Saturday, May 16, 2009
This strikes me as a very negative development. I am quite aware that most in the counter-Jihad do not share my point-of-view. But, I also believe that most in the counter-Jihad have CONFLATED MY POINT-OF-VIEW WITH THAT OF CHARLES JOHNSON.
I believe this is an unfair characterization of what I believe has been a more subtle critique on my part.
Charles Johnson has called the Vlaams Belang party a neo-fascist, or neo-Nazi organization. There is some historical foundation for such a statement, and in fact, one of my best friends, who used to live in Belgium, told me back in 2003 (long before the Vlaams Belang had become an issue in the counter-Jihad movement) that she had personally witnessed members of the Vlaams Blok marching in the streets carrying placards filled with Jew-hatred.
All that being said, it is true that the VB are, at this point, one of the few parties in Europe who are supportive of the state of Israel.
I do not call the VB a neo-Nazi/neo-fascist organization. I call them what they clearly are; an Ethnic Nationalist political party.
And, here are the big distinctions between Nazism and Ethnic Nationalism;
1) While it is true that Nazis were Ethnic Nationalists themsevles, not all Ethnic Nationalists are Nazis (that is, they are not all murderous supremacists - in fact, the Native American movement is an Ethnic Nationalist movement, and Japan is an extreme example of an Ethnic Nationalist state),
2) Nazism is fascist in it's foundation, whereas Ethnic Nationalism is not necessarily. However, given the circumstances in Europe at this time (with the below replacement indigenous birth rate vs. the above replacement immigrant birthrate), Ethnic Nationalism WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE ENACTMENT OF FASCISTIC LAW.
There is no way around this. If Europeans are not breeding and immigrants are, then there are only four ways to deal with that problem,
1) kill the immigrants
2) round up the immigrants and incarcerate or deport them
3) make laws limiting the amount of children immigrants are allowed to have
4) make laws denying non-indigenous people equal voting rights
I challenge anyone to offer a different solution, and thus to refute my points. Go ahead, make my day. I would love to believe that DeWinter and people like him, who are after all some of the only people in Europe who seem to clearly perceive the threat of Islam, are on my side.
But alas, I do not.
Furthermore, I would like to note that Wilders is now, apparently, advocating a policy which would have led to war in any other era. To call for the breakup of a neighboring state, and the ceding of the land to one's own state is an act of aggression, and would have been considered a prelude to War in any previous time throughout history. And yet, in modern Europe, this will be treated as a minor squabble.
But, is it? If Wilders party does indeed win the elections, and if he is to head a new coalition government in the Netherlands, then he will be in an unprecedented (in the post-WWII European world) position of power for a man of his stated policies. Imagine if Nicolas Sarkozy called for England to cede the lower half of it's land to France. Or even more precipitously, imagine if Andrea Merkel called for the annexation of Austria. It's impossible to imagine, and rightly so, don't you think?
Does not such a scenario portend dangerous times ahead for Europe? Is this not a reawakening of imperialism within the heart of Europe? Are we so used to thinking that Belgium does not matter that we would be content to cede part of it's territory in the interest of peace?
Can anyone say Czeckoslovakia?
From Vlad Tepes Blog: