huck chuck ... it is time to throw charles johnson off the life raft ... he eats too much, he drinks to much, and he does none of the heavy rowing ... get shed of him ...

it is time to throw charles johnson off the life raft.  he eats too much, he drinks too much, and he does none of the heavy rowing.  and, unfortunately, he will not associate with anyone who does the heavy work, he is just too fastidious for the tasks at hand, and contributes nothing.  it is time to give his seat to someone else more deserving, who will do the heavy rowing, and who will associate with the others who are doing the heavy, nasty work, ... , of fighting a war against jihad.  chuck ain't up to it any longer.  it is time to be shed of him.   ...  he should go over the side, now, before he does any more damage.--

we are at war with islam.

the first intellectual and historical context that has some relevancy is the history of islam.  very simply, it is a religion some 1400 years in age, whose central tenets derive from visions received by its prophet mohammed from god.  it is helpful to remember one thing with regard to mohammed, that he is according to islam the last true prophet of god.

think about that for a moment.

in the interim 1400 years, god has chosen to reveal truth to no other human, and no other truth has been passed to no other human, so the sum total be all and end all of divine truth reposes in islam, according to islam.  all truth revealed by god through human intermediaries prior to mohammed is subsumed by the truths revealed to mohammed, including those truths revealed through christ.

folks, in the view of islam, there can be no accommodation by truth to lesser doctrines, as they are blasphemy or evil.  this is hardly surprising or novel, it is the attitude of all groups zealously advocating truth as they hold it.

so, when islam in the koran says that the true believer is beholden to advance islam by conquest, that is what islam believes to be truth, and it is the duty of the muslim adherent to islam to advance such conquest.

it is the history of islam in the last 1400 years.

it is the history of islam now.

it is the contemporary situation of islam in europe, and as regards islamic relations with israel and with respect to jerusalem.

mohammed vowed to pursue jihad, and mohammed made & led jihad.  it is the duty of muslim faithful to emulate mohammed.

the leaders of islam in this day direct jihad.  heads of islamic states, such as iran threaten the destruction of israel, and the forced demise of the united states as empire, and they mean it: it is the revealed truth of god, according to islam.  islamic religious leaders have vowed the demographic conquest of europe and england within this century, and they mean it, and they are actively strategizing and acting to attain that goal: it is the revealed truth of god, according to islam.

muslim immigration swamps europe, and nation states historically with rather orderly demographics have seen incredible influxes of muslim populations, and a birth rate amongst muslims that is staggeringly greater than the birthrate of, … , what shall we call the people who inhabit countries they used to view of “their own,” indigenous populations, … , the native europeans.

and, in that time has come tremendous social, religious and political strife and violence.  can one ignore the riots in france, the agitation of muslim populations for every increasing entitlement and privilege in england, the threats, intimidation and violence wherever muslim populations increase in european countries?

we are at war.

and, oh yes, lest we forget we have the muslim conquest of lebanon, the concerted attack of muslim nation states, of muslim state client militias such as hezbollah (it sounds so much more antiseptic than terrorists thugs, does it not), and the internationally supported street gangs, operating off of the largess of the united nations, and supported by european union member states and the eurpean union itself, as described by fjordman, such as hamas and abbas, and just the old straight forward Saudi funded independent agents like al queda.

now, what was quaintly known as “terrorism” in the war on terror at one time, which usage seems to be passing into a shared oblivion along with george bush’s political career, had conquered afghanistan, was on the throes of taking over iraq, and exerted considerable influence in sudan and somalia, and was making serious inroads into the soviet union after having brought chechnya to ruins, seems to have been driven into the worlds caves.

the overtly military and terror forces of islam has been beaten back, and they live in caves and upon the scab lands and mountain recesses of the world, in redoubts where no civilized man has gone for centuries.

but, what the muslims could not gain by state force of arms, nor by “terrorism,” nor by any brilliance at all, they have gained by oil money bribery and political influence, the world over, by buying into newspapers, media, industry, and subsidizing the world’s great university, and through diplomacy and politics.

we are at war.  how many times does islam have to tell us we are at war for us to believe them?  how many outrages, attacks and atrocities do they have to commit before we believe them?  will it take the nuclear bombing of tel aviv by iran to convince the west that war is being waged on the west?

how many times do they have to tell us that they will conquer us by force of demographics, immigration and political insinuation of sharia into our laws, into our religious culture?

and yet, they advance their conquest which they could attain by no other means, by legal immigration.

 they flood the world with poverty stricken immigrant workers, replete with families, in-laws and a never ending thirst & demand for political influence and entitlements wherever they go, where no armies could ever have forced their way, and ironically enough, cannot force their way today, for the short time being.

and, to add crowning and crushing ignominy to the whole situation, the arabs/muslims flow into europe at the express invitation of the european union and the other constituent nations, to be workers, because the european elites, professors, communists, socialists and other “intelligentsia,” and the politicians spawned by this insidious leisure class of parasites and vultures support the invitation and resultant immigration in the name of multiculturalism.

the euro union has passed legislation that expressly protects the legal status of muslims.  it is prohibited to criticize muslim immigration, it is prohibited to attack the evils of this immigration, it is prohibited to criticize the tenets of its religion or for one european to point out to another european that islam means to overtake the european countries, and to impose islam upon it.  it is possible for a european to hear this from a muslim cleric, many of whom preach this to their faithful, and promise it to their european hosts, and to threaten the dire consequences of this conquest upon those who do not convert, but it is prohibited for a european to say it, or predict it, or to exhort against it, under hate speech legislation.

and, as fjordman has pointed out, in a brilliant essay in the post "atlas exclusive: fjordman on freedom fighting "fascists.", the link: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/atlas-exclusi-1.html  the politicians of europe do nothing to prevent it, as they are in demographic league with the hordes of muslim immigrants who vote for their socialistic butts. 

it is the devil’s union.

oh, yes, and as one of her contributors to the "comments" section of the post wrote, do not forget the lovely customs of the muslims, including female genital mutilation, which is cutting off the clitorises of women at a suitable age, often including the removal of the entire vulva and labia minor (call it what it is, for christ’s sake, and not some dumbassed abbreviation like fgm), or honor killings or honor disfigurements or honor acid facial baths or honor rapes by brothers, nephews, uncles and fathers, or honor marriages of six year olds, or honor hangings, beheadings, stoning, or other charming remnants of the middle and dark ages.

those cannot be harangued upon, either.

nor the sharia courts of england.  or, the separate bathing facilities of sweden and norwary.  nor, the skyrocketing rates of violent crimes, assaults and rapes all over europe where the religion of peace rears its ugly rears.  (i prefer that to “rears its ugly head,” though that is pretty descriptive as well.)

no, europeans cannot do that.

if they even talk about these things, they are prosecuted by the state authorities, and they are labeled fascists and nazi’s by charles johnson, that great champion of truth, the great & self purported champion of the anti-jihad, … , who, of course, as fjordman points out, aids and abets the very advance of the jihad he says he opposes, but labeling people like fillip dewinter “nazi’s.”  were i fillip dewinter, and i ever had the pleasure of meeting charles johnson, i believe that i would simply have to kick the living shit out of him for that insult.

before I move along to address that issue directly, i would ask if any contributor to this blog comment section would take serious exception to the contemporary historical context i have posed.

does any muslim faithful to islam say that i have mischaracterized the tenets of the faith, or the folkways and practices of its adherents?  does any muslim deny the calls to jihad and the destruction of israel, or the pronouncements of muslim clerics the world over that islam will conquer europe, or the united states, eventually?

have i painted a false picture of the conquest of europe by the jihad, or by islam, or by the demographics of the islamic birthrate and immigration into europe?  to those of you who might consider the euro nationalists fascists,i would simply ask you, is there any meaningful distinction to be made between a group that would use its ethnic demographics to conquer a previously existing nation, society or people, as opposed to a group that would try to use its ethnic cohesiveness and identity to forestall such an invasion by another group, hell bent on ethnic nationalism, on conquest?

and, while you are at it, would you please explain to me please, why it is sinister, foreign, horrible and evil for a european nationalist simply to hang on to what he has enjoyed peacefully for generations, for centuries literally of largely uninterrupted peace, what he and his fellows have built and established, … , while it is noble, progressive, wonderful and religiously blessed in the name of “multiculturalism” for another group to come into a country and displace its populations, rape its women (g_d, what a quaint phrase, but i leaving it in just to hear the screams howls of protest, … , just to feel the squeals make the shivers run down my back, old hidebound mossback that i am), beat and murder its children, taken over its government and destroy its churches and places of worship?

can somebody, please explain the moral and ethical distinctions to be drawn here.  and, while he is not otherwise busy, why has charles johnson not explained his intellectual basis for labeling others fascists, and why has he not explained how his actions do not cripple the anti-jihad fight in europe.  in his typical fashion, charles does not explain his edicts, he simply issues them from on high, and demands obeisance.  it is high time he provides a cogent & persuasive rationale for his actions.

and, can anyone please explain why charles johnson gets to call such people fascists and nazi’s if they are european, and doesn’t call such people who fit the very description of fascists, who belong to a totally fascist religious regimen, and who behave as thugs, threatening, beating and intimidating otherwise peaceful citizens, … , why he does not call such people fascists and nazi’s?

now, the euro communists and leftist radicals “get” to call the poor old indigenous people fascists and nazi’s, because by doing so they get the votes of the muslims and all the nutballs in europe who consider themselves oh so elevated and progressive.  i understand why they do it, because they want to advance leftist and progressive politics and secure their political roles.

but, i am loathe to understand where charles johnson establishes the distinction, so, i thought that perhaps he or his minions, could make the case for the distinction.

allow me, at this point, to take recourse to wikipedia, to explain the best definitions of fascist that i can come up with. 

these remarks, at the wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/definitions_of_fascism, are attributed to george orwell, and to my mind, describe perfectly the intellectual rigor used by charles johnson and his lizard minions when they idly toss the curse on those they either dislike or are too lazy to understand, but vaguely oppose for reason they do not comprehend:

fascism as vague epithet

main article: f

some have argued that the term "fascism" has become hopelessly vague in the years following world war ii, and that today it is little more than a pejorative epithet used by supporters of various political views to attempt to discredit their opponents. this view dates back to george orwell, british writer and author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, who famously remarked:

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.^[25]

this definition is, of course, famously apt for johnson’s typical usage of the word, … , this johnson, who presides as the “more equal of all the animals” on all  the farm at little green footballs, and who would like to assume the absolute mantle of authority on all things “conservative” on the blogs, … , this definition describes the way he uses words. 

he knows no further precision in the use of the word than this, and discriminates if he discriminates at all, on labeling someone a fascist or an acceptable thinker simply as he whims it.  it is purely ad hoc, and is nothing more than an insulting substitution for “son of a bitch i don’t like very damn much.”

let us take a look at a more academic and rigorous examination of the word fascist, and see if in any respect whatsoever it fits or describes the person or persons charles johnson “labels” fascists, as related by fjordman in his essay at atlas shrugs.  does charles johnson have any intellectual basis or right, that he can explain, or that perhaps anyone standing in his stead can provide, for either charles johnson or his lizard minions, or any political principle or advocacy that can be rightly claimed by him, for labeling others fascist. i damned doubt it.  but, again, from wikipedia, the same article as above so i will not link it, a more intellectually inclusive definition of fascism and fascist adherents to the doctrine:

umberto eco

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism"^[20], the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempts to list general properties of fascist ideology. He claims that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.

The features of fascism he lists are as follows:

·         "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).

·         "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

·         "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.

·         "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

·         "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

·         "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

·         "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.

·         "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.

·         "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".

·         "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

now, i can see a whole host of attributes in eco’s definitions that might be applied to european leftist and marxist/leninist thought., but i do not see a whole lot of attributes that would apply to the dynamics of a small minority party that simply urges that its society not be overrun by outside forces.  is it xenophobia not to be crushed by a people who inundate you, and against whose massive influx you are powerless to defend. 

and, here is the thing that charles johnson and his ilk must come to grips with.—

if we make a value assessment that islam is basically evil, and uses evil means to advance itself and to maintain its adherents in ignorance and barbaric savagery in order to maintain its hold over them, and i think we can--  and, if we can make a value assessment that western civilization, in spite of its many flaws and missteps, is basically guided by principles and an aesthetic which reaches for good and strives to have man, and individual men, participate in that good, and i think we can--

--then, how is it xenophobic or fascist for a people simply to strive to maintain their civilization and society as against the conquest of a xenophobic, barbaric islam?

charles johnson either makes a value judgment in favor of western civilization, it values and its heritage, and for its preservation, or he does not.  and, johnson and his minions and his ilk have to explain it.

would you, would anyone, like to step up and make this explanation to me?

despite the epithets hurled at dewinter, i have seen nothing in the activities of either he or his party that indicate he does anything else than advocate a moral right to a continued existence on the part of his people.  yet, it is clear that islam advocates the annihilation and extinction of israel, the united states, and the subjugation and dominance of europe, dewinter and his people included necessarily by inference.

i am going to crib a passage from a letter in the "comments" section to the post linked to atlas shurgus above, made by jewishodysseus in a submission to that section because he states it better and more succinctly than i can, and i hope that he does not mind:

            So what do these people do? They spend their time spitting on resisters beaten on the streets by the real imperialist invaders and their traitor red allies.

As opposed to these idiotic PC tests, here's the JewishOdysseus test for judging a morally acceptable cause by its members:

1--Do its members refrain from issuing death threats?
2--Do its members engage in lawful, normal exercise of free speech and protest?
3--Do its members refrain from violently suppressing other people who choose to engage in normal free speech and protest, but have different views?
4--Do its members refrain from receiving funds from hostile foreign governments?
5--Do its members refrain from receiving instructions from hostile foreign governments?
6--Do its members refrain from receiving weapons and terrorist training from hostile foreign governments?
7--Do its members refrain from inciting violence against other law-abiding citizens?
8--Do its members seek to import an alien ideology into their country?

I haven't seen a single credible claim that the anti-Islamization protests are linked to such unacceptable activities. Yet, somehow the people who oppose them feel the need to use violence, threats, and official corruption to protect "goodness and niceness," as the late great Maxwell Smart put it.

it seems clear to me, that in this given situation, the attributes of fascist behavior are more clearly ascribed to the activities of those who attacked those who wanted to attend the rally put on by dewinter, than to dewinter and his followers and supporters.

so, just where in g_d’s name does charles johnson get off calling dewinter a fascist, and a nazi.

fascist philosophy is most cogently equated with the marxist/leninist concept of “the vanguard of the proletariat,” which is quite simply “animal farm” orwellian, noting that everybody is equal but the leadership is oddly enough in expressing the common will of the people, just a little bit more equal than others.   here, again from wikipedia and umberto eco:

"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader.

jewishodysseus’s tests are appropriate here, as fascism is somewhat a matter of degree, almost all human institutions involving or delegating authority being a little bit this way, but not all human groups asserting the right, privilege and prerogative to inflict terror, assault, injury and death upon their opponents who, … , for instance, … , meet in peaceable assembly to seek redress of their grievances and to mobilize their cause.

so, again, where does charles johnson get off calling dewinter a fascist and a nazi, and so assiduously, so fastidiously avoid saying anything nasty about the thugs who terrorized this assembly, and who did so as islamic jihad and in the service of islamic jihad and to advance the aims of islamic jihad?

why does charles johnson not call the g_d damned nazi’s, nazi’s?  i think that he has some explaining to do.  especially, given that he asserts leadership, professes leadership and leadership qualities, in the anti-jihad campaign.  we are at war against the jihad, jihad is at war against us, and charles johnson does not have the cajones to mention that fact, does not have the cajones to point out that the damned jihad led this attack upon dewinter’s assemblage, and does not have the damned cajones to condemn it as part and parcel of the jihad.  and, he has the courage to call innocents nazi’s, but he does not have the cajones to call nazi’s nazi’s.

his intellectual behavior in this regard is scurrilous.

at best charles johnson is confused about the jihad, at worst he is hypocritical, cynical and cowardly in avoiding any criticism of those who attacked these people engaged in peaceful assembly.  to call or label those who tried to organize the rally, to call those who attended the rally, to call those who peacefully tried to go to it but were bullied and beaten in their attempts, to call them fascist, is, well, the intellectual stupidity, laziness and cowardice described by george orwell in his remarks, above.  it is, with absolutely no apology to charles johnson, and absolutely clear reference to george orwell’s observations, simply the act on an intellectual bully.  i do not wish to be obscure.  check the last line of orwell’s quoted observation on the use of the term fascist, and its equation to “bully.”

this has gone on far too long.

it can no longer be tolerated.

either johnson learns who it is that he supports in the war on jihad, and who in the hell he opposes, and i hope it is the jihad but it is increasingly difficult to tell, or he steps aside or is shunted aside in favor of someone who will lead, and he can go back to confining his pronouncements on how to design web sites and avoid speed traps and other encroachments upon liberty.

the key issue here, is that johnson has simply demonstrated that he does not have sufficient depth, intellect, judgment or experience to lead a movement such as the conservative fight against jihad.  he does not understand that when you are in a war you wage war against your enemy, and that you do not give aid and comfort to your enemy by undermining those who oppose your enemy.  in this instance, charles johnson has given aid and comfort to the jihad, very stupidly, and very maladroitly, and he simply has to be called out on it.

it is time for him either to lead, follow his intellectual betters, or to get out of the damned way.

i have never met fillip dewinter.  and, i can conceive of situations in which i might prefer to have others by my side when i fight the jihad, if there were others i could chose as suitable comrades in his stead.  the trouble with charles johnson with regard to fillip dewinter, is that he points to no others in europe who take up the fight against the jihad.  from what other group or groups may we pick more stalwart and more palatable groups than these european nationalists?  who can we turn to who stands in their stead?

it is, in point of fact, fillip dewinter and his friends, or no one.

charles johnson has never, and will never forthrightly answer this question, address this issue.

his position is, when thought about, simply one of isolation and abandonment.  but, he will not address this issue.  the first reason is, quite simply, he is not the sort of king who deigns to explain himself, he has always left to his sycophants to explain himself to himself and to others: one of the clever groveling little fellows will always come up with an answer for the former website designer.  (have you not noticed, that he is neither wordsmith nor original thinker: i have never seen much more than a desultory paragraph from him, and doubt he is capable of much more.) the second and primary reason is, quite simply, because he does not know or have an answer.  as matters are presently constituted, no one in europe fights the jihad except the euro nationalists.  because they are nationalists, which philosophies may or may not be as palatable as if they were steadfast ohio republicans, he calls them fascists in a lazy and stupid substitution for a more cogent recognition of the realities and exigencies of the situation, smug in his imagined moral superiority.  it is a very poor substitute for the kind of realistic judgment needed in war.

john jay @ 09.23.2008

Comments

[Account Deleted]

Are you talking about Charles Johnson of LGF?

It's a little difficult to foller just what you're saying.

Except we know you sure as HELL don't like chuck!

[john jay]

irish:

you seem to "foller" the drift of things "jes fine."

you are right. i don't have any use for him at all. he is as worthless as tits on a boar hog, as we say in n.e. oregon.

he is so very, very fastidious about who he will associate with, and he is very heavy handed, and vituperative and punitive if anybody else does.

he is a worthless bastard, in my estimation.

john jay

p.s. nice to hear from you, and thanks for the visit.

[JewishOdysseus]

Brilliant as usual, JohnJay!!

Chuck has gone steadily downhill since his no-doubt yeoman work in 2004 to expose the Rather forgeries...As is often the case with talented-but-socially-incompetent people, he has got a perverse bug in his bonnet, and has now allowed it to ruin his perspective. Ironically, this is usually a problem experienced by paleo-cons who catch "the Jewish thing" (e.g.,Sobran, Buchanan)

Too bad, the guy had some good abilities. Now its just a waiting game as the balloon slowly falls from the sky.

But not like the Hindenburg.