Internecine squabbles

Over at the Up Pompeii blog, AjukDD has written a post called 'When Friends Attack.'
It seems to revolve around a rather convoluted incident in which commenters at a couple of counterjihad/neocon forums and blogs called certain others 'fascists' or Nazis, and this in turn led to charges that groups like CAIR were using these accusations of fascism to discredit the counterjihad movement. It's all rather complicated, and in the midst of it were accusations (by some Americans) that the European nationalist parties, like Vlaams Belang, were 'fascists', and further, that Europeans in general were guilty of collaboration with Nazis in the past. The Europhobic comments which are typical of many of the neocon/counterjihadists (the two groups substantially overlap) began to fly, apparently, on some of these blogs.

This is an example of what I was referring to the other day when I blogged about the tendency to try to disavow the so-called 'far right', mainly those with nationalist sympathies, because the connection has been made between nationalists and Nazis, and to the simple of mind, nationalist=Nazi.

Why are neocons still fighting WWII? It's long since over. They are still stuck in their anti-Nazi, anti-European mode. We have new enemies now, real enemies and they aren't just the 'Islamofascists', so-called.
And what's up with that label? Do they have to tack on the '-fascist' suffix to make it acceptable to hate the Islamic enemy?

This little incident, though it may appear to be a tempest in a teapot, is indicative of an attitude that is common on the right, and especially so among the neocon/mainstream Republican types. I've said that they are excessively concerned with image and with respectability and so they seem to overcompensate for their own fears of being called 'racist' or 'bigot' by calling others those things. I suppose their idea is that it is proof positive of their own lack of bigotry or racism or 'fascism' if they accuse others of those things.

All of this is why I have long since walked away from the counterjihadists, many of whom do some good work on exposing Islam nonetheless -- but when we think about it, what's left to expose? Islam has shown us all we need to know about it; is there a solitary soul in the West who is still naive about Islam? And if so, will all the exposes of Islam in the world open their eyes? However it seems to me that while Europe's greatest menace at the moment is Islam, and mainly the slow conquest via immigration, our greatest threat in these United States is the Mexican threat, via illegal immigration and compromise of our sovereignty. So I am sometimes dumbfounded as to why the counterjihadist Americans seem quite sanguine about the Mexican invasion, while they see Islam or as they put it, 'Islamofascism' or 'Islamism' as the primary threat, if not the only one.

I have noticed, too, that most of those in this category are of the neocon persuasion, and that they tend also to be very pro-Iraq war, pro-Middle East intervention.

And neocons or mainstream Republicans are the most politically correct of all those on the 'right', and the most prone to condemn and name-call those to their right. They often have a classroom snitch attitude, and love to catch people out in some transgression of political correctness, the better to position themselves as enlightened and non-bigoted.

This has got to stop if we are ever to make any headway against our common enemies. The fact that America and the West in general are so divided is a factor in the seeming success of the assault of the West. If we had any degree of unity, kinship loyalty and integrity, we would not be such easy prey for would-be conquerors.

Instead, we are all squabbling among ourselves on who is a fascist and a Nazi (which does give fuel to our enemies' accusations; they gladly take up the hue and cry when somebody calls one of their own a 'fascist' or a 'racist.')

Are there actual 'fascists' and Nazis on the right, either here or in Europe? When I read British blogs and newspaper comments sections, I notice that many seemingly average people think the BNP, the British National Party, is 'fascist' and Nazi. I often hear them described as 'vile.' Do the people really believe this? I tend to think they merely repeat what they hear the PC opinion-dictators saying. Similarly with Vlaams Belang. Some liberal journo slings these labels around, and the unthinking masses repeat what they read or hear.

Let's be honest: the words 'fascist' 'nazi' 'bigot' are just like the overused and devalued word 'racist.' They have been used to describe anybody right of center, anybody who bucks the politically correct system. The people who use these words have cried wolf one time too many. Do they listen to themselves? Do they realize how they are discrediting themselves with this hyperbole and name-calling?

I suppose there are real 'fascists' and Nazis out there somewhere, but their numbers are insignificant; they hold no power. Who can name any incident of violence in which such people played a part? Isolated incidents by some loner somewhere don't count. Timothy McVeigh doesn't count. He was not part of any mass movement. So where do we get this idea that there are fascists under the bed waiting to get us, or conquer the world? I don't know of any, and I read many different media sources. So while we in the West are busily calling anybody to our right a 'fascist' and Nazi, there are real totalitarians, mostly on the Left, destroying our countries and cultures. And there is a real invasion by Latin Americans which is threatening our existence as a nation.

And do people honestly think that 'nationalists' are necessarily the same as Nazis? The idea that nationalism in general is evil and dangerous is bizarre. We might, if you want to split hairs, quibble over whether a nation is a state, and whether nationalism is or is not the same as patriotism, but the fact is, parties like Vlaams Belang or the BNP are not the equivalent of Nazis, and it's a form of hysteria to equate them.

Do the European peoples not have a right to assert their own national interests? The implication by the name-callers among the counterjihadists and neocons is that such interests are illegitimate by definition. Why? Do they, like Ralph Peters, think that the Europeans are 'nazis' under the skin, and that any resurgence of national feeling will lead to some kind of rebirth of fascism, World War II style? That kind of thinking is based on a rather low opinion of Europeans, which I don't share. What is it with neocons and their sneering at the French and the rest of the Europeans as 'surrender monkeys'?

And if the Europeans have no right to reassert their own national interests, does that mean that we in America who want to reclaim America and protect our sovereignty and our culture are also fascists? I suspect so; some of the neocon mainstream GOP types are among the most vitriolic enemies of 'nativism' and other such politically incorrect tendencies.

What it all boils down to, again, is that many of the blustering neocons, despite their hawkishness on the Middle East situation, are themselves 'surrender monkeys' at home, who think restricting immigration or asserting American interests is suspect.

I used to share some sympathies with the counterjihadists, but as time has passed, and my concerns turned towards our homefront problems, such as controlling our borders and preserving America, I find I have little in common with them, and obviously they feel the same towards me and people like me. It's just one more example of how the right (if the neocons can be counted as part of the right) is becoming more fragmented.

I don't think the gap can easily be bridged, but can we not at least call a truce, if we really are all on the right, and if we understand that we have common interests and common enemies? It only helps our enemies, whoever they are understood to be, to have us calling each other names, attempting to strike a self-righteous PC pose at the expense of those to the right of us.

It's unfortunate that these same people cannot be more wholeheartedly supportive of our European cousins, rather than feeling a need to condemn their efforts.

We have a desperate need for unity, first of all among Americans, and then with our kinsmen in the rest of the besieged Western world. This is no time to be playing the more-PC-than-thou game.