Why the anti-jihad resistance is not about race

'... while the neo-fascist parties regard resistance to the jihad as required for the preservation of white Britain'.

It's to be assumed you're referring to the BNP who it's incorrect to describe as 'neo-fascist'. The native, indigenous, British are being swamped and submerged by a myriad of different religions, cultures and yes, races. By far the most dangerous of these is Islam which is why it receives so much attention and has such a high priority for Nationalist parties such as the BNP. The fact that the native British are fair skinned, or in your terms 'white', is completely irrelevant.

The multiculti-diversity cultists of the far left and the politically correct brain police deliberately distorts the images of racism/religion/ ideology.

As in the case of Lousie Arbour from the UN, they cannot even tell the difference between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights under the sharia. Neither do they have a concept of right and wrong, as we can see how they treat Israel.

There is not even consensus that there is a global jihad.

This is a long hard battle and the MSM is against us, the general public seems unintersted, and with every dollar we pay for oil the jihad comes around to bite us in the ass.

Its not nice....

In Europe there is undeniably a racial aspect to mass migration.

I don't think anybody ever had a problem with well educated, well-off Japanese who (used to) establish factories and production plants and employed lots of people.

While race may not be the bone of contention, there is a race issue l and it is getting worse by the daily influx of thousands of economic refugees and asylum seekers from failed African nations, who come in leaky boats...

Europe is not Africa, the Africans have shown the Europeans they don't want them there. Now these same Africans are following the vilified colonialists to their homecountries,to settle amongst them, regardless. However, its a one-way street, there is never any reciprocity. Neither is there reciprocity in the US, as we can see with the Obama/Wright ideology, its a 'black thing', and its them against white America. Sad. But it would be a lot worse if such a guy becomes president.

Perhaps Fjordman can say it better than me, but I (along with many fellow Europeans) would insist that we have no obligation to accommodate Africans in large numbers.

Neither should we.

What about Adam Gadahn, or Johnny Walker Lindh? Two white kids from California I beleive.

Since the vast majority of muslim immigrants are of the same "race"(if you stick with the 3 race theorem) as Europeans, then how can it be about race?
It is about ethnicity, it is about culture and it is about religion(which is simply a subsection of culture). It may be easy for an American to (try and) ignore ethnicity, since you have no common ethnicity. We Europeans, however, do. I'd refer to Robert Putnam, again, but I bet it'd be an exercise in futility.

I find it kind of hypocritical how you talk of a "defence of human rights", when Hugh Fitzgerald, in a debate with me, has said that the human rights are only aspirational and has advocated violating the human rights(as they are understood by "international law").(I believe Marisol agreed with him)
In his last response to me, he said he'd write a response as an article, but I've not seen it yet, though I'd still like to see it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Untill you've formulated a (viable) strategy for countering the jihad/islamization, people would do well to simply ignore your criticism of the "nationalist approach".

Some questions:
Does it mean that opposing the mass migration of peoples from entirely different backgrounds and ethnicities is "racist"? Could the "diversification" of the nations of Europe have weakened their will to oppose Jihad? If the US becomes a land of "squabbling nationalities" and if large parts of the American West secede to form Aztlan, will America continue to be (imperfectly and stupidly perhaps) the only major effective opponent of Islamic jihad? Finally, will masses of non-Muslim immigrants from Latin America or Africa use their increasing political clout to oppose Muslim immigration? Or might they themselves feeling insecure be reluctant to limit any "third world" group from immigrating? And is not limiting Muslim immigration an essential prerequisite to the survival of non Muslim nations?

BTW this is the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. Is he not being proved right?

Whether you like it or not, many of the Muslims who threaten the West are of African or Asian descent. It appears that the mainstream parties of Europe or, should I say, the established parties, are the ones who are making this about race. Geert Wilders manages to make the case against militant Islam without dallying with racist groups but he himself is called a racist by the mainstream parties.
I also thought of the BNP. Since when is a desire to preserve your own culture racist? No one would say that about American Indians who are rediscovering their tribal languages. No one would say that about Muslims in Saudi Arabia. The same people who preach multiculturalism in the West see no obligation on the part of others to allow outsiders to flourish in their systems. If Muslims are allowed to maintain separation within the West and fight for sharia law, why aren't we allowed to fight against sharia law without being deemed racist?
The major parties generally think we are just being close-minded or that we are exaggerating the threat we face. They are the ones using the specter of racism for electoral advantage. The others who make it about race are Arabs themselves. Don't they see themselves as the lords of all others, even other Muslims, who aren't Arabic by birth and thus not from the same land as Mohammed?

Robert says:

"The anti-jihad movement, if it is to become mainstream in Europe or the U.S., must articulate a positive vision of defense for the human rights of all people against the ways in which those human rights are contravened under Sharia, and avoid being diverted into side issues and non-issues, or formulating the problem incorrectly."

Well, how is that supposed to come about when the mere suggestion that jihad principles aren't appropriate in Europe or the US is deemed racist on its face? Multiculturalism has to go but opponents of multiculturalism are called white supremacists. Anything you say that smacks of criticism of Islam gets you branded a bigot of one type or another.
What is a "side issue"? Things like whether or not you can show only your eyes for a picture id? Some imams are issuing a fatwa saying the use of someone's name on a specimen bottle is unislamic and should be done away with. Imagine how many more mistakes can be made if hospitals aren't allowed to use names, but must hope that someone doesn't transpose two numbers or someone doesn't mistake a seven for a one. There are people who would change our way of life and we are expected to sit still in the name of multiculturalism or else be branded bigots.

DanishDynamite:

I find it kind of hypocritical how you talk of a "defence of human rights", when Hugh Fitzgerald, in a debate with me, has said that the human rights are only aspirational and has advocated violating the human rights(as they are understood by "international law").(I believe Marisol agreed with him)

I assume you mean the human rights of Muslims.

Anyway, contrary to jihadist myth, I am not Hugh Fitzgerald. Nor am I, for that matter, Marisol. However, I doubt that either of them did this, and would ask you to provide evidence of their claim.

If, however, Hugh Fitzgerald did say this, with the meaning you imply, then he was wrong. He and I have many areas of disagreement, and if he said this in the way you suggest, this would be another. I strongly believe, and have said many, many times, that we must uphold our civilizational values in defending ourselves against the jihad, and if we discard them in that defense, the defense itself is pointless.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

DanishDynamite:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Untill you've formulated a (viable) strategy for countering the jihad/islamization, people would do well to simply ignore your criticism of the "nationalist approach".

Contrary to such claims, which have unfortunately been advanced even on websites of people claiming to be my allies, I have, although it is sketchy at this point because the main thing at this time that needs to be done is to raise awareness. For a variety of reasons, policy will follow after -- notably because in some cases the advocacy of specific policy measures before people are sufficiently aware of the problem can cause people to reject those policies.

Anyway, here, from the last chapter of my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades:

• Tie foreign aid to the treatment of non-Muslims. • Reconfigure our global alliances on the same basis. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the other exporters of jihad should be put on notice.
• Call on Muslim states to renounce Sharia’s expansionist imperative. To be a friend of the United States, each must renounce any intention to try to realize the Islamic goals enunciated by the Pakistani Islamic leader Syed Abul Ala Maududi, who declared that when Muslims are ruled by non-Muslims, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
• Initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources — so that the needed reconfiguration of our alliances can be more than just words.
• Read the Qur’an -- know your enemy.
• Report honestly about jihadist activity in the US and the West.
• Reclassify Muslim organizations. Any Muslim group in America that does not explicitly renounce, in word and in deed, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia should be classified as a political rather than a religious organization, and should be subject to all the responsibilities and standards, which political organizations must adhere.
• Take pride in Western culture.

To those I would add, from my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers:

• Begin to regard Muslim immigration as a national security issue, and take steps to limit it and end it if possible.

There are many others. But to say I've never enunciated a program, even when it has been said by people who were once close to me, is simply a false claim, and, indeed, a smear.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I would say that we all agree that large scale Muslim immigration has been disastrous for Europe, in particular. This does not mean that large scale, non-Muslim immigration is not harmful. In my country of citizenship, crime is getting out of control, and the fact of the matter is that immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime-some are Muslim, some are not. Many of them, Muslim or not, are from other European countries. Most of them, regardless of race or religion, do not make the effort to integrate into society. Large-scale immigration may have worked well in countries such as the USA and Canada, although these countries have very short histories and it is difficult to predict how they will look in 100 years. The fact that these countries have short histories and more "flexible" identities is no doubt a major reason that immigration has worked for them. That does not mean that large-scale immigration, even non-Muslim, will work well in every country. Immigration weakens national and local identities-there is no way to get around that. Should older societies be expected to throw away their traditions, histories and cultures in order to accommodate newcomers?

Seems pretty simple to me: many anti-Jihad Europeans are racists too.

It's been like this a long, long time.

In the UK Muslims are regarded by the powers that be as just another bunch of immigrants. Almost 100% of UK Muslims are non-indigenous. Yes, there are exceptions, as Robert has pointed out.

Due to political correctness, all minority groups immediately acquire victim status and are thus treated with more leeway than indigenous people when it comes to enforcing the rule of law. This is an insult to the indigenous people.

Furthermore, since the UK's Muslims are almost exclusively non-indigenous, any criticism of them is automatically interpreted as racially motivated. This is due to the mass hysteria that descends when any perceived reference to race in a critical context is detected.

Yes, we all know that Islam is not a race, but it suits the Muslims and our leftist government to regard it as such.

Prior to Saturday's Bernard Hopkins - Joe Calzaghe fight, Hopkins decreed that he would never lose to a white boy. If Calzaghe had said the equivalent about a "black boy" he would no doubt have been widely condemned and ostracised. The race card can be played one way only, which leaves indigenous people disadvantaged and angry.

Current UK government policy is to keep unskilled workers on benefits/welfare and import immigrants to do the jobs that cannot be done by British people because the wages are too low to maintain the standard of living that they have become accustomed to. Immigrants tend to vote Labour - and why wouldn't they given the welcome they receive?

On a final note, a St George's Day parade through a mainly Muslim area of Bradford has been cancelled following police advice - apparently, because of "... fears it could stoke up violence."

Now, guess which section of the "community" was likely to cause that violence? The Buddhists? The Wiccans? Bradford's Amish folk? The Followers of the Teachings of the Great Prophet Zarquon?

When was the last time you heard of a Muslim parade being cancelled or even diverted? Muslims can brandish placards inciting murder and the police stand and watch.

Now do you see why the natives get restless?

I see a close parallel with Communism. Islam, like Communism is a belief system that anyone can espouse. Certainly Arabs have benefited from their control of Islam (use of Arabic, religious tourism and a place in the world larger than their accomplishments would warrant), but as advertised, anyone can become a Muslim.

Kamala - Given the politically correct postures of most European political parties, Europeans who are anti-Jihad have very little choice when it comes to supporting politicians who might combine an anti-Jihadist stance with other attributes of the far right. Is it racist to prefer my own religion, culture and legal system to yours? If yes, color me guilty.

"When he came back he was a different person," says Colin. "It's sad. He was brainwashed to such a degree I'm not sure he even knew who he was anymore."

There is another narrative available...that Simon Keeler was NOT brainwashed...but rather made a choice in his life and embraced Islam knowingly, willingly and without coercion.

Meanwhile, Robert's take on the race/culture issue is absolutely the appropriate one, both morally and strategically. Those who want to associate the anti-Jihad with race are squandering the most enduring and potent weapon we have...the universality, the societal utility and the moral integrity that are all derived from the concept and practice of individual freedom, which has nothing to do with race.

This is a very thorny problem indeed.
In order to get to grips with it, one has to look at how this started.

If we look back, we can say, from a general and global viewpoint, that jihad as instrument of terror and suppression started to be used against the West after two main events: the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Soviet Union, and the First Gulf War.

If we look at what happened in the different countries in the West at the same time, we find a general shift from mostly conservative politics to left-wing, social-democratic politics. These took root more easily because of the fall of the Soviet Union and its Empire.

At the same time, women steeped in radical feminism were reaching positions of influence and power, in academe, the different government departments, the media and politics.
This led to the increase of Political Correctness, whose nefarious influence has now spread its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, be it the public and political one or the private one.

Also, and even more important for this debate, secularism and neo-atheism has taken root in public life to an unprecedented degree. That has, in due course, led to a huge number of people not knowing the first thing about religion generally, or their own specifically. In consequence, most of these people now maintain that Islam is just like any other religion and thus not worthy of their attention, and that all religion needs to be banned from public life - meaning Christianity, because banning Islam would 'interfere' with the 'culture' of these people ...

Now I am not advocating that to fight against jihad we need to go back, eradicate feminism and bring back the power of the Church! I am indeed not!

But what we all need to do is the unspectacular but effective work at grass root levels. This worked for the early feminists, it worked for all those who campaigned against nuclear armament, it worked for all those who worked for the protection of the environment.

It is the spreading of what we know, in private discussions, on web forums, in the 'comments'-pages of the media, doing it with stubborn persistence, which will change the attitudes even of those 'in power'.

I personally am quite surprised how quickly the attitudes of ordinary citizens are changing - I remember discussions, which would not have been possible even two years ago, now taking place in public. When people see they are not alone in their anti-jihadist stance, they will come out and talk.

This is the way of removing the fear of being stigmatised as racist, and of showing waverers why racism is not the point, and what will happen to them if they don't stand up as well.
Many understand that already, and the daily drip-drip-drip of more and more mindblowingly stupid demands from imams are helping along just fine, thank you very much!

So don't lose courage - go and do what you here on this site probably have been doing already, and above all, lets keep learning, and keep reading jihad watch: thank you, Robert Spencer and all who make this site work!

It is about "race".

Islam opposes the human race.

MP wrote:

Is it racist to prefer my own religion, culture and legal system to yours? If yes, color me guilty.

Ahh, the "culture" red herring.

Religion is an ideology. As we see with Islam, a religion can have very problematic ideals. But a religion can be renounced, analyzed, etc. It's very concrete.

Legal system is a choice of a society or part of a society.

But culture...

If I'm Jewish, what's my "culture"? Does it threaten you? How? If I'm Japanese, what's my "culture"? If my grandparents were Thai, what's my "culture"? If my skin is dark, what's my "culture"?

What is culture? What do you mean?

Seems pretty simple to me: many anti-Jihad Europeans are racists too.
It's been like this a long, long time.

Posted by: kamala at April 21, 2008 11:33 AM

Kamala you see nothing racist in the Koran which teaches the subjugation and even murder of non-believers?

You know you are free to always move back to Crapistan where your religiously sanctioned racism is encouraged.

One less moaning mohamadan sounds good to me.

Kamala you see nothing racist in the Koran which teaches the subjugation and even murder of non-believers?

You know you are free to always move back to Crapistan where your religiously sanctioned racism is encouraged.

Ad hominem attack? Check.
Zero logic? Check.
Way off base? Check.

Of course it’s legitimate to attack Islam. I would attack and resist a medieval implementation of Christianity in to day’s western society with all means. Islam as it is implemented in the Muslim world today is just as bad.

One could think it was a farce that in the year 2008 people serious discuss e.g. the issue if it is permissible by law to mutilate woman on the grounds of what is said in hearsay stories from 850 AD to 1000 AD.

Small orphan girls shall be married due to Mo outlawed adoption so he could marry his adopted sons wife. The pitiable chaps cant make adoption of orphans legal today because Mo outlawed it 1400 years ago for his whim and desire for his son's wife.

How can anyone in his right mind not fight against and resist this winning ground in todays Europe.

“if to object when one’s friend and colleague is sentenced to death by a foreign power is Islamophobic, then yes and certainly. If to make a comment on the Koran is, and to say I don’t think it is a proper document to base a modern society on, then call me what you like!”
Fay Weldon

Seems pretty simple to me: many anti-Jihad Europeans are racists too.
Posted by Kamala

Your a fine one to speak about ad hominem attacks.

So tell us do you recognize that the Koran and Islam is a supremacist ideology that teaches its adhearents to murder in the name Allah?

So tell us do you recognize that the Koran and Islam is a supremacist ideology that teaches its adhearents to murder in the name Allah?

Like I said, you're way off base. You can read some of my writings here: http://revuse.wetpaint.com/

Now why does an observation that many Europeans who support racist parties are in fact... racist, and that racism has been a tremendous problem throughout Europe for a long long time, send you off the deep end into making incorrect assumptions?

4. Many, many people have written here, and will no doubt write again in response to this post, that the parties that speak of race are the only ones in Europe that are doing anything to resist Islamization, and thus they deserve the support of all those who believe there is something worth defending in Western non-Muslim civilization. I don't think that is any sounder an argument than the claim that we must support Hizballah because it builds schools and runs charities when not lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians.

Sure, non-White anti-Jihadists (or even White anti-Racist anti-Jihadists) may find it uncomfortable supporting the likes of Griffen, Le Pen, Haidar, et al, and choose not to do so. In the meantime, others, who see the Muslim threat for what it is, may well hold their noses (or even not) and go ahead with their support. In this anti-Jihad movement, there are going to be people with varying priorities and pre-requisites: some will want to take on the Muslims first and foremost, while others will want to be very selective about who they align with, and require such parties to disown their racist underpinnings. Fair enough, I say in either case, although with the anti-Jihad movement being as miniscule as it is, I don't see how fragmenting it further furthers anything.

But how is that at all similar to supporting Hizbullah because they build schools and run charities? You have one group, which has as one of its goals, the expulsion of Muslims from Europe and at least the de-Islamification of Europe to the extent it's Islamized now. You have another group, which is variably described as either a puppet of Iran, or the force behind the Iranian regime. Supporting the first of the groups may end up doing one of the following:

1. Awakening more mainstream parties to the fact that they risk being rendered irrelevant by ignoring the Muslim threat (the most desired outcome: if the racist parties in question want to hold on to their following, obviously, some of their controversial policies would have to go)
   
2. Letting the racist parties in question form a formidable block in their country's legislature, and thereby making things legislatively more difficult for the forces of appeasement;
   
3. Letting the racist parties in question come to power, and expel all Muslims, along with non-Muslim immigrants
   
4. Unifying public opinion behind those willing to appease. (If this is the scenario that ultimately materializes, such a country IMO deserves to fold - it's just not worth saving.)
   

That's not the case with supporting controversial parties in Europe, where there are both pros and cons that deserve to be weighed.

I doubt very much that the concept of race and racism existed at the time when the koran and islam was started.

But to claim islam has nothing to do with racism is misleading

(Sura Al-i-Imran, 3:106-107)

[106] On the Day when some faces will be white, and some faces will be black: to those whose faces will be black, (will be said): "Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the Penalty for rejecting Faith."

[107] But those whose faces will be white, they will be in the Light of Allah's mercy; therein to dwell forever.

The question is why is white equated with goodness and black equated with evil ?

Smacks of racism to me

Muslims claim that the Christian West wishes to dominate the world. Yet why is it that we must not like the Coca Cola culture of the West, but we are obliged to start wearing seventh century Arab dress once Islam is taken on? What's wrong with my good cultural dress? And why is it that Muslims are obliged to pray facing a Saudi Arabian city: Mecca? Who is dominating who? Why not face the local town

Smacks of racism to me

What about the African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention, developed by Arab traders, institutionalized with the most unrelenting brutality, centuries before the white man appeared on the African continent, and continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally crushed... Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business. And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted cooperation of African tribal states, built on the supply of captives generated by their relentless wars. The image promulgated by pop-history fictions like Roots - of white slavers bursting with cutlass and musket into the settled lives of peaceful African villages - is very far from the historical truth. A marketing system had been in place for centuries, and its supply was controlled by Africans. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets, supplying the Arab Emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950's; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger."

Most of the slaves also happen to be women, what men where kept as slaves where castrated, which explains why there are no descendants of slaves in Arabia

Smacks of racism to me

What about the countless genocides, and raping and impregnating women, thus putting arab blood into the other races, as is evident in the Balkans and India

Smacks of racism to me

Oh yes there are white moslems, the same as there are black moslems, yet they are regarded as inferior to the pure master race of arab muslims

Black, white or yellow, these inferior muslims change their names to arab names, so as to identify with the master race

Smacks of racism to me

It would be a damned good idea if the racist elements of islam where exposed more

Kamala - Your culture threatens me if it considers some individuals as not deserving of equal treatment under the law. Viewing women, gays, kufirs, etc. as second class citizens is cultural baggage that Muslims carry with them. The theocratic Caliphate which is the ideal of Islam would seek to regulate all aspects of human life. Thankfully, I am protected by the U.S. Constitution which enumerates basic human rights including my freedom to chose any religion (or none), write and speak as I see fit and defend myself and my family from oppression.
My culture values people as free men and women. If you are a Muslim, yours values only those who have become slaves of Allah.

Robert,

I know you aren't Hugh Fitzgerald, but as we all know, guilt by association is quite popular in some circles.

Hugh wrote, and I quote:
"Right off the bat, however, I can see that you, possiby because you are (I assume) a Dane, have a very different attitude toward the document, and its significance. To me it is aspirational, not binding, and anything that conflicts with the American Constitution, or with American national interest, should not bind, and does not bind, the American government."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019755.php#c504143

Feel free to read his entire comment as well as his starting post/article and other of his comments. Ofcourse, there's more to human rights than the UDHR(like the bill of human rights(BHR), but they're pretty much in agreement, though the other protocols/declarations of the BHR are more detailed).

As for your sketchy strategy/program, I would say that you too are most likely at odds with human rights. As an example, you CAN'T view muslim immigration as a national security risk. You have to evaluate each individual on his/her own merits. Arbitrarily denying entrance simply because they are muslim would in my oppinion go against the UDHR(and the BHR).
I also believe that your reclassification of muslim organisations would hit a UDHR/BHR snag.
As for the rest, they might work (slightly) with regard to the jihad, but probably not with regard to islamization.
But ok, you do have a loosely formulated strategy, so I'll have to retract my former statement. However, as I said, I believe that your strategy is also at odds with human rights.

MP, I agree with your ideals, but you're American like me.

You're defining, at best, an American perspective of "culture." In the rest of the world, what you have described isn't even close to "culture."

Danish Dynamite: all of your "human rights" issues hinge on your disagreement with this posting by Hugh, 100 Things Europe Can Do To Protect Itself:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019755.php

You might recall our exchange about it here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019881.php#c507500

And another thing: here's the start of your original exchange with Hugh on the "100 things" thread.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019755.php#c503706

You cited the UDHR, but I don't believe you ever pointed to a clear and specific violation when Hugh asked.

Danish Dynamite:

I know you aren't Hugh Fitzgerald, but as we all know, guilt by association is quite popular in some circles.

Yes, quite so. It has become a favored tactic of those who oppose this work.

Charles at LGF has linked to this post. In the comments there, some people are playing this guilt-by-association game again. I much appreciate the link, and I think Charles and I agree on this racial issue, but in light of the comments there I just sent him this email (please note that I cannot comment at LGF only because I never registered to do so, not for some nefarious reason):

Dear Charles,

Thank you for the link. I much appreciate it.

I cannot comment at LGF, but I just read the comments there and I see that "Kilgore Trout" and some others are attacking me for allegedly speaking at "another" white supremacist event recently, linking to a film Pamela made of some post-event bantering.

If I could comment on LGF, I would point these things out:

1. The controversial event from last year that started this whole thing was not a white supremacist, neo-Nazi event. It was an openly Zionist event that featured an Israeli parliamentarian and Andrew Bostom speaking about Islamic antisemitism, etc. Ibn Warraq (if I recall correctly) and (certainly) Patrick Sookhdeo spoke. No racial issues were discussed. This does not mean that the VB or SD are absolved from legitimate questions about their positions, but to portray this as some kind of racist event is a caricature, and a smear.

2. I do not believe Pamela Geller is a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi.

3. The video she took to which LGF commenters are referring is from April 10 in NYC. I spoke at a conference sponsored by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the New Criterion, "Free Speech In An Age of Jihad." No European political parties (or American ones, for that matter), with any hint of any racist taint were in any way involved. Neither FDD or the New Criterion is a racist group. Pamela was there, and took video. Re Pamela, I repeat #2.

I'd be very grateful if you would post this in the LGF comments, or allow me to do so.

Best regards
Robert

DanishDynamite:

As for your sketchy strategy/program, I would say that you too are most likely at odds with human rights. As an example, you CAN'T view muslim immigration as a national security risk. You have to evaluate each individual on his/her own merits. Arbitrarily denying entrance simply because they are muslim would in my oppinion go against the UDHR(and the BHR).

I disagree with you, but here is one attempt I made some time ago to sort this out in greater detail:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015157.php

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Those who want to associate the anti-Jihad with race are squandering the most enduring and potent weapon we have...the universality, the societal utility and the moral integrity that are all derived from the concept and practice of individual freedom, which has nothing to do with race.

Posted by: Cornelius

Those who want to associate the anti-jihad with race oppose the anti-jihad. In their eyes, anyone who opposes the jihad is a bigot. They aren't squandering anything. They are using the most effective weapon they have and they are neutralizing their opposition. We surrender to them if we are unwilling to risk allowing ourselves to be called names. Our own squeamishness will do us in. Political correctness gets you nowhere. This is not the time for political correctness.

"In the rest of the world what you have described isn't even close to "culture." Allrighty, Kamala - Your turn to define culture. Naturally as an American, I have my own perspective. The culture of this country is constantly expanding. If you consider food as a cultural artifact, my dad ,who grew up in a rural area prior to WWII, considered lasagna to be exotic, and went to his grave without enjoying calamari. My kids look at pad thai and hummus as standard fare. Music is part of culture, I like Mozart, Louis Armstrong and the Stones. Blitzkrieg and Jihad are both part of the American lexicon. What chutzpah we Americans have, taking bits and pieces from other 'cultures." For me, the one thing that remains constant is the philosophical underpinning outined in the U.S. Constitution

I agree 100% that anti-Jihad and race should be separated.

But while I believe it is easy and natural to separate anti-Jihad and race it is hard to completely separate Jihad and race, because that is out of our hands. It seems that Arab muslims continually confute Islam and the Arab race -- there are zillions of examples one can find of Arab/Muslim public speakers, including CAIR's talking heads, who have great difficulty distinguishing. The problem is that Islamists and Arabists continually fail to distinguish between Islamism and Arabism.

That is part of our problem. Not to mention all-out racial Jihad going on in places like Sudan.

If we can successfully separate anti-Jihad and race in Western discourse I think a beneficial side-effect will be to marginalize Islamist apologist voices that have managed to turn Western sensitivities to issues of race to their advantage. Once the light is on, the jig is up: the islamist/apologist crowd have invested so much in the race card they are likely to find themselves holding junk cards. As long as these issues remain linked they hold the strong cards anywhere except maybe in a deeply racist society.

(Re-reading my last sentence, I realised the following: the very fact that Islamists rely so heavily on the race card speaks very well to the scarcity of genuine anti-arab racism here -- may it remain so!)

We needn't focus too much on a single white muslim, but further examples of individuals don't hurt. The first one who comes to my mind is the white Canadian lady who runs JihadUnspun .

Robert,
Sorry I didn't mean to offend or smear you in any way. When the controversy about the conference broke we were all surprised here at some of the political parties involved. We were all unaware of this before the conference. Pamela was a very vocal supporter of Vlaams Belang here and on her blog and feels that they should be included in antiJihad movement. Her personal attacks against Charles are none of my business, he defends himself just fine. What matters to me is her support of an openly racist political party.
Vlaams Belang has learned that by hiding their antisemitism and adopting a proIsrael position that they can gain legitimacy in antiJihad circles. The BNP is also starting to adapt this strategy. I think it's problematic for us to allow the parties and their supporters in our midst. It helps them and only hurts us. I'm glad you're speaking out against racist politics and look forward to more of it in the future.
Keep up the good work.

MP, I actually like wikipedia's definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

Kamala - Fair enough - One hallmark of American culture alluded to in an earlier post is our willingness to "borrow" from other cultures cafeteria style. In the past, European cultural critics have accused the U.S. of having passed directly from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of civilization. Another attribute of American culture is a sense of humor, at least when compared to other Western nations. Consider how hard the French strive to prevent foreign words from becoming commonplaces in the French language. We activly embrace neologisms and foreign phrases. Compared to many other peoples, Americans are tolerant of new ideas and experiences. Even many of the things we consider to be inherently "American" are, at least in part, borrowed from other places and peoples. Jazz with its Afro-Caribbean roots, hotdogs and hamburgers, shamelessly pilfered from their Germanic points of origin, and perhaps most important, our code of law with its beginnings in English and Scottish legal traditions. Compared with many other peoples, Americans are optimists, and this world view can cut both ways - sometimes morphing into self-righteousness, but more frequenstly allowing for a flexibility of thought that leads to success.

Kilgore Trout - Part of the problem is the unwillingness of traditional political parties, both European and American, to abandon wishfull thinking about Islamic immigration. In the U.S., neither major party is willing to discuss possible limits to a multicultural society despite evidence of problems that are the result of current policy.

Islam will lose the "race".

Those who want to associate the anti-jihad with race oppose the anti-jihad. In their eyes, anyone who opposes the jihad is a bigot. They aren't squandering anything. They are using the most effective weapon they have and they are neutralizing their opposition. We surrender to them if we are unwilling to risk allowing ourselves to be called names. Our own squeamishness will do us in. Political correctness gets you nowhere. This is not the time for political correctness.

Posted by: PMK

I agree with PMK 100%. This 'race' hysteria is counterproductive and aids and abets our enemy.

And perhaps Kamala or Kilgore Trout can give us their valued opinions as to where they stand on mass-migration from Africa, from both Muslims and non-muslims into Europe?

Do you really believe that Europe has an obligation to accept millions of African economic migrants who flee failed African states? Do you believe America and Australia should do likewise, but not China, Japan or Korea?

Sheik, I'm not sure how you define "mass-migration."

I don't think any civilized country has an obligation to accept "masses" unless they truly are being abused/threatened/persecuted in their home countries (e.g., the US and other countries should have been quicker to accept Europe's Jews in WWII).

KM:

"Kamala you see nothing racist in the Koran which teaches the subjugation and even murder of non-believers? You know you are free to always move back to Crapistan where your religiously sanctioned racism is encouraged. One less moaning mohamadan sounds good to me."

The thread starts off with one BNP apologist denying that the party is racist, and then moves on to above rant by another, the BNP’s long-term cheerleader KM.

KM, have you ever read any of Kamala’s posts on here? Did you read his (or her?) review of The Truth About Muhammad? If you had read any, you’d know that Kamala is one of the JW Comments section's most informed and assiduous critics of Islam. I have no idea whether Kamala is an ex-Muslim, or an “heretical” Muslim or whatever, but I know that he’s exactly the sort of person that the counterjihad needs. You, on the other hand, are just another racist BNP idiot (as you have just ably proved), and are exactly what it doesn’t need.

KM’s post bears out Robert Spencer's point, and should underline to the doubters and ditherers precisely why the BNP and the other white supremacist, neo-fascist parties would be the wrong choice of ally in the fight against the jihad. The knee-jerk, reactionary hatred of its members and supporters for all non-whites, ex-Muslims, Jews, and indeed anyone else they deem “alien”, would poison any attempt to engage such necessary people in the counterjihad cause.

Kamala:

For years now, Europe has been receiving boatloads of black Africans, on average 1000 a day, and we know there are millions hauled up in Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia Lybia and Egypt, waiting for their chance to cross.

This is all very well kept out of the MSM, except when a bunch of them drowns, and the polit-props in the EU make sure these economic refugees are being distributed all over Europe. Some 10.000 of them are stuck in Malta at present. Not all of them are Muslim, most of them are. There is no way to verify whether they're abused/threatened/persecuted in their home countries, if we were to adopt your standards the west would have to accept virtually all Somali's, black Darfurians, Mugabe's Zimbabweans, etc.

This has nothing to do with Jews and the US who 'should have been quicker', this is a problem nobody wants to tackle because of the 'race' hysteria.

Its more socially acceptable to be a Muslim pedophile than a racist, is it?

Killgore Trout:

“Vlaams Belang has learned that by hiding their antisemitism and adopting a proIsrael position that they can gain legitimacy in antiJihad circles. The BNP is also starting to adapt this strategy."

Killgore, it’s refreshing to see that at least some Americans recognise the BNP’s phoney support for Israel for what it really is - a charade played out merely to advance its own agenda and to mask its true views. Voicing support for Israel not only enables the BNP to deny its [very real] anti-Semitism, but also has the added bonus for Nick Griffin and his fellow Jew-haters of demonizing Israel by [unjustly] associating it with neo-fascism, a scurrilous link that Israel’s enemies have been quick to exploit for propaganda purposes.

Well said, Mr. Spencer. Thank you.

Sheik, is there a good news article somewhere that explains this situation (including sources?)

Posted by: margheri

Large-scale immigration may have worked well in countries such as the USA and Canada, although these countries have very short histories and it is difficult to predict how they will look in 100 years. The fact that these countries have short histories and more "flexible" identities is no doubt a major reason that immigration has worked for them.

Well it may have worked for the migrants, it did not work so well for the natives, and it was not the muslims that invaded Canada, The America, and Australia

"There are other ways, there have to be other ways, to deal with this." Robert Spencer

The comments on this posting relate to the central question in our democracies -- how do we express the democratic ideal that we respect and defend one another's rights (and thereby, our own), while we simultaneously defend constitutional, Enlightenment-based governance? Robert is exactly right in saying that we MUST find ways other than racial assignation to exclude this lethal ideology. And, as he points out, some who are not Arabs or Africans have been recruited and, I agree in calling it brainwashed into radical Islamist groups.

So, it seems to me that, as MP mentioned earlier, Islamism is a cultic ideology, but its indoctrination appears to be less like communist indoctrination and closer to the techniques and assumptions of Nazism (with which it has much common history and many affinities) in its methodology. Why, then, can't our (the West's) approach of total resistance be similar to the methods employed during WWII? That is, public instruction on the irrationalist/anti-rationalist, deceptive, anti-Enlightenment/democratic, aggressive and hypnotic nature of the belief system, much like the presentations Robert, Nonie Darwish, Hirsi Ali and others have done. Emphasize the nature of the rational process of thought, while contrasting the utter lack of freedom of thought and the brutal methods of coercion, particularly of women and children, in Islamism. Other than those who are utterly taken in by the postmodern leftist framework, the majority of those living in democracies would be repelled when they gained a full understanding of the primitive composition of this ideology. Similarly, if information were presented about the true intentions of groups such as CAIR (in the US), the populace would respond automatically. So, the issue then becomes how to present this information matter-of-factly to the people.

Once people understand the nature of the threat, policies on immigration can be openly discussed, without resorting to racialist interpretation and enforcement. By using the level of technologies the governments have available to them, it cannot be so difficult to identify newcomers' associations by sophisticated means other than simply their own testimony. Generating fairly elaborate background checks prior to granting immigrants entry could become routine in the immigration process.

This ideology is primitive, lethal, and hypnotic – it’s up there with the classic cults of sheer blood-lust – as was, at its base, Nazism. Our great achievement, in the West, is that – at our best -- we reject and oppose primitive longings and opt, instead, for the lonely state of rational thought that requires empirical evidence. We refuse to incorporate irrationalism, in any form, in our governance, and we recognize the fundamental equality of each living person. That’s a strong enough disposition of thought to surmount this pseudo-supernaturalist, hierarchical, suffocating cultic movement. And we can do it without forgetting what we know to be true about what each individual is.

I think the main problem with your suggestion Mr Spencers is you failed to state that were already engaged in a war with rascists, the people conducting this War for (Medieval) Arabic supremacism have long since given up thinking about why they commit themselves to the actions of mad men. By trying to say that BNP etc are counter productive to the anti-jihad movement your done us the same diservice as the PC mongering guilt triper who helped cause this growing crisis in the first place.

The moral highground is no use if we arent around to appreciate it and I suspect from the growing sharia Bank code being drawn up in the UK that we've been admiring our own tollerance for far too long and for all the wrong reasons.

@ OLDEngland

I think you are partially right, in that we are, indeed, in a state of war with a religion that is seeking domination.
The problem you mentioned (Sharia law in the banking system) and other legislation, that binds the freedom of others as a means to benefit the muslim communities in the west, is an issue that has to be dealt with.

But I just can't gasp the notion, that the way to do that, is by adopting other totalitarian ways of life. Nick Griffin, Philip de Winter, Jean Marie le Penn etc. can not be given leading roles in a movement, that in its core stands for freedom and equality, because they themselves do not recognize these values.

RS
While I am not a European and am conscious that Europeans will probably charge me with naivete and ignorance (the last time I posted this I inspired not one, but two websites charging me with being a secret jihadist, so this time I'll probably be Satan himself),

The site you are referring to was not charging you of being a secret jihadist, If you had read it properly, it was a BNP supporter making a parody of you.

This can be expected when you are calling the BNP neo nazis

Calling Robert Spencer a Jihadist, is totallly preposterous, the same as calling the supporters of BNP neo nazis, or calling catholics neo nazis

If I am correct, Robert Spencer is a catholic, and the catholics have just as murky past as the nazis, yet the catholics have reformed? yet we still see them protecting their pedophilic clergy, it was catholics who set up the Death camp at Jasonovic and responsible for the Genocide of Serbs and Jews.

It seems that it okay for Robert to smear people with a very ugly label, yet doesnt like a parody from people he is smearing

Also Robert doesnt link to the sites that he claims are smearing him so as we can see if it is a parody or smear, where as normally he links to sites that he is critical of

You seem to overlook the fact that there are hundreds of people who are devoting much of their spare time, combating islam. To call the Neo nazis
is a gross smear, especially when they risk being attacked and beaten up by government/trade union/islamic funded thugs

As far as Robert Spencer goes, he has written some tremendous articles, which I have pointed out on numerous blogs and forums, but this doesn't alter the fact his snobbish stance and dismissal towards people who are bringing the message to the normal man on the street takes a lot away from his credibility.

The undisputable truth is Robert has provided an excellent chatterbox for folks to rant about islam within Roberts limited politically correct terms, just step slightly outside those terms, then the axe comes down.

The other undisputable truth is Roberts excellent chatterbox doesnt have much effect other than giving the chatterers and key board warriors a sense of feeling good, now this falls far short of what Nick Griffen and Philip De-Winters are doing, they are getting people to the ballot box.

And my friends, it is the ballot box which matters

It is the nationalists in Europe, despite getting their heads bashed, are beginning to make a head way by using the ballot box to combat Islam, where as the US of Ameriki is destined to have a racist moslem prezident

Amazing that the main stream anti-jihadis can welcome ex-terrorists such as Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem Zachariah Anani and Ed Hussain, Who admit to being recruited as children into Palestinian terrorist organizations, murdering hundreds of civilians and blowing up a bank in Israel. yet treat Vlaams Belang frontman Filip Dewinter, Nick Griffin of BNP and Jimmie Åkesson of Swedish Democrats like the plague.

Also there is nothing illegal about these parties.

May be if Robert Spencer, the King Lizard and their appeasers devoted little more time , freezing their balls off outside malls handing out leaflets or giving talks in bars the same as the European Nationalists are doing, instead of slagging off people who have left their key boards and taking the message to the streets, then maybe the anti-jihad movement would not be in such a shambles as it is today

If you really are a anti jihadi them you already know enough about islam, so buying more books about islam is not going to stop the islamists.

Buying books, comix and other anti-jihad paraphernalia and sending donations to various anti-jihad sites is only helping the quasi anti-jihadis who are sucking the tits of the islamphobia cow, it would be much more effective to use your cash to print out leaflets and posters, and distribute them outside malls and shopping centers. Use your money to organize meetings at your local social centers.

Do not sit behind your keyboard and condemn people who are already doing this

To put it straight I have more respect for the BNP member who devotes his/her Saturdays handing out anti-jihad leaflets on the High Street in Burnley or Burnley, than I have for Mr Spencer in his secure undisclosed location

In Europe the situation has gone so far that there is no middle way

You are either 100% against Islam or you are with Robert Spencer who,s message lends support to trash such as United Against Fascism which is financed by such wonderful folks as Ken Livingstone, Mohammed Bari etc etc.

Before JW and Spencer have any legitimacy to condemn the likes of BNP, they should start handing out leaflet condemning islam on high streets in places such as Bradford or Slough, while freezing their balls off and being beaten up by red fascists and molested by police

Before JW and Spencer have any legitimacy to condemn the likes of BNP, they should stand in a court of law, facing a long jail sentence, condemning Islam

Before JW and Spencer have any legitimacy to condemn the likes of BNP, they should trying giving speeches and rallies surrounded by Unite Against Fascism fascist and moslems.

Between Robert Spencer and Charles Johnson they have done pretty well at creating a division within the anti-jihad movement, where they give room to UAF (Unite Against Fascism) infiltraitors and get suckered in by their propaganda, coming from the likes of Mataros, who seems to only pop up when there is mention of BNP.

So my gripe with Spencer is he has a tendency to support the side of red fascist UAF when it comes to English matters, much like the King Lizard and his folks at LGF. He is very fast to distance him self from all the European Nationalists, such as the BNP. He can decry them for their very murky past, but he absolutely refuses to give them any credit for what they are doing to-day, and that is getting the ordinary Joe to see the evils of islam, while the BNP are on the streets freezing their balls off giving out leaflets, and going door to door, informing people, at a great risk, Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are talking over the heads of the normal person.

At least he BNP are talking in a language that every Tom Dick and Harry can understand

And let us not forget, the BNP are going into moslem infested areas such as Burnsley and Tower Hamlets to spread the word, hiring halls and bars, at great expense and risk, where as Spencer is talking on radio shows, campuses and secure conventions you don’t see Spencer going into Harlem or Deerborn

You do do not see Spencer or Jihad Watch organizing or speaking at rallies or demos, like we see with the nationalists in Europe.

Its about time Jihad Watchers stop watching the Jihad and start following the example of the nationalist in Europe, leave your key boards and stop preaching to the converted, spend the tine on the streets and in the malls, or go door to door, canvassing against islam.

Because all this trying to ride the high moral hobby horse is having a negative effect on the non existent anti-jihad movement.

Jihad Watch is a great informative forum, not only because of Robert Spncer, but also of many of the people of the years who have sent in comments, but unfortunately, Jihad Watch is not getting people to the ballet box, where as BNP are doing just that, and as long as BNP are evolving away from their murky past they should be conditionally supported, the same as the Vatican with it not so pure past.

Do we let them join ( BNP ) now, only to fight them ( BNP ) later.

InfidelK9 you took words out of my mouth. Latte liberal Nero's need to look elsewhere if they wish to dump thier own racial insecurities.

Police cancelled a peaceful St Georges day parade through an asian (see Islamified) area because of race relation issues. How long before Bradford declares independance?

InfidelK9:

You do do not see Spencer or Jihad Watch organizing or speaking at rallies or demos, like we see with the nationalists in Europe.

From this page:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Notable Speaking Engagements:

College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
Christendom College, Front Royal, Virginia
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Free Speech in the Age of Jihad Conference, New York, New York
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, Georgia
University of California, Los Angeles, California
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Middle East Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Southwest Florida Speaker's Forum, Bonita Springs, Florida
Middle East Forum, New York, New York
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Thomas More College, Nashua, New Hampshire
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois
Rivier College, Nashua, New Hampshire
Eagle Forum, St. Louis, Missouri

Those are just in the last few months, and even then it is a partial list only. Many, because of the hostility of the crowd, required an armed guard.

Don't speak about that which you do not know.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

To Metamoros,

I did read Kamalas review of the 'Truth about Muhammed' and I found it to be a fair and balanced synopsis of Roberts work. What I objected to was his tarring all European nationalists as racists. We have gone through this argument many times and if you want we can go through it again, however your position seems pretty entrenched and your distorted view of those in Europe who would like to maintain their national identities and self determination in the face of EU instigated dismantling of nation states and national/cultural identities is in my view wrong. Fjordman articulates my position on this issue far better than I ever could, so I refer you to his many essays on the subject.

I have always maintained that the most effective way to break the hold that the current political parties have on the debate (or what really is the lack of debate) is to have an effective opposition that can challenge the current multicultural doctrine. That means that the nationalists groups such as the BNP, VB and SD need to brought into the mainstream political process. This doesnt mean they have to be the governing party just that they should be given a fair crack of the whip. InfidelK9 sums it up nicely, these groups are actually getting of their backsides going out onto the streets and getting people to do what matters most and that is vote for policies that can reverse the current trend.

You on the other hand resort to knee jerk name calling and telling anyone who can be bothered to listen to your drivel that should they even think of voting tactically for these parties then by definition they are neo-Nazis, which by any objective measure is patently absured. In your mind I am a racist and that is that, the fact I was out last night here in Tel Aviv celebrating Pessach with a whole spectrum of Israelis from non religious to ultra-orthodox jews will sail completely over your head because your mind is closed. It is people like you that are a hinderance in this war and the sooner you quit belly aching and get out of the way of the people who are actually sacrificing their time and resources in this war the better.

Well it [large scale immigration] may have worked for the migrants, it did not work so well for the natives...
Posted by: InfidelK9

I was actually thinking the same thing when I typed my comment that you referred to, although I didn't mention it. I would really rather not see the various cultures of Europe exterminated and replaced by any other culture-Muslim or non-Muslim. I have been reading through these comments and trying to understand everyone's points of view, but I fail to see how my opinions could make me "racist."

Being anti-Islam is called "racism" by the lefties. It isn't Islam is not a race. In point of fact, I am against Islam the ideology not Islam the religion. I merely feel Islam is a idiotic, chaotic religion. I feel threatened by Islam the ideology, which is virtually the perfect antithesis of everything we believe in here in the West.

{^_^}

KM:

"the fact I was out last night here in Tel Aviv celebrating Pessach with a whole spectrum of Israelis from non religious to ultra-orthodox jews will sail completely over your head because your mind is closed."

And the next day you are back on here, defending a political party led by the ardent Jew-hater Nick Griffin: a man who has mocked those Jews who died in the Nazi death camps, and who has claimed that the Holocaust was a “hoax” and an "an extremely profitable lie" (and has never apologised or recanted this claim). A man who has produced some of the most vile anti-Semitic literature ever seen in the UK. A man who boasts of his connections to David Duke and Jean-Marie Le Pen. A man who has spent more than thirty years promoting hatred of both Jews and Israel, in words and in print, and who currently leads a party whose top ranks are packed with creatures like the Holocaust “revisionist” Arthur Kemp and the creepy Lee John Barnes, whose anti-Semitic ranting got him instantaneously banned from this website a while back.

It doesn’t sail over my head, KM. You’re a hypocrite, plain and simple. It’s nothing new, but it’s nothing to boast about either.

Robert Spencer

"Don't speak about that which you do not know."

Firstly, I will claim I do know what I am talking about, as I have been following JW/DW very closely for more than four years.

So I am fully aware that you have been touring campus,s and colleges,you mentioned that because of the hostility of the crowd, required an armed guard.

But isnt it normal that most colleges in America have armed security, thus making them secure locations

Now talks in colleges is a long cry from holding talks in pubs and working mens clubs in areas such as Bradford, Leeds or Keighly, where there is no such thing as armed security. But there is the presence of thugs from the far left who advocate the use of violence such as # Antifa # Antifascistisk Aktion # Anti-Racist Action # Direct Action Movement # Anti Fascist League and other assorted autonoms who are partly funded and aligned with muslim organizations.Now this is a big difference to the college punks you find on the campus,s.

Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on 19 January 2004

Nick Griffin’s speech was made in the northern English town of Keighley, to a meeting which included parents and relatives of young girls - some aged only 12 - who were being targetted by gangs of young Muslims in their twenties and tricked into taking hard drugs, gang-raped and forced into prostitution. Nick explained how such crimes are rooted in their religion’s attitudes to sex, women and Unbelievers, but urged those present to deal with the problem by working to get BNP councillors elected so that they could pressure the police into taking action and the media into publicising what is going on in such towns.

Prior to this nobody was doing anything, it was all being hushed up, it was not even mentioned here at JW/DW

We are being told that ‘nazism’ is once again on the march in Europe. The recent success of so-called far-right political parties has inevitably evoked many such sensationalist reactions from journalists, and perhaps none more so than in the case of BBC

We now have Robert invoking the image of SS Jackboots pounding throughout the continent. Robert uses the term ‘neo-nazi’ sweepingly, to encompass just about everybody who identifies with nationalism, They, and the groups they apparently embody, are all lazily accused of being modern ‘nazis’ - key players in the politics of ‘hate.’

Of course, one of jihad watches problems is that no body here is able, or willing, to define what ‘far-right’ or ‘nazi’ actually mean, allowing the use these emotive terms entirely unquestioned. So perhaps we should think for a moment about this point.

What defines ‘nazism’ for most people? I would suggest it is the projection of hatred and fear onto certain groups, scapegoating these groups; the smearing and dehumanising of opponents; and suppression of free speech and the desire for a One-Party State. Now, if this is so, then ‘nazism’ would indeed seem to be ‘on the march’, but this is not embodied in the BNP It is embodied in the ‘anti-fascist’ movements, which have been marching through Europe (including Britain) evoking fear and stirring up hate wherever it goes.

The Nazis are famously reputed to have dehumanised their opponents. Jews were compared to a plague of rats in a film by Dr. Goebbels. Schoolchildren were taught in an equally notorious story book that the Jew was The Poisoned Mushroom. But in Britain the ‘Anti-Nazi’ League, the magazine Searchlight and many in the Labour Party portray their opponents in an equally dehumanised fashion.

Referring to the latter as ‘nazis’ clearly has this purpose in the context in which the term is understood. Even though the BNP, for example, is clearly not ‘nazi’ - because nazism was a German ideology of the 1930s - associating the BNP with Nazism, and by extension the various atrocities of which the Nazis are accused, massively assists in dehumanising the BNP's members. They are portrayed not as individuals but simply as an indisputably evil collective force.

A great deal of the BNP's support is from honest, working-class, white people whose position reflects an aspect of the lifestyle of the ‘anti-nazi’ and their muslim overlords loathes.

And like the real Nazis, the ‘anti-nazis’ are attempting to achieve a One-Party State. They use violence in place of democracy. They suppress freedom of speech. They smear and imprison their opponents. They even interfere with the democratic process by, almost unbelievably, marching against the democratically expressed will of the people and rioting in the streets, as we saw in the wake of Jean-Marie Le Pen's first-round success in the French Presidential Election. Some - such as Dutchman Volkert van der Graff - will even go as far as murdering their opponents; despite the fact that the victim in this case, Pim Fortuyn, clearly had the backing of a vast number of the Dutch electorate, van der Graff assassinated him. Many ‘anti-nazis’ will argue that they believe in freedom of speech but they still shout for the BNP to be banned!

Much in the manner that Mataros was calling for Shiva and a few other posters to be banned a few threads ago

I have even heard some ‘anti-nazis’ question whether the kind of people who vote BNP should be allowed to vote at all. One of them mooted the idea that one shouldn't be allowed to vote without a university degree. If the BNP were suppressed, Britain would effectively become a One-Party State. The three main parties are, at least in theory, agreed on the desirability of a multi-cultural society.

So without the BNP where would the voice of dissent and opposition be? On many issues our so-called ‘anti-nazis’ are essentially of one voice and one party. And like the Nazis of legend, they have an absolute intolerance of anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Angus Roxburgh is quite right in one thing. The ‘politics of hate’ is indeed a significant force in modern Europe - from the left-wing fringes to the heart of the Labour Party. The hate of the ‘anti-nazi’ movement is central to modern European politics. Europe is stalked by a modern version of the nazi movement (or at least as it was perceived), which dehumanises its opponents and is so intolerant of them that it won't even debate with them. This movement uses violence, imprisonment and murder against those with whom it disagrees. And it has no respect for democracy or free speech. It scapegoats and it projects its own insecurities and hatreds onto a minority. Such a movement is dangerous, and it must be fought relentlessly.

Metamoros

Its not about defending the BNP its about finding ways of bringing the goals of the global jihad to a wider audience and influencing the other main political parties to do something about mohamadans arriving on mass into the EU and for ever changing the face of Europe. When was the last time you were out on a cold street corner handing out litreture to that effect, my bet is never because you are too busy scouring JW looking for non existent neo-Nazis hiding in every thread.

If the BNP, VB & SD are able to contribute to raising awarenss about Islam and jihad, then a tactical vote for them is something I and it appears many other people seem willing to do. There is no hypocrisy here just common sense. But you just keep on voting for the current main parties in the UK so your conscience remains clear. I would also like to know who you think people should vote for to stop the current mohamadan invasion? Where is this pristine whiter than white anti-jihad party that people in the UK should vote for so that your delicate sensibilities are not offended.

Also let me ask you this how do you think the Jews and suppot for Israel will fair in the UK as Islam with the support of the Marxists continues to take hold? I will tell you this for free it will be a damn site worse under Koran bashing Mullahs and red fascists than if the BNP hold opposition seats in the UK parliment. You need to get a sense of perspective and stop drinking the cool aid from Red Kens & Labors UAF group. Remember you can always come back from the right but theres no comming back from Islam.

InfidelK9:

“Much in the manner that Mataros was calling for Shiva and a few other posters to be banned a few threads ago.”

InfidelK9, why do you talk of yourself in the third person, as “Shiva”? Given that your posts regularly promote Shiva’s lame blog, and share an identical idiosyncratic approach to spelling and grammar as that poster, it should be obvious to all but the most green of JW comments readers that you and he are one and the same.

By the way, when you’re attempting to defend the BNP from accusations of neo-Nazism, as above, it’s best not to do so with a post largely cut and pasted from an article in Spearhead, a neo-Nazi hate mag run by the late John Tyndall, founder and former leader of the BNP.

(Virtually every word from "We are told..." onwards, wasn‘t it?*)

After all, it’s a bit difficult to deny neo-Nazi leanings when quoting an article published by a man who had a penchant for posing in Brownshirt uniform (he’s the bald one on the left) and who proudly boasted that “Mein Kampf is my Bible”.

(*It’s the sudden change in writing ability that gives you away. Your above laughable critque of RS at 1.57am - rambling, incoherent and virtually semi-literate - is clearly your own work [the image of BNP voters pirouetting their way to what you term “the ballet box” is a gem] Your [unattributed] cut and pasted posts are far more intelligible.)

How can a catholic criticize the BNP and call it neo nazis

Now just a glimpse Roman Catholic Church's conduct in the Balkans is not a pretty sight. Any honest student of history can see the same cruelty and bloody pattern of forced conversions everywhere the Catholic Church was not restrained by a powerful government.

Look to alignment with the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Examine her conduct when travelling with the Conquistadores in the Americas. Ask the Filippinos. Or the Albighenses. Ask any of the victims of the Inquisitions.

Look at how the the catholics performed in India and Francis Xavier's civilized and humane tolerance of the Hindus. He wrote to Rome to install inquisition in Goa immediately and it all started in an organized way in 1560 and continued till 1812.

In 1560 Viceroy's building in Goa was modified to become the 'palace of inquisition' with 200 cells with residence of the first inquisitor, house of secret, house of doctrine, any number of cells, and other special ones: of secret, of penitence; of perpetual confinement; of the tortures etc.

Its very nice to be called neo nazis by a catholic, because Nick Criffen has made negative remarks about the Holocaust, but not going into detail as to what was actually said.

Yes the BNP does have a murky past, but the BNP does not have a SAINT STEPINAC

Stepinac was the archbishop of Zagreb during World War II in the Independent State of Croatia

Unfortunately, one of the first measures undertaken by the Catholic Ustashi regime was a terrible military venture of extermination of the Serbian Greek-Orthodox parts of population which has come under the Croatian rule.

The Church, led during the war by Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, was a prominent backer of the Ustashi regime. It forcibly converted tens of thousands of Orthodox Serbs and did not denounce the government's roundup and slaughter of Jews and Serbs

The Catholic Church did not leave the execution of a religious war to the secular arm, as she had done in similar circumstances in bygone centuries. She came down into the fighting field, full tilt, shunning precautions and brandishing the sword against those whom she had decided to exterminate, with a directness that had not been seen for a long time. Many of the Ustashi formations were officered by Catholic priests, and often by friars, who had taken an oath to fight with dagger and gun for the "triumph of Christ and Croatia." Many of them did not hesitate to carry out the most infamous tasks, glorying in deeds that would have filled with shame any average "heathen or barbarian from the East." All in the name of religion

The savagery of the Ustashi cannot adequately be described in a short article such as this. In their drive to eliminate all non-Catholics from Croatian territory, they spared not the elderly, not the women, not even the children. Whole villages were wiped out, often in the most brutal manner. Bodies were thrown into the Sava River, so they would float downstream to Belgrade, the Serbian capital. Sometimes, dead Serbs were stacked on boats bearing signs designed to taunt downstream Serbs and set adrift. One such boat carried a little pile of childrens' heads, with the roasted head of a woman, perhaps the mother, on top.

The Catholic Church has never believed in persuasion, which is used only when she cannot enjoy absolute power. Her actions have always been based on one of the most incontrovertible and typical Catholic dogmas: naked force. This, not only to smite, but also to convert. In Croatia she used force to do both, destruction and conversion having been, in all her wars of religion, two facets of the same grand strategy.

It was thus that, while demolishing Orthodox churches, while massacring Orthodox clergy and bishops, she was at the same time converting their congregations to Catholicism, using a "persuasion" behind which stood boycott, threats, force, and even death. Catholic priests became the natural leaders of this specialized operation, priests and monks competing to see who could convert most Orthodox to the "only true faith."

Grizogono, Minister to Czechoslovakia and Minister to Poland, wrote the following letter to Dr. Aloisius Stepinac, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb, Croatia, on February 8, 1942. A translation of the letter was printed in the American Srbobran, a Serbian paper published in Pittsburgh, on February 24, 1943:

These atrocities do not amount to killings alone. They aim at extermination of everything Serbian: women, children, and aged men, and in terribly wild tortures of the victims. These innocent Serbs were stuck on poles alive, and fires were built on their bare chests. Literally they were roasted alive, burned to death in their homes and churches. Boiling water was poured on live victims before mutilation; their flesh was salted. Eyes were dug out of live victims, ears amputated, noses and tongues lobbed off. The beards and mustaches of priests, together with their skin, were ripped off rudely by knives. They were tied to trucks and dragged behind them. The arms and legs of the victims were broken and their heads were spiked.

They were thrown into the deep cisterns and caves, then literally bombed to pieces. Crowbars smashed their heads. Their children were thrown into fire, scalding water, and fed to the fired lime furnaces. Other children were parted by their legs; their heads crushed against walls and their spines dashed against rocks. These and many other methods of torture were employed against the Serbs - tortures which normal people cannot conceive. Thousands of Serbian bodies floated down the Sava, Drava, and Danube rivers and their tributaries. Many of these bodies bore tags: 'Direction-Belgrade, to King Peter.' In one boat on the Sava there was a pile of children's heads, with a woman's head (presumably the mother of the children) labeled: "Meat for John's Market-Belgrade" (meaning meat for the Serbian market). "The case of Milenka Bozinich from Stapandza is a particularly gruesome one: they dug her unborn child out of her with a knife. Then, in Bosnia, a huge pile of roasted heads was found. Utensils full of Serbian blood were also discovered; this was the hot blood of their murdered brothers that other Serbs were forced to drink.

Countless women, girls, and children were raped, mothers before daughters and daughters before mothers, while many women, girls, and female children were ushered off to Ustashi garrisons to be used as prostitutes. Rapes were committed even before the altars of the Orthodox Church. About 3,000 Serbs were murdered in the Serbian Orthodox Church at Glina, and the massacre of Serbians before the altar at Kladusha with sledge hammers is something never mentioned in history....

There are detailed and official minutes (reports) about these unheard-of crimes. They are so terrible they have shocked even the Germans and Italians. Many pictures were taken of these massacres and torture orgies. The Germans claim the Croats did these same things during the Thirty-Year War and that, since then, there is a proverb in Germany: 'God save us from cholera, hunger, and the Croats.' Even the Germans from Srem [Syrmia] hate us and act more or less humanely toward the Serbs. The Italians have photographed a vessel holding 35.5 kilograms of Serbian eyes, and one Croat decorated with a wreath of Serbian eyes came to Dubrovik with two wreaths of Serbian tongues.

Though we Croatians shall never be able to erase this shamefulness which we brought upon ourselves with these crimes, we can at least lessen our responsibility before the world and our consciences if we raise our voices in protest against all these crimes.

This is the last hour for us to do so. After all the great crimes in history, punishments follow. What will happen to us Croats if the impression is formed that we participated in all these crimes to the finish?"

[Signed] Privislav Grizigono At Zemum, Feb. 8, 1942

In a book published in Rome in 1948, an Italian newspaper correspondent described an interview he had with Ustashi führer Ante Pavelic:

While they were talking I noticed a cane basket on the left hand side of the Pavelic's desk. The cover was slightly raised: I could see that the basket was full of sea fruit. At least, that is what I thought it was. It looked like oysters but extracted from the shells, like the ones that you sometimes can see served on large plates at Fortnumm and Mason, in Piccadilly in London. . .

Casertano looked at me and gave me a sign with his eyes: 'How would you like to have some oyster soup?'

'Are they Dalmatian oysters?' I asked Pavelic.

Ante Pavelic took the lid off the basket and showed me the sea fruit, that sticky and jelly-like mass, and then said, laughing with his frank and tired laughter: 'This is the gift from my faithful Ustashi, twenty kilos of human eyes.'

As I mentioned previously, Croatians were intensely Roman Catholic. What were their Catholic priests and bishops doing while all this decidedly unchristian behavior was going on? The short answer is:

They were participating in it.

After the war, many priests, rather than condemn the brutality of the fascist regime, went on to set up an underground network known as "the rat line" to smuggle former Ustashi leaders, including Pavelic, to countries like Argentina.

In fact the Vatican's bloody history dates back several hundred years, and even today the Vatican is still holding almost $2 million worth of Roma gold coins and rings taken from Roma held at the Catholic concentration camps in Croatia.

Now the point I am making is the BNP are no worse that the Vatican.

The brutal truth is we are now faced with another evil ideology and that is islam, and me being an Atheist, I do not have much choice as to who my allies are.

It is time to stop this bickering and being hypocritical if we are to stop the rise of islam.

And Robert you as a catholic should look at the murky past of the Vatican before condemning others considering how the Vatican has become fithly rich with gold that has been plundered, and the millions murdered, and how the Vatican bans contraception, much like the jihadis.

Quite right about the clip and paste job from spear head

Also quite right about Tyndall being John Tyndall, founder and former leader of the BNP.

Now you do not go on to say that Tyndall was expelled from the BNP because

* That he had published in Spearhead a notice announcing the formation of the 'Spearhead Support Group' (later renamed the 'Spearhead Group'). The precise words in this advertisement which constituted a disciplinary 'offence' are unclear, but the advertisement appeared on page 21 of the April 2004 issue, and readers are recommended to look up their back copies in order to examine it.

* That he published in the December 2003 issue of Spearhead a booklist containing titles which it was deemed might cause the BNP to be associated with Holocaust Revisionism, Mosley Fascism, German Nazism and Terrorism.

* That he had published in the May 2004 issue of Spearhead an article severely critical of the BNP's adoption of a Jewish candidate for a local government by-election in Epping Forest, Essex. In the arguments put forward in this article in opposition to the adoption Mr. Tyndall was accused of 'anti-Semitism', which was deemed by the prosecution to be "completely indefensible in modern politics."

* That he had published in the February 2004 issue of Spearhead advertisements for the books The Uprising (by Colin Jordan) and The Turner Diaries (by Andrew McDonald, otherwise known as Dr. William L. Pierce). It was deemed that by publishing these items Mr. Tyndall was causing the BNP to be associated with 'Nazism' and 'terrorism'.

* That he had published in the June 2003 issue of Spearhead an article 'On the Crucial Question of Power', which was deemed in parts to be 'pro-Nazi'.

* That he had published in the October 2003 issue of Spearhead and later kept posted on the magazine's website an article 'The Problem is Mr. Griffin', which was deemed to amount to "the spreading of false and malicious rumours" against the BNP chairman.

* That on the 11th July 2004, at a meeting in Leeds, he had shared a platform with persons 'proscribed' by the party.

And as far as Shiva’s lame blog is concerned, lame it maybe in your opinion, but it far more of an effort to combat islam than what you doing.

InfidelK9:

“Now the point I am making is the BNP are no worse that the Vatican“

Shiva, your idiocy knows no bounds. First you cut and paste (without attributing) pro-BNP propaganda from a neo-Nazi magazine in an effort to show that the BNP is not neo-Nazi.

Now you surpass even that, by trying to get at Robert Spencer (and every fellow Catholic who may visit this site) by cutting and pasting verbatim (and again without attribution) part of an essay titled Life Under Rome’s Umbrella, written by a virulently anti-Catholic religious fundamentalist named Ronald Loeffler and featured on his own oddball personal blog.

Don’t you think that Mr Loeffler might like some credit for his work, however nutty and obsessive it may be? Don’t you think that trying to pass off his essay as your comment is not only dishonest but also rather pathetic? Do you have any original thoughts of your own, or do you merely parrot the words of others?*

PS: The danger of copying other people’s work is that you copy their errors too. Loeffler’s ranting nonsense quotes a letter allegedly written by Croatian diplomat Privislav Grizigono [sic]. Trouble is, that letter is widely believed to have been a forgery. Grisogono denied writing it, from the moment that he was released from Nazi captivity right up to his dying days. His assistant, who handled all his correspondence, never saw it. None of the signatures on any of the many “authentic” copies of it matched the alleged author’s. But that doesn’t stop it being quoted all over the Internet on everything from anti-Catholic to Serbian propaganda websites. I bet even your - sorry, “Shiva’s” - lame-ass blog features a copy.

*Even your response to the Tyndall post is cut and pasted. For goodness sake, man - think for yourself!

Mr. Spencer:

That is an impressive list of speaking engagements. I would presume you were paid some fee for speaking and travel expenses for each of these venues? There is nothing dishonorable in that; a man must support himself and his family. If he has some expertise in an area that people want to hear about, then student activity fees will fund speeches.

Those who have chosen to join organizations to meet and plan ways to effectively counter the jihadists in the West also pay speakers for their time and travel. But that is an expense on top of our own travel costs. We do this just because we know it is vital that *someone* do something beyond merely "watch."

The watching part of the fight is no longer the central point. As people develop expertise and learn to ignore the nay-sayers, the second generation of fighters is coming along.

I mean people who are willing to go to the lion's den and gather information on places like Jamaat-ul Fuqra.

These are our native Islamists who live in heavily-armed compounds all over this country. These traitors (for they are Americans who work for the destruction of our Constitution) apply for social services for their several wives and many children -- these ex-felons would not be eligible for benefits in the US because they are able-bodied, but their polygamous unions are indeed eligible and are put on the welfare rolls.

At least thirty percent of the benefits they rip off from the American taxpayer are sent to their leader in Pakistan...

...some people just watch, because these fellows are very intimidating. Two of them tried to force a man to take down his American flag one Thanksgiving. Fortunately, he stood them down and they wandered off.

The county officials are scared of them; the sheriff doesn't want to know more than he has to since he doesn't have the manpower to do anything.

If there is any group in this country that does more than watch and talk it is this one: http://christianaction.org/ -- with U.S. citizens like Marty Mawyer. They rent planes to prove the existence of the enemy in our midst, because the government won't admit it. They have made documentaries on the real threat these compounds represent. Those places have been here since the 1980's. This is not a post 9/11 phenomenon.

These second generation anti-jihadists observe, they are vigilant, and they find ways to act within the law.

Or you could consider the work of truly heroic scholars like lawyer Stephen Coughlin, insisting that the Defense Department understand the threat doctrine of the Islamic terrorists they face.

And there is Representative Sue Myrick, R- NC, with her "Wake Up America", http://myrick.house.gov/...she, too, is part of the second generation activists.

There is much to be done. Reporting on what the MSM refuses to see is an important project, but being in the trenches, trying to change the facts on the ground, is beginning to take over as the most pertinent response right now.

If we have to wait for our allies to be lily-pure, then we can't even support our own political parties when they leave people like Senator Byrd firmly in place. Just to name one.

It is fine for the first generation to stick with first generation activities. But the duty of the second generation in this conflict is to actively resist. Whether they have the blessing of the first generation theorists or not, they will continue to meet, to plan, and to act.

Things are evolving and there is no time to waste.

And you mataros, are taking from catholic sights,http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-4.htm who are prepared to go to any length to cover up their murky past.

Whether the letter was a forgery or not it still does not alter the fact that catholics murdered more than a million Serbs Jews and Roma.

Dymphna:

That is an impressive list of speaking engagements. I would presume you were paid some fee for speaking and travel expenses for each of these venues? There is nothing dishonorable in that; a man must support himself and his family. If he has some expertise in an area that people want to hear about, then student activity fees will fund speeches.

Your implication that I am only in this for the money is as false as it is unkind. If I were in this for the money I rather think I could find something to do that would earn me more money and get me fewer death threats.

And in reality, no, I wasn't always paid for those speaking engagements. But if you choose to think of me as a mercenary, that's your affair.

Second, your distinction between those of the "first generation" who are merely "watching" -- me -- and those of the "second generation" who are acting -- like Rep. Myrick -- is likewise one that I must respectfully reject. Actually what she has done is no different from what I do, except that she has a larger audience: she has called attention to a problem, and called for it to be solved. That is what I do. I have the utmost respect for her, I have met with her, and I have told her office that I am at her service if I can be of any help. I have also led a seminar with Stephen Coughlin at the FBI, and neither he nor Myrick ever gave me the impression that they regarded what I was doing as obsolete or inadequate in comparison to what they are doing. But perhaps they were just being kind -- I am sure you know better in this regard.

In any case, I am proud to lend my paltry efforts to assist them, and beg your indulgence in allowing me to do so, as patently useless as what I am doing may indeed be.

And finally and most importantly, the question is not whether or not our allies are "lily pure." The question is whether or not we are, after all, fighting for the same thing. That is a question abundantly worth asking, and answering.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Calon Lan says (above): "Also, and even more important for this debate, secularism and neo-atheism has taken root in public life to an unprecedented degree. That has, in due course, led to a huge number of people not knowing the first thing about religion generally, or their own specifically. In consequence, most of these people now maintain that Islam is just like any other religion and thus not worthy of their attention, and that all religion needs to be banned from public life - meaning Christianity, because banning Islam would 'interfere' with the 'culture' of these people ..."

There IS a third option, namely the Coming of the Qaim and al-Mahdi, in the Persons of The Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Long-promised and now come, these Twin Lights offer a rational, face-saving way for Muslims to turn away from the mullahs and imams and turn TOWARD God, not man, not the Great Satan, but God!

The only other options (as more and more people of goodwill are voicing publicly) are Subjugation to Islamic Fundamentalists (unacceptable) or Mass-Killing of Muslims (unacceptable). If 'Reformation' could be accomplished, there would have been some sign now, but seeing that there are no signs of Reformation of Islam, and COUPLED with the clear warning in The Bible that, "New wine can NOT be put into old wineskins..." we're left with the Baha'is, forging ahead and creating a New World based on justice, respect, equality of men and women, the oneness of humankind and the personal requirement for every human to investigate reality for themselves.

Oh, and the racists and fascists? They have NO USE for Baha'i Faith! Its world headquarters are in Haifa, Israel after all, and its roots are in Iran! Weird, no?

Well said again, Mr. Spencer.

Regardless of any appearances made by anti-Jihadists, the Progressive Socialists continue to insist that anti-jihadism equates with Racism.

This situation is much like what the progressive Left does to Americans who don't vote for Barack Obama; ie cries of racism are made if one does not vote for Obama even though the real reason they didn't vote for him was due to his extreme Progressive Leftist views.

Mr. Spencer, no matter what you do or say your political opponents (Progressive Socialists) will destroy you with their Racism; Jihadists understand how to work the 'civil rights' system and know who are their allies.

The problem in fighting against Islamic Jihadism is that it is a political ideology being supported and defended by Progressive Socialists; no matter what you do or say to prove you are defending liberty you will still be considered a Racist.

In any case; if we continue to succumb to the progressive Socialist influence, within a generation all the 'white people' in Europe will be gone or so small in number that Racism will no longer be an issue for the anti-Jihad movement.

That said; how come charges of Racism are never made against Islamic Jihadists? Why is the Race card always played against those 'white' people who speak out against Jihadism?

By the way I appreciate LGF however at times some of the commenters evolve into absolute ideological purists which I believe is a left-over trait from years spent as Liberals; after all, we have all been told time and again that Liberals are perfect and their beliefs are pure and good.

Archonix, my thoughts exactly.

Marisol,

First I'd like to apologize for my late reply. I've not been able to focus on this till now.

You may believe that I didn't point to any specific transgressions of the UDHR, but I would claim I did. If you really believe that i.e. arbitrary, discriminatory mass expulsions are NOT in violation of the UDHR, then nothing I can say will probably convince you. I am after all NOT an expert on human rights.
Like i said in our short exchange, the UDHR isn't the only "piece of paper" human rights are based on. There is such a thing as the "International Bill of Human Rights". In that bill is an "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". I found a Human Rights Comittee comment on that covenant regarding "The position of aliens under the Covenant"(http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/hrcom15.htm). In that comment you will find the following:

"10. Article 13 directly regulates only the procedure and not the substantive grounds for expulsion. However, by allowing only those carried out "in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law", its purpose is clearly to prevent arbitrary expulsions. On the other hand, it entitles each alien to a decision in his own case and, hence, article 13 would not be satisfied with laws or decisions providing for collective or mass expulsions."

Obviously, it is the oppinion of the Human Rights Comittee that what Hugh suggests/suggested would be in violation of human rights. Or, maybe that's just my oppinion, but it seems obvious and logical to me.

archonix... I have a feeling Dympha can well speak for herself if a clarification is wanted.

After rereading it several times, I find myself thinking easily long the lines of Robert Spencer.

Belittling, mildly to seriously insulting, and hideous to someone who probably has to have security around some/all of the time when he raises his head up to speak either in public or before a private group.

More, her discrimination of 1st vs 2nd generation seems a needless gratuitous slap long after ANY vestige of this smelly feud has moldered into silence.

That means some people were waiting for a shot.

Stupid.

If this is incorrect, then I have no problem apologizing for what would have to be some pretty misleading words.

Well, as I said, I'm not presuming to speak for her, or anyone else for that matter, but merely offering my opinion on the situation. However, if you're going to bring up the mention of "cheap shots" perhaps you should have a gander at LGF, see what sort of cheap shots they're flinging, and then compare it with the behaviour of our two protagonists (or antagonists?), Dymphna and Mr Spencer.

Calm, rational, polite - or relatively so - disagreement between these two people, compared to "oh my god nazis!!!" elsewhere.

As I said, I'm sure they can work out any issues to their mutual satisfaction. I would hope that people take a moment to think about what they're saying here, and elsewhere, and consider how cheap rhetoric reflects on their character.

I'd also question just who is demonstrating the real hate right now. We have one enemy already. Making enemies of ourselves is hardly productive.

Mr. Spencer:

It was never my intention to demean you or your efforts.

I apologize to you and your readers if my words have given offense.

Nowhere in my comment do I say "mercenary." On the contrary, I used the word "honorable." Or rather I said that making speeches is "not dishonorable." In fact, it has a long tradition of value in a civilized society.

What I was trying to say further on is moot at this point, given the Greek chorus surrounding my initial comment. As I said to you in my email, I believe Peter Drucker was correct when he said, "communication is the act of the recipient."

Thus, if you found my remarks offensive then whatever I *meant* is quite beside the point. What matters is how you viewed them.

Once again, I am sorry for my ill-chosen words.

Dymphna:

Thank you. I'm not sure any apology is necessary for saying what you think, but in any case for all that I accept and appreciate it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

Like with Marisol, I'll have to start off with an apology for the late reply. After replying to Marisol I simply didn't have the "mental-stamina" to reply to you as well.

I don't see why you would disagree with me that viewing muslim immigration as a national security risk, that you have to evaluate each individual on his or her own merits, is required by human rights. After all, the post you linked to suggests doing exactly that: Evaluate each individual on his or her own merits.
Furthermore, the post you linked to also suggests that everyone, wether they be muslim or non-muslim immigrants, would be subject to the same rules/laws thus (probably) not violating the non-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Human Rights(there is such a thing as indirect discrimination, but I don't know wether it would fall under that category or wether it is in violation of the Bill of Human Rights).

The reason I claim your ideas may violate Human Rights is because they are stated as only targetting muslims.

"• Reclassify Muslim organizations. Any Muslim group in America that does not explicitly renounce, in word and in deed, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia should be classified as a political rather than a religious organization, and should be subject to all the responsibilities and standards, which political organizations must adhere."

If that idea is carried out as stated, then it would violate the non-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Human rights. ALL religious groups would have to have the same requirements placed on them(and I doubt that means you can explicitly state "islamic sharia", though you can probably require that nothing is taught/preached which goes against the constitution and/or human rights) for it to be in line with human rights. That may have been what you had envisioned, but it's not expressed in your suggestion.

Regards
Michael Larsen