From A Tangled Web.
Further discussion of the issue of the rift on the 'right':
Faultlines
..It is readily apparent that this faultline is basically not a political one but rather a geographic one. The oftimes smug sense of superiority (‘Europe is doomed because they are all Dhimmi wimps’, ‘we will have to come and save them again’ etc etc) that the American Blogosphere has frequently been known to display has risen to the surface once again. Moreover, there is what I feel is a genuinely justified sense of grievance amongst the European Blogs that, not to put too fine a point on it, the Americans should try walking a mile or two in our shoes before they start telling us how misguided we all are.
By and large American writers (Johnson included) do not have to live side by side with the effects of the multicultural nightmare. They do not have major cities in the grip of rape waves committed by Islamic immigrants who quite openly admit their loathing of ‘white women’. For all that ‘positive discrimination’ began its despicable life in the US as ‘affirmative action’, they are not living in a situation where they are routinely institutionally treated as inferior simply for being white-skinned, where they are denied their basic sense of nationhood in favour of ‘Europeanism’ and Transnationalism.
Walk a few miles in our shoes and then tell us how we should maintain a political and ideological purity to suit you, Charles.
[...]
But this issues needs airing, once and for all. The Right needs to decide where its future direction lays – with diffuse efforts spread over many differing pressure groups unwilling to unite behind a single Party because it isn’t ‘acceptable’ or ‘pure’ enough for them? Well, the anti-EU movement in the UK has seen how far that gets you with its failures to support UKIP when it mattered and its slavish adherence to the desperate hope that it can ‘change the agenda’ by just…asking a lot.
Or should we give the likes of the Vlaams Belang the benefit of the doubt and say ‘thank you’ for their courage in the face of overwhelming political and even physical pressure to give up on their countries, even if we run the risk of being tainted by association? Should we dance to the MSM’s tune by allowing them to dictate the terms of political ‘respectability’ as they have done for so long, or should we simply take the view that their immediate and visceral hatred of anyone who departs from the message (think of our new News at Ten presenter and her ‘extermination’ line…) means that any possibility of favourable coverage from them simply doesn’t exist anyway, so why bother worrying (in a purely tactical sense anyway)?''
Among the comments: one commenter says the parties in question are 'utter scum', 'fascists'; another speaks of the 'ugly agenda' of many of the nationalists or what the commenter called 'supremicist' groups.
Is the gap between Americans and Europeans real? Just look at the discussion here.
So there is considerable truth in the statement that Americans are somewhat lacking in sympathy for Europeans, and there is considerable misunderstanding.
But the important issue in this discussion is whether political correctness, whether it's wearing 'conservative' guise or its usual liberal garments, is to dictate who is legitimate as an ally. The PC right and left both imagine themselves to be morally superior to the nationalists and 'fascists'.
I would ask those who still insist on playing this game: what is this 'ugly agenda' that you ascribe to the nationalists? Is it ugly to suggest that European countries should belong to the people who are indigenous to those countries? If so, why? This was the normal, accepted order of things up until a few decades ago, when the flood of third-world immigration began to transform Europe.
For those who style themselves 'conservatives' but take the PC side in this discussion, please explain how ethnic and racial transformation of a country, and the submergence of the traditional culture of a country, is consistent with 'conserving' anything? It is the very opposite of conservative; the idea that anybody and everybody can claim the right to enter and live in Western countries is radical in the extreme. In fact, it would be more correct to call those who support mass immigration, whether actively or passively, the real extremists. The pro-immigrationists are the extremists, not the nationalists, who are simply asserting their time-honored claims to their own countries, the countries which have historically belonged to their people, their ancestors.
As for calling the nationalists and right-wingers 'utter scum', how and why are they 'scum', and by what right does anyone label them as such? I thought Europe had laws against hate speech. Could you, or would you, call Moslems or other immigrant groups 'utter scum'? I would bet money that the very idea shocks you. The politically correct would never dream of calling immigrants 'scum', yet they call members of their own group such names freely. What's wrong with this picture?
I seriously want to know how, why, and when it became 'extremist' or hateful to want to preserve one's own country, and to prevent it from being changed beyond recognition without your consent? We truly live in a topsy-turvy world when what was taken for granted only a generation ago has now practically been outlawed, declared 'extremist' and 'fascist.' And the fact that self-described 'conservatives' are doing this is the most insane part of it all.
And for all the holier-than-thou, 'we can't associate with the likes of them' types, I have to ask: do you prefer seeing your country and your continent fall to Islam? Are they to be preferred over the 'fascists' or 'extremists' who are basically your only potential defenders? Think about it: if Paul Weston's war between Islam and the West materializes, who will be on your side? The 'extremists' are extreme in their allegiance to their people; what better cause in which to be 'extreme'? Better that than to be an extremist in the cause of political correctness.
There were 'extremist' nationalists about whom W.B. Yeats wrote a poem. They were executed by the British for their part in the Easter Rising. Did Yeats call them 'haters'? No; he said
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
Bewildered them till they died?
Excess of love: they loved their country and they went to what many would call 'extremes' against the British, who were, all things considered a much more humane foe than Islam. Few people these days recognize that the 'hate' that they see among many patriots and nationalists is simply the obverse side of love. Chilton Williamson said:
...Rage and hate both are aspects of anger. They are not, however, the equivalent of one another. "I love a good hater," said Samuel Johnson. He meant that hate implies a corresponding love, which responds reactively to its threatened opposite. For a man to hate, he must first love; as he who loves, inevitably hates. Hate is a directed thing, focused like a laser beam. By comparison, rage is undirected, unfocused, generalized, indiscriminate: an adult tantrum. "Rage," Ernst von Feuchtersleben thought, "is a vulgar passion with vulgar ends." Thus it is with good reason, if poor judgment, that the Left boasts of the "rage" it nurtures in its bosom, while denouncing the "hate" it relentlessly discovers on the Right.''
Those who claim to love their country, their people, their heritage, their God, their way of life, will viscerally react with hate to anything or anyone who threatens that which they love. There is love behind the 'hate', so-called, of the nationalists and patriots. Those who have no such visceral reaction, no innate instinct to defend themselves and their loved ones and their country against those who would destroy them and all they love are deficient in normal human feelings. Those who cannot muster any natural, visceral antipathy toward their sworn enemies will prove to be useless when backs are to the wall. They seem to be able to hate their countrymen for being too 'extreme' but they would rather die or convert to Islam than to be an 'extremist' nationalist scum.
Sorting out who is the real threat to our survival is not that hard, and I will give the clueless a clue: it isn't our own homegrown nationalists who are the threat.
And we have an analogous situation in this country with the Mexican invasion; plenty of Americans will react with verbal abuse towards anyone who criticizes Mexicans in blunt terms. The same phenomenon is happening in all Western countries.
I have to try to understand this completely irrational state of affairs. Is all this hatred of natural allies a way of displacing hatred of the invading peoples? Have the politically correct who pontificate against 'racism' and 'hate' simply displaced their natural antipathy toward the hostile invaders onto their own people, placing the blame at their feet? Do they possibly believe that if the nationalists did not exist, the Moslems and other strangers in their midst would be friendly and amicable? I think it could very well be displaced hatred. We all, in the West, have it drummed into our heads that we must not dislike outsiders; we must not even criticize them, or get angry with them no matter how much they menace us or hate us. We must be unfailingly deferential and respectful of the outsiders. We have to forego our own culture so as not to offend them; we can't call them names though they can call us anything they like, without fear of consequence. We are so imbued with the idea that the ultimate in evil is to dislike an outsider, a foreigner, and that conversely the ultimate in enlightenment and virtue is to fawn over foreigners, defer to them, put them on a pedestal, celebrate their presence and the 'vibrant' culture they bring to our otherwise drab and boring countries. This is an unnatural situation; we all have an innate tendency to be at least suspicious of outsiders. And if these strangers exhibit open hostility, as Moslems (and in America, Mexicans) do, it would be only natural for us to respond with dislike and anger and resentment. Yet we see cringing deference on the part of many among the majority. Why? Is it fear? Or is there a visceral dislike which, being so strongly forbidden, erupts in hostility towards our own?
I don't know the explanation, but that will do as well as any. The deference to outsiders is unnatural, but this rage and disdain for our own, this fear that they make us 'look bad', this fear that they will further provoke an already hostile enemy -- I suppose they make sense; there is 'Islamophobia' among many who profess to be anti-racist. Their Islamophobia is more fear than hate, and they want to silence those who would anger the enemy. But I've got some news for them: the enemy doesn't like us and never will, no matter how PC we are. In fact, I suspect our 'niceness' and avoidance of confrontation appear as weakness, for which they have contempt.
The 'right' needs to do some thinking. Some of the politically correct vigilantes need to do some looking inward: why, they might ask themselves, are they so horrified by the idea of Europeans controlling Europe? Or of the idea of America for Americans? And why would any conservative not be concerned with preserving their countries and keeping their heritage and culture intact? And I wonder why anyone who is not concerned with the preservation of country and soil and people would want to call himself 'conservative'?
I think there are quite a few confused liberals who took a wrong turn and ended up on the wrong side of the aisle politically. Maybe they need to migrate over to the left side with their politically correct brethren on the left, and they can all snipe at the 'extremists' together. That way the 'extremists' might have a chance to save their countries if the PC pharisees just stand back and stop interfering.
