A Popular Front of the Right
By now, the fight between Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Paul Belien of Brussels Journal has been noticed and commented on by just about anyone who has been paying attention. I think Crunchy-Con Rod Dreher has done the best job of summarizing the issues and the fight over at his blog at beliefnet.com:
Comrades! Now is not the time for such fighting!
The fact is that this is one of those issues in which both sides have very valid points and cause for complaint. From a classically American point of view, Johnson's dislike of Brussels Journal's boosterism of Vlaams Belang and its leader Philip Dewinter makes perfect sense; VB is an ethnically-based nationalist party seeking to form a nation devoted to that sole ethnic group. And, yes, despite the fact that Auster and others have sought to downplay it, the "Odin's Cross" that LGF has complained of is in fact an internationally-recognized symbol of White Nationalism and, yes, it has appeared favorably in VB publications, not to mention Mr. Dewinter's bookshelf. As an American, Johnson is leery of groups that are based on race and who advocate for racial nationalism.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the European Right, all of this is unremarkable. The European Right is traditionalist in its outlook and well before Paul Belien came along it took a very dim view of certain aspects of American life. It is entirely unremarkable in the European context for a party to organize on ethnic lines--especially in Belgium--and to speak the language of ethnic/racial nationalism. Simply put, Europe's Right isn't concerned with many of the peculiarities of the American Right, and I don't see any reason why it should be.
But all of this is beside the point. Regardless of whether one's conservatism runs to modern American (Johnson), traditionalist American (Auster), traditionalist European (Belien) or a more American-type European conservatism (Ali) the fact is that all share a common platform.
At all costs, Islamism must be defeated and the Islamification of our nations must be stopped.
On that front, the situation on the international right now is akin to that faced by the international left in the 1930's as the threat of German fascism arose. You history buffs out there will recall that in the face of that threat the various Communist parties stopped their feuds with the various Socialist and Radical parties, the Socialists/Radicals dropped their long-standing arguments with the Communists, and all joined together in what became known as the Popular Front.
Why?
Was it because the Communists stopped seeing the Socialists as misguided reformers who were merely prolonging the life of capitalism and delaying the revolution?
Was it because the Socialists stopped caring about freedom of speech and religion and other important liberties that the Communists denounced as bourgeois illusions?
Was it because the various factions of the Left suddenly agreed on both tactics and goals?
No, it was because they recognized that they all had much more in common with each other than that of the enemy and that only together could they stem the rising tide and save the space necessary to continue the argument at a later date.
Comrades, we face such a time today.
Auster may be right that Johnson is still a liberal at heart. Johnson may be right that Belien cares more about suppressing homosexuality than preserving individual liberty. Ali may be right that in seeking to impose their own vision of what the good society is on everyone traditional conservatives have much in common with Islamists. And Belien may be right that only a new traditionalist community could possibly give us strength and reason enough to resist Islamism.
These are discussions for a later time. Now, our goal is to unite on our common programme and resist the agreed-upon enemy.
Just as Socialists and Communists set aside-while never forgetting-their disputes to engage the Fascist enemy, we must do so today.
For a new Popular Front!
A most unfortunate but nevertheless revealing fight has broken out between the principals at Little Green Footballs and Brussels Journal, two of the more important websites devoted in large part to keeping tabs on and raising the alarm against Islamic extremism, especially in the West. The contretemps has to do with accusations of racism being lodged against the Brussels Journal writers by Charles Johnson of LGF (although it seems to have more to do with some of the people who post in the comboxes there than the actual writers for the site). The BJ writers strongly deny it-- and readers should be aware that in Europe, anyone who dissents from multiculti dogma, especially on immigration, runs the real risk of being denounced as the vilest kind of racist and fascist. Larry Auster, in defending Brussels Journal and Paul Belien, partly speaks to this point. As Auster suggests, reading the Wikipedia description of the Vlaams Belang party platform may startle Americans; this Flemish nationalist party that's supposed to be fascist is actually fairly ordinary in its conservatism, by American standards. Calling VB "fascist" is to indulge in the soft bigotry of low expectations. Ahem.
Anyway, whoever's right in this particular dispute, reading this post by Paul Belien on Brussels Journal convinces me that this bitter argument exposes a real and important division among the anti-Islamist faction, which is almost always associated (at least in Europe) with conservatives. Both sides can agree on what they're against -- radical Islam in power in the West -- but they cannot agree on what they're for.
Comrades! Now is not the time for such fighting!
The fact is that this is one of those issues in which both sides have very valid points and cause for complaint. From a classically American point of view, Johnson's dislike of Brussels Journal's boosterism of Vlaams Belang and its leader Philip Dewinter makes perfect sense; VB is an ethnically-based nationalist party seeking to form a nation devoted to that sole ethnic group. And, yes, despite the fact that Auster and others have sought to downplay it, the "Odin's Cross" that LGF has complained of is in fact an internationally-recognized symbol of White Nationalism and, yes, it has appeared favorably in VB publications, not to mention Mr. Dewinter's bookshelf. As an American, Johnson is leery of groups that are based on race and who advocate for racial nationalism.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the European Right, all of this is unremarkable. The European Right is traditionalist in its outlook and well before Paul Belien came along it took a very dim view of certain aspects of American life. It is entirely unremarkable in the European context for a party to organize on ethnic lines--especially in Belgium--and to speak the language of ethnic/racial nationalism. Simply put, Europe's Right isn't concerned with many of the peculiarities of the American Right, and I don't see any reason why it should be.
But all of this is beside the point. Regardless of whether one's conservatism runs to modern American (Johnson), traditionalist American (Auster), traditionalist European (Belien) or a more American-type European conservatism (Ali) the fact is that all share a common platform.
At all costs, Islamism must be defeated and the Islamification of our nations must be stopped.
On that front, the situation on the international right now is akin to that faced by the international left in the 1930's as the threat of German fascism arose. You history buffs out there will recall that in the face of that threat the various Communist parties stopped their feuds with the various Socialist and Radical parties, the Socialists/Radicals dropped their long-standing arguments with the Communists, and all joined together in what became known as the Popular Front.
Why?
Was it because the Communists stopped seeing the Socialists as misguided reformers who were merely prolonging the life of capitalism and delaying the revolution?
Was it because the Socialists stopped caring about freedom of speech and religion and other important liberties that the Communists denounced as bourgeois illusions?
Was it because the various factions of the Left suddenly agreed on both tactics and goals?
No, it was because they recognized that they all had much more in common with each other than that of the enemy and that only together could they stem the rising tide and save the space necessary to continue the argument at a later date.
Comrades, we face such a time today.
Auster may be right that Johnson is still a liberal at heart. Johnson may be right that Belien cares more about suppressing homosexuality than preserving individual liberty. Ali may be right that in seeking to impose their own vision of what the good society is on everyone traditional conservatives have much in common with Islamists. And Belien may be right that only a new traditionalist community could possibly give us strength and reason enough to resist Islamism.
These are discussions for a later time. Now, our goal is to unite on our common programme and resist the agreed-upon enemy.
Just as Socialists and Communists set aside-while never forgetting-their disputes to engage the Fascist enemy, we must do so today.
For a new Popular Front!
