One of the advantages of having other people write for this site is that it allows me, every now and again, to do other things. But that also means that occasionally I miss things that are posted here. It was brought to my attention this morning that there was a favorable post here a few days ago about Iran protesting against an upcoming anti-jihad conference in Europe that features Jean-Marie LePen, the FPO of Austria, and other prominent European far-right politicians. I took it down just now, as we do not support European neo-fascism or race supremacism (and the person who posted it didn't know all the issues involved), but I didn't want simply to take the post down without explanation.
At Jihad Watch we oppose European neo-fascism, and have written about why it is the wrong response to the ongoing Islamization of the continent. You can read Hugh Fitzgerald's "tributes" to Jorg Haider of the FPO here and to Jean-Marie LePen here. Hugh and I have long lamented that Europe's mainstream parties have abdicated their responsibility to deal with the Islamization in Europe, or else are complicit in it, and have left the field to neo-fascist and race supremacist entities. There has been and continues to be immense controversy among people I respect over whether some European politicians and groups are actually neo-fascist or not, but there is, as far as I am concerned, no question whatsoever about the principles involved, which I have stated before and will repeat here now.
As far as fascism goes, I oppose all authoritarian governments, and believe in the freedom of speech and other freedoms that historically have never thrived in fascist settings. The jihadists want to impose a totalitarian order that crushes all dissent and enforces social conformity at the point of a sword -- that is fascist. A genuine alternative is the Western idea of a free and pluralistic society in which people who differ on core issues in good conscience respect one another enough to refrain from trying to gain dominance over the others or asserting any supremacist agenda. But that is in its essence non-fascist and, indeed, anti-fascist.
And I think that a race-based approach is wrong in a number of ways. To repeat:
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. Those who are threatened by the jihadists 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. As I said above, 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, a wise 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. Other Europeans should imitate Wilders. Otherwise the mainstream parties, as complicit as they are in the Islamization of Europe, can 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.
So -- I have taken down the post about the Cologne conference, and have restated these principles.
RSS Feed
JW and LGF are absolutely on the RIGHT side of this issue.
It's not enough to represent what we are against, we must represent what we are for. I like to believe we are for Democracy, the rule of law (man-made), individual liberty, intellectual freedom, and the equality of all people.
I'll have no trek with racists. Thank God the proprietors of this web-site feel the same.