George Handlery about the week that was. Searching for antidotes against the insolent disobedience of the restless masses. Pacify Islam: export secular atheism. Just discovered: Muslims are not responsible for the last two world wars. The devaluation of racism through over incantation. About the extent of Soviet infiltration.

1. The insurrection of the masses. Only one politically advanced industrialized society practices on a regular basis and within short intervals institutionalized direct democracy. Some evidence suggests that it is a better system than its missing global practice would suggest. The widespread representative system puts decisions in the hands of a political class. The insider crowd’s orientation and ability to sense issues that concern its people can be limited. When its ideology’s assumptions and reality diverge, it can even run contrary to what formal politics’ outsiders desire.

Two issues ago, this column reacted to a decision of the Swiss. They forbade, in one of their typical and regularly held referendums, the erection of more minarets next to mosques which are unaffected by the ban. The reaction of the political class is, regardless of whether openly or covertly leftist, bitter. One insulted voice complained in outrage that the Swiss voters have done more than to make the wrong choice. They “humiliated their elected representatives”. Indeed, most politicians were for a “no” while their supposed followers, regardless of insistent advise and threats, voted “yes”.

Since that, for Europe unique vote, in which the people could tell directly what they thought, the upset is not abating either nationally or internationally. The revenge of the elites whose herd stampeded out of its corral is now unfolding. Besides the insult of lèse-majesté, the motive might be the fear that the example of the disobedient little Swiss might catch on. For a long time now, the elites have pressured the “Confederates” to merge in the EU in whose center they continue to position themselves, proudly and stubbornly, as outsiders. Now it appears that many EU citizens, who, to begin with, were not consulted about their union, would, if they could, follow the Swiss example. (Unwelcome stirrings are already being registered.)  Here a few items of the counter offensive being unleashed by the “leaders”.

Swiss elites are mounting a campaign abroad that is directed against their country’s image. Apparently, if the “celebs” cannot rule the land without getting lip from the serfs, it is best to make it go down in a hail of criticism supplied by their foreign equivalents. Meanwhile, the convenient condemnation by foreign sources gives legitimacy to the struggle on the home front. (Parallels for this technique involving other issues can be found in other countries.)

The left and the nominally classical liberals have decided to cooperate in the area involving multi-cultural issues. Accordingly, the liberals have withdrawn a measure that intended to restrict the public use of the burqa. Worried about the outcome, the legislature is blocking the submission of an initiative to the people’s judgment. (Note: once an initiative has the required signatures it goes to the cabinet and the legislature. These may act on the matter and they can also submit their own, mostly moderated, version of the proposed law. With or without a “counter-proposal” the text is then submitted to the popular vote.) The wished-for law would order the expulsion of aliens that are found guilty of a major crime.

All the parties except the largest one, namely the “right wing extremist” People’s Party – launched in 1919 – are sending up public trial balloons to limit direct democracy – practiced since 1874. Supposedly, a new organ is needed to examine initiatives and proscribe the collection of the signatures a proposition needs in case it is declared legally challengeable. That sounds like censorship as everything can be challenged. Reflecting the same approach, there is some talk that that questions the propriety of initiatives as an institution. Additionally, initiatives, since they can give the wrong response, are feared to be non-EU compatible. Never mind that Switzerland is not a member.

Drumming up action abroad that could lead to the non-implementation of the minaret legislation, and moves, which challenge initiatives per se, has already been alluded to. Newly, the campaign seems to be getting an unusual twist. Suggestive observations appear that the street protest against the Danish Mohammed caricatures began only well after their publication. The inference is that violent demo‘s might still take place. Meanwhile, announcements that threaten the boycott of Swiss products are registered with some glee in certain circles – and are met with disinterest by others.

Germany’s former Chancellor Schröder has produced one of the more interesting broadsides in the struggle raging between the cool political opinion maker class and the dull people. However, it appears that the large caliber guns that he let roar shot rubber bullets: the arguments seem to bounce back. To Schröder there is an absolute right to have minarets. That is because Islam is inherently peaceful. Sensing a need to prove the stunning analysis, we are enriched by an original explanation. The ex-Chancellor asserts that the proof is simple. After all, the two world wars were not of Islam’s making. (This ignores the decades of crisis in the 19th century while Ottoman rule crumbled in the Balkans. In addition, oh yes, the Ottoman Empire has participated in WW1 on the losing side. Once you are practicing the art of overlooking, please erase all that can be known about the offensive between the 8th and the 17th centuries.)

 

2. The discussion widens regarding the nature of Islam, respectively the possible threat that some of its mutations might present. That pertains both to the international level and to the domestic issues created through its emigrations. Some advocates that insist that Islam is a religion of peace will readily admit that the social-political movement the religion expresses happens to go through a “difficult phase”. An issue to raise here is the chronic duration of this crisis. Another related one, has to do with the probability of a speedy return to the mainstream of civilization’s march that had been abandoned centuries ago. Ignoring this, one discerns a discrete whisper that Islam might outgrow its inclination to be non-verbally confrontational. The example used is that of the conflicts that had ravaged Christendom. The ray of hope derived from the case is that, as time passed, Christians became secularized and lost interest in an intensively lived religion and its violent politics. The pious thesis regarding less piety is that, within the world of Islam, too, a similar trend might unfold.

There is something disturbing inherent in this optimistic prognosis. The argument’s implication is that in its current, passionately lived and propagated form, and contradicting what is pretended, Islam might not yet quite be a “religion of peace”. What we are told is that, to become a genuine religion of peace, its adherents will need to abandon their faith and, wile at it, reduce it, European style, to folklore. Regardless of whether this wished-for saving secularization is likely or not, the stipulation reveals what those arguing the case know but refuse to admit. They do not really believe what they say – more in the service of PC than realism – regarding the “religion of peace”.

 

3. The inclination to react negatively to the demonstrative display of Muslim presence by some refugees is unmistakable. Combating the effect, instead of dealing with the cause, the invocation of the “racism” mantra brings diminishing returns. An added drawback is that genuine racism is trivialized and ultimately made acceptable by the inflationary use of the term. Once “racist” becomes a household word for nearly everything, the real racists will have it easy. The impositions and “territory marking” of made-visible Muslims and their comportment are not rejected because they come from aliens. Resistance is provoked for another reason. By the standards of the infidels to be converted, the system that expresses Islamist influence does not work “at home” and, furthermore, the life it promises is not worth living.