Far be it from me to inveigh against The American Conservative for any light and transient cause, especially after defending the redoubtable Daniel Larison in these pages (though he is more than capable of defending himself), but a couple of TAC's contributors have managed to lash themselves into a tizzy over Nick Griffin, and his recent appearance on the BBC, as well as Geert Wilders, who was finally permitted to enter the UK.
First, David Lindsay expressed his support for the initial ban, and then proceeded to opine that the ban should be extended to other ideological undesirables likely to disturb the public tranquility:
I fully supported the ban on Geert Wilders from visiting Britain, as he was finally permitted to do this week. He is in the Pim Fortuyn tradition of opposing Islam so that the Netherlands can remain a drug-addled, whore-mongering country where the age of consent is 12, contrary to the wishes of its general public either in the staunchly Protestant north or in the devoutly Catholic south. That is not any West which I for one wish to defend. But then, it is not in fact the West at all. It is only the most extreme, and in that sense logically consistent, manifestation of the pseudo-West proclaimed by the neoconservative movement, or what’s left of it these days.
I could perceive this as a reasonable criticism of Wilders, as he does seem to defend a sort of Netherlands that no conservative should be keen to uphold. But questions stubbornly persist. Is it possible, politically speaking, to prioritize either the struggle against hedonistic liberalism or the struggle against Islamic immigration, regarding one as more exigent at this moment? After all, transforming the decadent Dutch culture would be a multi-generational project, mainly apolitical in nature, while turning round the immigration problem could be accomplished straightaway were there any will to do so. Is it not obvious, moreover, that the reasons for the initial ban of Wilders were that his presence in the UK might inflame the Muslim mobs, and that his message would fall afoul of Islamophilic sentiment in the establishment? It is all well and good to advocate the banning of hedonists, but that is not what happened.
Dear reader, there is yet more.
On TAC's main blog, Freddie Gray offers his opinion on the controversy surrounding the BBC appearance of Nick Griffin:
The country has worked itself into an absurd state of mass hysteria about this televisual showdown. Upper lips are wobbling throughout the Isles. There have been long and exhausting debates about whether the Beeb should let such a notorious creep espouse his unpleasant party’s policies on the air; nervous spokesman are warning of riots in the cities.
Well, I'd certainly like to know what, precisely, is so horrible about the BNP's policies, aside from the awkward and superfluous membership restrictions. Is it the openness to nationalizing some industries? Surely this is a trifle by comparison to the impending obliteration of a national identity. Is it the celebration of Northern European 'folkish' elements? Must we have yet another discussion of hypocrisy and double standards? As Richard Spencer observed over at Taki's, Europeans are now expected, not only to affirm the Other in all of his unassimilable Otherness, but to loathe themselves:
When I was at grad school, I met a dumb woman who once taught at a British public school and told me that for a summer project, she had her students make evil “Nazi” advertising posters in which the ultimate form of beauty was light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes. It was, of course, drilled into the students how absolutely immoral and disgusting it would be to value these distinctive features of Northern Europeans. Only Nazi bogeymen would do that!
Now, as some readers will remember, my wife is Russian/Georgian/indeterminate Central Asian. She is one-quarter Georgian, some small percentage Asian, and mainly Russian; but she looks Georgian, with some slight Asian features. I look Irish, though I'm probably no more than one-quarter Irish, and half-Polish. My eldest son, however, inherited from his maternal grandmother the fair skin, light blond hair, and light green eyes of.... those detestable Northern Europeans. So let us not speak falsely now: many multiculturalists no longer enjoin us to be open to the Other and his culture, and to value his ethic identity, but to hate ourselves, in some sense, to hate people who look like my son, and to regard them with suspicion, as symbols of a hated ethnocultural identity.
Shouldn't this be frightening?
Finally, in a post entitled Nazi News, David Lindsay, taking aim at Nick Griffin's invocation of Churchill on the aforementioned BBC appearance, dredges up the evidence of Churchill's period ethnic insensitivity, and declares that the BNP can have the old, dead bigot.
Honestly, dealing with this material is quite tiresome, so I will not belabour the point. Instead, I will pose a simple question: What is really more frightful, the prospect of Europeans preserving the ethnic and cultural identities, or the sort of world in which, as Brenda Walker observes, they may be threatened with death for doing so:
Muslim fury against Wilders is evident in a video making the rounds: Muslim protestors insult Geert Wilders. Young Islamic men with British accents professed their loyalty to principles of sharia law, which they say requires his execution:
"We're here to protest against this man, Geert Wilders, who insulted the message of Mohamed, [blah blah aleikum Islam]. We're here to give him a message that, like he's doing his interview today holed up, he'll remain holed up, because he obviously knows that in Islam, the punishment for the one who insults the prophet is capital punishment. And he should take lessons from people like Theo Van Gogh and others who faced the punishment. So obviously we're here to warn him and remind him that he's going to remain holed up as long as he insults Islam and Muslims.”
Interviewer: Is that going to be construed a threat, what you just said?
“Well, obviously I'm saying, I'm not saying that I'm personally am going to carry out, but, he needs to know that there are Muslims in every corner of the earth, and these people they all have the love for the message of Mohamed [blah blah aleikum Islam]. And in the message of Mohamed he said, 'the one who insults any of the prophets, kill him.' That is a capital punishment. Not necessarily that personally I'm going to carry it out, but he should be warned that, you know, of the consequences of it.” [VDARE.COM note: Transcript here, the "blah blah" being the transcriber's substitute for whatever the fellow is saying when he's not speaking English.]
It's interesting how Wilders is seen as a threat to public order because of telling an unpleasant truth. But the truly dangerous Muslim mobs who crowd British streets with death threats are apparently regarded by British officials as incidental.
Nick Griffin may be a buffoon, for all I know, and Geert Wilders a libertine. However, if we are incapable of distinguishing between folks who want to employ immigration policy to preserve ethnic and cultural identities, and raving mobs calling for the execution of those who "blaspheme" the "prophet" Mahomet, then we have a serious problem, an inability to discriminate between problems internal to our own civilization and problems we needlessly and stupidly import.