A Temporary Political Grouping

The next installment in the theme I launched in my previous post has been handily provided by Bewick, an English reader who left a comment on Pat Condell’s latest video.

I’ve edited his text slightly for punctuation and clarity:

If I had the skill I would send this to every UK and European MP.

Perhaps more practically —

Public opponents of Islamism are appearing in many European Countries. Wilders , ESW, Marine Le Pen, Tommy Robinson, the German banker [Thilo Sarrazin], Lars Hedegaard, Susanne Winter. That covers just six of the countries of the EU.

Below the parapet I would guess that there are many more who are simply too scared to say what they think.

So far every grouping is following its own agenda. They will, apart from this one issue, differ on many fronts.

Attempts have been made to form a single group, but so far with little success.

As the unions so often say: “United we stand, divided we fall.” It is high time that a temporary political grouping on the single issue of Islamisation is formed to defeat this cancer. All groups can return to their own wider agendas once the main danger has been dealt with — that is with the restoration of the right to free speech and the danger of Islam with which we are all threatened. Wilders looks to have started something, but so did the EDL, whose stance has now been copied in some countries.

All should now combine on the one issue. If polls are to be believed there will be a majority, Europe-wide, public support. The politicians will have no choice but to respond or be deposed.

Am I proposing popular revolution? Perhaps, but it needn’t come to that.

Bewick is highlighting the essential problems that any action-oriented movement must confront:

  • How big a tent do we construct?
  • How many side-issues can we compromise on without eroding our common objectives?
  • How do we decide which groups are tolerable as temporary allies?

Those who restrict their activities to research, analysis, and writing labor under a different set of constraints. This is not to downplay the contributions of theorists like Fjordman and El Inglés — whose efforts are more important than my own — but simply a reminder that theory is ill-suited to address in any direct way the dilemmas posed by the imperative for effective action.

I’ll have more to say on this topic tomorrow.

7 thoughts on “A Temporary Political Grouping

  1. I think I have been saying something along these lines for some time now.

    Theory is great but it must inform action. The problem is that those constructing the tent will define who enters it and for what reasons they are allowed to enter.

    So for instance my party the BNP would never enter the tent if it were to be merely “tolerated”. We wound find such toleration to be insulting and demeaning to our members. I think that other groups labeled as “far right” would hold the same opinion though of course I cannot speak for them.

    I am not going to enter a tent full of people who have already branded me a racist, a bigot and a fascist but who have decided to hold thier noses in the name of the common good.

    I am all in favour of alliances with other groupings around the issues presented by Islam and Islamofascism.

    Moves are already afoot to form such a grouping amongst Nationalist parties from all over Europe and there is already a Nationalist grouping in the European Parliament.

    There are millions if not tens of millions of people who already vote for Nationalist parties and thier number is growing daily.

    The problem is that such people as vote for us and other Nationalist parties would probably have a different perspective on how to combat Islam than most of the contributors to this blog – though I may be wrong.

    If we could all come together in a spirit of mutual trust and respect for each others opinions that would be great but somehow I don’t think this is going to happen.

    In the meantime we Nationalists will continue to build on existing structures and will continue to democratically force change and oppose Islam in all its forms.

  2. There have been single-issue parties and groups against Islamisation before – such as Stop Islamisation of Europe, or the English Defence League… these were both successfully sidelined by the mainstream, by being associated with hardcore racist groups such as the BNP. How would a new “single-issue” group avoid the same fate? In addition, were such a group to be known to a wider audience, but also countered by accusations of racism, a larger amount of people may be persuaded that Islamophobia = racism. In which case, such an effort may even harm the counterjihad cause.

    So how to get around this…?

    The leftists on the lookout for racists-under-the-bed are usually awakened by certain buzzwords. In the past, these included words such as “black” or “coloured”, or symbols such as the St George’s flag. Recently, the words “Islam” and “Muslim” have been added to this list, making it harder to avoid the “racism” charge. But does this need to mean that the Left wins?

    Certain aspects of the West are still important to most people, even if they do not realise it. I doubt many people, for example, would want to wake up to find their opinions, whatever they may be, criminalised and subject before a court of law… And I doubt many people would want to wake-up in an Islamic, or totalitarian state – even if they do not give it much thought now…

    So could the solution be to form groups, focussing not on being “against Islam”, but instead concentrating on common ground with mainstream concerns, such as “defending free speech” and “democratic values”? Leaflets with the stories of ESW and Lars Hedegaard handed-out to people in the street and on campuses, including website links for further reading? Many people would be surprised to learn of such cases happening within their own countries…

    As for political parties, the economy is still the no. 1 issue for the vast majority of people. So a single-issue anti-Islam party may find it difficult to get into Parliament. But a party offering genuine economic solutions, with some additional but rarely-mentioned anti-Islam viewpoints, may just manage to get to be in government…

  3. Imnokuffar said

    “So for instance my party the BNP would never enter the tent if it were to be merely “tolerated”. We wound find such toleration to be insulting and demeaning to our members. I think that other groups labeled as “far right” would hold the same opinion though of course I cannot speak for them.

    I am not going to enter a tent full of people who have already branded me a racist, a bigot and a fascist but who have decided to hold their noses in the name of the common good.” (copied and pasted – all typos are original)

    Your stance Imnokuffar IS the problem. YOU won’t enter the tent because of a perceived slight. Doesn’t that make you exactly the same as “offended” Muslims?
    If you would prefer that your female grandchildren (even daughters) must wear a burka , be treated as 2nd class citizens, possibly be forced to become sex slaves then feel free in your tunnel vision. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    I despair and thank God that I’ll be gone by the time this nightmare matures. I would SO wish that Islam really was a Religion of Peace but it isn’t. It is I think murderous even to many of its adherents. (Iraq for example)

  4. Green Infidel
    I used “temporary political grouping” in the loosest sense. I did not intend a new “party” but rather that when people get together to express a view to Government then that is by definition “political”.
    If I were travelling the Arctic Circle (god forbid but then after this winter I’d probably feel warm) and happened upon my worst enemy I might want to kick the **** out of him. If we were both being threatened by a hungry family of Polar Bears then I would temporarily suspend my animosity and join forces to outwit or beat the bears. After success then I could resume my intention to kick the **** out of him. THAT is what I meant.

    I am aware of SIoE.
    EDL is portrayed as “far right” in the MSM. I seriously doubt they are anything of the kind. Just normal concerned people with a few, very few, weirdos thrown in.

    The BNP? Well apart from their stance on immigration the BNP is FAR LEFT – almost National Socialist. – although always being portrayed as far right.

    The MSM? Part of the establishment unfortunately and there are now no Bernstein and Woodwards left I fear. (Watergate)

    I have WATCHED infighting in all organisations consuming effort and talent without advancing anything other than personal agendas.

    My post DID say “restoration of the freedom of speech”. I have no personal animosity towards individual Muslims – except when they threaten MY liberty and safety and freedom of thought and speech. THEN I react.
    Your idea of leafleting to counter the lack of “free speech” prosecutions being reported is a good one. It will fail though unless there is an umbrella organisation with a longer term agreed and focussed campaign. Serious organisation will be necessary
    The “big tent” MUST only allow one combined issue to enter but it IS now necessary. The time for talking is past. We need action and a “one pony” objective.

  5. Sorry GI omitted to mention – the “one pony” is restoration of free speech at this stage.
    The classification of citizens into two groups, where Muslim requirements trump those of the indigenous, is very much stage 2

    Without free speech there will be no way of doing that because we all become criminalised for saying what we think.

Comments are closed.