oyvindstrommen.be traktningar

Once again, Gates of Vienna and the Center of Vigilant Freedom has replied to LGF by basically saying: “Look at his sources, they’re all idiots“.

Once again, while pointing at me as one of those idiots, they have not refuted a single of the arguments I have made, nor have they pointed out a single factual flaw of mine.

Still, I would have hoped an attack on my credibility as a source to at least be based on facts. Instead they are based on a very big lie and on a number of distortions – which sort of seems to be the name of the game for GoV and also for the Center of Vigilant Freedom.

I do not consider it to be worth my time to engage in a debate on my understanding of the Eurabia-theories at Gates of Vienna, but I will give a reply here.

“Strømmen’s book on “Eurofascism” will soon be published”.

In fact it is already available, but I’ll take the blame for that one myself, as I have not have time to update the information on my book everywhere on my web site yet (and obviously those CVF-folks did not have enough time to do research to notice the big, freakin’ banner on top of this page). Anyway, the book can be bought here. Buy it. Read it. Research my claims. Scrutinize my sources. Argue with my analysis. But don’t whine about me being a socialist or a leftist or not liking Fallaci.

“He is fond of applying the “fascist” label rather widely — to Oriana Fallaci, also here, where he states that support for Fallaci can lead to “politically motivated violence.“”

I have attacked Fallaci many times, and I have even compared her writings with those of fascists, for instance I my Norwegian-language essay “Idiotiens styrke” (The Strength of Idiocy) and also in my book – where I compare the works of Oriana Fallaci and Francis Parker Yockey. You can fairly say that I am critical of Fallaci, as I have also pointed out here.

However, I have not called Fallaci herself a fascist, not in my book, not in the two articles GoV is linking to.

What I have noted is that Fallaci, as well as Bat Ye’or, has contributed to the mythos of Eurofascism through propagating the Eurabia conspiracy theory. In my article “The Third Kind of Fallaci Supporter“, which GoV points to above, I have noted the following:

There is river five miles wide between being critical towards Islam and supporting a ban on the religion, even if your criticism is based on a monolithic understanding. [There is] a river five miles wide, [but] some people are setting up a regular ferry service, based on the notion that the guys on the other side are playing on their own team.

And those people running that ferry service really are promoting the kind of hatred that easily can turn into politically motivated violence. They might not want that, but if you promote Oriana Fallaci’s understanding of Islam, that’s what you will get. To some degree, violent conflict is already here, and I do not want to leave it to historians to criticise those who willingly spread the kind of poison Fallaci stoid for. This is the time to pick up the pen.

Now, I do not expect Charles Johnson, or any other LGF-er for that matter, to agree with me in my attacks on Fallaci. In fact, I expect them to disagree and to deliver heavy criticism. But I still expect them to consider the facts that I have presented on that topic and on other topics, regardless of disagreement with my analysis. In short: I expect them to act like grown-ups. They have. The GoV/CFV-crowd hasn’t.

LGF – GoV/CFV: 1-0

But let us continue:

In his “fisking” of Mark Steyn (America Alone) he denies the existence of any Eurabia project, and then gives us our marching orders: “So, here’s the deal: An increasing number of Europeans will be Muslim. Deal with it.”

What about discussing the factual points brought up in my fisking? No, no, don’t worry about that. I’m just a “notorious leftist“, so why listen to me at all?

Anyway: Yes, I do deny the existence of a great plan of turning Europe into Eurabia; cooked up by European Union bureaucrats, leading EU politicians, the Vatican and professors of literature. It’s a conspiracy theory, and not even a particularily creative one. It is based on some doubtful sources (see, I can play that game, too), on doubtful use of other sources and on a seriously flawed analysis. I find the Eurabia “thesis” to be utter nonsense.

Now, I realise that a number of people disagree with me about that. Which is fine. I still expect them to behave like adults and consider the facts that I have put on the table in a serious manner. At LGF, they have. In the Center of Vigilant Freedom, they’re seemingly not capable of this very simple task.

LGF – GoV/CFV: 2-0

And, yes I gave you marching orders. I noted:

That being said: Yes, Europe is changing. In some ways, it is becoming the new America. You remember the poem, don’t you?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

This is what Europe has to live up to, and I’m not sure it is up to the challenge. Even if it is, it is hardly going to be painfree. Still, closing the borders is not really an alternative, as one look at North Korea should tell you. So, here’s the deal: An increasing number of Europeans will be Muslim. Deal with it.

Since I am “a notorious leftist”, I hope you all appreciate the anti-American tendency in the above text. I mean, I’m almost as anti-American as Voorpost. Or am I not?

Btw, Voorpost is close to Vlaams Belang. Which you support with all your energy. And LGF has the common sense and insight to criticise them. Good for them!

LGF – GoV/CFV: 3-0

Once again, back to the Gates of Vienna:

“Elsewhere he writes of the fascists whom he finds everywhere EXCEPT in Islamofascism, for which he is an enthusiastic apologist”.

Actually, the article linked to by GoV/CFV is referring to a number of very specific cases of Eurofascism – which is not at all present “everywhere” (for instance it is almost negligible in the Netherlands, as it is in Norway). The article also notes:

Experiences from other European countries show that kids growing up in Western European countries have joined up with organisations that could be described as Islamofascist, and the terror attacks in Madrid and London were indeed conducted by such recruits to holy war.

And:

In the Muslim world, Islamofascism is very much capable of creating mayhem and might potentially topple governments. While only ripples are likely to be felt in Europe, even ripples of the large-scale political violence of today’s Iraq can be very bloody.

Apologetic indeed. Just because I don’t sound like I’m raving-bloody-mad.

In fact, I have written several articles on Islamofascism, including this one, and – more recently – this one. I have also posted several of Martin A. Lee’s excellent essays on the connections between European fascists and various Islamic groups here, here and here. I have also repeatedly criticised Norwegian leftists for supporting groups such as the Hamas and the Hizb’allah. I’ve got so many examples of that, that I don’t even bother to include the links here.

To call me an enthusiastic apologist of Islamofascism is a lie – and nothing but a lie.

And yet, it is correct that I believe that European politicians should worry about Eurofascism more than they worry about Islamofascism.

To say that they should focus on Eurofascism instead of Islamofascism was a sloppy formulation on my hand (a very male slip, since I of course have problems focusing on more than one thing at a time). It has been changed in later versions of the referred text; as I obviously believe European politicians should worry about these guys too. Not to mention these fellows.

But… I have dug deeply into the cesspool of European fascism… and I am freaked out by what I have found. I am freaked out by the fact that parties with close connections to fascist groups, and parties that are largely infested by anti-Semitism, anti-liberalism, anti-democratic views, etc. are winning a considerable number of votes in various European countries. I am very, very worried. Once again, I challenge every single one of my readers to dig for themselves, to scrutinize my sources and to find out for themselves. I believe that they will end up being rather worried as well. If not, they might just be in on it.

And if you deny that a fascist cartoon rat is a fascist cartoon rat, and try to sell it as – what was it – “a widespread symbol of youthful rebellion”, then you come bloody close to being in on it.

Now, I agree with CVF that not all the examples that have been used by LGF in this debate are equally valid (and I will discuss this in greater detail in a later post).

For instance, a mere link on someone else’s web page is hardly a proof of a connection. I have found Nazis linking to the Norwegian blogger VamPus, who happens to be a member of the Norwegian Concervative party. Obviously that turns neither her nor the Conservative Party into fascists.Thus, exhibit 4 in this post by Charles is a weak argument.

Sadly for GoV, the proven links between Vlaams Belang and fascist groups go a bit further than links on someone’s homepage. Charles Johnson has discovered that. GoV and CVF remains, most likely willingly so, blind.

LGF – GoV/CFV: 4-0

Game over, dudes.

Let’s leave Belgium for some time, and head north – into the Netherlands. The neo-fascist scene in this country is small, extremely divided and almost not worth mentioning, except as a reference point for discussing Flemish and German neo-fascism in particular.

While surfing around on stormfront.org – accurately described as “the mother of all white supremacist online cesspools” by one LGF poster – I did however stumble upon an intriguing Dutch-language exchange.

Here, a guy comes along informing readers about his new web site – multicul.tk. The site is (long?) gone, but from the conversation it becomes obvious that it featured – amongst other things – a German eagle with a swastika. I suppose even Gates of Vienna would agree that this may be called a fascist symbol. (Or is the swastika perhaps merely a Native American symbol?)

Anyway, another poster thinks that this usage of Nazi symbolism might be a bit over the top, and politely suggests that our friend does not shove the swastika right in the face of his visitors. Our man replies:

Multicul was created by the Jew, a swastika is surely fitting in this context, a sign of ‘opposition’.

Then another poster – a certain TomBrabant – comes along. He notes:

If I was you I would replace the German eagle with the swastika with a somewhat more accepted symbol such as the Life Rune, the Odal Rune, the Celtic Cross, a Dutch lion, or something of the sorts.  If there’s no swastika on the site it might also be read by other people than those who are already on the right.

Regardless of how you see it, the Jewish influence and the demonisation of the Third Reich has made the swastika into a distancing factor.

Houzee!

TomBrabant himself runs the website of Aktiefront Nederland (youtube movie), another fascist grouplet. On the site yet another runic symbol is featured, the wolfsangel. This happens to have been used as a symbol by Dutch SS forces and by at least two other SS units.  The post-WWII Italian fascist group Terza Posizione used an adapted version of it, too.

Here they are – demonstrating against MTV and “multicultural/multiracial (sic!) and the enticement to cultural degeneration which is found on almost every single TV channel”.

In November, Björn Roose, the press spokesman for Voorpost, and a member of the secretariat of the Association for Vlaams Belang-representatives, VVBM, wrote an article on LGF and Vlaams Belang on the Dutch web site hetvrijevolk.com.

In the beginning of this article, Björn Roose notes that he neither can nor wants to speak on behalf of the party he works for. That is not an unnecessary note, as parts of the article presents views of Roose which – although present in the party – is not official Vlaams Belang policy.

For instance, Roose notes that he is a Flemish nationalist and a Heel-Nederlander, two somewhat contradictory terms, since the ultimate goal of Heelneerlandisme is not the creation of an independent Flemish national state, but rather the creation of a Dutch-speaking political entity including Flanders, the Netherlands, Brussels, and often parts of Wallonia and France, as well.

Some even include areas in Germany and in South Africa. This is not part of the political programme of Vlaams Belang, although Roose is definitely not the only one in his party supporting this kind of ideas. The dreams of Dietsland are definitely alive amongst a considerable number of Flemish nationalists, who see the Belgian throne and government as little but occupants. Voorpost is perhaps the prime example of a Heelneerlandist group – and it is also a group which must be considered close to Vlaams Belang.

From a Voorpost-manifestation. The banner reads: “175 years of Belgian occupation of Flanders”

But even considering that Björn Roose is expressing his own views’, and to a large degree the views of Voorpost, some of what he writes reveals quite a bit of the ideology radical Flemish nationalism and – indeed – Vlaams Belang is based on. As he notes in his article:

I am not the property of the party, and also not the property of party politics. That means that I am stating my own opinion, an opinion that might also be the one of the party. There is no doubt that my opinion will very often be in agreement with that of the party – if this was not the case, I would in all truth not be able to work for the party anymore. But if I am not in agreement with the party, that’s something I can live with. And so far the party has also done so.

Early in his article, Roose points out that it is a problem that few outside of Flanders, the Netherlands and South Africa understand or speak Dutch. In his opinion this leads to all information on the Vlaams Belang coming from the French-language Belgian press, from “half-informed” English-language media or from anti-fascists who are lying to their Dutch-language readers, and thus also do not hesitate to lie to those who read English.

Now, I agree with Roose that it is a problem to the discussion about Vlaams Belang and Voorpost that people do not speak Dutch. Knowledge of the Dutch language no doubt gives one better access to the sources, and makes it possible to go directly to the source. If I had not known Dutch myself, I would probably never had even discovered Roose’s article in Het Vrije Volk, nor would have had the chance to check claims made by various left-wing critics of Roose by looking up factual information and quotes on his own blog.

Actually, I believe that it is of interest to those who want to discover the ideological thinking of Vlaams Belang, Voorpost and other Flemish nationalist groups to take a look at their thinking. Then the Dutch language comes in handy. Or a translation does.

This is why I have translated parts of Roose’s article into English:

The Vlaams Belang is not against blacks, yellows, reds, browns or appleblueseagreen, but is of the opinion that Flandres may not and can not be black, yellow, red, brown or appleblueseagreen. The Vlaams Belang does not want to put up tall walls, barbed wire and guard towers around Flanders, but feels that uninvited visitors must be showed the door. Are those irreasonable demands? No. The Flemish people has, such as every people, right to its’ place in the world. That Flemish place is not very big, the Flemish will not demand anything in other countries (not even in Wallonia), and the Vlaams Belang does not have as an ambition to impose the Flemish culture, the Dutch language, the pagan-classic-Christian values on other parts of the world. The Vlaams Belang asks for a Flemish state for the Flemish people, and no more.

Now, I do not doubt for a moment that these thoughts are far from a “mainstream” vision in the United States. The original inhabitans of Northern America – the Cree, the Dakota, the Shawnee, the Shoshone, the Chinook, the Crow, the Cherokee, the N’de, the Blackfoof, the Comance, the Hopi and the hundreds of other Indian peoples living in tribes would probably find that they had the right to their place in the world, and they were also prepared to give room to the whites who intruded into their country, but in exchange they were largely murdered, starved to death and finally put in reservations by the waves of immigrants that flushed over their country. Those waves of immigrants brought slaves, slaves who were robbed by strangers working for these immigrants, slaves who were – against their will – taken out of the lands which they considered their own, lands which were later colonised, if necessary with the help of murderers that did their part in exterminating the local population (for instance in the leopoldistic Congo).

The “Americans” then separated from their European motherlands, created their own laws and subdued those of the native population that were not yet exterminated or legally closed up in reservations.

He continues by noting that the Americans later “liberated” the slaves, but that they did not bring these people back to their places of birth.

Together with the descendants of these rootless people they were to impose “pax americana” in a large part of the world, inclusive in the part of the world they had separated from. Their values, their culture, their vision of what a people is, needed to be imposed on the world. And that is precisely what the neoconservatives and people such as Charles Johnson in particular still want to do, not only in regards to Islam, but also in regards to ethnic nationalists and conservatives all over the world.

People who say that Flanders must be Flemish and that Europe must be European are therefore despicable in the eyes of Johnson. People who, because of their European background, show or have a Celtic cross, are dirty “racists”. People who say that Europe was white and must remain white, are no less than direct descendants of Hitler in Johnson’s eyes. Those who think that their grandfathers or fathers were wrong about or misunderstood the intentions of that same Adolf Hitler, but still wishes to honour their grandfathers and fathers for what they did for their people, for their religion, for their tradition, for Flemish independence, that is something Johnson never has heard or wants to hear.

At the end of his article Roose notes:

I view Islam as a serious threat, but I view liberalism – as a variant of socialism – as the most serious threat. I regard people such as Charles Johnson as more dangerous to the West than people such as Osama bin Laden. I consider national socialists just as communist to be leftists, and I do not want to have anything to do with either of them. I see myself not as the beginning and end of everything, as an individual, that is, but as a part of the circle of life. I find this to be an honourable position. And I am happy to have written this text for you, even if you are not happy with it.

With this as a starting point, it could be interesting to take a trip even deeper into the world of Voorpost. First of all, let’s take a look at their logo of sorts:

That symbol on their flags is the Life Rune, a symbol widely used by Voorpost. I have tried to find an explanation for its’ use from themselves, but I have not managed (since Björn Roose has already been commenting on this blog, I hope that he will help me out, and let me know what the Algiz means to him).

To me, this is a symbol connected to Yggdrasil, the World Tree in Norse mythology. Since I am Norwegian, I know Yggdrasil quite well. It is given prominent mention early in Voluspå, one of the earliest literary works of my culture. But in spite of this knowledge, I am of course aware that the symbol today has heavy political connotations.

For one, the Nazis used it – for instance in this advent calendar (and no, that shape is not just a coincidence!):

More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that it is also used by the American racist group National Alliance – a group which does not hesitate to explain its’ meaning to them:

The symbol which appears in the National Alliance logotype is the Life Rune. It comes from an ancient alphabet, or futhark, used in Northern Europe for many centuries before the general adoption of the Roman alphabet there. The Life Rune signifies life, creation, birth, rebirth, and renewal. It expresses in a single symbol the raison d’etre of the National Alliance and of the movement of Aryan renewal.

Now, I don’t know about you guys, but the words “Aryan renewal” tend to give me a bit of an uncomfortable feeling. And while Voorpost doubtlessly can (and will?) explain that their use of the symbol is just because it’s such a cute cultural artifact, there are quite a number of other things that also make me somewhat sceptical. One thing is that a member of Voorpost routinely announces events arranged by the group on the forum stormfront.org. I don’t think Groen! does that.

But wait – there’s more – let’s begin with this movie:

Below, you will find one scene from this movie. The big yellow sign on the left says: “French-speakers: assimilate or get lost!”. That’s next-door Europeans we’re talking about. They too, seem to be unwelcome. If you watch the movie you will hear the crowd yelling: “Franse ratten. Rold uw’ matten!” – which means – freely translated: “French rats. Get away”.

Charming. Of course, as Björn Roose will explain on his own blog, this is not a racist statement or even anything remotely comparable – it is just a historical reference to a song sung after Napoleon’s forces lost the battle of Leipzig in 1813 – it is, according to Roose, a “song of happiness, to celebrate liberation and peace”. Good. They’re not racists. They’re just still fighting the Battle of Leipzig. Almost 200 years later. These guys stay angry about as long as Sauron.

Here’s another movie, from a news report on a demonstration which took place in Waterloo (there was a battle there too), situated in the Walloon (French-speaking) part of Brabant. Voorpost turns up with posters stating: “Here too, you are in Flanders” and banners reading: “Franskiljons out!”. Franskiljon is a derogatory term used on French-speakers, especially those who have a Flemish family background.

Here’s a picture from the video:

Note the small “Life Rune”-symbol in the bottom right corner of that banner. It’s such a nice cultural symbol. That’s all.

Now, let me point you the direction to another YouTube-movie, apparently uploaded by Björn Roose himself.

This is how they greet a politician from the French-language party FDF. Once again: “Buiten, Franskiljon! Buiten, Franskiljon”. Now, the FDF is hardly a party to my liking, but this behaviour does underscore the irony of the Voorpost posters at other manifestations demanding “vrijheid van meningsuiting” – freedom of speech. In fact, it seems to be a tad hypocritical.

Maybe it’s just me. After all I’m a notorious leftist beneath contempt.

Here, I am. Bizarro Fjordman.

Boy, did I spend much time at the gym, or what?

A comment at the Gates of Vienna:

Hmm, LGF’s new poster boy “Oyvind Strommen” is from Norway, like Fjordman. I daresay Charles is grooming him as a sort of alternative Fjordman, LGF version. Wait… it’s coming to me… It’s kind of like in the Superman story, there is a Bizarro character… Charles Johnson prrreeeeesents… Oyvind Strommen… the new… ** BIZARRO FJORDMAN ** !!!

I actually like this comment. It´s cute. I feel quite comfortable with the being the Bizarro Fjordman – considering the leanings of the real Fjordman it is a badge of honour.

However, I´m not quite as happy with some other comments on Gates of Vienna. The most important reason is simple – none of them address the facts pointed out by Charles Johnson at LGF, by myself and by many others concerning Vlaams Belang. Not a single one of them. Instead they are all talking about mr. Strømmen, the hard leftist, the possible Muslim convert and Eurabia denier.

One commenter writes:

I used to lurk through the Islam debates on Bjorn Staerk‘s site three or four years ago. Oyvind Strommen was a classic Islamo-apologist. He attacked Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’Or and Robert Spencer many times. In fact, he even attacked Charles Johnson and LGF many times!

First of all, I have actually tried finding my alleged attacks on Charles Johnson and LGF. I have not been able to find them.

Let it, however, be perfectly clear that I do not share all the political views of Johnson. As I wrote in a recent comment on this web site, I consider disagreement one of the greatest strengths of democracy. I surely disagree with CJ on many issues. Charles Johnson, being an adult, is surely capable of realizing that people he disagrees with on some issues can still be right on other issues.

The rest is quite correct. I have criticised Bat Ye´or, I have criticised Ibn Warraq and I have criticised Robert Spencer. As the Gates of Vienna-reader also points out I have criticised Oriana Fallaci too. I will continue to do so.

In fact, I suspect that Oyvind was/is a Muslim convert. He used to have another blog (which I think he has taken down now) which praised Islam and which featured a mosque as artwork in the background.

This is hilarious. No, really. Since I criticise the above mentioned people, and since I consider VB fascist, I just must be a Muslim myself. Well, I´m not. And I have never been. When it comes to “my other blog”, the comment refers to a previous version of my personal web site oyvindstrommen.be, which included a header containing, amongst other things: the roof of a mosque.

It also contained, if I remember correctly, a hardanger fiddle, a picture from the city of Bergen and a picture of the Atomium. All the pictures used were illustrating topics that I was addressing on my blog, at that time I was also writing on my first book (in Norwegian), an analysis of Islamic radicalism in the context of a reformation. A mosque seemed to be a fitting illustration.

In regards to my “praise to Islam”, most of the articles I posted are still available; and anyone are free to look for “Islam-praise” themselves.

It is very interesting indeed how displaying the roof of a mosque makes me a Muslim (and probably and Islamist, too, huh?) to GoV-readers, while a fascist rat is just a cute cartoon figure and an Odin Cross is just a cultural symbol carrying no further political implications than a support of Flemish independence.

I´m also criticised for writing the following:

The main enemy of the Islamists is not the West. It has never been. The main enem(ies are) regimes in Muslim countries, which the Islamists feel should be replaced by Islamic regimes. The Islamists are, ironically, often inspired not only by Islamic ideas, but also by Western ideas; fascist ones, truly, but also liberal democratic and socialist ones. Thanks to many corrupt regimes and considering that American and other Western democracy-iniativies are not taken seriously in the Muslim world – Islamism has very often become the sole political alternative for alienated young Arabs and other Muslims.

Here I point out the Western influence on Islamism, including the influence from fascist thinking; but I guess that is not good enough as long as I do not accept Ibn Warraq´s references to the whole religion of Islam as being fascist.

The list of hard leftist sources used by CJ is getting long. The foremost examples being Expo.se, Yelloman and Oyvind Strommen. CJ sees them as brother in “anti-fascism”, they see him as a useful idiot.

If I was to see CJ as “a useful idiot”, I would be the idiot. It is much more idiotic to simply deny listening to someone because you identify them as “hard left”, instead of actually replying to the what they say. The pictures, movies and other information made available by the sources mentioned are available to scrutiny to anyone on an independent basis. In fact, I would be glad to see my sources scrutinized, and I would be happy to see others doing research into this field. The more, the merrier.

Another comment:

It appears CJ lacks the ability to grasp he’s being used as a mouthpiece of quite vile leftist gangs in Europe, those that attack the counterjihad full time with all means, including manipulation, agitprop, smears, lies, terror attacks, etc: the marxist and “anti” fascists. CJ is an easy target, he doesn’t speak all those languages and believes anything he is being told as long as it comforts his defence. When somebody tries to add some nuance in clear English he just presses the about now redhot “CJ bans you” button and therefore becomes the lousiest informed blog around.

Now, who is attacking LGF ?

While definitely left-wing (especially from an American POV), I am neither a member of a “vile leftist gang” (what charming jargon), nor a Marxist.

In fact, I have written numerous articles on the topic of Marxism in Norway, which I have first-hand experience with. My experiences with Marxism has helped me in my research on other totalitarian ideologies and political extremism in general. It was especially helpful in my research on the National-Bolshevists. Now, that´s a really odd bunch. One day I´ll write a couple of articles on them, too.

Roger Griffin is a British political theorist based at Oxford Brookes University, and one of the most prominent researchers on fascism, including post-WWII-fascism; my own field of interest.

In the paper “Europe for the Europeans: Fascist Myths of the New Order 1922-1992″ (Humanities Research Centre, 1993, also available here), he summarises Eurofascism and its ideas.

Here I will present some quotes from that paper, together with some comments of my own. My hope is to – in this way – shed light upon some of the central tenets of Eurofascism, and also to give further examples of the connections a number of European far right parties have to anti-Semitic, anti-liberal and anti-democratic groups. This will be the first of two posts tracing the ideological roots of Vlaams Belang and other European political parties of today.

The European mission of Germany. Nazi poster.

Let me begin with a quote on Mussolini:

An example is the 1931 article written for the Popolo d’Italia, 4 September, `Is the White Race Dying Out?’, which shows that official Fascism had both a supra-Italian and a racist dimension quite independently of the Pact of Steel with Nazi Germany. Mussolini’s most scholarly biographer, Renzo de Felice, points out that it was after the Ethiopian War and under the influence of the nationalist Oriani, the demographer Korherr and the philosopher Spengler that `Mussolini underwent a decisive phase of ideological evolution and involution’ which `led him to believe that Europe and the world were undergoing a profound “crisis of civilization” [...].

The idea of “a crisis of civilisation” has always been important to fascists, and indeed to many totalitarian groups both in the Western world and elsewhere. For instance, the well-known Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb begins his “Milestones” with the following exclamation:

Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger of complete annihilation which is hanging over its head – this being just a symptom and not the real disease – but because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress. Even the Western world realises that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.

To the Nazis, the crisis was multifold. The main culprit of the story was, however, as so many times before: the Jews were of course given most of the blame. The Nazi party was rushing in, ready to save Germany – and Europe in general. Consider these two Nazi posters:

Our last hope – Hitler

Europe is under attack! With the voluntary Flemish legion in the battle against Bolshevism!

Fascism has, like any other ideology, evolved and adopted over time. The parties I have identified as Eurofascist are not directly comparable to the Nazi party, although there are ties to pre- and post-WWII fascism to be found in every single case, and although there are connections to White Power-groups, violent private militias, etc.

What today’s Eurofascists have in common with the fascists of the past is – however – essential. One of the things they do have in common are the claims of an imminent civilisational crisis. This time around it is Muslims who are the enemy – and according to the fascist mythology they are supported by other groups, the ‘inner enemies’: socialists, multiculturalists, European Union-bureaucrats, liberals, etc. “White Europe” is being threatened – there is only one alternative:

Vlaams Belang – the only alternative

It’s quite a leap. I know. But here’s the deal: Vlaams Belang has provable ties to the fascism of the past, and it has provable ties to not-so-nice-fellows even today.

I don’t think every single Fleming who votes for them is a fascist. In fact, I think most of them aren’t. But that does not change the fact that there’s something thorougly rotten about Vlaams Belang. Let us – once again – take a step back in time. Roger Griffin writes:

Another influential French propagandist of fascism’s new Europeanism, however, was Maurice Bardeche (further reading: here, here and – a nasty piece of work – here). His Qu’est-ce que le fascisme? (1961) is a major statement of the principle that the belief in the need for national rebirth (or what I have called `palingenetic ultra-nationalism’) forms the common ground between the most diverse fascist movements and should be channelled into an international crusade against Bolshevism and Americanization.

In the early 1950s he was already talking of the need for Euro-MPs to coordinate the creation of a European empire with its own colonies (cf. Mosley’s `Eurafrica’) declaring that `the aim of this European revolution will be the spiritual regeneration of Man, society and the state’.

It should be noted en passant that the intransigent and murderous stand taken by the French `liberal’ state against Algerie Francaise to resist forced decolonization was vociferously supported in such Eurofascist periodicals as Jeune Europe, Europe-Afrique, and Junges Europa. If post-war German fascism lacked an ideologue of the originality and output of Evola or Bardeche, it certainly has not been short of pan-European initiatives.

In 1949 former SS Officer Arthur Erhardt founded the monthly Nation Europa which, as its subtitle makes clear, sets out to be a forum for all those who cherished the dream of a post-liberal and anti-communist `European New Order’. This periodical has become one of the pillars of ecumenical fascist publicism and propaganda. [...] It has thus been well placed to accommodate the many new permutations of palingenetic ultra-nationalism which have arisen since 1945 and to embrace as comrades in arms the organizations and parties which covertly or overtly seek to promote them (e.g. in recent years Le Pen’s Front National, Frey’s Deutsche Volksunion, Schoenhuber’s Republikaner and Terreblanche’s Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging). It has also been at pains to capitalise on all conflicts between European and non-European cultures (e.g. in Algeria and South Africa).

One of the most interesting characters of those mentioned above is Maurice Bardèche, the French neo-fascist intellectual. Close to the collaborationist Robert Brasillach (his brother-in-law and a political inspiration source), Bàrdeche wrote several books before Qu’est-ce que le fascisme? – including Nuremberg ou la Terre Promise (Nuremberg or the Promised Land, one English translation found here). This book is a classic of holocaust revisionism.

In “Nuremberg…” Bardèche claims that that at least part of the evidence regarding the concentration camps have been falsified, and that the deaths that occured there were caused by war-related privations, including starvation and illness. According to Bardèche, the final solution of the Nazis was really referring to a transfer of the Jews to «what they called a Jewish reservate, a kind of European ghetto, a Jewish fatherland reestablished in the east».

Still, Bardèche admitted that there was a «will to exterminate the Jews» and that there were «deportations of Jews» and of «certain Frenchmen who had accepted or seemed to have accepted the Jewish cause».

The whole question, Bardèche claims, is why the Germans made this distinction. He answers himself:

The Jews were originally strangers, who were first allowed into this country with prudence – and then in always increasing numbers as some of them gained influence. In spite of this hospitality that was given them, they did not refrain themselves from taking part in the political discussions of our country. Regarding whether we should transform the invasion of Czechoslovakia or the war in Poland into a European war, they did not hesitate to fight against any spirit of reconciliation, i.e. to involve our country in a unfortunate, but desirable war, because it was directed against an enemy of their race. We ceased to be a great nation. In reality, we maybe even ceased to be an independent people, because their wealth and their influence made their viewpoint prevail over that of those French who where concerned with protecting their ground and keeping peace.

In other words, Bardèche found that the Jews were themselves to blame for their deportation and for their deaths:

They say today that they are true to this land which their parents did not know, and that they understand better than us the wisdom and mission of this country, of which some of them can hardly speak the language.

They divided us, they claimed the blood of the best and purest, and they were delighted and still are delighted with our deaths. They gave us the right to say that this war they wanted was their war, and not ours. They paid the price that is paid in all wars. We have the right not to count their deaths with our deaths.

Bardèche was soon to join up with other fascists around Europe, including Oswald Mosley in England and Per Engdahl in Sweden. In 1951, Engdahl hosted an international meeting of key European fascists leaders in the southern Swedish city of Malmö, leading to the foundation of the European Social Movement, perhaps better known simply as the Malmö Movement.

In the same period, Bardèches book was translated into Dutch. The translator’s name was Karel Dillen, the man who was eventually to found Vlaams Nationale Partij – the party which soon became Vlaams Blok and today is known as Vlaams Belang.

Was it a youthful mistake from Dillen’s side, or was it something more? Consider the following:

- Dillen and Bardèche kept in contact in many years to come.

- Roeland Raes, later a member of parliament for VB, wrote a series of articles in Dietsland-Europa throughout 1980. The articles were titled: «A great European: Maurice Bardèche» and discussed all the works of Bardèche from 1947 on.

«To us, Bardèche is one of the most gifted writers of the nationalist camp», Raes noted, «an unusually brave man and a great European intellectual». He also pointed out that Flemish nationalists owe Bardèche thanks for contributing to «a large part» of their political thinking.

According to Raes, Bardèches’ work puts down the basic demands for «real national-revolutionary attitude and action»

- In 2000, the son of Karel Dillen, Koen Dillen, writes an article in the Vlaams Blok-magazine, called “In the library of my father”. Parts of the article tells the story of Brasillach and Bardèche. One interesting quote found on the (Leftist) site blokwatch.be:

Brasillach was murdered during the repression in France. His works showed my father the way to the French belletrie (belles-lettres, art of writing), if I may use this old-fashioned word.

And:

Loyalty to a lost cause and “pessimisme gai”: this was also a heritage my father received from France.

At the end of this post, let’s go back – once again – to Roger Griffin. He adds another interesting piece to the puzzle:

Perhaps because of its size, Belgium’s fascists have since 1945 been prominent instigators of pan-Europeanism in tandem with the country’s central role in the EC. The Congo crisis was as important a catalyst to the Belgian New Europe myth as the Algerian War was to the French one, and gave birth to the group Jeune Europe, which folded in 1968 but has left a number of heirs, notably Les Groupes Revolution Europe, Jeune Garde d’Occident, and the Parti Europeen. The Flemish counterpart to such groupings, the Flemish Militants Order (VMO or Odal Group, now subsumed within the Vlaams Blok or Flemish Bloc) has been playing a major role in coordinating links with racist [and] fascist groups in Europe. As for publicistic output, we have already noted Europe Reele, but the most influential magazine to spread the ecumenical gospel after Nation Europa is Nouvel Europe Magazine which was launched way back in 1944, even before the Nazi defeat. A Flemish equivalent to Jeune Europe is Were Di, which in magazines such as Dietsland-Europa and Rebel seeks to promote the vision of a creation of a greater Flanders or `Dietsland’ within a reborn Europe.

The VMO, Were Di, Dietsland-Europa, the Odal Group, all of them have ties to Vlaams Belang.

Fjordman has written an article about me on Global Politician. Wow, I’m honoured.

Well, actually he is just using me to attack Charles Johnson at LGF. Instead of actually replying to the things pointed out in Charles’ post or in my article or in other articles and posts on LGF, on my website and elsewhere, he chooses to attack me.

In short, because I’m highly critical to Oriana Fallaci, because I think Bat Ye’or Eurabia-theory is a conspiracy theory based on flawed analysis, doubtful use of sources and sources that are doubtful in themselves, and because I am – according to Fjordman – “a socialist”, Charles Johnson must be a fool for linking to me. Hi, Fjordman, what about pointing out the factual mistakes you must believe are present in Charles article – or in mine – instead?

He does quote the reader wilinsky on LGF, though – and let me do as well:

“I am widely read and have some professional expertise on the subject of ‘global warming’ and I am, I believe, well-informed on our problems in Iraq. I think you are very, very far off the mark on both issues, so I suspect that anything you have to say about European fascism or Bat Yeor is equally ‘reliable’.”

Okay, consider this possibility: I might be wrong on global warming. I might be wrong on Iraq. Does that mean that I am necessarily wrong on Vlaams Belang? Does that mean that I do not know what I am talking about when I am talking about Eurofascism?

By all means, I challenge all my readers to actively research my claims and to check out my sources, and to delve into the mad world of Eurofascism themselves. You might be surprised by what you discover. I know I was.

Fjordman writes:

Mr. Strømmen called me a Fascist long before the current debate began.

Yes, I did. And I meant it. And I still do.

As for the part about me being a socialist: Yes, I am on the left-wing. No, I’m not a member of any socialist party. Actually, I’m a Green. A tree hugger! Fjordman (and many others) are probably concluding that this must mean I’m an idiot. Just remember what Scott Adams once said:

There’s nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.

And since this idiot right here have more than enough resources, not to say sources, to prove the fascist ties of a number of European parties (VB, BNP, SD, ND, NPD, FN, etc. ad nauseam), I guess that quote rings true. Now, what about replying to the facts that have been pointed out by myself and others?

In a post at Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey writes the following:

We’ve talked a lot here recently about the imaginary neo-Nazis hiding under the beds of various European anti-immigration parties. In today’s post, TC takes a look at the real neo-Nazis.

He refers to the NPD, the “National Democratic Party of Germany”. Good going, Baron, you’ve discovered real fascists in Europe. I’m glad you don’t consider them all fairytales.

From the youth party of NPD: “a revolutionary spirit, a socialist idea, an activist youth”

But wait a sec… Just consider this quote:

We are welcoming the success of the nationalists in NPD in Frankfurt.

(Frank Vanhecke, Vlaams Blok magazine, April 1989)

Or this one:

We hope for the NPD to get good results also [in Schleswig-Holstein]. This would be an indication of right-wing nationalism in Europe being on a rise. That’s good. For those who might doubt: The lift will not go back down.

(Frank Vanhecke, Vlaams Blok magazine, May 1988)

Or why not consider the fact that Roeland Raes, a VB veteran and VB parliamentary (from 95-02), named the NPD-manifest Deutschland 2000 as a “good example” in an issue of the Vlaams Blok-magazine from February 1993.

I’m confused… why – if the NPD are real neo-Nazis – did Frank Vanhecke, today’s chairman of Vlaams Belang, speak so positively of their political success in the eighties? Why did Roeland Raes speak of their political platform as a good example in 1993?

And last but not least, what’s the deal with the poster in Filip Dewinter’s office?

Hanging on the wall of Dewinter’s office, where the interview takes place, is a large poster from the 1960s that reads: “Europe, free yourself!” The banner is signed by an organization of nationalist parties in Europe, including the Italian Socialist Movement (MSI), the neo-fascist party established by Mussolini’s supporters, and the German National Democratic Party (NPD), one of the most extreme far-right movements in Europe, which some say is really neo-Nazi. On the windowsill are several small flags of sister parties of Dewinter’s party: the party of Austrian Joerg Haider, the French National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen and the German Republican Party. Among these parties, Mude explains, Vlaams Belang is very close to Le Pen’s party – more extreme than Haider, but more moderate than the German NPD.

(Interview with Ha’aretz, also found on Filip Dewinter’s own web site – see above link)

Here’s why: The Front National, the MSI, the NPD, the FPÖ, the Republikaner, et cetera, do have quite a bit of common heritage. And although they are (or were) not all equally extreme, they are all part of a movement which could perfectly well be described as Eurofascism.

The blog Gates of Vienna writes:

The “Flemish White Power Rat” is one of the graphical examples that have been used to smear Vlaams Belang. The argument that the black rat is a white supremacist symbol derives mainly from the Celtic Cross — gasp! that cross again! — found on the armband of the rat in some of the cartoons.

Now, it is not at all necessary to point to the fascist rat – let’s call her that – to “smear” Vlaams Belang.

Vlaams Belang as a political movement is completely capable of “smearing” itself, as I have demonstrated in several posts, as the excellent movie available in translation on Gambini’s Journal demonstrates, or as Filip Dewinter demonstrates himself by his call for a “white Europe”. Smearing is not necessary. Facts are more than enough.

But if they want to discuss rats at the Gates of Vienna, let us discuss rats. After all – it’s a good story.

The story starts with Raymond Macherot, an excellent Belgian cartoonist. He drew black rats very much resembling the fascist rat found by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. Macherot’s rats were evil. They harassed cute-looking little animals.

Enthusiastically pro-torture black rat

The black rats of Macherot were soon to be shamelessly stolen (1). The perpetrator was a fellow called Jack Marchal, a French cartoonist and political activist connected to several extreme right groups, including Ordre Nouveau, Groupe Union Defense, Parti des forces nouvelles and later the Front National. Marchal turned the black rats of Marchal into a series of his own: Les Rats Maudits (The Damned Rats).

Marchal’s rat also became a symbol to the Groupe Union Defense, as shown on the second picture below:

Notice how the fascist rat is smashing symbols of the “Enemies of Europe”. As a Carl Barks-fan, I am particularily amazed to see Uncle Scrooge’s head lying there.

Now, just so we know who we are talking about, let me quote from a Stephen Roth Institute report mentioning GUD:

GUD (Groupe Union Défense), a student group, founded in 1969, is active in Paris and Nice, where it harasses anti-fascists, as well as in smaller, university cities. It is headed by Frédéric Chatillon, the son-in-law of a FN regional councilor, Katherine d’Herbais. Chatillon is the owner of the public relations and publishing company Riwal. It should be noted that Syrian money helped Riwal print Holocaust-denying material such as the books of Roger Garaudy (see below) and Jürgen Graf (see Switzerland). The company was instrumental in disseminating Garaudy’s book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics and translating it into Arabic. The translation was done by the Iraqi dissident Jawad Bashara, a notorious anti-Semite. Riwal was also the publisher of FN’s official newsheet Français d’abord (as well as the anti-Semitic newsletter Faits et Documents (see below), until the party split.

Another GUD activist, Thomas Lagane is currently the Front National de la Jeunesse second-in-command. GUD is a violent group with a record of aggression against foreign and Jewish students on university campuses. One of its most notorious members, Yvain Pottiez, is Bruno Mégret’s bodyguard.Another, Axel Loustau, was a FN candidate in the 1997 general election.

Start connecting the dots. There’s quite a few of them.

Gates of Vienna tries – of course – to turn those black rats found in the VBJ publications and on the web site of Vlaamse Jongeren Westland into a cute (but evil) cartoon rat.

The rats found in these publications are however not the rats of Macherot, they are the rats of Marchal. And the funny thing is that GoV itself quotes VJWestland’s web site, which indirectly states the very same thing:

The black rat as representative of militant radical nationalism was first used by French students of Groupe Union et Defense (GUD). From there it spread through the Latin world (especially in the Italian MSI and its youth organizations), but also to Flanders, among others.

At the Gates of Vienna, VJWestland is: “One of the ‘offending’ organizations that uses the rat/Celtic Cross motif”. Well, yeah. They are also quite open in their support of Ba’athism, they earn money from selling flags such as these, and they invited the Dutch Nazi band Standrecht to their “solidaristic” celebration of Labour Day. I guess some people would find that offensive. Especially after listening to Standrecht. Not only are these guys ideologically corrupt, they also make music which is outright painful listening to!

Yep, I suppose that might be a tiny bit offensive.

But this does not matter, they say at GoV:

In addition, you’ll notice also that the final illustration shown above is used for VJW, the “Youth of West Flanders”, which has been erroneously identified as being a part of Vlaams Belang, which it most assuredly is not.

This is of course quite correct. There are no official ties between VJW and Vlaams Belang. The group is most decidedly not a part of Vlaams Belang, and it has criticised the party of being too moderate. And yet, that does not mean that there are no ties at all, no more dots to connect.

One of the dots is a man named Pieter Van Damme. Van Damme was central in VJW, and in the same time period he was also a member of the regional council of VB in Bruges. To his political past another extremist grouplet can be added: Vlaamse Jongeren Mechelen. A group which, by the way, also had connections to Vlaams Belang. And guess what? They had a black rat as their symbol.

There’s no reason to smear people who stand knee-deep in tar. Really.
–

(1) The French extreme right have also tried using Tintin for their own purposes. Now, that really pisses me off.

Babbazee attempted at posting the below on one of my previous posts. However, the SQL database behind this web page seems to be in a somewhat unfriendly mood, and until I’ve understood what the problem is, it appears that no comments can be made there.

Her comments are still worthy of discussion, and since they relate to a – at least partly – different topic, it might be just as good to discuss them in a separate post. Then I can also allow myself to answer in much greater detail than I actually have time for.

Here are Babbazee’s comments – in full:

I do not consider the threat of Islam / jihad to be over hyped at all…. but maybe you and Gambini can enlighten me and I will come to alter my view if my research concurs with what you are saying.

I have no agenda related barriers to this idea
I would like for the threat to be inflated
I just do not believe that it is
and I know plenty about Jihad,
6 years of learning and experience
(with a Paris Fatwa) under my belt now,
not like this subject of rising Nationalism and Fascism which I am in for all of two months now ….haha

anyway

IMO Islam / Jihad is a threat of biblical proportions.
This is exactly why this Eurofascism is freaking em out, fighting jihad legitimatizes them to more people than fightning communism ever did /could

that they use 9/11 to their advantage (Dewinter and Co and the like) INFURIATES me
I am from NY
I know people that were incinerated at the WTC

I am opposed to jihad with my entire being

I am just not willing to trade my sick Islamic Fascists for sick racialist nationalist fascists.

Both are my enemy as are the Gramscian whores of the far left.

We have three problems they way I see it…..

GOD loves the trinities.

Here, I would like to quote from one of my earlier writings, a short book where I discuss the similarities between Islamic radicalism and Protestant radicalism during the reformation. That topic is too much to cover here, but I think the below excerpts (in quick and dirty translation) explains quite a bit of my thinking concerning the threats posed and not posed by Islam.

Fallaci and others speak of Islam as one enemy. In reality, those who fight for democracy and human rights, for women’s rights and political pluralism, and against terrorism and violence, have at least three very different opponents in the Muslim world. None of these opponents are Islam. All of them are connected to Islam as a religion, but two of them must be said to have as obvious connections to the Western world and to Western political thinking.

These three opponents sometimes exist together, but more often are battling each other than they are allied. In Saudi Arabia, you will find all three.

The first one is the most obvious one, militant Islamists such as Tawhid wa’l Jihad, groups who are guilty of terrorism – murdering innocents. Their interpretation of Islam is everything but mainstream, and hardly conservative, and are often influenced by the writing of ideologists who have reinterpreted classical Islamic concepts in a radical manner, sometimes even introducing jihad – holy war – as a sixth pillar of Islam, such as Muhammad abd al-Salam Faraj – originally an electrician and no religious scholar – did in his pamphlet “The Neglected Duty” late in the 1970s.

The most well-known representative of this opposing force is Osama bin Laden, the Saudi rich man’s son. His Saudi citizenship has long been taken from him, but in the late 80s he came back to his home country as a hero after having taken part in the war in Afghanistan, as the biographer Yossef Bodansky described back in 1999.

The second opponent is, in my opinion, conservative Islam. This opponent has quite a bit in common with conservative elements in other religions, and in effect supports for instance misogyny, homophobia and a general opposition to societal changes, etc. It’s opposition to change does however also mean that it is often in opposition to radical forces such as militant Islamism. But that does not mean that the two forces never ally, a common wish to increase the standing of religion in society can easily unite them.

Now, in my opinion conservative Islam has much in common with certain variants of Christianity. In my own home country – Norway – we have had a evangelist who made himself famous by statements such as “watch your mouth, woman” and “gays are worse than pigs”. His congregation – where he later lost all influence – was not without political significance. Another notable example from my country is the leader of a small Christian party who allegedly wanted to ban minors and unmarried people from kissing. But there are two important differences between Norwegian Christian conservatism and the Islamic conservatism found in large parts of the Muslim world: the latter is much more influential, and has much larger support. In addition, it is often considerably more extreme.

Back to my Norwegian pamphlet:

The third opponent is the despotic regimes found in many (not to say most, my later note) countries in the Muslim world, regimes such as the Saudi, the Egyptian, the Turkmen, the Kuwaiti, regimes where popular opinion has little or no influence on politics and where human rights violations are common. These regimes are often seen as allies in the battle against terrorism and radical Islamism, a battle they have fought with sometimes brutal measures. These four countries all have support in the West. But are they really allies?

Khaled Abou El Fadl says: – If the sources of radicalism are to die, the despotic regimes have to go. Their use of force and their double morals are creating most of the recruits to terrorism. I do not think that it is a solution for the United States to invade every single Muslim country. Muslims must take the matter into their own hands, just like what happened in Eastern Europe. They must demand freedom and human rights, like they deserve. If they do not, the reformists of Islam will only be able to prevent extremism from spreading. If the despotic regimes are overthrown, reformism will become the clear mainstream within Islam.

Now, many things might be said on the optimism (or pessimism) of Abou El Fadl. But I have met, talked with and gotten to know so many Muslims who share the belief in democracy, women’s rights and human rights for all that I can not consider Islam as such as a threat. Wahhabism is. Jihadism is. Despotism is, at least to those who are unfortunate to be ruled by a dictator of one kind or another.

Jihadism, of course, is a considerable threat. A number of terrorist attacks, some of them extremely large-scale, are more than strong enough evidence for that fact. It is a threat that may cost us dearly, and that most likely will cost us dearly.

But terrorism aside, how much of a threat is radical Islamism? In the introduction to my book on Eurofascism I discuss the December 2006 departing speech of the Republican Senator Rick Santorum, and his references to Islamofascism.

Santorum is of course quite right that Islamic fascism exists. Fascism did not start with Hitler. It did not end with him either. Also, fascism never stopped at the borders of Europe, the ideology spread further than that, for instance to the Egyptian Green Shirts, who idolised Hitler. In addition, a number of prominent Nazis found refugee in Latin America, like Eichmann, and in the Middle East, like Alois Brunner.

However, Santorum was wrong to see Islamic fascism – even if you make the term meaningless by including every non-democratic government or grouping in predominantly Muslim societies – as «the biggest issue», i.e. the largest threat, of our time. In reality, the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East are weak, and terrorist movements following or approaching the ideology of al Qa’eda or of electrician-turned-ideologist Muhammad abd al-Salam Faraj are even weaker.

Nazi Germany was dangerous because of its strenght and efficiency in warfare and genocide alike. Islamist terrorists are dangerous in spite of their weakness. Since 2001, they have not been capable of committing a single act of terror on American soil, and terror attacks in Europe have been few. In fact, Islamist terrorists are first and foremost a danger towards people in Muslim countries. In 2005, 83% of all terrorist attacks resulting in fatalities around the world took place in Iraq. While a large number of the terrorist attacks of the last few years have been conducted by Muslims, Muslims have also been over-represented as victims of terrorism.

It is obviously possible for Islamist extremists to come to power in a Muslim country, and a situation where this power is even more unchecked than in Iran is no impossibility. Towards the end of 2006, for instance, it did not seem unlikely that radical Islamist forces would take control of the entirety of Somalia. Had they succeeded, it would not have been a surprise if these Somali islamists gave refugee to terrorists. A government based on their political platform would have been likely to be brutal and totalitarian enough to be called fascist, at least if you keep to a broad understanding of the word. But even a pseudofascist Somalia harbouring terrorists would not pose a threat of significance for the United States or for European countries. Such a country would be no worse to us than many other authoritarian regimes around Africa. Unlike pre-WWII Germany, Somalia is not one of the leading industrial powers of the world.

Then what about Europe? There is little doubt that important battles on the future of Islam will take place here, as the researcher and analyst Gilles Kepel points out. There is also little doubt that young and radicalised Muslims pose a potential threat, or that a growing group of people that are often treated as second-class citizens can be a cause for grave political turmoil.

Still, even when attracted to murderous terrorist groups, the kids of the Fallujah-sur-Seines will have little chance at destroying the democratic fabric of Europe.

In addition to worrying about Islamofascism, Santorum and the rest of us should worry about a more distinctly European fascism, which increasingly makes its presence known in a number of countries. Groups on the so-called far right use the media’s somewhat one-eyed focus to their advantage, and they are gaining a momentum. The spokesmen and -women of fascism are listened to, and referred to as wise and brave people speaking out against the alleged foreign occupation of Europe.

These modern-day fascists dress in various robes. Some of them call themselves liberals, some of them refer to themselves as conservatives. Most modern-day fascists, though not all of them, will deny being so, and will instead claim that they are fighting against fascism.

This is the demon Santorum is feeding when he portrays Islamic fascists as the great threat of our times, but while the monster doubtlessly will accept this claim, it will refuse to dine on the Republican senator’s wiser words. For them the enemy is not simply a group of political extremists, it is Islam itself, or even immigrants as such. These are the invaders, and those who do not oppose immigration are quite simply traitors. Basil Harrington, who belongs to a group of self-declared American conservatives threathening not to vote for Santorum’s party puts it this way:

“Failure to address this invasion not only is a dereliction of duty, but it is a form of treason. And many of the presidential candidates are guilty of treason: Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee – and let’s not forget Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Traitors, every last one of them”.

Harrington demands that all Muslims should be deported from the West, and that all immigration from «the third world» should be ended. In another article he expresses his support of three specific political parties in Europe: the British National Party, the French Front National and the Flemish (Belgian) Vlaams Belang. «Unlike the phony neocon GOP in the U.S, these parties are conservative in the true sense», Harrington notes, «they want to conserve Western man and his ancestral traditions».

What did I say? This reply is of course much too long. Let me summarise it all on three okay, four lines instead:

“We are facing a range of different opponents. Islamofascism is real. Islamic reactionaries come in plenty. Islamic militants are capable of large-scale terrorism. But neither of them are capable of destroying the democratic fabric of European society. Eurofascists, on the other hand…”.

That said, I can live with people disagreeing with me, as long as they agree with me in the opposition against reactionary, anti-modern forces such as the Vlaams Belang.