I should know better than to insert my insignificant two cents into a blogwar that has nothing to do with me. It's always a bad idea. But this is killing me. So I'm unwisely going to make a comment here, on my own tiny patch of turf.
How did we get to the point where a blogger can't offer up a well considered, thoughtful opinion that deviates from some imaginary "norm" without getting ambushed from all directions by thought police? Bloggers have gained considerable power in shaping opinion over the past few years, yes, but let's get a grip. It's just absurd to claim that, simply by suggesting that certain alliances may be unwise, any blogger, no matter how widely read, is somehow undermining the war against Islamo-fascism in Europe or anywhere else.
Maybe Charles Johnson is right that there is reason to be cautious about joining forces with the Flemish Vlaams Belang party. Maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's being overly cautious. Maybe he's only recommending due diligence. I've read way more about this question than I wanted to and I'm still not sure. What I am sure of, though, is that no one has done more to advance Islamo-fascist awareness in the blogosphere than Charles Johnson. No one has done more to provide a spotlight for others to advance it. No one is more determined to use the power of the blog to continue to advance it. How ironic that this past week should be the time for such a nasty rift between allies in this all-important battle. How ridiculous to paint Charles as a saboteur simply because his conscience won't allow him to toe someone else's line on who are and who are not or may not be our real friends.
And, finally, how much media coverage did "Counterjihad Brussles 2007" generate? Not much, it seems. It's not as if the questions raised have deflated a juggernaut in mid-air. But to the extent they have generated this kind of rational response, they've only contributed to the discussion.
It is good the errors published about these parties came to light since they give us direction and focus for steps that need to be taken to correct misunderstandings and present the facts. We sympathize with those who have researched these matters and drawn conclusions that we consider to be completely wrong-headed. This is a complicated subject. Obstacles arise from the need to research information in other languages and other countries. The complexities of other political cultures are numerous.
In addition, there are two problems: one is disinformation used by opposing parties, which involves the task of separating myths generated on the Internet from factual data, and another is the lack of adequate machine translation for Flemish and Swedish.
We look forward to an ongoing discussion about the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and threats presented by political organizations who have the ability and the will to oppose Islamisation. It is vital to have a “big-tent†approach, but for us that tent does have some boundaries, to wit:
• we urge support for those groups who defend constitutional liberties and human rights,
• who defend national sovereignty and the rule of law,
• who support free speech,
• who support Israel’s right to exist with defensible borders,
• who oppose anti-Semitism,
• who support the integration of immigrants into Western laws and values,
• who want a right to control immigration for national objectives,
• who oppose terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and
• who oppose Islamisation, jihad and the imposition of shariah law.
This is a reasonable list, but a lot of mainstream political parties in Europe are far too politically correct to make the cut. Ask for a position against Islamisation, for Israel’s right to exist and for free speech, and you have eliminated many political organizations in European countries.
So let's talk. "Immigration" is not an inalienable "right." Those who wish to close their borders to immigrants whose goal is to subvert the culture and values of their adopted country are not racists or bigots. But neither are those who are suspicious of advocacy in the name of national or ethnic "purity" paranoid.
Divide and conquer. It's an effective strategy. Let's not do it to ourselves. Surely there's a better way to handle our differences. We don't need to be providing this spectacle for the entertainment of our enemies, but neither do we need to walk in lock step. You know, most of the world isn't even aware of this dispute (so far) and doesn't care. So all this energy is being wasted, except on those who revel in our in-fighting.
Enough already.
