Jihad Watch: Vlaams Belang allies with British National Party

January 20, 2008

Vlaams Belang allies with British National Party

On November 15 of last year, I wrote this about the controversy over whether anti-jihadists should support the Vlaams Belang party or not:

But there is cultural defense and then there is a white supremacism that is based on some idea of racial superiority and inferiority, and has via Hitler a historical link to genocide. They are not the same thing, and a distinction needs to be made between the two. If VB and SD have really made a clean break with the past, make it a complete one: let them deal with the ties to LePen and Haider, and make a distinction between cultural defense and white supremacism that is completely clear and distinguishes their position from the neo-fascists.

Instead, it seems as if the VB has gone the other way. "Right-wingers gather against 'Islamisation,'" from The Australian (thanks to Tanguy):

SEVERAL European far-right parties announced a new organisation aimed at fighting the "Islamisation" of Europe.
The group dubbed "Cities against Islamisation" was presented to the media in the northern Belgian city of Antwerp by Filip Dewinter, head of the far-right Belgian party Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) along with Austrian FPOE leader Heinz-Christian Strace and Robert Spieler of the regionalist Alsace First group.

Parties from Britain (the British National Party), Denmark, Germany and Italy were also represented at the launch of the group which has a road-sign-style crossed-out mosque as its logo.

The goal -- fighting the Islamization of Europe -- is laudable. The problem is the BNP. The BNP is an unabashed racial/ethnic party. Its membership statement says:

Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent. While we welcome contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with the many non-whites who also oppose enforced multi-racialism, we ask them to respect our right to an organisation of our own, for our own, as we respect and applaud their measures to organise themselves in like fashion.

The BNP says it is a party for indigenous Britons, but is not white supremacist or hateful. From a Q&A on the BNP site:

iii. Do you believe that blacks or other races are inferior?
No, we have never claimed any such thing. We simply believe that the different races are different, just as men and women are different, and as such they cannot be directly compared.

iv. If you believe that the races are different then you are racists.

Not at all. The definition of a racist is someone who hates people of other races. We do not hate anybody. Anyone who says the BNP is racist is either misinformed or a liar.

Yet even taking them at their word that they are not race supremacists in the National Socialist mode (although there does seem to be a good deal of contrary evidence), I think that their race-based approach is wrong 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 Britons and invite people of other ethnicities to form other similar groups 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 like the BNP who 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 BNP is the only party in Britain that is doing anything to resist Islamization, and thus deserves 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, as far as I know, avoiding dalliance with racial groups. While I am not a European and am conscious that Europeans will probably charge me with naivete and ignorance, I still don't see why it can't be done in Britain, Belgium, and 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. Vlaams Belang, for all its talk about abjuring its past and moving into the mainstream, by allying with the BNP has taking a step in the opposite direction. Europe deserves better, and I hope a better choice will emerge.

As I have said before, I completely disavow all racist and neo-Nazi ideas. I also disavow all race-based approaches to the jihad threat, for the reasons explained above, and will not work with the VB or the BNP. I hope other anti-jihadists will find those arguments compelling and follow suit. In the recent bitter controversy between Charles Johnson and a group of counterjihadists over the nature of the VB, it does appear quite clearly from this new alliance, if it wasn't already, that Charles was right. The VB needs to do much more, and much more clearly, if it really wishes to avoid appearing to oppose Islamization solely on racial grounds. This angry, ugly rift between people I love and respect has disheartened me greatly. I hope now that it can be healed, and that out of it will come a more clearly defined sense of who we are and what we are trying to do.

UPDATE: I am told by sources in Europe that the BNP is not part of this anti-Islamization group. The Brussels Journal lists these groups that were actually there:

Yesterday politicians from several Europeans countries convened in Antwerp, the stronghold of the Flemish secessionist Vlaams Belang party, to establish the international organisation “Cities against Islamization” (CaI). Apart from the Vlaams Belang, the following three parties have joined the organisation: the FPÖ (Susanne Winter’s party, Austria), Alsace d’Abord (a regionalist party from Alsace, France) and Pro Köln (Germany).

The BNP's not being part of this new group, however, does not contradict The Australian's report that the BNP was at the meeting. If they were there, it would be good for the VB to explain why the BNP was there, and why the BNP didn't join. It would also be good now for the Vlaams Belang to renounce and distinguish itself clearly from BNP-style racialism, if it indeed hopes to become a broad anti-jihad party. I hope it will do so.

Posted by Robert at January 20, 2008 7:10 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Nazis and Jihadists share the same kind of rationalization system-"religion"-ideology for domination, exploitation of the "other". Muslims like to fart platitudes that Islam forbids "racism", but in practice (look at Saudi Arabia) Islam is an Arab-supremacist-racist (BTW, Arabs are Semite-Caucasians) rationalization system. Of course, non-Arabs (wannabee Arabs in the Black African Sudan, wannabee Arabs in formerly Hindu Pakistan, Somalia, etc.) internalize the names and "religion" of the "best people" and bow to the Gas Station. But does anyone really think that Somalis, Paks or Negro Africans would be welcome to immigrate to Arab countries in large numbers-especially Saudi Arabia? Islam is at its core racist and very hypocritical re Arab and other Muslim racism.

Islamic culture lacks the self-criticism that has caused many other cultures to be very critical of Muslim-style belief-systems that rationalize supremacism. There is no difference between Nazi domination and Islam. Both cripple the mind. Both claim one ethnicity as the "best people".

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 7:35 AM

Good words, Robert.

The thing that distress me greatly is to see such a fine bloger like Fjordman caught in this. i love his writting, and I have endorsed it greatly in many online sites/places. However seeing the bed fellows Fjordman has, it's hard to keep up suporting him as I did before.

It's just sad, to say the least. :-/

Posted by: Crusader

at January 20, 2008 7:39 AM

Both Hitler and Himmler are on record as stating that Nazi ideology is compatible with Islam. Hitler called Christianity "the Jewish Christ creed with its pity ethics". Christianity is at its core Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It is true that some (Pizarro in Peru, e.g.) tried to turn it into a Muslim style rationalization system for the destruction of indigenous cultures-peoples (as Muslims did in Hindu India). But the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are incompatible. Islam would make no headway in Europe if Europe were truly Christian. Nazism or Islam make gains because Europe is not Christian-with only a handful being true followers of Jesus.

The rise of Nazism in Europe will come for the same reasons that Islam makes headway there. They are flip-sides of the same coin.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 7:52 AM

I fully endorse the view expressed in this post that the counter-jihad must be kept totally free of the taint of racism. The BNP is not interested in countering jihad but in diverting popular concern about Islamic pressure into boosting its racist agenda.

Incidentally, in his earlier days BNP leader Nick Griffin was associated with a neo-fascist faction (the National Front 'Political Soldiers') which came "to embrace pro-Islamic positions, with public support for the anti-Western, national revolutionary regimes of Qaddafi and Khomeini in Libya and Iran" (from Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke, Black Sun, p. 69).

Colin Meade

Posted by: CM

at January 20, 2008 8:07 AM

I think Hitler sensed that an Islamic Germany would have given perfect "moral authority" to the ideology of Jew-hating and made holy-war-making a mandate that would have propelled Germany to Arab style conquests. It would have made the extermination of the Slavs and Jews in Russia (as it did for Muslims in Hindu India) "holy". Hitler would have invoked Muhammad and quoted the Quran. (He would not have quoted the Sermon on the Mount.)

Europe has to get off its Dutch-style commercial based "tolerance" ("We tolerate anything that does not interfere with commerce")and realize that Islam is as dangerous as Nazism and that ultimately they are perfectly compatible. Hitler saw that.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 8:08 AM

Relax, folks:

There is no Nazi-party in all of EUrabia that gets even the minimum 3% (or something like that) of votes to get into a parliament.

While Muhammedanism is a serious threat, far more serious than anything else, there is also a racial component: In recent years there have been ever increasing numbers of Africans washed up on EUrabia's shores. While it may be that most of them are Muhammedans, it is definitely a one-way traffic: Europeans have been thrown out of Africa and nobody has any sympathies with the last few hundred white farmers in Mugabes Zimbabwe, why is that? Some people have wizened up and don't see this 'one world-global village' no longer as a desirable utopia, but as a threat to indigenous Europeans. Can you blame them? If Africa is for the Africans then perhaps Europeans have a right to defend their continent from invasion, no?

That doesn't mean the SS and the SA is marching, the fuhrer rants and the concentration camps will be restored.

People are so brainwashed from the left that this Nazi booboo scares them more then any move towards self-preservation.
Lets get the anti-Islamic movement off the ground.

We don't have another one!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at January 20, 2008 8:13 AM

Very true. As I've said often, you can't fight green fascism with brown fascism.

"Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while, as far as I know, avoiding dalliance with racial groups"

Exactly. If it were different, there would be no way I would vote for him.

"I still don't see why it can't be done in Britain, Belgium, and elsewhere"

That puzzles me too. The Austrian FPÖ is no picknick either, and resembles the VB in this matter (except for the separatist platform).
The Danish DF and the Swiss SVP look like clean counterjihad parties though.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld

at January 20, 2008 8:19 AM

Just to be sure, in my post I agreed with Robert's article, not with sheik yer'mami's post just above mine.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld

at January 20, 2008 8:26 AM

There is nothing illegal about the BNP.

They are no worse than the three main stream partiesExcept the Big Three are selling the English down the drain

Conservative Party Criminals

SEX

. Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell - Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child ****.

. Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys - Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on children.

. Tory Party Vice-Chairman of Welsh Conservatives, Andrew Baker - Received a banning order for stalking women.

. Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor - Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and was forced to resign.

. Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington - Convicted of downloading hardcore child **** on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

. Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy - Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

. Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan - Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child ****.

. Tory Party MEP, Tom Spencer - Caught smuggling drugs and **** through customs.

. Tory Party councillor and former Mayor (Wrexham), Michael Morris - Convicted and put on probation for 2 years, for the indecent assault of another man, which was captured on CCTV.

. Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who's job includes running the Tory GLA website - Arrested for allegedly downloading child ****. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

VIOLENCE

. Tory Party MP (Henley), Boris Johnson - Caught on tape plotting to have a man beaten up by a hired thug. The man was a journalist who had written an unsympathetic piece about Johnson's close friend - Convicted fraudster, Darius Guppy.

. Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone - in Leader, Michael Howard's constituency), Robert Richdale - 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as "a family man" who had a "compassionate personality"

CORRUPTION

. Tory Party councillor (Dudley), Abdul Quadus, who was also chairman of the Dudley Police Committee and a Tory Party spokesman on crime - Convicted and jailed for 6 months for passport fraud and assisting illegal immigration from his native country - Pakistan.

. Former Tory Party Cabinet Minister, Jonathan Aitkin - Convicted and jailed for Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

. Former Tory Leader of Westminster Council, Dame Shirley Porter - Fled to Israel to evade justice after indulging in fraud, corruption and gerrymandering on a massive scale, and stealing millions of pounds from local taxpayers.

. Tory Party Councillor ( Margate ), Colin Kiddel - Forced to resign after Police investigation into his alleged theft and embezzlement of funds from the local `Dreamland` Amusement Park.

. Former Tory Party Chairman and London Mayoral Candidate, Jeffrey Archer - Convicted and jailed for Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

Labour Party Criminals

SEX:

. Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe) Martin Locklyn - Convicted and jailed for 15 years for sexually abusing 3 14-year-old boys.

. Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire) David Spooner - Convicted and jailed for 1 year for masturbating in front of 2 young boys.

. Labour Mayor (Westhoughton/Lancashire) Nicholas Green - Convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault against little girls between the age of 6 and 10. He raped one woman on her wedding day.

. Labour Mayor (Todmordon) John Winstanley - Convicted and jailed for rape and threats to kill. After raping and threatening to kill his terrified victim, Winstanley then ordered the woman to go on all fours before urinating on her.

. Prominent Labour Party activist Mark Tann (who has met Tony & Cherie at Party functions) recently got a 15-year sentence for raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.

. Labour's current Parliamentary Candidate (Reading East) Tony Page - Has 2 Convictions for Acts of Gross Indecency` in public toilets.

. Labour Mayor (Burnley) Mark Swainston - Convicted of sex offences in public toilet.

. Entire Labour Party conspired to conceal the activities of Labour Party activist and serial child-molester Mark Trotter, who died from AIDS before he could be convicted.

. Labour Councillor (North Yorkshire) Raymond Coats - Court appearance for indecently assaulting a woman.

. Labour MP (Rhonda Valley) Chris Bryant poses in his pants on the Internet to advertise himself for casual gay sex encounters. Describes himself as "**** as buggery" and says, "I'd love a good long ****".

. Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding - Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

. Labour MP Ron Davies was mugged by a Rasta on Clapham Common while cruising for gay sex. He was photographed again by the media recently, engaged in some `man-on-man` action in a field off a motorway. "I was only looking for badgers" he said.

. Labour Councillor (Durham), Derrick Payne - Arrested by Police following a sex attack.

. Labour MP, Joe Ashton - Caught up in a Police raid while frequenting a brothel. Tried to lie his way out of the scandal.

. Labour Councillor (Shropshire), Derek Woodvine - Arrested by Police in anti-**** operation.

. Labour Councillor (Basildon), Tony Wright - Forced to resign after being caught using his council computer to download ****.

. Labour MP (Sheffield), Clive Betts - Suspended from Parliament for 7 days after being caught forging immigration papers to extend the stay of his Brazilian rent-boy gay lover.

. According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child ****. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Blair?

VIOLENCE

. Labour Councillor (Kirkby, Merseyside) Charlie Preston - Convicted and jailed for 5 years in 1982 for assault and burglary. Preston broke into the home of a 64 year old man, and beat him up in his bed as he slept before robbing the house. The judge described the case as "As bad a matter of burglary as I can remember" Preston also holds the position on the Council of... `Deputy Cabinet Member for Youth, Citizenship, and Community Safety`.

. Labour Councillor ( Wales ) Denis Jones - Convicted and jailed for unlawful wounding after attacking a neighbour with a sledgehammer.

. Labour Councillor ( Wales ) Ken Brookman - Bit off a mans ear in a dispute over a seat on a train!

. Labour Councillor and former Mayor (Stockton), Keith Dobinson - Investigated by Police for alleged assault on an OAP, which left the old man of 79, hospitalised.

. Labour MP, Tommy Graham - Expelled from Party for his part in driving a person to suicide.

. Labour Councillors (Ilfracombe), Brian Cotton and Tony Cooper - Investigated by Police following serious allegations of Harassment.

CORRUPTION

. Labour Councillor (Sandwell) Mohamed Niwaz convicted of illegally obtaining £20,000 in Housing Grants.

. Labour Councillors in Doncaster - 23 Convicted and 2 jailed for massive fraud, corruption and theft of public funds. Investigation also uncovered massive Labour Party corruption in neighbouring Rotherham .

. Labour Party Councillor ( Blackburn ), Mohammed Hussein - arrested together with 6 Labour activists on suspicion of Election rigging.

. Labour MP Mohammed Sawar ( Britain 's first Asian MP - Glasgow) was the subject of a major News of the World investigation a few years ago into bribery and corruption. Despite this, the massive Asian population in his constituency keeps him safely in his seat.

. Labour MP (Leicester) and former Cabinet Minister, Keith Vaz - Investigated for fraud and corruption before quietly leaving his Europe Minister post with `health problems`. According to his former Secretary, Vaz does absolutely nothing in his constituency other than help local Pakistanis with their Immigration cases (which also helps to explain the `whites a minority` status of Leicester and the safe Labour seat of Mr Vaz)

. Labour Party Euro MP, David Martin is currently being investigated for an alleged expenses fraud involving `hundreds of thousands of pounds`.

. Labour Councillor (Glamorgan), Shawn Stringer - Forced to resign following Police investigation into financial corruption.

OTHER

. Tony Blair recently appointed his close friend/crony and colleague of his wife - Ken Macdonald as the new Director of Public Prosecutions, despite the fact he has a drugs conviction.

. William Straw - Son of Labour Foreign Secretary, and former Home Secretary - Jack Straw, was cautioned by Police for drug dealing, amid a frantic Government attempt to cover up the matter and gag the media as to his identity. Jack Straw also has a brother who was convicted of a sex attack on a schoolgirl. Lovely family!

. Homosexual mass murderer; Dennis Nielsen, who strangled and dismembered 16 young men in the 1980`s, was also a highly active member of Labour fringe groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, and the SWP. That's when he wasn't busy boiling peoples heads in a pot, or masturbating over the corpses of his victims.

Liberal Democrat Criminals

SEX

. Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman - Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

. Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

. Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire - Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

. Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick - Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick's gay lover - Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

VIOLENCE

. Lib-Dem councillor (North Norfolk), Catherine Wilkins - Also a nurse until she was struck off the nursing register after being found guilty of mistreating patients and abusive behaviour.

. Lib-Dem Parliamentary candidate ( Burnley ), Paul Wright - Charged with drunken assault on his `lodger`. Wright sobbed like a baby during the court case, and the case is to be re-listed and heard again after the jury failed to reach a verdict.

. Lib-Dem Councillor ( Sheffield ) Trevor Morgan - Convicted and jailed for 9 months for unlawful wounding/dangerous driving. After attacking an elderly woman's Golden retriever dog by throwing pepper in its face, he then seriously injured the dog's owner - 57-year old Barbara Johnson, with his car as she tried to stop him escaping.

CORRUPTION

. Lib-Dem Councillor (Peterborough), Michael Jackson - Prosecuted for 21 counts of Theft and False Accounting.

. 3 Lib-Dem Councillors convicted and jailed for Election Fraud in Hackney in 2001

. 12 Lib-Dem officials convicted of Election Fraud in Oldham in 2001.

. Julie Roberts - Convicted of 9 counts of benefit fraud in 2003. 2 weeks after the court case, she was elected as a Lib-Dem councillor in Leicester !

. Lib-Dem councillor (Portsmouth), Ray Race - Convicted and jailed for 4 months for election rigging, along with Lib-Dem colleague Michael Hayward. Race was arrested again in July 2003 for threatening a witness who helped to convict him.

. Lib-Dem councillor (Lambeth), Gabriel Fernandez - Forced to resign after being investigated for benefit fraud.

OTHER

. Former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe - Stood trail for conspiring to have his blackmailing gay lover murdered.

Posted by: shiva

at January 20, 2008 8:28 AM

The problem is that Europe is now primarily a commercial civilization. (The Dutch, for example, might kick the Muslims out when they interfere with commerce, but that's not the best reason they must go.) But as Christ said, "Man does not live by bread alone". Commercialism does not provide a rational for life. Into this commercial vacuum will come a Nazism-Islam.

Europe needs more Bonhoeffers. And the Bonhoeffers must not fart platitudes about "tolerance" of Islam. "Tolerance" is a form of indifference born of commercialism. Religion (especially the teachings of Christ) must be taken seriously again in Europe if Nazism is not to revive there. God must cease to be dead.

Islam's doppelganger is National Socialism. They are perfect together. I think some in Europe, with a hidden agenda, know that.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 8:33 AM

Shiva ..you are wasting your time here. The anti-islamic front is so superbly organised and working so supremely well that it can afford to be quite fussy about with whom it has alliances.

The BNP's problem is that it does not have huge money backing it like the democrats/republicans or the tories /labor. Once you have that amount of backing it is very easy to look clean and pure.
We can even accuse some of these parties of favouring slavery at one time or another. But talk about a group who wish to make the ISLAMIC origin of jihadic violence public and you become a pariah.

I find all of this quite funny as if most people had possessed such scruples in WW2 and we failed to support the tyrant Stalin, then nazi germany would have won as Islam is doing now.

yes maintain political correctness at all costs as we muct seem to be as harmless and as toothless as possible so as not to offend the odd muslim or liberal visitor.

The western legacy is doomed as most will be preaching scruples until Sharia law comes.

Posted by: MisIslamist

at January 20, 2008 8:51 AM

MsIslamist:

I find all of this quite funny as if most people had possessed such scruples in WW2 and we failed to support the tyrant Stalin, then nazi germany would have won as Islam is doing now.

Alliances of convenience are sometimes necessary, as with Stalin. But the Western democracies' positions were clear enough that during World War II no one thought they were Communist or even pro-Communist because they were allying with Stalin.

By contrast, however, the VB has not sufficiently dissociated itself from positions that are taken by the BNP, the ones I quoted above, to make it clear that their alliance is one of convenience, agreeing on some issues only but continuing to disagree on others.

If they do, I would be happy to note it. In the meantime, your analogy does not hold for that reason.

Also, the democracies, having kept their position distinct from Stalin, were strong enough to resist and ultimately defeat Soviet Communism after defeating Nazism. But if the anti-jihadists ally with race-based groups to defeat Islamization, without making any of those necessary distinctions, will they be strong enough after their victory to defeat a renewed idolatry of race and blood? I am not sure. And they certainly won't if they don't draw the lines that need to be drawn and make distinctions that need to be made, which is what I am doing here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at January 20, 2008 8:58 AM

Friends, for a change I actually disagree with Robert. Now, I'm not British (am Danish) and I know nothing about the BNP. Racism is a dead duck here in Europe, it's absurd and unwanted. If the BNP has a racist agenda, I insist that the British deal with it. It cannot become my responsibility. If I start to assume responsibility by indirect association to groups that I have no connection to, my burden of challenges grows beyond anything remotely possible to deal with.

A problem that some have charged us Europeans with is fascism. We have rejected that label over and over, because it's wrong, and it libel. Throwing that charge at us causes us trouble. And because it is basically false, we can't fix it. How can we remove a problem that isn't there to begin with? Yet, the mere fact that we have nothing to change, nothing to fix, earns us more accusations of tacit approval.

How to show that we are not fascists?

Now, let me first point out that I find the label absolutely unfair and demeaning. It is a charge of the same type as "Class enemy" that is so unfair that defense in itself becomes difficult. I used to be so confused by the charge that I had little idea how to even deal with it.

The best cure is to learn about fascism. Daniel Pipes has pointed out a remarkable new book by Johan Goldberg: "Liberal Fascism" that digs through the historiy of fascism in Europe and America, and points out that fascism is basically a left-wing, "Big state" ideology. That is profound, and an interesting challenge to todays left wing politicians.

As I had expected, it reaffirms what I've claimed over and over, that neither my friends at Gates of Vienna, Vlaams Belang or myself have any sympathy for fascism. Being charged with that is so profoundly unfair it almost deserves a libel suit.

Nazism, of course, is another level of evil, as it adds nasty racism to the mix, something Mussolini and the Italian fascists were not guilty of. This is where things get evil beyond salvation.

But looking at Nazi ideology, one finds it practically empty. There's a lot of mythological mumbo-jumbo, but little in the way of how to actually organize society, except for the traditional "Kill the Jews".

We all know that Jews today are in danger, slowly but effectively, in Israel and elsewhere. It is an important time to publicly stand with the Jewish societies and protect them from intimidation, and to speak up for Israel and its right to defend itself. This is the best defense against any charges of racism or the like - to do the countrary.

I do that. My friends do that. The CounterJihad summit, featuring several prominent Jewish/Israeli speaker, did that. Vlaams Belang does that.

The bottom line: If the BNP, who I know nothing about, has a problem with racism, please take the issue directly to them. It is better than assaulting others for not dealing with it.

We have a job to do that is much more urgent anyway.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 9:12 AM

Kim Hartveld said:

"Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while, as far as I know, avoiding dalliance with racial groups"

Exactly. If it were different, there would be no way I would vote for him.

"I still don't see why it can't be done in Britain, Belgium, and elsewhere"

That's because we don't have a Geert Wilders in the UK. There is no one on the horizon that comes close. The working class voter that lives with the problems that Muslims bring - unlike myself - are increasingly supporting the BNP because they are unrepresented by the other parties.

They are ordinary decent people who are not into the BNP because of racism but out of necessity as they see it.

I am watching what is currently going on in the BNP and at the moment it is torn apart by the fight for control. Moderates want Nick griffin to be replaced.

Even though that might happen I still don't see it gaining mass support. It's the BNP and even if Mother Theresa were it's leader it would not be able to shake of the negative image that is automatically applied by the left and the media.

What we need is Winston Churchill.

Posted by: Ray Boyd

at January 20, 2008 9:17 AM

There is no Nazi-party in all of EUrabia that gets even the minimum 3% (or something like that) of votes to get into a parliament.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 20, 2008 8:13 AM

That's true-now. In 1928 the Nazis had less than that. By 1932 they were taking about 40% of the vote and in 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. This occurred because of a world-wide depression. Normally "tolerant" people will become very nasty when their commercial system goes poof. As Nietzsche pointed out a lot of "tolerant" people have full bellies but circumstances can change and all the demons will rise to the surface. That's what happened in the early 30's. Things can change quickly.

We are currently in a world-wide crisis of credit. Some (Prichard, e.g.) warn that we may face a similar condition as the 1930's. I believe there are some in Europe who are using Islam, farting platitudes re "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" but who are dreaming of a New Reich. That's one of the reasons why Europe needs a Bonhoeffer style intolerance of Islam.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 9:29 AM

Robert, if you have Melanie Philips' email address, ask her for her opinion of this. She has covered the BNP in detail in the past.

Searching her pre-Spectator site, here are the search results for "BNP" in her Diary Archive and Articles sections.

It's time for all you dedicated fair minded and great thinking bloggers to reach a consesus of some sort on these groups and Hakuna Matata - put your behind in your past. :)

Posted by: Shy Guy

at January 20, 2008 9:32 AM

Ray, what about the UK Independence Party? I know them slightly and they just might fit the bill.

As for a risk of a fascist/Nazi takeover in Europe, forget it. Won't happen. We would much prefer a complete cultural suicide over seeing that disaster happen again. That cultural suicide, unfortunately, seems well underway. We got a challenge here.

And what we need is relevant information. The Nazi takeover came with a background, of WW1, of fledgling democracies unable to deal with the post-war problems, and from a sincere interest in the totalitarian experiments of Russia and Italy. It was a popular movement, too, supported by the youth and those eager to get rid of the past aristocrats and old culture, yearning for a new golden future with solutions for everything and everyone - thus the term 'totalitarian', coined by Mussolini, to describe a state taking care of all aspects of life, from cradle to grave. Conservatives call that the 'Nanny state' and oppose it.

If you want to know about fascism, and how it influenced also Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, I strongly encourage getting your hands on a copy of Liberal Fascism. Even though I'm European myself, the chapters about Wilson and Roosevelt keep me absorbed, too.

Learning about fascism has become much more relevant than I ever thought. I still find it an utterly despicable ideology, as do all of my real friends. Racism, which is the unique contribution of the Nazis, is worse.

I hope I made myself clear. Thank you.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 9:39 AM

By Robert:

"Also, the democracies, having kept their position distinct from Stalin, were strong enough to resist and ultimately defeat Soviet Communism after defeating Nazism. But if the anti-jihadists ally with race-based groups to defeat Islamization, without making any of those necessary distinctions, will they be strong enough after their victory to defeat a renewed idolatry of race and blood? I am not sure. And they certainly won't if they don't draw the lines that need to be drawn and make distinctions that need to be made, which is what I am doing here."

***

Excellent arguement, Robert, and I have to agree. What saddens me most about the prospect of a coming conflict with Islam in Europe is that the voices of sane moderation might be pushed to the fringes and rendered irrelevant. Violent totalitarian movements generally get their support from a frightened population that has lost faith in the centrist politicians and parties to provide for their most basic societal needs, and that's exactly what we're at the beginning of in Europe. I remember reading Albert Speer's autobiography, and he said that when he was young, German society had polarized so much that an ambitious, talented young man basically had two choices: sign up with the Communists, or the Nazis. Even if that was a self-serving exagerration, I think there was some truth to it. I fear a future Europe where the two main choices are either supporting radical Muslims or supporting a fascist European movement.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party

at January 20, 2008 9:39 AM

To Robert
1. I don't understand why you mix the issue of BNP/race to the Balkans:
"To form one group for indigenous Britons and invite people of other ethnicities to form other similar groups reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization"

The conflicts in the Balkans (just as in the South Asia) are primarily about religion (especially islam) not about race. In my opinion it weakens the anti-jihad cause to present the Balkan wars as an ethnic issue, when the primary cause of these conflicts is islam. Unless of course you refer to the bosnian/albanian muslim alliance with hitler in the period 1941-1945.

2. There is something wrong with these sentance to: "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"

The correct number is somewhere between 20 and 30 million, as besides the genocide of the Jews the german wars against Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia and Serbia were also racial wars against people the nazis considered as inferior. My main problem is though that you confuse a german/aryan cause with European culture and spread the german crime of genocide on other European nations. That's more or less like blaming the Chinese og Hindus for Pearl Harbor simply because they are Asians just like the Japanese. I neither support or oppose the BNP in anyway, but I don't see why you refer to german crimes when you discuss british or flamish parties.

Posted by: European Crusader

at January 20, 2008 9:41 AM

"Alliances of convenience ............................................but continuing to disagree on others."

There was NO choice in WW2 as without the USA GB had NO chance of winning alone and the USSR was welcomed with guarded but essentially open arms.
At no time did Stalin make any policy changes as a result of the alliance, he continued to massascre, deport and enslave without cessation.
The allies wer quite aware of this and there was quite alot of criticism but it had no effect upon aid.The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I see the current situation as just as serious as it was then(although not so obvious I agree). I am not arguing about the past or present attitudes of the BNP and frankly I do not care although I take your point about them.

I realise that you have to seem squeaky clean here so as not to attract undue criticism/attention. But it is this overdependence upon what the left/islamic coalition might think that is destroying us.

If we have to seem totally useless and harmless then we will be useless and harmless.

Your role is education and attempting to create public awareness of the source of islamic violence
and seeing as I own almost all of your books (and use tham as Xmas presents) I say no more here.

But sooner or later there is going to have to be organised public resistance to the inroads of islam as clearly our leaders will not do this.
That may well be the time when the BNP may be a useful ally. I am a political realist and we have a war to win IMHO.

IMO the BNP is only scapegoated because it does not have multinational funding and is a grass roots organisation who threaten the big two parties. Pauline Hanson was destroyed here by a coalition of the major parties, the media, the multinationals, the multicultural groups and the trade unions. Why? Because she appealed to the majority of Ausralians and would have seriously undermined the hold of the two main parties here.
The campaign started as a smear campaign which attracted extreme right fanatics and then her party selfdestructed as the lunatics outnumbered the staff. But that was not enough as they had to frame her wuith charges and imprison here to let hert know that Autralia's leader's were displeased. A most shameful episode in our history. Perhaps the BNP is also under such pressure.

Posted by: MisIslamist

at January 20, 2008 9:41 AM

"I fear a future Europe where the two main choices are either supporting radical Muslims or supporting a fascist European movement"

So then, which one would you support?

Posted by: MisIslamist

at January 20, 2008 10:00 AM

sheik yer'mami-

I don't have any expertise in economics and defer to those who have such knowledge. But it is clear that after WW2 the US deliberately became the dumping place for goods and services in the world in order to stoke the world economy. For that reason we tended to dominate the commercial system. But that has changed. The world economy is less in our control and merely opening up our markets will not work anymore. In fact, we can no longer afford to do that. (That's why President Bush recently said other nations (China,e.g.) have to develop[pe "domestic markets" and stop relying on the US market with exports.

Prichard (and a lady who was associated with Milton Friedman) have both recently warned that all the conditions for a world-wide depression are in place. They don't seem to think it can be controlled by our Fed-LOL. If that happens, as Betty Davis would say, "hold unto your hats, we are in for a bumpy ride". Things could get 30's style ugly fast.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 10:01 AM

Robert said, This angry, ugly rift between people I love and respect has disheartened me greatly.

I know quite a bit about that--on a personal level.

I've been called stupid and naive by people whom I thought I knew and who I thought were my allies. I've also been told that I'm not really doing anything valuable because I don't agree with aligning with certain people and parties.

The rift is ugly, all right. I almost quit blogging over it.

Lord knows that I'm making no money as a participant in this battle to which I'm enjoined. In fact, the converse is true. Not that I'm whining about that or criticizing any who are able to make money in their criticism of Islam; I'm just making the statement.

I posted a personal essay on the topic, and I rarely post that type of personal essay.

Posted by: Always On Watch

at January 20, 2008 10:01 AM

It's also worth remembering that this is not an alliance coupling the individual parties on all subjects. It's one common project, not a mutual endorsement of all views of the participating parties.

Better this way, I'd say.

An interesting aside is that Charles Johnson, who's so deeply worried about fascist resurgency, has not bothered defining what 'fascism' actually means. He uses it as a slur, much like Stalin did, and it works primarily against those who have no idea what it is but get scared silly by the charge.

A little aside:
'Totalitarian', 'Authoritarian' and 'Brutalistic' are various terms associated with fascism. The first is where it starts, that the state assumes total responsibility for the life and well-being of its citizens.

That leads easily to an authoritarian development, where citizens cease to act in a responsible manner in their lives, as everything is decided by the state anyway, and one needs just to follow the 'Great Leader' to be OK.

Who, in turn, easily goes down the path of brutalism, in particular if it turns out that he's not qualified to fulfill the expectations laid upon him, but wishes to maintain his authority over matters anyway. This situation requires silencing of dissent and criticism, by any means available.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example of how that worked, including Stalin using the term 'fascist' against any and all of his opponents, thus implicitly framing them for complicity to the horrors of WW2.

Fascism sucks. Nazism, unfortunately, was worse. The bright side is that the risk of a resurgent fascist Europe is nil. Fascism had its heyday from 1910-1935 and is utterly discredited, except perhaps in the twisted mind of Øivind Strømmen and other alarmists who have a fickle grasp of history.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 10:11 AM

This does present Europeans (especially white Europeans) who oppose Islam in Europe with difficult and unpalatable choices: Unaffiliate with every party and just watch it all go down the drain; be marginalized and irrelevant in the main political parties; support racist parties and hope they improve.

It brings to mind the choices in Europe before WWII between supporting the Soviets or Nazis, or trying to do neither like Churchill did and of course in the end, his was the victorious and honorable road. That way might appear again if, as in Churchill's day, the paradigm shifts from opposing the Communists to fighting for your life. That was a bad time, but it looks more and more like that the path for Europe. In Churchill's day, before the war began, the principal political issue was how to oppose the Nazis without supporting Communists. Once the issue became life or death, being anti-Nazi no longer meant you were pro-Communist. Nazi aggression left no space for varying ideologies. Even Churchill, who hated Communism and Stalin, had no problem supporting the Soviets, after the Germans attacked them.

Perhaps, once Europe reaches a similar stage, where European culture might face extinction, or rather submersion, in the face of Islam, where the choices for everyone, the choice many of us here and now see so clearly, it won't require joining BNP or VB to oppose Islam.

Posted by: Seymour Paine

at January 20, 2008 10:13 AM

"Even Churchill, who hated Communism and Stalin, had no problem supporting the Soviets, after the Germans attacked them". Seymour Paine

You bet. In fact, Churchill said if Hitler marched into hell that he would have to find some nice things to say about the devil. Churchill was a realist, a very sane fellow.

Posted by: Frank

at January 20, 2008 10:18 AM

I am not a BNP member or voter, but this debate did send me to their website to get it from the horses mouth.

I found the following passage quite interesting regarding their position, & it does show the double standard that the UK's ruling liberal elite in collaboration with the MSM have bought about in Great Britain:

""The enemies of British Nationalism continue to parrot the claim that the BNP is a “racist party.” This claim is most often repeated because the BNP unashamedly addresses itself to the issues and concerns of the indigenous British population, and because it seeks to ensure that British people remain the majority population in this country. Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people.

If the BNP is racist for holding this position, then, we would suggest, all of the following organisations - some of them state funded - are also “racist” because they too address themselves exclusively to the issues and concerns of their respective communities:

1. Watford Asian Community care

2. Watford African Caribbean Association

3. National Black Police Association

4. Metropolitan Black Police Association

5. Black Londoners Forum

6. Black Information Link (BLINK)

7. Operation Black Vote

8. Federation of Black Housing Organisations (FBHO)

9. Black Training Enterprise Group

10. Southwark Black Heritage Organisation

11. The Action Group for Irish Youth

12. Asians In Media (AIM)

13. Barfi Culture (Asians)

14. Black Britain

15. Black Enterprise

16. Black net Community

17. The Black Presence In Britain

18. Black Search

19. Black UK Online

20. Board Of Deputies of British Jews

21. Chinatown Online

22. Clickwalla (Asian)

23. Dimsum (Chinese)

24. Doncaster Chinese

25. CEMVO

26. Every Generation (Black)

27. Jewish.Co.UK

28. Jewish Telegraph

29. MMLondon (Asian)

30. Red Hot Curry (Asian)

31. National Association of Nigerian Communities - UK (NANC)

32. Barnsley Black and Ethic Minority Initiative

Have you noticed how the media NEVER calls any of these organisations “racist” even though they are openly organised along ethnic lines and stand for the rights of their respective communities?

It seems as if every group has the right to have an organisation speaking up for its rights - EXCEPT the indigenous British people.

In reality, none of these organisations are “racist” — each and every community has the inalienable right to look after its own interests.

This includes the indigenous British folk, and the BNP is proud to be the party which stands up for the rights our folk and country, in exactly the same way that all of the above organisations stand up for their folk.""

Its a convincing argument, one that cannot be so easily dismissed as the mere rantings of racists. The list above shows the double standard (some State funded) that the BNP is feeding on, & to be frank if it were not for their economic policies I may consider voting for them in the absense of an anti EU Tory candidate.

The rise of the BNP is & will be New Labours enduring legacy to British politics, for better or for worse.

Posted by: albion

at January 20, 2008 10:41 AM

It's important to note that traditionally, Europe has been less of a cultural melting pot than the USA.

Norway was populated by Norweigans, Denmark by Danes, England by the English etc. Yes, of course there was immigration and emmigration but nothing like what has happened over the past 30 years.

This had been done within living memory for many in Europe. They can see the demographic destruction of their country and they don't like it.

Europe being more densely populated than the USA magnifies this issue.

This is a problem that concerns many ordinary people who have no time for anything remotely fascist, but equally, resent being labelled a racist merely because they can see the effects of immigration on their neighbourhoods.

Posted by: Celsius

at January 20, 2008 10:49 AM

There's a newly formed party called The Secular Party of Australia, that wants to keep religion out of public life.

Posted by: Voltaire

at January 20, 2008 10:54 AM

I’ve been hanging out with a Marin-County hippie for the last two days. A certified clay-pot maker who sells her wares at festivals and walks around rain forests. A very interesting person who is sick and tired of Islam.

Islam will be confronted when the money runs out. Liberal democracies simply cannot exist for a long period of time as the electorate will eventually vote itself benefits that the state cannot afford. I believe that we’re in the last part of a democratic cycle. See $70 trillion in unfunded accrual accounting liabilities and the platforms of the Presidential candidates. MBIA is losing it’s credit rating because the reality is setting in that local governments are also in trouble.

200,000 taxpaying Brits emigrate each year, being replaced with 500,000 needy immigrants.

When the money runs out, things could very easily become violent. See Paris. If order breaks down, populations will demand security. Islam’s strategic error is arrogance and, when the time comes, those practicing the Religion of Peace will find themselves on airplanes, if they are lucky.

Like it or not, a BNP-style agenda is a logical follow-on to the failure of multiculturalism.

Posted by: pez

at January 20, 2008 10:55 AM

So the British should just sit back and wait for a savior to arrive. What to do in the meantime? Read blogger Lionheart's post here and how he describes life in the community of Luton where Pakistani muslims have taken over his community.

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2007/08/luton-dunstable-reality-check.html

The local police are either too scared themselves or beholden to political commands towards "community cohesion" and refuse to identify the problem. These same Pakistani muslims throw bricks thru windows of the non-muslims to harass them and get them to move out of the neighborhood. The local paper will not even describe the incidents accurately. "Attacks" they are called, by "thugs". No reference to race, or ethnicity, or any point of commonality, except the PC, generic "thugs". The strategy is working to chase the non-muslims out.

British communities are being overrun and the suggestion is they sit back and wait. wait. wait.

The BNP seems to be attracting those willing to fight the common enemy. These people reject white supremacism, reject anti-semitism and nazism. They join for a sole purpose. Protect their homeland from the slow jihad in their midst. If they are white, and British, they are labeled white-supremacist.

I say let them meet and gather so a network can develop. Let them know there is an organization that represents their view on this ONE fundamental issue. Soon enough, by natural forces, those who renounce Griffin and his traditionalists views will break away to form anew, or take over the party. Though, I agree that not even another Mother Teresa can erase the neo-nazi imprint. But for now, there is no other option. Yes, a leader should arise. What to do in the meantime? People on the street are frustrated. They cannot be as patient as we would like and when they refuse to be patient, they are labelled as racist hatemongers for joining the only insitution representing their views against the Islamists in their midst.

And in case someone would like to interpret this comment as "full throttle support for the BNP". It is not. I reject the detestable principles the traditional BNP stands for. There are moderates in the party trying to separate themselves. It is the moderates whom I proudly support and encourage. If their only option is the meet and gather within the current structure, while unfortunate, it is fully understandable.

Posted by: USorThem

at January 20, 2008 11:04 AM

Putting this whole "fascism", white supremacist, racist, BNP, VB etc. aside, how about formulating a "winning strategy" based on the reality "on the ground"?
It's easy to wish muslims formulate a "new Islam" that is contrary to centuries of muslim teachings, and wishing it will win-out over "old Islam", but what is the likelyhood? And what is the likelyhood it will happen in our lifetime?
It's easy to want to steer clear of "unsavory" elements in the fight against islamisation, but what is the likelyhood that approach will prove victorious? What is the likelyhood it will prove victorious before Europe goes "Balkan"?
It's easy to be against (mass)deportations of muslims(and yes, this is mostly people of non-white ancestry. Thus it would be racist, eventhough it's based on religion), but what's the alternative? To continue living with the threat of muslim-terrorism and the continuing threat of islamisation?

On the internet it's easy to pass judgement on various issues. On the internet it's easy to claim the moral high-ground. On the internet it's much MUCH easier to complain than it is to formulate a viable strategy or to actively try and effect change.
Let's forget about passing judgement, about claiming the high-ground, about complaining and instead look at the situation on the ground, with all the filth that's covering it, and let's see you formulate a viable strategy for Europe. A strategy that has a chance of working "on the ground", and not some fantasy-scenario where the EU is dismantled, or where the majority of Europes politicians suddenly realize the threat Islam poses. Personally I can't think of a strategy where we don't atleast get our hands dirty, but I'd love to see your REALISTIC proposal.
(BTW, this isn't aimed at Robert, but everyone who don't want to get their hands dirty, though I'd love a reply from Robert)

Posted by: DanishDynamite

at January 20, 2008 11:06 AM

Ayaan Ali Hirsi said in an interview with a Canucki TV jock:

"We're all racist"- and taken in context, I think we can all agree.
We are battling an ideology in the guise of religion which is intolerable because it doesn't tolerate us. The advances of this cult must be stopped and reversed. Islam is and has been fighting us since its inception 1400 years ago, this is the final onslaught.

As I mentioned above, there is a racial aspect to this, undeniably, because EUrabia is very close to Africa. In Africa there are few places left where whites dare, in most places they have been driven out without compensation. The last few farmers in Zimbabwe are now being driven of the land and nobody wants to know, why is that?

If we are to be all tolerant and accepting of large numbers of Africans, shouldn't there be at least some kind of reciprocal agreements with those nations that sent us their poor and huddled masses?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at January 20, 2008 11:06 AM

And, as was pointed out later, Churchill had to make a choice between survival for his people and keeping his hands clean and he chose the former. The famine in Ukraine and all the rest didn't matter. When push came to shove, we had to hold our collective noses and get in the trenches with Stalin against Hitler.
Remember also that Churchill wasn't avoiding dealing with Russia. Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and deliberately kept his country out of the war. It was only after HITLER broke the pact that Stalin joined the cause.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. We have a common enemy. Do we fight amongst ourselves or do we join forces to defeat those who would kill us? Our enemy won't care that we weren't racist. Our moral purity won't mean a thing to them. They won't distinguish between the BNP and the rest of non-Muslim Britain.
We shall be judged by the company we keep. Fair enough. But won't we stand a better chance of changing the views of the BNP by associating with them instead of ignoring them? If it's good enough for China (don't our leaders tell us we can't help others change without getting in there first?) why not for the BNP? Can it be said that the BNP is equivalent to the KKK in America?

Posted by: PMK

at January 20, 2008 11:09 AM

I honestly think that people who think racism is dead in Europe are fooling themselves. You often hear it said that there is no prejudice in Italy (where I live), but, although it may be relatively more tolerant than other countries, racism and ethnocentrism is by no means a thing of the past. In fact, I think the obvious failures of multiculturalism and relativism are feeding a resurgence.
We simply don't know what Europe would look like if the bottom just dropped out of the economy, say, after a few European 9/11s. I tend to think there would be more than just Muslim youths burning things in the streets.
Anti-jihad has to stand up for freedom, human rights and the rule of law and break with race- and ethnicity-centered approaches. Pragmatic Yalta-style compromises undercut the culture we say we want to promote.
And by the way, let's not forget the Russocentric element of Soviet communism in the tally of victims of European racial supremacism.

Posted by: ppeter

at January 20, 2008 11:11 AM

Having denounced fascism sufficiently above, I think I'll not be assaulted for adding the following useful fact:

Racism is not inherent to fascism.

Really, it isn't. Fascist Italy, for one, had no anti-Semitic laws until Hitler forced Mussolini to adopt them in 1938, after 18 years of fascist rule. Jews were safe in Italy right up to the German takeover in 1943. Other fascist countries, like Spain, never implemented such laws.

Fascism is based on the idea of the total state, no dissent even necessary, and was widely popular during the 20's, in particular in intellectual circles. Conservatives resented the idea, sticking to their ideals of private property, Christian values and straight-out capitalism.

Fascists ventured to reject all that 'traditionalist garbage' and replace religion with the state, replace individualism with the 'common good' and replace class divides with an equal role in the all-mighty State.

Stalin implemented this system, too, getting rid of 'reactionary' elements such as the productive Kulaks and others who knew their trade and could make a living independently of the supposedly 'indispensable' state.

One of the weird aspects of fascism is the need for a continous sense of urgency and crisis to make the citizens let go of their authority and property 'for the common good', and to motivate them for extra efforts and sacrifices for the state. This permanent state of crisis can be difficult to maintain, but entering a more or less relevant war is a miracle tool for this. Woodrow Wilson entered WW1 in a pattern matching this, and implemented fascist measures under the name of 'Progressivism' to motivate the Americans to make the relevant sacrifices for the war effort in Europe.

A corrolary is that fascism will, in the absense of a crisis, quite likely fall apart, especially if the constitutional defences against fascist measures are strong, as they are in the US.

Now I'll probably be blasted for repetitiveness. But reading Liberal Fascism has been an amazing eye-opener for figuring out what fascism really is, and what exactly makes it bad.

It shows why it fascinated an entire generation of European and American intellectuals, and why we have to really careful when left-wingers seek to use similar approaches today. Telling them something like: "Yes, I've heard about that idea before. The fascists tried that and it didn't work very well." ought to be a killer line.

Now, anyone still thinks that history is dull or irrelevant..?

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Europe is going under, and faster, too, each day, it seems. With a small exception here and there, almost all of the European governments involved are complicit in the transformation of Europe into Eurabia and/or are so consumed by political correctness and multiculturalism, not to mention not a little self-hatred, that they are unwilling to act to save their indigenous populations and, in fact, are accelerating the slide in virtually every way they can. All of the major and most of the minor political parties and many of the European people themselves are complicit as well; paralyzed by some sort of strange fin de siècle death wish. Only small fringe parties like Vlaams Belang and the BNP are willing, each for their own reasons, which may not be very savory or particularly democratic, to fight the Islamization of Europe.

So, do we “occupy the moral high ground” and not work—somehow—with or through the only organizations—savory or not—that are starting to fight Islamization and the transformation to Eurabia and have at least some popular support and organization or, do we keep our hands clean, sit back, impotent but pure in heart and deed, and watch the calamity occur?

Personally I would rather get my hands dirty but win, than to sit on my horse in magnificent, snow-white splendor, pennants waving in the breeze, above the fray, watching as all of the people my ancestors came from are forcibly converted, killed or transformed into dhimmis and all the heritage of my culture—its art, music, religion, philosophy, history and the monuments and landscape itself, so pregnant with thousands of years of history, are hacked to pieces and discarded by the Jihad, declared Jahilliya or Ignorance and thus to be destroyed and forgotten, because that it what is going to happen if we don’t act.

You may propose that we should change the existing governments and ruling parties somehow but, how to do this when the infection is so broad and deep? Who do we vote in? How to change--before it is too late-- a whole carefully constructed framework of laws that is increasingly weighing down on and constricting the movement and options of every Infidel in Europe? Even now, as we all see, freedom of speech itself is starting to be strapped into a straightjacket and soon in Europe, if we don’t act, “the Resistance” will be back to graffiti and hand printed notes passed on from person to person and if it comes to this, the Dark Ages will have come again to Europe and they may last as long or longer than they did last time.

Posted by: GaryK

at January 20, 2008 11:19 AM

"I honestly think that people who think racism is dead in Europe are fooling themselves."

That'd be me, it seems...

I keep pointing out that Islam, literally applied, is the only real problem. Race is irrelevant.

We need to keep pointing that out, for we're often being assulted by people who are unable to distinguish between race and religion. That's a continous effort, but if we don't lift that burden, less educated and more vulgar types will try to frame it as a race problem - which it isn't - and then we have no end of trouble.

A main with the CounterJihad effort is to repeat and reassert this.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 11:31 AM

"how about formulating a "winning strategy" based on the reality "on the ground"?"

Conversion to Christianity...

Really. I hear rumours that in Turkey and Iran, Christianity is making significant inroads on the ground, because Islam is being exposed as reactionary and backwards, bad for women etc. I just heard - again, this is difficult to substantiate - that Russia has a whopping 2 million converts from Islam to Orthodox Christianity. They have a field day with that because Communism reduced the identification with religion, and now a lot of people registered in census as Muslims are looking at the resurgent Orthodox Church and desire to join the 'party'.

Defending our right to missionarise is a very important and oft-overlooked point to this. Christianity has traditionally been strong at the word of mouth level, and still is, if we can protect our freedom to spread the word.

Making aid to Muslim countries contingent on permission to also preach Christianity might be extremely useful.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 11:38 AM

Dammit, now is not the time to be so picky about who may help us save our civilization; however, I understand the need for the Jihad Watch managers have to protect their image.

There have been many comparisons between the current war and World War Two; here is another. We chose to support the Soviets against Hitler. Stalin was no different from Hitler, but he got our support as long as Hitler was a threat.

Beyond what I just wrote, I cannot add much to what GaryK, PMK and others have posted.

Posted by: Pelayo

at January 20, 2008 11:45 AM

It's all a moot point anyway.

Britain is over. The rest of Europe it trying hard to catch up.

Emigrate while you can. Anarchy is just over the horizon.

Posted by: Ernest T Bass

at January 20, 2008 11:47 AM

"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."

This also applies to the United States, for two reasons:

1. The psychological/ideological terrain created by nearly half a century of intense government, corporate and academic anti-racism indoctrination. See Shelby Steele's book "White Guilt" for a discussion of this.

2. The invalidity of the concept of biological (i.e., racial or ethnic) determinism in the first place. Imagine a presidential race between a black, Somali woman who grew up in a Muslim country and a white, Anglo-Irish man who grew up in America. Who would you vote for -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Ted Kennedy?

Posted by: Papa Whiskey

at January 20, 2008 11:53 AM

"What we need is Winston Churchill." - Ray Boyd.

Yes Ray, but what if he doesn't show up? What then?

Or what if he does show up, do you think that the prevailing order will recognize a superior intellectual brilliance and move aside....no, of course not, they will recognize a mortal threat to their hegemonic aspirations, and so move heaven and earth to destroy him. Can you see a Gordon Brown, a Jack Straw, a Hazel Blears, or even a David Cameron going peacefully into the side lines. No, they will unleash their pet pit bulls in the media, all the aspiring Stalinists of the BBC, the Trotsky's of The Guardian, and other assorted sophists to smear and sneer the man into the demonic wilderness, just as they are doing to Gert Wilders.

The task ahead is so monumental that it will take more than one man to restore sanity, and heal the moral vacuum that has beset Western society...Hercules himself would be hard pressed for such a task.

6 plus years since 9/11, and still we sit arguing the niceties of our possible actions in response to our mortal enemy's incursions. Just how many acts of barbarity is it going to take, how many innocents slaughtered to galvanize us to action?
Ethical and moral purity will be the death of us; we are indeed, lost in a sea of moral confusion.
No, the BNP may not be your preferred partners in this conflict, but I suggest you seek one out and soon, for our enemy grows bolder by the day, and we sink further into acrimonious bickering with each passing hour. No wonder they see us as weak and ripe for the picking...we are.

I repeat a question I asked of this site over a year ago, (which no one answered). I make no apologies for the source, nor do I seek any consensus upon the man's guilt or innocence as to the crimes he is accused of. Let the question stand solely upon its own merit...

The question posed by Slobodan Milosovic to the court at his trial in the Hague after the court's refusal to allow photographs of the conflict into evidence in his defense...."You people (referring to the European elites), have allowed large numbers of these people, (intimating the Bosnian Mujahadeen shown in the photographs), into your communities. When these photographs depict the severed heads of your own citizens, what will you say, what will you do?"

Not a pleasant question I agree, but one which untold numbers seek to ignore in the forlorn hope that if we bury our heads, maybe the nightmare will simply go away. In the intervening time since Milosovic first asked that question, and the time I, and others posed it here, events have shown that our enemies are serious in their intent, while we are not. So what's it to be, we salve our moral virtue and let our societies be over run, 'cause we can always go to our graves with our precious virtue intact. Or do we put aside our differences, our fears, our confusion, and form a united front.

Of course I realize that there are those who pooh, pooh the idea of a conflict such as Bosnia, played out across the European continent, but the rational among us know that the likelihood of such draws ever closer.

Sorry Robert, while I have a great respect and admiration for your erudition, and I truly value your contributions to our debates, I think in the long term your position is untenable. Resistance to these incursions into our societies, will not spring up whole and solid overnight. Our elites have demonstrated their lack of seriousness and insight into these pressing issues of our time, so we must count them out. If we leave it to the random outcome of externally enforced events, we will leave ourselves open to the very forces which your position fears most.

I would also point out, that while yes, the origins of the BNP were in quasi fascist groups of dispossessed, and alienated unemployed thugs. The current trend is away from such behaviors. But the real question is, just how true to the narrative painted for us by a media which has been caught out repeatedly lying to the general public on virtually any range of issues, is the actual truth of just what the BNP stands for. Now I am not saying they are choir boys, but just how many incidences of thuggish behavior on the part of BNP members have there actually been of late. Not too many, for surely we would have heard loud and clear form the sanctimonious guardians of our moral imperfections. Neither am I saying that the BNP is our only salvation. But the argument that the BNP are a bunch of Nazis just waiting their chances is as bogus as the claim that Ahmadinejad is a misunderstood choir boy seeking nothing but the brotherhood of man, and wants nothing more than to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.

If we are looking for moral purity of the highest order before committing ourselves to dirtying our hands, then maybe we are awaiting the second coming, in which case, should even a hint of such a one be seen upon the horizon, then watch out in the following days for focus groups and media types scouring the forests of the world for suitable timber.

Posted by: Just Another Richard

at January 20, 2008 11:57 AM

Pelayo-- it's principles, not image. We're not looking to end the threat of one form of injustice (jihad and its goal of imposing sharia law) only to have it replaced with another.

Posted by: MarisolJW

at January 20, 2008 11:59 AM

When viable alternatives are not ready available, one can overlook some imperfections.

Leadership, even tainted leadership, is far better than outright betrayal -- which is what our current politicians practice.

...

Today, I think I'd take chemotherapy ... instead of wishing for a cure for cancer.

Posted by: LoneRanger

at January 20, 2008 12:00 PM

MarisolJW ...Well said.

Posted by: storagemanager

at January 20, 2008 12:03 PM

""What we need is Winston Churchill." - Ray Boyd."

"Yes Ray, but what if he doesn't show up? What then?"

We have our Churchills. They are named, in no particular order, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Serge Trifkovic, Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye'or, David Littman, Flemming Rose, Sam Solomon etc.

These are the people who have read the relevant books in time, have spoken out against the looming danger for years, and who - just like Churchill - are largely being ignored by the ruling elites. Who seem to be more interested in appeasement and reelection than in defending our liberties.

Fortunately, speaking out against the danger, out of compassion, not hate, accumulates a significant amount of 'moral high ground' when the conflict deepens, which it most certainly will in the coming years. Knowing who can be relied in for real knowledge and analysis will be increasingly important over the coming years.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Marisol, OK principles; however, you may take the high road if you dare. The high road is easy, but where will the help come from? Hillary Clinton, Obama? The Republican Party? McCain?

I'll endorse what LoneRange wrote - Hiyo Silver, away!

Posted by: Pelayo

at January 20, 2008 12:13 PM

Posted by: MisIslamist

Shiva ..you are wasting your time here. The anti-islamic front is so superbly organised and working so supremely well that it can afford to be quite fussy about with whom it has alliances.

superbly organised, PLEASE EXPLAIN

If you are being sarcastic, ok I let it pass, but if not, then I would like to point out that the anti-islamic front is a shambles

To prove my point we just have to look back at the Brussel 9/11 Demo where no more than a handful of anti-islamic bothered to turn up. Yet the leader of VB where out in front

We did not see any of the big name bloggers, yet they managed to organize a meeting several weeks
after the demo in Brussels, wining and dining, a stark contrast to a few weeks before where the frontliners where getting their balls crushed.

And the Charles of the court of the Green Lizards was absent from both events

Posted by: shiva

at January 20, 2008 12:19 PM

This is my opinion of LGF….and some (hell, many) may disagree.

Charles was right about the VB and everyone knows some of the issues with the BNP. He is also right that various neo-Nazi groups could jump on board the anti-jihad movement and really push it in the wrong direction. We need alliances, like Indian Hindus for example, that cannot occur if people like the BNP ran things.

I however, have several problems with Charles and his "plan" for things. He fails on several points:

(1) He still supports the Iraq adventure. This proves that he still does not understand the enemy. Democracy in Iraq, without a western style bill of rights, is a defeat. A constitution backed by Islam, will produce a state that will be an enemy of the United States. When you explain this, the response you get is: it is a democracy and who are we to choose their fate. Everyday he puts up stories to put a positive spin on Iraq. This is not helpful for the anti-jihad cause. It misleads people into thinking that Islam is not that bad after all. The hardcore lizards will say: "Look, Democracy is flowering in this trouble land!". Yet people who read this site (www.jihadwatch.org) everyday and who have made an attempt to understand what Jihad and Islam is about, CANNOT come to that conclusion. Iraq is a failure, for the same reason Palestine is a failure...Islam.

(2) He has let his anti-jihad instincts be clouded by political ideology. I have no trouble with someone voting for the GOP (Because I am going to vote for the GOP in this coming election), but that does not mean I should always put a "happy face" on everything the GOP does. The GOP is in real trouble. It needs a slap in the face, not excuses. Everything is not the liberals fault. Let me give you a good example: Nancy Pelosi went to Syria and wore a scarf over her head. Charles Johnson and the LGF folks went nuts (which they should), but when Laura Bush did the same thing in the UAE, little is said. A true anti-jihadist would have had a meltdown over this also.

(3) Charles Johnson has no anti-jihad grand strategy. He acts like the Islamic invasion of Europe is not as important as our Iraq adventure. He views each event as a collection of individual actions. A true anti-jihadist views it as a coordinated offensive. The attacks of 9-11 are related to a jihadist attack on some Russian outpost in Chechnya, or some Somali jihadist taking out a company of Ethiopians. They all serve a central purpose: to advance Islam. They are all funded by a general war account gained from the Arabian oil trade. Any grand strategy would take this all into account.

I think LGF is a great site for information. In this case LGF is right and he is good at exposing the mainstream media for the frauds they are, however, don't expect to learn anything about jihad, Islam, or how we will win this war. He has tied himself to a strategy that will fail also. I don’t want racist getting involved in the anti-jihad movement, but I sometimes wonder if the “lizard army” will be of any help either.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at January 20, 2008 12:22 PM

Pelayo-- true, several people have asked in this thread, if we reject the BNP and their ilk, to whom shall we go?

Ourselves. I think what we offer at Jihad Watch is another way. And if we align ourselves with people opposed to the principles Robert has stated (and the Vlaams Belang has clarified their stance significantly there by allying with the BNP), we never give ourselves a chance to get the ball rolling as a separate and more desirable alternative.

Persistence is job #1, both in sticking to our guns as far as principles are concerned, and in continuing to strive to change individual minds in every area of society and government. That's what a "grassroots" movement does.

Posted by: MarisolJW

at January 20, 2008 12:23 PM

For the record, it was the intention that the meeting should conincide with the demos (there were two). But it turned out to be impossible logistically - getting rooms, speakers etc - on that date, and a different one had to be selected.

Friends of mine were there. Some were arrested, some were not.

Charles, of course, can only cry out in envy over something important taking place not under his direction, and subsequently purge from his blog Fjordman and others who were there.

Shiva, if you really want to give a negative impression of your fellow anti-Jihad activists, I suggest you get the details right. They really did make an effort to make a big splash on Sept. 11th placing the conferene there, but it was not humanely possible.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 12:24 PM

greatcometof1577...your post is untrue...no one is harder on President Bush and his stance on Islam..then Charles and LGF...you must be reading the comments.

Posted by: storagemanager

at January 20, 2008 12:26 PM

What is the alternative for or European cousins? Can the British rely on the Labour Party or Conservatives? If people latch onto Vlaams Belang or the British National Party, it will be out of frustration with the impotent "mainstream parties." Extreme situations require extreme solutions.

Barry Goldwater:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Posted by: Pelayo

at January 20, 2008 12:26 PM

greatcometof1577...your post is untrue...no one is harder on President Bush and his stance on Islam..then Charles and LGF...you must not be reading the comments.

Posted by: storagemanager

at January 20, 2008 12:27 PM

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
Ronald Reagan, 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

That says it all.

Posted by: BurgerBoy

at January 20, 2008 12:32 PM

Pelayo, it's worth remembering that Vlaams Belang is a mainstream party already, having an electorate of well over a million Belgians. They have three members of the European Parliament whereas my on Dansk Folkeparti (Danish Peoples Party) has only one.

The challenge related to VB, and the reason it gets labeled 'extremist' by its socialist opponents, is that it is a separatist party. It has as its main purpose the dissolution of Belgium into Flanders and Wallonia. The anti-Jihad effort is somewhat of a side effect, in that the party stands for a conservative free-market philosophy which naturally leads them to reject Islam as a political force.

One should be really careful accepting slurs thrown around by their opponents. It is (sorry for the analogy) a bit similar to taking the mock trials of Stalin for representing the truth.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 12:35 PM

storagemanager

He is hard on Bush for his strategy in Palestine, but not for his strategy in Iraq.

I have not a clue how somebody could be for the "Iraq plan" and yet could not be for the "Palestine plan" as he is.

They are the same stupid plan...

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at January 20, 2008 12:36 PM

Clarification to my 12:24 post:

'Being there' refers to the CounterJihad summit, not the demonstrations.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 12:39 PM

And if we align ourselves with people opposed to the principles Robert has stated (and the Vlaams Belang has clarified their stance significantly there by allying with the BNP), we never give ourselves a chance to get the ball rolling as a separate and more desirable alternative.

Marisol,

At some point we have to accept that we ourselves are not sufficient. We need help. We can live to see our principles and Western civilization survive or we can die for them.
History is written by the victors. Our principles and our beliefs in the good of humanity will be lost in our defeat.
Must everyone be an angel before we side with them? There aren't enough angels in the universe.

Posted by: PMK

at January 20, 2008 12:39 PM

Robert,

Thank you for the moral clarity. Had you taken the other side on this issue, you would've lost many, many people of good will.

Validating one sociological evil in order to fight another would be a moral and tactical error of the gravest consequence for the anti-Jihad. Both you and Charles Johnson are taking a lot of short-term flak for your long-term vision.

Posted by: Cornelius

at January 20, 2008 12:43 PM

greatcometof1577...Because we undertand that if we leave Iraq...Iran will march all the way to Mecca...and Persia will be reborn..you want that?

Posted by: storagemanager

at January 20, 2008 12:43 PM

Anyone seeking to join a non-racist party in the UK should apply to the UK Independence Party whose guiding philosophy is based upon individual liberties and thus opposed to the implementation of Sharia Law in Britain.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred

at January 20, 2008 12:45 PM

Marisol, Robert Spencer and everybody at Jihad Watch do great work, but how many times does the JW telephone ring with a call from the Whitehouse? Have any of you been escorted through the back door for private consultations with Mr Bush or Her Highness Ms Rice? When the next President calls, then you have made giant leap. If Robert and others have been consulted, then I must plead ignorance.

HenriK, please excuse an insulated American for not grasping European ploitics.

Posted by: Pelayo

at January 20, 2008 12:48 PM

My point about referring to the political choices facing Europe prior to WWII, whether to oppose Nazism and thereby ally with Communism or sit on the sidelines, all faded when they were all faced with life and death choices. Remember the Oxford students who in the early 1930s declared they would not fight (Germany) for King and Country; well, they did end up fighting and fighting rather well. I'm sure that present day Britain, with its cowardly bowing and scrapping before Moslems, looks a lot like England in the 1930s. In that time, the peace movement was so strong the government, knowing it needed to rearm and fast, simply couldn't, until really it was too late.

Obviously no one knows if England and Europe will find its courage before it's too late. We tend to view them all as cowards and fools (and they are for the most part), but in WWII many acquitted themselves very well and bravely.

My point is that the choice between BNP/VB and Tories or other mainstream parties, while difficult now, might end up not meaning much in the near future.

Posted by: Seymour Paine

at January 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Posted by: Henrik

'Being there' refers to the CounterJihad summit, not the demonstrations.

Yet the people who Robert and Charles are condemning where there

Posted by: shiva

at January 20, 2008 12:52 PM

Rather than comment on the statements above, I want to simply state a few things.

-- Attention on the issue of the Islamization of Europe is a good thing and attacking whomever is drawing that attention is mistaken. Many people in the West don't even understand that the problem exists.

-- Rhetoric that liberally uses the terms "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "ethnocentric", "white supremacist", etc. is not useful at all. These are terms of people who have bought into Marxist revisionist history. Get beyond it, please.

-- Though Robert is right that Christianity is a universal religion (the only one, IMO other than Buddhism), we need to understand that Western Civilzation is different than Eastern Civilization and it is not wrong to want to keep the foundation stones of the West present. The increasing immigration waves hitting the European shores comprised of people who don't hold Western values and with no intention of accepting Western values is a threat to Western Civilization -- plain and simple.

-- Lastly, why are we so scared to be proud of Western/European culture? Do we all think that by being proud that we're all going to turn into Nazis, spilling the blood of all the 'others'? Lets be rational here. We say that ethnocentrism is a bad thing -- but why is it not bad when the Chinese are ethnocentric? Or the arabs? Of the Africans? Or the Native Americans?

Why is it only bad when it's white Europeans?

Posted by: GuardianofPeaceandJustice

at January 20, 2008 12:53 PM

PMK--

Understood. But I don't think rejecting this alliance is the same as holding out for the help of "angels."

For that matter, I don't see the BNP and their allies as helping. Rather, I think that by incorporating their anti-jihad cause into a larger agenda with a racial/ethnic dimension, they are playing directly into the hands of all the various advocacy groups who would love to brand the entire counter-jihad movement as racist. And we don't need that.

With that said, I think I'm talking too much, and I don't want to monopolize this discussion. Gonna close the old laptop for a bit...

Posted by: MarisolJW

at January 20, 2008 12:54 PM

storagemanager

Iran/Persia have not won a major offensive war in over 200 years. I could care less if they make it to Mecca, in fact I will would give them rations if they tried!

The only thing that will be reborn by that action is a big time sunni backlash against the shia.

It is not our job to stop a Sunni/Shia war. Let them fight it out...I say it will tie up alot of jihadis and it will force the USA to get off the middle east oil addiction. The only people who don't want this are people who are invloved in the middle east oil trade (Halliburton for example).

Also...How is Iran any worse then Saudi Arabia?

They are both enemies of the USA.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at January 20, 2008 1:02 PM

Also...How is Iran any worse then Saudi Arabia?

They are both enemies of the USA.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 ..Iran is building a nuke..to use on Israel..that doesn't bother you?

Posted by: storagemanager

at January 20, 2008 1:06 PM

"If Robert and others have been consulted, then I must plead ignorance."

I recall that taking place, and CAIR - as could be expected - making noise about consulting an 'Islamophobe'.

It might have been Daniel Pipes, of course.

"Henrik, please excuse an insulated American for not grasping European ploitics."

It is rather complex, no doubt. Sure makes a difference having grown up here, knowing about our resistance movements against the Nazis, the benign and irrelevant nature of the neo-Nazi groups, and the utter disinterest in any kind of fascism.

It takes a somewhat myopic mind to percieve these fringe groups as anything like a threat. Unfortunately, Øivind Strømmen - who I never heard about before he was elevated to fame by Charles Johnson - seems to have such a mind. A well-designed web page and an abundance of confusing 'evidence' is sometimes enough to lead busy people astray into confused opinions about matters they didn't research properly themselves.

We Europeans frequently shake over heads in disbelief over the kind of flash judgement about Europe we see from the US government. The Clinton-Bush politics in the Balkans, the pressure on us to join the Iraq war and the pressure from the US to accept Turkey (!!) into the European Union are just three such items where we attempt feverishly to resist US pressure to do the *wrong* thing, while still preserving a friendly relationship across the Atlantic.

Many simply give up and turn to pure anti-Americanism. My Greek friends are particular prone to that, due to endless American support to their ungrateful ally Turkey. I solidly refuse to fall into that trap.

But the Balkans situation in particular has me in grief. We are doing all we can from the anti-Jihad people to counter an independent Kosovo, for example, but the US is working squarely against our and theirs interest by pushing this stupid idea.

The US seems to make a perpetual mistake, in particular after the end of the Cold War, to assume that its model of democracy can be forced on other countries, and that gratitude can be 'bought' from Islamic countries. This is possibly the reason behind many failed efforts, in Bosnia, Kosovo, handing Cyprus over to Turkey and other issues where US interference had to be resisted by small countries, which where in turn vilified and excluded from the company of the 'righteous.

Sorry for the little rant. I'm somewhat upset by Americans passing hurried judgements on European matters. We have a sense of tradition and roots that doesn't match well with quick solutions.

Posted by: Henrik

at January 20, 2008 1:09 PM

The Ron Paul campaign implosion demonstrates very clearly why it's a mistake to ally with supremacists.
VB and the other splinter nationalist parties bring more baggage and hate than worth, sorry.

To some points above:

Nobody's attacking VB - people are just demonstrating factually who they are and what they are about, . Every war in Europe for the past few centuries has been s