JW and LGF are absolutely on the RIGHT side of this issue.

It's not enough to represent what we are against, we must represent what we are for. I like to believe we are for Democracy, the rule of law (man-made), individual liberty, intellectual freedom, and the equality of all people.

I'll have no trek with racists. Thank God the proprietors of this web-site feel the same.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 11:07 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."

Indeed.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 11:11 AM

Thank you Robert for reaffirming Jihad Watch's position. Letting racists ride on the siderails of this battle, would surely strike a mortal blow to the truth about this struggle.

Posted by: KrazyKafir at September 12, 2008 11:38 AM

You mean we have to put away the burning crosses for another time?

Ah well.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 12, 2008 11:51 AM

The powers that be in Europe are currently cajoling us headlong towards Communism. It's gradual, it's subtle and it's all done beneath a thin veneer of democracy. Nevertheless we are now in the post-democratic age in Europe.

I can only speak with some knowledge about how this manifests itself in the UK. All "mainstream" parties - i.e. the LibLabCon trick - are complicit in implementing a EUSSR. The Tories under Ted Heath took us into Europe in 1972 and subsequent governments of both flavours have continued in a similar vein by signing various treaties, most significantly Maastricht.

I don't believe that the "mainstream" parties will be changing course anytime soon, if at all. If anything, as they meet opposition to their plans for a EUSSR they will become less subtle in their methods. Remember Stalin? The EU wants to split Europe up into regions and in so doing to obliterate the nation states. We already have unelected regional assemblies in the UK (hence the term "post-democratic").

Islam is wonderful news for the Communists because the EUSSR and world government ideas are similar to the global ummah idea. So the more Muslims that can be imported into Europe the better, as far as the Communists are concerned.

Culture in Europe is more strongly linked to race than you might think. In the UK multiculturalism has been official government policy for several years. Immigrants from outside Europe have been told that they can come here in enormous numbers and continue where they left off in their countries of origin. This gives rise to ghettoisation, where alien cultures thrive and dozens of languages are spoken.

Very few non-indigenous people are attracted to nationalist parties - even those which don't espouse ethno-nationalism. True - Geert Wilders has made some progress but there's no sign of his success being emulated elsewhere. It takes enormous guts to take the stance that he has and most people prefer not to live under the constant threat of being assassinated, as he does. It's much easier to go with the flow and accept Eurabia.

There are no encouraging signs whatsoever that European leaders have any intention of trying to resist the rise of Islam yet people still vote for the political parties they represent. The only conclusion can be that the sheep people of Europe have resigned themselves to their dhimmi fate and their women are already measuring themselves for burkas.

Posted by: watling at September 12, 2008 12:07 PM

I very much agree. I particularly like the line about Wilders. No matter how hard his detractors try to place him in the corner of Le Pen, Haider and Dewinter, he won't let them. That's why I admire him for his principles, his courage, and his tenacity. Unfortunately there are very few like him.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at September 12, 2008 12:33 PM

Bravo, Robert, for sticking to your principles!

Neo-fascism and shari'ah are two sides of the same coin. A "choice" between them is a false dichotomy--both are anti-democratic, anti-individual, totalitarian ideologies.

Some in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s seemed to think that the only alternative to creeping bolshevism was to embrace the emerging ideology of fascism. We know how that worked out.

I'm glad you mentioned Geert Wilders, who stands against islamism without parroting fascism. I wish I could cite another Dutch politician, the staunch parlimentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but a combination of Muslim threats and agressive European dhimmitude has driven her from office.

Europe needs more people who will stand against shari'ah while embracing its actual opposites--democracy, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual.

Posted by: gravenimage at September 12, 2008 12:44 PM

Does anyone know the date or the title of the article being referenced?

Posted by: jeffreyimm at September 12, 2008 1:29 PM

Thanks for the firm clarification, you are now relinked from my site after a short hiatus.

Posted by: Thanos at September 12, 2008 1:35 PM

Hugh and I have long lamented that Europe's mainstream parties have abdicated their responsibility to deal with the Islamization in Europe, or else are complicit in it, and have left the field to neo-fascist and race supremacist entities.

exactly

Posted by: ploome at September 12, 2008 1:41 PM

And the race supremacists are?

Posted by: Meccano at September 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Mr. Spencer is right on target. Identity-based supremacism as an ideology is inimical to the natural law of equality everywhere, whether it is racial supremacists or Islamic supremacists.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at September 12, 2008 1:50 PM

Two pendulums quietly sweep in opposite directions over Europe as it slumbers.

Posted by: ec marm at September 12, 2008 1:52 PM

Thank you for re-clarifying your position, Mr. Spencer. It's unfortunate that this distinction must be made in that it should be obvious that racist elements are harmful to our way of life in pluralistic, free societies, but allowing racists to co-opt the anti-jihad movement will only set us all back and undo all of the hard work done by you and countless others.

Regards, Sharmuta

Posted by: Sharmuta at September 12, 2008 2:04 PM

The problem with opposition and protest is that is open to infiltration by extremists looking to promote their own agendas. This tactic has a name - entryism - and the hard-Left has engaged in it for years, hijacking everything from labour disputes to discrimination issues to environmental concerns.

European neo-fascists believe that they have found, in anti-Islamism, the ideal vehicle for their own bout of entryism. They are seeking to use people’s very real concerns over growing Islamic militancy and creeping Islamisation to advance their own agenda of racial supremacy and social division. The words of the British National Party’s leader are worth repeating in this respect, as they convey perfectly the neo-fascists‘ strategy:

"We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. This is not a matter of dancing to neo-con tunes, but of finding members of the public who are already used to the sound of that kind of music willing to cross over and dance to our tune."

Note that he identifies anti-Islamism and “our tune” as two quite separate things. Which of course they are. The anti-Islamism of Geert Wilders, or Robert Spencer, or Wafa Sultan, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has nothing whatsoever in common with the race hate politics of Le Pen, or Haider, or Griffin, or any of their fellow goose-steppers. The first group champions freedom, the latter merely promises another form of oppression.

Look at the ranks of the Islamists and you will see faces of all creeds and colours. Look at the faces of those opposing them and you will see the same. This is not a struggle about race or nationality, but wholly about ideology.

Robert, it’s a pity that you’ve had to point this out yet again, but well done for doing so. It won’t stop the slurs or the attacks - nothing will - but hopefully it will clarify the issue for those readers who do not know your position as well as some of us.

Posted by: Matamoros at September 12, 2008 2:15 PM

Hörg Haider isn't a member of FPÖ anymore. And as far as I can tell, the FPÖ and PVV seem to agree on a range of issues. Hell, the PVV wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries, which in practice translates as non-white countries, as well as expelling people with dual-citizenship...
I can't help but wonder how many of you actually know all that much about the parties involved in this "summit"(as well as the PVV). I'll admit I don't know all that much, but will anyone else?

I have to admit I find it funny, how people talk about the far-right "neo-fascists" trying to hijack the anti-jihadist "movement", or how they're trying to hitch their wagon to the "movement", when the far-right "neo-fascists" have been speaking out against islam/islamisation long before there was a "movement"(which there still really isn't, just a loose network of people). In my own country, the far-right warned of the perils of islam in the 80'ies... What were you all doing in the 80'ies? I bet you weren't "anti-jihadists". Methinks you're acting like muslims claiming their religion has been hijacked...

I don't mind people distancing themselves from "neo-fascists", as I don't want to be associated with them either. I just hope you're sure that those people you are distancing yourselves from are actually "neo-fascists". As I've said many times before, one of the (supposedly) foremost experts on fascism, Roger Griffin, wrote in one of his books on fascism that Le Pen and Front Nationale are not fascist, yet they are often condemned as such, including on here by Robert Spencer...

Posted by: DanishDynamite at September 12, 2008 2:40 PM

Susanne Winter of the FPO:

Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3145

She received death threats for saying things like this. Susanne sounds ok in my book! She has more balls than most any other politician I have seen anywhere! I haven't found anything on her that proves she's a "fascist" and that we should steer clear of her. Maybe someone else can help me?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 2:43 PM

DanishDynamite & DenverRodeo-

Perhaps instead of calling these folks "fascist" you would better understand if we called them ethnic nationalists.

And to better understand the ties between ethnic nationalists and fascists, I would read Robert Paxton. My only issue with Paxton is that he states the American KKK as the first fascist movement, whereas Jonah Goldberg states it was the French Revolution. I disagree with them both- it was islam.

Imagine, if you will, that a european state were to tell it's citizens that they are better than other people and that those "others" should be removed from the state just like islam allows for muslims with the kuffar. You don't have to imagine it too hard- europe already did it once. Fighting fascism with fascism will only leave us with fascism. Turning a blind eye to the reemergence of european ethnic nationalism/fascismis not the solution to islam's creeping presence in europe.

Posted by: Sharmuta at September 12, 2008 3:08 PM

A lot could be said about the holier than thou attitude of LGF and those at JW who rightly blame unsavory characters like Haider and Le Pen for giving the resistance against the Islamization a bad name.

But not all who go to Cologne are like Le Pen and Haider.

Ralph Giordano most certainly is not, neither is Dr Udo Ulfkotte and the people from SIOE. This vilification of anybody in Europe who opposes the jihad includes, for the Lizards, even reasoned people like Fjordman and Pamela from Atlas Shrugs. This overblown, hysterical reaction and the endless smearing is just a fascist as our unsavory friends from Stormfront can be.

Finally, racism is not a holy cow. Ayaan Ali Hirsi has clearly stated in her interview with Avi Lewis that 'we're all racist'- if in doubt, ask Mugabe or Condi Rice, who wants a black state department.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/09/10/condoskeeezza-wants-a-black-state-department/

Or ask Oprah why she backs Obama and cries her eyelashes off over him.

But I keep forgetting: there is only white racism, black on white racism doesn't exist.

So yes, there is a racial aspect. And Europe differs greatly from America in that it is not a land of immigrants, but many countries with many different peoples , with history, traditions, language and culture. Perhaps I should remind you that Europeans are Europe's indigenous people. Even the thugs from the UN claims to 'protect' indigenous people. (sarc)

Nobody, not even Haider or Le Pen, would have the nerve to go out there and hold a speech on how blond and blue eyed peoples are superior and that a new Arian master race should be created. They may be crackpots, but they are not the new Hitlers or Eichmanns. Btw: those little Eichmanns all died in the WTC, remember? Ward Chruchill wouldn't tell a lie, would he?
(sarc off)

Do you really believe that Europe has an obligation to take in black Africans by the thousands (every week) who run from poverty and maniacal despots who destroyed their countries? This, along with the Muhammedan invasion, destroys Europe. To deny it and to vilify those who object to this open border madness, is, as the Muhammedans always say, 'not helpful'.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 12, 2008 3:29 PM

Where does this leave Fjordman? He has some distinctly dubious views about race and LGF don't want anything to do with him while he is sometimes praised as a great essayist on this site.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 12, 2008 3:35 PM

It was brought to my attention this morning that there was a favorable post here a few days ago about Iran protesting against an upcoming anti-jihad conference in Europe that features Jean-Marie LePen, the FPO of Austria, and other prominent European far-right politicians. I took it down just now, as we do not support European neo-fascism or race supremacism (and the person who posted it didn't know all the issues involved), but I didn't want simply to take the post down without explanation.

Robert

I understand that the last thing that you, or any person of repute would want is get tarred and feathered by allegations of racism - something that will happen anyway by those whose definition of truth is that which promotes Islam. However, in the process, your reactions seem to be a tad paranoid in taking down what's a legitimate reaction to what's essentially nose-butting by Iran.

I believe the point that the poster who put up the story was making was that hypocrisy aside, it's none of Iran's business which conferences are allowed in Germany: after all, Germany is not a part of Iran (at least not yet). This has nothing to do with whether the poster lauds the conference in question - that's a totally separate issue. One can oppose or support such a conference, and regardless of that stance, still react to Iran's reaction to the staging of this conference with either bemusement or outrage. The reaction to the latter has no bearing on how one views the former.

After all, Iran too hosted a holocaust denial conference I think last year or the year before, and while people around the world reacted with a sense of resignation, there weren't diplomatic attacks on Iran for hosting such a conference. Point above is that any country has the right to allow any conference that doesn't violate their own laws, which also implies that while we may not like it, we can't stop Islamic countries from allowing outrageous things not inconsistent with Islamic laws. Likewise, Iran has no business telling us what we can or can't host in our own countries - just like we can't tell Iran whether they can or can't host holocaust denial conferences.

By removing the story you cited above, you may think that you removed the basis on which others can charge you with sympathizing with European racists - a charge that would be ludicrous if made. But by removing this story, you've also, albeit unwittingly, sent the message that you're okay with Islamic countries/entities - be it Iran, KSA, Pakistan, OIC, et al - dictating to non-Islamic countries what anti-Islamic activities they can or can't allow: after all, if people are going to be kept in the dark about such activities, they can hardly be expected to criticize it. The latter charge, if levelled against you, would be less ludicrous than the charge of racism that you rightly seem anxious to avoid.

If you can be critical of the OIC for trying to manipulate the 'UN Human Rights Council' for outlawing the defamation of Islam, I don't see how you can be consistent by looking the other way when Iran tries to do the same thing, only more specifically, and with a given country (in this case Germany), while the OIC move is more global in aspirations. What's more - you'll be tagged racist either way - whether you condemn the OIC for trying to subvert individual freedom, or whether you condemn Iran for trying to subvert the freedom of Infidels living in Infidel countries.

I think most JW readers would know the difference between endorsing a conference that includes racists in its ranks, vs telling Islamic regimes like Iran to jump off a cliff when it comes to telling people outside dar ul Islam what they can or can't allow with respect to their laws. Engaging in the latter activity does not imply a tacit endorsement of the former - a charge that only Mohammedan logicians can make.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 12, 2008 3:53 PM

Infidel Pride:

But by removing this story, you've also, albeit unwittingly, sent the message that you're okay with Islamic countries/entities - be it Iran, KSA, Pakistan, OIC, et al - dictating to non-Islamic countries what anti-Islamic activities they can or can't allow...

With respect, that's a lot of hooey. Search this site for "OIC" and see how much I have written against precisely that idea.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 12, 2008 4:00 PM

I completely agree that a positive vision is the appropriate response, as opposed to the negative world view the jihadists embrace.

Posted by: jewdog at September 12, 2008 4:03 PM

Sharmuta:

"Imagine, if you will, that a european state were to tell it's citizens that they are better than other people and that those "others" should be removed from the state just like islam allows for muslims with the kuffar"

You mean, like we (probably) all agree that we're better than islamists, and like Hugh Fitzgerald(and Marisol agreeing with him, if I remember correctly) advocating the mass-deportations of muslims from Europe(I know Robert expressed his disagreement with this idea, when I mentioned Hughs advocacy to him)? You mean like that?

Ethnic nationalism doesn't equate fascism. If you mean ethnic nationalists, then say ethnic nationalists. I for one don't want the term "fascist" to be watered down to the point where it's lost any real meaning, like the term "racism"(in this country, racism simply means "distancing yourself from a group of people" as determined by the Danish supreme court, which would make you, distancing yourself from fascists or ethnic-nationalists, a racist).
Ethnic nationalism was just one of many factors that lead to the terrors of the second world war. In this country, Denmark, "ethnic nationalists" were actually instrumental in the fight to institute democracy...

Posted by: DanishDynamite at September 12, 2008 4:04 PM

Sharmuta, you made a good argument about why we should steer clear of fascist movements, but that's different from falsely accusing someone of being fascist, right? So is Susanne Winter a fascist or not? If she is, can prove it?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 4:04 PM

Sharmuta:

"Imagine, if you will, that a european state were to tell it's citizens that they are better than other people and that those "others" should be removed from the state just like islam allows for muslims with the kuffar"

You mean, like we (probably) all agree that we're better than islamists, and like Hugh Fitzgerald(and Marisol agreeing with him, if I remember correctly) advocating the mass-deportations of muslims from Europe(I know Robert expressed his disagreement with this idea, when I mentioned Hughs advocacy to him)? You mean like that?

Ethnic nationalism doesn't equate fascism. If you mean ethnic nationalists, then say ethnic nationalists. I for one don't want the term "fascist" to be watered down to the point where it's lost any real meaning, like the term "racism"(in this country, racism simply means "distancing yourself from a group of people" as determined by the Danish supreme court, which would make you, distancing yourself from fascists or ethnic-nationalists, a racist).
Ethnic nationalism was just one of many factors that lead to the terrors of the second world war. In this country, Denmark, "ethnic nationalists" were actually instrumental in the fight to institute democracy...

Posted by: DanishDynamite at September 12, 2008 4:05 PM

Was Britain wrong to align itself with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Was the US wrong to cooperate with Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany? Should both of us have fought alone against Germany, hoping against hope that Stalin and Hitler would destroy one another and take Tojo and Mussolini with them?

Taking the moral high ground won't stop the islamization. This doesn't mean I support every party that claims anti-islamization as its mantle but are we supposed to keep our doors open to everyone and anyone just to avoid looking like someone we dislike? Race isn't the issue with the nationalist parties, either. Sometimes you can't be so particular about where you find your friends. If you were drowning would you refuse a helping hand from someone whose political views you deemed fascist?
If the mainstream parties have abdicated their responsibility what are people who want to remain free to do? Sometimes you have to compromise. You can't have it both ways, Robert.

Posted by: PMK at September 12, 2008 4:17 PM

Careful PMK what your saying is the equivalent of launching missiles at unarmed civillians.

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

What a disappointing analogy, I must have missed it when DeWinter was caught lighting a fuse to a Qassam or LePen advocated mass suicide bombings.

This is just another example of how shrill and irrational this whole debate has become.

Posted by: km at September 12, 2008 4:26 PM

With respect, that's a lot of hooey. Search this site for "OIC" and see how much I have written against precisely that idea.

Of course you have. Read my very next statement, where I not only acknowledge it, but in fact point it out, and then explain how your stand on the OIC is inconsistent with your stand on Iran: I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong below

If you can be critical of the OIC for trying to manipulate the 'UN Human Rights Council' for outlawing the defamation of Islam, I don't see how you can be consistent by looking the other way when Iran tries to do the same thing, only more specifically, and with a given country (in this case Germany), while the OIC move is more global in aspirations. What's more - you'll be tagged racist either way - whether you condemn the OIC for trying to subvert individual freedom, or whether you condemn Iran for trying to subvert the freedom of Infidels living in Infidel countries

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 12, 2008 4:38 PM

km,
Oops! Thanks for the warning.
I didn't realize that not wanting to be a citizen of the world ruled from mecca made me a bad person. I also appreciate Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo. Two more marks against me. Truth hurts.

Posted by: PMK at September 12, 2008 4:43 PM

Owing to the absence of an existing Caliphate, today's Jihad is still in an immature stage; it can be defined as

1)peaceful agitation for Sharia in some regions

2) a collection of local insurgencies in others

and

3) where it has gone global, episodic displays of spectacular violence followed by periods of inactivity.

Jihad may or may not mature to a point where the entirety of the global ummah is mobilized for war. If it ever does, then the non-Islamic world will be forced to coalesce with every conceivable actor in a fight for survival.

As it is, the struggle against Jihad today is primarily ideological (though certainly not exclusively, as indicated above in points 2 & 3).

Aligning ourselves with proponents of racism will only discredit our efforts, narrow our appeal, and enhance the fortunes of the Islamo-Left. It might make sense in a world war, but it is political suicide in today's climate of ideological struggle.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 4:48 PM

Well than, I guess we shouldn't have aided the Soviet Union during it's 'Great Patriotic War' with Germany. Well I find the European Facist Right extremely distasteful and contrary to many of my core beliefs, we do have a common enemy which dwarfs any foreseeable threat from their corner to our way of life. One enemy at a time. While the four points stated are sane and agreeable at this time, we must keep all options open............my opinion.

Posted by: CJK at September 12, 2008 4:55 PM

I'll probably get attacked for asking these questions, but here goes --
1) do you think that at the inception of the United States of America the states which saw slavery for the abomination that it was should have entered into a union with states of institutionalized slavery?

2) do you think that during World War II the US and Great Britain should have entered into alliance with the Soviet Union?

Posted by: kuchuklambat at September 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Nick Griffin and Jean Marie Le Pen are marginal politicians who don't enjoy any support worth writing home about. Even when Le Pen ran against Chirac in the French presidential elections, did he even post double digits?

But Haidar is different in that he's been elected the governor of a province in Austria. Surely, that's demonstrably more support than anything even a site like JihadWatch enjoys? I mean - who in the US with a very explicit anti-Islam message is likely to be elected governor of even a state like Montana? Most of us JWers, if we were to run for office anywhere, would face getting trounced; yet, here is somebody admittedly more racist than most of us are, and winning elective office in an Austrian province. Something tells me that he isn't exactly the person to sneer at, however much one may disagree with him.

PMK is right as well - it would be nice if the anti-Islam movement had a membership in the billion, just like the ummah does, so that we could show people the door for any trivial reason. But it isn't, and we don't. I don't like the fact that the only ones on our side in Europe seem to be racist parties, but if I'm at sword-point asked to choose between them and the Mohammedans, it's a no brainer for me. If it isn't for others (and there are plenty of dhimmi Sikhs, Hindus, Jews et al for whom it won't be), can one really blame these parties for not accomodating Islam more so that these dhimmis, amongst others, would like them better?

I also agree with km - the comparison to Hizbullah (or even the Mahdi army, which has been contemplating going into 'social services') is bizzare. Surely one could make a better argument along the lines of 'We don't want to alienate those already in our camp e.g. Jews, Sikhs, Black Christians, et al?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 12, 2008 4:59 PM

Wellington,

You and I seem to be kindred souls. I'm curious about your position on this one?

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 5:01 PM

Although I agree broadly with the point made, there's not getting away from the fact that this is also a racial issue.
The left would never put up with the ideas of Islam and the attitudes of its followers if they were white, it's as simple as that.
They'd be out screaming fascist before you could say "who stole my jackboots."
It's this revering of ethnicity above being white, by loathsome self hating Marxists in their many guises that have caused this atmosphere of speech strangulation, as they're constant doublespeak and intolerance continually muddies the waters of resistance.
The fact that parties like the BNP are on the rise is precisely because of the perceived inequality of the way ethnics of all persuasions are treated, with housing, income support, and preferential treatment over whites. The media's shameful collusion in this is not helping matters.

So although Islam isn't a race, it's because its followers are Arabs and Asians that its been cut so much slack.
I was brought up to be dead old fashioned, and to believe that skin colour doesn't matter. With the grovelling politicians who allow mass immigration from the third world, I'm forced to conclude I was brought up incorrectly, skin colour is the only thing that matters.

Posted by: Ian at September 12, 2008 5:34 PM

From defenders of freedom to defenders of racism.

No thanks.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 6:00 PM

To Cornelius; Nice thought filled arguement, thanks for calling us defenders of racism! I'll make my snap judgement and guess what about you?

Posted by: CJK at September 12, 2008 6:04 PM

Robert,
Good thing you cleared that out. Sooner or later the stealth jihadists would start linking here and say that you suport a "fascists gathering".

It's important to spread the word that the war is not gainst a race, but against two ideologies: multiculturalism and jihadism.

Regards,

Mats

Posted by: Crusader at September 12, 2008 6:21 PM

kuchuklambat,
Why would anyone attack you? I particularly liked the first question.
What WOULD have happened if the northern states had decided they were too good to associate with the slave states? We'll never know.
What if Roosevelt and Churchill had decided they were above working with Stalin? Again, we'll never know.

All during the Cold War we associated with "unsavory characters". Was it wrong to work with people as opposed to the USSR as we were, even if they were dictators by our standards? Politics makes strange bedfellows. Would we rather keep our hands clean than fight the real enemy? Is preventing even the appearance, however false, of racism more important than achieving our goal of freedom from Islamic encroachment? We can't influence anyone we find distasteful if we keep them at arm's length. Are we too good to shake their hands? Is it better to die with clean hands and no bad press?

The idea that some associations are beneath us if they don't meet every one of our own moral standards is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Regardless of what we do, we'll still face a charge of racism precisely because many of those whose ideology we oppose are of a different ethnic group. It can't be avoided.
Is Pat Buchanan on a par with Osama bin Laden?
Is the BNP really no better than al Qaeda?
I don't buy it.

Posted by: PMK at September 12, 2008 6:26 PM

Robert:
Your wrote over at lgf:

These three points are enough to establish that this "medaura" person is completely untrustworthy as to the basic facts -- and her judgments are completely off base. For the record, again: contrary to the repeated smears of medaura, mph, killgore trout, etc., here at Little Green Footballs, I am not a supporter of Serbian genocide. I oppose jihadism in Kosovo. That is all.

Once you understand that the people you mentioned have an unfathomable hatred for people "of faith" like yourself and can spew anything they like at lgf without fear of being deleted or banned you will both understand the futility of attempting to "debate" with them and why they hate you. I understand your need to defend yourself against the insistent false accusations, but attempting to argue with some barely out of her teens, marginally literate in English, agenda pushing, self-promoting, hate-filled, blog-pimping poster like medaura is a huge waste of your good time.

Posted by: ec marm at September 12, 2008 6:36 PM

Well, if it's not possible for us to oppose the jihad without allying with parties deemed racist and fascist, that could mean we may have to support them. But I'd still doubt it, and I'm not sold on the idea that simply because a nation or political party is against jihadism means they deserve unconditional support. We haven't gotten the point yet where the situation with us and islamists is where it is in World War II and we were forced to ally with Soviets over more dangerous Nazis. Of course, that could happen over the next generation, and the pessimists in us will no doubt say it will happen, but it will take much more stupidity and suicidal policies to ge tthat far. Now, we should be doing better than allying with countries, and yes, that includes China and Russia and parties that are objectionable in every other way simply because they oppose jihadism.

Moreover, it seems those who are leading the fight against jihad need to seriously reevaluate how the message is getting across. If the only source of political support they get is from facist and racist parties, the last option to consider is that they should ally with said fascist parties.

There are many things that can be done to ensure they get support from politcal parties and leaders other than fascists and racists. The first is to consider that we're simply not trying hard enough to convince people this is not about immigrants of different races and lifestyles. I.e. this is not about fighting agaisnt Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Bengalee or Indonesian culture and preventing these people from practicing their customs that don't interfere with other people's security or violate human rights. I know Spencer has worked hard to emphasize this, but many of his compatriots have not. It's one thing to protest against Arabic imperialization that comes with islamization, but another entirely to suggest that people who look Arabic/Persian, dress Arabic/Persian, speak Arabic/Persian and practice Arabic/Persian customs should be viewed objectionably. Racism is, needless to say, such an ugly word to be associated with these days; modern society views racism as a crime comparable to or worse than armed assault and battery, rape, child abuse and planned murder. You cannot stress enough that opposition to jihadism is not correlated to opposition to Middle Eastern people culture in general.

Also, and this is always a sticky subject, it needs to be emphasized that opposition to jihadism does not mean judging muslim populations around the world in a single universal caricature. We still need to be able to judge anyone we meet as an individual. Again, this applies more to Spencer's compatriots and supporters than Spencer himself. Anytime who start judging people collectively, the step to outright racism is a very small one. That unfortunately has something to do with why a great number of supporters of the anti-jihad resistance are openly racist. It's one thing to suggest that muslim immigration needs to be seriously curbed and reevaluated; hell, I think immigration period needs to be put on hold and believe we're not under obligation to take other nation's tired, hungry and poor. It's also perfectly acceptable to suggest ending all amicable relations with and economic aid for muslim countries permanently, or at least under they renounce jihad, dhimmitude and islamic expansionism.

It's another thing to suggest that muslims living in muslim countries deserve to suffer and deserve to be pitted against each other by outside forces. Or to say that simply being muslim is grounds for treason, imprisonment, deportation or asking "Are you a muslim?" to all immigrants with an answer of yes being grounds for denying entry. Or to put needless pressure on given ethnic groups, suggesting that all Persian civilians in Iran for instance, deserve to be called enemies as much as the Ayatollahs unless they openly renounce islam, or even with Arabs, for that matter. Among other things, that makes the already very difficult task of convincing people this is not about race hatred twice as hard; suggesting, for instance, "Well, I'm condmen racism towards Persians, I don't hate Persians, I just hate 90+ % percent of them and want the other 10 % to prove they're CHristian, Zoroastrian or Jewish so I won't hate them." That's not gonna hold up under scrutiny.

So basically, we should work harder to ensure this does nto come across as a racist effort and stop suggesting it's about universal judgement or condemnation of muslim people. Spencer of course, has continually emphasized this; saying repeatedly he is not "anti-islam", does not view muslim as a monolith and rejects racism towards middle easterners. His contemporaries need to follow suit and his supporters here need to remember and emphasize that racism and "condemning all muslims", as posters here have said is a mandatory requirement of this movement, are not what are to be advocated.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at September 12, 2008 6:37 PM

Demonstration:
If the ancient christians countries (from Morroco to Egypt and Syria and Turkey, etc.) had not been destroyed by Islam, those countries (with the same people, "races") would be fully part of our civilisation of christian origins.

It is easy to understand; also, everybody agrees that christians from Egypt, Libanon, Syria and Irak are part of our civilisation.

The only problem is the ideologic sickness: Islam! And there is hope, because it can be cured.

Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at September 12, 2008 6:38 PM

From the day I first started blogging, I've had to deal with charges of "Fascist!" and "Racist!" Never mind that I was talking about the ideology of Islam -- never Arab ethnicity.

Mr. Spencer is exactly correct in his position, IMO. I commend his forthrightness here -- and his explanation.

Yes, I know that many Europeans trying to deal with creeping shari'ah have been driven to certain political parties because no other party speaks for them. For many Europeans, the situation has approached desperation. Those parties are looking more and more attractive to those who are struggling for Europe not to succumb to the caliphate.

Yes, political alliances are necessary for the counter-jihad to make practical headway, but those alliances must be very careful and very wary ones. Aligning with, or even appearing to align with, racial supremacists will lead to condemnation from several sides.

I didn't not come to this conclusion overnight. In fact, I've been thinking about this problem for nearly a year now. And I've lost friends over the matter; I'll lose more, I'm sure. So be it. I cannot support any ideology which is tyrannical and oppressive.

Posted by: Always On Watch at September 12, 2008 6:59 PM

Cornelius: I am 100% in agreement with your post above. Aligning with racist groups who oppose Islamic supremacism is not the right course to take. In fact, it is quite counter-productive, as your last paragraph indicates with first-rate accuracy.

I myself have written here at JW against the British National Party (BNP), which has several fine ideas to be sure, but which, unfortunately, is racist in the final analysis. The way I put it many months ago was that should a black man who is a British citizen, a fine father and husband, a conservative who has a profound admiration for Winston Churchill, a devout Christian, an admirer of English civilization and a deep skeptic of Islam's ultimate intentions, apply for memberbship in the BNP, he would be refused acceptance because of his skin color. This is both wrong and stupid. Ideas and character count where excellence, goodness, patriotism and civilization are concerned. Race and ethnicity are irrelevant. So, again, I'm aligned with you completely, my friend.

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 8:18 PM

CJK: "To Cornelius; Nice thought filled arguement, thanks for calling us defenders of racism! I'll make my snap judgement and guess what about you?"

RESPONSE: If you are advocating an alliance with the likes of the BNP or France's Le Pen, then by inference, you are defending racism. It is tantamount to a political candidate in the USA unaffiliated with the KKK getting up on stage at a Klan rally to advocate a united front. The inference of endorsement and validation would be inescapable. The BNP and Le Pen's National Front both have a record of racism and anti-semitism that is indisputable, no matter how much they've tried to sanitize it in recent years.

I'm enough of a pragmatist to say that in the midst of a future WWIII with the Islamic Caliphate, we would be obliged in the name of existential survival to ally ourselves with any and all who were willing to fight. But we're not there...at least not yet. Right now, ideological struggle is center stage in our struggle against Islam....(though violence is certainly part of the equation). Joining hands with racists would not only be ethically repugnant, it would be a tactical mistake of unforgiving proportions, insuring the marginalization of the anti-Jihad, and the empowerment and legitimation of the Islamo-Left.

Let's not panic.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 8:21 PM

Thanks, PMK. Why would I think I get attacked? Because last time I floated this thought, it was at LGF, and attacks did follow, many from none other than the now infamous medaura.
From what I know, our young republic would not have a chance if the northern states did not unite with the slavery states. And it gave the abolitionists a chance to live and fight another day against them and have the good guys win in the end.
And WWII was a close call, and could have tipped the other way if the US did not provide all kinds of material support to USSR during 1941-45. (Post-war the US could have been more aware of the Soviet danger and more forceful in controlling it; we could have had a safer world now).
One hopes that if we are not strong enough to take on all the bad guys at the same time, we can make such unsavory alliances with eyes wide open, not giving up our moral stance, and prepared to fight against such allies once a more formidable enemy is vanquished.
From a PR point of view, I see your point, Always_On_Watch and others -- it's a delicate line to thread, however things are dire enough in Europe that such alliances may already be necessary, which will make our PR job harder, but not impossible, I think.

Posted by: kuchuklambat at September 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Good job Wellington.

How strange that the issue is even controversial at all.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Cornelius, the controversial part is in your estimation "But we're not there...at least not yet".
That, I am sure, is controversial depending on the place, situation, and will be a judgment call.
In 1940 there was a very significant opposition to FDR with an argument that the Soviets were a much more significant threat than the Germans and at least as morally reprehensible. Also a judgment call in the end...

Posted by: kuchuklambat at September 12, 2008 8:41 PM

Cornelius
By your logic, the USA was defending communism in part in WW2. As bad as racism is, there's much worse out there.

Posted by: CJK at September 12, 2008 8:56 PM

kuchuklambat: "Cornelius, the controversial part is in your estimation "But we're not there...at least not yet". "

RESPONSE: That's a fair observation.

Certainly victims of Jihadi violence in India, Sudan, Thailand, Israel, the Philippines, etc. might take issue.....and who could blame them. But I'm trying to take the larger view here. I've spent a life-time studying the lessons of history. There is no doubt that by his actions on Sept 11, Bin Ladin has accelerated historical processes. Still, by all objective criteria, the global Jihad is at an immature stage.

There is no Caliphate...and no Caliph to legitimate the command to fight among the faithful. This is born out in that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are NOT engaged in violent Jihad (regardless of their sympathies).

This certainly might change over time. But right now, the essence of our struggle is ideological, particularly in the West where it matters most. It is not inconceivable that we can mainstream our views over time; we're certainly making in-roads as things stand. But we'll discredit the entire enterprise by embracing the racist Right...validating the Islamo-Left's grotesquely inaccurate portrayal of us.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 8:57 PM

Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for this and for all of your work.

Thank you to everyone at Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch.

Posted by: Josephine at September 12, 2008 9:02 PM

CJK: "By your logic, the USA was defending communism in part in WW2. As bad as racism is, there's much worse out there."

RESPONSE: Are you actually suggesting that we weren't defending the embodiment of communism (Soviet Russia) with our billions in lend-lease aid? Of course we were. It was a necessary evil in an existential struggle.

Today, circumstances are different. We're engaged in an existential struggle, but the nature of the fight is primarily (though - again - not exclusively, ideological). It is unfolding at a much slower pace than the the military events of WWII.

We've got to play this thing right. There is a battle for the hearts and minds of the INFIDEL world. Embracing racists insures that we - the anti-Jihad - will lose that battle.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 9:03 PM

Cornelius, "by embracing the racist Right."
Not embracing, Cornelius, alliance is not embracing. You and I have the same goals and don't need to use the "slippery slope" or other such debating devices to get at the truth.
The situation is much more dire in parts of Scandinavia, in France, or in Belgium.

Posted by: kuchuklambat at September 12, 2008 9:13 PM

kuchuklambat: "Not embracing, Cornelius, alliance is not embracing."

RESPONSE: Semantics.

kuchuklambat: "The situation is much more dire in parts of Scandinavia, in France, or in Belgium."

RESPONSE: Lot's of truth there, particularly in Sweden, where it is now officially a crime to publicly attribute the criminality so prevalent among the "youth" to immigration.

Were I a Swede...and I couldn't get any traction whatsoever among the mainstream parties for the anti-Jihad (highly probable), it is possible I would turn to the Swedish Democrats to do what I could to save my country. But I might point out that though the Swedish Democrats have a checkered past, it is not as clearly racist as Le Pen's National Front.

Finally, America is not Sweden. There is a very real possibility that the anti-Jihad can be mainstreamed here given a confluence of events...and barring an impulsive decision to align ourselves with discredited entities.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 9:33 PM

In any comparison between our support of Soviet Russia in WWII and our possible alliance with racist groups in the contemporary world who oppose Islamic supremacism, Cornelius is correct for an additional reason. The huge double standard which exists to this day that fully permits complete condemnation of right-wing extremism, but disallows the same opprobrium from being extended to left-wing fanaticism, must make the lover of true democracy and freedom wary in yet another regard from embracing right-wing bigots. Surely anyone with a knowledge of history, and possessd of how phony (and stupid) the world can be at times, should see this.

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 9:34 PM

Wellington,

Your post reminded me of how unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn are not only welcomed to teach in academe, but are feted as personalities....(at least up until the unwanted attention of the current election campaign).

A KKK-member who was otherwise qualified and who never, ever committed an act of violence would never find employment in our universities.

The latter is understandable and appropriate, the former inexplicable...unless one fully comprehends the twisted ethos governing the halls of academe today. Makes one both nauseous and angry.

Then again, we all have our coping mechanisms. I've been as sober as a Muslim all week...but it's a six of Icehouse tonight (trying to stay within budget).

Salute.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 10:16 PM

sorry everyone but I just don't get it.

Who amongst the new "right" in Europe exactly is advocating ideological or racial supremacy?

References/links please??

As an Englishman I have concerns regarding the perceived (on my part) systematic destruction of my culture, by massive third world immigration on a totally unprecedented scale, never witnessed before in human history.

From experience, anyone raising concern is immediately denounced as a racist,(and)or told that their (white European))culture is not worth defending/protecting due to past colonial guilt. Furthermore we are told that our racial identity is a lie, and that we the English/Welsh/Irish/Scots are a "mongrel" race and are a hotchpotch of different migrative races, so trying to hold on to an identity or culture is wrong/distasteful and perhaps slightly hypocritical. (imagine telling a Yemeni, Sudanese or Italian that they are a race of immigrants so therefore should not only embrace, but expect cultural change/dilution from large scale immigration.)

Personally I like the idea of being a "mongrel" and the idea of a superior race is preposterous to me. I am comfortable with the idea that I am inferior to many other races (you should see me in my swimming trunks on the beach). I like the idea that over time different races/cultures have affected/contributed positively to my own.

However

the idea that race and culture are two totally separate things is wishy washy to say the least.

I totally understand the fear of racial politics in a continent that witnessed the death of six million people based on a weird, sick supremacist ideology, within our living memory.

But please stop the hysterical paranoia about supposedly neo- Nazi political organisations. It isn't real.

There are no political parties in Europe that advocate the building of hospitals and shelling of civilians (hizballah) or bringing back the gas chambers.

Robert/Hugh Marisol I have the utmost respect for what you have done(and are doing) but please don't turn this into a LGF liberal hand-ringing bed-wetting forum.

Posted by: Meccano at September 12, 2008 11:11 PM

It's another thing to suggest that muslims living in muslim countries deserve to suffer and deserve to be pitted against each other by outside forces. Or to say that simply being muslim is grounds for treason, imprisonment, deportation or asking "Are you a muslim?" to all immigrants with an answer of yes being grounds for denying entry. Or to put needless pressure on given ethnic groups, suggesting that all Persian civilians in Iran for instance, deserve to be called enemies as much as the Ayatollahs unless they openly renounce islam, or even with Arabs, for that matter. Among other things, that makes the already very difficult task of convincing people this is not about race hatred twice as hard; suggesting, for instance, "Well, I'm condmen racism towards Persians, I don't hate Persians, I just hate 90+ % percent of them and want the other 10 % to prove they're CHristian, Zoroastrian or Jewish so I won't hate them." That's not gonna hold up under scrutiny.

Maxwell

Even though you didn't mention me, the above description matches me to a 't', so I'll bite. To take each of your points

It's another thing to suggest that muslims living in muslim countries deserve to suffer and deserve to be pitted against each other by outside forces.

What would you rather prefer - Mohammedans in Mohammedan countries be allowed to prosper - a la KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, - and be at liberty to spread their religiously sanctioned hatred to our lands? You've been around long enough - have you missed all the discussions of how the internecine battles between Mohammedans is not going to end due to the very nature of Islam, which has always been about anything but compromise?

Even though Hugh seems to have come up with this and can bat for himself, such a stand is easy to defend with a bit of thought. Just ask any critic of such 'Machiavelian' tactics how they view the fact that $562 billion had last year gone to the GCC countries alone, and how much of that might have gone to funding mosques and madrassas not just in places like Indonesia and Pakistan, but also in places like India, France, Germany and the US.

Or to say that simply being muslim is grounds for treason, imprisonment, deportation or asking "Are you a muslim?" to all immigrants with an answer of yes being grounds for denying entry.

On the occasion that such suggestions were made, the precedent on this - particularly in the case of the US - was pointed out. I dunno whether it's still there today, but in 1992, when I came, there were questions in the application form asking whether the applicant had been or was at the time a member of a Communist Party. Once it's clear that the political underpinnings of Islam are inseparable from its 'religious' composition, it's not difficult to make the case that the standard treatment of Islam as a religion should not apply here.

Oh, and there's also Benes Decree which Hugh has pointed out on numerous occasions, which was never criticized by anybody on either the Western or the Soviet side. Not to mention the very creation of the Pakistans (East & West), where millions of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee their homes in those territories, and comparitively fewer Mohammedans from India had to do so.

Or to put needless pressure on given ethnic groups, suggesting that all Persian civilians in Iran for instance, deserve to be called enemies as much as the Ayatollahs unless they openly renounce islam, or even with Arabs, for that matter. Among other things, that makes the already very difficult task of convincing people this is not about race hatred twice as hard; suggesting, for instance, "Well, I'm condmen racism towards Persians, I don't hate Persians, I just hate 90+ % percent of them and want the other 10 % to prove they're CHristian, Zoroastrian or Jewish so I won't hate them." That's not gonna hold up under scrutiny.

The reason for this is pretty clear as well - over time, any Muslim population can become more Islamic, and that has consequences for the rest of the Infidel world. That's not something one would face with an Infidel population - if Hindus in India are unhappy with their government, they absolutely will not join forces with jihadi parties to express their resentments, and end up making India a springboard for anti-Western Jihadi activity. Same goes for Catholics in the Philippines, or Russians, or Serbs, or _______. And would for Zoroastrians in Iran, were they to ever be fortunate enough to regain power.

After all, who in 1947 - Churchill, Atlee, Mountbatten - would have thought that 60 years later, Pakistan would be a leading source of terror against the West? After all, they were just innocent Indian Mohammedans taking it out on those evil communal Hindus, as pointed out by Father Gandhi and St. Nehru, right? If Iran or other Islamic countries, after losing their Islamic regimes, stay Mohammedan, don't be surprised if at a future date, a future Ahmadinejad or Khomenei resurfaces to threaten the West. A danger that won't be there if Iran were to become Zoroastrian. This is also the reason that seemingly benign Mohammedan states like Kosovo or Xinxiang deserve to be opposed.

As for Arabs, the parallels with Nazi Germany couldn't be clearer. After WWII, when Germany was occupied, Nazism was banned, Mein Kamph was banned, and Germans were made to disavow Aryan supremacy. There is no reason the same thing shouldn't be done with Arabs - they should be made to disown Arab supremacy, and all teachings to that end would have to be ended. But that would mean an end to Islamic teachings as well, since the Sunnah describes the Arabs as the 'best of peoples'.

In short, all the points that you deem controversial are not only perfectly defensible, but also make sense given the nature of the enemy. The sad part is that due to the prevailent climate of political correctness, such points will be deemed racist. But that shouldn't be the criteria by which such stands are reviewed. Also, turnabout is fair play, and those who advocate taking Shariah law and turning it around at Mohammedans aren't being racists, but simply pointing out the racism inherent in Islam itself.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 12, 2008 11:56 PM

Understanding Europe, the current situation,and the current players, the few who are actually resisting the Islamization of the Continent, this is indeed a tricky matter.

That being said, Robert Spencer, and JW's official position on the matter is crystal clear and, at least in my opinion, absolutely correct.

I am also in full support of Wellington's and Cornelius's comments in this thread on the topic.

Being marginalized based on race supremacy, whether legitimate or not, regarding a sound response to the jihad, is an ugly, futile place to reside.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:22 AM

Meccano: I provide for you the example I mentioned above, the British National Party (BNP). Does it or does it not disallow someone from joining it if that person is not white? Your turn.

Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 12:43 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with the principles outlined by Mr. Spencer above.

As pointed out in the article, there are opponents of Islam, such as Geert Wilders, who also defend Western-style freedom, democracy, and pluralism. He's not the only one.

I've been trying to figure out who, among European foes of Islamization, is more on the pro-freedom, democratic side, and who leans towards the fascist, racist side. Here are my impressions so far.

These parties are ok:

Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark)
Partij voor de Vrijheid (Netherlands)
Schweizerische Volkspartei (Switzerland)
Demokratene (Norway)

I'm not sure about these, but they seem rather ok:

Lega Nord (Italy)
Vlaams Belang (Belgium)
Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austria)

I'm highly skeptical of the following:

British National Party (UK)
Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden)
Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Austria)

Definitely NOT ok:

Front National (France)

This preliminary assessment of an ill-informed North American is based on scant evidence.

TO OUR EUROPEAN FRIENDS or anyone knowledgeable of European politics: If you have information about these parties that could help identify their true positions, it would be much appreciated.

Posted by: Martin at September 13, 2008 1:52 AM

@maxwell46

"It's another thing to suggest that muslims living in muslim countries deserve to suffer and deserve to be pitted against each other by outside forces. Or
to say that simply being muslim is grounds for treason, imprisonment, deportation or asking "Are you a muslim?" to all immigrants with an answer of yes
being grounds for denying entry."
Regarding denying entry, there is no right to entry and every sovereign nation has an inalienable right to keep undesirable persons even on the basis of classifications that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens i.e the US had laws denying entry to Chinese.
Keeping out noncitizens on religious or racial grounds is not equivalent with ethnic cleansing of our own citizens. Claiming or implying that these policies are equivalent is pure rubbish.
And yes, believing that Muslims should suffer is immoral, but arguing as Hugh does that we have no moral responsibility for aleviating the consequences of the conditions created by Islam is different from deliberately causing suffering or strife among Muslims.
We owe Muslim nations nothing, and closing the border and embargoing all goods is not neofascism.

Posted by: PerH at September 13, 2008 2:17 AM

@maxwell46

"It's another thing to suggest that muslims living in muslim countries deserve to suffer and deserve to be pitted against each other by outside forces. Or
to say that simply being muslim is grounds for treason, imprisonment, deportation or asking "Are you a muslim?" to all immigrants with an answer of yes
being grounds for denying entry."
Regarding denying entry, there is no right to entry and every sovereign nation has an inalienable right to keep undesirable persons even on the basis of classifications that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens i.e the US had laws denying entry to Chinese.
Keeping out noncitizens on religious or racial grounds is not equivalent with ethnic cleansing of our own citizens. Claiming or implying that these policies are equivalent is pure rubbish.
And yes, believing that Muslims should suffer is immoral, but arguing as Hugh does that we have no moral responsibility for aleviating the consequences of the conditions created by Islam is different from deliberately causing suffering or strife among Muslims.
We owe Muslim nations nothing, and closing the border and embargoing all goods is not neofascism.

Posted by: PerH at September 13, 2008 2:18 AM

To the person who mentioned the cold war: you evidently know nothing of the effect that supporting murderous military cliques in Latin America, Africa and Asia had on public opinion. The younger generation, who came on the scene after Reagan had seen some sense and started supporting democratic government instead of sleazeballs like Pinochet, do not remember that the widespread Western support for such governments, merely on the ground that they fought Communists, was the single strongest argument by far for the school of moral equivalence that eventually swept Europe and even the American left. As early as in 1952, the great Thomas Mann, whose record of fighting tyranny was second to none, was horrified by the understanding between America and various tyrannies. From then on, for thirty-plus years, American policy was suspicious of democracy in the third world (because if was open to Communist penetration) and favoured "strong" governments. The result on public opinion was creeping disaffection. When a young man in the sixties and seventies looked around the world, he or she would see a few democratic states, mostly white and rich, surrounded by a sea of military, communist or Muslim tyrannies, flattered and supported by both superpowers. Indeed, Fascism itself had hardly vanished from Europe: until 1973 and 1975, Greece, Spain and Portugal were ruled by tyrants, and Italy suffered at least five attempted military coups. In this environment, Jeane Kirkpatrick's ideological distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" governments seemed to most Europeas, including moderates and conservatives, like the merest apology. To a continent that remembered tyranny all too well, the midnight knock on the door, the torture rooms, the unexplained disappearances and death, the deprivation of right, the life of fear, the secret police, were the same, whether the master was Franco or Honecker.

Please bear in mind that I am talking about a state of mind. In reality, a person could point out that PInochet and Franco killed comparatively few people as compared with Communist government; the point however is that both kinds of societies were ruled by fear, and people then adult on the European continent knew that fear all too well. By the seventies, as a result, the feeling was common that being allied with the CIA and its South American tyrants was no better than being allied to the KGB and its "fraternal" cospiracies abroad.

And now pay attention to the corollary. This kind of demoralization, this increasing belief that there was no moral difference between the blocs, made things much harder for loyal supporters of freedom than for committed Communists. Communists envisaged the "struggle" as part of the rule of history, and were as ready to suffer oppression under a tyranny as to inflict it. Democrats, on the other hand, found a real contradiction between their values and the political activities of the so-called "free world'

Alliance with Fascists, in short, was the very seed from which grew that malignant tree of anti-American suspicion, moral equivalence, and demoralization, that affects the rest of the free world to this day. Of course the Soviets did everything in their power to push exactly this view; it suited them. But its worldwide triumph is due wholly to the experience of thirty years - longer than a generation - of Western/American support of unworthy, exploitative, murderous regimes. The world became convinced that there was little or no moral equivalence between the US and the URSS; a catastrophic conviction whose results we are still suffering. For God's sake, avoid it: you will look as bad as your enemies.

Posted by: Paolo at September 13, 2008 5:39 AM

Very nicely done, Robert, and 100% correct. People like Haider! It's easy for him and Le Pen to scream from the fringes where no one hears them and they don't make a damn bit of difference. Wilders, who has to manage success from within the margins is in the much more admirable and difficult position. It takes discipline and you have done well to separate yourself from fringe "Know Nothing" parties. Just because they warn of the dangers of Islamic inundation into Europe does not make them worthy of the association of decent people who believe in the natural rights of all peoples. Admiring such men because they are taking a stand against Islamic inundation is like admiring Adolf Hitler because he took a stand against deteriorating autobahns. Islam is open to criticism. Muslims are not open to bigotry, no matter how easy it may be for some to slide to the lowest common denominator. At the height of hatred against the British in Boston (and they were HATED... completely), John Adams defended those British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston massacre. Could you imagine? How hard must that have been? Look at what John Adams helped create. In the most trying of times and the darkest of circumstances, if you've got the choice between being John Adams or being Jean-Marie Le Pen, be John Adams.

Posted by: Charlemagne at September 13, 2008 7:19 AM

From a PR point of view, I see your point, Always_On_Watch and others -- it's a delicate line to thread, however things are dire enough in Europe that such alliances may already be necessary, which will make our PR job harder, but not impossible, I think.

Posted by: kuchuklambat at September 12, 2008 8:27 PM

But the problem does go beyond a PR problem.

Political history is filled with this cycle: a particular political party gains power because most voters agree with a particular element in the party's platform even though those same voters may disagree with another element in the party's platform. Unforeseen consequences then result because the party has certain other elements in the platform, elements which are also implemented.

In my view, the counter-jihad can have many different aspects. And certainly individual voters must decide which political party to support or whether to participate in an out-and-out revolution and "throw all the bums out."

But the major leaders and the actual organizations of the counter-jihad must be cautious about whom and what they endorse.

Is there now a division in the counter-jihad? Yes. Does it have to work against us, particularly ideologically? Not necessarily.

Let me explain.

For years, I tried to convince a client as to the gravity of the jihad and the tenets of Islam. No dice -- not even referring her to Jihad Watch. But I knew of her position on the rights of women, particularly to live in dignity and to pursue higher education. So, instead of using sources she'd perceive as polarizing and/or conservative (We all know how difficult in can be to find certain stories in the mainstream media) and knowing her penchant for classical books or near-classical books, I recommended that she read James Mitchener's Caravans. Guess what? She got the point.

Now, this client of mine happens to be a refugee from China. Had I recommended certain political figures as part of the counter-jihad, she'd have stereotyped all counter-jihadists as white supremacists. As one who has already had encounters with racists, my client would have learned no more about the Islamic threat.

My point is that PR problems can have effects beyond problems with public relations and can translate into inaction and ostriching. People so often recall their first contact with a particular ideology or movement; if turned off, they don't turn back on -- until it's too late.

Posted by: Always On Watch at September 13, 2008 7:31 AM

What you're sugesting, in effect, is that doing nothing is better than making a bad choice.

Sorry, I don't agree. I will do something - I will vote for BNP... despite its policies towards others.

I don't WANT to vote BNP, but the alternative is sitting on my hands whilst watch ALL mainsteam parties fund Islamic parties, lobbyists and hand Islam increasing political power.

I'd love to be an idealist like you guys. It's so easy sitting on the fence and taking the moral high-ground... Meanwhile, I and many others will do omething we DON'T want to do. We will vote for right-wing parties with racist agendas. Why?

Because doing so is marginally better. Voting BNP annoys and frustrates the complascent, left-wing elitists politicians who are forcing my country and my culture to become more and more Islamic.

For me this alone justifies my voting. And I'm going to keep voting until someone starts taking notice.

Good luck with sitting on your hands. You have great ideals - but these will be of little use when your country becomes Islamic.

Posted by: Stefcho at September 13, 2008 7:56 AM

Great post, Robert.

The Europeans have a lot of experience with facisism. So I am sure that most of them are not really that blind.

Posted by: Spot on at September 13, 2008 8:07 AM

"Meccano: I provide for you the example I mentioned above, the British National Party (BNP). Does it or does it not disallow someone from joining it if that person is not white? Your turn."

Hello Wellington ok.... if you insist...my turn.

Not once did I mention the BNP in my post and I am not a member or a spokesman for that party. I think you are right that non white people are not eligible to become members. I think BNP supporters would justify this by saying that the indigenous population of the British Isles has become increasingly marginalised and therefore requires a mouthpiece. They would probably argue that it is very difficult for a white person to become a member of the Association of Black Police Officers or a Rastifarian. Personally I believe this is one of the main reasons that the BNP will never be elected to government and a big mistake on their part.

Does this make the BNP neo-Nazis or white supremacists? I don't think so. Does this warrant the hysterical over reaction to Nationalist political movements in Europe as per Charles Taylor and others? No it doesn't.

Do the ideologies of political correctness, cultural Marxism and the appeasement of clerical Fascism, coupled with massive immigration of people of different cultures from mainly third world countries threaten the Judeo-Christian keystone (so often referred to in this forum)to liberal democracy and the very stability of European society? YES THEY BLOODY WELL DO!!!!

European "Fascism" is a red herring. Keep your eye on the ball and keep your powder dry. It's the JIHAD stupid!! (no offence)

Posted by: Meccano at September 13, 2008 8:21 AM

I second Meccano's plea that JW not be turned "into a LGF liberal hand-ringing bed-wetting forum." The best possible argument in favor of that plea is this thread. Ever since Charles Johnson started banning posters who disagree with him, discussions such as this have been impossible on LGF. Instead, most posts there are brief expressions of emotion, neither conveying nor encouraging thought--in fact, actually discouraging thought owing to the fear of ostracism. Although I have my preferences (e.g., DanishDynamite's), I've found much food for thought in the posts that express a contrary view (e.g., Cornelius's).

1) The definition of racism is, on the evidence of this thread, not so clearcut. 2) Truth can't be any kind of -ist, so the question that must be asked before the application of a label is: is it true? 3) All debaters in this thread agree on certain core propositions: the falsity of the distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam (Pipes's notion); the need to alert people to the menace of jihad in all its forms; and support for Israel. I say, beware of adding another, then another, then another, for at the bottom of that slope lie LGF and its ever-shrinking coterie.

There must be many other readers of JW who, starting from one position or the other, are reacting as I am, giving serious thought to arguments on the other side. This alone should be reason enough not to delete posts that take positions that Mr. Spencer finds abhorrent but that don't conflict with those core tenets.

Posted by: Aileen at September 13, 2008 8:28 AM

apologies I meant to say Charles Johnson not Taylor

Posted by: Meccano at September 13, 2008 8:49 AM

Stefcho, I know how you feel. have you seen the comments section of the BNP when they have an article about the dangers of islam? The comments could easily appear on this site and no one would notice any different.

And yes, while I'm concerned about imams openly preaching hatred against Jews, gays and everyone else, I'm also not happy about a "cultural enrichment" benefit entitlement, that means we have God knows how many Somalians in the UK, 80% of which are unemployed and claiming benefit despite never having paid anything into the social security pot.

There are similar uncomfortable issues on other subjects, whether it's who is doing most of the knife crime in the UK, who is grooming young white girls into the sex trade, pickpockets and bank card fraudsters, or renting houses and turning them into cannabis farms!

Each one of the above brings to mind a different group who seem to be responsible for that type of crime.

Yet to even mention this would bring a shriek of "Racist!", frequently from some self-loathing White liberal, who usually live in an area of the country that has not yet been "enriched".

And lots of ordinary people getting pissed off with this. Very pissed off indeed.

Posted by: Celsius at September 13, 2008 8:54 AM

military, communist or Muslim tyrannies, flattered and supported by BOTH superpowers.

Paolo,
That is precisely the point. We were engaged in a struggle for dominance because otherwise we would not survive. People today think the outcome was preordained but there was no guarantee that we would outlast the Communists.
I never suggested we were blameless but look at Turkey today. Look at Iran. The US was held at fault for "supporting dictators" in both countries. Do you think both of these countries are better off today with Islam running things? Turkey's own constitution enables the military to step in, if necessary, to maintain the secular identity of the nation. What if a military junta takes over? What should we do? Work with them? Ignore them? Kick Turkey out of NATO?
Then there's South Korea. What were we to do there?
What is happening in Iraq proves that we had no choice but to work with those who attained power. Contrary to myth, the US didn't install Saddam Hussein. We didn't pick and choose the leaders of all non-Communist countries.
Either we respect their sovereignty and we work with dictators or we leave those countries to rot and hope against all hope that no one who is worse comes up after an "election", which was generally one man, one vote, one time.
Either we're imperialist and arrogant (by involving ourselves) or we're selfish hypocrites (by respecting their sovereignty).
What did you expect the US to do about Spain and Portugal? Greece and Italy were members of NATO and sovereign countries. Aren't they old enough to take care of themselves?
Jimmy Carter's foreign policy was all about maintaining HIS OWN moral purity. It was a disaster for the people of the US and for many people in Iran.
Suddenly Ronald Reagan is a saint but the people in Europe protested mightily when ballistic missiles were installed to counter the Russian SS-20s that were aimed at western Europe. The Left in America didn't think highly of Reagan EVER. You are rewriting history.
Those who cried "moral equivalence" would never have been satisfied. If we worked with a sovereign government, we were "supporting dictators". If we withdrew our support, we were "abandoning the people". If we took action to remove the dictator, as in Iraq, we were "violating their sovereignty".
You can't please all of the people all of the time. This country made it through the Cold War, which wasn't foreseen, as late as the early 1980s. Ronald Reagan might have had the vision but no one else did.
George W. Bush has made it his mission to "spread democracy" around the world and for this he is reviled by the very people who screamed "moral equivalence" during the Cold War. Today he is "imposing" American values on the world. Make up your mind. Do you want the US to butt in or butt out? Butting out means that sometimes people that would never gain power in a Western democracy will attain power in another country. Either we acknowledge their existence or we don't.

Posted by: PMK at September 13, 2008 9:36 AM

Sorry, Aileen, but you're wrong. As I said above:

Admiring such men (fascists/racists) because they are taking a stand against Islamic inundation is like admiring Adolf Hitler because he took a stand against deteriorating autobahns. Islam is open to criticism.

Mr. Spencer is an "accidental" public person who has taken on certain responsibilities that go well beyond a vein of "core tenets." The KKK stakes a claim to core tenets of Christianity. Does that mean that a group that operates a popular Christian-based website is obliged to allow Klansmen to populate their website with racist postings?... Just because there is a tenuous claim of core tenets? Certainly not!

Mr. Spencer performs a vital function in bringing information about the menace of jihad to the public forum. If you want to go down the drain of marginalization with the right wing parties of Europe, then you and your friends are welcome to do so. Mr. Spencer has bigger responsibilities than that.

Mr. Spencer has provided, and must continue to provide, services that transcend politics, particularly kook-fringe politics. Mr. Spencer is wise to disengage from the marginal fringes, whence cowards shout at those inside the ring who fight real political fights. If the only thing that Mr. Spencer does is provide a wealth of information on the depth, history, complexity, and presence of jihad to hundred-of-thousands of people who never before had access, then that alone is a mammoth service to all.

By staying above the political fray (particularly the fringe), then Mr. Spencer ensures that his effort impacts those who can effect real change; those INSIDE the ring. His real work is too important to have it tainted by false accusations of "friendships" and associations that simply do not exist. I'm sorry, but having sat in the same room with the leader of a European right-wing political party in no way means that Mr. Spencer has "signed up." He has, however, learned quite correctly, that his services cannot be risked by faulty perceptions and presence at unvetted symposiums. I know a man who once had his photo taken with U.S. Senator Byrd, who is known to have been a senior member of the Ku Klux Klan. When my friend learned of Senator Byrd's past affiliations, he destroyed the picture, disgusted. Mr. Spencer must be permitted the honor of destroying the wrong image of association that has been very unkindly developed of him.

This is a mean-spirited world, this blogosphere sometimes. Pretty small the way many who have called themselves Robert's friends have run for the hills at the flimsy accusations of his most obvious opponents.

I know Mr. Spencer. He did not "volunteer" for his line of work; it swept him up. He is learning about the faultlines of his work and deserves credit for doing so. His disassociation from those whom he been made aware have racist tendencies is a heartfelt move that he made because it was the right thing to do. He is not a politician with a team of handlers to steer him away from dangerous curves, he is a citizen who rose to the call of his freedoms to educate many and harm no one. He is a patriot, a scholar, a wonderful father and husband, and an admired member of his community. He is also a very decent man whom I have seen smile toward, and show compassion for, his fiercest opponents during personal encounters. He wishes ill on no one, even those who have publicly wished that his skull be smashed and his spine ripped out. In fact, I know he prays for them. He is no fascist, "neo" or otherwise.

Posted by: Charlemagne at September 13, 2008 9:43 AM

In my last posting above, the last line of my opening paragraph should read:

"Islam is open to criticism. Muslims are not open to bigotry."

Cut and paste anomaly.

Posted by: Charlemagne at September 13, 2008 9:54 AM

Today we have communications all over the place but somehow it is getting harder to get at the truth. This tells me that the search for truth is not in peoples minds today like it was years ago. This is a recipe for disaster which can result in history repeating itself both in Europe and the USA.

Posted by: Spot on at September 13, 2008 11:23 AM

For Infidel Pride,

Thanbks for that in depth response. Since you took on each issue raised, I guess now it's my turn.

"What would you rather prefer - Mohammedans in Mohammedan countries be allowed to prosper - a la KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, - and be at liberty to spread their religiously sanctioned hatred to our lands? You've been around long enough - have you missed all the discussions of how the internecine battles between Mohammedans is not going to end due to the very nature of Islam, which has always been about anything but compromise?

Outlawing muslim beliefs and categorizing muslims as a group may not be explicitely racist, but it still shares a lot of things with racism and nativism. That, along with the fact that not enought is being done to emohasize this is not about race, is why it shouldn't come as a surprise that the most significant supporters of this movement in Europe currently have racist and fascist leanings. Supporters of this movement will continue to draw their own conclusions about muslims and islam, but the movement still has it's original goals. Spencer himself has said over and over again that he is not "anit islam", does not hate muslims, does not hate islam as a religiona nd views if as a belief system that has positive and admirable elements along with negative and dangerous ones and has rejected the notion that muslims are monolith. Obviously, if you eprsonally believe ohterwise, that is perfectly understandable and justificable, but remember that enouraging those views is not the purpose of this resistance. Otherwise, we will continue to have highly questionable support for what is being done here.

Even though Hugh seems to have come up with this and can bat for himself, such a stand is easy to defend with a bit of thought. Just ask any critic of such 'Machiavelian' tactics how they view the fact that $562 billion had last year gone to the GCC countries alone, and how much of that might have gone to funding mosques and madrassas not just in places like Indonesia and Pakistan, but also in places like India, France, Germany and the US."

First off, when i say I don't want us to pressure muslims into suffering, that sure shouldn't mean somehow I want to go in the opposite direction. That is, I sure don't want economic aid to flow in islamic nations ever. The minimum requirements that should be needed for aid of any kind to muslim nations, monetary or otherwise, is that they permanently and explicitely renounce aggressive jihad, get rid of the Cairo declaration of human rights and sign the Universal Declaration that every other nation, western or non western, as signed and renounce the concept of dhimmitude permanently, treating non muslim minorities, minority sects of islam and in arab nations, non-arab muslim minorities as equals to muslims. Since most muslim nations aren't going to do thsi anytime soon, it follows that I support cancellation of amicable relations and development aid to most muslim nations, if not all of them as Hugh does.

And yes, I'm well aware of internal wars against muslims that do need to be encouraged both for our benefit and for those victimized by the islamic fundamentalism causing the conflicts. Hell, I have encouraged support for the Black Muslims of Darfur in their struggle against Arab Karthoum, and have siad it is morally unjustificable to rescue Southern Sudan while ignoring them becuase they're muslim. And have enocuraged support of internal revolts in Pakistan against dominance by muslim fanatics. Ditto Algeria and Indonesia. Yeah, I know that wars between Sunnis and Shias and between Arab/Arabized and non Arab muslims aren't going to end anytime soon, or ever.

When I say we shouldn't encourage furhter suffering of muslims, I'm talking about polciies deliberately structured to that end. I'm taking about, like said before, encouraging freedom for Southern Sudanese while ignoring civilians of Darfur and encouraging their repression because they're muslim. And you know you won't get Robert or even Hugh to support that. Or for example, preventing muslim nations like the Central Asain stans, Turkey Tunisia from becoming prosperous even in these unusual cases where the prosperity comes from their own inginuity and not from Western aid or oil money. Prosperous nations can of course become more dangerous than non prosperous ones, but in the case of Tunisia and Turkey, at least as long as the ruling classes can clamp down on hardliners, our security clearly is not endangered from them as it is from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paksitan, Qatar, UAE or others. We do need to encourage them to aggressively keep the status quo, but no reason to say they don't deserve to prosper. Same goes for the Stans-and I still don't buy that Kazakhstan is prosperous and stable only because of the non muslim population, or that newly democratic ones like Kyrgyzstan are anywhere near as dangerous as Pakistan or Egypt.

"On the occasion that such suggestions were made, the precedent on this - particularly in the case of the US - was pointed out. I dunno whether it's still there today, but in 1992, when I came, there were questions in the application form asking whether the applicant had been or was at the time a member of a Communist Party. Once it's clear that the political underpinnings of Islam are inseparable from its 'religious' composition, it's not difficult to make the case that the standard treatment of Islam as a religion should not apply here.

Oh, and there's also Benes Decree which Hugh has pointed out on numerous occasions, which was never criticized by anybody on either the Western or the Soviet side. Not to mention the very creation of the Pakistans (East & West), where millions of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee their homes in those territories, and comparitively fewer Mohammedans from India had to do so."

First off, I recall you said said earlier that in 1