Here is yet another indication that, contrary to both the dominant mainstream and the race/ethnicity-based parties of Europe, the jihad is not a matter of race, but ideology. The dominant mainstream sees resistance to the jihad and Islamic supremacism as "racism," while the neo-fascist parties regard resistance to the jihad as required for the preservation of white Europe. But if it is all about whites and non-whites, what of a white convert to Islam like Suleyman Simon Keeler? The focus needs to be on the destructive ideology people like Keeler have embraced -- and the fact that he embraced it shows that talk of race and racism in this context is just a red herring. I've said it before, but like so many things in this struggle, I'm going to keep saying them until someone listens and probably after that as well. A race-based approach to the anti-jihad resistance is harmful in a number of ways:
1. It's the wrong way to fight the global jihad. The jihad is not a race, Islam is not a race, Muslims are not all of one race. The issues between the Islamic world and non-Muslims are not racial. They are about religious supremacism. Bringing in race just confuses the issue, and allows jihadists and their de facto allies among the Eurabian elites to claim that this whole thing is about racism.
2. To form one group for indigenous Europeans, as has been done in several countries, reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization, works against the idea of representative government, and obscures the common values of Judeo-Christian civilization that are shared by people of many races and ethnicities.
3. This approach hamstrings and marginalizes the anti-jihad movement. Many people who oppose the Islamization of Europe will never join with a race-based party to do so. Hugh Fitzgerald and I have often commented here over the years about the tragedy in Europe: the mainstream political parties have completely abdicated any responsibility to deal with the Islamization of Europe, thus leaving the field open to groups that obscure the issue with racial politics.
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.
Also, people I respect have pointed out that European culture is being overwhelmed and transformed by out-of-control Muslim immigration, and there is nothing wrong with defending it from that. I agree. But while culture has a racial component, culture and race are not identical. To reduce culture to race on a continent that has seen six million sacrificed to the idolatry of race and blood is not, in my view, the right way to defend European culture -- and there must be articulated a sane and moral alternative that is clearly distinct from that and rejects it utterly. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while avoiding dalliance with racial groups. 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), I still don't see why it can't be done elsewhere. Such dalliances inevitably raise the specter of neo-Nazism and white supremacism, and allow the mainstream parties to pretend that Europe faces a choice between becoming Eurabia and reviving the gas chamber. There are other ways, there have to be other ways, to deal with this.
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.
"My brother the white muslim terror recruit," by Justin Penrose for the Sunday Mirror (thanks to all who sent this in):
The first white British Muslim to be jailed for terrorism was flaunted at extremist rallies by hook-handed preacher Abu Hamza, his brother has revealed.
Colin Keeler, 34, told how his older brother Simon Keeler - jailed for four-and-a-half years on Friday for inciting British Muslims to kill allied troops - went from a dope-smoking layabout to an extremist disciple of Hamza.
Colin said he was horrified to witness Hamza and his 36-year-old brother together at a 2003 rally.
"I remember the look on Hamza's face, as if he had something he could put on show because he had a white convert who could convert others," he said.
"It was pretty terrifying watching Hamza in front of all those people, shouting at them to 'Join the cause'."
Colin, a former British Army soldier, said he and his brother, who changed his name to Sulayman, had a few Muslim friends - "but he never showed signs of seriously converting."
In 1999 the two brothers travelled around France, earning enough to pay for their lodging, alcohol and cannabis. But Simon suddenly flew to Morocco to "follow the word of Islam" and returned six months later with a full Muslim beard.
"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."...
Once again, devoutness in Muslim observance is correlated to jihadist sentiments, and the learned Western analysts neither notice nor care, nor do a single thing to examine the implications of this.