Charles (LGF proprietor) is raising a valid point. It is not beneficial for the anti-jihad movement to have white supremacists in their midst. Having them will, in the long run, undermine the credibility of our message.
There is, however, another side of this story. If ideological purity is something that is desired, then so be it. This will, however, mean that many good people will be excluded. Those that have in the past expressed anti-semitic and/or white supremacist views will have to be excommunicated and their views denounced, even though they have come to their senses and realized that their past views no longer represent what they believe in.
What people like Charles must understand is the fact that European nationalism is very different from American patriotism, which is based on a political idea expressed in the US constitution. European nationalism is based on ethnic identity and /or language, not on the idea of freedom as such.
If this distinction is not appreciated, then I think Charles and his ilk will never understand European nationalism and its foundation. This will hurt the cause of anti-jihad in the long run.
Update: Vasarahammer continues…..
I would like to continue a bit about this subject.
It is not the fault of Vlaams Belang or Swedish Democrats that the electorate in Belgium and Sweden have no other option to express their dissatisfaction with the immigration policy.
In Sweden, Swedish Democrats are the only option for the voter to vote against suicidal immigration policy that has caused so many problems in Sweden. None of the so called liberal or conservative parties have expressed any concern about immigration and the costs that it involves for the Swedish taxpayer.
I am not so familiar with the situation in Belgium, but I’m fairly confident that the problems are basically the same.As far as I understand Swedish Democrats have cleaned up their act and tried to distance themselves from the neo-nazi elements. At the same time, the mainstream media does its best to label the party with the traditional accusations of racism and xenophobia.
If the political system worked as it should, the traditional parties would adjust their policy to accommodate the supporters of Swedish Democrats so that the new party would not have a leg to stand on. However, this is not happening and the reason for this should be self-evident for an impartial observer.
And then comes an American neoconservative who has advocated anti-jihad in his blog for quite some time, but who still wants to follow the rules of political correctness. By doing this, the American blogger may prove his PC credentials and retain his respectability but, at the same time, he deals a blow to those who are willing to fight against islamization of Europe.
The least the American could do would be to familiarize himself with the political realities of Europe and the European nations and how they have defined themselves.
By doing this, he would, perhaps, understand the concept of European nation state and how it differs from the US. There is no concept of ‘melting pot’ here. Immigration is a new phenomenon forced upon us by our political elite without the consent of the electorate. Then he should consider the options that an average European has if he wants to express his views on immigration policy.
Neo-nazis are a fringe element in Europe, who have no real political influence anywhere. If they attach themselves to a political party like Vlaams Belang or Swedish Democrats, they only do so, because they have no other choice.It is reasonable to assume that there are a lot more white supremacists and hard core nazis in the US than in Europe. Nazism was defeated and discredited. Collaboration with Nazis took place and it happened mostly because of necessity and survival, which, of course, does not make it something to be proud of.
The concept of race as it is understood in the US does not resonate in Europe. Ethnic identity, religion, language, King and such are much more important in defining the identity compared to race.And finally, combatting against jihadists and pandering to political correctness at the same time do not mix very well together. You have to ditch either of those if you want to remain credible.
I would like to continue a bit about this subject.
It is not the fault of Vlaams Belang or Swedish Democrats that the electorate in Belgium and Sweden have no other option to express their dissatisfaction with the immigration policy.
In Sweden, Swedish Democrats are the only option for the voter to vote against suicidal immigration policy that has caused so many problems in Sweden. None of the so called liberal or conservative parties have expressed any concern about immigration and the costs that it involves for the Swedish taxpayer.
I am not so familiar with the situation in Belgium, but I’m fairly confident that the problems are basically the same.
As far as I understand Swedish Democrats have cleaned up their act and tried to distance themselves from the neo-nazi elements. At the same time, the mainstream media does its best to label the party with the traditional accusations of racism and xenophobia. If the political system worked as it should, the traditional parties would adjust their policy to accommodate the supporters of Swedish Democrats so that the new party would not have a leg to stand on. However, this is not happening and the reason for this should be self-evident for an impartial observer.
And then comes an American neoconservative who has advocated anti-jihad in his blog for quite some time, but who still wants to follow the rules of political correctness. By doing this, the American blogger may prove his PC credentials and retain his respectability but, at the same time, he deals a blow to those who are willing to fight against islamization of Europe.
The least the American could do would be to familiarize himself with the political realities of Europe and the European nations and how they have defined themselves. By doing this, he would, perhaps, understand the concept of European nation state and how it differs from the US. There is no concept of ‘melting pot’ here. Immigration is a new phenomenon forced upon us by our political elite without the consent of the electorate. Then he should consider the options that an average European has if he wants to express his views on immigration policy.
Neo-nazis are a fringe element in Europe, who have no real political influence anywhere. If they attach themselves to a political party like Vlaams Belang or Swedish Democrats, they only do so, because they have no other choice.
It is reasonable to assume that there are a lot more white supremacists and hard core nazis in the US than in Europe. Nazism was defeated and discredited. Collaboration with Nazis took place and it happened mostly because of necessity and survival, which, of course, does not make it something to be proud of.
The concept of race as it is understood in the US does not resonate in Europe. Ethnic identity, religion, language, King and such are much more important in defining the identity compared to race.
And finally, combatting against jihadists and pandering to political correctness at the same time do not mix very well together. You have to ditch either of those if you want to remain credible.