Part 1: Prefatory Remarks

In the week following the October 18-19 Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference, a number of factual errors have been published about some of the participants. These errors have revealed the large numbers of people, both in the US and Europe, who labor under a misapprehension regarding right wing politics in Europe. We respect the people making what we consider errors, but we retain the right to present the facts.

Because our response requires showing evidence, the posts are long. We are being asked to prove a negative - that Vlaams Belang and Sweden Democrats political parties are not racist, or Neo-Nazi, or anti-semitic. We have divided the response into seven parts for your convenience:

1. Facts Part 1: Intro: The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

2. Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter interviews (audio and print) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions

3. Facts Part 3: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations related to the 2005 Holocaust resolution and Vlaams Belang (a story worthy of Shakespeare or better yet, Stendhal)

4. Facts Part 4: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations relating to “White Power” flags and Vlaams Belang (more than you ever thought you would need to know about the flags of Belgium….)

5. Facts Part 5: Sweden: Evidence on policy positions concerning Israel, antisemitism and Sweden Democrats Party, and why their support is increasing so rapidly

6. Facts Part 6: Sweden: Evidence refuting allegations concerning photos attributed to Sweden Democrats

7. Facts Part 7: Analysis of European situation
Basic Refutations

For the best analysis of what is occurring in Europe, we recommend the analyses of the European speakers at the Counterjihad Conference (http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com ). Presenters are getting in their final drafts, and we will keep posting them as they are emailed. The Conference topics covered many aspects of the current transition from an initial stage of exposing the threat of Islamisation in blogs, conferences and books, to the next stage of organizing a pragmatic political resistance. The speakers at the conference have taken on those difficult real-world tasks of moving to this next stage. Change is not easy, and the mere fact of engagement and compromise with real political parties in the complex coalitions of parliamentary politics may be unsettling for many people especially in the more virtual world of the blogosphere.

We’ll simply state one fundamental refutation of factual error: None of the participants at the conference was a Nazi, crypto-Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, racist, anti-semitic bigot, or any of the other terms being applied. Nor were any of them “Neo-Nazi sympathizers.” They were instead some of the leading activists in Europe who are working to support Israel, oppose anti-semitism and oppose the Islamisation of European society. Their goal is to mount a resistance to Islamisation through the work of legitimate political parties and legislation, in spite of extraordinary political repression by European Union regulations, and in many countries by their own governments.

The political organizing in Europe against Islamisation will continue regardless of how it is characterized or for that matter regardless of our own efforts. CVF is just not very important; but the people engaged in a political struggle for liberty and Western values in Europe are important, and we will keep supporting them in any way we can.

Another statement of the obvious: Most political parties in Europe from left to right have extreme factions, past histories of individual Communists or Nazis or anarchists or even royalists. History happened in Europe, and history will continue to occur. Parties evolve and individuals evolve, just as the Democratic Party in this country evolved one generation ago from a party dedicated to racism and segregation - or three generations ago from a party that supported lynching - or six generations ago from a party that supported slavery. History happened here as it did in Europe, and parties and individuals evolved. We could support the Democratic party too, if only they would oppose Islamisation and support free speech and Israel’s right to exist. Perhaps someday. And if we did support them, we don’t think that would make us sympathizers with racism, lynchings or slavery.

Participants at the Conference have worked hard to counter these errors and to present the truth about the participants who have been maligned. We are grateful to the analysts in individual countries who have volunteered to fact-check what is being said, and to provide inter-cultural analysis which helps explain the erroneous statements that have been made. They have posted in several places, including blogs and blog comments, and this is a collection of those responses in a single location. We undoubtedly have missed some, and appreciate suggestions to help fill gaps in the refutation of these arguments.

The Challenge of International Fact-checking

Two groups and their leaders stand out in this conflict of ideas:

1. Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang (Flemish Independence) party in Belgium, and

2. Ted Ekeroth and the Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) party in Sweden.

It is good the errors published about these parties came to light since they give us direction and focus for steps that need to be taken to correct misunderstandings and present the facts. We sympathize with those who have researched these matters and drawn conclusions that we consider to be completely wrong-headed. This is a complicated subject. Obstacles arise from the need to research information in other languages and other countries. The complexities of other political cultures are numerous.

In addition, there are two problems: one is disinformation used by opposing parties, which involves the task of separating myths generated on the Internet from factual data, and another is the lack of adequate machine translation for Flemish and Swedish .

We look forward to an ongoing discussion about the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and threats presented by political organizations who have the ability and the will to oppose Islamisation. It is vital to have a “big-tent” approach, but for us that tent does have some boundaries, to wit:

• we urge support for those groups who defend constitutional liberties and human rights,

• who defend national sovereignty and the rule of law,
• who support free speech,
• who support Israel’s right to exist with defensible borders,
• who oppose anti-Semitism,
• who support the integration of immigrants into Western laws and values,
• who want a right to control immigration for national objectives,
• who oppose terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and
• who oppose Islamisation, jihad and the imposition of shariah law.

This is a reasonable list, but a lot of mainstream political parties in Europe are far too politically correct to make the cut. Ask for a position against Islamisation, for Israel’s right to exist and for free speech, and you have eliminated many political organizations in European countries.

Helping Each Other

This task of political coordination and resistance to Islamisation is urgent.

This week, Anders Gravers and his colleagues, of the Danish party SIAD, the founders of the Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) movement, were viciously beaten by political opponents prior to a peaceful demonstration against Saudi influence.
Obviously, with this going on, we need to develop a support system for one another wherever possible. Groups across Europe who oppose Islamisation are forming a variety of coalitions:

• ad-hoc and permanent coalitions,
• decentralized and networked,
• on single issues and bundles of issues,
• within countries and across borders .

The role of the Center for Vigilant Freedom in this is very modest. At the moment, the organizational design that seems to be emerging is a robust, distributed one, with dozens of organizations and leaders and a multitude of experiments opposing Islamisation. None of us can predict what approaches will work, so why not welcome the broad portfolio of local and international efforts? The sheer variety will increase our chances of success.

Next: Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter interviews (audio and print) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions