When Opinions Collide…….

I must say that I am both disturbed by/and pleased for the debate that has arisen from the recent Counter-jihad conference, that took place in Brussels a week ago. The conference involved fifteen countries and a host of distinguished speakers from both Europe and the US and Canada. Charles Johnson from the Little Green Footballs blog site, raised a few notes of concern over the participation of a couple of nationalist groups, the Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats party.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs defended her position (both groups, while being nationalist, are not espousing racism and have made every effort to distance themselves from extremists and their views) and has since apologized for a remark –that she herself admits was unnecessary– in her exchanges with the author of the LGF blog.

Fjordman, someone whom I also admire and respect, has been getting a hard time from many at the LGF blog, for being “too arrogant” as well as being naive for participating in a conference that included representatives from both parties in question. I believe that he has defended his logic quite admirably. The folks at LGF who have thrown their support behind Charles, do so, because for the most part, they have already invested alot of capital in dismissing the conference. Some comments could be interpreted as just wanting to please Charles, in spite of the evidence.

Charles Johnson is not only a stalwart defender of western values and a friend of Israel, but is also a crucial player in the anti-jihad movement. No matter how much I disagree with his current position about the conference –I believe he is totally wrong– I do however believe that he has indeed the right to raise questions about the two parties that were present at the event. But it’s also true that there has been ample, credible evidence given on behalf of the VB as well as the SD. I see nothing at the moment, that will be crucial in changing Charles’ and his commentators’ opinions. The only thing that might change their opinions, will be the future good works by both the VB and SD, and that more than anything else, will prove one way or the other who was correct.

One thing is for sure, the ones who have the most invested in seeing both sides of the Counter-jihad movement tear each other apart, are the Left, the hard Left, the Islamists and the neo-nazis. These groups would like nothing better than to see those who are warning about the dangers that Islamofacism and the Islamization of Europe at odds with each other. The current war of words is ironically both foolish and necessary in order for all who are involved in the fight against Islamofascism and Islamization, to better understand who is who and what they stand for.

Paul Belien, from the Brussels Journal has offered his own personal take on the brouhaha, and as far as I’m concerned (Mr.Belien’s credentials are impeccable) offers a very credible defense for those the Left is more than willing to label ..”racists”, in order to stave off any kind of debate on open ended immigration from Muslim countries.

Esther from Islam in Europe also weighs in on the subject, which Charles posts on his LGF blog. She also raises some very valid concerns, and I for one, do not stand in judgement of her nor her opinions, though I believe that in the end, her fears will not be vindicated. Right wing parties with an “odious past”, who make every effort to distance themselves from that past, by backing up their words with actual deeds, deserve a fair hearing and a chance to prove themselves.

I find it highly hypocritical that the European Left is more than willing to believe Islamist supremacists like the Hamas and Hezbollah, who are NEVER expected to back up their claims of so called “moderation,” and are more than willing to do “business with them”. The Left treat the Islamist supremacists like the moderates that they are not, and never wanted to be. How many times have we seen the Left trumpet the “social welfare systems” of the Hamas and Hezbollah while turning a blind eye to their Jew hate, and their persecution of minorities?

I don’t want to hear anyone whine and apologize for them because they happen to be “third world religious racist supremacists” (supposedly that makes “everything fine and understandable”). Again, when a political party goes out on a limb and makes every assurances that they will show no tolerance for any intolerance shown towards the tolerant, then they must be heard, and given the benefit of the doubt. It’s only going to get more interesting as things develop.

Note: Pamela at Atlas Shrugs states that “Andrew Bostom was SPECIFICALLY requested by the organizers to speak about Antisemitism”. Dr.Bostom’s speech can be viewed here.

2 Responses

  1. Charles 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.