Jo Cox, ISIS & the far-right
The hatred that killed Jo Cox was shocking and brutal. While we commemorate her as a human being and appreciate everything she stood for, we ask ourselves what the murder tells us about the world we live in.
It is not an exaggeration to say that our world has been rocked by public executions numerous times over the past few years. In 2011 we saw the horrible killings on Utoya, where Anders Breivik executed 77 people. In 2013 Lee Rigby was killed on the streets of London in broad daylight with the aftermath caught on camera. ISIS has wreaked havoc and misery on the streets of Paris and Brussels and now Jo Cox was killed, leaving behind her two young children and a nation in shock.
In a statement, Cox’s widower Brendan Cox said the MP would have wanted everyone to unite and “fight against the hatred that killed her”. In Cox’s case, that hatred was inspired by the far-right. Her killer, Thomas Mair subscribed to numerous publications, for instance from the Springbok Cyber Newsletter, which describes itself on its website as being pro-free market capitalism, patriotism and anti-political correctness. Other affiliations Mair associated with spoke of being against “multi-cultural societies” and “expansionist Islam.”
Those statements sound eerily familiar. We continuously read similar views in mainstream newspapers and from some of the establishment figures who championed Brexit. Of course we can speculate to what extent extremists are encouraged by more mainstream versions of their arguments, as promoted by Donald Trump in the US, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or Nigel Farage in the UK, but looking at the rise of far-right forces within Europe and across the pond in the US, we don’t just see ideological affiliations, but an increasing organisational unity forming. Fascism might just be making a camouflaged comeback, both electorally and below the surface. And the growth of these forces inevitably pulls the entire political spectrum more to the right. Again, the Brexit campaign made this painfully clear:
How memories of fascism quickly fade into oblivion….
Speaking of fascism, plenty has been said about the abhorrent views of Islamic State. Embedded in their world view lies the belief that it is justified to kill anyone who doesn’t ascribe to their xenophobic, fascist, exclusivist vision. Their hatred seems indiscriminate and this makes it so vicious and frightening.
Islamic State was built on the ruins of war, extreme violence, sectarian conflict and the unravelling of nation-states. It was encouraged, supported and facilitated by the financial might of Gulf States like Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, but also by Turkey. IS’s vision was fed and shaped by a poisonous, murderous version of Wahhabism, a medieval, fringe interpretation of Islam promoted by the Saudi royal family to expand their dictatorial and semi-fascist influence across the Middle-East and indeed the wider world as well. In spite of being deeply unpopular among the vast majority of Muslims, in whose name they claim to speak, the influence of ISIS reaches far, reflecting the larger forces which finance and facilitate its might.
The Far-Right & ISIS; two sides of the same coin?
The far-right in Europe and ISIS are actually similar in many ways. They share a hatred of diversity, and promote a narrow, reactionary response to some of the challenges of our globalized world.
Both far-right ideologies seem obsessed with the apparent decline of traditional standards, unable to cope with change, and trapped in a hatred of all those not deemed part of the in-group while prepared to take action to “defend” tradition against degeneracy. Both currents have developed a virulent hatred of the people they see as ‘traitors.’ Perhaps this explains why Thomas Mair told the judge his name was ‘death to traitors, freedom for Britain.’ He hated outside intruders, but despised (what he deemed to be) collaborators, even more. Anders Breivik chose his victims similarly. He didn’t open fire on a Mosque or perhaps a gathering of immigrants, but on young members of the social-democratic party in Norway, whom he held responsible for actively selling out his country to what he called ‘cultural Marxism.’
Anders Breivik equated this cultural Marxism to ‘political correctness,’ something which he identified as being at the roots of cultural decay. Readers from Jersey will find chilling parallels between Breivik’s manifesto and the incoherent ramblings of Mark Proudfoot, who similarly identifies political correctness as the defining dynamic of our time. (he has somehow missed impending climatic catastrophe, economic decline, peak oil production, nuclear proliferation, the unravelling of nation-states, growing inequality and the rise of extremism, but hey, he’s got some cash, so why would he care…:)
Below the surface lies a criticism of the embrace of diversity in a rapidly changing world. Rather than considering the emergence of multi-cultural societies as a natural consequence of an ever-expanding economic system (capitalism), Wilders, Le Pen, Breivik, Proudfoot and many others see this as being the result of an overly educated and liberal elite who indulges in cultural relativism, at the expense of firm values, rooted in Judeo-Christianity.
Similarly, while ISIS attacks on Westerners attract most media attention, the main targets of their indiscriminate violence are Muslims or, at any rate, the Muslims who they see as degenerates or indeed, traitors. Their asccendancy in Iraq and Syria has sparked the sectarianism which is currently ripping through the Middle-East.
So both ISIS and the far-right in Europe single out the people or groups they blame for the decline of their societies, something which has been brought on by outsiders (ie. Western imperialism; immigrants) but aided by the dangerous elements within (other religious or ethnic groups; the establishment in favour of multiculturalism). Seeing no other way of making themselves heard, both currents reach to violence.
There is something very dangerous about the rise of the extreme-right elements described above. Although on the surface they might seem different and distant, both the European far-right and the Islamist reactionaries represent a failure of progress and ultimately of hope. They both prey on deprivation, (class-) frustrations, growing insecurities and fear. They both conjure up the image of a past that was better, clearer, purer, more defined and they both use a combination of quite sophisticated imagery to appeal to wider audiences and violence connected to mythical heroism. Harking back to a mythical past can be very appealing to those who feel they have been betrayed. Especially if there is no credible alternative which looks towards the future. Brexit could very well be the dawn of a new politics of hope, a fresh start with a vision of the future. As things stand now however, we are set for more nastiness, more fear and more insecurity. The politics of fear are on the rise and we’d be damned if we forgot Edmund Burke’s famous saying: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.”
These are eventful times.
