Charles Johnson of the well-read blog littlegreenfootballs.com (LGF) has raised concerns about the attendance at the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference by members of the Flemish Independence party Vlaams Belang (VB), and the Sweden Democrats (SD) party. We have answered those concerns with specific refutations. However, Johnson has asserted not only his concerns about VB and SD, but his wish and expectation that both U.S. and European groups and individuals should stop associating with VB and SD or any similar political parties or individuals.

Our concern is that this could have a chilling effect on communications and political activism of some U.S. readers of his blog. We are not as concerned about a chilling effect on the Europeans who were the great majority of those attending the conference, since only six Americans attended out of over 70 participants (excluding a few foreign residents with dual citizenship). The Europeans who have heard of LGF - and some are great fans - consider LGF to be more a U.S. blog than a European one.

Because we have a sincere respect for the good work Johnson does, and we hope he will continue to do, we have responded to his concerns in a sober and restrained fashion. However, in the last three weeks Johnson has strongly and repeatedly expressed his demand that all associations, political groups and individuals in the “counterjihad movement” must never associate with a wide range of European conservative and right wing political groups and individuals, including VB and SD. In that time, Johnson has also formulated and extensively published on his recommended foreign policy for non-governmental U.S. and European coordination against radical Islamism. We take his foreign policy recommendations seriously, although we do not agree with them. We will explain shortly why we disagree.

In order to provide a factual and complete understanding of Johnson’s recommended European foreign policy for non-governmental communications, we have compiled a list of all his comments from the LGF posts on this topic. The LGF posts themselves are also relevant and are linked in the document. The entire document of Johnson’s personal comments on the VB/SD topics can be downloaded here as a Word file (2.5 MB) or an html file (1.1 MB). We will keep these up-to-date. Due to the large number of comments Johnson makes per post, we may have accidentally missed a few, but we have made a diligent effort to capture them all to represent his views as objectively and seriously as possible.

Some blogs, including LGF, use selections from regular commenters to illustrate implicit or explicit recommended policies of a particular blog community. We choose at this time to focus solely on the comments of Johnson himself and his recommended policies. First, two statements to provide perspective:

Analytic frameworks should vary. Some analytic frameworks should be micro and some should be macro. Certain researchers excel at analysis that uncovers a single deceptive document, as in the “Rathergate” and “fauxtography” projects. The scope of these research efforts is constrained, a micro focused effort with experts attacking it from all sides, and a high probability of success. On the other hand, the analytic framework to assess a political party should be greater, a macro effort, since history, political statements, interviews, resolutions and multiple leaders and factions all need to be taken into account. In the case of VB - the largest political party in Flanders and an outgrowth of a Flemish independence movement dating back to the founding of Belgium 175 years ago, a party now opposed not just to the Belgium government but also to the European Union - several overlapping macro-analytic frameworks are required to understand current and historical events, to evaluate past decisions and generate future policy options for non-governmental coordination. If LGF continues its interest in Belgium or other countries anywhere, we hope that it will increasingly use a macro framework in its assessments.

Unfortunately, using the analytic frameworks of micro research (investigating a coverup or deception) to try to assess a complex macro situation (investigating a party supported by over 800,000 people and opposed by many more, with over half a century of history or predecessors) can result in poor situation assessments and policy recommendations. The problem isn’t Johnson’s motives, which of course are only the best, or his analytic ability, which is demonstrable, but rather of a mismatch between the research methodologies of the blogosphere and the real world of European coalition politics, history and culture. An “Army of Davids” does not scale up, without education and experience, into an “Army of Thucydides.”

Minds cannot be read, but actions and statements can be. We cannot determine the secret motivations of either bloggers or politicians, so instead of seeing all statements as a cover-up of true intent, we treat them simply as statements. If a politician makes contradictory statements - taking one position in the past, and then taking a new position - we see this as a common phenomenon, and either a sign that the politician is learning from experience or responsive to a constituency. If politicians tries to hide the fact of the earlier statement, that’s not unusual behavior but it is an attempt at a coverup. If - as in the cases of VB and SD - several decades of parties opposing them have exposed every possible scandal, and posted them all on the internet years before - then no coverup can be successfully attempted, since all is known to the publics of their respective countries. As Johnson himself states repeatedly, information attacking both VB and SD is extensively posted across the Internet. We suspect he will find this is the case for any political party engaged in competition for votes with other political parties over any period of time.

Similarly, if a blogger makes contradictory statements- taking one position in the past, and then taking a new position - we see this change in the same way. For example, Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog invited Johnson to the October 18-19 conference; Johnson in fact received three emails with information about Vlaams Belang’s participation, the first being sent on July 14. Similar emails (the short personal note at the beginning varied, but the body was the same) were sent to all speakers and potential participants. Most other invitees responded; Johnson responded to none of these emails, but they also did not bounce back.

1. The email from July 14 stated, “Paul Belien of Brussels Journal is actively involved, and Filip Dewinter, a leader of Vlaams Belang (the Flemish separatist party) is helping us out with the venue and security. “
2. The email from July 30 stated, “Philip Claeys, EU Parliamentarian with Vlaams Belang, is helping with access to facilities and security.”
3. The email from September 9 stated “Vlaams Belang is making the arrangements for the venue and security, and I will be in touch later with recommendations for accomodation and information about meals and transport.”

If we assume that Johnson read at least one of the three emails, he knew in advance - possibly by over three months - of Vlaams Belang’s involvement. (That involvement consisted of providing the same routine access to secure Parliament meeting rooms that all non-governmental citizens groups have on a “space-available” basis. ) He raised no concerns about their involvement until after the conference. We cannot read his mind, only his statements and actions. He has, in the past, corresponded by email with Baron Bodissey, who sent the invitations. He chose not to act for three months; and then he did choose to act.

Johnson’s European Foreign Policy

1. The “Counterjihad Movement”

Johnson’s analytic framework is the blog community “littlegreenfootballs.com,” which investigates and discusses issues with a combination of internet research - largely confined to google searches - and an inwardly directed, consensus-driven analytic culture that is accountable primarily to the LGF online community itself, and to Johnson.

Johnson exercises significant administrative direction over the researchers and analysts in the littlegreenfootballs.com community, resulting in deleting of posts, banning of members, and voluntary departures from the community. These occurred reportedly at an unusually high rate in the last three weeks, due to a number of members who did not accept the consensus-driven methodology at the website for the discussion of the VB and SD issues (a quick skim through the comments makes this clear-for example here and here and here and here and here and here).

This increased departure of members either voluntarily or by banning may have been an unfortunate result of applying micro-analytic techniques to a very macro situation, leading to mutual frustration. The micro investigators felt that they had proven their “case” repeatedly, with specific objects of evidence of associations (a flag, a statue, two photographs, a cartoon, etc.), an ideological framework of a white power conspiracy extending globally into both Europe and the U.S., and this anti-jihad analysis:

It’s not that dire, and those who refuse to face the truth are going to regret it — because they’re alienating the vast majority of sane people who will run away from any hint of Nazism or white supremacy.

The macro-analysts felt their case was also proven, because right-wing parties are routinely accused of Nazism and/or racism under Europe’s draconian discrimination and speech control laws (regardless of any support for Israel or racial minorities), and all parties supporting national sovereignty are similarly accused of white supremacy, so in their view sane people were being accused of Nazism and white supremacy much of the time without merit. Both groups talked at cross-purposes; generally the macro analysts were the ones who were banned or voluntarily left.

This consensus-driven, inwardly directed community model appears to influence Johnson’s thinking about political responses by Western societies to the Jihadism, Islamisation and ideological Dawa of 21st century Islamists. Thus, where other analysts assume there are hundreds of widely varying groups, coalitions, and individuals working to oppose Jihadism or related issues (immigration, free speech, human rights etc.), and that other countries may be unique in their approaches and issues, Johnson sees a single movement - worldwide - which he calls “the counterjihad movement.” The nature of this “movement” changes from comment to comment, but the consistent implicit assumption is that the behavior and decisions of the “movement” should be influenced (though probably not decided) by Johnson, presumably with other leaders in the “counterjihad movement.”

For example, in his first post, Johnson warns:

It’s important to note that not all the people who are hitching a ride on the anti-Islamization movement are doing it for honorable reasons.

In the comments on that post:

True racists have their own agenda, which they will hide and lie about in order to hitch a ride on a popular cause. It’s very dangerous to associate with those types.

And in a later post…

Here are just a few of the reasons I have deep misgivings about the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, successor to the banned Vlaams Blok, and their participation in the European anti-Islamization movement

Or here…

It’s not just the European anti-Islamization movement that’s being corrupted by neo-Nazi connections.

And with the added formality of an assumed “alliance” here:

I’m saying the counter-jihad movement is making a big mistake by allying themselves with people like this.

With perhaps less room for compromise:

My whole point is, and has always been, that for the counter-jihad movement to associate with these groups is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.

After several prominent analysts took issue with his assessments:

If I lose 90% of my readers because of the stand I’m taking against the counter-jihad movement associating with crypto-fascist parties, it won’t matter one bit to me, and it won’t change what I believe to be right.

And evolving to a more limited focus:

I believe it’s a serious mistake for US anti-jihad bloggers to make affiliations with the VB and other European far-right groups

We disagree with this projection of the highly “command and control” world of LGF onto the broader global political scene. Since European (and African, Asian, Australian and indeed American) political groups and individuals working against jihadists are often motivated by local cultures, heritage, traditions, religions and politics, the “counterjihad movement” is in fact many movements, each locally rooted in its own set of issues. There is no central “counterjihad movement” (CJM) office; no little green membership card in the CJM; and no “Nanny anti-jihad” approval board to monitor who attends which conference. We encourage all groups and individuals to oppose jihad without prior approval from their insurer, and to pursue liberty without a license. We hope Johnson would agree.

2. Intelligence Gathering For Developing Foreign Policy

Johnson asserts his policy recommendations based on research methodologies that do not compare favorably to those of corporate, academic, or mainstream media standards. For example, in addition to using google searches, other comments and research are provided in emails sent to Johnson; the methodology he uses to vet these emails (to verify, for example, that someone claiming to be a right-wing Flemish citizen is not in fact left-wing or Wallonian) is not described at the website. The community’s research does not appear to extend to additional sources such as Lexis-Nexis or other proprietary databases that charge nominal access fees, although these would normally be used in corporate or academic research.

More significantly, additional research that would be customary in mainstream media or academic research, such as calling a subject of an article for his or her comments on allegations, in order to represent both sides of a topic, are also not part of the methodological approach at littlegreenfootballs.com. The community’s methodologies also include using biased sources without noting the bias (for example, sources from a government-backed media source in Sweden, or from Wallonian opposition in Belgium). The community’s methodologies do not require researching or posting written positions from both sides of a political incident, but rather only the accusing party; as in the case of the discussion of the Vlaams Belang’s vote on the 2005 Holocaust Resolution in the EU Parliament, or the transition from Vlaams Blok to Vlaams Belang (as an alternative approach, both sides are discussed here).

Finally, Vlaams Belang has been represented in the European Parliament for several years, and made hundreds of diverse public statements on many issues. If Johnson’s foreign policy is to place an entire political party - indeed, all similar political parties or associations - beyond “association” by any counterjihad activists or writers, including “U.S. anti-jihad bloggers” - then a serious effort should have been made to read and evaluate the history of the actual positions taken by that political party, as we have started to do here and here. Johnson sees historically valid evidence in far less substantive information - for example, in identifying white power groups who link to a VB or SD website (something over which the organization has no control). Therefore we think, from a policy formulation perspective, that years of publicly stated actual policies and actions of the political party are at least as valid evidence as incoming web links. They are, after all, the positions on which the party runs for election and represents its constituencies, and at the EU Parliament, they are readily available online in English.

This lack of conventional methodological standards, combined with ambitious policy goals for influencing activists in multiple nations, can lead to major gaps in research and policy. The most significant in our view, is Johnson’s neglect in his analysis of the rapid growth in authoritarian laws under the European Union apparatus, and under some nation states. These laws expand the list of proscribed behaviors, words and thoughts, using the rationales of racism, discrimination, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-multiculturalism etc. Three of these laws (2 from the EU, 1 from Belgium) are described and their impact discussed here.

Thus Johnson’s and LGF’s ubiquitous descriptions of VB or SD as racist, “Crypto-Nazi,” “neo-fascist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” “white supremacist,” “white nationalist,” etc. uses the language of the European Union and left-wing parties, not simply as political invective but as words with real legal import in Europe. Johnson’s conflation of the political defense of national constitutions, national sovereignty and cultures with “white nationalism” also uses the language of the European Union and the left. Johnson’s largely uncritical adoption of the “European Union” mindset may be the major cause of the paucity of research and political analysis regarding both the 2005 Holocaust Resolution incident and the party’s transition from Vlaams Blok to Vlaams Belang. On the 2005 Resolution Johnson simply states:

As for the Holocaust vote — I see this in very simple terms. That was a resolution condemning the Nazi death camps. For a party that’s already treading dangerously close to the line to refuse to support such a resolution speaks very loudly about their ideology.
This is one big reason why Stormfront and the Pan Aryan Morons like Vlaams Belang, because they’re trying to use coded words and slippery arguments to get to the same place.

Johnson’s apparent decision in this whole incident to use left-wing, Wallonian, EU or other sources somewhat uncritically, and therefore his susceptibility to disinformation campaigns, has been discussed at length across many online publications and requires no separate treatment here. On his behalf, we would argue that standards of due diligence in the blogosphere are evolving rapidly, and this incident has occurred at a time of transition. The end result may be good; the lessons learned may benefit the quality of research and analysis in many blogs, not just at LGF.

3. Experience and Education in European Affairs

We suggest that a line exists - and if it does not, we are attempting to draw it in this post - between blogosphere editorial recommendations, and political campaigns to assert foreign policy with an intent to “command and control” rather large numbers of people around the globe concerning how they resist jihadism. Johnson has posted 19 posts on this topic in the last three weeks, which seems rather more a political campaign than an editorial recommendation. We suspect the nature of that line will be debated for many years, as it should be, and this post is intended as a contribution to that public debate. One aspect of this is the question of education and experience, and the role of both in improving how we as citizens work together to defend our liberties and roll back jihadism and Islamisation.

We are great proponents of the wisdom of crowds, the autodidacts of the Internet and the Armies of Davids philosophy. But we also respect the professionalism, expertise, and serious - often heroic - efforts of Europeans defending their cultures and liberties, in legislatures, courts of law and political assemblies across their many nations. Their struggle leaves behind the abstractions of the LGF debates, and moves forward into real work on immigration reform, deportation laws, speech laws, zoning laws for controlling radical mosques, EU constitutional demands on nation states, improved counter-terrorism measures, methods for stopping radicalization, ways to encourage Muslim reformation and assimilation, individual court cases involving shariah vs western laws and so on and on, each approached differently in individual provinces or cantons, as well as in individual countries. European political parties combine and recombine across factions and coalitions at a dizzying rate, requiring even more due diligence. One doesn’t have to know everything to assert an editorial opinion; but one does need to know a reasonable amount to engage in a political campaign to enforce banning of one group or another from mutual associations.

The attendees and speakers at the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference included experts in many areas - the speaker biographies are here, and many participants who did not speak are equally expert in their own fields and country . Part of the purpose was to introduce subject matter experts, writers, practical politicians, local activists and even a few bloggers to each other. Here is a small sample of speaker backgrounds - do read the biographies of all these extraordinary and dedicated individuals, as well as their conference presentations:

Bat Ye’or: Author of five books and scores of articles on non-Muslims under Islam

David Littman: MA and postgraduate studies, scholarly publications on the topic for almost half a century, over 100 written and oral statements concerning human rights published in his various NGO capacities

Paul Belien: Law Degree, Doctorate in International Studies, adjunct fellow, Hudson Institute, author of A Throne in Brussels.

Lars Hedegaard: President, Free Press Society, author of several books on contemporary world history, former Editor-In-Chief of the Copenhagen daily newspaper Information

Jens Anfindsen: Doctorate in Philosophy, political analyst for Norway’s Human Rights Service

Johannes Jansen: Professor, University of Utrecht, expert in Islamic extremism, author of multiple books and articles on the topic

Arnaud Dotezac: Professor of Law in Lausanne, Switzerland, focusing on the law of religions, particularly islamic law, and also on the law of armed conflict

Arieh Eldad, M.D.: Physician, member of the Israeli Knesset

Patrick Sookhdeo: Ph.D. from London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies on the impact of Islam on society. He also holds doctorates from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon and Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary, Wisconsin. Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and of the Barnabas Fund. His latest book is “Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam“

Dr. Marc Cogen: Professor of International Law, Ghent University, and Co-Founder of the ‘European Friends of Israel.’

Sam Solomon: expert in Shariah law, executive director of Fellowship of Faith for the Muslims, U.K., founder of the Christian Law Society

Robert Spencer: internationally reknowned expert in Islamic theology, law and history, author of seven books and hundreds of articles and monographs about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including his latest book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t

Andrew Bostom, M.D.: Associate Professor of medicine at Rhode Island Hospital (Brown University Medical School affiliate hospital), author of books and many articles, including his latest The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History

Johnson’s background is relevant to the discussion as well, given his foreign policy initiatives in the last three weeks to control political associations among groups. He has stated concerning his European expertise:

I’ve been all over Europe as well; spent many years touring Europe in different bands, and made a point of researching each country. I’m not a newbie about these issues.
And I completely agree: the “nuance” argument is bullshit.

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

“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?”

On Johnson’s behalf, the questions he raises reflect the same evolving standards in due diligence noted above. Blogosphere standards may become more demanding in experience, education and credibility of the blog posters, especially if they have the goal of political influence. As noted previously, this unfortunate incident at LGF may result in improved standards in many blogs.

Johnson’s own background is not provided at LGF, but his wiki biography (a source always subject to doubt) states:

Charles Foster “Icarus” Johnson (born April 13, 1953) is an American Jazz guitarist, software developer and blogger.[1] He has played on 29 albums. His weblog, Little Green Footballs, is one of the top 50 most popular blogs on the Internet

Other biographical articles include this NY Sun article and this article from israelnationalnews.com, that rightly notes his unflinching support for Israel, one of the many of Johnson’s positions we admire and respect. Other articles show his long-standing interest in Europe, and in the history of European anti-semitism.

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.

Conclusion

There will be no immediate conclusion to this debate, but we hope it can be made better-informed and more focused on real issues, and less on abstractions and propaganda. In the meantime, in the real world following the October 18-19 conference, activists have already met in several places in Europe to combine efforts; at least one local conference is planned in the next month, following up on discussions from the second working group day; several writers are working on preparing translations of various works into each others’ languages; rather a lot of networking goes on daily, among a greatly expanded group of international colleagues; and we are planning a limited-participation online conference to address problems, policies and legislative initiatives on immigration and assimilation.

We intend to associate at that conference with members of Sweden Democrats, Vlaams Belang and a number of other groups and political parties, if they wish to participate, in order to exchange ideas and views. We hope that the resulting papers and policy initiatives will be useful for participants and non-participants alike.