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

Has Islam cut as bloody a swathe through the last bunch of centuries as Xianity has? I sincerely doubt it.

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

Islam has some despicable viewpoints, more so than any other religion

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

Oh Ned, I'm banning you from posting on here. Your smug blunt 'insights' have no place here...

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

I'll give it a shot since changes are slim Fortuyn followers will find their way to ILE. Interesting ideas? He probably only had three ideas 1) reform of healthcare 2) law & order 3) a stop on immigration. The thing is for somebody who was supposed to be such a great thinker and debater he had a hard time presenting a realistic sollution to these problems (for instance on point 3 he wanted to give up the Schengen treaty) and it's debatable if Dutch healthcare is such a mess (the recent report by The Economist on THe Netherlands stated healtcare was brilliant, the problem seems to be a problem of luxury, of decadence if you will) It's quite ironic he was shot when it seemed he was actually "growing up", he thought issues through a bit. Again I'm glad in don't have to live under his reign, when debating he could be very amiable for the first 10 minutes after which he would lose his cool...there was this thing about his mouth, halfway between a sneer and anger, which totally creeped me out.

Go find a post about haircuts and say some priggish garbage about shoulder-length cuts instead. More your style, buddy.

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.

Oops, last post intended for the delectable Ned.

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 bet he was foursquare in favor of it.

Heheh Ian, I was confused there for a moment. ;) It's hard to say how right-wing he really was, in his ideas he was mostly liberal right- wing, sort of laissez-faire on the economic front (he was backed by a lot of industry types), really right-wing on immigration and your typical law & order formula on which I can't really remember any real revolutionary insights. The thing is he was hard to pin down on a lot of other subjects because he was very opportunistic in debates. At time his marxist/socialist past would shine through though, especially on labour subjects. And of course very liberal on all life- style subjects. Gotta go now alas. For a couple of days too.

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?

The problem with the "interesting idea" of stopping immigration is its necessary bleed-over, or at least the bleed-over that's necessary for such an idea to amass public support: while it's philosophically tenable to be anti-immigration without actually being anti-immigrant, I defy you to name a European party that's accomplished this. (See also "law and order," yes?) Attacking Islam is particularly dense as a defense of Fortuyn, who seemed to be playing even-Steven with exactly the sort of fundamentalism so many criticise about the Muslim world; he simply turned the tables or "stooped to their level" (if you will) in support of Dutch liberalism. I think there's also a dishonesty in a (lapsed?) Christian pitting Islam against tolerance for his homosexuality and ignoring the fact that his own Major World Religion's tolerance for it is purely social and absolutely not a matter of theological doctrine.

The question that interests me: how much of a right do you feel a nation has to determine itself culturally, from the top down? Can immigrants justifiably be expected to assimilate in any ways beyond obeying the laws of the country they've entered? I'm suspicious of attempts to doctor, impose, or "protect" any culture, or to frame it as anything more than the sum of a great number of autonomous individual choices.

I don't know about Europe, but here in the US there are always these polls that show an overwhelming majority of immigrants themselves favor decreased immigration (I have no idea the rigor of these polls though). Buchanan has called for a temporary halt on immigration to allow for a period of "assimilation"; in theory this is not anti-immigrant, right?

fas·cism Pronunciation Key (fshzm) n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

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!! ;^)

i. you can't BE pro free market and anti-immigration
ii. he was arguing for a selective and zone-restricted "liberalism", and was murdered not by a howwible scawy immigwant, but by a product of exactly the belief system he claimed to be protecting (= post-xtian progressive enlightenment with quasi-marxist twinges)

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...

Yeah, yeah, in theory: what I'm saying is that no group of people has ever managed to stick with the "in theory" part and not predicate that theory on anti-immigrant or borderline-racist thinking. (It's debatable whether the borderline-racists just happen to be the only ones to really care about immigration policies or whether raising the topic actually reveals the latent borderline- racism of whole segments of the population.)

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.

"Americans" there is obviously just an example. As for fascism, I see this as straight-up cultural fascism: the political imposition or protection of a "dominant" culture at the expense of the cultural "free market," wherein "law-abiding" is a consideration but all other modes of thought are (sort of) off the political table.

Where's Momus?

Yes, *&tsuh, I was typing as you posted your culturalism question, but I agree, that seems to be the crux of Pim's argument. I saw somewhere 13% of Netherlands is non-native born and half of that, 6% is middle-eastern descent?

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).

where are the vikings when you need some good grafitti, eh?

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

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.

Nabisco:

>>> 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?]

Yeah, Pinefox, it's that "free-market" culture versus political / "centrally-planned" culture split that I'm getting at here. Just bouncing this off of you, as I've learned a great many people I know (some quite liberal) don't agree with me on this point: I suppose they might connect "X Nation" with "X Nation's Culture" much more strongly than I do.

“The Netherlands has never come to terms either with being an immigrant country of with multiculturalism. The numbers are startling: already ethnic minorities make up almost 10% of the Dutch population, a higher share than Britain or France. In Amsterdam and Rotterdam the figure is over one-third. Mr Bolkestein (Dutch EU commissioner) observes that within 15-20 years, half the population of the four big cities will be from ethnic minorities; over half the prison population is already.” (The Economist)

Does "Ian" really = D00mpatr0l, Ned? This doesn't seem like his style to me, that's all.

Go find a post about haircuts and say some priggish garbage about shoulder-length cuts instead. More your style, buddy.

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.

Does "Ian" really = D00mpatr0l, Ned? This doesn't seem like his style to me, that's all.

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

venga said --"Has Islam cut as bloody a swathe through the last bunch of centuries as Xianity has? I sincerely doubt it."

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

As much as it pains me, I feel I must respond to the delightful Ned.

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.

You think I'm a troll?

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.

Immigrants: Search And Destroy.

Serious!

"I claim a certain degree of ignorance": we do not challenge your claim.

'Immigrants: Search And Destroy'

As an foreigner in the UK I have no respect whatever for this country, its traditions, culture or population, and I express this hostility and malice toward the host culture by deliberately trying to corrupt and denigrate everything the locals hold dear. Rootless, deracinated mercenaries like myself see 'native' populations as passive, bovine sitting ducks powerless in the face of my need to devour or destroy everything. I chortle at the thought of visiting myself upon a cosy, insular population and leaving behind a dazed, atomised, cowed rabble of burnt-out shells singing folk ballads about the halcyon days before I ruined everything. Nothing personal against the English, they just happen to bein the wrong place at the wrong time, although they can choose to avoid all of this destruction just by, umm, 'assisting me practically with some lifestyle improvements'. Or maybe that won't even help because I'm jst a natual-born cunt. What if all of them are like me?

bovine duck = chicken bear

Dave Q, is your "Autobiography of a Pathogen" meant to be recited with a Canadian accent?

I am quite disappointed to have missed the trail of destruction Dave has left.

you mean dave q was in the UK? i didn't see him leaving a trail of destruction at the pub (OR DID I HAHAHA)

To be a bit less idiotic - IMO immigraion can only enrich a nation- state (defined as geographical area within set borders) - however, this is due to the 'immigrant' mindset being dynamic and the 'local' mindset having naturally grown complacent, lazy and stupid. Immigrants go out and GET stuff - look what happened when they made a whole country of them, they went and took over the world! (example, the UK fringe complains about jobs being stolen, when in reality they probably lost everything while glued to the footy on TV drunk as per usual). Obviously this is going to lead to a siege mentality among the dopey ostriches who make up 90% of all countries (and not forgetting how companies like cheap labour - or how trade unions are often the harshest close-the-borders proponents for same reason [I'm old enough to remember protests against rescuing Vietnamese 'boat people' instigated by US labour activists]) - but as movement of peoples accelerate they have two choices, adapt or retreat into cobbled-together nationalism (funny how so many symbols of 'national pride' everywhere are entirely artificial cretions dreamt up by incipient demagogues)

To be a bit less idiotic - IMO immigraion can only enrich a nation- state (defined as geographical area within set borders) - however, this is due to the 'immigrant' mindset being dynamic and the 'local' mindset having naturally grown complacent, lazy and stupid. Immigrants go out and GET stuff - look what happened when they made a whole country of them, they went and took over the world! (example, the UK fringe complains about jobs being stolen, when in reality they probably lost everything while glued to the footy on TV drunk as per usual). Obviously this is going to lead to a siege mentality among the dopey ostriches who make up 90% of all countries (and not forgetting how companies like cheap labour - or how trade unions are often the harshest close-the-borders proponents for same reason [I'm old enough to remember protests against rescuing Vietnamese 'boat people' instigated by US labour activists]) - but as movement of peoples accelerate they have two choices, adapt or retreat into cobbled-together nationalism (funny how so many symbols of 'national pride' everywhere are entirely artificial creations dreamt up by incipient demagogues)

Sorry

As a foreigner in the Netherlands I have a considerable respect for this country, its traditions, culture and population,. I express this respect toward the host culture by trying to speak the language (badly). I have recently applied for citizenship.

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'm trying to advance the proposition for discussion purposes that nthe division of resources is often a zero-sum game, without appearing xenophobic, there's a lot of sensitive souls here who will jump to a conclusion if it will fortify their righteousness)

'nostalgic perception of what it means to be Dutch'

Right on stevo. WHenever questions of 'national identity' come up I'm reminded of Mils Davis re music Luddites - "That's just reactionary thinking from pitiful motherfuckers who weren't even there." To which one might add, "The 'there' was never there'

Mark, you seem to know your economics, I dont,so bear with me

"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).

I've got to say I like your argument for the get up and go of the immigrant nation (the US) - that is ripe for theft for soundbite politicians throughout the world.

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).

We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods
Will drive their ships to new lands
To fight the horde, singing and crying:
Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore
Ah, ah
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow
How soft your fields so green
Can whisper tales of gore
Of how we calmed the tides of war
We are your overlords
On we sweep with threshing oar...

kiwi unless someone else picks that up can i leave it for a while, as i am just back at work after five days off

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?)

physical graffiti!! it all connects!!

But it also follows Mark that in absoulte free market a country can price itself out of immigration - eoither upwardsly making necessary educational/training standard impossible to reach by non-nationals with a lower cost of living (also following free market line that most expensive=best). Or - more interestingly - one can price down so that your jobs are paid worse than your neighbouring countries - thus insuring no economic migration in but perhaps causing economic migration out - of those pesky people who don't see what so special about the Dutch.

it doesn't help yr argument to tell stupid lies neil: eward said is not a "pomo pro-fascist"; he takes exactly the same line as YOU do on the betrayal of islamic youth by extant theocracies (he's a christian himself, for one thing)

Just an observation, but the concept of 'value-free difference' seems to mainly occur to people who speak on some other group's behalf (btw, not referring to Momus' use of phrase per se)

I was saying last night how it was odd that of all the people with a reason to kill Fortuyn, it was the bunny-hugger wot done it in the end. Like most of the Dutch people, I was horrified that a candidate for office was killed, especially after asking to be protected. Like most charismatic leaders, there were flaws in his policies and chinks in his armour.

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.

Just an observation, but the concept of 'value-free difference' seems to mainly occur to people who speak on some other group's behalf (btw, not referring to Momus' use of phrase per se)

There's an irony here. What we know as 'identity politics' is the very hallmark of a diverse society. For instance, in the US there are countless minority groups lobbying to have their little interests heard and respected. Each group may be 'fascist' or 'triumphalist' in its own narrow outlook. Each group is speaking on no-one else's behalf -- gay rights activists speak 'for' the gay community, American Jews for the American Jewish community, etc. The groups in their own minds are not espousing the 'value free' idea: for each of them, their way of looking at things is the 'correct' one. But because they usually respect the channels provided (lobbying, activism, PR and free speech rather than assassination, suicide bombs, etc), the net effect is of an unintended cultural relativism and pluralism: 'value-free difference'. The strident voices blend together into a rather harmonious whole.

This was one of the surprising things I discovered when I moved to the US. I believe in Europe we are still uneasy with this contradictory idea: that you can integrate a society by providing the apparatus for diversity (free speech, free press, liberty of assembly, open media systems, etc) rather than by enforcing unity and homogeneity, forcing people to give up their traditions, their cultures, their national identities. This is America's genius: to be American is to have a dual identity; to be (x) + American (let x=jew, Pole, Chinese, African, etc).

Mark, I was refering to his apologism for Palestinian terrorist groups, not theocracies.

one of the minority of liberals these days who dare suggest that the principles of liberalism should be applied universally.

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.

I'd also like to say that just last week I was approached for an interview by two journalists (Evening Standard and Sunday Times) to talk about the story of how I rescued a British Bangladeshi from an arranged marriage in 1994. My ex-wife and I consulted about this and decided not to speak to the press -- for political reasons, as well as out of respect for the feelings of her family.

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?

What Nick's last two posts said.

Said = Christian? Evidence for this?

I also see, ironically, a lot of what Margaret Thatcher was saying ...

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.

'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?'

If it's fascism of the majority then it stands to reason that there's less people being oppressed by it, statistically

Contentious Question: All the pro-immigrant sentiment is good, does it apply to immigrants to Israel as well? (PS Any American, Canadian, Australian, South African or New Zealander who thinks they have the high ground on this subject can fuck right off, for obvious reasons)

(That is, South Africans of English or Afrikaaner descent obv.)

quick Ned, go find a bogus moral equivalence for the regular beheading of gays

? 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.

Certainly if there was open immigration into Israel which there is not (ie the Jewishness or of Jewish decent thing is crucial). Unfettered immigration into Israel I would imagine would allow an awful lot of displaced Palestinians back - assuming we are also talking about giving full citizen rights which most forms of immigration do. As you well know Dave - the problem in Israel is in the states very formation, and the solution unfortunately can only lie (my opinion) in a equal state of Palestinains and Jews co- existing under one joint government.

If it's fascism of the majority then it stands to reason that there's less people being oppressed by it, statistically.

Unless you count decades of guilt and stigma (eg. Germany since WW2) as 'oppression' too. In which case, fascism oppresses even the people who thought it was the right thing to do, and their children, and their children's children.

And you have to ask, of politicians like Pym and Maggie, was it really your job to stand up to the weak on our behalf? Might you not perhaps have been a bigger politician if you'd stood up to the strong?

And you have to wonder whether the really dangerous things in society are not the things minorities do differently, but the things majorities all do the same. For instance, the fact that the American diet and lifestyle cause the average American inexorably to put on weight wreaks more havoc than Bin Laden, precisely because he's the average American, and everywhere, and Bin Laden is just Bin Laden, and who knows where. Mr Average's weight-accumulation costs him years of lifespan, costs the medical system and insurance companies large amounts of money, and probably causes him untold damage to self-esteem. But is McDonald's added to the 'Axis of Evil'? Of course not. Things, no matter how damaging, simply can't be 'normal' and 'evil' at the same time. Can they?

pinefox: evidence = edwsard said himself, he says he's from an x-tian family background, i don't recall if he's still practicing himself

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

i'm beginning to think the word "liberal" should follow "pomo" into the dumper, btw >>> what's the use of a term that means a competely different thing to every single person that uses it?

ES has CONSISTENTLY attacked terrorism in general, and palestinian terrorist orgs in particular...

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.)

Can I have that in writing?

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

alext, So let me get this straight: Some belief systems abhor difference, but if I abhor that abhorrence of difference, then it's me who's abhorring difference?

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.

"Selling bad food=flying planes into buildings"

Barf.

Ithink the stone throwing episode was a show of solidarity with those in the occupied territories who throw stones. It would not surprise me if in his increasing illness ES has decided to go a little bit more gung ho on the Palestinian cause, especially since the cause is constantly getting obscured by the incidents of violence.

(kids throwing stones at tanks AREN'T "terrorist organisations" => i think showing support even for stonethrowing, especially when it's so often been used as a pretext for bulldozing palestinian houses etc, was stupid, and i'm not going to defend everything ES has ever done or said, by any means: neil called him a "pomo fascist apologist" and i don't accept that)

(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...)

"Selling bad food=flying planes into buildings"

I didn't say these were moral equivalents, I said one was worse than the other, because one was 'normal' and harmful, the other abnormal and harmful. It's what Hannah Arendt called 'the banality of evil'. It's worse, Now I've Heard It All, because it's commonplace and anonymous. Like you.

actually momus, you did say they were all difft kinds of fascism, which i think is a terrible rhetorical strategy

(kids throwing stones at tanks AREN'T "terrorist organisations" => i think showing support even for stonethrowing, especially when it's so often been used as a pretext for bulldozing palestinian houses etc, was stupid, and i'm not going to defend everything ES has ever done or said, by any means: neil called him a "pomo fascist apologist" and i don't accept that)

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.

also, just in case anyone didn't know this, when arendt coined the term "the banality of evil" she was writing about the eichmann trial, in which a nazi was being tried in israel for his role in the holocaust: eichmann really WAS a fascist

actually momus, you did say they were all difft kinds of fascism, which i think is a terrible rhetorical strategy

No, in the post we're talking about I don't use 'fascist' at all. I'm talking about 'evil' and saying Bin Laden is a lesser evil than obesity. It's very simple to demonstrate. Bin Laden killed 3000 Americans prematurely last year. Obesity-related premature deaths in the US in the same period were 300,000. (Fact check.)

There's a big difference between people choosing to gorge themselves on fatty foods on one hand and being blown up against their will on the other.

yeah but if cars = fascist because of the deathrate (cf upthread), then so do burgers? i mean, you may not have made this assocation between things said in difft posts, but everyone reading will... this is why i think it's a bad idea to let the word balloon out of control meaningwise in the first place

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

(even time i pop upthread to reread something and it says "PF say [something gharstly]" I think, b-but the pinefox would never believe such a thing!!)

I was thinking that as well. The secret influence of Lloyd Cole revealed!

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.

Okay, maybe I'm being both too emotive (the word 'fascist', although no more melodramatic than Bush's 'Axis of Evil', is pretty judgemental) and too bloodless (comparing death stats without looking at things like intention, guilt and personal choice). But these strategies are sometimes the only way to engineer fresh perspectives.

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.'

yes i didn't mean it would be useful if you adopted it out in the world — i actually think it's an extremely strange definition and you would IMMEDIATELY run into an argument out in the world (unlike here heh) — i just meant it was useful that someone on this thread actually stopped and stated what a word being flung around rather aggressively meant, to them...

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

Can a belief system abhor difference? I don't think so, nor did I suggest this. Only an individual can hate. And I'm not sure how satisfactory the idea of different belief systems is when it reduces individuals to the expression of a larger whole rather than treating them in their particularity.

[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.

Richard Rorty to thread!

(that was to mike, and i'm outta here: i sort of take yr point momus, except probably no one here takes the "axis of evil" seriously => but the question whether PF is a fascist or not — or indeed a liberal or not — seems to me actually real and worth exploring IN ITSELF, w/o lots of hostility being flung about and uinintended umbrage being taken by ppl)

(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)

Alex gets right to the black flabby heart of my issue with Neil's definition.

Looking at the span of 2000 years ( forced coversion, crusades, religious wars, missionary work), I'd labeled Christianity as the religion of intolerance, instead of Islam. This is not to play down existence of intolerence within Islam but show the absurdity of pretending that none had existed in Western history. Regarding the idea of universality (a concept I hold dearly), how can countries like the United States be taken seriously when it considers Kuwait a moderate nation despite the fact that women do not have the right to vote. Talk about upholding universal values! Neil, have you read any work by Said to call him a pomo fascist?

'not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.'

Yet another way of saying "People do stuff that's wrong mainly because I can't understand why they do it"

'Certainly if there was open immigration into Israel which there is not'
True, Israel's not quite as open as the US, who FORCED people to come, but then, their model of dealing with internal populations is a bit more tolerant than Canada's or Australia's were. (Oh yeah, and all three of them had racial quotas that were far more restrictive than Israel's until very VERY recently)

Guys, I'm holding a barbecue on the 19th. It's a Sunday! Please come. Bring the folks. Bring a beer! Or six.

Call yourself a philosopher? You're a disgrace, Rorty!

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

Ah, I get it. You're just doing it to get revenge on the continentals, those philosophical 'immigrants'. You're taking the epistemology.

alext, I agree that describing people in terms of a lazy, loosely- defined notion of them having a shared belief system reduces individuals to the expression of a larger whole, but a specific set of behaviour instructions to which those individuals are pressured to conform, which is what I was talking about, does the same thing as an actuality, not merely as a stereotypical characterisation.

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?

Because a belief system (in so far as this is a meaningful expression) can only be defined relationally -- ie in its opposition to / difference from (not exactly the same thing, but that's a longer story I guess) another belief system -- then all belief systems are by definition in a relation of mutual repulsion (and attraction too, but that's also a longer story). The expression of this as intolerance / hatred etc. is a secondary intensification of a structural phenomenon.

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.).)

1. Dirty water. 2. Cars. 3. Cigarettes. 4. Obesity. 5. AIDS.
The grieving do not care about statistics.

Fek html coding. You guys are good with cut'n'paste. so here is Adam Curry on Pim:

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