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.
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.
Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one -Brenus
Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
Not everything blue and underlined is a link
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.
how wonderful that we have such fruit-cakes in this country.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
That was a free palestine march, so slightly different.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
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;
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.
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;
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So Wilders went to London today...
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
Last edited by The Wizard; 01-30-2010 at 00:53.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
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.
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.
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"... Read something intelligent like the NRC will ya
Last edited by The Wizard; 01-30-2010 at 13:24.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
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.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
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.
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.
Last edited by The Wizard; 01-30-2010 at 13:48.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
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
Last edited by The Wizard; 01-30-2010 at 13:57.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
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.
Re: The Geert Wilders trial
Originally Posted by Hax
Posting Permissions
- Horseman of the 
Bookmarks