In this, his second in his series of six essays, Peter Carl looks into some research that suggests why continued “Left”/”Right” polemical infighting is highly unlikely to create greater acceptance or success for the Counter-Jihad Movement. Instead, he argues, it is far more likely to contribute to greater damage and increased resistance to the Movement in an ever worsening future. He then delves into a discussion of a few concrete examples of areas and situations where a few small changes in tactics and words could mean far greater gains for both its message and the world’s perception of the Counter-Jihad Movement.    

Approximately three years before Anders Behring Breivik’s horrifying attacks went off on July 22, 2011, a bloodbath that started just a few blocks from the hotel where I regularly stay during my visits to Oslo, I wrote my first e-mail to some of the Counter-Jihad Movement’s key bloggers. I wrote regarding the considerable concerns I had about the wrongly-focused, self-defeating “Left”/”Right” message being continually communicated from the Movement. Reflecting back on Churchill, my concerns had to do with my belief that the wrongly focused argument and its counterproductive message, as they were being presented across the web and across the world, were creating fully avoidable and very serious problems for the present and the future of the Counter-Jihad Movement (defined in Part I). Anders Behring Breivik’s terror and the fallout from it have only confirmed the validity of every one of my points of concern.

To understand the roots of my concerns, it would be useful to examine a few of the prerequisites for success (if it might succeed at all) now challenging the Western Counter-Jihad Movement. First and foremost among them is finding a way to put itself into a position to make a pitch for credibility among the Politically Correct, the fanatically opposed, the disbelieving, the skeptical, or the otherwise unconvinced among individuals from the political “Center”, “Left”, and “Right”. In order to do this, together in unity, the Counter-Jihad Movement – to stem the tide of the growth of Islamism and Sharia in the West – must implement the Counter-Jihad Argument. To quickly summarize here, we must immediately, consciously, and fully put aside “Left”/”Right” rhetoric and, finding actual unity in focusing only on the Common Freedoms outlined and defined below, speedily convince the broadest spectrum of these voters as soon possible that Islamism: 1) poses an ideological, social, political, cultural, judicial, financial, and demographic threat; 2) that Islamism is based in promoting discrimination and violence against and subjugation of non-believers, lapsed believers, and even believers; 3) that human rights, women’s rights, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc. (collectively our “Common Freedoms”) are all threatened as a result; and 4) that Counter-Jihad proponents – whether from the “Center”, “Left”, or “Right” – are, contrary to general perception, the most broadly protective of these rights for all people, including even for the oppressed among Muslims and former Muslims themselves (hereinafter all referred to as the “Counter-Jihad Argument” or “Argument”).

In the case the Counter-Jihad Movement is unable to convince a significantly large majority of voters made up of the political “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” of the logic and correctness of the Counter-Jihad Argument, the Counter-Jihad political parties will be unable to gain sufficient strength within any given government and will, therefore, remain ineffective and wholly unable to effect sufficient democratic change to prevent Islamization. The results will be characterized by two important – but very troubling – developments. First, as has happened in every Muslim majority nation throughout history, native populations, in this case in Europe and the West, will become a minority of socially, religiously, ethnically, legally, and politically marginalized second-class “guests” within their own countries. Second, the failure of the democratic process and our institutions to democratically thwart and resolve Islamization would very likely lead to the rise into this vacuum of truly fascist, authentically right-wing, violent, anti-democratic, and totalitarian political parties and individuals who would violently subdue or kill all who oppose them, European or not. Such fascists would also likely attempt to remedy the situation by military force and, quite likely, mass killings.

The actions of Anders Behring Breivik, an individual who once belonged to a mainstream Counter-Jihad party but who left it quickly after a very short time because he found it too “Politically Correct” due to its commitment to our Western Common Freedoms, is a strong reminder of this dangerous potential outcome of any failure of the democratic, non-violent Counter-Jihad Movement. Swift success by democratic and non-violent means via today’s Counter-Jihad political parties, in other words, is fully dependent upon broad internalization of the Counter-Jihad Argument among as many voters as possible presented in a way that is fully and absolutely inline with all of our Common Freedoms. This can occur in two different ways; either by “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” all joining ranks within one single and powerful “unity” party or movement (such as the National Front in France, the PVV in the Netherlands, or the Fremskrittspartiet in Norway) or, as would require a far longer period of time, by sufficiently effecting the understandings and priorities of individuals across society so that the other mainstream parties eventually begin to assist in stopping and reversing the Islamization process.

In order to gain that broad support of disparate voters and supporters who hold disparate political ideologies from the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” (and hybrids thereof), it appears rather obvious then that the Counter-Jihad parties will need to focus on those common core beliefs, values, and freedoms that are fully held in common by and among all Western voters – whether “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – while, for the sake of the Movement and victory, at the same time refraining from ideological or intra-party agitation in any one direction when addressing Counter-Jihad and immigration issues. At the same time, when addressing Counter-Jihad issues, the parties will need to strongly deemphasize ideological differences and beliefs that today result in the alienation of large numbers of those potential voters holding varying political ideologies. Failure to take these simple steps will only ensure that opposition to the Counter-Jihad Movement, among Western governments, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, will most certainly increase and that any Counter-Jihad party would remain a generally closed system of like-minded ideologues preaching to one another with no real potential for further significant expansion among voters. The result would then be, for the West, no potential at all for swiftly and democratically turning back the tide and effects of Islamization.

Some in the Counter-Jihad Movement, for various reasons, appear committed to the belief and argue that one need not stick to, as I have suggested here, the common Counter-Jihad Argument for these Common Freedoms in acting to increase the numbers of those who see and understand the dangers and impacts of the growing Islamization. They believe instead that an increase in the number of those who will be convinced of the threats to our Common Freedoms and who will vote for Counter-Jihad parties can best be achieved by putting all of their energy, resources, and time into somehow “placing pressure on the ‘Left’”, as one well-known blogger put it, or by trying to convince the members of one specific political ideology to “convert” to another. In this case meaning for the “Left” to convert to the “Right”. Somehow, some on the “Right” believe – in time to stop the Islamization of the West – that by publicly and privately denigrating the beliefs of what they incorrectly perceive as their ideological political opponents in the Counter-Jihad they somehow could achieve that which politicians and political parties have been trying to do – unsuccessfully – for centuries: change the political ideology of their opponents en masse. The fact is, this has never happened – and it never will happen. As the research discussed below suggests and as I propose here, attacking Islamist and freedom-annulling ideas from the base of our Common Freedoms is the answer; attacking Western political ideologies and persons is not.

My assertions here are borne out by research. Because the roots of our basic political ideologies are most often formed during our childhood and hardened by our experiences in adulthood, changing a person’s ideological view of the world is perhaps one of the most difficult set of ideas to change within a person. In some older research carried out by Maurice Kogan, et al. (1992) it was found that general principles of “political socialization” suggest “…that crucial political learning takes place in childhood…”ⁱ Kogan notes there that “…political socialization research has found pervasive evidence that [this] assumption [] is correct. Children do begin to develop political attitudes, political information and policy opinions, identifications with political parties, pre-political ideologies, basic beliefs, and so on.” ⁱⁱ Newer research seems to support this. S.N. Ray (2004) writes: “To a child, the family is its first window to the outside world. It is the first contact of the child with authority.” ⁱⁱⁱ It is through the family then that a child learns to place the outside world and its authorities into a personal context. Other authors agree. “Once a child or adolescent is provided with a particular ideological context for viewing the world – be it conservative or liberal – this ideological perspective,” writes Fay Lomax Cook (1992) of policy priorities, “should begin to shape beliefs about what kinds of people he or she thinks deserve help and what types of programs he or she thinks are effective.” ^iv

Though what is learned in childhood is important, it is not the full answer. As Kogan writes, “whether and to what degree these orientations [learned in childhood] structure subsequent learning and persist through time are other matters.” ^v Both Kogan and Ray, suggest that other factors also play an important role. Ray, for example presents “…a recent study[ that suggests that] the longer the period of formal education, and the higher the intelligence of the child, the smaller will be the extent of parental influence.”^vi Another author, Joan Stevenson Hinde, et al. (1991), agrees with the thought but, as is generally accepted, continues to see the great importance of early family influences. “I do not mean to suggest by this,” writes Hinde, “that our political ideologies are merely an extension of childhood experience. They may be informed by a great deal of adult experience and rationally organized. But this sophistication is founded on the strategies of control and conceptions of order which, from our early years, have begun to shape our experience and how we interpret it. This, surely, is why people of the same knowledge, intelligence, interests, and culture may understand the nature of social order in profoundly different ways.” ^vii

Even with some adjustments made after childhood, it appears that both as groups and as individuals, our political outlook remains relatively steady throughout our lifetimes. “Research on political socialization,” writes Fay Lomax Cook (1992), “shows that one’s political ideology and party identification are shaped predominantly in adolescence and young adulthood. Furthermore, although specific opinions may change with maturity, studies have shown that general ideology and party membership remain relatively stable.”^viii This is generally confirmed by numerous researchers, both in the United States and abroad. “[Herbert H.] Hyman,” writes Ray, “has shown the impressive continuity of political outlooks and party preferences between parents and children. The studies of voting behaviour show how durable the family influence can be on the pressures of political socialization of children.” ^ix

Though there are of course always individual exceptions to the rule, newer research also supports this point. As Carl Grafton, et al. writes in The Behavioral Study of Political Ideology and Public Policy Formation (2005), “There appears to be little change over time in the overall structure of mass-level ideological thinking. And, that change which does occur seems to take place at the margin, rather than as a fundamental shift in the ways that people think about liberal-conservative terms.”^x As applied to individuals, the situation is similar. “The ways that people apply liberal-conservative terms to their own political perceptions, attitudes, and choices,” suggests Grafton, “seems to stand as a highly stable characteristic of American public opinion.”^xi Interestingly, touching exactly on the issue of maliciously labeling or mislabeling an opponent’s political ideology for political gain, Grafton points out that research has shown that the use of such tactics in changing opponents’ minds in matters of political ideology is of no real value. As Grafton points out, referring to the Bush-Dukakis election campaign, “…the 1988 effort explicitly used ideological terminology (e.g. ‘The L Word’) to denigrate the Democratic candidate. And yet, the latter had hardly any effect on the structure of ideological thinking in the electorate.” ^xii As Grafton noted, which applies specifically to arguments that claim an ability to “put pressure on” the “Left” via the Counter-Jihad Movement, “[t]he general structure of ideological judgments seems to be largely impervious to influences from the external political environment.” ^xiii

The confrontational approach then of attempting to change the political ideology of others assumes quite incorrectly, among other things, that people easily change political or ideological affiliation or that they can easily be convinced that their politics are “wrong”. As the above research shows, the opposite is the case. Attacking the opposite political ideology whether as held among the general public or among the media, especially in the highly-charged situation of the Counter-Jihad, which regularly includes allegations by bloggers and activists of “Leftist”, “Socialist”, or “Marxist” collusion or oppositely, on the part of the general public and press, of “Conservatism”, “fascism”, “populism”, and “right-wing extremism,” is little likely to convince those of a converse ideology that they are wrong. Nor is it, most importantly, likely to lead in any way to the slightest success for the Counter-Jihad Movement as a whole. Instead, it merely results in mass alienation in all directions – not merely as to the “Left”. As the above research suggests and as I propose here, at least two important factors argue against considering any possibility for the efficacy of the divisive approach.

First, the political “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” are generally vague concepts and, outside of political theory analyses, in many ways indefinable. Individuals locate themselves upon and even move about back and forth between and within these categories on various issues – and rarely in the same manner. Thus, what applies to one person individually will not necessarily apply to another. This explains the reason here for my use of quotation marks around all of these varying ideological labels used throughout this piece. As a result, working to change the minds of the “Left” by constantly berating “Leftist” political beliefs or blaming all of today’s problems on one political perspective will do nothing at all to cause self-reflection on the part of the attacked party over his or her views on Islamism, Islamization, and Jihad. Instead, the person is far more likely to simply choose to turn away from and permanently tune-out and delegitimize the source. Instead of encouraging self-examination and curiosity, a permanent wall is built within an alienated person’s mind. Therefore, a very different approach must be taken; that approach must, by focusing on the common values, goals, and messages of our Common Freedoms, allow the unconvinced to ease away from their many defenses to the Counter-Jihad Argument.

Second, to the extent voters do identify themselves as affiliating with the political “Center”, “Left” and “Right”, these categories in Western democracies are generally separated roughly into one-third (1/3) portions which, generally speaking and in line with the research mentioned above, do not change to any great extent. In France, as Guy Michelat explains in the book “The French Voter Decides” (1993), “41 French out of 100 locate themselves on the left, 27 on the right, 28 in the center, and only 3 refuse to locate themselves at all on this dimension.” ^xiv In the United States, a similar study from recent years put out by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press broke down “Center”, “Left”, “Right” affiliation into approximate one-third apportionments, that is, approximately twenty-nine percent (29%) Republican, forty-one percent (41%) Democratic, and thirty percent (30%) as the “nonaligned” middle. Therefore, any argument that attempts to get voters to change their ideological political affiliation by rejecting all that has been an intimately self-identifying characteristic for all or most of their lives, any pragmatic realist should quickly admit, is highly unlikely to be successful in speedily leading the West away from Islamization. Instead, it is far more likely to unnecessarily increase social and political antagonisms, discredit both the message and the messenger, and in the end to alienate voters and potential voters based upon their personal political affiliations. The only winner, in such case, will undeniably be a successful and efficient advancement of Islamism and Sharia within the West.

It is extremely important to point out here as well that the interests and goals of Counter-Jihad bloggers or writers as compared with those of Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians are not at all one and the same. Bloggers and writers are far more able to remain committed to polarizing ideological assertions; they are not at all dependent upon votes to feel or be “successful”. Enacting complicated public policies based upon consensus, as Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians must do, is a very different matter than cheering for one’s own “team” from a keyboard, as bloggers can be satisfied with doing. In the long run remaining locked to one specific ideology runs against bloggers’ and authors’ own interests as well, since it limits the number and types of visitors to their blogs and would, as a result, also significantly limit the potential audience for books they may write.

As to bloggers and writers, however, one can safely say that those who do remain identified overly much with one specific political ideology, contrary to the case of Counter-Jihad political parties, will not necessarily ever feel any overwhelmingly negative effect or result. The former will always have that same sufficiently large “choir” of the ideologically like-minded to whom they can eternally “preach”. As opposed to bringing to themselves new readers by moving to the broader common message of the Counter-Jihad Argument and its Common Freedoms that appeal to readers spanning the political “Center”, “Left”, and “Right”, bloggers and authors, unlike Counter-Jihad politicians, can simply remain satisfied with the significantly large ideologically-based and highly committed readership that they already possess. The enormous downside, however, is as Breivik’s Oslo Massacres have also underscored, that bloggers who are caught up in “Left”/”Right” polemics do significant damage to the Counter-Jihad political parties, politicians, and the Movement as a whole by eternally confirming the “far-right” or “right-wing” label.

For bloggers, stepping away from promoting a politically ideological argument with respect to Islamization, however, would not at all necessarily mean that a Counter-Jihad blogger or author would experience a decrease in its reader base or the alienation of its co-ideologues. On the contrary. And since our Common Freedoms underlie the political identity and core values of the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – fully independent of the Counter-Jihad Argument – changing one’s message would not necessarily make a blog “more” “Politically Correct”. Instead, the message would simply focus on the issues of the Counter-Jihad (and nothing more) and stick to common facts that: 1) all Westerners of all political stripes are affected in some way by Political Correctness; 2) that all politicians of all political stripes in all Western countries have in varying ways and at varying times promoted irresponsible immigration policies (or failed to fix them); and 3) that all Westerners of all political stripes support our Common Freedoms and human rights and believe genuinely that they are acting in accordance with their own political ideological beliefs to protect these Common Freedoms, with the only difference being whether they understand and believe that Islamists, Islamism, and demographic trends now place our Common Freedoms and human rights in danger.

The simplicity and beauty of taking this new approach to the Counter-Jihad Argument is that if it is followed in all forms of Counter-Jihad communications, whether by bloggers, authors, or politicians, only one single concern remains left to be answered between individuals of differing political ideologies: Whether and how Islamists, Islamism, and demographic trends now place our Common Freedoms in danger? To educate on that one single issue and point out the unending and countless everyday examples of Islamist violence and supremacy all around us all across the world, it should be clear, is far easier than convincing an individual that his or her worldview or highly personal political ideology is somehow “flawed”, “in error”, or otherwise unworthy and, therefore, in need of change. As will be discussed in Part V of these essays, Winston Churchill himself recognized and expounded upon the unshakeable truth of this reality as leader of a “Unity” government during World War II.

Yet, it is precisely the ineffective, counterproductive approach of the past that has been the standard and has continued to crop up a number of times even in the wake of Breivik’s Oslo Massacres. According to a recent article in the DutchNews.nl, Dutch PVV leader, Geert Wilders, even if correctly in this case, “…has accused left-wing politicians of a witch hunt by trying to implicate him and his ideas in the Norwegian mass shootings…..” There can be no doubt that the other political parties that compete with that of Mr. Wilders in Netherlands have seen an opportunity to attempt to make political hay. However, as I have described thus far in this essay, an attack on the “Left” by Mr. Wilders, though certainly tempting and perhaps satisfying emotionally to a certain extent, is not at all the best choice for pushing the Movement forward by attracting new members from the “Center”, “Left”, and “PC Right”.

Nor is it a good choice at all for providing Mr. Wilders or his party with an argument to help convince the unconvinced that he and his party are not merely a “Right-wing” party to be written off and tuned-out as such. It’s obvious, right? Who else, goes the argument, other than a true “Right-winger”, would take the time to specifically rail against the “Left”? Thus, Mr. Wilders, in making the statement as he did, neither helped himself, his party, nor the Movement when he stated that:

“The truth has to be told because Islam-huggers like [Job] Cohen of the Party of the Arabs [Labour party] caused the problems and have repeatedly ignored them. I would say to Cohen and the rest of the left in the Netherlands: it is not my words, but your silence about the dangers of Islam which has the negative influences.”

Below, I will propose another way to express the same ideas using similar words that would strike on common concerns and our Common Freedoms and, at the same time, would vitiate any ability on the part of opponents or the press to later use the “right-wing” label against Mr. Wilders or anyone else. Though fully correct about the dangers of silence, Mr. Wilders could have turned this statement into a real opportunity to recruit from the “Center”, “Left”, and “PC Right” and reframe the PVV as a party that is home to not only potential Counter-Jihad defectors from the Dutch Labour Party, but from every other party in the Netherlands as well. This idea I offer here does not come out of the blue. Nor does it arise from some desire to somehow “protect” the “Left”. It is actually based upon numbers. And it is the only way to avoid disaster – by actually growing the Counter-Jihad Movement as quickly and broadly as possible.

As mentioned in my first essay, Die Presse reported on the “Left’s” strong willingness to support a Counter-Jihad party in Germany in July of 2010. Just prior to the formation of the German Counter-Jihad party, Die Freiheit, seventeen percent (17%) of those who identified themselves as Social Democrats (SPD), six percent (6%) of Greens (Die Grüne), and an impressive twenty-five percent (25%) of those who identified themselves as actual Socialists (Die Linke) said they would vote for a new so-called “Right” or Counter-Jihad party if one were to be formed. Thus the percentage among the farthest “Left” party in Germany, Die Linke, had the highest proportion of voters who would vote for a new “Right” party – of all of the other major mainstream political parties in Germany. In Sweden, membership in the Counter-Jihad Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) reflects this same reality; it is made up of twenty percent (20%) former voters from Swedish Social Democratic party, ten percent (10%) identifying with the “Left”, and a full thirty-three percent (33%) identified themselves as “Center”, that is, neither “Right” nor “Left”.

Obviously and quite ironically, fully despite the constant characterizations of our Counter-Jihad parties as “Right-wing” and “far-Right” parties by the general public and in the mainstream press and, equally ironically, contrary to some assertions by some leaders in the Counter-Jihad Movement itself who insist that the “Left” is to be forgotten as forever “lost” and “in bed with the Jihad,” a party can not be considered of and for the “Right” if on average twenty plus percent (+20%) of German voters from across the entire political spectrum – “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – would defect from their prior party affiliation to support such a new so-called “Right” party. The party leaders of the Counter-Jihad parties across Europe should take serious note of these facts. As the numbers above support – and as Rene Stadtkewitz’s difficulties thus far in growing Die Freiheit suggest, continued alienation of the “Left” by the Counter-Jihad Movement equals alienation of significant numbers of voters and potential voters who stand ready to vote for the right messenger carrying the correct message.

Voters, it is also clear, are willing to change parties to support the Counter-Jihad, but it does not generally mean that they will change their political ideology. Thilo Sarrazin in Germany, for example, gladly remains a Social Democrat – but staunchly Counter-Jihad. Villy Søvndal, the head of the Danish Socialist People’s Party gladly remains a Socialist – but staunchly Counter-Jihad. “Right” and “Left” have little to do with this struggle; respect for others’ political ideology – and, most importantly, our common value placed upon Western human rights and our Common Freedoms are, in fact, and will be the one and only key and common uniting point to any future success of the Counter-Jihad Movement. To the extent Counter-Jihad parties can not or do not wish to show respect for these large numbers of individuals from the “Left” and elsewhere who wish to vote for Counter-Jihad parties, the Counter-Jihad parties are foregoing the opportunity to catch and keep these types of voters early on and while they still can.

As time goes by and the other mainstream political parties begin to embrace the truths and realities of Counter-Jihad politics, as has happened across the board in Denmark and to a far lesser extent in Germany, these voters – if unable to feel welcome in the Counter-Jihad parties – will eventually leave them behind and rejoin their own parties when and at the time those parties begin to understand the Counter-Jihad Argument. Thus, if the Counter-Jihad parties were now willing to make individuals from across the political spectrum feel welcome within our parties, these new individuals would likely feel a stronger bond with the new Counter-Jihad parties and not return to their original party from which they defected. As the leaders of the Counter-Jihad parties understand quite well, in order to maintain power and position in the future, the Counter-Jihad parties must both retain and increase the numbers of individuals who become voting members and show these new voting members that the Counter-Jihad parties are not merely “one issue” or “right-wing” parties.

Though it seems all of the Counter-Jihad politicians, party leadership, and the Counter-Jihad bloggers have permanently forgotten this simple fact then, as the behavior of Thilo Sarrazin and Villy Søvndal make adequately clear, defecting from one’s own prior party affiliation when it comes to those who are Counter-Jihad supporters, does not at all mean that these same people depart from their “Center”-, “Left”-, or “Right”-bearing political beliefs. That means, both the Counter-Jihad party and its politicians should be very careful about alienating not only the sizeable portion of those voters from the “Left” who have already come to the party – but also those who (if the party leadership actually refrained from constantly attacking the “Left”, thereby by implication actually inferring that the party is “far-Right”) otherwise might still come and join from other parties. However, where open and continuing attacks are made with a sole focus on the “Left”, a Counter-Jihad party risks continuing to lose those from the “Center”, “Left”, and “PC Right” who have already come over or who conceivably might have been persuaded in the future to join.

Thus, going back to the above statement of Mr. Wilders, each time he would merely spread out the blame for Political Correctness and the mass-immigration situation historically upon all parties, as is the case, and then frame his statements in the context of the common point of departure for the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right”, that is, human rights and our Common Freedoms, he would move both recruitment and the party’s image constantly forward step-by-step, person-by-person. Slowly but surely, people of all political stripes would and could become comfortable with the PVV and Counter-Jihad parties. The voters are there for the taking. As Sylvain Ephimenco, a French-Dutch writer for the “Leftist” Dutch Christian newspaper Trouw – who possesses clearly Counter-Jihad views – has said, “It is not at all true that Wilders gets his votes from the fringes, everyone knows that, even though they don't say it,” he told an Italian interviewer. “Today educated people vote for Wilders, although at first it was the lower class Dutch, the tattoo crowd. Many academics and people on the left vote for him. The problem is all of these Islamic headscarves. There’s a supermarket behind my house. When I arrived, there wasn’t a single headscarf. Now it’s all Muslim women with the chador at the register. Wilders is not Haider. His positions are on the right, but also on the left, he's a typical Dutchman.” (Emphasis supplied). In the case these facts would be recognized and reflected within the Counter-Jihad Movement, the dismissal and writing-off of the Movement as being simply made up of “Right-wing” parties and movements – and the stigmatizing use by journalists of such Counter-Jihad leaders’ negatively self-inflicted soundbites that paint their own Movement as “Right-wing” – would then just wear away and disappear.

A statement something like the following from Mr. Wilders in the future, therefore, would far more effectively achieve such a purpose:

“The truth has to be told because Islam-huggers within all parties in the Netherlands have caused these problems which they all have then repeatedly ignored. I would say to all those in the Netherlands who just like me and the PVV care for human rights but whom, unlike me and the PVV, out of well-meaning principle and political correctness, such as Job Cohen, are deluded into believing they must place religious ideas and the followers of certain religious ideas far beyond the pale of criticism and discussion: it is not my words, but your own silence about the dangers of Islam which has the negative influences.”

In the case that message were presented as a personal failure on the part of Mr. Cohen (not of his ideology and not by attacking his followers) as well as as an issue that must be dealt with by all individuals of all political stripes on behalf of a Counter-Jihad Movement concerned for the equal protection of the Common Freedoms of all people (including Muslims themselves), success would and could come far more quickly.

As further proof of the correctness of the ideas reflected in this piece comes the attack also launched on Mr. Wilders, this time from the “PC Right”. Mr. Mark Verheijen, Deputy Chairman of the so-called “right-wing Liberal VVD” attacked Mr. Wilders rather viciously and without basis. Mr. Verheijen, according to DutchNews.nl, “…launched his own stinging attack on Wilders using the microblogging service Twitter. 'Oh poor Geert,’” wrote Mr. Verheijen. “Who cares about 77 deaths. We almost forgot that HE [e.g. Mr. Wilders], of course, is Breivik's main victim.’” Surprisingly, Mr. Verheijen’s party is part of the ruling coalition with Mr. Wilder’s PVV. Even so, if Mr. Verheijen and his party do not share the same view of Islamism and the Counter-Jihad in the Netherlands as Mr. Wilders and the PVV, this means that – if the Counter-Jihad message is constantly crafted in the correct manner avoiding “Left”/”Right” ideologies and keeping the Argument to human rights and Common Freedoms – the VVD, following the logic of the German statistics cited above, would also be very obvious and fertile recruiting grounds for finding new members for the PVV. The point here is, whether recruiting from the “Center”, “Left”, or “Right”, as concerns specifically the Counter-Jihad issues, our one common Counter-Jihad Argument that is capable of winning increased membership in Counter-Jihad parties must be based in making clear to all the Islamist threat to every person’s Western Common Freedoms and the Counter-Jihad Movements desire to uphold them.

In the week following the Oslo Massacres, it was not only Mr. Wilders who fell into the trap of making ideological statements capable of repelling as opposed to attracting new voters. Mr. Robert Spencer also veered into ideological argumentation, placing all blame for mass-immigration and the Counter-Jihad’s “Right-wing” label solely on the “Left”. In one article, he lashed out at the “Left” as if doing so were somehow going to change the minds of unconvinced individuals of the “Center”, “Left”, and “PC Right” who long before have decided that the entire Counter-Jihad Movement – especially in light of the actions of Anders Behring Breivik – is, if nothing more, fully “Right-wing”. Again, vocal protestations that rail against and blame the “Left” (whether or not one may actually be correct in those protestations), has little to offer toward ever being able to convince any large portion of the general public or the mainstream media that the Counter-Jihad Movement is nothing but a “Right-wing” interest group through and through.

In his piece, Mr. Spencer starts out very well. He correctly desires to bring into question the general public and the media’s portrayal of the Counter-Jihad Movement – especially in light of Breivik’s terrible crimes – as being “Right-wing”. He begins quite successfully and correctly by writing that people of all ideological beliefs are involved in the Counter-Jihad Movement:

A note about this “far right” and “right-wing” business: this is how I am routinely characterized, as are my fellow anti-jihadists – Hegghammer is merely following the herd. But what is the substance of this mainstream media moniker? Actually, there is no substance to it whatsoever. I have never taken a public position on any other issue besides jihad and Islamic supremacism. I've worked with people who are deeply religious and socially conservative and with people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan are atheists; Geert Wilders' party is not justifiably called "right-wing" on any issue except jihad. Pim Fortuyn was a gay activist. Yet all of us and all the other anti-jihadists I could name are “far right” for the sole reason that we oppose the advance of Islamic law in the West.

Up to this point, everything is written quite well and fully on point. Mr. Spencer then also notes quite appropriately another point, which bears also on and supports my own assertions that those who resist the Counter-Jihad Argument and remain unconvinced – on the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – all believe that they are standing squarely in the political middle and protecting the human rights and Common Freedoms of all people as rightly do all people who condemn bigotry. We know, of course, within the Counter-Jihad Movement that those, for example, in the general public and the press who do not recognize and understand the dangers of Islamism are innocently and unwittingly (not intentionally, as Mr. Spencer and others have accused at times) supporting the cause of Islamic supremacism and Jihad. He writes:

In “…a spectacular manifestation of intellectual incoherence, the mainstream media also considers ‘far right’ those who want to see Islamic law advance in the West and everywhere else – see, to take just one of many readily available examples, this Associated Press article that calls the pro-Sharia forces in Egypt ‘ultraconservative.’”

As with the above, the point of view taken by the mainstream media should also not be much of a surprise. In Mr. Spencer’s quote here, we see a well-respected and well-meaning Counter-Jihad blogger and author complaining that the mainstream media considers both Islamic supremacists and the Counter-Jihad Movement as being “Right-wing” – that is, as being a danger to our Common Freedoms. He refers to this as “intellectual incoherence.” Actually, the thought, if one looks to understand points of view neutrally, is fully coherent and completely consistent with all observations laid out in this article here; the general public and the mainstream media have some real fears and mistrusts of these two opposing factions, both Islamist supremacists and – most especially – the Counter-Jihad. These fears come actually as a result of our Western view of human rights and they are, without doubt, genuine concerns; they are not, as is often asserted by a few in the Counter-Jihad Movement, some “Marxist”, “Leftist”, or “Elitist” conspiracy. The general public and the mass media, because they have not considered important questions about the nature of Islamism, tend to see both the Counter-Jihad and Islamist supremacists each as “a small handful of extremists” of sorts. Why? The answer is very important, but takes little thought: Because both the Islamist supremacists and the Counter-Jihad – as long as the distinctions remain invisible due to the Counter-Jihad’s own misdirected, poorly-focused argument – seem to: 1) attack others based upon their religion; and 2) attempt to desire to limit the rights and Common Freedoms of others via the political system. Both are perceived as anti-democratic when, in fact, only one of these groups actually is.

That the Counter-Jihad always attacks the “Left” (but, when the need arises, works to correct only the “Right”) also leads the general public and the media to conclude that the Counter-Jihad Movement must be “Right-wing”; moreover, as just mentioned, that the Counter-Jihad always attacks Islamism and Islamists (e.g. a “religion” to be “protected” and “respected”) leads the general public and the media to conclude that the Counter-Jihad Movement must be religiously bigoted and, therefore, a severe danger to all of our Western human rights. Because the Western general public and the media generally do not understand that there are “moderate” Muslims but no “moderate” Islam, only violent Islamists and their teachings, most Westerners believe, should be condemned. All of the rest of Islam, however, in the eyes of the Western general public and the mass media, becomes seen as merely another victim caught tragically between both violent Islamist supremacists and a “bigoted” Counter-Jihad. It is specifically these points that the Counter-Jihad must succeed in distinguishing, addressing, and explaining. This can not be done successfully by merely attacking the “Left” as a political ideology or as people. Why? Because: 1) it only alienates voters and potential voters and causes the unconvinced to tune-out permanently; 2) it answers by inference the question for the general public and the mass media of whether the Counter-Jihad is actually “Right-wing” or not; and 3) it fails to actually ever address in any way the perceptions and facts that need to be addressed in order to get the unconvinced among the general public and the press to see the full picture with respect to the dangerous relationship between our human rights and Common Freedoms and Islamism/Islamists. The result leaves few Westerners ever willing to consider that Mohammad or a woman who would cover herself believe in any form of human rights that would or could be acceptable by Western standards.

In his article then, without taking into account any of the above, Mr. Spencer then drives his argument, literally and figuratively, over the edge. How does he do this? He does this by unloading on a vague, indefinable, nebulous group known as the “hard-Left politically correct media elites” (as if such a limited and readily definable group actually exists) who, it is asserted, actively hate the West and conspire against “you” to limit the free flow of information available to us all. As opposed to being people who simply have views and concerns about human rights and our Common Freedoms and who, as a result, stick to that view, these are people who want to control us from afar. Mr Spencer writes:

And that reveals the substance of this media label: something that is "far right" or "right wing" or "conservative" simply means something that the hard-Left politically correct media elites don't like, and don't want you to like. They dislike both anti-jihadists in the West and Sharia supremacists in the Middle East, although they hate the former much more than they do the latter, whom they disapprove of but tolerate. After all, they do have their hatred of America and the West in common.

As I have written previously, this has little to do with “dislike” or “hatred” of anybody or anything. In the minds of the “Left” – just as in the minds of we involved in the Counter-Jihad Movement – all people believe themselves to be standing up for human rights and religious freedoms. “Dislike” or “hatred” of America or the West have nothing at all to do with any of it. To the extent any of these people have issues with America or the West (or its history), it is always based in their concern for the human rights of those not like us due to their (incorrect) perception that America and the West have been the oppressors of the World. It has nothing to do with “hate” or political ideology. It has solely to do with their perceptions of human rights and a perceived track record of violations of human rights. Make such people aware of actual history and historical fact and the objections will begin to disappear. But to do that, one must first get people to listen (as opposed to denigrate them and their politics and, thereby, make them dismiss you and your message) and then make the Counter-Jihad Argument.

It should be noted that there is a very dangerous downside to simplifying the motivations of the “Left” to “dislike” or “hatred of the West” or some other larger conspiracy of some type or another. When one defines terms and people in these ways and then places these same terms and people in such categories, one no longer needs to make an argument that appeals to facts and reason. Instead of taking up the Argument, one can simply label the entire indefinable group as being beyond reason and, therefore, “lost”. As is often the case, an attack on the “Left” blooms – not into some understanding that these “Leftists” actually really do believe they are defending what they love about America, the West, and human rights – but instead it descends into allegations and accusations of malice that this nebulous “Left” have an extreme conspiratorial “…hatred of America and the West in common.” That is definitely no way to move the Counter-Jihad Movement forward together nor any way to convince the unconvinced and gain or keep new voters or supporters.

The truth, as presented by Mr. Spencer in the above instance, is factually contrary; these people, whoever among the “Left” they are (the “hard-Left politically correct media elites”), actually do love America and West. However, they genuinely believe that the openness and tolerance that has created and characterized the West must be carefully watched and upheld – even for the latest group it sees as persecuted “victims” of “bigotry”, that is, Muslims (wherever one finds them). These generally well-meaning Western journalists and those who see people and events in a similar light have yet to understand that many new Muslim immigrants, contrary to all those immigrants who have arrived previously in our countries to stay, all across the West – even back in their own home countries as well – are showing themselves to have Koranic-centered demands for separation from and a steady undoing and disappearance of the Common Freedoms and institutions that all Westerner’s love. Fighting against the closing of borders to certain immigrants or speaking out against criticism of a certain religion, is for the unconvinced of the “Center”, “Left”, and “PC Right”, an expression of their love for the West and its values. It’s not “hatred” of “America and the West.” The Counter-Jihad Movement must take note of this. Few of these well-meaning people, we need to realize, have ever considered what happens when a “religion” one protects is in so many ways little different than Hitler’s National Socialist fascism, yet even more dangerous because it is based on a blood-thirsty “god” and his so-called “prophet” warrior. Accordingly, Mr. Spencer’s argument on this occasion is not only fully off the mark, continually railing against the “Left” and painting conspiracy theories of “…hatred of America and the West…” and “hard-Left politically correct media elites” (a group that by its own definition is indefinable) quite ironically and sadly only succeeds in confirming for the general public and the mainstream media that the Counter-Jihad is fully “Right-wing” and as blameworthy as Islamic supremacists. This should not surprise any of us.

Mr. Spencer, in the initial quote cited above, also wrote there that he has “…never taken a public position on any other issue besides jihad and Islamic supremacism.” That would have been very helpful to our Counter-Jihad Movement and our political parties were it fully and consistently true. However, when one regularly and continually labels and blasts a political ideology held by a very large portion of the electorate (the “Left”), in the U.S. and abroad, it is incorrect to say one has “never” taken a public position on politics. On that note, productively or not, deservedly or not, Mr. Spencer refers to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic as a “Leftist dhimmi”, Michael Isikoff of NBC as a “Leftist tool”, and he writes, among other things, that the Southern Poverty Law Center [an American legal aid group that most often represents minority rights], is “…a hard-Left propaganda outfit that defames everyone to its right….” No doubt, some of the cases that the Southern Poverty Law Center takes up make me scratch my own head, however, I understand where their heart is and have no doubts that they mean well. Stopping them from doing their well-meaning but damaging best, however, requires us to make and stick to the Counter-Jihad Argument as first defined in Part I of this essay.

Lastly, on another recent occasion, on the blog, Human Events, in an otherwise good and informative article, Mr. Spencer writes:

It is ironic that the Left is so energetically pursuing this campaign [to tie me to Breivik], given that as soon as they get the chance, the Islamic supremacists for whom Leftists are carrying water will extinguish the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, equality of rights for women, and numerous other rights and freedoms that enlightened multiculturalists take for granted now. But by then it will be too late, as they will have silenced the only people who were sounding a warning. [….] Just as Leftists for years have positioned every statist and socialist measure they’ve come up with as “for the children,” now they’re using a massacre of youths in Norway to try to end all resistance to the global jihad.

Even if any one of these points could be said to be generally true, as a wise editor once told me, “Play the ball, not the man.” The “ball” in this case is the underlying reason for the discrepancy in the beliefs between those of us within the Counter-Jihad Movement – from the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – and those still caught up in Political Correctness and, for that reason, attacked by Mr. Spencer. The “ball” is that difference in points of view that causes each of us, including even Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Isikoff, to believe that we are each standing up for human rights and our Common Freedoms. Changing the views of those unconvinced by our Movement thus far will be achieved not by attacking others’ political ideologies, their intelligence, their loyalty, or their character, but by explaining and providing evidence via the Counter-Jihad Argument for why standing up for Islamists and Islamism is actually not a defense of religion, but – as daily news from across the West and the world shows us clearly each day – is detrimental to the human rights and Common Freedoms of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That is the Argument we must, day-by-day, debate-by-debate, put forth and win.

To Mr. Spencer’s great credit, he has bravely stood up on many occasions and continued to ask very hard questions about “Conservative” leaders and their beliefs about or ties to Islamists – as well he always should. However, in challenging individuals such as, for example, U.S. presidential candidate Rick Perry, it is never a question of Mr. Spencer’s attacking the “Right” with a broad brush or a candidate or followers as “Rightists” or “Right-wing”; instead, ideology is very rightly put aside and Mr. Spencer attacks these “Conservative” individuals’ relationships to and ideas about Islamist movements – exactly as he should. Were he and others in the Counter-Jihad Movement to apply the same approach consistently in all directions politically – always attacking the “ball” (that is, the lack of consistency in supporting our Common Freedoms vis-à-vis Islamism regardless of party ideology) and never the “man” (that is, the person in question or his or her political ideology) – the Counter-Jihad Movement and the struggle against Islamization would benefit greatly as a whole. It would also see its membership increase. It would see a strong increase in people of all political backgrounds who actually begin to see and understand the dangers of Islamism and, importantly, it would be spared further associations with “Right-wing” extremism (actual or perceived) and any Breivik-like individuals in the future. By attacking one specific ideology, as has been the case, repeatedly over time – and thereby fully leaving behind any traces of one’s own neutrality – it should not be a surprise that Counter-Jihad bloggers, politicians, and our Movement itself is and will immediately be associated with the opposite political ideology of that which we eternally attack – regardless of the political issue or whether one desires this outcome or not.

Again, that should, of course, not come as a surprise. When, to make matters worse for the entire Counter-Jihad Movement, one’s attacks on the “Left” then turn up cited on numerous occasions in the ramblings of a mass murderer who shared a far more exaggerated lack of understanding and concern about the “Left” and its “conspiracies”, it should also not be a big surprise that the general public and the mass media would be horrified and see “Right-wing” extremism, “hatred”, or “incitement” even where, in the case of Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller, for example, it clearly is nowhere at all to be found. Had Mr. Spencer and other bloggers proactively and preventatively followed the approach suggested here – and as followed in Mr. Spencer’s own initial quote above – regarding all people “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” being involved in the Counter-Jihad and all people “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” being involved in initially causing these problems and mistakes that we are all now suffering from across the West, had he and others done that, Breivik would have only found the Counter-Jihad part of their work to be interesting and the general public and the mainstream media would have had far less reason to paint these bloggers – and worse yet the Counter-Jihad political parties and certain specific politicians – as being “Right-wing” “extremists”.

Failures such as these have consequences. A recent survey reported in The Swedish Wire during the week after Breivik’s terrorist attack underlines the importance of these points. The survey of Norwegians “…showed that a quarter of those questioned had since the attacks grown more positive to the ‘multicultural’ society Behring Breivik declared war on in his self-proclaimed ‘crusade’ against a ‘Muslim invasion’ of Europe.” As Ann-Helen Bay, head of Oslo's Institute for Social Research, explained to AFP, the greatest change she expects to see in the wake of the Breivik attacks will be seen in the political debate, most especially with respect to immigration. “The polarization,” explained Bay, “will be weaker. This should lead to some kind of reconciliation and maybe to increased tolerance on both sides.” Though “reconciliation” and “tolerance” are good, effects such as these will make the discussion and explanation of valid concerns about Islamism and Islamists only that much more difficult to make in public forums. That, in turn, will make success in the Counter-Jihad Movement far more dependent upon establishing a genuine connection with people’s understandings and lack of understandings regarding human rights issues and our Common Freedoms. Accessing the unconvinced among us, however, due to the “Right-wing” label having been now branded upon the Counter-Jihad Movement by Breivik’s lunacy and the Movement’s own missteps, will now become far more difficult to achieve. Despite the difficulty, however, if successful, this could help to dispel stereotypes of the Counter-Jihad Movement being something limited merely to “Right-wing” maniacs.

As a practical matter, it should be pointed out here as well that the reality and existential needs of Counter-Jihad bloggers and writers then, contrary to intuition perhaps, often runs directly counter to the reality and existential needs of the Counter-Jihad political parties and their politicians. And to the extent that Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians remain stuck in acting in the same ideologically-driven manner as the Counter-Jihad bloggers do, for example, or fail to attract voters or take into the party and its leadership individuals from the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” who are committed to the Counter-Jihad Argument and the Common Freedoms, ideological agitation will continue to seriously restrain and hinder the ability of Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians to attract and retain a broad spectrum of voters that spans the political spectrum. The results, of course, are adequately described above; a slow-burning end to the West. On the other hand, where Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians move away from walking in lock-step with any one political ideology or, for that matter, with Counter-Jihad bloggers and authors who damage the Movement by continually self-identifying based upon political ideology alone, the Counter-Jihad political parties and their representatives will gain greatly in perceived independence and political and social legitimacy and can far more easily remove all arguments from the opposition, whether ideologically-driven or not, for painting the Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians as simply consisting of a “Right-wing”, “neo-Nazi”, or “populist” phenomena made up of “hatemongers”, “bigots”, “fascists”, and “racists”.

For Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians who would challenge, publicly and in private, Counter-Jihad bloggers and authors to keep to a non-ideological and human rights-based expression of the Counter-Jihad Argument, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Where (as will be discussed in more detail in the final essay, Part VI) a Counter-Jihad political party bans – temporarily or otherwise – a blogger or writer from obtaining access to its politicians or in taking part in their party’s activities, conferences, speaking and publicity opportunities, the mainstream press will certainly at times take positive notice. Since such a ban would have resulted from the Counter-Jihad blogger or writer’s ideologically-based attacks on political opponents, this would immediately benefit the political party and the politician by providing examples to the public that show that the Counter-Jihad party in question is fully committed and open to having as both members and party leaders all individuals who possess views from all parts of the political spectrum – all of whom, however, embrace and work to promote the Counter-Jihad Argument and those Common Freedoms held by all Westerners, “Center”, “Left”, and “Right”.

In the above ways, laying down rules and expectations (as will be addressed in Part VI of these essays) for ideologically obsessed Counter-Jihad bloggers and authors (whether on the “Left” or “Right”) would have an immediate positive effect for Counter-Jihad political parties. Such efforts would show the general voting public that such a Counter-Jihad political party – even in light of a horrific terrorist strike such as that carried out by Breivik – is not merely “populist” or “Right-wing” nor a mere blind puppet bound to supporting some “extreme right-wing” political ideology or group. Having insight and foresight with respect to the positions that brought the Counter-Jihad into a very uncomfortable connection with regard to the Oslo tragedy – and the potential for any repeats of such in the future – would best allow the Movement to avoid altogether any further backlashes and fallout that would or could arise from any further massacres as occurred this past summer in Oslo.

In the next installment of these essays (Part III) we will take an in-depth look into the troubling mind and beliefs of the Oslo terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, both from the point of view of religion and politics. In comparing Breivik’s views with those of Friedrich Nietzsche, Alexander Tille, Adolf Hitler, and Hanns Kerrl, we look at some of the challenges posed to the Counter-Jihad Movement by Breivik’s disturbing thoughts and actions.

 

The author, writing under the pseudonym Peter Carl, is an independent non-partisan advisor to a sitting American congressperson and a strategic political researcher and consultant on international and comparative political and public policy issues. He is also a member of the American Committees on Foreign Relations. The author maintains contacts with numerous present and former ambassadors from both the U.S. and European countries, a number of whom are serving or have served in the Middle East. Similarly, he also maintains contacts with present and formerly elected representatives from parties across the political spectrum who have been elected to the U.S. Congress, the EU Parliament, and various national parliaments within Europe. Fluent in five languages and possessing elementary abilities in others, the author was trained and works as an international attorney and possesses a Masters Degree in Public Policy from the top-ranked public affairs program in the United States.

The terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” are used in this piece in recognition of relevant and applicable European Union directives or national laws, while duly noting valid and correct concerns over these terms and any uses of such terms.

 

Other parts of this series:

Part I: The Conversation

Part III: Breivik v. Hitler

Part IV: On Politics and Nazis

Part V: Winston's Wars

Part VI: Back From The Brink

 

______________________

NOTES