Thursday, November 15, 2007

Well I'm Done Defending Brussels Journal

No one is perfect and I am certainly not. I think my former posts on the topic were fairly realistic about what to expect from some European conservatives. And then Brussels Journal put up one post promoting Ron Paul as the American Paul Belien and an article from Taki's magazine that cheers Jewish Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein as an inconoclast, calls Mearsheimer and Walt "illustrious academics" and claims AIPAC was behind the invasion of Kuwait.

I'm not sure what the point of this exercise was at a time when Brussels Journal was fighting accusations of racism. Taki is notorious as a bigot, a jailed drug addict and a millionaire whose money finances paleocons like Pat Buchanan who have a bug up their ass about Jews too. It may simply reflect a split going back to old fashioned bigotry.

Charming sections of the article complete with money quotes can be seen below.

The livre de scandale of John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, was for me a mostly disappointing read. Having seen the earlier article by these two illustrious academics, one at Chicago and the other at Harvard, “The Israel Lobby,” in the London Review of Books (May 2006), I found nothing particularly original about the expanded version.

Unlike the hysteria at the New York Review occasioned by a real iconoclast, Norman Finkelstein, who pulls no punches when going after the German-haters and the Holocaust-exploiters"

To their credit, Walt and Mearsheimer do make respectful references to Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and Georgie Ann Geyer as critics of the first Iraqi War, who pointed the finger at AIPAC for fomenting the invasion of Kuwait.

But what makes this lobby especially obnoxious, and this is the one valuable series of revelations in the book, is not only its money and power. It is also the lobby’s arrogance and sheer viciousness, which extends to issues going beyond Israeli security, and which is manifested in its close ties to such shrieking gentile-haters as Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz. AIPAC enjoys and cultivates the support of some very unpleasant types, who specialize in maligning those they disagree with. On page after page, the authors document AIPAC’s defaming of politicians such as Charles Percy and Paul Findlay (both from Illinois) who dared to question our “special relation” with Israel. These and other politicians were routinely smeared as “anti-Semites,” and most of them were brought down by the charge

Incidentally, the authors, to their credit, don’t bother to distinguish between AIPAC and its numerous slanderous front organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League. These groups act in unison not only by backing what the Israeli government, and especially the Israeli nationalist Right, wants but also by wielding what Pat Buchanan has called “the branding iron of the charge of anti-Semitism.”

Well I'm done. I don't think there's much left to say. I stand by my original statements that the times are dark enough that we have to work with a lot of Europeans who are on the ugly side, but we should never mistake our relationship with them or the consequences and implications of their views. They may sometimes be friendly to us, but they are not our friends. BJ still serves as a source of important material on the rise of Islam in Europe, but I won't be linking to it.

In Brussels Journal's defense, they did not quote the truly hateful parts of the article, only the seemingly pro-israel section, but I don't find that to be much of a defense. There's a difference between a movement's nazi roots in the past and its present. We may have to look away from some things for the sake of alliances, but it's hard to ignore what's right in front of your face.


LemonLimeMoon said...

Its all a mess now.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what humors me more: the fact that you assumed the Brussels Journal linking to a blog likening Paul Belien to Ron Paul was being presented as something they were proud of; or the fact that LGF has linked to your blog as some form of validation.

Did you read the original likening of Ron Paul and Paul Belien? Likening the Vlaams Belang to white supremacists? The joke is that the Brussels Journal has always maintained that the VB is NOT a white supremacist organization. Sadly, the punchline is you and Charles Johnson.

Quite amused at this point.

- Sodra

Sultan Knish said...

Okay Sodra, but can you address the Taki article?

H2U said...

Sodra can't address the article because it's too hard to dispute your fact-based analysis, SK. VB may not champion white supremacist causes, but they are certainly intrinsically linked to the movement.

This Hebrew is behind Charles Johnson all the way: VB is not an ally in the anti-jihad movement.

Anonymous said...

Sure, Sultan. I apologize if my response wasn't quick enough for h2u's liking, as I do have work to attend to.

First, the quote at the Brussels Journal was strongly pro-Israeli, and some (myself included) would consider that the same position currently being debated about the VB, particularly with respect to "right of return."

However, you really must understand that when the Brussels Journal posts comments, it is not unqualified support as is common over at LGF. It is done to stimulate debate. At its core The Brussels Journal is much more cerebral and thought-provoking than LGF. You can't ask for more clearer examples of this than the repetitive quotes of pro-EU politicians, none of which are commented upon by the editor, when it should be absolutely clear that The Brussels Journal is opposed to anything even remotely EU.

I would agree with you that Walt & Mersheamer (sp?) are nuts. But I would ask that until you see editorials at BJ supporting them, it's dishonest to assume that Paul Belien shares their views.

- Sodra

Sultan Knish said...

the quote can loosely appear to be pro-israel in that it's critical of the palestinian arabs and refers to israel as pro-western, but it's linked to and part of an article that is hateful toward both israel and jews and traffics in outright conspiracy theories

Jews being behind the invasion of Kuwait? How much more extreme can you get.

If the goal had been to stimulate critical discussion, it would have been the hostile parts of the article up there, instead it seems like a backdoor way of introducing readers to hateful material about Jews and Israel with an innocuous gateway quote positioned as pro-israel

H2U said...


More thought-provoking and cerebral? I just fell of my chair! The Brussels Journal is embarrassing itself through this dispute with LGF. The use of personal attacks against Charles Johnson are stellar examples of cerebral commentary and insightful punditry.

Perhaps when the BJ and other VB supporters realize that they are carrying water for white supremacists a real discussion can take place. But for the time being there must be a firm and resounding outcry *against* them.

Nothing hurts the anti-jihad cause more than the taint of racism, prejudice and anti-semitism. And VB -- and BJ through their support of VB -- display those traits too openly for their own good.

As for that particular article, SK, there was nothing backdoor about it. It tacitly promoted anti-jewish thought. Oh so sad.

Anonymous said...

I find the claim that the BJ is embarassing itself for defending itself against unwarranted, unprovoked, and unproven inflammatory accusations during this entire episode to be the height of smugness.

Let me restate this, NOTHING presented of "evidence" confirming LGF's suspicions passes the smell test. It is "six degrees of separation"-style guilt by association. Babbazee has openly admitted as much in her own comments on LGF. There's a reason none of this would be admissable in court, nor used in professional journalism. It's completely unreliable.

By this same burden of proof, you can "prove" that Charles Johnson, Karl Rove, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, and Alexander the Great all share the same ideology as Adolf Hitler. This isn't proof, and it's no longer cute. It's validation of a statistical theory used to tarnish the reputation of an otherwise respectable political group.

LGF can stick their fingers in their ears and claim that BJ and the VB will never receive support from Americans until they "purge the Nazis." If that were true, what's with all the recent departures of long-standing Lizards over this?

- Sodra

Sultan Knish said...

there's different kinds of guilt by association,

there is casual association and then there is ideological association and then there is commitment

It's a good deal harder to brush away the whitewashing of Vlaams Belang's support for unconditional pardons for Nazi collaborators, especially when combined with things like this

if Charles Johnson had taken photos with Mengele, you might have a point

this is obscene and there's no real defense for it, nor for a post on brussels journal describing the nazi collaborators who allied with Hitler as "patriots"

Anonymous said...

Actually, Sultan, there is.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Vlaams Belang is first and foremost a party calling for Flemish independence.

At the time of the rise of Nazism in Europe, there was a decision to make by those who desired their independence from the artificial state of Belgium. Ally yourself with Adolf Hitler in return for the promise of realization of that goal, or fight on the side of a people with whom you share no common heritage, no common tongue, and no common set of values.

Might I remind you that even German citizens were shocked at the extent of the Holocaust when its scope became apparent AFTER the war.

The atrocities carried out by the Nazi regime were for the most part concealed by those in power, for that very reason.

The decision for the Flemish nationalists to ally with Hitler in the furtherance of their cause is understandable, particularly when you are forced to admit that no one at the time, including the grandfather of the CURRENT American President, completely understood Hitler's ambition.

In retrospect, of course it was the wrong decision. But that does not mean that the Flemish nationalists of the time supported extermination of the Jews, or actively participated in it. If they did, as Filip Dewinter has stated VERY clearly, they should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity.

Hindsight is of course 20/20. But let's face it: there isn't a single political party in Europe that survived the Nazi regime without members who participated in some way or another at the time. The desire for the amnesty for the 80+ year old pensioners who may have been considered low-level members of the Nazi party in their late teens and early twenties is the driving force behind the VB's call for amnesty. It isn't a desire for amnesty for war criminals, and if you had followed this issue, you'd realize that, from Mr. Dewinter's own statement to that effect.

- Sodra

Sultan Knish said...

No, I'm afraid I disagree

The evils of Nazism or Nazi Germany was not some of revelation that occurred after the war. People had a choice all along and what they chose was a terrible evil. Even factoring the Holocaust out of the equation, Nazi Germany stood for a totalitarian state, for the brutalization, imprisonment and execution of political opponents, for conquest and slave labor and hatred, persecution and murder of ethnic minorities.

None of this was some sort of secret. It was all out in the open. The full scale of the Nazi Genocide may not have been known until after the war, but mass deportations and executions were no secret to anyone. Neither was Kristalnacht or racial laws that were in place well before the war.

anyone who allied with the nazis knew what they were doing and what they were getting into, the excuse that they were seizing the chance to tear off their own country by allying with the devil is not much of an excuse

again I point you to Degrelle. Certainly I imagine this late after the war, there were no more 'shocking revelations' due to come out.

How many of those Nazi collaborators are the hapless old men who were only low level members and how many of them were responsible for murder, treason and torture?

Anonymous said...

I understand that the topic of the Holocaust is understandably a sore one. However, to claim there was widespread knowledge of its extent prior to the fall of the Nazi regime is dishonest.

I hate to use Wikipedia, but there it is, moderated by WWII historians.

Individual reports of the death camps by escapees were circulated via illegal publications of the Nazi resistance organizations, but was widely viewed as propaganda by London and the U.S.

Again, to claim the atrocities of the Nazi regime were common knowledge is simply untrue.

- Sodra Djavul

Sultan Knish said...

first of all if you again read what I said,

"The full scale of the Nazi Genocide may not have been known until after the war, but mass deportations and executions were no secret to anyone. Neither was Kristalnacht or racial laws that were in place well before the war."

your link refers to the events taking place in death camps. Kristalnacht was reported around the world. Mass executions were reported in major newspapers around the world. Mass deportations were Nazi policy all along and repeatedly discussed by them. So much so they even appeared in general fiction in the early 30's.

Again I repeat there was no real ambiguity of what the Nazis stood for. The Holocaust is a non-issue even because I doubt that would have influenced the sort of people who were prepared to ally with Hitler in the first place.

Factor out the Holocaust and you have tyranny, war, the execution and persecution of political opponents, race laws, mass deportation, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, eugenics and racial purity codes

none of this was subtle at all

those who chose to support it knew what they were supporting, not just as far as Jews were concerned, but as far as humanity was concerned.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to bother arguing with you over this anymore, as you don't preface your assertions with facts, but rather emotion.

I understand that the Holocaust is an emotional topic for Jewry, and it should rightly be considered so.

But to ascribe self-evident guilt to the entire continent of Europe over the actions of a genocidal madman and selectively smear groups that advocate the preservation of their own country's culture akin to Nazi ideology is dishonest.

These dishonest tactics, in direct opposition to historical fact, is why I openly chose to oppose the mob mentality of LGF in the first place.

The Vlaams Belang ascribe to Nazi ideology in their efforts to keep Flanders Flemish just as much as Israelis ascribe to Nazi ideology in the opposition to the Palestinian so-called "right of return."

If it's right for Israel, and I agree it is right for Israel, it is right for Flanders and the Vlaams Belang.

- Sodra Djavul

Sultan Knish said...

No I'm afraid I have actually made specific points repeatedly, which you have not addressed. I have twice set aside the question of the Holocaust, but it simply more convenient for you to try and paint me as emotionally worked up over the Holocaust than to deal with the points I've made.

It is this that I find genuinely dishonest

"But to ascribe self-evident guilt to the entire continent of Europe over the actions of a genocidal madman and selectively smear groups that advocate the preservation of their own country's culture akin to Nazi ideology is dishonest."

A genocidal madman didn't spread war across much of the world. It took a large number of people acting in concert with him or approving of his actions.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to preserve their own country. It's why I defended Brussels Journal in the first place. I do have a problem with how they go about it and with what their ideology is.

I have pointed you to the question of Degrelle which you have not addressed. I find that to be dishonest.

Factor out the Jews and Nazi Germany was profoundly evil and Nazism was profoundly evil, for everyone it touched. The murder of the mentally ill and the sick. Breeding for racial superiority. The conquest and subjugation of peoples all across Europe in favor of a master race.

Aligning with that was about real evil. The kind of real evil, liberals don't believe exists but conservatives are supposed to.

Your failure to address that is symptomatic of the whitewashing of the subject that has bothered me about Brussels Journal. Attempting to close the subject by accusing me of emotionalism, when I've dealt with the facts while you tried to sweep them under the rug and wave them away is what is truly dishonest here.

Anonymous said...

Any collaborator with the Nazis evaded on a massive scale to rationalize that working with the Nazis would serve their interests, or anyone's interest.

The Nazis broke every treaty entered, their rhetoric was wildly nationalistic and irrational, they spouted far-out racial theories that they obviously put much faith in, they made militaristic expansionist demands on their neighours, promising it to be their last demand only to return with new ones, they invaded nations all over the board, they made Orwellian about-faces with regards to their allies (Nazi Germany is an ally with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany has always been an ally of Soviet Russia; Nazi Germany is at war with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany has always been at war with Soviet Russia).

Now who are these Nazi fellows, are they our sort, are they to be trusted ...?

Unless you at some level shared some aspects of the Nazi ideology, whatever they might have been, the glorification of violence, their racial ideology, I would say it is hard to see yourself shoulder-to-shoulder with the Nazis. Kein Wort uber die Juden.

And hey, welcome to the real world, where real actions have real consequences. Those poor old geriatrics chose and they're stuck with that. You're making my heart bleed. Not.


Anonymous said...

Let me add a few details on the historic background, based on the list of nazi evils, Sultan Knish puts up:

"Factor out the Holocaust and you have tyranny, war, the execution and persecution of political opponents, race laws, mass deportation, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, eugenics and racial purity codes"

Tyranny: Goes without saying. Pre-war, that was the norm in Europe, not the exception. Absent Great Britain, France, Benelux, Scandinavia and Switzerland, I have a hard time coming up with democracies in Europe.

War: True. Factor in, that many Flemings did not see this as "their" war, though, but a war between the French/Valoon-dominated government and the Germans. And in that contest, many Flemings favored the Germans (nazi or not) because the Germans were the only ones who had ever given them a sort of independence (1917-1918). Valloons, British, French etc had since the Napoleonic Wars worked to keep them under Valloon domination.

The execution and persecution of political opponents: True. Same could happend for Flemish nationalists, though. Joris Van Severen, head of the VERDINASO movement, was executed along with a number of other Belgian rightists and communists, even german jewish refugees near Abbeville in France, 1940. He had gone to join the Belgian army to fight against the Germans (he was a reserve officer), but was arrested because of his political beliefs, shipped off south in a train, and finally executed with 20-30 others in a public park in Abbeville without trial.

Race laws: True. Consider fex. Australian policies vs. Aboriginals at the time, though. Jim Crow also.

Mass deportation: True. Quite common at the time, though. See Greek-Turkish population exchanges, planned (not put through) Yugoslav-Turkish deportation of Turks, expulsion of Germans from the Polish Corridor 1918-20, post-war deportations of ab. 12-15 million Germans etc.

Persecution of ethnic and religious minorities: Again, quite common. As to jews, mostly in eastern Europe (see Romania, Poland), but pretty much everywhere towards fex gypsies. Poland and Czechoslovakia against Germans (pre- and postwar) etc. The steadfast denial of cultural equality to the Flemish population of Belgian _could_ be termed persecution also.

>eugenics and racial purity codes

Again quite common in the western world. Fex the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and quite a few states of the US and Canada had eugenics programs. US states alone forcibly sterilized some 60-100.000 people, Sweden 62.000. In the case of Sweden, the program ran into the mid-1970s. No Euthanasia along nazi lines, though.

Or, to put is short: all of what you mention in that list is true, though the list as such only mentions one side of the equation.

For the flemings, on one side you had all in your list, though less well-known then compared to today. At the same time, you also had the prospect of Flemish equality and maybe even independence on that side of the equation.

On the other side of the equation, you had everything the Allies stood for: democracy, though without Flemish equality. Equality, though with the valloons being more equal than the flemings. And then, in a vastly moderated form, most of the evils of the nazis that you listed (again, Holocaust excepted).

As such, the choice seems easy to us. To some of them, it wasnt that easy.

The above of course disregarding people who collaborated with the nazis out of ideological reasons (de Clercq, fex).

Anonymous said...


Is your argument like this?

The forerunners of the Vlaams Belang worked for an independent Flanders. They chose to ally themselves with the Nazis. This was clearly wrong but they shouldn't have to face the full consequences for that.

Why not? As has been shown, it cannot be that they were ignorant of the nature of the Nazis, so I'd be interested to hear if you have any other argument for your position.


Sultan Knish said...

anonymous no 1.

your argument comes down to claiming that other countries were doing it too

1. your details are often wrong, some U.S. states had feeble eugenics laws but they were nothing compared to what Germany had implemented, ditto for race laws

2. you're pointing to separate actions by different countries, many of which dated back generations, by contrast Nazi Germany had unveiled a new package of laws and practices based on eugenics, race laws, war, conquest and the suppression of a democracy

pointing to scattered behavior on the part of other countries is far from the same thing

there is a difference between a country that had a limited democracy and one that crushed its democracy, sent legislators to the firing squads, enacted race laws, carried out mass deportations of a peaceful citizenry followed by mass executions and the armed subjugation of a variety of neighboring countries under the banner of a master race

trying to pile together aborigines, turkish deportations and the policies of the belgian government doesn't add up to that

if gaining a country was worth all that, well that marks those who chose that route too

Observer said...

"We may have to look away from some things for the sake of alliances"
Ha! Straight out of the lefties bible.

Sultan Knish said...

actually real lefties won't make alliances for a larger threat, they'll fight each other to death over minor differences in doctrine... it's why their organizations don't hold together too well in the long term

see how the trotskites and communists abroad acted even once WW2 was under way

Churchill's devil remark is far more how pragmatic conservatives behave in the face of the enemy, but they don't forget what the nature of the devil really is

Rambler said...


So you're saying that the things the Nazis did existed to varying degree already in the world? Even if you've gotten your facts right (which is debatable), so what?

Take a situation that leftist would love to use. Gun-totin', crack-dealin' gangbustas in da 'hood, poor souls, can't help themselves from killing each other or ODing. We NEED to spend our tax dollars on them ... buhu buhu (No we don't, but that's not really my point.)

The fact that practically everybody else are taking drugs and killing people doesn't make it right, does it? The fact that there may have been oppressive regimes and racism around the time the Nazis did their thing does not make right, does it? Don't you believe in right and wrong? Are you a moral relativist? Are you a crypto-leftist? Speak up!

Anonymous said...

Sodra isn't mentioning Karel Dillen or Roland Raes.

Why is that?,7792,449278,00.html

Why is it that Sodra has several different versions of why he was banned from LGF. One for GoV, one for GCP, and of course, the truth.

Sodra has a problem with black people, and Jews, and race mixing.

Sodra is a Kentucky scorpion, hoping to catch a ride across the river on the back of any Jew that will let him in.

Post a Comment