Fjordman's latest piece on women just lost him a tremendous amount of support among the intelligentsia on this side of The Pond, and that is unfortunate in these times. That said, he has tremendously good sense on other issues.

Clearly, it is a failure of imagination to believe that one MUST put up with some kind of neo-Nazi racist screed in order to have a sane opinion about violent jihad, and all involved would do well to take the lesson that Robert is gently trying to teach here: we do not need to drag with us the ghosts of evil to revive the breathless good in Europe.

Might be well to remember, too, that the opposite of love isn't hate; love and hate are very close, and sometimes the best of friends can have the hottest arguments.

The opposite of love is apathy, the attitude that it doesn't matter or that somebody else will solve it or that one doesn't, of one's own courage, have to make a stand on behalf of freedom of conscious.

And that kind of self-absorbed apathy, clothed in moral equivalency, is Europe's real problem. That added to that is the screwed thinking of "me and my white skin" is a crying shame. But the most basic problem is apathy in the face of a wave of immigration that, unfortunately, carries with it the seeds of the destruction of a free culture that, much to the detriment of its women (or perhaps because their freedom is so threatening), it is unwilling to accept.

Meanwhile, it heartens me to see a post like Robert's this morning: a voice of sanity and good-will that so clearly separates the wheat from the chaff and holds as possibility the revival of a friendship we might all want to see maintained. It's a terrible waste of valuable time and good minds for this nasty spat to continue.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at November 15, 2007 7:23 AM

Parties change over time, as their old core move off into other parties that may suit them better. Look at the South, where many of the the "Dixiecrats" moved over to the Republicans

I think the essence of the rift comes from two viewpoints: There are those who think the survival of Europe, as a non-Dhimmi state, is important enough that they are willing to associate with people who have a distasteful past if that's the only visible way to accomplish that goal. And there are those who are willing to let Europe go, if the cost would otherwise be granting legitimacy to racists.

On the positive side, if a large number of good people take over and co-opt a party with a bad past, then the new people in charge will not be the old people that Charles at LGF has a problem with

Posted by: PapaBear at November 15, 2007 7:24 AM

Robert,

I can answer a couple of the points, hopefully to your satisfaction. First, the issue of the alliance with Le Pen and the other groups. The way the European Parliament works, a party or group of parties must hold a minimum number of seats before they're allowed to make statements on the floor or propose votes and motions. Given the way the EU works, the big established parties will all tend to band together in to groups that allow them to dominate the floor and prevent the "minnows" from saying anything, as they usually by themselves have less than the minimum number of seats. You will find that such parties feel it necessary to band together in order to get the right to speak, and they often have to make alliances with people who are, to put it mildly, distasteful. Of course that particular alliance is now dead; VB pulled out of it as part of their effort to answer the criticism their facing, which means they've effectively silenced themselves on the floor of the EU parliament until another alliance can be formed.

Other issues have been addressed in the comments on Fjordman's article at Gates of Vienna, as well as comments elsewhere on that site. The SS soldier, for example:

Paul Belien recently stated on the Atlas interview with Pamela Geller, about that wreath laying cerimony. For an example, Stefan Laureys, one of those SS soldiers buried there, originally went to Finland to fight on the Finnish front against the Soviets, when Finland was fighting for its life. At the time, Germany and the Soviets had a treaty.

Laurey's parents hid Jews from the Nazis, and their son, no anti-Semite, refused to fight on the western front against the Allied forces. He was later shot.

This man deserved a wreath. without proper knowledge about the history of the coutnry in question, all kinds of wrong headed assumptions can be made.

The superficial argument is "they're honouring nazi war dead", but just a little bit of digging reveals that many of the accusations are based on misunderstandings of history or a refusal to actually check the facts.

Where such facts are not known I agree that caution is required, but in many cases the accusations have already been dealt with, without acknowledgment from the accusers. Habeus corpus. Bring the proof and it'll be answered.

Posted by: Archonix at November 15, 2007 7:29 AM

While I am stil working through this issue Gates of Vienna had a good piece a while ago.
The gist was: we are united by what were are not: muslims/islamists. A very sobering thought.

It makes sense.Thanks for your piece, Robert.

Posted by: Gramfan at November 15, 2007 8:02 AM

Archonix...excellent comments!!

Unfortunately the current state of PC in most western(and only western..no one else is that stupid) countries is such that by the time a spotless antijihad group emerges in Europe it will be too late.

If you apply the PC hypercritical(and hypocritical) morality guidelines to WW2 then we would have lost it most certainly by refusing to accept the USSR as an ally. This is quite simple to understand as Stalin was by far the greater murderer of the two (of mostly his own people) and without him and his methods of ruling the USSR, could not possibly have defeated Nazi germany. In addition here, the acceptance of the "lesser evil ally" by the west enabled the material support which sustained the USSR at its darkest period(late 41 to 42).

So while the moral argument is all nice and cleancut, and while I am not and have not ever supported any neonazi group and have been actively proIsrael since adolescence, I fear that we are allowing the ethics to dominate what is fass becoming a battle to the death and that these scruples will be the ruin of the west.

Anyone who denies potential allies in such a war has no concept of the necessities required for winning. Continue in this vein and the defeat of western civilisation and all of its works in ensured.

Posted by: MisIslamist at November 15, 2007 8:03 AM

PapaBear:

There are those who think the survival of Europe, as a non-Dhimmi state, is important enough that they are willing to associate with people who have a distasteful past if that's the only visible way to accomplish that goal.

Clearly, the so-called neo-Nazi parties will have to become more "mainstream" to survive because it is unthinkable that majority opinion could shift way over to the right.

But becoming mainstream should not mean taking either a neutral or a conciliatory stance on Islam. However, the overriding official state-sanctioned doctrine - which is accepted throughout Europe as far as I am aware - is that all cultures, religions and lifestyles are deemed equal. Indeed, minority groups tend to acquire automatic victim status.

Therefore, at the moment, being mainstream entails embracing Islam. The key to solving the Islamic problem is to shake off the absurd assumption that Islam is as benign as, say, Sikhism.

I do not foresee a sea-change in policy towards Islam within the mainstream parties. That would only occur if we had regular 7/7s and Madrids. The insidious rise of Islam continues unchecked - almost under the radar of public perception. Which suggests to me that only by steering the existing nationalistic/patriotic parties - whose members are well aware of the threat - towards increasing inclusivity can the Islamic problem be addressed.

The BNP in particular has a poor image. This is partly due to negative propaganda, but there is no denying that much of the criticism is warranted and there are indeed skeletons in its cupboard. I believe that at grass roots level the party is healthy but that some of those higher up would need to go before it could truly enter the mainstream.

On the positive side, if a large number of good people take over and co-opt a party with a bad past, then the new people in charge will not be the old people that Charles at LGF has a problem with

I couldn't have put it better, PapaBear.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 8:03 AM

I hope that tempers will cool on both sides and we can all continue to work together against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. There are few enough of us as it is.
( Thank you Robert....people needn't to hear that.)

Posted by: storagemanager at November 15, 2007 8:16 AM

The problem is that we are being given FALSE choices and that we are expected to accept them.

When somebody is asinine enough to frame the question in terms of either accepting Nazi racism or letting jihad take over the culture, then I call that a dishonestly-crafted "choice" and ask who it is that is arrogant to tell the rest of us what our choice is and to frame it in this manner.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at November 15, 2007 8:27 AM

"These posts involved personal attacks on the illustrious Charles Johnson. Charles has been a friend for years and an immense help to Jihad Watch in innumerable ways. I usually don't have time to read the comments here, but I will always remove offensive ones when they're brought to my attention, and these were. So they're gone."

This is fair, since LGF still is useful as a news source and Charles Johnson has contributed to the content of Jihadwatch immensely.

However, his actions during this spat and several postings by intelligent people have led me to believe that not all criticism concerning his methods is without merit. And the cult of personality together with lack of critical discussion in the LGF comments section also support this conclusion.

Posted by: Saatanan Islam at November 15, 2007 8:28 AM

"the illustrious Charles Johnson"?

Oi Vey. The last time I heard the adjective "illustrious" to describe something, it was an aircraft carrier. Or sometimes, a really swanky hotel.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at November 15, 2007 8:33 AM

Archonix made the point I was about to make about the VB in the European parliment. Also GOV have some excellent material on dealing with the allegations against VB.

Watling, I agree with your summary of the BNP, the leadership is definately an issue, they still need to change.

I don't think however we can work together at this point, we have our restrictions, political and PC repression and you have yours, image and purity.

If helping us Europeans means that people like Mr Spencer are compromised by being associated with so called racists then you should not take that risk.

I am hard headed enough to realise that we need to win the argument in the USA to have any chance of victory, while in Europe its gone to far, we are going to be a battleground and it will get desperate regardless of recent changes that seem to indicate a shift in thinking.

And if sound bite thinking and using the lefts lies is part of defining what I stand for so what.

Anyway the strong do what they can and the weak suffer...

Posted by: Daffersd at November 15, 2007 8:39 AM

Just to give you Americans some perspective on the uphill struggle we in Europe are dealing with, with respect to having antijihadism enter the mainstream:

In Denmark, the only political party addressing the issue of jihad and islamization is Dansk Folkeparti, i.e., the Danish People's Party. The DPP is rooted in Fremskridtspartiet, i.e., the Progress Party, which, although never formally linked to any Nazi groups, did attract a hodge podge of fringe types, ranging from ultralibertarians to general crackpots, as well as quite a few racist/Nazi types. The DPP was formed in the mid-1990s, in an attempt to bring some of the original party's issues into the mainstream, among them an immigration and asylum policy that was spinning out of control.

There is no way that the stated policy of the DPP or its members can be linked with the Nazi ideology, either in the present or in its history. In the absence of any alternatives on the right, the party does attract some of these types, but they are without exception expelled when attention is drawn to their presence. The strongest criticism that could probably be levelled against the DPP is their history of lax control when accepting new members. They were lax, probably aren't anymore, end of story. Claiming that these unfortunate cases reveal the 'true' nature of the DPP is ridiculous, as being part of the coalition that guarantees the majority of mandates for the government in Parliament is their top priority. Rotten apples would jeopardize this crucial parliamentary role, even more so after Tuesday's election which saw the Fogh Rasmussen government reelected with only one mandate over the opposition, among these those of the DPP.

The buzzword in the Danish debate is "house trained." Are the DPP house trained, i.e., can they be accepted as belonging to the mainstream? Clearly the two party government thinks so; however - and this is the point I'm driving at - despite these facts regarding the DPP there is still a widespread perception in the public and among the opposition parties that the DPP are closet Nazis. The list of straw man accusations, graffiti scrawled on party posters (such as swastikas or Hitler moustaches), or misrepresentations of their policy is endless, and probably impossible to counter with factual information.

However, despite a non-stop vilification in the MSM, including the state financed tv, the DPP has been gaining votes in three consecutive elections. It would seem their public base is limited in the 12-15% vote bracket, but so far this has proved remarkably stable in the face of the vilification I described.

Posted by: anti-uffe at November 15, 2007 8:44 AM

The neofascist character of the anti-jihad parties in Europe also keeps many decent people from joining the counterjihad movement, when they otherwise would. This is the great weakness of the argument that, well, there is no one else fighting this fight, so we have to join forces with people we would otherwise regard with distaste...

The ONLY UK party who wants to tackle this problem head-on is the BNP, and however distasteful it is, there are many people who will vote for them at the next UK election, including Jews (whom the BNP hate).

IF there were any viable, non-fascist alternative, they'd win the next election by a landslide. Unfortunately for us, there isn't.

Europe has very few counter-jihad political parties, and from seeing the erosion of our human rights and perceived and real preferential treatment for Muslims in general, we need to pull together or lose the battle completely.

The average Joe on the street in Europe is fed up to the eye teeth with what he perceives are high levels of immigration, job shortages, and with Muslims getting nearly everything they demand, from halal meals in schools (Hindu & Jewish kids don't get their dietary needs met), to an acceptance of wearing the niqab, an acceptance of allowing them to pray 5 times a day at work, and an acceptance of them not selling alcohol in the supermarkets in which they work (where they're employed to do exactly that job), and on top of it, they seem to get preferential treatment when it comes to social housing. The list goes on and on.

The question is how much more can the indigenous people of Europe take, before there are civil disturbances, riots, or civil war?

Posted by: Jerusalem Posts at November 15, 2007 8:46 AM

"But I hope they will eventually address the concerns that have been raised. And until they do, there is nothing unreasonable at all about approaching them with extreme reservation." Posted by Robert

Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: Josephine at November 15, 2007 8:51 AM

Robert, that was detailed and precise and immensely clarifying but above all big-hearted. You are a MENSCH.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 15, 2007 9:17 AM

I think part of the problem still stems from different understandings of the word "nationalist". A lot of people, especially Americans, see nationalist and think "nazi". Or, at best, national front. They neglect that the nazis were national socialist, they were authoritarian and centralised in their thinking. Nationalism alone does not lead to that sort of thinking. Nationalism alone is simply a preference for preserving national character and institutions, strong borders. You can have your authoritarian nationalists as represented by the BNP, Front Nationale and other parties, who resort to the idea of controlling the lives of people within the nation and the export of undesirables never to return as a means to preserve the national culture, and you can have your liberal nationalists as represented by Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna, amongst others, who express their nationalism in terms of strong borders, minimal government and individual liberty. That's the key difference. VB and their ilk may well turn out to be racist, but their party policies mitigate that racial element by their very nature because it is only possible to implement any sort of genocidal "solution" if you are in charge of a highly centralised authoritarian state.

A lot of this nationalism must be seen in the frame of the EU and older European politics if it is to be understood correctly. Flemish nationalism is born out of a desire to be free of the anchor of Wallonia, Belgium and the dead hand of the Union over it all. They want to return to the saxon tradition of individual liberty and minimal government, where the Walloons want to retain the more Frankish tradition of a centralised, powerful state. Currently the European perspective is small in that fight but it will grow, as it is the EU that is causing most of the problems we face by centralising state control, preventing nations from controlling their borders and allowing uncontrolled immigration from the Islamic world.

I don't believe that VB has ever said that immigration itself is a problem. The problem is that there is no control over that immigration. There is no means for Belgium to control that immigration because those powers were ceded to the Union under the 1996 Maastricht treaty. This rise of nationalism is a response to that problem, not a response to immigration in general but to the fact that immigration is no longer controlled. Under he Schengen treaty anyone bearing an EU passport can enter any EU member state without so much as a check of their bags. Where they got the passport doesn't matter as long as they hold one, which has lead to the rather unedifying spectacle of thousands of muslims crossing the Mediterranean to Spain and Italy, getting passports and then moving north to England, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Prior to maastricht they were stuck in Italy and Spain, and usually went home again because there was nothing for them. Now they can just keep going to places that are not prepared to deal with such massive immigrant influxes and which are culturally unable to cope.

A rise of nationalism is the only response to a situation like that, as people within what were formerly sovereign nations try to express their wish to retain their national sovereignty. The choice that has to be made isn't between sitting back to die or being nazis, but between which brand of nationalism will be fostered; authoritarian nationalism (nazism) or liberal nationalism. The former would serve some short term goals, but would cause problems. The latter would solve everyone's problems. It would halt untrammeled islamic immigration, break up the European Union and allow a resurgence of free-market, classic-liberal nations focused on reduction of state power, increased individual liberty and strong borders to defend that liberty.

Attacking parties like VB, who are in favour of that optimal (and admittedly highly optimistic) outcome, will simply give succor to the authoritarian nationalists, the real nazis.

Posted by: Archonix at November 15, 2007 9:21 AM

If the three corners of this stool in the US are JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch, Little Green Footballs, and Gates of Vienna, then we will be o.k. in the end. The cousins at 910group/CVF do a great job as activists, but, as such, they do need to exercise some caution with their relatives across the Pond.

You, Charles, Dymphna and the Baron, and others are doing great work. We need this information, not only to learn ourselves, but to use to help educate others.

I, too, would like to see the vitriol and rhetoric cool a little. We don't need to be slimed by association with skinheads and other nefarious clowns who haven't had a sane, sober, real thought since they were five years old.

Robert, thank you for an excellent, thoughtful piece. Let all of us pull together...so that the jihadis don't get the chance to separate our heads from our shoulders.

Posted by: spinoneone at November 15, 2007 9:27 AM

Robert,

and all JW's if we are ever to defeat the islamists and reveal the true nature of islam we can have no allaince with the the likes of the BNP or other nazi type otganisations.

The islamists and their left/liberals scream racism in order to suppress any criticism of islam.
I and others have been working very hard to involve members of the Indian community in the UK on board. Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists have grim experience of islam, not just abroad but here as well.

http://thehinduvoice.com/blog/2007/11/09/durga-puja-celebrations-is-east-london-attacked/#comments

Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists will not march next to the likes of the BNP.

As trade ties between the UK and India grow the Left/Liberals will have to choose who their allies are.

I have worked with a member of the BNP, they are ignorant scum, it should be remembered that Griffin and several of his goons were photographed with Gaddaffi in Libya, when they were playing the Jewish card to ask for money.
Do we really want to be associated with them ?
There maybe 1.2- 2.2 million moslems in the UK.
However there are 1-2 million gays, alot work in the media, arts and business they are the most successful minority in the UK, same goes for the Indians, very successful, threatened by islam. a few may vote for the BNP but the majority won't.
The BNP does not appeal to women, thats half the UK population
We need to reach out to these people and then lobby the conservatives and Labour from within.

And one last thing
CAN YOU PLEASE CHANGE THIS

Why Jihad Watch?
Because the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad."

Please replace the word "WEST" with "NON MOSLEMS"
mention India, China and Russia.

It will gain alot of allies.

Regards

AI

Posted by: apostate_islam at November 15, 2007 9:30 AM

"like the Holocaust-denying white supremacist BNP"

Such utter bullshit. I am never coming to this site again. Your a clown Robert Spencer.

Posted by: BlowHammed at November 15, 2007 9:30 AM

Jerusalem Posts:

... including Jews (whom the BNP hate).

What did I say about negative propaganda? Hate is purely subjective, and it is unbecoming of you to ascribe it to others.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 9:38 AM

AI:

Good idea.

Thanks.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 15, 2007 9:39 AM

"A free man is one who enjoys the use of his reason, and his faculties; who is neither blinded by passion, nor hindered or driven by oppression, nor deceived by erroneous opinions." — P.J. Proudhon, 1861.

Posted by: Eg at November 15, 2007 9:42 AM

BlowHammed:

I may be a clown indeed, but calling me one does not constitute a counterargument. I wrote about the BNP according to the information I have. If that information is inaccurate, please provide evidence, and if I am wrong, I will retract.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 15, 2007 9:42 AM

Robert,

As a BNP supporter, I feel I must speak up for them.

The comments here are a little bit myopic. As the brilliant Fjordman has pointed out time and time again in his essays, jihad is only one of the enemies we europeans are fighting at the moment.

We have the EU, an organisation hell bent on destroying nation states. We have uncontrolled immigration, the greatest population transfer in human history and our culture is being diluted. We also have the injustice of global capitalism, forcing the native people to compete at the lowest end of the age scale to scrape a living.

The BNP is the ONLY party that speaks up for the indiginous population of the United Kingdom. There is much more to the BNP than immigration, indeed, it is their policies on issues such as energy and crime that attracted my support.

I consider myself to be an intelligent, rational and tolerant individual. Were the BNP - and I know people remember the old NF and form a wrong impression - anything like nazis or fascists, I wouldn't support them. As Fjordman rightly says, that's because people like me simply don't like nazis or fascists.

The BNP are denied a platform to speak and debate in public - a fascist tactic and people say we are fascists - yet for those of us fighting against the Islamization of our land and for the survival of our magnificent culture, the BNP are our only hope and I urge readers to visit the BNP website, see what we're about and make your own minds up rather than allowing smear and marxist intimidation to blind you from reality.

I remain your staunch ally against Islamic jihad and thank you for the work you do.

Lionheart.

Posted by: Lionheart at November 15, 2007 9:45 AM

AI:

The change has been made. Thanks again.

Yrs
RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 15, 2007 9:45 AM

Hello to you all,

I was banned from LGF for saying these kinds of things:

• What are YOU (meaning LGFers) plan to actually do?
• How about trying to get Islam redefined as a totalitarian political ideology and then deal with it legally? As Muslim then has a choice: leave Islam and become a Westerner or leave the West.
• I usually couch the above as "Islam IS Nazism." Someone said, perhaps Fjordman, "Imagine if Hitler had just a little smarter and couched National Socialism within a religious framework."
• Fjordman, along with Ali Sina, states that Islam cannot be reformed. I totally agree.
• Islam is not only incompatible with Western values, but basic human ones, and is evil.
• What the heck is a "moderate Muslim"?

Now, I ask those gathered here, what of the above is so horrible?

I do not even read LGF any more.

While I have pressed Robert over the years about specifics, he has always been a gentleman and intellectually honest, even kind.

PS: The Center for Vigilant Freedom (www.vigilantfreedom.org is case the link does not work) needs people to help do many different things.

Ethelred

Posted by: Ethelred at November 15, 2007 9:47 AM

Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for your calm, reasoned attitude toward the problem of racial supremacism and its consequences for normal people.
The right-wing parties in Europe, and I know because I live there, are constantly doing foolish things (like putting wreaths on SS graves) because they are racists. Their racism makes them stupid; of course, they have lots of rationalizations (for putting the wreath on this grave rather than that one), but that's not seeing the forest for the trees. It's like a form of blindness.
The problem is pervasive throughout Europe, as best as I can tell. Most anti-jihad people will never ally themselves with this element, and if Europe dies as a result, then that's just too bad for Europe; but you'll have to put the blame for that on the major parties and the racists on the right, not the non-racists who are fighting for our culture against jihad.
It's hard for me as an American to understand how so many in the European right can choose racism over the future of European civilization. Maybe for them being Western is just looking a certain way. That's nothing worth fighting for.
We need to see real "conversion," not just in the official platforms of these people, but also in what they say with their symbols and actions.

Posted by: ppeter at November 15, 2007 9:47 AM

The ONLY UK party who wants to tackle this problem head-on is the BNP, and however distasteful it is, there are many people who will vote for them at the next UK election, including Jews (whom the BNP hate).

I would like to ask you a question Jerusalem posts, if the BNP are so Anti-semitic as you imply, why is it that one of there members who is a Jew has been elected to the Epping District council? Why don't you go to there website and check out what they have to say about the whole affair, you might be surprised. The Website gets 7,000,000 hits a month more than any other of the main British parties. I think that that says a lot about how the ordinary Brit feels. Does that mean that all we Brits are anti-semitic ?

Posted by: Holger Dansker at November 15, 2007 9:53 AM

apostate_islam:

I have worked with a member of the BNP, they are ignorant scum

Sheer bigotry. You're showing your ignorance, my friend, if you think you can label a whole group based on a knowledge of only one member of it. Would you do the same if you met a bad Jew/Eskimo/African? Thought not.

The BNP does not appeal to women

More bigotry. The BNP has several female councillors. I can't be bothered providing the links about BNP women, but Google Sadie Graham, Pat Richardson (Jewish) or Emma Colgate, to name but a few.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 9:56 AM

Thanks, Robert, for this post. In your usual level headed style, you've hit the nail on the head.

Charles Johnson has taken a lot of heat for his principled stand against Nazis and white supremacists. His point is the same as yours, many people on both sides of the pond will not join forces with people who they perceive as having these connections, regardless of the threat. I certainly hope VB and SD make a clean break with their past, they could be valuable allies in the Counterjihad.

I understand how desperate many Europeans feel, they see their culture and freedoms under attack daily by their elites. They see the Islamization of the continent growing with no one standing up to it. They see anyone opposed to the Islamization attacked as right wing extremists and worse. I can undertand their willingness to partner with anyone who is willing to take a stand, but they must understand who they are standing with and the risks.

I will continue to read The Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal, as well as Little Green Footballs. They all do great work spreading the word of the threat of Islam, just like Jihad Watch. Thanks again for your common sense, Robert.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at November 15, 2007 9:56 AM

Robert

You say you don't support the use of abuse in comments yet AI refers to people as "ignorant scum". As I'm a BNP supporter, AI means me. Yet if I were to say "Hindus/Sikhs/Jews/Socialists etc. are ignorant scum" I trust you would delete my comment without hesitation. And rightly so.

Regards

Lionheart.

Posted by: Lionheart at November 15, 2007 9:59 AM

To RS ...

You have a great sense of humor, but you are not a clown. Yours is more the interesting, incisive, intelligence type that escapes the "clown experts" who are most in need of an education and a mirror with which to find the real clown in the room.

Cheers,
M

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at November 15, 2007 9:59 AM

I certainly hope VB and SD make a clean break with their past

Ok, I wasn't going to reply to this thread again but I think I have to say this, and please forgive my shouting...

THEY ALREADY HAVE!

VB and SD were both formed to make that very clean break you keep demanding from them. Read in to their history from people who actually know what they're talking about and you'll see that all these demands you're making have already been answered!

And off I go until next time. :)

Posted by: Archonix at November 15, 2007 10:00 AM

> I have worked with a member of the BNP, they are ignorant scum >

A sample of one person is not a viable survey on any level: scientific, sociological, sociographic, psychological, anthropological or interperson. For goodness sake. Engage brain before opening mouth.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at November 15, 2007 10:12 AM

BNP, racism and anti-Semitism, with thanks to Melanie Phillips:

The troika of bigotry.

An offensive reaction.

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 15, 2007 10:13 AM

Your comments make good sense.

There are a few things I'd like to add:

There is a notable degree of anti-white racism both among the Left and among Islamists in general. But anybody who points this out is apt to be accused of "racism" or "Nazism" or the like.

The problem is that as long as anti-white racism keeps getting a free pass, while other forms of racism are condemned, this has the effect of giving a boost to actual neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the like. That's why respectable people can't afford to ignore any form of racism, no matter who it's directed against.

On another topic, if this is the Fjordman article on women that commenter Morgaan Sinclair is referring to, in my opinion it is a good and well-thought-out article. Anybody who deserts our cause on account of this article was never much of a supporter in the first place.

Posted by: 1389 at November 15, 2007 10:20 AM

This is really sad to watch.

The emphasis here should be the antisemitism and former Nazi affilitions, not of current European political parties, but of ISLAM itself.

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?

The Mufti and the FührerHitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism

All of these talented mudslingers should redirect themselves to recasting this "debate" in time for the attention that will come from the New Duranty Times and others eager to exploit the current divisiveness.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 15, 2007 10:23 AM

Hitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 15, 2007 10:25 AM

Re: " The problem is that there is no control over that immigration. There is no means for Belgium to control that immigration because those powers were ceded to the Union under the 1996 Maastricht treaty. This rise of nationalism is a response to that problem, not a response to immigration in general but to the fact that immigration is no longer controlled."

Uncontrollled immigration is the white elephant that has lumbered into Europe's living room and isn't being noticed.

Immigration reform is desperately needed throughout Europe. The reform must be accomplished in a way that preserves Europe's democratic institutions and yet doesn't demonize the immigrant population.

Immigration reform is also sorely needed in the U.S.

This is a great topic Robert. I wish I had more time to write.....but I have to leave for work now. I will try to post again on this topic later this evening.

Posted by: Johnathan at November 15, 2007 10:25 AM

SIOE tried to keep party politics out of the war against islamism.

A political party has only one interest which is itself.

The war against islamism is the most important thing in the world at the moment. It overrides everything else.

The only way we can succeed is to bury differences on other matters and work together.

I would ask a question of American anti-Jihad colleagues. Would those of you supporting Vlaams Belang be equally as supportive of a political party with an anti-islamism policy, if the same party also had a separatist policy for New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and California?

There is as much talk about VB on anti-Jihad sites now as anti-Jihadism.

Great for VB, but not so great for anti-Jihadism.

I have nothing against VB, nor am I for it, just as I voice no particular opinion about the Republicans and Democrats in the USA - at least not with my anti-Islamist boots on.

Global anti-Islamism is bigger than domestic politics.

Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at November 15, 2007 10:26 AM

Congratulations Robert, for supporting Charles and taking the only principled position possible in this debate. Hopefully, your buddy Pamela has had some time to ponder the merits of Charles' arguments and has done a re-think.

As I wrote here when the controversy was first unfolding, making common cause with the likes of the BNP and La Pen will be the kiss of death for the counter-jihad.

Folks, appearances and opinions to the contrary, this schism within the counter-jihad is a healthy one. In time, we might look back on this moment as the one in which the counter-Jihad defined itself and became palatable to the Center.

We owe Charles a debt of gratitude.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 15, 2007 10:27 AM

Cornelius, how can you smear the VB and SD with the BNP and Le Pen, have you even looked at VB's replies at www.vigilantfreedom.org, or have you even looded at how the SD was reformed.

The BNP still has a problem with anti-Jewish attitudes in its leadership, while Le Pen is even allying with the Islamics in France, but you can not say the same about VB and SD who are both openly pro-Israel.

Frankly it was stupid to tar these parties with the BNP and Le Pen.

People please note what Archonix said about VB links with certain other parties:

"First, the issue of the alliance with Le Pen and the other groups. The way the European Parliament works, a party or group of parties must hold a minimum number of seats before they're allowed to make statements on the floor or propose votes and motions. Given the way the EU works, the big established parties will all tend to band together in to groups that allow them to dominate the floor and prevent the "minnows" from saying anything, as they usually by themselves have less than the minimum number of seats. You will find that such parties feel it necessary to band together in order to get the right to speak, and they often have to make alliances with people who are, to put it mildly, distasteful. Of course that particular alliance is now dead; VB pulled out of it as part of their effort to answer the criticism their facing, which means they've effectively silenced themselves on the floor of the EU parliament until another alliance can be formed."

The anti-holocaust vote where VB abstained was made by the left into something which tied immigration control to the holocaust and was extremely offensive to the memory of the Jews murdered by Nazi's.

Please read the excellent work at www.vigilantfreedom.org, then we will see if gratitude is really merited?

Posted by: Daffersd at November 15, 2007 10:41 AM

Neo Nazi's? Where? Is any other group apart from the muslim hordes calling for the extermination of Jews? I recall an SS soldier in the documentary 'Obsession' thinking back how weird it was for the Mufti of Jerusalem being welcomed into Hitler's war machine. I forget his name but he is forgiven and this once SS soldier has seen the errors of his racist ways, I just don't hear any of the groups mentioned above suggesting any such thing as the extermination of the Jewish race. We are far too eager to throw around 'extreme' accusations.
I believe Nick Griffin from the BNP is not a holocaust denier, simply suggesting it's an exaggeration does not make one a holocaust denier. The BNP stance is a neutral approach as nationalists are supposed to be and I commend Nick Griffin for that, his philosophy on Iraq is that the BNP does not seek to impose Western culture on the whole world, let alone introducing democracy in Iraq which has been reiterated by both Fitzgerald and Spencer as an exercise in futility. The reality is that the West meddling in the MidEast is preventing Israel from defending itself and are forever being duped with reassurances of peace talks, a two state solution, when the only solution muslims acknowledge is the final one. For crying out loud, whilst we give aid to Israeli enemies we at the same time call for Israel to restrain from acting in a decisive manner.
We've all come to realize political correctness is stifling our free thought and multiculturalism is proving a dismal failure, so why is it alright to fly a black pride flag but if a white man flies a white pride flag he's labeled a racist, neo-Nazi, or even a neo-fascist? I cannot see anything wrong with wanting to preserve a once great culture like the mother land of Britain, is it a form of fascism to expect immigrants to learn English?
You're correct Robert, this issue has split the anti-jihad movement right through the middle and multicultural Utopian airheads and the ideological debaters who have failed to convince those who matter will be left behind and thrashed in this WAR of civilizations, your way will only see hudna after hudna and the eventual take over...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at November 15, 2007 10:46 AM

Europe is understandably fighting the demons of i.ts past, and indeed the growth of the Marxist EU can be seen as a direct result of the fear of the kind of nationalism that led to two world wars.

Unfortunately, the EU only lays another massive layer of government between ordinary voters and the makers of policy, who seem, at least from my limited American perspective, to be acting now as a permanent overclass with virtually no ties to the ballot box.

Europe is still fighting the last war; meanwhile the new one is already upon them full scale and they are arguing over terms and definitions--as we do here.

Whatever the case, if a new political party must be formed that directly denounces anti-semitism while clearly identifying the jihadist threat, then PLEASE FORM IT.

Define the enemy first. Then organize the ranks behind that common goal. This is the 21st Century now, and this threat is, in my opinion, potentially far more devastating than even the Nazis.

Posted by: JohnAdams at November 15, 2007 10:59 AM

It surprises me about Robert's unyielding view of the BNP whereas, he is part of the David Horowitz organization, a man who once supported criminal elements like the Black Panthers and who over time, changed his views and saw things differently. If Mr. Horowitz was never "released" of the baggage he carried in his past, then we would never have been the benefactors of his works today. I have read much of the BNP's "recent" philosophy, and although I don't agree with everything they say, I do find their points of view refreshing regarding the Islamic issue, National pride, defense of those who still work for a living and a protection for a wonderful culture and past.

This seems to be a reflection of change that continues to be bashed by "the holier than thous" who know more than what one perceives upon their own observations.

Posted by: Briars at November 15, 2007 11:03 AM

"On another topic, if this is the Fjordman article on women that commenter Morgaan Sinclair is referring to, in my opinion it is a good and well-thought-out article."

I've read the piece, and it included some puerile provocations and could have been more specific in defining the targets of its derogations.

Tempting as it might be (e.g. Hugh on global warming) to write on a breadth of topics, the reality is that after having substantially explored ONE controversial topic (e.g. counter-jihad), the writer becomes type-cast and linked to the parent topic and vice-versa.

Personally, I think Robert does a great job of sticking to the message (though the "Dylan" interview added character dimensionality). Even when defending the Christian faith, he stays on anti-jihad message, and when debating, he does just that, debate, with effort toward finality. His vehicle is less specifically politically sectarian and more inclusive by sticking to the message. Charles, on the other hand, has a seeming need for a continuing arch-nemesis relationship with his daily promotional linkages to the Daily Kos. Many bonus points awarded though for expositions such as the "fauxtography" scandal. I would, however, suggest that he and "Fjordman" work toward improving their focus on the central counter-jihad theme.

In other words, be perfect, like Robert.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 15, 2007 11:04 AM

"I have worked with a member of the BNP, they are ignorant scum"

"The right-wing parties in Europe, and I know because I live there, are constantly doing foolish things (like putting wreaths on SS graves) because they are racists."

No comment.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 15, 2007 11:14 AM

"European mainstream parties have completely failed to address the problem of European Islamization -- a problem that of course they have, in many cases, abetted. Hugh and I have both in many separate posts lamented that those mainstream parties"

It seems to me that this "failing to address the problem" ties up with the intent of TPTB to control the world completely. By whatever name it's called, this is what the evidence leads up to. Whetehr it's called the NWO or the Caliphate.

All the leaders of countries are hand in glove with it.

Why else would "forked tongue" Arbusto . be "huggy-buggy" with the ugly arab prince. On fact, the culture, the visage of the islamics are all ugly.

Posted by: allat at November 15, 2007 11:17 AM

JohnAdmas, I totally agree, I would define what we stand for, freedom democracy etc., say what we do not agree with, racism in the case of superiority and hate due to colour of skin or race and then move on and create a movement.

But it seems that some of can say that until we are blue in the face and still get tarred as Neo-Nazi's.

I was joking with one of my friends about this subject and I said

"So when the killing starts, when I am on that barricade in ten years time without a hope in hell with a sword and a flintlock pistol trying to stop my village from being cleansed by Islamics with AK 47's I will watch the skies with trepidation in case American ordinance heads my way for being a white Neo Nazi..."

Posted by: Daffersd at November 15, 2007 11:18 AM

"Paul Belien recently stated on the Atlas interview with Pamela Geller, about that wreath laying cerimony. For an example, Stefan Laureys, one of those SS soldiers buried there, originally went to Finland to fight on the Finnish front against the Soviets, when Finland was fighting for its life. At the time, Germany and the Soviets had a treaty.
Laurey's parents hid Jews from the Nazis, and their son, no anti-Semite, refused to fight on the western front against the Allied forces. He was later shot.

This man deserved a wreath. without proper knowledge about the history of the coutnry in question, all kinds of wrong headed assumptions can be made.

The superficial argument is "they're honouring nazi war dead", but just a little bit of digging reveals that many of the accusations are based on misunderstandings of history or a refusal to actually check the facts.

Where such facts are not known I agree that caution is required, but in many cases the accusations have already been dealt with, without acknowledgment from the accusers. Habeus corpus. Bring the proof and it'll be answered."

Wow. Posts like this is a pretty good evidence that Charles was/is really spot on.

VB LAID FLOWERS TO SS GRAVE. The obvious judgement here is that they sympathize SS, i.e. the executive arm of Nazi regime. This behaviour is a proof. Care to refute? How THIS was dealt with (without acknowledgment from the accusers)? Why instead of bringing the counter-proof you bring some meaningless nonsense leftist style?

And why, if you really have some real proof, you bring this strange quote? How exactly the fact that one of SS soldiers buried there was an honorable man, who sabotaged their activity, influence the mentioned proof? Is the grave itself dedicated to anti-SS, anti-Nazi German troops? Is it then maintained that the whole purpose of wreath laying cerimony was to celebrate anti-SS activity? And if it is why this obvious objection is not directly stated? Because it sure looks other way, i.e. like a lamest attempt to decieve (as if one is saying that he supports Al-Quaeda and you mentioning that there are anti-AlQuaeda elements within the Al-Quaeda, hoping it will dupe somebody into thinking that he really opposing Al-Quaeda).

Posted by: AlexD at November 15, 2007 11:25 AM

Nazis in Belgium?

Are you going to do a Spring, 1940 or Winter, 1944 Alert?

WWPD? What Would Patton Do?

I'm pretty sure I could work in a "Pentagon always fighting last war" angle, but maybe another time.

Posted by: Beagle at November 15, 2007 11:29 AM

The obvious judgement is that he fought against communism but refused to fight against fellow democrats and he was executed for it, next...

Posted by: Daffersd at November 15, 2007 11:33 AM

Hi Mr.Spencer

Just a question, an innocent one.
Are white nationalists and neo-nazis capable of using Taqqiya? Or is a genetically, a muslim trait?
I mean, if the Vlaams Belang can change (according to you), why not the Muslim Brotherhood? They also say they're peaceful, and only want the well being of Muslims. They delinked themselves from their violent past, and now they're going mainstream, and they're already the most popular political force in Egypt (Despite Mubarak's machinations).
We'll support the Vlaams Belang, if they denounce Nazism.
We'll support the Muslim Brotherhood, if they denounce terrorism.
We'll support David Duke, if he tells us that he no longer hates jews.
We must support Ahmadenijad's Nuclear Program, because he said it's peaceful and for civil use.

Why not.

Posted by: Gambini at November 15, 2007 11:33 AM

Daffersd:
Take heart, and follow Spencer's example in remaining steadfastly focused on Europe's defining the enemy of Islamic jihad. This is an important point. Even today, in the posts above, RS was enlightened on a key point in definining his mission here, as to not limiting this struggle to that of the West but to include all Non-Muslims worldwide. It is in many ways a new movement, a new consciousness, and it must be liberated from the wars of the past (though not while abandoning the lessons learned from history). I know for a fact that many, many people are waking up to this threat every day. And many are people of color.

Frankly, as an American of European heritage who is adamantly patriotic, I cannot separate thoughts of the country I love from the many people of African, Asian, and Hispanic who contribute to our society. If you begin with a libertarian principle you immediately begin to expose the racists and Islamic supremacists by definition.

Posted by: JohnAdams at November 15, 2007 11:33 AM

Am I the only one who is bored to death with this argument?
Time for all who oppose global islam to get to work.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 15, 2007 11:36 AM

Desperate times will unfortunatly lead to desperate measures.
Our task is to make sure the situation in the UK doesn't get that desperate.

Below is a link to a wikipedidia article on
John Tyndall, I know wiki isn't reliable but there are other sources of info about Tyndall.
The fact is he was a NAZI, JEW HATER, he used to dress up as hitler.

We all need to bear in mind during this struggle
"WE are know by the company we keep"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall_%28politician%29

We all remember the covert footage of Nick Griffin taken by a BBC team, although I totally disagreed with his prosecution nobody can deny that he reduced the debate on islam during that meeting into a simple racial one.
When he talked about "Right hand pocessions" he talked of the "right hand holding the baseball bat connecting to a whitemans skull" or words to that effect.
Mark Collett has referred to AIDS as a friendly disease, because it kills black people, drug users and gays.

Whether we like it or not the situation in the UK and europe is going to become desperate and nasty one day. I myself know Sikhs who vote BNP...out of desperation thats all.

Hindu and Sikh extremists in link with BNP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,,624352,00.html

But let us be under no illusion the BNP will turn on them as well, a few "token" Jews, Hindus, Sikhs doesn't change the nazi nature of the BNP.

Posted by: apostate_islam at November 15, 2007 11:37 AM

Could all those anti-jihadists who support mainstream European political parties please start lobbying those parties about the Islamist threat?

See how far you get before your membership is revoked and you are reported to the police for being a racist, neo-Nazi Islamophobe.

Please comment back here on your progress.

Thank you.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 11:38 AM

I've read alot of the comments in this controversy on both sides. I think the essence of the pro-VB view is that Europe is like a house on fire, and one must act immediately. I have read a number of comments that use this analogy.

But I think the analogy is false. In the burning house, waiting for a few seconds could be the difference between life and death. Europe has more time than that. In fact, Europeans must think things through all the way, if they are to devise a proper plan of action.

If there is no anti-jihad party which isn't nazi, then there are three conceivable reasons:
1) No one has yet formed one yet
2) Most people don't understand jihad yet
3) The mainstream culture wants suicide

Case #1 and #2 are similar. Concerned Europeans should form a party and work on educating the citizenry. You have allies like JW, LGF, etc.

If #3 really is true (as an American, I don't know), then you have to leave for a better place (e.g. the USA).

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2007 11:38 AM

watling,

Some people don't seem to get the fact that if you let the government abuse its power on Vlaams Belang, trumping up "racism" as a crime, their next step is "Islamophobia."

Never let it be said nobody tried to warn people.

Hypocrisy and double standards have a way of biting back.

Posted by: Beagle at November 15, 2007 11:45 AM

apostate_islam:

John Tyndall is not around any more but I think your comments about him are correct. I think both Griffin and Collett (plus one or two others) will have to go before the BNP can be seen as a credible alternative.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 11:45 AM

Come'ON folks, they're anti Jiiihad, anti-muslimmm, proo-americAN, and they said they looooove jooos.
Come on, let's forget this and support them.

Dewinter trying to lay flowers on Flemish SS's tombs at Lommel? ooh phluuse, they were trying to honour Flemish nationalists who died for Flanders,

Dewinter being a former VMO member? Lie Lie Lie, Big Lie. ok, let's suppose he was a member of VMO, so what? is he still one?

Karel Dillen Nazi Past? ooooooh, lie lie lie, he did that because he thought Hitler was going to help flemish people to get their independence.

Roeland Raes anti-semitism? Well, he resigned from his post as a vice president of the party

He's still in the party? well, LIE LIE LIE, LEFTIST PLOT.

Bert Eriksson ties to the party? LIE LIE LIE

Xavier Buisseret? LIE LIE LIE

NOW SHUT the EF UP!!! NO MORE QUESTIONS!!!, LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE, I DON'T HEAR YOU, LIE LIE LIE LIE.

;-)

Posted by: Gambini at November 15, 2007 11:51 AM

I'm with LGF on this: if counterjihad ideas are to make further headway among the informed public, in the mainstream parties and, crucially, with other religious minorities, they have to be like Caesar's wife: above suspicion.
The only one of the parties being discussed in this debate that I have a reasonable familiarity with, is the BNP and I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. They stand at the end of a clearly traceable line of succession (in personnel as well as ideas) going back to Mosley. I think the majority of the population of this country have the same attitude - and always will.

Posted by: wallyUK at November 15, 2007 11:52 AM

If I only knew two things about BNP, I would not touch them with a 10-foot pole:

"I believe Nick Griffin from the BNP is not a holocaust denier, simply suggesting it's an exaggeration does not make one a holocaust denier."

"We also have the injustice of global capitalism, forcing the native people to compete at the lowest end of the age scale to scrape a living."

I don't see any legitemacy to holocaust "minimization". This is the same species as denial, and serves no legitemate purpose.

Such obvious hatred for capitalism reveals the underlying collectivist preference for dictatorship. Let's not forget that Hitler's Nazi party was a socialist party.

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2007 11:52 AM

I think many people are missing some essential points.
The US is an "immigrant nation". It was founded and built by immigrants(slaves are a kind of immigrants) from 3 continents. European countries are NOT "immigrant nations"(unless you wanna go back a few thousand years, and unless you wanna go back several more thousand years, the migrants were still from Europe). As a consequence, "race" and ethnicity are naturally gonna be a part of national identity as they are in most countries of the world. There's no way around that.
You might only be fighting jihad, and that's all fine and dandy, but European political parties have other issues to deal with as well, issues that aren't limited to muslims such as immigrant crime. America has problems with illegal immigrants from south of the border, we have problems with legal immigrants and asylumseekers because of our lax immigration and asylum legislation.

I also think people have to be more careful about using labels like "neofascist". I think I've read a few people call Le Pen or Front national "neofascist", I know I've seen Charles Johnson and some "lizards" do it, but an expert on fascism, Roger Griffin, writtes in "International Fascism" that neither Le Pen nor Front National are fascist.

Posted by: DanishDynamite at November 15, 2007 11:54 AM

A few comments from someone who has lived in Europe for 6 years, has a Euro citizenship and children who do too. I am also very much a North American, born and raised on this continent, and delighted to be here. I am probably echoing some comments above, but maybe I can also shed a bit of light. Forgive me for being a bit long winded ...

I see two issues that fuel the LGF vs Brussels Journal battle.

First, and this is certainly not meant as a slur in any sense, C Johnson is, as best I can tell, a techy, not a political thinker. He has built a tremendous blog that has done great things (think Rathergate, for instance) and that will continue to do many more, and he does yeoman's work at aggregating information and news and getting those things broadly disseminated. Again, he is not a political thinker, more of an idealistic libertarian in the American sense (not a bad thing) and like many libertarians, a bit politically naive. He is not a pundit, he is a news aggregator. When news aggregators try to pass themselves off as political thinkers then the waters get murky (think Allahpundit, who thinks he's a pundit too). Again, no slurs intended, just trying to get things straight.

Over at Brussels Journal we find posts (I am referring to posts, not comments) that are provided by people who are quite obviously political thinkers, capable of careful, well informed analysis as well as news aggregation. One can read their posts, and, whether one agrees with a particular post or not, one can learn a great deal and expand one's horizons, at least with respect to the cauldron of European politics and society.

So point one: LGF is a news aggregation blog that is trying to do (somewhat amateurish but entertaining) political analysis. Brussels Journal is an analysis blog. Their battle resembles an argument between the auto mechanic and the engineer who designed the engine, they both have very valid points regarding engine design and maintenance but their points of view are so different that they have trouble communicating.

Second point, there is a profound disconnect between political thought on the two sides of the Atlantic. That is not surprising, since the societies on the two sides of the "pond" are fundamentally different.

America is by its very nature a melting pot. Always has been, and, I hope, always will be. Our whole political raison d'être is founded on ideas (mostly inherited and evolved anglo-saxon ideas of individualism and liberty, I would say). The real glue that holds the society together is ideas, not blood. If the glue were blood, then I would be in bad shape myself. A single nation founded upon a few fundamental and rock solid ideas, that is the beauty of America.

Not all nations of Europe share the same ideas of individual freedom. An Englishman's idea of liberty is not at all the same as a Frenchman's (excuse the generalizations, please), or a Greek's. That is not to criticize any of the above nationalities, vive la différence. Remember, in Europe, the nations came first, democracy is a late-comer in Europe. There are profound differences in the way that different European nations have come to govern themselves and to perceive themselves, and that are rooted in ancient ways of thinking, culture, history, all of which make up identity. One might rejoice in those differences or decry them, but they will not go away. They just won't. The Soviets tried to efface national differences in their own empire and the blowback has not been pretty.

So point two, LGF and Brussels Journal come from fundamentally different political cultures, they are talking right past one another, as best I can tell. LGF looks at Europe and sees lots of warts, but cannot diagnose the malady. It just nows that warts are a "bad thing". Brussels Journal tries to explain the malady but LGF is unfamiliar with the terminology.

One last comment. The nationalistic parties in Europe are struggling with an EU that is trying to impose a simple one size fits all set of ideas on the complex Eurpean mosaic. What some on the western shores of the Atlantic don't understand is that the imposed ideas are very different from the basic democratic concepts of America. The EU is certainly not democratic in its essense, it is much closer to a bureaucratic totalitarian entity (note that I avoided using fascist or nazi as descriptors here) than to a representative democracy.

Therein lies a difference between anit-jihadists in America and in Europe. In America the battle is to protect the essence of the political system and of the free society, to sustain the single set of fundamental ideas that are the underpinnings of the nation. In Europe there is no single set of ideas that bind all the nations. So, the line between defending freedom and defending a "people" can get blurred, especially when viewed from a few thousand miles distance.

Sorry for running on.

Posted by: Minority of One at November 15, 2007 11:57 AM

It's been quite a mess with LGF. The sheer volume has been so overwhelming that it's very difficult to keep up with, unless one has full working hours to deal with it. I don't, and most of us here don't. I'll post a couple of examples below.

Christine Brim of Vigilant Freedom is probably the one person who knows the details best. She's been posting details and documentation at a volume that's probably some 10 X larger than the bits Charles has come up with. A compilation of posts is here:

http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/11/10/list-of-posts-on-vlaams-belang-and-sweden-democrats/

I can't follow all of this. The stuff I did follow through was fine, though:

One such example was the display of a alongside the (supposedly - I didn't know about this before) supremacist Odin's Cross (variation of Celtic Cross) at a rally. Charles took this as evidence that VB is associated with White Pride (WP) groups.

First thing of note is that the Flemish flag was a different variant than the one used by Vlaams Belang. The flag used by VB is only black on yellow, the one in the photo is a variant with red tongue and claws. Looks like minor stuff, but it is enough to show that it simply wasn't VB doing that rally, it was someone else. Checking the date of the photo and the background, it turned out to be some tiny group not associated to any political party.

Another was that of the supposed Holocaust denial by the Vlaams Belang, where its members of the European Parliament abstained from the vote on a Holocaust memorial resolution. Christine deals with the details (and more) at this CVF post, and the European Parliament has the original Vlaams Belang statement about it online. I'll quote it below, that you don't have to wade through the enormous EP web site to find it. Basically, the resoltion was poison-pilled with a curb on freedom of expression, and Vlaams Belang was one of very few parties to take the risk of stigmata over it in order to stand up for our freedoms.

Yet another item was that of VB participating in the right-wing ITS group in the European Parliament. I was asked my opinion before they entered this, and discouraged it, but being in a group in the European Parliament brings many advantages, including the very fundamental one of even being able to table resolutions, so they joined anyway. Christine in her post above has this link to the list of the 8 ITS resolutions.

In case anyone would request Vlaams Belang to leave this group, it should be clear that it has heavy consequences for their ability to do useful things in the European Parliament. This is a hefty price to pay.

However, it has been paid. Yesterday, the ITS group dissolved. Those of you requesting a cut, be pleased. You got it.

Below is the statement by Philip Claeys regarding the Holocaust resolution that Vlaams Belang abstained from. It makes some very valuable points related to protecting civil liberties, and is highly recommended reading. The points may be subtle, but it shows quite nicely what kind of subversion we're facing from the PC crowd.

Anyone getting scared from a stack of slurs from some American blogger should try to be in a similar party, like the smaller Dansk Folkeparti I'm in. You'll learn to discard all kinds of crap accusations off hand.

Long comment... I think it illustrates just how much work it takes to refute various allegations thrown around. At some point, most people simply tire out and go do something else. Which seems to be what Charles has been aiming for, just to prove himself right to his crowd. Fortunately Christine has done a Herculean work to document what I gathered from personal experience through a couple of years:

The Vlaams Belang folks are fine. Just the kind we need to work with for real influence.

Philip Claeys' statement on the EU Parliament "Holocaust memorial resolution":

We are discussing a resolution on the commemoration of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism. We could have expected a text that pays tribute to the victims of the Holocaust with, in all serenity, an appeal never to forget this gruesome chapter in European history so that this can never be repeated. My party, the Vlaams Belang, could obviously have agreed to a resolution to that effect, together with 99% of the MEPs, but the resolution that is here before us for discussion has not been conceived in that spirit. The horrors of the Second World War have all been disgracefully piled onto one heap along with, and I quote, the rise of extremist and xenophobic parties and growing public acceptance of their views. Paragraph 5 of the resolution literally calls for the current fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism to be set against the background of the Shoah in education.

My party, the Vlaams Belang, is neither extremist nor xenophobic, but the standard politically correct terminology is very much against the current democratic political parties that make a stand for maintaining national identity. The traditional political groups simply want to demonise a number of successful and growing competitors at the expense of the Holocaust victims. This is not only an insult to millions of voters in Europe but, what is worse, these cheap political games trivialise the horrors of totalitarian regimes, including National Socialism. Another worrying aspect is the appeal for, and I quote, a ban on incitement to racial and religious hatred throughout the EU whilst guaranteeing legitimate free speech. According to the traditional groups, there is apparently such a thing as illegitimate free speech which must be stopped at all costs. They seem to forget that freedom of speech only exists if it also applies to political opponents. Aberrations of this kind come as no surprise, given the fact that this resolution was submitted by the Communist group.

Posted by: Henrik at November 15, 2007 12:00 PM

im a member of the BNP and i dont hate or love jews. basically i love and want to preserve my own country and culture. the only party that is going to do that is the BNP.
maybe some of the higher ups in the party are anti jew but the 6 or 7 people that i leaflet with
think much along the same lines a me

Posted by: baker21 at November 15, 2007 12:00 PM

Congratulations Robert, for supporting Charles and taking the only principled position possible in this debate. Hopefully, your buddy Pamela has had some time to ponder the merits of Charles' arguments and has done a re-think. ... In time, we might look back on this moment as the one in which the counter-Jihad defined itself and became palatable to the Center.

We owe Charles a debt of gratitude.
Posted by: Cornelius

If anyone took a look at a the response to Johnson's slanders over at the CVF, and at numerous other places around the web, one would realize that Johnson's accusations are completely baseless. Anyone who would conduct such a paranoid ideological purge on a website already containing a comment disclaimer, as Johnson has done at LGF, is not much use for any real action. Johnson had ample time to bring up any objections he had to the various parties involved in the counter-jihad conference beforehand. He waited until afterward to begin his smears, which involved Wikipedia entries and old photographs. When he gets out from behind his computer screen and takes some real action, he'll regain some credibility.

Posted by: PRCalDude at November 15, 2007 12:01 PM

Mr. Spencer

Smart move....No need to charge up that hill. Some battles are worth fighting and some are not. Lets try to avoid civil wars until there is enough anti-jihadist to have a civil war. Remember the founding father had all sorts of feuds and spats also so no big deal. The USA turned out ok....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 15, 2007 12:02 PM

Get a grip bearster. There's nothing inherently wrong with questioning history, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with questioning science: Both increase our knowledge and understanding.
I'd rather prefer a holocaust "minimizer" than someone who wants to outlaw discussion of the holocaust...

Posted by: DanishDynamite at November 15, 2007 12:06 PM

This is beyond appalling:

"Meanwhile, in the comments for his post, open supporters of the BNP appear, as well as several former LGF posters banned for racism and/or eliminationist rhetoric"

Is Charles Johnson (pbuh) now arrogating to himself the right to decide what gets said in the comments section of JW? Furthermore, is he suggesting that posters he has banned should now by banned by JW?
Is he now going to decide policy for JW?

I had sympathy for his stance at the start, but his obsession with this has overtaken him and now he has become downright vicious.

Is there no-one whom he will not try to destroy in his witch hunt?

Posted by: Silvester at November 15, 2007 12:07 PM

Many have accused the BNP of jumping on the anti-jihad band wagon, yet, where were all the so called main stream bloggers when the BNP where campaigning against Islam.

BNP where campaigning before 9/11

WHERE AS

Charles Johnson, of LGF was blogging about bicycle racing, programming, web design.

And Robert Spencer did not kick off with Jihad Watch until exactly two years after the below Campaign poster was published

Where were all the other main stream anti-jihadist,s such as Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, Melanie Phillips, Michelle Malkin or Debbie Schlussel.

All the above mentioned people did not get active until after 9/11, including myself, where-as Nick Griffin and the BNP where campaigning before 9/11

Read it all

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/11/jumping-on-bandwagon.html

Posted by: shiva at November 15, 2007 12:11 PM

Minority of One wrote:
"In Europe there is no single set of ideas that bind all the nations."

Actually, there is. It just happens to be buried significantly deeper than the set of American ideas. It's something I've looked into and found that I don't have time to really work in depth with. I am hoping that others will, it's valuable. Here's what sparked my interest:

Rodney Stark in his book The Victory of Reason has a profoundly interesting reinterpretation of European history. While it may be a bit on the polemical side, it raises so many good points, with solid references, that it causes me to reasses the European legacy. And yes, as Robert says in his latest book, it does have everything to do with Christianity...

There are othe authors who have discovered this, like Thomas F. Woods. It's a treasure mine.

Posted by: Henrik at November 15, 2007 12:11 PM

Minority of One, thank you, the EU is a major part of the problem.

JohnAdams, there is quite a bit of movement in Europe at this point, but its gone to far to prevent it turning nasty at some point. Its really just a question about the scale of the nastiness.

Gambini, go back to LGF, they might think your clever over there...

Posted by: Daffersd at November 15, 2007 12:12 PM

If you punish holocaust denial/minimization it's a straight path to making "Islamophobia" a crime. Many of us will be pinning our hopes on limitations statutes. It's already happening in the UK. Holocaust denial - absent action to bring on another one - isn't nearly as bad as government charging a host of mental states as crimes. But I'm quickly realizing people don't give a damn about the big picture on this issue.

On this issue every thread is pre-Godwinized. Get the bad Nazis. Any shirkers are Nazi sympathizers.

Posted by: Beagle at November 15, 2007 12:12 PM

shiva

good work, thankyou

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 15, 2007 12:17 PM

Minority of One:

Excellent post! Hopefully your American compatriots will read and digest it and then be less critical about how we are dealing with Islam (or not) over here.

Posted by: watling at November 15, 2007 12:21 PM

Henrik,

Thankyou for raising the ideas of Rodney Stark.

I intended to mention the idea of Christendom, or alternatively, Judeo-Christian Europe in my previous post and neglected to.

The Judeo-Christian heritage might well be the glue that could hold Europe together, unfortunately, it is not very popular to suggest it in Europe at present. At least not in many western European countries. And certainly not at EU headquarters.

Cheers.

Posted by: Minority of One at November 15, 2007 12:21 PM

Everyone

I just got off an airplane and am about to get on another. I do not have time right now to read through these comments and police this comments field. Reading through it quickly, I see a point well taken about the "ignorant scum" comment -- it merited deletion, although now it has been commented upon so much that it would be useless to do so.

A note to the defenders of the BNP: please provide evidence that they are not a Holocaust-denying, white supremacist organization. Saying they're great in other ways, or are the UK's only defenders, doesn't quite do that.

Back to the friendly skies.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 15, 2007 12:23 PM

people fail to realise that mass un-enforced immigration has led to the rise in the islamic jihad in europe. this is a fact of life.

even winston churchill was against mass immigration and realised it would affect the UK negatively.

was winston churchill a neo nazi?

http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2007/08/winston-churchill-expressed-alarm-about.html

"in 3 February 1954, under the agenda item 'Coloured Workers', Churchill is quoted, with abbreviations, by Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook as saying: 'Problems wh. will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.'"

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 15, 2007 12:24 PM

Bearster

Engage your brain before you post. I said global capitilism is what we have to fight. This is the constant search for cheap labour - i.e. exploitation - by corporations to make more profit at the expense of indiginous workers who they deem too expensive.

For example, one company in the UK has recently shut down operations and relocated to Poland. Add this to the influx of Polish workers who will work for the minimum wage and you may see what a British worker is up against. (my original post had a typo, should've read wage not age, sorry!)

Quite simply, they cannot compete.

To then draw comparisons with National Socialism from this beggars belief.

Posted by: Lionheart at November 15, 2007 12:24 PM

Robert,

You've always said that the solution to bad speech is more free speech. Please don't start down the road of deleting comments and banning people.

Posted by: PRCalDude at November 15, 2007 12:25 PM

dear mr robert spencer

was winston churchill a "neo-nazi" or wjite supremacist because of his comments he made in the 1950's?

this is the same view which the BNP now holds. they are not anti jewish. nor are they anti israel.

http://www.think-israel.org/locke.bnp.html

This is from a jewish israeli web site.

respectfully

leon the pig farmer

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 15, 2007 12:27 PM

Minority of One, I completely agree about the EU. It's part of the problem indeed. Either it needs to be scaled back significantly, like to 15 % of its current resources, or to be abandoned. At the moment it's destroying our national identities, our ability to govern our own countries, and our right to be different.

I know that mentioning the Judeo-Christian foundation of Europe is not quite popular. Honestly, I don't give a damn, it's simply the Right Thing to do. I mention it at every opportunity, and thank everyone else who does it. The Rodney Stark book is a favorite item of mine to give away.

Others will take the work to do the heavy lifting here at some point. Right now, I have other battles that are more urgent and more my field to fight.

Posted by: Henrik at November 15, 2007 12:31 PM

Hi
I'm American and Jewish and have been reading Little Green Footballs for about five years and Jihadwatch for about 3-4. I'm not offended by what Brussels Journal, Felip Dewinter, Vlaams Belang are up to. It is very very tough in Europe to be anti Jihad. They must do what they gotta do

So I continue to value LGF-Charles Johnson and Jihadwatch. But support all European anti-Jihad efforts including BNP which I omitted

Posted by: dennisw at November 15, 2007 12:32 PM

http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2007/08/winston-churchill-expressed-alarm-about.html

read these quotes from winston churchill, same views as the BNP, but different era.

now read this article, its very much showing the BNP in a positive light. note this is a jewish web site.

http://www.think-israel.org/locke.bnp.html

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 15, 2007 12:33 PM

So now a holocaust "minimizer" is a holocaust denier? Give me a break!
I don't think for a minute N.Griffin denies the holocaust but actually refuses to fall for the victim game played by all sorts of people who have fallen victim to the ugly side of humanity. The indigenous Americans, Australians and even the black man sold into slavery play the game, to name a few. It's a means to gain concessions for those too lazy to get over themselves and get a life.
Israel would be in a far better position of defending itself if world leaders left them to manage their own affairs, which is exactly what N.Griffin suggests...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at November 15, 2007 12:33 PM

"Engage your brain before you post. I said global capitilism is what we have to fight. This is the constant search for cheap labour - i.e. exploitation - by corporations to make more profit at the expense of indiginous workers who they deem too expensive."

"To then draw comparisons with National Socialism from this beggars belief."

And why not? What you saying is a pure socialism. To limit the freedom of capitalists to dispose of their property so that it would benefit the local workers. And then goes typical justification nonsense that it is somehow "exploitation" to prefer one worker to another because his service coast less, and that choosing saving money on cheaper variant means making it "at the expense" of an expensive one.

Posted by: AlexD at