Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mythical European "Far Right"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Mythical European "Far Right"

    THE MYTHICAL EUROPEAN "FAR RIGHT"

    EuropeNews, Denmark
    http://europenews.dk/en/node/9663
    April 28 2008

    This essay is a response to an essay authored by John Matthies
    and published by PajamasMedia and Middel East Forum. It is part
    of a broader debate concerning what some maintain is a resurgent
    (and possibly dangerous) "Far Right" movement, while others maintain
    that no such thing is taking place, and that the notion constitutes
    scaremongering based on misunderstanding and misinterpretations of
    the facts on the ground.

    The author of this response is in agreement with the latter of these
    positions. John Matthies in his essay seems to be influenced by the
    former of these. This essay is written to clear up misunderstandings
    and misconceptions, not least the problem that it can be interpreted
    to support either point of view. The response has been discussed with
    John Matthies, who states clearly that this is not meant as an attack
    on the movement, but rather to give insight and actually to demolish
    the "Far Right" meme.

    In particular, the use of the "Young Turks" moniker, which
    history-aware Europeans might understand as a derogative reference to
    the proto-facist and genocidal CUPS regime, is in fact an appreciation
    of the fresh and spontaneous people standing up for their ideals,
    as in the song by Rod Stewart.

    That said, time do dive into the details, bit by bit:

    Islam and the Evolution of Europe's Far Right MEF PajamasMedia by
    R. John Matthies Pajamas Media April 10, 2008

    The title itself is intriguing, and somewhat puzzling. Let's take
    the MEF's mission statement for context for publishing an article on
    this theme:

    The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote
    American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests
    to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful;
    working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management
    of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle
    East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia;
    and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve
    Middle East studies in North America.

    This article seems a bit off topic for MEF, which does not concern
    itself with the details of European politics per se. The link, of
    course, is Islam, but the subject of this article - as we shall see
    - is not Islam. Personally, I consider this to be off topic, which
    is a warning sign. It might mean either that something profoundly
    significant is taking place here, or the author/editor would probably
    not divert from his core competences.

    The title has a couple of interesting details. First, it assumes that
    the "Europe's Far Right" is a connected movement, that there is a
    rise of a coordinated "Far Right" movement in Europe. We in Europe
    might look around and say "Where, who, what?" to that, but is sure
    triggers curiosity.

    Second, the notion of the "Far Right" itself is ambiguous. What
    exactly is the "Far Right"? It has a negative connotation, it is 'bad'
    to be "Far Right". As to what that means, that is immaterial. The
    very concept of 'left' and 'right' stems from the time of the French
    revolution, where the left would be the radicals and the right would
    be the conservatives, as seated in the national assembly.

    But this clear distinction would hardly apply here, as we are
    more than two centuries away from that. What then is the "Far
    Right"? Jonah Goldberg in his profound and entertaining book Liberal
    Fascism" probably has the only workable definition: Left is statist
    (in support of the big state, high taxes), Right is libertarian,
    as in minimal taxes, minimal state.

    Unfortunately, a clear definition is lacking in this essay, and that
    leaves us to grasp with conventional (mis-)perceptions. Libertarians in
    Europe is a rare species, found mostly in the East with the low-budget
    states and flat taxes. In the West, Europe is full of extensive social
    security systems, or what WSJ aptly named 'Rampant welfarism'. The
    "Far Right", as in supporters of the 'nightwatch state', have marginal
    or no political influence in Western Europe.

    What then would be the "Far Right"? Nationalists, probably, but the
    lack of a clear definition remains a problem. And why would nationalism
    (AKA patriotism) be considered to be "Far" in the first place?

    Point is, European nationalism (or patriotism) has taken serious damage
    from its encounter with fascism. It is still viewed as suspicious by
    many, including many, and strangely that includes some very patriotic
    Americans, who should know the good of patriotism and appreciate it
    elsewhere, too.

    Let's move on.

    What is to account for the success of Europe's Far Right?

    Here's an assumption unaccounted for. Actually two. What is the
    'success', and who is the "Far Right"? The latter sounds a bit
    sinister, let's see.

    The attention the news media have devoted to the story of Islam in
    Europe has never been greater. And displeasure over concessions granted
    to Europe's Muslims, fear and loathing of Shari'a (Islamic) law --
    and fears that Europe, in the rush to embrace the Other, may lose
    herself -- appear to be driving the continent's electoral agenda. These
    concerns have sprung from items as ridiculous as Fortis Bank's decision
    to do away with pig mascot Knorbert (for fear of offending Muslims) to
    the Archbishop of Canterbury's declaration that adoption of elements
    of Shari'a law in the UK "seems unavoidable" -- and would, in fact,
    be a great help to maintain social cohesion. In any case, it appears
    that a growing number are sufficiently discouraged by the imposition
    of the multicultural gag to take Europe's latest war of religion to
    the voting booth.

    A healthy stab at the problems of Islam pushing itself into the
    European societies, and the healthy reaction of reasserting basic
    European values. Nothing much to see here.

    It is also the case, for many, that the persons who best speak to the
    continent's concerns are not those moderate (or secular) Muslims who
    talk of assimilation, but the leading lights of Europe's Far Right --
    and the growing host of Muslim-baiters who sit in public office.

    Here again we invoke the "Far Right" moniker. Without definition,
    without specificity.

    But the electoral success of the Far Right has been far from
    evenly distributed. And this, of course, has a great deal to do with
    perceptions of the Old Guard of Europe's Far Right, the most familiar
    branch of the movement.

    Now, to the disappointment of certain people working in Brussels, we
    don't have anything like a coordinated "European Far Right". We have
    30+ independent nations. But who then is the "Old Guard of Europe's
    Far Right"?

    Geert Wilders, the Netherlands' puckish libertarian, for example,
    does not easily compare to France's Jean-Marie Le Pen, either with
    respect to personal history or electoral sway.

    Good point. These two simply don't match up. Jean-Marie Le Pen is
    one of those I would personally label "Vulgar nationalist", having
    an imprecise romantic idea about 'Frenchness' and the return to the
    'good old days'. France, in particular, has an amazing history of
    being anti-libertarian. Lumping these two together seems odd - but
    the fault of them both seems to be that they're patriots. They care
    for their countries.

    But as difficult as it is to stack Wilders among the "blood and
    soil" conservatives of the Old Guard, Wilders and other members
    of the "progressive" nationalist faction nevertheless constitute an
    important, second branch of the confederation one casually describes as
    "Far Right."

    Difficult as it may seem, the author sure tries hard. But that's
    immaterial. What is more important is the 'confederation'. What
    confederation? It sounds profound, that somewhere there's an
    confederation so important, yet so unknown, that only the author
    of this article seems to know it. Myself, being European and
    politically active on a international level, have not heard of this
    confederation. It might or might not be a reference to the now-defunct
    ITS group of the European Parliament, or possibly an unfounded
    assumption. We are not being told. As for "one casually describes",
    the reader may wonder who this refers to. Probably just the author
    and a few of the same opinion. But again, details are left out.

    These are the Young Turks of the movement.

    Here, in one small sentence, we move from unspecified 'bad' to what to
    many Europeans, in particular those aware of history, would perceive
    as 'outright evil'. The Young Turks, as the reader may be aware,
    is the movement around the CUPS regime in the waning days of the
    Ottoman Empire, the group directly responsible for the Armenian
    genocide. While CUPS itself was dissolved, the trials concerning
    the genocide were inconclusive, and the Turkish government as of
    today denies that the genocide was anything but justified acts of
    war. Associating the aging Le Pen or the outspoken Islam-critic Geert
    Wilders with this group constitutes libel. This linking, taken at
    face value, is as incriminating as linking to Nazis. Fortunately,
    Mr. Matthies has later made clear that this was not the intention.

    And lastly, there is the success of right-wing populists, like those
    in Belgium and Switzerland,

    While being 'populist' is quite obviously 'bad', we are not getting
    any substantiation of what the term means, or that the parties
    involved (that'd be Vlaams Belang in Belgium and the Volkspartei in
    Switzerland) fulfils the definition of being 'populist'. Or right-wing,
    for that matter.

    who clearly seek to transcend Old Guard allegiances and adapt their
    platforms to better respond to the continent's "Islam problem." These
    groups represent a third branch, and a slippery strength within the
    greater movement.

    What 'greater movement'? The 'third branch' is unspecified. Many have
    used this to denote 'neither socialist or capitalist'. It's a term in
    need of definition. One wonders what the author is up to. It's unclear.

    All told, however, what describes the strength of Europe's Far Right
    is the fact that votes have begun to derive, in meaningful numbers,
    from across the political spectrum: from the "Godless" Left to the
    fascist Right, and all points in between.

    Finally, we're getting some sort of a definition of what 'Left' and
    'Right' means in Europe. 'Left' is the 'Godless' side (presumably
    socialists), and the 'Right' is fascist. Swell. We have now moved
    from unclarity over a touch of evil to outright uninformed. The 'Far
    Right' is taking votes from all over the political spectrum? Then it
    can hardly be described as 'Far Right', one should think...

    As for this 'Far Right movement' being somehow related to fascism,
    let us make one thing clear. Being European, and following the politics
    here, I can say one thing for sure:

    There is NO grand scale, widely supported fascist revival in Europe.

    Forget it. People who claim so are usually hardcore Stalinists, using
    obscure sources like EXPO or Antifa, left-wing extremists who desire
    the straw man of fascism to return, for them to have an obvious enemy
    to hate. Fortunately, it's imaginary.

    To describe the Old Guard, then, is to include the likes of two men:
    Nick Griffin, national chairman of the British National Party (BNP),
    and Jean-Marie Le Pen of France's National Front (FN).

    We're now getting something concrete, which is nice, a specification
    of the 'Old Guard'. My personal knowledge of both of these is quite
    limited, as these parties exist in other countries than my own
    (Denmark). BNP is, to my knowledge, a 'statist' party, wishing for a
    large state control of matters. They've recently moved to a pro-Jewish
    and pro-Israel attitude, which is quite an improvement. Not knowing
    anyone involved with the BNP, I can say no more.

    For the Front National, well, the mere inclusion of this
    party-in-decline firmly contradicts the theme of this article, a
    movement on the rise. Le Pen himself had a great success in beating
    the socialist candidate in the French presidential elections some
    years ago, but since then it's been downhill. He is now quite old,
    and his daughter is taking a lead role in the party.

    Since their earliest days in politics, one has likened these men to
    public discourse as one likens hooligans to organized sports.

    'One' can say that. Not least if 'one' doesn't want to enter a debate
    about actual issues.

    What is now clear, however, is that these men have failed to unite the
    electorate behind their classic fear of European federalism, Turkish
    accession to the European Union, and more or less avowed anti-Semitism.

    That was three important points in one sentence:

    'European federalism', of course, refers to the European Union and
    the accelerating integration of participating countries into the
    Union. The Lisbon Treaty, currently under ratification, is the subject
    of much controversy in Europe - not least because our politicians did
    everything possible to avoid referenda on the treaty, in spite of a
    whopping 75 % of the European citizens desiring such a referendum. Not
    necessarily to reject the treaty (though this happened in France and
    Netherlands already), but to get the discussions with the politicians
    about the future direction of Europe. OK, this is sidetracking a bit,
    but the issue is controversial here.

    The author, instead of going into the details of this, denounces the
    'classical fear of federalism' as something errant, implying that
    those who oppose it are confused or driven by fear, not rationality.

    Second comes he issue of Turkish accession to the European Union. This,
    too, is the source of much controversy, with a significant majority
    of European citizens being against it, but the European politicians
    and civil servants going ahead anyway, in spite of the severe
    problems concerning human rights, minorities' rights and democracy
    in Turkey. This wilful ignorance of public opinion, as well as the
    facts on the ground in Turkey, is eroding the confidence in the
    European Union. Le Pen has raised the issue. But since the current
    president Sarkozy has adopted it, people stopped voting for Le Pen,
    who's widely considered somewhat unsophisticated.

    As above, the author implies that opposing Turkish EU membership is
    caused by fear, not rationality or knowledge. This is an underhanded
    judgement of issues he might not know to well.

    As for anti-Semitism, this point is moot, at least as concerns the
    conservatives or the 'right wing' in Europe. Any bits of anti-Semitism
    is confronted and dismantled. It does exist, however, on the left wing,
    disguised as "Criticism of the state of Israel", distrust of anything
    Jewish and the like. I encounter it frequently in public debate, but
    always on the 'left', never on the 'right'. Invoking this association
    is incriminating, and certainly not based on facts on the ground.

    Due to my complete ignorance of the BNP, I'll prefer to skip the
    BNP comments. There may be issues to take up with them directly. But
    framing the conservatives of Europe in general to be associated with
    the BNP is another mistake of this article. They're generally shunned.

    Similarly ignorant of the details of the now-marginalized FN, I shall
    skip commenting on them and move on to:

    Consider now the Young Turks of Europe's Far Right.

    As above. Americans seem to be a bit in the dark about the history
    of Turkey. Mr. Matthies uses the term "Young Turks" in a causal way,
    without connecting it to the genocide of 1-1 ½ million Armenians
    (probably), as well as Assyrians and Pontic Greeks and others by the
    hundreds of thousands. Reading the works of Taner Akcam, in particular
    A Shameful Act, is recommended.

    In a way, the confusion is understandable. In English slang, a
    "Young Turk" was a rebellious kind of teenager who would go against
    the grain. But the historical meaning of the term makes it a pitfall
    when used to describe (supposed) political movements. Those of us
    aware of the details of how the Ottoman Empire collapsed know better
    than to use this one.

    This group represents a new breed of politician, who, although tarred
    with the extremist brush for their attacks on Islam, speak most loudly
    to themes dear to libertarians and social democrats. And now is their
    magic moment. In the past decade, the "progressive" nationalism of
    these politicians has come to enjoy support the moribund Old Guard has
    only imagined; for these represent a new generation of politician:
    libertarian and socially democratic personalities who feel that to
    legislate Islamic space is to assault core "progressive" European
    values.

    This is a tricky paragraph. First off, what do Social Democrats and
    Libertarians have in common? Not much, it would seem. Social Democrats,
    whose ideology is widely adopted by Conservatives in Europe, are
    statist people, wishing a big state and guarantees for everything in
    society. Not unlike Mussolini, BTW, but in a more gentle fashion.

    Libertarians are at the other end of the scale, wanting the state
    minimized and private concern and initiative to be the driving force in
    society. But libertarians are marginalized in Europe. Many countries,
    including Denmark, does not have a libertarian party with parliamentary
    representation. This is an odd combination, and certainly does not
    support the notion of a wide "Far Right" movement in Europe at large.

    The mention of 'European values' is interesting, though. However
    it is marred by the adjective 'Progressive'. My own research, and
    here I'm deeply indebted to Rodney Stark, Thomas Woods and others,
    indicates that what can properly be termed 'European values' has
    roots around 800 years into history, into the High Middle Ages
    with the grand philosophers, the development of capitalism and the
    proto-democracies of the European city-states in Italy, Netherlands,
    England and the Hansa.

    The more recent 'Progressive' movement of the early 20th century
    seems to be but an odd storm on the surface of these deep waters. But
    probably the statement wasn't even meant to refer to that movement -
    it just sounded good.

    This is a portion of the movement that came to prominence under
    the openly gay and socially libertarian Pim Fortuyn, who abandoned
    mainstream politics to found his Pim Fortuyn List (LPF). Most
    remarkable is the fact that the Dutch were quick to adopt his message:
    Assassinated shortly before the 2002 vote, Fortuyn's party still
    went on to claim 26 of 150 seats and become the second party in
    parliament. His most natural successors, both in matter of abrasive
    charisma and fire-breathing anti-Islamism, are Geert Wilders of
    the Netherlands' Party for Freedom (PVV) and Pia Kjærsgaard of the
    Danish People's Party (DF). Like Fortuyn, both abandoned establishment
    parties to form groups prompt to defend "national values" against the
    multiculturalisme mou (milquetoast multiculturalism) of the new Europe.

    Interestingly, we here see anti-Islamism, with the adjective
    'fire-breathing', as something radical. And I thought Islamism was
    radical and anti-democratic? A tad confusing, I'd say. Invoking
    Pim Fortuyn here is somewhat odd in relation to what's supposed
    to be something 'Far Right', as he certainly belonged to a
    marginal group (homosexuals) who'd easily be targeted by classical
    fascists. Islamo-fascists, too. The Danish People's Party is added to
    the mix. Probably because it, too, wants to defend the nation-state
    and the Danish culture. The Danish People's Party, however, is not
    libertarian.

    Wilders' transformation to become Despiser of the Faith came as
    something of a shock to the Dutch public. He is now best known for
    his short file Fitna (strife), which seeks to expose the "fascist"
    program of the Koran. The Guardian profiled Wilders in February,
    making the point that he views himself as a "libertarian provocateur
    like the late Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh.

    Back with the Libertarians, the only common denominator seems to be
    that these people take a stand against Islam. Weird. Not a 'Far Right'
    movement by a mile.

    It mentions also that he "[rails] against 'Islamisation' as a threat
    to what used to be the easy-going Dutch model of tolerance." "My
    allies are not Le Pen or [Jörg] Haider," he wishes to make
    clear. "We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of
    Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist
    fascist groups." Instead, as reported by the daily, "Dutch iconoclasm,
    Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are
    what drive him."

    Wilders got his facts right: Italy does have a neo-fascist party. It
    is a long way removed from his own libertarian ideals, however,
    and teaming up with those people would seem odd. Wilders rejects it
    clearly. One wonders why this article tries to lump them together.

    Danish politician Pia Kjærsgaard speaks a similar language,
    remarking last year to the Associated Press: "The most important
    thing for the Danish People's Party (DF) is to maintain the Danish
    identity." And like Wilders, she is quick to reject comparisons to
    Europe's Old Guard, saying: "There is nothing racist about what I
    have said, I know that. ... My driving force is the love for my home
    country. ... I want Denmark to be a safe and good and cozy nation
    that has a good relationship to the rest of the world." Her party
    today is the parliament's third largest, having garnered 14% of the
    legislative vote in November 2007. This was also a moment for the party
    to affirm its anti-Islamist credentials: a campaign poster depicted
    a cartoon illustration of Mohammed, underscored by text that read:
    "Freedom of speech is Danish, censorship is not."

    Good stuff. So why is she being mentioned along with the "Young Turks"
    of Europe?

    Add to the Old Guard and the Young Turks of resurgent nationalism a
    third group, comprised of right-wing populists often associated with
    the likes of Britain's Griffin and the Frenchman Le Pen. These are
    the nationalist (and regionalist) parties of Austria, Switzerland,
    and Belgium.

    Hang on. A severe lack of details marks this paragrah. To fill in
    the blanks, the non-mentioned parties would be: FPO of Austria.

    Schweizerische Volkspartei SVP of Switzerland Vlaams Belang of
    Flanders, Belgium

    Like the Old Guard, these groups are often socially conservative
    and subject to accusations of anti-Semitism (and, perhaps, too fond
    memories of Hitler's Reich).

    As anyone with real knowledge of Europe knows, Nazism is discredited,
    throughoutly. Nazi hooligan groups exist, but these people know only of
    violence, not influence. They hardly read newspapers, not to mention
    books. The author of this article gets away with this without doing
    outright slander by stating "... subject to accusations of". A sly
    wording. This is libel, not political analysis. Not actionable in
    court, just demeaning.

    FPO had the somewhat dubious Jörg Haider as a leader some years ago,
    but any and all Nazi-sympathies have been kicked solid. A friend of
    mine is doing consultancy for FPO, and testifies that these people
    are conservative patriots, not closet Nazis. They are Euro-sceptics,
    too, which is probably what marks them as 'suspicious'.

    SVP, like the BNP, I have no direct knowledge of.

    Vlaams Belang of Flanders, Belgium, is a separatist party taking
    roughly 25 % of the vote in Flandern. These people are separationists,
    which is a legit political viewpoint, free-market proponents (more
    libertarian than most Europeans), and have strong ties to Israel
    and the Jewish community in Antwerp. Using the term 'Anti-semitism'
    in this context is libel. As usual, it is unsubstantiated. As for
    the 'fond memories of Hitler's Reich', this is another piece of
    libel, and an evil accusation indeed. Anyone versed in Belgian
    history would know that the Walloons, not the Flemish, were the
    ones with the greater frequency of Nazi collaboration (factor 2:1),
    as measured by people volunteering for Hitlers' cause. Today the
    'fondness for the Reich' exists only in fringe groups with absolutely
    no influence, and certainly not within any political parties with
    governmental representation. Claiming the contrary is either ignorant
    or demeaning. I'll assume 'ignorant'.

    These groups have packaged themselves under nationalist-populist wrap
    to play on perceptions that establishment parties are deaf to the
    cause of the people; and they are interesting for having reoriented
    their politics and policies in calculation of popular support. Like
    the Young Turks, however, this populist Right has learned to exploit
    fears of insurgent Islam to great electoral success.

    "Packaged themselves under"? "Calculation of popular support"? This
    is a charge of 'populism'. What is much more likely the case here is:
    genuine patriotism. These people like their nations, and their voters
    like them as well. No wrapping needed, these people are as good and
    honest as any true American patriot. As for establishment parties
    being deaf to .. the people, we see that extensively in Europe, not
    least in matters related to the European Union. This is a democratic
    problem that the new parties do take up, and that is good. That this
    constitutes a "play on perceptions" seems to imply that the issue is
    not real, and thus an act of manipulation. Not so nice.

    Again the 'Young Turks' is being invoked. As above, we have resolved
    that this is meant in the Rod Stewart (refresher here) sense, not a
    reference to genocidal regimes in Asia Minor. But there's something
    strange here: It goes "Like the Young Turks". That looks like a direct
    historical reference. We move on to describing this 'Right' movement as
    'populist', and that it 'exploits fears of .. Islam'. Sloppy wording,
    perhaps.

    First to Belgium, where Vlaams Belang (the former Vlaams Blok)
    occupies 12% of the Chamber of Representatives. Party chief Filip
    Dewinter appears more than eager to transcend the politics of the Old
    Guard and declaim Europe's debt to Judeo-Christian tradition. Active
    support for Israel is a fine way to begin, he imagines. For example,
    in a 2006 interview with the American New Republic, Dewinter stated:
    "It's disgusting, it's infamous, it's treacherous, but ... many
    Socialist and Green politicians ... hope they can win over the
    Islamic vote bank by bashing Israel and the United States, and by
    turning a blind eye on the virulent anti-Semitic rhetoric in Islamic
    publications and Islamic websites. These facts mirror a remarkable
    switch of alliances in many European countries: ... The right-wingers
    defend Israel and warn against Islam. The left-wingers are bashing
    Israel and the United States, and kowtow for Islam."

    As above, the invocation of 'anti-semitism' in context with the
    Vlaams Belang is contrafactual, as well as a piece of libel. Even
    the close relations of Vlaams Belang to Israel (Flandern has bilatera
    agreements with Israel) and Jewish circles is portrayed as insincere,
    a tool more than a goal. Not so nice.

    In Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party (SVP) defied electoral
    expectations to walk away with 29% of the legislative vote in
    October. This was accomplished with no small help from the party's
    outspoken (and hotly controversial) position on the expulsion of
    law-breaking immigrants -- as well with the announcement, in May 2007,
    of the party's motion to ban minarets. Austria's Far Right has clearly
    sought to capitalize on the group's "Swiss Quality." In August 2007,
    Jörg Haider's Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZO) introduced an
    initiative to ban construction of "unusual" structures in the federal
    state of Carinthia. The reason? Minister of urban planning Uwe Scheuch
    explains: "With the help of this law, it will be de facto impossible
    to construct mosques or minarets."

    Expulsion of law-breaking immigrants would seem in line with what the
    United States, and anyone protecting their own nation, would do. In
    Denmark we recently discovered a plot where two Tunesian immigrants
    would assassinate Kurt Westergaard, the artist of the world-famous
    'Bomb-in-turban' cartoon. The two individuals were to be expelled,
    but due to technical details of the human rights conventions it was
    not possible. To the ire of many Danes, they will stay in Denmark -
    and even at the expense of our welfare state. Expulsion of would-be
    terrorists, drug dealers and other criminal immigrants makes sense.

    We have a well-functioning society due to the respect for the law and
    our freedom, and the immigrants must join that. Some need to learn
    it the hard way, like by seen those violating it being turned into
    emigrants by the police. The human rights conventions are causing us
    some trouble here. The conventions are historically created to protect
    individuals against criminal states, but we now see them being used to
    protect criminals and would-be terrorists from an honest state. It's
    an issue being worked on.

    Some, of course, may see the construction of mosques and minarets in
    Europe as a 'cultural enrichment'. Those who have followed the racist,
    violent hate-speech in the mosques (see Channel 4: Undercover mosque
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo ) for an example), as well
    as the too-frequent discovery of weapon caches there, will know that
    mosques are dangerous entities.

    These state- and nation-wide initiatives to ban mosque and minaret
    have also borne continental fruit. A grand multi-party rally
    erupted in Antwerp in February, under the banner "Cities Against
    Islamisation." The organization, which boasts an online platform in
    six languages, speaks to the rise of Far Right populism across the
    continent. Event coordinator Filip Dewinter (who insists his politics
    are merely "right-wing") explained: "We already have more than 6,000
    mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a
    symbol of radicalization. ... These kinds of symbols have to stop."

    The implication here seems to be that speaking out against Islam is
    itself a radical act. As if political Islam wasn't radical in itself...

    The Young Turks have profited from this language, of course; and that
    is quite the point.

    Again European politicians are coupled with the genocidal
    'Young Turks'. Now, Turks are usually Muslims, which confuses the
    argumentation here a bit, as the precision gets washed out by various
    metaphors. The implication that the 'Young Turks' have 'profited'
    from this language implies something improper, but it's not really
    substantiated.

    Denmark's Kjærsgaard sums up the mood among Europe's right-wing
    elites: "I am convinced that the Islamists want to sneak Shari'a
    (Islamic law) in through the back door, that they want to combat
    Western society and they want Islam to become the main religion." And
    when asked by the Associated Press whether she believed Islam had
    anything to contribute to Danish society, she replied: "I don't think
    so at all." Ditto for Wilders, who told the Washington Post in an
    interview: "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible. They will
    never be compatible -- not today, and not in a million years."

    Somehow, the author of this article seems to assume that this is
    not a problem. He should read Brother Tariq by Caroline Fourest,
    Global Jihad by Patrick Sookhdeo, Militant Islam Reaches America by
    Daniel Pipes or other relevant literature to realize that there is a
    real challenge to western-style democracy, and that it grows in the
    suburbs in France (see 'ZUS'), the ghettos of London, Berlin, Brussels
    and elsewhere. Dismissing these worries - without tackling them - as
    the author of this article does, is rather meaningless. Interstingly,
    this doesn't match well with the mission statement of the MEF.

    One might prefer to dismiss Wilders and Kjærsgaard as hotheads,
    or merely out of touch.

    Or one may take the time and effort to investigate the relationship
    between Islam or democracy. And discover that significant problems do
    exist, unaddressed. The electorate seems to have a better understanding
    of the challenge than the author of this article. There's nothing
    'hotheaded' about taking up the challenge fundamentalist Islam poses
    to our democracies. And we haven't even touched upon the dangers of
    'Sharia finance'.

    But a report just now released by the World Economic Forum (in
    partnership with Georgetown University) on the subject of West-Islamic
    world dialogue, suggests that the Far Right's anti-Islam turn is
    far more representative of Europe's fears than one has wished to
    believe. According to the results of surveys gathered by the Gallup
    Institute, 60% of Europeans surveyed see the growing interaction
    between the Muslim world and the West as a menace to freedom.

    Looks like the citizens of Europe are gaining in understanding of the
    risks pertaining to Islam. Possibly they looked at the non-democratic
    state of most Islamic countries, the plight of women, or the treatment
    of non-Muslims there. The author here designates this as 'fears',
    which has an implication of irrationality, thus presumably based
    on ignorance.

    What's more, the study claims that the citizens of Wilders' Netherlands
    and Kjærsgaard's Denmark are most fearful, with 67% of Dutch and 80%
    of Danes surveyed in agreement with this statement. What's more,
    like Kjærsgaard, fully half of Danes consider Islam incompatible
    with democracy. (Sadly, Gallup failed to collect opinions in France,
    Germany, or Great Britain.)

    Now, depicting Danes as 'fearful' isn't very nice. Actually,
    Denmark has a pretty decent record of standing up against Islamic
    fanaticism and defending civil liberties, sometimes at great
    cost. Unfortunately, out-of-touch intellectuals like Tøger
    Seidenfaden, Rune Engelbreth-Larsen are stubbornly resisting to
    acknowledge the dangers of Islam. Since they have clout in the
    political and intellectual classes of Denmark, implementing effective
    countermeasures to totalitarian Islam is still difficult. Romanticists
    of 'multiculturalism' still block important initiatives.

    This author seems to imply that Geert Wilders and Pia Kjærsgaard have
    taught the general public something exaggerated here. But he doesn't
    go into details to prove his unstated point. Sure, Pia Kjærsgaard and
    the Danish Peoples Party doesn't take 80 % in the elections (currently
    13-14 %). Danes left and right have experienced this threat to freedom,
    it bears little correlation to Pia Kjærsgaard.

    In the end, the phenomenon of right-wing populism (or left-wing
    reaction) is as good a marker as any to insist upon the new ground
    being broken among these figures and parties of the "Far Right."

    In a return to the title of this essay, the term "Far Right" remains
    undefined, although we have seen it to be a rather imprecise common
    denominator. for those who speak up against Islam. Which is a
    shame, for we have so far covered quite diverse political parties:
    The libertarian-minded Vlaams Belang of Belgium, the more Social
    Democratic styled Danish People Party, the 'vulgar nationalists'
    of the Front National, FPO, SVP and others. All patriotic political
    parties, usually eurosceptics and Islam-critical, but otherwise quite
    diverse. Labeling these parties, many of which do not have mutual
    contacts, as a greater European "Far Right" movement is meaningless.

    And it is clear that perceptions of Islam as an intolerant faith
    are driving the agenda -- for Left and for Right, and across the
    political spectrum.

    Oddly, the author now addresses the perception of Islam as being an
    intolerant faith - or rather, he doesn't - but he does notice that
    this is a widespread perception across the political spectrum. Now,
    what was it with that "Evolution of the European Far Right"? This is
    a self-contradiction.

    For this reason, one can no longer easily dismiss the hodgepodge of
    characters, all platforms considered, who "bang on about Islam."

    Actually, it would be more accurate to say that we can no longer
    dismiss the challenge of Islam. But that does not seem to concern the
    author much, he is more worried about those taking Islam to task for
    being intolerant and anti-democratic. One wonders what this article
    is doing on MEF at all.

    And if Britain's Nick Griffin is correct in his estimation that Islam
    is soon to dominate political discussion, we can expect to hear noises
    like his own from the continent's mainstream political elite.

    Griffin was right on this point. Villy Søvndal, leader of the
    left-wing Danish party Socialistisk Folkeparti, recently requested
    Islamists to "Go to Hell", with 'Hell' defined as a country where
    Islam rules. He takes the challenge of intolerance, womens' rights,
    freedom of expression and democracy seriously, and says so openly, to
    the outspoken relief of great numbers of Danish socialists. The reward
    has been roughly a 50 % increase in the polls to an astonishing 20 %
    of the electorate, at the expense of the Social Democrats.

    A 'success of the European Right'? Well, hardly. This guy is a
    hard-core socialist...

    This whole thing is now about politicians in Denmark broadly agreeing
    that we do not want the Caliphate, women dressed like tents or
    capital punishment for apostasy. The socialists are returning to
    their traditional idea "Religion is the opiate of the people" and
    their critical position against religion, reasserting the primacy
    of the state and the rule of law over religious fanaticism. Danish
    politicians tend to do better than others on this issue, which is good.

    One may dismiss this attitude as 'noises'. One might call for the
    police to clamp down on this opinion as 'extremist'. Or face up to the
    real challenge of fundamentalist Islam and rejoice in people making
    a stand for democracy and freedom, across the political spectrum.

    It is unlikely that Old Guard formations like the British National
    Party will ever enjoy the support of the Swiss and Danish Far Right --
    both for reasons of their history and the promise of fresh libertarian
    faces like Wilders'. But in the meantime, Britain's flagging passion
    for "diversity" presents sure opportunity for the party -- as it does
    for anyone interested in the popular vote.

    The BNP seems to be of primary interest to this author. Like most
    Europeans, I'll dismiss that. But then we follow down a fallacy, namely
    that of a Swiss and Danish "Far Right". By which definition? That the
    parties implied are patriotic? Because they're Islam-critical? The
    Danish Peoples Party, as mentioned, is not libertarian like
    Wilders. And again, being critical against Islam is seen as a tool
    to gain influence more than a sincere point of view. Which of course
    would form the basis of labelling these parties as 'populist'.

    As for the "European Far Right movement", well, it might exist in the
    minds of some non-European observers, who are not used to tackle the
    complexity and diversity of the European political landscape. Political
    parties in individual European countries are truly independent,
    and do not form a common 'movement' in any meaningful sense of the
    word. Nor does the label "Far Right" itself, even, as the article
    itself has actually demonstrated. It's a myth, no more, no less.

    It still remains a mystery what this under-researched and sloppy
    article does in the otherwise fine legacy of John Matthies personally,
    MEF and PajamasMedia in general.

    --Boundary_(ID_fiX46iCh4vTcK+maBl3Wfg)--
Working...
X