CHARLES LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS: The New Fascism ....on the right

There is a sickness on the right (although that's to be disputed if it is really the right ............... do not blogroll fighters of the counter  jihad movement.

Just for knowing Atlas readers, I stand with Robert Spencer, Paul Belien, and the courageous souls fighting for  free men. Viva the queen, the queen is the dead ( the dinosuars of the blogosphere) peddle your irrelevant bullying in your creepy sandbox.

EXCOMUNNICATED Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch

I'm sorry to say that my old friend Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has written this:

I'm done with Robert Spencer. And very, very disappointed in him.

And:

Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are out of our RSS feeds. I'm not going to support people who link to vile sites like Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.

He also wrote me, asking me to take down the "Designed by Little Green Footballs" logo that had been up on this site.

What heinous crime have I committed? Last month I restored the links here to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, after speaking with Baron Bodissey, Paul Belien, and Geert Wilders in Washington, and wrote that I doubted that Fjordman was a neofascist or race supremacist.

Of course, for many, many months my list of links has carried this disclaimer: "Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site." One might have thought that my linking to both LGF and Gates of Vienna was indicative of an openness to perspectives even from people who disagreed with one another and also with whom I might disagree, and not a blanket endorsement of either one or any other site. That, however, was too subtle for some LGF commenters, who dressed me up in jackboots right away, accusing me of an "apparent embrace of the neo-Nazi movement" and claiming that I support genocide.

So apparently my doubting that Fjordman et al are racist neofascists who support genocide makes me a racist neofascist who supports genocide. Linking to groups that are accused of being neofascist, although they deny it, makes me one who embraces neo-Nazis. Unfortunately Charles himself has endorsed this loopy leap of logic in the past. Richard Miniter and Diana West both disagreed with him that several European parties, especially Vlaams Belang, were fascist. In response Charles wrote this:

I've learned recently that neo-fascists are much more prominent in conservative circles than I had previously realized. There are other well-known pundits who are sympathetic to the fascists, too -- I've drastically revised my opinion of more than a few people, e.g. Diane West, Richard Miniter, and several others.

Whatever one thinks of Vlaams Belang, that just makes no sense. West and Miniter don't think Vlaams Belang is fascist, and Charles is representing that as meaning that they are "sympathetic to the fascists."

Charles did this also to Andrew Bostom:

I'm now getting hate mail from Andrew Bostom, who believes we should all be joining forces with European white nationalists, calling me all kinds of names and insults.

It's an eye-opener about Bostom.

Andy is less than diplomatic, but in one of his emails to Charles he was making a point that I think was compelling. In speaking this way about West, Miniter, and Bostom, Charles seems to have been assuming that anyone speaking favorably about European individuals or groups who are accused of being neofascist, or accepting their denials that they are neofascist, must himself be a fascist sympathizer, or one who believes we should ally with white nationalists. Andy accordingly noted that Roger Kimball had commented favorably on a Diana West piece on people in Europe who are accused of being neofascist, and that National Review Online had also linked to the piece. He called upon Charles to be consistent and label NRO and Kimball as neofascists also. There are others also, besides Kimball and NRO. At LGF I put it this way:

The statement that I have "embraced the neo-Nazi movement" is false, and libelous. Charles, you and your friends here are now in the position of saying that everyone who doesn't believe these people (Fjordman, Belien, etc.) are neo-Nazis must themselves be neo-Nazis. Well, Ian Buruma recently published an article in the LA Times saying that the European anti-immigration parties were not neo-Nazis. Diana West has written the same thing in articles that have been picked up at the National Review and quoted favorably by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media.

Unless you all are prepared to say that Buruma, the LA Times, West, Kimball, and National Review have "embraced the neo-Nazi movement," you can't logically say it about me.

I forgot to mention John Rosenthal, who also wrote a piece doubting that some of the European parties accused of being neo-Nazi are actually neo-Nazi.

Also, when we start playing guilt by association games, how much guilt do you incur for how much association? If one who links to the Brussels Journal has thereby become someone who "apparently embraces the neo-Nazi movement," or at least someone who has done something so "disappointing" as to warrant being removed from RSS feeds, etc., then why does Charles still link to Pajamas Media? For on PJM's blogroll you will find...Brussels Journal. Has Charles, by linking to PJM and appearing on PJTV, become one with whom we should be "very, very disappointed"? Has he become one who is "sympathetic to the fascists"? Why is PJM's link to Brussels Journal not something that makes him "very, very disappointed," but mine is?

Is that not absurd? I have gone on record many, many times explaining why I reject race-based approaches to the jihad threat -- most recently in connection with the Cologne conference. Hugh and I have been clear here in our rejection of LePen, the BNP, and all those who traffic in such approaches. We have been consistent in maintaining that anyone who advocates genocide in comments here will be banned and find his comment deleted. The controversy here is over whether or not some other individuals and groups belong in that category, not over whether one should support race supremacism and genocide or not. Charles has done a grave disservice by acting as if those who reject his judgments about these groups and individuals, or who even -- like me -- are willing to entertain differing points of view on these matters, are ipso facto neo-Nazi or white supremacist sympathizers. He is in this behaving much like the Islamic supremacist bullies of East Tennessee, who are convinced that anyone who says something they don't like must be a liar, a bigot, a racist hater.

I'm done with Charles Johnson. And very, very disappointed in him.

UPDATE: The links to LGF above no longer work; click on them and you'll get a "Forbidden" notice. Well, Charles, old friend, you stay classy -- this only confirms the impression that what we are dealing with here is the bully's fear of actually having to answer for what he said. But his comments are still at LGF; you can go there and see them, or copy the link location from here and paste it into the address bar -- it will become visible that way.

Meanwhile, I note also with sorrow that the mendacious Kejda Gjermani ("medaura") is spreading her libelous attacks on me at LGF yet again, as she has been allowed to do for months. It is telling.

UPDATE: As a Jew I find Johnson's smear of Spencer as an anti-semite the act of a degenerate. Gates of Vienna has the whole thing here: A Counterjihad of one.

Well, the 99th shoe finally dropped from the LGF centipede. In an open thread on LGF, Charles Johnson has officially excommunicated Robert Spencer. He removed Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch from his blogroll, and consigned Robert to the Outer Darkness where there will weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Oh, and racists. Lots of racists in that nasty Outer Darkness.

Read through the comment thread for the full flavor of the lizardoids’ reactions. Here’s what Charles had to say:

Paul Belien of Brussels Journal is deeply connected with the Vlaams Belang, and Robert knows this. The fact that he’s put them back in his blogroll speaks volumes about the choice he’s made.

And Gates of Vienna has turned into a reeking sewer of racism. I’m done with Robert Spencer. And very, very disappointed in him.

That’s not just Dymphna and me he’s talklng about, ladies and gentlemen — that’s you, the esteemed readers of this blog! How can you bear to be associated with a reeking sewer of racism?

Another one:

Not that it matters, but when I was still bothering to check Brussels Journal, I saw some extremely hateful antisemitism at the site.

I guess Robert has chosen his side.

I’m sad that it’s come to this.

Please go to GoV and read it all.

Over at Tundra Tabloid - KGS is da money

I laughed at KGS - he left out so many! He updated the photo heh (check out Bat Yeor, David Littman and Oriana Fallaci)

I expect to see Geert Wilders under the bus any moment now. The Johnson wrote here:

Wilders would be more effective if he tempered his rhetoric a little.

UPDATE: A Canadian weighs in

Comments

[jj]

pamela, friends:

for what is it worth, on this issue of allying with the european nationalists and attempting to work with them to combat the jihad, such alliances decried by charles johnson, let my position be known.--

charles johnson is, on this issue, an absolute idiot, dolt, ninny and self aggrandizing twit. and, oh yes, just a bit more than a complete moron. period. my guess is, he did not have proper toilet training during the appropriate life stages.

please see the following two links:

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/09/huck-chuck-it-is-time-to-throw-charles-johnson-off-the-life-raft-he-eats-too-much-he-drinks-to-much-and-he-does.html

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/01/herding-cats-th.html

charles johnson is just a little too fastidious for his own good, and he is a tremendous detriment to those trying to fight islamic fascism in europe, and too g_ddamned dense to understand the difference between genuine islamic fascism when he sees it, and the theoretical boogeymen he sees lurking in every european shadow.

why anyone bothers to pay attention to him on this is a complete mystery to me. spencer, bostom, geller, et al, know more about islam and the jihad than johnson every dreamt of knowing, and they know it from disciplined scholarship. johnson knows from bupkis about academic scholarship or rigorous research, the forte of spencer and bostom. johnson is, quite literally, simply ignorant on these matters, in my view. as bugs bunny might have been moved to say of johnson, "he is an ultra maroon."

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. pretty doubtful my links will work here. just type them into you command bar, the "http://" thingie, and you will be all right. it worked for me for 20 years before i figure out hyperlinks. laughing.

[JewishOdysseus]

Charles Johnson is developing an unbelievably striking resemblance to a [heterosexual, probably] modern Walter Winchell...

He really has only 2 paths:
a--reform (groveling, sincere apology, w/genuine amends to the good people he's libeled)

b--kookdom, Kos-style (but from the right)

I hope he likes the foil-hat.

No person can consistently attack logic, facts, and historical perspective without defining themselves as part of the fringe. C'est tout.

[jj]

pamela:

and, it just occurs to me.--

just why in the world would anyone give a flying leap at the moon about what charles johnson thinks about anything. even if he does have an "excoriating" thought, it will not exceed 10 short, simple words in length: he tires easily, apparently, intellectually.

has anyone noticed that he apparently is not capable of original thought, never having evidenced any that i can discern.

who cares what he thinks? before any gets all worked up about his opinion, he ought to be called upon to adequately express one, and buttress it by argument, and not supercilious conclusion. where did he get the authority to issue edict?

his status in the world is a complete mystery to me. however he got it, he did not get it by demonstrating any logic or persuasion on any given issue, as he is incapable of it. he can, apparently, discern the difference in typefaces, ... , a good quality in a computer technician.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[Brett_McS]

Like a lot of former leftists, Charles never quite left behind the whole notion of "thought crime".

The conservative judges by actions because he knows that people have all sorts of thoughts and motivations - quite often mutually contradictory thoughts and motivations - and so what matters is what a person does.

The left doesn't think that way. In fact it is almost the opposite. The main thing with the left is that people believe in the true way. (ref Arthur Koestler, George Orwell or even Solhzenitsyn). What they actually do is less important.

So a person can be perfectly civil, peaceable and kindly, but if a leftist (or some former leftists such as Charles Johnson) thinks they harbour evil/racist/reactionary thoughts, then that is enough to put them beyond the pale.

And frankly, anyone who could look at Robert Spencer and see anything but the most honest and gentlemanly of men has clearly flown the coop.

[HawaiiBob]

After retiring from the military after 25 years, I spent the next 15 years teaching Political Science/History/Cultural Geography at the university level. My area of focus was Europe and the former Soviet Union, but knew just enough about the Middle East and Israel to become a big supporter of that country. After 9/11, I decided to read every book I could find on the Middle East, including Israel. I have close to 60 books in my library and many of them written by Spencer, Bostom, Warraq, et al. I found them to be fantastic reads and enjoy them very much.

Since retiring to Hawaii, I now read blogs and do a bit of writing, mostly to keep folks informed about the current political situation. I had at one time close to 70 or so blog links in my favorites and decided to move those I read into folders like "first read blogs" and "favorite blogs". However, lately I have been reading LGF less and reading blogs like Atlas Shrugs, Gates of Vienna,Instapundit, etc more and more. I could not figure out why LGF turned me off, but lately I see why. After this latest escapade of his I do know he has been deleted from my favorites for his rhetoric against both you and especially my favorite blog ... Gates of Vienna. I apologize at my lack of eloquence, I'm just a normal fellow who over the years got a lot of degrees while in the military and whose classes were always full because the students could understand my straight talk.

Pamela, you're a gem and I do hope you stay in this fight and never leave us out here in the hinterlands to fend for ourselves. Mahalo for all you do for us.

[Razdan]

I'm with all of you guys/gals above. Anyone who feels the need to ban sites like Atlas Shrugs and JihadWatch has some screws loose. I think Brett McS does a terrific analysis of the leftist mind-set which some former leftists (such as Charles Johnson) seem to have difficulty getting rid of. Charles reminds me of the Soup Nazi character in the Seinfeld episodes.

[George Mc.]

My mother always taught me that a person is known by the friends he keeps (hence, Obama’s problems), and CJ is not a friend with whom one would want to be associated anyway. I first became familiar with LGF when he exposed CBS and Dan Rather using a forged letter about President Bush’s military service and thought that he did pretty good work, but I have been increasingly disappointed with him and think that he has painted himself into a very small corner with his views. Good riddance.

Keep up the great work, Pamela.

[epaminondas]

Sometimes there is an indefinable line that gets crossed.

Spencer is it. Bostom is it.
I don't look at too much more than the link viewer at LGF so this is news to me, but I cannot imagine

CANNOT
IMAGINE

how the efforts of Spencer and Bostom can POSSIBLY be besmirched.

What chain of logic and self aggrandizement can possibly have led Johnson to this breathtakingly MORONIC conclusion?

He's not just wrong, he is destructive to the main effort on this.

[Den]

It is very sad to see the way Spencer has been treated, very sad indeed.

[sgtmack]

I was a frequent visitor to LGF during the Rathergate scandal era. As he moved from exposing photoshop fraud and deceptions by the MSM to a personal vendetta against Creationism, I have been there less and less often. After this, I won't even go back to post why I no longer visit. I think Charles finally went off the deep end.

Although there are a few things Pamela and I could find to agree to disagree on, I will keep her in my favorites list. :)

Keep up the good work!

[Hev]

I have added Brussels Journal, Andrew Bostom, and Gates of Vienna to my blogroll. I've listened to a few speeches from Nick Griffin from the British National Party lately on immigration (oooooh, its verboten to hear their views even as they continue to win elections and support in England), and he is conservative by American standards, a thought crime in Britain nowadays. Here's the thing to me: Ralph Peters wrote a column some time ago in the NY Post about how Europe wrote the book on fascism. If we don't remain hardline on keeping Islamism out of the west, the worst sort of skinhead neo-nazi elements will actually increase in the streets as people grow more frustrated--and they won't waste their time blogging, but will start attacking people. So it could be argued that by refusing to engage more so-called 'conservative' members of the counter-jihad movement, the unintended result will be a rise in truly despicable racist politics. Shall we wait until skinhead thugs band together or shall we act to stop that whole cycle fom happening in the first place? Would we have the Minutemen patrolling our border with Mexico if we had acted to stop illegal immigration twenty years ago? No.

Doesn't LGF come out of sunny California? Maybe if he lived in Brussels, Amsterdam, Paris, or Bradford he'd stop with the silly name-calling and excommunication.

[Den]

SECOND UPDATE: The comments over at LGF are getting really vile -- accusing me of actually posting pro-genocidal material there, or sending someone to do so, or inspiring someone to do so apparently by what I post here. As well as all the accusations of race supremacism, fascism, etc., that he has for months allowed to become standard over there when my name comes up.

Bear in mind that all of these attacks are based on guilt by association. None of them are based on anything I have actually ever said or written. And the case against those whose association so taints me is, contrary to Charles's repeated and strident assumption, unproven.

Charles ought to be ashamed of himself, both for his bullying and inconsistency, and for his allowing this to go on. In any case, he has rendered himself irrelevant (at best) in the struggle to defend the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and Constitutional pluralism against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. His demand of an absolute ideological lockstep is ultimately at variance with those principles of freedom anyway.

_____________________________

Poor Spencer!

The witch hunt on Spencer is quite disgusting, and I am shocked at Charles starting this, and allowing it to continue.

This is sickening to witness.

Integrity? I believe you have totally lost it Charles.

[Lede Agenda]

Pamela, Jihad watch, et all,

LGF has been served its thou-shalt-not-be-here notice. LGF is not longer on the Lede's blogroll as well. Thanks for the heads up.

Luke

[RISE_UP]

I said it before...Let CJ eat cake. Only people with no thought process could linger in CJ's domain.

Keep up the good work Pamela, you're the real deal. You don't just sit at your computer you actually get out there so you go..

[ivan the yid from bradford]

Hev you have got me worried. You apparently have been listening to Nick Griffin of BNP. Now't wrong with that in my book as what he says on political policy is actually quite common sense. On some things such as law & order, immigration etc he comes across like a Thatcherite Tory and of course there is nothing wrong with Thatcherite policies (ask the late R Reagan about how popular her policies were in the US). On other things mainly financial policy, Europe, and commerce he comes across with 'Little Englander' isolationalist policies that are mainly Old Labour (for the benefit of US readers 'Old Labour' were the working men, often unionised, who voted Labour for decades who ran screaming when Blair created New Labour. I saw some of them in tears, tearing up their membership cards, when Blair invited Thatcher for tea at 10 Downing Street. To Old Labour Thatcher is regarded as Satanic. Many BNP members are Old Labour who feel totally unwelcome in the New Labour Party).

It is not the political policy of the BNP that is the problem. They have Jewish members also a few Sikhs. One of their Councillors is Jewish. The problem is their internal organisation is a financially corrupt dictatorship. In addition to many ex BNP members (former National officers) exposing the corruption BBC Radio 'File on Four' had a report in March on the corruption.

BTW Hev I live on the front line in Bradford

Turning to the main point - control/restriction of blogs which is increasing the whole time. The EU is proposing new controls and registration requirements for blogs, clogs and Internet News sites. The proposals even have caused concern in the European Parliament which normally agrees with anything the commission wants to do. We have just had an example of a 'plausible reason' for restricting blogs being trotted out this weekend. Apparently a Spanish web site carried comments attacking Lewis Hamilton the Black British Formula 1 Grand Prix racing driver (if Hamilton wins the Brazilian Grand Prix this weekend he is the world champion). The site carried racist comments and comments wishing him dead. Of course the site is obnoxious but if it is closed down because of the unpleasant content then that is the thin end of the wedge. On another occasion another 'obnoxious' site can be closed down. Who police's this. Who decides what is obnoxious ? What sanctions do they have against web site hosts ? One day it might be the BNP web site which btw receives more 'hits' than any other party political web site in the UK. Another day it might be Richard North (another Bradford resident, btw) and his EUReferendum.blog who is hated by Brussels. LGF behaviour is the first sympton of a serious illness that must not be allowed to become an epidemic

[dbl action]

LGF little green brain squirms like a toad. There are always so many who, for many different reasons, don't see clearly or refuse to let go of their comfortable illusions. Unfortunately, this dark world with all the evil ambitions and undercurrents cries out to those of us who are unafraid and quite willing to make ourselves, as well as the enemy, uncomfortable. Johnson is a candyass.

[TINBH]

Having never read his blog and from first impressions it seems that Charles Johnson is a stealth-islamist (or maybe an overt one) as well as a libtard masquerading as a "conservative". What he is tossing about are typical ad hominem attacks, using the most desperate of the proforma islamo-leftwing-alliance codewords -designed to -when all else fails - smear and denigrate the targets ... Classic leftist tactics.

[Miluimnik]

"charles johnson is just a little too fastidious"

no...just an asshole.

"It is very sad to see the way Spencer has been treated, very sad indeed."

B.S.....where was everyone when that fraud was attacking Pamela??

LGF died in 2003

[terrence]

Sometimes I read the front page at LGA; I stopped reading the comments a couple of years ago - way too many moonbats. But that seems to be the way CJ likes it, as long as the moonbats do offend CJ - just like so many, many Muslims.

Anyway, anyone banned from LGA should consider it an honor - can you image what it would mean to have his lordship's approval? Not all that different than having the Jihadists approval.

Love your blogg, Pam. Please keep it going, and the Vbloggs,too.

[bvw]

Chuck Johnson's zealotry with regard to Intelligent Design is, to me, as sure a sign as any as to where he will come down with regards to Jews and Israel. I know, that *right now*, the discussion is at the You-Hate-All-Muslims/You-are-Xenophopic waypoint, but it will get to Jews-Are-Inherently-Racist-and-Vile end point soon enough. But it started back at Point One -- the denial that there is a G-d, a G-d who actively keeps his eyes on and hand upon each thing that happens. Why that denial? Because Chuck is smart, and has a knack for picking up technically difficult stuff easily. Chuck wants that sense of smartness to be all his. And why not?

That's human nature! We have a thing or an ability beyond that of most others, and we are proud of it. It can become us. By that I mean, we take that ownership of thing, of skill, of position, the pride in it, to be the inherent part of what we are. It is a most fundamental issue of self-identity. We have it, it is ours and all ours alone. We may have worked hard for it, or had it from day one of being -- yet we share it with no one, we owe no one for it, and we are damn proud of that, of being beholden to none.

Yet it is all a gift, whether we worked hard and hardest for it, or whether we had it "naturally". A gift from G-d. And there is beholdness. We each are beholden to G-d for even that thing, those skills, that office, we take such self-sole-ownership of. There is no room for any G-d-concept in our ego, in our sense of self-identification.

To such a person, to such an ego, godless Evolution makes perfect sense, is in perfect alignment with that sense of self-empowerment and self-id. It is a horrible, world destroying thing to have have to make room for a G-d.

To prevent G-d from getting in, we must then be fiercely zealous in keeping Him out. We have to deny most strongly concepts like Intelligent Design and to cast as fools any delusionals and fools caught up in such. Such zealotry is not a matter of analysis, it is a shortcut, and a shortcut that preserves the underlying fallacy, that allows that imaginary castle of Ayn Randian Ego to stand tall, Man-god-like. A modern Zeus of intellect and rationality.

We then become a fool for empty dogma, and yet when we take on such a dogma -- for perfectly rational reasons, all will be assured -- we are zealous to defend it most stridently, and with great punching and stabbing (in words .. in words!). One dogma is that all "religions" are equal, pretty much. Without a real known G-d, of course that is an easy idea construct to create and maintain. Christian, Muslin, Jewish, Hindi -- all mere fascinations and false opiates for the less-smart-than-us masses.

We, in all our self sufficient ego supreme -- and demonstratable too -- look at Charles marvelous inventions of web-code in various languages, how shrewd the clockwork his hands made according to the deep intellect and mental skills he has! -- we then deny a G-d by allowing all religions equally, and none of them worth but a leash for the unwashed dogs of the masses.

[Always On Watch]

For the last several months, LGF has been moving away from blogging about the Islamic threat. The change in tone over there has been noticeable and ever more strident.

Charles Johnson's attack on Robert Spencer is beyond the pale!

Seriously, though, I doubt that this particular "rift" will cause much damage overall. Robert Spencer is the voice of reason and sanity -- and one of the pre-eminent authorities on Islam.

[The Rogue Jew]

I think Chucky Johnson has gotten a little full of himself. He's evolved into the right wing version of the Obamessiah. Granted, I do read LGF, I agree with most of the stuff on the site, but I can see how the ego has grown since Rathergate and Fauxtoshop was highlighted on LGF. Oh well...We all do need to stick together though.

[Hev]

Ivan in Bradford: hello friend! Really interesting points you bring up. Nick Griffin has certainly remade his image to appear more of a 'gentleman' and less of a National Front member in red suspenders. He is certainly is on the mark decryng multi-culturalism and its rotten influence, and it appears to resonate with people. What concerns me is his popularity will get away from him and result in a resurgence of an NF-style movement if Labour's immigration policies continue. The BNP isn't operating in a vacuum, but is reacting to Labour policies. But LGF's tactic of banishing groups and individuals is the wrong way to go. BNP supporters could be pulled into the Tory fold if a Conservative leader appears. I am dismayed at the splintering. We know that the Islamists will use our own liberalism against us, threatening us with charges of racism for example if we don't tolerate sharia. LGF appears to be following their lead.

And Rober Spencer is surely no Nick Griffin!

[Thulsa Doom]

LGF lost me as a regular reader a while back when the theme changed from Islamofascism awareness to some Atheist rant about how idiotic believers of intelligent design were. Atlas Shrugs is my new resting place.

[Nemesis6]

Good job on missing the point of the threads. Creationism is unconstitutional. It also happens to be complete bullshit, but that's neither here nor there. What I really came to show is this:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31839_Vlaams_Belang_and_National_Front_Leaders_Caught_Mocking_Holocaust

Nice guys, huh? Of course they're not fascists, not at all... The list of prominent fascists in European plitics isn't really that long: BNP, BKÖ, and Vlaams Belang. Those are the main idiots so far.

[Suzanne]

Sorry to dredge up this old posting, but I just wanted to let this blog know that I have replaced LGF with Atlas...

I got sick and tired of LGF's obsession with those that want to teach creationism and his posting (almost daily) of such stories. I wrote a very POLITE post to Charles asking him why he is doing this and why can't he get back to what he does so well.

Well...my post was deleted and the morons there launched into a leftist-like attack on me. Needless to say, I posted a goodbye and dropped LGF from my favorite website lists.

Something is wrong with Charles - if he can't even answer a very polite question.