There have been a few posts very recently and quite the discussion in some of the threads about Vlaams Belang, BNP, Jean Marie LePen et al. Geert Wilders has said he would not ally with these groups (rightly so say humble little me). Now there is this troubling development reported at Haaretz on Sunday:
Security upped at anti-Jihad conference following alert
By Cnaan Liphshiz
Islamist groups with suspected terror links "displayed an interest" in an anti-jihad conference held in Jerusalem on Sunday, Dutch legislator Geert Wilders told Haaretz yesterday.
In the interview, Wilders also said that he is considering forming an alliance with Belgium's far-right Vlaams Belang party, which he has hitherto shunned. Belgian Jews have also shunned Vlaams Belang.
The controversial politician said that Dutch security services had learned of the Islamist groups' interest, but said he could not elaborate.
However, he added, the news resulted in an increased security detail during his visit to Israel: He was surrounded by eight bodyguards at all times, whereas on previous visits, he was accompanied by only one or two.
"This is the first time I do not feel safer in Israel than in Holland," said Wilders, who has received countless death threats from Muslim extremists.
Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad, who organized the symposium, confirmed that Wilders had told him of the threat in advance and said appropriate security measures were taken.
Wilders said the threat was connected to a short anti-jihad film he released in February. The 15-minute film, which was screened at the conference, mostly contains hate sermons by imams and images from jihadist attacks, and has provoked Muslim fury.
"My security situation has deteriorated lately," he said. "The security services informed me that the riskiest time is a few months after the film's release.
"Wilders also revealed that if his Party for Freedom - which occupies nine of the Dutch parliament's 150 seats - runs in European parliamentary elections, he may join Vlaams Belang to form a larger right-wing bloc. Wilders had previously said he would not consider such an alliance.
Belgium's Jewish leadership has boycotted Vlaams Belang, citing its "strong anti-Semitic characteristics," and in an interview with Haaretz last year, Wilders cited this in explaining his decision to distance himself from the party.
But now, he said, "there are different sounds coming from Vlaams Belang. Some people say they have changed, even from the Jewish community.
"That they have changed their tune. Others say they haven't. I have to look into it and talk to people and study it more. I'm not saying it is impossible.
"However, he added, "we will not ally ourselves with parties like that of France's Jean-Marie Le Pen.
"As reported by Haaretz last week, sources in Vlaams Belang said that Eldad had invited their party's leader, Filip Dewinter, to visit Jerusalem next year. However, Eldad denied this.
35 comments:
midnight rider,
Has it come to this, has the Anti Jihad movement, become so desperate that many of its leaders are willing to ally themselves with Nazis and Nazi wannabes?
midnight rider,
This will do more to turn people prevent potential allies from joining our ranks than it will to help the movement. There will be many people who know the true nature of these parties that won't join us, if we ally with then.
Exactly right, Damien. What people like Pasto, Epa, AOW, myself and Charles (in his blustering bellicose belligerant banning way) have been saying all along. In the long run this will hurt more than help.
People saw Nazi Germany for what it was. But Patton knew Soviet Russia for what it was and wanted nothing to do with it (but destroy it). We didn't and look where it lead.
People see the Jihad for what it is (all of us anti-Jihadists, anyway) but only some of us see WB & BNP for what they are and want nothing to do with them. Kind of a strange analogy I know but it's late ;>)
This kind of thing will push more people away than bring them in and give the left ammunition to label us all fringe loons.
When I saw this, after everything we've been talking about lately in regards to it my first thought was
Well, shit.
Followed by awww, Hell.
And finally goddammit!
(my wife heard it and thought I started watching cable news again)
midnight rider
I hope we are able to bring Mississippimud and other anti Jihadists like him, who don't realize what they are doing, over to our side on this. As for the ones that don't care, it might be better if they weren't a part of our movement at this point. Its bad enough that we are labeled as bigots when most of us really are not.
midnight rider,
The only problem I see with your analogy is that during world war two, we may not have had much of a choice other than to consider the Nazis the greater of the two evils, and temporally ally with the Soviets. But today is different, in this situation it is different. Racists are a small minority, and allying with them may only turn non racists away from the anti Jihad movement. Plus racists tend to be less than fully willing to work with and trust people whose race they regard as inherently inferior.
Agreed. And I hope Wilders doesn't continue down this path. It will taint everything he's done.
Rhetorical because I think I know your answer but, had you known/believed as Patton did about Stalin, would you have allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler?
Bigots is one of the nicer terms they throw at us ;)
midnight rider,
Would I have allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Yes, better to have one brutal totalitarian regime controlling part of Europe then two controlling all of it, and both potentially threatening us and everyone else. I remember someone saying (I think he was on an objectivist forum, but I'm not sure) that we should have just let the two slave states duke it out by themselves. One problem is that might have allowed the Holocaust to continue even longer, which would have led to even more pain and suffer and death of innocent people. Hitler could have wiped out all of European's Jews as well as many other people. Another problem is that whichever one won that war of evil vs evil, could come out stronger, more confident, and perhaps even more ruthless. Back than the United States was not a super power it is today. From what I have read, in many ways we had a rather pathetic military. Off course in another universe we could have made the decision to let the soviets and the Nazis go it alone. But at the very least, that could have resulted in a twenty first century where all of Europe and all of Russia was controlled by totalitarian tyrants. Also, in such a parallel universe, its possible that there would have been no civil rights movement, and today racism might still be socially acceptable. To make matters even worse, many people in the still free nations, might convince themselves, that the soviet and or Nazi conquest proves that free societies can't defend themselves, and become dictatorships out of fear, in order to defend themselves from other dictatorships.
The big mistake many made in allying with Stalin was thinking that he was our friend because he fought on our side in that conflict, and that Communism was good because it opposed Nazism. We shouldn't forget that evil is evil, and the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Damien -- as I said a strange (and should have probably added EXTREME) analogy to be sure.
Stalin has been shown to be the greater butcher but only because he survived longer and his butchery was largely against his own people. Had Hitler prevailer who knows what the world would have finally seen.
If Islam prevails, judging from what we see, life for us Infidels will be "nasty, brutish and short". But if we prevail, because we allied with VB, what will we then do when/if VB turns on our Jewish or Catholic or non-white neighbors? Do we turn on them AS WE SHOULD HAVE DONE in WWII? Or just be shut of them now?
We're on the same page. I know your answer already, I think. My analogy and reply here was just playing it out to it's extreme.
You're correct. We may have had no choice in WWII. But had Chamberlain & Co. not appeased the Corporal it might have been different.
We need to stop appeasing NOW so we're not faced with that choice again, here in the 4th Jihad, The Fianl Crusade, WW III or whatever history ends up calling it.
midnight rider,
Your correct, the appeasement must stop!
Damien -- my last comment was to your previous, not most recent. We're over-commenting each other.
As to your last yes, I probably would have done the same. But then probably turned on Stalin. Same as Hitler did, I suppose. Not sure what that makes me except it would have been for different reasons. Sucks that only history is 20/20.
As to the core of this thread, should Wilders ally with VB we agree and as to it's outcome as well. Didn't mean the analogy to range this far off core topic.
Damien -- I think you read & type way faster than I ;>)
INteresting conversation and I missed the whole thing.
Well, I missed the conversation here too.
But everybody knows where I stand on this issue -- with Pastorius, Epa, and others who recognize that a bargain with the devil is no bargain at all.
Damien said...
"has the Anti Jihad movement become so desperate that many of its leaders are willing to ally themselves with Nazis and Nazi wannabes?"
Always On Watch said...
"a bargain with the devil is no bargain at all"
I very much agree. There simply is no point in fighting islamonazis while allying with nazis. Anyone who does that might as well stop being an anti-jihadist.
Just watch GoV displaying Fjordman's book with white supremacist symbols besides it. It's revolting, which of course is exactly why they do it.
Kim,
I didn't know they were doing that. I'll have to go have a look at it.
I suppose they think it's some sort of hip joke.
Here's a hip joke for the GOV people.
White People Off Earth Now!
Hah hah. Isn't that so fucking funny?
Some thing that really puzzles me
Where in the real world is there an anti-jihad movement ?
shiva,
you said,
-------------------------------------------------
Some thing that really puzzles me
Where in the real world is there an anti-jihad movement?
-------------------------------------------------
That's an odd question for you to ask, because if you think about it, your a part of the anti Jihad movement, and so is the Infidel Bloggers Alliance, and Jihad Watch, as well as Bosch Fawstin and Geert Wilders, who we are criticizing here. We are the anti Jihad movement!
There is, at this point, very little in the way of a large successful political anti-Jihad movement.
I think that is Shiva's point.
Pastorius,
unfortunately you maybe right
Damien, we got to stop meeting here in the middle of the night like that. People are starting to talk, might think we're plotting an antijihad or something ;>)
My apologies for the (many) typos above my dear Old Granddad was helping me write. . .
Regards Shiva's statement:
Pasto's right, there is no large scale movement. But what there is is a lot of small groups spreading the word person by person, chatting at lunch or smoke breaks or happy hours, gaining some converts and often lots of sneers and scorn.
Problem is there is no cohesiveness to it. Which is largely our role here as Damien said. How we drag more people in is the big issue. My adult daughters have begun reading these blogs and pointing them out to friends and roommates. That's where it starts I guess. Because it often seems we're preaching to the choir here from the commenters. Which is a morale boost at the least. But I hold the hope that non-antijihadists read this site and just don't comment (we don't know they're there) but become more involved otherwise, participating in those lunch break discussions.
Follow up on my above comment: we need to be careful not to let folks like VB poison the waters. Which is kinda where Damien and I left off.
Okay
My question may seem a little odd, on the blogsphere, we are slowly coming to-gether, and we think we have a movement.
But do we, that is the question
Now two years ago, a muslim got himself fried, while running away from the police, within hours there where mobs on the streets, and Paris burned for several weeks.
One year later, two muslim criminals got killed while speeding on a stolen motor bike, again, within hours there where mobs on the streets, and Paris burned for several weeks.
A koran gets flushed down the toilet, a newspaper publishes some cartoons of Mohammed, within days, the mobs are out in many cities around the world, embassies and churches are burnt, and people are killed.
A left wing youth gets shot not long after a muslim riot, that the left where supporting, within hours the mobs were on the streets, and Athens burns for several weeks.
These things just do not happen unless there is some movement behind them.
In April 2006 I was notified that their to be a anti-islamization rally in Brussels 9/11/2006. There was quite a lot of before info about the blog. And it got a lot of publicity because of the court cases getting banned.
At the same time VB made there intentions clear that they where willing to join, but it was made clear, they where not welcome.
Come the day of the demo, no more than a hundred people showed up.
VB turned up, as we can see very clearly in the photos when one of leaders was getting his balls crushed by the police.
Two weeks later there was a conference in Brussels, this one was attended by Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller and a few others.
Now, why couldn't the conference be held at the same time as the 9/11/2006 rally.
I have queried this with a few of the people who attended, including Robert Spencer. The lame excuse I got was they could not find suitable hotel accommodation or conference location. Yet they had six months to work something out.
Its strange that the counter demonstrators do not let lack of suitable hotel accommodation hinder the from gathering a various demos all over Europe.
What a contrast, the muslims can get hundreds of thousands on the streets within days, the red fascist several thousand within hours, and he anti-jihads several hundred after months of planning.
I am an Englishman who has lived for the last 15 years in Indonesia, so I do know first hand what it is like to live under islam. Its not so bad if you know how to play the game. Many of you will not have the luxury to learn, and your options are getting less every day.
And I guess Wilders is beginning to realise this.
For now I want to stop writing and get to sleep before the mosque start u, all 32 of them.
Shiva,
I'm not sure what your point is. If we rioted in the streets like the Muslims, would that constitute a movement?
How about if we proceed by law, as David Yerushalmi did in suing CAIR (and now, the Federal government for propping up AIG when they are a Sharia-compliant company) and winning.
Is that a movement?
What about when our armies kill Jihadists, or when our intelligence agencies stop terrorist attacks? Is that a movement?
Or, what about when we put out information and the public becomes educated? Is that a movement?
It seems to me the public does not buy the Islam is Peace line anymore. Does it not seem like that to you?
I think, perhaps, you don't see things the way I see them because I live in America and you live in Indonesia.
I could be wrong. One does not usually know if one is wrong, but I really don't think most of our public believes that Islam is like other religions.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/12/he-was-praying-to-allah-so-i-thought-he.html
Some rhetorical questions and random thoughts:
-We are all looking at this situation through a thick blanket of war fog.
-After fourteen-hundred years of actively/semi-actively/passively fighting this enemy, we are still here!
-From the perspective of a Twenty-Second Century war historian, what specifically WAS IT that finally tipped the scale causing Twenty-First Century humanity to decisively put down the aggressor once and for all? (Loss of Europe? Vaporization of Israel? WMD attack on America or another close ally?Establishment of a global caliphate? Glenn Becks's Perfect Day scenario or the like? Assassination of a key counter-jihad figure or another world leader? A consciousness focusing priority shifting global recession/depression? A prominent islamist caught in a toilet with Pee-Wee Herman? Switching on the taps to all that oil off Alaska's North Shore? What?)
-Should Canada, India, Australia, and Denmark seek to take control of/secure European nukes if evidence indicates a continuing strategy of preemptive capitulation on their part?
-When I was a idealistic teen, I used to imagine that an alien attack on planet Earth would at least have the benefit of uniting all of humanity in a common cause. Why is it that an alien attack originating from our planet surface itself is so slow to produce the same effect?
Great thoughts and questions there, Anonymous.
Pastorius said..
I'm not sure what your point is. If we rioted in the streets like the Muslims, would that constitute a movement?
I was not calling for riots, just making a comparision, and it makes a bleak picture.
Pastorius@ How about if we proceed by law, as David Yerushalmi did in suing CAIR (and now, the Federal government for propping up AIG when they are a Sharia-compliant company) and winning.
Is that a movement?
No, This is an isolated case, if there was any kind of movement, them there would be much more law suits.
As far as the AIG is concerned,is this an anti-jihad move, or a move by a group of businesses that would be affected by Sharia
Sorry but this action is more business than anti-jihad motivated.
Pastorius@ What about when our armies kill Jihadists, or when our intelligence agencies stop terrorist attacks? Is that a movement?
Once again no, the Military and intelligence agencies does want the Government tells them to do, and since the 1950,s the USA has a poor record globally, starting in Indonesia by aiding Soharto murder more than a million non-muslims.
Pastorius@ Or, what about when we put out information and the public becomes educated? Is that a movement?
Sorry no again, I do not see much evidence of information except on anti-jihad sites and blogs, and that is only a question of time before they disappear.
Pastorius@ It seems to me the public does not buy the Islam is Peace line anymore. Does it not seem like that to you?
You must think I am a negative jerk, but again I must say No
Since my blog has been down, ihave been hyper active in visiting the MSM where there is news about Islam and have been reading the comments to the articles, also commenting.
What I have experienced contradicts what you perceive about the public not buying the Islam is Peace line anymore.
It gets rather alarming as to how many people howling Nazi as soon as where is any criticizism of Islam.
Pastorius@ I think, perhaps, you don't see things the way I see them because I live in America and you live in Indonesia.
This could be true, For me it is like watching a football match, while sitting in the away supporters section, not only able to see the whole pitch, but also the oppositions response.
Pastorius@ I could be wrong. One does not usually know if one is wrong, but I really don't think most of our public believes that Islam is like other religions.
I get the feeling that most people are clueless, and don't want to be bothered
We are coming into some interesting times, because I believe that Wilders will go with VB. He has no option, there is no way he can stand alone, and he realizes this.
We will see more right wing parties entering the European Parliment, and for them to have any clout, they will form a bloc.
Will Wilders be thrown under the bus ?
I hope not, If and when Wilder joins with VB I will stand with him.
Even Discussing Wilders possible alliance with VB, just goes to show how little faith the anti-jihad movement has in Wilders, and exposes how weak it is.
The right wing parties do have some very nasty types within them.
We should target them, the nastie one, not the parties.
Let us try and understand Wilders mindset, so as to avoid slipping into further shambles
Shiva,
I don't think you're a negative jerk. I have been accused of being a Pollyanna.
I endeavor to think in the big picture about the outcome of this war. It seems to me the Western world waits until things get really bleak before we take the action to win. That does not mean we don't see the threat.However, our first action is always to appease. I don't think the majority of Europeans and Americans were enamored with Hitler before WWII, but we did appease him. Likewise, I don't think the majority of Americans and Europeans are enamored with Islam at this time. I just think it will take something really bad before we truly decide to fight.
I'm pretty confident Muslims will make the mistake of going overboard. Why? Because they are evil, and evil breeds confusion, and confusion means one will jump the gun. Add to that that evil has a problem with regard to unity, because evil seeks power, and therefore fights among itself for power.
This is how I think. I think things will get very dark, and then we will smash them. It will be horrific and sad.
Those are the thoughs of this Pollyanna.
Sadly I agree with Pastorius. The small movements are out there but not gaining steam quick enough despite our hollering. Whether it's willful blindness or just being too easily mislead (the same thing?) folks aren't getting angry enough quickly enough to act before we're struck again. Americans seem to be that way for some reason. Maybe because our land mass is so large. Population so large.
But god help you when you finally cross that line.
When we're hit again the backlash will then get very ugly. In our own streets.
midnight rider,
Lets also hope that when that happens we are not so angry and terrified that we willing give up all rights and blindly trust the first power hunger person who promises to destroy them.
Agreed, Damien. That's a big concern. But just as much I can see blood & violence in the streets here. No muslim will be safe in America when this happens.
"He who trades essential liberty for a little safety. . ."
Post a Comment