Monday, November 12, 2007

More Material on the Controversy

My post earlier today about the VB/SD controversy linked to a comprehensive summary at the CVF blog, but the latter deserves additional emphasis.

The CVF list collects a variety of different material about Vlaams Belang and Sverigedmokraterna in one place. Besides CVF and Gates of Vienna, there are links to Counterjihad Europa, Conservative Swede, the Brussels Journal, and Atlas Shrugs. The CVF posts, of course, link back to original sources when refuting allegations.

If you’re tired of the vitriol, a wealth of straight information can be found via Christine’s list. Refutations, counter-arguments, additional data, analysis — the other side of the debate is available there.


[Nothing follows]

24 comments:

Redneck Texan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redneck Texan said...

I guess I'm late to the throw down. I wasn't even aware this rift had occurred till the other day, via Pastorius at IBA.

And I have to admit, despite your tireless efforts here, I am way too under-educated on the European political situation to formulate a coherent opinion on the situation as it relates to Vlaams Belang.

So I figured I better start with crash course of Belgium history and the Flemish movement..... today's studies culminated with VB's 70 step plan. ;-)

I got no problem it...... even though I cant read it cause its in Dutch. ;-)

All I know is its a plan, I dont really care how they get there, so long as its achieves the desired results ....... is there another European Party's plan for the deportation of Muslim immigrants and their descendants that I can compare it to?

Sound to me like some of our counter-jihad buddies dont have the stomach for what its going to ultimately take to REVERSE the Islamisation of the West. They're living in some kind of fantasy world where we're going to be able to achieve our lofty objectives within the realm of the current political processes, and without having to endure a constant stream of racism accusations from both the left and the right.

Charles might be right that association with these groups might shine an unpleasant light on us, unfortunately these groups are the only ones, that I am aware of, that even have an effective plan.

To me it boils down to who do you want in your foxhole. Some crazy bastard who is more afraid of dying than getting court-martialed for violating the rules of engagement, or someone who is reading the UCMJ while the bullets are flying.

Hell, lets win first....then we'll worried about who had the high moral ground later.

FluffResponse said...

I'm beginning to agree with redneck texan. Charles Johnson does good work, and it distresses me when some writers go after him as if he were a creep. But if he's not overstating the bad in Vlaams Belang (VB), perhaps he's understating how desperate the situation is.

Europe needs groups to stand against Islamization, and maybe the voices of any unsavory folks in VB will help bring the unquestionably decent patriots to their senses. In the absence of change, "realists," EU supporters, and Eurabians will stay in control.

j said...

Far-right parties across Europe would prefer to be branded as mainstream, creating an acceptable veneer that masks the racist beliefs of the grassroots. If you live in a European country you will have noticed this, it is quite obvious. Those parties emphasise whatever credentials have nothing to do with racial discrimination and filter racist policies through the issue of immigration control. I have by now read enough about Vlaams Belang to conclude that they are in this way like like the BNP here in Britain. What a shame that the impressive internet anti-jihad movement can be undermined by the appearance of those people on the scene. It is intolerable, and while I have every respect for most of those who attended and spoke at the conference, Charles Johnson is absolutely right to point out the presence of the far-right and seek to distance himself. No European in his right mind can ally with white supremacists, however presentable, any more than with jihadis.

For those convinced that VB is not a racist party, we just disagree. Those who know it is and defend it anyway I have no time for. But to anyone who defends allying with the enemy's enemy without exception - find your scruples. Don't give the far-right any quarter.

Redneck Texan said...

I'm sorry j, I'm afraid I didn't catch your better plan to reverse the Islamisation of the West.....

.....I checked my scruples at the door the day I seen the WTC crash to the ground.....and had totally abandoned them by the time I seen Zarqawi behead my fellow American.

If you're more concerned with your reputation and your scruples than you are ejecting the pre-positioned Islamic Army before they reach a critical mass, then I suggest you find another, less important, hobby.....and leave the counter-jihading to those more willing to use whatever means are necessary to protect our way of life.

What are you thinking.... that someday the same leftist controlled political processes that allowed the situation to arise in Europe in the first place are suddenly going to compromise on a plan that calls for the deportation of Islamic EU citizens? Or that as time goes on you're going to be able to rationalize the jihad out of the Muslim community?

I want someone on my side of the holy war who is not afraid to go into Muslim communities and round them up and put them on a boat back to North Africa, or a train to Turkey...... who else is there besides the far-right thats willing to even suggest such effective methods?

Your precious conscience is the Islamist's most powerful tool. They are counting on you resisting the efforts of those with effective plans...... stand with them if you will.....and I'll be forced to shoot through you to hit my target.

j said...

redneck texan,

You did miss it. My idea is to fight the Islamic supremacists and NOT to ally with white supremacists. Reread my post and you'll see that it was implied. Sorry for not being clearer.

So I don't accept your choice. A real idiot, coincidentally, would come up with such a choice: jihad or Hitler. I would like to see the back of both neo-nazis and jihadis.

I don't get that because jihadis attacked America and have no scruples, you decided it would make sense to advance the far-right and forget your own scruples (assuming that on 9/10 you would have opposed the far-right, right?).

And I have absolutely no idea what makes you think that far-right parties would be better for our fighting forces. They would no doubt be tight on immigration, but security? And really, my disgust comes from the way the far-right are, the things you can count on them believing, things like, "Hitler was right". Strangely, 9/11 didn't soften my attitude towards them one bit.

Redneck Texan said...

.....and btw, I dont expect Europe to defeat this invasion. There may be a small percentage of them willing to stand up and fight......but I dont think they are going to win this one. Its going to take a concerted effort to overcome both leftist opposition and a growing muslim community more willing to use violence to stay in Europe than Europeans are willing to commit to eject them.

The Muslims have already achieved enough electoral clout to be King-makers, the left is never going to abandon those votes.

I think Europeans are going to do what they always have done, run away to safe harbor....... and I hope we slam the door to their pending exodus.....we already have enough leftists that wont stand and fight.....we certainly dont need any more.

And for those that do stay and fight, I have no doubt my Government will condemn their actions......just like we were on the wrong side of the Kosovo war.

j said...

Thanks for the exchange. I understand your position well. Go screw yourself, mister.

Redneck Texan said...

and I'm telling you I dont care who is willing to fight the counter-jihad.....the racist far-right, Serbian Nationalists, or the freakin Green Party.....if they are actually doing something besides talking, I am going to support them.

Now once they destroy the Islamic threat, I may go after them, they may come after me, but right now whoever is pointing their gun the same direction I am is on my side.

Redneck Texan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redneck Texan said...

Why j ...... We Cross?

Does this mean we're not friends anymore?

j said...

I'm suspicious of you, unimpressed with your knowledge of Europe and particularly unimpressed that you don't stop to consider what other policies the far-right might have. I don't buy your afterthoughts on how, when you're done with the Muslims you might just take on the nazis. Also your admiration of the plan to deport the descendants of every Muslim. I consider myself on the right, but not to the point of sucking up to just about anyone who can rant about lefties, and certainly not the point of standing with neo-nazis. The fact that Dymphna has elevated your thoughts to the front page doesn't reflect well on this blog.

Redneck Texan said...

And your trust in winning the holy war without getting your hands dirty doesn't reflect too well on Britain's future.

If you had the courage to take care of the problem we wouldn't need the far-right would we?

Its your inaction that forces me to support those who will act.

j said...

You're talking about far-right parties. If you think those are the ones getting their hands dirty to save us all you might like to check with the army, police and intelligence services.

So you come up with this meaningless drivel: "Its your inaction that forces me to support those who will act." And that to me suggests that you don't really give a shit about anyone except white supremacists.

Simon de Montfort said...

j, if non-citizen Muslims are not deported, how is what has become as Islamic Flood to be stopped and reversed?

I have suggested re-structuring Euro economies to greatly reduce the need for cheap labor: difficult, but possible: somewhat like the "Greening" of the Euro economies that governments are so enthusiastic about

There are many low wage occupations which could be eliminated or greatly reduced through either mechanization or government-mandated change in behaviour ( much like Green policies )My favorite is to criminalise the hiring of maids in private homes. I call it the 'Clean Your Own Damn House Act"

Some of the low wage jobs could be made high wage--high enough to attract actual Europeans. Cutting welfare state 'womb-to-tomb' benefits would.....motivate

But such changes would take time, and are probably no longer possible. I don't know if an alliance with far right parties is the best course, but what else is there? Who else is even talking about significantly reducing the number of Muslim residents?

Dymphna said...

j said:
The fact that Dymphna has elevated your thoughts to the front page doesn't reflect well on this blog.

J, I've never seen you before on this site, or if I have it wasn't memorable.

The reflection you see is your own soul in a mirror, son.

Redneck Texan is exactly what he says: a redneck, a Texan. Take it or leave it, but I like his diction and directness.

It is you who have been swearing in these comments: *you* don't reflect well here at all. The first person to say "screw you" loses.

If I had a nickel for every passing stranger who came over to give me his uncredentialed opinion as to what was worthy of *my* blog, I could retire tomorrow.

So may we have a link to your blog, that shining city on a hill full of perfect beings with all their p.c. opinions lined up in a row?

I'll hang with the publicans and the sinners, boy, and you go back to your better neighborhood. Hope they don't teach the kind of rhetoric you've displayed here tonight. Not terribly elevating.

j said...

Ridiculous. I'll reply this evening. It's 7.45AM here.

Dymphna said...

j--

You are free to make further comments as long as you obey the rules of civil discourse. These include:

1.Refraining from attacking others by calling them names--i.e., "ridiculous" and their ideas as "meaningless drivel."

2.using R-rated words for your epithets. Homeschooled kids read our blog and so commenters don't use language you've indulged in here. Any further use of of objectionable language will get you deleted.

(Not banned, just deleted on a comment-by-comment basis. We don't ban people here.)

3. Assigningsimplistic motives to people based on your own projections --e.g.,don't really give a shit about anyone except white supremacists.

You've already violated a number of the rules for civil discourse that I don't think I can cover whatever else you might have to say.

Just keep it civil or you're gone. There is already too much rude language passing for "dialogue" in the world. I won't tolerate it here.

It's litter control.

Dymphna said...

simon de monfort --

I agree with your thesis re labor.

I have suggested re-structuring Euro economies to greatly reduce the need for cheap labor: difficult, but possible: somewhat like the "Greening" of the Euro economies that governments are so enthusiastic about

There are many low wage occupations which could be eliminated or greatly reduced through either mechanization or government-mandated change in behaviour ( much like Green policies )My favorite is to criminalise the hiring of maids in private homes. I call it the 'Clean Your Own Damn House Act"

Some of the low wage jobs could be made high wage--high enough to attract actual Europeans. Cutting welfare state 'womb-to-tomb' benefits would.....motivate.


I have the actual experience to prove your thesis: I left a position as a senior social worker doing foster care. The bureaucracy was inherently corrupt. They didn't care where you placed a child as long as you put them *somewhere.* And some of those places were grim. In addition, the paperwork load required by the federal govt made doing a good job impossible unless you worked 7 days a week (two w/o pay). I saw a lot of people cut corners just to make it look good so they'd have time at home.

That was the first time I ever left a job without another one to go to...but it was a good decision.

Eventually I started my own cleaning business. It meant I didn't have to work with sullen "victims" anymore.

It was my intention to hire other women but the paperwork there put me off, too.

So I did my rounds, being paid more an hour than I had made as a social worker. Shorter workday, too, and both the customer and I were able to fire one another if it didn't go well. I never did get let go, but I did refuse to return to a few places. I'll spare you the gory details. Let's just say that chaos and crusty dirt is not an environment limited to the poor.

I had more requests for work than I could handle. My experience of raising four children, running a 10 room house and going to college all at the same time taught me how to *move*, but better yet gave me the organizational skills to get a lot done in a short time.

And being married to someone abusive taught me to be a good negotiater. On-the-job training.

The phenomenon of two working parents has left a huge void for competent home workers. I even took some kids to their doctor appointments, did grocery shopping and meal planning and gift shopping -- IOW, what stay-at-home moms do.

However, one has to be willing to ask for what one's work is worth or it's slavery. And people *will* pay just wages for competent work. I only had one person ever complain. He was an architect and he muttered that he had to pay me slightly more than he did his architectural assistants and they had professional training. I told him my experience was longer, wider, and deeper than theirs could ever hope to be, but if he thought he was being taken advantage of, I'd be glad to quit after his mum's impending visit. Didn't want to leave him high and dry...

...Eventually he got over it. Or at least he didn't complain. Funny thing was, he was my first customer and was to be my last one as I left the business.

********************

You also say: But such changes would take time, and are probably no longer possible.

I disagree that it can't be changed. It starts from the bottom up. When Clinton signed into law the new rules on ADC (Aid to Dependent Children, there was a hue and cry from the left about starving children out in the streets. In fact, they still claim people are being damaged but we just don't know about it.

But the reality is that teenagers are having fewer children because after child #1, reality begins to set in. There are hoops to jump thru, and supervision required and it becomes less appealing.

The US has never indulged in council housing to the extent that Europe did. We were fortunate to avoid that to some extent.Subsidized housing is available -- individual landlords who are willing rent to poor families and the govt foots the bill. But the waiting list is long so guess what? These children with children have to live with mom or dad or grandma. Which is how it should be.

I only pray that we don't get stuck with the albatross of socialized medicine that our Imperial Congress is foisting on us by stealth...it's like trying to bail your ship with a teaspoon to keep ahead of them. And, of course, they have the most incredibly lavish medical insurance for themselves that it staggers belief.

I think you're on the right track, Mr. de Monfort.

YoelB said...

I posted a mildly critical comment in response to Christine's "Charles Johnson's Foreign Policy" piece; it posted OK but has now been taken down.

I don't mind having the substance of what I say debated, but pulling a civil, on topic comment that raises substantive issues is pathetic.

So. Charles was interviewed on Shire News and spoke favorably about Sweden Democrats' efforts to separate themselves from their troubling past. It was supposed to be a debate with Paul Belien, who apparently refused to participate and will be interviewed solo later.

Shire News also interviewed De

YoelB said...

That got clipped somehow.
Shire News also interviewed DeWinter, and I thought he was evasive in some troubling moments. "White is a metaphor" doesn't cut it. Non-white Pushkin advanced Western Civilization. White Timothy McVeigh made war on it. One reason that Nazi propaganda found such a congenial home in the Muslim world is that the resonances between Muslim "ummah," especially in the jihadi iteration, and Nazi "volk."
Maybe I'm being USA-centric in looking for European conservatives to purge their ranks of white supremacists to the extent that the mainstream American conservative movement did.
But I don't think it's out of line to remember that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

PRCalDude said...

Maybe I'm being USA-centric in looking for European conservatives to purge their ranks of white supremacists to the extent that the mainstream American conservative movement did.

This is a baffling statement. Have your read what Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley were writing about race in the 60s? How about Norman Podhertz, over whom the "conservatives" at NRO love to fawn?

Have you read the UN's statement on the rights of indigenous peoples? It applies to the Europeans as well as anyone else. Don't the various European peoples have a right to maintain themselves as well, or do those rights only apply to the myriad identity politics groups we have hear in the United States, to wit, the National Council of La Raza, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. Direct your guns at them first.

Dymphna said...

YoelB said

I posted a mildly critical comment in response to Christine's "Charles Johnson's Foreign Policy" piece; it posted OK but has now been taken down.

I don't mind having the substance of what I say debated, but pulling a civil, on topic comment that raises substantive issues is pathetic.


I have no idea what happened to your comment -- I don't have time to read each one. But we have *never* taken a comment down unless it was a serious character attack or used foul language. Otherwise, people are free to leave what they think here. And others will reply or not.

As for Paul Belien's decline on the interview -- or debate or whatever it was supposed to be-- Belien already had another radio spot scheduled for the same day.

I agree with you that "white" as a metaphor doesn't cut it, but probably for different reasons. The major problem is the lack of new language to match the new realities...I am hoping that this kind of speech will emerge as people feel less defensive and are able to find allies in their quest to preserve their own culture.

Please feel free to re-post your comment. When I comment elsewhere, I always make a copy in case one fails. In fact, I cut and paste every comment because of blooger's tendency to lose things. After awhile they stale date and I delete the copies.

But that's only in the case of things I care about, as you obviously do here.

YoelB said...

Dymphna, the comment is back up (good thing, I guess; it was pretty late when I posted it and I'm not sure I would do it that way again) so I guess it was just a technical glitch.