Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Winds of War: Eating Our Young

Our movement against the political ideology of Islam is a young one but we run the risk of eating our young and putting in motion what we saw in Europe 70 years ago. I’m referring to the current blog wars involving those organizations in Europe opposing the Islamification of the continent.

First a true story then some history.

Back when I was in college during the Vietnam war and a committed liberal who marched on campus, closed down streets in protest, and occupied the ROTC building, I participated in a city wide march against the war that led from the campus to the State House. When we arrived at the State House there were a number of speeches made about the war and its consequences. But I remember one quite clearly. A young woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt started to spew propaganda about Marxism. She was booed off the stage. We saw what she wanted to do. But the peace movement on our campus was not about to be co-opted by the communists.

Now some history.

If you are a follower of history like I am, you would be aware of the Hobson’s choice facing Europe in the 1930s. Though pretty much ignored by the Chamberlain appears at the time, Winston Churchill wrote about his unease he had over both communism and fascism – communism under Stalin in Russia and fascism under Hitler in Germany. Neither one was seen by Churchill as friendly to democracy and he wrote about both of these threats in the 1930s that were pretty much ignored. It was communism that Europe most feared – not fascism. In fact, many British intellectuals felt one with Hitler.

When WWII started, Churchill knew that the only way Hitler, the worse of two evils, could be defeated would be to side with and support communist Russia. Churchill hoped that at the end of the war, the Russian bear could be retrained and put back into its cage.

It couldn’t and World War II led to the Cold War.

This development wasn’t of Churchill or Roosevelt’s doing. It was the Chamberlain appeasers who eventually created the Cold War and have even reached into this century creating the problems we see in Europe today. By not stopping the Nazi threat in its tracks in 1938 when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, the Chamberlain appeasers set in motion a process that led to the Cold War and now the Islamification of Europe. If Hitler would have been stopped and as one of his generals said many years after the war that if he was, the military would have overthrown him, the West could have kept Stalin in his box and Eastern Europe would have been spared the yoke of communism.

The EU, with all its attendant problems, would most probably not been formed or even the need for it – but that’s just speculation.

The point I want to make is that we are in a similar situation in Europe as we were in the 1930s. Europe at this time is presented with a choice between two fascisms. Islamo-fascism and neo-fascism – both with its assault on human rights and support for ideological or ethnic supremacy. The EU, which was formed to prevent the type of ideological conflicts that caused two World Wars has sold out its human values in the pursuit of a socialist utopian fantasy. They are of little help in solving the fascist threats facing Europe today.

Robert Spencer clearly paints the current picture.

For years now Hugh Fitzgerald and I have written about the unfortunate fact that the European mainstream parties have completely failed to address the problem of European Islamization -- a problem that of course they have, in many cases, abetted. Hugh and I have both in many separate posts lamented that those mainstream parties have thus left the field open to neo-fascist and neo-Nazi parties, like the Holocaust-denying white supremacist BNP and Haider's party in Austria, and to noxious characters like LePen in France. Those types have in several European countries become the only ones addressing the issue of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

This is unfortunate for several reasons. It allows the European elites and the political and media mainstream to continue to marginalize the counterjihad resistance as simply racist reactionism, rather than a legitimate concern. So their own abdication and complicity are reinforced by the character of the reaction to it -- a logjam that only a new Churchill could break, and there is no such person on the horizon at this point.

The neofascist character of the anti-jihad parties in Europe also keeps many decent people from joining the counterjihad movement, when they otherwise would. This is the great weakness of the argument that, well, there is no one else fighting this fight, so we have to join forces with people we would otherwise regard with distaste: some people simply will not and will never do that, and it limits the power of the movement and its ability to grow.

Our nascent anti-Islamic movement is Europe’s only hope but it needs to thread very carefully as we build organizations and choose allies. Allies should be chosen not for what they are against but what they are for. Our young movement itself needs to form a consensus on some sort of manifesto that we all agree and sign on to. If not the dangers are too real.

First, the appeasers and apologists who believe our movement against political Islam is racist and Islamophobic will pounce on any form of our movement that shows the slightest bit of neo-fascism accusing us of the very thing we are fighting against.

If those who fight the Islamo-fascist do so under a neo-fascist banner, we should not be in the streets beside them and if they show up at our events, they should be shunned and not given a platform just as my personal expereince years ago. As I said before, our nascent movement should be for something not just against something.

We are a small movement that must become large and to that we need to pull together in one direction under an ideology that believes in human rights, universal values and a free democratic form of governance. Period.

If we don’t, we are helping the appeasers and apologists and in effect will be eating our young.

My .02 cents.

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.


  • Good luck finding a European group that will stand up to Islam that doesnt have some dubious ties.

    Though I believe that the "facists" in Europe story is being over played posibly by Islamic sympathizers/socialists in order to divide us and keep us weak. And its working

    By Blogger Elric66, at 7:32 AM  

  • WC,
    Excellent essay!

    In these recent blog wars, I've been tacitly and overtly accused of racism, fascism, and stupidity, even though I've been mostly asking questions and posing what-if's. This has been a rough few weeks--and not only for me.

    In every new period of history, we humans have the habit of assuming that our present situation is so very different from previous situations which led to terrible conflagrations and outcomes. Each time, we tell ourselves, "We won't let that happen again." But it DOES happen again!

    And speaking of Munich...The upcoming conference in Annapolis.

    Richard said, the "facists" in Europe story is being over played posibly by Islamic sympathizers/socialists in order to divide us and keep us weak. And its working

    I don't think that the divisions are necessarily being accomplished although I see some evidence of that on a personal level.

    And, yes, it is possible that the left is using labels to divide us.

    Now, if the division is successful, who's going to pick up the pieces?

    Nobody said that solving this conundrum is going to be easy. Defining a movement never is.

    By Blogger Always On Watch, at 1:22 PM  

  • I think that you are feeded mainly from the same MSM you attack for disinforming about islam and jihad.

    The real nazi and fascist, now and then are in the left. Many of the left icons in Italy was fascists supporter before and during the war. Then, when the war was lost, they changed their affiliations:
    Dario Fo (Nobel Prize), Giorgio Bocca, Eugenio Scalfari and many others. The excuse is the same: "they were young". This happened in all Europe (East and West).

    This is not a surprise, because they were national socialists before and become international socialists after.

    For sure, the liberals in USA would change their jacket as fast as them, if in need to keep their jobs and wealth.

    This is only a paper devil. And you are scared by a paper devil that someone showed before your face.

    By Blogger, at 1:26 PM  

  • First of all PainLord, the MSN covers little if anything that blogs like mine cover. If it did we would see a massive shift in awareness of the Islamo-fascist threat before us.

    Second, if you thins the Islamo-fascists are paper devils - the grow your beard now and get your significant other measured for a black bag head to toe.

    By Blogger WC, at 5:13 PM  

  • I do agree the socialists are a danger as well. This is a 2 front war. The socialists have made an alliance with jihad to destroy the West.

    By Blogger Elric66, at 4:29 AM  

  • Yes, this is a two-front war.

    I understand the concept of "going to war with the soldiers you have." I also understand the concept of "any port in a storm."

    And I understand how such strategies have worked out in the past. IMO, we have to use the historical record in order to know how to proceed now. So much is at stake!

    Now, maybe what we Americans think about the dire situation in Europe doesn't matter a hoot to Europeans, who are certainly under no obligation to justify their views to us. Furthermore, the history of any political party is littered with baggage.

    That said, why is it so "wrong" even to ask questions and to voice concerns? In those two areas, I've been harshly criticized (to say the least).

    Well, I'm no lemming. I make up my own mind. To any and all: Like that, or lump it.

    This morning, I found this article on the topic. Excerpt:

    The biggest single question is whether the conservative blogosphere can be blown apart with mutual accusations about smelly associations. That could destroy the blogs as a credible source of information in the coming US election. So this type of malignancy could spread, if we are not careful. If Brussels Journal is going to be discredited, so could all the other major blogs.


    So it may be sensible to ask conservatives elsewhere to prove their good intentions, just as we need to demand that the Democrats throw out their totalitarians. Maybe Paul Belien should clarify his position on these issues. Vlaams Belang should clean up its public image, and explicitly denounce suspicious characters. The political benefits of doing that are clear. It is also the right and proper thing to do.

    One of the bones we pick with various groups is that they don't explicitly condemn individuals and even the groups' own past. Is it too much to ask that transparency from all groups? I don't think so.

    By Blogger Always On Watch, at 5:45 AM  

  • WC,
    Excellent essay.

    It is my opinion that those who would side with fascists in this war ARE NOT CLEAR WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

    I'm in agreement with you. If we don't know what we are standing for, then we will not win this war.

    The Republican Party, which was formed in 1854 to combat Southern Slave Expansionism, managed to get Lincoln elected and win the Civil War and eliminate slavery BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KNEW WHAT IT STOOD FOR.

    Sadly, too many of our friends know what they stand against, and they do not know what they stand for.

    By Blogger Pastorius, at 6:47 AM  

  • Sorry I was not clear in my writing.
    Islamists and leftists are not a paper devil, but the "fascists groups" you talk about are paper devils.
    Today, now, in my country and in all Europe, the chance to be attacked by a real Nazi or a real fascist are tiny. It is more probable to be attacked by a lion. Much more dangerous are the leftists and the islamists.
    The MSM usually place the fascist label on everything go against the leftist ideas or interest of the day.

    The "Lega Nord" was called so, when governed with the first Berlusconi (1994); they the PDS secretary (communist party renamed, they changed name 3-4 times in ten years) called it "a rib of the left" when they walked off the alliance with Berlusconi; then they returned "fascist" when they allied again with Berlusconi.
    Alleanza Nazionale (past fascist) cleaned their act, take big steps to distance from their past and the old ideology. But it is never enough for the MSM and the left. And it will never be enough.

    By Blogger, at 12:16 PM  

  • OK. Gottcha. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I don't claim to know a lot about European politics except from what I read on this side of the pond and the exchange students we have but many anti-Islamist writers in the blogosphere fear that Europe may well again be forced into siding with the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'. If that happens, it's 1930s all over again.

    By Blogger WC, at 12:56 PM  

  • WC,

    They might not have a choice. Though I dont know how facsists the Euro facsists really are. IMO its been blown out of porportion. Perhaps to divide the populous so they feel they will be branded a racist or even a Nazi if they join forces.

    By Blogger Elric66, at 4:51 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger magnus, at 9:51 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger magnus, at 11:41 PM  

  • This is a quite odd and long detailed comment. I'm not sure anyone gonna read it, so I think I post it! Took me hours to think and write this in English. I'm sorry if I'm not fair somewhere. Please, speak out!

    WC: "Europe may well again be forced into siding with the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'."

    I think you got it all wrong, WC. The enemy of the fascists and Nazis isn't Islam and vice versa. The Nazis are pro-Islam. I’ll now answer your post and “think loudly” about different perspectives as well.


    You didn’t mention SD or VB here, but I understand that this, and the opposition to cooperation with them, is what ultimately has caused this blog post, so therefore I begin with something about the SD (those with “wrong” opinions has been stopped to comment on the site which had the accusations):

    The organization Expo gave LGF the info on SD (exaggerated by Charles). Expo recently charged every anti-Jihad blog to be responsible for racist violence. You can see this between 15:15 and the end of this Swedish TV4 news clip. (In the clip a former politician in the Christian conservative party Kristdemokraterna also explain that it‘s impossible to be active in a party and also in anti-Islamisation tasks.) Expo also released a book with a chapter written by Swedish Antifascistisk Action (AFA), a violent far left organization with secret members smashing international G8 meetings and SD:s political meetings and lots of other violent activities. The AFA participation was criticized by a left journalist here. (That journalist has wrongly described SD as fascists but criticize that Expo invited AFA.)

    LGF did a mistake, and the Swedish translator Charles used, "Truumax" (LGF-link), was asked by Fjordman if reducing immigration is okay to label racism. According to Fjordman Truumax answered that it should "very much [...] be considered racism" (GoV-link). This isn’t surprice to me. Non-regulated free immigration is for some right-liberals an absolute ideal, and thus the opposite is evil. But I think that is an irrelevant fight in the anti-Jihad war. Let Fjordman be critical to a yearly 1 percent immigration influx to Sweden and Norway, even if you disagree on his critics on mass immigration.


    Immigration criticism is odd in many European countries, just as Islam isn’t discussed, and in these countries you are easily labeled racist (or even Nazi) by e.g. some right-liberals. I hope right-liberals in the anti-Islamisation movement are doing relevant things.

    Of course there are real fascism and Nazism in Europe, but it isn't that big. (E.g. eastern Germany, which have had an enormous influx of Turkish Muslims, has seen a growing neo-Nazi party. NDP still a small party though, but 9 percent in Saxony. National Front (NF) in France isn't Nazi and although they have some semi-fascists they are probably mainly an anti-immigration and a pro-democracy party, now declining due to the anti-Immigration policy and success of Sarkozy. I don’t think NF is something to cooperate with, but not the successful fascist future of Europe either! Btw: If e.g. Jörg Haiders party in Austria grows, maybe it gets less radical? Of course fascist and neo-Nazi parties never will get better!)

    So right now I don’t think there is any imminent fascist threat in Europe other than Islamisation. Should the establishment discuss to ban criticism on Islam, that’s a democracy threat of course (but a tendency I think we already can see).

    In this post you don't explicitly mention your point of view on VB and SD participation in the anti-Islamisation fight. You advice us to focus on the similarities with an old fight against fascism and Nazism. The importance of attract mainstream allies (I tell you: now relatively pro-Islamic mainstream parties in Europe) to the anti-Islamisation movement seems to be your theme. I guess that your advice implies avoidance of VB and SD, but in my opinion that would be a strategic mistake.

    We will never know if mainstream parties going to have the courage enough to participate in anti-Islamisation activities. I'm pretty sure they wont. My doubt is also based on the numbers of Muslims in Europe politicians have to attract, and of course many parties are also pro-Islamists. The non-socialist government in Sweden is giving huge benefits and calls for a dialogue with Hamas -- they try to continue the pro-Hamas-policy of the former Social Democrat government.

    In Belgium Dewinter was on trial for the statement that he wasn’t a Xenophobe but an Islamophobe. Will the anti-Islamisation movement defend Dewinter as Robert Spencer would have been defended if he was on trial for that statement? Some claims that VB cooperated with the Nazis, but they was afraid of the communism of Soviet too. Remember that all non-socialist parties in Finland and the Baltic states cooperated with Germany during the WWII. Is it okay to exclude them too? *History* makes the leftist media propaganda against VB, delivered by Charles, completely wrong. Only if we refuse to simplify and look at the full picture we can decide what is propaganda and what is not. We shall not fool ourselves to think that tendencies in politics today are the repetition of politics in the 30s, and then project political characters of the 30s on arbitrary chosen parties of today (VB, SD etc.).

    During a European Islamisation, can we expect mainstream parties, responsible for the development, to line up in support for the anti-Islamisation efforts? In Brussels the anti-Islamisation demonstration 11 September was banned, but the authorities allowed an Islamic demonstration on the day of the Islamistic atrocity against NY. Why don't LGF reports that, or why don’t they report about the recently wounded (almost killed one) Danish protesters from SIAD in Denmark? SIAD-link.

    You Americans should get informed to understand the European situation. If you don’t, your ability to fight Islamisation might not be optimal; an American Islamisation at full speed right now. Here in Europe those who accept there is an Islamisation problem (Paul Belien, VB, SD and others) think that the worst thing that can happen is that America lose this battle. That it would be a more serious thing than if Europe lose, although we fight in Europe.


    The suggested manifesto, in order to exclude fascists and Nazis (which btw actually are socialists) from the movement, I'm not sure that it’s a good idea -- or good enough. It may just serve the means of fascists. A signature on a bit of paper is no guarantee. Let’s say British BNP -- or a “moderate” Islamic group(?!) -- may very well sign pretty words in order to enter the movement. Why not put trust in leaders of the movement? They have to do a good research of course, and maybe it can be done according to a manifesto of rules. But it’s okay if they sign too of course.

    What about implicit non signed commitments by active participants to not repeatedly accuse others in the movement without some investigation as well as give others a chance to reply for those accused. (There maybe have to be rules for the exclusion too? Absolute majority, consensus, or something -- ...majority/consensus of whom? Beware the bureaucracy...) If those who accuses continuing their accusations after they are found to be groundless, I think there shall be possibilities to at least exclude them from influence in the movement. Rules without consequences isn‘t really rules. (But exclusion maybe is automatic; self-imposed. If so no rules are needed?)

    Probably some things can be solved spontaniously too, through good will and excuses, or through the lack of support for those who have a false accusation or overreact. (I'm not even sure it's the right thing to once more mention the problem here, instead of let it vanish in silence, but this blog post touched the issue, so...)


    Another thought:

    As the Islamisation moves on, I think that there is many heroes among ordinary people in our societies, but who may not attend an anti-Islamisation movement. Maybe because they belong to parties which don’t accept the thought there’s a threat from radical Islam. The importance of the movement therefore may not be dependent on the attraction of parties, and its role might be to inform and showing courage and that way achieve changes? A good example on a brave ordinary people, though without much success Paul Belien described in an op-ed published in Washington Times, here at BJ.


    Thoughts on leadership:

    Just as we can’t believe this war is equal to the last world war, which ended 63 years ago, I don’t think we can expect leaders of this war to be a Winston Churchill (btw: who should be expected to fight an old war if not a blogger calling himself Winston Churchill ;-) ). Wasn’t Pim Fortuyn an unexpected character to be an anti-Islamisation leader (he was also accused to be a racist and a Nazi by the media and right-liberals). I guess not many expected Churchill to be the great leader either, before he became that.

    Here we touch a principle for all wars, the uncertainties if there is a war as well as what the war is about; how it will be described in retrospect. How can we be sure of about the uncertain -- what the war is about? E.g. some people say that most Muslims are moderate and the Islamic threat just phony idea. Even Mohammed dog-creator Lars Vilks say that most Muslims are peaceful democrats (in certain ways I‘m also think that; but a Turkish democracy isn’t my ideal) and that therefore Islam isn’t a long term threat. On the other hand e.g. Robert Spencer thinks Islam is along term threat, and is -- I guess -- more suspicious towards moderate Muslims. But which one is right? A leader has to understand the situation, give answers that convince people, and explain what has to be done. (Here I think Paul Belien do give an explanation of what is happening that Americans, afraid of the old war (which isn’t the struggle of our times), shall listen to! Here some days ago at Atlas (stop sound and click blue button “play”).) I believe we can see signs that Islam as religion is a threat to the Western civilization, and other parts of the world too. I don‘t think we shall (or have to) put trust in small organizations who call themselves "Muslims against sharia", or "Secular Muslims". I can’t see them condemn mainstream Islam (=sharia). But actually many who are against “Islamists” or “radical Islam” condemn those who are simply against Islam. So is there a legitimate war on *Islam* or isn‘t it? As long as there is no consensus that question would be regarded as unanswered. Those who’s going to fight Islam don’t need that consensus and objective answer, but has to be convinced (by facts) that one must fight Islam.

    (If anyone don’t see why the division between Islamists and radical Islam on the one hand, and only Islam on the other is important: Because there is different views of what has to be stopped in order to stop Islamisation; Both views on what is needed can’t be correct, and therefore fighters with wrong view is likely lose the battle. In actual politics this is probably the difference between a stop of Muslim immigration or not as well as the use of repatriation or not )

    (Or does someone doubt that Islam necessarily is an enemy, and believe instead that there is a chance that Islam transforms, as -- for example -- Gilles Kepel admittedly against bad odds hope it will? Doubt is not bad if there is good reasons for it, and I hope every day I will get this good reasons.)


    I think that Fjordman has been criticized on LGF as racist. (Now he’s blocked and can’t defend himself, and I think this, among many similar incidents, disqualifying the site.) I think that Fjordman’s texts a bit too often repeats crime rates of immigrants, especially rape crimes. That alone must be considered an anti-immigration fight rather than an anti-Islamisation fight. (I’m however quite alone to think that Fjordman do this too much.) But something happens in the European society which hasn’t occurred in US yet. (You may have “90-percent-Mexican-immigrants-areas“, but not plenty of “95-percent-immigrants-Muslim-majority-areas“.) The influx of people from Muslim countries to Sweden every year is 35000 to 40000 persons. This, together with a higher birth rate among the 470 000 Muslims in Sweden (5 percent of the population Muslims), gives an addition of about 0.5 percent Muslims each year. The influx is from Northern Africa, Middle-east and the Arabic countries (and some of these immigrants are actually the reason to an explosive increase in rape crimes!). One must not naively think that imposed Islamic law is the only important thing and immigration is irrelevant. To be against immigration is, as I mentioned above, according to LGF member Truumax (who translated the Expo text for LGF) to be considered as racism -- which is a stupid and but common view in Sweden.

    For what I’ve write here about Islam I may in Sweden be accused of Islamophobia (and maybe racism or even Nazi collaboration). I wouldn’t be surprised if I sometimes get charged for hate crime. That will exclude me from participation in mainstream politics and from jobs.

    Time will tell what is the real fight, but don’t attack anti-Islamisation fellows without good research,(and good research isn’t a blind belief in material from leftists or others).


    Thoughts on political ideologies:

    I don’t think that the anti-Islamisation movement can take a stand for a liberal or conservative ideology. Of course we must all be for freedom and democracy and against racism, and both conservatives and liberals are, if one isn‘t too narrow minded about the concept of freedom in relation to e.g. HBT-marriage and -adoption, or other such particular political issues. I guess that Paul at Brussels Journal believe homosexual marriage or international adoption is wrong (I do too), but of course he accepts homosexual partnership and accept any adoption law. Bloggers with different, more liberal, opinions on such issues shall not attack conservatives for non-liberal views. That would be to focus on completely other things than Islamisation and weakens the main fight. Of course racism isn’t acceptable, but some people has mixed up opposition against mass immigration with racism.

    (I see that one blogger at Infidel Blogger Allianace in a comment on the Center for Vigilant Freedom rhetorically asks: “Does the Center for Vigilant Freedom stand for the freedom of all individuals to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” I wonder which freedom that is included in the question? At least not homo-marriage or the existence of democracy since the article was about a slight change in National Fronts (NF) politics towards Jews with an explicit distancing towards NF.)

    Americans too loves their land -- America -- and (I ask rhetorically) isn’t this a sound nationalism?! I’m think the American LGF guys would be a little bit worried if about a 1,2 million Arabic/African Muslims immigrated to US every year. That’s corresponding to the Swedish Muslim immigration -- and has something to do with Islamisation too.


    Let’s wish ourselves a happy continuation with successes on the relevant and real battle field.


    PS. A last thing. You write about Chuchill’s unease on communism. Do you know that the non-socialist government in Sweden has secured economical benifits for Hamas and strive for a dialogue with Hamas as equal part in peace negotiations? Do you know that they continue the Middle East politics of the former Socialdemocrat-Greenparty-Leftparty(former communist)-majority in the Swedish parliament? On LGF there is comments that fascism in Europe -- the Sverigedemokraterna (SD) I suppose they mean -- is pro-Hamas, but actually SD is a pro-Semitic party that oppose the pro-Hamas politics of the right-liberal Swedish party Moderaterna (the largest non-socialist party). So who are "the communists" of our time? It's a myth that all mainstream Social Democrats or non-socialist parties in Europe are allied against Hamas or pro-Israel. LGF's allied against Hamas is actually SD. Since your blog post probably exists because of the discussion recently I think it was important I explain this too. Lets be informed and fight the real enemy. DS.

    By Blogger magnus, at 12:50 AM  

  • Magnus,

    A well thought out essay. I have to say this war is entirely different than WW 2. The question will come down to, will we be willing to get our hands dirty or accept Islam as our future?

    By Blogger Elric66, at 4:32 AM  

  • Here is a category link to our recent articles about the decline and fall of LGF. Charles Johnson and his followers associated with LGF are stubbornly ignoring real Nazis, while doing their worst to smear anybody who actually is confronting expansionist Islam in a responsible way. For all intents and purposes, they are helping the jihadist enemy.

    By Blogger 1389, at 4:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home