Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Fjordman on Freedom-Fighting “Fascists”

Fjordman’s latest essay is posted at Atlas Shrugs. Some excerpts are below.

For the record: I’d like to thank Fjordman for his unwavering support over the past year.

In late 2007 and early 2008, I was involved in a heated argument with the American blog Little Green Footballs and its owner Charles Johnson. I haven’t been thinking much about it since then because it consumed too much energy and I found it to be a waste of time. However, recent events have caused me to look at these issues once more. In the city of Cologne (Köln), Germany, a scheduled anti-Islamization demonstration was disrupted by an unholy alliance of Eurabian Multicultural elites and extreme Leftist “anti-Fascists.” As Thomas Landen puts it in The Brussels Journal :

“Last weekend’s events in Cologne demonstrate what European conservatives are up against. A conference protesting the building of a mega mosque run by Turkish radicals was violently disrupted by thugs who gained the approval of the local German authorities and the German media. The international media, including the so-called ‘conservative’ media, have either not written about the Cologne incidents or done so by branding the conservatives as ‘Neo-Nazis’ and the thugs as ordinary citizens bravely fighting back ‘Nazism.’ An example of the latter can be found in The Times of London.”

According to magazine Der Spiegel, “an estimated 40,000 protesters turned up in Cologne’s downtown Heumarkt area, many wearing clown suits, to disrupt the rally. They blocked urban trains to keep delegates away and raided a tourist boat shaped like a whale — called the ‘Moby Dick’ — where the far-right gathering had been hoping to hold a press conference. A Pro Cologne spokesman said, ‘Stones, bricks and paint bombs were thrown and the panoramic windows of the Moby Dick were shattered.’ Police cancelled the rally after 45 minutes. Pro Cologne organizers had to dismantle microphones and other equipment in Heumarkt while the overwhelmed riot cops tried to hold back the crowd of protesters.”

According to Der Spiegel, Police had prepared for about 1,500 far-right activists, organized by the local ‘Pro Cologne’ movement, to make a public show of discussing what they called the ‘Islamization’ of Europe.”

As the esteemed American writer and columnist Diana West commented: “The suggestion here is that no non-’far-right activist’ could possibly be so ‘far right’ as to imagine Europe is being Islamized… The point of the anti-Islamization rally was rational discussion. But Cologne proved it values neither reason nor discussion. ‘The city was ready.’ For mob rule.”
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

One of the reasons why hardcore anti-Semites (David Duke would be a case in point) are unreliable allies is that they hate Jews so much that it shuts down the rational parts of their brain and they end up making common cause with Muslims, based on mutual hatred. The same logic applies to hardcore anti-Europeans, of which there are many even at “conservative” websites such as LGF. They have an irrational hatred, a dark cloud in their minds which prevents them from seeing the world clearly. In a way, some LGF-ers thus have more in common with David Duke than they’d like to admit. If mindless anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism should be considered a problem then so should mindless anti-Europeanism.

This weekend, we witnessed how violent thugs threatened, assaulted and in some cases beat up people they disagreed with, several of them Jews. These “anti-Fascist” blackshirts are closely related to the violent totalitarian movements of past generations, in their dress code, mentality and willingness to silence freedom of speech by brute force. In short, they resemble Fascists and Communists (some of them were Communists). What has Little Green Footballs, which never misses an opportunity to denounce “Fascists,” written about this? So far, absolutely nothing. There are indeed people who behave like Fascists in Europe, and they receive tacit support from LGF while their victims are denounced as “Fascists.”

I have watched, for the better part of a year, a number of decent human beings including, but not limited to, Pamela Geller, Paul Belien, Diana West, the Baron and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog and many others, being at the receiving end of a vicious smear campaign from Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs which is unlike anything I have seen in my life. After engaging in an insane witch-hunt on imaginary Fascists, whose ranks seem to grow every month, Mr. Johnson now suddenly chooses to look the other way in silence when very real Fascists use violence to silence their critics in a major Western city. I admit that makes me angry, and I think I have the right to be so.

The time has now come for Mr. Johnson to apologize in public to the numerous people he has smeared since the fall of 2007, starting with the ones I have mentioned above. It’s not their credibility that’s on the line here. It’s his. If he continues to undermine those confronting Islamic infiltration, it will become increasingly difficult for LGF to present itself as an anti-Jihad website at all. At some point, the rapidly shrinking number of people in the northern hemisphere who haven’t been banned from the site yet will be forced to ask themselves whether the website and its owner have simply switched teams and joined the Dark Side.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ow please...dont get this johnson guy started again. He will be ranting away for weeks. Its just not worth it.

Just let him wither away in his little corner on the internet. People arent stupid. They will eventually and inevitably see lgf for what it is. Or, to be more precise, for what it has become.

Which ofcourse doesnt take away the fact that you are absolutely right!!

CarnackiUK said...

Charles' convoluted balancing act has got him tied up in knots like an epileptic octopus!

He can hardly reveal to the Lizards that the street-fighting arm of his European 'informants' has been beating up Jews in Cologne. Even the most fanatical of his monitor lizards might start putting two and two together and getting an even number.

At the same time I don't think CJ has said a word about the tribute to Oriana Fallaci held in Florence a couple of weeks back. You'd think he would because the Associazione Una Via Per Oriana bestowed an award on his good friend Robert Spencer. Unfortunately for Charles the Association also awarded a prize to Filip Dewinter. CJ couldn't bring himself to recognize Spencer's honor because he would have had to acknowledge that Oriana's friends also feted Dewinter, a politician he (and his EXPO/Antifa informants) has been denouncing as a near-Nazi ever since the Brussels Anti-Jihad conference last year.

So what does Charles do? He takes down the photo of Oriana Fallaci that had been gracing LGF ever since her untimely death, and pretends the awards ceremony never happened. Previously he had ignored facts and explanations which jibed with his prejudices and disinformation. Now he's forced to ignore important events, Cologne included, which might cast doubt on the skewed vision of Europe he has been peddling for the last year.

Joanne said...

Charles of LGF and some of his commenters had a smear campaign against Lionheart as well. It isn't fair to decent human beings to throw out the words Nazi or fascist and taint their good intentions.

spackle said...

I am sorry but I dont understand where resurrecting from the ashes the CJ affair will accomplish anything except two months of non-stop back and forth. He is who he is and will never apologize nor admit he was wrong. So what is the point? It is merely beating the proverbial dead horse. I just dont see that his influence is so great that anyone should give a s**t what he or any of his sycophants say.

Afonso Henriques said...

"For the record: I’d like to thank Fjordman for his unwavering support over the past year."

What is this???

Couldn't you have said this in privet to Fjordman!??

It looks like Fjordman will stop writing to Gates of Vienna...

I got scared...

Anonymous said...

I read the whole thing over at Atlas Shrugs, and it is perhaps one of the finest pieces of writing I have ever read. This issue is still important because if we just ignore Charles' smears and let him get away with them, it will make us look like we're agreeing by being silent. We can't just let him get away with his hypocrisy--we've got to call him out on it.

Homophobic Horse said...

I agree with Natalie.

Let us not forget that amateurish attempt at assassination from the Antifa terrorists against SIOE organisers last year.

Bela said...

Please don't regard my observation as obnoxious or arrogant but we are moving along in very small circle in this forum.
The whole Islamisation question is dealt with from a cultural vantage point, something like this:

Islam is about destroy the European cultural heritage, the Dhimmi statesmen do nothing, who will help us? Russia to the rescue! Civil War! America and NATO are bad!

We completely ignore the most salient aspect of the Islamisation something that Bat'yeor clearly foretold, namely that the Europeans elite don't want to antagonize the Arab oil supply by supporting or tolerating anti-Islamist protest.

The hard left has a different agenda but the violence they capable of is a welcome help for the elite; - the Commies are ready to do the dirty job by silencing others.

Don't forget where there is no helping Commie mob to intervene, as it happened earlier in Brussels, the Islamist elite did not hesitate to beat up the protesters using their own police.

It would be wiser to pay more attention to all of the important players in this conundrum that taking place in Western Europe.

The players are:

1. The Arabist ruling elite making huge profit by dealing in oil and gas and appeasing the Islamist.
They don't care about Sharia for they are immune to the imam's craze.

2. The Commies, low class proletariat as usual, lots of street protest, red flags, Che pictures but no real power.

A dwindling number of classic cultural nationalist hated by both groups and without any chance to regain influence.

Homophobic Horse said...

OT: EU shuts down critical blogger

CarnackiUK said...

I just read the whole essay at 'Atlas Shrugs' and see that Fjordman has already made the same points I made in my post above. Apologies for the duplication!

Passionate Conservative said...

You can always trust Chas to stir stuff up to get more hits. I'm sure he's ready to run about 20 new posts calling anyone who disagrees with his positions "nazis."

I'm sure he'll break out the stick soon enough if anyone dares oppose the party line over there.

Fjordman said...

To those who think this is unnecessary: CJ to this day keeps harassing people who happen to agree with us behind the scenes. We have let him alone for a long time, but that's not good enough for him. I agree that his influence is diminishing, but he is still in a position to make problems, for others more than for us. And I just don't like submitting to bullying from anybody, Muslim or not.

Whiskey said...

I would assume C Johnson wants to sell his site to whoever. Some media company.

Therefore, his own Night of the Long Knives to "purge" those of un-PC thoughts.

Either that or he's reflexively anti-European.

Myself, I like Europeans, their culture, their food, their wine, their products, and wish them continued existence. Rather than some cold Islamic hell.

Even I did not expect that the AFA people would be so blatant, so brazen. It's hard for Americans to understand the thuggery behind what goes on in Europe, the blatant corruption and anti-Native sentiment. We get enough here, but even someone like say, John Cusack has to mute his anti-American feelings in public.

Paul said...

Interesting: I posted on LGF this evening ... I did not call names and simply stated that I find the arguments on this issue better stated here, than at LGF. And guess what ... my account at LGF was deleted.

Clearly, dear Mr. Charles' blogging has gone to his head. So now, I suppose, I'm a Nazi.

Anonymous said...

Paul, if you have a blog, you can add my official badge to it, now that you've been banned, if you want ;)

Seriously, did you see how stupid Charles' post was about this? Some of the comments were even stupider--I read a couple, and honestly, if stupidity were lethal, I'd be dead now.

Anonymous said...

Prophet Charles has spoken: No fascists, no apology

Now I have to read all 500 comments. Can't help myself.

Fjordman said...

Paul: Yeah, you're now a Nazi. Join the club, together with Fallaci and the rest of us Fascist bastards.

The stupidity is so clearly visible that I do not think we should worry about these accusations more than we have to. I intend to spend as little time on that website as humanly possible, but reserve myself the right to respond if LGF continues to harass those I consider to be friends or allies.

It's a bit sad, actually. LGF has always had its limitations, but three or four years ago, when our relationship was friendlier, it was indeed a better site than it is today. I don't know why CJ decided to destroy his own website. I'd almost feel sorry for him, had he not been acting like such an ass.

chalons said...

Pride is the worst of human sins. People do get full of themselves. When Johnson decided to go into full blown projection mode and promote himself to Chief Inquistor it was clear that it was time to drop LGF. I know which side I'm on. Keep up the good work, Fjordman!

Defiant Lion said...

Great essay Fjordman, thank you.

Charles Johnson is about as relevant to Britain as equality is to Islam.

But this really did get my goat up:

"Any party (such as the BNP in Britain) that has obvious openly pro Nazi leanings -- it's important to point that out and fight them. They are but a footnote and should be relegated to the very fringe of decent society."

Pamela Geller there proving she is as pig-ignorant about the BNP as CJ is about European politics.

Fight them? What standing shoulder to shoulder with the Internazis dressed in black? What a crass remark.

And this from a woman who supports George Bush. Remind me, how many illegal wars and how many innocent people have the BNP bombed? How many states have we created for Dar al Islam?

She may not realize but the BNP are a legal political party who observe the democratic process and they stand or fall by the ballot box. Here's Richard Barnbrook, ELECTED GLA member, who was in Cologne with a great response to The London Times report:

Barnbrook On Cologne

Some nazi. Not that hysterical pious bigots like Geller, Spencer and Johnson care. They hear the word "Nationalist" and it sends them into a demented "fight the nazis!"frenzy.

Such a pity they don't take the time and the effort to educate themselves about British politics, the Islamisation and colonisation of Britain, The BNP and exactly why British identity is so important to us.

And as I suggested on Jihad Watch, those who know nothing about the deliberate destruction of Britain or about the only party fighting against it should kindly pay us the courtesy of keeping their ignorance to themselves.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

DF, you keep banging that "illegal war" drum but it means fuggit all. A nation has the right to wage whatever wars it sees fit. There is no such thing as a legal or illegal war.

Pamela simply has outdated information about the BNP. That isn't her fault. I think you'd be able to update her a lot more easily if you stuck to pointing out the truth about your party rather than engaging in rhetoric about "illegal war". It turns people off.

Paul said...

Charles and co. view Europe and the world through the US political reality, where less than half the population is leftist; and where well over half is centrist or right of center. They can't grasp the European reality. What they don't realize, is that by the standards of the Euro-elites, LGF is a fascist/nazi site. Were LGF operating in Europe, it'd be up on hate-crimes in a wink as only a week spent viewing it would show that one of LGF's primary functions is Muslim bashing. By EU definition, LGF is a hate-site.

Yet, Charles has positioned himself as grand inquisitor over who is a legitimate "Islamaphobe" or "Nazi" and who isn't.

Charles and crew boast that because of their numbers, the rest of us "need" them.

Here's an example of how wrong their view of their "influence" is. I run a very small Canadian blog which as of late has lapsed. Yet, in 2006 I penned an essay titled "Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant". The essay caught fire, and since has been read or shared by millions of people. It's been reproduced in print media in dozens of countries and languages, is used in lectures to international audiences, has become a chain mail, has been published by GOP state organizations, has been read and referenced on major television news, and has spawned a whole counter-argument series of essays by Academics.

And this, all from a wee little Canadian blog which has a handful of readers. Most of those who have read the essay don't even know where it originated.

My point in sharing this, is to demonstrate that a well placed argument goes a lot further than the LGF style echo-chamber. So keep writing poignant pieces and reach outside the blog echo-chamber. Build a large inclusive tent ... not the small little hut LGF has become.

Defiant Lion said...

Graham

"A nation has the right to wage whatever wars it sees fit. There is no such thing as a legal or illegal war."

I disagree very strongly. What if I countered that with:

"This nonsense about "freedom to protest" means nothing. If one group hates another they should do whatever they see fit to stop them. There's no such thing as "Free Speech", all's fair in love and war etc."

Sounds like a dangerous path to tread which is why I'll strongly disagree with you and why I make the point, continually, about the flouting of law. Especially when people who support that label others as "Nazis".

Glass houses and all that.

Pamela - and she isn't alone n this - should make sure she's informed before she makes outrageous demonisations.

The problem is that people will read what she's written and mimmick her ignroance and take it as gospel. How many do I have to "update" Graham?

The onus is firmly on her and people like her to either keep shut about things she knows nothing of or to inform herself before she makes such dispicable slurs.

It isn't my - or any other supporter of the BNP - job to go around educating people who should take more responsibility for what they write. We have enough trouble as it is without this and just as CJ is criticised - rightly - for his stance towards European nationalists, Geller can be criticised for it too.

watling said...

This might be old news but, on the subject of the BNP, the party held its annual festival just over a month ago and several hundred "anti-fascists" turned up to "protest". The police, expecting trouble, were there in force.

Guess who caused all the trouble? Correct - the "anti-fascists". And they were dressed in standard Red Fascist gear: all black with black hoods.

No BNP members or supporters were involved in any of the violence, which was mainly directed towards the police. At least the police didn't side with the Red Fascists like they did in Cologne, which indicates that the UK is not yet as far down the road to oblivion as Germany is. Having said that, the festival wasn't a protest against Islam so perhaps for that reason the British state didn't feel the need to ban it.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Defiant Lion, the difference is that when you say a nation must follow laws, which you imply by calling a war illegal, you are by definition deferring to supranational institutions such as the United Nations. A nationalist such as yourself should be able to see the danger to national self-determination in such an instance. In order for a war to be called illegal there must be some sort of legal framework to define whether a war is legal or not, and that requires that the national law at some point has to be subservient to this international law. If one is to be a nationalist one must reject the very concept of international law as binding on the national government simply because it prevents that nation from determining its own path.

The example you gave is incomparable since it deals with how a single state chooses to deal with its inhabitants. That is a nation acting, choosing how to define its own laws and customs. That is the right of a nation. And it is equally the right of their neighbour to go in and crack heads if they want to, and the right of that former nation to appeal to its allies for defence against the latter. There is no "law" at the level of national intercourse because there is no legislative framework at the international level, therefore war cannot be "illegal", though it can definitely be highly immoral and indefensible.

The point about legislative frameworks ight seem like nitpicking but it's a very fundamental thing. In order to create law, there has to be a legislature. If there is a supranational legislature then there is no such thing as a free nation, because a nation would then be subservient to international legislative intervention. Where two or more nations join in a mutual treaty then there are grounds to argue the merits of their respective responsibilities but, again, it is the right of a national government to cast off any treaties that are considered unbeneficial in order to determine its own path. Our own parliamentary bill of rights makes this explicit by stating that no law except English law shall be the law of the land, that England should pay no heed to rulers "over the sea".

Obviously this concept has been ignored, but it is a fundamental plank of any nationalist movement, that a nation has the right to state what its own responsibilities are without reference to any sort of supranational interference.

There's obviously room for pragmatism - signing up to treaties and so on - but, to call oneself a nationalist and then appeal to the concept of "international law" by declaring the actions of a sovereign state as "illegal" appears more than a little contradictory to me. Perhaps I'm just being simplistic. Lacking nuance, maybe...

Nevertheless, I stand by the idea that the concept of international law makes a mockery of the nation-state. If you accept international law then you accept that the nation-state is dead.

Erich said...

A neat gentlemen's agreement to mutual silence:

* Robert Spencer remains silent on Diana West's support of Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang.

* GOV/Fjordman remain silent on Robert Spencer's silence on Diana West's support of Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang.

* Also, GOV/Fjordman remain silent on Spencer's McCarthyesque insinuations of guilty-until-proven innocent "fascist connections" that keep him from supporting Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang and the pro-Cologne movement. And, of course, GOV/Fjordman continue to support Spencer.

* In addition, Diana West remains silent on Spencer's betrayal of Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang and the pro-Cologne movement. And she too continues to support Spencer.

* Spencer on his side continues to support Diana West and Fjordman, yet remains silent on Charles Johnson's egregious condemnations of Diana West and hostility towards Fjordman (not to mention his egregious condemnation of Filip Dewinter, Vlaams Belang, the pro-Cologne movement, and many others he has smeared with the label "fascist").

* Meanwhile GOV/Fjordman for their part remain silent on Spencer's silence on Charles Johnson.

Wow, what a tangled web! The anti-Islam community seriously needs to pull back the drapes, open wide the bay windows, and let in the bright sunshine of frank, honest, clear and rational discussion on all these intricate cobwebs that have been festering and building up.

Defiant Lion said...

@Graham

I totally reject your stance but it is a bone I simply cannot be bothered picking right now.

I respect your viewpoint totally and I also believe that my opinion on international law does not compromise my nationalist stance.

Let's agree to disagree.

My main point was about Geller's irrational nasty litte rant against the BNP which was bang out of order and the points I raised are valid.

I'm sure we'll cross swords in the future vis-a-vis International law and why I believe it is important.

But not now for me thanks.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Erich, I think the silences serve purposes. One is to abstain from potentially stupid personal squabbles. One is to be silent on issues where one does not have complete knowledge. And one is to focus on the real issues, facing up to totalitarian Islam.

I'm sick of little squabbles and prefer to get on with our job. Bigots like CJ can be left behind, as they contribute nothing of value, merely dissent.

Use or endorsement of intimidation and violence in politics is wrong, period. That statement alone should be enough to exclude fascist sentiments.

Antifa, of course, would not subscribe to such a clear statement about the use of violence...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Let's agree to disagree.

I think that's fair.

It was a bit of of line for Pamela to spout off about the BNP like that but, I think it can be forgiven on the assumption that she's willing to listen to what you have to say. I do believe a certain amount of the responsibility remains with us to educate these people rather than simple expect them to pick it up as they go. One of those thankless, but necessary tasks...

awake said...

Erich appears to be sowing the seeds of discontent between major players in the anti-Islam movement again, and also seems to insinuate that the movement is fractured in the absence of a monolithic mindset, namely his very own.

What he is attempting to achieve I still fail to realize, although I am quite confident to date that his results have been negligible.

Baron Bodissey said...

Erich --

Time to cool your jets, Flash.

You mistake tact for "silence". I don't fight publicly with anybody that I consider to be basically on the same side as I am. Charles Johnson was an exception (and to a lesser extent, Pastorius) because he absolutely insisted on a fight. But even that was limited in scope and duration, on our end.

You don't know what goes on in private conversations, nor should you. Our cause is not served by public intramural squabbles, and I won't engage in any, if I have a choice.

Fjordman said...

Awake: You are right, Erich doesn't achieve much. But that doesn't mean he isn't annoying.

Erich said...

henrik clausen,

"One is to be silent on issues where one does not have complete knowledge."

Spencer is not following this piece of advice from you, since he pronounces upon Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang while obviously not having complete knowledge which is available (for example in the fine essays by Christine over at the 910 group).

Erich said...

baron bodissey,

You confuse reasonable and mature criticism with "fighting" and "squabbles", as though there is no difference.

I am not calling on people to "fight" Spencer, nor to have "squabbles" with him. It is absurd to think that there should not be criticism of Spencer on certain points from within the Anti-Islam Movement. Not only does such absurdity demonstrate a childish fear of criticism, it serves to suppress one of the main virtues of Western civilization by which individuals, groups and ideas progress: the openness toward internal criticism.

Baron Bodissey said...

Erich --

I confuse nothing of the sort.

Because certain things are visible and public here and on other sites, you assume that you know what the story is behind it all, that is, what's not visible and not public.

But you don't.

I might have legitimate disagreements with someone, and I might find it prudent not to air them publicly. There could be several reasons for this.

I could be unwilling to spend the large amount of time it would take to make my case, knowing that it it would have no measurable useful effect.

Or I might be certain that my doing so would lead to one of those nasty public squabbles which I consider counterproductive. Even though I might begin the process by being reasonable, calm, and civil, that doesn't mean that the people I'm disagreeing with would do the same. Since I know the personalities of some of those who would be stimulated to extreme reactions, I can reasonably predict what the outcome would be and act accordingly.

Or it might be something else entirely, or some combination of these things. In any case, it is my best judgment to act (or not act) according to what seems the most prudent course.

You display an appalling level of hubris and arrogance when you assume that you know why others choose to do what they do, and that you could do better if you were in their shoes.

I don't agree with you, but I have no intention of trying to dissuade you from your convictions.