| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I linked last week to the indefatigable and courageous Pamela's video of the same talk, given in the Flemish Parliament building in Brussels during the Counterjihad Summit. This new video comes courtesy of Steen.
Of course virtually the entire discussion of the Counterjihad Summit has degenerated into accusations and counter-accusations revolving around the alleged neo-Nazi ties of some of the people who attended. CAIR has attempted to make hay with this, of course, but their dishonesty is well known and abundantly established; deeply unfortunate is the split in the anti-jihad ranks over this. At this point it bears repeating that if there were any actual racists or neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers at this meeting, which is based on evidence that is hotly contested, I completely repudiate them and all that they stand for.
More importantly, the Counterjihad Summit was about the Islamization of Europe, which concerns us all, and concerned just the opposite of what CAIR and its allies and dupes have suggested: it was a conference concerned with defending Western societies and civilization. There was, contrary to the neo-Nazi claims, a strong emphasis on the plight of the Jews in Europe and in general, with Andrew Bostom's address on Islamic antisemitism as the centerpiece. Full reports are being assembled here. The attention should be focused on what we discussed and accomplished there.
Posted by Robert at October 27, 2007 9:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The irony is parts of Holland and Belgium are burning now due to insulted and abused muslims.
The riots and arson seem to be spreading so who knows how far this will go.
Predictably, there is basically a news blackout regarding this new jihad in Europe so you have to dig it up yourselves on the net.
We saved Europe twice in the past century for muslims to invade and conquer under the guise of immigration?
What a waste.
We should had let the Kaiser stay in charge.
They do make unbeatable bratwurst.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 27, 2007 11:03 AM
I was being sarcastic when stating "sarcastic and abused" muslims.
This is because a female police officer DARED to defend herself from being stabbed to death by a muslim screaming "I am a peaceful muslim and you must believe me when I say islam is tolerant."
I wonder how long the various European militaries will continue to tolerate this murder and destruction of their peoples?
It is obvious the civilian governments dont care about their enslaved citizens.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 27, 2007 11:08 AM
Thanks for posting this great talk Robert. Your speech was right on the facts as usual.
IM IN TORONTO and want to add it wasn't just the Globe and Mail newspaper that "pondered" what oh what could have caused these 17 people from diverse backgrounds to ban together and plan to blow up the parliament buildings. Robert I have to add --the RCMP came out after that and said it was ALSO a plan to blow up CSIS (canada's version of the cia) AND other landmarks. I dont know if the CN tower was part if it too.
Its sad really sad. One of these guys was a student in my old high school even.
Islam = jihad against all innocent nonmuslims = true nazism
This truth isnt 'racist' we dont care what race you are from --we CARE that you have a belief that tells you to kills us or make us dhimmis.
THAT will never happen my muslim 'friends'
God keep you and protect you Robert.
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at October 27, 2007 11:11 AM
I agree 100%.
The football may have been fumbled in that pile up. We may need instant reply before making a call.
Lesson number one in all this...beware of bad information becuase the left and jihadist put out all sorts of crazy stuff about people.
Afterall Mr. Spencer you are a racist Jewish Zionist memeber of Opus Dei who is a follower of Mao who in his spare time practices evil magic if I accepted everything said about you.
We are in a information war afterall....
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 27, 2007 11:21 AM
It should come as no surprise diabolical ideologies fit together to bring ruin to truth.
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 27, 2007 11:34 AM
Great speech.
JWers rate it please.
at October 27, 2007 11:59 AM
Ironic, how the bogus accusers scream "neo-nazi" yet avoid the fact that mOslems & nazis are actually on the same side, so that colossal ignorance on their part is beyond absurd...unless of course THEY are hiding something big(?)
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/
No wonder they don't want JW to speak.
Interesting...MOST interesting.
at October 27, 2007 12:30 PM
The funny thing is that the hard Left is so anti-semitic that only people worse than them are militant Islam and explains why they work well together.
Go to a ur-liberal site like DailyKos and you'll find diaries or postings complianing about the nefarious and ultra-powerful AIPAC, how evil Israel is and their Nazi like treatment of the noble Palestininian, how Jews make up most of the Neocons, etc. Crap thats really fit for a neo-nazi movement.
Hell if you want to get in good graces with the left just bitch about AIPAC controlling our foreign policy.
Posted by: waltc at October 27, 2007 12:41 PM
lol...you can always tell how loony someone is when they use the term "neo-cons", a term made up by neo-COMs (along with that "social justice" "social democracy" "economic justice" & "economic democracy" BS, used ad nauseum in their loony lexicon) *yawn* (no, pat buchanan did NOT coin it).
But good point...then again, I only go to the dailykook to get a laugh out of their colossal moronathon-hell, they've even turned on their own, some even accused/implied HITlery of actually being (get this) *ahem* "conservative"! LOL
Just goes to show how far left they've gone (they actually took a self-poll, "showing" they're all *ahem* "centrists"! ROTFLMAO), and what total schizophrenic wacko loons they are-after all, they admitted outright about the Democratic party: "we bought it, we paid for it, it's ours!" (even some rank-n-file dems cringe at this,so that's sayin' something), and actually, they're right.
They DID buy it, pay for it...so it's theirs-or should I say it's owned by george "the capo" soros.
at October 27, 2007 1:33 PM
It would indeed be wonderful if America could help western Europeans defuse the jihad now aimed at them. But alas western Europeans may not even WANT our help. Most western Europeans still believe America to be evil and the biggest threat on earth to peace. I doubt this aspect of Europe will change in time for us to be able to assist these people.
In fact, we Americans may be hard-pressed to save our selves, let alone Europe.
at October 27, 2007 1:46 PM
Robert -- why the L`O`N`G face? Maybe you're a little wore out from repudiating their bogus neo-Nazi claims. Good job in taking out the garbage.
Posted by: champ at October 27, 2007 2:32 PM
So OT it belongs on Mars...
Just my opinion which, with two bucks will get you a small softdrink at your local theater:
This use of "Nazi" needs to be dropped, unless it refers to the actual Nazi Party, or to true Neo-Nazis.
The Nazis were, by and large (with some exceptions, i.e. Oskar Schindler) a heinous group of people. The temptation to use 'nazi' to describe other people thought equally malignant is a very strong one.
Personally, I blame Rush Limbaugh for starting the whole thing, with his famous/infamous coinage of the term, "feminazi". I could be wrong, but that's the first place I can remember hearing 'nazi' tacked on to something.
Nazi, as a term other than the genuine article, serves only to muddy the waters of any discussion or debate. It looks to me, like one of the "hate speech" models we saw earlier this month. It's outraging, and causes outrage which cannot be answered rationally, or is too ridiculous to deserve an answer.
Again, just my opinion, but to misuse "Nazi" is to shoot oneself in the foot, in the course of a debate. Either the opposing party becomes too angry to be rational, or writes the other off as an unimaginative thinker. I think 'fascism' or any of its kin would be more correct and to the point. (Though I'm no one to lecture, since I could, myself, use a thesaurus...)
:-)
Posted by: Abscedere at October 27, 2007 2:39 PM
A home run, Robert! This is a video I'll be sharing with family and friends.
Posted by: Abscedere at October 27, 2007 3:38 PM
The neo-Nazi thing is totally out of kilter over on LGF.
There is definately less racism in Europe than in the US. But the idea that there are Nazi's lurking behind every bush, or that the Nazi's could make a major comeback is just preposterous.
The little green footballers know little about Europe and Fjordman is incredibly patient with his attackers. But its also the herd-mentality that drives them over there, almost like the Koz-kidz: when Charles sez 'jump' they all follow, not exactly convincing.
Free speech or differing opinions make you an endangered species, and Charles is quick to boot you off if he doesn't like your opinion.
That's why I appreciate JW, at least we can discuss things seriously here.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 27, 2007 3:44 PM
Robert, I would like to know, is this going to be an annual event?
This should be held, the same time, every year.
Also, another date which should be celebrated, is the 10th October which is the date that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours, thereby preventing France, and Europe, from becoming Islamic.
So maybe on that day, every year, we should all have a party, a joyous celebration to remember the day when Charles Martel won us our freedom.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Robert, I would like to know, is this going to be an annual event?
This should be held, the same time, every year.
Also, another date which should be celebrated, is the 10th October which is the date that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours, thereby preventing France, and Europe, from becoming Islamic.
So maybe on that day, every year, we should all have a party, a joyous celebration to remember the day when Charles Martel won us our freedom.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Robert, I would like to know, is this going to be an annual event?
This should be held, the same time, every year.
Also, another date which should be celebrated, is the 10th October which is the date that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours, thereby preventing France, and Europe, from becoming Islamic.
So maybe on that day, every year, we should all have a party, a joyous celebration to remember the day when Charles Martel won us our freedom.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Robert, I would like to know, is this going to be an annual event?
This should be held, the same time, every year.
Also, another date which should be celebrated, is the 10th October which is the date that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours, thereby preventing France, and Europe, from becoming Islamic.
So maybe on that day, every year, we should all have a party, a joyous celebration to remember the day when Charles Martel won us our freedom.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Robert, I would like to know, is this going to be an annual event?
This should be held, the same time, every year.
Also, another date which should be celebrated, is the 10th October which is the date that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours, thereby preventing France, and Europe, from becoming Islamic.
So maybe on that day, every year, we should all have a party, a joyous celebration to remember the day when Charles Martel won us our freedom.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 27, 2007 4:49 PM
I think the controversy surrounding the extremist views of some of the participants is a healthy one. We owe Charles Johnson over at LGF a debt of gratitude.
The anti-Jihad must get its house in order.
The short-term weakening that will result from a purging of its racist-Right faction will inevitably result in a long-term strengthening of the movement by enhancing its credibility among those residing in the center of the political spectrum. This intellectual purge - it it takes place - will be a necessary pre-condition for the transformation of the anti-Jihad from the eclectic, marginalized group that it is today...into a genuine mass movement.
There is no place for racism in OUR anti-Jihad. Non-white, non-Muslim groups must be embraced and welcomed into the fold.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2007 5:10 PM
No matter how Robert Spencer likes to spin his involvement, the fact of the matter remains that he cozied up to/mingled at European conference with far-right political parties with estabished xenophobic platforms and strong ties to white supremacism and neo-Nazis.
Why should we believe his claim that he "was not aware" who would be at the conference ... how convenient ... give me a break. And when he gets exposed, he rushes to conveniently "denounce" them.
This whole situation highlights the common saying: if it smells like a rat, looks like a rat, it is a rat.
Posted by: murad_ahmed at October 27, 2007 6:30 PM
This whole situation highlights the common saying: if it smells like a rat, looks like a rat, it is a rat.
Posted by: murad_ahmed
Yeah...but I like his tie, don't you?
Your 'guilt by association' gimmick has been tried before and ruled invalid. So pack up your little. bottle of smear oil and move on. There is nothing here for you to do...
at October 27, 2007 6:40 PM
There is no place for racism in OUR anti-Jihad. Non-white, non-Muslim groups must be embraced and welcomed into the fold.
There is a major flaw in the arguments at LGF that is being lost in a frenzy of PC hysteria.
Why is it "racist" when Europeans want to maintain the traditional demographics of their homelands? Why are they the only ones not allowed to express that as an ideal?
I imagine plenty at LGF would support an independent KURDISH state, for example-so why go ballistic when a white European from Vlams Belang descended from his own set of "indigenous peoples" is honest about the fact he/she would prefer to maintain their historic ethnic identity?
That is right out of the multiculturalist playbook.
Posted by: treehugger
at October 27, 2007 6:46 PM
"Your 'guilt by association' gimmick has been tried before and ruled invalid"
Really? By who, you? And where have we heard the old "guilty by association" trick before?
It is what it is ... keep trying to spin.
Posted by: murad_ahmed at October 27, 2007 6:50 PM
Cornelius
True, which is why I would prefer to do my own study on the subject (I would suggest everyone do the same) and then come to a conclusion.
It is an early time in the anti-jihad movement and all sort of questionable and unhinged people will jump on board. If you look at the early history of the GOP during the pre-civil war era lots of Know-Nothings jumped on board also.
Even Lincoln had to defend himself from these charges...
"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 323."
At one time the GOP had Know-Nothings in it also but does that mean the GOP is forever tainted by this?
Just be careful for the damage done cannot be reversed...that goes for both sides of this argument.
at October 27, 2007 6:55 PM
murad_ahmed
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." Omar Ahmad, CAIR
See the difference is Murad that Robert Spencer has never said anything close to what a Nazi would say yet the leaders of CAIR have. That is not guilt by association but their own words out of their own mouths. Are you ready to denounce this kind of hate speech? Are you ready to denounce CAIR as a bigoted organization? When you do that then you can make a claim of moral superiority...if not then you are a bigot and a sexist for supporting such a law code in America.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 27, 2007 7:04 PM
@greatcometof1577,
Fascinating quote from Lincoln. Thanks.
MURAD_AHMED: "if it smells like a rat, looks like a rat, it is a rat."
RESPONSE: Sums up the violence of Islam in a nutshell.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2007 7:51 PM
@Treehugger,
I have no problem with the expression "Holland for the Dutch"...
...I do have a problem with the expression "Holland for whites."
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2007 7:53 PM
Cornelius wrote:
"I think the controversy surrounding the extremist views of some of the participants is a healthy one. We owe Charles Johnson over at LGF a debt of gratitude."
I agree to a point, and sheik yer'mami found that point when he wrote that "[t]he neo-Nazi thing is totally out of kilter over on LGF."
Johnson cited with approval an essay by a Jewess named Ester, who wrote, in part:
"I am afraid of the Islamization of Europe. But I am also, and even more, afraid of the rise of the extreme right."
She also characterized the Stop the Islamization of Denmark group as a "right wing extremist group."
Unless SIOD & its SI counterparts in other European countries are calling for the expulsion of and/or discrimination against non-white, non-Christian inhabitants, it is not only incorrect to call the groups right wing extremists, it is seriously harmful to the anti-islamist cause. Both SIOD & neo-nazi groups can be described as xenophobic, but to condemn both on that ground is stupid. xenophobia as regards muslims is, IMO, good; xenophobia as regards European Jews is despicable.
If a non-bigoted, non-antisemetic, non-racist groups fears the islamization of Europe & wants to demonstrate against it (by, e.g., protesting a mosque built near the Dom in Cologne), should they avoid any public demonstrations where neo-Nazi groups might also be found? Surely, the former groups shouldn't share a stage with the latter. But to assert that they shouldn't even be on the same street as the neo-Nazi groups hamstrings their ability to protest publicly, I think. Perhaps SOID & similar groups should carry a couple signs declaring their support for Israel & against indigenous anti-semitism whenever they might encounter neo-nazis at public demonstrations against islamization.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at October 27, 2007 7:57 PM
Cornelius says:
"The short-term weakening that will result from a purging of its racist-Right faction will inevitably result in a long-term strengthening of the movement..."
The use the phrase "purging of its racist-Right wing faction" implies there IS a racist right-wing faction" that needs to be purged. Cornelius makes make a similar presumption that Charles Johnson at LGF did when he said:
"..not all the people who are hitching a ride on the anti-Islamization movement are doing it for honorable reasons."
How did he know that when he said it? He didn't offer any proof then. He still doesn't offer proof of anyone "hitching a ride" and what that implies (which is that they who are "hitching a ride" are not sincere in reaching the goals of group, but joined the movement for reasons other than what have been declared).
How do you know that there is a "racist right" faction that is part of the movement now? I've seen Charles' evidence. It doesn't prove anyone joined this movement for reasons other than what they declared, which was to halt the Islamification of Europe.
Until proven otherwise they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
On a somewhat related note, I and another regular poster here at JW were booted from LGF last week for reasons somewhat related to this issue. I do not wish to bog down this board with those details but for those not familiar with the squabble between LGF and Atlas Sgrugged, I do have a narrative of what occurred (including my rant for being booted), at my blog www.Usorthemonline.com
at October 27, 2007 8:12 PM
The impression I have of European Politics is that it is so far Left to begin with, That anyone Left of Center Left would be classified Right. So just being in the "Center" would make someone Far Right.
The Left fears the Right, more than the Islamification of their Home. Which threatens both with ruin. So lets do nothing.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 27, 2007 8:40 PM
USorThem
"On a somewhat related note, I and another regular poster here at JW were booted from LGF last week..."
Hey join the club! I was booted a long time ago for being against the Iraqi adventure and against Bush.
I used the Hugh Fitzgerald argument and was attacked for being a "Moby", "KosKid" and for having "BDS". Then I called Bush a sellout to the Arabians and said they were the ones with BDS (Bush defense syndrome)......in response I was sent to guillotine! chop!
Don't worry I will get back on there one day...nobody is dead forever. Truth always wins in the end...
at October 27, 2007 9:16 PM
The attendees of the Brussels Conference cannot be accused in any way of “colluding” with “neo-Nazi” groups. Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or et al cannot be expected to be familiar the intricacies of European fringe politics. And to suggest that any of them, especially David Horowitz, or Pamela Geller, or Knesset member Dr Ariel Eldad would knowingly have anything to do with neo-Nazis proves that it is a ridiculous accusation.
However, having said that, it was a PR disaster. The Vlaams Belang and the Sweden Democrats are both tainted. Although neither can accurately be described as "neo-Nazi"* in their present form, both have either historic or current links to neo-Nazi groups.
The Vlaams Belang has softened its tone since its previous incarnation, the Vlaams Blok, was banned in 2004. It has successfully rebranded itself as a Flemish separatist movement, and picks up growing support from Dutch-speaking Belgians resentful at the way wealthy Flanders bankrolls French-speaking Wallonia. But it has some very dodgy people in it ranks, and still whiffs of its origins on Europe's neo-Nazi Right.
If you read the above story’s link to Paul Belien’s explanation of why the VB refused to support the EP Holocaust Remembrance resolution you will find it weak and excusing.
The resolution dealt almost completely with Holocaust denial and present day anti-Semitism in Europe - Belien’s claim that supporting it meant supporting separate later legislation threatening free speech just doesn’t hold water. They were two separate resolutions - you vote for one, and not the other. It’s not rocket science.
He neglects to explain why the VB lobbied to issue pardons to wartime Belgians who collaboratored with the Nazis, or mention its strong links with the BNP, Le Pen’s Front National, Germany’s NPD or other anti-Semitic groups. He says nothing of its historic links with the VMO, a banned Belgian neo-Nazi order, or its current links with Voorpost, considered one of the successors to the VMO.
The Sweden Democrats can be treated with marginally less suspicion. Yes, it does have a dodgy past - it’s got to be the only party in post-war European politics to have to ban members from wearing Nazi uniforms to meetings. But the SD (admittedly an unfortunate acronym) formally ousted their neo-Nazi element, who went off to form the National Democrats in 2001. It’s the National Democrats that you’ll see speaking at meetings of the BNP, and praised on white nationalist websites.
It should also be stressed that the SD representative who attended the Brussels Conference, Ted Ekeroth, was last year awarded the Herzl Award by the World Zionist Organisation for his website’s unstinting support for Israel and the Zionist cause.
American JW regulars can dismiss all this as whining and Euroweenie-ism, but it IS important, as the LGF controversy shows. I’ve posted on here before about the dangers of allowing neo-Nazi groups to infiltrate the counter-jihad, and have been criticised by some other posters. But Charles Johnson cannot be dismissed as a “lefto-fascist” agitator, nor as a member of the League of Hysterical Jews (at least, I’ve never seen him at our Annual Gala Ball).
Extremist political parties are hitching a ride on the CJ cause in order to further their own agendas. Allowing them to do poses three main risks:
1) It risks damaging, by association, the credibility of both the messengers and the message, as well as giving ammunition to those wish to see the CJ fail. Prominent counter-jihadists, although not politicians, are involved in a campaign to persuade an unaware and as yet undecided public, and must be aware that their opponents will be scrutinising who they meet with, and what they say or do, for anything that can be used against them.
2) It causes rifts within the counter-jihad itself. As well as traditional conservatives and right-wingers like the LGF crowd, there are whole groups of people - Jews, liberals, homosexuals, non-white Christians, Asians, ex-Muslims - who are threatened by Islamism but who will refuse to back anything involving the extremist groups that have demonized them. Look up Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s views on the Vlaams Belang.
3) It risks the counter-jihad sliding into the paralysing accusation and counter-accusation culture that characterises fringe politics.
To those posters who doubt these risks - think what being linked with such people gains the fight against Islamism. Then think what it costs.
*I never use the terms “fascist” or “racist” - both have long since lost their original meanings and become irreversibly cliched. But I do use neo-Nazi and for good reason. For me, the acid test is this - if a group’s leadership denies the Holocaust, or demonizes Jews, or praises Hitler, or gives Nazi salutes when it thinks nobody’s watching, then there is no other term for them.
Posted by: Matamoros at October 28, 2007 12:55 AM
Really? By who, you? And where have we heard the old "guilty by association" trick before?
It is what it is ... keep trying to spin.
Posted by: murad_ahmed
Yep me...We don't need to spin your game, it is what it is. You think you are the first? You are the last in line of a long line of taqiyya artists, popping in here to get shot out of the saddle.
You don't have a point, but you do have an agenda, smear...You are hereby labeled a troll, and banished to Allahs outer darkness. Go back to Ibrahim and tell him he plan did not work. Find something solid to pin on Spenser or stop trying, and Hooper, please don't send a boy to do a mans work...
This is probably too late, CAIR agents never work past midnight.
at October 28, 2007 1:09 AM
“Smear job. Disappointing to see conservatives engaging in it.
"David Duke likes Vlaams Belang therefore they must be neonazis."
Low, low blow. I wasn't expecting David Duke to vote Green Party. Is who the Stromfront website likes some sort of indicator of neonazi ties?
If you're going to let liberals dictate who is going to be in, that pretty much guarantees failure.
As far as the desire by many ethnic Europeans that they remain the dominant ethnic group in Europe (hence the name EUROPEANS and the name of the continent EUROPE) as they have in the past, it's their continent, they can do whatever they want with it. They don't owe it to anybody to let other ethnic groups walk in and take it over, and their governments don't have the authority to let that happen, one of the main parts of the social contract is securing of national borders, if the government decides to not uphold that without bothering to hold a referendum, the government is doing it illegitemately.
If you going to brand the Europeans that instinctively feel that way "racist neo-nazies" well good luck getting any Europeans into the antijihad coalition, because pretty much the only people that don't feel that way are European liberals, and they are not really interested in the coalition.
Plus, look at the double standard, for conservatives even some sort of remote past link to extremism is supposedly disqualifying. You have someone like Joschka Fisher, who in his youth was a leftist extremist who seemed to be involved (or at least have some specific knowledge on) in an actual kidnapping, or Keith Ellison, formerly tied to Black Panthers and those are just "irrelevant youthful excesses".
Further, it's not like Vlaams Belang has been responsible for killing of tens of thousands of innocent civillians like the House of Saud, and yet a lot of the same people who defend Bush mingling with House of Saud as morally justifiable want to ostracize Valms Belang. Ridiculous.
And while on this subject of rightist groups and their increasing popularity, has anyone noticed this pattern with police responses to muslim riots? When it’s just the muslims rioting such as in France, the police response is very underwhelming and essentially is just to let muslims vent. But when some real (or imagined in the mind of the MSM) rightist groups show up and start to fight the muslims , for example as in UK following a muslim assault on a women and children in an area, or the Australian life guards coming to fight the muslims sexually harassing the Australian women on the beaches, then all of a sudden the police are everywhere and the unrest is quickly and aggressively put out. It’s almost like they feel it’s their job to protect the muslim rioter, but as long as it’s just muslims burning cars, well that’s OK, let them have their fun, but when the “neo-nazis” show up to fight muslim criminals, well, they have to nip that in the bud, we can’t have a muslim rioter getting hurt by a “neo-nazi”, right?
Right, let’s kick out anyone actually willing and able to physically fight muslim rioters out of the anti-jihad coalition, that’s a winning strategy, far better to have 74 year old women beaten with tire rods rather then be accused by the left of ties to “neo-nazis”. Because if you guys haven’t noticed, people who step in in absence of a police response to successfully physically confront a muslim criminal (and thereby ironically forces a police response where the police wasn’t doing much of anything) seem to be branded by the press “neo-nazis”. Gees, the Australian life guards protecting their women in absence of sufficient police action, were branded “white supremacists”, they were just life guards! I guess we better not have anything to do with any Australian life guards, obviously a “neo-nazi” group, right? Seriously, some of those life guards should be invited to the next meeting to handle security….
Basically, you have youths shouting Allahu Akhbar as they burn cars and the obvious and real ideological tie to Islam isn’t reported or covered by the media.
Then you have life guards protecting women from sexual harassers and the media comes up with some sort of fabricated white supremacism as motive for their actions.
The best way to hold a peaceful anti-jihad protest is where you get together enough guys that are stacked to the point where the police will feel they have to show up in order to protect the bystanders from the protestors, not vice versa.
at October 28, 2007 1:20 AM
Ummm, swami,
you misspelled al-lah's outhouse.
But no worry on the little freshman trying to spread his left wing of lunacy...rookies are seen a mile away by even the blind.
They can't face reality which isn't on their side, so let him knock himself out as he imitates a washing machine on one cycle: spin.
It's actually kinda comical.
lol
at October 28, 2007 1:24 AM
USORTHEM: "I've seen Charles' evidence. It doesn't prove anyone joined this movement for reasons other than what they declared, which was to halt the Islamification of Europe."
RESPONSE: Your words were carefully chosen to avoid the larger implications. The reason that individuals and groups might join the anti-Jihad are a different matter than what those groups otherwise stand for.
Charles' evidence is compelling.
We can't be so short-sighted as to say that anyone who is against Jihad is automatically benign. Believe it or not, Islam is not the only sociological evil residing here on planet earth. We are not just anti-Jihadists, we are proponents of freedom and the equality and dignity of all people.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2007 2:36 AM
I didn't think CAIR, et al, would find any positive aspects of the Conference to report on.
Disavow any fascists, whether Islamo- or homegrown, and just let these dogs bark as the caravan passes.
The Resistence to this resurgent theocratic Koranic fascism will shake off any neo-nazi leeches or fleas that try to attach to this movement. (Something that they see as a way to power for themselves, which is encouraging, in a sense.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 28, 2007 3:01 AM
Can anyone really take LGF seriously when many of the posters look on the coming fall of Europe with glee.
Regarding the Sweden Democrats, look at how the party has changed here and of course some of teh evidence from Charles which is something that the left in Europe use:
As for VB look at the reply by Paul Belien here:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2592
Have a look at an excellent overview of this at
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/, starting from picking up my own comments at UpPompeii.
Also look at this blog http://beta.kimcm.dk/ and work your way down to "I am a racist, a xenophobe and a far-right winger."
Far Right - As far away from the leftist wet-dream totalitarian systems as possible, be they communist, multi-cultural, religious or other kinds of totalitarian systems, where no dissent is allowed.
Racist - Person of Caucasian origin, who refuse to admit that democracy and personal freedom is far inferior to all other cultures and political systems.
Xenophobe - A person who is proud to live in a free and democratic society, and don’t want or resist to change the political system with any strange foreign system that is less open, free and democratic.
The situation is serious, democrats like me are being squeezed by the extreme left and the Islamics, it is also true that it is very difficult to create new parties in Europe, so what is happening is that many people are joining parties that would have been declared as racist or white and changing them from within, this is happening across Europe.
To start painting us as Nazi's like that is aiding and abetting our enemies which are the extreme left and the Islamics.
LGF and others are doing extreme levels of damage to our cause, to say that we are disappointed and feeling betrayed is a little bit of an understatement.
As for anyone who calls SIOE extreme rights wingers, your are completely barmy...
Posted by: Daffersd at October 28, 2007 7:15 AM
Cornelius
The reason I say to use caution is becuase Charles Johnson of LGF is not always right. He is not god and sometimes I am worried that this stuff about a lizard army is going to his head.
Everyone has skeletons...
It would be nice to have people with perfect pc backrounds joining in the fight but right now a lot of people with perfect pc backrounds are NOT joining at all. Also what would one say about Strom Thurmond? He was a memeber of the GOP and nobody complained. Hell I can find things on him and put them on a website to prove the GOP is racist beyond count. I can drag lots skeletons out just like old Strom from that GOP closet. Trust me there is more then his skeleton in there. The people over at LGF can ignore this crap all they want when it comes to their beloved political party yet when it comes to some European party LGFs like the wizard of oz makes a big screen production out of it. My god it is the end of the world if you only read him.
By his (Charles Johnson) logic then the GOP is a bigoted and racist orgainzation too...
Like I said just be careful...
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 28, 2007 10:02 AM
I am a Zionist. This means that I believe in a Jewish national homeland with a strong Jewish majority and the absence of any dangerous demographic trends (such as mass immigration or a strong disparity in birth-rates) that threaten to overturn it. Even though I am not against a presence of a certain percentage of immigrants and believe that these immigrants should have equal rights, I do have certain preferences about the ethnic/cultural/religious composition of these immigrants. I prefer that the majority of them come from compatible cultures, and I prefer that 0% of them are muslim. Is this immoral? Am I a racist? I don't think so.
If this is what I believe about Israel, who am I to deny the same aspirations to indigenous European populations? I don't see the desire to preserve the integrity of their populational base as illegitimate. For those who love multicultural environments and the "melting-pot" feeling there is always the US and Canada. Let the Europeans choose their own cultural destiny.
Posted by: Mimi at October 28, 2007 12:14 PM
Here's a hypothetical that might make Johnson think twice about refusing to have anything to do with any group whose agenda is admittedly quite despicable. say the government proposes to regulate speech on the Internet. naturally, Johnson would oppose this. but would he refuse to take part in a conference of bloggers & groups opposed to this proposal if any of the attendees represented extremist groups? would he refuse to demonstrate on Capital Hill if neo-nazis showed up? would he refuse to contribute, refuse to encourage others to contribute, and refuse to assist in any way any lawsuit filed by bloggers & other aggrieved groups against the government proposal if any neo-nazi group had anything to do with the lawsuit whatsoever?
If his answer to each of these questions is "yes," then at least he's consistent -- and wrong.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at October 28, 2007 12:22 PM
@greatcometof1577,
Whoever said that Charles is infallible? Certainly not me. But he is right on THIS issue, no doubt about it. And like I wrote earlier, a study of Charles' exposition of the racist right in Europe was/is pretty compelling.
"Greg" posted a sympathetic piece on Nick Griffin early this morning right here at JW, referring to him merely as a "British nationalist"....and Robert promptly removed it, which clearly shows where our fearless leader stands on the issue of associating JW with proponents of racism.
Integrity is profoundly important when waging a struggle with such undeniable moral overtones.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2007 1:19 PM
This whole episode has been very enlightening.
There will be a pan-European movement of parties that will oppose Islam, evantually they will develop the same core policies and beliefs and you will not find white supremacy and racism in the real meaning of that word being part of that movement.
People who wish to sit on their hands pointing out the past as if that is what we are doing now are irrelevent if unhelpful.
Robert Spencer helped in developing that, now let us just do it, people can be part of it, or you can moan from the sidelines and set impossible self-righteous conditions.
This is not just a struggle for morality, it is a struggle for survival and the sooner we stand up for freedom and democracy the better.
Posted by: Daffersd at October 28, 2007 4:17 PM
Cornelius
I would not defend the BNP and if it is true about DeWinter being a white racist fine I would agree but did Charles inform Mr. Spencer ahead of time of this information or did he just release this info to the public without giving said information to important parties ahead of time to give them a heads up.
If Charles did then fine I am wrong but if not then he is a lose cannon out for himself. You see why I would prefer to be careful. It is not nice to hang out your fellow anti-jihad folks and perhaps make them look like fools if you have info that could make them look foolish.
Mr. Spencer has made it clear that he does not support any nationalistic aryan, white, or any neo-nazi group that bases its political ideology on racism. That fact is clear by his own words. I don't speak for anyone but myself and I too don't support said groups if true. However I would not support LGFs either if they don't tell anyone before hand they have this info so that others can get their ducks in order before it goes public...
Racist are not needed but neither are loose cannons....how the hell can anyone organize anything when the right arm is doing one thing and left arm is doing another.
Its this kind of lack of coordination that leads to defeat.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 28, 2007 7:53 PM
@greatcometof1577,
Robert's a big boy. He doesn't need Charles Johnson doing his homework or running interference for him.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2007 9:07 PM
Cornelius
No he does not but then again next time I would not be so trusting or helpful. Remember some people are in this because it is for the greater good of Western Civilization and some are not. Think Alcibiades....
A simple e-mail stating...
Hey buddy I think we have a problem and here is why I am going to make a stink over this...etc etc...I know you where at this conference and I will make sure to give you a little time to think it over. Just giving you some heads up etc...etc.
Also this Nazi talk got me thinking about after WWII and the US made deals with all sorts of Nazis who had special skills to join our cause against the Soviets.
What is your view of Werner von Braun?
Good or Bad for the Cold War effort?
I am not defending it but sometimes you can't help who gets on the cart. All you can hope is they will see the error of their ways...
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 28, 2007 9:35 PM
@greatcometof1577,
Your analogy is a poor one. Von Braun was a technical expert whose services were quietly employed...a very different thing than publicly associating yourself with racists.
We often condemn so-called "moderate" Muslims and their Leftist fellow-travelers for appearing on stage with proponents of violence. Rightly so. By sharing such a venue, there is an implicit acceptance of the message. We can't turn around and hypocritically suggest that the same standard does not apply to us when circumstance brings us into contact with proponents of racism.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding the Brussels conference...I'm not even 100% sure about the validity of tarring the Swedish Democrats and the Dutch Vlaams Belang with the charge of racism...(though there is some compelling evidence). I don't know the extent of Robert's awareness of the background of some of the participants. I'm ready to give him every benefit of the doubt; he deserves that and much, much more. I think we'd all be interested in what he has to say on the subject.
I do know that acceptance of one sociological evil - racism - in the service of combating another - Islam, is a recipe for moral and practical failure.
As far as Charles Johnson goes, he owes nobody a heads-up for expressing his opinion.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2007 12:34 AM
Cornelius
Werner von Braun quietly employed?
It is clear we have a different view of history. As a son of a NASA employee of that era...NASA was Braun and Braun was NASA. He was the face that the media went to.
Oh well...you have your trench and I have mine. We both agree Nazis are not good for the effort. We just disagree on the methods of discovery.
...no more frontal assults up this mountain for me. Time to get to flanking...I don't like stalemates.
Even Sherman had his Kennesaw mountain... I leave you in command of this comments thread....enjoy the tactical victory!
at October 29, 2007 11:16 PM
I am so saddened by the action of Charles Johnson, and the Lizard Nation. They have allowed the collaborators of jihad to drive a wedge between people who should be allies.
Posted by: Thunder Pig at October 30, 2007 1:35 AM
Charles, so busy exposing, and then researching, those nasty Europeans, hasn't time to check the content he's posting on other subjects.
He's just published a link to a speech by Australian Prime Minister John Howard.(indicated by arrows >>>)
"Tuesday Night Link Depot
Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:07:53 pm PDT
Links that didn’t get posted today, for whatever reason...
Melanie Phillips: The Choice
Iraqi Troops Donate $1000 to California Wildfire Aid, Media Mum
Inside the Surge
Sued For Terror Watching
MSU YAF Brings the Crazy
Adam Holland: Neo-Nazi Leader Organizing Ron Paul Youtube ‘gaming’
The Jawa Report: Al Qaeda Declares Internet Jihad
Mark Steyn: War, and life, is not a movie
YouTube - Internet Commenter Business Meeting
Meet Giuliani’s New Brain on Foreign Policy
Giuliani is Mideast’s worst nightmare
>>>This just in: The Right To Leave
Posted by: sg5 at October 31, 2007 10:46 AM
Charles, so busy exposing, and then researching, those nasty Europeans, hasn't time to check the content he's posting on other subjects.
He's just published a link to a speech by Australian Prime Minister John Howard.(indicated by arrows >>>)
"Tuesday Night Link Depot
Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:07:53 pm PDT
Links that didn’t get posted today, for whatever reason...
Melanie Phillips: The Choice
Iraqi Troops Donate $1000 to California Wildfire Aid, Media Mum
Inside the Surge
Sued For Terror Watching
MSU YAF Brings the Crazy
Adam Holland: Neo-Nazi Leader Organizing Ron Paul Youtube ‘gaming’
The Jawa Report: Al Qaeda Declares Internet Jihad
Mark Steyn: War, and life, is not a movie
YouTube - Internet Commenter Business Meeting
Meet Giuliani’s New Brain on Foreign Policy
Giuliani is Mideast’s worst nightmare
>>>This just in: The Right To Leave
LiveLeak.com - Backflips Saudi Style...
Ron Silver: How to Get the World to Like Us –The Case for Isolationism
492 comments | permalink
last comment: Ben Hur :: Oct 31, 2007 at 7:39:03 am"
Unfortunately Howard didn't make the speech (and wouldn't), though it does reflect his thinking. It's a hoax, based on a rewritten e-mail that' been circulating for at least years.
No doubt whoever fowarded it to LGF will be banned in due course (wasn't me).
Posted by: sg5 at October 31, 2007 10:49 AM
Hope some admin can delete the first version of my above post, only half of which appears:-|
Posted by: sg5 at October 31, 2007 10:59 AM
Hope some admin can delete the first version of my above post, only half of which appears:-|
Posted by: sg5 at October 31, 2007 11:07 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)