We’ve seen conservatives come up with all kinds of crazy ideas related to the Norwegian terrorist attack conducted by a right-wing Christian, including the outrageous apologia of Bryan Ficher (on his AFA blog) and Pat Buchanon (in World Net Daily) for the terrorist’s motives, followed by WND’s David Solway, who claims that the progressives are to blame for the Norway attacks.
Leave it to World Net Daily to bottom-out the collection. Only conservatives can turn the truth into pornography, and they seem to delight in it.
Bryan Fischer argues that “Breivik’s “analysis of cultural trends in Europe and the danger created by Islamic immigration and inflitration [sic] is accurate.”
Much of his analysis of cultural trends in Europe and the danger created by Islamic immigration and inflitration [sic] is accurate. But clear thinking Westerners and every Christian I know believes these problems can be solved through public policy rather than mass murder. Breivik’s angst was caused by the presence of so many Muslims in Norway and Europe, which he correctly observes is leading to “cultural annihilation.’ But he blames their presence not on the Muslims themselves but on the “cultural Marxists” and their obsession with diversity and unrestricted Islamic immigration. So he went after the Marxists rather than the Muslims.
Pat Buchanon takes to this theme like a dog to a bone and claims that the forces represented by Breivik do not represent the “macro- threat” to Europe. Buchanon argues that Europe is faced with a historic crisis and that “That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.”
Solway clearly is as confused by the concept of a free and open society as Buchanan and Fischer:
The consequence should have been entirely predictable. In failing to meet the threat of cultural subversion, the European left has facilitated the emergence of the illiberal and xenophobic branch of the far right. For as violence begins to move in from the car-burning and no-go Muslim enclaves in the margins toward the city center, as Shariah courts begin to pepper the landscape, as in the U.K., as Muslim immigrants continue to swell the welfare rolls, as rape statistics skyrocket and honor killings multiply, and as the authorities prove themselves increasingly helpless and vacillating – or even worse, as colluding – the reactionary and militant right will earn more and more legitimacy among the masses. The anemic lack of both fortitude and foresight among the political classes can only energize the factions of militant, far-right extremism.
As with standard conservative blame the victim thinking, this is no different from saying not the Nazis but the Jews were responsible for the holocaust.
It is interesting that conservatism can find that liberalism is to blame for conservative extremism. We can’t have conservative extremists accepting personal responsibility and footing the bill for their crimes, after all. They were forced to it by a society that would not bend to their will. If this sounds at all like the current American budget crisis, its should. The same thinking is behind it.
It’s not at all surprising that as Right Wing Watch reports, the conservative response is to claim that anti-Muslim bloggers are the real victims of the attack. Not the progressives who were brutally murdered. How is this so? Breivik’s actions did great damage to the cause of “Christian conservatives and critics of Jihad,” says Mark Tapson of FrontPageMag. Oh dear, they must bear the consequences of their own actions? We can’t have that! Stir up the hate and then accept responsibility for what happens? We’ve seen how well that sells here with Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting.
Nor is it the fault of an paranoid and Islamophobic media that uses fear and lies to stir up conservative extremists. No, according to Solway it is the fault of the “Islamophilic and ever-compliant media, operating in tandem with a complacent political establishment.” He claims that “leftists” have been busily collaborating “with a clamorous Islamic demographic” which has been “gradually infiltrating our democratic nations.” In other words, I suppose, we liberals are to blame for all these right-wing militias Homeland Security warned us about. The solutions seems to cry out: give them what they want.
The logic could not be plainer: Only if we ban Sharia law, strip Muslims of their First Amendment protections, and ultimately exile them from these shores, all will be well in America. The laws should be directed not at the criminals in our midst, but their eventual victims. As I said, blame the Jews for not doing the decent thing and getting out of Germany so that a monstrosity like Nazism would have never had to exist. Blame the victim.
Then Solway goes to a very dark place indeed:
Most of us would surely agree that terror is not an acceptable answer to terror. The problem is that a soft response to an undeniable menace will often generate a hard response – and just as often an irrational one. As we have seen in Norway, vigilantism can take strange forms. The aggrieved are as likely to strike at their own countrymen whom they regard as traitors or dupes and who embrace a sedative political philosophy resulting in the loss of national identity and the steady advance of alien cultural norms and practices.
This was exactly Hitler’s argument – the hard response to the soft leftist Weimar Republic. Hitler too, like Solway, used the traitor idiom in identifying the true culprits – it was the socialists and liberals who were responsible for Weimar’s “sedative political philosophy” which resulted in “the loss of national identity” and the “steady advance of alien cultural norms and practices.” It was the right-wing, totalitarian Nazis who embraced the idea of state-sponsored Christianity who put things to right.
Can Solway not see how much he sounds like Hitler? It’s like watching a Nazi propaganda film. And yet somewhere on the left, instead of Solway being taken to task for sounding like Hitler, I will be scolded for pointing out that he does. Are we to be forbidden by left and right both from correctly identifying the forces at work in Western culture?
To some extent Solway is right about the complacency of liberal culture. That complacency was misplaced before, and it is misplaced now. The macro-enemy is among us, not in the form of Muslims but from among our own people – in the form of right-wing Christian extremists like Anders Breivik; in the form of Republican and Tea Party politicians who spew hate and fear; and in well-warmed right-wing militias; and in propaganda bureaus like FOX News and World Net Daily. These are the real enemies of a free society.
Solway claims that “it needs to be said that the Norwegian authorities and a fellow-traveling electorate are profoundly complicit in creating a situation that must inevitably culminate in violence.”
If the political climate does not change to favor the ascension of the moderate right, the tragedy that unfolded in Norway will spread to other European countries in the course of time. The simple truth is that there can be no solution to the dilemma unless we first recognize that the responsibility for this deteriorating state of affairs lies chiefly with the intellectuals, journalists and governing elites of the multicultural left who have brought it to pass.
This is more of Hitler’s argument against Weimar, with the Jews and Bolsheviks in place of Muslims. And again he’s right, in a sense. The Weimar government did not recognize the “macro-threat” until too late, and it was not the Jews and Bolsheviks but the Nazis. We have the same situation before us now, with the right-wing frothing over the supposed threat of the left while they themselves are plotting to act on their narrative that no liberal government can be legitimate. Only conservative totalitarianism has the ultimate right to power in the Western World, in Europe as well as North America. Only right-wing Christian totalitarianism can save Western Civilization. That’s their story, and that’s what this is all about on both sides of the Atlantic.