Another Salient Observation
For all of those god-like, anti-(white)racist, pure-as-the-driven-snow, computer warriors out there, Thomas the Wraith makes some rather startling observations you might want to consider before you attack Vlaams Belang and other groups with all your (puny) manhood:
Let no one think that I in any way associate with Holocaust deniers or Jew-haters. I’ve been to Auschwitz and Yad Vashem. I’m a member of the US Holocaust Museum. I worked on a kibbutz one summer in the mid-90s. If anything I’m philo-Semitic.By all means let’s do as the neo-cons say and not associate with anti-American Jew-haters, conspiracy theorists and those who advocate ethnic separatism. Let's not deal with religious bigots. Let’s shun them, lock them out of our dialog, scorn them, and heap insults upon them. Except that we don’t. Except that neo-con hero George W Bush is in bed with bigots, racists and ethnic separatists. Except that we work with these people every day. Except that we in the US and Europe are already up to our necks in these people. Look at our allies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey. neo-cons don’t want to let leaders of European neo-nationalist parties speak at our universities but we let the Saudi’s endow chairs, sponsor “student” organizations, propagate hate literature, spread the vilest Jew-hatred and the crudest conspiracies. The neo-cons piss all over the BNP and the VB, who may be terrible organizations run by monstrous people, but please don’t tell me they are worse than the Saudis. King Abdullah met the Queen for Christ’s sake. The Queen, Defender of the Faith, the (nominal) head of the Anglican Communion! Yet by law there cannot be a bible or a church in Arabia. Or Egypt. The US sends the Mubarak regime billions every year so they can produce a 17-part TV series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But to the neo-cons it’s the European nationalists who are so villainous that we cannot even speak with them, cannot even engage them in dialog. The neo-cons put W on a pedestal but he won’t address the issue of our enemy-allies beyond a few vague speeches and some platitudes about “freedom”. Meanwhile he quite literally holds hands with the Saudi king. This is absurd on its face.
The neo-cons say that European nationalists are as bad as the Islamists. That may or may not be true but if we think it is then we should treat them as we treat the Islamists. We should let the VB sponsor a chair in Flemish studies at Yale and the BNP a chair in the history of English Culture at Columbia. We should hold public festivals honoring neo-nationalist heroes. Bush should stand on the White House lawn and say publicly “Nationalism Means Peace.”
Rice is right now this very moment in talks with the PLO. The PLO! These are not just Jew-haters and nationalists. These are not just religious bigots and Arab supremacist. These are actual murderers. With blood on their hands, Jewish blood and American blood. Yet the Swedish Democrats are too bad for us to talk to. Ha!
The Turks suppress the Kurdish language and ethnicity and repress the Orthodox Church, refusing to allow seminary expansion and holding the Patriarchs virtually hostage. Yet this is an NATO ally. The Egyptians oppress the Copts as a matter of state policy yet the US sends them billions and Bush, the neo-cons hero, continues to certify Egypt as an ally in good standing. But the largest party in Flanders is too fascists for some pencil-neck bloggers to stomach. Please!
According to the ninny neo-cons we cannot associate with parties that espouse ethnic separatism. We shouldn’t talk about deportation of ethnic groups. "This is wrong, wrong, wrong", they say. Yet it’s US policy in the “West Bank” where we openly advocate removing Jews from their homes and separating Jews from Arabs. This is official policy regarding Serbia where the US advocates splitting Kosovo from sovereign Serbia, knowing that the Albanians will use their new “freedom” to purge the Serbs from their “independent” state. Ethnic separatism is the official Senate position in Iraq. But when the nationalists advocate this for their homelands in Europe suddenly they are nazis.
What the neo-cons are really saying is that you can be a nationalist, a religious bigot, a Jew-hater, and/or a conspiracy theorist. You can be an ethnic separatist. You can suppress minority religions or languages. You can even be an actual murderer as long as you aren’t white, European or Christian. Then you are beyond the pale. Then we cannot speak to you. Then we can’t engage with you in any way.
Look, I’m not defending any European neo-nationalist group. As an American I don’t know enough about the domestic context of European nations to be a competent judge. But I wretch and gag on my own vomit when the neo-cons say that we, as conservatives, as decent upstanding, moral people cannot even speak with these groups, cannot be stained by their "racism" while at the same time we talk, trade, pay, support, and praise people who are far, far worse. The inconsistency, the rank hypocrisy, the ignorance nauseate me.
PRCalDude
Now Brussel's Journal is 'repugnant, according to Charles Johson. If any of you still go to that website, make up your own minds on whatever you read, as Joseph had advocated there. Sadly, no one agreed with him.
17 Comments
Reader Comments (17)
We really want to believe that the U.S. will play a major role in the end times. But I'm not so sure. This is a great example that we are making ourselves irrelevant in the course of world events.
So, I read this little post this morning. Gotta say, THAT doesn't look good, but I wasn't satisfied, so I checked out the site myself. The more you read, the worse it gets. Someone should have Mr. DeWinter take a look and get his reaction on video.
If he's what he claims, he won't like having his name there, or having sleaze like David Duke nod approvingly at him. Go check out Political Cesspool - just bring the hip waders.
David Duke is a raving anti-semite who sees Jewish conspiracy theories under every rock and behind every tree. But look at who also appeared on the show:
Gordon Lee Baum, Esq., Peter Brimelow, Filip DeWinter, Dr. David Duke, Paul Fromm, Peter Gemma, Joel LeFevre, Dr. Wayne Lutton, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Michael Peroutka, Rev. Ted Pike, Larry Pratt, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Kyle Rogers, Dr. Tomislav Sunic, Jared Taylor and Frosty Wooldridge.
Peter Brimelow is very mild. Jared Taylor is a white racialist, but he's not an antisemite, Paul Craig Roberts is a Troofer type, but not racist or antisemitic (he writes for VDARE, as does Brimelow). I'm sure there are some anti-semites amongst the rest of these people.
But is VB somehow supposed to know who to associate with across the Atlantic? You inevitably run across the problem that anyone who wants to stick up for white people is going to be praised by David Duke and other unsavory characters. But a middle road must still be found, and that shouldn't prevent us from trying to steer groups like VB and the BNP in the right direction.
Charles is using a tactic often employed by the Left known as 'guilt by association.' It works very well. Someone needs to tell VB and these groups not to talk to Stormfront and David Duke. But it doesn't look like Charles Johnson has. Instead, he immediately worked to save his own site and reputation. That much should be obvious.
Check out this paragraph from LGF:
For the C of CC site, Johnson references an ADL page, which is replete with condemnation of white racists and antisemites, but has only one page condemning the Black Panthers, and none that addresses the rampant anti-semitism found in the 'Aztlan' movement, which I will cover in part III. Why do only white people get condemned? What about Al "Hymietown" Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, or La Raza? You would not believe the volume of references I've seen on Latino websites condemning "Zionists." We all know what that's a code-word for, don't we?
Ron Paul is liked by a lot of these same people. Though he is weird and probably has a Trutheresque quality to him, he did say he believed AQ attacked us and I don't think he's an anti-semite just because he wants a (naive) policy of non-intervention in the middle east. That doesn't make him a 'white supremacist' or an 'antisemite.'
There's no way around the fact that European people are white, and if they want to stick up for their ethnic group, they're going to be thought highly of by David Duke. There's just no way around it. How is a middle ground to be found if every European group is immediately lumped into 'teh NAZI!11!!!!11' category?
Let's urge VB and the BNP to stay away from Stormfront and David Duke, but let's not write them off wholesale. They can't know everything from across the Atlantic.
Joseph,
Take a look at what Chicano studies majors and MECHistas are saying about us and the 'filthy Zionist jews' around the U.S. Since our side has suppressed all debate on the issues of race and nationhood, I guess we can look forward to more of this.
Look at this.
Here they are claiming there's 40,000,000 illegals in the United States, and calling for the ICE to be 'taken out:'
Funny, that's a lot higher than the government's number.
Let us all keep flagellating ourselves and ignoring the elephant in the room.
Darn, I missed it the "Art in Rebellion" thing downtown.
Here's the Brown Berets' page.
I found this all in 2 seconds without any effort at all. Compared to Mexican supremacism, white supremacism is a drop in the bucket.
if you look at what Ron Paul has said about Israel and anything Israel related, first its easy to see why neo-nazi's love him. But, he is so wrong its amazing. To me he either is very very stupid and ignorant on the subject or there is something to the anti-semite label being put on him. Only he can clear it up, and if he ever does, he'd lose a huge chunk of rapid support.
Michael Medved wrote an open letter to him last week on this issue, I know LGF posted it...but in it he only pointed out one connection
I went to Sac State - so I know ALL about MeCHA (large and vocal campus presence). Sleezeballs all, I can assure you. Still, that's basically unrelated to this issue. What we must examine is the veracity of the ADL's claims. The presence or absence of condmenations of other groups has no logical connection to the truth or untruth of the information they present. Of course, even handed criticism would be desirable, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find an organization capable of that. I will grant you that white racism is far more abhorred in modern culture than racism that springs from other ethnicities, which I've often felt was unjust. I think someone like LaShawn Barber would agree.
Anyway, as for VB and who they've talked to, I'd assume that major political parties might have the presence of mind to Google who they talk to, but perhaps that's a bit much to ask. I get the whole language differences/busy schedule thing. Still, it would be informative for Mr. DeWinter to give us his opinion on that organization and those people that organization seems to link approvingly. Perhaps it would serve to grant us insight into how his mind works.
In any event, I have objections and reservations to much of the show's staff from reading their bios. One of them is part of C of CC's ruling board. Icky, to be sure.
Now, regarding "sticking up for their ethnic group." It's one thing to defend yourself, your family, your nation, and your way of life. It's another entirely to attempt to separate enemies and allies out by skin tone alone. The latter is what is suspected of VB and Sweden Democrats (henceforth SD). Partially because their rhetoric relies so heavily on terms like "white" and partially because of what may be their constituency.
A leader is defined as someone who has followers, yes? Do not the followers, in aggregate, say something about the ideas of the leader? If there really, truly is widespread, unqualified support for VB and SD among fringe racist groups, and VB and SD do not reject and repudiate that support, does that not pose a problem?
Often we deride liberal politicians for not disavowing the truly loony conspiracy driven left because, in truth, those loonies are their primary constituents. Could it not be the same here?
I'll grant you that we don't have uncontested and openly objectionable statements from said parties, but there certainly seem to be an alarming number of connections. Those connections are not recently formed, and do not appear to be completely casual or unsubstantial in nature, at least according to my perusings.
PS. Perhaps if you searched in a language other than English, you might find more stuff from white supremacists. Use their keywords and perhaps translate them here.
LaShawn Barber and Larry Elder do a better job sticking up for us than we do.
Aside from that, the ADL has not even made a show of identifying other forms of anti-semitism, though they are far more widespread and open. We complain about the media bias revealing their ulterior motives, why can't we do the same here?
Let's look at the C of CC's statement on race:
Here they've merely mentioned defending the traditional demographic make up of the United States on the basis of kinship with Europe and its culture. There are some questionable statements in there, but not enough that it's not worth talking to them. Why don't we find out if they're raving Jew-haters? I want troops on the border also. I want the illegals kicked out and much less Mexican immigration, because they haven't been good guests. Until 1965, every immigration law allowed only Europeans to immigrate here. Say what you want about that, but the debate on the 1965 immigration act was done behind close doors just as the current amnesty act was, and we were told at that time by Ted Kennedy that the bill would "not measurably alter the ethnic composition of the United States" or words to that effect. I'm actually fine with bringing in other immigrant groups, as long as it's in a slow, controlled manner that doesn't cause balkanization and ethnic strife. For the past 30 years, we definitely haven't had that in California. So on it's face, there's not much about this statement that would cause me to label them a race-hate group, a Nazi group, or anything like that as the ADL has done.
Look at what the ADL says about them:
To remove the leftist language of "hard right positions" from the statement, the C of CC believes you should be allowed to own whatever guns you want per the 2A, they want to end affirmative action, and they want to end "massive immigration from the third world." I can't disagree with them there. Forcing peoples to live together who don't like one another, as the Soviet Union did with Yugoslavia, didn't work out too well either. While I'm certainly not advocating violence, a good portion of the Mexican yaktivists are. You saw their pages. If we continue to have two nations living in one like we do now, I don't think we're going to avoid it, especially if the economy turns south.
Other than that, the ADL is bringing up events from the fifties and sixties, but even there acknowledges that the parent organization used political and economic pressure to achieve what they wanted, not violence like the KKK. So I have to dub the ADL's take to be a left wing, guilt by association argument.
Lawrence Auster's whole take on CJ's position on the whole matter basically summarizes mine.
That entire interview I listened to the other night emphasized the culture of the immigrants they wanted out, namely the Muslims. Even if they did strictly do it on a racial basis, they would still be kicking out the Muslims. There are precious few non-Muslims amongst these immigrants there, and they've been raising hell and not assimilating.
Yes, the followers say something about the leader. However you used the word 'fringe', indicating a minority. Are the 25% support they have amongst the Flemish indicative of the fact that 25% of the Flemish are Nazis? Of course not.
We get worried because, yes, the loony left is actually the mainstream. This is largely why we saw such a demographic shift amongst white lower class males to the Republican party not too long ago. But are the Nazis the majority of the support for the VB? That's what we first have to establish. If you go onto GoV, you'll see some of the responses to CJ's charges in Fjordman's latest post. Why would VB go out of it's way to hold a conference that discussed antisemitism when only 1% of the voters in that country are Jewish? It doesn't make sense to do if they're just trying to capture more votes. It would also piss off their constituency if the majority of it were Nazis.
To me he either is very very stupid and ignorant on the subject or there is something to the anti-semite label being put on him.
It seems to me that he views support of Israel though the very narrow lens of economic libertarianism. If you read about his comments about Israel he always focuses on what he sees as the irrationality of supplying money to a successful country. Unlike almost every other anti-Israel person on the planet he barely mentions the Palestinians (as far as I know he never has, please correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I can tell Paul is not an anti-semite.
Part of this confusion is a language translation problem.
Just because VB and SD use the word "white" in context of their constituence does not automatically mean the same thing as using the word "white" here in the U.S.
In their world it really is about White Christians against Brown Middle Eastern Muslims, because in their nation there are for all intents and purposes no White Muslims and no Brown Middle Eastern Christians.
This argument doesn't play out here in America because of our diverse population crossing ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
In their culture white is as much about nationalism as it is about racism... and in our politically correct environment both racism and nationalism are considered evil.
The dilemma LGF finds himself in is defending nationalism in a U.S. context while attacking nationalism in a European context. And this is the exact type of blue on blue conflict the Jihadists are trying to foster between us. LGF/Charles shouldn't be falling for this, but he is. And I don't really understand why.
The term "European" as it's used here is a conflation of race and culture. This fact becomes clear as you read it - by word use and context, it would appear that the author sees no difference between race and culture. That of itself is a classic mistake made by someone attempting to predict behavior based on superficial variables like skin tone. Or, basically, a racist.
This just happens to be a racist who's hip to the fact that most people are justifiably ooked out by racists. So he couches the language in code words. Watch as he slips from "pro-European" to "no mixing the races of mankind." Why the shift? Well, obviously, because you could replace the code word "European" with "White people just like me" and get basically the same meaning ... it just looks like a nod to culture the way he wrote it. Also, European is demonstrably a codeword, because Europeans are actually fairly mixed racially, AND largely socialists. I doubt that the writer of that statement is really interested in defending European values or cultural traditions ... or that he even knows much about what they are.
No one can conflate race and culture like that and hope to have any credibility in my eyes, because they are not the same. If a group's rhetoric makes no distinction, I see no reason to believe that they themselves make such a distinction either. That said, I won't claim they're the worst person/organization/whatever in the world, because I don't hold that racism is the worst moral crime. It does tell me, however, that they're kinda dumb, not worth my time, and not someone I care to call associate, ally or otherwise.
Also, I'd be rather more concerned about the percentage of Nazis that support VB and SD. They know what supports their goals better than we do, I'd guess. Those people tend to be pretty big on ideological and racial purity - single issue voters, I guess you could say. Also, there are a lot more racists than people who would willingly self-identify as a neo-Nazi. Even an idiot grasps that that's a bad idea in public. That in mind, VB and SD don't have to consist of mostly Nazis to be objectionable and unworthy of attention or allegiance. They just have to consist of a substantial portion of twits that can't see past the melanin.
Also, Re: Lawrence - I understand the difficulties posed by language, but given the amount of translation software and services available, I just don't think it's enough of a mitigating factor.
That's certainly you're choice. I don't think you can separate race and culture. They're not completely dependent on one another, but they're certainly not separable. Cultures don't just fall from mid-air. They come from a geography, a people, and religious presuppositions. If that's not the case, then why aren't all of the Latin American countries, who have imported Spanish culture and religion, so quick to emphasize their "mestizaje?" Why aren't they like Spain otherwise? There are some similarities, true, but there are more differences.
You still run into the problem that, if you're particular ethnic group is to be considered the "root of all evil," inherently racist, and inherently unequal to others in terms of government handouts and affirmative action, how else do you address that but as an ethnic group? You could try other means, but the other identity politics groups will still slur you (Larry Elder mentioned when Charlie Rangel said of Republicans, "Instead of saying 'spick' and 'nigger' they just talk about tax cuts and the end of affirmative action". They only respect whites who stick up for themselves, IMO, and that's what the C of CC is doing.
It is rather interesting that even though we don't claim racism is worse than murder, whites are still subjected to much more scorn, condemnation, and outrage by other whites for racism than for murder. Every other day, we have some white apologizing for some remark he's made, from the "macaca" incident, to Don Imus (who wasn't even making a racial remark), Trent Lott, and on and on.
No more for me. No more apologizing for breathing while white. Self defense for me.
Joseph,
This is a good read too.
I guess my main objection to this point of view is that there's one view being put out to the mainstream, the Jews, and non-Nazis, and secretly there's designs for a return to the Fourth Reich amongst these VB members. That sounds very Trutheresque and conspiracy theorist to me, indicative of the fact that conservatives at LGF and HotAir have a certain irrational paranoia about the issues of race and being labeled 'racist.'
In the case of Hitler and now Ahmadinejad, they've all been very open about their anti-semitism and racism. Hitler published Mein Kampf and the Muslims have the Qur'an. Ahmadenijad has openly stated his hatred of Jews to anyone who will listen. Granted, we often have to go around the Western media to get our answers, about Iran, but the Right in the U.S. pretty much has the picture about him: raving antisemite.
I have such a hard time believing Charles because he tolerates no dissent of opinion and has now just has a bunch of people who regurgitate his views to him. This creates groupthink, not critical thinking, and makes me suspect him as an egotist.
On this blog, as well as others, you're at least entitled to your opinion and dissent. I don't ban anyone, nor does GoV or Atlas Shrugs or Brussel's Journal, not that I'm equating myself with them.
I appreciate your non-discriminatory attitude toward people. We are all enjoined to "love our neighbors." I endeavor to do so as well. But I seek a society without the social friction of massive foreign immigration from hostile territories, as I'm sure you do too. It goes beyond just melanin, I'm afraid, even in cultural behavior. To say that race is just melanin is not at all accurate, in several morally-neutral behavioral and sociological aspects. Black success in the NFL and NBA isn't just cultural is it? No way.
Charles is pretty darn egotistical, or at least, that's what I get from his tone. The way LGF runs its signups is conducive to group think as well - as are most systems that aren't consistently open. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of connections I don't like. If you're comfortable with them, that's ok. We can certainly agree to disagree. One of my major head-shaking points about this drama was how poorly it was handled. It could have been an opportunity for introspection, but instead people screamed RACIST! and CAIR LOVER! and set to insulting one another. Foolish.
Regarding race and I've stated before, there are certainly differences. However, the data I've seen from twin studies suggests that genetics influence a great deal about things like temperament, whereas political views and things of that nature are influenced by upbringing. It is the choices of an individual and the ideals they hold that concern me - those define the most important aspects of our culture. Individualism, liberty, responsibility - these things can be taught.
Now, here we get into anecdotal evidence, so take that for what it's worth. But having seen kids raised by families of different cultural backgrounds, the kids look more like people from that culture than the culture their actual ethnic group fostered.
For another easy example, examine a black person from America and another black person from Africa. They are very, very different.
So yes, the small genetic changes combined with environments could produce a culture. But one's heritage does not set that culture indelibly upon an individual, as is demonstrably the case from the people I've met. That's why I don't like the race arguments - they break down too readily into biological determinism, which I just don't buy. I grasp that genes matter, but I think too many folks downplay upbringing - which is, I believe, a logical error. Anyway. Interesting ideas, and glad we could have the discussion. It always makes me reevaluate why I hold the beliefs I hold, which is an experience I value.
Anti-Semitism is partly about race, partly not. It is as much about hating God as it is about hating Jews. Christians understand this because every time we side with Jews/Israel we come under the same hateful attacks.
The irony with groups such as VB and SN, even though they may harbor racist views, they don't want to be Islamified any more than we do.
The danger in splitting hairs is that we begin to define anti-Islam as racism. And this really hurts our ability to justify fighting Islamification.
>>>
We have a similar conundrum splitting hairs with regard to our own white supremacist groups. We call them neo-Nazis, when they really are not. Nazis were National Socialists, while groups like the KKK are very much National Conservatives to a fault. VB and SN may be more like our KKK in many respects, but I don't see them trying to be national socialists. (But I'm not deying there are national socialist movements in Europe.)
Our home grown national socialists are people like Farakan and Sharpton, in contrasted with Hillary Clinton who is for all intents and purposes a marxist, and Obama and Edwards who are pretty much globalist socialists.
Agreed. The problem we're facing now is that there's no Americans in most of these Mexican neighborhoods to teach them how to learn our culture. Americans tend to move out of the gang war zones whenever possible. You can't assert your own culture when you're on the run from gangs and crime (basically an invasion). The Mexicans are overrunning us. I'd also inch out on a limb to say that our beloved government and money power is firmly on the side of the illegals.
I'm sure you've seen the billboards for Latino radio stations advertising the "Latino Invasion." I drive by them every day in a mostly white and asian area.