"ALIGNED" was Wrong

Stepping back. Not backpedaling. I want to clarify my position. I was wrong to say Charles was aligned with CAIR. He is in no way aligned with CAIR. In my initial post, my passion and my initial shock lead me to snark. It is the blogoshere after all. The fact that CAIR and ultra leftwing sites are on the same page as LGF on this is merely a confluence of events.

This kerfuffle (!) cannot, must not stand in the way of all of Europe. I apologize for using that word. I stand by my position. I believe the European parties we have aligned ourselves with are forthright and true and I am deeply sorry if I offended Charles. He is the quintessential anti-jihadist and does yeoman's work. And it is my fervent wish that he examine all the evidence.

Comments

[snowtravel]

Pamela,

I came here several days ago to see what the fuss was all about. Today you've just distinguished yourself in the most admirable way. Kudos for reevaluating and clarifying your position.

[jmb]

I'm pleased you've clarified and apoligized. Very gracious and of benefit to the cause so ardently supported by both LFG and AtlasShrugs.

Thanks,
jmb

[Cincinnatus]

I don't see LGF coming around, unfrotunately. They can't withstand being called "Nazi" or "Racist" and will do anything to avoid such attacks. So LGF is a school at best, but such a school yields graduates who can step up to adult challenges. In Holland, the mark of combat-readiness is when you say to yourself "I am a racist". It is a declaration of independence, that you will be free from the Leftist taunts that are meant to bind you into inaction. *Actual* racism is not a factor, the issue is simply freeing your mindset so that you are ready to actively join cause. CJ and half of his LGF will not do that, Pam, so yes they are friends, but don't work too hard to swing them over, 'cause it's not gonna happen.

[Mafia Princess]

As always a class act; and gracious and sincere aplogy/explanation of your position.

You are a woman of principle, with strong convictions; and there is no shame in that, nor is it wrong to be so.

I'm so glad to see this post.

Hope you are well.
Keep on fighting the good fight!

[maryatexitzero]

Racism is defined as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Political supremacists, whether we call them White supremacists, fascists, Muslim supremacists, Nazis or whatever - all share one feature; They believe that the people they consider to be "inferior" (dhimmis, "mud people" etc.) should be punished, exiled or even killed for what they are, not what they do.

Muslim supremacists believe that non-Muslims, or Muslims who follow the rules of a government that's "insufficiently Islamic" should be punished for what they are, not what they do. White supremacists believe that people who have non-European heritage should be punished or exiled for the qualities they were born with - not for any crimes they may have committed, or for the acts of criminal or enemy organizations they have voluntarily joined.

Therefore, if group A promotes the idea that people should be exiled or thrown in jail for their heritage or for the religion, race or tribe they were born into, then group A is racist, supremacist and (at the very least) leaning towards fascism. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Stormfront belong in that category.

If group B promotes the idea that people should be exiled or thrown in jail for criminal acts that they have committed, for criminal organization they have voluntarily joined, or for enemy organizations they may have joined in a time of war, then group B is not racist, supremacist, or leaning towards fascism. Groups like the US army, most Western governments and most democratic institutions fall in that category.

People from group B usually oppose people from group A on the principle that punishing or exiling people based on what they are, not on what they have done, is anti-democracy and anti-equality. That's why we oppose violent and 'non violent' supremacist groups.

If people want to decide whether these European groups fall into category A or B, they should probably look at the evidence on both sides.

[Marinetbryant]

Pamela dear, I was just about to drop you an e-mail when I read this post. When many groups gather there is sure to be disagreement but it shouldn't deter us from the task at hand. Politics and war do create strange bedfellows! Not to ignore anyone, we can talk but we should also look, listen and keep reading. And as Oat Willy was prone to say, "Onward thru the fog!"

Tom

[Timur]

Pamela, we forgive you for that... and the typos too...

[Bald-headedGeek]

Incredibly classy post, Pam, and hopefully, this foolishness will now be put behind everyone. Let's all concentrate on fighting the REAL enemy.........

BHG

[syn]

'Let's all concentrate on fighting the REAL enemy'

Well, how will victory be achieved when the Multi-Cultured will label Muslim-born Egyptian women such as Nonie Darwish as 'racist, bigoted Islamophobes' simply for speaking about the dreadful treatment of females under Islam?

Actually these days it's hard to tell which enemy is the extreme supremacist 'Multi-Culturalists' or 'Islamic-Fascists'

That said, nothing is going to change until a giant cater is created somewhere in the free world by a nasty nuke which was built by the alliance made between the extreme supremacists.

[USorThem]

Pam shows class by her statement.

I think Charles Johnson owes an apology to those groups he maligned.

Pam mischaracterized Johnson by claiming he was "aligned" with CAIR. It is not incorrect to say Johnson's criticism and CAIR's criticism were almost identical, and therefore those messages were aligned with another. The intent of each message, we know, was much different.

But, it was just as wrong for Johnson to accuse some participants of "hitching a ride". It imputes insincerity and deviousness upon the accused who the deserve the benefit of the doubt, and a heap of praise.