" ... real white supremacist neo-Nazis are not pro-Israel, but rather hate Jews ... Real white supremacists do not resist the Islamic jihad."
I like Robert Spencer personally, and I thank God for his very important work, but in my opinion, he is dead wrong on this subject. And, he is hurting his own credibility by repeatedly demonstrating to the world that he is woefully mistaken.
The interesting thing is, Robert Spencer is against the BNP, but he conveniently forgets about their existence when making statements like those quoted above.
There is a reason people like he and I oppose the BNP. It is because they are white supremacists.
The biggest difference Robert and I have is that we disagree on whether or not the Vlaams Belang is, like the BNP, a white supremacist party. I say that, in the end, it doesn't matter much, because whether or not they openly avow racial supremacism, they are an Ethnic Nationalist party. In fact, Ethnic Nationalism is the basis of their party platform.
And, an active Ethnic Nationalism will inevitably lead to fascistic law, when the host/indigenous population is being outbred by the immigrants it has invited into their midst.
I think Robert must admit that the BNP is a party who is clearly white supremacist, in that they have a "whites only" membership. And yet, they are, at the same time, open to Jewish membership. Additionally, they are supportive of
"the right of Israel to exist and defend itself against the relentless terrorist attacks of Islamic fanatics. "
So, here are my questions for Robert Spencer:
1) If you reject the BNP, knowing that they are a white supremacist organization (only mouthing support for the state of Israel in order to deflect charges of anti-Semitism) then is it not possible that the Vlaams Belang is playing the same game?
2) If it is possible that the VB is playing the same game as the BNP, then would it not behoove you to stop slamming those of us who do oppose the Vlaams Belang?
We had agreed to disagree on this subject. But, I'm tiring of the repeated denials of the basic truth that white supremacists can, and do, sometimes hide behind tolerant-sounding rhetoric.
28 comments:
Please explain how the BNP are a white "supremacist" organization.
And if the British government is forcing the BNP to give up their whites-only membership policy, will they also force black and Asian organizations to admit whites? Will Muslim and Jewish organizations be forced to admit Christians? What ever happened to free association?
I'm against the BNP's whites-only policy, not because they shouldn't have the right to restrict their membership to whomever they want, but because it's bad politics and they would almost certainly attract more votes without such a policy.
Jeppo,
Racist organizations ought to be allowed, AND they ought to be criticized by the decent public.
If you read my post (in the links) you will see that I oppose the UK government's idea of forcing the BNP to accept non-whites.
And, of course, Obama has added his share of hate as well.
Signed,
Bible-Clinging Gun-Slinger
The NSM (National Socialist Movement ..heir to GLRockwell's American Nazi Party) here is an avid supporter of a stop to illegal immigration.
They have adopted this stand because it sounds a lot better than 'get rid of the greasers'.
Ending illegal immigration and a secure border are something I agree with. But that does not make them acceptable, and whatever they think of jews, Israel and the rest is irrelevant.
As is whatever they think about jihadis
Likewise the BNP.
And VB
All of which understand below the level of words the value of adopting the right phrases in regard to issues, such as illegal immigration, Israel, jews and culture.
The NSM will never be an ally in the effort to end illegal immigration. They cannot be.
Likewise to VB and the BNP in the effort to end the jihadis way of life.
I would have thought this OBVIOUS
Every word uttered by such groups in which is similar to anything we have to say, IS A DETRIMENT to the effort and a tool in the hands of those useful idiots on the left
I did read your previous post, Pasto, but the question remains: How are the BNP white supremacists? White nationalists yes, but supremacists?
Anyway the media has told us that the big story of these EU elections was a major shift to the right. As usual they're wrong. Rightists won 380 seats (51.6%) versus 356 seats won by leftists. This compares with the Right winning 48.2% of the seats in 2004, and holding 48.8% of the seats after Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. So it doesn't seem like much of a shift to the right to me.
The media also claim that the dreaded extreme-right made major gains. Once again they're wrong. Yes, Geert Wilders' PVV and the BNP will enter the EP for the first time, and nationalists also made gains in Hungary, Denmark, Finland and Austria. But of the 23 members of the ITS nationalist group in the EP, only 12 were re-elected. The Front National lost 4 seats, the VB lost 1, and nationalist parties in Slovakia, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria also lost seats. So my beloved "extremists" made no substantial gains at all.
The English-speaking media focused on the UK, where the UKIP and BNP made gains and the Labour Party lost big time. When they bothered looking at the continental results, they saw that the Christian Democratic parties of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlesconi did well, and the Socialists didn't. But the Greens made big gains and the Liberals and far-left Marxists held their own, so Leftists as a whole only lost a tiny bit of ground. The media noted the rise of the BNP and Geert, but forgot to tell us that nationalists lost seats in many other places.
Moral of the story: The media were utterly useless in properly interpreting the results of this election.
Jeppo,
You said: How are the BNP white supremacists? White nationalists yes, but supremacists?
I say: You're right, Jeppo.
Fairly, or unfairly, I did not allow for the distinction between white nationalists and white supremacists.
I'd like to hear some other people in the blog world try to defend that distinction.
You say: Anyway the media has told us that the big story of these EU elections was a major shift to the right. As usual they're wrong. Rightists won 380 seats (51.6%) versus 356 seats won by leftists. This compares with the Right winning 48.2% of the seats in 2004, and holding 48.8% of the seats after Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. So it doesn't seem like much of a shift to the right to me.
I say: I do not believe there is a big ideological shift to the right in Europe. I believe Europeans are practical. They are voting for who they think will get the job done, given the situation in which they find themselves.
The economy and immigration are the two biggest concerns. I hope that most Europeans realize that the Jihad is an even bigger issue than both.
But, most Americans do not realize that, so why would the Europeans?
YOu said: The media also claim that the dreaded extreme-right made major gains. Once again they're wrong. Yes, Geert Wilders' PVV ...
I say: Careful there. It sounds like you are saying Geert Wilders is a member of the "extreme right".
I'll tell you what; I'm not happy with his announcement that he would forge an alliance with the VB, and I'm even less happy with him for his apparent support of Flanders in their secessionist efforts, and their joining with the Netherlands.
That's a bit too "practical" for my taste.
You said: the Greens made big gains and the Liberals and far-left Marxists held their own
I say: Sorry to hear that. I did not know that.
Epa,
I sure am glad you and MR are around here with me. Someone has to speak out on this issue and not equivocate to keep others happy.
Every time I post on this subject, I think to myself, "Maybe I shouldn't. Why make more enemies. You already have enough."
But, I guess I collect enemies like others might collect stamps.
Three things about Geert:
The media constantly call him an extreme right-winger, racist, xenophobe and Islamophobe. To me those are terms of endearment ;)
Geert has ruled out forming a coalition in the EP with any other party, including the VB. I think this is a big mistake, as combining into official EP groups provides lots of funding, plus power and publicity. Parties that oppose Islamization, mass immigration, EU centralization and political correctness should combine to get these issues heard. I really hope he'll reconsider this.
Why shouldn't the Flemish join their Dutch-speaking compatriots in the Netherlands if they so choose? The Netherlands has been a consistent friend of the English-speaking world, while Belgium (France's pilot fish) has opposed us every step of the way. I say "Death to Belgium!" and "Long live the Greater Netherlands!"
Jeppo,
Wilders has refused to form an alliance with the VB?
That's not what I heard, though this could be some sort of disinformation:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/05/wilders-and-dewinter-begin-to-join.html
By the way, Jeppo. Have you heard from Shiva lately?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
Pasto: "Someone has to speak out on this issue and not equivocate to keep others happy"
And right there is the core of the matter.
It is exactly what these groups do. A point Jeppo sort of makes at the top:
"I'm against the BNP's whites-only policy, not because they shouldn't have the right to restrict their membership to whomever they want, but because it's bad politics and they would almost certainly attract more votes without such a policy."
Jeppo's against it not because it's right or wrong, but because it's bad politics.
So if it was good politics, restricitng membership based on skin color, national origin would be okay?
Sounds a bit like Jim Crow South to me. Also sounds a little hypocritical, or at least fence-sitting, deciding what is a moral issue based on political loss or gain.
Does that mean if a majority of people in Alabama (no offense to anyone here from there) think it is okay to have a "Whites Only" fountain or "Whites Only" section of a restaurant it should be just that way?
Let me tell you my daughter has experience with that right here in the U.S. within the last two months. Except the colors were reversed.
How about Catholics only, or Italians only, or Germans only (check your swastika at the door)(oh my, was that, gasp, RACIST?)(or just Nationalist?).
Because that is what you are talking about here at an International level.
And these groups will do anything, say snything, ally with anyone, if it willget them the vote, help them gain or hold power. They are not looking out for their voters or supporters. They are only looking out for themselves. Once you are no longer of use to their cause or worse, become a hindrance to it, you, to, will be excluded.
White Nationalism, White supremecist, White power. Doesn't matter. Once you put that word White in front of it you've got trouble.
As long as they hurt no one, no one on this earth should be excluded because of color, nationality, religious belief (or none at all).
And they should certainly never be held back or down because of it.
According to the Brussels Journal Wilders won't join any EP group.
Here's a very good back-and-forth about the BNP and Nick Griffin's renunciation of his past anti-Semitism.
No I haven't heard from Shiva. Did you guys have a falling out or something?
One favour, Pasto, can you lose that ridiculous bell sound, please? If I scroll down your page and click onto something, when I come back I've got to scroll back up the page to stop its infernal clanging!! The BEST way I could describe it would be as the ultimate blog repellent: It's easier to exit the blog altogether than go through the bother of upscrolling to make the damn thing stop.
Midnight rider you lost me at "religious belief " in the next to the last sentence.
Islam will never pass muster as a simple religion.
Jeppo -- no, no falling out with Shiva that we know of. Just haven't heard from him.
Anon. -- as it exists and is practiced now I agree, Islam does not pass as a religion but as a cult.
HOWEVER
There are many Muslims who do not practice Islam fully as it exists, who do not support terrorism and Jihad.
But then they are not Muslims you say (let's just skip the whole Taqiyya Masters bit for now) or they are bad Muslims.
Fine, and I am a (very) bad Catholic. But I still call myself a Catholic and they still call themselves Muslims.
And you cannot discriminate based on that.
This war is with Islam as it exists today until it ceases to exist as such. Not with the individual Muslims.
Jeppo -- I was actually going to put that Black Congress, Bklack Panther part in there but held off.
As part of free will I believe yes, you are free to associate with whomever you want. No argument.
And so am I. And I choose to not associate with someone who would exclude others based on skin color or National origin.
BET TV is a business. Don't have something I like, I go elsewhere.
Don't want my friend around because she's black or his name is Ahmed, then you don't want me around.
MR,
You said: White Nationalism, White supremecist, White power. Doesn't matter. Once you put that word White in front of it you've got trouble.
I say: Once you put black, brown, Asian, Arab, Mexican, or Indian in front of it ...
It's all trouble.
I think you would agree.
Pasto -- Yeah I agree. Read the comment I just put up above yours :)
MR,
Good argument about "I'm a bad Catholic."
Most of us do not follow our religion strictly, whether we are Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever.
For instance, the Buddhism practiced in Asia is nothing like the "Zen Buddhism" taught in schools here. They have all sorts of Ancestor Worship, and other traditional rites mixed in. This pristine, atheist Buddhism is almost non-existent in Asian countries, and yet we understand what Buddhism is, in it's essence, and we recognize those, who call themselves Buddhist, as Buddhist.
Christianity tells slaves to obey their maters. Judaism tells us that apostates should die. Islam tells us that apostates should die. Hinduism tells us that widows should disappear into the Vrindivan forest and die. Hinduism tells us that poor people should stay poor and that we should never touch them.
Etc.
All these religions have repellent ideas. I could be an apologist, but I will refrain.
I will only say that I do, indeed, believe that if people are decent to each other, fair, somewhat loving and kind, then they are ok by me.
But, that sounds like easy preaching, I guess.
Simple, but true.
Jeppo,
We haven't heard from Shiva for a long time, and we miss him.
I know he used to hang out at Jihad Watch a lot. I don't because half the time I can't get into the comments section, so I gave up. I still read Jihad Watch every day, but since I don't read the comments, I figured I'd ask you if you had seen him around.
Apparently he is missing for now.
Shiva's a good guy, I hope everything's OK with him.
The point about the BNP's whites-only policy or the CBC's blacks-only policy isn't whether we agree with them, but if they should be allowed to associate with whomever they want. I think that they should, but the British government's policy is the most hypocritical, racist way of thinking imaginable: Blacks-only groups are just fine but whites-only groups will be outlawed.
The BNP, while it may have repudiated its antisemitism, does not allow Jews to join. They support Israel as a nations, but not Jews who live in Britain. They are racists who hate Jews. They're just not irrational about Israel.
http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf
SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP
1) The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political,
Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous
Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as
closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the
European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal
ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic
groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of
Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL.
Jdamn,
Thanks for clarifying that. I thought that because the BNP had a Jewish MP that must mean they allowed Jews to join. I wonder how it is that that one Jew is so honored with Membership?
With regard to this perennial confusion about whether the BNP is ideologically left-wing or right-wing, that delineation is meaningless because the BNP's political model doesn't work on that basis. The BNP champions nationalism of native Whites and it follows from that core principle that the party will always take whatever route is good for native Whites, be it left-wing or right-wing, leading to a mish-mash of incidentally-leftist policies and incidentally-rightist policies.
As far as I can tell, the nearest american equivalent to the BNP at it's most liberal interpretation would be the CofCC.
The CofCC makes every argument any person on the left makes about conservatives being racists TRUE.
Arguments about this or that EXCEPTIONAL person, quote, or action are absurd.
What is the bulk of the action and hope for the BNP (and CofCC)?
I have said this before, and this is true EVEN IF THE BNP WINS A NATIONAL ELECTION.. on the day the anti jihad movement is equivalent in people's minds with groups such as the BNP, WE LOSE.
Jihadis win.
I cannot imagine the kind of action the BNP would have to take to become NOT BNP, which is what so many actually arguing they now are.
DELUSION
So if you really want to prove all the baloney the left WANTS TO BELIEVE DESPERATELY is true about those who warn continually that Islamic jihadism IS a world war, IS TRUE ... support groups like the BNP as allies.
That's how it IS.
In politics, as Pallywood and many other incidents and movement s have PROVEN, it's PERCEPTION which can move reality.
If we make non racism (anti jihadism) equal to racism in the public mind, anti jihadism WILL BE RACIST.
The BNP, VB, etc can NEVER be our allies.
The CofCC is certainly NEARLY as inimical to all I believe as Jihadis. They just don't want to kill me.
I think
Regarding Shiva, his last post on Islam on this day was April 24th. He has always posted there, everyday. :/
Well, I see that I've missed out on this discussion. I had a graduation to attend last night.
Anyway, Epa is spot on with this:
on the day the anti jihad movement is equivalent in people's minds with groups such as the BNP, WE LOSE.
Jihadis win
We're coming dangerously close to just that conflation, I think. Not we at IBA, the anti-jihad movement in general.
When Von Brunn invaded the Holocaust Museum and murdered Stephen Tyrone Johns, one of the first things I did upon hearing of the atrocity was try to find out if Von Brunn could be in any way considered part of the anti-jihad. I found no such ties. But suppose I had found such ties? Suppose that Von Brunn had been a frequent commenter here at IBA or at another anti-jihad site? The left would make hay of that, all right, as the left has already done with Free Republic, where he occasionally commented.
Any alliances the anti-jihad makes are going to be scrutinized. We'll all get tarred with the same brush.
That is the reality.
Furthermore, with BHO in office and the recent Cairo Speech, the scrutiny of the anti-jihad has already ramped up. Any indication of racism is going to be found out and the news trumpeted in the media, sooner or later.
And the idealism? Well, we've discussed that aspect ad nauseam. We cannot, however, discuss it often enough, IMO. We either believe in our principles -- or we don't. Look at history. Compromising principles for pragmatism ends in great woe every time.
Christine -- that's a bit worrisome.
Epa and AOW,
Well said.
Post a Comment