Sunday, May 06, 2007

Socialism's Dangerous Games

An article by French columnist Sylvain Ephimenco in Dutch newspaper 'Trouw' brings the subject of present post to three concurring events: the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn at the hand of an animal rights fundamentalist stirred into action by Leftist invective - expressed amongst others by the former Socialist leader Ad Melkert - presently at the World Bank grinding neocon Paul Wolfowitz to Gerbil Mix; today's final round of French presidential elections in which the Gaullist candidate Nicolas Sarkozy is favorite by a margin of 10 percentage points or thereabouts, and the dangerous cards played by Socialists.

Five years after the Fortuyn revolution ended in tears, events are commemorated as postmodernity knows best: with useless polls. Forty percent of Dutch surveyed would vote for him again today, if they could. The man was popular because he broke the mold in which Dutch politicians are usually made, and because he hadn't a politically correct bone in his body.

After the dominance of politics per Ad Melkert, who was the champion of both traits, Fortuyn's eccentricity came as a fresh breeze. He was Melkert's alter ego in many respects. The situation was without precedent, and established politicians reacted as they do at present in France: by vilifying the opponent to the point of some nut taking it upon himself to "save the world of this dangerous upstart".

Ephimenco writes: "... this man was dangerous and therefore had to be taken out. If anything hasn't changed since that day, it is the cynical intolerance of politicians and pundits who hung themselves with the rags of tolerance and progressiveness to demonize him. I write this while my heart is filled with anxiety, for what I see in this French campaign for the land's highest office, strongly reminds me of the those days in the Netherlands, five years ago. The hatred towards the rightist favorite, Nicolas Sarkozy during the French election campaign is similar to what Fortuyn underwent in his short political career. The vindictive Left sometimes seems to have the exclusive rights to use improper instruments to foster intolerance. With dangerous consequences. l'Histoire se répète: as soon as electoral defeat gets into sight, demonization becomes the weapon of the poor of spirit."

If that isn't blood curling enough, he continues: "The director of the film 'Shoa' on the Jewish holocaust, Claude Lanzmann writes in magazine 'Le Point': 'I believe that never in my life in France, I have experienced such negative campaigning, so filled with stinking libel against a candidate for the presidential election. I never imagined a democratic debate could go this far.' The left camp around Ségolène Royal has struck at anything to picture the rival Sarkozy as the new Pinochet. Just to cause fear and civil unrest. Last Friday morning, on the point of losing, Royal brought forward the most repulsive arguments yet to save her campaign: with a victory of Sarkozy, France will be brought to the edge of civil war, she suggested: "It is my responsibility to sound the alarm concerning the dangers of a Sarkozy win, and the violence that will occur in this country. Everyone knows this and everyone is silent, because it's a taboo". It is my conviction that this woman who is provoking the suburbs, is deeply malicious."

Just how vile, personal and bordering the surreal the political polarization is, is exemplified by a tiny piece of vitriol on the BBC website: "In Argenteuil, the town north-west of Paris where Mr Sarkozy notoriously talked of hosing out 'rabble' before the 2005 urban riots (my emphasis), Doratine Ekoka, a 70-year-old retired computer programmer, said she trusted Ms Royal to 'clean up public life'. A Sarkozy victory, she added, "would be like a punishment from God" because of his "terrible character". How, in the name of anything that's holy did we get so far, that God and a rabble rousing moral relativist are invoked against a politician for stating the obvious, as his personal character is smeared in the process?!

Which begs the second question: just how far is the Left prepared to go in accommodating and placating the Muslim electorate and play the Islamist card, euphemistically dubbed "the suburbs"? If the Socialist win in Spain was brought about in reaction to a massive terrorist attack, the above picture is one of political blackmail and threats against the public order. All this poison might be the result of sheer panic over what's brewing in 'the suburbs', but playing it as an electoral card is a mighty dangerous game.

Muslim assertivity, discontent and victimhood might be harnassed in the service of a Socialist electoral win, it may be placated, apologised and appeased against better judgment, but it will be next to impossible to get this particular genie back into the bottle.

Today we are witnessing the next major instalment in the global culture war. At stake: survival of Western civilization.


Ruthie said...

The piece you quoted from the BBC is disturbingly biased. What happened to objective journalism?

Cassandra said...

My dear, it's a gonner. I recently found there are entire blogs and sites exclusively devoted to BBC bias. Here's some:,,
It's upto 'us' now!

james higham said...

Agree with your take on the carwash reference. Also:

Fortuyn's eccentricity came as a fresh breeze ...

Eccentricity, alas, accompanies free thought.