Nina Witoszek: Europe has learned little from history

"The contemporary dream of Europe is concerned with a continent which, according to progressive philosophers and sociologists like Habermas or Beck, ought to be maximally tolerant and open. It is a Europe which hates war and desires to leave its demonic history behind. But this Europe worried Kolakowski because it reminded him of Switzerland and Sweden. Both countries have become idols of modernity due to their tolerant pacifism and wealth, which covered lies, cowardice and collaboration with the devil. And both were completely unable to resist the totalitarian evil of the Nazi-regime. They waited for the Americans, Russians, British and Poles to do the dirty work for them."

Source: Norway, Israel and the Jews blog

When Nina Witoszek first arrived in Oslo, she was surprised at how much support the political left were willing to give the oppressive regime she had left behind in Poland. The poor woman was yet to learn exactly how deep the rabbit hole went. Now, years later, her insights and understanding makes her a key participant in debates on Norwegian society. Below, an unauthorised translation from Witoszek’s op-ed in today’s Aftenposten - Norway’s second largest daily:
_______________________

Protest: Why were the protests against the war in Gaza so much larger than the ones against the terror of Iran’s regime?

Europe has learned little from history
Nina Witoszek, professor and author

Leszek Kolakowski, an Oxford-philosopher and one of the wisest men on earth, used to say: "England is an island in Europe. Oxford is an island in England. All Souls College is an island in Oxford. And I am an island in All Souls." He died there on July 17, 81 years old.

For me he was less of an island and more of a lighthouse who has sent lifesaving light to those who are about to drown on the stormy seas of modernity. If Arne Næss was a philosopher behind the green bible of modernity, Kolakowski was the sharp anatomist of totalitarianism who revealed its fatal attraction. He started as a rabid Marxist at the university of Warsaw, but instead of dreaming about the final triumph of communism, he mercilessly analyzed its inevitable transformation from a beautiful vision to a bestial, de-civilizing project.

Expelled. After having been expelled from Poland for his "revisionism", he wrote The Main Current of Marxism (1972), the most brutal and brilliant detonation of Marxism in political philosophy. He was obsessed with the paradox of liberal society - its tendency to become its own enemy by tolerating forces which would destroy individual liberties.

The contemporary dream of Europe is concerned with a continent which, according to progressive philosophers and sociologists like Habermas or Beck, ought to be maximally tolerant and open. It is a Europe which hates war and desires to leave its demonic history behind.

But this Europe worried Kolakowski because it reminded him of Switzerland and Sweden. Both countries have become idols of modernity due to their tolerant pacifism and wealth, which covered lies, cowardice and collaboration with the devil. And both were completely unable to resist the totalitarian evil of the Nazi-regime. They waited for the Americans, Russians, British and Poles to do the dirty work for them.

This is then a Europe which has learned little from history and has become blind to the global advance of totalitarianism.

We saw how the war in Gaza last year led to violent demonstrations and hateful declarations against Israel. Six months later hundreds of demonstrators were killed or arrested in Teheran when they protested against the results of the Iranian presidential elections. There have hardly been any solidarity actions for the opposition to the newly elected totalitarian regime. Was this because the protests were discerned to be an internal Iranian affair?

Three explanations. I have three Kolakowski-inspired explanations for the tepid response of the European elites to Iran’s anti-authoritarian rebellion. One is that Europe’s progressive circles admire Islam a religion of poor underdogs, and Ahmadinejad is the king of the underdogs.

The other is that our pro-Islamic attitudes actually disguise an anti-Arabic (and anti-Persian) racism: maybe we expect nothing of "Muslim barbarians" in Palestine or Iran, while we demand from a besieged Israel a European tolerance for fanatical Islamists?

The third explanation is that our cultural elites might be continuing their romance with totalitarian leaders and movements. Maybe they do not cry out against Ahmadinejad because they perceive the Iranian rebellion against Imams as an expression of the bourgeois ideology of the middle classes? Maybe Ahmadinejad - the man who speaks openly of annihilating Israel - in fact is a beloved tyrant who has replaced Stalin or Hoxha?

What would Kolakowski have said? Today we need the clarifying light from his lonely island more than ever - but the light has gone out.
_______________________