Charles Johnson hits bottom, digs (Part 2)

I had not intended to write about Charles Johnson anymore, but tonight he has posted a video of two antisemitic idiots singing a song making fun of Holocaust victims. One of them turns out to have been a member of the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, although apparently he has been expelled from it due to this video. Anyway, this has become the occasion for Charles and his sycophants to renew their libels -- and since one person encouraged people to contact me, as if I have something to do with these people, I thought this occasioned another statement.

Anyway, whatever the relationship of these people is or was with the VB, as I said here: "I want to emphasize that I have not endorsed the Vlaams Belang. This whole controversy is not about the Vlaams Belang, but about whether or not one can disagree with Charles Johnson and not be defamed as a result." It was occasioned not by my linking to Vlaams Belang, as someone at LGF falsely claimed, but because I restored links to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. I did this not because I agree with everything written there, any more than I agree with everything written at any site to which I link. In fact, Dymphna of Gates of Vienna has been sharply critical of me in the past. But there are some noteworthy things being written there. In fact, yesterday I was told that Gateway Pundit and Michelle Malkin linked to a Gates of Vienna post. Will Charles Johnson denounce them as neofascist sympathizers?

Charles Johnson says of me in this LGF thread, "I won't have anything to do with him. He's behaving despicably." You can see that here -- he has classily blocked links from this site, so you can't just click and go, but you can paste this link into your address bar and see it: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/287/6184151. He has also fabricated out of whole cloth the claim that "if you believe what Spencer has written, Geert Wilders has apparently softened his opposition to groups like the Vlaams Belang too." That one is here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/555/6184555. In reality, I have never written a single thing about what Geert Wilders thinks of Vlaams Belang, and I have no idea what Geert Wilders thinks about Vlaams Belang.

In fact, it is Charles who is behaving despicably, and not only because he is lying and being completely inconsistent in his denunciations. In the first place, I have a disclaimer above my links -- he has completely ignored that. In the second place, he blamed me for a genocidal comment left at LGF, with no evidence that I had anything to do with it -- and I didn't. This is the sort of thing that is outstandingly despicable, as I can remember times when his opponents blamed him for unmoderated comments at his site, and he rightfully took exception. And in this case, mind you, he blamed me not for a comment left here, but for a comment left at his site.

Third, he is again inconsistent, linking to others who link to Brussels Journal, and not denouncing others who don't share his views of the situation in Europe. Even the Wall Street Journal links to Brussels Journal. Is the Wall Street Journal a genocide-encouraging, fascist-sympathizing rag, Charles?

Charles Johnson continues to defame me without just cause or provocation. He is encouraging in his followers the idea that my work is worthless and I am evil, and providing a platform for their Orwellian Two-Minutes' Hate, because of a couple of weblinks. He ostensibly champions liberty and free speech, but in reality LGF has little to do with either and everything to do with its owner's singular narrative, featuring his moves to quash all dissent and demonize all dissenters. This is ironic at best and fatuously and pathetically hypocritical at worst. Charles Johnson is, therefore, hardly the kind of ally one needs in the struggle that looms before us, the defense of free speech.

ADDENDUM, November 9: Family Values' comment below, at November 9, 2008 12:55 AM, makes reference to this LGF comment:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/73/6197660

I was sent the text of this comment. In it, the man who wrote me, Walter L. Newton, claims that I am monitoring LGF closely. In fact, I only see what people send me from there. This was sent to me, and I went over there to check it out -- the first time I had been there in awhile, and the last time I hope to go there.

Anyway, for the record: Walter L. Newton asked me about my intention to "investigate" the groups that Charles Johnson says are neofascist. I wrote this:

Actually, I am fighting jihad, and have no interest in or intention to investigate these groups. Insofar as they are fighting jihad, I applaud them. Insofar as they are doing anything else, my endorsement is not implied.

Walter L. Newton, perhaps unsurprisingly, takes this to mean that I don't care if they are Nazis, as long as they are fighting jihad. In fact, as I have said many times, I will not make common cause with neofascists, white supremacists, or neo-Nazis. Just weeks before Charles Johnson and his frenzied hordes decided I was "embracing the neo-Nazi movement" and encouraging genocide, I wrote here that I could not endorse the Cologne anti-jihad meeting because of the involvement of LePen and Jorg Haider. I retract nothing in that post, which you can find here.

What is at issue here is whether Vlaams Belang is indeed a neofascist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi party. That is indeed a matter that requires investigation, since they are not openly or obviously any of those things. Charles Johnson believes he has marshaled a great deal of evidence that shows that they are. Sensible and well-informed people (in fact, much better informed about Europe than is Johnson himself) believe Johnson has not made his case. As I have remarked several times, Johnson himself has become so manichaean and paranoid that he appears to believe that those who doubt that he has made his case are white supremacist neofascists themselves. He has defamed Richard Miniter and others on this basis - which in itself doesn't say much for Charles' credibility. He has now even defamed Ilana Mercer, the daughter of an anti-apartheid crusader, as a white nationalist - apparently basing his case on false statements from Wikipedia linking her to a white nationalist organization with which she has no connection. Ilana Mercer wrote to him, asking him to take down the defamatory post, and he actually complied -- the first time I know of that he has shown any compunction for his erratic leaps of logic and rushes to judgment. Meanwhile, Charles Johnson's paranoia increases, and credibility decreases, with every new denunciation.

Anyway, if determining VB's true nature requires investigation, why did I tell this Walter L. Newton that I wasn't going to investigate? Actually, I had just told him in a previous email that I was still looking into this matter - which the LGF commenters, true to form, took as a contradiction. It was only a statement of priority. I am going to keep fighting jihad. I will never make common cause with neofascists. I am going to continue examining the situation in Europe in general, and VB, and sifting the evidence. But I am not going to turn Jihad Watch, as Charles Johnson has turned LGF, into a site devoted almost entirely to this question - and certainly not into the witch-hunting hatefest that LGF has become.

But yes, I am going to continue to monitor the situation in Europe. In fact, as far as Vlaams Belang goes, I asked a Dutch speaker to examine the video Charles Johnson posted, of VB leader Filip Dewinter supposedly visiting a neofascist book fair. This is the information he sent me:

In fact, it does seem to be some book fair of student organizations. The title of the video says:

Livres sur le nazisme et le Voorpost (milice nazi du Vlaams Belang) en vente pendant les conférences du Vlaams Belang - Vlaams Choc de Peter Boeckx (2005) 2/8

(Books about Nazism and Voorpost (the Nazi militia of Vlaams Belang) for sale during conferences of Vlaams Belang -- Vlaams Choc of Peter Boeckx (2005) 2/8)

"Vlaams Choc" was an anti-Flemish television program on Walloon (=Belgian French-language) television. This apparently is from the program shown on August 2, 2005.
Belgium is dominated by the French-speaking Walloons. VB wants the independence of Flanders and wants to free the Flemings from Walloon domination.

The book fair is definitely NOT from 2005. Mark the orange logo of Vlaams Blok, visible on the background during the video (on the ribbon against the wall: you see the Flemish lion flag (yellow with black lion) and the Vlaams Blok logo). The Vlaams Blok was officially disbanded in 2004. The logo was no longer in use afterwards. Hence, this video is NOT from 2005 and has to be older. Vlaams Belang was founded in November 2004. It has an entirely different logo.

Here is what the video shows:

0:1 VB members with poster saying "Geen stemrecht voor vreemdelingen" ("no voting rights for foreigners") and the Vlaams Blok logo
0:2 a student of KVHV putting out posters and books for display on a table.
KVHV = Katholiek Vlaams Hoogstudenten Verbond (Catholic Flemish University-Student Association)
KVHV is a conservative Catholic organisation. Good guys, anti-Socialist, very Catholic (support the Pope). Their enemies call them "fascists", which they are not, just traditional Catholics.
0:9 Display of "Ons Verbond" (Our Association), the magazine of KVHV. There is also a poster with a stop sign over a communist hammer and sickle.
0:12 Dewinter entering and asking "Where is the president?" (= the KVHV president?)
He shakes hands with a man. Not a student, hence not KVHV.
0:19 Mark the Vlaams BLOK logo on the ribbon against the wall.
0:23 display of booklets, magazines about Flemish volunteers on the Eastern Front during WWII.
0:28 book about Joris van Severen (see below. JvS was a Belgian fascist, pro-Belgium, anti-Flemish independence in the 1930s. He was an admirer of Mussolini, but an opponent of Hitler. JvS was murdered in May 1940 by French soldiers.) There is also a booklet marked "Voorpost". Voorpost is a small right-wing Flemish organization. They are very anti-American. Voorpost is independent from VB, but many of its members vote VB. They often speak aggressive language and seek confrontation with enemies such as leftists and Walloons. I think they are infiltrated by the Belgian state security and deliberately provoke incidents in order to give VB bad press.
0:30 book display of Hitler: une fatalite allemande by Ernst Niekisch, a Communist opponent of Hitler. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ernst-Niekisch Niekisch was imprisoned by Nazis from 1937 to 1945. Also there is the anti-immigration novel Camp des Saints of Raspail, and "The Fenian Movement" (the Fenians were 19th century Irish nationalists fighting the British domination of Ireland).

It is not clear whether this is the KVHV bookstand (I doubt it since the books are in French). It is not clear either whether these are the books that Dewinter is looking at.

0:36 an open book with a picture of Joris van Severen.
0:40 picture of German soldiers.
0:42 Dewinter at a book stand (PS Not clear whether it is the book stand shown before).
0:50 Dewinter grabs a book. I cannot see which one. He says "Vu de Droite" (The Right-wing View). Vu de Droite is a book by French philosopher Alain de Benoist. De Benoist is anti-American, anti-Christian, and calls himself a "neo-Pagan." (Btw: Benoist opposes Le Pen and called on his followers to vote Communist. He also admires Muslims for their fighting spirit. For Benoist and his followers Christianity has caused the weakness of the Europeans. They Europeans have to rediscover their pagan fighting spirit.)
1:00 Dewinter asks a KVHV member (recognisable by his red-brown student cap and the ribbon with the KVHV arms) whether he has already read this book. The student says he has not read it because he is "illiterate". (If the book is. indeed, Benoist's book, the Catholic student does not seem very impressed with it. It is possible that Dewinter is joking: showing the anti-Catholic book to the Catholic student).
1:08 Dewinter asks whether the magazine (on the table) is the KVHV magazine. The students say he is allowed to take some copies.
1:18 Dewinter at another book stand. Apparently with literature from the independence movement in Brittany (a Celtic-speaking region in the West of France).
He asks the man: "You are a Breton?"
1:20 The man says he is indeed a Breton and tells Dewinter "You are an example for us. Your party is a model for us."
1:32 Dewinter says: "If we can help you we will do so."
PS Dewinter is no longer carrying the Benoist book, but has a glass in his hand, the other hand is free (as we can see when he is shaking hands with the Breton).

Here is what Charles Johnson says about Dewinter's conversation with Andries, the Catholic student:

Filip deWinter: "Have you read this, Andries?" (asks as he points to book)

Bookseller : "No I am illiterate." (Sarcasm... meaning he actually read it)

Filip deWinter: "Is this a good book?" (asks about another Nazi book on display)

Bookseller: "It served my beliefs."

In reality Dewinter showed the anti-Catholic book to Andries, who answered he had not read it because he is "illiterate." I do not hear Andries and Dewinter talk about another book that "served his beliefs." Andries says he is illiterate. Then Dewinter asks whether the magazine on display is their (KVHV) magazine. They say it is, and tell him he can take some copies. I do not hear Dewinter asking "Is this a good book?" Nor do I hear anyone saying "It served my beliefs."

I do not know where Charles Johnson gets this from.

On the table there are a lot of books on Flemish volunteers to the Eastern Front and the Verdinaso movement of the Belgian fascist Joris van Severen. Van Severen began his political career as an MP for the Flemish nationalists (and a democrat) in the 1920s, but later became pro-Belgian and founded a Belgian-nationalist fascist party 'Verdinaso,' modeled on Mussolini's party.

He admired Mussolini, but loathed Hitler, and called on his followers to fight the Nazis in the event of an invasion of Belgium. Nevertheless, he was arrested by the Belgians in the beginning of the war and murdered by French soldiers on May 20, 1940, together with a group of Belgian communists and Hungarian and Czech Jews, who had also been arrested by the Belgian authorities.

After his assassination his party fell apart. Some of his followers joined the resistance, others collaborated with the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joris_Van_Severen says this:

Joris Van Severen ideological thinking was also influenced by Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès, whilst failing to come to any accommodation with the Rexists or the Flemish National Union. Van Severen was equally opposed to Adolf Hitler and on the outbreak of World War II he banned his followers from producing any material in support of Nazism.

Execution

When Germany began executing Fall Gelb (the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany) in 1940 the Belgian government arrested him, together with many other Flemish-nationalist en communist politicians, and thousands of foreigners, and transported him to France for lack of space in Belgium. Van Severen belonged to a group of prisoners who was imprisoned in Abbeville, where, during havy German air attacks at May 20, he was shot with 20 other prisoners by French soldiers who thought they were dangerous spies.

The death of its leader left the Verdinaso without a leader and it soon began falling apart. Some Verdinaso-members joined forces with the Germans, others joined the (now almost completely unknown) resistance group Dietse Eenheid and others just stopped involving themselves in politics.

But aren't the book fair operators wearing neo-Nazi uniform caps? No: "the caps are student caps. Flemish student organisations have caps (cfr German student organizations). You can recognize the organization by the cap's colour. The KVHV color is brown-red with a black and yellow (colors of Flanders) ribbon beneath it."

So we have a book fair selling one book by a fascist, another by a Communist, and an anti-Catholic book. This is a neo-Nazi book fair? Dewinter is a neo-Nazi for going in and glad-handing people there?

Even if Vlaams Belang were everything Charles Johnson says it is (and it clearly isn't), nothing about it is established from this video. Nor is anything established by the activities of people who were expelled from the party for those very activities. Charles Johnson will no doubt keep witch-hunting, and I will keep approaching all the groups in Europe, without exception, with open-eyed reserve. But no one should be under the impression that Charles Johnson is fairly or dispassionately presenting evidence about them.

SECOND ADDENDUM, 7PM PST, November 9:

Charles Johnson is a liar, and even the Lizards -- some of them -- are beginning to wake up to it. I was just sent this comment from someone who is braving the stench and reading LGF:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/608/6201404

In this one Johnson brushes aside the fact that he had posted a tissue of fabrications regarding this book fair jaunt by Dewinter:

608 Charles 11/09/2008 5:33:00 pm PST
re: #601 brotherofchronos

I'm not defending that. I'm simply saying that the video was badly translated, which could be used to cast doubt on your other evidence. I don't understand why you would want to take that risk.

At this point, it's far beyond any nitpicking that comes from those people. Let them go ahead and "cast doubt" all they like - it's all they have left.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/616/6201420

Then the commenter "BrotherofChronos" dares to respond to The Master by reminding him that truth and integrity are, well, important:

Nevertheless, the translation was wrong. It's not right, charles. I realise it's your site and you can do what you like with it but I can't see any moral justification in using what is effectively manufactured evidence to prove this. The video says one thing. The translation you were provided with says something completely different. If you're not careful it could bounce back at you.

Oh, it's bouncing! Bouncing just like a...little green football...

And so honest readers are bouncing right out of the defamation and lie factory that is Little Green Footballs.

UPDATE November 12: I have been informed that Charles Johnson has completely revised his presentation of this book fair, removing without explanation (in the main post, anyway) the false translation he earlier posted. Now, apparently, the big problem is the book Dewinter picks up, Vu de droite by Alain de Benoist.

I'm not sure how Johnson and his Little Green Moonbats can rationalize the idea that picking up a book means that one endorses it, but of course rationality has nothing to do with this. The book that Charles Johnson called a "Nazi book," and that his sycophants at LGF are apparently calling a "fascist book," actually received the Grand Prix de l'Essai from the Académie Française in 1978. The Académie Française did not in 1978 and does not now award prizes to "Nazi books." The neofascist rag known as the New York Review of Books reviewed the book in 1980 and said that de Benoist condemns "fascism of the left and right." His book Vu de droite, in Charles's world so unforgivably handled by the demonic Dewinter, according to this actually won praise from that noted fascist...François Mitterrand.

Little Green Moonbats now devotes a considerable amount of time wringing its hands over the horrors of Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Human Events, and the Conservative Book Club. I would rather fight Osama bin Laden, Omar Bakri, Anjem Choudary, Abu Bakar Bashir, and people who share their ideology -- people who are much less of a concern at LGF than they used to be.

| 437 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

437 Comments

Two Minutes Hate for Charles! Ready.....Go.

PR Cal Dude

I am asking you and everyone else who reads this not to go hatin' on Charles Johnson. Do not write to him. Let us show here that we are operating on a higher level than the defamation and lie factory that Little Green Footballs, starring Killgore Trout, Sharmuta, and medaura, has become.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer IS NOT A FASCIST!!!!!!!

At times like these, Obama gaining power and the far left having a greater voice, the last thing we can all do is start bringing each other down.

Wow, I just don't get it.

"Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal"

This is all over linking to these 2 sites?

CJ has lost it, or he is getting paid off by a third party to denounce the movement.

Oh Robert, I'm sorry to hear that more of these lies are being spread again. You don't deserve this unfair and defamatory treatment. Keep up the good work!

Robert,

I was actually kidding.

Seriously though. Charles will soon end up like another southern californian: Howard Hughes. He'll be afraid to go outside and will be beset with various paranoias, narcissisms and projections about everyone who is out to get him. He no longer posts pictures of his daily bike rides because of various "threats" and his latest little open registration afforded him more opportunity to feed his narcissistic supply. The complete breakdown should be spectacular.

By the way, here at Jihad Watch this post is sandwiched between Frank Gaffney's statement and my statement at the Stop Shariah Coalition press conference in Washington this morning.

Today Charles Johnson linked favorably to Frank's Washington Times article about Shariah Finance.

Will Charles now denounce Frank for kindly inviting me to speak at his press conference today about Shariah Finance? If not, why not? At what point does guilt by association kick in? Charles is not being consistent about this.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

My LGF account was locked the day after Charles' big blowout against Robert. The only reason I can think of is that I rated down Charles' comments and the article, and rated up Robert's comments.

Mr Spencer: all I know is that I have been reading jihadwatch now for about 5 years, and in toto your comments are very tempered, in fact restrained at times. You are meticulous about giving background information to what you assert, in fact, it seems that 99% of what you write is straight fact, with a small amount of subjective "editorializing".
I used to sometimes go to LGF. For Johnson to attack you the way he has, assumedly because you defended yourself by pointing him out, is unfortunate, and it says much about him.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
The EXTREMELY good and valuable work.
Paul Marchand, Louisiana

Mr. Spencer:
LGF excoriates you again?

Please don't get discouraged. You're in the right.

When I saw this http://infidelbloggerawards.blogspot.com/2008/11/category-no-10-biggest-pro-censorship.html my first thought was "Charles Johnson!" I see it was someone else's, too.

Boopy, Charles was, indeed, banning people for their comment dings. He was "not going to wait for you to have a complete meltdown and post something inappropriate". He admitted it.
You were preemptively banned for that which you might have done in the future. Ironic on so many levels.

In the future, everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes.

It is my position that while the VB themselves may be largely wrong about many things (perhaps an understatement), the problem is that there are a lot of people in Europe rightfully scared of the Jihad who have come to the conclusion that these ultranationalist groups are the only thing close to friends that they will have in their fight for survival. If we want them to believe that they are better off with other friends, we can't adopt a scorched-earth policy of vilifying and shunning everyone within three or four degrees of association of these groups. I believe there are honest decent people who have thrown in with groups like the VB, and using Charles Johnson's methodology is only going to drive them further to the conclusion that they have no other friends, which is precisely what we least want them to do.

Wading through the LGF comments on that thread, one has to be amazed at the sheer stupidity of Charles and his lizards. Charles has found an 8 year old video of the leader of the Belgian National Front and some no-name VB member singing an anti-Semitic song, and concludes that this is proof that the VB are Nazis and you Mr Robert Spencer, America's leading anti-jihadist scholar, are nothing but a genocidal eliminationist. For shame!

Back in the real world, the philo-Semitic and staunchly pro-Israel VB has rightly expelled the member in question. So has the National Front for that matter, though I can't vouch for them vis-a-vis the Jews. Charles will grasp at any straw, no matter how tenuous, in his futile attempt to discredit the VB. And his drama queen antics in the comments lamenting how he is "finished" with the "bridge burning" Spencer manage to be hilarious and pathetic at the same time. He also puts the boots to those notorious Nazis Diana West and Richard Miniter, and puts the boys at Powerline on notice for their budding fascist sympathies. I guess Scott, Paul and John are next to be thrown under the bus. Counterjihad of one, indeed.

This thread is perfectly indicitive of why Charles is so quick to bring out the banning stick to anyone dissenting from the official LGF line: Because we would tear his "arguments" to ribbons and humiliate him in front of his grovelling minions. And speaking of minions, why doesn't, say, the leftist-atheist peabrain that calls itself Killgore Trout come over here and defend this latest anti-VB smear? Or maybe my old galpal Sharmuta, CJ's helmet polisher-in-chief? I would happily defend the VB and Robert Spencer over at LGF, but your boss banned me for refuting every single anti-VB slur he was fed by Blokwatch, Yelloman, Oyvind Strommen, etc. So say it here since we can't say it there, you yellow-bellied Antifa-cuddlers. I dare you...

CJ (and whichever of your minions are trolling):

The opposite of love is indifference.
Clearly, you love Robert.
I was, and remain, indifferent to you and LGF.
Have a nice life.

PMK

What times we live in. Who ever thought that a simple hyperlink could get you labeled a 'genocidal racist'.

RecoveringHog,
Thanks for confirming this...
Methinks someone at LGF needs to reread 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

I apologize Robert I was the one who put that video up on Charles site. I had no knowledge of the past debates on either site.

Its a shame that the people who made the video are ignore in this whole situation and infighting breaks out between blogs over who backs who.

This is the kind of behavior the jihadists love to see.

Bill A -

Infighting aside -- an even bigger question you should be asking yourself, assuming of course that you knew what was on the video, is why you would participate in something so awful: "a video of two antisemitic idiots singing a song making fun of Holocaust victims"

Huh, the LGF link I posted no longer works. Gee, Chuck, if there's nothing wrong with excoriating a brand new hatchling over links on their blog that you disapprove of, why take down the link? Or was it a little too much proof of your paranoia? Did you ban Godefroi already?


"He is encouraging in his followers the idea that my work is worthless and I am evil."

It's painfully apparent that America is full of easily led people open to all sorts of manipulation and emotional influences.

My 'hate' for Charlie Jo went for about two hours when I learned of his attempts to drag people like Bat Ye'or through the mud, the earlier character assassination of Fjordman and Geller managed to divide the anti-jihad front and aroused deep suspicion where my conclusion was LGF is nothing more than a tabloid newspaper easily assimilated.

Robert,
Why should it concern you that those immature sycophantic 'followers' may have the idea that your work is worthless and you are evil? Do not the enemy think the same..?

Hey check it out...Charles says..

"My answer is that it doesn't matter what the outward appearance is. At rock bottom, fascists are concerned with power; anything they think increases their power they will do. It's beyond rationality, and beyond reason -- it's only about power. This is why Vlaams Belang makes noises about supporting Israel, because they believe it will gain them legitimacy, and legitimacy is power.....None of their actions can be understood without grasping this. Alliances mean nothing; words mean nothing; firing people like the ones in this video means nothing. Except in the context of their search for power."

Is this guy for real? Has he gone mad? Has he looked in the mirror? Here is a guy who removes any comment, blocks any account, attacks anyone (including friends) who slightly disagree with him on ANYTHING, and yet he now wants to tell us about who the fascist are?? This has nothing to do with the VB anymore, but it has everything to do with his sanity!

My first comment here. First off let me say that you have an outstanding site, I have learned much since discovering it just recently. The only reason I found it though is because I was reading LGF last week when this whole brouhaha over linking to so-called fascist sites broke out.

You have got this Charles Johnson guy pegged cold. He runs that place like a tyrant. Nothing pleases his minions more than when somebody steps out of line and disagrees with the head lizard (gasp), forcing the big guy to wield his banning stick and pummel the offending "kool-aid drinker" into oblivion.

I believe I read someone refer to this affair as a Theater of the Absurd. I couldn't agree more.
It probably should not be considered a funny topic, but I have to admit that watching this back and forth is providing me with a high degree of entertainment, a good thing given that the election result has taken its toll on my mood recently. It's quite comedic the absurd manner in which Johnson and his lizard crew wildly throw around accusations based on nothing more than a blog link!

Anyway, just wanted to mention that this episode has landed you at least one, and probably more, new readers.

Keep up the good work

Cheers!


Robert, I think you should go ahead and sue this guy now.

Frankly, I think what he's doing is using your name (like that jerk Erich did) to get people to his site.

And I think he deserves to be sued at this point, and that you should start at about $5 million so that it's at least a little satisfying.

You've made it abundantly clear -- it always WAS clear -- that you have no involvement whatever with the ne'er-do-wells, so his libel and slander at this point is ABSOLUTELY INTENTIONAL DESPITE THE FACE HE KNOWS HE IS LYING.

Therefore, I think you ought to sue him for enough that he loses his house, his website, his bank account ... and, if possible, try to find something that requires jail time. At this point he richly deserves it.

“Charles Johnson hits bottom, digs”

Funny thing about digging, sooner or later one will reach a point so deep where the dirt can no longer be thrown out of the hole. It just hits the walls and falls back down on the digger’s feet. Can’t dig further and can’t climb out. A seminal moment for sure.

I hope this will be the last I hear of LGF, but why do I have the feeling that there will no doubt be a Part 3, Part 4, n+1. The whole gatesofvienna thing lasted for a couple months. Charles can never say "I am wrong" and is very sensitive to any slight.

Keep strong Robert Spencer. You are no doubt right.

"Back in the real world, the philo-Semitic and staunchly pro-Israel VB has rightly expelled the member in question. So has the National Front for that matter, though I can't vouch for them vis-a-vis the Jews. "

Apparently you cannot be a racist fascist party if you pay lip service to Israel. The VB has understood that all it needs to do is praise Israel and all will be forgiven as long as it maintains an anti-muslim stance.

everyone chooses to ignore the VB's stance on other minorities (not just the evil muslims, im talking about blacks, asians etc.), not to mention its stated intention to break up Belgium.

Jwatchers should think long and hard about why it is that extreme right wing parties are the only ones who "understand the threat".

Welcome Exceller.

Jeppo, nice challenge. Let's see if anyone takes you up on it...........,

"He is encouraging in his followers the idea that my work is worthless and I am evil."

If that's the case, I take that personally.

All the time I have spent on JW/DW following Roberts work, has been a worthless waste of time, all that reading absorbing, comprehending a waste, and associating with evil as well?

Sounds like one of Abdullah's theories...

I may have some major disagreements with that
diagnosis Doctor.

The only evil encountered here is Islam and all it's trappings, and a maniacal troll once in a while.

Spencer's work is not worthless to me...

And MY opinion is the one that counts...Got that Trout...

I'm so sorry that I am so disappointed in LGF. This just seems so petty of CJ and so hurtful to someone like Mr. Spencer who does invaluable work. I just don't get it. Just painful to read that stuff from him.

I've only been to his site once since then and I didn't make any comments. I'm keeping my mouth shut there. I have a different name here. Still breaks my heart. I used to go from LGF to JW various time throughout the day. i think CJ has good stuff but I can't deal with his lack of ability to communicate with Mr. Spencer
on this. You just don't turn people off like that. Not right. I now CJ is very smart and can make a point. Why did he do this? oh, nevermind.

sorry for typos!

Check it out! Another one bites the dust...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/1128/6185244

(Remember all links are blocked due to Mad Charles, please copy and paste into your browser if you want to see).

"GuyverII" last heroic stand...

"re: #1123 GuyverII

He has a disclaimer up in front of those links. You going to do the same with Michelle Malkin and the WSJ, both which link to Brussels Journal?

Just askin'"

Charles responds with...

"Oh, bite me. Get off my site."

Or in other words: Off with his head!!!!

Who ever you are "GuybverII"....Nathaniel Hale would be proud!

I feel that I may be a step behind everyone else in this bruhaha, but I going to take a chance and ask a possibly stupid question.

"everyone chooses to ignore the VB's stance on other minorities"

I am curious mpayne1. This seems to be the main objection to the VB. Where can one learn about VB's stance? Do you have any links? Is it an official party position included in their Charter (or whatever founding document used) to exclude minorities? Is there an official statement such as that found at the BNP website where a "whites only" policy is clearly set forth?

Robert, if you are to be condemned for
supposedly supporting the VB, I for one am quite curious to know what specifically there is about the VB that makes you refuse your support. This whole discussion seems to presume we all know specifically what that is and that mpayne1's statement is proven fact. I realize you have made it clear about a refusal to support racist political groups and I am not saying that there is no evidence that the VB are not worthy of your, or our support, but the only evidence that I have read that accuses VB of fascism or racism originated from one of CJ's ass kissers (Thanos?). If that is the source for your opinions, I'd think you would want to see more than that.

The Vlaams Belang is probably the most pro-Israeli political party in all of Europe, and are strongly supported by Antwerp's Orthodox Jewish community. Unfortunately this is an unpopular stance in pro-Palestinian Belgium, and is undoubtably a vote loser. If they were only after political power, then they would adopt the anti-Israeli positions shared by the entire Belgian establishment.

The VB has elected officials of every race and religion, including Muslims. Even the morons at LGF know this to be a fact. The charge that they are racists is transparently false, just one more lie spread by their leftist/Islamist political enemies.

As for breaking up Belgium, what a joyous day that will be when the heart of the Eurabian superstate is torn asunder. An independent Flanders will be staunch ally of the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. Meanwhile, present-day Belgium is the linchpin of the Franco-Arab axis. It seems self-evident to me that the breakup of the artificial and corrupt Belgian state will be a huge blow to the European Union and a victory for the counterjihad. With a strong VB and other Flemish nationalist parties like the LD and N-VA, al-Belgium's days are, thankfully, numbered.

Yawwwwn!

The rift between CJ and RS. Boring. A mutual friendship long ago. Johnson's aid on technical matters and Spencer's reciprocation for a free education on Islam. A fair exchange deemed by both long ago.

Charles Johnson is Lawrence Auter 2.0. Alienating all their allies while simutaneously complaining about being unfairly cast aside. Such is their shared psychosis.

A boring book, that I have now read, more than once.

In case no one has noticed, Charles Johnson is getting out of the anti-Jihad business in order to advance his blog in the mainstream. All the very public fights he's picked with Robert and others have been part of his effort to re-position his product in the market, to get linked in more propitious places, snag more prestigious advertisers, and so on.

It's as though Charles Johnson has begun to take lessons from Keith Olbermann.

Mpayne1

Is the GOP a right wing party that associates with neo-nazis?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/22/20080822readyfollow0822.html

There are many other stories out there I can find. Of course he was kicked out, and good for the GOP, but so were the VB members in the stories CJ (and his "lover" Killgore Trout) keep putting up. Yet where are the stories dealing with Nazis in the GOP? We get plenty of VB stories?

BTW: NO the GOP is not associated with Nazis or is racist, but there are no doubt memebers who are, and who support the party. Using Lizard logic should the GOP be banned on LGF as well? Heck, considering Charles has himself hung out with all these so-called racist, will he not ban himself? Is Charles a Neo-Nazi?

greatcometof1577:

"GuyverII" last heroic stand...

"re: #1123 GuyverII

He has a disclaimer up in front of those links. You going to do the same with Michelle Malkin and the WSJ, both which link to Brussels Journal?

Just askin'"

Charles responds with...

"Oh, bite me. Get off my site."

Wow.

I think I owe you all an apology for trying to use rational argument with a witless thug.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

No--you don't owe anyone an apology, Robert. You have been greatly wronged and are owed an apology.

"Wow.

I think I owe you all an apology for trying to use rational argument with a witless thug.

Cordially
Robert Spencer"

When he's cornered in any way what comes out is primitive defiance like someone in a bar fight.

[quote]Infighting aside -- an even bigger question you should be asking yourself, assuming of course that you knew what was on the video, is why you would participate in something so awful: "a video of two antisemitic idiots singing a song making fun of Holocaust victims"[/quote]

Because ultimately there is no difference between Jihadists and anti semitics. You have to confront all of those that use irrational hate to spew thier filth.

I posted a link to the story that was breaking in Europe. The story was more about the denuciation of what was on the video than the video itself. In fact someone took the video off the site I had posted and put it on youtube. The youtube video is not what I posted.

Hi folks,
I'm a newbie, fresh boot imprint from being thrown out of LGF. Apparently I'm in good company !! Boopy and I both were purged for up dinging support for Robert and down dinging negativity about that great controversy.
What a shame. United we stand and all that. What a bad time to be forming alliances against one's fellows.
But it's good to hear from ya'll and thanks to Robert for all his hard work and courage in bringing these things to the public's attention

Is there a possibility of some kind of mental health issue here? Untreated depression can result in psychosis and paranoia. God help him.

Thanks, Bill A!

"Oh, bite me. Get off my site."

There's a 12-Step Program with your name on it.

"Is there a possibility of some kind of mental health issue here? Untreated depression can result in psychosis and paranoia. God help him."

He's perfectly sane and very manipulative. He's trying to create a niche for LGF that will be more 'respectable' without the company he used to keep.

CJ has an intolerant, self-righteous, authoritarian streak in him.

He doesn't allow free speech - just try even mildly disagreeing with the homogeneous, genetically distilled Lizardoid point of view.

Your account will be banned and blocked in a heartbeat!

He engages in degrading and defamatory name calling, ascribing malicious, devious and dishonest motives to those he disagrees with [e.g. Discovery Institute ... linking them with radical Islam], and invites NO right of reply, even playing these little IP games in an attempt to restrict the information flow in one direction only [control freak].

I see him as something of a Lefty, actually, which sounds crazy, I know ... but maybe I should say that, not his politics, but his personality, behaviour, instincts and inclinations are essentially those of the Left.

I too am with the legion of the banned. Charles, she bores me now. I can't take her rants and mood swings. When the transom was opened, I opined, "Yay! More people for Charles to ban!" And I was. Promptly. Lucky for me, I don't care. As I said, she bores me to tears. There is actually a guy who documents all the banning and blocking from LGF. I guess Charles is like the biggest blog church on the block and getting banned is an honor.

Let's be clear here. A leader of VB was singing about a Jewish girl being eliminated. More videos have surfaced of other VB members engaging in Neo-Nazi activities. It is possible to oppose the Islamification of Europe without becoming a modern day Nazi...but that only happens if you are aware that just because someone is the enemy of your enemy that doesn't make them a friend.

The problem is that Atlas Shrugged, Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal do not make that distinction. They see VB, and it's supporters, as just another Euro nationalist group opposed to radical Islam. They see what they want to see.

I'm personally not willing to support one set of fascists for another. It would be cowardly; we do not need "white" fascists to throw out "islam" fascists.

We can defeat Islamofascism with, for lack of a better word, The American Way of supporting Liberty for all people.

And most of the posters here just don't get that distinction...and I'm afraid Mr. Spencer doesn't either. They just see a powerful force opposed to another force which they fear.

So ya'll support "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Sorry, he isn't.

I am retired and find I have spent entirely too much time lately watching the circus at LGF. Poor Charles is having some sort of nervous breakdown because of his absolute power over LGF and his inability to moderate his control issues. He seems to be getting more childish, petty, paranoid and tyrannical day by day as his delusions of importance increase.

There can be no question as to whose site is more valuable to the struggle against Islamic criminality. Robert is an intellectual who shares the fruit of his research and scholarship with the world while Charles is an amateur musician who has a talent for computer programming and offers a forum for chit-chat and one-liners to a motley crew of sycophants. Speaking as a political scientist, I say the only things of value at LGF are the news story links--the attempts at political analysis are laughable.

My advice to Robert is to ignore Charles Johnson henceforth as just another flake who couldn't handle his fifteen minutes of fame.

Quilly Mammoth:

Why is it that you and your friends at LGF persist in ignoring the fact that I have not endorsed VB, and have repeatedly said this? To acknowledge that people of good will, who are not fascists or neo-Nazis or fascist sympathizers, disagree on this group is quite a different thing from stating that this party is good without reservation. I am still looking into the matter, and find it appalling to be demonized and vilified by Charles for this.

However, he has demonstrated a continued inability to mount a rational argument or defend his positions rationally against reasonable challenges, such as my question about why he denounces me for doing things that other people do without being denounced by him. This does not speak well of him, or of those who follow him so vehemently and mindlessly, or of me for momentarily thinking that his defamation and vilification was something I should take seriously.

Robert Spencer

Swynola di Basso

Thank you. What is really laughable, or sad, depending on your point of view, is their incredible self-importance. I looked around a bit on the LGF site when I started getting these emails blaming me for the antisemitic idiots in the video, and I found in a thread this morning that people were saying that LGF was now the leader of the Republican Party.

I began to feel embarrassed, as if I were eavesdropping on a conversation between the King of Spain and God Almighty, in a mental ward.

Cordially
Robert Spencer


I just got banned for LGF when I used my second id. I figured I might as well use it…

So here was my only comment at LGF as “KingGeorge” (My other id was banned years ago):

Start of my comment at LGF….
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know so many of you are historically challenged, so here is a history lesson…

From: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=911

Nationally, in 1856, the American Party ran Millard Fillmore as its candidate for President of the United States. While Fillmore finished last, he still received almost 900,000 votes out of the approximately four million votes cast in the election. Although many Americans, including some Ohioans, opposed the Catholic faith and lived in fear of immigrants, slavery and its expansion was a more important issue to them. The Know-Nothing Party refused to take a stand on slavery. As a result of the party's refusal to take a position on slavery, the Know-Nothing Party declined by the presidential election of 1860. The party did not run a candidate for president in this election, as many of its followers had joined the Republican Party.”

The Know-Nothing Party was bunch anti-catholic thugs, who beat the crap out of people who were not white or protestant, but most were just scared, and confused in a very confusing time. Thus, for many years there were active Know-Nothings in the early GOP. Does this mean the GOP is forever a racist and bigoted party? Of course not! Using the logic of this site, however, they would have been labeled as such if you guys were around in the 1850s. Perhaps some of these parties, like the VB, are in a similar situation as the early the GOP. Like the early GOP, the VB is dealing with issues no else would touch at that time. Like the early GOP, the VB has people of questionable back round within its ranks, and it is trying to reform itself.”

The problem became so bad, Abraham Lincoln, himself had to refute these kind of charges that he was a Know-Nothing. He was not, but once again based on the logic of this blog, his denial would have been ignored. Abraham Lincoln would have been banished off this site, never to comment again, and forever labeled a racist, because there are bigots in the GOP.”

“Heck, even today there are neo-Nazis in the GOP. See:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/22/20080822readyfollow0822.html


The GOP disassociated themselves from him, just like the VB did with these members, but how come not a single blog entry has been devoted to Neo-Nazi members (and other orgs) found within the GOP? You guys devote all sorts of time to the VB? Which is more dangerous to Americans?


The people in Europe are in far greater danger than in the US from the followers of Islam. Perhaps the VB will transform themselves into something different, perhaps not, but for any of you to have made your finial judgment on them, based on what this, or that member might do is arrogant. Bush kissed the leader of Saudi Arabia on the lips, many prominent members of the GOP support Saudi Arabia, and the oil trade from that country, a country that is one of the most bigoted places on this planet, yet I have seen none of you dissociate yourselves from the GOP for support of such bigotry.

Ban me if you wish, but remember this…what goes around, comes around. Debate is at the heart of American liberty, and if you can’t debate me than how can you be expected to lead anything? Those who refuse to debate on such matters are not Americans, but are in fact fascist.

Good Day….

(end of my comment at LGF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Charles responds back..

"re: #329 KingGeorge

Ban me if you wish...

OK."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/345/6185727

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was slaughtered in record time, which I guess is a complement, considering my grandfather (a lifelong member of the GOP) always used to say totalitarian regimes always kill the smart folks first. I guess Charles is a fascist, and not a true American....who knew..

BTW for the Record: I like the GOP, and it is not racist. I too, dislike all racist parties, and I do not accept skin color to mean anymore than that…skin color. Race based anything is not good science, and is not good policy.

Please note the above comment was mine but the paragraph right under the link : "From: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=911" was from the website. My html is off tonight...need sleep, me thinks...

Robert

One year ago I was very critical of you, nearly one year to the day on my now banned blog.

Here is the reason for my very negative remarks

NOV 7 2007

Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson, and all that

Some people may notice that in this thread I have removed some comments relating to Little Green Footballs and the ongoing controversy over the European parties Vlaams Belang and the Sweden Democrats.

These posts involved personal attacks on the illustrious Charles Johnson. Charles has been a friend for years and an immense help to Jihad Watch in innumerable ways. I usually don't have time to read the comments here, but I will always remove offensive ones when they're brought to my attention, and these were. So they're gone.

What we have in this controversy is the spectacle of people I love and have loved for years having a bitter falling out. I have tried to maintain good relationships with everyone involved, as I continue to believe, despite the bitterness of the controversy, that everyone involved has good intentions, good motives, good hearts. All want to resist the jihad, all want to save Europe if it can be saved. All are trying to defend what is good in Western civilization, even as they might conceive of that good in different ways. That's why I've removed the personal attacks on Charles here, and will remove personal attacks on anyone involved in this if they appear here and are brought to my attention.

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php

Despite my negative remarks directed at you and CJ, you did not ban me at the time.

The reason for me being critical is your failure to recognize what the BNP and there supportters are doing today.

I am fully aware of their murky past, and no doubt many of their supporters are also aware. There is no question that Nazism will be allowed to rise again, and should the BNP show trends of falling back to their murky past, they would lose all the support they have now gained, including my conditional support.

Today the BNP, and many other so called Right Wing parties are trying to distance themselves from their Nazist past, they should be encouraged to make the break.

I was also critical of your failure to mention any of the pro islamic/far left groups such as Searchlight, Antifa and UAF, who are willing to use violence.

Maybe I was hasty in my criticism, I still am not sure, all I can say is it makes me angry when the BNP are condemned for past statements, yet are completely overlooked for their efforts in making the man on the street more aware islam.

Also I was critical because you where supportive of CJ, who quite obviously was a traitor, which could be seen more than a year ago, by those who see the connection between the anti-fascists and jihadis.

Now one year on I would like to apologize for my comments both here and my now banned blog, as I truly believe that you are not fully aware of how deep and how far back the anti-fascists and jihadis connections go.

SORRY

Sincerely

Infidelk9 (formally Shiva)

Ps. I would also like to apologize for the remark which you perceived as malicious, and which you banned me for. The remark was not intended to be malicious.

I regret that I made that remark, and I also realised why you banned me

I would like you to please reconsider my banning,
once again, as I do not think it is honest of me to be posting under another nickname

SORRY

"Charles responds back..

"re: #329 KingGeorge

Ban me if you wish...

OK.""

What you had to say wasn't that outrageous. Inviting Charles to ban you for it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

InfidelK9:

Obviously you aren't banned, or you couldn't have posted that.

I don't support the BNP. I don't support race-based approaches to the resistance to the jihad. I have no problem believing a party can change -- look at the party of segregation and the KKK's Robert Byrd. But as long as the stipulation remains that you have to be of a certain ethnicity to be in the BNP, it is not something I can support. Moreover, there seems to be a strong strain of antisemitism, hatred of Israel, and Holocaust denial in it. This too of course is nothing I can support.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Sounds like LGF now stands for Little-Green-FunnyFarm. Gee, maybe he's off his meds.

As per Quilly Mammoth, the singing idiot was a "leader" of VB. That was the title in LGF 'Leader mocks Holocost'. Prove it, prove he was a leader, or that he ran for office, or that he was not an idiot that slipped below the radar or not deranged like the girl who carved the backwards 'B'. I think Chuck either is a habitual exaggerator or liar

Charles Johnson attacks people, like Andrew Bostom or Robert Spencer, who have written well researched and cited books. But Charles has written NOTHING. Maybe he can publish a book with facts about VB, instead of regurgitating garbage from far Left sites (think Ayers) like EXPO. Maybe Charles, using sites like these as supporting evidence, is actually a commie (using LGF logic)


For the record, I do think that VB should be put under a microscope, I like transparency. I also think Charles and those that believe him without question should be to.

Family Values

I know...I just think, if he had not banned me, I might have responded to a few of responses I got.

Look at the brigth side, they are no all wild over me, and not making nasty comments about RS.

One even wants to eat my buttocks! Disturbing!

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/363/6185745

(remember you must paste and clip, for the link does not work)

Jeeze...I meant to say above..

"Look at the BRIGHT side, they are all wild over me NOW, and not making nasty comments about RS ANYMORE."

I think the eating of my buttocks really has upset me...I am all skin and bone!

Check it out! Another one bites the dust...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/1128/6185244
(Remember all links are blocked due to Mad Charles, please copy and paste into your browser if you want to see).
A note to all:

The way to get around LGF links, other than copying the address into your address bar, is to first click on the link, then ignore the message that comes up, and then hit 'Refresh' or Enter next to that link, which will be on your address bar.

In case you think JW has the worst treatment, try going to LGF from Auster's site, and see what happens. Go to this page here, and then click on the first LGF link 'thread' you find there:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009141.html

P.S. Btw, Champ, I won my bet. That last thread on LGF ended at 658 posts, and that thread is now archived. It's nowhere near 700, just as I thought it wouldn't be.

They're nuts....

I have no problem if CJ starts a thread with something of substance, like his latest post (the comments are basically garbage). But it is ridiculous to use this to pin the most horrendous things on people who were not there, do not agree with them, and are in no way related to the point of the original post.

This started because fo some links!

Greatcomet,

If you look at this page of Pamela's you will see a picture with a list of all the anti-Jihadists Charles has thrown under the bus. It would be a nice project to get specific links for each; e.g., where does he throw Orianna under the bus, or Bat Ye'or?

Robert,

Keep doing the valuable work you are doing and don't let the LGFers get you down. Charles' criticisms of you are in the comments and many people don't have the time to read through the comments. I didn't know about the breakup of your friendship with Charles until I read about it here.

I can tell you are hurt by his rejection. Your work is important. Don't let this get you down and don't let this distract you from your work. Sometimes fighting the good fight is a lonely business.

I wish you well.

Well, never mind that the intent of this new post (about the concert at LGF) was not for knowledge or for discusion, but to be used as a cudgel in a fight CJ started.

npabga

You bet!

Infidel Pride, good thing I am not epileptic.

champ

Come on this is fun as hell. The lizards say I broke a record! Do I get a reward, or medal, or something?

One of them thinks I am a liberal! Go figure...

They sound like Stalinists rooting out political heretics.

Family Values

I remember when he threw Orianna under the bus. In fact, I put up a comment at here on this site about it. I will try to find it...

Family Values, I might stab at an answer to your question. I think the reason Pamela considered that Orianna was cast into the darkness by CJ was that he removed her memorial from his website, the same one that is on this one, IIRC. I would love to be corrected. Bat Ye'or, no idea. Sorry.

After reading both JihadWatch and LGF since their inception, let me assure all of you that Robert Spencer and CJ are simpatico regarding the threat of radical Islam.

Both sites have remarkable strengths, and this rift seems overblown... maybe a couple o' weeks to simmer down and then communicate instead of disparage.

--Rare commenter, avid reader

"Family Values

I remember when he threw Orianna under the bus. In fact, I put up a comment at here on this site about it. I will try to find it..."

'Twould be cool if you could link that. Thanks.

Astuddis, I think it is going to get more sophmoric (at least Robert won't indulge). Have seen this before with Charles, it is unlikely it will end with apologies.

npabga

Charles is systematically picking fights with most of the anti-Jihadists in order to redefine his niche. He doesn't WANT any reconciliations with people that are tainted in terms of mainstream media acceptability.

Its a shame that Charles jumped the shark so dramatically, but things are what things are.

William F Buckley cleaned up the nuts in the John Birch Society and made it respectable to be a conservative.

Jihad Watch will do similar for the anti-Jihadist movement.

Robert's approach to the issue is exactly what we need, and his calm and patience are also prerequisites.

Charles has absolutely lost his mind, and is doing nobody any good.

Family Values

I found it...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/10/4759588

(remember link does not work if you click it, you can click it and refresh again after it fails, or cut and paste)

Charlie states...

"Strommen's article is interesting; I had to verify his claim about Oriana Fallaci's "Force of Reason." He says she cites three well-known antisemites/Holocaust deniers as examples of people being persecuted for anti-Islam writing, including the infamous Robert Faurisson -- without mentioning their sick ideologies.

And you know what? He's right. She does exactly that. It's on page 26 in my Rizzoli International edition of the book. The other two she cites are Erwin Kessler and Gaston Armand Amaudruz, and she says nothing about their repellent beliefs.

I had not noticed this when I first read the book, I admit. My impression of "Force of Reason" is that it was written in a very rushed way, almost feverishly. She was quite ill when she wrote it, and the charitable way to look at this is that she simply was going too fast to stop and explain the context.

But it is troubling, I have to admit."

.........(the end)

Here is the thread it came from

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?link=5675_%93Traitor%94_-_in_a_Eurabian_context

He may have made other statements about her that I don't know about so...

Here is the Jihadwatch thread in when I commented about it.

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

I said.....

"Now is he going to drag Oriana Fallaci into mud also? In truth I don't care about the BNP and VB. I don't think they are as "important" as Johnson seems to think they are, but for the sake argument let us say he is right and they are the spawn of the devil. Joseph McCarthy at first was right too. There was communist in the U.S. Government, but he went too far when he went after the U.S. military.

What troubles me is his zeal on this issue. Be careful...don't drag that dead hero into this fight.

Johnson is perhaps starting to go "Napoleon" on us..."

......(end of my comment) Jan. 21, 2008

GreatComet

Sorry to disappoint you, but the record ain't yours. Boopy above describes how he was banned for just rating Spencer up and Charles down in the other thread that day. That would be zero comments, but still earn him the record.

Butt eating? I never knew CJ was a porn star, since he's allowed to remain the commentator who suggested that as a follow-up act. Guilt by association works both ways, unless CJ has recited the Shehada.

He should. The ummah could use him.

Robert

I thought InfidelK9 wanted to be back as Shiva.

My apologies to "Boopy"...good show.

Family Values, Npabga,

It seems like Charles is drawing a line.

Let's hope it's a line of chalk. These two men have a lot in common.

--Charles is vehemently against the white-supremacist, anti-semitic fringe of certain nationalist oraganizations...GOOD FOR HIM!! He continues to report and offer commentary on radical Islam.

--Robert is doing what he's been doing for years... reporting and offering commentary on the threat of Islamic Jihad and Dhimmitude. He has never advocated support for white-supremacist organizations.

Please carry on, both of you.

Robert

Thanks for a fast and honest response, I respect your views as to why you can not support BNP, I share those views and that is why I can only give conditional support.

I support them because they are bringing the message to people who would go on the internet and sites like JW, They are getting the message to places where JW could never reach. They are making people aware of islam despite massive opposition. I can not ignore the work they have done in exposing islam.

The BNP are no worse than Churchill who declared Keep Britain White

Robert if you every get some time, I would suggest to take a look to see how the militant left and islamist are cooperating in Europe.

Here is just one example
Murder attempts on SIOE/SIAD Denmark leader and members

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/update-on-the-copenhagen-demonstration-murder-attempt-on-sioesiad-denmark-leader-and-members/

As for the banning, if I sign as shiva I get the following

Jihad Watch
Thank You for Commenting

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment.

I've read many of Robert's books and articles, and I've never seen a hint of fascism or racism in them. Spencer has always been clear he is against that. I read Robert because he expresses similar motives to mine: a desire to protect religious and other freedoms. He refuses to close his eyes to the many aspects of Islam that are absolutely destructive to freedom. Given Spencer's clear and extremely consistent support of freedom, CJ banning Spencer over some bit of trivia like this seems bizarre. Would CJ really like to remove Spencer from the anti-sharia, anti-jihad battle when all Spencer's writing and speaking shows Spencer is firmly for freedom and is incredibly learned about Islamic law, history, and the Qur'an?

Isn't it sort of like saying you want Michael Jordan kicked out of basketball because you thought you saw him punch someone once, and when you complained to Jordan about it, he disagreed with you that he had thrown an intentional punch? So now you think he should never play again?

The honourable thing to do, before ranting about 'fascist sympathies' and the like, is to understand, ehm, fascism...

Reading Liberal Fascism is a good place to start. Jonah Goldberg examines the ideological roots of fascism and finds them to be so much like communism that the expression "The Russian-Italian Experiment" was used to describe how these two countries experimented with other forms of government than democracy. That was in the 20's, of course, before the evils of those systems had been exposed.

One will find that fascism is the opposite ideology of free-market, Rule of Law Conservatives. Which is exactly the position that Vlaams Belang has.

I have no reason to believe that Charles Johnson has even a remotely workable understanding of 'fascism'.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

I thought InfidelK9 wanted to be back as Shiva.

I dont really feel honest when posting as infidel,

Also their are certain posters here who are aware that I am formally shiva, and are trying to discredit me by implying that I am posting under false pretenses. One of these posters has even openly called for me to be banned for making a statement that was written by else.

I have been critical of Robert, but he is not a lair, and he has all the time opposed to anything antisemitic I can testify this, as Robert deleted
a post of mine that contained a link to Stormfront way back in 2004. I also received an a very polite e-mail from Robert

I fact in all honesty Robert has been a gentleman and does not deserve this traitorous and viscous back stabbing

"Charles Johnson is, therefore, hardly the kind of ally one needs in the struggle that looms before us, the defense of free speech."

That's something I've already come to the conclusion of, particularly in regards to the Counterjihad movement, Mr. Spencer. As I've written before, the man is nothing more than a sideliner in this struggle and should simply be cast aside.

Those who are genuinely fascist or Nazis are on the fringe of society, including European society, and more likely inclined to support Jihad than Counterjihad.

Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. Spencer.

The trouble with CJ is that he is a radical leftwinger at heart.

This is a problem because these kind of people just cannot deal with other people having other opinions.

The reason for that is that they allways seem to think that their opinion is of a higher moral order than other views.

Now having concluded that ones opinion is morally superior to someone elses, the opinion of these others become irrelevant.

As long as the people with morally inferior opinions follow the orders of the morally superior people, everyting is nice and dandy.

The trouble really starts when these people with morally inferior views, refuse to follow orders.
Because their views are inferior its only logical to force "the right way" of thinking on them.

In my opinion its the main reason why leftish governments almost allways end up as dictatorships. Just as LGF has.

So dont blame CJ, its just the way he is wired!
He really cant help himself. And you cant either.
So stop trying to talk some sense into the guy and devote your time and energy to more constructive matters, as you have been doing so well for all those years.

And everyone with half a brain can verify for himself that there is no rascism here, no nazi's, no white supremacists, etc. And defending yourself like this, you even run the risk of looking quilty.

You, Robert, have opened my eyes to what Islam
really is with your articles and opinions on JW.
Focus on that, in stead of this LGF-nonsens!!
It will be far more productive.

Greatcommet

Thanks so much for posting that for me. Now I'd just like to know why he ditched Bat Ye'or.

@Quilly_Mammoth

re: Let's be clear here. A leader of VB was singing about a Jewish girl being eliminated. More videos have surfaced of other VB members engaging in Neo-Nazi activities.

I followed back from the singing video to the far-left blog opining on it (yeoman or whatever). From what I could understand in the automated Babelfish translation, the only evidence of that individual's "leadership" in Vlaams Belang they bring is... one blog post on the website of one of VB local chapters authored by him.

What Mr. Johnson tries to erase is the distinction between individual's views and actions and the positions of political party he was accepted into.

Had the Vlaams Belang detractors presented evidence that expelled member was vetted in advance, or that this or other repugnant outburst was know before he was accepted, or tolerated after brought to VB attention, they would have a case for accusations they are making. As it stands now, Mr. Johnson can only make defamatory insinuation that the very act of expulsion is somehow further evidence of VB hidden fascism:

"Delacroix and Van Keerbergen have now been evicted from their parties, because they let a little too much slip out in public."

The whole guilt by association smear of Mr. Spencer (by linking, of all things!) and others who happen to disagree with Mr. Johnson's views on VB is so absurd, so dubious, that the only reason for posting on the "issue" is:- so there is something besides Mr. Johnson's and his admirer's denunciations out there on the Internet for those who are not familiar with the facts.

@Mr. Spencer

Just don't let this get you down, please!

I guess Bat Ye'or was 'expelled' for being Jewish. Or for associating with people, such as the VB, Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal etc. etc., who are known for standing staunchly with Jews and Israel.

No, wait. That'd make CJ himself a Nazi sympatizer...

I guess CJ just can't get down to admitting having been wrong, and thus is stuck in perpetuating his mistakes. Poor fellow :(

Anyway, on Nazism... The hallmark of Nazi ideology is the hatred of everything Jewish. There's hardly anything else in that crap pile of an ideology that is consistent or in any way usable.

Predictably, neo-Nazis in Germany have rejected the Pro Köln movement against Islamization for these reasons:

- Pro Köln is openly Jewish- and Israel-friendly. One of the persons assaulted (by left-wing extremists) at their recent demonstration in Cologne was in fact a Jew.

- The Nazis don't think Islam is such a bad idea at all. Yes, the Nazis *do* embrace Jihad!

Knowing the anti-Semitic (that is, anti-Jewish) sentiment of Islamic scripture and tradition is important, as is knowing the links between the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood. For the latter, the keyword is: Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Google on :)

Charles Johnson is a scoundrel.

"He's perfectly sane and very manipulative. He's trying to create a niche for LGF that will be more 'respectable' without the company he used to keep."

Yes, perhaps in CJ's mind. In reality however, he is attacking and alienating the anti-jihadist movement, Christians and now, Social Conservatves whom CJ blames for McCain's loss.

He's runnin' out of readers to be "respectable" to. Seems CJ is going for the militant secular/atheist groupthink like CJ crowd.
He has to resort to lies and deception to do it, and after he attacks one of the above mentioned groups or those leading such groups like Robert Spencer, he claims that he is the one bein' "viciously" (his favorite word) attacked.
From unhinged attacker to playing the victim.

And he still won't answer why he is so inconsistant with his petty "how many degrees of "association" make you a Nazi game."

This has become so ugly and petty. CJ should join the new 12 step programme 'Blogocrats Anonymous'.

Step 1- I admit I am powerless over free speech and other people's opnions—that my life has become unmanageable.

Steps 8 and 9 could take a while though.

Step 8- Made a list of all persons I have harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all

Step 9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

And InfidelK9....your incorrigible propaganda for the BNP is really tiresome when their Jew hatred has been made abundantly clear. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. It flows through your veins too.

Johndoe, I agree that BNP proponents tend to take a disproportionate space here, it annoys me, too.

It's better to get down to some practical anti-Jihad work than to promote various political parties of more or less dubious origins and qualities.

USS Ben:

Good, insightful analysis. What I don't know is his roadmap for promoting the site, its relation to PJ Media, and so on. I'm convinced he dropped the jihadists - as well as most of his own focus on Islam - to reposition the site in a more mainstream position.

Yes, I believe the vast majority of commenters at JW are clear about what the BNP stands for.
No need to attempt to sell the BNP here.

Family Values,
Thanks! You have a good point there. It's difficult, to say the least, precisely what CJ plans for his blog, but he is taking very rigid stands on certain issues.
Unfortunately, much of that is based on a bizarre and misinformed ideas.

Sometimes, CJ seems quite lucid, but increasingly he closes his mind to the truth.
We are not his enemies but he sees us as such, so he demonizes and exaggerates to reinforce what his ego perceives: a threat to him (somehow).
Or, to be more accurate, a threat to his ego, his self-importance.

Of course, that's nonsense, but an out of control ego and an absence of humility will do that to a person who's afraid of losing...what? His "significance?" Respect?

But respect is earned not imposed.

The idea that LGF has grown soft on Islam is ridiculous. But it does appear that Charles has a streak of intolerance...were he in possession of actual power over men's lives, it's very apparent that heads would be rolling on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, Robert's "King of Spain and God Almighty in a mental ward" to describe the culture inside Lizardoidiam is certainly apt. It is group-think on steroids.

It is rather bizarre, isn’t it, Charles Johnson self-righteously castigating those he regards with very little evidence, as racist.

Especially when you look at some of things on his website.
Take the posting entitled

“Iowahawk: It Takes a Village of the Damned”

posted on Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:10:25 pm PDT

Yes it was certainly disturbing to watch this video, to see all those fictional and real-life children brainwashed.

However, perhaps the most disturbing comment of all was the his own comment with which he ended the piece.

“Admit it — you thought about this movie too when you saw the creepy Obama kids.”

I personally have never found anything “creepy” about Obama’s two daughters. They have always seemed to me like two perfectly normal, sweet little girls.

The reverse is true. LGF has grown hard on everything CJ disagrees with, and every approach different from his own.

It is in this way that it aquires similarity to Islam.

Process Slave said: "I see him as something of a Lefty, actually, which sounds crazy, I know ..."

It's not crazy. Charles is a former lefty, and like a few other former lefties he never got around to letting go of that favourite leftist concept: Thought Crime.

ODYESSUS: “Admit it — you thought about this movie too when you saw the creepy Obama kids.”

This may have been a reference to school-children singing fealty to Obama...or black teenagers pledging allegiance to him.

Charles has badly lost perspective on this issue.

He needs to push himself away from the blog for a couple of days and do a Chris Hitchens weekend.

Thank goodness, Robert, you have a means to counter Charles' accusations. He certainly doesn't have the class or the integrity to allow you to respond directly. If he had any decency at all, he would have chalked it up to a difference in opinions and left it alone. Instead, like a coward, he would rather whine about you in hopes his lizardoids would do his dirty work.

Keep up the good work and don't let this mess get you down.

PS: "Stealth Jihad" is on the way from Amazon! I'm going to have a great reading weekend. :)

Henrik:

It's better to get down to some practical anti-Jihad work than to promote various political parties of more or less dubious origins and qualities

In an ideal world, perhaps. Individuals or small groups - even intelligent, resourceful and brave ones like at JW - do not generally influence governments or hold sufficient clout with the public. If they did then the USA would not have just voted in BHO.

The evidence suggests - certainly in the UK - that the government does not listen to protest. They only thing that can cause the government to temper its pro-Islamic policies is direct opposition at the ballot box. The other two "main" parties - the LibDems and the Tories - are basically in agreement with Labour on just about all policy areas. Chillingly, Labour achieved a by-election victory in Scotland yesterday. So who can the discerning voter turn to?

No "mainstream" party can openly oppose Islamification as that immediately invites accusations of racism and, as we all know, the mere accusation of racism is enough to establish guilt. It is then up to the accused to prove their non-racist credentials but, as we all know, mud sticks.

We have recently seen Geert Wilders compared to Hitler in the Netherlands. So-called "mainstream" opinion has caused an astonishingly high level of ignorance about Mr Wilders and what he is trying to achieve. Mud sticks.

The only real possibility of successfully resisting Islamification is via the ballot box, which is what Mr Wilders is doing. Therefore anti-Islamic political parties are our only hope, but, as I've stated, "mainstream" thinking has deemed such parties beyond the pale, no matter how committed to democracy they are.

On the subject of the ex-VB member allegedly singing an anti-Semitic song - which apparently therefore is enough to render VB a bunch of neo-Nazis:

... here is a news report about a UK Labour councillor being convicted of racism.

... here is a news report about a UK LibDem councillor being convicted of racism.

... here is a news report about a UK Tory MP telling a racist joke.

By the same flawed logic we can therefore conclude that all three of the UK's "mainstream" parties are a bunch of white supremacists.

...For that matter, I think we all do, what with the election and all. I know I will be; when all else fails, there's always the old friend, debauchery.

Mr. Spencer,

I'm sorry to hear about your falling out with Mr. Johnson. What a shame. I think LFG has lost a little perspective in its efforts to denounce supremacism. While supremacism in all its forms should be vigorously resisted, overreacting to a friend's intent, especially as well as he knows you and where your heart and mind is at, is a sad commentary on the Left's ability to spook someone like Mr. Johnson. One would think he's intelligent enough, and has enough character to know the difference between your efforts and what he stands against. He panders to the very people he supposedly dislikes.

What a shame, indeed.

@ PRCalDude:

No, my LGF account is still active, even though I still link to JW and Brussels Journal.

Now I'm wondering if I can/should remove myself from the lizard throng.

I should've been paying more attention - I didn't realize how far out there CJ had gone, or that he was still feuding with fine folks like Robert.

It just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it.

Watling, I stand by what I said, that doing things on the ground is more useful than 'supporting' this or that political party. It's important to get people on the ground involved in doing little useful things that counter stealth Jihad. The high-profile stuff is largely stalled, but small things, initially innocent-seeming, can make a great difference.

Fitna was just supposed to be another Islam-critical movie, but became a huge event, just by a couple of persons doing the Right Thing. Even small things can become big.

A friend of mine was attending a conference on integration for his work (he was in a public office then), and had the courage to stand up and say "Islam is an obstacle to integration." He went through a lot of trouble as a consequence, but it hit the press (with help from well-selected journalists), and eventually the government reacted to the situation, stating that the 'Berufsverbot' he had hit was intolerable, and that we needed to look closer at the role Islam plays WRT integration of immigrants.

Small steps, where we are, doing the Right Thing. Works much better than trying to call on the elite do help us out of this mess - something I don't count on happening. We are the ones who will have to effect the change.

Godefroi, I think we signed up there at the same time. I won't say what my nick is, since I'm planning on maybe trying to steer conversations toward a little sanity and I'd like a chance to do so before CJ bans it.

Didn't he come over and demand you remove a bunch of links to sites who he claimed were saying hateful things about him?

"No, my LGF account is still active, even though I still link to JW and Brussels Journal."

Posted by: Godefroi at November 7, 2008 8:25 AM

This diatribe by Johnson was never about the links. It was always about johnson throwing his weight around to see if he could get Robert to jump when ordered to do so.

Johnson's guilt by association charge, illogical on its face, has been proven by Robert to be absurdly inconsistent in its application as well.

As far as I know, The temporary removal of GoV and BJ from Robert's blogroll had nothing to do with a directive from Johnson. That being said, their reinstatement should not have provoked Johnson's tantrum and subsequent meltdown.

Johnson was simply looking to pick a fight and continue his ideological purge in his search for "greener" pastures ahead.

I asked the question of Robert directly above, and it remains unanswered. I find that silence "interesting" to say the least.

So I will throw the question out again for any reader of this thread.

Can anyone point to specific evidence indicating an announced, or official, statement from party leaders of the VB that proves they support white supremacism, racism or fascism?

The only evidence offered so far that I have ever seen originated from LGF. That in itself makes the evidence questionable. And most of that evidence was of the guilt by association theme, the very type which brings us back to the origins of this thread.

I am sorry if this issue bores some readers. I happen to think it very important.

Europe is heading down the road towards Islamization with little resistance. It disturbs me greatly that a group like the BNP has to insist on a "whites only" membership threshold. For that I cannot support the BNP as a party and fully support Robert's stance on them.

I think Americans can have some influence on whether that Islamization occurs, or maybe the rate of speed in which it occurs. In any event, I think we can contribute, and we should, in any way we can. Robert posted a story on DW a few days ago regarding a change in policy regarding Gert Wilders being deminized as a Nazi by the Dutch Education Department, where the article claimed that protests by American websites were cited as a reason for a change in policy. That shows me our opinions can have impact in some instances.

If we are going to condemn Vlams Belang I think it important to know exactly what it is we are condemning. In previous threads JW readers (Infidelk9, Matomoros, Richard the LH, Henrik & others) have debated the merits of supporting or not, the BNP. I for one learned a tremendous amount from that debate and led me to conclude that there are probably many BNP members who are desperate to break from the official party line regarding whites only membership and share NO white supremacist beliefs, BUT, since the official party position, easily found on their website, and recent evidence shows they will not change that position, I, like Robert Spencer cannot support them AS a party.

I think JW posters are some of the most interesting and valuable thinkers in the anti-jihad. It would be nice to see a reasoned debate about whether VB merits our support and should be avoided.

Where's the beef?

Robert has had "falling out" with Charles in the sense that Poland had a "falling out" with Hitler in 1939.

USorThem, BNP does not have a "whites only" membership rule - in fact they do have non-white (typically Indian) members. Nor has Robert claimed that they have a white-only rule for members: Just for candidates.

Brett_Mcs - Thank you for the clarification and Robert my apology if I have misstated your position.

UsOrThem, you can browse detailed information regarding Vlaams Belang at Center for Vigilant Freedom. Everything Charles has raised is addressed there.

I work with these people, I've known them through years. Yet, I'm not asking anyone to endorse them, support them etc. When I have something of relevance, I send it that way, consult with people, perhaps have them ask the European Commission some pointed questions about Turkey or other important issues. We have work to do and can't be bothered with the smears of left-wing extremists.

The meme of some resurgent sinister European far-right movement is something I've addressed a while year ago in an essay at my blog EuropeNews.

I know that many Americans have this propensity for vast, undiscovered conspiracies. It is, frankly speaking, annoying. And it distracts us from getting serious work done.

UsOrThem:

I answered your question here, albeit in a comment that was not directed to you. Apologies for any confusion:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023403.php#c595288

My answer was this: "I am still looking into the matter, and find it appalling to be demonized and vilified by Charles for this." There are some things I want to find out on my own. I'm not going to apologize for wanting to do this, or snap to anyone's ideological lockstep in the meantime.

Certainly the increasing disregard for truth, for accuracy, for fair play, and for reasoned discussion by Charles and his followers is a significant point in VB's favor. If he has done to them what he has done to me, none of the evidence he has adduced can be trusted without further examination.

The Center for Vigilant Freedom also has a comprehensive reply to most of Charles' charges. Look also at the VB party platform, which is in English -- but of course Charles' whole argument, as quoted above, is that in secret the party stands for positions that are quite different from its stated ones. That is a hard argument to disprove, and one that is essentially empty. It can be made about anyone -- as it has been made about me there also, in the repeated claim that while I go around the country calling for defense of Constitutional laws and freedoms, secretly I'm against these things. One would think that advocating for them would then be counterproductive on its face, but I won't try to confuse Charles Johnson with reason.

As he and his sycophants continue to vilify and demonize me because of a couple of weblinks under a disclaimer, it calls into question other judgments he has made. Anyone who takes something on Charles Johnson's word at this point has only himself to blame for his own mind-forged manacles.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Where's the beef?

Posted by: USorThem


Just to put my penneth worth in, the beef I have is that some people have a tendency to come on to JW and hurl a "Johnson" when ever committed, usually UK anti-jihadists highlight the efforts that the BNP have and are making in the struggle against mohammedanism.

By any objective measure Nick Griffins Free speech trial, the wide outreach that the BNP website has (which devotes probably >50% of its output to the impact of sharia and the threat of open borders to the umma) is not to be sniffed at.

The slurs and Nazi brickbats are just a little too much for anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty or integrity to take seriously. I see no jackboots or overt antisemitism when I look at proBNP sites, I do see died in the wool nationalists. People who love their country/traditions and dont want to see it subsumed by any outside force, be that mohammedanism or internationalist communism/capitalism.

I believe it to be a sealed point of contention that the move in Europe to a federalist structure and dissolution of internal borders has proved nothing but an unmitigated disaster in terms of preventing the spread of Islam. The nationalist parties across Europe are at the tip of the spear in trying to reverse this tactical mistake and thus either directly or indirectly reverse the spread of mohammedanism. These moves should be recognized for their tactical importance and not smeared by chucking "johnson's" at them.

km:

Thank you. One lesson we should learn from this sorry episode is that, whatever our disagreements, we should always work from facts and evidence, and never, ever Chuck Johnsons.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

Level headedness and rationality seem to becoming in ever more short supply.

Your integrity and commitment to honest debate and free speech are an inspiration.

Robert,

I stopped commenting on this website, a few years ago, because i saw too many BNP posters here. And while i might consider Brussels Journal to be a fringe journal, I appreciate your stand on this issue.

@Infidelk9: I am an Asian lad born and brought up in Surrey. My citizenship is not yours or BNP's to dispute. NHS for instance would have crumbled long ago hadnt it been for the doctors from the Commonwealth! Churchill belonged to a completely different era, so it would be intellectually dishonest of racist yobs to co-opt his legacy.

I used to have quite a number of sock puppets at LGF, almost every one of them a character from the black comedy film, Dr. Strangelove. My favorite (now blocked) sockpuppet was the fictional General "Jack D. Ripper," who started a nuclear third World War by invoking "Plan R" which was a way to circumvent the Presidents authority to wage war. The logic behind the Generals actions in the film was that he felt that the couple of parts per million of fluoride in drinking water was part of a Communist conspiracy, somehow depriving him of "purity" of "essence" ("essence" being a euphemism for seminal fluid) and that subsequently he stated, "I do not avoid women but... I do deny them my essence."

Compare this fictional character to a real individual with an eagerness to "go to war" with fellow bloggers, a demand for some absolute "purity" in every written thought, speech, among the attendees at a conference, and linked associations on a blogroll, and; instead of seeing a Communist conspiracy, now sees a white supremacist or neo-Nazi conspiracy, and you see a variation of the same type of rigid thinking as that of the obviously delusional General Ripper.

As events would unfold around the world and the lizards would quickly call for confrontation, escalation, and military intervention, I used my "Ripper" sock to pop into the thread with a quick, "Plan-R?" comment. Despite my respect for the thoughts and intelligence of many folks at LGF - no one, ever, caught onto the sarcasm inherent in the comment.

.....so it would be intellectually dishonest of racist yobs to co-opt his legacy.

A johnston straight away.

Typical.

km, given the way the bnp is reported in the UK it's not surprising that most people simply don't trust them. They could be the most perfect party in the world but... well they aren't, but the point is, there is never anything positive about them. Even the SNP, considered a "good" nationalist party (for a lot of reasons too lengthy to go into here) are still treated down for their "nationalism", despite their open cooperation with groups related to islamic supremacists. In that environment, the reaction of this asian lad is entirely understandable.

One thing I do wonder: Vikrant_Camberleykar which part of the indian subcontinent are you from?

(for the record, as I've said before, there are political reasons I can never vote for the BNP. I've gone over them in the past. I shan't bore people with it again.)

There is a very long joke that goes around among tech-support people about a user that calls for help. I won't bore with the details but in the end the tech-support person determines that the electricity is out during a lightning storm and advises the person to ship the computer back because, "some people are too f###ing stupid to own a computer."

I see that LGFer "medusa18586" has created another one of her libelous blog entries attacking Robert. I guess I should write "assume" as she appears unable to create a working (blog-pimping) link to her site, despite repeated attempts. A perfect example of the user in the first paragraph.

Whenever I think Charles Johnson can't possibly stoop any lower, he surprises me. Now he is stealing from those he counts as his enemies, and smearing them in the process:

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/11/little-green-footballs-cribs-story.html

RS

I should also add, by way of summation, that I am not going to endorse the VB either, whatever I find out about them and whatever they do or don't do. I am not going to endorse the VB any more than I would endorse the Republican Party, or Democratic Party, or any other party. I am not interested in endorsing parties, I am interested in resisting Islamic supremacism.

Those who wish to resist Islamic supremacism are welcome to join this effort, but if anyone does join me in this fight, that doesn't mean that I endorse anything else that they say or do.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by Johndoe

Jew hatred has been made abundantly clear.

Well, it is abundantly clear that you have not done your homework, and like CJ, can not get beyond the red fascist propaganda.

The plain truth is, there are Jews who belong to the "Jew hating BNP"

While you sit safely behind computer trying to be witty by misspelling the sad is if it come to the crunch it will be the "neo-Nazis'who will take to the streets,while the government backed anti fascists (UAL and Antifada) will side with the Islamofascists

Posted by Henrik

I agree that BNP proponents tend to take a disproportionate space here, it annoys me, too.

It's better to get down to some practical anti-Jihad work than to promote various political parties of more or less dubious origins and qualities.

Well Henrik, I fully agree with you, yet your comment surprises me, being that you are Danish, and probably live in Copenhagen

Copenhagen, How I remember the times when I would take a few joints at the Kitchen, or a meal at Loppen, and then "borrow" a push bike and pedal over to Mechanical Music Museum or Huset for a concert.

I also remember the demos, and I do not forget what would happen should a demo go past ET-AL. I can assure you it was not the Nazis that hurled bricks and paint at the Israeli Airlines offices, or the Israeli Embassy.

I can assure you that all the squats in Denmark where loaded with anti Israeli leaflets and posters

Now I shall get to the point, most of the violent demos in Denmark, are not caused by muslims, but by islamic sympathizers

Even you mention this in an earlier posting

Posted by: Henrik at February 15, 2008 9:41 AM

Deportations would be great, but I'm afraid almost all of the rioters have Danish citizenship.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019958.php#c509943

Yet you do not say what these Danish citizens are. Well they call themselves BZers and Autonoms
and they also form the core of violent groups such as Antifa, which is spread all over Europe, and are connected by groups such as Indymedia

So Henrik you have witnessed with your own eyes these pro Palestinian thugs in action where they are not shy to attack the police with great amounts of stones, paint, rockets, iron bars to break up the shields or the windows on the police vans, or to fire ball bearings from catapults at the police.

If we are to do as you propose and get down to some practical anti-Jihad work, then we must seriously look at these pro islamic/anti fascist organizations. Not only because of their anti right wing propaganda, but more importantly how they are actively supporting the islamist, and in many ways with violence

Here is one example, which never got reported on JW, because muslims where not involved.

Citizens who wanted to express their opinions in public, writers and speakers have been systematically attacked for decades, and just about one month ago, three protestors including a woman in her twenties and a lady aged 73, who wanted to protest against the visit from a Saudi sharia delegation to a Danish ‘Human Rights’ agency were admitted to a hospital, after having been attacked by a large gang of (red) fascists armed with iron pipes.

http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/update-on-the-copenhagen-demonstration-murder-attempt-on-sioesiad-denmark-leader-and-members/

The same crowd was active around the most giantic scenes of destruction the City of Copenhagen, this is the incident that Henrik describes above but fails to pinpoint the culprits.

So Henrik, you agree that BNP proponents tend to take a disproportionate space here, it annoys you, too.

Well to put it bluntly, it annoys me when so many here can criticize the BNP and other far right parties yet are deadly silently about the Antifa

Henrik what is even more annoying is you do know about the far left/islamic connection, also you do know that in Denmark the far left are making more problems than the muslims.

About 10 months ago I asked if you could help me out about the darling of the red fascist in Denmark. At the time you could not help me by providing links. Well to be truthful, rather disappointing I think considering it happened on your doorstep

My question
I am trying to find a link in English about how some of the money turn up in Paris and traced back to the robberies in denmark when a palistinian was arrested for smuggling.

All I know is the danish government tried to get this money back, But the dhimmi french released the guy, and he was able to walk, taking the cash with him

If you know of any links in English, can you let me know

Your answer

Shiva, I can't really help with links about Blekingegadebanden. The closest I get is that one of our illustrators was nearly blown up when their weapon cache detonated, and that one of my friends, who is on the PLFP hit list, was beaten up twice for taking a public stand for Israel.

Well I did find a link which confirms what I asked you

Now for those who keep condemning BNP here is a little story about the darling of the Danish anti fascists

In 1983, French police arrested two Palestinians in possession of six million Danish crowns in Paris. The arrest came shortly after an in Denmark’s history unprecedented robbery of a bank in Lyngby [near Copenhagen].

The Lyngby police had good leads and requested the two extradited for questioning, but quite unexpectedly, the Ministry of Justice opposed this.

The Blekinge Street gang

Blekinge Street (Blekingegade) was the name of a street in Copenhagen where a gigantic weapons cache and other material belonging to a Marxist group was found during the 1980’s.

The marxist group that since then has been publicly known as the Blekinge Street Gang had pulled of several successful bank robberies, and had acquired substantial amounts of money to support the communist struggle and the PLFP; enough to buy a large cache of weapons supposedly meant to be sent to the Palestinian terrorists / freedom fighters organization PFLP.

The group was arrested more or less because of bad luck; they stood trial and were convicted to several years in prison.

The Murderer of police officer Jesper Egtved Hansen still running free

During one of their robberies the Marxist gangsters shot a young police officer, Jesper Egtved Hansen but none of the seven terrorists among whom the internationally known Swiss terrorist Marc Rudin could be convicted of the murder.

They all refused to tell who had actually pulled the trigger, so nobody was ever convicted for this heinous crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blekinge_Street_Gang

Thanks for clarifying that, Robert. I assumed you would adopt a position of not endorsing parties but I wasn't sure if you'd already stated it so clearly.

For someone such as yourself that's the right position to take. Endorsing a particular party would, in the eyes of many, be taken as an de facto endorsement of their entire political platform, real or imagined.

Just the whiff of an imaginary endorsement of an imaginary platform has resulted in a complete shower of the proverbial. Leave the party affiliation to people who actually need to do it.

A johnston straight away.

Typical.

What do you know about jihad and Islamists? How long have you been conscious of the threat? As someone whose people have been dealing with it for a millenia and who lost family in partition genocide i feel i have a better understanding of what islam entails for our society than BNP. Their anti-Jihad plank if anything is a mere ploy to whip up sentiments against non-whites. They arent an anti-Immigration party like UKIP but essentially a racist mob. You dont see them railing against Poles!

Also dont give me bull about BNP not being racist, i've had quite a few run ins with those dimwits to think otherwise.

(delurking)

CJohnson (sadly we share initials) does remind me of Ripper in Strangelove -- minus the ability to launch a nuclear war of course. Charles thinks "POE" is the most important virtue. Never mind the insanity and paranoia..

I think he's about five years overdue for a long vacation -- WITHOUT a laptop and network card mind you.

I could go on and on given my longtime and now-shameful efforts to help him find articles and topics for LGF. But it's really not worth anyone's time. Sad, but futile. I was banned for putting the trial before the "hanging" -- LGF's preferred (final) solution -- of the latest Serbian kangaroo court defendant.

If he hasn't become an Internet Gen. Jack Ripper, I think this is probably accurate:

"In case no one has noticed, Charles Johnson is getting out of the anti-Jihad business in order to advance his blog in the mainstream. All the very public fights he's picked with Robert and others have been part of his effort to re-position his product in the market, to get linked in more propitious places, snag more prestigious advertisers, and so on."

-- Posted by: Family Values at November 6, 2008 11:46 PM

Big business has been overtly pro-jihad and Islamic supremacist for some time now.

Robert,
re: tundratabloid

Wow. It almost appears that Charles has an "enemies list" in the style of Richard Nixon. Here's the Wiki on Nixonian:

Nixonian, or "Nixonite" is a term used to refer to Republicans who, rather than being conservative, tend to promote high domestic spending and an active regulatory regime, along with an aggressive foreign policy.

That does seem to describe CJ and LGF. Funny that Wiki has no mention of the famous Nixon paranoia that had his 'operatives' picking locks and rooting through the drawers of opponents to look for dirt in an attempt to discredit them. Do we now have the Internut version of Haldeman, Ehrlicman, and G. Gordon Liddy in Sharmuta, Killgore Trout, and Medusa? Come to think of it, I have seen Charles refer to 'operatives' before. I seem to recall he used the term to describe BabbaZee when she was doing research on VB. Right before he banned her for putting a link to a religion oriented site on her own blog.

InfidelK9, you are absolutely right about the Antifa-style groups running amok in Copenhagen. Here is a large post about it at Gates of Vienna.

You will notice that in the comments I explain, briefly, that I have read their mission statement and have called upon politicians to open a constitution-based court case for their dissolution, as § 78 of the Danish constitution warrants. I did so again as late as last week, to the chairman of the Committee of Justice (he's a real Law & Order guy), who thanked for my valuable input and assured me that they're working on it. A legislative proposal is expected in the Danish parliament shortly.

I have commented on their activities in many contexts, pointing out that they apply fascist methods ideology and themselves, and that the main difference between them and the original fascists is that these wear ragged clothes for their uniform.

The extreme toll that they have taken on the police is also an issue I've been raising. It's a problem here in Denmark, where the lacklustre performance of the police is a hot political issue.

The interaction with the French police has some intricate details - it is said that one of the guys was a double agent, and they needed him to keep working.

The only plausible reason you didn't see me write about this, repeatedly, is that you don't read Danish.

And the reason I couldn't provide you with English language links is that I don't have much worth reading. There's a truckload of articles available in Danish, and I have not specialized in this subject. Thus, I was not able to provide an independent article of reasonable quality, either. If I can be faulted for anything, it must be for not telling you back then. For which I hereby apologize.

Paraphrasing Hanlor:
Never assume malice when ignorance will suffice.

Thank you.

What do you know about jihad and Islamists? How long have you been conscious of the threat?

What are you implying? That people in the UK can not recognize a take over by Islam and mohammadan foot soldiers.

As someone whose people have been dealing with it for a millenia and who lost family in partition genocide i feel i have a better understanding of what islam entails for our society than BNP.

Oh so you do think that the people of the UK are stupid and can not recognize a hostile force

Their anti-Jihad plank if anything is a mere ploy to whip up sentiments against non-whites.

Links please

They arent an anti-Immigration party like UKIP but essentially a racist mob.

Well as UKIP imploded this week and their was a max exodus of UKIP representatives to the BNP, your take on things look pretty week.

Do we now have the Internut version of Haldeman, Ehrlicman, and G. Gordon Liddy in Sharmuta, Killgore Trout, and Medusa?

LOL:)

Yes we do.

Well as UKIP imploded this week and their was a max exodus of UKIP representatives to the BNP, your take on things look pretty week.

Well having lived here in the cornfields of midwestern United States for over last 2 years, i'm sort of cut of from blighty mate! As for people of UK... I am a Briton whether you like it or not, or consider me as one or not. All i'm implying is BNP, National Front and their ilk, dont quite grasp or have policies to deal with Islamists, their anti-Jihad rhetoric is insincere unlike their racism!

Also BNP != people of UK.

All i'm implying is BNP, National Front and their ilk, dont quite grasp or have policies to deal with Islamists, their anti-Jihad rhetoric is insincere unlike their racism!

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Yes you keep implying, or as I will now refer too "lobbing johnston's". You dont back up what you say with any objective facts you just want us to go with what you feel. Well I feel that you condesend the country and people that gave you and your family an opportunity to move further away from mohammedanism's clutches.

Tell us why the people of the British isles shouldn't rally round their flag and traditions when they see them being eaten away by muslim mold. Whats your solution, who do the people of Britain turn to?

Tell us why the people of the British isles shouldn't rally round their flag and traditions when they see them being eaten away by muslim mold. Whats your solution, who do the people of Britain turn to?

Only people I condesend are the racist chavs of BNP who haunted my childhood years, who chased 8 yr old me that lone Paki boy on the street, who threw bottles at me for being a public-school Paki who spoke posh and those little fucks who put dog turd down my mailbox a couple of times.

Dont bs about BNP being about rallying around our flag and culture, if it was that heck i'd gladly join it. No image makeovers and level of sophistry can mask what they are, a party full of racist dimwits (and Chelski supporters :P).

Funny how you question my patriotism towards UK just because i'm Asian. You dont know me, nor what i stand for. As for solutions? What solution does BNP have? Throw all the bleedin' wogs off the cliffs of Dover eh?

Vikrant_Camberleykar

A litany of "johnstons".

Funny how you question my patriotism towards UK

I haven't, it is you that have questioned the patriotism of those that support the BNP.

This thread is not about the policies of the BNP ref mohammedanism, it is about the supercilious reactions of those on the internet who accuse/attack others with conflated charges & erroneous smears.

You are not helping.

km, given the way the bnp is reported in the UK it's not surprising that most people simply don't trust them.

Posted by: Archonix

The National union of Journalists have a stated no positive representation policy for the BNP. All the time that exists any news report is tainted,

Henrik

Sorry, but I can speak and read Swedish fluently, which enables me to understand reasonably Dansish.

When it comes to writing, that's when the problems start, as you can see by my English.

I lived a few years in Denmark, but because I could speak Swedish i had no need to learn Danish. This did to a few problems when in Copenhagen, as we both know why Swedes are not so popular.

For me Copenhagen is the Second best city in Europe after Prague.

I sometimes feel I harp on about the BNP to much, but when they are putting so much effort into exposing islam, but I give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after my involvement with the autonoms and knowing how much they support the Palestinian cause.

What I find alarming is so many wish to ignore the antifa movement. It is a pity that google took down my blog because I had spent quite a lot of time and effort trying to expose the anti fascist, autonom, islamic link

Here is something I found while doing research about the Blekingegadebanden

Notice how they glorify this skumbag who killed a danish policeman.

http://nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/rev_linke/sanat/jihad/jihad.htm

It is a pity that google took down my blog because I had spent quite a lot of time and effort trying to expose the anti fascist, autonom, islamic link.

Posted by: InfidelK9

You did not have your sources backed up?

Any record regarding the left's movement's is important. You should try and salvage what you can (even by memory) and get it into a stable format.

The bottom line:...Spencer's work is necessary...CJ's work is not...

Duh swami has spoken...

The bottom line:...Spencer's work is necessary...CJ's work is not...

Duh swami has spoken...

Let it be heard!!!

KM has spoken....

"The National union of Journalists have a stated no positive representation policy for the BNP."

That's the only good thing I've read about that lousy organisation recently.

And I entirely sympathise with vikrant_camberleykar's sentiments. I also have had close encounters with the the pond food passing as human that torments and attacks Asians. These racist thugs Vikrant calls 'chavs' were skinheads when I was younger and they represent the essence of fascist barbarism.Their consciousness is an entirely dumbed down vacuum ready to explode into violence. It's filled with rage and hatred rooted in frustration and abuse and that rage is directed not just at Muslims, but other non-whites, and Jews. The BNP will inevitably attract these thugs and brutes and I have not noticed any effort on their part to disown them. In fact, it is happy to recruit them, their obvious ugliness and viciousness being a useful scare tactic to intimidate non whites.

That's the only good thing I've read about that lousy organisation recently.

So you reject objective measures and accept guardinista group think as your compass for exploring life.

Just get out of the way, please!

km: Fascists like the BNP should be treated with extreme prejudice and journalistic objectivity would be cowardly,misguided and irresponsible.

"Tolerance is a crime when applied to evil"(Thomas Mann)...and make no mistake..but you will...the BNP are evil. Period.


Can you imagine the heroic Munich Post having adhered to your principles of fair reporting on Hitler and his crones for the sake of objectivity and balance? They relentlessly attacked, ridiculed and dug up every possible scandal about the Nazi party. One of the bravest and most exemplary journalistic campaigns in history. They were fighting for truth, freedom and justice.
Sadly the NUJ, being Marxists, has other less noble motives for demonising the BNP. And your assumption that I identify and sympathise with their political philosophy is quite hysterical and paranoiac.

Robert--

I didn't think I would be commenting here again for fear of offending you, but since my good name is on the line in your post, I am compelled to ask you to repeat my words, the ones in which I am purported to have been critical of you, so we can examine them together.

I know in my heart that whatever I wrote was intended to be supportive of you. I even remember that my support was meant to be in the spirit of saying that you deserved to be paid well for your speeches at colleges.

I may be guilty in your eyes for saying something else entirely, and for that I have asked your forgiveness, both on that comment thread and privately by email.

I will ask your forgiveness again, while repeating: my offense was unintentional. I do not argue that my poor attempt did not offend you deeply -- as bringing up my name in this post indicates -- but I will maintain before my Maker that my intentions at the time were good and meant no harm.

Of course, I realize that the road to hell is paved with such stones, but if I am to reside there publically in your posts, then I will be so brazen as to ask again, please quote for me the offending sentences, and please point me to the original post so that all of us can see what it was I did.

That was probably the second or third time I had ever commented at your site and your reaction so baffled me that I realized I dare not say anything more. Thus, from then until now I have been but a spectator of your comment section.

However unintentionally damaging your use of my name may have been, your decision to employ me as a tool to demonstrate your bona fides to Charles and his followers is damaging to me and to my reputation.

And I realize once again that you have not forgiven me for what was truly an honest mistake. Have you never misspoken yourself somehow, Robert, and had to apologize? Have you ever repeatedly apologized and been rejected? It is a wounding experience.

No one likes being used as a negative tool in someone else's war. I beg of you, in all Christian charity, that you refrain from so using me in the future. I feel exploited.

And again, please show me my offenses.

Respectfully,

Dymphna

"Just get out of the way, please!"....the voice of thuggery.

"Just get out of the way, please!"....the voice of thuggery.

The voice of a vacillating quisling.

Beagle declares:

Big business has been overtly pro-jihad and Islamic supremacist for some time now.

I would find it extremely unlikely that Robert Spencer (or any sane person) agrees with utterly ridiculous statement.

Vikrant_Camberleykar

Strange you pop up now, I was trying to recall your name a few days ago, when another poster made a reference concerning you

As someone whose people have been dealing with it for a millenia and who lost family in partition genocide i feel i have a better understanding of what islam entails for our society than BNP.

Granted you have a better understanding, and after what your family has been through, should have made you more determined to stay here. Not give up on JW as easily as you have done, just because there are a few BNP supporters here

And as for understanding islam, I have personally faced a mob of looney muslims who wanted my head and burn my house down, Thanx to the Indonesian police I am still alive to-day, I have witnessed 26 churches burnt to the ground, my wife's family had family murder in 1965, I lost ten friends in the Bali bombing so do not assume that you are the only one who has a better understanding of what islam entails. So what I have witnessed gives me more reason to support the only party that is prepared to tackle islam.

I am married to a woman from Madura whose skin is darker than most Indonesians and Indians, so the only problem I have with your skin is not the colour, but the thickness.

Now are you thankful for being privileged to grow up and receive the chance for a decent education in Britain, well some of my family where killed fighting for the Britain you grew up in.

Ironical that it is the so called "Nazis" are now fighting to retain the England that gave refuge to your family, even more ironical the so called "Nazis" are now fighting the very people your family ran from. Yes I can understand your family for running from Indian, when so many Indians betrayed their heritage and became moslem, but your reasons for running from here are rather pathetic, which is a bleeding shame, because you wrote some incredible stuff which was enjoyable to read.

Dymphna:

I certainly did not mean to use you as a "negative tool in someone else's war," or to hurt you in any way. I apologize. There was nothing intentional in my remark to portray you in any negative light at all.

In fact, I was only citing you as an illustration of the fact that I do not expect lockstep agreement with my own positions from a site to which I link. That remains true, whatever the content of your post, and whether I read it properly or not.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Beagle declares:

Big business has been overtly pro-jihad and Islamic supremacist for some time now.

I would find it extremely unlikely that Robert Spencer (or any sane person) agrees with utterly ridiculous statement.

Posted by: Southwind [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2008 2:53 PM


I am not so sure about that; the last week has seen senior figures from the west proffering the beggar bowel in 'Oil Shelkdoms'. Sharia finance is being touted for the US and is 90% established in the UK/EU.

The corporations have sold out, like they did before WWII.

km wrote: "The voice of a vacillating quisling"

km, you're a bully. So I can understand why the BNP appeals to you so much.

I am not so sure about that; the last week has seen senior figures from the west proffering the beggar bowel in 'Oil Shelkdoms'. Sharia finance is being touted for the US and is 90% established in the UK/EU.

How exactly do you outlaw sharia finance or sharia compliant investing without crapping all over free enterprise (or capitalism in general)? And furthermore, show me any big business who would be in favor of Jihadist (holy warrior) attacks against ANYONE. It's not good for business! Get a grip, man.

Why even have a ding feature if you get banned for dinging things "against the party line." This doesn't make sense!

I sometimes feel I harp on about the BNP too much.

Agreed. This forum is not about supporting various parties, it is about countering Jihad. I rarely mention my political party either, even though I hold a formal seat in it. I don't need to. We have work at hand, which is where we need to focus.

You were running a blog about Antifa? Do you have a backup?? Assuming it's good, I'd take it, any format, and get it published, anyhow.

Yes, Copenhagen is a wonderful city. After having seen quite a few other capitals of Europe (Moscow, too), I realize just how nice it is. Low, greenish, water nearby, beautiful houses. It's strange that we have so much trouble with Antifa while other cities have that trouble with Muslim youth.

Anyway, they're all in severe violation of various laws, attack police on sight, and are severly disrespectful towards the property of others. We need to apply our laws, our constitution, instead of giving in to thuggery. It's pretty much the same on both fronts.

From above: "Just get out of the way, please!"....the voice of thuggery,

Saying 'please' once is politeness, saying 'please' twice is frustration, saying 'please' three times is abuse and fear.

It should have been stopped a #2, Frustration...

..."the voice of thuggery", should qualify for #2...

I'm frustrated with this thuggery as well...Hold
the line, don't back up...

km, you're a bully. So I can understand why the BNP appeals to you so much.

Posted by: johndoe [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2008 3:11 PM

Your a smear merchant like Johnston, what now?

Robert,

Thank you for your prompt response.

Just to reiterate: I never thought your use of my name was *intended* to damage my reputation.

It was obvious that you wanted to differentiate yourself from people who have been singled out as questionable, and I am certainly one of those.

My gratitude for your apology. It does much to salve the wound, believe me.

We don't have to agree on everything to participate on the same side. Disagreement on issues -- e.g., Vlaams Belang (isn't Paul Belien's wife a member of the Flemish parliament?) -- does not need to mean mutual anathema, which is Charles Johnson's measure, not ours.

Unfortunately for LGF, since those he has banned or made disappear from his side bar (poor Oriana) are actually more famous, with better-established credentials as serious thinkers in this war, his wall of defense has developed so many holes that the water is beginning to rise. He hasn't enough fingers to plug the levee.

But I don't think he will sink any time soon.

There were people willing to ignore (or never check) Obama's record before they voted; that's how he was elected. Just so, there will always be those folks waiting at the LGF door when he briefly opens it to fill the empty places in the row boat that once held commenters who were thrown over the side for insufficient orthodoxy.

_________

I admire Vlaams Belang. Back when the smears against them started, I studied their record and their history. They would count as a persecuted group in the US.

They fight against the Walloon thugs just to remain in existence as a political party. They reach out to immigrants who want to integrate into Flemish society and become productive citizens.

They are also the largest Flemish party and that is why the Belgians find them threatening. Their popularity has a broad base and they want to secede from Belgium. If they were to do that, where would the Walloons get their welfare money? The Flemish support them, because the Flemish work and pay taxes. They are tired of the Walloon burden.

Ironically, of all the parties in Europe, Vlaams Belang is most like American conservatives. They believe in small government, national sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and rewarding those who contribute to the commonweal. They are also inclusive of Jews and of any assimilating immigrants no matter their race or color. Many of their group are practicing Christians.

Those who call themselves "Conservatives" here in America run the gamut from oh, David Duke to the late William F. Buckley. Just because the former is noxious does not mean that the latter is, too. After all Buckley founded this movement.

In Belgium American conservatives would be banned from public discourse or from seeking public office. They would have been stripped of their civil rights long ago. Many of them would be under house arrest or in prison.

That is what Belgium seeks for Vlaams Belang -- they want them to die as a party and not come back. They have explicitly stated this as their goal. The concerted effort to strip the leaders of their rights as citizens has begun and is succeeding.

Dymphna

It was obvious that you wanted to differentiate yourself from people who have been singled out as questionable, and I am certainly one of those.

That was not in the least my intention. My intention was to show that I was not demanding 100% agreement with my own positions, and that no one should assume that everything written at a site to which I link is something that I agree with. That's all. Nothing negative about you at all.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

After reading a few of the comments here, I would have to say that I think some views are affirming my own assesments of the problem here: CJ is certainly trying to slither his way into the mainstream. I feel like, especially with his feverish attempts at stomping all over social conservatism, he is really starting to pander to the left more and more. I want to tell him don't give in, but I'd probably be told to get bent. either way, I am disgusted by his post today which implies that Robert Spencer is a "supposed 'anti-jihadist'". I feel that there was a much more tactful way that Charles could hav handled his opposition to your some of your posts Robert, I really do. I think there were more diplomatic routes he could have taken in expressing his side, rather than this sort of obsessive hostility. I know that have WAY too many things on your plate, professionaly speaking, at the moment to really let something this infantile to deter your much appreciated efforts and work. However, my heart goes out to you. It's never easy to see your tireless efforts in an area be shot down, cheaply if I might add, for the sheer delight (at this point anyway!)of someone so lowly as Charles Johnson.

Robert,

All I can say is you are doing the work of God.

Oh, and just quickly, one thing I wanted to reiterate: I believe, along with some other folks here, that LGF is nothing but a self indulgence for Charles. You, Robert, are a well spring of knowledge that NEEDS to be shared. Charles is just some IT dude with a web site, at this point anyway. I think someone else posted it in another thread (and not that I get off on CJ-bashing), but really, he just posts things that other people have written, offers about three sentences to MAYBE 2 paragraphs of semi-insightful commentary and then just leaves it to be kicked around the comment field like some old rag doll. That format actually gets dull. At least here, we know that Robert will jump into an already intelligent conversation and offer up MORE information, or clarify, almost immediately, anything that needs being so. Also, Robert, unlik CJ, understand gray areas, it seems. When dealing with something as complex and wide spread as Islamic Jihad, things cannot always be so black and white.

Robert,

I stand corrected. One should never assign motives to another without checking it out first.

So thanks for the clarification.

Peter Drucker famously said that "communication is always the act of the recipient." I have pondered that since I first heard it and haven't yet found it to be wrong.

In this case, you said one thing, and I assumed you were saying something else. Wrong move on my part. I believe it's called bruising oneself by jumping to conclusions.

Nonetheless, the recipient of a communication can *feel* violated or wronged by another even when that is not the intention of his or her interlocutor's statement. Of such misses are many conflicts born. That is why your apology helped so much.

LGF is certainly clear in his hatreds. That is for sure.
_____

BTW, when he was savaging VB, he did the very same thing with the Sweden Democrats Party. When it became obvious that his position was indefensible, and that he had been stooged by a Swedish ngo which receives part of its support from Soros, he simply turned his attention elsewhere. SD ceased to exist for him.

Which is what he will do here. Eventually, his position against you will become glaringly obvious and in order to get out of his self-imposed situation, he will move on to some other target.

I have no idea who it will be, but I feel sorry for them ahead of time. If he swings back to us (he never really quite lets up on the Gates of Vienna bashing, or so I'm told), it will be the same old thing.

Ex-commenters there ought to start a pool, guessing who might be the next target. It would have to be a new one, not the usual tread-marked suspects...I'm going to guess that Ayaan Hirsi Ali will say something beyond his orthodoxy and she'll be disappeared, too.

Once I recovered from my sense of betrayal, I began to enjoy the excesses of Chazzer. It is as though he is his own self-contained opera with drama and fireworks either on stage or just about to appear. Now if he could sing, perhaps in Italian, LGF would be the perfect entertainment -- i.e., to be enjoyed but not to be taken seriously once you leave the theater.

Robert Spencer,

Do you consider yourself to be right-wing? I'm a tad left-of-center, myself. Where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?

Southwind:

My books are published by conservative houses. Therefore for most people I am "right wing." However, that is a mere matter of necessity. If "left wing" houses were interested in anti-jihad books, I would have no objection to their publishing mine.

I do not take positions on any issue other than jihad. I've stated again and again that the defense against jihad and Islamic supremacism is not essentially a liberal or conservative issue -- despite the widespread Left/jihadist alliance. I've stated my openness to building a broad coalition with all people of all perspectives who are threatened by Islamic supremacism, and have been happy to work with feminist pioneer Phyllis Chesler and others who are conventionally termed "left wing."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I for one am glad this rift has led to a complete & irrevocable break. From the day that cj started this brouhaha following the Counter-Jihad conference in Brussels last year, it was clear to me that his goal was to collect scalps, not to help root out any undesirable elements in European political parties taking part in the CJ conference. He already had Rather's scalp under his belt, and now he was after bigger game, an entire nascent European movement.

Sheik has a good point. This 'new' rift is more of a healing between old friends, where Charles with his shrill rethoric is pushing away all the friends he used to have.

Charles can rant all he wants. The rest of us can get back to work, in good company.

Hi, everyone!

It's GuyverII, banned by LGF for asking the question. CJ apparently has mental issues.

How disappointing.

GuyverII:

Welcome, and thank you for asking the question. It was a most revealing exchange.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert
You're probably better off not associating with Little Green Footballs. The whole "guilt by association" thing works both ways - look at the comment I just saw:

539 Charles 11/07/08 1:49:54 pm reply quote 10
Comments about coups etc. are going to be deleted. If you quote an offensive comment, your comment will also be deleted.

Apparently more than a few lizards are already calling for the overthrow of the United States government. Do you really want to be associated with that type of blog?

Another bug crawls out of the woodwork. I have been reading JW for about four and a half years. Same with LGF. I stopped reading LGF about a year or so ago, after that mess with GoV. I remember anonomously following that ordeal, wondering when and where the other shoe would drop. I freely admit that I thought that Robert was wrong in supporting CJ at that time.

So even though I am not a regular commenter, I finally got an account just to give you my support. Your work is awesome. I am completely blown away by all that you have accomplished. Keep resisting, and don't let these intellectual lightweights get away with anything. This is your forté. Sic 'em and their libellious comments.

From France,
Liz

Dymphna,
Charles was hinting strongly on the thread in question that the next blog to be thrown under the bus will be Powerline. Why? Because they linked to your blog, Brussels Journal and Diana West about the Bart Debie show trial. That's all it takes. Some other lizards were saying they had written to Powerline warning them about y'all and your fascist associations.

Next month Geert Wilders and Arieh Eldad are starting a new movement called the Alliance of European Patriots, as I'm sure you're aware. Attending the initial conference in Jerusalem will be about 30 European parliamentarians, no doubt including members of the VB. Also Daniel Pipes and our host Robert Spencer among others. CJ will almost certainly attack this conference and its attendees, just as he did last year with the meeting in Brussels. He still has a large audience and can do great harm to the counterjihad movement, as many conservative readers of LGF will take him at his word that this important meeting is nothing more than a collection of racist fascists and their fellow travellers. His propaganda needs to be countered with the truth every step of the way.

BTW Mr Spencer, do you have any additional information about the Jerusalem conference?

ec marm:

Apparently more than a few lizards are already calling for the overthrow of the United States government. Do you really want to be associated with that type of blog?

Well, that is very creepy, and no, I don't, but from the looks of what you posted here, he is deleting such talk. So to try to hang Charles Johnson with it would be as unfair as he is when he tries to hang Vlaams Belang for the activities of party members who were expelled from the party for those very same activities.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Please stop calling Charles Johnson a Fascist. Fascists are much more tolerant, even of Communists (and vice versa) than Charles Johnson is of intelligent discourse.

Fascists and Communists would not mind the presence of a contrarian, perhaps not out of any highminded libertarian principle, but for the human pleasure of rebuttal (and even gang-ups).

The problem is not political, because Fascists and Communists sit in the same parliaments around the world (where such parties exist), and they talk to one other as they talk to the more mainstream liberals and conservatives seated nearby.

My rule of thumb is: If it can sit in Parliament or Congress, then it ought to be able to post (granted that it is otherwise well-behaved).

The problem is entirely with Charles Johnson who has evidently gone mad and cannot take any type of criticism, not even the kind one might find in a lettter to the editor of Time Magazine or Popular Mechanics.

BTW for those who reckon that he's planning to re-brand and go mainstream, I ask, where? In North Korea? Do you think such lordly ways could ever go mainstream? He's much quicker and more brutal than Democratic Underground and I bet even some Al Quaeda sites where at least, one can get some old style Middle Eastern graciousness before decapitation.

He is the only one really pushing for purity, and not just racial but taxonomic: to stay in, you must not only be a reptile, and not only a lizard, but a Lacertilia Linko-phobius.

Is this the man who complains about Reuters, Associated Press, MSM?

But enough. If a Fjordman, a Baron, a Dymphna, a Conservative Swede, and now a Robert frigging Spencer are just too horrible to bear - but what am I saying? - TO EVEN LINK TO, because all their little electronic cooties might infect, well, then I think somebody way up on this thread got it right when he mentioned a Howard Hughs syndrome.

jeppo:

Next month Geert Wilders and Arieh Eldad are starting a new movement called the Alliance of European Patriots, as I'm sure you're aware. Attending the initial conference in Jerusalem will be about 30 European parliamentarians, no doubt including members of the VB. Also Daniel Pipes and our host Robert Spencer among others. CJ will almost certainly attack this conference and its attendees, just as he did last year with the meeting in Brussels. He still has a large audience and can do great harm to the counterjihad movement, as many conservative readers of LGF will take him at his word that this important meeting is nothing more than a collection of racist fascists and their fellow travellers. His propaganda needs to be countered with the truth every step of the way.

BTW Mr Spencer, do you have any additional information about the Jerusalem conference?

No, I don't, and while I am planning to go, I have no information on any other attendees and don't think it is wise to speculate.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Personally, I think calling people who employ fascists methods 'fascists' is completely appropriate. The reason fascists used to be tolerant of communists is their ideological similarities, not tolerance per se. Fascism is totalitarian and unable to tolerate dissent.

Oh. I expect CJ and LGF to go non-stream, eventually :)

Robert,
Do you know of any external links/info regarding the conference in Jerusalem? Or have they yet to release time(s) and place(s)?

Also, I was disapointed that I missed that press conference yesterday downtown, but upon finding (at 5am this morning, getting ready for the day) that you had posted YouTubes from the event, I was delighted to be able to watch you, as well as Frank Gaffney speak about the signifigant dangers of Islamic Finance Compliance, and that if this seminar that was hosted yesterday was going to be honest, it was going to address the reality of Shariah, as well. I thought the portion where the reporter from Al-Jazeera is, and in the most polite and factual way possible, shot down about sugar coating what the undercurrent of Islamic Finance is, that obviously being Shariah, was brilliant. You and Mr. Gaffney did a great job, and again, while I wish I had been there in person, thank you so much for posting the YouTubes from the press conference!

Posted by: Boopy

"My LGF account was locked the day after Charles' big blowout against Robert. The only reason I can think of is that I rated down Charles' comments and the article, and rated up Robert's comments."


Ditto that. The exact same thing happened to me. I posted about my experience a day or two ago in the comments section of 'Excommunicated'.

IoshkaFutz:

Fascists and Communists would not mind the presence of a contrarian, perhaps not out of any highminded libertarian principle, but for the human pleasure of rebuttal (and even gang-ups).

Well, to be sure, fascists and communists murdered their share of "contrarians" when they were in power, but I get what you mean: you remind me of my long-ago college days, when I had a close friend who was very active with the Revolutionary Communist Party. She and I didn't see eye-to-eye on everything, although my views on many things were much different then from what they are now, and she would often invite me to get together and "struggle" -- that is, discuss our disagreements. And we did indeed "struggle" many times, in a mutually respectful and congenial atmosphere, and I much valued her friendship.

(Carolyn, if you're out there somewhere, I hope you're doing well.)

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Ciao Henrik,

Go to an Italian Fascist site and give them hell. Be a socialist. You will not be banned. I've done it. I've gone "jihading" on plenty of Islamic sites and was not banned... Once some of the Muslims even defended my freedom of speech when banning after many posts was imminent. I got banned from Islam-om-line, but only after a great many posts. It's a helluva lot easier to offend Charles Johnson than Mohammad!

Look, one knows there's a problem when Fascists, Communists, and even most Islamic sites are more tolerant than LGF.

Yes, Sharia justice is better than LGF justice and so that crackpot must not lay any claim on the CounterJihad movement which needs to broaden its base.

Robert:
You said:

So to try to hang Charles Johnson with it would be as unfair as he is when he tries to hang Vlaams Belang for the activities of party members who were expelled from the party for those very same activities.

Of course.

But Charles has something like 20,000 registered "lizards," some of whom could be mobies who, most likely, would have come out of the closet election night and the day after. On a thread where the President-Elect made a comment defaming the widow of President Reagan, I can't help but think that the (now) deleted comments calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government were from anywhere other than Charles' irate base. Which is scary stuff.

Thanks, IoshkaFutz. I get your point.

CJ is certainly much more like a classical fascist / stalinist than like those variants that can be found around the world today. They're watered-down (except for the Antifa variant) and can hardly figure out to instill any measure of fear in their opponents.

CJ has been able to instill a lot of fear, and caused much havoc. That wasn't good.

Mr. Spencer

I don't know if you have seen this but Kejda Gjermani is in full attack made at her blog..

http://kejda.net/2008/11/07/jihadwatchwatch-robert-spencers-amorous-flirt-with-european-fascism/

Check out this quote...

"The recent fallout between the libertarian Charles Johnson of LGF and the religious supremacist Robert Spencer of JihadWatch offers instructive perspective into the fractures of the Right."

Religious Supremacist? Oh that is rich!!!!

made = mode...

BTW she says...

"For Johnson it wasn’t much of a blog-war rather a series of restrained guerilla attacks on his open threads in which he officially announced the rift and reported on incoming hate mail from Spencer’s camp. However, Spencer himself along with the ever bellicose Pamela Geller did take the battlefield with public announcements or shall I say, denouncements, on their respective blogs."

Guerilla attacks? Battlefield? Are these people for real...do they live in the real world?

greatcometof1577:

Religious Supremacist? Oh that is rich!!!!

Indeed. It just shows how far Johnson and his attack dog Kejda Gjermani have departed from any kind of truthful discourse. In the last few weeks I've spoken at eight colleges around the country, praising the wisdom of the non-establishment of religion provision of the First Amendment as the only basis for harmony between people who differ in matters of conscience, and calling upon all people of good will to defend non-establishment.

But Charles and Kejda would tell you that secretly I hold to vastly different principles, just as do all their enemies. As I said above, there is nothing one can say about that except that it would be highly counterproductive for me to be spending so much time calling people to defend a principle that I wish to destroy. But I think it is abundantly clear at this point that Charles and Kejda have no interest in fair or accurate representation of the views of the people they hate with such fury and irrationality.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

greatcometof1577:

"Restrained guerrilla attacks." Yeah, like charging me with encouraging genocide on the basis of something someone unknown to me wrote on his site.

Charles Johnson, guerrilla? More like Charles Johnson, liar and smear merchant.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer

He is "December 7th-ing" you...

Perhaps it is time to give the "speech"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVI6ENDL8Y

Just kidding, it is not a "real" war, but if you listen to Tojo...I mean Crazed Kejda...you could conclude this nut really is at war with you, and this blog, to defame you, to attack you until you are crushed forever, or submit to his "rule".

greatcometof1577

Guerilla attacks? Battlefield? Are these people for real...do they live in the real world?

Well LGFers Sharmuta and Killgore Trout have been making reference lately on LGF to Robert Spencer and a "stalker blog." I assume because LGFer "Medusa" aka Kejda Gjermani has two rather large, close up photographs of Robert Spencer in that thread, that is what they are referring to.

And yes, she is for real. An albanian, Christian hating transplant to the U.S., by some deficiency in our immigration laws.

ec marm

I know who she is, because I have engaged plenty of Albanian psychos over the years on various sites, and forums, and she was one of them, but it is clear they have planned this for some time. They just waited for an excuse to attack. The "links" were that excuse. Am I reading too much into it? Did CJ plan to wreck the Anti-Jihad blogs that are not under his complete control?

greatcometof1577

Am I reading too much into it? Did CJ plan to wreck the Anti-Jihad blogs that are not under his complete control?

Good question. When Medusa aka Kejda Gjermani first appeared at LGF with her anti-Christian rhetoric, I communicated by e-mail with a number of LGFers (some now banned, some soon to be) as to what the hell was going on. The reply? That she was a friend of 'Sharmuta' aka 'Bush-Lover' (in a previous incarnation/nic) and that I should leave her alone. I chose not to take that path as I find the image of Kosovian residents pissing on the ashes of a burned out Christian Church about as offensive an image as one can imagine. Even yesterday I saw a long-time LGFer asking why she had not been banned. Most there ignore her, maybe some would like to engage her but fear for banning, as the message she brings is not welcome. I can only assume that Charles approves of her "moderate muslim, bad Christian" message and is moving his blog in that direction. I think he is moving away from the anti-jihad message and is moving toward some sort of Antitheism as the main thrust of the site. It should make for an interesting transition, as I'd guess that about 99% of his commenters are religious. The fact that Charles choose to toss Robert Spencer under the bus, with some specious claim, reinforces my theory.

Thanks for the response, Robert.

You state:

My books are published by conservative houses. Therefore for most people I am "right wing." However, that is a mere matter of necessity. If "left wing" houses were interested in anti-jihad books, I would have no objection to their publishing mine.

Fair enough. Let me ask you, are there any European political parties that you unconditionally condemn because of their proven ties to racist nationalism? I'm thinking the BNP would deserve your unconditional scorn.

"Ironically, of all the parties in Europe, Vlaams Belang is most like American conservatives. "

Then that proves it: they must racists and crypto-fascists... :)

Southwind:

Fair enough. Let me ask you, are there any European political parties that you unconditionally condemn because of their proven ties to racist nationalism? I'm thinking the BNP would deserve your unconditional scorn.

I've been entirely clear and consistent about my disagreements with the BNP, both on this thread and elsewhere. Also LePen.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Southwind, I think it's a bit too far to ask Robert, who is a specialist on Islam and Jihad, to condemn any particular political parties in faraway Europe.

What would the benefit be, anyway?

Even the BNP, whose presence here annoys me, and whom I don't really trust, don't need any 'condemnation' from Robert. Nor does Robert, who (as far as I know) never worked with them, need to do any condemning.

Further, condemning anyone without extensive knowledge about them is not a clever thing to do. Robert has the good style to talk about things he knows about, not what he doesn't, and thus assessing more or less obscure European political parties is a strange thing to ask for. One would be better off asking some Brits, for instance.

Albert Einstein said:
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance

It would take a lot of rather pointless investigation to have Robert give a qualified opinion about the BNP.

Infidelk9:


Now are you thankful for being privileged to grow up and receive the chance for a decent education in Britain, well some of my family where killed fighting for the Britain you grew up in.

So did mine, Infidelk9, in the trenches of North Africa and sucidal assault on Gustav line in Monte Cassino. Funny how people forget about 200000 who died fighting for the empire in the second world war. As for thickness of skin, i have no desire to associate with or engage with BNP prats who wouldnt treat me with basic human dignity.

Like Boopy, I was banned simply because I gave (-) ratings to some of the anti-Spencer comments on the infamous thread brilliantly described by Dean E.: http://littlegreenfootballs2.com/2008/11/03/theater-of-the-absurd/ .

What kind of person monitors the working of the database supporting his site or the front-end display to ban within seconds of a few (-) ratings someone who had never before incurred the wrath of CJ and had, in fact, had several posts (+) dinged by CJ himself?

He either had a bot monitoring (-) dings on that thread or some very vigilant minions who could report within seconds to him that someone was disapproving of the insane and vitriolic attacks on Robert Spencer.

CJ has gone quite insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BqloFdNq2Y

Can we please stop talking about the BNP?

All of us who have engaged with blabbing on and on about the BNP don't even live in the UK anymore.
Either move back home or shut up! Mr Spencer doesn't want us talking about the BNP anymore so let's, in these critical times, stop talking about them on this web site and respect his works.

Lets leave our comments for GOV, The BNP forum, Brussels Journal, Lionheart blog and LGF (kidding on that one)

Southwind, I think it's a bit too far to ask Robert, who is a specialist on Islam and Jihad, to condemn any particular political parties in faraway Europe.

Dammit! I messed up the HTML code.

Southwind, I think it's a bit too far to ask Robert, who is a specialist on Islam and Jihad, to condemn any particular political parties in faraway Europe.

I'll have to disagree with you there, Henrik. In fact, there is NO excuse for Robert not to know from where his support comes. Maybe thirty years ago, but not today. And since information about certain political parties is so readily available today, Robert should be very vocal about distancing himself from those parties.

Southwind:

Robert should be very vocal about distancing himself from those parties.

May I ask why you continue not to seem to notice my oft-repeated repudiations of the BNP's race-based approach?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Southwind

What I mean is, you seem to be pretending that I have not gone on record as opposing the BNP, when I have.

Why would you want to do that?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Southwind

I ask you these questions because, as you may understand, being convicted and executed without trial by Charles Johnson has made me a bit suspicious about people who seem to assume that I have not done what I have done, and that I have done what I have not done.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Southwind, I believe a simple "I don't trust them, I refuse to work with them." should do.

'Condemning' this or that group easily leads to more brawls, which distract us from what really matters, dealing with Islamic Jihad.

The situation in Formerly Great Britain is unusually bad. I have a notion that Common Purpose plays a great part in that, dismantling the natural defenses that usually the (nominally) Conservative party would take care of. They don't, and that leads to despair, and thus opens the door to extremist sentiments. There's reason to be cautious.

With their two-party system minimizing opportunities for smaller parties, the situation there seems headed for a severe breakdown of societal order.

In fact, there is NO excuse for Robert not to know from where his support comes.
Umm, I don't think Robert has quite figured out how to get the bluetooth to work between every copy of his books and the transmitter secretly implanted in everyone's head so that he knows who reads and agrees with his work and what all of their positions are. I know he has that going for the web site, but the books are harder.

Annie,

Umm, I don't think Robert has quite figured out how to get the bluetooth to work between every copy of his books and the transmitter secretly implanted in everyone's head so that he knows who reads and agrees with his work and what all of their positions are. I know he has that going for the web site, but the books are harder.

I know what you're thinking, but you're wrong.

Yours
Robert

Come on, Robert. "Race-based approach"? Doesn't that phrase strike you as just a little bit creepy? It's like you're putting a somewhat legitimate veneer on a disgusting bunch of racist assholes.

Come on, Robert. "Race-based approach"? Doesn't that phrase strike you as just a little bit creepy? It's like you're putting a somewhat legitimate veneer on a disgusting bunch of racist assholes.

OK, Southwind. Now I see what you're up to. You are taking my opposition to this group, which I have stated repeatedly and consistently, and implying that because I don't use the crude language that you use, that I must secretly support them.

I won't ban you, because I am not like the thug Johnson, but I am not going to continue to entertain the illusion that you are interested in discussing this fairly, or in actually discussing my views on this matter rather than making me out to be whatever kind of villain Charles Johnson has decided that I am. Take it back to LGF.

Robert Spencer

Jeppo says he thinks Powerline will be the next victim because they link to sites such as ours.

Wow. I hadn't realized Powerline linked to us. When did that happen?? our traffic doesn't show as it would have in the old days.

Michelle Malkin ignored it all and continued linking. Jim at Gateway Pundit did also, for which I will always be grateful.

The Baron wrote each of the larger blogs and asked them to look at the factual errors Charles was using to make his case and to please say something.

Birds chirping.

It was then we realized that the blogosphere is the same as the MSM: people in power don't step out of line, no matter what the medium. There is too much to lose. Small bloggers continued their support, as did our readers.

Our ordeal would have been far less protracted had not the group called "the Sanity Squad" -- all bloggers I'd admired and respected and thought I knew -- begun a personal attack on me in a podcast they said was to be about the "family squabble" between us and LGF. We weren’t informed ahead of time about this, nor did they ask for any information.

Based on their conversation, they couldn’t have read the posts about the Brussels Conference carefully. They appeared to jump in the deep end with no forethought.

The notion of "family squabble" was quickly jettisoned. I was embarrassed for them as they demonstrated an almost total lack of understanding about Europe. They confirmed the worst prejudices of our European readers about the average American's information level re the rest of the world.

One question they raised: "is Vlaams Belang a person?"

Another statement: "well, if those people don't like how things are going over there why don't they just form their own party?"

Oy vey...it really was *that* bad.

The consensus -- the criteria for making this decision was never revealed -- was that Charles had more "truth" and "integrity" than did Gates of Vienna, and that Dymphna was "scared" (I had called in to refute their comments. What they heard was indignant anger; Sanity translated it to fear. Go figure).

After this mélange of misinformation finished, Dr. Sanity "accidentally" left the mike on for another 20 minutes. She launched into a character attack on me that was unprofessional at best.

I made several requests that she take down those "accidental" minutes. It was -- and remains -- an inaccurate and unprofessional assessment of my character based on the most limited of information.

A family friend who is a forensic psychiatrist was concerned that a fellow member of his profession would violate another’s person with impunity. It reminded him why he doesn’t read blogs.

Getting no response from Dr. Sanity, after several emails I said if the offending material weren't removed then I would transcribe the twenty minutes and post them for everyone to see.

Sanity immediately responded to that one! She posted my emails on her blog and claimed I was attempting to blackmail her. Of course, that was an inaccurate portrayal of my requests, so it wasn’t surprising she disabled the comments.

Thus I posted the transcription, explaining why my requests didn’t meet the criteria for "blackmail".

What a bizarre experience. As most writers know, processing an unsettling experience thru the medium of writing can go a long way toward metabolizing it. Writing gives an aesthetic distance to the problem.

Thus, I wrote a satire called Blindsided, a play in three unnatural acts. It was actually a fun project; I found a lolcat picture to go with it.

One good thing came out of this:

A commenter on Neo-neocon (a member of the Sanity Squad) was so livid about the podcast after the first ten minutes he turned it off. This is an American who'd lived in Europe for many years.

His fury energized him to begin his own blog, "Transatlantic Conservative".

TC did that just based on their chat, not on my appearance on the show. He realized the dismal state of American ignorance about Europe and he knew it was a gap he needed to fill quickly.

Thus, it is an ill wind that blows no good.

Good shall also come from the ill wind LGF generates through the ether. It will take some time to see it materialize, but there is one thing of which I am absolutely certain:

Despite himself, Chazzer will be a force for good. The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

What I mean is, you seem to be pretending that I have not gone on record as opposing the BNP, when I have.

Why would you want to do that?

Because it looks like you're giving the BNP a relatively unopposed (by you) platform here.

Southwind

This is not BNP Watch...it is called Jihad Watch. If you want to devote every waking hour, and day on the dangers, and evils of the BNP, knock yourself out. You can create a blog, and put time, and money into it. Mr. Spencer has made it clear he does not support racial discrimination, and racism. This is an ideological struggle. In other words you could be a African Animist from Sudan, who is suffering under the yoke of Islamic domination, and he would be welcomed into the struggle.


Also, I find it funny that after 8 plus years CJ still does not get Islam. He supported 8 years of ineptitude from Bush, plus the years of overlooking the slaughter of the Christians in Iraq, or any other news that would make the Iraq project look bad.

It's like CJ is putting a somewhat legitimate veneer on a disgusting bunch of Islamist bigots that now run Iraq. Remember it is ok to kill Christians in Iraq, and in the Balkans, but it is not in Palestine…nice job CJ!

Also, Southwind, Anne Crockett's point is well taken -- all I can do is state my positions, which I have at length. I am not in any conceivable way responsible for the words or deeds of someone who departs from those positions, or even of someone who agrees with me 100%.

"In fact, there is NO excuse for Robert not to know from where his support comes," you say. Awesome. My support doesn't come from the BNP. It comes from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which is an organization dedicated to the defense of the U.S. and Constitutional law.

If you want to call them racist or neofascist or whatever, I wouldn't be surprised, but here again in order to do so you can't go on anything the Center has said or done. You would have to resort to the Stalinist Charles Johnson approach of claiming to have discovered the DHFC's secret tendencies, or mine -- based this time not on weblinks under a disclaimer, but on the alleged unsatisfactory nature of my repudiation of a group with whom I do not agree. I didn't reject them in the terms you prefer, therefore I must secretly support them, right? Right?

You know something? I think people who try to pull this sort of thing are scoundrels. Pure and simple.

Is that language acceptable to you, Southwind?

Robert Spencer

Southwind:

Because it looks like you're giving the BNP a relatively unopposed (by you) platform here.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, "I don't believe you. You're a liar."

Here is a comment I entered in this thread, above:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023403.php#c595295

I don't support the BNP. I don't support race-based approaches to the resistance to the jihad. I have no problem believing a party can change -- look at the party of segregation and the KKK's Robert Byrd. But as long as the stipulation remains that you have to be of a certain ethnicity to be in the BNP, it is not something I can support. Moreover, there seems to be a strong strain of antisemitism, hatred of Israel, and Holocaust denial in it. This too of course is nothing I can support.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Also, do a search at Jihad Watch for BNP. Here, I'll help you:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013255222075609514560%3Ayu16amghxpi&q=BNP&sa=Search

Page after page of stuff. Now your mission, and I know you will accept it, will be to find anything in all that where I say anything in support of the BNP. Happy hunting. Hunt away, but you will come up empty.

Once again, you say, "Because it looks like you're giving the BNP a relatively unopposed (by you) platform here." See, in America we have this thing, at least for now, called "free speech." I believe in it very passionately. It involves the principle that the antidote to bad ideas is not demonizing dissenters and quashing dissent -- the Stalin/Charles Johnson method -- but engaging in discussion. I am happy to be able to provide a platform for that discussion here. But does this mean that I agree with everything that is posted? That would be a dangerous conclusion to make, given that people of all perspectives post here -- even defenders of jihad. It would be more reliable to deduce my views from what I actually say, rather than what you suspect I really think, or what Charles Johnson says I say, or what some commenter says here, etc.

I know that sort of thing -- actually going to a person's writings to find out his positions -- is out of fashion in this day and age, when the cognoscenti can discern people's secret motives that turn out to be exactly at variance with what they spend all their time working to advance. Call me old fashioned. And I will call you some other things.

Robert Spencer

I like you, Robert. I've watched all of your lectures that I could find on the internet. The fact is that we're judged by the company we keep.

Southwind

How hard is this to understand...

"Comments (Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)"

This is important, because jihadist comment here all the time, and many are left up, and allowed to continue to rant. Why? Because it is great training! I have learned how to deal with Islamist, their typical arguments, etc., by watching Mr. Spencer (and others) dispatch one after the other. However, based on your view, this must be an Islamist site, because Islamist sometimes do comment here. Let me guess, RS is an Islamist, because he owns a Quran!

Truth be told, Southwind, the lizards will get eaten alive by Islamist. They have no experience in dealing with them, because they never allow a few in to train on, etc. This is an educational site, and an Islamic intelligence site, not a blog run by a political hack out to hear how great he is each day…

BTW: There are very few full blooded BNP supporters here. I am not for one. If this site was populated by communist I would still be here for the info! You have no idea how many times this site has saved my ass in some debate with a Islamist.

Southwind

I like you, Robert. I've watched all of your lectures that I could find on the internet. The fact is that we're judged by the company we keep.

If you have really watched me speak, then you know: I stand consistently for equality of rights of all people before the law, and against race supremacism. I don't keep company with the BNP. I have never spoken to them or for them. I have never praised them. This is an unmoderated comments field. Your quarrel is with free speech, not with me.

Now do me a favor, seeing as how you like me so much, and cut out your manipulative guilt-by-association propaganda. As I said above, take it back to the smear merchants at LGF.

Robert Spencer

I am disgusted by LGF, what it has become, and Mr. Johnson's behavior.

Mr. Johnson began a very bizarre Jihad of his own at LGF against Christians, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.

I've also read posts by Jews at other blogs who say that they too were banned from LGF simply for disagreeing with Johnson's stance against I.D. / Creationism.

I was banned not too long ago merely for placing links to a few sites that argued against Darwinism.

I did so maybe 4, 5, or 7 times over a 2 or 3 month period. I did not visit his blog every day or post to every thread, either.

Or at least I assume that's what I was banned for, since I was not told why, I was not given any warnings, and the only posts I made during my last few months there were posts with anti-Evolution links in them.

Now Johnson is attacking Mr. Spencer?

Of course, Johnson's behavior was somewhat strange and erratic before all this, back when he did a mass banning of people (long time posters, folks who had financially contributed to LGF) who made their way to a new message board, GCP (Gulf Coast Pundit). Things have just gone even more downhill since then.

I've visited Jihad Watch a few times over the years, and I've found it to be a useful, informative site.

Just judging from the tone and wording of Mr. Spencer's posts here (even in the comment sections) he seems to be a gracious, mature, even- handed person. One does not get that impression from Mr. Johnson.

And for all the people who have been hi-jacking these JW threads to discuss obsure European political parties: please stop.

It's boring, it's dull, and depending on the thread, it's off-topic (this particular thread might be the exception).

Please consider making your own blog or discussion board about BNP and other such groups, make a post here inviting people to go join it, and leave it off this blog.

From what I've seen, Mr. Spencer most definitely does not sponsor or agree with genocide (he has stated so out-right many times), so please, stop harassing the man over his views about esoteric European political parties, or members of them, that may or may not support genocide/ racism.

The continued questioning and harassment of Mr. Spencer over this topic is beyond annoying.

I never understood Johnson's obsession with European political parties, either. It's a total "snooze-ville," as were the many, many overly detailed posts about computer programming.

I think the concern should be Johnson's condemnation of people by way of scant, questionable, flimsy, lacking and/or laughable evidence.

Another concern should be the fact that Johnson does not permit dissent at his blog.

If one speaks up in disagreement at LGF over certain topics (darwinism / evolution, fascism, unfairly condemning other bloggers - to name but a few), Johnson or one of his "monitor lizards" (co-moderators) ban the person.
----
LGF2 Charles and Killgore Free Footballs:
http://littlegreenfootballs2.com/

greatcometof1577:

Well said, and thanks. You would think that the LGf sycophants would grasp the notion of unmoderated comments, since back before he became a Mini-Stalin Charles Johnson was more than once pilloried for comments left at his site, and in response he gave as good as he got.

It is a pity our friend Abdullah hasn't shown up on this one, so that Southwind could accuse me of being an apologist for jihad.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I sense some lizards have wandered over here and are sniffing for any Vlaams & BNP crumbs laying around.

Sir Charles has gotten them so paranoid of JW, the witch hunt is on.

Southwind,

I would find it extremely unlikely that Robert Spencer (or any sane person) agrees with utterly ridiculous statement.

Funny how the people who don't understand the meaning of jihad always defend LGF and then claim everyone else is a Nazi or BNP supporter.

Big business is pushing everything from sharia finance to suspicious talking dolls, along with caving to every Islamic demand which comes down the pike. Though a generalization it's easily defensible.

So do you agree that the BNP is a racist party then, Robert? you never did say. Let me make it easy for you. In your opinion, is the BNP a racist party? Yes or no?

Southwind wrote,

"I like you, Robert. I've watched all of your lectures that I could find on the internet. The fact is that we're judged by the company we keep."

And you're keeping company with Mr. Spencer, so this must mean you favor genocide and racism and the BNP (if one believes that Mr. Spencer believes in / agrees with all that stuff, which of course, he does not).

But if we're going to play these 'insane to the Nth degree' "guilt by association" games, if Mr. Spencer is a racist, genocidal maniac, then anyone who posts here is, too, including Southwind, myself, etc. This is lunacy.

I remember there were a few times loons would post pro-genocidal stuff to LGF (or strongly hint at it), like how they wanted to drop nuclear bombs on all Muslims, and those comments would be allowed to remain. I guess from that I can argue that Charles Johnson and "Lizards" support the killing of all Muslims?

Big business is pushing everything from sharia finance to suspicious talking dolls

Oh yes. The "suspicious" talking dolls. Thank you for proving my point about associating with lunatics, Beagle.

You see what I mean, Robert? :D

Southwind is a typical lizard...

He only understands the words "yes" and "no"....

Southwind

Thanks for proving my point that lizards are idiots!

See what I mean CJ! You are who you hang out with!

Southwind:

So do you agree that the BNP is a racist party then, Robert? you never did say. Let me make it easy for you. In your opinion, is the BNP a racist party? Yes or no?

Spencer: "...the BNP, a white separatist party with a history of neo-Nazi dalliances..."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004301.php

Spencer: "The British National Party, which has often justly been accused of racism..."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002268.php

Spencer: "As I have said before, I completely disavow all racist and neo-Nazi ideas. I also disavow all race-based approaches to the jihad threat, for the reasons explained above, and will not work with the VB or the BNP." When I made that statement, I was working on information about the VB that turned out to be false, as the update shows, but not about the BNP:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

Only someone trying to play "Gotcha," instead of having an honest discussion, would find all that (and more that I could cite, but find it for yourself) unsatisfactory.

It is also noteworthy that you have no reply to make whatsoever to the other points that I have made. In this, and on your laser-like focus on finding something you can use for character assassination, you resemble Charles Johnson.

Robert Spencer

Dymphna,
In the comment thread of the post in question, Charles wrote:

Vlaams Belang/Gates of Vienna support at Powerline:

He then linked to two Powerline posts, one of which linked to GoV.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021759.php

All this time I assumed that Powerline was a sober-minded, GOP establishment-type blog. Now I realize that they're actually genocidal Nazi scum. Thanks for that, Charles!

:)

Southwind doesn't seem even to be able to grasp the concept that I would allow some post to stand here even if I disagree with it.

Charles Johnson, of course, is busy fighting against the idea that it would be acceptable to do such a thing, by enforcing an extremely rigid ideological straitjacket upon those who comment at his site. That's his prerogative, of course, as it is his private property, but it is unfortunate at the same time. It is unfortunate because it reinforces the growing assumption in American public life that one who disagrees with you must be evil, and that the most effective way to deal with that disagreement is to demonize the person doing the disagreeing.

The old idea of "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has gone out the window. I doubt this "Southwind" person has even heard the adage, or that he agrees with it if he has. And why should it be otherwise? This is how people in public positions behave. Why should insignificant but grandiose "new leaders of the Republican Party," as the LGF commenters have styled themselves, be any different?

Nonetheless, here I will stand for the idea that the best way to discredit an opponent is to show what he says to be false, not to shower him with excrement. I know that Charles Johnson and Southwind will disagree. Again, call me old fashioned.

Robert Spencer

Good grief, Robert. Why the hell can't you answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no?

I'm begging you. For God's sake, man. Answer the damn question!

Soutwind, he already answered you ("Let me make it easy for you. In your opinion, is the BNP a racist party? Yes or no?")

I take it his answer was YES, they are racist:
-------------
[Spencer wrote above]:

Spencer: "...the BNP, a white separatist party with a history of neo-Nazi dalliances..."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004301.php

Spencer: "The British National Party, which has often justly been accused of racism..."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002268.php

Spencer: "As I have said before, I completely disavow all racist and neo-Nazi ideas. I also disavow all race-based approaches to the jihad threat, for the reasons explained above, and will not work with the VB or the BNP." When I made that statement, I was working on information about the VB that turned out to be false, as the update shows, but not about the BNP:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

Only someone trying to play "Gotcha," instead of having an honest discussion, would find all that (and more that I could cite, but find it for yourself) unsatisfactory.

It is also noteworthy that you have no reply to make whatsoever to the other points that I have made. In this, and on your laser-like focus on finding something you can use for character assassination, you resemble Charles Johnson.

Robert Spencer

Southwind

Good grief, Robert. Why the hell can't you answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no?

I'm begging you. For God's sake, man. Answer the damn question!

Of course it's a racist party. Why can't you read the quotes I gave you above, showing I've been consistent on this for years?

Why are you trying to pretend that I have not been clear on this?

What are you trying to do?

And why won't you answer any of my questions?

Of course, the simple answer is, you are trying to catch me out. You lose. Try again!

Now go back to Charles and tell him, "I failed, Master. He said BNP was racist, and even showed me that he had been saying so for years. I tried to pretend that his statements weren't clear, but then he gave me exactly what I had asked him for -- which was no different from what he was saying before! Curses. Foiled again!"

Now go away.

Robert Spencer

Southwind

This might help you...they have all grade levels! In your case I would try: "Tis Time to Write to Santa" (grades 1-2)

http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension.htm

Try it out. Let us know how it worked out..Good Luck!

greatcometof1577:

Southwind can't read or comprehend what he doesn't want to comprehend.

He wants to think I'm a racist, so he just won't see evidence to the contrary.

It is a vile tendency that Charles Johnson is encouraging. I wonder how he sleeps.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Of course it's a racist party.

Thank you! *wipes sweat from brow*

Now what were your questions? You can expect straightforward and honest answers.

Southwind

Now what were your questions? You can expect straightforward and honest answers.

Why can't you read them for yourself? Why must I repeat everything for you?

Your continued attempt to pretend that I didn't answer your question right away is noted. It is also false, and dishonest, and makes me continue to doubt that you are trying to do anything here other than get me to say something you can use.

Robert Spencer

"Why can't you read them for yourself? Why must I repeat everything for you?"

Robert writes

Because he's trying to control the conversation. And the "Thank you! Wipes sweat from forehead" comment is to try and make it sound like you're some kind of cryto-racist.

KrazyKafir:

Because he's trying to control the conversation.

Indeed. And that's why I answered him. It's why I answer Abdullah, etc. These exchanges are, I hope, instructive to observers, on the dishonesty and manipulativeness, and other tendencies of such people.

This Southwind character apparently thinks he is being very clever, but I believe at this point what he is trying to do should be clear to everyone.

And the "Thank you! Wipes sweat from forehead" comment is to try and make it sound like you're some kind of cryto-racist.

Yes, he is trying to pretend that I dodged the question, when I actually gave him more than he asked for: not only did I answer his question, but I showed him that I had been answering it the same way since at least 2004, the date of some of the links I gave him above.

Southwind is foiled, his mission come to naught. Better luck next time.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer

You have to talk down to their level. They are use to CJ saying things like.."Bite me"

Jeeze, no wonder they liked Bush so much...

Because he's trying to control the conversation. And the "Thank you! Wipes sweat from forehead" comment is to try and make it sound like you're some kind of cryto-racist.

That's not true. I asked a simple yes or no question and was bombarded with links, quotes and obfuscation - none of which answered my question. Robert is NOT a racist and that was never the question.

I've scanned the thread and I'll be damned if I can find a question to me that makes any sense. Perhaps if you would rephrase them, Robert?

Posted by: leon

Can we please stop talking about the BNP?

All of us who have engaged with blabbing on and on about the BNP don't even live in the UK anymore.
Either move back home or shut up! Mr Spencer doesn't want us talking about the BNP anymore so let's, in these critical times, stop talking about them on this web site and respect his works.

Lets leave our comments for GOV, The BNP forum, Brussels Journal, Lionheart blog and LGF (kidding on that one)

Bravo leon
I can agree and support this suggestion, as these discussion do not seem to get anywhere, and they hinder us from seeing the true enemy and their allies.

By agreeing to shut up about BNP, does not mean that I will shut up about the opponents of the BNP, because I feel they pose a greater threat in Europe at the moment, because they enabling the Islamists.

So allow me to take one last shot. I have never denied the antisemitism and racism within the BNP, but if we look a little more closely the the same trends will be found right across the political spectrum. One glaring example is, we all know about the antisemitism within islam, and we all know how lethal the islamic antisemitism is. So how is it that those who criticize the BNP, yet say nothing about those who are siding with the the worst Jew haters this world has ever known.

Unite Against Fascism, makes alliance with Holocaust deniers, antisemites and gay haters

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/sacranie.htm

I throw down a challenge to those who have been so vocal against the BNP. Can you expose the hypocrisy of the far left.

Aw, greatcometof1577, I like G. W. Bush. I don't necessarily agree with every decision the guy ever made, but overall, I think he's okay. And remember, I don't like LGF.

Southwind:

That's not true. I asked a simple yes or no question and was bombarded with links, quotes and obfuscation - none of which answered my question.

There you go again. The links and quotes were perfectly clear, and there was no obfuscation at all.

But it is very, very revealing that you would continue to insist that there was.

Robert is NOT a racist and that was never the question.

Of course it was. That's why you asked the question. Apparently you're under the impression that I was born yesterday.

I've scanned the thread and I'll be damned if I can find a question to me that makes any sense. Perhaps if you would rephrase them, Robert?

Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my affair. Your refusal to answer the questions is noted.

Robert Spencer

Anyway, Snowbound, or whatever, that's enough. You got what you asked for, although it is unlikely that it is what you wanted, and I have made my points from the exchange. That's all you will hear from me.

Robert Spencer

jeppo--

The date of that Powerline story is October 12th. Things in Belgium have deteriorated since then.

Here is a link to the round-up of stories:

Bart Debie and Frank Vanhecke: Link Roundup

The police you see there are Walloons called out by Mayor Teddy to work the VB over.


What follows below is a brief background on Bart Debie, who did so much for CVF during the Brussels Conference in 2006. The Baron describes him as kind, considerate, and patient. He was very taken with the exceptional nature of his character...

Bart Debie, of one the leading Vlaams Belang parliament members has been stripped of his civil rights (including his post in Parliament) -- this sentence will last for five years. He had planned to be married and now is not sure he has the citizenship standing to do so.

In addition he was fined 30,000 Euros and sentenced to a violent prison outside Brussels to serve his time. In fact, he spent eight hours in a cell there, in the dark with people stepping over one another.

The prison sentence would have been a death sentence because Debie was the former Police Superintendent. Many of his fellow prisoners would have had a field day. Even the prison administrator said he should not be sent there.

Lots of us sent emails to the Belgian Embassy. I have no idea if this had any effect, or if they were just playing mind-torture with Mr. Debie. At any rate, he was released to serve his sentence under house arrest. He has been fitted for the electronic devices required.

His crime? Racism. He was found guilty for a racist remark made by someone else when Mr. Debie wasn't even present. If I have the story correctly, the person making the remark wasn't charged -- just his boss, Mr. Debie, the Superintendent.

That's how they run things in Belgium if you have the temerity to belong to Vlaams Belang.

They are now in the process of doing this to the next one in line. The Walloon thugs are determined to destroy VB even if they have to do it one person at a time.

Do look at the round-up of stories if you get the chance. Dianna West met Mr. Debie when she visited Europe and was stunned at his predicament. She worked hard to publicize his plight and protect him from the worst of their depredations...

Southwind said,
"That's not true. I asked a simple yes or no question and was bombarded with links, quotes and obfuscation - none of which answered my question."

Mr. Spencer answered your question, but not with a simple "yes" or "no."

As another individual here pointed out above, all it takes is a little reading comprehension to see that in the response Mr. Spencer did gave you, he was telling you "yes."

Just because the man did not answer you in the WAY and manner in which you wanted does not mean he did not answer you or that he was evading you or using obfuscation.

InfidelK9 wrote,
"By agreeing to shut up about BNP, does not mean that I will shut up about the opponents of the BNP, "

I don't want to hear about BNP or anything BNP related, and that includes anything about "BNP opponents." Why not create your own blog and post a link to it?

Why do you feel as though you have to discuss it at this blog?

Now playing: "Book of Liars," by the great Walter Becker, from his magnificent 11 Tracks of Whack.

"There's a silver star in the book of liars by your name."

That one's for you, Charles.

RS

If your questions to me are so simple and obvious, why don't you simply restate them, Robert? Could it be that you don't even know what you asked of me in the first place?

Abdullah, the useful idiot, needs to stay. Every counter-jihadist site needs their token "Naseem".

"Southwind", however needs to go. Johnson's sole purpose with "Southwind", the attempted destruction of Spencer, while obvious, should not garner any imternet prowess here.

Ban Mr. Johnson and all his fascism that he obviously supports.

I think Mr. Spencer said he's not going to answer you any further, Southwind, and I don't blame him. You intentionally act obtuse.

I think you already answered his question above (perhaps he did not see your reply):

If your questions to me are so simple and obvious, why don't you simply restate them, Robert? Could it be that you don't even know what you asked of me in the first place?

Posted by: Southwind at November 7, 2008 11:27

To entertain a dolt. What questions?

InfidelK9: I loathe the far left and its rabid Jew hatred as much as I detest the BNP. Happy?

I'll be happy to answer any of Robert's questions to me. I simply asked that he restate them. What's the big deal?

SquirmyWormy

I don't mean you...sorry.

The trouble is there was a time at LGF when you could not critize Bush on anything. If you did...you had "BDS"! You disagreed with his Iraq strategy..BDS. You disagreed with his handling of the press...BDS. You disagreed with his faith in Rumsfeld...BDS, You disagreed with his views on Islam...BDS, on and on...

Infidelk9


http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/sacranie.htm


Cultural Marxism.

Thanks for that link.

awake

"Ban Mr. Johnson and all his fascism that he obviously supports."

No..No...this our chance to do what we never had a chance to do at LGF...debate them into dust.

Southwind

Here are the questions Robert had asked you, since you're so bright:

Why can't you read the quotes I gave you above, showing I've been consistent on this for years?

Why are you trying to pretend that I have not been clear on this?

What are you trying to do?

And why won't you answer any of my questions?
I have some too:
  1. Do you condemn CJ's tacic endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo?
  2. Do you condemn anti-semitic activities of anti-Islamophobic individuals/groups in Europe?
  3. Do you prefer an Islamic state replacing UK, if the only alternative was a BNP government?
Simple questions, and I expect answers as simple as the ones you demanded of Robert.

Thanks for playing.

Southwind

Note that for my questions above, only yes or no answers will do. No elaborations needed.

greatcometof1577, I didn't take it personally :)

I was just letting you know that not all Bush supporters are horrible people.

I know what you mean about getting shouted down for daring to dissent on a topic at LGF.

When I was new at LGF, because I didn't agree fully with everything the long-time members said, some of them yelled at me that I'm a "Moby," and at the time, I had no idea what a "Moby" was.

Even though I am in general a G. W. Bush supporter, I don't mind legitimate criticism of Bush decisions. I might even agree with you on some of them.

The only time I trot out the "BDS" charge myself is where it's truly warranted, such as liberals who say they want him dead, hope he gets shot, etc. - that to me is vile stuff, totally uncalled for.

If this were LGF, this Southwind character, a moby in LGF parlance, would have been banned after the fist post. Yet he is still here. This is to the credit of RS.

Without any moral equivalence and with full acknowledgement of the superficiality and lack of any scriptural or doctrinal equivalence on the part of LGF (an ad hoc assembly of hero worshippers), CJ seems to have adopted some jihadi attributes with regard to his insanely rigid intolerance of anyone who deviates in the slightest degree from his dogma, his dissembling, his self-righteousness, and his instincts toward aggression as the only solution.

Southwind? More like a NorthernFrost!

Hope you enjoyed your short visit!

Oops, maybe I spoke too soon. Is he/she banned? I just arrived, so I'm a little late for this get together.

No, Champ, s/he isn't banned. Robert very explicitly stated that s/he isn't.

Thanks, IP! Robert is very patient, that's for sure. I'll keep my snow gear close at hand just in case another northerly chill blows through here. Brrr!!

It is a Southwind that blows from Santa Monica Bay?

Oh my God! I live an hour away from Santa Monica Bay, Charles! Sounds like snow gear will not protect me from the toxic fallout, perhaps I need to invest in Hazmat protection instead. Do they sell those at the Thousand Oaks Mall?

Careful, Charles, someone might mistake you for another Charles. You know the one, the notorious Charles from the FunnyFarm, so please watch your back. At your service.

Southwind, if you have in mind to do something constructive, rather than quarrel with Robert, you might look at what I have done - tell the BNP'ers that their affection for their 'Dear Party' seems out of proportion, that rooting for political parties as the source of salvation has historically led to evil results, and that we need to concentrate on dealing with Jihad, not run propaganda.

Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" wrote: Political parties are a necessary evil.

I'm tempted to remove 'necessary' from that statement.

Henrik,

Although Robert finally DIRECTLY condemned the BNP as the racist assholes they are (after I dragged it out of him), he has a ways to go. I'd like to see him DIRECTLY condemn certain other racist scumbag political parties as well.

I think some of you are being harsh with southwind. Personally I hate "political speak", where the question isn't answered directly, so I have on occassion been as persistant as southwind in getting a direct answer(s) to my question(s).
That being said, I obviously don't know southwinds motivation or aim, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm naive after all.

Southwind, whereas you may prefer Robert Spencer to directly denounce various parties as racist or whatever else, remember that he may not agree with your assessment. He may not have the information as you and he may interpret the differently from you. So, even if he does not want to label a party you find racist that does not mean he supports racists or supports a racist party.

Southwind, I don't understand you. What moral right do you have to command Robert around to condemn this or that political party for alledged 'racism'?

In what respect are you even one inch better than Charles Johnson?

We know that Robert does not have racist inclinations. That should be enough. If it isn't for you, you can run your own blog (or get an account at LGF) and condemn Robert - as well as anyone else you fancy - for not condemning those you wish to see condemned.

Frankly, do your bloody condemning yourself.

The rest of us have work to do. Relevant work.

Southwind

I notice that you didn't answer my questions. Generally, when one doesn't answer them, one is at liberty to assume that the answers are the ones that one is embarassed by.

Therefore, my conclusions:

  1. No, you are okay with the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo;
  2. No, you are okay with the anti-semitic activities of Mohammedans in Paris, Amsterdam and other such places;
  3. No, you'd rather see UK become an Islamic state rather if the only alternative to that was a racist state.
Thanks so much for your answers. What you didn't say told me all I needed to know about you.

Southwind

I unequivocally condemn you for your unstated hatred of the Serbs, in addition to your support of the Islamization of the UK.

Other JW'ers, please join me. Condemn, condemn, condemn!!!

Henrik and whoever else is interested:

Southwind said:

Although Robert finally DIRECTLY condemned the BNP as the racist assholes they are (after I dragged it out of him)

Note again the false insinuation that I hesitated, or was reluctant, or indirect. In fact, I provided him examples of my stand on the BNP going back to 2004 -- examples that abundantly answered his question, which was actually "is the BNP a racist party?"

This demonstrates that what he was trying to do in our exchange was uncover evidence of my alleged secret racism. Failing to find me endorsing the BNP, as he had hoped to do on the strength of the pro-BNP commenters here, he had nothing to go on. So he has now resorted to the sand-in-the-eyes measure of portraying my perfectly direct and clear answers, going back years, as being somehow indirect and unclear, pretending that this statement about the BNP was something he had to drag out of my reluctant racist heart.

With this his own agenda becomes completely clear.

...he has a ways to go. I'd like to see him DIRECTLY condemn certain other racist scumbag political parties as well.

And of course what I told him, although it fully answered his question, isn't enough, because it isn't the answer he wanted or expected. So then he tries a different tack: to portray me as a secret racist because I won't "DIRECTLY" condemn other "racist scumbag political parties."

Well, as I explained above, I endorse no parties at all. No doubt there is something to "DIRECTLY" condemn about most of them -- certainly the Republicans and Democrats fit into that category. But this is not "Condemn Political Parties Watch," it is "Jihad Watch." I am engaged in an endeavor to defend Western civilization and universal principles of human rights against Islamic supremacism. This has nothing to do with one political party or another. I will work with people who are also interested in doing this, but that does not in the least imply that I endorse anything else that they say or do, any more than their working with me implies that they're now responsible for every position I have ever taken or ever will take.

But of course also behind this sad complaint that I am not condemning enough "racist scumbags" to suit him is the whole controversy that began these frenzied attacks from Charles Johnson and his partners. For them, if someone even entertains the slightest doubt that those Charles has labeled "racist scumbags" are indeed "racist scumbags," then one is himself a "racist scumbag." That is clearly Southwind's game here, whether or not he is a registered LGF commenter and faithful "Lizardoid minion." (I'd wager that he is, however.)

Anyway, Charles has so far departed from the truth about what I say or do, and has attributed so much that is false to me, and has charged me with so many heinous things, that it really doesn't matter what I say or do. If I condemned all the "racist scumbags" on Southwind's list, he would find something else wrong, because the take on me now is that I am evil. And to find an illustration of that evil was all that Southwind was up to here.

It was, I think, an illuminating exchange.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert, noted.

Let me add that Southwind is actually using the same tactic that the Nazis used against Jews, namely condemning those who'd do business with Jews, building a chain of associations - which businesses could most easily cut by cutting their Jewish connections. Effective and deadly.

Racism as such is a quasi-offense. It's not a direct crime, it is an illegal opinion. Stupid too, but that's immaterial. While i hold that any opinion, including stupid ones, are better ridiculed than banned, 'racism' (whatever that is) is effectively banned.

This is leading us down a dangerous path, where labeling others as 'racist' becomes a very effective tool to deal with dissenting opinions. Belgium is a clear example how this works.

Some, like the European Union, are calling for stronger punishment against this illegal opinion. That might end with a crackdown on free expression, where we'll all have to watch out what others say, what we say, what we don't prevent others from saying, what opinions we did not prevent others from holding, etc. A nightmare.

Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" has an elegant solution for quasi-offenses, like insufficient zeal in executing a public office. He suggested not to attempt to punish them, for the burden of proof would be hard to lift, which again would lead to arbitrary application of the law. Better set such matters in the court of public opinion. Common sense of common people should set the matter straight quickly.

Southwind, if you're serious about hunting down some racists and condemning them, please go somewhere else. Try the suburbs of Paris. Luton, England. Downtown Brussels. Go somewhere where non-whites dominate. Then you'll see racism. Real racism, not the figment of your imagination. If you're stupid ('courage' would not apply) enough to speak out against it there, you need to be either well trained, well armed, or you may quickly find yourself in need of an ambulance.

Messing around trying to fault good people is counterproductive.

Note again the false insinuation that I hesitated, or was reluctant, or indirect. In fact, I provided him examples of my stand on the BNP going back to 2004 -- examples that abundantly answered his question, which was actually "is the BNP a racist party?"

I didn't ask you for examples, Robert. I asked you for a simple yes or no. It was you who chose to go off in the wilderness. I decided not to follow you into the woods. You could have saved yourself a lot of travel time by answering my question at the start.

"I don't want to hear about BNP or anything BNP related, and that includes anything about "BNP opponents." Why not create your own blog and post a link to it?

Why do you feel as though you have to discuss it at this blog?
Posted by: SquirmyWormy"

If you don't want to discuss or read about an important aspect of the ongoing JIHAD, which includes the part global jihad taking place in Europe, then I suggest it is you that should go to some other forum.

RS gives us a forum here where ideas are expressed about how to deal with an Islamic ideology that may very well transform western civilization if our political leaders don't change their attitudes about jihad. England appears further down the road to full Islamisation than other countries so progress against, as well as resistance to, that part of the jihad are important issues to discuss. The BNP happens to be a political party trying to do something about that jihad. So if you don't think discussing how the BNP reacts to jihadists because just the mention of that acronym offends your sensibilities and "bores" you, then it is you that ought to go create your own blog and follow the LGF model in banning those who offend, and/or bore, you with the mere mention of some political party.

RS has clarified his stance on the BNP in this thread and others, as clearly as he stated his stance on the values of free and open debate on topical issues, even if that includes some event that involves the BNP or its members.

Do you think it possible that honest and free praise and/or criticism about the BNP can be a good, productive thing for anti-jihadists? I do. Perhaps discussions here at JW will lead to discussions in other forums where the ideas begin to spread virally. Perhaps if parties like the BNP realize that they would garner much more support from anti-jiahdist around the world if they changed their white supremacist stance, they would consider changing that position and thus become a movement in Britain we could all stand behind and offer different types of support.

Henrik sez:

"This is leading us down a dangerous path, where labeling others as 'racist' becomes a very effective tool to deal with dissenting opinions. Belgium is a clear example how this works."

The campaign of Barrack Hussien Obama was another clear example. It is the main reason the MSM refused to ask the hard questions that needed to be asked.

England appears further down the road to...

England, eh? :D

Alright, that was mean. :D

UsorThem,

There is no "England". It's called the United Kingdom now. UK for short.

USorThem, agreed WRT Obama. It's harder to prove, though.

Southwind, there is an England. It is one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom.

There is no "England". It's called the United Kingdom now. UK for short.
Posted by: Southwind at November 8, 2008 8:20 AM
Shows how much you know.

United Kingdom = Great Britain + Northern Ireland
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales

Incidentally, I thought that UK nowadays stands for 'Ummah Khalifate'.

I stand corrected. Apologies.

Southwind

OK..not so fast my little lizard friend..

I want to see you condemn political Islam.

Yes or No...

Southwind

Just in case you try to slip out of this...

Do you, Southwind, condemn Islam for what it teaches?

Yes or No...

Ciao Southwind,

Robert Spencer is a scholar. Don't pester him with your lizaroid smallness. He is not answerable to that fool you have given your allegiance to.

The cause is greater than CJ's narrow view. It's 1400 years old before the very notions of today's political issues.

And something so old terrifying Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Atheists, all over the world, in a great big complicated world, where everything and its opposite needs to be considered in COMITY, is a challenge far too great for your hero's petty mind.

He was accorded not only trust, but even love from most of us here and he betrayed it. He betrayed the very best of us along with the worst. We don't need him. We need coalitions, alliances, even uneasy ones. We need to be able to argue freely among ourselves without fear of easy labeling and instant banning.

Politics is not a clean room exercise and it certainly can't be one in raising worldwide awareness.

If there are those who need to be banned, it will be our sense of decency to ban them and not the prerogative of one who has behaved so indecently, caring only for himself.

Mr. Spencer has done good work, Charles Johnson has only brought needless discord through his absurd guilt by association exercises.

Ioshka Futz:

Thank you. Southwind says

I didn't ask you for examples, Robert. I asked you for a simple yes or no. It was you who chose to go off in the wilderness. I decided not to follow you into the woods. You could have saved yourself a lot of travel time by answering my question at the start.

Note again this person's renewed attempt to put the worst possible spin on what I said.

In reality, the "examples" to which he refers gave him a simple "yes" to his question, and showed that I had been saying it for years.

But I suspect that he will nevertheless go back to those who sent him, or those who share his interest in demonization, and tell them, "I asked Spencer if they were racist and he hemmed and hawed!" or some such.

Of course, Southwind could have "saved himself a lot of travel time" by just making up what he wanted me to say, rather than pretending that I dodged his question. The effect would be the same.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Wow. Southwind meet Abdullah Mikail.

OK..not so fast my little lizard friend..

I want to see you condemn political Islam.

Yes or No...

I despise political Islam.

Southwind

Just in case you try to slip out of this...

Do you, Southwind, condemn Islam for what it teaches?

Yes or No...

No.

Note again this person's renewed attempt to put the worst possible spin on what I said.

And notice how Robert addresses me as some random "person" now. Is that creepy? Why yes, it is.

From a comment above

I don't want to hear about BNP or anything BNP related, and that includes anything about "BNP opponents.

Maybe the above commentator would prefer to listen to the adhan the most lyrical, inspiring prayers for Muslims in all its glory at 4,30 every morning

Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar.
Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar.
Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill-Allah.
Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill-Allah.
Ash-hadu anna Muhammad-ar-Rasoolullah.
Ash-hadu anna Muhammad-ar-Rasoolullah.
Hayya 'alas-Salah. Hayya 'alas-Salah.
Hayya 'alal-falah. Hayya 'alal-falah.
Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar.
La ilaha ill-Allah.

Southwind says:

And notice how Robert addresses me as some random "person" now. Is that creepy? Why yes, it is.

Note yet again that this person once again puts the most negative possible spin on what I have said, once again revealing the purpose of his questions to me from the beginning.

Is calling someone whom one doesn't know is male or female "creepy"? Only if you're trying to make a demon out of the speaker, or if the one being referred to as a "person" is not, in fact, a human being. Take your pick.

The Johnsonian agenda is once again clear.

Robert Spencer

Ciao Mr. Spencer,

Yes, this southwind seems to think that being called a "person" is creepy.

I believe that being called an infidel, a Kaffir, a Mushrik are far creepier. And one of the reasons to put our own differences into perspective so that we may struggle against a greater threat.

You get called a racist and a fascist and are delinked and this "person" gets creeped out because he's called a "person."

I am sorely tempted to answer him with a few choice Italian words, but I wish to remain "personable."

You've been answered.

Is calling someone whom one doesn't know is male or female "creepy"? Only if you're trying to make a demon out of the speaker, or if the one being referred to as a "person" is not, in fact, a human being. Take your pick.

Oh look! Robert has thrown gender into the mix. And just to obfuscate and distract further, he wonders if maybe an extraterrestrial has been arguing with him. Way to go, Robert.

Southwind, now having completely gone off the deep end ("Oh look! Robert has thrown gender into the mix. And just to obfuscate and distract further, he wonders if maybe an extraterrestrial has been arguing with him. Way to go, Robert.") reminds me of another person who posted here one day awhile ago, "popcontest." I wonder if they are one and the same, but am sure that even if they are, he will not own up to the fact.

One last question, however, Southwind: did you come here and ask me questions in order to try to gain "proof" of my secret racism to take back to LGF and Charles' friends? Yes or no, now!

Robert Spencer

Southwind suffers from the delusion that somehow political Islam is distinguishable from Islam as a whole. The continued avoidance to criticize Islam for fear of offense to any individual Muslim or particular Muslim group is counterproductive at this point, as is Southwind's continued presence here.

One last question, however, Southwind: did you come here and ask me questions in order to try to gain "proof" of my secret racism to take back to LGF and Charles' friends? Yes or no, now!

No. You're not a racist, Robert. I don't think it was ever about you. It was about the company you keep.

Southwind:

No. You're not a racist, Robert. I don't think it was ever about you. It was about the company you keep.

I call BS.

Anyway, I don't keep any racist "company," so once again, your smear fails.

Now I invite you to think of something to say that is different from a stale repetition of baseless charges that I have already answered.

Robert Spencer

Southwind, I think you are in serious need of reading up on what Islam teaches. Pick up "The Truth About Muhammad" or some other good book.

When that is done, I think you'll realize that Robert has been battling racism all along.

Southwind is doing his lizard king's bidding. I wonder if Southwind realizes during his baseless smear session here that he would have been long-deprived of that same privilage over at LGF.

Southwind has a serious aversion to the truth and has shown intellectual deficiencies in both Islam and geography.

A eureka moment maybe?

Your dismissive and trivial attitude when it comes to Islamic supremacism isn't very convincing Southwind.

Whether the talking doll was designed to say "Islam is the light" that's what it sounds like.

Of course Christian complaints go unrewarded, not backed by the power of terrorism. But any swirly designs which remind a Muslim of any "sacred" Arabic are immediately removed and groveling commences, from shoes to ice cream.

I can't waste much time talking to you. But I recommend you read some Spencer, Steyn, Phillips, or Bostom so perhaps you'll sound less foolish.

Southwind.

Go to Google and see the world map. That's the company we're all keeping. You will see a place called Peoples Republic of China, the place that hosted the Olympics, America's biggest trading partner, still run by Communist, heirs of Mao, responsible for the murder of 60 million people.

Zoom in on Italy and you will see that the coalition in power has a few heirs of what was left of the Fascist party while at that same time the President of the country is a Communist who in earlier days lauded the Russian invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Mamma mia! What an ideological mess. USA's biggest trading partner, slaughtered more than Hitler! One of America's staunchest allies, in a coalition with people who's daddies shot Americans and were shot by Americans, whose president however was solidly with "We will bury you!"

Very complicated, not just yes and no, black and white, or the Johnsononian view "hip and unhip."

Consider the company that Roosevelt kept! Consider the reality that some countries don't, nay cannot defined themselves by a "system," some are so old that their founding fathers wore togas.

Professor Spencer's world is not one of keeping company, but of understanding and FACING one of the gravest threats to civilization, which is not racism, but Islam.

It is not the belief in creationism, but Islam. It is not Belgian fascism, but entire civilizations being emptied of their substance.

Even the word Islamo-Fascism IMHO is absurd. I could criticize Fascism for a month straight, but under il Duce, thousands of students did not sign up to be suicide bombers. That's an Islamic exclusive.

I could criticize communism until I'm blue in the face, but no Russian mother ever ululated with glee upon receiving news that her son blew himself up, killing defenseless children, convinced that he would then be enjoying 72 virgins with self-repairing hymens.

Under Fascism women 50% of humanity, were not covered from head to toe and if they were raped, the rapists were punished and she wasn't half buried in a pit and lapidated. The soldiers of Il Duce did not hide behind children. Did not strap remote controlled suicide bombs to "special needs" children.

When the fascists surrendered they surrendered. It wasn't a hudna.

Professor Spencer does not keep company he teaches and learns. If Vlaams is going big in Belgium, he'll listen, he'll criticize, he'll do what he damned pleases. And what he damned pleases makes much more sense, is more intelligent, creates far smoother exchanges allowing his worldwide forummers to understand what's up and going on than what Charles Johnson is doing.

"Bzzz don't agree! You're dead!"
"Bzzz has a link to this or that site! You're dead!"

To listen, to link, to discuss is not to keep company. If it is then when you go to your public library, you are keeping company with all manner of despots, racists, nazis, fascists. By dint of being on the internet, you are then keeping company with Osama Bin Laden...

One thing is certain about Professor Spencer, he as very few others, is aware of the Islamic problem and what it portends to the more vulnerable or politically foolish nations.

When a nation is in danger, not everyone who recognizes that danger is a saint or free of dangers of his own. It just simply doesn't work that way.

In some places, perhaps Fresno California the problem is not poignant enough to understand. In others, great coalitions must be built... also because Islam is a calamity and so everyone must pitch in.

Are you with civilization or are you with the modern-day Aztecs who have absolutely no trouble with human sacrifice? Are you with Professor Spencer who is furthering Charles Johnson's own erstwhile cause (before he went mad), or are you worried about race and the heirs of the 1922 Italian Despot? Are you for real or in lala land?

Southwind

So..you don't condemn this..

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 9.29 Quran (Yusufali)

Does this not make you a religious bigot?

Tolerating dissent doesn't mean one endorses it. This should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind.

Mr. Spencer, please don't wast your time and energy on people who are trying to ensnare you in some sort of faux paus.

V/R

AS8

BOTTOM LINE: MUHAMMAD

Muhammad is at the core of this debate, and how anyone could defend Muhammad once they learn the truth about him, Muslim or non-Muslim, is really hard to phathom and beyond me. There is NO defense for Muhammad, just as there's no defense for any other liar, thief, pedophile or serial killer; and therefore, there is no defense for Islam. Period.

Spencer, you are such a drama queen. You are known by the company you keep. It is quite clear that no true anti-jihadist would associate with these organizations and you have. You are not only blatantly wrong, but owe Johnson an apology. I am sure your priggishness will preclude that.

Charles the Crusader (Heh)

A few requests to take back to your master, seeing as how, as you say, "You are known by the company you keep."

Please ask Charles Johnson to denounce Gateway Pundit for linking to Gates of Vienna, and Michelle Malkin for linking to a Gates of Vienna post in her headlines. Please ask him also to denounce the Wall Street Journal for linking to Brussels Journal.

Please ask him also to denounce himself for telling me, in an April 2008 email, that he had no objection to my publishing pieces by Fjordman.

So many neofascist white supremacists, so little time!

Apologize to Charles Johnson? Like hell I will.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Here is an email I just received from a friend who kindly gave me permission to post it:

Robert,

"Southwind's" writing and tactics are very similar to those of Kejda, her husband and their friends.

I did not know about the nasty LGF threads until I read about them on Jihad Watch a couple of days later. It's been almost a week and I am still disturbed by it all.

I saw the build-up to this on LGF and hoped that Charles would be reasonable and put a stop to it. Instead, he bought into it and participated in it.

I had hoped that Kejda would be banned but she was still there the last time I read a thread.

I felt sick when I read the insults and smears directed at you.

I agree with Charles on many issues but, not only is he obviously wrong about you, the way he went about it was low-down and mean.

My hunch is that it has something to do with Kosovo, Kejda, etc., and that Charles was waiting for an excuse to do this.

In one of the LGF threads, Charles quoted a supportive email he had received from someone who called himself a Muslim American conservative Republican. He said he was glad Charles had severed ties with you because of your statements about Islam and he also mentioned Kosovo. I thought that was odd, given the smears against you by Kejda, etc., regarding Kosovo and Serbia.

Charles wrote that you were viciously attacking him and also that you were foaming at the mouth. I saw no such thing on your site.

Sharmuta wrote on another thread that no one had been a better friend to you than Charles. I wonder what in the holy hell she has been smoking.

My days at LGF are numbered. First, because I'm disgusted by all of this and, second, because I expect to be confronted by one of them and banned if I speak up in support of you. I won't make a statement ("dramatic exit") because they love that kind of thing.

I am stunned that anyone would be banned from a non-jihadist, non-leftist website for not denouncing Robert Spencer! As you know, it has already happened to others on LGF.

Keep fighting the good fight.

The purge continues:


13 Charles 11/08/08 8:46:10 am
Meanwhile, at the end of the Friday open thread, someone posted a link to an article at WorldNetDaily by a white nationalist.
That person has been banned, and WorldNetDaily is now banned from our spinoff links.

I have the feeling that sooner or later, Charles Johnson is going to find himself in a courtroom having to defend his libelous claims. It's almost like watching a train wreck in slow-motion.

I'd like to hear what Alan Keyes, who is also a contributor to WND, has to say.

Robert, great letter from your friend, he states: "Charles wrote that you were viciously attacking him and also that you were foaming at the mouth. I saw no such thing on your site."

Sounds to me like CJ is the "drama queen", and that he's the one who owes YOU an apology -- obviously; and maybe Charles drank the Kool-Aid spiked with other mind altering drugs, because it seems as though he's gone over to the DarkSide; plus, they are dropping like flies over at the FunnyFarm and coming over here to regain their sanity. What a mess.

CharlestheCrusader,

If you read the first dozen or so comments in this thread, you'll see that I called Charles Johnson a drama queen. Please don't steal my clever insults and use them against Robert Spencer in the future. Or if you must, then have the common courtesy to give me a h/t. Thank you.

PS Say hello to Dear Leader for me.

InfidelK9, at least the prayer you quoted was less boring.

USoR wrote:
"because just the mention of that acronym offends your sensibilities and "bores" you, then it is you that ought to go create your own blog and follow the LGF model in banning those who offend, and/or bore, you with the mere mention of some political party."

Just because I find the topic dull, you're accusing me of being like Ban-happy LGF Johnson? How classy of you.

And yes, I think you should consider taking BNP talk elsehwere, I still find it terribly dull.

This Southwind person is rather dense, I can see. But I do agree with him on one point. When you ask somebody a straightforward Yes/No question, you should first simply answer "yes" or "no" -- then you can put forth whatever explanations and links you want after that. If Robert had done that I think a lot of the hot air from the "Southwinds" blowing afterwards would have been avoided.

I didn't word part of that quite right. What I meant was:

When somebody asks you a straightforward Yes/No question, you should first simply answer "yes" or "no" -- then you can put forth whatever explanations and links you want after that.

DenverRodeo

Fully agree with you - people should have the courage to post straightforward yes/no answers, followed by an explanation if they deem it essential.

In Southwind's case above, if you noticed, he, after generously offering to answer questions put to him, completely ignored mine. He neither provided simple, nor complicated yes/no responses. You think he might have been capable of practicing what he preaches?

ec marm

Who's the White nationalist @ WND?

DenverRodeo:

When somebody asks you a straightforward Yes/No question, you should first simply answer "yes" or "no" -- then you can put forth whatever explanations and links you want after that.

You are doubtless correct. I confess that there is a stubborn streak in me that resists being browbeaten and manipulated. When people ask, "Do you support X? Yes or no?," they are virtually always prosecutorial in intent. They are implying that the one being asked the question is obfuscating, or hiding something, or dissembling -- that sort of thing. And often they are trying to entrap, or catch out, the one who is being questioned.

I dislike being subjected to that sort of thing, and always resist it. There was a similar case here a few months ago, when some people started asking me questions about Muslim immigration. They insisted that my positions weren't clear, when as far as I could see they were perfectly clear, so I declined to play the Yes/No game -- which of course they then used as further evidence that I was wickedly covering something up or waffling.

The bottom line is this: I am never, ever going to willingly or knowingly feed the Leftist/jihadist/Charles Johnson propaganda line that I am doing something evil by defending human rights against jihad. Thus I will not allow myself to be placed in the role of defendant against a self-righteous prosecutor. If people want to come here with the basic respect they would accord any human being and ask me about my positions, I will discuss them with them in an attitude of mutual respect. If they come in like Southwind with the assumption that I am evil and begin to issue stentorian prosecutorial ultimata, I will not play along.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Infidel Pride:

Who's the White nationalist @ WND?

I doubt there really is one, but Charles is seeing white nationalists under his bed and in his dreams and in his coffee cup.

Which reminds me of a song...

Talkin' White Nationalist Paranoid Blues
(Apologies to Bob Dylan)

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them White Nationalists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the Lizardoid Army,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real Lizardoid Minion now!
Look out you Fascists!

Now we know you agree with Hitler's views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that you're a Zionist,
We know you're secretly a Fascist!
That Charles Johnson, he knows the secrets of your heart.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Fascists.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Fascists everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Fascists caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus White stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Lizards . . . just like me.

Now Robert Spencer, he's a Fascist spy,
Bostom, West and that Miniter guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: Charles Foster "Icarus" Johnson.
I know for a fact he hates Fascists cus he bans everybody that disagrees with him!

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

Robert is right, people demanding "yes/no" answers are usually trying to prove something, especially when their questions are actually addressing complex situations.

The best example I can ever thing of is actually a little joke I heard once.

James, an accountancy expert, was standing as an expert witness in a trial for embezzlement. The defence lawyer, intent on an acquittal, began asking James a series of increasingly complex questions, to which he would demand "yes or no" whenever James attempted to answer. Frustrated with the lawyer, James said "I'm trying to answer you but this is more complicated than yes or no."

"Your honour," the lawyer replied. "In order to get the facts of this case all I need is a simple yes or no answer. The witness is clearly trying to obfuscate."

The judge mulled for a moment and then turned to the witness. "Please give the defence a yes or no answer," he said.

"But it's not that simple, your honour. I have to explain-"

"A yes or no will suffice."

James sighed and shook his head. "Of course, your honour, but may I ask you something? And please answer yes or no. Do you still beat your wife?"

Infidel Pride:

Who's the White nationalist @ WND?

A friend looked into this and the nearest he can determine, Charles is referring to Joe Farah and/or Tundra Tabloids. Farah wrote a story about the Obama schoolteacher story that Tundra Tabloids broke, although in the version that is up now he doesn't name Tundra Tabloids. Apparently the original version linked to Tundra Tabloids.

Anyway, if this is really what Charles Johnson is referring to, he should denounce his pal "Allahpundit" of HotAir.com as a White Nationalist, since "Allahpundit" linked to the same video and named Tundra Tabloids.

Of course, this glaring inconsistency might have made it unlikely that this is really what has Charles in a lather about "white nationalism" at WND, but as I have noted above, he has been wildly inconsistent in condemning me for doing nothing more or less than what people he counts as his friends have done, and so a little more inconsistency on his part is not in the least implausible.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Infidel Pride:

Who's the White nationalist @ WND?

I'm guessing CJ is referring to Jerome Corsi, who seems a tad odd, yet has had a couple of NY Times bestselling books, and seems to have appeared on some radio talk program that CJ disapproves of. I really have a tough time keeping track of all of the people on CJ's enemies list. It's not a short list.

ec marm:

Oh, Corsi. Of course. Well, in that case, "Allahpundit" and Joe Farah are off the hook.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Infidel Pride:

Joe Farah is Lebanese, but that wouldn't make any difference. My family is from the Islamic world also.

Anyway, it appears that it wasn't Farah whom he had in mind.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I was looking at Alexa today to see the web traffic page rank winners and losers in the past three election months:

Gaining Rank
DailyKos +928
DemocraticUnderground +702
FreeRepublic +1,224
Red State +17,746

Losing Rank
Little Green Footballs -16

Sometimes when things don't work out they way they expect, people lash out.

ec marm:

Interesting. Maybe Charles Johnson is figuring that if he can't beat Kos, he might as well join him.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert:
The funny thing is, Alexa has this to say about LGF:
"Weblog covering issues dear to both conservatives and US liberals."
Here's the link:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/littlegreenfootballs.com
You may be right.

ec marm:

Interesting description. I wonder if it has been recently revised.

In any case, I don't think any neutral observer could deny that it is Charles, not his enemies, who has changed. I am doing what I have always done, in the same way I have always done it. He used to support me, now he thinks I am encouraging genocide. He has changed. I haven't.

And it isn't change I can believe in.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Geez, I had that number on LGF all wrong - it moved down -2,057 positions in the Alexa page rank rating system in the past three months. I need a nap.

Corsi is odd due to his opposition to the North American Union. I hardly see that as racist, although one can have ones doubt as to whether he's a major conspiracy theorist or someone with legitimate concerns. Unless of course, being opposed to an open border between the US and Mexico makes one a White Nationalist.

I somewhat doubt his theories, but I have heard him on talk shows that I respect, such as Lee Rodgers. But regardless of what I think of his theories, I'd hardly call him a White nationalist. But then again, I'm not CJ.

Infidel Pride:

Apparently, he thinks that it's okay to steal from Neo-nazis. But somehow, I'd think that someone like him would avoid stealing intellectual property from them, regardless of what he thinks of them.

Allow me to emend that slightly: Apparently, he thinks that it's okay to steal from people he has falsely accused of being Neo-nazis.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Infidel Pride:

If Charles Johnson thinks Jerome Corsi is a White Nationalist, then probably the one thing you can know for certain about Jerome Corsi is that he is not a White Nationalist.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Allow me to emend that slightly: Apparently, he thinks that it's okay to steal from people he has falsely accused of being Neo-nazis.
That's what I meant. But if I thought that someone was a Neo-nazi, last thing I'd do is touch any material of his with a bargepole. If I needed that material, I'd look for his source, or search for an alternative source.

And yes, CJ thinking that Corsi is a White Nationalist is a good enough reason to give the latter the benefit of doubt.

One last thought before I take a snooze. According to this article in the Israel National News, "Exit Polls: Nearly 80 Percent of Jews Voted for Obama" link:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128242
There might be some connection between the message that CJ is sending, the traffic he is receiving, and the voting intentions of Jewish voters. I'm not sure if I'm able to understand what is happening. It's always been a mystery to me.

Infidel Pride:

That's what I meant. But if I thought that someone was a Neo-nazi, last thing I'd do is touch any material of his with a bargepole.

Of course.

And yes, CJ thinking that Corsi is a White Nationalist is a good enough reason to give the latter the benefit of doubt.

Yes. I don't know Jerome Corsi well. I met him once and he seemed like a good guy. I'm told that Charles Johnson decided he was a white nationalist because he appeared on some radio show. Well, you know, I myself have appeared on hundreds upon hundreds of radio shows. The vast majority of them I've done over the phone. They're set up by my publisher, and I don't know the first foggiest thing about the host or the show or the station -- and it is likely that my publisher doesn't either, as they handle so many of these things for so many different writers.

In any case, only the most viciously (heh) unfair observer would hold someone responsible for the views of a radio show he appeared on, given that few if any shows are single-issue. If some "white nationalist" show had Corsi on to talk about Obama, that doesn't make Corsi a "white nationalist" any more than Sarah Palin's appearing on SNL means that she is a trendy Leftist comedienne.

All that being the case, Charles's accusation against Corsi for appearing on a radio show would only hold any water if he had established with certainty that Corsi knew anything about the show he was appearing on, and approved of other views the hosts had expressed. But I very seriously doubt that Charles Johnson did that.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

EC Marm writes:

"There might be some connection between the message that CJ is sending, the traffic he is receiving, and the voting intentions of Jewish voters. I'm not sure if I'm able to understand what is happening. It's always been a mystery to me."

Trust me on this, Charles aims at the 20% of Jews that are Republicans and tend to be Orthodox. The Jewish Obama supporters are generally Reform, Conservative or secular and have liberal views on the middle east. Charles is not after the liberal Jews; they are Democrats. He's just 're-branding' LGF, that's all, trying to get away from the stigma that marks the anti-jihadists in order to advance his commercial interests.

If he keeps up this thing about creationism he's not going to keep the support of those Orthodox for very long...

Sharmuta is talking to herself:

418 Sharmuta 11/08/08 5:42:57 pm reply quote 0
re: #401 Sharmuta
robert is also defending corsi.
And of course Jerome Corsi can't be a racist because he has best selling books.
Oh, brother.

No, Sharmuta/Bush-Lover the point is that Charles Johnson seems to have an issue with people who write entire books vs. two paragraphs of vitriol and character assassination:
Robert Spencer
Jerome Corsi
Robert W. Godwin

Just a coincidence, right?
Hey Sharm, since you're lurking, why don't you answer the 64,000 dollar question of why other political blogs and sites on both the left and the right are growing while LGF is shrinking?

* crickets *

Cat got your tongue, Sharm? Here's some more sites:
Michellemalkin.com has a traffic rank of: 11,166 moved forward in rank +3,566 past three months
Pajamasmedia.com has a traffic rank of: 17,366 moved forward in rank +2,368 past three months
Powerlineblog.com has a traffic rank of: 26,240 moved forward in rank +665 past three months

Should I continue? You and Killgore, who is now pathetically linking to Medusa as if she is a credible source, are helping to take the LGF ship down. Don't you think it's time to take a cold hard look in the mirror and see what LGF has become instead of attacking Robert Spencer? I mean look at you, trying to get out the (R) vote, while Killgore couldn't get off his butt to vote for either party.

Come on Sharmuta - let's talk about what LGF has become. Why here's a fresh example:


138 Charles 11/08/08 6:41:33 pm
I am not going to tolerate 'coup' talk here.
This is the last warning. From now on, anyone who posts this crap will lose their account.

Tigger2005 apologizes:
I'm sorry, Charles. It won't happen again.

You've got regular posters (6000 comments, he claims) that are calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, you contributed to the loss of the Republican party in the last election, the site is slipping in rankings, and your major concern is attacking the already marginalized "creationists" and whether Fjordman shows up in a blogroll? Gimme a break.

ec marm:

Thanks for visiting the fever swamps of LGF. I will not go there again. Anyway, I couldn't help but notice this. You quote Sharmuta saying this in some comment attacking me:

And of course Jerome Corsi can't be a racist because he has best selling books.

Charles and his sycophants wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Of course I didn't say that. The reference comes from a comment you made, in which you said this:

I'm guessing CJ is referring to Jerome Corsi, who seems a tad odd, yet has had a couple of NY Times bestselling books, and seems to have appeared on some radio talk program that CJ disapproves of.

That's from here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023403.php#c596148

Now look: did you say that Jerome Corsi can't be a racist because he has bestselling books? No. You said Jerome Corsi seems a bit odd, but has bestselling books, and has been on a radio show that Charles Johnson dislikes.

In any of that did you say or imply that Corsi couldn't be a racist for the reason that he has written bestselling books? Of course you did not, and I believe Sharmuta knows you did not.

But anything will do, no matter how false, no matter how unfair, when a good character assassination is called for. It is sad to see the tattered bloody shreds that used to be Charles Johnson's integrity.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

ec marm:

You've got regular posters (6000 comments, he claims) that are calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, you contributed to the loss of the Republican party in the last election, the site is slipping in rankings, and your major concern is attacking the already marginalized "creationists" and whether Fjordman shows up in a blogroll? Gimme a break.

It's too bad Humphrey Bogart is dead. He did so well portraying a paranoid on the edge of sanity as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, he would be a cinch for the part of Charles Johnson in the Little Green Footballs Movie.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert writes:

"It's too bad Humphrey Bogart is dead. He did so well portraying a paranoid on the edge of sanity as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, he would be a cinch for the part of Charles Johnson in the Little Green Footballs Movie"

It has the appearance you suggest, Robert, but my view is that the constant banning of people has the purpose of drawing contrasts between himself and other people and viewpoints. That is why he does it so flamboyantly, and so often with a little rant about what he stands for. It's all part of his market positioning strategy. The people he bans are props whom he uses to proclaim and advertise his new ideological positions - and it's all very calculated.

Mr. Spencer wrote,

"In any of that did you say or imply that Corsi couldn't be a racist for the reason that he has written bestselling books? Of course you did not, and I believe Sharmuta knows you did not."
If more LGF readers would stop taking Johnson's word for everything (or stop taking what his regular readers post as gospel truth) - if they would go and visit the sites/blogs of those he's bashing and read their side of the story firsthand, they'd see that Mr. Johnson (or his "Lizards") don't have their facts straight.

I did that months ago when Johnson was bashing a regular poster there, "Fjordman."

I did a google of the "Fjordman" screen name, came across some of Fjordman's essays, as well as his rebuttals to Johnson's accusations at other blogs, and it became clear to me that Fjordman wasn't the raging genocidal, racist maniac that Johnson was depicting him as.

Now certain LGF members are not interested in being truthful when summarizing the views and words of posters at this blog, but in twisting people's words around to make them say something they did not.

(And Johnson continues to misrepresent Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates and their beliefs at his blog, too.)

That's pretty hypocritical coming from a blog of folks who supposedly take pride in insisting that the main stream media be held accountable for bias, inaccuracy, lack of fact checking, and dishonesty.

ec marm wrote,

You've got regular posters (6000 comments, he claims) that are calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, you contributed to the loss of the Republican party in the last election, the site is slipping in rankings, and your major concern is attacking the already marginalized "creationists" and whether Fjordman shows up in a blogroll? Gimme a break.
I'm as unhappy as the next conservative with the Obama victory, but I don't want or advocate a coup, for pete's sake!

Some of the LGF crowd is sounding as whiny and immature over the Obama victory as the KOS Kiddies they used to ridicule over throwing temper tantrums about Bush's last election victory or two.

Mr Spencer said,

It's too bad Humphrey Bogart is dead. He did so well portraying a paranoid on the edge of sanity as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, he would be a cinch for the part of Charles Johnson in the Little Green Footballs Movie.
*smacking forehead* Is *that* where folks have been getting that reference from?

I've seen CJ referred to as "Queeg" on other sites, I think. I never read or watched 'The Caine Mutiny,' so I had no idea where "Queeg" came from until now.

(I hope my HTML tags work in this post - I apologize in advance if they don't and the formatting looks bad.)

Folks, he's not paranoid, he's in complete control, he's a sociopath.

Family Values

It has the appearance you suggest, Robert, but my view is that the constant banning of people has the purpose of drawing contrasts between himself and other people and viewpoints. That is why he does it so flamboyantly, and so often with a little rant about what he stands for. It's all part of his market positioning strategy. The people he bans are props whom he uses to proclaim and advertise his new ideological positions - and it's all very calculated.

That may be. It does seem as if he is trying to imply that certain views are beyond the pale. After all, I do that when someone says something racist or genocidal here, and I see it. I remove the comment and ban the commenter. Charles is just wielding this tool in a thoroughly insane manner, equating large and obvious evil idiocy -- calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government -- with differences of opinion and judgment -- such as not thinking that I am quite the neo-Nazi demon of Kejda and Sharmuta and Killgore Trout's sick and libelous fantasies.

And of course, as "Squirmy Wormy" says above, it works, because some people are so easily led that they don't check out what he is saying for themselves, but just swallow what he says whole. More fool they.

And banning people for disapproving of posts -- pure Stalinism. It reminds me of the glass ballot boxes in totalitarian regimes. They tended to discourage dissenting votes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Squirmy

Great movie. Rent it if you get a chance.

And if you still read LGF, let me know when Charles starts counting strawberries.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Family Values:

Folks, he's not paranoid, he's in complete control, he's a sociopath.

I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making.

And as for your point about him trying to get market share, we should try to keep a sense of perspective: the Internet is still a rather small place. Even when Charles was still anti-jihad, sometimes I would mention him to people out in the real world -- no one had ever heard of him. Blogs, even large ones, are still largely insignificant in the larger scheme of things, and I say that as someone who operates one (although I have a life and a public presence outside of it). I am not sure he would gain any market share by vilifying and libeling people who already have a far larger platform than he does.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Sorry about the double post above, though the second one does contain a paragraph towards the bottom that the top one doesn't -feel free to delete the first one, if you'd like.

(When I hit the "submit" button, my post didn't seem to go through, which is why I tried again.)

Family Values said,

It has the appearance you suggest, Robert, but my view is that the constant banning of people has the purpose of drawing contrasts between himself and other people and viewpoints. That is why he does it so flamboyantly, and so often with a little rant about what he stands for. It's all part of his market positioning strategy. The people he bans are props whom he uses to proclaim and advertise his new ideological positions - and it's all very calculated.
Putting aside all the problems with Johnson misrepresenting people and their views, which is bad enough and would deter me from joining a blog...

But who'd want to join (or continue participating at) a blog like that, where there's no loyalty to long time members, or there's no consistency on serious issues (e.g., one moment being tolerant towards Creationist Christians, the next, insulting and banning them all, etc), especially if it's for nothing more but a shallow reason, like trying to get more advertising dollars?

If the blog owner is going to change horses in mid-stream once, he might do so again.

Right now, it looks as though Johnson is trying to build a base of atheistic, rabidly pro-Darwinist members, but maybe after several months (or a few years), he'll decide to get rid of them, too, and pander to yet another group.

Do the people who are there now, or who are joining LGF now, realize that?

Some have also proposed that Johnson might be trying to make his blog appeal to moderate Muslims.

Some have said he's still trying to appeal to Orthodox Jews.

If all that's true, all those groups more or less reject macro evolution and believe in the creation account in Genesis, so isn't Johnson concerned about alienating Muslims and Jews every time he bashes Creationist Christians?

I don't see how he thinks he can keep (or attract) two other groups to his blog by bashing a belief that all three groups believe in. Strange.

Robert:

I'll watch for Charles using the expression, "I kid you not."

I wrote above:

And banning people for disapproving of posts -- pure Stalinism. It reminds me of the glass ballot boxes in totalitarian regimes. They tended to discourage dissenting votes.

Looking at it again I realize it may not be clear -- he has a system whereby one can register one's approval or disapproval of someone else's comment. But if you disapprove of what he likes, you're banned.

It reminds me of those old Soviet Union Communist party meetings, at which everyone had to jump up and applaud at the mention of Comrade Stalin's name, or at the party boss's riveting speech -- not to do so was a sign of ideological deviation. "Yes, Comrade Charles! Great speech, Comrade Charles!"

It is chilling to see people say, "Oh no, Spencer is on the black list? And I have always liked his writing!" -- like sheep shifting from one position to another in docile obedience to the shepherd, all in lockstep denouncing one they had praised just yesterday. See "1984" and the history of Stalin's show trials for vivid examples of this good-today, evil-tomorrow mind manipulation by unscrupulous leaders. That free Americans would willingly submit to it disgusts me.

I've even received supportive emails from people who say, "Please don't post my email or quote me. I'm still registered at LGF and am afraid they will find out." While I very much appreciate the supportive emails, I have been a bit chilled also by this fear of Charles and of getting banned. What is this, Leningrad in 1938? The Gulag?

Break free of your mind-forged manacles, Lizardoid Minions. Tell your ridiculous emperor that he is quite utterly bereft of clothes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Squirmy,

Orthodox Jews generally have no issue with evolution being taught in the schools. It seems to be a Protestant fundy issue. The new ideology he's trying to hammer out (quite publicly) is fiscally conservative but opposed to the social conservative agenda. He's quite confused there, it seems, and doesn't seem to see where he's going.

Robert:

Agree totally with the resemblance to a Communist society. One with a personality cult like Stalin or Mao.

Regarding paranoia versus sociopathy:

A paranoid is delusional and has a poor ability to relate to others or to predict their reactions. A sociopath is manipulative and well grounded in reality. He is very good at predicting how people will react to things and behaves in a calculating way to achieve his ends. Charles, to me, is more the sociopath than the paranoid for these reasons.

To put it pithily, I think Charles is crazy like a fox. The re-branding may also have something to do with PJ Media. Maybe his backers there want him to make a move like this. Who knows?

A couple of days ago I received an email from a rather rude individual, asking me if I condemned any racist parties in Europe. In the course of our exchange, he got fairly nasty, especially when I told him that he should read what I wrote rather than what Charles Johnson said I said. He responded:

And don't tell me what to read and what not to read, that's sort of Nazi like....I am not some mindless, uneducated hick, trolling for Charles Johnson or anyone else.

He reiterated this in his next email, although I had not mentioned Johnson again. Clearly, the Lizard Man was on his mind:

As far as the rift with Charles Johnson, that's not really my battle. I did not contact you as a "troll" or "spy" for Charles, simply as someone who has respected your work, and I felt I needed to pass on my concerns.

Uh huh. So tonight I was sent this message: Charles Johnson has written a comment

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/462/6196545

In that comment, Charles Johnson calls this person who wrote me a "frequent LGF commenter," and quotes an email from Frequent Commenter to his master Charles, explaining that he had emailed me and publishing my answer.

I don't mind that he published my answer, as it gives the lie to Charles' claim that I have recommended that American anti-jihadists "ally" with various European parties. As I have explained above, I am not going to endorse any party, stateside or European or whatever. And any genuine neo-Nazis should be unequivocally shunned. The question is who are genuine neo-Nazis and who are being unjustly maligned, and on that people who are far closer to the European situation than Charles Johnson, such as Ian Buruma, John Rosenthal, and Diana West, disagree with Charles's assessment. That is all this is about.

But anyway, what I found interesting was that this guy assured me twice that he was not writing on Charles's behalf, but because of his own curiosity, and then he immediately turned around and sent my answer to Charles. So I wrote this to him tonight:

Why not just be honest? Why did you think it necessary to lie to me?

It doesn't reflect well on you or Charles Johnson. But of course nothing much of what he does lately reflects well upon him.

What with liars so thick on the ground there, including Charles Johnson himself, Kejda, Killgore Trout, Sharmuta, and now this guy (whatever his silly handle may be over at LGF), LGF should carry a warning label.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/73/6197660

Robert's correspondent from LGF has just posted there regarding the exchanges mentioned above by Robert.

A Jihad Watch reader just sent me more. Charles has found a video of a Vlaams Belang leader in a book fair of some kind, and this is more damning evidence that he is a neo-Nazi. Anyway, Charles, according to the man who sent me this, wrote: "And to reiterate, these are the people that some so-called 'anti-jihad' writers and bloggers are welcoming as allies."

I'm told that the usual suspects then went into their now-usual Two-Minutes Spencer Hate.'

Yet allow me to quote what I said in the main post:

Anyway, whatever the relationship of these people is or was with the VB, as I said here [that is, in my earlier post about LGF]: 'I want to emphasize that I have not endorsed the Vlaams Belang. This whole controversy is not about the Vlaams Belang, but about whether or not one can disagree with Charles Johnson and not be defamed as a result.'"

So Charles strongly implies that I am recommending welcoming VB as allies, when I have stated repeatedly that I am not endorsing them or any party, and that all I've done is recognize that people of good will hold differing views on these issues.

But who cares for the truth anymore at LGF? It would interfere with their hatefest.

Robert Spencer

Family Values wrote

Orthodox Jews generally have no issue with evolution being taught in the schools. It seems to be a Protestant fundy issue. The new ideology he's trying to hammer out (quite publicly) is fiscally conservative but opposed to the social conservative agenda. He's quite confused there, it seems, and doesn't seem to see where he's going.
While Mr. Johnson may try to present himself as being concerned only that the I.D. / Creationism subjects might be taught in public schools one day, he's also been insulting theists/theism in general while discussing it, which reveals that Johnson's problem isn't just with the 'public school' aspect of the debate.

I even went out of my way in a few posts at LGF to make it clear that I was not advocating that Creationism or I.D. be taught in schools, I stated that I did not care one way or another if it was taught in schools or not, and Johnson (and his buddy Killgore Trout) was still insulting me and my theist beliefs.

I had some exchanges with Johnson in some of those threads where I said (paraphrasing the discussion),

'It seems to me as though you're trying to portray anyone who disagrees with Darwinism as an ignorant red neck, even though that is not true,'

and he (and his toadies such as Killgore Trout) basically replied with,

'If you are against Darwinism, you *ARE* an ignorant red neck.'

-Notice that we weren't even arguing whether or not ID/Creationism should be taught in public schools.

Johnson also stated in one post (in the comments section) that just for rejecting macro evolution, Christians are "anti science."

Johnson also made posts equating Christians who believe in Creationism with Islamic terrorists.

I try not to visit LGF anymore.

But from what I've read elsewhere, Johnson continues to do blog entries where his headlines are phrased something like this:

Muslim Terrorist and Puppy Abuser 'Joe Bob Abdullah Smith' Rejects Evolution - Hmm, just like Christians reject it, too!

That is highly insulting stuff, to make Muslim terrorists the moral equivalent of Christians who believe in a personal creator God.

I can't imagine Orthodox Jews (or any decent person, regardless of religious belief) not being offended by that kind of reasoning.

Johnson's focus has not just been on the issue of what should be taught in public school science courses, it's also been on portraying theists as imbeciles.

Some Jewish readers have taken notice that they are in effect being ridiculed right along with the Creationist Christians, and they have not appreciated it.

Some Jewish guy was incensed and started a blog about it; just do a web search for the phrase
"Why Little Green Footballs is a hate site and why anyone that believes in G-d should take it off your blog roll"

Robert,

"You are doubtless correct. I confess that there is a stubborn streak in me that resists being browbeaten and manipulated. When people ask, "Do you support X? Yes or no?," they are virtually always prosecutorial in intent."

I agree with your instincts here, especially with Southwind, but I think he actually got more wind in his sails to do more of his dance by the fact that you didn't first just say "yes" or "no" (followed by any explanation you want). It would have been interesting to see what he would have done in that case, but I guess it's too late now.

Infidel Pride, I noticed he didn't answer your questions.

Mr. Spencer wrote,

Squirmy

Great movie. Rent it if you get a chance.

And if you still read LGF, let me know when Charles starts counting strawberries.

I'll try to see the movie. If it ever comes on TV, I'll watch it.

I don't know if I have the stomach to visit LGF. That blog makes me ill, and I don't want to give him any more traffic.

Looking at it again I realize it may not be clear -- he has a system whereby one can register one's approval or disapproval of someone else's comment. But if you disapprove of what he likes, you're banned.

I've been to other blogs where ex-LGF members have said that as far as they can tell, that's exactly (and the only reason) why they were banned.

All they did was "ding down" Johnson's posts using the little button with the minus symbol on it, and the next thing they knew, they were banned.

Kicking someone off for voting down a post? That is the behavior of a five year old kid.

Why have a post/topic rating system if you're going to penalize folks who don't vote the way you want them to?

Or maybe that's the point: it's like a dictatorship, and Johnson is using that as a tool of ridding the blog of anyone who doesn't agree with him on every subject.

I had a gut feeling the topic and post rating system might be used for that very purpose, which is why I hardly used it myself while I was there.

It is chilling to see people say, "Oh no, Spencer is on the black list? And I have always liked his writing!" -- like sheep shifting from one position to another in docile obedience to the shepherd, all in lockstep denouncing one they had praised just yesterday.

....I've even received supportive emails from people who say, "Please don't post my email or quote me. I'm still registered at LGF and am afraid they will find out." While I very much appreciate the supportive emails, I have been a bit chilled also by this fear of Charles and of getting banned. What is this, Leningrad in 1938? The Gulag?

That is troubling.

I can't believe they value membership at a blog to the point where they are willing to put up with such blatant dishonesty (such as false accusations against you and other people), or with being treated like trash, which is what Johnson is doing to them.

Even in the months before I was banned, there was a sense at LGF that you have to walk on egg shells.

There was an environment at LGF such that you didn't feel as though you could voice your true opinions, because you never knew when or if you were going to get banned for them (or else abused by a ton of members bashing you for not towing the LGF party line).

For any of those LGF members, it's a big web out there. LGF ain't the only blog.

I know you're used to visiting LGF, and it's hard quitting LGF cold turkey... but what's been going on there is so reprehensible it's not worth staying.

I've been away from LGF for months, and I've found lots of other interesting sites, blogs, and boards to read or post to.

Mr. Spencer wrote,

In the course of our exchange, he [the LGF member] got fairly nasty, especially when I told him that he should read what I wrote rather than what Charles Johnson said I said.

Anytime someone starts flinging very serious accusations against someone, such as they're a Nazi or a racist, you really owe it to the person being accused to go read what they have to say in their defense.

I'm the sort of person who finds such allegations to be so over-the-top in the first place that my first reaction is to doubt them.

When Johnson started calling 'everyone and their grandma' a racist or Nazi months ago (when he was fixated on Fjordman and others), I took it with a grain of salt. I'm glad I did.

Some of these LGF members have clearly put too much trust in Johnson.

Over the past year or so, Johnson has revealed he's not worthy of unquestioning trust.

I noticed way back when that Johnson also has the tendency to exaggerate things.

For example, his characterization of Mr. Spencer's (polite) responses to the charges of being a racist/Nazi: Johnson used the phrase "vicious attack."

Uh, no, I'd say that getting slammed with the label Nazi or racist is a "vicious attack."

Mr. Spencer's responses to Johnson were in good taste; I didn't see anything "vicious" about them.

Anyway, it appears to me that the LGF guy who wrote you was clearly fishing for dirt on you to take back with him to LGF, despite his insistence to the contrary.

But who cares for the truth anymore at LGF? It would interfere with their hatefest.

You hit the nail on the head.

"It's too bad Humphrey Bogart is dead. He did so well portraying a paranoid on the edge of sanity as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, he would be a cinch for the part of Charles Johnson in the Little Green Footballs Movie."

How about The Maltese Football ?

I'm surprised I've stayed at LGF for as long as I have. I've been a reader of both LGF and JihadWatch since the inception of both blogs, but I've only been a logged in commenter at LGF. (Not under my name here.) People make friends among the commenters and are reluctant to leave as a result and Charles takes advantage of those relationships to keep people in line with the threat of banning.

LGF has become largely irrelevant. Their last big "scoop" was the doctored Beirut photos in the Summer War of 2006 and that was mostly Zombie's doing.

When the brouhaha started with GatesOfVienna and Pamela, whose blogs I also read avidly I was shocked, but I didn't think I knew enough about any of these European right parties to make a judgement about it, but it seemed a bit excessive.

But Charles actions against Andrew Bostom, where he outright lied about receiving "hate mail" from Andrew and his attacks on Robert have been the last straw.

This bird has flown.

Don't blame you for leaving, Osprey. It's a weird world over there. But a lot of lizards ignore the topical threads where the thought control and the party line are strongest and just frequent the open threads and/or chat room. Or even the topical threads, after a few hundred posts, go off topic. Lots of smart, educated people there that can be worth talking to.

The geometric logic of it all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk

The Osprey:

This bird has flown.

You're far from the only one. I made a pretty, table based blog post based on the Alexa rankings of some of the major sites during the past three months of this election season. FreeRepublic pulled into a neck and neck race with DailyKos for position. It think I can guess where they got their new traffic from. Only one blog that I checked lost position.
Can you guess which one?

Addendum just added, with new information about the Vlaams Belang video Charles apparently posted recently, and more.

Robert Spencer

Well, I'm doing my part on shutting down CJ. This insane maniac is a traitor to the cause, so to speak.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, response Mr. Johnson will have to the new information Mr. Spencer posted that shows that Johnson has misrepresented the information in the video.

Since this new information makes Mr. Johnson (or his view point) look bad, I would expect him to ignore it at LGF.

And I know his LGF Lizards love to stalk other blogs to see what folks are saying about Mr. J (or LGF itself), so I'm willing to bet some of them are still visiting this blog page.

You just know they've seen Mr. Spencer's new information.

I'd find it shocking if they are not keeping tabs on this page or blog and some of the other blogs that are critical of LGF.

Robert:
I read every word of the well-written and careful translation of the video in the addendum. It is unfortunate that one individual can spend ten minutes pouring tar, while it took many hours of work by many people I'm certain, to correct the record.

Those who sloppily, or worse, intentionally stray into the area between opinion and fact, perhaps feeling secure behind a deceptive and incorrect perception of anonymity on the Internet and feeling secure in the distances involved, with a callous disregard for the ability of the legal arena to rein them in and make them pay dearly for careless, unfounded accusations and character assassination, are not only morally deficient, but exceedingly unwise.

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I read your addendum. Very interesting, but way too complicated for Charles.

I wonder what he would make of Fiamma Nirenstein, Italo-Israeli, Italian deputy with Berlusconi, ally of Fini's Alleanza Nazionale redeemed Neo. Fascists and Bossi's Lega Nord. Fiamma was the one who scooped out the dirt on Kurt Waldheim, but now she's consorting with nationalists. When she lived in Israel, her fruit-seller, a kindly Palestinian arab told her that he was sending his children to Hamas-run schools.

Hell, that's even too complicated for me! But I can imagine how long she'd last in the Lizardarium if she dared to explain the complications of European politics. No doubt they'd find pictures of her at some bookfair and accuse her of genocidal tendencies.

Okay I get it now. A video of DeWinter at a booksale provides evidence that Mr. Spencer has crossed over to the dark side? huh?

This narcissistic pursuit of relevance and the continued belittling of those with religious backgrounds by CJ and his loyal sycophants, are pushing LGF off of a cliff. Basically LGF has become a sideshow, something ghastly to look at for a moment before averting your eyes and moving on back to reality.

Someone named "Bweep" at the GCP forum (in the thread "F**k the people who register to peep") pasted in a conversation from LGF where a poster named "reno911" was making questionable comments (as in kind of tinged with racism) about Obama, and Killgore Trout, who is Mr. Johnson's right hand man at LGF, chimed in with this, and some other guy chimed in, too:

139 Killgore Trout
11/08/08 4:09:32 pm 4
Reno911 will be much happier posting at Jihad Watch.

149 Jimmah
11/08/08 4:14:13 pm 0
And they’ll be happy to have him.Well, it's never been proven that anyone at Jihad Watch is a racist, so they're keeping up with the distortions and lies.

My HTML tags didn't work right in my last post.

The following were my comments, but they showed up as "Jimmah's" comments:

Well, it's never been proven that anyone at Jihad Watch is a racist, so they're [some of the posters at LGF are] keeping up with the distortions and lies.

Squirmy:

Leave those people to their sick fantasies. Anyone posting racist material at Jihad Watch is banned and the material removed as soon as we see it.

Charles Johnson is a liar, as is Killgore Trout, Sharmuta, Kejda and the rest of them. I don't know how they can stand living with themselves. If I were as marinated in hatred and self-delusion and just plain old BS as they are, I would find it unbearable.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Charles Johnson is a liar, and even the Lizards -- some of them -- are beginning to wake up to it. I was just sent this comment from someone who is braving the stench and reading LGF:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/608/6201404

The commenter is "BrotherofChronos," responding to a post by The Master, brushing aside the fact that he had posted a tissue of fabrications regarding this book fair jaunt by Dewinter:

Nevertheless, the translation was wrong. It's not right, charles. I realise it's your site and you can do what you like with it but I can't see any moral justification in using what is effectively manufactured evidence to prove this. The video says one thing. The translation you were provided with says something completely different. If you're not careful it could bounce back at you.

Oh, it's bouncing! Bouncing just like a...little green football...

And so honest readers are bouncing right out of the defamation and lie factory that is Little Green Footballs.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Time for more salting of the slug. This just in from a very kind and helpful Jihad Watch reader:

The book he is holding has been identified as a 1977 book by Alain de Benoist. According to wiki article on de Benoist, "In 1978, he received the Grand Prix de l'Essai from the Académie Française for his book Vu de droite: Anthologie critique des idées contemporaines (Copernic, 1977)."

At LGF they are quoting from the wiki article selectively about de Benoist, but no one is mentioning that this book De Winter is holding received the Grand Prix from Academie Francaise - instead it is being cast as a fascist book. De Benoist is definitely on the right (of that eccentric aristocratic French tradition that I find as annoying as their firebrand leftists), but he is also a deeply serious thinker and writer, and this particular book looks like an important analysis of thought on both the right and the left - it's an Anthology after all.

Here is a translated discussion about the Vu De Droite that De Winter was holding - I have pasted my Systran auto translation below which may be slightly different. It quotes from De Benoist's forward to the republication of the book from 2001:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.metapedia.org/wiki/Vu_de_droite&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVu%2Bde%2Bdroite:%2BAnthologie%2Bcritique%2Bdes%2Bid%25C3%25A9es%2Bcontemporaines%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

The publication of Seen of right-hand side, subtitles critical Anthologie of the contemporary ideas, written by Alain de Benoist in 1977, marked an important stake in the Line reception New , become thus a partner impossible to circumvent of the ideological debate hitherto monopolized by a certain left. Crowned Grand Prix of the Test of the French Academy in June 1978, greeted by personalities as different as François Mitterrand and Louis Pauwels , Jean-Pierre Chevènement and Jean Cau , this monumental work exhausted a long time was republished into 2001 with the editions of the Labyrinth with an important preamble in which, a quarter century after, the author puts his book in prospect and watch in what the "sights" which were developed there found their confirmation in the history of the end of the XXe century. Archeology with philosophy, pedagogy with the ethology, biology with sociology, this true encyclopedia critical screens work and the writings of some 140 writers, scientists, historians or philosophers, throwing on them an innovative and, sometimes, pitiless lighting.

By this title, it is not a question for the author to be "on the right", but "to be of right-hand side". The enemy is neither "the left" neither "Communism" nor still "subversion", but indeed this "levelling ideology" whose formulations, nuns or laymen, metaphysics or allegedly "scientists", have not ceased flowering for two thousand years, whose "ideas of 1789" were only one stage and whose current occidentalization of the world is the inevitable result.


[to modify ] Quotation


"At the origin, Vu of right-hand side was not really presented in the form of a book of "formation", since it was about a simple collection of recensions of books, of which I had been able to choose the subjects only according to the leading topicality. If it thereafter seemed such, it is undoubtedly because of a certain unicity of glance, of a certain grid of interpretation, reflection of the ideological structuring of the author. The title, I was not unaware of it when I chose it, was not stripped of ambiguity. As of the first page, I wrote besides: "For the time being, the ideas that this work defends are on the right; they are not necessarily of right-hand side. I can even imagine situations very well where they could be on the left. In fact the ideas would have changed, but the political scene which would have evolved/moved. One will see what it will occur with time". A quarter century later, one indeed saw what it is occurred by it: the political scene completely changed.

When Vu of right-hand side was republished, one year ago, I could thus just as easily have entitled it Vu of left or Considering besides. I it have not made not to disturb reader - and also because it was precisely about a republication -, but I was lengthily explained, in a new foreword intended to put the book in prospect, on the transformations undergone by the landscape politico-intellectual during the last decades. It would be easy to show that perfectly identical ideas have, with the wire of time, "travelled" from right to left or from left to right. It would be easy also to show that the concepts of right-hand side and left do not have today any more any operational value insofar as all the major current problems create "transverse" fractures within the various political families. Essence remains my complete indifference with respect to this kind of labels. I think that it is a serious error to make examination of the labels a precondition to the judgment. Rather than of the left or right-wing ideas, there are finally only two categories which count: right ideas and false ideas.

If I had to rewrite Vu of right-hand side today, it is clear that I would make there appear many authors, of works, problems which were quite naturally absent from first edition, since they appeared only thereafter. But such a work would be useless, since I on the occasion to approach the majority of these subjects in the books, the tests and the articles which I published meanwhile."

Response of A. of Benoist to a maintenance to the site in 2002.

The automatic translation is a bit loopy as always, but it is clear enough.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

For those LGF "Lizardoid Minions" lurking over here but finding too many big words and long paragraphs, I'll simplify matters: the book that Charles Johnson called a "Nazi book," and that his sycophants at LGF are apparently calling a "fascist book," actually received the Grand Prix de l'Essai from the Académie Française in 1978.

What's that Académie Française? Some kinda fascist thingy, eh, "Lizards"? Well, Charles Johnson would probably think so, but less febrile heads know that the Académie Française is a nearly 400-year-old academic institute that stands today as the foremost authority on the French language and related matters. It gives out several annual prizes, including the one that this "fascist" book won.

Now, if you "Lizards" believe that "fascists" were running the Académie Française in 1978, there is nothing more I can do for you to bring you back to reality.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to show that CJ is not objective with his criticism.

Of course, we knew that already, with his insults and false accusations of you and many others,
but this is yet another example of how Johnson deceives without any evidence to support his claims by bogus "associations."

It also shows his ignorance of European politics in general and Belgium politics in particular, not to mention European history.
One also wonders why Johnson doesn't go after Communists (and Socialists who do immense damage to liberty) with the same vigor as he does alleged "neo-nazi's".

Robert,

"What's that Académie Française? Some kinda fascist thingy, eh, "Lizards"? Well, Charles Johnson would probably think so, but less febrile heads know that the Académie Française is a nearly 400-year-old academic institute that stands today as the foremost authority on the French language and related matters."

Also, doesn't the French government have rather strict controls over pro-Nazi publications? I think they do, and it would be doubtful that a fascist pro-Nazi book could win such a mainstream French prize.

"0:50 Dewinter grabs a book. I cannot see which one. He says "Vu de Droite" (The Right-wing View). Vu de Droite is a book by French philosopher Alain de Benoist. De Benoist is anti-American, anti-Christian, and calls himself a "neo-Pagan." (Btw: Benoist opposes Le Pen and called on his followers to vote Communist. He also admires Muslims for their fighting spirit. For Benoist and his followers Christianity has caused the weakness of the Europeans. They Europeans have to rediscover their pagan fighting spirit.)"

Even if Dewinter bought the book and read it, it doesn't mean he supports the book. People buy and read books all the time on positions they don't support.

"Even if Dewinter bought the book and read it, it doesn't mean he supports the book. People buy and read books all the time on positions they don't support."

Obviously, Johnson doesn't, which would explain a lot of his ignorance.

The Dutch person that Robert quoted who watched and translated the video wrote:

In reality Dewinter showed the anti-Catholic book to Andries, who answered he had not read it because he is "illiterate." I do not hear Andries and Dewinter talk about another book that "served his beliefs." Andries says he is illiterate. Then Dewinter asks whether the magazine on display is their (KVHV) magazine. They say it is, and tell him he can take some copies. I do not hear Dewinter asking "Is this a good book?" Nor do I hear anyone saying "It served my beliefs."

The video I watched had French subtitles for that segment.According to the subtitles, Dewinter says "C'est votre magazine?" ("Is this your magazine?") and the student says "Sers-toi" (= "Help yourself.")

Charles Johnson probably used Babelfish for his crumbling Tower of Babel.

Time for more salting of the slug...

Excellent imagery.

:)

Now is DeWinter of CJ's Dissed Content really a winner of the Académie Française award?

Dang! Can't trust those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Ban la France!

Even if Dewinter bought the book and read it, it doesn't mean he supports the book. People buy and read books all the time on positions they don't support.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 9, 2008 11:24 PM
Precisely. By CJ's logic, RS must be pro-Jihadi, since he is so fluent about what's in not just the Qur'an but can also rattle off material in Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Khatir and a whole host of other medieval Islamic theologians.

I started by not knowing what to make of Dewinter and his following, then had my doubts about whether he is a neo-Fascist or not, and after reading the above account of the book-fair, am increasingly convinced that there is nothing wrong with VB.

Side question: are Flemings predominantly Catholic or Protestants?

Thanks Robert for refuting this. To me, at first glance this seemed possibly legitimate (especially the bar where VB held meetings), then again, I know history has shown CJ as being dishonest. I still wouldn't bring myself to trust CJ, since I have been reading this site for over 2 years and read several of your books, and I have found you honest and patient, while CJ jas been loosing his credibility piece by authoritarian piece (I used to read LGF every day). But still, without this refutation, it could have festered.

I hope this is the last post you will have to make, but I know it isn't your decision.

I bet many of us here went to Islamic book fairs / stores / mosques to browse the litterature, pick up a copy or two.

Like, I own copies of the Quran and the Sirat.

That didn't make me a Jihadist...

Several people have made the point that buying and reading a book doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with the book. Indeed, my office here is filled with Qur'ans, Islamic commentaries on the Qur'an, and Islamic books of theology and law. As Henrik says, that doesn't make me a jihadist.

And as the information I've posted above shows, this wasn't a "Nazi book fair." Note, however, how this is being spun at LGF. I don't know where this is and thus can't supply a link, as only this was sent to me, but it is certainly consistent with the level of honesty Killgore Trout has always maintained:

330 Killgore Trout Robert Spencer is defending Dewinter’s Nazi book shopping. He’s also personally emailing the info to LGF2. Classy guy.

Ultimately, given that the translation of the dialogue from the book fair that Charles Johnson posted is false, and he knows that it is false, the record now is abundantly clear:

In order to discredit his enemies, Charles Johnson knowingly purveys false information.

As such, nothing that Charles Johnson says should be taken at face value.

Robert Spencer

USS Ben
"One also wonders why Johnson doesn't go after Communists (and Socialists who do immense damage to liberty) with the same vigor as he does alleged "neo-nazi's".

Johnson is trying to re-brand the LGF product by repudiating others with whom he has been considered associated; that is, those who criticize political Islam. This is why he has been selectively picking fights with that group only.

Robert:

Nice refutation of the bookshop allegations. As King Richard Coeur-de-Lion said, don't let the Abbassids grind you down.

Charles is making himself irrelevant (ok, he's got help with that).

An irrelevant narcissist? That's pretty funny.

-m

*waves at the sharmie*

An interesting new development this morning: this post no longer shows up in Google Searches.

I have contacted Google about it, but I find this very, very intriguing.

Is someone afraid that something written here will be read?

Someone, say, who already has shown thuggish anti-free speech tendencies?

Hmmm.

Robert Spencer

Robert, it might be wise to wait a day or two before pronouncing on that. Google's index will occasionally drop pages that have had a large number of alterations made to them in a very short period, only to bring them back in a couple of days later.

Lets face it, how much influence would johnson have there?

Archonix

Maybe it is some automatic thing. But there has not been a "large number of alterations" -- just a couple of updates. The "Excommunicated" page had seven updates and never disappeared from Google searches.

In any case, it could be as you say. It is just very, very interesting.

I have already asked Google to reinstate the page, so it could well appear again in a few days because of that.

Cordially
Robert Spencer







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter