Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map

Charles at LGF is continuing to study supposed culprits under microscope, but let's keep our view at the bigger picture. Let's keep our heads cool and look at what's important before going into details. This is the first in a series of posts I will make, looking at things through the perspective of the whole Counterjihad summit, LGF, Vlaams Belang, Sverigedemokraterna thing:

Six years ago I didn't see much hope in forging a European counterjihad alliance. The political map of anti-establishment parties, or at least the image of it, was dominated by people such as Jörg Haider and Le Pen. European nationalism had been oppressed and abused for so long, that the early expressions of its resurge involved cartoonish concepts of nationalism as well as anti-Semitism. So we are not surprised really that quite some of these people turned out to be pro-Muslim too. Le Pen who recently called the immigrant North African youths "branches of the French tree", who sided with the Muslims in the Muhammad Cartoon affair, and is standing up for Iran's "right" to build a nuke. And Jörg Haider who, quite as David Duke(*), was fond of paying friendly visits to Middle Eastern dictator thugs, in Haider's case Saddam Hussein.

It's clear that leaders such as Le Pen and Jörg Haider are useless in opposing the threat from Islam. But the whole political map of Europe in this field has dramatically changed, and Le Pen and Haider are not significant any longer. Since November 2001 a government backed by the Danish People's Party is ruling in Denmark. With the 9/11 attacks and the far-going Islamization of Europe as background, European nationalism is no longer a fringe issue. Now there is real substance to it, and a real critical mass of popular support has emerged, and the good example of the Danish People's Party has shown the way.
- - - - - - - - - -
In this process we see new parties emerging, the original nationalist parties transforming, and old traditional parties joining. In the last decade we've seen the creation of the UK Independence Party, Philippe de Villiers' Mouvement pour la France, and the Danish People's Party, to name a few. Nationalist parties, such as the Sweden Democrats, have been transformed (more about that later). Traditional parties such as the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) have joined. Also Partido Popular in Spain takes a strong anti-Jihad position with their Foreign Affairs Spokesman Gustavo de Arístegui. There are many more examples. Many reasons for hope.

Everything is decisively moving in the right direction. Focus is put in stopping the Islamization of Europe. Anti-Semitism and racism is thrown out, or being replaced by new parties. It will appear strange that anti-Semitism and Counterjihadism have ever co-existed in the same parties, but the answer is found in the virtually totalitarian power of political correctness (and don't forget here its immense mental power!), and how all defense of nationalism and our cultural substance is equally bullied, no matter if it's done for good or for bad reasons. This has for long confused the issue, superficially anti-Semites/racists and counterjihadists will look the same in the light of the prevailing political theater, they will be equally bullied, and furthermore they will take similar positions regarding halting the mass immigration into Europe. In some cases, in some countries, depending on the constitution and political climate, the counterjihadists had no other option than to hijack a party with anti-Semites/racists and then kick them out.

But since 9/11, counterjihadism is creating a magnetic field over the whole political map of European counter-establishment, is going towards a molecular alignment as in a magnetic metal. But we cannot wait for this process to converge into perfection, before starting to act. One or two years ahead it can already be too late. We have to work with what we've got, and as Dymphna said at Gates of Vienna:

There will be some less-than-ideal people piggy-backing on this movement to save the various European states and cultures.

So what? Perfection is the enemy of good enough. If we have to wait until everything is "pure" then Europe will fall.

The multi-cultis will call us racist xenophobes anyway.

And should we encounter one of those less-than-ideal among our ranks, the right approach is to have a dialog with them, We are the many, and they are the few, so there's nothing to fear from such a dialog. And the really bad eggs won't show up at all. The bad eggs do not want to come to such an explicitly philo-Semitic conference as the Counterjihad summit we had in Brussels. They don't want to come to the conference featuring the strongly Zionist Aryeh Eldad, they want to go to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial conference. These two groups are mutually exclusive. The magnetic metal is aligning itself. The neo-Nazis do not want to touch us with a ten-foot pole. So this is completely a non-issue. Our very positions protect us from their presence. But surely there will be less-than-ideal people to be found while the movement is growing. Most people still only have an intuitive idea of that something is wrong, and carry many confused concepts within (due to the smokes and mirrors of the political theater). They will need to be educated. Dialog is a good idea, ostracism a bad one.

(*) Update: Maybe I'm unfair to Jörg Haider comparing him to David Duke above. I could just as well have compared him to Nancy Pelosi, visiting Syria in support of the same dictatorial thug, Bashar al-Assad, as David Duke. Where Nancy Pelosi caused much more damage with her visit than David Duke did. And unlike Duke she actually met with Bashar al-Assad. Yes, Nancy Pelosi would perhaps have been a better comparison. Nevertheless, they are all equally useless in opposing the threat from Islam: Jörg Haider, David Duke and Nancy Pelosi.