Little Green Footballs and Racism in the United States
From the desk of Fjordman on Thu, 2007-11-01 16:41
As most readers know by now, I have been involved in what has unfortunately become a very public brawl — some would probably say witch-hunt — with Charles Johnson of major American blog Little Green Footballs about the supposed “racism” of the Sweden Democrats and the Vlaams Belang. Many of these claims have already been countered, though LGF refuses to link to this. I have announced my intention to take a break from commenting at LGF, where I have been active for several years, since it has become abundantly clear that neither Charles nor many of his readers have any interest whatsoever in having an actual debate, and certainly not about the real threats to freedom in Europe.
However, I’d like to continue the debate about “racism,” which now frequently means something along the lines of “I’m a Multiculturalist. I’ve just lost the debate because I have poor arguments in favor of my case. I want to shut you up, therefore you are a racist.”
An American friend of mine once suggested the creation of an European Indigenous People’s Party. When seeing the speed of the demographic shift that is taking place and the censorship imposed on any debate of the issue, maybe this will actually happen. There is no other continent where the indigenous peoples are being systematically stripped of their heritage, displaced in their own cities and are subject to violence and abuse with the active participation of their own authorities, yet where this is celebrated as a victory for tolerance and where the natives are banned from even verbally opposing any of this. Yes, I think this reveals an anti-European bias.
I asked Charles Johnson about this: “OK Charles, since you make this to be about racism, I’d like to hear your definition of racism. The indigenous population of all European countries is white. If European countries would like to maintain the indigenous population as the majority, this by extension means a white majority. Do you think the people in, say, Norway, have the right to desire an immigration policy which ensures a traditional demographic majority, or is this racism? If so, how come non-European countries are allowed to desire the same thing without being attacked? Since you’re so preoccupied with racism, will you also launch an equally passionate campaign against the Whiteness Studies now taught in increasing numbers of American educational institutions, sometimes with the support of public money?” He first claimed that the question was “meaningless,” but after I pushed him, he reluctantly replied that yes, Europeans have the right to resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. Good. He didn’t answer me regarding the issue of Whiteness Studies, though. I kept pushing him, and he finally replied: “Since you’ve repeated this several times, I’ll answer it. The fact that I do or do not post about one thing has absolutely nothing to do with what I post about something else. That is a complete red herring, and you know it.”
I’m not so sure it is. The blogger Vanishing American notes that some university courses now present whites as more or less genetically evil: It’s everywhere.
How can purges against ‘racists’ on these blogs and forums be instituted, if everybody of European descent is racist? If racism disqualifies you from the right to free speech, and if all Europeans are racists, then no European-descended person has a right to freedom of expression. Ban us all. We’d even have to ban ourselves. Just give up and turn ourselves in for re-education.
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist” and offers them “treatment” for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group. The organization cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination�.’” The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.” And “a non-racist” is called “a non-term,” because, the program explains, “The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called ‘blaming the victim’).
I have written about the subject of anti-white racism before:
Caucasophobia — the Accepted Racism
Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies: “The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”
Some of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”
Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in whiteness studies.
College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people: “The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships — on orders from President Bush — were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”
Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.
It is a disturbing testimony to the fact that hating whites, still the majority in the USA, is OK, indeed encouraged, in American colleges. In the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t , Robert Spencer quotes “Rachel,” a white American student, who spoke these words to American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: “Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.... Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”
As Yeagley observed, “The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground… When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority… Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?”
Well, my answer to that would be: Americans have been bombarded with accusations of racism, almost exclusively against the European-derived majority, for decades. If I may be so bold as to say so, that’s what I really see when I look at the hysterical overreaction on part of Little Green Footballs regarding “white racism” in Europe, despite the fact that people of European descent are probably among the least racist people on the planet right now.
LGFers base their world-view on the existence of a moderate Islam, which doesn’t exist, and on the existence of a large and rabid network of neo-Nazis in Europe, which also doesn’t exist. Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them. I agree that they should be watched, but they are far down the list of enemies of freedom right now, behind Muslims, Leftists and the European Union. The only theoretical reason why even a fraction of Europeans would embrace real extremist groups would be if they have their backs against the wall and everybody else has abandoned them, which is exactly what we’re trying to avoid.
Moreover, why do American politicians across the board, including Republicans and senior members of the Bush administration, cooperate with La Raza, meaning “the race,” a Mexican group Charles Johnson himself calls a Hispanic supremacist group? Why is this considered OK, while native Europeans who simply don’t want to become a minority in their own countries are demons? Meanwhile, Mexican and Hispanic gangs are deliberately cleansing black, white and Asian Americans from their neighborhoods in Los Angeles and elsewhere. I called this “ethnic cleansing” once at LGF and was denounced as “hysterical.” Johnson doesn’t write too much about that, but some of his readers apparently believe there is a Nazi hiding behind every stone in Europe and reveal this if there is even a hint of resistance to the ongoing Muslim colonization of the continent, aided and abetted by the European Union.
I believe this tells us more about the anti-white intellectual climate in the United States than it does about Europe. This brings us to a question I have asked before. Many Americans say they are tired and will never become involved in Europe again. Fine, I can understand why. But another question is, if native Europeans actually start fighting back against Islamization for real, whose side will Americans be on? Will they be on ours, or will they back the poor, Muslims victims of European racism and xenophobia, just like they did in Yugoslavia?
Judging from the aggressive hostility towards anything European they are indoctrinated with, I fear the latter.
Europe adopting American values toward immigrants?
Submitted by Quijybo on Fri, 2007-11-02 05:55.
Europe adopts a tremendous amount of American things. Why not this? I thought their resentment of America and their slavish imitation of her were essentially one and the same phenomenon. Americans should not expect European anti-Americanism to go away entirely, even within the anti-Jihad "movement", or whatever you want to call this thing we do here on the internets.
I agree, because I'm an American and that's my natural inclination. However, your proposition would entail adapting some of America's ideals and in light of the rabid anti Americanism that pervades Europe, I doubt it would ever happen.
DD
Submitted by Andrew X on Thu, 2007-11-01 21:13.
DD - Outside of the three blogs in question, I have not done a lot of research on SOIE, VB, and SD.
But I am not trying to say I have. I merely am looking at the unfortunate LGF - BJ/GoV conflict itself.
That person X supports me does not logically mean that I support person X is a very good logical point.
As to "what good is immigration", I have a list of things that are fantastic about LEGAL immigration, but I am an Amercian, with a very different political culture than European nations. No judgement there, it's just a different culture.
Thus I have been on LGF making some of BJ/GoV's case that it's a smidge arrogant of Americans to sit over here and get all judgemental of Europeans in this issue, and the fact that our (US and Euro) elites think that racial consciousness on the part of Group A is wonderful, racial consciousness on the part of Group B is just peachy, racial consciousness on the part of Group C is a glorious celebration of diversity, and racial consciousness on the part of Group D is some sort of horrifying outrage on a par with an act of war, is passing strange, to say the least.
I despise the "racial consciensness" game overall, as it is a weapon of charlatans, hucksters, and outright fascists of the worst sort. But let's keep in mind the acedemics, journalists, and politicians who are directly responsible for setting these groups against each other. Hint: they aren't hanging out on the right,
I should apologize, Andrew X
Submitted by DanishDynamite on Fri, 2007-11-02 00:29.
If I recall correctly, you weren't the one talking about SIOE. I therefore need to apologize to you for asking you that question. It was however also directed at Charles Johnson, since he apparently reads BJ. If memory serves, he wrote about SIOE's (failed) demonstration in Brussels(was Brussels, wasn't it?).
However, I didn't ask "what good is immigration". I asked, why should we allow immigration and why should we support a multicultural society. I know there are pros to (certain types of) immigration, like getting the best and the brightest, but there are also cons. Legal immigration in Europe is the same as the illegal immigration; both are mostly uneducated and unskilled. In the US legal immigration is different from illegal immigration; one is mostly educated and skilled, the other mostly uneducated and unskilled. Fact is, we may need hands with our aging populations, but hands aren't worth much if they're a net money-drain, 'cause then there won't be enough money to pay them anyway...
The link I gave previously is about research done by a respected left-wing American researcher (Robert Putnam) that showed how multiculturalism "kills" trust in society. Since our/Western European societies are built on trust(can't have welfare societies without a high level of trust)... Well let's just say, we don't want to be miniature copies of the US(Ever asked yourself why there are so many conspiracy-theorists in the states?). Not to mention the fact that trust is very important when it comes to "happiness"("Dr Luisa Corrado, who led the project, added: "It shows that trust in society is very, very important." Source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392931-details/Britons+are+...)
Charles Johnson and most at LGF seems to think that we MUST allow immigration. I don't agree with that assesment. Wether or not we allow immigration is a choice. Nowhere is it set in stone that we MUST allow immigration. Or can someone direct me to where it's written?
To be honest it's perfectly fine to judge us. Don't go "cultural-relativist" on us, 'cause some things ARE better than others. We've been judging the US for ages anyway; we should be able to handle it ourselves. Give us the list of fantastic stuff!
P.S.
Personally I kinda like the "racial consciousness" game. It's funny seeing people going "There's no such thing as race! Oh, yeah your race definitely needs affirmative action!"(Yes, affirmative action is being discussed/threatened here from time to time).
Charles' out on thin ice, real thin
Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Thu, 2007-11-01 21:06.
This whole rumour-mill has run wacko. SIOE with Gash&Gravers are, in my opinion, the ones to be handled with some caution. They tend to attract white-pride types with their brashness, and they are bound to run into trouble for their style. I quietly liked that they fell out of favor with GoV, blaiming everyone around them for their own faults. Disassociating from them made me use GoV significantly more. I'm Danish, and though I never met Gravers in person, I heard enough about him to not really want to do so. Gash is said to be worse.
truth_serum, it seems you have no first-hand knowledge about VB whatsoever when you suggest tiny SIOE to distance themselves from them. Feel free to join the provocative line of SIOE. If you happen to get something useful done, let me know. If it happens that *there* you'll meet actual WP persons, I will certainly not be surprised. If you enjoy that kind of company, great. I will not join you.
It was at LGF I learned about the existence of a 'Stormfront' group. Vlaams Belang and GoV would never post a link to those people.
I think Charles is seduced by his own success (LGF *is* big), blinded by radical left-wing (!) smears, and - in what is unfortunately a bit typical American - somewhat oblivious that there can be other approaches than his own. Admitting mistakes doesn't seem to be something he does. He can rave and rant all he wants, he's still barking up the wrong tree. He falls deeper into bigotry for every piece of evidence so eloquently dismantled by Christine.
Oh. The leader of the (benign) Danish Nazi party just got 60 days behind bar for assaulting a policeman. With a little luck, that loss of honour will make his org evaporate. That's about it for right-wing extremism in Denmark :)
What's 'Right' anyway? Some say that Jew-hatred is 'Right'. In that case, I'm very clearly 'Left'. Some say that fundamental respect for private property is 'Right'. In that case, Nazis were 'Left', as they ursurped Jewish property with glee, financing WWII. Some say that nationalism is 'Right' (and it seems Charles is somehow making flawed associations here). In that case, supremacist & expansionist ideologies like Communism, Nazism and Islamism are 'Left', as they seek(ed) by force to transcend the limitations of traditional nation-states. Some say that the SA tactics of using violence to scare their opponents into silence were 'Right'. In that case, the left-wing extremists in Denmark, as well as the Islamic youth doing riots are 'Right', and VB, GoV etc. are 'Left'.
It's all a bit messed up, isn't it?
One thing that I consider making a difference is the attitude to treats, intimidation & violence to further a cause, be it either gross, as in physical violence, or subtle, as in stigmatizing your opponent with derogative labels such as 'racist', 'extremist', 'Islamophobe' etc. The idea of the latter is to leave your opponent undefended and vulnerable in the public debate, leaving it up to various confused types to actually execute the kill. We need to protect each other, dig out the good old solidarity (of course not as in 'covering up mistakes'). It's a good word.
I think it's time to unlink from Charles and LGF, both mentally and in code.
LGF falling out
Submitted by Andrew X on Thu, 2007-11-01 19:32.
(Cont.)
1) What Charles does show is a profound unease with the European right, and one that is not unjustified. The fact is, we all know (if I may caricature for a moment) that European starry-eyed enamorment of extremes is all too familiar by now. It has been almost exclusively of the left since WWII, but, to read many of the European rights own web pages (such as the BNP, not Europe, I know, but still…), we find that they can be just as socialist, just as hostile to “evil capitalism”, just as anti-American as their Trotskyite counterparts. We find the very weird sight of neo-nazis and the like being downright sympathetic to the same Arab terror movements (overseas at least) that will happily ensconce themselves in Europe to fight for the Eurabian agenda. The only possible explanation is that they despise the Jews, who have FAR less of a footprint in Europe today, and remain physically indistinguishable from indigenous Europeans, more than anyone or anything else, including a host of people, who, far from trying to “fit-in” as so many Jews have always done, take the exact opposite track of setting themselves up as total opponents of the very culture that they live in. In essence, one wonders if many Muslims in Europe are doing exactly what Jews have, I believe, been unfairly accused of doing in the early 20th century, i.e. trying to “take over” institutions, to their own ends, etc. That some rightist groups can look over the landscape of today and STILL see Jews as the greater threat simply boggles the mind.
2) So given the past history, I think what Charles, and I, and those dreaded “neo-cons”… would like to see, is the parties of the Euro-right say loudly and forcefully that they are NOT about skin color, they are not about “The Jews”, and that all are welcome in their movement. They ARE about culture, they ARE about tradition, they ARE about language, they ARE demanding that citizens and immigrants have obligations, and they ARE NOT about apologizing for any of the latter, even though the people who created all that are basically White Christians (horrors!). And that Muslims are welcome in such movements, but are expected to adhere to the Judeo-Christian foundations and history of the nation which they have chosen to be a part of. If that is not acceptable to them, there are plenty of airports out there. But skin-color, and heritage, meaning “race”, is off the table for discussion, exclusion, or measurement in any way. Maybe these parties are already saying this and it is not being heard (are they?), but maybe they have an obligation to their own movement to say it repeatedly and loudly.
I’m just a bloviating Yank, so what do I know, and much of what I say here can apply to the US as well, but that’s not the issue here. I guess what is is that, if these parties of the Euro-right want to fight this battle most effectively, they probably need to be REALLY REALLY forthright about some of their failings in these matters, past and present. Charles seems to be of a mind that they are not doing so. If he is wrong, let it be said loudly and clearly, and for the sake of Western Civilization, let us get back onto the same page as soon as possible.
Realize this, Andrew X and Charles Johnson
Submitted by DanishDynamite on Thu, 2007-11-01 20:31.
I know Charles Johnson thinks that no nazi would ever support him, or that he doesn't share opinions with nazis. I can however guarantee Charles that, if he were to form a political party, nazis would support him. Not because nazis love him, or because they agree with everything Charles has to say, but because he'd be the least worse choice. HAVING THE SUPPORT OF NAZIS DOES NOT MAKE A NAZI. But if it does, let's not forget the many stories about nazis in the Republican Party(do a google search if you want to).
I also have to ask, WHY should we allow immigration? Why should we support a multicultural society? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554070-2702,00.html Read that and then explain WHY we should want a diverse society. We can see the change in our societies, while (the vast majority of) americans have never experienced a monocultural(or close to) society.
Finally I'd just like to ask: Have you done the same research regarding SIOE as you have with regards to VB and SD? If I'm not mistaken, you'll find something interesting...
multicultural, my eye!
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-11-01 21:24.
DanishDynamite: " Why should we support a multicultural society? "
According to what I've been reading today on their site, the crazy juveniles at LGF do not care about "multiculturalism". They are interested in race and forced miscegenation, even though most Europeans and Americans would rather be left alone.
(but I feel much safer knowing that LGF defends our European civilization against muslim jihad!)
LGF falling out
Submitted by Andrew X on Thu, 2007-11-01 19:28.
(Bear with me, posting trouble)
First off, I’m a nobody sitting at a keyboard. Words cannot express the appreciation that I have for Charles Johnson and the hours he has put in creating a clearinghouse of information about the inroads Islamofascism is making in Western society, and it’s all too effective use of our own pathetic cultural weaknesses in advancing it’s totalitarian agenda. My appreciation equally extends to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.
I thus feel like I am not only watching the falling out of friends, but, far more important, the falling out of allies for whom the only winner is the totalitarian movement.
So, some observations that might be my tiny little contribution toward healing the rift.
1) Charles is wrong to banish these links (GoV and BJ) from his blogroll. It is his right to have whoever he wants on his blog, but he is now a “public figure” (of sorts), and others are within their rights to judge him for it. It just seems totally petty, a wrong way to treat an ally in the movement, and ill-befitting the spirit of the blogosphere.
2) His vehemence over this issue strikes me as a bit over the top, but that’s just me. Like, for example, US troubles with France or even Russia in 1944, go ahead and get on record, but belaboring the point seems like you are looking for an ill-timed fight.
Now in his defense….
3) One reaction of many is to hurl “neo-con”…. Blah blah blah. Feel free to differ with me, but I think the whole “neo-con” thing of the past decade is absolute horse-puckey. Far more people are accused of being “neo-cons” than label themselves as such, and thus the very phrase is more about those saying it than those it is said about. The fact that it, as a charge, seems to gravitate toward prominent Jewish-Americans and ardent supporters of Israel is not lost on many, nor that the-word seems to be used far more by non-Americans than Americans. Many of those so labeled are simply conservatives who are not liked by others, and are saddled with the dreaded, “ooh, scary neo-cons…” label by those who are opposed to American conservatives for all the standard reasons.
(cont.)
<strong>" Neo-Nazi groups
Submitted by Ernest on Thu, 2007-11-01 19:19.
" Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them."
So is the KKK but the media/government parades them out front every once in awhile to try to keep "whitey" in his place. It works pretty well too on people like Johnson and many of his readers. Whenever the KKK is mentioned there are people waiting in line to berate them even though the KKK is toothless and has had little to no impact on anything for 40+ years. This is lost on the bigger message of keeping whitey docile while giving strength to all other race groups. The truly Orwellian aspect is that all other race group get a pass. Even though groups like LaRaza or NAACP are working for their race and ultimately the undermining of whites this is somehow different. Some in the US see the Hispanic invasion as different from the European Islamic invasion because they appear less or minimally violent. It doesn't occur to them the the end result will be the same.
"Since you’re so preoccupied with racism, will you also launch an equally passionate campaign against the Whiteness Studies now taught in increasing numbers of American educational institutions, sometimes with the support of public money?"
This shows just how ingrained "multiculturalism" and anti-white prejudice has become into this country. "Whiteness studies" or "white privilege" is not a unique idea nor relegated to just a few schools. In fact there is probably very few universities or none at all that don't have Departments of Multiculturalism, Or Departments of Racial Studies or Black Studies or Chicano et al. Which are all anti-white. It is not just the college level either. Web page from Seattle public schools.
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/equityandrace/awareness.xmlA
Link from the above address.
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible
Knapsackhttp://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
Many of these folks are so indoctrinated that they would expend all their energy fighting the "evil white racist" while allowing and in fact encouraging all the anti-white studies, rhetoric and hatred. I wonder if they ever stop to think what result all these classes, seminars, College Dept. etc will have on them and their posterity? Race doesn't matter. Right???
Hard Choices
Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2007-11-01 19:19.
Mr Belien and fjordman:
If SIOE's movement depends on American support then it will have to disassociate itself from Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats.
It is a hard truth and a perhaps a hard choice, but face it you must. It is really that simple.
Charles Johnson is quite correct when he says:
"The real point behind all this is that letting the counter-jihad movement be tainted by association with groups like the Vlaams Belang is simply not smart. It’s counter-productive in the worst way, because Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts. I happen to believe it’s also morally wrong. And I don’t believe Filip DeWinter’s smooth evasions, any more than I believe Tariq Ramadan’s."
American's will never, ever support a group whose leader, Mr DeWinter, believes it is ok to associate with the likes of David Duke. He is an X-Grand Dragon of the KKK for goodness sakes!
You can blame Charles all you want for bringing these facts to light...but they would have become known in any case at some point....and the result would still be the same...."Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts."
You can try and wish it away...or rationalize it away...but I repeat..."Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts."
You MUST reconsider....or figure out a new strategy without us.
Having said all that...I would dearly love to support you, but will not if VB or SD is a part of SIOE. I have made my choice...you two must make yours.
Charles, if you are reading this...ignor Amsterdamsky...he is the resident loon that nobody respects at BJ.
Hmm, Johnson being a Neocon
Submitted by Brigands on Thu, 2007-11-01 17:00.
Hmm, Johnson being a Neocon wouldn't it be natural for him to see the US as vastly superior in comparison to European culture, thus making him a racist? Perhaps he's doing us a favor with his assault. Anyhow LGF never had any meaningful impact for me, so its no big loss to me.