Tuesday, October 23, 2007

LGF and Vlaams Belang

We had a Counterjihad conference in Brussels, and with reference to this Charles of LGF felt prompted to warn against neo-Nazism. And this was the only thing he felt the urge to post about it. It's very sad to see that Charles' post had no different message about the conference than that of CAIR. Charles could of course still differentiate himself from CAIR by posting something positive about this conference -- this ground-breaking event where history was written. But instead of that, when being criticized by Pamela at Atlasshrugs, for what was effectively a decisive blow against the conference, he decided to not pay attention to the criticism but instead opted for accusing Pamela of "attacking friends", and suggested that she should "take a step back and turn down the rhetoric".

The rhetoric that needs to be turned down is the one used by Charles about Vlaams Belang. As long as he is echoing these lies, he deserves to be strongly criticized, whether he can take it or not. Paul Belien completely debunks the turned-up rhetoric that Charles helps swirling around in the echo-chamber:
- - - - - - - - - -

It is simply not true that "Vlaams Belang's founders were Nazi collaborators in WW II."

Vlaams Belang founder Filip Dewinter was born in 1962 in a family that cannot be accused of Nazi sympathies. His father and uncle were members of the anti-German Resistance. Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004, sixty years after the end of WW II.

The Vlaams Blok, predecessor to the Vlaams Belang, was founded in 1977 by Karel Dillen (1925-2007). Mr Dillen came from a non-political background. His father, an Antwerp labourer, abandoned his wife and their two sons when when Dillen was still a baby. He was raised by his mother. Neither he, nor his brother nor his mother were involved in any political activities at all during the war, let alone that they belonged to pro-Nazi and collaborationist groups.

These propaganda lies have their source in the Belgian regime, which has always blamed the Flemish Nationalists for having been pro-Nazi, while it was the Belgian authorities themselves that were collaborating with the Nazis before and during WWII (read about it in Paul Belien's A Throne in Brussels).

Since the 9/11 demo in Brussels and since the Counterjihad conference last week, it's utterly clear to us who attended the conference that Vlaams Belang is indispensable in any serious counterjihad movement. Anyone who is serious about fighting Jihad will be on the side of Vlaams Belang. The pivotal struggle will take place in Europe, so this is where the core of the alliance will have to be made. I'd put Vlaams Belang at the very center of this. Those who prefer standing on the side, echoing propaganda lies from the heart of EUrabia, rather than allying themselves with Vlaams Belang, they are making themselves dispensable however. It's their privilege of course.

I know that most people who are echoing propaganda lies from the heart of EUrabia are good and decent people who do not know better. But it's disheartening to see Charles of LGF in this group, and about such an important issue. I hope Charles changes his mind about this.

I know Charles is supporting counterjihadism in America, but unfortunately he effectively works against it in Europe (as shown here). America is a tree with its roots in Europe. America share its destiny with Europe. With Europe gone, America is doomed too. So anyone being serious about counterjihadism must support counterjihadism in Europe, i.e. this all-European anti-Jihad alliance that is now emerging. It's in Europe that the time is five to twelve. That's why the pivotal struggle of the whole West is here. Americans of course have the time to sit back and wait, letting the theater of Nazi trolls paralyze them from supporting European efforts. In Europe we do not have this luxury. And it's really not wise for Americans to stay idle about the plight of Europe either. Many a good American have realized this: Gates of Vienna, Center for Vigilant Freedom, Atlas Shrugs, to name a few. Americans even took a leading role in this effort to make Europeans come together. Yes, the theater of Nazi trolls is in play here too, and there are other issues between different European nations, so it made it easier for someone from the outside (Americans) to mediate in this, and creating the critical mass of an all-European effort. Thank you America for the Internet! And thank you America for these good people, the bravest and the best!

18 comments:

Dymphna said...

So tell me everything you know about Sverigedemokraterna.

I gave up on having anyone respond reasonably in the thread at LGF to my restatements about Dewinter, as told to me by Belien. It can be hard to get heard in an echo chamber.

However, there is one person, can't think of the name, that is making assertuibs about SD that are nto being backed up with any sources-- e.g., the leaders are all criminals, welfare cheats, kidnappers, etc. Also 10 years ago (!!) there were neo-Nazis in it.

So how come 6% of Swedish men favor this party...they are only one percentage point behind whoever the leading party is and it sounds like the opposition is looking over its shoulder as SD makes gains.

I have asked this commenter to give me references to his claims and he has agreed to. One of the things about the internet is you get your head handed to you if your opinions have no backing from authorities on a subject.

When I said the Local referred to the SD as having been "toilet-trained" lately, the commenter said that no Swede would have been offended by that.. He says it's how people talk.

Great. So I've been defending this potty-mouth country??

Anyway, do you know of any reading I can do on SD besides their own site.

I figure that any party that can attract 6% of the men is on the right track. Men are hard-wired to be protective of their own. It's their job. What is wrong with a party that wants to *limit* integration, and sees local control as a good idea?? Can't get much more American than that. -- oh, except for Miz Hillary and her crew...

Conservative Swede said...

Hi Dymphna,

I already mentioned the Sweden Democrats in the GoV thread here.

»We have seen in Sweden how Sverigedemokraterna broke up into two parties, with the anti-Semites going to Nationaldemokraterna, and the remaining party now being the most philo-Semitic party in all of Sweden.»

» We should also mention how Ted Ekeroth has been a board member of the Zionist Federation of Sweden. How he as the first Swede who got the Herzl Award, a prestigious Zionist award, in 2006. Ted Ekeroth says "The Sweden Democrats are the most Israel-friendly party that I can think of". And "If you are a Zionist, then you are a Jewish nationalist, then you must also respect the Swedish nationalism."»

»It's takes some understanding of the smoke and mirrors of the political theater of Europe to understand how a party which was once a quarters for anti-Semites has developed into the only clearly philo-Semitic party in Sweden. My circle model of left/right, and its consequences, is one main key in order to understand this. Another is the immense oppressive power structure of political correctness. In 1998 a new anti-establishment party was started in Sweden. In a real democracy this would have been the real anti-Jihad and anti-mass-immigration party. But media had the power to silence it completely. And every public meeting they intended to hold was thoroughly sabotaged by the leftist stormtroopers. I actually never heard of this party until four years later. And still it had all the best possible people behind it; it was not a small thing. So effective are the PC power structures in Sweden. Now after 2001 when awakening Swedes need to gather around a party, there was only the Sweden Democrats left for them.

So the bad things in the distant history of the Sweden Democrats does not reflect upon the ordinary people who have joined the party and now fully transformed it (with the bad eggs leaving it and having formed the National Democrats), it reflect upon Sweden as PC tyranny. If we would take cues from the LGF people, it would be a perfectly sealed system with no openings whatsoever, and with the only remaining option to lie down and die.»

I will have reason to write more about this in the future.

Felicie said...

Dymphna,

Here is a link I found to an article by Mattias Karlsson (2006-08-25, 09:41 | Av Mattias Karlsson "Är sverigedemokraterna ett kriminellt och nazianstruket parti?"):

http://www.sverigedemokraterna.se/

He addresses the statistics. Among the 504 total of those running for a seat, 11 have been found to have a criminal record. All of them have since long been "rehabilitated." One has even been given a security clearance. This is not a very high number.

Among the same 504, 6 have been accused of past nazi connections. That's 1.19%. But even so, some of these claims are very tenuous, such as being accused of socializing with other people with racist views rather than writing or saying anything objectionable themselves.

Dymphna said...

Thanks to you both. I stayed on that comment thread so long that I only put up one post myself. I haven't done that since I first started reading blogs...

...and given how little I got done, I won't do it again. However, if you can take the echo chamber effect, I think you might learn something (not something you'll enjoy) about how naive American thinking about Europe is. We are young in comparison and cocky -- people are divided into good and evil.

But not just the Americans, the Europeans, too.

Dewinter --> bad
Sverigedemokraterna --> very bad.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is wonderful, she has no faults. Even though many of these people would vehemently disagree with her politics if they knew what she believed. She's charismatic and attractive and that's what counts here.

They can't differentiate between courage (which she has) and wisdom (which she doesn't yet)....

What they don't get, and what was so hard for me to see for a long time is that if Europe goes, America is doomed. That black hole will make a terrible sucking sound...

Lauri Olavi said...

However, if you can take the echo chamber effect, I think you might learn something (not something you'll enjoy) about how naive American thinking about Europe is.

I think that during the last hundred years we Europeans have learned something about how naïve American thinking about the whole world is.

What they don't get, and what was so hard for me to see for a long time is that if Europe goes, America is doomed.

At least you won't be islamised. I see a future for the US as the leading Latin-American country.

KGS said...

I agree with the overall observations being discussed here.

The whole scenario is most unfortunate, but not unnexpected. I know for a fact that (I can't pubically name who) next year, a very big name in the anti-Islamist movement will be addressing the SD party, perhaps this brouhaha will help lay the groundwork for the next event.

Felicie said...

"I know for a fact that (I can't pubically name who) next year, a very big name in the anti-Islamist movement will be addressing the SD party"

This is very interesting information. Can you tell us whether the person in question is Swedish or not?

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie,

There are no big names in the anti-Islamist movement from Sweden, so I think we could exclude that.

KGS said...

Conservative Swede is right...again. This person is from the States that's all I can say. sorry

*L* KGS

billbrent said...

I don't think the contention that "if Europe goes, American is doomed" is supportable. All of Europe, except Britain, fell to Nazi Germany in the last century and America did not fall. I don't see how the current situation is that different.

Felicie said...

There is more discussion on Vlaams Belang on LGF today. A lot of people have been very indignant about condemning the European "racist parties," using the strongest possible rhetoric. And then you have posts like this (from the same persons who has expressed their hatred of racism):

"Sometimes I think Euro-peons have two switch positions:
stupid-left and stupid-right.

Nah, the switch is more like a dimmer for them. They're either complacent (current situation of Eurabia, included) or simply stuck on stupid, at times, with few bright points to speak of."

Sounds pretty racist to me. And I'm not even mentioning little linguistic digs, such as "how do you say this in Svedish?" I guess tolerance doesn't run both ways.

geza1 said...

The propaganda from LGF has been very distressing lately. I can't believe Charles would just post some random pics from rallies and write "Look! Nazis!" instead of uh, actually explaining the party's history. And honestly, saying Stormfront supports these parties is stupid. They'll support any party/organization that has a nationalist bent no matter how moderate or extreme. By that logic, the Minutemen Project is also beyond the pale because Stormfront supports them as well. So are they racists too? Even with their black members?

Again, I agree with CS, the "lizards" mean well but they simply don't know any better because they are slaves to all-encompasing left or the logical conclusion of liberalism. They dislike Muslims but they can't dislike them for who they are, they must dislike them for not adhering to universalist principles such as tolerance, feminism, and democracy.

This tendency to always qualify your disdain for a certain group always takes on comical forms with these establicons. Witness the personality cult of John Smeaton. A guy whom milquetoast establicon "Allahpundit" called "pure good". What did this guy do? Did he stop a terrorist attack, did he fight valiantly in Iraq? No, he beat up a Muslim after his botched terrorist attack. Oh, I'm sorry, he beat up an Islamist/Islamofascist/radical Muslim but of course those are the only Muslims in Britain so, the establicons are living out their revenge fantasies through this Smeaton fellow but since this fellow Muslim was a terrorist, they are letting it all hang out without any reservations. This is the ONLY way their liberal conscious will let them display their hatred for Muslims, by praising this yob as if he was the Messiah.

So of course, they will be irked whenever a group tries to defend itself from Islam by using nationalist/monocultural arguments instead of using universalist/multicultural ones. The "lizards" are Americans afterall and define themselves by a constitution, not by a common peoplehood or common cultural history. To imply that certain people do not belong in your country based soley on their ethnicity/religion/culture is racist to them because they believe in assimilation for everyone because their idea, the American Consitution, is so great and so genius that anybody can adopt if they wish because we are all basically the same. This is the American version of PC and they are all slaves to it at LGF, every single one.

geza1 said...

Sorry, I forgot to add that the reason why Stormfront and other assorted racialist-jingoes will support any nationalist party is because there is a dearth of them and they don't have much power. Belgium and Switzerland are the obvious exceptions. Their approach to nationalism is a "big tent" approach and they cannot afford to be picky, unless of course Jews are involved in key positions.

Felicie said...

Yes, many Americans are brought up knowing only the multicultural paradigm because of what the US is historically. They reject all forms of nationalism by definition. All nationalism is bad in their opinion. Their ideal is an ethnically and culturally homogenuous world run according to the political principles of Western democracy. This is why they cannot accord any legitimacy to a nationalist cause. This is where they don't see eye to eye with the Europeans.

USorThem said...

While on the topic of LGF and PC americans...

I accused Charles, quite respectfully and said nothing personal or derogatory of his character, of being too sensitive to the left for deleting another poster's , NOT MINE, comments about deportation policy. He says they were "racist". (we all know Islam is not a race) and I was going to engage him and his army on this issue, all respectfully and, hopefully , intelligently.

He offered to post those comments to anyone who might want to defend them. See this thread:


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27653_When_Friends_Attack#comments
Our exchange is at end of "When Friends Attack" thread. I am Leave Iraq Now on LGF.

I asked he post 2 of them. He refused and immediately blocked my account!!!

I have said not a word disrespectful to Charles, nor have I said anything coming close to being racist.

The most I did was take a side by posting at Atlas to say he is too sensitive and PC.

Felicie said...

In order to argue the legitimacy of a monoethnic nation-state, one must draw on some recognizable moral principle that says that preserving group specificity is good. We don't have such a principle. It is not part of the Ten Commandments (understandibly so - they contain an internal moral code issued for a specific people). It is not part of the Enlightenment's liberte-egalite-fraternite (fraternite is interpreted in the universalistic sense). It could be argued that such a principle is implicit in the Old Testament, insofar as it narrative the story of survival of the Jewish tribe, which is viewed in a positive light. But it is not automatically carried over to the Christian value system. One could argue that it should. After all, one of the ways of reading the New Testament is by analogy with the Old Testament. If it was good for the Jews to survive as a tribe, it must be so for other tribes as well. But such a reading is not done. Christianity is commonly understood in universalist terms. Maybe it should be done.

Interestingly enough, this principle is implicit in the environmental argument. The disappearance of a particular species is perceived as a tragedy - and not only from the functionalist perspective of a violation of an ecological balance. No, the very idea of preserving the biological diversity is viewed as an absolutely good thing. This remains, however, an unexamined assumption.

the wily marmot said...

Every US-based neo-nazi on the web seems to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul, therefore, must be a neo-nazi. I wouldn't put it past the idiots at LGF to believe that.

The Red Scare of McCarthyism lasted only a short time, but left-wing neo-McCarthyism has lasted at least a generation. The same techniques are/were used (reckless smears and guilt-by-association) in both cases but the leftist version is now thoroughly institutionalized and has the support of the MSM and the ruling elites in general.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Actually, the US wasn't meant to be a multicultural, multiracial place. If you actually go through what people wrote before the civil war, the opinions of the founding fathers and so on. I mean, Lincoln wanted to send the blacks to Liberia for a reason.