The Geert Wilders trial

Also, Wilders wanted a veil tax to combat the economic crisis :P

The guy's a nut, what did you expect

Also, I know plenty of "them" too and they don't hate me :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

wat

---

you are being as dumbly obtuse this time as you were on the labour is authoritarian argument:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2420450

saying that however, Louis was just as obtuse:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=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/showt...=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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Maybe you are looking too hard for something that that just isn't there.

---

What is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

Excuse me? He doesn't look Dutch? I'm Dutch, and I wasn't aware he had Indo ancestry till I read so on the English language page of a Dutch newspaper (NRC Handelsblad) some months ago, talking about the same "study" Louis beats you around the head with every post or so. So no, he does look Dutch. The vast majority of Dutchmen will tell you he looks Dutch and upon being questioned will likely say he's as much a cheesehead as the next Bergkamp.

The reason I replied to you in that way was because you uncritically took Louis's posts at face value, while they are largely untrue. Wilders is in all likelihood not strongly informed by his part-Indo background at all, as I argued at length and without rebuttal. Rather, he is strongly informed by his Dutch nationalism and narrow view of the Dutch nation, which is widely held amongst Dutchmen (something denied by our political elite for decades, with disastrous consequences).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

The reason I replied to you in that way was because you uncritically took Louis's posts at face value, while they are largely untrue. Wilders is in all likelihood not strongly informed by his part-Indo background at all, as I argued at length and without rebuttal. Rather, he is strongly informed by his Dutch nationalism and narrow view of the Dutch nation, which is widely held amongst Dutchmen (something denied by our political elite for decades, with disastrous consequences).

---

Well, Frag has now admitted he sees it. If you take another look at what I wrote you'll see that I only agree with Loius in so far as having Indonesian heritage will have somewhat shaped Wilders outlook. Let me break it down, he had an Indonesian Grandmother, who emigrated to the Netherlands and (presumably) integrated alongside her Dutch husband. He sees people emigrating to the Netherlands now, not integrating, and this causing problems and he feels that it should stop.

To me, his reaction seems somewhat oversensitive, but if one consider's his own immigrant heritage then you can see why he would be much less likely to sign up to multiculturalism than the avergae Dutchman.

This is not to suggest he has some massive racial complex, quite the opposite, if anything.

I don't see Frag agreeing to anything of the sort here...

Oh, and my point was precisely that the average Dutchman doesn't like multiculturalism quite as much as you may think, at all. It's that fact that Wilders draws from and it's at the heart of his populism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

I don't see Frag agreeing to anything of the sort here...

Oh, and my point was precisely that the average Dutchman doesn't like multiculturalism quite as much as you may think, at all. It's that fact that Wilders draws from and it's at the heart of his populism.

---

Right, fine. The fact remains, however, that Wilders is the one shouting about it, and given his fundamentally "integrationalist" approach, his indonesian aspect needs to be considered. What Frag said was that he could see the (purely physical) Indonesian resemblence in Wilders, which reinforces my point that he doesn't exactly look Dutch.

You know something's up when people are abandoning their heritage to play white.

Quote:

---

You know something's up when people are abandoning their heritage to play white.

---

Even worse when they give it up to play black.


Been listening to any hiphop lately, Meth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

You know something's up when people are abandoning their heritage to play white.

---

Thank you for the racist perspective, and helping to prove my point. Wilders is about 3/4 ethnic Dutch, probably less than 1/4 Indonesian, raised in the rural Netherlands and yet still there are those who will cast aspersions on the validity of his identity.

Gentlemen, no wonder he dyes his hair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Even worse when they give it up to play black.


Been listening to any hiphop lately, Meth?[/INDENT]

---

BURN....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Of course to assume hip-hop is simply a black thing is oversimplyfing things a bit, Then again MMs comment was equally as shortsighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Been listening to any hiphop lately, Meth?

---

Sure, but this is 100x better. Anyways, I won't take the comment seriously, comin from a white buddhist and all.

EDIT: I actually got to see the Northern Cree Singers in person not too long ago. There was a big pow wow at my reserve. 'Twas awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

Of course to assume hip-hop is simply a black thing is oversimplyfing things a bit, Then again MMs comment was equally as shortsighted.

---

:smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

I don't see Frag agreeing to anything of the sort here...

---

Neither do I, wouldn't care anyway


edit, you tell them Geertje, not of word of Spanish in it.

(in Dutch) http://extra.volkskrant.nl/opinie/ar...usje_ter_Horst

that is why he is my boy

Thank you for the racist perspective, and helping to prove my point. Wilders is about 3/4 ethnic Dutch, probably less than 1/4 Indonesian, raised in the rural Netherlands and yet still there are those who will cast aspersions on the validity of his identity.

Gentlemen, no wonder he dyes his hair.

Can keep repeating it but that doesn't make it any more true. We don't give a :daisy:, Indonesians are as Dutch to us as tulips and windmills, we don't even give it any thought. You will just have to take The Wizard's (who detests Wilders for whole different reasons) and my word for it I guess. It is just a rumor in the henhouse that he actually dyes his hair by the way, in pictures from his teenage years when he hided his ancestry by being a punker he is blond as well, as well as pink (so I have heard) by the way but this is Holland, maybe he pretended to be a flaming homosexual just to fit in.


edit: http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/30/t...s-inquisition/

EDIT SO YOU UNDERSTAND Judge: “Mr Wilders, I can see that you are listening very intently, but what are you feeling right now? I cannot sense any emotion in you whatsoever.”

Dear appointedforlife judge we call it the leftist church for a reason, we are rationalists.

What are you feeling. Dear god these goddamn idiots. FEEL guilty mr Wilders, believing is not enough you must KNOW that the left is right. That is a given, it can't be negotiated, they have claim on TEH TRUTH and you will just have work with it.

NO.

That is what some would call guilty before charged, see it's a show not a trial.

The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.
The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling.

etc.

not guilty, except for making a list of everyone involved in this farce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What is that supposed to mean?

---

Nothing, nothing at all. Come back when you are ready for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Thank you for the racist perspective, and helping to prove my point. Wilders is about 3/4 ethnic Dutch, probably less than 1/4 Indonesian, raised in the rural Netherlands and yet still there are those who will cast aspersions on the validity of his identity.

Gentlemen, no wonder he dyes his hair.

Can keep repeating it but that doesn't make it any more true. We don't give a crap, Indonesians are as Dutch to us as tulips and windmills, we don't even give it any thought. You will just have to take The Wizard's (who detests Wilders for whole different reasons) and my word for it I guess. It is just a rumor in the henhouse that he actually dyes his hair by the way, in pictures from his teenage years when he hided his ancestry by being a punker he is blond as well, as well as pink (so I have heard) by the way but this is Holland, maybe he pretended to be a flaming homosexual just to fit in.

---

Oh he's Dutch, I get it; but I would be worried if he completely ignored the fact that his Grandmother was from Indonesia, that would be unhealthy. I flat out don't agree with Loius, but I [i]do/[i] think there's something in what he says because the Dutch left has tried to use it as a stick to beat Wilders.

Also, I think the hair is dyed, in some photos I think you can see roots. On the other hand, he may have that peculiarly Germanic hair that goes from brown to blond depending on the amount of sunlight it is exposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I flat out don't agree with Loius, but I [i]do/[i] think there's something in what he says because the Dutch left has tried to use it as a stick to beat Wilders.

---

That is because the left will try anything to avoid any serious debate about very real issues, they will always play the person, never the ball. The left used it as a stick to beat Wilders because the left is clueless and desperate, they know they don't have the answers so they do what they do, DDR style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Right, fine. The fact remains, however, that Wilders is the one shouting about it, and given his fundamentally "integrationalist" approach, his indonesian aspect needs to be considered. What Frag said was that he could see the (purely physical) Indonesian resemblence in Wilders, which reinforces my point that he doesn't exactly look Dutch.

---

I disagree with the claim that he merely seeks "integration". He wants assimilation, just like most of these conservative right-wingers screaming about an "integration crisis" that simply isn't there. They want all those ugly brown people evil Muslims to get back in line and act like proper whites Dutchmen, just to make them feel right again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nothing, nothing at all. Come back when you are ready for debate.

---

I say he looks slightly Indonesian. You try to me that I actually cannot see Indonesian characteristics. If you think that is debate, then it's no wonder that Wilders is making headway with his illogical rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That is because the left will try anything to avoid any serious debate about very real issues, they will always play the person, never the ball. The left used it as a stick to beat Wilders because the left is clueless and desperate, they know they don't have the answers so they do what they do, DDR style.

---

I think Furunculus' article put it best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

---

Hmmm......

You can't read his illogical rants because you don't speak dutch.

You are welcome to tackle what he throws at you in English though.

Trust me though, they are pretty freaking illogical.

Sorry Frag, was too easy ~;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-geert-wilders

Quote:

---

[Islam] is not a religion, it's the ideology of a retarded culture

---

Quote:

---

"Islam is something we can't afford any more in the Netherlands. I want the fascist Qur'an banned. We need to stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands. That means no more mosques, no more Islamic schools, no more imams

---

They are illogical and racist, regardless of the language that they are translated into.

Not racist, but definitely discriminatory. And crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Trust me though, they are pretty freaking illogical.

Sorry Frag, was too easy ~;)

---

psssssst behind you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-geert-wilders




They are illogical and racist, regardless of the language that they are translated into.

---

Depends on what you think of Islam, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ

You want crazy individuals ranting about the "Other religion"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgL8FDUtkWQ#t=31

Pat Robertson says hello

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

You want crazy individuals ranting about the "Other religion"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgL8FDUtkWQ#t=31

Pat Robertson says hello

---

You couldn't have watched the video in such a small amount of time. The nazi-islamic connection can't be denied, neither can it be denied that antisemitism is rampant among muslims, neither can it be denied that where muslims settle sharia enclaves emerge. That isn't just a problem to us but also to normal muslims, you are letting them down, Wilders isn't, and that is why he has support from moderate muslims.


This is it by the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH71iNb0PmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPhh...eature=related

not sure if it is PG but I was allowed to post it before, sued over this meh, they shot most these images to be shown

3:50, child of 3 years old GAH can't watch this. Religion of peace my :daisy:

3:00 No, Israel didn't exist at the time, jews did though

The green wave, these muslims are not my enemies. But that is. Having to hear that women being burned up leaves me breathless with disgust against anything they stand for.



Edit lolololol “Tegelijk geldt dat hoe meer zich een collectieve identiteit ontwikkelt, bijvoorbeeld als gevolg van polarisatie, des te eerder het gevoel ontstaat hetzij bedreigd te zijn, hetzij superieur te zijn, zowel bij de minderheid als bij de meerderheid. En in al die gevallen groeit de bereidheid geweld te gebruiken jegens anderen."

What it says, we are violent, that is funny since there has never been a racist crime in the Netherlands, not against immigrants at least.

http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/cou...rime-wave.html

Is this true? Because if it is the Danish state has lost it's monopoly on violence and personal ownership of guns should be allowed. If they don't it's just state oppression.

So what exactly about the Mufti of Jerusalem associating closely with Hitler, and the nazi sympathies of groups like Hizballah and Hamas, warrants banning the Qur'an and curtailing the practice of Islam as if this was the Soviet Union of the '20s?

Also correction, there were race riots in Rotterdam in 1977 and there have been many instances of violence against Muslim establishments over the years. In addition, what you quoted is simply a general statement of the academic consensus regarding group rivalries, which is supported by evidence from around the world, not just the Netherlands. It's this limited view of the world with Holland as its navel that is one of my major gripes with the conservatives in this country. Not just them, actually, al lot of Dutchmen all over seem to suffer from this short-sightedness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

as I argued at length and without rebuttal.

---

Ah, yes. I remember the devastating rebuttal, which rested on four arguments:
'I bet you don't know who the entirely irrelevant Moluccans are, therefore you can't speak of Wilders'
'You are talking to a history major here, pal'
'And as a history major, let me tell you: I know several Eurasian Dutch and some of their best friends are Muslim!!''
'And as a history major, I shall prove that my argument is right by not managing to provide even a single source whatsoever, because this absence of sources to the contrary prove your scientific sources incorrect'
'
Two authority arguments, one argumentum ad absurdum, and the 'some of my best friends' argument. I shall forgive you for your 'I challenge you to find even one other source!', then blisfully moving the goalpost when I provided two further sources within five minutes.

Give us a link that shows that there are no lingering traumas, lingering resentment, or that Eurasian-Dutch voting patterns are indistinguishable from indigenous Dutch.


The 'rebuttal' that some of your Indo friends have Muslim friends - quite apart from the rather poor nature of this statement in general - is moreover not even a rebuttal at all. The argument is not that Indos are extreme right, or that the PVV owes its succes to postcolonial revanchism, or that Wilders should be reduced to this exploration of his heritage and the impact of that on his politics.

The argument, rather, is twofold:

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.
2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

One example of a somewhat similar post-WWII sentiment can be found on this very forum: Evil Maniac From Mars. A German expellee. He shares many of the sentiments that are prevalent amongst these people ('Vertriebenen'): anti-communism, nationalism, high emigration rates. Should the German hardright be led by a member of this group, it will no doubt take over some of the sentiments, the narratives, that are present within this group. And it will be recognised as such by German public debate. The same would hold true for a French Pied-noir, or a Portuguese Retornado, etc.
It is not voodoo. A person's background and cultural surrounding has an impact on a person's political thought. At the very simplest level, compare the thoughtworld of somebody from Saudi-Arabia with that of a Swede or a New Guinean tribesperson. They will have very different thoughts. This difference does not stop at this obvious level, it can be refined, to discover surprising differences between only slightly different groups operating in the same society.

:laugh4:

You must not have read anything other than my post on page 6, going by your wholly incorrect summary of my argument.

Here and here you can find the two main posts containing my arguments, which consist of a whole lot more than "lol I know these people and believe me".

In fact, that is mostly what your argument consists of, since the only "sources" you managed to dredge up were random people from the Internet. Wow buddy, two can play at that. Again: and you accuse me of committing a fallacy by citing my friends? :rolleyes:

Let me sum it up for you, so you don't have to go through the trouble of actually reading my posts, considering you seem to not have done that yet:

1. You base your entire argument on a single source: Van Leeuwen, who, moreover, is the only one around. That is very shaky, and I'm being generous here.

2. You generalize pied-noir sentiment, postulating that if it exists in France then it is generally applicable to the rest of Europe, as if we're discussing some kind of physics equasion here. Please. That is why I cited my being a history major, friend, and that alone, because when studying history you are taught that it is very unlikely for historical processes to clone themselves in different societies. Very, very unlikely. Please do not willingly misinterpret this again.

3. The above two arguments failing upon closer scrutiny, you fall back on "well since there's a dearth of sources on the subject (i.e. it is not an issue in the Netherlands), they must be keeping it quiet and willingly ignoring it". You merely grasped that out of thin air because it's keeping your entire position on life support. Nothing argues for it at all.

4. As said above, you accuse me of being in the wrong by pulling the "well I know this and that and they say..." card while you link to random posts of anonymous people on the Internet. One cannot get much more hypocritical.

5. You provide two more links in which friction over the acts of the Dutch state towards the Indonesian independence struggle is mentioned. Nothing wrong with that really, except that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Our government vs. Indonesian nationalists has nothing to do with the supposed trauma/pied-noir complex of our Indo community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.

---

Patently untrue, as the link in my first linked post shows (this was all in the second post if you'd bothered to read):

Quote:

---

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".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

---

... because it doesn't exist. There is also, as I argued (point 1, 3 and 4), without any rebuttal by you (hence my later post to which you replied), no academic debate on the matter. Again, because it doesn't exist. I seem to be repeating myself a lot here, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

A person's background and cultural surrounding has an impact on a person's political thought. At the very simplest level, compare the thoughtworld of somebody from Saudi-Arabia with that of a Swede or a New Guinean tribesperson. They will have very different thoughts. This difference does not stop at this obvious level, it can be refined, to discover surprising differences between only slightly different groups operating in the same society.

---

I never denied any of this, as you have wrongly assumed (willfully or no). My problem with your position arises, rather, from the fact that you completely misplace Wilders's background and cultural surrounding (which is not surprising, considering you base yourself on only one isolated source and some creaky extrapolation of French society).

Wilders is, first and foremost, an ethnic Dutchman and is seen as such by those from that majority. This is what informs him and this is where he draws his viewpoints from. It is also what he aims his populism at. He is not an angry Indo hating Islam for what it did to his homeland, because he is not an Indo, because there are no such angry Indo's (and the fact that secular nationalists did it, not expressly Muslims, but I digress...) and because he is a committed Dutch nationalist, complete with all the outside-fearing short-sightedness that marks such a one.

I hope that this will silence any further claims that my argument consists of nothing more than a few authority arguments and a "well my friends said..."

More important, I hope you will no longer ignore my arguments by misstating them as part of your own. I have stated mine about as clearly as possible so that that can no longer be the case.

EDIT: And just to top it off I'll give you a scientific source, from the NIOD (the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) on Indo identity and politics. Pay special attention to the penultimate paragraph. The part where this historian also explicitly sets apart pieds-noirs from Indo's is also very, very relevant.

http://www.iias.nl/nl/31/IIAS_NL31_52.pdf

@Louis: but it is precisely this two-fold argument that has no basis really. (2) Is relevant if and only if (1) is; so we basically reduce the argument to (1). The Wizard has done quite enough to show just how much remains (not) of that argument in turn. Question becomes: is this insistence on (1) just for the thrill of disagreement/dispute, or for lack of reading/understanding others' posts?

You are not seriously suggesting that he, and with him his purported supporters project some kind of collective resentment over/about Indonesia (truth be told the majority of his voters and suppoters probably neither know nor care about Dutch-Indonesian shared history) towards a relatively new phenomenon? Arguably a phenomenon (a more aggressive and in-your-face expression of Islam and associated beliefs) that is at least in part caused by their own anti-immigrant and anti-muslim actions?

EDIT: As far as I can see it is more resentment over and a reluctance to accept a changed streetview, in which not everything is as ‘Hollands’ as stampot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Patently untrue, as the link in my first linked post shows (this was all in the second post if you'd bothered to read)

---

I provided this source, so rest assured I read it.

The source argues that 'Geert Wilders is one of us, say Indies immigrants'. That is, in fact, the very title. This recognition remains undisputed.
What is disputed, by Bussemakers, is Wilders popularity within the Indo community, many of whom fear for the climate of xenophobia Wilders creates, which might ultimately affect them too.
Wilders popularity, or lack thereof, within the Indo community is, though interesting, however entirely besides the point. Nobody makes any claim to that either way.

Quote:

---

And just to top it off I'll give you a scientific source, from the NIOD (the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) on Indo identity and politics. Pay special attention to the penultimate paragraph. The part where this historian also explicitly sets apart pieds-noirs from Indo's is also very, very relevant.

http://www.iias.nl/nl/31/IIAS_NL31_52.pdf

---

Thank you for providing us with a link. Alas, this article is about the Indo community in the colonial Dutch Indies, and has such has only limited, indirect relevance to our subject, which deals with colonial communities after repatriation. As the article says: 'In fact, a conscious Indisch identity emerged first in the Netherlands and only from the late 1950s, following the mass expulsion of Dutch citizens from Indonesia in 1957'.
This conscious Indisch identity, as developed within the Netherlands, and the implications of it for Wilders, is at stake.

I think we are tiring both ourselves and any poor souls who take the effort to read all this, so perhaps we should just let it rest. Wilders motives, inner thoughtworld and path to radicalisation are not a mathematical science, and I do not think this little debate is illuminating for any further exploration of this interesting subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Question becomes: is this insistence on (1) just for the thrill of disagreement/dispute, or for lack of reading/understanding others' posts?

---

Thank you for this internet classic.

If the question is: 'are you a troll or an idiot', I see no reason to debate with you until you've learned to mind your manners.

You could of course come to terms with Bussenmaker being full of it

@Louis: I do find it hard though to see you being entirely genuinely sincere with your posts in this thread; I think you know why. For me it is not quite “are you a troll or an idiot” but I see why you took it as such, for which in turn I'd like to apologize: I should certainly mind my manners if not my phrasing more.

Incidentally the latter part of the question is meant to apply both ways. I do not think you genuinely mean what I (or The Wizard apparently) understand you to mean either; as I see you argument it goes somewhat like this:
Wilders has an Indo background. There is some kind of post-colonial resentment among Indos over (the loss of) Indonesia. <Missing link>. Therefore Wilders doesn't like Islam. Therefore Wilders sets out to make sure he has to put up with as little of it as possible.

But as I see it myself, Wilders has lived in Israel, identifies with the ethnic Dutch majority and the combination of which leads him to be unsympathetic towards Islam in general, and Islamic immigrants in particular. Remember that one of his ‘iconic’ phrases is a “tsunami of muslims” referring to both the tsunami that struck (in particular) Sumatra and what he views as destructive towards the Dutch culture in Islam. (Though I have an idea that Islam should really be substituted with “Islamic immigrants and their direct descendants” which chimes better with his prospective voters ...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein

---

Uh, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The argument, rather, is twofold:

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.
2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

---

I don't really see why Wilders' family history has to be the reason for his anti-islamic convictions. It could be one of the reasons, but that's just guesswork.
In his younger days, Wilders traveled a lot in the middle east (including Israel) and he claims that this is how he developed his views on Islam. I find that a tad more plausible than suggestive conjectures made by an anthropologists outside her specialty (anthropology deals with behaviour of the species, not individuals)
:juggle2:

Secondly, even if it were true, why does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Thank you for this internet classic.

If the question is: 'are you a troll or an idiot', I see no reason to debate with you until you've learned to mind your manners.

---

Face it Loius, you haven't come across overly well in this thread; you've argued your point absurdum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

as I see you argument it goes somewhat like this:
Wilders has an Indo background. There is some kind of post-colonial resentment among Indos over (the loss of) Indonesia. <Missing link>. Therefore Wilders doesn't like Islam. Therefore Wilders sets out to make sure he has to put up with as little of it as possible.

But as I see it myself, Wilders has lived in Israel, identifies with the ethnic Dutch majority and the combination of which leads him to be unsympathetic towards Islam in general, and Islamic immigrants in particular. Remember that one of his ‘iconic’ phrases is a “tsunami of muslims” referring to both the tsunami that struck (in particular) Sumatra and what he views as destructive towards the Dutch culture in Islam. (Though I have an idea that Islam should really be substituted with “Islamic immigrants and their direct descendants” which chimes better with his prospective voters ...)

---

Thank you for this interesting post. One that seeks to identify Wilder's path to radicalization. I can not begin to describe my happiness to see a rebuttal that is relevant.

I am getting a bit tired of trying to explore Wilders'path to radicalisation. But yes, I am completely serious. I posted a serious analysis by Van Leeuwen. A researcher with the Meertens Institute which studies Dutch (sub)culture(s) within the Netherlands' society, whose very job is to study the Indo community through oral history.
She studies the Indo community for a living, and I am afraid I shall accept her opinion over that of what I read here. All the more since I do wonder whether people understand the nature of her claims.

Her point, and I think this is at the base of all the miscommunication, is not to reduce Wilders to 'colonial revanchism', nor to ascribe the succes of his party to this. Wilders is a complicated man, and merely pointing out that he fits in a larger cultural framework does not purport to be the end all of it. To say all that is to be said. Nor does any investigation into this aspect of the man's personality assume to be able to explain his succes, even meteoric rise.

Most, if not all, of the rebuttals I've read here are unfortunately not relevant. Yes, Wilders owes his succes to native Dutch. Yes, many Indos do not share his views. Yes, the anti-immigration sentiment in the Netherlands is not owing to colonial revanchism.

Is there a difference on this very forum, qute strikingly noticable, between what Americans and Europeans think about religion? Does my ancestry perhaps have any relevance to my fanatical atheism? Of course it does. Does Megas ancestry and cultivated identity as a native American have any relevance to his fanatical racism? Why, I would say it does. This is what this is about - basic anthropology/sociology. None of the statements above would be disproven by statements such as 'atheism is not limited to post-Catholic revanchism', or, 'I know many non-native American racists'. Those miss the point.

I blame everybody going mataglap over it all on unfamiliarity with anthropological concepts, such as 'displacedness', or diaspora studies, and the extent of the claims made by them.


Anyway, to fill in the <Missing link>.
Indos are an unwanted sexual byproduct of colonisation. White colonial fathers, indigenous women. In the colony, an 'in-between' group. Lower than the whites, higher than the indigenous. But, culturally assimilated into the colonial ruling class - Christian, Dutch-speaking.
After independence, they were as a group repatriated to the motherland, where most of them had never been before. Their lives, their status as group, their very identity dissapeared overnight. Very traumatic. Yet, in the motherland, they were met with nothing but a cold shoulder, disinterest, even hostility. This was the 1950s. 1960s. Despite this, as a group, they decided to forget, to work hard. They became a succes, fully integrated and even assimilated into the society of the motherland. Despite being left to their own devices.

Then, two decades later, mass immigration started in their new homeland. Suddenly, they had to witness the sight of Moroccans, Africans, Turks, being invited over, given a house, given welfare, being welcomed in. But wereas the Indos worked hard and assimilated, despite complete disinterest and even hostility from society, these new immigrants filled the prisons, the welfare offices. Are openly hostile to their new country.

This double whammy is one of the root causes of the resentment of the first wave of immigrants into Europe, that of the repatriated colonials, to later groups. Hostility yet succes and assimilation, vs welcoming attitude but nonetheless hostility and complete failure. That is the <missing link>.

Wilders has a triple whammy of also being mixed race. (Which he negates) A quadruple whammy of added semi-Jewish identity. (Which he cultivates)
'Identity', I feel is no wonder, is the central element in the politics of this complex, complex man.

Oh, the stuff one finds on the internet! Wilders has an older brother, 'Paul'. This brother has started a movement to stop his younger brother. Unfortunately, most of the site is not in English. It should be interesting:

http://www.dutchpolitics.org/

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2227/abfec3e09e.jpg

I saw Paul Wilders when he appeared in the talkshow Pauw & Witteman, from wich that picture is taken. As far as I know that's the only instance when he appeared on TV. And this is just a blog, really. Thanks for sharing, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I saw Paul Wilders when he appeared in the talkshow Pauw & Witteman, from wich that picture is taken. As far as I know that's the only instance when he appeared on TV. I had no idea he had started a "movement" against his brother, and as far as I can tell, neither does google.

Any other brilliant insights you wish to share with us about the Netherlands? :coffeenews:

---

Sure, what would you like to learn about the Netherlands next? :book:

(And my google leads me to the website of Paul Wilders' movement, which one can stubbornly deny exists by not clicking on the link of this movement: http://www.dutchpolitics.org/
This link does not discuss 'Dutch Politics', it is rather the website of the non-existing anti-Geert movement run by his brother Paul)

Yeah, I didn't click on your link before I posted.
And he himself says it's "just another political blog" ~;)

What is your opinion about the Davids' report? The De Wit Commission? Gouda cheese? :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

What is your opinion about the Davids' report? The De Wit Commission? Gouda cheese? :book:

---

Davids? Great left foot, best January transfer by Barcelona ever.

The De Wit Commission - Post-colonial revanchists and pseudo-Jews with identity issues, the lot of them. :idea2:

Gouda Cheese - Like Wilders, it's brown on the outside, white in substance, and leaves a nasty taste in your mouth.


:beam:

Is Paul a full brother, i.e an Indo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Gouda Cheese - Like Wilders, it's brown on the outside, white in substance

---

Actually orange and yellow, see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Anyway, to fill in the <Missing link>.
Indos are an unwanted sexual byproduct of colonisation. White colonial fathers, indigenous women. In the colony, an 'in-between' group. Lower than the whites, higher than the indigenous. But, culturally assimilated into the colonial ruling class - Christian, Dutch-speaking.
After independence, they were as a group repatriated to the motherland, where most of them had never been before. Their lives, their status as group, their very identity dissapeared overnight. Very traumatic. Yet, in the motherland, they were met with nothing but a cold shoulder, disinterest, even hostility. This was the 1950s. 1960s. Despite this, as a group, they decided to forget, to work hard. They became a succes, fully integrated and even assimilated into the society of the motherland. Despite being left to their own devices.

Then, two decades later, mass immigration started in their new homeland. Suddenly, they had to witness the sight of Moroccans, Africans, Turks, being invited over, given a house, given welfare, being welcomed in. But wereas the Indos worked hard and assimilated, despite complete disinterest and even hostility from society, these new immigrants filled the prisons, the welfare offices. Are openly hostile to their new country.

This double whammy is one of the root causes of the resentment of the first wave of immigrants into Europe, that of the repatriated colonials, to later groups. Hostility yet succes and assimilation, vs welcoming attitude but nonetheless hostility and complete failure. That is the <missing link>.

Wilders has a triple whammy of also being mixed race. (Which he negates) A quadruple whammy of added semi-Jewish identity. (Which he cultivates)
'Identity', I feel is no wonder, is the central element in the politics of this complex, complex man.

---

I fail to understand why it has taken you so long to post this rebuttel.

OK then, but you seem to be arguing Wilder's side; i.e. the Netherlands has made a mistake by accomodating immigrants and ulticulturalism and supporting immigration was a bad idea.

Thread locked, under discussion with management.

Due to there being new advances in the trial, I will allow this thread to re-open, but I want everyone to understand the following conditions:

1) Moderators will take a zero tolerance policy to anything even close to racism and personal attacks on members.

2) The discussion must be limited to progress of the trial and the implications of it.

3) The discussion shall not touch on Wilders' personal background, unless it is relevant to the above discussion. This has already been discussed to death in this thread and is the reason for many of the borderline posts.

4) Any future locking of this thread will not be reversed, unless there is a very good reason for it.

So play nice everyone and have a good, clean discussion.
:bow:

Alright, I'll take a shot across the bow, so to say. I think it's right and proper they won't allow Wilders to parade a whole procession of nutty Islam-haters in court. He's trying to make this into a show trial himself, how ridiculous is that?

Thx CA,

Here is the thing, there has been a rather unexpected turn of events that leaves a dirty taste. Of the 18 witnesses called upon for Wilders defense, including Islamic scholars, jihadi's (van Gogh's murderer) Imam's and whatever, 15 have been rejected by the court, which is pretty much unheard of. I never believed this was really a trial but it's scary how much it's in the open that it isn't really a trial. I am less optimistic about a good outcome then I was before, whatever will come out of it Wilders will get bigger, but I am starting to feel cornered this is just grim.

He's trying to make this into a show trial himself, how ridiculous is that?

He never asked for it, something with butt and blisters.

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

---

This is what you wanted Haxie, but a theological discussion apparently isn't allowed, a little consistency would be nice. Everybody should have seen it coming that it would be the Islam itself that would be on trial, but they didn't, that amazes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

---

Exactly. :yes:

I find that very ironic, it's the exact other way around, who's on trial.

edit, this is only of any use for dutch speakers http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Po...lamkenners.htm

But this is getting very interesting. Might not realize it yet but this is pretty big, no less then a religion of millions is on trial.

We are in trouble, jihadi's arent going to take this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohI...layer_embedded

This is much more interesting then I thought it would be.

Agreed with her up until 1:15. There is nothing exclusively inherent to Islam which gives it those qualities anymore than there is to Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Agreed with her up until 1:15. There is nothing exclusively inherent to Islam which gives it those qualities anymore than there is to Christianity.

---

I don't know enough of either. But this is one fascinating case, within the framework that is the law they will have to have an honest discussion of Islam.

Go Pat Condel, tell them how it is, this isn't a trial it's an inquisition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZU...layer_embedded

One man against the machine

Quote:

---

Go Pat Condel, tell them how it is, this isn't a trial it's an inquisition.

---

No, it's not. Wilders is trying to give the impression it's an inquisition by talking about different things. Like he always does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

No, it's not. Wilders is trying to give the impression it's an inquisition by talking about different things. Like he always does.

---

15 out of the 18 witnesses he called for have been denied Haxie, the theological discussion you thought was so very important has been denied by the Amsterdam court, how is he going to get a fair trial if he isn't allowed to make his case, and his witnesses weren't all Islam-haters as The Wizard suggests, but also Imams and Islamic scholars and jihadi's, somebody must thinks that discussion is inconvenient. This is a perversion of our justice system, they are using it as a weapon that is wrong on so many levels, this has nothing to do with honesty, it's abuse of power pure and simple, and the scariest part is that it's so obvious.

No one ever suspects the Dutch Inquisition!

EDIT: Theology has no place in a modern judicial system. IIRC when it is, you get Sharia Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

No one ever suspects the Dutch Inquisition!

---

Pim Fortuyn did, two famous remarks 'ok, so then I'll get killed, but I am going to do it anyway' and 'don't mourn for me but mourn for this country'. He knew what was going to happen when they denied him security, and he knew of the cultivation of the climate against him. BLAM

for dutchies without a memory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5fCg9iNVF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay5B-2O5qR4 <- sub-human, that is what we are

This trial is not about Islam, it's about Wilders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

15 out of the 18 witnesses he called for have been denied Haxie, the theological discussion you thought was so very important has been denied by the Amsterdam court, how is he going to get a fair trial if he isn't allowed to make his case, and his witnesses weren't all Islam-haters as The Wizard suggests, but also Imams and Islamic scholars and jihadi's, somebody must thinks that discussion is inconvenient. This is a perversion of our justice system, they are using it as a weapon that is wrong on so many levels, this has nothing to do with honesty, it's abuse of power pure and simple, and the scariest part is that it's so obvious.

---

So they've been denied? And? You think this doesn't happen at any normal criminal trial? That every defendant is simply allowed to parade whatever the Hell he likes for the judge to enjoy? If so, do you perhaps imply that our justice system operates like the Inquisition? :dizzy2:

Seriously Frag, no offense, but this is the same meaningless, high-pitched, scaremongering screaming always emanating from the PVV corner.

Yeah I kinda do

This would imply we unjustly and bloodily persecute the people in our criminal justice system (i.e. murderers, robbers, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc). This while I doubt you think that our judges and DA's are too harsh on the fellows :laugh4:

I am serious, I don't trust this court's independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

This trial is not about Islam, it's about Wilders.

---

if there is a serious possibility that Wilders will be convicted for making what is accepted to be a truthful statement then yes; this will be about Islam.

He just might be, they ordered an outcome and asked 'scientists' to make it look scientific. Was already done in December but they released it simultaniously with the trial, it's finally done! (and forgot to change the dates in the document, FAIL), but the hand-picked judges can use it ito convict him. It's really all on how low they will go.

Also 15 out of the 18 witnesses he called upon were rejected, this isn't a trial it's ritual slaughter.

One man against the red machine, the machine likes crushing anyone who isn't absolutely in love with Islam and who doesn't see multi-culture as an enrichment.

I wish they will lock him away as Ser Clegane will thankfully do to this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are being as dumbly obtuse this time as you were on the labour is authoritarian argument:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2420450

saying that however, Louis was just as obtuse:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=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/showt...=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?

---

Sorry, I nearly forgot to respond to this.

I am neither obtuse, nor do I 'get it now'. Quite the contrary: your author, I'm afraid, has got it all backwards. :book:

Far from this trial showing an increase in repressive laws, the legal tide is moving in the other direction. Things are now said openly in European debate, that were a firm taboo twenty years ago. The courts are following this social shift - what was considered firmly far-right and grounds for criminal prosecution is now mainstream right, and even left. Anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech intolerance peaked in the 1980s, and his since decreased.

Nor is Wilders prosecuted for breaching new laws. The hatespeech law with which Wilder is charged has been put in place in the 1930s, to protect a religious minority that was the subject of far right hatemongering back then.

Neither the trial itself, not the laws on which it is based, are a sign then of an increase in authoritarian laws and prosecution. The author did not do his homework.

Doubt it Beskar, I asked for it to be re-opened because of this latest development and CA pretty clearly set out the rules for the discussion, and he will crush it under his mighty boot should we break them. If you don't like reading opinions that conflict with your delicate sensibilities you must be in the wrong place. We are right on track here.

There is one aspect about this trial that Wilders and his proponents conveniently forget:

Anti-hatespeech laws are the exact legal instrument used to stop hatemongering Imams, to stop calls for the murder of Western swines, and other Islamofascist agitation. Criticism of, especially the call to remove, these laws will strip the anti-Islam movement of the very legal means it requires.

(Unless, of course, they want to have one set of rules for Muslims, and another one for Westerners)

Wilders himself wants to ban half the Koran for containing hatespeech. Apart from this blatant hypocricy, has he thought through the result of his squeeking about the dictatorial nature of the existence of anti-hate speech laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I wish they will lock him away as Ser Clegane will thankfully do to this thread.

---

why would he do that if the debate remains civil and within the identified parameters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Sorry, I nearly forgot to respond to this.

I am neither obtuse, nor do I 'get it now'. Quite the contrary: your author, I'm afraid, has got it all backwards. :book:

Far from this trial showing an increase in repressive laws, the legal tide is moving in the other direction. Things are now said openly in European debate, that were a firm taboo twenty years ago. The courts are following this social shift - what was considered firmly far-right and grounds for criminal prosecution is now mainstream right, and even left. Anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech intolerance peaked in the 1980s, and his since decreased.

Nor is Wilders prosecuted for breaching new laws. The hatespeech law with which Wilder is charged has been put in place in the 1930s, to protect a religious minority that was the subject of far right hatemongering back then.

Neither the trial itself, not the laws on which it is based, are a sign then of an increase in authoritarian laws and prosecution. The author did not do his homework.

---

my point was simply that; in creating a torrent of new criminal offences (4,300 in twelve years of misrule) labour has demonstrated an extreme and excessive bent to authoritarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

There is one aspect about this trial that Wilders and his proponents conveniently forget:

Anti-hatespeech laws are the exact legal instrument used to stop hatemongering Imams, to stop calls for the murder of Western swines, and other Islamofascist agitation. Criticism of, especially the call to remove, these laws will strip the anti-Islam movement of the very legal means it requires.

(Unless, of course, they want to have one set of rules for Muslims, and another one for Westerners)

Wilders himself wants to ban half the Koran for containing hatespeech. Apart from this blatant hypocricy, has he thought through the result of his squeeking about the dictatorial nature of the existence of anti-hate speech laws?

---

i have no objection to 'mongering' hate, i soley object to inciting violence.