Thursday, April 24, 2008

Knocking the Teeth Out of Racism

Zonka has translated an article from yesterday’s Jyllands-Posten about the efforts of an Antifa clone to dispense revolutionary justice to right-wing racist crypto-fascist neo-Nazi Islamophobes who object to the Islamization of Denmark.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. See Zonka’s post for the full translation and outside links:

Right-wing activist got five teeth knocked loose

A female member of the right-wing group Vederfølner got five teeth damaged in a violent assault last Saturday on the main street of Århus.

Antiracistisk NetværkThe assault happened, shortly after the “House” on Vester Allé — where Anti-Racist Network [Antiracistisk Netværk] held a meeting — had been stormed by right-wing activists.

The 19-year-old woman went together with two girlfriends from the Reginacross towards the train station.

“She was dressed in a Henry-Lloyd dress and had a Danish flag, which by the left wing is considered to be right-wing. They passed a bench, on which three autonome girls were sitting, and shortly afterwards the 19-year old got hit five times in the face by one of the three girls,” says Lars Grønbæk Larsen, who is the chairman of Vederfølner.
- - - - - - - - -

The girl was wearing the Danish flag because she had been at a birthday party, her two front teeth cracked and a another broke at the root.

“We’re investigating the case as all other cases of violence, but there is nothing new,” says police-inspector Jan Andersen.

Zonka’s comments:

I have to admit that I hadn’t heard about the Aarhus group Vederfølner before hearing about this story, but judging from their web page, it seems like a counter-jihad group and states that their purpose is to fight for Freedom of Speech, Democracy, Equal Rights between Genders and against multiculturalism and Islamization.

Not something that should cause them to be labelled as rightwing activists, but then again the left-leaning people and the media, and even sometimes the authorities, have a hard time getting the labels right… Everything that the lefties doesn’t like is labelled right-wing, fascist, racist, Nazi, etc. One convenient large lump of everything-the-left-hates that grows bigger by the day, since it apparently is now a “hate crime” in the lefties book to carry a Danish flag!

Note: I realize the logo I used above is for the Odense group and not the Århus group of the Antiracistisk Netværk, but it was the only example I could find.


Sodra Djavul said...

So, Baron. How long until the omniscient Charles Johnson tries to do the same to you?

Johnson no longers considers you and the readers here "crypto-fascist neo-Nazis." He considers you and us actual Nazis as evidenced by his comments very near the end of this discussion. They do hold us in the same esteem as this Antiracistisk Netvaerk holds its political opponents.

I know this is just my personal opinion, but I wouldn't urinate on an LGF'er if they were on fire.

- Sodra

Findalis said...

Any one who criticizes Islam and the left is considered a Nazi. Even little old Jewish me!

spackle said...

Just went over to LGF to see what Sodra was talking about. Wow! Those guys are rabid! I didnt realize I was a nazi? I am glad they straightened that out for me. All my years on the shrinks couch could have been saved if had I just gone over to LGF for advice.

X said...

Oh, especially you, Findalis. Don't you know, the jews are the new nazis? Someone on the internet said it so it must be true!

Dymphna said...


We *are* actual Nazis. those people were so slow to catch on you've got to wonder if they can tie their shoes.

We have secret meetings and practice our Heil Hitler salutes.

We all have sharp swords and we use them to smash the Zionist conspiracy.

When we're not busy running off copies of the Protocols of the Elders of You-Know, we have stashes of black and red paint for marking Jewish businesses and synagogues with swatiskas.

BTW, for your eyes only, Hitler isn't really dead. We used cryogenic preservation and resurrect him on occasion to speak at our meetings. Always makes a big hit. Sure wish he'd learn English, though. I'm considering ordering some of those subliminal language tapes to put in the freezer with him so he can acquire English during his limbo state.

I am the one who gets to trim Adolf's moustache, so if you want some clippings let me know. They're relatively inexpensive considering...

We're hoping to get David Duke to join the club and we've put feelers out to the unreformed wing of the BNP. Things do look promising in that area.

The skinheads in Germany are darling. Fortunately, some of them *do* speak English.

Debbie said...

Robert Spencer is right. I don't know why anyone would defend joining race-based groups just because they happen to agree on one significant issue.

I think that the people who feel that they have no choice but to align themselves with racialist groups are naive into thinking they won't be targeted by that group one day. These types of groups start out hating one minority or group of people, and that circle of hate gets wider and wider, and before you know it, you happen to be one of the hated. It's never worth it. You'd also never understand until you're hated simply because of your color, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, etc... It's hard to have empathy when one hasn't had that experience.

Dymphna was right in that action is essential. Action doesn't have to mean joining something someone else already started because of one shared ideal. Action could mean starting your own movement that is principaled strictly on one sole issue, counterjihadism because Islam is dangerous, without any other agenda at all. I'm a rabid Zionist, but you'll notice that I rarely get on my Zionist soapbox. That's not what this group's agenda is in my mind. It's specifically about combatting Islam.

A good example of a hate group I'd never join is Little Green Footballs. I think they get more joy in hating than anything else. They seem to be a very cranky bunch that needs to get laid :)

Dymphna said...

dead bambi--

Many people make alliances of convenience with people whose priniciples they don't fully embrace. For example, there are many Democrats and Republicans who plan to vote this year, but they will do so holding their noses, because they are aware of the depth of corruption and sheer ineptitude on both sides, and voters see many issues not being addressed.

No political party, including the ones in Europe, are one issue parties. Vlaams Belang is the largest Flemish party and they are continually harassed by the socialist left.


1.believes in small govt,

2 low taxes,

3.they're philoSemites (the only party In Belgium to openly embrace Israel)

4. They don't mind immigration as long as newcomers are willing to learn Flemish and assimilate.

5. They are the most economically productive group in Belgium;

6. Immigrants and Jews are part of their party;

7. The other parties have formed a "cordon sanitaire" around VB so that no legislature -- absolutely none -- that they propose will ever be approved by another party, nor are they permitted to join in others presenting legislation.

8.Because of the vast sweep of the Germans thru Europe in WWII every single European political party, was part of that. It was essentially unavoidable. Maybe a few, like the Danes, escaped, but they still had to make compromises to survive the tyranny.

History cannot be erased, but people can choose to let it lie in hopes of building a better future.

So people are not joining VB or the Swedish Democrats because of one issue. They are joining because they feel that these parties provide some hope in an otherwise dismal landscape. Meanwhile members brave enough to join are persecuted by their own countrymen.

And for some reason, they find America's advice -- e.g., "start your own party" -- extremely unhelpful. Political parties are funded and allowed to exist by the government. There is no fund-raising, etc., as we have here. Either you get the imprimatur of the central govt, or you disband.

That's what they did to Vlaams Blok. The courts killed them as a functioning party.

Conservative Swede said...

Dymphna: "3.they're philoSemites (the only party In Belgium to openly embrace Israel)"

People simply do not get this into their minds. You are describing the real world here. This is completely alien to most people.

The political landscapes in many countries have changed entirely. But people still haven't updated their views - far from it.

Here's a recent, and very clear, example from Italy:

>>[T]he radical Left has disappeared. Communists and greens have vanished, at least from parliament. They do not have a single senator or deputy [in the Italian parliament]. In the stunned eyes of the Rainbow people, the night was made even blacker by the triumph of Silvio Berlusconi, the impressive gains of the Northern League and the hard-to-refute claim of its secretary, Umberto Bossi: “The workers have voted for the Northern League”. Pause for effect: “The workers don’t vote for the Left any more. The Northern League is the new workers’ party”.>>

Anonymous said...

I don't get why the LGF crowd is jumping all over Dymphna for (politely) offering some criticism of Robert Spencer. After all, Charles' big "anti-fascist" buddy Oyvind Strommen has attacked Spencer numerous times, in far more vicious tones, than Dymphna. Oyvind Strommen would say that Spencer was a "fascist enabler", along with Bat Ye'or, Oriana Fallaci, Mark Gabriel, and anyone else who dared to criticize "Oy's" beloved Islam.

no2liberals said...

Sodra, I don't know if I should thank you or curse you, for the LGF link. Haven't visited that site in quite a while. I did scan down to near the bottom, where CJ scolded Jungle Jim for not subscribing to his poor analysis of events and political affiliations. I don't trust his insights, and am inclined to think he is doing more harm than good, by being so petty in his attacks on those who are seeking the same result.
I read Spencer's piece, and dymphna's, and can honestly say it was two grownups having their say. I respect Spencer, his body of work stands by itself, but he is certainly not immune from gentle criticism. While I am a Christian, Israel and Zionism has no better friend than me. While I have been opposed to all forms of Marxism in my life, whether it was communism, socialism, nazism, or fascism, I also understand that there will always be people of many different political leanings involved in any issue. Nor do I consider myself racist, or tolerate those who are. When it comes to the activities of the global hirabah, I welcome any into the fight. Political differences and alliances can be dealt with after the danger has passed.
As for the labels CJ choses to affix to others, with incomplete info, and questionable sources, he can speak of a "pure" force allied against the hirabah, but it will never exist in reality.

Debbie said...


I understand your point and readily admit that I know absolutely nothing about the VB or any of Europe's political parties, with the exception of Britain's BNP and Labour (old and new).

From my limited perspective, I would support the VB and Swedish Democrats based on your descriptions. I don't know which parties have been around since the 1930's and which haven't. It sounds like what you're describing is the insane left's hatred of anything that isn't insanely left - something I definitely do not support.

But if those same parties have issues with people based on race (I'm not saying they do since I don't know, I'm just saying if), then that is a tragic flaw that cannot be overcome no matter what other great things they stand for. There is a pretty distinct line and if it's crossed, the good works go unnoticed. Right or wrong, that's just how the world works.

As far as political parties having to go along with the Nazis, the same passivity could've occurred with the rise of Islam throughout Europe that is the subject of your blog's name, and I'm sure on some level it did. It was the noble who fought against it who we remember today. Those who went along quietly holding their noses hoping to get their ideas across despite their alliance were ultimately cowards and accomplished nothing, because in the end, their alliance was their undoing.

Europe is complicated and I don't profess to know what the answer is. I understand why people will align themselves with certain parties because of the imminent threat they face and it seems to be the only choice for them. In the end, though, if that party has extremist views on race or nationalism, I think they'll fail. I believe it will be the moderate parties that will overcome the extremes from both ends of the spectrum and ultimately triumph. Even if those moderate parties are steadfastly anti-Islam, and moderate on everything else, they will be successful because they will get support comprised of the moderate on both sides of the fence. I believe those numbers are likely far greater than the extremes from either one of the twos edges of the political spectrum.

By your logic, the left-wingers who feel that American support of Israel (only example I could come up with) is causing all of our troubles with Muslims would be morally justified in joining up with Hal Turner's or Tom Metzger's groups because, even though they have distinctly opposing views on many things, their big concern about Israel fueling Islamic terror against the USA is in line with the thinking of the White Aryan Resistance or Aryan Nation.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Dymphna said...

@dead bambi:

the left-wingers who feel that American support of Israel (only example I could come up with) is causing all of our troubles with Muslims would be morally justified in joining up with Hal Turner's or Tom Metzger's groups because, even though they have distinctly opposing views on many things, their big concern about Israel fueling Islamic terror against the USA is in line with the thinking of the White Aryan Resistance or Aryan Nation.

You have me there. I don't know these groups at all, though "Aryan Nation" is pretty self-explanatory. However, I would --given time enough and room -- argue about their "moral" "justification" for whatever it is they espouse.

VB wants immigrants to assimilate or go back home. I have the same feelings about Mexican immigrants here. VB does not advocate en masse deportation. They want practical ways to encourage assimilation and discourage enclaves. That's why they have immigrant members in their party.

What we're really talking about here is that bugaboo, cultural identity.

For example, you live in a beautiful city with a distinct culture. One of its attractions is all those amazing wrought iron fences and gates -- most of them originally designed and built by slaves under the instructions of their masters. In the name of freedom, shouldn't those products of slave labor be dismantled? Do you shiver when you walk by one, trying to picture the slave who worked on it -- where he lived when he wasn't working, what he ate, how he survived? Or should they be left in place, in honor of those who slaved on them?

America has too checkered a past, both the North and the South, for us to pass judgement on people whose situations we don't share.

Personally, I'm glad my parents made it over here before I was born or I'd be in a pickle.

Dymphna said...

@conservative swede:

Here's a recent, and very clear, example from Italy:

[T]he radical Left has disappeared. Communists and greens have vanished, at least from parliament. They do not have a single senator or deputy [in the Italian parliament]. In the stunned eyes of the Rainbow people, the night was made even blacker by the triumph of Silvio Berlusconi, the impressive gains of the Northern League and the hard-to-refute claim of its secretary, Umberto Bossi: “The workers have voted for the Northern League”. Pause for effect: “The workers don’t vote for the Left any more. The Northern League is the new workers’ party”.

Agreed. This is a sea change in Italian politics. But do you think the US media gives a fart? Noooo...they're too busy chasing the trivial, corrupt and wholly noxious doings of the candidates. Any day now, I expect to hear about, say, Hillary's bowel habits, or Osama's prostrate...or lack of same.

American journalism is the most narcissistic, self-reflecting organism on earth. They are frozen in place, gazing at their own beauty in the looking glass.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Italy performs an amazing feat, and the US yawns and switches the channel, while making some joke about Italians -- their knowdledge of whom is limited to "The Sopranos."

Debbie said...


In the context of the counterjihad movement, I agree that there will be always be people from different backgrounds, perspectives, ecetera who will join together on this one issue and I'm absolutely cool with that. It's when they begin espousing their peripheral agendas that it becomes an issue.

For example, when Alphonse brings his Nationalism/Purity of Europe feelings into his arguments against Islam, it completely disintegrates his credibility in anything he has to share that could possibly benefit the counterjihad movement. His agenda becomes something very different and it is transparent that his reasons for being in this movement go beyond the simplicity of combating Islam because it's intolerant, insincere, evil, and ruthless. He's free to have and share his views and I would never ask that he be censored, but I hope that he comes to realize that doing so in the context of supporting counterjihadism only hurts counterjihadism. The only people who won't tune him out will be the ones who share his peripheral agendas. That's not exactly an effective strategy.

This is why I do get on my soapbox when I see people interject with agendas that are outside combating Islam. That's why I feel so strongly about the counterjihad movement staying away from typically right or left issues and simply focusing on the one issue: how Islam is attempting to subvert our liberties, promote intolerance, disrespect humanity, and grow a caliphate.

I have so many beliefs that are probably very different from the majority of people who participate at GoV, but most of you don't know what they are (not specifically anyway) because I try to focus on the topic at hand for this blog. I let myself get derailed when I see those "peripheral agendas" being touted, and that's when my "peripheral agendas" tend to seep out in response.

To me, the ideal scenario for the counterjihad movement would be that no one would know my views about gay people, taxes, healthcare, race, abortion, or the environment because they're completely irrelevant (for the most part) to counterjihadism; nor would I know your views on those matters. It would have to be self-governed and I hope someday that those who participate in this blog and others like it understand that we have a very serious issue on our hands and to derail it by throwing pork barrel agendas into the mix only weakens our position.

With regard to political parties, it's a bit more complex because of course they require more than one issue to be viable.

I think if the counterjihad movement maintained a separate identity from political parties and their agendas, and maintained it's integrity by sharing factual information, eventually political parties wouldn't be afraid to align themselves with us for fear of being called a name, because that fear would be unsubstantiated. Then our movement wouldn't limited to having to choose one party versus another. Multiple parties could support the counterjihad movement while having polar opposite economic beliefs or social beliefs.

I think the answer is that the political parties need to come to us - not the other way around. That's why I think we have to grow this movement separately from the political parties.

Debbie said...

Dymphna - I admire the artistry and intensive labor that begat the gorgeous wrought iron gates here. Interestingly, the man who designed and slaved over most of them is still alive

As far as assimilation (Peripheral Agenda Alert), I kind of miss the days of distinct flavors of neighborhoods, i.e. Chinatown, Little Italy, Lower East Side. Assimilation was often necessary to succeed in the workforce, but at home they maintained their individual cultures and didn't impose their views onto others. Those distinct neighborhoods maintained their individuality, but respected others.

Right or wrong, it was kind of nice like this.

no2liberals said...

conservative swede and dymphna
In fairness, when I heard Mark Steyn on the radio last week, after the Italian elections, state that the commies had no seat in Parliament for the first time in a very long time, I was astounded, and posted a comment at my friend Stefania's blog, Free Thoughts. She confirmed it was true, and that the leftists were quite upset about it. I find that bit of news to be revolutionary, in a very good way.
BTW, I watched the Soprano's one time, and all I wanted to do was shoot the main characters. They were mafia, for Christ's sake!

no2liberals said...

You can call me n2l, for short, but not N2L, I'm about more than Fnet = m * a.
I understand what you are saying, but rather than try and respond to each point individually, I will respond qualitatively.
I don't know how someone can separate their political leanings from a fight like the one we are in with islam. While I have my own views on the different types of people you listed, as well as issues, the one prevailing thought I have is directed to surviving and thriving. Any one or any thing that presents a threat to the safety and security of my life, my families, or my nation's, is in for a fight, I will not submit. While there may be some I might not other wise wish to associate with, or may engage in heated political debate, if they see the same enemy and threat as I do, I welcome their participation. Call it compartmentalizing, or something else, but there can be no purity test for fighting the hirabah. It was the divisions and in-fighting in Christian Europe that encouraged the Moors to invade, as well as the Ottomans, and is the same weakness that islam is preying on today.
I loathe commies, but if one is willing to stand by me and put rounds down range against the invading hordes from islam, he is my brother, but never my master, and if or when the threat has past, he might be my enemy once again.
The labeling of some as nazis or fascist, now, is just another tactic to divide people, and seldom requires proof, or in the case of the owner of LGF, the flimsiest of proof.
Having grown up in the South, in a small town, and on my grandmother's farm, I didn't have the exposure to different ethnic groups like you in NYC. It was either white or black. While racism was still prevalent, it was changing dramatically with my generation, as I could hear my grandmother tell me of the grandfather she never knew who was killed in the War Between The States, and the animosity she carried all of her life, but I couldn't share her feelings. I worked along side black people in the fields, shared meals, joys and sorrows with them, and never believed they weren't people like me. Skin color meant nothing. As I got older and traveled more, especially overseas, I enjoyed the vast cultural experiences I was exposed to. While I abhor the current state of forced multi-culti, I do enjoy and respect the many different aspects of cultures, as long as we are unified in our love of country, and our way of life.

Zonka said...

The counter-jihad movement is unlike most organizations you have encountered before, it is not a top-down controlled movement, it is neither a franchise, but a distributed cell network, that shares one common goal, but not one common solution or even preferred solution. Thus there is no “counter-jihadism” and there is nobody who have the authority to define who's in and who is out.

Blogs as such are not counter-jihad cells, their posters and commenters might or might not be, and blogs can be rallying points for cell2cell information exchange.

Counter-Jihad individuals and groups, decide who they want to associate with and who they want to accept as members (for groups), and there will probably always be those that think that they have a greater claim on being the Khalif instead of the Khalif, except they are deluding themselves as there are no Khalif of the counter-jihad movement, only a widespread network of groups and individuals with very different views on everything else.

Anonymous said...

As I understand it, Berlusconi only got back into power with help from the Lega Nord. Which some would call a "fascist" party. Interesting conundrum for LGF. Do they cheer because a pro-American, pro-Iraq war European politician has been returned to power? Or do they denounce him because of the company he keeps? Same with Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark -- pro-American, pro-Iraq war -- but he only holds onto power because of the DPP. To be consistent, LGF would have to denounce both Berlusconi and Fogh Rasmussen for associating with "fascist" parties.

babs said...

DeadBambi said:
To me, the ideal scenario for the counterjihad movement would be that no one would know my views about gay people, taxes, healthcare, race, abortion, or the environment because they're completely irrelevant (for the most part) to counterjihadism

Aside from race and the environment I would have to disagree with you completely...
Men accused of being gay in the Islamic nation of Iran are hung in public. Hospitals in the U.K. are having their staff take time out to turn Islamic patient's beds towards Mecca 5X/day. A huge share of tax dollars are being spent on welfare payments to Islamic individuals all over the EU. In several EU nations as well as Canada polygamy is now allowed for followers of Islam only further increasing the welfare payments to Islamic immigrants. Abortion is STRICTLY illegal in all Islamic cultures and nations (better to kill the mother than allow an abortion for rape, incest or any other reason.)

So really, I think one's point of view on a host of "peripheral" issues is quite relevant.

Conservative Swede said...


I think this is explained by the strategic principle made explicit by Siggy in that infamous podcast of the Sanity Squad. Where he explained that it was OK to ally with Stalin since he was powerful, but that Vlaams Belang has to be opposed as dangerous because they are weak -- once again that schoolyard bully principle in action: as a bully you'll have to pick a victim that is weak enough -- here expressed so eloquently by Siggy.

So according to this strategic principle, LGF (or Siggy) would not pick on Lega Nord and DPP since they have actual power (and therefore paradoxically are seen as less dangerous and evil in terms of the propaganda theater -- but that is logical! remember that it follows schoolyard bully logic!). A corollary to this is that if VB or SD becomes more powerful, that LGF would stop opposing them. But it would only be true if LGF followed some sort of factual logic. Instead they follow schoolyard bully logic, so they might as well freak out in Ralph Peters style Europe hate fits (Yes, LGF is still tempered compared to a freak like Ralph Peters.)

But it does not seem that it's VB and SD that LGF is really after. They are just pawns in the game, way out of scope of the pond the LGF really cares about. The problem for Charles Johnson is GoV and CVF. Since these groups now started actually doing something, Charles position as King of the Hill in the schoolyard is threatened. When the groups that actually do something are juxtaposed with the squad of net nicknames hiding behind their keyboards writing floods of chat level nonsense, then LGF will be seen as the phony thing it really is. And Charles is aware of this of course, so the rivals will have to be crushed by character assassination. And so he's doing, and he's being way successful as a schoolyard bully.

Zonka said...


Charles and LGF might be many things, but they aren't really the problem, they aren't the opinion makers, they are followers and amplifiers of existing opinions. True they have a lot of readers, but anybody who goes through the comment sections will see that there isn't much cohesive debate about anything, the comments degenerate into small-talk and banter or parrotting the party-line.

On the other hand there are smaller blogs like GoV that have a much smaller number of readers but with a much more focussed debate about issues, and these are the blogs that actually are forming opinions and debating the issues even the unpleasant ones.

In many ways LGF is like the free omnibus newspapers, like MetroExpress and others in that they have a very high number of readers, but they are not the ones forming the public opinion - That is left to those that spend money/time to do their own editorials, reflecting and encouraging a sober debate.

Conservative Swede said...


If I had indeed had said that Charles is an important opinion maker, then your comment would have been pertinent. Now, what I said was that he's a major schoolyard bully. And this is really something different.

True they have a lot of readers, but anybody who goes through the comment sections will see that there isn't much cohesive debate about anything, the comments degenerate into small-talk and banter or parroting the party-line.

Yes, the style of the comments does not at all reflect the site of an important opinion maker. But it reflects perfectly the site of a major schoolyard bully. Which was precisely my point!

Secondly, you propose the idea that opinion makers would be the most important ones in in leading opinion. As if reasoned argument would have been that main way for people to decide what position to take? I guess you have heard of political correctness and how it works, and then you have already been reminded that people are driven by fear before anything else when choosing their position, and that the main method is bullying.

So yes, Charles is not leading anything intellectually - there he's just a follower. But as a PC commissar, enforcing the party-line, he's an important leader. And he's got quite a number of the intellectuals by the balls.

Zonka said...

Forgive me if I seem to be dense, but to me it seems like you're contradicting yourself... First you say that he isn't an important opinion maker, and then ends up saying that is an important leader as a PC commissar, enforcing the party-line...

I don't see the big difference between being an opinion maker or an opinion enforcer (except the latter is always a negative, but the effects are the same).

Fortunately I don't see Charles being any good in any of the two roles, he has the following of groupies and while there might be an intellectual or two among them, so what, in the end he and his blog is a dead end and becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.

So yes he is a bully, but one that is in no condition to issue credible threats, so why give his threats credibility by taking them serious and actually be looking for them... That's my beef! Ignore him and LGF, there's plenty of other things to pay attention to, that is far more important.

But then again, I might be missing something here...

Conservative Swede said...

The difference between an opinion maker and an opinion enforcer is like between a teacher and a schoolyard bully. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you. It's strange that you are blind to it, since you brought up significant aspects of this difference yourself, i.e. the nature of the comments at LGF.

Your advice apart from that are as useless and detached from reality as the ones you'd get from a confused old lady about the schoolyard bully: "ignore him and the problem will disappear". You surely have not grasped the nature of the situation, Zonka. Do you truly mean that the Baron and Dymphna are that mentally handicapped? That the whole thing is that magically simple, but that they are just too stupid to see it, and therefore have spent considerable time with dealing with LGF.

Also your comment reminds me of those saying that if you talk about the possibility of horrible things coming ahead of us, such as ethnic strife, then the ethnic strife will come as a consequence. Likewise you say that Charles was not at all a problem, until suddenly some misguided people at GoV started seeing him as a problem, and then and therefore he became a problem.

Of course you could fantasize about a parallel world in which just everyone ignores Charles Johnson and LGF. But this is just Utopian thinking. Reminds me of discussing with Communists. They'd say "Why is it unimaginable to you that a collective system without private property could work well and also be a free system?". I'll say "It's not at all unimaginable to me. But even so it will never happen. Due to human nature, etc...".

You say that LGF is something marginal. It's not. It's one tip of the iceberg of something all-pervasive in our society. We actually have a culture where any nobody could step up as self-appointed inquisitor and slay independent thinkers. We saw how the nobody "Undercover Black Man" could make Horowitz stop publishing Lawrence Auster, just by waving the magic wand of political correctness. And Charles Johnson was definitely more than a nobody to start with.

Dymphna said...

Con Swede--

Can you direct me to more information about the "Undercover Black Man", Horowitz and Auster? It sounds fascinating and might do much to help me understand the intellectual or philosophical blinders of 9/11 "former" liberals. It sounds as though they are being excoriated by their liberal colleagues based on one issue.

You are correct about the power of the magic wand of pc. The US State Dept., that wielder of wands, has now pronounced anathema on "jihad" and "jihadist." Were I a member of al Qaeda, I'd be insulted at the termerity of someone who thought they could limit my self-identity.

What are we to call jihadists instead? Boy Scouts, or maybe The Sadly Misunderstood but Well-Meaning Killers"?

Dr. Rice has become a huge disappointment.

no2liberals said...

We should call the jihadist mufsidun and their movement the global hirabah.

Zonka said...


I think we're having a communication problem here. I did express my point poorly as it was early in the morning (yeah, that's my excuse...)

I didn't mean that if that Charles and LGF would magically disappear if we ignore him, but rather that I don't see spending time on what CJ is doing or not doing is time well spent - he will continue his attacks on anybody who doesn't agree with him, and I don't see that reacting to that will make one iota of difference, so why wasting the time?

Of course he is just the top of the iceberg, there will always be an abundance of under-informed or stupid people around, who will follow people like CJ who preaches what they want to hear. So how do you suggest that GoV can change this, by continuing a feud between GoV and LGF, by monitoring and countering accussations from CJ and clones, or by doing what GoV does best bring up any topic that the Baron or Dymphna feels pertinent, and ignore what CJ's responses are.

And yes I do believe that LGF is marginal, even if it has a high number of hits and readers. Sure he could try to step up as an "inquisitor" and bring legal charges against GoV but that would be like shooting himself in the foot all the way down the leg. Since that would make him the anathema in the blogging community and quite possibly spell the end of LGF as well. And for what? If GoV falls, it will rise again in another form.

Finally I have to say that you have a way of taking my comments and twist them to an extreme, that was never intended, and thus basically putting words in my mouth (or keyboard in this instance) that was never there, which is much unappreciated!

Conservative Swede said...


I do believe that LGF is marginal

You are truly delusional.

Of course he is just the top of the iceberg

Strike out the word "just" in that sentence and then realize that the thing with icebergs is that the whole part under water is just the same as the tip that you see.

So how do you suggest that GoV can change this, by continuing a feud between GoV and LGF[?]

I have no problem in keeping two thoughts in my mind at the same time: i) CJ and LGF have significant influence and have done us significant harm, ii) there's no point in continuing a feud with them.

You entered this discussion as if someone had suggested continuing a feud with them. But me and Queen were just discussing the nature of the behaviour of Charles and the Lizards (trying to decode it and make it intelligible). Not every mentioning of LGF is a suggestion to have a feud with them. You are being too hot here, Zonka.