Hi Billy, A fascinating analysis. Obviously you disagree with his dismissal of Geert Wilder's fears about Islamization, but I'm curious what you thought of the rest of it. It does worry me that anti-Islamization *could* encourage nativist sentiment, and militant rhetoric might inspire militant action.
The most interesting part of the critique was: > Yet the Europe to be fought for, in Wilders’s rhetoric, bears no relation to > the dreams of Hitler or Mussolini. It is modern, and at the same time ill > defined. Sometimes it is “Judeo-Christian civilization” that must be > defended, sometimes “the Enlightenment” and sometimes liberal values mostly > achieved since the 1960s, such as gay rights and gender equality. These are > not the kinds of ideals typical right-wingers normally espouse, but since > conservative Muslims tend to oppose them, they can be held up as pillars of > Western civilization. > I actually found that constructive. I think a key to keeping the anti-Islam movement healthy and productive is making it clearer what we are *for*, not just what we are against, so that we can critique our allies. I think your Constitution document is a great example of that; I wonder if there's something similar they could use in Europe... -- Ernie P. On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:14 AM, [email protected] wrote: > So far, this is just a war of words. Wilders’s Freedom Party, as well as the > Danish People’s Party and the Austrian Freedom Party, are not advocating > violence. On the contrary, by playing by the rules of democracy, they have > successfully pushed more centrist parties to the right. Neither the Dutch nor > the Danish government could survive without the official support of the > populists. And Marine Le Pen’s National Front appears to be gaining strength > in France. In Norway, the right-wing Progress Party, of which Breivik was a > member until 2006, is the second-biggest party in the country. > > This move of right-wing populist parties to the mainstream could be a reason > for the kind of savagery displayed by the Norwegian terrorist. Violent > extremists might feel that parties they once admired are losing their purity > by tacking toward the center. But this explanation lets the populists off the > hook a little too easily. Even though they don’t promote violence, they are > exploiting fears in a dangerous manner. When the right claims that the future > of our civilization, our democracies, our countries, is at stake, and that > all the Muslims living in our midst are driven by “a totalitarian ideology,” > it is surely not surprising that some people might interpret this as a call > to arms. > > Perhaps Anders Breivik is a madman, even though there is no evidence so far > of clinical insanity. Maybe the men who flew airplanes into the Twin Towers, > who stabbed Theo van Gogh to death, who laid bombs in the London subway, were > crazy too. But different times produce different pathologies. If the hateful > words of radical Muslims bear any relation to extreme acts, carried out in > name of Islam, then surely the words of people who warn us that we are at war > with Islam and its liberal appeasers must be held accountable too. > > Ideology can be random. In other times, Breivik might have killed in the name > of fascism, anarchism or communism. Some murderous dreamers, Muslims as well > as Christians, might well use any ideological excuse to perpetrate their > crimes. In which case we cannot blame right-wing, anti-Muslim populists > directly for the murders in Oslo, just as anti-Western Muslim clerics can’t > be blamed for 9/11. But hate-filled words surely have an influence on > murderous minds, and on the targets they pick. > > > -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
