The Geert Wilders trial

[Tellos Athenaios]

@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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

@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 ...)

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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/

[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. And this is just a blog, really. Thanks for sharing, though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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?

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

(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)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.