Robert Spencer has published his take on the situation aroused by Charles Johnson and LGF and their attack on some participants of the Counterjihad conference in Brussels. He made his intentions clear, and made some good points but some things left me baffled.
I'll start with the latter. Spencer expresses doubts whether Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna have indeed renounced nazism and racism and cites some examples and then gives a rather vague reply by Fjordman, which is a part of a bigger essay but which was just a general remoark. Spencer completely ignores specific answers to charges against VB put out by the same Fjordman, Paul Belien of Brussels journal and other bloggers. Why? I suppose this is because of his perpetual war of words with CAIR and other islamist groups who toss the "nazi" canard like it is nobody's business and Spencer does not want to give them ammunition. His pre-emptive dissasociation with potential nazis, however, has lead many to a comclusion that he lends credence to the charges of Charles Johnson. VB and SD(an unfortunate acronym, but what can I do) are, even according to Robert Spencer, the most pro-Israel parties in their countries and SD is on record of having expelled all it's members with pro-nazi leanings. What more does Spencer want? The leaderships of VB and SD can in no way control every single one of their members nor can they come up with 100% fool-proof way of screening new members. As I noted in one of my previous entries, many genuine racists join the parties demonized as "racist" by the establishment because they believe such propaganda. Besides, my opinion is that there will be no pleasing the likes of Charles Johnson. They will not let go of the "racist" and "neo-nazi" canard until those smeared with it accept completely and unconditionally their variant of political correctness.
That said, Spencer does make some important points. In major countries in Europe there is no coherent political organization dedicated to fighting global jihad, and those that exist are suspect at best. Take the BNP, for example. I must admit I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to them. Their leader, Nick Griffin is on record of having given statements that could constitute Holocaust denial but has said since that his views on this have changed. Now, I accept that people can indeed change their opinion on a matter when confronted with facts or even their political philosophy, but is the change of heart sincere or is it pure opportunism? In France practically the only anti-jihad party was the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen. He has been made into a bogey man ever since the 1990-ties and some of the unsavoury comments he brought upon himself. But another big concern should be that in the previous elections FN has made inroads towards the muslim community and has accepted some tennets of multiculturalism. As for Germany...Oh, dear, just imagine if a politician would declare himself "a German nationalist"! A major political organization in at least one of these three countries dedicated to defending the indigenous people and by extension European civilization without having any pro-nazi baggage. Don't anyone tell me I've become politically correct, because Europe had such parties before the multiculturalist takover in the past 3 or 4 decades. It's the only way Europe can break with this trend which is spelling an inevitable end for the continent.