anti-Jihadist position, or is LGF now simply an anti-European hate site?
Øyvind Strømmen repeated several times his criticism of Bat Ye’or at LGF, and stated that although he doesn’t believe Bat Ye’or is a Fascist, she “spreads a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory which in fact makes up a significant part of the mythos of Eurofascism and which sadly has gained quite a bit of a hearing amongst both conservatives and liberals.” He again stated that “I do blame her [Bat Ye’or] for providing a considerable part of the Eurofascist mythos by spreading the false idea of a Eurabian conspiracy.”
I have spent some time checking the Eurabia thesis, and I find it to be perfectly sound, as I have demonstrated in my essay The Eurabia Code, a shorter version of which is also available in Norwegian under the name Eurabia-koden. Strangely enough, this “conspiracy theory” was publicly confirmed by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who said in November 2007 that the European Union should expand to include Middle Eastern and North African countries.
Please note that the EU involves the free movement of people across borders. If the EU is expanded to include Muslim nations, Muslims from the entire Greater Middle East would be entirely free to move into and settle in France, Britain, Germany, Italy etc. This would mean the end of European civilization as we know it, and is now actively supported by senior European leaders behind the back of their own peoples. This constitutes nothing less than the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet “anti-Jihad” website LGF seems to think this is overrated. The regular LGF reader Thanos says that Europeans need “to get over their hysteria” about the Islamic threat.
- - - - - - - - -
Surprisingly few readers of the “conservative” LGF were critical of the viewpoints of the Socialist Strømmen, although the reader wilinsky stated that “I am widely read and have some professional expertise on the subject of ‘global warming’ and I am, I believe, well-informed on our problems in Iraq. I think you are very, very far off the mark on both issues, so I suspect that anything you have to say about European fascism or Bat Yeor is equally ‘reliable’.”
Indeed. Mr. Strømmen has criticized the conservative politician and writer Hallgrim Berg for including a quote by the “Fascist” Fjordman and several quotes by the Fascist-enabler Bat Ye’or in his book about the dangers posed by militant Islam to the West. Mr. Berg’s book is also available in English. Here are some excerpts from the introduction:
The Euro-Arab ‘bridge-building measures’ are self-deceiving, as long as there is only one-way traffic on the bridge. The author maintains the United States the only power in the world that may secure the world’s free nations. He is discussing the growing anti-Americanism in Europe, a phenomenon evolving despite America’s role as a guaranteeing force for democracy and freedom. Anti-American sleepwalkers do not see that if the American way goes down the drain, Europe will follow. Hallgrim Berg attacks international leftism, which is constantly marketing twisted stereotypes of America, and is also criticizing the feebleness of European politicians, particularly France, where hypocrisy is developed into mastery. Challenged by the most comprising and hard-core totalitarianism the world has seen, the only hope for Western democracy, culture, and our way of living is a more confident cooperation and pooling of resources among European nations and the United States.
For this book, Berg was attacked by members of the Norwegian Left. Another Socialist, Lars Gule, warned that Berg’s writings about Muslims were similar to the writings about Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, although Berg pointed out that he did not write about individual Muslims, but about the threat posed by Islamist ideology. Berg also pointed out that the Palestinian-friendly Gule went to the Middle East with dynamite in his backpack in the 1970s in order to carry out an attack against the Jewish state of Israel. Mr. Gule himself — who was stopped before the plan could be carried out — has never denied this, and continues to be extremely critical of Israel. Yet Mr. Gule gets a free pass for warning against the dangers of anti-Semitism, always coming from the political Right, of course.
Charles Johnson is critical of the Baron from the Gates of Vienna for his use of sources:
One more note to the Baron: it’s time for you to start treating your European ‘sources’ with a little more skepticism. They burned you with their latest attempted cover-up, and now you have egg all over your face.
In defense of the Baron, an upstanding man who tolerates a lot more ideological dissent at his website than LGF — as does The Brussels Journal — I’d just like to point out that CJ linked to a state-sponsored website which used to be run by a rabidly anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Christian Communist as his source of information about the Sweden Democrats.
Now LGF links to another Leftist who thinks the Jewish writer Bat Ye’or, who has written excellent books about the treatment of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Muslims under Islamic rule, is an enabler of Fascism by publishing “conspiracy theories” about the advancing Jihad.
Somebody should perhaps inform CJ and his followers that the Scandinavian Left is brimming with Hamas-supporters, Arafat-cheerleaders and anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, and that they should be a little bit careful with whom they associate or lend credibility to.
![]() | ![]() |
Baron Bodissey | 12/08/2007 03:47:00 PM






















Links to this post:
Create a Link
76 Comments:
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Yep. It's tough talking with some of the posters at LGF. Baron came by yesterday while I was posting there. He saw my hat sitting on top of the muck and mire there on one of the threads. He picked it up and I looked up at him. He was shocked!
"Norsk Troll! Why, how very deep that muck and mire must be at that LGF thread!" the Baron said.
"Oh, this is nothing, Baron." I replied.
"I'm sitting on a horse."
(I'm still trying, though.....)
~Norsk Troll
That's gonna leave a mark.
"I refuse to debate an anonymous person"
/Charles
I wonder if CJ is more interested in rats than in Eurabia. If he is so careful to distance himself from VB, how come he links--with full approval and without any disclaimer--to a Eurabia denial site?
If he found the information useful, he could still have used it, but pointed out that it's a horrible Eurabia denial site, and that he completely disagrees with Øyvind Strømmen description of Bat Ye'or as a fascism-enabler.
Quite as he said that he supports VB's anti-Jihad resistance, but distance himself from some of the content of Dewinter's bookshelf.
Or how he expressed his support for the SIAD demonstration, but distanced himself from the excesses of right-wing extremist violence by that 74-year old woman.
I'm not requiring ideological purity here. CJ can link leftist pro-Islam sites if he wants to, but he should make sure then to point out what he disagrees with. I'm sure this is just a mistake and that he will correct it. Or maybe he is more interested in rats, than in Eurabia after all, and considers all this unimportant? Maybe he considers Eurabia, and his leftist sources description of it as a fascist myth, a deviation from the core issue: rats.
I'm sure we will get a satisfactory answer by CJ on this one. He wouldn't want to give people the impression that he is turning into a Eurabia denier or Eurabia minimizer himself.
Thank You Baron, Dymphna and Fjordman for answering lies and distortions by speaking the truth. Western Civilization is worth fighting for.
AngleofRepose said...
That's gonna leave a mark.
"I refuse to debate an anonymous person"
/Charles
Charles is a man of principles. He can link to a leftist pro-Islam site, but there goes the line. But he would never stoop to debating an anonymous person. Maybe that's why he dislikes Bay Ye'or too? Or maybe he likes her, and that's why he made her real name public? I wonder what he thinks of Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina. We might never get to know, since he doesn't want to deal with anonymous people. He seems to prefer to associate himself with dead anti-Jihadist. They are guaranteed to stay as complacent as the unbanned lizards. And they wouldn't scare him into PC spasms but participating in concrete action against Jihad.
CS, I don't think rat's are his core issue. I think it's what's associated with them; "white power" symbols.
Otherwise, a very fair assesment and it motivates me to defend Charles a bit -
The conclusion thus must be that it was never about VB or SD, but to smear the Counter-Jihad movement with any means at his disposal.
I don't agree with that conclusion at all. His main motivation for peeking under the bed was whether some within the movement had neo-Nazi affiliations. He's a philo-Semite after all, so his initial motivation was understandable. Their rallying cry has consistently been "No Nazi's in my foxhole!".
It was only after he was compared to CAIR that he went on the war path. The motivation changed, IMHO. I don't think it's to discredit the Counter Jihad movement, it's to be right. "Compare me to CAIR did you? I'll show you whose the bigger fool!"
Witness his lack of apology to Fjordude. I don't think anyone would have thought any lesser of him if he'd just owned up to his mistakes. But he couldn't even do that. Because it's all about being right. And to do that, he has to discredit both Pamela and Fjordude, not the entire movement.
Of course, I could be completely out to lunch.
When the fight AGAINST islamo-fascists took the turn to also be a PRO WESTERN EUROPEANS fight, the lizards moved on.
I think we can glean quite a lot about their agenda from this.
Don't we?
But he would never stoop to debating an anonymous person.
CS.. you always make me chuckle.
Dan, was that directed at me? If so, I admit that the quote from Thanos kinda discredits my argument, but I still don't think they're out to smear the movement. Just certain *cough* Fjordude *cough* Euros.
It strikes me that part of the problem is simply that we don't fit his narrative. We, "europeans" of all nationalities, are standing up for our culture rather than simple standing futilely against an invading culture. It might sound like semantics but there's a world of difference. When you stand for something it unites people in a way that simply standing against something never can. The problem is, what we're standing for isn't what Charles wants us to stand for. What we're standing for is our own culture and our own history and the right to celebrate and preserve these things. I did a blog rant about this a while back but my basic thread was that Charles is from the school of thought that considers history and culture to be so much bunkum, not worth preserving if it's "obviously" failing. To him, Europe is "obviously" failing because it's not standing up for itself against the Islamic threat, yet when it decides to stand up against that threat it's reverting to nazism and has to be challenged and beaten back, all because it's not following the narrative he had laid out for it.
AngleofRepose: CS, I don't think rat's are his core issue. I think it's what's associated with them; "white power" symbols.
Which makes rats more important to him that Eurabia, which is exactly what I said. Await his answer to this and you will see. He will claim that talk about Eurabia is diversionary chatter, and then he will go back talking about rats.
I don't think it's to discredit the Counter Jihad movement, it's to be right.
There are many things that are more important to him than the counter-Jihad movement. He do not care sh** if he sabotages the whole counter-Jihad movement. In fact, being "right" is infinitively more important to him than the counter-Jihad movement.
He's possessed by his hallucination of Nazi ghosts. He's in a self-righteous witch hunting rage mode. The best way to understand him is to think of Linda Blair in The Exorcist. This is what PC does to people. There's nothing special about Charles here. He's not driven by anything different from the average leftist. They have just as good motives as Charles (or had initially), it's the force of the PC gravity that sinks them. And as you can witness, this is happening to Charles now. He's melting down.
There's somethin' happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a blog, over there
Tellin' me I got to beware
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your blog it will creep
It starts when you're posting afraid
Step out of line, Lizards come and take you away
(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - traffic's goin' down?
I still think trying to analyze Johnson's politics or motivations are futile. It seems obvious it is all about a delicate ego, and the fact that LGF posters like Atlas and Fjordman would dare disagree with him.
I'll admit, I could be wrong, but he comes across more as a petulant child than anything else.
CS,
I understand your point about Eurabia and diversionary chatter, but I still contend that it ain't rats he's focused on, but the "white power" symbol. It's really neither here nor there (diversionary chatter, lol), so let's call it a draw.
He do not care sh** if he sabotages the whole counter-Jihad movement.
Good point and I should've qualified my statement with "deliberately discredit"... Or maybe I should just shut up. ;)
Gerard.. good one!
You can be counter-jihadist for two differing reasons. The first is that you identify with the values of political liberalism and you see Islam as a threat to these values.
The second is that you wish to preserve the existing character of the Western nations, and you see Islamification as a threat to this character.
CJ is apparently a counterjihadi for the first reason. What he wants to preserve are political values.
The problem is that these political values also lead him to attack those counterjihadis who wish to defend their own national traditions.
I suspect his real motivation, therefore, has little to do with any taint of neo-nazism in the European counterjihadi movement. He has gone hunting for this kind of evidence *after* his initial falling out with the Europeans.
What he dislikes are those Europeans who are seeking to defend something more than political values: those who wish, like the VB, to maintain the existence of a distinct national (or regional) tradition.
Dan Bostan
When the fight AGAINST islamo-fascists took the turn to also be a PRO WESTERN EUROPEANS fight, the lizards moved on.
I think we can glean quite a lot about their agenda from this.
Don't we?
12/08/2007 6:13 PM
Exactly. I have also noticed that. I hadn't read LGF till the beginning of the scuffle. I remember the unwilling answer on Fjordman's repeated questions whether Europeans could decide on their own immigration policies. I have never trusted some of those pseudocon sites like LGF and I have read Fjordman only occasionally at Brussels Journal even though he could remember me from his original blog. I'm not surprised by this end of "alliance" between Fjordman and LGF. The problem with LGF people is that they are not looking for allies but slaves. In order to became their "allies" we should submit to them and their agenda unconditionally. I believe this is because they are "Teddy Kennedy" conservatives (conservatives with very small 'c'). If they were a hope for Freedom and Dignity then I wouldn't embarrass myself with the struggle at all.
AngleofRepose: I understand your point about Eurabia and diversionary chatter, but I still contend that it ain't rats he's focused on, but the "white power" symbol.
Which I have agreed with you about all along. And as I have stated all along, the conclusion of this is that rats are infinitively more important to Charles than Eurabia. This is a consequence of his obsession with "white power" symbols.
Charles Johnson has reacted to this post:
"Yep, he's at it again. Ignore the substance, attack the messenger, blah blah blah, same old story, day after day."
The substance being rats and crosses. As confirmed by his subsequent comment:
"Yes, and notice they aren't disputing any more that the rat character with Odin's Cross armband is used by fascist groups."
The Eurabia denial and the fact that he had linked to a hard-left site didn't even register, quite as I predicted. Isn't he at all worried that it will start looking as if he's dismissing Bat Ye'or, and starting to embrace the leftists? Normal people would have added a disclaimer here, but with Charles and the lizards it didn't even register. The Eaurabia issue is just seen as diversionary, compared to the core issue, i.e. currently black rats.
And about CJ's comment about "attack the messenger". We can compare it to this. Paul Belien linked carelessly to an arguably anti-Semitic article at an arguably anti-Semitic site. CJ took him to task for it. I do not think that Belien handled this well, but at least he acknowledged his mistake. Now Fjordman brings up a perfectly congruent case -- an approving LGF link to an Eurabia denial site -- and takes CJ to task for it. But with CJ it doesn't even register. He bursts out in how it's "ignoring the substance" and "attacking the messenger". Did he even read what Fjordman wrote?
These two cases are perfectly similar. But at the same I can predict that CJ and the lizards won't admit this (because they are too blinded to see it). And the question is why? And my answer is: linking to hard-leftist sites, using them as sources, giving them credibility, is all compliant with PC orthodoxy. And that is the guiding star at LGF when it comes down to it. Say the magic word: "I'm an anti-fascist" and you will soon be welcomed to hitch a ride on LGF for less than honourable reasons. CJ has even been an apologist for the "anti-fascists" that committed attempted murder on the peaceful SIAD demonstrators. And the fact that Fjordman disagreed with this apologism, is what lead to his banning. It should be clear to everybody by now what CJ and LGF stands for.
"Norsk Troll! Why, how very deep that muck and mire must be at that LGF thread!" the Baron said.
"Oh, this is nothing, Baron." I replied.
"I'm sitting on a horse."
Taller horse or different trail. You're choice. (Yeoman's job over there, by the way, though I think you're pissing into the wind for distance).
AngleofRepose:
His main motivation for peeking under the bed was whether some within the movement had neo-Nazi affiliations. He's a philo-Semite after all, so his initial motivation was understandable. Their rallying cry has consistently been "No Nazi's in my foxhole!".
And a fine motivation it was. But I've checked my foxhole, and even the ones next to me, and guess what? Not a Nazi to be found. Hold on...... OK. Turned over that little rock back there, and not even a rat....imagine that. Found a displaced meteorologist, though.
Mark Richardson:
What he dislikes are those Europeans who are seeking to defend something more than political values: those who wish, like the VB, to maintain the existence of a distinct national (or regional) tradition
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.
"Yep, he's at it again. Ignore the substance, attack the messenger, blah blah blah, same old story, day after day."
And that is what passes for discussion there. Drive-by intellectualism.....
@Conservative Swede,
I don't know what CJ and LGF stands for, but I know with certainty that it's not what I'm standing for.
I don't really understand this fascination with attacking the sources instead of attacking the material. What does it matter if it's a leftist (or even communist) source? What does it matter if it's a rightist (or even nazi) source? If the material is correct, then it doesn't matter where it comes from. If the material is incorrect, then it should be possible to show it's wrong(naturally, not everyone will be swayed by facts, but that's life).
The real issue seems to be a form of ethnocentrism, doesn't it? I mean, Belgiums culture and history are deliberately ignored (if not deemed laughable arguments) in the analytical process. Instead, the symbols are being analyzed by applying the cultural traditions and history of other countries(and the ideas/ideals of "internationalists/internationalism"). It doesn't matter what the Odins/Celtic cross means/meant in the US, England or Ireland if it means something else in Belgium. It doesn't matter what the rat means/meant in France, Germany or Italy if it means something else in Belgium. And it doesn't matter what the swastika means/meant in Japan, Denmark or Canada if it means something else in India...
We all have a tendency to judge things on the basis of our own "cultural framework", but that's what's known as ethnocentrism. It takes a special kind of person to set aside his "cultural framework" and view an issue from another "cultural framework". LGF (and others) seem to have chosen the ethnocentric approach.
When it comes to judging values, morals and customs I'm all for an ethnocentric approach as I believe some things are better than others. When it comes to determining the meaning of symbols... Well let's just that ethnocentrism is not the most "scholarly" approach.
Zonka,
CJ and LGF are with the "anti-fascist" crowd. This is what AngleofResponse refers to as an understandable motivation. But Morgenholtz and others looked into that foxhole and there were no Nazis there. But we live in the sort of sick culture where the hysterical person suffering from the hypnotical paranoia of seeing Nazis where there aren't any, is considered honourable and understandable. There's no limit to how wrong you are allowed to be, or how destructive and vile you are allowed to be, when on this sort of holy mission. You will always be forgiven. The goal justify any means. However, for those trying to oppose these pathological people: a single tiny mistake, and you are doomed.
It's this immense gravity from the left, that makes virtually everyone adapt the principle of "no friends to the right", while being hurriedly sucked into the black hole of the left, once trying to act as a moral saint. It's this immense gravity from the left that makes honourable "anti-fascists" almost kill peaceful 74-year old ladies, while honourable "anti-fascists", such as CJ, dismiss the whole thing as extremist infighting. Remember that the average Muslim do not openly applaud the violent elements of Islam, either. But they silently approve of it, which is exposed in apologist statements; statements very much comparable to to one by CJ above.
Laller,
I have already covered this in my first comment, and I agree with you. I wouldn't hesitate to link to a Communist or Nazi site, if it was the only available source for useful information.
However, I would definitely make sure to add reservations about the site, making clear that I in no way agree with their position. This is not only the civilized way to do it, it's fundamental self-preservation, if you at all care about your reputation. The same with Holocaus or Eurabia denial sites. I would add a disclaimer, or I would be dead as a blogger.
CJ however do not care the least about his reputation. He's to obsessed with his witch hunt. It's clear by now that he would link to a site of any degree of the left, even the darkest red, as long as they are anti-fascist brothers.
"Forgetting" to add such reservations, is a sign that you have your priorities in the wrong place. It's actually very telling. And we can actually see how CJ is being gradually transformed into a leftist.
He's lost his mind, and his reputation is going down the same drain.
CS,
CJ and LGF are with the "anti-fascist" crowd. This is what AngleofResponse refers to as an understandable motivation.
Excuse me, but I do believe I clarified that it was his initial reaction I found understandable. His subsequent posts have been nothing more than smear-by-associations, as I thought I made perfectly clear.
Don't try to ascribe to me positions I do not hold. It's most unappreciated.