Charles Johnson's LGF is one of the most widely-read conservative blogs. I have often read and linked to it. Its coverage of the Muslim menace is particularly good. For some reason, however, Charles has been running an extensive campaign of attack on two European political parties -- in Sweden and in Belgium -- that are also energetically publicizing the Muslim menace. There seem to be two elements in his attacks: Attacks on the past of some members of the parties concerned and a very loose and quite Leftist definition of racism.
I know very little about either of the political parties concerned except that their proclaimed policies are clearly not racist. So I will simply make the general observation that large political parties -- which the Belgian one certainly is -- invariably have a considerable mix of members with all sorts of backgrounds and views. I would not remotely be surprised or alarmed to hear that some of the members had said hostile things in their time which they now regret and which they no longer believe. I would have thought that I did not have to draw attention to the fact that a former Kleagle of the KKK still sits in the U.S. Senate as a representaive of the Democrats. His change of views is accepted as sincere and his past views are seen as no detriment to him so why cannot others be accepted for their present rather than their past views?
Perhaps more surprising is that Charles appears to accept the Leftist definition of "racism". I have not been able to find any formal definition of the term from him but he appears to subscribe to the view that any mention of group differences is "racist". Given that definition, some of Charles' own comments on Muslims are racist and so is the New York Times. Rather strange.
The Leftist view is clearly brain-dead. Racism is hostile behaviour towards someone solely because of his race. Noting interracial differences is simply free speech. As I have often noted before, the erstwhile British Empire is an excellent case in point. Right up to and including Winston Churchill, almost all Brits believed that the English were obviously a superior race. In the addled minds of the Left, that makes it crystal clear that all the Brits concerned were racist.
Yet the British Empire was undoubtedly the world's most humane polity of the time. At the height of the Empire it had brown-skinned men sitting in its Parliament and had a much-loved Jew as its Prime Minister. And I hope I don't need to remind anybody that Britain abolished slavery long before the USA did. Some racism!
So why does Charles seem to be influenced by the silly Leftist definition of racism? He is obviously a smart and realistic man in most ways so I can only assume that he wishes to broaden his audience to those who subscribe to such a definition. I understand that he derives considerable income from his blog so it is probably a purely commercial decision.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)