Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Resorting to ad hominem is to concede the argument, and responses to such attacks are usually a waste of time, but not in this case. Mr. Strommen show yet another brilliant example of a gracious and well thought out argument without resorting to the tactics of the detractors. Thanks for sharing it.
GLENN: I had a guy come up to me in a trench coat this weekend, a black trench coat as I was signing autographs, and he said, -- I said "Merry Christmas, thank you so much for standing in line for the book. What time did you get here?" "We will kill all the traitors."
I believe they also called that town clerk in New Hampshire who they accused of vote fraud a traitor when they made threatening phone calls to her.
They also called a Fox News VP a traitor when they called to complain about Paul being excluded for the Fox GOP debate in New Hampshire.
As Sharmuta was saying, folks like to carelessly throw around words like "traitor" to smear their target, so much so that the smears will lose their meaning.
However, Charles can't be a traitor, because he was never on board with the BNP/VB/neo-fascists in the first place.
I think they mean traitor to the counter-jihad, which is just as ridiculous, imo. Charles has probably done more enlightening on the issue of jihadism than any of these people calling him a traitor, but when you're on top it makes you the easiest target.
Yeah, I'm sure that is what some of them mean. The thing is Charles has done nothing to hurt or 'betray' the counter-jihad, on the contrary, he's pointed out certain groups that will bring ill-repute to the cause. And for that he is called a traitor.
But, IIRC, he did get a lot of hate mail in which he was called a traitor for other disgustingly racist reasons. And in the case of people like Lionheart and 1389, I just can't be sure what they mean.
If they don't have a "legitimate" reason to be angry with Charles- they tend to make them up. Some of these folks would make excellent case studies for a psychology thesis, I swear.
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.
Fallaci sees the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a revival of the Fascism that she and her sisters grew up fighting. She told me, “I am convinced that the situation is politically substantially the same as in 1938, with the pact in Munich, when England and France did not understand a thing. With the Muslims, we have done the same thing.” She elaborated, in an e-mail, “Look at the Muslims: in Europe they go on with their chadors and their burkas and their djellabahs. They go on with the habits preached by the Koran, they go on with mistreating their wives and daughters. They refuse our culture, in short, and try to impose their culture, or so-called culture, on us. . . . I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture. Toward my values, my principles, my civilization. It is not only my duty toward my Christian roots. It is my duty toward freedom and toward the freedom fighter I am since I was a little girl fighting as a partisan against Nazi-Fascism. Islamism is the new Nazi-Fascism. With Nazi-Fascism, no compromise is possible. No hypocritical tolerance. And those who do not understand this simple reality are feeding the suicide of the West.”
It's troubling and unfair to make judgments now since she can't explain her references to those people; one has to take in consideration what Charles said about her being so sick and suffering when she wrote that.
Considering Fallaci's other writings I - too - think it would be unfair to see her as a fascist or an anti-Semite.
Thus, my criticism against her is based on the arguments she uses, and I would say there are several arguments that are just as troubling as this one; although perhaps not as odd. When these are used to propagate a conspiracy theory it gets very troublesome indeed.
But then, one might add, the Eurofascists did not really need Fallaci to develop ideas of such a conspiracy. Those ideas go way back to the good ol' days. And there is some irony to it when real-life fascists quote Fallacis statements on Islamic fascism to build support for their very own version of... fascism.
Who are the eventual targets of the Eurofascists? From what they have themselves written, their eventual targets are all non-whites and all infidels. That can be seen by seeing the demonization that they have been doing. They may dissemble from time to time for tactical reasons, but non-whites and infidels are their enemies. Their core, their base, have non-whites and infidels as their enemies, and the Eurofascist movement cannot really depart from that for anything except temporary reasons. If there are some in that movement that have different ideas, they will only form the tail of the movement, and that tail cannot wag the dog -- certainly not for any length of time. Ultimately, the core, the base, of the movement has to prevail, and that means that the enemy consists of non-whites and infidels.
What will happen to the enemy designated by the Eurofascists if they achieve power? There aren't too many choices. There will be some form of "ethnic" cleansing, cleansing directed against the designated enemies of the Eurofascists. The two possibilities are expulsion and extermination. If they were extremely religious, of the sort that Queen Isabella was, they might go for expulsion. But their roots are with the Eurofascists of Hitler's time, the Nazis. So it seems to me more likely that if they achieved real power, they would go for the Nazi Final Solution: extermination.
Most likely they will hide the form of "ethnic" cleansing that they will ultimately choose, just as the Nazis hid what they had in mind, and just as the Nazis hid what they were doing even as it was going on. The phrase "Arbeit Macht Frei" (work liberates) was posted on the gate to a death camp was meant to mislead the inmates that were being brought to the death camp.
The reason I mention these things is because if you set out on a path, it is good to be aware of where that path is leading. Empowering the Eurofascists will have a very unhappy ending. The world has already seen what happened when that occurred in the past. Empowering Eurofascist racists led to a world war in which tens of millions of people were killed. That included hundreds of thousands of the finest of America. We should do all that we can to try to prevent that deadly racist ideology from getting out of the box. Certainly we should not legitimize it, we should not join it, and we should not help empower it.
I'm a liberal. I've been associated with Searchlight and have spent more time than I would recommend reading things written by racists and fascists, especially the BNP.
They aren't accusing you of being a traitor to the counter-jihad; they don't have a conception of the counter-jihad as an entity in itself. They are accusing you of being a traitor to your race. Being a white person who opposes white supremacy makes you a "red", a "race traitor" and a "n***-lover", to select their favourite insults.
Frank says: