Pim Fortuyn - was he really as vile as all you goodgood liberals seem to think?

Call me prejudiced but your mealy-mouthed brand of xenophobic fascism has some despicable viewpoints, more so than any other political philosophy.

I'm nicely bemused by the nonexistent objective scale used to rate this.

Hey, what can I say? I'm a Fascist baddie, sue me.

But really, come on people, I want some insightful comments. Leave all your smarmy self-satisfied quips at home, I want rebuttals and espousals and suchlike. Oh and try to avoid the stale principle that Left Wing Good, Right Wing Bad. It doesn't stand up.

Much appreciated Omar, you seem to know what you're talking about. Could he really be lumped in as 'right wing'? I thought he was more complex than this but.. And what were some of his ideas on law and order?

I don't think fascism quite captures Pim, although evicting immigrants would be a typically fascistic tactic. Perhaps Euros are so understandably traumatized by their historical encounter with actual fascism that they are mis-applying the term. The US media have a term for Pim's friends, "culture warriors". The belief that a group (in Pim's case an ethnic and religious group) is tied to a system of beliefs fundamentally incompatible with and in opposition to the beliefs of their society. I don't think culture warriors are by definition racist, but it is the mind's way to take shortcuts, and I suspect most of them are racists too. I don't know if Pim was eeeevil, but his path and his friends certainly placed him in position to have evil effect, despite his stated intentions (save liberalism!)

Culture wars, even without adding race/ethnicity to the mix, can be surprisingly vicious. Ask a US social conservative about Clinton. It wasn't what he did, his actions were only symptoms of the thing of which he was emblematic, US Liberalism, utterly in opposition to the things that make America great. I tried to make a case recently to my dad that Clinton was more effectively pro free enterprise/trade than Bush, and it was amazing how quickly actual policy became secondary to the cultural and civic implications of Liberalism.

I am sorry to see the scourge of gun violence enter European politics.

Oh yeah, hands off Ned! He can't help he looks like a hippy!! ;^)

the troll says he found him "interesting" but very carefully DOESN'T say what it was that actually interested him

left-right, up-down, in-out, white-black, they all mean nothing these days, oh hang on, white-black yes now i remember...

Also I have yet to get the sense that any western nation is quite so unable to accommodate further immigration as many politicians would have one think. It has its roots in cultural fear, I think -- the desire not to have one's own "dominant" culture marginalized or even slightly threatened the teensiest-weensiest bit by any other cultural mode. And behind this, I think, lies the mistaken impression that it's culture that determines various nations' fates: i.e. "But if we let too many people from Bangladesh in here, this country will become like Bangladesh," which assumes that all nations are in the state they're in because their indigenous ethnic groups like it that way. What I was asking earlier was something like: is it legitimate for Americans to want to preserve a national culture of, say, baseball and apple pie instead of futbol and sopapillas? I can't accept this as a political consideration, which is why I chafe at cultural protectionism.

I do fear for Europe. I was in Denmark last year, and I heard a lot about Turks being considered "the problem" there. Loud cars? Turks! Man, Denmark has a lot of bad grafitti? TURKS. Is it safe to lock a bike here? No man, there's Turks around. I am much more inclined to believe that people are fearful or racists than that immigration is the real problem. I'm just telling you though, I heard it (and from people whom I consider to be non-fascists/racists, of course).

Ah well, I *can* help it, but there we are.

Ned, is the concept of relative good or evil necessarily based on a "nonexistent objective scale" and therefore beneath the consideration of thoughtful people like yrself?

Heavens no, I don't think it's necessarily based on that at all; I was more having self-amused fun with 'Ian's' attempt at arguing his point without any sort of evidence. 'Ian' (aka DP, of course) implies such a standard exists but doesn't provide it or even attempt to describe it, unsurprising from a self-described troll.

>>> is it legitimate for Americans to want to preserve a national culture of, say, baseball and apple pie[?]

Yes it is - same as it's legitimate for you to want to preserve, say, a national culture in which musical diversity exists. The trouble is, while some 'Americans' will want to preserve those things, others will want to enjoy (or even - 'preserve'?) other things.

In other words, the wrinkle is that there are many Americans, and many kinds of American. If there was one kind of America / American, then maybe 'it' could decide how 'it' was going to be (same as we all try to do in relation to our own lives). But nations (esp. by now) are all internally multiple, and arguably don't possess (metaphorically) a single unified 'subjectivity' that can legitimately decide to do one thing or another.

So to answer the question again: I think: yes, it's fine for Americans A & B to desire and promote goods xyz - but I am not sure that it would be justifiable for the American *state* to back this cause at the expense of others. And if such backing included violence or outright oppression, its legitimacy would diminish further.

[Taking Sides: The Liberal State vs Cultural Particularism?]

If you have to resort to 8 year old name calling, you're not really one to be telling people where to post.

Some of the points you've brought up here are interesting but this childishness diminishes anything you have to say quite a bit.

Granted. Whoever it is a troller, that much is obvious.

uh, yes, it isn't called the religion of the sword for nothing. mohammed was a warrior himself.

Ned, dear Ned. I do not know who this DP is you speak of. The maggots under your skin whispering persecution? You think I'm a troll? I'll live. I'm a sporadic reader of the ILE boards and your name has stood out above all others as being the author of some utter self-obsessed drivel. That's all. I just don't feel you ever add anything worthwhile to a discussion and you seem more interested in portraying an image as a witty raconteur. I am aware of the irony in my pandering to your self-obsession but hey, at least you can feel good about mildly irritating someone with your past feeble jests.

As for Nicole15's comments that my childishness has ruined my points. I don't feel this to be true (why would I?) and anyway, I can claim I was lowering myself to Ned's 'wisecracking' level. ahem.

And anyway, steering back to the main issue, I explained in my original posting that I am relatively unaware of his policies and would like to learn from the more learned amongst you (but with a focus on his positives). What interests me:

- the crackdown on crime. I'd like to know what he planned to do. - the greater assimilation of immigrants. This seems interesting as I've not heard of anything like it before. England has relatively little in the way of cultural assimilation and I am curious as to whether it could work or not. - the tightening of future immigration. Is it true that Western Europe could easily take more people in? If so, how did Fortuyn justify his statements that his country was near-full? - his criticisms of Islam. No doubt you ultra-lefties will pounce on this and dismiss me as a racist. Do so if you wish, but I found it fascinating that such an eurdite figure would make such public statements when most people prefer to tiptoe around such contentious issue. Again, I claim a certain degree of ignorance but I find the latent misogyny and homophobia of certain aspects of Islamic culture to be particularly vile. And before you leap in with a "but catholics are evil too", this unpleasantness seems to be tolerated far more in Islam.

Now more so than ever! As for mild irritation, I'm more mildly amused that you're wasting your time like this -- as opposed to heartily amused, which happened on the Exodus thread on ILM, of course.

Like most European countries the Netherlands have not allowed immigration out of charity. Immigrant workers have made a massive contribution to the Dutch economy. The Economist article I quote above goes on to note that the Netherlands will have to increase immigration as the population ages.

This is not without its problems. A leftist Dutch academic caused a storm recently by publishing an essay on ‘The Multi-Cultural Drama’. He observed that whilst the left spent much of the last century fighting for social justice it has looked blindly on whilst immigration has lead to rising social problems ie disturbingly high levels of social exclusion, unemployment, low levels of educational achievement and criminality amongst certain ethnic groups, and the de facto creation of ‘islands of poverty’ within many Dutch cities. He also noted the reluctance of mainstream politicians to discuss these very issues. The late Pim Fortuyn mercilessly exploited this territory.

As a leftist, as an immigrant myself, I’m drawn to the idea that a considerable part of the problem is antiquated notions of ‘national identity’. Unlike the USA Europe countries do not think of themselves as ‘immigration lands.’ Thus EU commissioner, and heavyweight Dutch politico Bolkestein drones on about ethnic minorities shortly being a majority in the largest Dutch cities, as though a matter for concern. They are Dutch citizens, most born and raised here. Strikes me as clinging to a nostalgic perception of what it means to be Dutch that has never come to terms with 10% of the population having another ethnicity

"i. you can't BE pro free market and anti-immigration" Surely "free market conditions", ie no welfare state must exist in that country first and that you can be pro free market and anti immigration if the "demand" for employment (immigrants) is non existant and the reason for immigration is not the market but the state(welfare, health, education).

The real difficulty with immigration is that the problems tend to only occur and be perceptible on a micro level (ghettoisation, people "stealing" jobs, insularity of communities leading to "us vs them" mentalities). The populist press will pick up on this anti- immigration sentiment and happily run with it on both a micro and a macro level. The macro level - at which polticians have to justify such policies - is notoriously weak: immigration simply does not cost that much money to the welfare state and is useful for wealth generation (not to forget its about the best standard of living gauge there is).

Pim Fortuyn was problematic becasue his policies were a ragbag of protecting liberal sensibilities by being illiberal. This appears to be a contradiction (though it isn't).

the v.v.v.quick and somewhat unqualified answer wd be as follows, in a "genuinely" free market (as opposed to a free-for-the-rich market) the labour force has absolute freedom to travel and can pick and choose the best pay-and-conditions deal on offer worldwide => viz OmniCorp moves its factory to Lower Slobovia to undercut costs in Upper Syldavia and the Syldavian workforce eagerly follows, because even with the paycut they still get a better deal in Syldavia, where cost of living is less blah blah (i am stating this argt by the way, not backing it)

(think "auf wiedersehen pet") (hoho if pim f. had been a geordie-phobe would we "goodgood kneejerk kneejerk liberals" be more or less sympathetic?)

Of course Buffy subtext is very anti-immigration. Vampires are trying to integrate into society and do we let them? Just because we fear they are taking over the world/ force us to live like them - and we believe an innate superiority in our culture. You have to invite vampires in (Empire Windrush) and then get pissed off when they don't stay in their place.

i asked on another thread what "punk" politics would be: pim = shallow punk politics, he's celebrated for "saying the unsayable" (= punkoid) but then his supporters get totally mimpy and pompous and whiny when you point out the bad consequences... he was good at stirring things up, except the things he stirred up ate him alive boohoo

if you gaze into the abyss too long, it may gaze back into you

also lestat saved the world from kyasha!! DO YOU SEE!!??

(Though Auf Weidersein Pet - Jimmy Nail=The monstah)

Buffy is not a horror story. It is a soap with monsters in it.

I find any politician described as 'flamboyant' and 'openly gay' interesting. And I have some sympathy with people who break the staid and ineffectual mold of most modern politics. Sometimes only authoritarian measures can solve massive problems. For instance, China's restriction of families in the 70s and 80s to one child was a gross intrusion on human rights. But it worked and was, I think, necessary. I believe the greatest problems in the world now are to do with the automobile. No government would win an election on a 'ban the car' ticket, but someone needs to end our dependency on Middle Eastern oil.

PF's anti-immigrant argument was attractively presented as a defence of liberal values (and his homosexuality has to count for a lot here). I personally think immigrants vastly enhance cities -- I married a Baglandeshi Muslim and am tremendously grateful to her family for enriching the British genepool. But as an immigrant myself in Japan, I find the opposite tendency: I dislike seeing other white people here, and want Japan to remain as Japanese as possible, not become multi-cultural. And I want this in the name of difference, in the interest of the preservation of all the differences between this society and others. Which I suppose brings me, in my feelings about Japan, close to Morrissey in his feelings about Britain ('We are the last truly English people you will ever know'...).

In my own land or abroad, I am a consumer of the foreign, and want it to remain foreign. I want neither to integrate myself, nor to see immigrants in the UK forced to integrate. As Paul Bowles put it (quoting the 1001 Nights), 'there is no greater pleasure than that of being a foreigner'.

Agree with Dave Q that most national identities are cobbled together and synthetic, but find the fakeness of these neo-traditions interesting in itself, and not a reason to trash national identities per se. In fact you could argue that it's only contact with outsiders and 'auslanders' which brings this valuable self-consciousness. See Pressberger's very Hungarian vision of 'archetypal Englishness', or Irving Berlin's Jewish-Russian 'GodBlessAmericaWhiteChristmas' schtick, or ashkenazi Serge Gainsbourg coming to incarnate the ideal frenchman.

I have worked out Mark S Holland = Fascist thing too. The third line of reasoning appears counter-intuative but is not.

"Large groups in the community are lagging behind in social and cultural terms. These groups often originate from countries which did not participate in the Judeo-Christian-humanist developments which have been taking place in Europe for centuries. These shortfalls in development are highly regrettable, as they result in a divide in society and form a threat to the functioning of our large cities. This must be tackled vigorously, on the one hand by paying extra attention to housing, schools and cultural education for these groups, but on the other by requiring these groups to make a maximum effort themselves. Cultural developments which are diametrically opposed to the desired integration and emancipation, such as arranged marriages, honour revenge and female circumcision, must be fought by means of legislation and public information. Discrimination against women in fundamentalist Islamic circles is particularly unacceptable. In a democratic society like ours, all citizens have the same rights and obligations, irrespective of race, gender, beliefs and nature. There is a division of Church and State in the Netherlands, and therefore also of mosque and state. Thanks to the division of powers (the executive, legislative and judiciary powers), citizens can develop themselves in relative freedom. Our hard-fought freedoms are worth protecting against increasing fundamentalism. We must carry out a study into whether the introduction of a social and military service for boys and girls of eighteen years of age or older can contribute to integration."

I'm struggling to imagine a tone of voice in which this wouldn't sound really annoying.

Sounds like Pim Fortuyn caused so much outrage by being one of the minority of liberals these days who dare suggest that the principles of liberalism should be applied universally. As opposed to the mealy- mouthed European "liberal" establishment which prefers burying its head in the sand to acknowledging the contingent of intolerant anti- democratic terrorist-sympathisers* within the continent's Arab immigrant population, because this doesn't fit too neatly into a vision of ethnic inclusiveness and cheerful cultural diversity, whereas demonising those who challenge intolerance, wherever it arises, as right-wing racists displaying the kind of Eurocentric prejudice which must ultimately be responsible for whatever problems Muslims might cause, is the easy cop-out.

*[A major boost to the popularity of the ideas Pim set out in "Against the Islamicisation of our Culture" was the catching on camera of North African immigrants in various Dutch cities celebrating the 9/11 attack.]

"I'm glad he's dead. He attacked Islam, he is racist" a Moroccan immigrant was quoted as saying in Amsterdam yesterday. This is a more concise version of the argument put forward by the Muslim Council of Britain in the aftermath of 9/11, when they attempted to capitalise on fears of an anti-Muslim backlash by demanding government support for the Incitement to Religious Hatred law they'd already been pushing for. This in the context of vicious hate campaigns against writers responsible for what minimal free-press criticism of Islam there'd been prior to 9/11. (The situation is similar in America with the intimidation being co-ordinated by the terrorist-linked C.A.I.R. organisation.)

What exactly is the unacceptable speech which Islamic leaders would like to see proscribed in the West? The same kind that's already outlawed in the Arab world, which isn't just speech that would counterbalance the week-in-week-out deriding by Imams of the supposedly debased lifestyles of secular people (though surely it would be fair enough if the some of their contempt was directed back at them - fuck religious sensibility, you judge me, I'll judge you) but also criticism that attacks not lifestyle choice but the intolerant enforcement of lifestyle (just one example: Islam prescribes the following moderate atonement for any Muslim who dares renounce the faith: "A person who has turned renegade in an Islamic state should be imprisoned for 3 days by the state. The state will be responsible for dispelling all his doubts. If he repents, then he will be released from prison. If he still rejects Islam, then he will be beheaded. However, in a non-Islamic state where no legal action can be meted out to him, appropriate measures should be taken to dispel his doubts and convince him to revert to Islam.")

To criticise such practices is to be guilty of 'Islamophobia.' The idea of a -phobia when used in relation to a prejudice is that it is unfounded, is based on arbitrary distinctions - the colour of your skin, where you happen to have been born, that kind of thing. It is not an appropriate term with which to describe a hostility to certain beliefs, which could have other causes: thinking, for instance. But so long as there's enough nodding-dog liberals about then anything's worth a try.

Today's liberals have so completely taken on board an array of post- Marxist generalisations about who are oppressors and who are oppressed in this world that they'll discard in a second their own purported core principles rather than speak ill of any group favoured by the pomo fascist-apologist likes of E. Said (quick Ned, go find a bogus moral equivalence for the regular beheading of gays - you might have to go back to the Inquisition era, but I'm sure you won't let that stop you) while the use of every conceivable kind of double standard and misrepresentation ensures that current conflicts conform to the paradigms of oppression (cf. shameful contortions to justify Palestinian terrorism).

I'm sure the real downtrodden of the Arab world, not the fascistic theocracies and terrorist networks who've expediently appropriated liberal rhetoric that seems almost tailor-made ("They say it's intolerant to call our culture intolerant!" "And racist too!" "And that their idea of freedom is an imperialistic imposition!" "Why didn't we think of all this!") but the likes of the Iranian youth who yearn for fashion, pop culture, disposable income and the right not to be a religious nut - I'm sure these people are really grateful for your liberal sensitivity. And if the postmodern anti-imperialists don't put paid to their vulgar consumerist aspirations then there's always the anti-globalisation equality-of-potential-denying diversity- fetishisers.

you've never claimed to be gay as far as i know. however you do have a habit of deliberately and laboriously aligning yourself with a homosexual point of view, Mr "I fancy Japanese girls, is this the same as being gay?". i was just interested to see you doing it yet again, that's all, and wonder if you'd have found Mr. Fortuyn as fascinating/sympathetic (?) if he'd been a boring old breeder.

Fortuyn, however, failed on intellectual grounds: you cannot cut off immigrants just because some of them follow a religion that is intolerant of your lifestyle. You would do better to create a society where your lifestyle is as acceptable as theirs is, and violent acts towards people for 'difference' get punished with equanimity. He was advocating dish 'em out, can't take it action against another 'oppressed' group.

If all political concepts are considered as secularized theological concepts then the contradiction in liberalism emerges clearly: as the inheritor of Christianity's universalism, it asserts as universal a value (universality) which is not itself universal (coming from one tradition rather than another) (and leaving aside the crucial question about the homogeneity or otherwise of a tradition / culture). There is ample evidence to the thorniness of this problem on this thread already. The problem cannot be that of universal value vs particular value, but of the recognition / negotiation of the conflict between values when it arises.

the continent's Arab immigrant population

One of the more intractable problems lies in the refusal of those who abhor difference to accept that the continent's immigrants are also the continent's citizens.

Although the pretext for the papers' interest was a recent court case overturning a forced marriage, it tied in all too neatly with David Blunkett's recent statement that 'unBritish' practices like arranged marriage will no longer be tolerated. The difference between this position and Pym Fortuyn's (or Le Pen's, for that matter) is a mere whisker. It is, simply, a hardening of attitude which is happening all over Europe just now towards cultural relativism, and particularly a backlash against the 'mini-fascisms' of Islamic family structure. What I object to in this is that it's accompanied by indifference to, or outright encouragement of, 'maxi-fascisms': the same government backs Bush's right to invade whatever country he defines this week as 'Evil', the same government fails to stop cars killing 5000 children a year in UK cities, the same government loosens broadcasting regulation so that Rupert Murdoch is finally free to buy Channel 5.

Why is it only the fascism of the powerless and of minorities which is targeted as 'intolerable', not the fascism of the majority and the powerful?

Not a coincidence perhaps, Fortuyn openly admired Thatcher. He claimed, rather camply, that he would borrow her handbag to bang on the table at EU summits demanding a budget rebate.

? Yes, first on my list of things to do today.

And if the postmodern anti-imperialists don't put paid to their vulgar consumerist aspirations then there's always the anti-globalisation equality-of-potential-denying diversity- fetishisers.

You're more ready for UCI's grad comp lit program than you'll ever know.

neil, that's not good enough: ES has CONSISTENTLY attacked terrorism in general, and palestinian terrorist orgs in particular... link me to an article (NOT a sentence taken out of context) where he specifically defends or justifies terror, and i'll back down on this, not otherwise >> unless he's completely swung his line round in the last two-three weeks, i still consider this a lie

What about that idiot stone-throwing incident from last year? Or can that not be considered terrorism, per se? (I don't want to sound snide, I just honestly don't know.)

[Macky D's iz fckin evul = bang goes that Momus McSausage ad}

Liberalism, in its non-Leftist non-relativist sense, is the opposite of imposing a set of values derived from one tradition onto other traditions - it's about supporting those principles which attempt to guarantee that whatever cultural values are in question actually belong to a tradition rather than just being a distinctive regimentation engendered by a control-freak authority.

Barf.

(btw it doesn't help that momus is busy redefining the word "fascist" down to mulch in alternative posts... if it just ends up meaning "stuff that a lot of poeople do that bugs me", then we're ALL apologists for fascism...)

Yes you’re quite right...I couldn’t quite remember. I had to roll my eyes when he did that. So embarrassing: the colonial studies equivalent of the love beads-wearing professor.

neil's defn of "liberal" is quite useful, not least because it totally drives a coach-and-horses through the troll-question at thread-head

I can't make heads or tails of it, I'm afraid.

For instance, without the 'mini-fascist' v. 'maxi-fascist' labels I couldn't have highlighted how Fortuyn and Thatcher both picked on the weak rather than the strong. And without the stats it would be hard to demonstrate the 'banality of evil', the fact that the most outrageous and outlandish threats we face are things we consider natural and normal.

Politicians and the media blow the threat posed by figures like immigrants and Bin Laden out of all proportion. The World Health Organisation reveals the real killers in the world to be:

1. Dirty water. 2. Cars. 3. Cigarettes. 4. Obesity. 5. AIDS.

Hannah Arendt was talking about Eichman, but she could have been speaking about any of these 5 killers when she wrote of 'the phenomenon of evil deeds, committed on a gigantic scale, which could not be traced to any particularity of wickedness, pathology, or ideological conviction in the doer, whose only personal distinction was a perhaps extraordinary shallowness... not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.'

in like wise, i should probably follow through on that three-fold definition of fascism i made on the earlier thread: bah, i really really have other things to be doing this evening

[liberalism] is the opposite of imposing a set of values derived from one tradition onto other traditions - it's about supporting those principles which attempt to guarantee that whatever cultural values are in question actually belong to a tradition rather than just being a distinctive regimentation engendered by a control-freak authority.

Who or what will decide that the values 'actually belong to a tradition'? Can they do this without presupposing some form of universal concept -- ie that those sitting in judgement know what a 'tradition' is? Can they do this without in some sense presuming all 'traditions' to be like the 'tradition' their concept of tradition comes from? How can they avoid being a 'control-freak authority' in their own terms?

My point was not that liberalism aims to impose its own values on the world (or even that liberalism is a bad thing as such) but that it cannot escape the paradox that any concept of the universal is in some sense already particularised. So the questions I have just posed are not attempted refutations of the liberal position: but engaging with those questions is the precondition of a liberal response which is adequate to the idea of liberalism as neil has formulated it.

(i don't think he's either btw — on any sensible defn of either, inc.neil's — but i'm not going to explain that tonight... and tomorrow with luck we all once more be discussing vampires again)

Don't you know that Wittgenstein declared barbeques are morally indefensible, and Popper added 'especially when you have to drive to get to them'?

And when such a belief system says: adhere to these true and proper precepts or get yer head chopped off, then it can fairly be said to abhor difference, surely?

So a group which considers all other sets of values inadmissable (whether a State or a civil or religious group) should not be seen as an abberation, but an exaggeration of what is common to all groups. Now this does not lead us to a relativist position, since it can always be argued that one group is more violent than another group. (But not by appeal to universal values: the criteria against which the judgement is to be made are always provisional, must be subject to revision, and may always be wrong (the economic violence which impoverishes one group and enriches another may be worse than the political violence which a State inflicts on its citizens etc.).)

http://live.curry.com/stories/2002/05/08/theBigLie.html