I understand the argument, still I persist in believing Nazism and Islamicism are supremacist ideologies aiming at worldwide domination in that Islamicism stands for a world caliphate, the Umma, and wishes for an erasure of all dissenting cultures. Nazism had the purpose of turning Europe (and perhaps the remainder of the world, had it outlived its opponents) into a German Lebensraum, extolled the virtues of the German 'race' (ethnicity would be a better term), and was dedicated to the eventual destruction of Jews or purported Jews. In that they are no different, except in nature, germs, causes and distinctive traits. Asserting one's belonging to Christianity, and one's belief that is the only true religion is completely different. The Bible's message is not the establishment of a religious government transcending borders and claiming universality, it is one of peace and love. As it was pointed out in a previous comment Jesus' kingdom is not earthly, of course, Christianity is based on proselytism, and also aims at converting people yet it does not preach for murdering those who leave Christianity, nor does it advocate a worldwide government, and as Fjordman's articles have made clear, Islam has not been able to separate the temporal from the spiritual in that sharia law is contained within the Koran and is in compliance with its terms, whereas Jesus' distinction of earthly matters (Caesar's province) and those belonging to the divine is a significant feature of Christianity. As far as I am concerned, I think of myself as a cultural Christian (and I do believe Christianity used to be a cement holding parts of society together, while partially preventing dissoluted morals on the scale we experience nowadays). Hinduism may have similar idiosyncracies, however, it is no supremacist ideology, as it does not purport to establish a worldwide dictatorship founded on religion, nor does it pretend to convert the whole of humanity to its ways. Islam does. In that Hinduism is no global threat, nor is Christianity, but Islam is. And there is nothing relativistic in these assertions.   

The core beliefs of Islam or National Socialism are not at issue here, nor are the validity of these beliefs in the minds of their followers.  Both are supremacist in that they advocate their own supremacy, be it of the Umma or the German people.

Although I understand the argument, I do have the object to this notion that Islam and Nazism are 'supremacist' ideologies and that for this very reason they are to be considered evil. Yes, both are evil, and both draw on some sort of 'supremacist' ideology, but in how far can you draw a comparison between core Nazi beliefs, which essentially is, at "best", a pseudo-religious movement, and Islam, which is in every way a theistic belief system? Both have their similarities in practice, but there are considerable differences. Aryanism/Nazism is a race-based worldview, while Islam is motivated by its own heretical notions of God and how man and the world relate to him. I am opposed to Nazism, Marxism, Islam, Buddhism, Hedonism, etc. not because of their belief in having the absolute truth. I am opposed to these constructs because of my Christian beliefs, which means that I believe that Christ is the Son of God and the only Way to salvation, and that the Bible is the truth, and that the aforementioned religions, ideologies or worldviews, are therefore false, regardless of whether they contain some truth. If I believe otherwise, I might still be a cultural Christian, but not a Christian in any biblical sense of the word. So basically, one could argue that I am a supremacist too. The truth is, I am simply being a Christian and I am able to respect and tolerate other people while still strongly disagreeing with their world view. However, this argument that the problem with ideologies or religions is rooted in some kind of 'supremacism' leads a great deal of people to consider me, and others like myself, to be some kind of religious fundamentalist who would like to impose Old Testament laws on the world and kill abortion practitioners. In short, that I am no better than a Muslim fundamentalist because I believe in the 'exclusivity' and 'supremacy' of Christ and that I support Judaeo-Christian values, regardless of the fact that I also firmly support the rule of law, limited and representative government, and individual liberty. Is this not the very morally relativistic postmodern way of thinking which opposes any notion of absolute truth and has eroded the foundations of our civilization, that virtually every poster on the BJ here decries? What I'm saying is that you can't lump all religion or man-made doctrines together and condemn them based on whether or not they believe theirs is the sole truth or the most worthy of all races, etc. Allow me to draw an analogy; Hinduism theoretically considers many "paths" to be valid in order to achieve "moksha". Quite the opposite of those 'supremacist' monotheistic religions, one could say. And yet in several Indian states it is forbidden by law for a Hindu to convert and accept only Christ (or Muhammad or Buddha, for that matter). There have been many cases of Hindu converts to Christianity being murdered by their own family or being forced to eat cow dung, and so on. So one might say that Hinduism basically is not any better than Islam, as far as that is concerned. But does all this mean that all Hindus are therefore somehow a huge threat to us? Not at all. So I believe that one has to consider the merit of an ideology or religion based on what they actually teach in theory and what they produce in practice, and look at them in their proper context instead of rather simplistically reducing the complexity of these thought systems to being a matter of whether they are 'supremacist' or not. Just some thoughts on this issue. Sorry for being off-topic.

@ Blueglasnost

1)  Please, make an effort to read more carefully, and address issues to the appropriate persons concerned.  For example, I did not claim that you have not been a regular reader, nor did I raise issues of my own or anyone else's nationality, etc...If you want to discuss these matters do not raise them in a direct response to a previous posting from me.  Address them to the appropriate persons.  I cannot put myself in other people's minds.

2) Please, try to make a distinction between opinions (expressed by others or by yourself) and facts.  This is perhaps the greatest failing of contemporary naive-leftist education systems, i.e. the inability to separate opinions from facts.  Let me illustrate:

-- You now give further lengthy explanations of what you meant, or did not mean to say, about various specific subjects, and that is fine.  But, do not present false accusations as relating to facts or factual events.  For example, I did NOT accuse you of being an anti-semite.  The subjects of jews or anti-semitism cannot be found anywhere in my postings under this thread.  So, why raise it now in a response to me? 

--  I did, however, claim that you made a racist statement.  That does not necessarily make you a (conscious) racist (in terms of your intentions).  None of us is entirely free from our environment.  When you took great pains to denounce Hitler as a nutcase and nazism as a "bogey ideology", you did make the statement that many of his victims were "whiter than himself".  IN THAT CONTEXT of denouncing Hitler (not for instance in the context of factual historical research) that statement is a racist one (because the color of Hitler's victims should be irrelevant in terms of establishing his villainy).  Now, that is my opinion and you do not have to share it. But it WOULD not be factual, or it would not be correct, for you to claim that I said that you are a racist.  If that is what you meant by writing "your accusations of anti-Semitism/racism".   

-- Nowhere did I state, nor imply, that you are "friends with the leftist establishment".  That is certainly not factual.  I did state that you are parroting a leftist dogma with (let's call it in shorthand) your 'nazi obsession'. But almost everybody coming out of contemporary Western education systems does so from time to time, even - it seems - well-meaning and rare good patriots like yourself.  

3) I can assure you that I have many "defects".  But, not being able to read your mind is NOT one of them.  Like everybody else, I have to go by what you say or write.  But, your further elaborations and clarifications of what you mean to say are certainly helpful to me and - no doubt - to others in reading your mind.          

blueglasnost was underlining the theoretical and practical similarities between Islam and National Socialism as ideologies, whereas marcfrans was explaining that the latter is the clear and present danger, not the former (despite media bias).

However, the confluence of Islam and National Socialism is not anti-Semitism but supremacism.  Moreover, it is worthy to note that in the 1980s, Communism was considered a greater threat than Islam, prompting the United States and Pakistan to fuel anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents.  In the 1940s, of course, National Socialism was such a strong adversary that common cause was made with the Soviet Union. 

Would there have been any outrage if instead of a Hitler portrait on the wall the babysitter had been wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt?

Marcfrans, exactly my thoughts on this issue. That was very well put. I hope that Blueglasnost will see his error. Being a young man myself (though not a teenager anymore, thank goodness), I will be the first to acknowledge that it can be hard to admit that you're wrong. It's not that you can't have your convictions or beliefs and have to blindly follow whatever an older person says just because you're young, but at least if you disagree you should be able to give a reasonable explanation and be willing to admit that you were wrong. It's a matter of decency and respect toward those who have more experience in life and may be wiser and more knowledgeable as a result.

but that wasn't really unexpected.

4 observations:

1. the Belgian media has been equally dominated by harsh discussions against the violent protests of muslim extremists against the headscarf ban in 2 schools in Antwerp. This could at least have been mentioned when criticizing the media for being biased.

2. The opinions of the woman in question went way further than romanticized nostalgia regarding Hitler: she actually advocated the need of a nazist "solution" to take care of the muslim presence in Belgium just like Hitler did his thing with the jews of his time who, in her words, "took everything from us common people just like the muslims are doing this nowadays" 

3. why, oh why, Belien, don't you just have the decency to mention that there have been raised official complaints against the family on several previous occasions? For using corporal punishment, and for expressing racist views: the authorities have publised an overview of their treatment of the complaints (which was by all means lousy).

and last but not least,

4. Why did your own party VB promptly decide to cancel the membership of this family if there was nothing wrong with them?  

Cordially,

Nataraja

"@ marcfrans: I have seldom read such a crap from a member of this esteemed journal. "

Shouldn't this read:

"I seldom read this esteemed journal"?

or

"I seldom pay attention to what another person says on this esteemed journal, least of all one of the most prolific and thoughtful posters on this journal"?

or

"I'm 19 and none of you old farts on this esteemed journal know anything about anything!"?

How else can you explain mistaking Marcfrans for an American? Or explain the rest of your response?

When I first started posting on TBJ, I made the mistake of misunderstanding and then misrepresenting, a slight nuance that Marcfrans made in a rather lengthy post. Marcfrans took great pains to explain to me why I was wrong. Now, not being one to argue simply to argue (;-), I said to myself surely a man who takes so much time, care  and thought to say precisely what he means can not be wrong, so I simply conceded that he was right, I was wrong, and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Fight when you are right on principle, not to prove that 19 year olds are uh, well uh 19 year olds.

Patriotic youth is a great thing to aspire to. I've met many in the last several years who have gone off to war and come back, not always in one piece, your telling off Marcfrans is not something I would expect from those patriotic youth, though it is similiar in emotion to what I hear on campuses from those who didn't go off.

@ Blueglasnost

Rest assured this is my last "lecture" to you.

1) How was the article "ambiguous" about nazism?  Did the article express any sympathy for nazism?  Did it 'minimise' nazism in any way?  The only honest answer to these rhetorical questions is a resounding: NO.  So, do not even attempt to answer them, on pain of...dishonesty.

The article was entirely about hypocrisy and about misguided priorities of BOTH Belgian authorities and Belgian media. It simply pointed out that a Belgian couple will likely be prosecuted for... possessing a picture, while euphemistic 'youths' can get away with running around streets with Kalashnikovs (and actually "attacking" police who at times have to flee) .  You can be sure the couple would not be prosecuted if it had had pictures of other 'characters' on the wall, say, like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Saddam, Khomeini, Tojo, Mobuto,.....you name it.  My point is that you have been brainwashed to parrot a leftist dogma.  

2)  Stop parroting leftist language.  We all know that there are many similarities between totalitarian ideologies and, yes, islamism (especially in its Arab versions)  has borrowed from the nazis.  So what?  Your claim that TODAY "nazism is as much a threat as islamism" is utterly ludicrous. That is exactly what the 'collaborating part' (with islam) of the Western left wants you to think and parrot, so as to dissimulate away its 'collaboration' in your cultural destruction.   Your claim is as ridiculous as claiming that Iceland is as much a threat to Ukraine's future independence as is Russia today.  Nazism has been utterly destroyed in a 'total' war, the brutality of which your generation can hardly imagine today.  Islamism has not been destroyed at all, anywhere.  In fact it has been 'coddled' in numerous ways by the very Western governments that want you to parrot their (anti)nazi-dogma smokescreen. 

3)  We all know that Hitler was a mass murderer and that he was (largely) responsible for millions of deaths.  What is the point of stating the obvious?  But, more to the point, what is the relevance of you adding after these deaths "including those of people a lot whiter than himself".  Again,  does it matter what the color was of Hitler's victims?  You made an absurd racist statement, in your youthful enthousiasm.  However, unlike the Belgian authorities (vis-a-vis the Belgian couple)  I would not dream of attempting to prosecute you for your racist statement, for I respect freedom of political speech. The contemporary Belgian authorities, on the other hand, have no longer any clue as to what genuine democracy means, and your willingness for "suppressing" unsympathetic opinions (and tendency to distort observable reality) suggests that you do not either.            

I do wish The Brussels Journal can be shared on Facebook.  Any reason why not?  If no, please add it to the Share application! 

This reminds me of an incident during the Cultural Revolution, where an old man had been arrested for having pictures of Chairman Mao pasted all over his walls because they deemed it an insult that their Great Leader's photos had been reduced to mere wallpaper.

@ Blueglasnost

At 19 you obviously are still in need of a lot of "lecturing", especially since you couple a number of absurd statements with a failure to grasp the real problem here.

It is not "all those butchers" that are being censured in this case (that censuring of butchers is only taking place in your mind) .  It is a simple Belgian couple who are being censured, and perhaps prosecuted for what?  For...possessing a picture!  That is the sort of thing for which these butchers were famous, and other butchers in other unfree countries today are still famous.  What is the real difference between Iran and Belgium today, if one can be prosecuted for (real or imagined) thought crimes in both places?  

And, are you really serious when you write that "nazism is as much a threat as islamism is"?   At 19 you should be able to look around the world as it is today, and not confuse it with the world of 70 years ago, and make observations as opposed to imagininations.

And, what in God's name has the skin color of Hitler's victims got to do with anything?  Does it matter what their color(s) were?  It is an implicit racist statement, and by the (absurd and hypocritical) standards of the current Belgian authorities, that statement of yours makes you a 'racist' and (at least in their view) theoretically subject to prosecution.  But then, you are no different from them, since you are willing to judge and prosecute a Belgian couple for possessing a picture. That implies that you are willing to ascribe to them certain opinions (whether they have them or not) and, worse, you condone "suppressing" (your word!)  people on the basis of their opinions. 

1-Please do me a favour and stop dubbing these louts "youths", for I am about to turn 19, and I do not especially relish being likened to such ruffians.

2-Hopefully you are not trying to condone the possession of Hitler's portrait, for I think Nazism is just as much of a threat as Islamism is, besides, you will, forsooth, find many points on which Nazis and Islamists/apologists of Islamism concur. Obviously, the illegal ownership of ordnance is genuinely preoccupying, and should be suppressed without further ado, and with all the firmness the authorities can conjure (this is a scenario belonging to my imagination, the Belgian government will do no such thing, of course). Nevertheless, I think it is no reason to view the possession of Hitler's portrait with such indolence. Hitler has nothing to do with conservatism (as a national-socialist), his economics were widely Keynesian, and he was a mass murderer responsible for tens of millions of deaths, including those of people a lot whiter than himself, and his very ideology was an insult to humanity and Christianity. We should be relieved such ideology belongs to the past, or else concerned with its sudden revival, chiefly among Islamists. Both threats, viz. illegal ownership of firearms and neo-Nazism, must be wiped out.

The media was also quick to point out that the lady supports a stricter and more disciplined upbringing of children and how she criticized a Flemish family organization named 'Kind & Gezin' for promoting liberal upbringing. So while the Muslims and the Communists are freely worshiping and displaying their affection for terrorist organizations and ruthless leftist dictators and bloody guerrillas, this one family is going to be prosecuted on charges of racial hatred, and conservative-minded and moderately nationalist natives will be reminded of this Nazi couple whenever they wish to point at the real problems our society is facing today. However abominable Nazism is, it is not a threat to our society because there are virtually no Nazis. The real threat is our own Western decadence, hedonism and moral relativism, of which the rise of violent Islam in our streets is only a symptom, albeit a very serious one indeed. The real threat is thus our own kin, these self-styled 'anti-fascist' Fascists.

Prove your anti-racism credentials while letting violent aliens run rampant.  There must be a circle of Hell for such officials.

We have heard that Belgian socialists have allied with Muslim parties. Does anyone have information whether the photo of Hitler might provide common ground between Belgian and Muslim neighbors?

The government and the press must be relieved that it is merely a portrait of the former Chancellor-President.  I suppose that prosecuting the Hoboken couple is a show of strength for Belgium.  God knows what show we saw in 1940...