Charles Johnson’s really existing desires for Europe

The Center for Vigilant Freedom, which organized the Counter-Jihad conference in Brussels last month, has a long and considered article on Charles Johnson’s charges against the Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats, entitled “The European Foreign Policy of Charles Johnson.” I haven’t read it all yet. But the author, Christine, takes Johnson’s positions seriously, quotes them in detail, and gets at the practical heart of what he wants: the destruction of the only parties in Sweden and Belgium that support Israel, oppose anti-Semitism, and stand against the Islamization of Europe. Here is the culminating passage in the article:

4. Long term goal:

Johnson is an idealist—more, a utopian—in his goals for political parties in Europe, as he says on October 26:

I think the best course for the SD, if they’re being honest about their desire to renounce the Nazi roots of the party, would be to make a clean break and start a new organization without any associations with previous leaders or members. In fact, this course seems so obvious to me that it’s another reason why I can’t simply take them at their word.

It’s worth noting again that the Vlaams Belang and Sweden Democrats are both the most pro-Israel parties in their countries, that both have taken strong stands against anti-semitism and racism, that extremists have left or been kicked out of both parties because of these policies, and that each is the primary voice (the sole voice in the case of SD) arguing for controls on immigration, standards for assimilation and a stop to Islamisation.

If Johnson’s recommended policies were to be applied, not just to the SD but to all political parties opposing Islamisation, all members and previous leaders would be banned—presumably indefinitely, since the evidence of association goes back a long way and seems to contaminate forever.

No political parties would ever fit this ideal. It is a utopianism that results in policies that would effectively ban political participation by any “members or leaders” of most conservative and right-wing existing parties. Given VB’s and SD’s rapidly growing support, this utopianism demands that they self-destruct just as they now are within a year or two of having significant influence in their respective parliaments. In fact, this is utopianism imposed with such potentially destructive results—though surely not a destructive intent, of course—it becomes a casual nihilism.

I’m further informed by a correspondent about Johnson’s response to the CVF article (no link to this discussion):

Some commenters did raise the question of the depth of the LGF analysis, prompting Johnson’s response:

“Honest differences of opinion?” You mean saying that I “don’t have the intellect” to understand the subtleties of European race hatred? That kind of “honest difference?”

There’s Johnson for you. It is certainly the case that no one could accuse the man of having a subtle understanding.

- end of initial entry -

Terry Morris writes:

Charles Johnson wrote: “I think the best course for the SD, if they’re being honest about their desire to renounce the Nazi roots of the party, would be to make a clean break and start a new organization without any associations with previous leaders or members. In fact, this course seems so obvious to me that it’s another reason why I can’t simply take them at their word.”

Can you imagine if someone on the fringes of Christianity said that we must disassociate ourselves from the likes of Abraham who had sexual relations with a woman whose son became the father of the greatest anti-semitic people on earth? Or, that we must disassociate ourselves and our beliefs from Moses, the Great Lawgiver, due to his close relations with the house of Pharoah which oppressed the Israelites? And etc…

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 13, 2007 12:10 PM | Send