Summer Fundraiser 2012, Day Four
Hah! Friday already!
Did you think you could escape our summer fundraiser, just because the weekend is almost here? Fat chance!
The theme of this week’s bleg, as most readers already know, is Discontent. As the week progresses, it seems that Dymphna is specializing in political discontent, while I am concentrating on “other” — whatever happens to catch my peregrine fancy when the clock strikes twelve and the witching hour arrives.
A variety of people are discontented with what we do here. And not just the left-leaning folks — their disenchantment with our “hate” may be taken for granted — but also various elements of what is commonly considered the Right. The opponents of “Zionism”, for example — as I mentioned on Wednesday, we remain unpopular with right-wingers who are preoccupied with opposition to Israel. And the subset of that group that is manifestly statist — those we would call “national socialists” if we were sticklers for accurate nomenclature — finds Gates of Vienna particularly problematic, what with our support for Israel and our libertarian-leaning conservatism.
Oddly enough, libertarians who believe in open borders — another faction in what is commonly considered the Right —bridle as a matter of principle at our resistance to mass immigration.
So we take grapeshot from all sides at once. A battlefield of raging discontent, coming at us from all directions.
I’m more interested in finding common ground than in fighting over doctrinal differences, so all this manifest discontent tends to make me impatient.
If I can agree with someone on a small range of crucial issues — resistance to Islamization, opposing mass immigration, and the preservation of Western Civilization and its core values — I’m willing to agree to disagree on the rest. Abortion, socialized medicine, Robert Mapplethorpe, the gold standard, demographic implosion, the corrosive effects of pop culture: all of these subjects are worth debating, but only after the Great Jihad has been stopped in its tracks, when the West can pause to catch its breath.
This is what the Brussels Process is all about.
The luxury of doctrinal purity is only an option for those not attempting any practical political action. If you don’t have to build an effective coalition, you can afford to be a stickler on all issues of principle you hold dear. Otherwise, you are obliged to compromise on matters of lesser importance, so that you and your coalition partners can keep the main goal in sight.
The risk, of course, is that compromise and coalition-building become ends in themselves. The imperative becomes the maintenance and increase of one’s power and influence by whatever means necessary. Under such conditions, there is no principle that cannot be bargained away in return for the privilege of keeping a hand on the tiller.
Those of us who toil and sweat in the quotidian tasks of the Counterjihad are fortunate to avoid such existential dilemmas. Effective power is not available to any of us, and won’t be within my lifetime. So what we do remains focused on longer-range goals. Compromise and coalition are necessary to work towards eventual effectiveness, which may come a generation or two from now.
Thus we put aside our differences of opinion today in order that the younger participants in our common endeavor may have a shot at the goal when they become the éminences grises of the movement two or three decades hence.
The Brussels Process focuses on the issue of free speech because that is something that everyone involved can agree on. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights basically say the same thing concerning free speech. Regardless of any repugnance for the UDHR (which I definitely feel), this is something we can come together on, an issue where we share common ground. And our agreement stands in fundamental opposition to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which defers to sharia, and is thus antithetical to everything Western Civilization considers non-negotiable.
Sticking to the principle of free speech implies resisting Islamization. This is where we all come together. We put aside our differences of opinion on other issues, and concentrate on what is most important.
Some principles are timeless, and essential, and worth fighting for. These are the things we can agree on.
Yesterday’s donors hailed from the following places:
Stateside: California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Near Abroad: Canada
Far Abroad: Australia, Germany, Israel, and the UK
To those who donated to our common endeavor, despite any differences of opinion they might have, we remain profoundly grateful.
The tip jar in the text above is just for decoration. To donate, click the tin cup on our sidebar, or the donate button. If you prefer a monthly subscription, click the “subscribe” button.