View Full Version : The Geert Wilders trial
Thoughts? This is pretty big over here but it gets a lot of foreign attention as well.
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2463690.ece/First_day_in_Wilders_trial
Pat Condel pretty much sums up my thoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU
They can do as they please I don't care, the idiots put the islam itself on trial in their desire to silence Wilders, thx for that how stupid can you be. He can't be convicted because a judge will have to decide wether or not muslims are insulted, that is an opinion and thus it has no legal grounds. They made a very big mistake, best to feel the temperature of the water before taking a dive. I am furious they are trying it though, this is an attack on the freedom of speech, and millions of voters are on trial today.
Crazed Rabbit
01-21-2010, 11:31
It seems even bringing this to trial is a defeat for freedom of speech.
CR
InsaneApache
01-21-2010, 11:35
This trial offends me. Who do I complain to?
It seems even bringing this to trial is a defeat for freedom of speech.
CR
Next elections will be a triumph for freedom of speech, everybody is sick and tired of the incredibly intrusive socialist/christian government we have now. Even my mom is now voting for him out of protest, the idiots made a big mistake. It's really unlike anything we have seen before, the justice department correctly established that he hasn't done anything wrong, but the court itself took the initiative, absolutely unheard of and without question politically motivated, they will find that it is really they who are on trial.
Kralizec
01-21-2010, 12:14
It wasn't the CDA or PvdA who decided he should be prosecuted, Frag.
I don't think what Wilders did should be punishable under law, but the fact is, people have been prosecuted and convicted on those articles before. The idea that the Netherlands is becoming some sort of dictatorship specifically because Geert Wilders might be convicted is ridiculous. Geert is suffering from a messiah complex, I think :juggle:
It wasn't the CDA or PvdA who decided he should be prosecuted, Frag.
I don't think what Wilders did should be punishable under law, but the fact is, people have been prosecuted and convicted on those articles before. The idea that the Netherlands is becoming some sort of dictatorship specifically because Geert Wilders might be convicted is ridiculous. Geert is suffering from a messiah complex, I think :juggle:
If he gets convicted they can ban his party, which would be very convenient.
You are a student of law, if he gets convicted he will be convicted because of the opinion of a judge, as the judge has to decide wether or not muslims are to be offended and he lacks the expertise, high court will never accept it if he takes it higher, or maybe they will?
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 12:49
I suppose I should oppose this, being a liberal and all, but I hate the guy's guts so much I can't help but secretly hope for a conviction.
Also, FYI, the "opinion of a judge" is a well-motivated legal argument with legal standing. Not just some Geert-voting idiot screaming something stupid.
Also, FYI, the "opinion of a judge" is a well-motivated legal argument with legal standing. Not just some Geert-voting idiot screaming something stupid.
When it concerns the law, and in how far it should be applied, but the judge has to decide wether or not what Wilders said is offensive and there is no law against offense so that don't fly here. They have gotten themselves into a juridical minefield here.
but I hate the guy's guts so much I can't help but secretly hope for a conviction.
Oh be nice to my boy, he certainly crosses the line when it comes to good manners but he has his heart at the right place.
Tellos Athenaios
01-21-2010, 13:04
It is not at all clear cut whether or not Wilders' more extreme/rabid pronouncements were well within the law: a lot of that depends on context, and there is a significant difference between e.g. an argument about the Quran as an insidious violence-condoning disgrace to humanity comparing it with Mein Kampf; and e.g. an argument about the Quran as such a book in a broader diatribe against immigrants. EDIT: Basically the judge's verdict amounts to that: a better, more thorough verdict beside OM's assesment on whether or not Wilders' was guilty of the charges must be established; and to do so requires a full trial, by law.
IIRC: Nobody accused Sibbel & Jansen for their show in which they slammed the doomed-to-failure proposals by overzealous CDA types to explicitly forbid blasphemy by using a deliberately blasphemous portrayal of Mohamed (and lets face it that portrayal was scarcely more of a hagiography than is Wilders portrayal of the same Mohamed); nobody filed a complaint about that.
At any rate: It is likely that he would be cleared of all charges (which is why OM didn't prosecute in the first place) but that is a different matter.
I don't think they are, but I am not lawyer mind you, but I don't see anything coming from this except more seats which is fine with me (vote for PVV myself) I don't know Sibbel & Jansen but if they work for the state-television it's hardly surprising they didn't get any trouble over it like Gregorius Nekschot did. Juridically this is going to be interesting, politically things have been interesting for quite some time.
Tellos Athenaios
01-21-2010, 13:26
Sibbel has stage name Lebbis; they both earn their living on stage similar to Nahjib Amhali, Theo Maassen etc. That should remind you of who they are.
I don't watch tv, sorry never heard of them, sounds refreshing though. Know what you are talking about though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs&feature=PlayList&p=EE6E2F6B0601BD4C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
love this guy
Skullheadhq
01-21-2010, 13:39
This trial will only increase it's popularity and votes, so why complain?
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 13:48
When it concerns the law, and in how far it should be applied, but the judge has to decide wether or not what Wilders said is offensive and there is no law against offense so that don't fly here. They have gotten themselves into a juridical minefield here.
I do believe there are laws and jurisprudence in the subject field. This is undeniable. Wilders has made some very shady remarks about certain groups of people, as have people in the past. Presenting it as if the judge is tracking uncharted ground or stumbling around in the dark is a gross misrepresentation. The fact our little peroxide loving powermonger has said certain things that are extremely questionable, and I'm being charitable here.
but I hate the guy's guts so much I can't help but secretly hope for a conviction.
Oh be nice to my boy, he certainly crosses the line when it comes to good manners but he has his heart at the right place.
If "having your heart at the right place" includes a ruthless lust for power and an inexplicable hatred for people of a different background, then I respectfully decline.
This trial will only increase it's popularity and votes, so why complain?
Because they won't play fair and won't keep the debate where it belongs, and the parliament is where that is. They will use every trick at their disposal to be able to keep doing nothing. They did the same thing with Fortuyn, this has nothing to do with ideas on how to run a country but with a sick and tired political elite caught in their own game fighting for their existence by any means necesary.
If "having your heart at the right place" includes a ruthless lust for power and an inexplicable hatred for people of a different background, then I respectfully decline.
As long as lefties feel the need to cater every backward aspect of Islam I respectfully decline as well, he is quite popular among immigrants by the way, also muslims coming from hardline islamic society's like Iran. At this moment I don't really care what he kicks as long as he keeps doing it, we need a new government, I feel cornered and I will scratch and bite to get out.
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 13:54
I disagree. Most of the people who got the DA to charge him are most certainly not part of the political-bureaucratic elite (PvdA, VVD, CDA) you speak of. Just admit already that Wilders does more than simply be the brave knight fighting the seven-headed hydra of political incompetence called our current cabinet. Which, I might add, he doesn't do in the first place.
Can't they drop the charges if he promises to change his haircut?
It's horrible.
I disagree. Most of the people who got the DA to charge him are most certainly not part of the political-bureaucratic elite (PvdA, VVD, CDA) you speak of.
Amsterdam court took the initiative after the DA dropping charges, only one person can enforce that and that is the minister of justice, that is unheard of and a violation of our trias politica. The people putting the charges are funded by Oxam-Novib who recieve over 200 million euro's of tax money every year, among others. The hydra, yeah.
Louis VI the Fat
01-21-2010, 14:50
Can't they drop the charges if he promises to change his haircut?Didn't you hear? Wilders stopped dyeing his hair.
https://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8588/wilders.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/20090225-GeertWilders.jpg
Tellos Athenaios
01-21-2010, 15:22
Amsterdam court took the initiative after the DA dropping charges, only one person can enforce that and that is the minister of justice, that is unheard of and a violation of our trias politica.
No. OM was taken to court over the matter and ordered to prosecute. And I don't know where we got trias politica from here; but in any case the fundamental part of trias politica is that the 3 branches have the power to boss each other around to some extent (it is not merely curtailing each other), otherwise these could do as they pleased. And Dutch law works still differently; with more, much more power to courts than you might notice at first.
The people putting the charges are funded by Oxam-Novib who recieve over 200 million euro's of tax money every year, among others. The hydra, yeah.
Irrelevant; Oxfam-Novib is an international NGO not held to furthering the aims of whichever source their money comes from but held to furthering its own aims with anyone welcome to donate if they sympathize with these aims. The Dutch state expresses its sympathy with these goals by supporting the NGO with money; but that does not and should not mean its political elite can count on ‘favours’ of any kind in return.
Irrelevant; Oxfam-Novib is an international NGO not held to furthering the aims of whichever source their money comes from but held to furthering its own aims with anyone welcome to donate if they sympathize with these aims. The Dutch state expresses its sympathy with these goals by supporting the NGO with money; but that does not and should not mean its political elite can count on ‘favours’ of any kind in return.
But of course. No, Nederland bekend kleur and the AFA and the IS who are behind the charges, to name a few, are all directly funded via Oxam Novib who get 200 million a year. On top of what they already got. Feel free to check it out.
http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/250370/Oxfam-verzwijgt-subsidies-Nederland-Bekent-Kleur.htm
chew before swallowing, these 135 million are just government support by the way, so no you do not have a point, yes some fools give them money.
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 15:47
Amsterdam court took the initiative after the DA dropping charges, only one person can enforce that and that is the minister of justice, that is unheard of and a violation of our trias politica. The people putting the charges are funded by Oxam-Novib who recieve over 200 million euro's of tax money every year, among others. The hydra, yeah.
Erm no, the judiciary is independent. I'm not an expert, but if our democracy here works then the Minister of Justice does not decide what a court does and doesn't do.
What Tellos said is right. That the people who are bringing charges are funded by an NGO doesn't really say much about my argument, considering there are apparently plenty of people outside the political elite in our country who take great offense to what this character is saying. And they need money to press charges. Perhaps that should tell you something...
Ser Clegane
01-21-2010, 15:50
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/20090225-GeertWilders.jpg
Hmmm...
https://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9642/syndrome.png
Erm no, the judiciary is independent. I'm not an expert, but if our democracy here works then the Minister of Justice does not decide what a court does and doesn't do.
What Tellos said is right. That the people who are bringing charges are funded by an NGO doesn't really say much about my argument, considering there are apparently plenty of people outside the political elite in our country who take great offense to what this character is saying. And they need money to press charges. Perhaps that should tell you something...
They don't need any money as they can grow fat on unlimited budgets, they are just protecting their positions and it's going to end, they know that they will have to find a real job to prove their worth, the money is gone it is somewhere in Iceland and there isn't going to be any place for them very soon, they hold on to what they have and we are going to chop of whatever they are holding on to. There is a place and a time for everything, and here happens to be right now. They raped us and now I am going to rape them whenever my pickle allows it, c'est ca, had their warning a few years back and he is dead so now survival is key and I am going to hurt just about everything when I can even when it is irrational. If I have to be sorry, I forgot how to be sorry. Sick of this, a 12 year old girl being hit by a car by these pests.
I am sick of this mindless cruelty towards people who can't defend their selves, the old, the sick, the disabled. All they see is an easy target that is easy to rob.
I am sick of this mindless cruelty towards people who can't defend their selves, the old, the sick, the disabled. All they see is an easy target that is easy to rob.
This isn't related to Islam. This is related to cultural problems. Or does mr. Wilders seriously believe Muslims in Turkey, Syria, and Morocco are the same?
Get real, please.
Skullheadhq
01-21-2010, 16:37
@Frag
Can't win this discussion? Do what Geert would do, blame the left :clown:
This isn't related to Islam. This is related to cultural problems. Or does mr. Wilders seriously believe Muslims in Turkey, Syria, and Morocco are the same?
Get real, please.
I know, but it isn't me who is throwing it all on the same pile, the people coming to the defense are. The euro left had made it's choice and they have chosen the more radical aspects of the Islam. I sometimes wonder how many muslims have fallen prey to your best intention, or more like, how many lives these good intentions have ruined, can name you a few.
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 17:00
They don't need any money as they can grow fat on unlimited budgets, they are just protecting their positions and it's going to end, they know that they will have to find a real job to prove their worth, the money is gone it is somewhere in Iceland and there isn't going to be any place for them very soon, they hold on to what they have and we are going to chop of whatever they are holding on to. There is a place and a time for everything, and here happens to be right now. They raped us and now I am going to rape them whenever my pickle allows it, c'est ca, had their warning a few years back and he is dead so now survival is key and I am going to hurt just about everything when I can even when it is irrational. If I have to be sorry, I forgot how to be sorry. Sick of this, a 12 year old girl being hit by a car by these pests.
I am sick of this mindless cruelty towards people who can't defend their selves, the old, the sick, the disabled. All they see is an easy target that is easy to rob.
This is ridiculous. You extrapolate individual cases to a mindless mass of savages you term "them" and by which you mean "immigrants and those of immigrant descent" in this country. That is exactly why your fearless leader is on trial now. It is discriminatory, it is uncalled for, it is disgusting and it does not belong in the twenty-first century.
Skullheadhq
01-21-2010, 17:02
The euro left had made it's choice
That's the same old argument I told you he would make, all dutch righties do that. They all have the Cookies burnt? I bet the leftists did it thingie...
This is ridiculous. You extrapolate individual cases to a mindless mass of savages you term "them" and by which you mean "immigrants and those of immigrant descent" in this country. That is exactly why your fearless leader is on trial now. It is discriminatory, it is uncalled for, it is disgusting and it does not belong in the twenty-first century.
It aren't the immigrants when I am talking about 'them', they are welcome as long as they behave. I am talking about the immigration-industry and the socioloco-industry behind the costly problems.
Kralizec
01-21-2010, 20:01
If he gets convicted they can ban his party, which would be very convenient.
Not without a seperate trial. Wilders is being tried, not the PVV. It's not as if the PVV has such a degree of organisation that it will be extremely hard to build it all from scratch again, seeing as how it only has one member.
You are a student of law, if he gets convicted he will be convicted because of the opinion of a judge, as the judge has to decide wether or not muslims are to be offended and he lacks the expertise, high court will never accept it if he takes it higher, or maybe they will?
The idea that laws should be written so clearly that judges only have to apply them without any mental effort has been rejected 200 years ago as unworkable. Wether punching someone repeatedly in the face is a form of "mishandeling" is also a matter of opinion, as the article itself offers no definition at all.
Of course feeling offended by a statement doesn't necessarily mean said statement is a crime. Wilders is being charged for insulting groups on purpose, over an extended period of time, plus inciting hatred etc.
I'm not a big fan of articles 137c till g (wich basically prohibit insulting groups and whatnot) myself. But people other than Wilders have been convicted for it the last 70 years (look here (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echtpaar_Goeree) for an old but famous case) including recent years. Why should I feel especially bothered about Wilders being prosecuted? :juggle2:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-21-2010, 21:00
Andres:
I heartily concur.
Geert Wilders now goes on my list of celebrities to receive "special treatment."
List includes: The NFL's Jimmy Johnson, Donald Trump and Don King. All such :clown: hair must be eliminated for the good of the species.
Louis VI the Fat
01-21-2010, 21:37
Wilders must die his hair blond because....he must disguise he is of Indonesian heritage.
Yes, it's true. Like (my second Godwin in two posts!) the more a Nazi looked Central-European / Jewish, the louder they squeeked about Blond Superhumans and 'foreign elements' or alien blood.
Wilders hates Muslims because he blames them for the misery of his family, which lost out in Indonesia (the world's largest Islamic country, supressed by generations of his family). He is on a personal crusade to avenge his family and to psychologically 'purge' himself of his own foreign blood.
Wilders should not be in politics, nor stand before a judge. He should be brought before a shrink to help him cope with his mixed-race identity problems.
According to anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen, writing in the weekly De Groene Amsterdammer, populist politician and patriot Geert Wilders is not quite as Dutch as he seems. Her researches reveal that he is descended from a Jewish-Indonesian family by the name of Meijer. Nor did his grandfather serve as a soldier in the Dutch East Indies, as Wilders claims. He was a civil servant who was sacked in 1934 while on leave with his family in the Netherlands and could not afford to return. Van Leeuwen also says that Wilders’ iconic hair is, in fact, bleached ‘to disguise his origins’.http://www.thehagueonline.com/headlines/2009-09-03/wilders-of-indonesian-descent
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 22:49
I've heard that before. According to my Indo friends (Indo =/= Indonesian, rather it's a creole people of Dutch and mostly Sundanese/Javanese descent) it's merely a rumor in the Indo community. Could be, though.
EDIT: Fun thing about that study, or at least that article, is that it's trying to use Wilders's extremely flawed argument (zomg they're not ethnically Dutch, oh, the horror!) against him.
It aren't the immigrants when I am talking about 'them', they are welcome as long as they behave. I am talking about the immigration-industry and the socioloco-industry behind the costly problems.
Heh, it's only after being called out over remarks like that, that PVV supporters like you start to qualify their remarks.
Aemilius Paulus
01-21-2010, 23:13
Heh, it's only after being called out over remarks like that, that PVV supporters like you start to qualify their remarks.
Does/did Fragony deny or confirm his support for PVV?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-21-2010, 23:30
Does/did Fragony deny or confirm his support for PVV?
I think Fragony has explicitly stated he isn't a Wilders fan, but would vote for him because he is the "least worst."
The Wizard
01-21-2010, 23:54
He just stated in this thread that he votes PVV...
Aemilius Paulus
01-22-2010, 00:15
He just stated in this thread that he votes PVV...
Bah, shame on me :wall::whip:. And to think I pride myself for always reading the whole thread, no matter how long, before posting - a rule I have yet to break (but really, I do it because primarily I like to read threads so much, even when they are unrelated old threads).
My apologies :shame:.
Louis VI the Fat
01-22-2010, 00:55
I've heard that before. According to my Indo friends (Indo =/= Indonesian, rather it's a creole people of Dutch and mostly Sundanese/Javanese descent) it's merely a rumor in the Indo community. Could be, though.
EDIT: Fun thing about that study, or at least that article, is that it's trying to use Wilders's extremely flawed argument (zomg they're not ethnically Dutch, oh, the horror!) against him.
Do you know who looks like Wilders? Another famous Dutchman of mixed Dutch-Indonesian race:
https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4640/eddievanhalen28199329.jpg
That's right. It's Edward Van Halen, one of my favourite guitarists. Picture him with blond hair and you get Wilders.
https://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8588/wilders.jpg
Wilders may dye his hair blonde and deny all (does he?), but I can see why there would be a rumour in the Indonesian Dutch community. As with all ethnic communities, they will be acutely aware of what the faces of their group look like.
Wilders can't fool me either. :whip:
Van Halen ownownowns, and I recognise the distinct similarity between the two Van Halen brothers and Wilders. And Eddie never made a problem of his mixed-heritage or why he should look so non-Dutch. It is simply that Muslim Indonesian blood in his family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swzh0ngMNJo
Check the drummer and guitarist, picture them with Wilders' hair and the similarity is obvious.
The Wizard
01-22-2010, 01:00
Dude, I know many Indo's personally. Trust me, Wilders is a lot whiter than most of them (as are the Van Halens, who are half-Indo FYI). Though he could be, there is a vague resemblance. Yet that could just as well be something entirely different, it's that vague.
Louis VI the Fat
01-22-2010, 01:04
Vague? The first time I saw Wilders I thought he was from the Congo he's so black.
Wilders' mother was born in Soekaboemi, Dutch East Indies.[10] In a biography, Wilders himself seems to play down his Indo heritage.[11] Anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen analyses Wilders' Eastern heritage with the concept of displacedness, and classifies his standpoints as "post-colonial revanchism". This analysis is met with agreement in Indo communities.[10] However, in an interview, Wilders denied van Leeuwens' speculations.[12]
Edit: Bless Wiki links:
Geert Wilders is surprisingly popular with immigrants who came to the Netherlands from the former Dutch East Indies. The key, believes anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen, lies in the populist politician's own convoluted family history.
If you consider the evidence, says Lizzy van Leeuwen, Geert Wilders is himself a second generation immigrant. His mother was born in Sukabumi, in what is now Indonesia. His grandfather, Johan Ording, was a civil servant in the colonial administration and his grandmother, Johanna, belonged to a mixed blood family.
Could that have played a role in the development of Mr Wilders' preoccupation with territorial issues? "It's possible," says Ms Van Leeuwen. She knows of dozens of immigrants from the East Indies who have roughly similar ideas. But actual evidence? She admits there is none.
More significant is that people from the Dutch East Indies will immediately recognize Mr Wilders as one of their own. Despite the bleached hair. "I interviewed more than a hundred elderly immigrants. They see him as what they call an 'Indies boy'. As someone who tells the truth."
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants
He just stated in this thread that he votes PVV...
Yeah I do that so what, PVV isn't like the BNP or it's kinds.
@Louis, yes he is very popular with indo- dutchies, but I would seek the cause of that somewhere else, they don't really get along.
van Leeuwens is the leftist church at it's most pathetic by the way, we don't react in the same way when somebody says 'Israeli spy' or 'Indo heritage' as lefties do, nice try. And they try.
edit wait, it was more pathetic that he can't find a muslim girl, gawd lefties
The Wizard
01-22-2010, 01:33
Nobody in this country reacts in any way to Indo heritage anymore. It's become completely uncontroversial. As will be the case with all our minorities 50 years from now.
Louis: Hmm, didn't know that. But as said, half-Indo. And erm, what does it matter? Such a character, if he does hate Islam because of his heritage, is part of a tiny minority within Indo society. As an aside, I sincerely doubt he hates Muslims because of his heritage. There is plenty within this country's dominant ethnic Dutch majority which can produce just such an attitude, and readily does as proven by the legions of (prospective) PVV voters. Dismissing it as the outdated grudge of a minority seems incredibly easy and apologetic of ethnic Dutch society, especially on the countryside.
It is not the only reason, but might be the reason for this irrational hatred for Islam.
Nobody in this country reacts in any way to Indo heritage anymore. It's become completely uncontroversial.
They expected we would, out of the many dirty tricks this one was nasty.
Oh come on Fragony, dr. Van Leeuwen was simply giving a reason for his hatred for Islam. What did you expect, that "the left" would have suspected people wouldn't vote for him just because he's Indo?
Get real please, do you honestly think we retreat into a low-profile location every week to discuss how to get as many immigrants into the Netherlands as possible and piss people off at the same time?
Louis VI the Fat
01-22-2010, 02:50
Yeah I do that so what, PVV isn't like the BNP or it's kinds.
@Louis, yes he is very popular with indo- dutchies, but I would seek the cause of that somewhere else, they don't really get along.
van Leeuwens is the leftist church at it's most pathetic by the way, we don't react in the same way when somebody says 'Israeli spy' or 'Indo heritage' as lefties do, nice try. And they try.
edit wait, it was more pathetic that he can't find a muslim girl, gawd leftiesOh, I don't know, Fragony.
1- Firstly, there is of course the fun fact in itself that Wilders himself is of dark-skinned, Islamic heritage.
2 - Wilders denies or downplays this fact. Indeed the bleached hair is a constant reminder of this denial - even an act of self-denial. His remarkable hair is not a coincidence, but key to understanding his psychology and social expression thereof.
3 -
When the politician's grandfather came to the Netherlands on furlough in 1935, he found himself sacked from his job. He and his wife, who was used to having servants and living the life of an aristocrat, suddenly had to adjust to a new environment. Poverty and bitterness were their lot.
Oooh...so no more Muslim servants for our colonial. No more Muslim subjects for the Wilders family to rule over. Frustrated, some? :smash:
4 - Wilders is of mixed race. Of immigrant heritage. Noticable about Wilders of course is that he is not your average European racist. Wilders does not attack foreigners indiscriminately, or those of different etnicity. This is peculiar for the far right. No, wilders only attacks Muslims. The PVV is not a racist, but an anti-Islam party.
By thus drawing the line of 'Dutchness' between 'Dutch culture' and 'Islamic culture', instead of a line between 'Dutch etnicity' and 'Non-Dutch etnicity', Wilders the halfcast becomes Wilders the fullcast. He now firmly, at last, belongs in the first camp.
This is quite common. Note for example the endemic racism towards African Blacks by French-Caribbean Blacks of mixed blood. The former, they insist, are not French, whereas they insist they themselves are. It is an interesting psychological mechanism.
5 - Extremist politicians are at an astonishing rate found to have convulated pasts, an 'off' heritage. For want of knowledge of an intersting study of the top of my head, three quick examples that spring to mind:
Zhirinovsky, the Russian ultra-nationalist and that nation's most virulent anti-Semite (quite an achievement) - who at last acknowledged last year he is himself Jewish.
Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon - all originating from outer provinces who were not fully part of the larger country. In some act of compensation, all three set out on a territorial conquest on behalf of the nation (/as leader of the nation whom they tricked into the abyss) that always saw them as a semi-foreigner.
The shorter and darker the Nazi, the louder he squeeked about tall blond Superhumans.
6 - The Pied-Noirs are among the most resentful people, most outspoken anti-Islam I know. There seems to be a ready parallel between the French who were driven out of Algeria, and the Dutch who were driven out of Indonesia. There is a mixture of bitter nostalgia and hatred for the Islamic rulers of their former homeland.
7 - On a related note: Is the Jewish part of Wilders etnic make-up entirely irrelevant to his openly professed love for Israel? Is that a leftist obfuscation too?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-22-2010, 03:39
He dies his hair! CRUSADE JIHAD AGAINST THE RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! ANYONE WHO DIES THEIR HAIR BLONDE IS RACIST!*
All the Japanese I know who die their hair red or blonde are obviously racists. I'll report them to a human rights commissar immediately, thanks for the heads-up.
*And if they happen to be racist against their own race, then it's self-denial racism and obviously twice as bad. Or something. I will never understand the twisted logic of those who pretend to understand the "inner psychological motivations" of someone they have never met or made a scientific study of.
Whether one thinks Wilders is racist or not, well, that's a debate we can have, based on his policies and statements. Using hair dye as evidence? No.
7 - On a related note: Is the Jewish part of Wilders etnic make-up entirely irrelevant to his openly professed love for Israel? Is that a leftist obfuscation too?
I like Jews and Israel. Not Jewish though. Same with Texas, in spite of me being not Texan, Namibia in spite of not being Namibian, Czech, etc...
Oh come on Fragony, dr. Van Leeuwen was simply giving a reason for his hatred for Islam.
Just another clown getting a stage, if I watched tv I would see a knowologue every day, including actually real clowns like Herman van Veen. It is even worse then it was with Fortuyn.
What did you expect, that "the left" would have suspected people wouldn't vote for him just because he's Indo?
Yes I would expect that the left thought we wouldn't vote on him because he's indo, that is how they think, and that is what they tried. They try something every day, not a day goes by where there isn't somebody on state television who has an opinion like this sorry socioloco has.
@Louigi, you understood why Pim Fortuyn is dead and what did it, why don't you see the same thing now.
Heh, it's only after being called out over remarks like that, that PVV supporters like you start to qualify their remarks.
I don't have to answer for leftist assumptions on how I think, I only do the discussion.
The Wizard
01-22-2010, 12:56
They expected we would, out of the many dirty tricks this one was nasty.
Drop the paranoia, bro :dizzy2:
1- Firstly, there is of course the fun fact in itself that Wilders himself is of dark-skinned, Islamic heritage.
And here I'll have to correct you. The Indo people are Christian, not Islamic. There is an important distinction. They were not considered Indonesian after independence and chased out of the country for being different and Dutch. Here, check it out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo_people)
P.S. I think you're drawing way too deeply from this pseudo-psychological analysis of his background. It cannot possibly be that important. More important would probably be Wilders's own biography.
Drop the paranoia, bro :dizzy2:
I am not paranoid, rediculing him didn't work because he's too smart, demonizing him didn't work because reality is real for real people, and now they try this. This won't work either, the Netherlands is swifting to the right with or without Wilders, and there is only one reason for that and that, the faillure of multiculturalism and the people hanging on to it anyway. the at times truly sick attacks on him are cruel but he can manage.
The Wizard
01-22-2010, 13:16
You're paranoid because you somehow assume that leftists here do take exception to people being of Indo heritage while "normal" Dutchmen do not. This is very, very debatable, to put it very, very charitably.
On an aside, stop trying to make him out as an innocent martyr being nailed to a cross by the evil lefty conspiracy. This is as much the case as Berlusconi is not corrupt.
You're paranoid because you somehow assume that leftists here do take exception to people being of Indo heritage while "normal" Dutchmen do not. This is very, very debatable, to put it very, very charitably.
No they thought we would, Israeli spy also didn't work because we don't hate the jews all that much, and this is just one out of many tricks anyway, could go on and on. I have seen it all before and see it exactly for what it is. When Fortuyn was treatening we saw nothing but Fortuyn, when Rita Verdonk was we saw nothing but Rita Verdonk, and now Wilders is on the 24/7.
HoreTore
01-22-2010, 23:26
He dies his hair! CRUSADE JIHAD AGAINST THE RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! ANYONE WHO DIES THEIR HAIR BLONDE IS RACIST!*
All the Japanese I know who die their hair red or blonde are obviously racists. I'll report them to a human rights commissar immediately, thanks for the heads-up.
*And if they happen to be racist against their own race, then it's self-denial racism and obviously twice as bad. Or something. I will never understand the twisted logic of those who pretend to understand the "inner psychological motivations" of someone they have never met or made a scientific study of.
Whether one thinks Wilders is racist or not, well, that's a debate we can have, based on his policies and statements. Using hair dye as evidence? No.
I like Jews and Israel. Not Jewish though. Same with Texas, in spite of me being not Texan, Namibia in spite of not being Namibian, Czech, etc...
It does show a complete lack of style and good taste though....
Vlaams blok trial someone? If his party ever gets convicted, I'll bet they'll solve it the same way.
He dies his hair! CRUSADE JIHAD AGAINST THE RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! ANYONE WHO DIES THEIR HAIR BLONDE IS RACIST!*
I am glad you got your repressed urge to randomly shout nonsense out of your system.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-23-2010, 00:04
I am glad you got your repressed urge to randomly shout nonsense out of your system.
That was the point, to show the nonsensical. Claiming someone is a self-loathing racist because they dye their hair is going too far.
I hope my sarcasm didn't offend, but it did get the point across.
That was sort of the point, to show the nonsensical. Claiming someone is a self-loathing racist because they dye their hair is going too far.
No, the article said that he dyes his hair to attempt to hide from his hertiage. It never said because he is racist.
If anything, the points are closely aligned to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who comes from a jewish hertiage, yet is famously known for his anti-jewish rants.
In the same vein, he is an immigrant himself, and has tried to dissocciate himself from them, in what the article described as "superdutch" mentality. In the same vien, it is similar practise to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who tries to paint himself as "superiranian", etc.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-23-2010, 00:18
No, the article said that he dyes his hair to attempt to hide from his hertiage. It never said because he is racist.
Similar. It's still a silly argument.
Similar. It's still a silly argument.
It isn't an argument, it is normal that lefties do this, they can't debate the points so they ridicule the person. They even went so far as him not being able to get a muslim girl, it's pathetic and it isn't going to convince anybody, but if it's anti-Wilders the red machine will give you a stage.
The Wizard
01-23-2010, 17:28
Frag is making it look like the only arguments against Wilders us anti-Wilders people (conveniently all "lefties") have been able to come up with is the fact that he likes peroxide and happens to be half-Indo :dizzy2:
In reality these are no more than the zanier bits in a vast collection of reasons to oppose this madman's march to power. One only has to look at Frag's mad rants against immigrants to understand that this man and his cronies should never get into power anywhere. That this thread even devolved into discussing his heritage and the effect it had on his psychology as well as his :daisy: hairdo is a victory for the Wilders camp. It's sidetracking, derailing, it's a feint to make us ignore the real issue at hand: we have a party polling one third of the votes in a country, a party that wants to ban books and holds to calling entire population groups criminals.
Skullheadhq
01-23-2010, 17:41
, a party that wants to ban books
Another party that banned books...
http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/book_burning33.jpg
http://isurvived.org/Pictures_Isurvived/Book-burning.gif
Major Robert Dump
01-23-2010, 21:34
I would gladly pay this man's way to America and let him live in my home for free. He can spearhead my KEEP MUSLIMS OUT OF THACKERVILLE crusade.
I would gladly pay this man's way to America and let him live in my home for free.
Yes, please, by all means, go ahead.
Frag is making it look like the only arguments against Wilders us anti-Wilders people (conveniently all "lefties") have been able to come up with is the fact that he likes peroxide and happens to be half-Indo :dizzy2:
In reality these are no more than the zanier bits in a vast collection of reasons to oppose this madman's march to power. One only has to look at Frag's mad rants against immigrants to understand that this man and his cronies should never get into power anywhere. That this thread even devolved into discussing his heritage and the effect it had on his psychology as well as his :daisy: hairdo is a victory for the Wilders camp. It's sidetracking, derailing, it's a feint to make us ignore the real issue at hand: we have a party polling one third of the votes in a country, a party that wants to ban books and holds to calling entire population groups criminals.
Yeah we feel really good about not having to discus a haircut, and what it says about a person.
and oh please, that is deliberate slander at best, and most of all what we are used to anyway.
Louis VI the Fat
01-23-2010, 23:53
Frag is making it look like the only arguments against Wilders us anti-Wilders people (conveniently all "lefties") have been able to come up with is the fact that he likes peroxide and happens to be half-Indo :dizzy2:
In reality these are no more than the zanier bits in a vast collection of reasons to oppose this madman's march to power. One only has to look at Frag's mad rants against immigrants to understand that this man and his cronies should never get into power anywhere. That this thread even devolved into discussing his heritage and the effect it had on his psychology as well as his :daisy: hairdo is a victory for the Wilders camp. It's sidetracking, derailing, it's a feint to make us ignore the real issue at hand: we have a party polling one third of the votes in a country, a party that wants to ban books and holds to calling entire population groups criminals.Please don't be so easily intimidated. Only those who subscribe to hardright anti-intellectualism think that any exploration of who Wilders is and what makes him tick is a beastly leftist personal attack that seeks to destroy Wilders or to avoid the issues.
Don't play the hardright game of letting them decide what is taboo. Wilders is a 'Pied-Noir', plain and simple. He can deny it, his base may declare it taboo, but the fact remains.
Wilders politics, or this court case, or immigration, or the taste of Heineken, are all distinct issues. Each one deserving of intellectual exploration.
There is no need to carefully tip-toe around any issues out of fear it will play into the hands of the hardright - they will constantly replace the post anyway, try to shift what is acceptable, what can be said.
lol @ Louis as usual
but Louis is right.
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 00:26
Don't play the hardright game of letting them decide what is taboo.
lol, and there i was thinking that it was the favoured tactic of the hard left to close down the debate by attacking the person at the focus of the argument they were busy losing? well, that'll show me!
but Louis is right.
Louis is mostly complicated
The Wizard
01-24-2010, 02:34
Please don't be so easily intimidated. Only those who subscribe to hardright anti-intellectualism think that any exploration of who Wilders is and what makes him tick is a beastly leftist personal attack that seeks to destroy Wilders or to avoid the issues.
Don't play the hardright game of letting them decide what is taboo. Wilders is a 'Pied-Noir', plain and simple. He can deny it, his base may declare it taboo, but the fact remains.
Wilders politics, or this court case, or immigration, or the taste of Heineken, are all distinct issues. Each one deserving of intellectual exploration.
There is no need to carefully tip-toe around any issues out of fear it will play into the hands of the hardright - they will constantly replace the post anyway, try to shift what is acceptable, what can be said.
First off, it is precisely that I wish to discuss the far more acute and far more threatening issue of Wilders's insane policy plans and statements that I am intellectual, instead of getting sidetracked musing about his psychological makeups or traumas as a child. You don't need to go that deep to find reasons to oppose and ridicule the man.
Secondly, the man is not a pied-noir. If such a societal group comparable with that one even exists in Holland, it is most certainly not the Indo people but the Moluccans. And Wilders it not a Moluccan.
I am not carefully tiptoeing around anything. I am far more concerned with what the man is saying and doing right now and its implications than I am with his childhood and his hairdo.
Louis VI the Fat
01-24-2010, 03:45
Louis is mostly complicatedI am not so complicated. The main misunderstanding is that I simply explore Wilders origins, without mistaking that for the end-all, final word about Wilders that would dismiss him, his ideas and his followers as nothing but colonial revanchism. Whereas I am afraid you think I intended to do just that.
First off, it is precisely that I wish to discuss the far more acute and far more threatening issue of Wilders's insane policy plans and statements that I am intellectual, instead of getting sidetracked musing about his psychological makeups or traumas as a child. You don't need to go that deep to find reasons to oppose and ridicule the man.
Then please do discuss Wilders' insane plans etc. There is no need to accept the hardright's anti-intellectual notion that any debate which does not focus on 'Muslims Muslims Muslims' is sidetracking or avoiding the issues or is said with covert intentions of stifling debate or ridiculing Wilders and his followers.
Secondly, the man is not a pied-noir. If such a societal group comparable with that one even exists in Holland, it is most certainly not the Indo peopleThis is not what the antropologist Van Leeuwen says:
But more than anything, he [Wilders] was defined by his Indo-roots, she says. Indonesia was a Dutch colony until 1949 and many mixed-race people moved to the Netherlands after the Indonesian independence. Van Leeuwen describes how these people were put in the same 'cultural minority' box with labour immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, whom they felt no connection to at all. More so, they had always felt very patriotic about the Netherlands and harboured strong sentiments against Islam, the dominant religion in their motherland.
Van Leeuwen explains how this group has long been part of extreme-right movements (many supported the Dutch Nazi party NSB in Indonesia in the 1930s) while others belonged to the far-right of the right-wing liberal party VVD. She puts Wilders' statements in the conservative and colonial tradition of this group, which strongly believed in patriotism and "European values".
Andres and Seamus were discussing Wilders hair. It is the most outrageous haircut in international politics. What, I wondered, drives a man to have hair like this if he wishes to be taken seriously? The answer is surprising. It is the object of study, which I linked to.
It is all very interesting and I am a bit dismayed that it should be brushed aside by Wilders' followers as nothing but a beastly leftist attack, or by his opponents that it had better be left unmentioned.
Why do the Dutch posters here get their knickers in a twist over my drawing attention to this side of Wilders? Because the subject is fraught with taboo in Dutchiestan:
Van Leeuwen's analysis goes beyond the personal level: "The fact that Wilders obviously operates in a post-colonial political dimension, without it being recognised, says a lot about how the Netherlands dealt with, and still deals with the colonial past. Keep quiet, deny, forget and look the other way have been the motto for decades. Because of that, no one could imagine that what happened in Indonesia 50 years ago could still have its impact on modern-day politics."
With this level of public debate, small wonder Wilders is about to become the biggest party in the Netherlands. :smash:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2350022.ece/Geert_Wilders_Indonesian_roots_define_his_politics,_says_anthropologist
Again, Louis is right on the ball.
It is refreshing everytime Louis posts. like a breath of freshair through the window, after some one let off some gas.
It's much more simple, they thought we don't vote on an Indo, this is just the left playing it dirty because they are helpless in the debate so they order stuff from knowologues. Same tactics with Hirschi Ali, when she left the socialists she was suddenly sexually frustrated and took that out on the Islam. Standard practice to discredit the person instead of adresing the issues.
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 10:57
Again, Louis is right on the ball.
It is refreshing everytime Louis posts. like a breath of freshair through the window, after some one let off some gas.
love that cheer-leading. you should start a fan club or something.....? :clown:
love that cheer-leading. you should start a fan club or something.....? :clown:
It is funny because that comment is coming from you. :beam: You should see things from this angle when the forum-warriors of the right mobilise for action.
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 11:17
It is funny because that comment is coming from you. :beam: You should see things from this angle when the forum-warriors of the right mobilise for action.
go on, show me an example of such [edited] :balloon2:
Ser Clegane
01-24-2010, 11:21
It would be great if we could return to the actual topic and leave the anally focused jokes to PM discussions.
Thanks
:bow:
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 11:22
np, my apologies.
Skullheadhq
01-24-2010, 11:48
It would be fun if we jailed him, we could get a nice riot from that :D
Not so sure about that, pretty sure there will be when cleared of all charges though
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 12:08
It would be fun if we jailed him, we could get a nice riot from that :D
hmmmm, locking up politicians who diagree with the ruling clique, interesting idea, and i think it has been tried before..........
hmmmm, locking up politicians who diagree with the ruling clique, interesting idea, and i think it has been tried before..........
What do you call the Nuremburg trials then? Genocide left aside, weren't they politicians who disagreed with the ruling clique? Hey, forget about politicians, just being of another race makes you a suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment).
Are we really comparing this with the nurermberg trial
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 13:11
What do you call the Nuremburg trials then? Genocide left aside, weren't they politicians who disagreed with the ruling clique? Hey, forget about politicians, just being of another race makes you a suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment).
1. Has he broken a law? If yes then prosecute and jail him.
2. Does he belong to a proscribed political party? If yes then prosecute and jail him.
Your hyperbole doesn't wash, locking up politicans who disagree with the ruling clique is just not cricket!
Are we really comparing this with the nurermberg trial
Yes. I'm discussing the position of politicians who disagree (no matter to what extent this is pursued) with the government in power.
1. Has he broken a law? If yes then prosecute and jail him.
Yes.
HoreTore
01-24-2010, 13:34
Are we really comparing this with the nurermberg trial
The far right should be met with debate, not the courts.
We had the racists"immigrationally challenged" run in the election here last year. The result? About zero votes, and both of the parties are now disbanded as they realized they were idiots.
We have no need to fear the racists in our debates, they should be welcomed in. We have plenty of arguments, they have none. Their only way to grow and become a threat, is by being on the outskirts of society, once we let them in, they die.
They only debate among theirselves, for the right they have newspapers, state-television, schoolbooks, all indoctrination-tools. The mantra is: you don't debate with them, you write about them.
edit: oh and :daisy: crazy knowologues.
Skullheadhq
01-24-2010, 13:48
History in school is indoctrination, however you look at it, it starts with the deification of Athenian 'democracy' and ends with the flaming of fundamentalist (at least in my school books)
Heavily biased, especially in the Netherlands.
Other ideologies than the current one is wrong and extremist, according to school.
So yes, fragony has a point there.
Glad we agree on something. Seen it all before.
And Louis you don't have a well enough understanding of Dutch society to place this indo-thingie in the proper context, it's sneaky, by suggesting these silly things like indo-heritage or sexual frustration you make one come across as damaged goods, if you strayed from the true path you must be mad, and there is no real reason to not agree with them. The worst part is that some people fall for it. It starts with the question 'where does his irrelevant hate come from'? Well it kinda starts all wrong all there because you will always end up wrapping everything around the assumption that it is irrational hate, I don't go in discussion from such a starting point and neither will mr Wilders. Cheap tactics to avoid any real discussion.
And Wilders isn't all that extreme in the first place, nothing like the BNP or FNP, there is a reason he doesn't want to be associated with these guys, that reason being not being quite the same thing. There is a reason he is popular among moderate muslims, mostly Turks. They don't want to be associated with the more hardcore stuff.
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 17:14
Yes.
did they prosecute and jail him?
if yes, has he served his sentence and now free?
is he breaking the law right now?
did they prosecute and jail him?
We're kinda working on it right now.
Oh you see that wrong, they are working on how they are going to get out of this mess with a straight face. Even the Volkskrant printed a few comments/columns that aren't exactly in favor of this trial, thx for the mess anyhow because what these idiots don't understand is that they will have to defend the islam to prosecute Wilders, and that is going to be hard as he has plenty of ammunition, they have made a huge mistake with this trial.
Skullheadhq
01-24-2010, 18:11
In the meantime, we'll just lol at Hitl...Wilders while he's being prosecuted.
In the meantime, we'll just lol at Hitl...Wilders while he's being prosecuted.
Have a blast, things didn't quite turn out as they expected, instead of being the hero going against the blond satan they turned out to be the butchers of free speech in public opinion, and Wilders the one man against the machine. Even people who strongly disagree with him are disgusted.
I can't help thinking. How would people react if it was Nick Griffin?
Furunculus
01-24-2010, 19:03
I can't help thinking. How would people react if it was Nick Griffin?
is that implied guilt by association?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-24-2010, 19:06
I can't help thinking. How would people react if it was Nick Griffin?
I detest Nick Griffin and the racist ideas he stands for, but freedom of speech is his right, and I will defend it for him as I would defend it for everyone else. That doesn't mean I won't strongly object to what he says, though.
Still, Wilders is no Griffin.
Still, Wilders is no Griffin.
I apologise, from what I heard, he is basically the Dutch Nick Griffin. Which is why I admittedly, never took any comments in support of him seriously. As you might know, Nick has a long criminal record.
I apologise, from what I heard, he is basically the Dutch Nick Griffin. Which is why I admittedly, never took any comments in support of him seriously. As you might know, Nick has a long criminal record.
He split with the liberal party because of their stance on Turkey in Europe. I like him because he hates political correctness as much as I do and he isn't shy of a little provocation, but he is no extremist.
Here he gets a little heat for a change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMkwH9ODCU
And I agree with him.
HoreTore
01-24-2010, 19:34
Even people who strongly disagree with him are disgusted.
Indeed.
I object as much to trials like this as I object to Wilders idiotic ideas. Get the scum out in the open, meet them with words, and they will wither and die. Besides such trials being a massive crime against humanity, they are also counter-productive.
Indeed.
I object as much to trials like this as I object to Wilders idiotic ideas. Get the scum out in the open, meet them with words, and they will wither and die. Besides such trials being a massive crime against humanity, they are also counter-productive.
Almost glad you feel that way ;)
Skullheadhq
01-24-2010, 20:04
Frag, if he is no criminal, he will not be convicted, why so scared?
Frag, if he is no criminal, he will not be convicted, why so scared?
My trust in their ability or their, well judgement, took the plane to Turkey and is now running a nightclub in Allanja.
The Wizard
01-24-2010, 20:15
This is not what the antropologist Van Leeuwen says:
But more than anything, he [Wilders] was defined by his Indo-roots, she says. Indonesia was a Dutch colony until 1949 and many mixed-race people moved to the Netherlands after the Indonesian independence. Van Leeuwen describes how these people were put in the same 'cultural minority' box with labour immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, whom they felt no connection to at all. More so, they had always felt very patriotic about the Netherlands and harboured strong sentiments against Islam, the dominant religion in their motherland.
Van Leeuwen explains how this group has long been part of extreme-right movements (many supported the Dutch Nazi party NSB in Indonesia in the 1930s) while others belonged to the far-right of the right-wing liberal party VVD. She puts Wilders' statements in the conservative and colonial tradition of this group, which strongly believed in patriotism and "European values".
Well, she's wrong, LOL. The Indo people do not have a pied noir complex. If anybody, as said, has such a thing in Holland, it's the Moluccans. Please, read up on the makeup of our society and the identity of our minorities before accepting the conclusions of a single study.
EDIT: Also, I take exception to being accused of "not talking about it" or "denying" it. I simply am of the opinion that this is sidetracking the debate while far more important issues are at hand. I am also of the opinion that this woman's argument is badly structured, ignores anything that doesn't fit into her story and is incongruent and incorrect when it comes to the identity of minorities in Holland. She doesn't even acknowledge the fact that to the vast majority of Dutchmen, Wilders is not an Indo but some dude from the Catholic, Belgianesque south of the country, which is a completely different minority with completely different connotations for the majority.
Skullheadhq
01-24-2010, 20:20
My trust in their ability or their, well judgement, took the plane to Turkey and is now running a nightclub in Allanja.
Ah yeah, that pimp... but I don't think Wilders will take the plane to turkey and wil start a brothel there :D
HoreTore
01-24-2010, 20:32
Frag, if he is no criminal, he will not be convicted, why so scared?
So..... You believe that anyone who breaks the blasphemy laws are criminals, and that they belong in jail?
Anyway, if he is convicted, I hope the EHRC will slap the dutch courts. With a proper, principal ruling in that court, maybe we will finally see the end of the blasphemy nonsense.
The Wizard
01-24-2010, 20:38
He's not being charged with blasphemy laws... he's being charged with discriminating against groups based on their beliefs and heritage.
Kralizec
01-24-2010, 21:13
Hmmm. The actual article from the Groene Amsterdammer (Link 1 (http://www.groene.nl/2009/36/wreker-van-zijn-indische-grootouders) and link 2 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=learn+dutch&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=learn+dutch&fp=ba0a4630ce98f7da)) also says something about Frits Bolkenstein, another Dutch politician who served as EU commissionar for the internal market until a couple of years ago.
One of the first well-known politicians who was distinctly critical about the immigration policy was VVD member Frits Bolkenstein, who has an Indian mother (in this context this means "from the Dutch Indies"- Kralizec). He caught attention because in his day he was the only EU-commissionar who was fiercely against Turkey's possible accession to the EU. Also, so reports the KRO tv-show Reporter, he sabotaged trade relations with Indonesia while he was state secretary for Foreign Trade, something he was accused of earlier when he was employed by Shell in Indonesia. As an assistant to Bolkestein Wilders wrote many speeches for Bolkestein, wich lead to his entry as MP for the VVD in 1998.
I think we've seen only the tip of the iceberg here. There's obviously a conspiracy by people of (partial) Indonesian descent to cause antagonism between the Netherlands and muslim countries for their own purposes.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-24-2010, 21:54
I think we've seen only the tip of the iceberg here. There's obviously a conspiracy by people of (partial) Indonesian descent to cause antagonism between the Netherlands and muslim countries for their own purposes.
:inquisitive:
I hope this is sarcastic. I don't see why descendants of immigrants are not allowed to be opponents of excessive immigration.
Megas Methuselah
01-24-2010, 21:56
I hope this is sarcastic. I don't see why descendants of immigrants are not allowed to be opponents of excessive immigration.
I thought you were able to recognize sarcasm after enduring my insanity.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-24-2010, 21:57
I thought you were able to recognize sarcasm after enduring my insanity.
You never know these days. :sweatdrop:
Kralizec
01-24-2010, 22:23
As the anthropologist says, we're talking about a politician who is against immigration and has foreign blood. We'll have to rule out coincidence, and look for the explanation of his individual views in the collective history of millions of people. And dying your hair is an obvious sign that the person involved hates his ethnic origins.
Then, we have another politician who's also skeptic of immigration and also has foreign blood. That makes two, further proof that this can't be a coincidence. It's not as if there are hundreds of politicians...
I hope this is sarcastic.
Truth suffers from too much analysis.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
:book:
Strike For The South
01-24-2010, 22:43
Wilders= Uncle Tom?
Louis VI the Fat
01-24-2010, 23:02
There's obviously a conspiracy by people of (partial) Indonesian descent to cause antagonism between the Netherlands and muslim countries for their own purposes.:strawman1:
I don't see why descendants of immigrants are not allowed to be opponents of excessive immigration. :strawman1:
I am happy to learn that by some as of yet unknown mechanism, the Dutch are uniquely in Europe completely free from any post-colonial trauma, revanchism or displacedness.
I am also happy to learn that despite what every anthropologist or political scientist says, there is no Indo community in the Netherlands, these non-existing people have no post-colonial trauma, and unlike each and every other repatriated colonial group in Europe, their integration into the society of the motherland has left not a single scar.
You learn something new every day. In particular, the depths to which taboo and a culture of silence may have a stranglehold on even modern 21st century European societies.
If only Adrian were here, I could rub in how right I was when I said that 'silence' is the Dutch way of dealing with the past. I've hit the same brick wall when stating obvious truths about the Dutch past that are commonly accepted throughout the world, but remain stubbornly denied, or even more worryingly, as is also the case with Wilders' origin here, completely unknown in the Netherlands.
Look, unease about immigration and anti-Islamic sentiment is common throughout Europe, and not less common in countries and cultures that do not have any displaced former colonials in the first place. This is blisteringly obvious, so it should be equally obvious that an exploration of Wilders' origins is not meant as a complete explanation of his thought, nor of that of his followers. To dismiss it as such is a strawman at best, and painful anti-intellectualism at worst.
Kralizec
01-24-2010, 23:09
Meh.
Despite the fact that sociology and anthropology tend to be vague in the extreme, I accept that it can be useful in explaining certain trends and forms of behaviour in large groups of people.
I do not accept that you can use either to draw meaningful conclusions about Wilder's personal motivations, or about his reasons to dye his hair.
:juggle2:
I have to be honest, wasn't too impressed by the video Fragony posted. A bunch of his comments, would be the same as me showing clips of fundamentalist christians in America then me exposing "the evils of the christian religion". The news host actually makes some very good counter-arguments to him. Geert Wilders just picked up the clips from the radicals and just showed them as the mainstream opinion which was pretty dirty trick, as I said, i could do it identical using groups of fundamentalist christians from views such as bombing the Dome of the Rock, to rebuild the Temple of Solomon and other extremist viewpoints.
It isn't all that impressive, comes down to that there is no place for radicals here. In 4 years his opponents will say that as well. That is how it always go, they scream bloody murder and bring in the guns, and 4 years later they have an eureka-moment and invent the wheel all by themselves.
It isn't all that impressive, comes down to that there is no place for radicals here. In 4 years his opponents will say that as well. That is how it always go, they scream bloody murder and bring in the guns, and 4 years later they have an eureka-moment and invent the wheel all by themselves.
But there are extremist christians as well. ther are also a great many number of muslims which don't scream hate, shop at the disney store, females that don't wear burkas, etc.
I am even friends with a few of them. Painting all muslims as rabid animals is pretty dirty to do, as what you argue is the "left" is trying to say that this minority isn't an excuse to discriminate against all muslims and arabs.
I am even friends with a few of them. Painting all muslims as rabid animals is pretty dirty to do, as what you argue is the "left" is trying to say that this minority isn't an excuse to discriminate against all muslims and arabs.
So do I (yy bring it on), and Wilders doesn't do that, we are talking about different things, he clearly makes the distinction between the Islam and individual muslims.
So do I (yy bring it on), and Wilders doesn't do that, we are talking about different things, he clearly makes the distinction between the Islam and individual muslims.
Yet there is two big branches of Islam (Shi'ite and Sunni), and on-top of that, the belief of Western Muslims, which do things like drink alcohol, the females not wearing burkas and other various things.
The newsreader actually makes some good counterpoints in that video you linked, where Geert Wilders stumbles about trying to counter-them.
I can fully understand there are fundamentalist muslims which want to bomb the world and want to make the world muslim, however, I fully understand that they are a minority and the best way is not to label all muslims as these and discriminate against them. That is a big crucial difference.
I can fully understand there are fundamentalist muslims which want to bomb the world and want to make the world muslim, however, I fully understand that they are a minority and the best way is not to label all muslims as these and discriminate against them. That is a big crucial difference.
Again, he doesn't do that, that's a leftist reflex.
HoreTore
01-25-2010, 10:53
He's not being charged with blasphemy laws... he's being charged with discriminating against groups based on their beliefs and heritage.
Unless he has caused some physical damage, I don't really see the difference.
Hating people shouldn't make you a criminal.
Tellos Athenaios
01-25-2010, 12:14
Hating someone doesn't. Actively promoting hatred towards others does. Did Wilders do that? :juggle2:
Hating someone doesn't. Actively promoting hatred towards others does. Did Wilders do that? :juggle2:
That is why there is this court case.
That is why there is this court case.
Nah, this case is just the fatal mistake they had to make at some point, this is no trial it's a ritual dance, whatever comes out of it it has already been decided. They didn't expect the commotion, and they certainly didn't expect public opinion would turn against them, even most of Wilders most rapid enemies draw the line just like Horetore does, they find freedom of speech more important then political capital.
Louis VI the Fat
01-25-2010, 13:01
The Netherlands is still governed by the rule of law. This is not a political trail, this is a trail with political implications.
Other democracies have laws against defamation too. In this very thread there have been links to similar cases in both the Netherlands and Belgium.
The court case is interesting. It revolves around the issue where defamation of a religion ends, and defamation of a people and incitement to hatred begins.
In a clever move, Wilders bases his defense on the insistence that his statements aren't merely not an incitement to hatred, but are simply true as well. He might force the court in this manner into an outright polical verdict - which is what he seeks.
Geert Wilders: 'I want Muslim fanatic to speak in my defence' http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/M_images/pdf_button.png (http://www.geertwilders.nl/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1638) http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/M_images/printButton.png (http://www.geertwilders.nl/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1638&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1) http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://www.geertwilders.nl/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=1638&itemid=1) donderdag, 21 januari 2010 Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-Right MP, has demanded that his race hate trial should hear evidence from the fanatic who used the Koran to justify killing the director of an anti-Islamic film.
It marked an incendiary opening to the landmark case that has divided the Netherlands over the limits of freedom. Mr Wilders, 46, who is accused of incitement and discrimination, asked for 18 witnesses to be called in his defence, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who stabbed and shot Theo Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street in 2004.
The Van Gogh murder left a deep scar on the national conscience. It helped to change the mood of tolerance of Islam, and boosted Mr Wilders’s popularity.
Mr Wilders, whose Party for Freedom came second in the European elections last summer, faces a 70-page charge sheet covering five counts of breaking Dutch law in more than 100 public statements — for example, by likening the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and calling for an end to the “Islamic invasion”. He could be fined or jailed if convicted.
The alleged offences include Mr Wilders’s film Fitna, which shows images of 9/11 and beheadings interspersed with verses from the Koran. It ends with a clip of the controversial Danish cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.
At the opening day of the trial the prosecution objected to the request to hear from Bouyeri, and the panel of four judges adjourned until February 3 to consider which witnesses to call. “This case is about more than Mr Wilders,” Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer, told the court. “It touches us all. It is such an important and principled question that could have far-reaching consequences.”
Mr Moszkowicz argued that the witnesses Mr Wilders wanted to call would prove that what he said was not simply inoffensive but true. He suggested that Bouyeri, a dual Moroccan-Dutch national, would be key to the case because he was a fervent Muslim who carried a Koran during his trial and defended his crime by claiming that Islam permitted violence against unbelievers.
The prosecution countered that, unlike the other witnesses — mostly academics and theologians — Bouyeri was not an authority and should not be called.
About 200 supporters of Mr Wilders travelled to Amsterdam District Court from as far as Germany to hold up placards declaring that free speech was under attack by Islam and political correctness. Eighty packed into the public gallery, applauding Mr Wilders and his lawyer.
Ulrich Rosendahl, 46, an engineer who took the day off work to travel from Cologne to support Mr Wilders, held up a banner outside the court which read: “Wilders does as \ Chaplin did. He attacks fascism — Islamo.”
Mr Rosendahl said: “I support what he says and I know he has lived under police protection for many years and I think that he pays a high price to fight for freedom of speech.”
Mr Moszkowicz said that Mr Wilders had a mandate as an MP to speak out against what he saw as the Islamisation of the Netherlands. Birgit van Roessel, for the prosecution, said that “expressing his opinion in the media or through other channels is not part of an MP’s duties.” She said that MPs had immunity for only what they said inside parliament.
Geert Wilders' personal speech at pre-trial hearing woensdag, 20 januari 2010 Mister Speaker, judges of the court,
I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.
Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.
I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.
I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but neither do I intend to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.
Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.
Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:
It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.
In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.
This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.
'Europe's most persecuted man': http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
In a clever move, Wilders bases his defense on the insistence that his statements aren't merely not an incitement to hatred, but are simply true as well. He might force the court in this manner into an outright polical verdict - which is what he seeks.
He never asked for this, but can't blame him for making the most out of it. Never stop your enemy if they are making a mistake a famous Frenchman once said. What he did is put the Islam itself on trial, and his prosecutors will now have to defend it, that is a pretty nasty position to be in, Wilders can just take the Quran and they will have to put it into the proper historical context, which is totally unclear as there is still plenty of debate among muslims themselves on how and what, impossible task. They should have seen that coming, Wilders is a very handy politician and a clever bloke, although I suspect he has flown in some spin-doctors from the USA who understand the game a little better.
Furunculus
01-25-2010, 14:08
In a clever move, Wilders bases his defense on the insistence that his statements aren't merely not an incitement to hatred, but are simply true as well. He might force the court in this manner into an outright polical verdict - which is what he seeks.
i don't like incitement-to-hatred laws, but if one is going to have them then a case like this is perfect as it will crystallise the limit of the application of the law insomuch as a statement can be truthful, and yet be perceived as hateful by the affronted party, and where one precept must bow to the other.
i will laugh if he is not convicted of inciting hatred
i will laugh if he is not found to have stated untruths
i will cry if he is not found to have stated untruths, but he is still convicted of inciting hatred
I'll let the man speak for himself, not a word of Spanish in it so to say.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1205515340
HoreTore
01-25-2010, 16:01
Hating someone doesn't. Actively promoting hatred towards others does. Did Wilders do that? :juggle2:
And that shouldn't be illegal either, IMO. It serves no purpose.
And that shouldn't be illegal either, IMO. It serves no purpose.
Well that is where I draw the line, that should certainly be illegal.
HoreTore
01-25-2010, 16:22
Well that is where I draw the line, that should certainly be illegal.
Nonsense. Free speech means free speech. I draw the line when something other than talking goes on. Of course, planning violent acts would go under that.
But incitement to violence and such should be met with arguments and debate, using the courts is counter-productive, it won't solve anything. Also, these arguments should be encouraged to come out into the public, they only represent a danger when people hide away with their grumbles. That's when violent acts can happen.
When they are brought into the public light, they will be ridiculed and shunned, which is what we want.
But incitement to violence and such should be met with arguments and debate
What is there to discus, nothing if you ask me. Freedom of speech is protection from the government not a permission to say what you want about anybody, there is a difference. Wilders never crossed that line, nor did his voters. Is there any incident we caused? Did we beat somebody up? Treat anybody badly? Anything at all, most of all anything that is bad. Hate is not an opinion so it has no place in politics, they can have it at their local bar, or tea-house.
Meneldil
01-25-2010, 16:52
Guy's right. I hope this nonsense trial will put an end to the pathetic little self censorship imposed on anything that somehow looks like a criticism of islam.
And that's coming from a leftist.
CrossLOPER
01-25-2010, 17:06
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/20090225-GeertWilders.jpg
I love how everyone keeps using this image. I'm really glad you like it, Frag.
Also have our president for....... I dunno
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/balkiezoenobama.jpg
HoreTore
01-25-2010, 17:46
What is there to discus, nothing if you ask me. Freedom of speech is protection from the government not a permission to say what you want about anybody, there is a difference. Wilders never crossed that line, nor did his voters. Is there any incident we caused? Did we beat somebody up? Treat anybody badly? Anything at all, most of all anything that is bad. Hate is not an opinion so it has no place in politics, they can have it at their local bar, or tea-house.
Everything can be discussed! You should know that after these years in the backroom, Frags... ~;)
But I don't think you understood what I meant.... For example, let's say you have an old Nazi somewhere. He himself won't be a physical threat to anyone, the threat lies in his ability to recruit others. However, he will only be able to convince others if he isn't met with any resistance, any reasonably read man will tear his logic apart, so it'll only work in private. If his arguments are brought before us all in public, he will of course be ridiculed and shunned, and he won't be able to recruit people...
Like what happened to the norwegian nazi's when they ran for election last year; they got some 5 votes and are now all disbanded.
But I don't think you understood what I meant.... For example, let's say you have an old Nazi somewhere. He himself won't be a physical threat to anyone, the threat lies in his ability to recruit others. However, he will only be able to convince others if he isn't met with any resistance, any reasonably read man will tear his logic apart, so it'll only work in private. If his arguments are brought before us all in public, he will of course be ridiculed and shunned, and he won't be able to recruit people...
You are making the mistake of arguing from what you consider to be an already established position, it is not.
HoreTore
01-25-2010, 21:58
You are making the mistake of arguing from what you consider to be an already established position, it is not.
No, I'm arguing on a general basis, unrelated to Wilders...
The Wizard
01-26-2010, 14:58
I am happy to learn that by some as of yet unknown mechanism, the Dutch are uniquely in Europe completely free from any post-colonial trauma, revanchism or displacedness.
I am also happy to learn that despite what every anthropologist or political scientist says, there is no Indo community in the Netherlands, these non-existing people have no post-colonial trauma, and unlike each and every other repatriated colonial group in Europe, their integration into the society of the motherland has left not a single scar.
You learn something new every day. In particular, the depths to which taboo and a culture of silence may have a stranglehold on even modern 21st century European societies.
If only Adrian were here, I could rub in how right I was when I said that 'silence' is the Dutch way of dealing with the past. I've hit the same brick wall when stating obvious truths about the Dutch past that are commonly accepted throughout the world, but remain stubbornly denied, or even more worryingly, as is also the case with Wilders' origin here, completely unknown in the Netherlands.
Look, unease about immigration and anti-Islamic sentiment is common throughout Europe, and not less common in countries and cultures that do not have any displaced former colonials in the first place. This is blisteringly obvious, so it should be equally obvious that an exploration of Wilders' origins is not meant as a complete explanation of his thought, nor of that of his followers. To dismiss it as such is a strawman at best, and painful anti-intellectualism at worst.
:wall:
Let me ask you a simple question: do you know any Indo's? No? I do. None of them froth at the mouth when the subject of Muslims comes up. In fact, some of our best mutual friends are Muslims. Moluccans, perhaps, are a different matter, but even they usually aren't raging PVV-voting Islam haters. That is, perhaps, only a small and bitter element of the Moluccan minority -- and even then that segment of Moluccans is probably a lot more bitter at the Dutch majority and the Dutch state for lying to them, not delivering on their promises and putting them in concentration camps.
But you probably don't know what Moluccans are, or do you? And you don't know what I mean when I say the Dutch state lied to them, do you? 'Cause you aren't exactly showing much knowledge of our society and our (colonial) history in this thread. In fact, because of your posts, I'm having a hard time not flying into a screaming rage about overbearing, know-it-all Frenchmen.
If anybody in this country has a problem with bitterness and nationalism (and there is), it's the ethnic Dutch majority, primarily those concentrated on the countryside and in well-off neighborhoods bordering crappy immigrant boroughs (the main PVV constituency). And that's what many people do not know or wish to admit.
In fact, because of your posts, I'm having a hard time not flying into a screaming rage about overbearing, know-it-all Frenchmen.
In a way you do prove one of his points though, cause he isn't the only one who has a rather poor knowledge of our colonial history. We are much more guilty of ignorance, Louis probably knows more about it then the average Dutchman, probably just by even knowing something happened.
The Wizard
01-26-2010, 18:57
That would be a rather twisted and malformed bit of proof, then.
That would be a rather twisted and malformed bit of proof, then.
It it's a rather twisted and malformed sentiment to rule it out altogether, Louis didn't just make our colonial history up. He is wrong, but he isn't stupid.
Kralizec
01-26-2010, 20:23
But incitement to violence and such should be met with arguments and debate, using the courts is counter-productive, it won't solve anything. Also, these arguments should be encouraged to come out into the public, they only represent a danger when people hide away with their grumbles. That's when violent acts can happen.
I think laws against incitement of hatred are ridiculous (seeing as how "hating someone" itself is not a crime) but incitement against violence should be very illegal and punished accordingly.
Ask yourself this: A hires a bunch of thugs to beat up minorities. B encourages his followers to beat up minorities. Wich of them should be punished? Both?
Moluccans, perhaps, are a different matter, but even they usually aren't raging PVV-voting Islam haters. That is, perhaps, only a small and bitter element of the Moluccan minority -- and even then that segment of Moluccans is probably a lot more bitter at the Dutch majority and the Dutch state for lying to them, not delivering on their promises and putting them in concentration camps.
Very true.
A few years back I had a job/internship in Assen, where there's a sizable Mollucan community. One morning I arrived on the trainstation and came across dozens of cops and ME personel (=riot cops) on the way to work. Wich is not usually the case in Assen.
Turns out, that day was an anniversery of something (the 30th of the train crisis near De Punt I think, but I'm not sure) and the police, for some reason, feared there'd be riots.
As far as I know nothing serious happened that day, though.
The Wizard
01-26-2010, 20:50
It it's a rather twisted and malformed sentiment to rule it out altogether, Louis didn't just make our colonial history up. He is wrong, but he isn't stupid.
He's making stuff up if he's claiming there's a widespread pied-noir sentiment that Geert Wilders supposedly draws from amongst our Indo minority which simply is not there.
Louis VI the Fat
01-27-2010, 00:43
:wall:
Let me ask you a simple question: do you know any Indo's? No? I do. None of them froth at the mouth when the subject of Muslims comes up. In fact, some of our best mutual friends are Muslims. Moluccans, perhaps, are a different matter, but even they usually aren't raging PVV-voting Islam haters. That is, perhaps, only a small and bitter element of the Moluccan minority -- and even then that segment of Moluccans is probably a lot more bitter at the Dutch majority and the Dutch state for lying to them, not delivering on their promises and putting them in concentration camps.
But you probably don't know what Moluccans are, or do you? And you don't know what I mean when I say the Dutch state lied to them, do you? 'Cause you aren't exactly showing much knowledge of our society and our (colonial) history in this thread. In fact, because of your posts, I'm having a hard time not flying into a screaming rage about overbearing, know-it-all Frenchmen. :coffeenews:
A) Moluccans are not relevant.
B) Of course I know what Moluccans are. 'Louis VI' is only a forum name. We, 'Louis', are a group of experts with knowledge encompassing everything under the sun. :stare:
Moluccans are 'Harkis', Indos are 'Pieds-noirs'. The former are indigenous peoples. The latter are colonists, sometimes of mixed race. Predominantly mixed in the case of Indo, mostly European in the case of the Pieds-noirs, unless one considers the Mezzogiorno to be Africa and
Each group has its own history, and lingering sensitivities.
Harkis/Moluccans are indigenous people who sided with the colonisers.
After the independence war was lost, the Harkis/Moluccans could no longer remain in the colony, which didn't want them anymore and where they were not safe. For having served militarily for the cause of the motherland, they were shipped to Europe. There they were unwelcome too, for being indiginous peoples, non-Europeans. This, and the sense of betrayal by the motherland for whom they fought harder than the motherland fought for them, caused a lot of resentment, which lingers on to this day.
See? It is not hard at all to understand Moluccans.
Nor Indos. The Dutch claim to uniqueness does not hold up. The difference between the Netherlands and the rest of Europe is not the past itself, but a willingness to deal with this past. Ireland has suffered from too much historical awareness. Poland suffers from too much historical navelgazing. The Netherlands, for its part, deals with its past by silence. :quiet:
On the upside, silence is an excellent means of forgetting, persist in it for long enough and history vanishes indeed.
The Dutch, both the Europeans and those repatriated from Indonesia, have chosen to forget. But this is difficult for the repatriated. People tend to ask themselves questions, to wonder where they came from. They see old family pictures. The family home in that other land. They remember with bitter fondness the colony - which was their natural home, where they had lived for as long as Europeans have lived in the US.
There is the trauma of the motherland - cold, unhospitable and alien. In both people and climate. There is the cold shoulder from their 'European' neighbours. The allegations levelled at them of colonialism, of exploitation. The lost family belongings, sometimes even wealth.
The climate, the food, the family home - none of which were ever experienced again for most. There was never full acceptance in the motherland, the displaced colonial remains more foreign in the motherland than in the homeland from which history had driven him away. So foreign, so cold, that many moved on, emigrated to a new future altogether -America, Canada, Australia
Ask your Indo friends. Ask your friends' parents, grandparents. Yes, dig deep enough and you will find the traumas, they will be there.
Displaced peoples, diaspora, forced relocation - it is nothing new. These are intensely studied fields of 20th century history. Just why the Pieds-noirs in France are a bulwark of the FN, why the Vertriebene in Germany are far more to the right than the German population at large, or why the Indos of the Netherlands tend towards the hardright must remain a subject for another post. I shall gladly oblige should people be at all interested in discussing this.
Louis VI the Fat
01-27-2010, 00:46
He's making stuff up if he's claiming there's a widespread pied-noir sentiment that Geert Wilders supposedly draws from amongst our Indo minority which simply is not there.I have given you Van Leeuwen. Herself an Indo. An antropologist, and a polical scientist. She states that the Indo community historically had a very large number of fascists back in the colony, have strong anti-immigration feelings in the motherland, widely share anti-Islamic sentiment ('the Muslims drove us out of Indonesia'), and have a very large support for Wilders, who is one of their own*.
You have given me 'some of my Indo-friends' best friends are Muslim'....
:sweatdrop:
I would be interested in numbers of political parties this demography voted for, is a member of. A study, a link, which shows Van Leeuwen is wrong in her assertment of the political preference of many Indos. :study:
*Kralizec just taught us that not only Wilders, but his political mentor as well is Indo. Kralizec uses this to relegate into the bin the claim that Wilders personal background is relevant. Me, it bolsters me in the belief that one should not a priori exclude the possibility that Wilders background is not entirely irrelevant for a deeper understanding of this man.
HoreTore
01-27-2010, 00:48
I think laws against incitement of hatred are ridiculous (seeing as how "hating someone" itself is not a crime) but incitement against violence should be very illegal and punished accordingly.
Ask yourself this: A hires a bunch of thugs to beat up minorities. B encourages his followers to beat up minorities. Wich of them should be punished? Both?
That would be planning to commit violence, wouldn't it?
Louis VI the Fat
01-27-2010, 00:53
'The Netherlands for the Dutch! Stop the immigration! Western culture is superior, Islam inferior! Mass deportations of Muslims! A million to be expelled!'
Oh, and the bleached blond hair is entirely irrelevant when all the above is monomanically shouted by a person of mixed race immigrant ancestry himself. This man suffers in no way whatsoever from any identity complex whatsoever.
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4072/38806341473a0448d36eo.jpg
https://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1368/bergkamp.jpg
https://img682.imageshack.us/img682/6255/geertwilders3j.jpg
I wonder - who is mad here? Louis? Or taboos in the Netherlands?
'Okay, but even if you are right, Louis - and I am certainly not convinced you are - why should it be at all relevant?'
That is a good question. Me, I'd say that this man may soon be the leader of the largest Dutch party. A party without any history and which consist of...this man alone.
So this man's personality is important. There is no difference between party and person. Nor between person and party - Wilders self-identifies with his 'mission'.
And if this man does have issues, he may actually make good on his promises. He may actually be the fanatical maniac he appears to be. His quotes may not be mere provocations. He may actually mean what he says. And act on it....
The Wizard
01-27-2010, 02:08
[...]
You just don't get it, do you? You persist in your belief that you actually know and understand Dutch society and its complexities, as well as modern Dutch history and its complexities, when your entire argument is based on one single study which came as a surprise to the vast majority of Dutchmen, and which, moreover, is the only one of its kind. Unlike in France, there is no air of bitterness or well-known problem between the Indo minority and the ethnic Dutch majority.
On that note, let me lay bare the crux of my problem with whatever you're arguing here. You see, you don't live here. You don't know this society. You live in France, you know that country from the inside, but you don't know the Netherlands. Again, your entire argument is based wholly on one single isolated study with a clear political bias. Nobody in this country will "get it" if you cite a pied-noir complex when it comes to the Indo's. That is because such a supposed trauma does not exist. Nobody hears "Geert Wilders is half-Indo" and thinks "oh, so that's why he says the things he says!"
Of course, to counter such a fact, you maintain that Dutch society "ignores" such a phenomenon. What do you base that on, friend? Nothing, except Van Leeuwen. Nothing is weaker than an argument based on a single source.
You ask me for sources? I'd rather point to the lack of ones. It is simply not an issue here. Van Leeuwen is alone in claiming these things. Every Indo I've spoken to about the matter (and this is not the first time) tells me that she makes wild conclusions grasped out of nowhere. Here, even this (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants) rather mild, if not overtly friendly piece already shows you, in the second to last paragraph, that her conclusions are anything but broadly accepted in the Indo community. I might add that Indo's I know have rejected her claims about being put in the same category with Moroccans and Turks in the '60s and '70s, as well.
Besides Van Leeuwen as your (only) source, you cite some general belief that what flows out of colonial (and even non-colonial) European history is all essentially the same. You're arguing with a history student here, bud, and nothing is as untrue as claiming that the history of different societies is essentially entirely the same. Similar in pattern, perhaps, but not an exact parallel in the least. France is not the Netherlands, or Germany for that matter.
My Indo friends I cited because I actually know a bunch of Indo people and have experience with the Indo community. You do not. All you have -- again -- is a single, isolated source. The Moluccans I cited because they are the only group in this country to have any bitterness associated with our colonial history. And again, this has been and is in the vast majority of cases not aimed at Muslims, but at the Dutch government. Again, your argument does not match with reality. It only works, apparently, when in France.
So why do you persist, even though you base yourself entirely on someone who is more or less the only person in this country to make these claims (at least, in the public debate)? Every single Dutchman present has told you that the issue you percieve is news to them. I challenge you to find any other source than Van Leeuwen on the subject.
In summary, your argument is weak and totters on the argument made by one source which does not find itself in a known scholarly debate on the subject of Indo identity. In other words, friend, the Indo community here does not have a pied-noir complex. And this is not because we shove it all into a dark corner and try and forget about it. You only pulled that out of thin air because it's what's keeping your argument alive.
The thing is, we don't even disagree on the fact that Wilders is a detestable little cretin who hates Islam for no proper reason whtsoever and that he's best off not having any power anywhere. It's just that you completely misplace the origin of this sentiment of his, which is much better placed amongst the ethnic Dutch majority which forms 80% of Holland and at which Wilders's populism is aimed.
Louis VI the Fat
01-27-2010, 02:39
I challenge you to find any other source than Van Leeuwen on the subject.
I'm the daughter of a Dutch 'pied-noir'. My mother (her family lived for generations in the Dutch- Indies) escaped Indonesia when it became independent after a bloody war in 1949. The story is incredibly similar: the 'cold welcome' after 'repatriation', discrimination, the diaspora, social inferiority, accusations of colonialism. The Dutch pieds-noirs are called Indos. Same place in colonial society as pieds-noir.
Except that the majority of the Dutch pieds-noir were/are of mixed-blood descent. That made them the more visible in Holland.
I am interested in comparative history because the huge and growing extremist anti-Muslem movement in Holland is led by an Indo. Some Indos feel that 'the Muslims' kicked them out of their country.
I wonder if there are indeed millions of us in Europe, postcolonial children
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/france/TH5BLOBEA5B4B205A/p2
I am a Canadian Citizen, and I have held that honour since I was eight years old. As a soldier, I have raised arms to defend Canada, and suffered injury in her service. However, I am still required to provide a list of documents that prove my right to live here, just to get a drivers licence. In this land of ice and snow, I am not white enough to be considered white but still dark enough to be asked where I come from or what my back ground is. I have come to realize that I will never be completely in the “Canadian club”. The reason for that is that I just don’t fit. The only other INDO’s I know, are my two sisters.
I think that part of this INDO identity issue has its roots in learned behaviour. Over the last generation or two, starting with Dutch Colonial rule, Japanese Occupation, The Bersiap Period and assimilation into different cultures, has made the concept of “eyes open and mouth shut” the rules instead of the exception.
The time for silence is over.
http://dutcheastindies.web.id/my-heritage-is-my-right
And this is not because we shove it all into a dark corner and try and forget about it. You only pulled that out of thin air because it's what's keeping your argument alive.
In a letter published in NRC Handelsblad last week, 22 prominent writers, historians and lawyers asked the Dutch government to finally recognise the proclamation in 1945 was a legitimate act. "The Indonesian people themselves decided on their independence," they wrote.
The Dutch foreign ministry, however, immediately responded by saying the independence only became official after sovereignty was handed over. "The actual transfer of sovereignty took place on December 27, 1949 (...). This is an established historical fact that can not be changed 60 years later," a statement issued by the ministry read.
Not only do the authors of the letter want the Dutch government to retroactively recognise Indonesia’s independence, they say it needs to render account of its armed and political actions between 1945 and 1949. "The lack of full political recognition by the Netherlands is a historic failure we consider unjust towards the people of Indonesia."
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2446712.ece/Dutch_quarrel_over_Indonesian_independence_day
Between 1946 and 1949 two military campaigns, euphemistically called `police actions', resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Indonesians and, according to one Financial Times Service report, 6,000 Dutch soldiers. However, the colonial power found itself politically isolated as well as economically near bankruptcy, and independence was reluctantly conceded in December 1949; a fact that even today causes controversy.
The period 1945-49 in Dutch colonial history, however, is still highly sensitive. Indeed, this chapter is conspicuous among colonial studies by its absence. Unlike Vietnam, which Hollywood has transformed into an icon of contemporary culture, post-Second World War Indonesia constitutes something of a collective blind-spot in the Dutch psyche. The case of one of the Netherlands' leading historians, the late Jan Romein, is enlightening. His wife, Annie Romein-Verschoor, had grown up in colonial Dutch East Indies. They were both self-confessed Communists. progressive idealists and committed to Indonesian independence. Yet when Jan Romein published his major study of decolonisation, De Eeuw van Azie (The Asian Century) in 1956, Indonesia earned only a superficial mention. Of the 300 pages, twenty-five were on Indonesia, while the bibliography of 267 titles contained only ten relating to it. In 1980 a leading Indonesian historian, Taufik Abdullah, referring to the loud Dutch silence, remarked that international historiography was the monopoly of the conquerors.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LfYLjgmH5svKjqTrpNyFkS5GG9RG18Lc7ZQwdhJ2t19TfW1cnrKC!-2002178534!-1550841181?docId=5000418748
You ask me for sources? :yes:
Louis VI the Fat
01-27-2010, 02:46
The thing is, we don't even disagree on the fact that Wilders is a detestable little cretin who hates Islam for no proper reason whtsoever and that he's best off not having any power anywhere. It's just that you completely misplace the origin of this sentiment of his, which is much better placed amongst the ethnic Dutch majority which forms 80% of Holland and at which Wilders's populism is aimed.Wilders is best kept out of power. (Unless to 'defuse' him by giving him actual responsibilities). Wilders is a fanatic - 'somebody who won't shut up and won't change the subject'.
I do not necessarily disagree with Wilders' take on Islam. Which I consider a backward, totalitarian ideology, and of which I wish there was none of in Europe.
I do think there must be a limit to what one says about Muslims. It is simply not true that they are possesed fundamentalist zombies. There are too many hardworking, kind, civilized Muslims /people from Muslim background.
I do not trace all of Wilders' political ideas, or his meteoric rise, on his personal background alone. Norway has no colonial past (disregarding giving local polar bears a fright), yet it has a vast anti-immigration, anti-Islamic sentiment.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-27-2010, 03:02
It is simply not true that they are possesed fundamentalist zombies. There are too many hardworking, kind, civilized Muslims /people from Muslim background.
In fairness, Wilders does not disagree with that statement.
https://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1368/bergkamp.jpg
Did you really need to drag the Dutch Master into this mess? :inquisitive:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-27-2010, 06:04
So far, our respective duelists are keeping within the bounds and targeting the opinions and not the poster. THANKS! I hope and trust this will continue.
“Unlike in France, there is no air of bitterness or well-known problem between the Indo minority and the ethnic Dutch majority.”
Wasn’t it a Moluccan Commando that took a train in hostage some 35 years ago (1977, and the storming an Embassy), for unresolved problems?
You are right. I do not rememnber Harkis commando attacking French trains.
Even if they had good resons to do so.
Hoops, sorry, all is for the better in Holland...
They were promised a homeland if the fought at our side, but they were betrayed by the crown, deported and put in camps. It isn't really something we want to forget, it is something aren't supposed to know, the queen will never allow it to enter the schoolbooks we need to keep waving flags at queens-day.
'somebody who won't shut up and won't change the subject'
Not his fault that is the only thing they want to talk about.
@Louis ;)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/geertwilders.jpg
Ah, Harry 'antifada now' van Bommel (socialist party) and Gretta '6 million autographs' Duisenberg (labour party member) are not prosecuted, that puts the prosecution in an even more dire position. Saying that the radical Islam has no place in Europe isn't the same thing as leading a procession with muslims and leftists shouting 'Hamas Hamas all jews on the gas'.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/harrybommeldam4777.jpg
The Wizard
01-27-2010, 18:45
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/france/TH5BLOBEA5B4B205A/p2
http://dutcheastindies.web.id/my-heritage-is-my-right
You accuse me of having a weak argument because I cite my Indo friends and yet you're citing random people on the Internet now? :dizzy2:
Basically that's "my Indo's" against "your Indo's". Who'll win? I asked you for scholarly sources. Van Leeuwen is completely alone in her assertion that Wilders draws from a pied-noir sentiment amonst the Indo community. That doesn't mean she's a pioneer, it means she's just plain wrong.
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2446712.ece/Dutch_quarrel_over_Indonesian_independence_day
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LfYLjgmH5svKjqTrpNyFkS5GG9RG18Lc7ZQwdhJ2t19TfW1cnrKC!-2002178534!-1550841181?docId=5000418748
Tell me Louis... what exactly does the fact that the Dutch government did not recognize the self-declared date of independence of Indonesia (1945) in favor of its own version (1949, when we admitted we had lost) for decades have to do with the subject at hand? The same goes for the fact that the extremely bloody nature of our attempt to reconquer our colony, as well as the war crimes we committed while doing so, remain largely unknown and untaught amongst the broader populace.
Because the subject at hand was the supposed denial of the existence of a pied-noir sentiment in our Indo community. What you linked to has to do with Indonesia, yes. But the relation stops there. It's about the grudges and the traumas of Indonesians, not of Indo's. Please, stay on topic, will you?
Unless you were trying to say that we keep quiet about certain parts of our history as a society as a general point. I'm inclined to agree with you on that. But then, what country doesn't? I can easily think up a couple examples in France, Germany, and the UK. And the U.S., too, for that matter. Even neutral happy hippie weeniestans like Sweden or Finland!
And when it comes down to it, we're ignoring parts of our history that have little to do with what you assert exists in this country. Holland prefers to ignore its violence in dealing with its colony. It does not ignore a pied-noir complex in one of its communities, which simply does not exist, and for which you have no sources but two random Internet people, one of which is not even from the Netherlands. Meanwhile, every Dutchman is telling you that what you're saying is total news to them and Van Leeuwen is the only person screaming about Wilders being a pied-noir in clogs. I think that says it all, really.
P.S.
You ask me for sources? :yes:
Read on:
You ask me for sources? I'd rather point to the lack of ones. It is simply not an issue here. Van Leeuwen is alone in claiming these things. Every Indo I've spoken to about the matter (and this is not the first time) tells me that she makes wild conclusions grasped out of nowhere. Here (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants), even this rather mild, if not overtly friendly piece already shows you, in the second to last paragraph, that her conclusions are anything but broadly accepted in the Indo community. I might add that Indo's I know have rejected her claims about being put in the same category with Moroccans and Turks in the '60s and '70s, as well.
Latent racism
But within the East Indies community itself, not everyone agrees. Herman Bussemaker, chairman of the Dutch Indies Platform, says he doesn't know anyone who believes Mr Wilders is a hero. On the contrary, many immigrants from the former colony are alarmed by the politician's meteoric rise.
"They are afraid because the latent racism that is present in Dutch culture is only being reinforced by the actions of Mr Wilders. And most of them aren't white. So they are afraid that his actions will lead to more discrimination towards them as well."
That there is a trauma still waiting to be addressed after all this time - a trauma forgotten or ignored by most Dutch people - Dr Bussemaker doesn't deny. But that hasn't resulted in any strong right-wing leanings, he says. Rather, the political expressions of those frustrations "are spread from left to right".
“Unlike in France, there is no air of bitterness or well-known problem between the Indo minority and the ethnic Dutch majority.”
Wasn’t it a Moluccan Commando that took a train in hostage some 35 years ago (1977, and the storming an Embassy), for unresolved problems?
You are right. I do not rememnber Harkis commando attacking French trains.
Even if they had good resons to do so.
Hoops, sorry, all is for the better in Holland...
Protip: Moluccans =/= Indo's. You are referring to a different minority with a different identity and a different history.
Holland prefers to ignore its violence in dealing with its colony. It does not ignore a pied-noir complex in one of its communities, which simply does not exist
Yes this is true. It's a nice collection of syllables Louis, nothing more. The Netherlands has a pretty complex colonial history and you are to accuse us if being ignorant of our past you get a 'hell yeah' from here, but when it comes to this trial and Wilders there is simply no context. It's just not there.
Kralizec
01-27-2010, 20:38
Ah, Harry 'antifada now' van Bommel (socialist party) and Gretta '6 million autographs' Duisenberg (labour party member) are not prosecuted, that puts the prosecution in an even more dire position. Saying that the radical Islam has no place in Europe isn't the same thing as leading a procession with muslims and leftists shouting 'Hamas Hamas all jews on the gas'.
Wim Duisenberg was a labour member. Gretta is member of the SP, I believe.
I can't be sure, but I don't think either of those should be considered anti-semetic...just too stupid to know wich people to avoid being seen with.
Furunculus
01-28-2010, 10:07
and opinions that chimes with me:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100024056/geert-wilders-on-trial-for-telling-the-truth/
Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth
There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.
The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.
Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.
His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.
Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.
I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.
Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.
Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.
There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.
Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.
The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.
Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.
Wim Duisenberg was a labour member. Gretta is member of the SP, I believe.
I can't be sure, but I don't think either of those should be considered anti-semetic...just too stupid to know wich people to avoid being seen with.
Oh believe me, her dad was my grandma's second husband I know Gretta Duisenberg alright.
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 13:50
They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones.
~:mad
European values do not coincide with wanting to ban books.
~:mad
European values do not coincide with wanting to ban books.
But that is just sophism
And what exactly is wrong with sophism?
Wilders says he wants to protect "Freedom". You do not protect freedom by banning books.
Skullheadhq
01-28-2010, 14:49
Hax, you don't understand, if you disagree with banning books you're a godless, freedom hating commie. Paradoxal, isn't it?
Reminds me of the Indiana Jones, Last Crusade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMeesE4Nlhg
And what exactly is wrong with sophism?
well sophism is only about winning an argument, whatever that argument might be. Sophists don't care, it's a sport. They were bashed for that in the past, for having a complete lack of morality.
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 15:00
I agree, reminds me of the PVV
I agree, reminds me of the PVV
Really, how
Ah luigi, I got another thing for you to chew on, the PVV isn't really extreme right but new-right radical. A scientific study from of oh who gives a crap. One of many.
Louis VI the Fat
01-28-2010, 16:06
Ah luigi, I got another thing for you to chew on, the PVV isn't really extreme right but new-right radical. A scientific study from of oh who gives a crap. One of many.Of course the PVV isn't really extreme right. The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'. This is, to my knowledge, unique in Europe. Extreme right parties are anti-immigrant, the PVV is not. It is solely anti-Islam. Of course, considering that all the members of this party are mixed-race Indo immigrants, this should come as no surprise.
And gives us that link! I am already looking forward to it being rubbished by the claim that 'some of my best friends are radical and they don't vote Wilders'.
Skullheadhq
01-28-2010, 16:30
And gives us that link! I am already looking forward to it being rubbished by the claim that 'some of my best friends are radical and they don't vote Wilders'.
Radical doesn't automatically say Right Wing radical, also, neonazis don't like Wilders either, because Wilders is a zionist, which makes left-right in the Netherlands even more complicated.
Wilders is a populist and an opportunist, not left or right.
The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'.
Not really, the PVV is just the only one that isn't.
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 17:04
Of course the PVV isn't really extreme right. The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'. This is, to my knowledge, unique in Europe. Extreme right parties are anti-immigrant, the PVV is not. It is solely anti-Islam. Of course, considering that all the members of this party are mixed-race Indo immigrants, this should come as no surprise.
Patently untrue, but you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring that. As an aside, the party is generally anti-immigrant. You should hear these clowns talk about Antillians. Skullheadhq has the gist of the matter, really.
Louis VI the Fat
01-28-2010, 17:29
Here's teh link in English. :whip:
Wilders' party is 'new radical right'
Thursday 28 January 2010
Geert Wilders' political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA (http://www.iva.nl/Nieuwsartikelen/Polarisatie_en_radicalisering_in_Nederland.aspx?objectname=NewsShow&objectId=162).
PVV statements on 'islamisation' and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as 'new radical right', a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party's pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report (http://hoeiboei.web-log.nl/hoeiboei/files/verkenningpr.pdf) states.
Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for 'the familiar' and turns against things which are 'foreign' and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.
Scandalous
Wilders told news agency ANP the report is 'scandalous' - in particular the link between defending the national interest and the radical right. And he attacked the decision to publish it now, just as he is on trial for discrimination and inciting hatred.
An earlier version (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/11/wilders_is_undermining_democra.php) of the report, leaked to the Volkskrant in November, said Wilders' party is an extreme right wing grouping and a threat to social cohesion and democracy. The paper claimed at the time the researchers were under pressure to water down the conclusions because of their political sensitivity.
Home affairs minister Guus ter Horst, who commissioned the research, has denied exerting any influence on the report.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/wilders_party_is_new_radical_r.php
Patently untrue, but you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring that. As an aside, the party is generally anti-immigrant. You should hear these clowns talk about Antillians. Skullheadhq has the gist of the matter, really.No, I am afraid I am exactly right again. All of the members of the PVV are of mixed-race immigrant ancestry.
well sophism is only about winning an argument, whatever that argument might be. Sophists don't care, it's a sport. They were bashed for that in the past, for having a complete lack of morality.
Acknowleding that there is no ultimate truth does not equal immorality.
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 18:01
No, I am afraid I am exactly right again. All of the members of the PVV are of mixed-race immigrant ancestry.
You are right... considering there's only one member :sweatdrop: Which, of course, is a technicality and by no means reflects the way the party makes policy. Its MPs may not be members (which, I might add, is very worrying) but I sincerely doubt they don't formulate PVV positions. Besides that, even if Wilders made all policy alone, Saddam-style, then he still doesn't make the least attempt to rein in his lackeys when they bash on other minorities in this country. Which once again brings me back to my point, namely that this party is anti-immigrant in general. And weakens yours, namely that it is strongly informed by Wilders's half-Indo background.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-28-2010, 18:12
Acknowleding that there is no ultimate truth does not equal immorality.
Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.
Strike For The South
01-28-2010, 18:17
From What I can gather.
1. Wilders is a mixed race man who has roots in Indonesia
2. He doesn't like rampant immagration or the insulation of minorty groups in Holland
Thats where I get confused.
The anti immagrant party is made up of mixed race people, ok and?
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 18:20
STFS, his party has only one member: Geert Wilders himself (who has a mother of mixed race). Its constituency, however, is overwhelmingly ethnically Dutch.
Strike For The South
01-28-2010, 18:33
STFS, his party has only one member: Geert Wilders himself (who has a mother of mixed race). Its constituency, however, is overwhelmingly ethnically Dutch.
In that case I'll agree with Louis.
Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.
I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.
I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.
You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-28-2010, 20:46
Wilders says he wants to protect "Freedom". You do not protect freedom by banning books.
Does Wilders want to ban the Koran because he wants to ban things he doesn't like, or does he want to ban it because Holland bans books that he thinks are as bad as the Koran and he feels the ban should be applied equally, even though he also believes that in an ideal world there shouldn't be a ban at all?
Just wondering, perhaps Frag could explain.
The Wizard
01-28-2010, 20:54
Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.
He compared it to mein kampf as a book that preaches hate, and he said if muslims would tear out the hateful passages out of the Quran what would remain wouldn't be thicker then the Donald Duckhehemyboy
Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.
Meneldil
01-28-2010, 21:28
Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.
Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.
And there we have it, yet another scientific rapport from a knowologue, Wilders is not extreme right, but new-right radical. wut? Release of the rapport has nothing to do with the trial of course, but once again they turn out to be to stupid and made a mistake, if you are going to release a months old rapport at the right time and claim it wasn't done yet (minister of internal affairs who ordered the rapport said so and proudly presented it yesterday IT IS DONE), at least change the dates on the adobe-documents.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-29-2010, 09:47
I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.
Pointless, as I am talking about a moral absolute, and you are talking about the perception of morality. The concept of authentic morality excludes relativism, as does the concept of genuine truth.
But, I feel I should say something about Wilders. His closest cognate in Britain is probably the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Roschester. Nazir-Ali is a Pakistani immigrant to the UK from a mixed Christina/Muslim family and, to be frank, his distane for Islam borders on the openly hostile.
What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.
The other thing these men have in common is a high level of intergration into their host culture, something they both clearly think other immigrants should have as well.
What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.
:wall:
If he would identify with anything other then the Netherlands it would be Israel, he lived there for years, also find that a lot more likely candidate as a reason why he isn't absolutely in love with the Islam. That, and unlike his enemies who live in 100% white neighbourhoods and put their children on 100% white schools he also lived for years in a neighborhood that was enriched with culture, he knows of the problems first hand.
You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.
So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.
PS. I dislike Plato, though.
So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all.
Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-29-2010, 11:35
So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.
PS. I dislike Plato, though.
Clearly...
Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.
...because Socrates was not a Sophist. Fragony is quite correct, Protagoras said that the better argument is the most "moral" even if the position being argued was the weaker one. Sophistry is merely rhetorical. It has no genuinely moral dimension.
Socrates' thought is only transferred through Plato and (to a much lesser extent) Xenophon. All we can be reasonably confident he said is that "the only wisdom is to know that you know nothing". Socrates was a diadactition and a sceptic, not a sophist or a relativist.
Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.
Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative. Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.
However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.
There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.
Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.
More interpunction, please.
This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
The Wizard
01-29-2010, 12:12
Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.
As far as it should never be banned, yes. Just like the holy book of 3 nutjobs, aka Mein Kampf.
The thing is, Wilders never said the same thing about the Bible. And there are quite a few hate-filled passages in there, too...
Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.
To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.
What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background
No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.
EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.
To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.
Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero :juggle2:
Also isn't like teachers avoid the subject of the holocaust or the rascals go nuts :juggle2:
The Wizard
01-29-2010, 12:31
So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.
So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.
spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.
Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero
Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.
The Wizard
01-29-2010, 12:40
spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.
Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...
Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.
You are right the Middle East my bad
Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...
Really, how come
The Wizard
01-29-2010, 12:45
'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-29-2010, 12:46
Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.
You should, he was a great thinker.
Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative.
No, it is about the ostensible teaching of wisdom. Relativism is abohorrant to moralism anyway, which is the point.
Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.
This is impossible to know, as not a single Socratic work survives; only Platonic ones.
However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.
Morality is like truth, an absolute, whether or not they really exist is a seperate question from their nature. If you ascibe to a relativistic world view then you can only talk about individual perceptions of morality, not morality itself.
There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.
Morality is morality, criticism of someone's perception of morality is different. A badly argued moral good is still a moral good.
This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
The first question to ask is whether what Wilders says has any truth in it, then where he intends to take his conclusions. The structure of his argument is a semantic question, not a relevant one. The use of rhetoric to refute his points is a question of technical proficiency, not morality.
'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:
why
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/01/wilders_had_gelijk.html#comments < there is your debate, they don't want it so they do this. Little adition, if Wilders wouldn't debate there wouldn't be any debate because of the suffocating social control in the leftist church, Fortuyn broke the taboo and look what it got him, ridicule, insult, OMGHITLER, threats, and ultimately a bullet. They say they learned their lessons but it is worse then ever, ANYTHING BUT DEBATE PLEASE psst Hitler
one man against the red machine
'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:
Zing
What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.
He debates in parliament on the basis that what he says is a hard truth: Islam is evil. He refuses to debate with Islamic scholars, scientists or Islamic organisations about what Islam is.
What do you mean he has close contact with the Arabist Hans Jansen and Afshin Ellian, as well as multiple foreign experts, he is well informed enough. Actual theological debate is useless, what's there to discuss about imaginary friends.
http://www.arabistjansen.nl/Arabist/cv_eng.html no lightweight
http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Auteur.htm?dbid=111&typeofpage=71806 neither is he
Not theological debate but debate on the historical and contextual nature of the Qu'ran and Islam. He takes Qu'ran verses out of context without citing in what context such verses were used. This is immensely important.
Louis VI the Fat
01-29-2010, 14:00
So Wilders went to London today...
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9653/pho09oct16182713.jpg
Not theological debate but debate on the historical and contextual nature of the Qu'ran and Islam. He takes Qu'ran verses out of context without citing in what context such verses were used. This is immensely important.
No it isn't, what is important is that it's also a political system with it own set of laws, and that neighborhoods slowly transform in sharia-enclaves with the subsequent consequences for jews gays blacks and women, it's called islamization and it must be stopped.
So Wilders went to London today...
Now muslims in the Netherlands are nowhere like these guys mind you.
pssssssssssssst Haxie http://www.trouw.nl/opinie/podium/article2972099.ece/Geert_Wilders_is_een_meester_in_het_debat__.html
This is a good analyses of his tactics, and it shows the traps his opponents keep falling into.
Furunculus
01-29-2010, 15:06
So Wilders went to London today...
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9653/pho09oct16182713.jpg
how wonderful that we have such fruit-cakes in this country.
At least you aren't in France, these guys are only holding signs
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/machete477.jpg
Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.
Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.
sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I
I see at least 30, cops that is, running
sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I
I see at least 30, cops that is, running
That was a free palestine march, so slightly different.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-29-2010, 16:06
Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.
Looks more like 20, really. Still, it makes Wilders look significantly less loopy, doesn't it.
Why? Because there are 20 stupid people out of 60,000,000? Oooh, save us from the Islamofascist horde Wilders! :rolleyes:
That was a free palestine march, so slightly different.
No, it isn't. Well ok it wasn't a cartoon or teddy-bear this time. Radical islamists are hostile towards us (well everything also moderate/ex muslims, ever thought about that, how much intimidation they have to endure, they are terrified and with good reason). Comes down to this;
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/rublind2.jpg
Oooh, save us from the Islamofascist horde Wilders!
It is normal leftist try to ridicule instead of debate and we are not impressed, that is because they are usually from well of family's who can't know what life is for people at the receiving end, they live in 100% white neighborhoods and put their children on 100% white schools. You are probably one of these.
It is normal leftist try to ridicule instead of debate
Because going ad hominem is something Wilders never does.
Because going ad hominem is something Wilders never does.
He doesn't have to, and he wouldn't be able to do so anyway. You need friendly redactions and airtime from state television for being able to play that game. We have the digital democracy at our side. The latest trick;
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/01/wilders_had_gelijk.html#comments <- that one
That scam was cracked in 14 minutes. It's outdated, it's most of all cheap, and it's most of all completely useless because as politicians look away more people get affected by their refusal to do something about a very real reality. They used to insult only a few who saw things were not going absolutely superduper-ok from the go, but now they are insulting hundreds of thousands of people, ironically.
HoreTore
01-29-2010, 17:31
Looks more like 20, really. Still, it makes Wilders look significantly less loopy, doesn't it.
Considering Wilders is their equal, why?
Considering Wilders is their equal, why?
Oh read up for please sake.
He doesn't have to, and he wouldn't be able to do so anyway.
Because calling a fellow member of parliament insane isn't ad hominem at all.
Because calling a fellow member of parliament insane isn't ad hominem at all.
Not as much as 'we are millions' , het kereltje, and countless other examples.
The Wizard
01-30-2010, 00:52
Hans Jansen is a loner in the world of Arabic studies when it comes to his views on Islam. Moreover, his views on the culture and religion are considerably more moderate than those of Wilders, even if he is on the (far) more critical side of his field, and he rarely agrees with our little peroxide-loving populist. Doesn't stop Wilders from using his words out of context, of course, but then what does? It's Wilders's specialty.
Afshin Ellian has a known bias, but again, he is not Wilders and does not agree with the guy regularly. He's more a CDA slave.
So Wilders went to London today...
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9653/pho09oct16182713.jpg
You realize, I hope, that these people belong to a crackpot fringe movement, right? There are, like, 5 of them and three times as many journalists :laugh4:
Afshin Ellian has a known bias, but again, he is not Wilders and does not agree with the guy regularly. He's more a CDA slave.
Maybe he is a little bit biased, I guess being tortured does that to a person, but a CDA slave huh, how would you react if I called the left Islam-lovers, I would be closer to the truth then you are. Full agreement isn't a necessity anyway, do you agree with everything the party you vote does, I agree with 50% or so of the PVV, that is more then I agree with the other party's.
just for flavor (to non-dutchies 'gast' means something like 'dude' even if it means guest linguistically)
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/01/wat_te_doen_met_deze_gast.html#comments
You are jewish if I remember correctly, this is what you are defending.
Skullheadhq
01-30-2010, 10:59
geenstijl, that's your source?!
Source for that very clip, but Geenstijl is much more reliable then newspapers at least they dig instead of typing over what the ANP gives them. I take my news from Geenstijl and Elsevier yeah. De Volkskrant has improved though, I'll give them that, took them only two weeks to write something about climate-gate while the others are still having a writers-block.
Geenstijl is just fun, the stijllozen are smart, well informed and well educated, when you look past the juvenile style of the team you will find great discussions in the comments.
The Wizard
01-30-2010, 13:22
I'm not defending anything. Rather, I'm opposing this ludicrous man and his insane plans.
EDIT: GeenStijl was intelligent 5 years ago. I don't know how you put up with all the idiots on the site today as well as the Telegraaf-copy the editors have since created. It's pretty much a worthless site these days. And to say newspapers "copy ANP"... :laugh4: Read something intelligent like the NRC will ya
Furunculus
01-30-2010, 13:32
awesome opinion piece on the foolishness of trying a man for speaking the truth:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100024237/geert-wilders-is-not-far-right/
Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'
By Ed West World Last updated: January 30th, 2010
Like my colleague Douglas Murray, who has already written an excellent post on the show trial of the century, I’ve been surprised by the lack of British media interest in Geert Wilders’s martyrdom in Amsterdam. An American minor celebrity only has to fart to receive blanket coverage in the British press, but when a major politician next door faces jail on trumped-up charges – in a case that will have implications for our freedom of speech – there seems to be little interest.
For those who haven’t visited these parts, Wilders is a Dutch politician on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands. Yes, put on trial – not fisked or twitter-lynched or condemned by the Equality Gestapo, but actually brought to court. Wilders calls it “surreal”, and it certainly seems strange that in a city where a gentleman can smoke Morocco’s most famous export and view half-naked women in shop windows, he can go to jail for criticising a religion.
What Americans – or anyone else who’s somehow missed Europe’s slide towards diversity authoritarianism – will find so strange is that it’s not even the truth of Wilder’s statement on trial. Comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is daft – the Koran can be used for evil intent, and does justify violence in many passages, but it can, and has, also inspired much good; Mein Kampf is just plain evil. But this is a country with a long tradition of robust public debate, often of a comically abusive nature, and especially so about religion. It is part of the Dutch tradition of freedom that makes it such a pleasant society.
As for what he says about Moroccans, it is factually correct, but as one of the prosecutors said before the trial: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
How can the country that produced Spinoza have become so retarded? It all began with the Nazis, or more specifically with Holocaust denial, which was criminalised by France in 1990. It was an absurdly stupid law, since the number of Europeans who don’t believe the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews could probably fit inside David Irving’s living room, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Laws gagging neo-Nazis were soon extended to views that were unpleasant, bigoted or, increasingly, just unfashionable and offensive, as the band of acceptable opinions in Eutopia became ever smaller. Wilders is unfashionable, certainly, but his ideas are not beyond the pale.
Alongside the criminalisation of thought crime, those within the consensus have made their opponents’ views verboten by labeling dissenters as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or comparing them to Hitler, as the Dutch media did repeatedly with Pim Fortuyn up until the day he was murdered.
Another abused term is “far-Right”, a label that the British and American media routinely apply to Geert Wilders.
The European far-Right has certain characteristics – as well as being obsessed with race, it is anti-big business, pro-state intervention, pro-worker’s rights but anti-Communist, nostalgic about the countryside and often sentimental about animals, politically paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories, anti-gay, anti-American and, most of all, anti-Semitic Zionist (just as it used to be against “cosmopolitans” and “foreign intellectuals”).
The British National Party, for instance, though not “fascist” in any meaningful sense, is undoubtedly far-Right, which is most clearly demonstrated by its attitude to America and capitalism. The extreme Right is economically closer to the Left than it is to the centre-Right, but, whatever several of my colleagues believe, it is still Right-wing (not that most BNP voters give a monkey’s either way).
Wilders’ Freedom Party is not in any sense ‘far-Right”, as its own policy statement makes:
The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme towards immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralization, abolishment of the minimum wage, limiting of child benefits and government subsidies. Towards immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be treated as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries. It is skeptical towards the EU project, is against future EU enlargement with countries like Turkey and opposes the presence of Islam in the Netherlands. The party is also opposed to dual citizenship.
The ambiguity of the penultimate sentence is disturbing, but otherwise the party comes from the European mainstream, specifically the centre-Right tradition. Wilders simply believes that becoming a minority in one’s major cities because everyone is too embarrassed to offend anyone by raising the issue is taking northern European shyness a bit far.
Now even the Dutch establishment has downgraded him from “far-Right” to “radical Right”, barely less loony-sounding, but a start. According to Dutch News:
Geert Wilders’ political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.
PVV statements on ‘islamisation’ and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as ‘new radical right’, a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party’s pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report states.
Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for ‘the familiar’ and turns against things which are ‘foreign’ and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.
Wilders himself called the new description “scandalous”, and I hardly blame him, since Encylopaedia.com describes “radical Right” in unflattering terms:
The radical right is a term applied in the United States to sociopolitical movements and political factions and parties that develop in response to supposed threats against American values and interests. Such backlashes usually stem from rapid social or economic change that sparks a reaction among groups seeking to maintain or narrow lines of power and privilege.
They justify their actions by discounting the legitimacy of their opponents, seeing them as agents of an un-American conspiracy not deserving of political respect or constitutional protection.
Discounting the legitimacy of their opponents and viewing them as not deserving of respect or legal protection – sounds awfully familiar from this side of the Atlantic.
Read something intelligent like the NRC will ya
I have the Herald Tribune and Le Figaro for that thank you very much, they have a slant but dutch newspapers are a joke, Telegraaf is the only one that does journalism and it does it very very poorly. I will gladly continue to get my news from Geenstijl and Elsevier.
or twitter-lynched...Equality Gestapo...Eutopia
wat
The Wizard
01-30-2010, 13:46
The Telegraaf... you gotta be kidding me. Shiny color pictures and screaming headlines for those with a short attention span. You disappoint me, reading that. The Volkskrant has a clear bias, that much is obvious, but the NRC is basically the country's best newspaper, hands down.
GeenStijl used to be a witty and funny place with an opinion entirely its own where ordinary journalism was satirized in an intelligent way, but that hasn't been the case in many years. Now it's just your average Telegraaf ripoff, it even has the ALLCAPS headlines these days. And then the patrons... ugh. No thanks. At least I read something interesting in my daily papers every now and then.
wat
Get an audience that cheers for that or get the hell out of my thread, I have no use here for what is absolutely normal.
"The Volkskrant has a clear bias"
They have improved, much more balanced lately. NRC is good for book and movie reviews I'll give them that.
edit; read some French or English/American newspapers and you will see the difference, soooooooo poor here.
edit, are you the same person that posted there by the way
The Wizard
01-30-2010, 13:54
Just watched that video about the zany lefty folks and the crazy Moroccan dude who loves us Jews so much.
I still don't see why stuff like this warrants a ban on the Qur'an, a stop to all immigration, extremely stringent policy only to certain groups of people (*cough*Muslims*cough*) and other retarded things Wilders has blurted out over the years. You see, that's the difference between me and Wilders, and I gather between you and me, Frag. I don't see this and go "oh my that must mean every last one of them is an antisemite with the IQ of a Brussels sprout" let alone that I conclude from that that we need to act right now and in an repressive way to save an extremely limited view on Dutch/Western culture.
EDIT: In short, I pick option E, 'cause that's what'll happen
Just watched that video about the zany lefty folks and the crazy Moroccan dude who loves us Jews so much.
Trust me I know a lot of them, and they don't exactly look kindly upon you lot, I had a Maroc girl for a while, nice people until you scratch the surface, and then it turns really really ugly. They hate your guts, also the moderate ones.
Skullheadhq
01-30-2010, 14:14
Also, Wilders wanted a veil tax to combat the economic crisis :P
The Wizard
01-30-2010, 14:19
The guy's a nut, what did you expect
Also, I know plenty of "them" too and they don't hate me :shrug:
Furunculus
01-30-2010, 14:20
wat
you are being as dumbly obtuse this time as you were on the labour is authoritarian argument:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2420450&viewfull=1#post2420450
saying that however, Louis was just as obtuse:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2420527&viewfull=1#post2420527
maybe its just me, living in a fantasy reality disconnected from the rest of the real world........ oh no, wait, someone did cotton on to what i was saying:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2420631&viewfull=1#post2420631
but let me help you out again by bolding the important bits:
Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'
By Ed West World Last updated: January 30th, 2010
Like my colleague Douglas Murray, who has already written an excellent post on the show trial of the century, I’ve been surprised by the lack of British media interest in Geert Wilders’s martyrdom in Amsterdam. An American minor celebrity only has to fart to receive blanket coverage in the British press, but when a major politician next door faces jail on trumped-up charges – in a case that will have implications for our freedom of speech – there seems to be little interest.
For those who haven’t visited these parts, Wilders is a Dutch politician on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands. Yes, put on trial – not fisked or twitter-lynched or condemned by the Equality Gestapo, but actually brought to court. Wilders calls it “surreal”, and it certainly seems strange that in a city where a gentleman can smoke Morocco’s most famous export and view half-naked women in shop windows, he can go to jail for criticising a religion.
What Americans – or anyone else who’s somehow missed Europe’s slide towards diversity authoritarianism – will find so strange is that it’s not even the truth of Wilder’s statement on trial. Comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is daft – the Koran can be used for evil intent, and does justify violence in many passages, but it can, and has, also inspired much good; Mein Kampf is just plain evil. But this is a country with a long tradition of robust public debate, often of a comically abusive nature, and especially so about religion. It is part of the Dutch tradition of freedom that makes it such a pleasant society.
As for what he says about Moroccans, it is factually correct, but as one of the prosecutors said before the trial: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
How can the country that produced Spinoza have become so retarded? It all began with the Nazis, or more specifically with Holocaust denial, which was criminalised by France in 1990. It was an absurdly stupid law, since the number of Europeans who don’t believe the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews could probably fit inside David Irving’s living room, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Laws gagging neo-Nazis were soon extended to views that were unpleasant, bigoted or, increasingly, just unfashionable and offensive, as the band of acceptable opinions in Eutopia became ever smaller. Wilders is unfashionable, certainly, but his ideas are not beyond the pale.
Alongside the criminalisation of thought crime, those within the consensus have made their opponents’ views verboten by labeling dissenters as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or comparing them to Hitler, as the Dutch media did repeatedly with Pim Fortuyn up until the day he was murdered.
Another abused term is “far-Right”, a label that the British and American media routinely apply to Geert Wilders.
The European far-Right has certain characteristics – as well as being obsessed with race, it is anti-big business, pro-state intervention, pro-worker’s rights but anti-Communist, nostalgic about the countryside and often sentimental about animals, politically paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories, anti-gay, anti-American and, most of all, anti-Semitic Zionist (just as it used to be against “cosmopolitans” and “foreign intellectuals”).
The British National Party, for instance, though not “fascist” in any meaningful sense, is undoubtedly far-Right, which is most clearly demonstrated by its attitude to America and capitalism. The extreme Right is economically closer to the Left than it is to the centre-Right, but, whatever several of my colleagues believe, it is still Right-wing (not that most BNP voters give a monkey’s either way).
Wilders’ Freedom Party is not in any sense ‘far-Right”, as its own policy statement makes:
The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme towards immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralization, abolishment of the minimum wage, limiting of child benefits and government subsidies. Towards immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be treated as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries. It is skeptical towards the EU project, is against future EU enlargement with countries like Turkey and opposes the presence of Islam in the Netherlands. The party is also opposed to dual citizenship.
The ambiguity of the penultimate sentence is disturbing, but otherwise the party comes from the European mainstream, specifically the centre-Right tradition. Wilders simply believes that becoming a minority in one’s major cities because everyone is too embarrassed to offend anyone by raising the issue is taking northern European shyness a bit far.
Now even the Dutch establishment has downgraded him from “far-Right” to “radical Right”, barely less loony-sounding, but a start. According to Dutch News:
Geert Wilders’ political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.
PVV statements on ‘islamisation’ and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as ‘new radical right’, a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party’s pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report states.
Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for ‘the familiar’ and turns against things which are ‘foreign’ and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.
Wilders himself called the new description “scandalous”, and I hardly blame him, since Encylopaedia.com describes “radical Right” in unflattering terms:
The radical right is a term applied in the United States to sociopolitical movements and political factions and parties that develop in response to supposed threats against American values and interests. Such backlashes usually stem from rapid social or economic change that sparks a reaction among groups seeking to maintain or narrow lines of power and privilege.
They justify their actions by discounting the legitimacy of their opponents, seeing them as agents of an un-American conspiracy not deserving of political respect or constitutional protection.
Discounting the legitimacy of their opponents and viewing them as not deserving of respect or legal protection – sounds awfully familiar from this side of the Atlantic.
Do ya get it now, well do ya?
Also, I know plenty of "them" too and they don't hate me :shrug:
They are caught up in exactly the same thing, do you think it's easy to be a moderate muslim. It only is when it doesn't matter, but where the Islam settles it does, they don't have a real life anymore. The social control goes so far you wouldn't believe it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-30-2010, 14:49
No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.
EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.
You have rather missed my point, Wilders may have been raised authentically Dutch, but he doesn't look authentically Dutch. Children being what they are he was probably bullied at school, which is why he dyes his hair and has an intense identification with "traditional" Dutch culture. Loius sees the resemblence and judges him acvcordingly which shows Wilders probably has reason to be senitive.
However, the fact remains that he does have non-Dutch roots in Indonesia and therefore probably thinks that those who come to the Netherlands should integrate regardless of being wholly European or not.
You have rather missed my point, Wilders may have been raised authentically Dutch, but he doesn't look authentically Dutch. Children being what they are he was probably bullied at school, which is why he dyes his hair and has an intense identification with "traditional" Dutch culture. Loius sees the resemblence and judges him acvcordingly which shows Wilders probably has reason to be senitive.
However, the fact remains that he does have non-Dutch roots in Indonesia and therefore probably thinks that those who come to the Netherlands should integrate regardless of being wholly European or not.
lolololol, please PVC, listen to the Wizard. Wilders is from Limburg, that is where we keep what we call 'spare-flemish'.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-30-2010, 15:33
lolololol, please PVC, listen to the Wizard. Wilders is from Limburg, that is where we keep what we call 'spare-flemish'.
So he doesn't look at all Indonesian? He does, doesn't he? Loius clearly sees it, and he's not the only one.
I didn't see a need to mention the rest of the article, as my original post summed up exactly what I thought about it.
For those who haven’t visited these parts, Wilders is a Dutch politician on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands. Yes, put on trial – not fisked or twitter-lynched or condemned by the Equality Gestapo, but actually brought to court
The first is wildly inaccurate, and akin to slander. With regards to the second, he's either not on trial for saying that particular statistic, or that quote has been taken out of context.
As for what he says about Moroccans, it is factually correct, but as one of the prosecutors said before the trial: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
How can the country that produced Spinoza have become so retarded? It all began with the Nazis, or more specifically with Holocaust denial, which was criminalised by France in 1990. It was an absurdly stupid law, since the number of Europeans who don’t believe the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews could probably fit inside David Irving’s living room, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Laws gagging neo-Nazis were soon extended to views that were unpleasant, bigoted or, increasingly, just unfashionable and offensive, as the band of acceptable opinions in Eutopia became ever smaller. Wilders is unfashionable, certainly, but his ideas are not beyond the pale.]
There is a difference between saying
"Some of the immigrants who come into our country are radical Islamists"
And
"Islam is on par with Nazism, and should be restricted"
Wilders says both, and then tries to pass it off in court as if he only says the former.
Wilders is blatantly manipulative when he stresses the importance of freedom of speech when somebody accuses him of racism, prejudice, etc., yet throws that inherently Judeo-Christian Western value out of the window when it comes to the Koran. He's a hypocritical populist, not deserving of any attention he gets.
Discounting the legitimacy of their opponents and viewing them as not deserving of respect or legal protection – sounds awfully familiar from this side of the Atlantic
It does. "Lefties" are caricatured by the far-right as either sandal wearing, naive hippies who have no understanding of anything in the world or as Reds. Meanwhile, Wilders and his gangsters are portrayed as having all the answers, riding on (white) horses through Europe to save us from Islamofascism/J00s/Africans/Gypsies/Turks/etc.
EDIT: I can totally see the Indonesian resemblance.
So he doesn't look at all Indonesian? He does, doesn't he? Loius clearly sees it, and he's not the only one.
Maybe you are looking too hard for something that that just isn't there.
EDIT: I can totally see the Indonesian resemblance.
Perfect fit for the opinion, read the post the Wizard made, he is correct.
Maybe you are looking too hard for something that that just isn't there.
What is that supposed to mean?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.