“Fascism” is usually defined by anti-fascists as a kind of genocidal authoritarianism based on racism. This definition isn't exact, and it ignores fascism's history as an economic/political infrastructure, but using the term “fascist” rather than “genocidal authoritarianism based on racism but not always on a corporate/nationalist economic and political infrastructure” makes for easier writing (and reading).

That’s why Johnson opposes (and has always opposed) European leanings towards “Fascism” as well as “Fascism” in the Muslim world.

“Fascism” is usually defined by anti-fascists as a kind of genocidal authoritarianism based on racism. This definition isn't exact, and it ignores fascism's history as an economic/political infrastructure, but using the term “fascist” rather than “genocidal authoritarianism based on racism but not always on a corporate/nationalist economic and political infrastructure” makes for easier writing (and reading).

That’s why Johnson opposes (and has always opposed) European leanings towards “Fascism” as well as “Fascism” in the Muslim world.

Or, perhaps not. Perhaps it's just people, and a blogger with a twisted mind.

The irony is certainly not lost on me, Whig. You criticize Weigl for engaging in guilt by association when that is EXACTLY what Charles Johnson does.

Johnson is not responsible for the content of Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch. If he made a couple of links to them years ago – one of which was to congratulate the blog on its first anniversay – so what?

He subsequently learned that these bloggers were playing kissy-face with fascists, and he made his disagreements about this known.

Johnson has oodles more integrity than this writer, who attempts to smear by association. A real class act.

Let's take apart one example:

“The only post Weigel dug up that I honestly regret was one from 2004 expressing qualified approval of Vlaams Blok (the neofascist group that morphed into Vlaams Belang), when they were banned by the Belgian government.”

Now, let's see… Vlaams Blok was not a 'neofascist group'. It was a conservative, nationalist and separatist political party. Not 'group', 'party'. Big one, too. Vlaams Blok was not banned by the Belgian government. First, in countries with anything like separation of powers (yes, this concept is fading away in most places), courts ban groups, not governments.

Belgium, while dubious WRT the Rule of Law, still uses courts in matters such as this.

Now, talking of Belgium… CJ is probably not aware that Belgium is not a nation-state, it is a political union created by force in 1831. There are four ethnic groups in Belgium, only two of which matter in this context, the Walloons and the Flemish. The Dutch-speaking Flemish used to be the somewhat backward majority in the north, with the French-speaking Walloons in the south dominating the administration and doing what they can to quell any calls for Flemish independence. This has been the situation since the formation of Belgium.

The Walloon administration is still using its dominance in administration to take pot shots at Flemish independence movements – currently the Vlaams Belang, previously the Vlaams Blok. What happened in 2004 was that one member was convicted (in a dubious court case) of racism, and the peculiar construction of Belgian law was such that any member of Vlaams Blok would be exposed to similar cases due to this conviction. Thus, Vlaams Blok had to be dissolved and a successor party created.

This is the usual stuff that takes place when an independence movement is harrassed by the central government of a state it wishes to see dissolved. Recent cases against VB members Bart Debie and Frank Verhecke follow a similar pattern.

Enter Charles Johnson. He decides that VB (either of them) was/is a fascist movement and that anyone of other opinions are fascist-supporters, fascist-enablers and eurofascists. He's clueless about actual history and politics in Europe, and Belgium in particular. There's no reason to take his slurs seriously.