Friday, October 10, 2008

Sadness




News from Europe:


Dark tales from the Vienna Woods

THE ECONOMIST

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth among liberal commentators after Austria's election on Sept. 28.

Two far-right parties, led by Heinz-Christian Strache and Jorg Haider, took 29 percent of the vote between them. Even more disheartening, a third of the country's new young voters (the voting age has just been lowered to 16) backed them.

Austria has form. In 1999 Haider's far-right party won 27 percent of the vote and entered a coalition government that was briefly boycotted by its European partners. This time, not least because the two far-right leaders hate each other, neither is likely to be invited into the government.

But although flavors of the far right vary widely, Austria is by no means alone. The Swiss People's Party of Christoph Blocher is the biggest party in Switzerland. Belgium's Vlaams Belang party remains strong in Flanders. Denmark's government depends on the backing of Pia Kjaersgaard's anti-immigrant People's Party. In Italy the Northern League, part of the ruling right-wing coalition, is explicitly xenophobic.

Some popular prejudices around Europe seem to have become distressingly illiberal and even racist.

Last month a shocking opinion poll by America's Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 46 percent of Spaniards, 36 percent of Poles and 25 percent of Germans had negative views of Jews; and 52 percent of Spaniards, 50 percent of Germans, 46 percent of Poles and 38 percent of French people had negative views of Muslims. In most countries, these numbers have risen significantly in recent years.

All of this is obviously to be deplored. The harder question is what to do about it. The Austrians argued that by including Haider in government they would defang him, a trick the Swiss later tried to play on Blocher.

For a time it even seemed to work (though the European boycott merely annoyed Austria's voters). But the far right has since won back even more electoral ground. Elaborate steps to exclude the far right do not seem to have been any more effective.

The Vlaams Belang has benefited from the other parties' decision to keep it out of government. In Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, extreme parties of both left and right tend to gain votes when the big parties form grand coalitions in the center.

The far right has prospered most when mainstream political parties have belittled or ignored the concerns of ordinary people about such issues as immigration. It does less well when political leaders accept its existence and try to respond to its supporters' concerns.

That points, for example, to reassuring voters that immigration is under control, not just to explaining why it can be beneficial. This is how the Conservative Party has neutralized the far-right vote in Britain.

In the 2007 French presidential election Nicolas Sarkozy did the same to the National Front's Jean-Marie Le Pen, who got into the runoff in 2002. Sarkozy ate into Le Pen's support partly by talking tough on immigration and crime.

This, however, must not include pandering to voters' racism and xenophobia. No respectable party should run on an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim platform. Instead, political leaders should speak out loudly against all forms of prejudice.

They should try to ensure that criticism of Israel does not blur into hostility to Jewry, for instance; and, equally, they should do their best to ensure that legitimate fears of Islamist terrorism do not translate into a prejudice against Muslims.

Austria's politicians could make a useful start by dropping their strident opposition to the notion that Turkey, a mainly Muslim country, might ever join the European Union. Promoting the belief that the EU ought to be an exclusive Christian club is likely to promote racism, not quell it.

11 comments:

Pastorius said...

The Economist tries to offer a view from all sides of the issue, and everyone of the views they present is pathetic and none will yield any positive results for Europe, hence the name of the post.

Pastorius said...

All sides of the issues in Europe are myopic, none seeing the actual three-dimensions of reality, hence the image that goes with the post.

Anonymous said...

www.historyofjihad.com



Chronological Jihads

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)

The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)

The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)

The Jihad against Germany (1529 - ongoing)

The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)

The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)

The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)

The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)

The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)

The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)

The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against Denmark (2005 cartoon controversy onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)

The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)

The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)

The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)


The Vision for the post-Islamic (and post-religious) world



www.historyofjihad.com

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
Thanks for providing that.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

Some what depressing commentary, I just hope that Europe is able to keep from going Islam-o-Fascist and keep from going Euro-Fascist at the same time. Either of those horrible scenarios is bad for the future of western civilization and human liberty, the only question is which one would be worse. At least under Euro-Fascism a few positive aspects of western culture might survive that wouldn't under Islam-o-Fascism.

By the way, here's a working link to to the Zionist Anti Communist article on Ayers that I mentioned in an earlier post of yours, but the link was not working. Now it is. Please Check out the story.

die Realität said...

Again: beeing "right" doesn't mean your rassicst. period. "right" politic is as moraly good politic as the "left" one. This IBLOGA contributer has allready brought up such false allegations, but as swiss citizens we can assure you that europe needs more "right" politicians for OUR safe future and the future of our children. By the way: all socialisms have to be treated the same (natioanl-socialism = nazis/or "left" socialism) - as the garbage it is. "Right" politic in europe has nothing to do with "race", ayaan hirsi ali or condi rice are also "right" politicians, but "right" politic in europe in a post 9/11 world (forgotten dear contributor?) hast much to do with the fight against islamofascism - and this fight is not easy but hase to be won. It would be nice if you around the world would support us. But from a USA who want's to choos a socialist, an extremist (of the, it seems moraliy better of "left"???) like Obama, we can't expect any help ... it's easy to stir up emotions whit some words, but that doesn't mean your right about the "right" ... jesus, today, would vote in europe for the "righ" - but the right "right" and not ideological extremists weather "right" nor "left" nor islamic ... it's not that easy son.

Epaminondas said...

Peters is apparently right
Steyn is apparently wrong

Civil war and then over reaction to democratically formed ethnic national states of varying sizes, perhaps in federated entities.

It's EUROPE.

That's what they do.

Time after time after time.

Those are their nations, and if that's they way they want it ...well all we need here is that we ultimately avoid becoming enemies. That did not work out so well in the 20th, regardless of the larger war which encompasses us all. WW2 was fought out regardless of the large war against communism, wasn't it?

Pastorius said...

Epa,
What do you think Steyn has said that he was wrong about?

I think Steyn is wrong in that he makes it seem inevitalble that Europe will lose.

I never thought that.

I think Peters is right that Europe's history is reversion to violent Ethnic Nationalism when they are threatened.

And, I think Europe will win. However, I worried that it will be very bloody, and will involve a lot of immigrants who do not deserve to be involved.

I hope I am wrong.

Pastorius said...

Die Realitat,
Remember, you are invited to post whatever you believe to be true.

You may disagree with us.

If so, that's a good reason to post a rebuttal.

Please do so. After all, we are Americans. We're not on the ground in Europe.

Epaminondas said...

Pasto, Steyn says Europe will become Islamic by demographic means.

Peters says there will be civil wars before any of that happens.

I think there are enough Euros who will simply never accept the Steyn outcome, and that war is going be their answer. I can't say I would do differently, and it may come down to a 0 or 1 kind of choice.

Here, it will be the like the IRA writ LARGE. Donations, munitions, the works.

Perhaps this world is going to have to go thru a period where ethnic nationalism (some kind of --kindler gentler ???- racism) will be justified as the only possible answer to Islamic imperialism as a result of very stupid policies from the 70's.

Both sides will be distasteful to most Americans ..probably a large (60%+) majority.

Maybe we will see a large influx of immigrants.

If the economies are not dying in front of us ..trumping every other consideration

Pastorius said...

If it comes down to 0 or 1, I'm with the Euros.

But, you know, I believe they are capable of better than that.