What, Tomas, are you comparing this pagan-Catholicism to, if I may know? What do you measure it against
having the last word btw!
Dan called him a 'right-wing shithead' which is slightly different. When Diebert gets him in his sight (like seeing through those x-ray glasses they sell out of comic books) he sees 'Indo-fascist'. These labels and designations are more properly techniques of 'seeing' to keep one from seeing. The interesting thing, the unfortunate thing, is that both the right and left-wing polarities, generally speaking, use such lenses of perception to 'see' and 'explain' the other, but when they get done the issue is confused, you can't see properly. This is the coinage of our age. This kind of 'thinking', coming from such 'accomplished intellects' (*guffaws*) seems to suggest more lack of having a clue
There are a few things here now: One, the comparison to Sarah Palin. It is a very bad comparison and it just doesn't work. On one hand, Sarah Palin is pretty incoherant, or 'naturally incoherant'. She requires tutoring by handlers to express her points. Wilders on the other hand is quite articulate and not unreasonable. He may exaggerate in support of his points, but his points are cogent. The people who cannot hear cogency are those, it would seem, who are 'possessed' by psychological energies which, whenever his image or his name appears to them, can only see the Devil. I would suggest that projection of inner content is in operation, and instead of agreeing, would turn the mirror around to look at the Devil sighter.
On another level, if we were to consider 'Sarah Palin' as a manifestation of cultural tendencies, a comparison between Wilders and Palin might be a little in order. Wilders, like Palin, has a considerable grass-roots following. So-called 'average people' are responding to both of them. There is an emerging class or group who, for various reasons, simply cannot bear with the image, the thoughts or the values of this submerged underclass (for want of a better word), and that ridicules not only the speaker but the 'values' that are spoken about. However, at least in Palin's case, when you actually listen to her more cogent discourse, or to those more eloquent who speak in her same context, you discover that there is a valid discourse there: meaning, these people have a sense of their own values and they have decided to protect them, express them, and to work politically with them. I certainly suggest that only a fool would dismiss a significant block of people without actually making an effort to see what they are defending and why. Many of them, as we all know, are indeed professing Christians and we can certainly examine and criticize their belief-structure (simplistic, binary, rhetorically driven, superstitious), but in other contexts the core value-structure or belief-structure can mature. My general view of course is that Christianity and Judaism, understood and expressed intelligently, is a force of great good. The whole culture of the West is so steeped in the values that were carved out by Judeo-Christianity and they and it should not be surrendered. The so-called Christian Right is capable of growth and transformation and my opinion is that it will. It is likely far better to learn to dialogue with 'these people' than to dismiss and ridicule them. That tendency to dismiss and ridicule, which is the base of both Dan's and Diebert's formation of opinion, is really a group activity, a herd activity.
I am not at all impressed, Diebert, by what you wrote back in the Palestine thread, though I assume you are. You express yourself cogently I will grant you that, but your perception is pretty obviously skewed. You are the Forth Genius, you certainly have standing here, but more and more you start to look like a classic dweeb. A dweeb among so many dweebs.4G wrote
: "[Wilders is] nothing but a mouthpiece of a dark brown undercurrent of society with absolutely no dialog internally and no dialog with any opposing party or group."
That is just opinion
, Diebert. Palin and her following is explained and labeled in pretty much the same terms. You, and those who think like you, are constitutionally incapable of considering their terms of discourse. There is a whole group of reasons why 'that' cannot appear on your mental screen. So, what is 'dark' for you is 'light' for them. If the comparison in ideology between Palin and Wilders is valid, 'you' and people like you cannot and will not hear or consider what they are on about, so the question becomes Who is shutting who out?4G wrote
: "Open borders will in time change all identities and mix cultures. Fear of that and blaming misfortunes on that process is essentially a fascist ideology."
Now with this you are really sounding stupid. This is so easy to refute one can do it without breathing hard. Some time ago in a book of essays called What's Your Dangerous Idea, some scientist or researcher offered up the idea that what 'we' consider to be of supreme value: liberal democracy, freedom of expression, religious freedom, market freedom, etc. (all those lovely things that have arisen from 'our values'), are not at all values shared by the majority of cultures and people on this planet. In that sense, 'we' are a minority. The gist was that all that we hold as desirable and valuable could very quickly be submerged, rendered irrelevant, by other emerging cultures. For example, China might not have an intrinsic will to 'freedom' (or freedom of expression) or really even many of the 'values' that we hold dear. This may also be true of other cultures. even perhaps India. Certainly in Latin America nothing comparable to our so-called 'liberal democracies' has ever arisen and may never arise. The point is that---and sometimes these things happen quite quickly, in an historical moment as it were---a great deal that we value could simply become irrelevant. It may in fact already be happening. It may in fact already have taken place.
So, seen against that backdrop, these glib and self-righteous statements of yours might be seen as grossly misperceptive. Surely you can have 'open borders' or 'open doors' between peers
, but when it comes to those who are not peers and have no interest in being peers in this way, who may only desire to claim what is yours, to take it over, and to run it according to their values, whatever they may be (and they may be radically authoritarian and inclined in very different ways: the Middle East taken generally, China, possibly India, etc.---quite significant blocks of population), it might indicate that a strategy to maintain such 'closed borders' is simply an intelligent idea and not one expressing a fascist tendency. 4G wrote
: "And this is not just opinion, it's more like inevitable. The only question is who will be taking the high road and who the low road."
You'd have to have a mature understanding of what is the high road and what is the low road. That is of course a question of defining values.
seems inevitable, yes. And a good thing. A quite miraculous thing in fact. It is quite obvious that physical borders cannot be opened before each 'backward' region is developed economically and socially. It may happen in some future that there are no longer borders, yet not for quite some time. But there is absolutely no guarantee that the world-culture that arises in that future context will be 'desirable'---unless perhaps 'we' make sure that that happens, somehow.
But this extends far beyond the smaller issue of the spread of Islamic culture in Europe. It is wise to devote serious thoiught and consideration to this 'problem', not to villify those belwethers who are speaking about it, and to question the tendencies in our culture not to be willing to estimate and consider the dangers present, and also to dismiss or diminish the 'values' that have arisen from our own history and culture: supremely important values, and values that are rare in this world.
Finally, I would like to again suggest that the structure of your views, a sort of internal flaccidness, has more in common with a 'female' complacency (since you most often represent yourself as a manly intellect
) than with a defining or forging of values, a taking matters in hand. You have internalized, it seems, some of the common discourses of the Left, in this issue and also in regard to Israel (and other things) which is more like working under received opinions than it is forging something new and dynamic. You cannot even define what is there to be protected, and you mainly seem to defend what will blend all people together into some sort of 'female mass'.NY Times page on Wilders
, with various links (not many favorable)Der Spiegel commentary
:"Wilders is as "one-sided" as any filmmaker trying to compress reality into a documentary film. His film is as "anti-Islamic" as Michael Moore's are "anti-capitalist." The hostility does not lie in the eye of the beholder, but rather in the nature of the film's subject. Part of the ritualistic response of Muslim communities to the observation that Islam is not always a peaceful religion is invariably the threat of violence, should the "insult" not be retracted -- regardless of whether it was made by the pope, a politician or a poet.
"And Wilders is guilty of breaking with yet another aspect of the prevailing consensus. He opted to act, not just react. Since announcing his film three months ago, he has been defining the course of the debate, driving his opponent away from him. Nobody would have been surprised if Wilders had ended his game by confessing that the film itself did not actually exist."