Whither the Fortuyn party, whither Johnson and Bawer, whither Derbyshire and Mac Donald?
Andrew Bostom at his blog seems to be saying that the remaining members of the Pim Fortuyn List in the Netherlands are Islam apologists and/or perverts. As to the latter assertion, I’m not sure that that’s what Bostom is saying. He alludes to certain points, without actually making them.
But if what Bostom seems to be hinting at is indeed the case, it would appear that the followers of the late, brilliant Islam opponent Fortuyn, who was of course a flamboyant homosexual, have ended up more or less where the pro-homosexual anti-jihadists Charles (“a fascist behind every TV set”) Johnson and Bruce (“the biggest horse’s ass ever seen”) Bawer also seem to be ending up, choosing libertinism and anti-conservatism over anti-jihadism. The development is made inevitable by Johnson and Bawer’s pedal to the metal devotion to the homosexual cause, which for them trumps all other concerns. Since, as Johnson and Bawer see it, people who are not in favor of homosexual “marriage” are evil and tantamount to Nazis, and since conservatives almost by definition oppose homosexual “marriage” and are therefore evil, and since most anti-jihadists are at least somewhat conservative, and since even moderately liberal anti-jihadists are allied with conservative anti-jihadists, Johnson and Bawer, in order to eschew those they see as evil, will have to reject the anti-jihad movement altogether—as, indeed, it appears, they have already done. They will eventually become like the European leftists and secular former Muslims who signed the secularist manifesto against Islamism and “theocratic totalitarianism” in 2006: opposing “theocracy” instead of Islam, i.e., opposing Christianity and traditional Western moral values at least as much as or more than they oppose Islam.
Turning to a different but not unrelated front in the ideological wars, we could say that the situation of Johnson and Bawer is analogous to that of “secular rightists” John Derbyshire and Heather Mac Donald. What the two pairs have in common is believing in a pro-West or conservative position, while simultaneously giving their main loyalty to a totally incompatible position. Thus Johnson and Bawer believed in defending the West from jihad, but then they then proceeded to banish from the anti-jihad movement all people not on board with radical homosexualism—which meant banishing most anti-jihadists from the anti-jihad movement. Similarly, Derbyshire and Mac Donald believe in a “conservatism” that is atheist, anti-God, and anti-Christian. But how many atheist, anti-God, and anti-Christian conservatives do Derbyshire and Mac Donald expect to find in this world? How many conservatives does Derbyshire expect to find who will agree with him that all human qualities and values are the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection? How many conservatives does Heather Mac Donald expect to find who will agree with her that conservatism is defined by the application of scientific reason to society, i.e., who define conservatism as liberalism? Caught in the absurdity of their present positions, Derbyshire and Mac Donald will eventually either give up the vestiges of their conservative identity and become out and out liberals/libertarians, or they will realize with humility the profound mistakes they’ve made, drop their aggressive materialism and anti-Christianism, and return to conservatism.