Repudiating the impure Anti-Jihadists

Sean Kinsell looks at a couple of pieces by Bruce Bawer on the repudiation of Pim Fortuyn by certain members of the European right wing. Warns Sean,

Some of these people probably had contempt for Fortuyn all along but were willing not to repudiate him as long as he was one of the few high-profile advocates of classical liberalism. It doesn't take a major leap to see their becoming fans of the Vlaams Belang (which from everything I've ever heard is seriously wacko), either.

What's more worrisome is the number of sensible, rank-and-file Western European citizens who may be figuring that the emerging alternatives to the left establishment are the only useful corrective and pushback available at this point, and that the unpalatable fascist undercurrents can be dealt with later. It seems a dangerous game to play in light of history.

Interestingly, Bawer (whose piece is also posted at Little Green Footballs) has a lot to say about the growing rift among Anti-Jihadists. According to Bawer (and Johnson) things have reached the point where some Anti-Jihadists will not consider you a "real" Anti-Jihadist unless you support the far right Vlaams Belang. And if you're a "libertine" like Fortuyn, you're too impure to be a real Anti-Jihadist.

To tell the truth, much as I loathe Jihadists and consider them the enemy, I never thought much about Anti-Jihadist purity.

I assumed only the Jihadists were into that sort of stuff.

posted by Eric on 05.12.09 at 10:54 AM










Comments

Vlaams Belang (which from everything I've ever heard is seriously wacko)

oh good someone who doesn't investigate what a particular group stands for and relies on others for his opinion of them. get this guy a job in the msm.

router   ·  May 12, 2009 7:05 PM

Just curious. How could someone "investigate what a particular group stands for" without relying on others? Rely on the group itself?

Eric Scheie   ·  May 13, 2009 12:18 PM

router, I've read the VB's web pages and listened to interviews with its luminaries and all that good stuff; taken on their own terms, they sound great--eminently sensible. But you're not seriously going to argue that we should run about taking the way politicians account for themselves at face value, are you? Anyone can engage in smooth talk about loving liberty and cherishing the individual. The most vile statists here in the States do it all the time, because they know their quest for political power will go nowhere otherwise.

Anyone who wants to "investigate" the Vlaams Belang is welcome to go to Little Green Footballs and read--not just Charles Johnson's posts, but the primary and other secondary sources he links to, in which associations with white-power symbols and figures keep just somehow reappearing. From there, keep moving through the English search results. It's possible that I shouldn't have used the word "hear," which is a bit casual-sounding, but these are not things I caught while eavesdropping on a crosstown bus.

Sean Kinsell   ·  May 13, 2009 1:01 PM

chuck @ lgf is not a good source on vb. i mean mr. fauxtography used fauxtography in smearing vb.

router   ·  May 13, 2009 7:29 PM

As sources go, I would tend to trust LGF over an anonymous commenter.

Eric Scheie   ·  May 14, 2009 10:40 AM

IIRC, there was one photograph on which the background had been changed? (Sorry if I'm wrong and you're thinking about something else--I haven't gone back and dug up the relevant posts.) That doesn't change who was shaking hands with whom. It also does nothing to gainsay the multitude of other primary sources linked to by not mediated through LGF.

Sean Kinsell   ·  May 14, 2009 11:09 AM
The top photo shows Vlaams Belang's Filip Dewinter with Pro-Köln's Markus Beisicht in front of what appears to be a neo-Nazi demonstration. (Actually the banners are from Antifa, Antifascistische Aktion, a violent Leftist group.) That's the photo Johnson ran. The only problem? It's a fake. The second photo is the real one: Dewinter and Beisicht on the roof of the Flemish Parliament in Brussels.

How much can you trust Charles Johnson's information? Here are just a few things he has gotten wrong:

1. I have not committed to speak in Cologne.

2. Manfred Rouhs, a Pro-Köln member of the city council, is not a neo-Nazi. Here is a statement from Rouhs:

?

router   ·  May 14, 2009 6:59 PM
The most vile statists here in the States do it all the time

name names

router   ·  May 14, 2009 11:30 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits