Re: Re: Nazi Greens an enemy of democracy

"neptune3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "We Have Ways of Shutting You Up!"
>
> James Thurgood on characteristically one-sided democracy
>
> "Reading the Jewish Chronicle (JC) is always instructive. Obtaining my
> copy in my local newsagents is slightly embarrassing: people of 'the
> faith' are numerous in my neighbourhood and when I step up to the
> counter to pay there are often one or two of them queuing for the same
> purpose. As they observe what I am buying, and then examine my person,
> I can just imagine them muttering to themselves: "He doesn't look like
> one of us!" One gentleman with a rather rabbinical appearance once
> made so bold as to ask, with doubt in his eyes: "Are you Jewish?" I
> replied negatively, of course. It then occurred to me to add,
> mischievously: "I just believe in keeping an eye on them."
> I could see the man's face crease into a frown, so thinking "In for a
> penny, in for a pound," I went on to say: "You know, this is where you
> get a lot of the real news - the sort you don't read in the ordinary
> press."
> I recalled that remark last month when wondering how the fraternity in
> question were going to react to the rise of Jeorg Haider in Austria.
> Actually,... Haider has been making a number of apologies lately - for
> instance for daring once to say something complimentary about Hitler's
> employment policies. Well, what's wrong with that?... the fact is that
> he did put 6 million jobless Germans back to work in very quick time.
> I believe anyway that politicians are almost always wrong to
> apologise, and Herr Haider did not go up in my estimation on that
> account.
> But of course, it is always the perception of what a politician is,
> rather than the reality, that determines attitudes towards him. Haider
> is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as some kind of neo-nazi monster.
> Hence my curiosity.
> The way Haider's success was greeted in the Jewish Chronicle was of
> great interest to me - but more because of what it told me about the
> writers in that paper and their attitudes than what was said about
> Haider himself.
> The JC was in a not-unaccustomed dilemma. The paper, of course, stands
> for the loftiest principles of 'democracy'. But has not Haider risen
> to his present powerful position in Austrian politics by the
> democratic vote of the people? You see the problem!
> The JC leader (4th February) spoke first about the very rapid manner
> in which the other member states of the European Union reached
> agreement as to what their response was to be to the prospect of the
> Haider party having places in the Austrian Government. "They served
> notice," it said, "that any role for Mr. Haider's party would prompt
> them drastically to downgrade ties with Austria. This would, among
> other things, involve shelving bilateral exchanges with the Austrians,
> curtailing political contacts with Austrian envoys in EU states, and
> refusing to back Austrian candidates for posts in international
> organisations."
> To which the ordinary rational person would no doubt react by saying:
> "So what?" It is doubtful that great numbers of Austrians will be
> applying at their chemist's shops for additional sleeping tablets on
> those accounts. But we should read a little further.
> Generally approving this Europe-wide reaction, the JC also admitted
> its snags, acknowledging that it might make Mr. Haider yet more
> popular at home. Yet, the leader continued:-
> "This does not mean the outside world should abruptly change course,
> abandon its position of principle and take a softly-softly approach.
> It does mean that the underlying principle must be patiently, publicly
> and articulately explained. The aim - it must be made clear - is not
> to seek to exclude Austria and its people from the EU or the world
> family of nations, nor to question the right of voters to choose who
> governs them. It is to define bedrock tenets with which the world
> community hopes to build a 21st century on lessons learned from the
> bigotry and murder that too often marked the 20th. To the extent
> Austria chooses to include in its government a party rooted in an
> opposing vision of both the past and the future, to continue business
> as usual would be illogical, and immoral."
> Sting in the tail
> You have to be something of a JC-watcher - which I might extend by
> saying a watcher of the entire liberal, New World Order-oriented press
> - to see the not immediately clear message here. It lies in the last
> two lines, and the operative word is 'business'. This, I suspect,
> means much more than just business in the diplomatic sphere -
> cross-border contacts, appointments to international offices, etc. It
> looks very much as if it could mean actual trade and commerce. Is the
> Jewish Chronicle leader giving the first hints of a planned economic
> boycott?
> To get a clue as to the answer to that question, we might turn to an
> article on Page 31 of the same issue by John Diamond, who was much
> more explicit.
> Mr. Diamond, of course, believes too in the democratic freedoms -
> well, almost but not quite. There is, you see, democracy and
> democracy; it all depends for whom. He is, he begins by saying, "...a
> fully paid-up member of the freedom-of-speech brigade." He continues:
> "I spent my formative political years telling anyone who would listen
> that it was Voltaire who cracked the one about disagreeing with what
> you say but defending to the death your right to say it."
> But, he goes on...
> "...then along comes little Austria, a paid-up member of the European
> Union, and announces that its equivalent of the Conservative Party is
> in an uncomfortable colloquy with its ultra-right-wing Freedom Party,
> with the result that any day now the erstwhile annexe to the
> Fatherland might once again have N***s in government. OK: they're not
> National Socialists in the scientific sense, perhaps, but when you
> have a party which talks about Aryans, immigrants and bloodied soil in
> the way some in the Freedom Party do, it's hardly worth splitting
> hairs."
> By now, Mr. Diamond is clearly anticipating some people disagreeing
> with his drift. He has prepared for that; he has an answer:-
> "But hold on, say the other side: what about democracy? If Jeorg
> Haider's chums go into the government or even, God forbid, run the
> government, it will be as a result of the democratic will of the
> Austrian people. Equally, Austria was elected into the EU by what
> passes for democracy in that institution. We can't just kick them out
> because we don't like the people they elect to power."
> Now Mr. Diamond is really in full flow, and the reader can almost
> predict what's coming next. He does not disappoint:-
> "It's perceived to be the same argument that we liberals use when we
> say that, much as we despise the British National Party, we regard its
> right to erect websites, hold bring-and-buy coffee mornings and
> publish maniacal brochures about how the Jews control the world as
> inviolable. But it's not the same argument at all."
> Why isn't it? - the reader will naturally begin to ask. But that
> reader obviously is not aware that people like Mr. Diamond make the
> rules in these matters - or at least that is their presumption.
> Homosexuals, even paedophiles, may use the net. So may the spokesmen
> for the IRA and other terrorist groups; you will not find the John
> Diamonds objecting to this. All sorts of organisations, in addition to
> this, may publish tracts claiming that such-and-such control the
> world: Catholics, freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and little green men
> from Mars. No problem! That's the freedom that Voltaire talked about,
> and Mr. Diamond stoutly defends it. As he said, he's a fully paid-up
> member of the freedom-of-speech brigade.
> But when it comes to saying critical things about Mr. Diamond's own
> people, that's different. You see the point?
> 'Dealing' with those Austrians
> All this is building up to the most important thing that Mr. Diamond
> wants to say. He has obviously been wrestling in his mind with the
> question of how to say it, because he is aware of its contradictions.
> He believes in democracy, as we have seen; but on the other hand some
> democracy, for some people, just can't be allowed. So what are we to
> do about Austria and Haider? Mr. Diamond has the answer:-
> "...within the non-bellicose bounds of international diplomacy, we
> have a limited armoury with which to deal with a party led by a
> professed admirer of some of Hitler's policies. We have no right to
> stop Haider saying such things, but we can say, in effect to Austria:-
> " 'Elect whatever government you choose - that's your prerogative.
> But, equally, it's our prerogative to stop trading with you, going to
> your ski-runs, sending you our ambassadors or generally treating you
> like civilised people. It's your loss, and the practical loss will be
> greater than whatever gain you perceive there to be in sending a few
> Turkish or East European immigrants home. Come back when you've
> decided to stop being silly.'
> "This is the way to deal with the nastier by-products of free speech.
> It shouldn't, for instance, be necessary to pass laws to stop
> right-wing fanatics from saying that evil Jews are taking over the
> world. Simply make sure publishers know that, if they want to sell
> such nonsense to true believers, they'll have problems selling other
> books to the rest of us. Don't like a fascist website? There are
> plenty of suppliers of Net facilities to the fascists who would lose
> out if the rest of us stopped using their services."
> Here, spelled out in as frank terms as we could wish for, is Mr.
> Diamond's idea of how 'democracy' should work. It will be noted that
> nowhere does he suggest that the arguments of people he thinks are
> wrong should be countered in open and honest debate and proved, by
> superior argument, to be fallacious. That, to most of us, is what
> democracy has meant across the ages. But to Mr. Diamond? Oh no! In the
> eyes of him and his ilk, it means something entirely different.
> To him and his ilk, democracy means the right to suppress the views of
> people you don't like by threats and intimidation - mainly economic
> intimidation. Boycott their industries for a start! In Austria a big
> industry is tourism. Very well, let's not visit their ski-slopes.
> Where does this lead us? Shall we refuse to buy recordings made by the
> Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra? Shall we refuse even to listen to
> Mozart, Haydn, Schubert or Strauss? After all, Mr. Diamond has
> suggested that we should not treat the Austrians - out of whose ranks
> have come these immortal geniuses - like "civilised people."
> And extending the issue beyond Austria, it is clear that Mr. Diamond
> believes that Internet suppliers who hire facilities to those of whose
> politics he disapproves should simply be closed down - not by an act
> of law (that would be too blatant) - but by ruining them by boycott.
> Booksellers and publishers? Same treatment! Make sure hardly anyone
> buys their books and they'll fold up. Business is business!
> This then seems to be the ideal of democracy believed in by Mr.
> Diamond - and many like him. Perhaps it's all part of the "bedrock
> tenets with which the world community hopes to build the 21st
> century." We cannot say we haven't been told!"
> Spearhead Online
>
> www.spearhead-uk.com        http://www.natvan.com
> http://www.altermedia.info/     www.nsm88.com
> http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm

Too true. Interesting nationalism.org site.