NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gaymindedyouth.com/fortuyn4mei02.jpg


Left, Right, Libertarian?
He said he was neither right wing nor left wing, asked for more openness in politics, and expressed his distaste for what he called "subsidy socialism".

He wanted smaller-scale organization of public services such as health, education, and the police.

He also held liberal views, favouring the drug policy of the Netherlands, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and related positions.

He wanted to unite the army and air force to save money, retaining only a navy, but also favoured re-instating compulsory military service, giving youngsters the choice between military service and a new form of social services (in which they would help in hospitals or retirement homes, for example). It is often said that he wanted to disband the army and the air force; however, Fortuyn denied this on 24 March 2002 in a business TV programme.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Views on Islam
August 2001, Fortuyn was quoted in the Rotterdams Dagblad newspaper, saying, among other things, "I am also in favour of a cold war with Islam. I see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion." In the TV program Business class Fortuyn said that Muslims in Netherlands did not accept Dutch society. Fortuyn appeared several times in the TV program Business class, moderated by his friend Harry Mens. In this program it has been suggested that his words were interpreted rather harshly, if not wrongly. For instance, he said that Muslims in the Netherlands needed to accept living together with the Dutch, and that if this was unacceptable for them, then they were free to leave. His concluding words in the TV program were I want to live together with the Muslim people, but it takes two to tango.

On February 9, 2002, he made further controversial statements in a Dutch newspaper, this time the Volkskrant. He said that the Netherlands, with a population of 16 million, had enough inhabitants, and therefore, the practice of allowing as many as 40,000 asylum-seekers into the country each year had to be stopped (however, the actual number was not that high and already falling at that time). He claimed that if he became part of the next government, he would pursue a restrictive immigration policy while also granting citizenship to a large group of illegal immigrants. Remarkably, he said that he did not intend to "unload our Moroccan hooligans" onto the Moroccan king Hassan. This king had died three years earlier. Furthermore, he considered Article 7 of the constitution, which asserts freedom of speech, of more importance than Article 1, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, life principles, political inclination, race, or sexual preference. However, he distanced himself from Hans Janmaat of the Centrum Democraten, who in the 1980s wanted to remove all foreigners from the country and was repeatedly convicted for discrimination and hate speech.

Fortuyn proposed that all people who already resided in the Netherlands would be able to stay, but he emphasized the need of the immigrants to adopt the Dutch society's consensus on human rights as their own. He said "If it were legally possible, I'd say no more Muslims will get in here", claiming that the influx of Muslims would threaten freedoms in the liberal Dutch society. He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law.

One of Fortuyn's fears was of pervasive intolerance in the Muslim community. In a televised debate in 2002, "Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism".

When asked by the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant whether he hated Islam, he replied: "I don't hate Islam. I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it's just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It's a bit like those old Reformed Protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have norms and values that are so high that you can't humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that's possible. That's something that one can be proud of. And I'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much."

Murder
On May 6, 2002, at age 54, he was assassinated in Hilversum, North Holland by Volkert van der Graaf.

Months later, Volkert van der Graaf confessed in court to the Netherlands' first modern age political assassination. Van der Graaf said: "I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself."

Van der Graaf was sentenced to 18 years in prison. (Only 18 years for political assassination? What a pathetic sentence.....:rolleyes:)

The assassination shocked the Netherlands and made the cultural clashes within the country apparent.

Pim Fortuyn in speech on Holland, Islam, America, Christianity and Judaism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nC-JEM_3dM

If that's not Lex fuckin' Luthor, I'll eat my hat.

Holy shit, that totally is Lex Luthor.

You guys havn't heard of Pim Fortuyn before?....:confused:

Holy shit, that totally is Lex Luthor.

If that's not Lex fuckin' Luthor, I'll eat my hat.

His views on same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and "related positions" were mostly fine, but his economic views weren't, and neither was his stance on Muslims.
In short, I disagree with most of his views.

His views on same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and "related positions" were mostly fine, but his economic views weren't, and neither was his stance on Muslims.
In short, I disagree with most of his views.

What do you think of his saying of this:
"He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law."

As a gay man in liberal Holland, do you think he was correct or incorrect in fearing that Muslim culture lacked acceptance of democracy, women and gays rights? And his fear of Holland losing that liberalism due to increased Islamic population....?

What do you think of his saying of this:
"He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law."

As a gay man in liberal Holland, do you think he was correct or incorrect in fearing that Muslim culture lacked acceptance of democracy, women and gays rights? And his fear of Holland losing that liberalism due to increased Islamic population....?To a certain degree, "Muslim culture" (I put it in quotes because it isn't particularly unified) hasn't undergone a process of modernization, so on that comment he is correct. However, there's little reason to believe they would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favor of Shari'a Law. Furthermore, it is immigration to and education in western countries that will lead to the modernization of Muslim culture back home, as the immigrants will be in contact with their relatives and sharing with them the things they've learned.

To a certain degree, "Muslim culture" (I put it in quotes because it isn't particularly unified) hasn't undergone a process of modernization, so on that comment he is correct. However, there's little reason to believe they would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favor of Shari'a Law. Furthermore, it is immigration to and education in western countries that will lead to the modernization of Muslim culture back home, as the immigrants will be in contact with their relatives and sharing with them the things they've learned.
But I think we can agree that should a process happen, it would be gradual.

And during that time, Dutch non-heteros, Dutch women and Dutch Jews could very well feel increased tension by the rapid number of non-civilized (in the sense that Fortuyn was using in his speech) Muslims who would not be tolerant of these elements of soceity.

So that would mean the these certain people of Dutch soceity would have to deal with the intolerance of these uncivilized (again, in that sense) Muslims until the said Muslims in question modernized and became civil.

In that sense, should these types of Dutch people have to go through this, so that Muslims modernize? And that is only assuming that they end of modernizing.....

And to be fair, Fortuyn is hardly a big fan of more conservative Christianity either....because he favors liberal social values. It's just that he (and many Dutch, he was very popular in Holland) beleived that there wasn't any sorta of clash between their secular values and Christianity, because Christianity in Holland, FOR THE MOST PART, is much more secular and in line with Dutch values...atleast when compared to Islam in Holland.

But I think we can agree that should a process happen, it would be gradual.

And during that time, Dutch non-heteros, Dutch women and Dutch Jews could very well feel increased tension by the rapid number of non-civilized (in the sense that Fortuyn was using in his speech) Muslims who would not be tolerant of these elements of soceity.

So that would mean the these certain people of Dutch soceity would have to deal with the intolerance of these uncivilized (again, in that sense) Muslims until the said Muslims in question modernized and became civil.

In that sense, should these types of Dutch people have to go through this, so that Muslims modernize? And that is only assuming that they end of modernizing.....Certainly, the process of modernization will be gradual, but there isn't any particular reason to believe it would happen any other way. The Enlightenment occurred as the result of education and the free exchange of ideas. The latter isn't going to happen if everyone closes up and becomes insular.

And to be fair, Fortuyn is hardly a big fan of more conservative Christianity either....because he favors liberal social values. It's just that he (and many Dutch, he was very popular in Holland) beleived that there wasn't any sorta of clash between their secular values and Christianity, because Christianity in Holland, FOR THE MOST PART, is much more secular and in line with Dutch values...atleast when compared to Islam in Holland.I can agree that Christianity in Holland is more in line with Dutch values, but this doesn't mean that it's impossible for Muslims to also become in line with Dutch values.
In addition, simply because they don't share the same opinions doesn't mean that they're a threat.

Certainly, the process of modernization will be gradual, but there isn't any particular reason to believe it would happen any other way. The Enlightenment occurred as the result of education and the free exchange of ideas. The latter isn't going to happen if everyone closes up and becomes insular.

I can agree that Christianity in Holland is more in line with Dutch values, but this doesn't mean that it's impossible for Muslims to also become in line with Dutch values.
In addition, simply because they don't share the same opinions doesn't mean that they're a threat.

Ok, well I don't want to leave you hanging, but I have to get to work on my 6 page Transition-To-The-Renaissance paper so I can turn it in before I travel up to Philadelphia for a nice little vacation.... So I'm gonna have to get back to this tomorrow and devote my attention to my essay.

Nice healthy conversation we just had, I hope the thread stays civilwhen I come back to check on it. I'll reply back to your points tomorrow.:)

Ok, well I don't want to leave you hanging, but I have to get to work on my 6 page Transition-To-The-Renaissance paper so I can turn it in before I travel up to Philadelphia for a nice little vacation.... So I'm gonna have to get back to this tomorrow and devote my attention to my essay.

Nice healthy conversation we just had, I hope the thread stays civilwhen I come back to check on it. I'll reply back to your points tomorrow.:)Have fun. Don't do anything on your vacation that I wouldn't do. :)

I don't really like what he had to say, but honestly never heard of him before this thread.

His favoritism of legal pot, same sex marriage, etc. are decent. I severely dislike the idea of compulsory military service. I know that he left the social services loophole, but I don't much like that either. Why pay to force someone to work at a hospital, when you can pay someone who is working there under their own free will?

As for his views on Islam, they seem wrong in the reality that I live in. Things may be different on the other side of the planet, but it what he says about Muslims just seems wrong from my life experience. He really makes it seem like they are actively trying to gain entry into our country in order to turn it into another Muslim state. In my experience, that is something allot of Muslim immigrants emigrate away from (the others are mostly here for the money). Either way, no one in politics takes those views seriously, and the political climate is moving in the other direction rather quickly; the main group keeping those laws here tend to be our parents.

While I'm personally a republican with slightly liberarian tendancies I generally agree with him. I don't like his drug polocy but I respect the way he is confronting Muslim intolerance towards gay people and other groups for that matter. I think that imigrants shouldn't have to completly assimilate into thier new homes culture but they should at least adapt. If I went to the south I wouldn't immediatly become a crazy evangalical christian, but I would respect them and not open tell them how much I despise those happy clapper bastards like i do in NZ. So I agree with him in some sences but didsagree with him in others, his economic polocies are a vit vague so im not sure about them. One more point why isn't it discrimination when a man is killed by a Muslim for being gay? Just wondering.

You guys havn't heard of Pim Fortuyn before?....:confused:
Let's see now......you have a penchant for making Muslim bashing threads and yet you are so shocked about the "flamebait" that seems to derive from that variety of thread, that you feel compelled to report the offender in Moderation (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542086). You seem to be making a bad habit of that lately. :eek:

Perhaps if you quit trolling........the flames will die down?

**Pim Fortuyn...Your opinion...What do you think of him?**

My opinion of him has improved since his death.

I don't believe in immigration restrictions.

I have no problem with militant opposition to religious bigotry and religious bigots... challenging, criticizing, and offending such people is worth doing, and should be encouraged. But the way to go about it is not to stigmatize people from certain regions, or who adhere to a particular subcategory of religious bigotry, nor to restrict free movement.

The argument that the proportions differ is merely superficially compelling, since there are more precise means than singling out whole demographics for legal restriction.

Left, Right, Libertarian?


Dead?

As for his views on Islam, they seem wrong in the reality that I live in. Things may be different on the other side of the planet, but it what he says about Muslims just seems wrong from my life experience. He really makes it seem like they are actively trying to gain entry into our country in order to turn it into another Muslim state. In my experience, that is something allot of Muslim immigrants emigrate away from (the others are mostly here for the money). Either way, no one in politics takes those views seriously, and the political climate is moving in the other direction rather quickly; the main group keeping those laws here tend to be our parents.
Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. MANY people take those views seriously. For instance:
"All major parties have adopted tougher immigration and integration viewpoints after the rise of Fortuyn. The immigration policy of the Netherlands is now one of the strictest in the EU. In addition, debates on these topics, in politics, but also in everyday life, have become more prevalent and are no longer taboo as many claim they were in the years before Fortuyn."
In fact, it can be said the political climate, not only in Holland, but it much of Europe, is moving closer to these ideas. With Sarkozy in France, the SVP in Switzerland, this in Holland, the Danish People Party's views on Islam becoming popular in Denmark, ect ect ect.....

I think it in a sense, they are just raised in a culture/religion that CANNOT tolerate that kind of individual liberty, so they become isolated in Western soceity because they don't want to allow women equality, don't want to tolerate Jews, don't want to accept homosexuality in Holland....ect

Certainly, the process of modernization will be gradual, but there isn't any particular reason to believe it would happen any other way. The Enlightenment occurred as the result of education and the free exchange of ideas. The latter isn't going to happen if everyone closes up and becomes insular.
But then we're back to my point where during the time leading up to this gradual, hypothetical civilizing of Islam, Islam in Holland will not be civilized and these Dutch people may be negativly affected by Islam's intolerance. Should they have to deal with that until Islam one day possibly get's with the real world?
I can agree that Christianity in Holland is more in line with Dutch values, but this doesn't mean that it's impossible for Muslims to also become in line with Dutch values.
In addition, simply because they don't share the same opinions doesn't mean that they're a threat.
The idea of it being a threat is because not only does Islam in this case have differening values/opinions/views than Dutch ones, it may actually oppose them as opposites. For instance, liberal drug/alcohol rules. Total freedom to women. Tolerance of homosexuals. Tolerance of Jews....ect. It's not that Islam and Holland simply differ on these important issues, they many times have opposing views, and that is very dangerous to have in a country, even more so one so small as Holland.
Here is a good example. While this is Denmark, it still shows the kind of Intolernace that I and Pim Fortuyn are trying to describe:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378339740&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
"Their arrival and the growing Islamic militancy of segments of this population have led to a worrying increase in anti-Semitic incidents in a country in which such incidents were practically unthinkable a few years ago. Jewish children are often the object of taunting and harassment by Muslim neighbors and there has been increasingly strident anti-Zionist rhetoric by local Muslim leaders in response to events in the Middle East."

I don't believe in immigration restrictions.

I have no problem with militant opposition to religious bigotry and religious bigots... challenging, criticizing, and offending such people is worth doing, and should be encouraged. But the way to go about it is not to stigmatize people from certain regions, or who adhere to a particular subcategory of religious bigotry, nor to restrict free movement.

The argument that the proportions differ is merely superficially compelling, since there are more precise means than singling out whole demographics for legal restriction.
So why oppose all the "relgious bigots" if the only ones who are there in reality (in Holland) causing problems are the Islamic ones? That doesn't make any sense. It's like going out of your way to group everyone into this investigation of Islam, just to make yourself LOOK like your not singling out Islam, when really you are because in reality, it's the only religion that's problematic in Holland....

I think...he has a funny name...

They guy who murdered him will probably released after 12 years since you only need to spend 2/3 of your sentence here.

I don't care any further.

Seriously, some people had never heard of Fortuyn? Perhaps they're too young.

Anyway... The main problem I had with him is that he makes broad categorisations, presenting "Islam" and all Muslims as a problem. Anyone who actually knows some Muslims and talks to them realises that Fortuyn's silly generalisation is rubbish, destined to pick up votes from the xenophobic and uneducated fringes of the population.

Right-wing populists have always picked on a minority as scapegoat. Right back to 13th century England, when Edward I expelled all Jews. They were the most visible minority, and hence became the scapegoat, blamed for everyone's problems. ("They look different, they don't behave quite like us, they don't share our Christian values... Oh, and did I mention they want to drink your children's blood?")

The Muslims I know best are feminists, in favour of gay marriage. That would probably have confused poor ole' Fortuyn completely.

Are some Muslims a problem? Yes, of course, you have a vocal minority, who are just as problematic as (and more outwardly visible than) white racists who discriminate against blacks and Arabs in employment and housing.

Are most Muslims law-abiding citizens who want to integrate quietly and get on with their lives without a fuss? Yes, of course. But those aren't the ones you hear about. The media focuses on problems, the lunatic fringe minority among Muslims are vocal and provocative, and right-wing populists draw attention to them. With the result that some people actually do believe "Muslims", as a "category", are a "problem".

Left, Right, Libertarian?

I would suggest that he was one of those who can not be easily placed on some arbitrary linear axis. I would not consider mandatory state service to be very libertarian.

Views on Islam

Apparently, he wasn't too bright about Islam. Example:

He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law.

He thought Muslim culture would dismiss Dutch law in favour of shari'a law? Muslim culture is not a sentient entity. It can't dismiss anything. People within the culture could, but that's a different story. This is sloppy thinking.

Murder

Apparently killed by an animal rights activist for selling out the weaker groups in society solely to score political points. Kinda like the SVP, I guess. Is that why you like him, TAI?

As a gay man in liberal Holland, do you think he was correct or incorrect in fearing that Muslim culture lacked acceptance of democracy, women and gays rights? And his fear of Holland losing that liberalism due to increased Islamic population....?

Obviously he was incorrect. First of all, he did not specify which Muslim culture. Secondly, it does not address the fact that many people immigrate to the Netherlands in order to live in a democracy that respects democracy, women and gays rights. Maybe he believed that there were no Muslim women, gays, or supporters of democracy. What a foolish, foolish man.

And during that time, Dutch non-heteros, Dutch women and Dutch Jews could very well feel increased tension by the rapid number of non-civilized (in the sense that Fortuyn was using in his speech) Muslims who would not be tolerant of these elements of soceity.

They could. They could also feel increased tension from oppresive police states who use the bogeymen of 'Muslim invasions' to centralise power and enact laws targetting ethnic minorities.

And to be fair, Fortuyn is hardly a big fan of more conservative Christianity either....because he favors liberal social values. It's just that he (and many Dutch, he was very popular in Holland) beleived that there wasn't any sorta of clash between their secular values and Christianity, because Christianity in Holland, FOR THE MOST PART, is much more secular and in line with Dutch values...atleast when compared to Islam in Holland.

There are three parties in the Dutch paliament right now that are explicitly Christian. When there are three Muslim parties in the Dutch parliament, then we can begin to compare the amount of political influence the two religions have in the Netherlands.

So why oppose all the "relgious bigots" if the only ones who are there in reality (in Holland) causing problems are the Islamic ones? That doesn't make any sense. It's like going out of your way to group everyone into this investigation of Islam, just to make yourself LOOK like your not singling out Islam, when really you are because in reality, it's the only religion that's problematic in Holland....

Wrong. There is also religious bigotry directed towards Islam.

The Lonsdale youth (http://www.minbzk.nl/bzk2006uk/subjects/public-safety/press_releases?ActItmIdt=70426) are a good example:

“Lonsdale youth” – Dutch teen-agers with extreme right-wing tendencies who wear the British sportswear label as a kind of uniform – do not yet constitute an acute threat to the democratic system, but they are a growing threat to public order. Their use of provocative symbols, attire and language leads to frequent confrontations with ethnic minority youths. Their behaviour therefore represents a potential threat to the democratic order, as such confrontations may eventually undermine social cohesion in the Netherlands.

These are the conclusions of a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) on Lonsdale Youth in the Netherlands (Lonsdale jongeren in Nederland).

and...

Between 23 November 2004 and 13 March 2005, the National Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD) recorded 31 occasions of violence against mosques and Islamic schools .[21] The case that drew most attention was an arson attack that led to the destruction of a Muslim primary school in Uden in December 2004.

http://fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf Pages 78-80

And it's 'the Netherlands'. Not 'Holland'.

I would suggest that he was one of those who can not be easily placed on some arbitrary linear axis. I would not consider mandatory state service to be very libertarian.
He was libertarian about social issues, more fiscally conservative, and nationalist in military/immigration sense. Perfect.


He thought Muslim culture would dismiss Dutch law in favour of shari'a law? Muslim culture is not a sentient entity. It can't dismiss anything. People within the culture could, but that's a different story.
And...you left out the other parts? Muslim culture in the sense of a value system and a belief system that is commonly held amongst Islamic immigrations that differs from Dutch core values and beliefs.


Apparently killed by an animal rights activist for selling out the weaker groups in society solely to score political points. Kinda like the SVP, I guess. Is that why you like him, TAI?
He's not like the SPV, they are differnet, though I him and the SVP both very much. The guy that killed him was a freak...though Fortuyns death did prove one thing, how popular he was in Holland and how widespread his views were accepted.


Obviously he was incorrect. First of all, he did not specify which Muslim culture. Secondly, it does not address the fact that many people immigrate to the Netherlands in order to live in a democracy that respects democracy, women and gays rights.
Or maybe many came because life is easier in the rich welfare states (in comparison to their home countrie)? Anyway, it hardly matters if there is some individuals who respect democracy, as in politics, you'll get nowhere on anything if you do everything at an individual level. This is a national issue and has to be dealt with on a group scale, not an individual level.


They could. They could also feel increased tension from oppresive police states who use the bogeymen of 'Muslim invasions' to centralise power and enact laws targetting ethnic minorities.
Then don't move there. It's not your country. As Pim Fortuyn said "They should behave as guests in our part of the world, and we in theirs."

He also said "It should NEVER be that the guest takes over the house."
Words to live by.


There are three parties in the Dutch paliament right now that are explicitly Christian. When there are three Muslim parties in the Dutch parliament, then we can begin to compare the amount of political influence the two religions have in the Netherlands.
False argument because you assume that the Christian parties are as intolerant, backwards and uncivilized as Islamic culture, which they are not. Jello Bafria already admitted that Christianity in Holland is MUCH more inline with Dutch values and secular ideas than Islam.

Wrong. There is also religious bigotry directed towards Islam.
Well that's a suprise. I never thought there would be frustration against unwelcomed guests who are not only overstaying their welcome but also disregarding the rules of the house.


And it's 'the Netherlands'. Not 'Holland'.
Actually, it's whatever I damn please it to be. Both are fine to use. Just as America and US are both fine to use. Grow up and stop trying to pick on the vocab I use instead of debating my arguement, you'll only lose like you are about to right now::rolleyes:

In most languages, the name for the country literally means 'low lands' or is a transliteration of 'Nederland' or 'Holland'.

The name "Holland", or derivations of it, is commonly used for the Netherlands in many languages. Sometimes it is even the official name of the country, e.g., Holland (הולנד) (Hebrew), Hélán (荷兰) (Chinese), and Oranda (オランダ) (Japanese), Holandia (Polish), Holandsko (Slovak), Olanda (Romanian) or Belanda (Indonesian), Hollanda (Turkish), Ollandia (Ολλανδία) (Greek), Holanda (Spanish), Olanda (Italian). This failure to distinguish between "Holland" and "the Netherlands" leads to difficulty when contrasting "Holland" with other parts of "the Netherlands" in these languages.

Other countries use a literal translation of "the Netherlands". This often becomes indistinguishable from "the Low Countries", e.g., les Pays-Bas (French), Los Países Bajos (Spanish), I Paesi Bassi (Italian), Os Países Baixos (Portuguese), Nizozemska (Slovenian), Yr Iseldiroedd (Welsh), An Ísiltír (Irish).

In Finnish, German, Czech, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, both names are used. In Finnish the country is called either Hollanti or Alankomaat, which is a translation of "the Netherlands". In German, the country is called either die Niederlande or Holland, while in in the Czech Republic, the country is called either Nizozemsko which is a translation of "the Netherlands" or, inofficially Holandsko.

And it's 'the Netherlands'. Not 'Holland'.Ahahaha, like that matters.

Ahahaha, like that matters.
*Points Gift-of-God in the direction of Eredivisie's location-statement*

*Points Gift-of-God in the direction of Eredivisie's location-statement*Well, I'm from a province called Noord-Holland.:p

The only people in Holland that care about the Holland/Netherlands thing are the ones who live in in the south and east. Ask The Blaatschapen.:p

Well, I'm from a province called Noord-Holland.:p

The only people in Holland that care about the Holland/Netherlands thing are the ones who live in in the south and east. Ask The Blaatschapen.:p
I've settled it, watch this. The ones in the East are Germans and the ones in the South are Flemish. That leaves just those that accept the divine right of Holland.:D

Anyway, I use both, just depends...but in Spanish I know Los Paises Bajos is in existance, but whenever we talk about Holland it's always Hollandia....and in German....either...people say both. Same as English. I really don't know why this is an issue, except that he was trying to be witty and it failed....

The two Dutch girls I'm friends with ALWAYS say Holland in English (or in Spanish as one speaks Spanish) but I also have to admit that they are from the Holland geographical areas. :p But still! They use it to refer to the country. (in English)

Muslim culture in the sense of a value system and a belief system that is commonly held amongst Islamic immigrations that differs from Dutch core values and beliefs.

Leaving aside the fact that "Muslim culture" is as varied as "European culture" or "Western culture" or "Christian culture", and that a Jordanian Muslim, a Syrian Muslim, an Egyptian Muslim, an Indonesian Muslim and a Nigerian Muslim may have as little in common as a Finnish Christian, an American Christian, a Greek Christian, a Samoan and a Nigerian Christian...

How is it, in your view, that the overwhelming majority of Muslim citizens in the West do find a way to reconcile their own religion and the values of the "host society"?


He also said "It should NEVER be that the guest takes over the house."
Words to live by.

There are two fundamental flaws in that. While the principle is true, its application in this context is absurd and off-topic:

a) It's utterly ridiculous to presume that the vast majority of Western Muslims, who are obviously willing and content to integrate with no fuss or bother, are trying to "take over the house".

b) How is a Dutch citizen, born Dutch and who has always lived in the Netherlands, a "guest"?

This reminds me of the racist indigenous nationalists in Fiji, who insist on using precisely that word -"guests", vulagi in Fijian- to refer to the Indo-Fijian minority. The latter are descendants of people who migrated to Fiji no later than the 1910s. How are they "guests" rather than citizens?


Well that's a suprise. I never thought there would be frustration against unwelcomed guests who are not only overstaying their welcome but also disregarding the rules of the house.


How exactly does a law-abiding, well-integrated, hard-working, tolerant Muslim citizen in a Western country deserve to be accused of "overstaying her welcome" or (on no basis whatsoever) "disregarding the rules of the house"?

The people I feel sorry for are normal Western Muslims. It's supremely ironic for someone like my Muslim friend Gaël to advocate women's rights and gay marriage, in the face of opposition from bigots of all kinds of backgrounds (although a fanatical Christian minority tend to be the most vocal opponents to gay marriage here in France), and then be accused of doing the reverse. Simply because people with simple, small minds cannot factor in the reality that a lot of Muslims in the West are strong defenders of progressive values.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8217/muslimfeministjx7.jpg

Well, I'm from a province called Noord-Holland.:p

The only people in Holland that care about the Holland/Netherlands thing are the ones who live in in the south and east. Ask The Blaatschapen.:p

And the north! The point seems trivial, but the Netherlands are larger than Holland, a fact that most 'Hollanders' frequently seem to forget.

Exactly!

And the north! The point seems trivial, but the Netherlands are larger than Holland, a fact that most 'Hollanders' frequently seem to forget.

...and that my friends in Limburg insist upon most strenuously. ;)

Holland is just that bit on the west coast with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague:
http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/maps/netherlands-map.gif

And the north! The point seems trivial, but the Netherlands are larger than Holland, a fact that most 'Hollanders' frequently seem to forget.

Indeed. There are (currently) only two types of "Hollanders" North and South ones. That leaves 10 provinces of non-Hollanders. As for my own location, venture a guess, based on my name...

As for the topic, Fortyun was, imo, just an opportunistic populist with a serious right-wing streak. Save to say I didn't like his ideas.

His views on same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and "related positions" were mostly fine, but his economic views weren't, and neither was his stance on Muslims.
In short, I disagree with most of his views.

The problem is that he attacked Islam rather than attacking the culture which infuses the homophobic message which is spread by some Muslims.

The problem is that he lacked the education to properly debate with these imams, thus, he came across as an idiot rather than someone with a genuine concern over the future of his country.

He could have attacked the hypocrisy within Islam whilst not isolating Muslims, the problem is, like I said, he lacked the education.

He was libertarian about social issues, more fiscally conservative, and nationalist in military/immigration sense. Perfect.

Actually, he was quite vague about many issues. His emphasis was on what things in society needed to be changed, but he was notorious for being vague on the how.

And...you left out the other parts? Muslim culture in the sense of a value system and a belief system that is commonly held amongst Islamic immigrations that differs from Dutch core values and beliefs.

What are the Dutch core values and beliefs? It's hard to say. Less than a month ago the wife of the Dutch crown prince stated that there is not a universal Dutch identity. Vietnamese and Chinese in the Netherlands are often considered to be examples of well-adjusted immigrants. But they aren't. They just keep to themselves and don't cause trouble. That isn't adaptation, that's keeping your head low.

He's not like the SPV, they are differnet, though I him and the SVP both very much. The guy that killed him was a freak...though Fortuyns death did prove one thing, how popular he was in Holland and how widespread his views were accepted.

Fortuyn had many supporters. However, many more outright rejected his ideas. The significant victory in the elections of Fortuyn's party was mostly due to the wish of the population to give a clear signal that political assassination was not to be tolerated.

Or maybe many came because life is easier in the rich welfare states (in comparison to their home countrie)? Anyway, it hardly matters if there is some individuals who respect democracy, as in politics, you'll get nowhere on anything if you do everything at an individual level. This is a national issue and has to be dealt with on a group scale, not an individual level.

As a group, muslims in the Netherlands don't cause problems. Most muslims keep to themselves, make their own money. However, a large group of muslims belong to the lower social class due to schooling, grasp of the Dutch language etc. Much of the 'muslim problem' isn't about ethnicity or religion, but about social status within Dutch society.

Then don't move there. It's not your country. As Pim Fortuyn said "They should behave as guests in our part of the world, and we in theirs. He also said "It should NEVER be that the guest takes over the house."
Words to live by."

But Fortuyn clearly hadn't thought this out. The majority of the muslims that are causing problems are the teens and early adolescents. They are not guests. They are Dutch.

False argument because you assume that the Christian parties are as intolerant, backwards and uncivilized as Islamic culture, which they are not. Jello Bafria already admitted that Christianity in Holland is MUCH more inline with Dutch values and secular ideas than Islam.

I wonder how often Jello Biafra has visited the Noordoostpolder or Vlaardingen. Intolerance of gays, rejection of vaccinations, actually forbidding people to drive their cars on sunday.... Much more in line with Dutch values?

Holland (North and South) are just the parts of the country that will get flooded due to climate change :)

He was libertarian about social issues, more fiscally conservative, and nationalist in military/immigration sense. Perfect.

Whatever.

And...you left out the other parts? Muslim culture in the sense of a value system and a belief system that is commonly held amongst Islamic immigrations that differs from Dutch core values and beliefs.

First, define what this value system and belief system are. Then, show that it is held by the majority of Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with this.

Or maybe many came because life is easier in the rich welfare states (in comparison to their home countrie)? Anyway, it hardly matters if there is some individuals who respect democracy, as in politics, you'll get nowhere on anything if you do everything at an individual level. This is a national issue and has to be dealt with on a group scale, not an individual level.

There are many reasons for immigration. This is why immigrants are dealt with on a case by case basis, despite the fact that is a national issue. National security is also a national issue. Does that mean that the US should treat all arab youths in the USA as a homogenous group? Or should they go after the individuals who are actually a threat?

Then don't move there. It's not your country. As Pim Fortuyn said "They should behave as guests in our part of the world, and we in theirs."

He also said "It should NEVER be that the guest takes over the house."
Words to live by.

What are you talking about? I am discussing the feelings of Dutch women, gays and Jews. They are the ones who would feel tension if such a police state were to arise. If you are going to reply to my posts, please try and address the point.

False argument because you assume that the Christian parties are as intolerant, backwards and uncivilized as Islamic culture, which they are not. Jello Bafria already admitted that Christianity in Holland is MUCH more inline with Dutch values and secular ideas than Islam.

Please try and read carefully. I never discussed intolerance perpetrated by Christians. Nor was I discussing whether Christianity was more aligned with Dutch values than Muslim values. I just thought it was amusing, and foolish, for Mr. Fortuyn to focus on some vague concept of 'muslim values' when he had other eligious groups already influencing public policy in a way that the Muslims will perhaps never be capable of.

However, if you want to make the claim that the majority of people in Islamic cultures in the Netherlands are intolerant, backwards and uncivilized, feel free to express your bigotry. If you want me to believe you, back it up with a source.

Well that's a suprise. I never thought there would be frustration against unwelcomed guests who are not only overstaying their welcome but also disregarding the rules of the house.

Really? Prove that the victims of these attacks were guilty of breaking Dutch law. How is an elementary school 'disregarding the rules of the house'? Obviously, it is not. Therefore, it is just as obvious that this is merely a weak attempt at rationalising bigotry. My respect for you increases appropriately.

Actually, it's whatever I damn please it to be. Both are fine to use. Just as America and US are both fine to use. Grow up and stop trying to pick on the vocab I use instead of debating my arguement, you'll only lose like you are about to right now::rolleyes:

Whatever. Any idiot can look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_(terminology)) and see who's correct. It has absolutely no bearing on Pym's bigoted views towards Muslims.

The problem is that he lacked the education to properly debate with these imams, thus, he came across as an idiot rather than someone with a genuine concern over the future of his country.

He could have attacked the hypocrisy within Islam whilst not isolating Muslims, the problem is, like I said, he lacked the education.

Fortuyn did not lack education - far from it. He was an associate professor of sociology at Groningen university, a lecturer at Nyenrode and temporary professor at Erasmus university.

He was however foremost a charismatic populist who said things people wished to hear without backing his claims up with evidence and decent reasoning.

Fortuyn did not lack education - far from it. He was an associate professor of sociology at Groningen university, a lecturer at Nyenrode and temporary professor at Erasmus university.

He was however foremost a charismatic populist who said things people wished to hear without backing his claims up with evidence and decent reasoning.

Yeah, and thats going to fucking help him with debating with Islam - read the bloody post. I am referring to education relating to Islam.

If he had half a brain he would be able to debate the issue of the Hadith which some Imam's use. He would also be able to raise the question as to why out of the 18 islamic judicial traditions, why did they choose to follow the one with the harsh treatment of gays - and has the least academic support in the Islamic world.

Again, read a post, digest, then reply.

Yeah, and thats going to fucking help him with debating with Islam - read the bloody post. I am referring to education relating to Islam.

Which he does not need. If an Imam preaches one should disrespect and break Dutch law it is completely and utterly irrelevant whether or not his views are actually supported by his faith: the man is then a criminal.

Sociology is all Fortuyn needed. Pity he did not actually use his knowledge.

Indeed. There are (currently) only two types of "Hollanders" North and South ones. That leaves 10 provinces of non-Hollanders. As for my own location, venture a guess, based on my name...

As for the topic, Fortyun was, imo, just an opportunistic populist with a serious right-wing streak. Save to say I didn't like his ideas.You're from Holland.

But then we're back to my point where during the time leading up to this gradual, hypothetical civilizing of Islam, Islam in Holland will not be civilized and these Dutch people may be negativly affected by Islam's intolerance. Should they have to deal with that until Islam one day possibly get's with the real world?The influence that Islam has will only increase with the passage of time. Do you want Muslims who dislike gays gaining more influence or Muslims who are tolerant of gays?

The idea of it being a threat is because not only does Islam in this case have differening values/opinions/views than Dutch ones, it may actually oppose them as opposites. For instance, liberal drug/alcohol rules. Total freedom to women. Tolerance of homosexuals. Tolerance of Jews....ect. It's not that Islam and Holland simply differ on these important issues, they many times have opposing views, and that is very dangerous to have in a country, even more so one so small as Holland.Simply having different views doesn't mean they're threatening.

The problem is that he attacked Islam rather than attacking the culture which infuses the homophobic message which is spread by some Muslims.Indeed. Some Muslims.
Not to mention the fact that it is the homophobia that is the problem, not the Islam.

Uhm, isn't this debate like 6 years to late or something?

Not that I care:p

Anyways, I like the fact that he atleast stirred up debate here. Everything was sleepy until he came.

You're from Holland.

Nee. Maar probeer het nog eens. Hint: we worden als vrij "stijf" gezien. En erg koppig over onze identiteit. Behalve als het echt goed vriest...

Nee. Maar probeer het nog eens. Hint: we worden als vrij "stijf" gezien. En erg koppig over onze identiteit. Behalve als het echt goed vriest...
Forget the muslims, it's the Dutch that don't know how to integrate...

It's like going out of your way to group everyone into this investigation of Islam

Your statement here only strengthens my point.

It seems that you and Pim Fortuyn want to make this about Islam, by conflating religious bigotry and Islam... when in fact no such conflation is necessary. The whole attempt suggests simple Islamophobia, and the fact that the champions of anti-immigration policy tend to be at least as bigoted, if not more so, than the bigoted Muslims they attack only reinforces this aspect.

Even if it happens to be that all bigots are Muslims (which is clearly false), getting rid of bigotry and getting rid of Islam still require very different policies and approaches. Criminalizing hate speech is one thing, restricting the building of mosques is another. (I make no statement as to the efficacy or legitimacy of either.)

If your concern is bigotry, then there is no reason to restrict the spread of Islam as such rather than being more precise and targeting bigotry directly instead.

I really like Pim Fortuyn, and I think it's terrible he had to die. If he had still lived, I am sure the Netherlands would be a nicer country to live in.

I'm afraid I really beginning to agree. As much as I normally deplore anything that could be construed as religious bigotry, I'm beginning to think people who say Muslim fundamentalist are threats to western democratic ideals have a point. The two ideas seem to be imcompatible.

I'm afraid I really beginning to agree. As much as I normally deplore anything that could be construed as religious bigotry, I'm beginning to think people who say Muslim fundamentalist are threats to western democratic ideals have a point. The two ideas seem to be imcompatible.

Theocracy is inherently incompatible with democracy, no matter what religion it is. A Muslim who seeks to impose Sharia law on me is behaving in an undemocratic manner, but I don't see how this is qualitatively different than a Christian political party attempting to criminalise abortion (or maintain abortion illegal in many places) or gay marriages.

In that respect, they have a point. On the other hand, many critics of Islam are incorrect when they make the assumption that Islam is the only religion that poses such a danger to democracy. As Soheran points out upthread, there is also the danger of conflating the dangers of theocracy with Islam, when that is obviously not the case.

I'm afraid I really beginning to agree. As much as I normally deplore anything that could be construed as religious bigotry, I'm beginning to think people who say Muslim fundamentalist are threats to western democratic ideals have a point. The two ideas seem to be imcompatible.

Muslim fundamentalists. Who are so small a minority as to pose little threat. Look at it this way: Bigots like Le Pen here in France have been railing for decades against Jews and Blacks and Arabs and various other peoples and ideas. French fascists are an irritant to France - but a threat? No. They're kept down by the democratic process, as was proved conclusively on May 5th, 2002. Muslim extremists are the same. They can rant and rave, but ultimately they're powerless. They're a ridiculous minority, despised not only by the overwhelming bulk of society -which wields political power- but also by the majority of the Muslim population in Europe.

Muslim fundamentalists in the West are a genuine threat only to one category of people: normal Western Muslims. By being so vocal and aggressive, the extremists attract public attention, and turn the public's attention away from the majority of Western Muslims who are hard-working, law-abiding, tolerant and well-integrated. Everytime some idiot spews hatred at Muslims, he and the Muslim fundamentalists together are striking another blow at the peaceful, integrated, quiet Muslim majority.

And that's the greatest shame of all.

Aside from his support of mandatory military service (though that's a fairly minor quibble), I was generally a fan of what Fortuyn had to say. I was really annoyed when he was assassinated.

Uhm, isn't this debate like 6 years to late or something?

Not that I care:p

Anyways, I like the fact that he atleast stirred up debate here. Everything was sleepy until he came.

Actually, even though that's just your opinion, you're not far off from the truth:

Fortuyn can be credited with changing the Dutch political landscape and political culture

All major parties have adopted tougher immigration and integration viewpoints after the rise of Fortuyn. The immigration policy of the Netherlands is now one of the strictest in the EU. In addition, debates on these topics, in politics, but also in everyday life, have become more prevalent and are no longer taboo as many claim they were in the years before Fortuyn.

Contemporary Dutch politics is more polarized than it has been in recent years, especially on the issues that Fortuyn was best known for. There is a deep division on whether to consider the multicultural society a failure, and to what extent assimilation by newcomers is needed.

In 2004, in a TV show, Fortuyn was chosen as De Grootste Nederlander ("Greatest Dutchman of all-time"), followed closely by William of Orange, the leader of the independence war that established the precursor to the present-day Netherlands

Islam, like Judaism, is a religion based more on obeying laws than it is on internalised values, like Christianity.

Muslims can have lots of different values, and they certainly do. But the religion prescribes certain behaviours, and it's difficult in that case to argue that one can not follow those rules and still be a good Muslim.

So that's the source of the "culture clash", which is really just the fact that it is more difficult to follow rules if not everyone around you is doing it. The solution is quite obvious: make sure that people can follow rules if they want to (eg only eat halal foods, wear the hijab, pray 5 times a day), but also make it absolutely clear that no one has to if they don't want to. The latter will undoubtedly take some time in Muslim immigrant communities (it's further in France for example than it is in the UK), but there is no reason to assume that it can't or won't happen.

So that's as far as the religious part goes. The cultural part is really a non-issue, these things sort themselves out. And the terrorism part is a normal legal issue for the police to deal with.

Note how none of these things require immigration restrictions.

Theocracy is inherently incompatible with democracy, no matter what religion it is.

They did it in America.

In 2004, in a TV show, Fortuyn was chosen as De Grootste Nederlander ("Greatest Dutchman of all-time"), followed closely by William of Orange, the leader of the independence war that established the precursor to the present-day Netherlands[/I]

A highly controversial election. The majority considered the program to be a failure.

What the rise of Fortuyn demonstrated was the existence of deep resentment within the society against politics. This resentment was generally unaligned. Many voted not particularly for Fortuyn, but AGAINST the political system.

After Fortuyn's death his voters dispersed. About half of the votes wound up with the Socialist Party, that despite it's name is far left. About the other half wound up with the Party for Freedom, conservative right.

I can imagine that for many Fortuyn should be considered a hero, that died for his ideals. Although I regret his death I consider him far from a hero. He was a storm crow, who caused trouble in whatever position he was.

He polarised the Dutch political system. The main reason Dutch immigration laws are so strict is because the centrist and right-wing parties have tried to capture the angry mob that formed Fortuyn's electorate.

But things have changed. Since the last elections there is a left-wing majority in parliament, and a centrist-left government. Many immigration laws that were introduced after Fortuyn's demise have been softened.

A highly controversial election. The majority considered the program to be a failure.

What the rise of Fortuyn demonstrated was the existence of deep resentment within the society against politics. This resentment was generally unaligned. Many voted not particularly for Fortuyn, but AGAINST the political system.

After Fortuyn's death his voters dispersed. About half of the votes wound up with the Socialist Party, that despite it's name is far left. About the other half wound up with the Party for Freedom, conservative right.

I can imagine that for many Fortuyn should be considered a hero, that died for his ideals. Although I regret his death I consider him far from a hero. He was a storm crow, who caused trouble in whatever position he was.

He polarised the Dutch political system. The main reason Dutch immigration laws are so strict is because the centrist and right-wing parties have tried to capture the angry mob that formed Fortuyn's electorate.

But things have changed. Since the last elections there is a left-wing majority in parliament, and a centrist-left government. Many immigration laws that were introduced after Fortuyn's demise have been softened.
The socialist party? I knew about the Freedom Party but the socialist party?

That's a GOOD thing that Dutch immigration laws became so strict and I fully support those centrist and right wing parties that support these policies. Many Dutch are atleast a bit upset at the issues with multiculturalism and immigration in their country.

Also, do you have a source about the Dutch immigration laws being softened? I havn't heard about this.....

Many Dutch are atleast a bit upset at the issues with multiculturalism and immigration in their country.

They'll just have to suck it up and deal with it, I guess.

I still say this is Lex Luthor, but it's ok because the Italian guy is Superman.

http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/6882/temp4pp.jpg

Muslim fundamentalists. Who are so small a minority as to pose little threat. Look at it this way: Bigots like Le Pen here in France have been railing for decades against Jews and Blacks and Arabs and various other peoples and ideas. French fascists are an irritant to France - but a threat? No. They're kept down by the democratic process, as was proved conclusively on May 5th, 2002. Muslim extremists are the same. They can rant and rave, but ultimately they're powerless. They're a ridiculous minority, despised not only by the overwhelming bulk of society -which wields political power- but also by the majority of the Muslim population in Europe.

Muslim fundamentalists in the West are a genuine threat only to one category of people: normal Western Muslims. By being so vocal and aggressive, the extremists attract public attention, and turn the public's attention away from the majority of Western Muslims who are hard-working, law-abiding, tolerant and well-integrated. Everytime some idiot spews hatred at Muslims, he and the Muslim fundamentalists together are striking another blow at the peaceful, integrated, quiet Muslim majority.

And that's the greatest shame of all.

I don't know about you, but I consider muslim fundamentalists commiting terrorist attacks against western people quite a threat to them, and not just to "normal" western muslims.

The difference between christian/jewish extremists and muslim extremists is that the muslim extremists kill people, and the christian and jewish extremists don't.

I don't know about you, but I consider muslim fundamentalists commiting terrorist attacks against western people quite a threat to them, and not just to "normal" western muslims.

The difference between christian/jewish extremists and muslim extremists is that the muslim extremists kill people, and the christian and jewish extremists don't.

They don't huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

The Government of the state of Tripura has uncovered evidence to support the assertion that the Baptist Church of Tripura has been funding the terrorists. The Church has been forcing local tribals to convert to Christianity at gunpoint and turning them against the Hindus in the region [2].

The Baptist Church of Tripura was initially set up by missionaries from New Zealand in the 1940s. Despite their efforts, even until the 1980s, only a few thousand people in Tripura had converted to Christianity. In the aftermath of one of the worst ethnic riots, the NLFT was born in 1989—allegedly with the help of the Baptist Church. Since then, the NLFT has been advancing its cause through armed rebellion.

Indian Government officials have accused the Baptist Church of Tripura of supporting this violent campaign by providing funding and arms for the group. In April of 2000, Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was caught providing 50 gelatine sticks, 5 kilograms of potassium and 2 kilograms of sulphur and other ingredients for making explosives to the group.

In October 2000, the NLFT ordered all Hindus to cease celebration of Durga Puja [3]. In 2001, there were 826 reported terrorist attacks in Tripura, in which 405 people lost their lives and 481 kidnappings were made by the NLFT and related organizations such as the Christian All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTP)

Thats one.

Next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Poso, Jakarta (2000)
On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for a previous court ordered and legally sanctioned execution in 2006 of three Christians convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000.

Are you seriously going to try to compare CURRENT Christian/Jewish terrrorism to Islamic terrorism and extremism......:rolleyes:

Surely you'l lose, terribly.....

Hey TAI, are you going to ever tell us exactly what this 'Muslim culture' is supposed to be, or how many Muslims are part of this culture, or even explain how it goes against Dutch values?

Are you seriously going to try to compare CURRENT Christian/Jewish terrrorism to Islamic terrorism and extremism......:rolleyes:

Surely you'l lose, terribly.....

No...Holy Hedgehog said that christians extremist don't kill.

I pointed out that they do.

No comparison was made.

But you're too dim-witted to see that, aren't you?

Fortuyn can be credited with changing the Dutch political landscape and political culture

All major parties have adopted tougher immigration and integration viewpoints after the rise of Fortuyn. The immigration policy of the Netherlands is now one of the strictest in the EU. In addition, debates on these topics, in politics, but also in everyday life, have become more prevalent and are no longer taboo as many claim they were in the years before Fortuyn.

Contemporary Dutch politics is more polarized than it has been in recent years, especially on the issues that Fortuyn was best known for. There is a deep division on whether to consider the multicultural society a failure, and to what extent assimilation by newcomers is needed.

In 2004, in a TV show, Fortuyn was chosen as De Grootste Nederlander ("Greatest Dutchman of all-time"), followed closely by William of Orange, the leader of the independence war that established the precursor to the present-day Netherlands
I wish Canada had someone like him. No one here seems to realise that multicultural society is a failure.

I wish Canada had someone like him. No one here seems to realise that multicultural society is a failure.

How do you figure? What do you think makes multicultural society a failure?

No...Holy Hedgehog said that christians extremist don't kill.
No need to blow out of proportion what he said...he was obviously showing that in general Christian extremists (and let's keep it on Europe since that's what we're talking about) don't cause violence/murder or whatever....while Islam is causing problems with terrorism/murder in Europe.

It's the simple...you don't have to bring in some obscure examples in south-east asia or whatever, as that has nothing to do with what he was stating...as he was talking about in Hollland/Europe...

I wish Canada had someone like him. No one here seems to realise that multicultural society is a failure.
I'd like to see someone like him in America too.

I wish Canada had someone like him. No one here seems to realise that multicultural society is a failure.

Please explain how multiculturalism in Canada is a failure. Really. I'd love to hear this.

EDIT: TAI, do you have me on ignore? You don't seem to be responding to any of my questions.

They'll just have to suck it up and deal with it, I guess.
Heh, we'll see what happens. Perhaps they won't just "suck it up" but maybe they will deal with it.

Who knows. One thing's for sure, I don't trust your fortelling of the future since you "predicted" to me (before the Swiss Elections) that the SVP had actually stopped growing and wasn't making new ground...then I turn around the next day and see that the SVP has won the biggest victory in around 100 years. :D

So...forgive me if I don't exactly trust your opinion of what they will do. ;)

Heh, we'll see what happens. Perhaps they won't just "suck it up" but maybe they will deal with it.

Who knows. One thing's for sure, I don't trust your fortelling of the future since you "predicted" to me (before the Swiss Elections) that the SVP had actually stopped growing and wasn't making new ground...then I turn around the next day and see that the SVP has won the biggest victory in around 100 years. :D

So...forgive me if I don't exactly trust your opinion of what they will do. ;)

Oh, you do seem to be able to respond to my posts.

So, got a definition for Muslim culture yet?

No need to blow out of proportion what he said...he was obviously showing that in general Christian extremists (and let's keep it on Europe since that's what we're talking about) don't cause violence/murder or whatever....while Islam is causing problems with terrorism/murder in Europe.

It's the simple...you don't have to bring in some obscure examples in south-east asia or whatever, as that has nothing to do with what he was stating...as he was talking about in Hollland/Europe...

Well, since Islamic extremists are so obviously murdering and killing all over Europe, please cite at least five cases in the last year. Sorry, can't find 'em? Oh yeah, and based on what you said, obscure examples don't count.

Well, since Islamic extremists are so obviously murdering and killing all over Europe, please cite at least five cases in the last year. Sorry, can't find 'em? Oh yeah, and based on what you said, obscure examples don't count.

Do moslim kids sticking eachother with knives, sometimes with fatal results, and moslim kids setting fires to cars count ?
There have been quite a few of those incidents in the past few weeks in the Netherlands, though calling it terrorism feels a bit odd. Yet, their intent is to scare ;)

Do moslim kids sticking eachother with knives, sometimes with fatal results, and moslim kids setting fires to cars count ?
There have been quite a few of those incidents in the past few weeks in the Netherlands, though calling it terrorism feels a bit odd. Yet, their intent is to scare ;)

Hm, could be considered possible.

On the other hand, that's basically youth violence, and happens regardless of religion.

Edit: If that's the worst there is, I'd consider it to be fairly average for any group.

Theocracy is inherently incompatible with democracy, no matter what religion it is. A Muslim who seeks to impose Sharia law on me is behaving in an undemocratic manner, but I don't see how this is qualitatively different than a Christian political party attempting to criminalise abortion (or maintain abortion illegal in many places) or gay marriages.

In that respect, they have a point. On the other hand, many critics of Islam are incorrect when they make the assumption that Islam is the only religion that poses such a danger to democracy. As Soheran points out upthread, there is also the danger of conflating the dangers of theocracy with Islam, when that is obviously not the case.
Certainly a valid point.

I'd be perfectly happy if all religion would quietly die off. Even the most innocuous of them have a great capacity to stifle free thought. Generally the first thing any religion tells you is "stop thinking, we have the answers here."

Fortuyn's death did not benefit Dutch Moroccans in the least, but came rather handy for proponents of EU integration as a superstate in Holland.

One cannot help wandering who actually was behind his murder. I do not mean who actually carried it out, for that is well known and it is a fact that there are million of lunatics wandering the streets of the world, but rather: who puts ideas into the heads of mentally unstable people and for what purpose.

Hm, could be considered possible.

On the other hand, that's basically youth violence, and happens regardless of religion.

Edit: If that's the worst there is, I'd consider it to be fairly average for any group.

I tend to agree. Then again, I also agree with the people that state that the typical way these kids are raised (6 year olds walking the streets at midnight, no scolding by the mother when they do something bad, very little obeservation and so on) might have something to do with the fact that the kids with Moroccan ancestry do these things far more often than others.

Fortuyn's death did not benefit Dutch Moroccans in the least, but came rather handy for proponents of EU integration as a superstate in Holland.
How so?

No need to blow out of proportion what he said...he was obviously showing that in general Christian extremists (and let's keep it on Europe since that's what we're talking about) don't cause violence/murder or whatever....while Islam is causing problems with terrorism/murder in Europe.Muslims in general don't cause violence either.

Muslims in general don't cause violence either.
Their religion does. Aslong as Islam continues to be interpretated litearlly, it will cause violence. As long as Islam makes "The Jew" it's enemy, it will cause violence.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,515011,00.html
Construction Starts on Berlin's First Hindu Temple

Berlin's 6,000 Hindus are to finally get their own place of worship. Construction work begins Sunday on the temple, which will be the second-largest in Europe.

http://parentsplace.lohudblogs.com/files/2006/12/home-alone-lr.jpg

Fortuyn's death did not benefit Dutch Moroccans in the least, but came rather handy for proponents of EU integration as a superstate in Holland.How so?

In that it was used to allege that the only way for integration of Dutch residents (including citizens) of non-EU origin is through EU integration which would allegedly allow them to identify with a broader "Islamic community" all over the EU (a postulate that is complete bull).

Therefore after Fortuyn and van Gogh's murders one does not recourse to another referendum (which would surely give a negative answer once again), but goes on with stripping Northern Low Countries of the last vestiges of their para-statehood through governmental decrees.

Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. MANY people take those views seriously. For instance:
"All major parties have adopted tougher immigration and integration viewpoints after the rise of Fortuyn. The immigration policy of the Netherlands is now one of the strictest in the EU. In addition, debates on these topics, in politics, but also in everyday life, have become more prevalent and are no longer taboo as many claim they were in the years before Fortuyn."
In fact, it can be said the political climate, not only in Holland, but it much of Europe, is moving closer to these ideas. With Sarkozy in France, the SVP in Switzerland, this in Holland, the Danish People Party's views on Islam becoming popular in Denmark, ect ect ect.....

I think it in a sense, they are just raised in a culture/religion that CANNOT tolerate that kind of individual liberty, so they become isolated in Western soceity because they don't want to allow women equality, don't want to tolerate Jews, don't want to accept homosexuality in Holland....ectI was referring to Canada/BC's political climate. I believe I said the Europe is half way around the world. I am in no position to state their views. Canada on the other hand is going the other way. None of the major parties in Canada want to decrease immigration. News headlines are about people who are not allowed immigration or citizenship. For some reason, they have not become an isolated element of society.

I was referring to Canada/BC's political climate. I believe I said the Europe is half way around the world. I am in no position to state their views. Canada on the other hand is going the other way. None of the major parties in Canada want to decrease immigration. News headlines are about people who are not allowed immigration or citizenship. For some reason, they have not become an isolated element of society.
How unfortunate....I hope for you sake that this trend does not continue for long, I've heard many complaints for Canadian citizens about multiculturalism in Canada, in that there are so many different ethnic groups in certain areas, there is absolutely no unity nor cohesion. But, meh, to be fair in comparison to most Western countries, I havnt' heard AS MANY problems with multiculturalism from Canada....
In that it was used to allege that the only way for integration of Dutch residents (including citizens) of non-EU origin is through EU integration which would allegedly allow them to identify with a broader "Islamic community" all over the EU (a postulate that is complete bull).

Therefore after Fortuyn and van Gogh's murders one does not recourse to another referendum (which would surely give a negative answer once again), but goes on with stripping Northern Low Countries of the last vestiges of their para-statehood through governmental decrees.
Ah, then agreed. How unfortunate..... It's sad that some people would work towards Muslims "identying better" with a cause at the expense of Holland.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,515011,00.html


http://parentsplace.lohudblogs.com/files/2006/12/home-alone-lr.jpg

LOL They're not Muslims...

In fact Pin Fortuyn wasn't so hard on Muslems and Foreigners in general, contrary to popular belief.

It's a shame he was murdered. He if he lived he would have failed (just like his party vanished within a year from parliament), I've got no doubt about that. Now everybody believes things would be better if he had lived...

To speak in Islamic Fundementalist lingo (:p), he has been turned into a "Martyr"

Islam, like Judaism, is a religion based more on obeying laws than it is on internalised values, like Christianity.
I agree. And this is why it is, as I've said before, more a religion of law than a religion of peace.

The difference between christian/jewish extremists and muslim extremists is that the muslim extremists kill people, and the christian and jewish extremists don't.
Um... No.

Do moslim kids sticking eachother with knives, sometimes with fatal results, and moslim kids setting fires to cars count ?
There have been quite a few of those incidents in the past few weeks in the Netherlands, though calling it terrorism feels a bit odd. Yet, their intent is to scare ;)
Links? I want to see that they do it because they're muslim, and not because they're kids.

Please explain how multiculturalism in Canada is a failure. Really. I'd love to hear this.
So, got a definition for Muslim culture yet?

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer ;)

Muslims in general don't cause violence either.
Their religion causes violence.

Their religion does. Aslong as Islam continues to be interpretated litearlly, it will cause violence. As long as Islam makes "The Jew" it's enemy, it will cause violence.

You seem to be indulging in the same sloppy thinking that Pim did. Religions are not sentient agents of action. They can't do anything, as they are merely a set of beliefs. Religious people, on the other hand, can cause violence, but that's something else. Like I said, sloppy thinking.

How unfortunate....I hope for you sake that this trend does not continue for long, I've heard many complaints for Canadian citizens about multiculturalism in Canada, in that there are so many different ethnic groups in certain areas, there is absolutely no unity nor cohesion. But, meh, to be fair in comparison to most Western countries, I havnt' heard AS MANY problems with multiculturalism from Canada....

Ah, then agreed. How unfortunate..... It's sad that some people would work towards Muslims "identying better" with a cause at the expense of Holland.


Don't worry about us. The vast majority of Canadians enjoy multiculturalism. The fact that we have been multicultural for the entirety of our history has made it very easy for us to accept it as the natural course of things. The more homogeneous societies of Europe still have to deal with this, I guess.

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer ;)

The Atlantian islands has a habit of ignoring my questions when he can't answer them.

So, TAI, what is Muslim culture?

What is Dutch culture?

How are the two incompatible?

Well, I'm from a province called Noord-Holland.:p

The only people in Holland that care about the Holland/Netherlands thing are the ones who live in in the south and east. Ask The Blaatschapen.:p

Which makes sense because they have to put up with a wrong name :)


I've settled it, watch this. The ones in the East are Germans and the ones in the South are Flemish. That leaves just those that accept the divine right of Holland.:D

I wouldn't mind being Flemish as long as we can merge and get independence of the both the reformed, arrogant north(actually west) and the wallonian south. In general I love historically catholic regions that are dutch/german. They seem to have found the exactly right balance between working/seriousness and being laid back. Austria, Flanders, Brabant&Limburg(the southern part of the netherlands), the german Rheinland, ah pure bliss :) Bavaria might be an exception with their conservativeness, but I'm not sure.

There's even a song from around my area that talks about being a spare Belgian. And that if the flemish cease to exist we'd gladly take over that role.

But I guess it will stay a dream :(

Which makes sense because they have to put up with a wrong name :)




I wouldn't mind being Flemish as long as we can merge and get independence of the both the reformed, arrogant north(actually west) and the wallonian south. In general I love historically catholic regions that are dutch/german. They seem to have found the exactly right balance between working/seriousness and being laid back. Austria, Flanders, Brabant&Limburg(the southern part of the netherlands), the german Rheinland, ah pure bliss :) Bavaria might be an exception with their conservativeness, but I'm not sure.

There's even a song from around my area that talks about being a spare Belgian. And that if the flemish cease to exist we'd gladly take over that role.

But I guess it will stay a dream :(
Bayern ist perfekt.;)

Their religion causes violence.
The rigour mortis was setting in on this thread and you felt it was necessary to revive it to bash the Muslims yet again. No surprise there.

The Atlantian islands has a habit of ignoring my questions when he can't answer them.

So, TAI, what is Muslim culture?

What is Dutch culture?

How are the two incompatible?

Heh, he fled the Norway thread rather quickly, leaving only an "I'll get back to this!" post, but that never happened. That was funny! :D

The issue with Dutch culture/Muslim culture and really immigration and multiculturalism in general is explained here:

Intellectual critique
In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights' Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-western culture and values. They are the product of the Enlightenment: Cliteur sees non-western cultures not as merely different, but as anachronistic. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants. Cliteur lists infanticide, torture, slavery, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female circumcision, discrimination by immigrants, suttee, and the death penalty. Cliteur compares multiculturalism to the moral acceptance of Auschwitz, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Ku Klux Klan.

Cliteur's 1999 work is indicative of the polemic tone of the debate, in the following years. Most of the 'immigrant barbarities' which he names are regularly cited by opponents of multiculturalism, sometimes as a reductio ad absurdum, but also as factual practices of immigrants in the Netherlands.

In 2000, Paul Scheffer - a member of the PvdA (Labour Party) and subsequently a professor of urban studies - published his essay 'The multicultural drama', an essay critical of both immigration and multiculturalism. Scheffer is a committed supporter of the nation-state, assuming that homogeneity and integration are necessary for a society: the presence of immigrants undermines this. A society does have a finite 'absorptive capacity' for those from other cultures, he says, but this has been exceeded in the Netherlands. Specifically:

a huge influx of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, in combination with multiculturalism, resulted in spontaneous ethnic segregation.
the Netherlands must take its own language, culture, and history seriously, and immigrants must learn this language, culture, and history.
multiculturalism and immigration led to adaptation problems such as school drop-out, unemployment, and high crime rates.
a society which does not respect itself (its Dutch national identity) also has no value for immigrants
multicultural policy ignored Dutch language acquisition, which should be a priority in education.
Islam has not yet reformed itself, and does not accept the separation of church and state. Some Muslims did not accept the law in Amsterdam because its mayor was Jewish.
immigrants must always lose their own culture - that is the price of immigration, a "brutal bargain" (quote from Norman Podhoretz)
Scheffer approvingly quoted the Dutch sociologist J.A.A. van Doorn as saying that the presence of immigrants in the Netherlands had "put the clock back" by 100 or 150 years. The high immigration rate and the lack of integration threatened society, and must be stopped. His essay had a great impact, and led to what became known as the 'integration debate'. As in the essay, this was not simply about multiculturalism, but about immigration, Islam, the national identity, and national unity.
In 2002, the legal scholar Afshin Ellian - a refugee from Iran - advocated a monocultural Rechtsstaat in the Netherlands. A liberal democracy cannot be multicultural, he argued, because multiculturalism is an ideology and a democracy has no official ideology. What is more, according to Ellian, a democracy must be monolingual. The Dutch language is the language of the constitution, and therefore it must be the only public language - all others must be limited to the private sphere. The Netherlands, he wrote, had been taken hostage by the left-wing multiculturalists, and their policy was in turn determined by the Islamic conservatives. Ellian stated that there were 800 000 Muslims in the country, with 450 mosques, and that the Netherlands had legalised the "feudal system of the Islamic Empire". Democracy and the rule of law could only be restored by abolishing multiculturalism.



Political reaction

The intellectual rejection of multiculturalism was accompanied by a political transformation, which led to the abandonment of official multiculturalism. It is often described in the Dutch media as a populist 'revolt' against the elite. The catalyst was Pim Fortuyn. He was a critic of multiculturalism, and especially of what he called the "Islamisation of the Netherlands", but succeeded primarily because of his charisma. Unlike the intellectual critics, who wrote for fellow members of the elite, Fortuyn mobilised millions of disillusioned voters. Overturning the political stability of the 1990s, Fortuyn came close to being prime minister of the Netherlands. When he was assassinated in May 2002, his supporters saw him as a national martyr in the struggle against multiculturalism, although he was in fact shot by an animal rights activist who said that he killed Fortuyn because he targeted "the weak parts of society to score points".

Following Fortuyn's death, open rejection of multiculturalism and immigration ceased to be taboo. To a large extent, open racism also ceased to be taboo: negative reactions to immigrants became the norm, for a section of the population. The new cabinet, under premier Jan-Peter Balkenende instituted a hard-line assimilation policy, enforced by fines and deportation, accompanied by far tighter controls on immigration and asylum. Many former supporters of multiculturalism shifted their position. In a 2006 manifesto "one country, one society", several of them launched an appeal for a homogeneous society.

The most prominent figure in the post-Fortuyn debate of the issue was Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her first criticisms of multiculturalism paralleled those of the early liberal-feminist critics in the United States - the emphasis on group identity and group rights diminished individual liberty for those within the minorities, and especially for women. As time went on, her criticism was increasingly directed at Islam itself, and its incompatibility with democracy and western culture. By 2004 she was the most prominent critic of Islam in Europe. When she scripted a short film on Islamic oppression of women, featuring texts from the Quran on the naked bodies of women, its director Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamist. Threatened with death and heavily guarded, she spent most of her time in the United States, and moved to Washington in 2006 to work for the American Enterprise Institute. In 2006 she also expressed support for the Eurabia thesis - that Europe is being fully Islamised, and that its non-Muslim inhabitants will be reduced to dhimmitude.[29] In a speech for CORE in January 2007, she declared that Western culture was overwhelmingly superior:

...my dream is that those lucky enough to be born into a culture of "ladies first" will let go of the myth that all cultures are equal. Human beings are equal; cultures are not.

And more from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because she raises some really good points:

"In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qu'ran and the Dutch constitution.

In a "no-holds-barred polemic" interview in the London Evening Standard,[51] Hirsi Ali characterises Islam as "the new fascism". "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate—a society ruled by Sharia law—in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and "apostates like me are killed." Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. Violence is inherent in Islam—it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.""

To a certain degree, "Muslim culture" (I put it in quotes because it isn't particularly unified) hasn't undergone a process of modernization, so on that comment he is correct. However, there's little reason to believe they would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favor of Shari'a Law. Furthermore, it is immigration to and education in western countries that will lead to the modernization of Muslim culture back home, as the immigrants will be in contact with their relatives and sharing with them the things they've learned.

Many do, though obviously not all.

The rigour mortis was setting in on this thread and you felt it was necessary to revive it to bash the Muslims yet again. No surprise there.
Islam is not violent?

Their religion causes violence.The same could be said for many religions.

Many do, though obviously not all.
Then it is illegitimate to stigmatize all Muslims.

The same could be said for many religions.
No. Judaism and Islam are inherently violent. They have warlike Gods and are religions of warriors. The difference is, Judaism had it's "reformation/enlightenment" after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Islam has not, at all.



Then it is illegitimate to stigmatize all Muslims.
Not when it is a national crisis. I'd rather Holland stops any further immigration of Muslims into it's soceity, even at the expense of some (I admit) decent people. Unfortunatly, real life is not perfect and is hardly "nice". Drastic times call for drastic measures.

See this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13193737&postcount=93

No. Judaism and Islam are inherently violent. They have warlike Gods and are religions of warriors. The difference is, Judaism had it's "reformation/enlightenment" after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Islam has not, at all.If Judaism has had its "reformation/enlightenment", does this mean that it is or is not violent?
If it is not violent, then why were there Zionist terrorists?
If Christianity is not violent, then why are there Christian terrorists?

Not when it is a national crisis. I'd rather Holland stops any further immigration of Muslims into it's soceity, even at the expense of some (I admit) decent people. Unfortunatly, real life is not perfect and is hardly "nice". Drastic times call for drastic measures.

See this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13193737&postcount=93I read that post. The only national crisis there is the increasing anti-immigration sentiment.

If Judaism has had its "reformation/enlightenment", does this mean that it is or is not violent?
It means it is still, as written a violent religion but not in practice not in interpretation...it is applied to the modern world we live in, where we, as Jews, cannot kill the idol worshippers and deliver them from their false Gods....
If it is not violent, then why were there Zionist terrorists?
They are rare and are not acting on Judaism but rather on politics. For instance, what they beleived was unacceptable negotiation with the Arabs, so they assisinated the Prime Minister of Israel. Politics. Terrible, very terrible and I won't defend them at all....but it is not the same as Islamic states or Islamic laws trying to bring the world backwards, stone women and demolish 18th/19th century Liberalism....
If Christianity is not violent, then why are there Christian terrorists?
Christianity has been used wrongly.....it is, ironically, a religion of peace which has, over history, been made, BY MAN, into the most violent religion of all. Though thankfully, most of it's violence was in history and now it is generally peacful.....Islam..however, has not become peaceful yet.

I read that post. The only national crisis there is the increasing anti-immigration sentiment.
Whatever you beleive, it shows that the concepts I talked about arnt just "Atlantian raving on about the darkies" or whatever some idiots here say...but are real life concepts affecting and influencing entire populations and political processes.

It means it is still, as written a violent religion but not in practice not in interpretation...it is applied to the modern world we live in, where we, as Jews, cannot kill the idol worshippers and deliver them from their false Gods....So individuals can choose to interpret a religion differently from how it is written? Interesting.

They are rare and are not acting on Judaism but rather on politics. For instance, what they beleived was unacceptable negotiation with the Arabs, so they assisinated the Prime Minister of Israel. Politics. Terrible, very terrible and I won't defend them at all....but it is not the same as Islamic states or Islamic laws trying to bring the world backwards, stone women and demolish 18th/19th century Liberalism....How are "Islamic laws" not politics?

Christianity has been used wrongly.....it is, ironically, a religion of peace which has, over history, been made, BY MAN, into the most violent religion of all. Though thankfully, most of it's violence was in history and now it is generally peacful.....Islam..however, has not become peaceful yet.How might Islam become 'peaceful'?

Whatever you beleive, it shows that the concepts I talked about arnt just "Atlantian raving on about the darkies" or whatever some idiots here say...but are real life concepts affecting and influencing entire populations and political processes.I think we all knew you weren't the only one willing rave about the darkies.

The rigour mortis was setting in on this thread and you felt it was necessary to revive it to bash the Muslims yet again. No surprise there.

Well, he did take it upon himself to continue Deep Kimchi's "Exterminate t3h 3b1l m05l3m d4rk13z" legacy.

Fortuijn was an opportunist.
Switching sides whenever he pleased and always after easy money and success.

I think he was an intelligent man, who had a hunger for either power or revenge. He saw an opportunity in Dutch society and grabbed it. "I will be the next prime minister". He gave racists in the Netherlands a voice, and used religion as an excuse. Hirsi Ali is much more real in her criticism of Islam. For Fortuijn it just served a purpose. Theo van Gogh was just an innocent bystander.

I think the real problems are in peoples heads. "Muslims are evil, but not my neighbor, he's an exception" Shows exactly what the problem is. Those cultures don't know and understand each other, which causes ghetto's, hatred, etc.

People like Fortuijn prey on those feelings and manipulate public opinion. He was a master at not responding to criticism and make the critic look bad, an excellent orator and he had a clear view on what was going on in society. Sometimes I think he just wanted to play a trick on the Dutch to show them how easily they can be manipulated. (We are quite naive as a people). Unfortunately some nut shot him and we will never know.

Hirsi Ali is much more real in her criticism of Islam.

Except Ali Hirsi has profitted off the biggest case of Biased Sample in modern history. Nobody's denying she's suffered oppression her life, but then she uses those bitter experiences to speak out as if she were an Islamic scholar and then write a book which basically says that All Muslims in the world are Talibanesque douchebags like the ones who oppressed her.

I didn't say I agree with her, just that her feelings against islam are much more genuine than Pim's.

She's one angry woman...

I didn't say I agree with her, just that her feelings against islam are much more genuine than Pim's.

She's one angry woman...

And what makes it worse is she's basically tapping into an existing audience, basically a large group in the Western World looking for anything to reaffirm their personal "Muslims Are Evil" beliefs and will gladly buy into it to justify their beliefs and any actions related to that belief. Just like how most Western media only pays attention to violent and intolerant extremists and Jihadis as prime examples of "what Muslims are."

About Fortuijn:
the result of all that happened is that now all the other political parties have tapped into those feelings as well, resulting in one of the strictest immigration policies in the world.
The Netherlands is currently making it difficult for students, foreign companies, spouses from outside the EU, etc to obtain residents permits or visa. In this way blocking talent, knowledge, money and fresh genes from getting in. I hope people will soon realize this will send the tiny Netherlands into a state of total backwardness.

Islam is not violent?
Relevant to what criteria?

Perhaps you could draft up a scorecard detailing the number of Muslims killed by Christians and the number of Christians killed by Muslims?

Or perhaps you could draft up a scorecard detailing the number of people killed by Christians, and the number of people killed by Muslims?

Perhaps you could start with the 20th century?

Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm)

Or how about looking at these atrocities?

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst):

* steals TAI's soapbox.

Well, he did take it upon himself to continue Deep Kimchi's "Exterminate t3h 3b1l m05l3m d4rk13z" legacy.
Well I guess someone had to take up the slack? :rolleyes:

The issue with Dutch culture/Muslim culture and really immigration and multiculturalism in general is explained here:

And more from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because she raises some really good points:

"In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qu'ran and the Dutch constitution.

In a "no-holds-barred polemic" interview in the London Evening Standard,[51] Hirsi Ali characterises Islam as "the new fascism". "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate—a society ruled by Sharia law—in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and "apostates like me are killed." Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. Violence is inherent in Islam—it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.""

Actually, quoting the wikipedia article on multiculturalism does not answer the basic questions I was asking. It does not explain what this supposed 'Muslim culture' is, or how it causes problems. All it does is repeat the same tired and unsupported claims. Try again.

For example, this 'Islamic vision' that Hirsi Ali alludes to...how many Muslims in the Netherlands want a Caliphate? And of those, how many want a Caliphate as she describes? If this is a belief shared by the majority of Muslims in the Netherlands, then I would agree with her. But as far as I know, not a single Muslim in the Netherlands wants this, much less a majority. Feel free to prove me wrong.

No. Judaism and Islam are inherently violent. They have warlike Gods and are religions of warriors. The difference is, Judaism had it's "reformation/enlightenment" after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Islam has not, at all.

You just keep repeating the same tired claims, even after I point out how sloppy your thinking is. If violence was inherent in a religion (which is impossible, as I have already explained to you), then we would see that Jews would be just as violent as Muslims. But you admit that they are not, which implies that the cause of the violence is not the religion, but is attributable to other factors. I will repeat that for you.

The cause of the violence is not the religion, but is attributable to other factors.

Not when it is a national crisis. I'd rather Holland stops any further immigration of Muslims into it's soceity, even at the expense of some (I admit) decent people. Unfortunatly, real life is not perfect and is hardly "nice". Drastic times call for drastic measures.

The only reason people think it's a national crisis is because Pim saw an opportunity to get elected. He basically scapegoated Muslims and people fell for it. Let me put it this way: you haven't given us a single shred of evidence to show that Muslims are doing anything wrong at all. So I'm not going to believe you when you say there's a national crisis.

Well, he did take it upon himself to continue Deep Kimchi's "Exterminate t3h 3b1l m05l3m d4rk13z" legacy.
Go get a horse and live in the mountains and don't bother anyone.....
So individuals can choose to interpret a religion differently from how it is written? Interesting.
Judaism does that because it abolished it's (for lack of better wording) "church and priesthood" when the second temple was destroyed, thus bringing religion and interpretation down more to the individual, as the "priesthood" were the ones who said what was right and what was wrong...

Yeah, individuals can choose to interpret a religion differently than how it's written, but the problem is the extent of how much of Islam interprets it literally. And it doesn't even have to go to the extreme of murder for it to be worrying, just the fact that they don't want women to have equal rights, or bitched about not having to abide by the laws of that mayor because he's Jewish. (that was in my previous post, the really long one with lot's of bold).

This is not violence per se, but it is still incompatibility with Holland.

How are "Islamic laws" not politics?
Because that's their religion which they then use as their legal system.....

How might Islam become 'peaceful'?
No idea....for Christianity it took the reformation and the enlightenment, for Judaism is took the destruction of the 2nd Temple....so something big.

I think we all knew you weren't the only one willing rave about the darkies.
Oh, it's not so much about race....I'd have problems with White Muslims or Muslim converts just as much as Arab ones....

In this way blocking talent, knowledge, money and fresh genes from getting in.
je bedoelt dus:
"Blocking poverty, regression, ethnic tensions, racial segregation, disunity, violence and intolerance from getting in."

You see, the restriction of immigration of Muslims in no way changes the opportunity for money or knowledge to cross the border, as there is no restriction on these concepts....

Some people in Europe like to confuse the Nazi's in Germany, who happened to be a unified majority, with Muslims a diverse minority...

That is just as dangerous and ridiculous as the threats the nazi's percieved from the Jewish minority....

*OFF-TOPIC GARBAGE*
Well that was a nice stroll down off-topic lane, but I've always prefered to make my posts relate to the OP.

So, without any further ado...ladies and gentlemen! Back on track!

Historic Christianity has nothing to do with the current social/racial/ethnic/relgious/cultural problems in Holland with Islam.

Thanks, play again.:)

Go get a horse and live in the mountains and don't bother anyone.....

Now now, you don't want to get modded in your own thread again.

Judaism does that because it abolished it's (for lack of better wording) "church and priesthood" when the second temple was destroyed, thus bringing religion and interpretation down more to the individual, as the "priesthood" were the ones who said what was right and what was wrong...

Oddly enough, Isalm also has no centralised priesthood. By your logic, Islam should be as peaceful as Judaism.

I think your logic concerning the relationship between religion and violence is somewhat confused.

Yeah, individuals can choose to interpret a religion differently than how it's written, but the problem is the extent of how much of Islam interprets it literally. And it doesn't even have to go to the extreme of murder for it to be worrying, just the fact that they don't want women to have equal rights, or bitched about not having to abide by the laws of that mayor because he's Jewish. (that was in my previous post, the really long one with lot's of bold).This is not violence per se, but it is still incompatibility with Holland.

How many Dutch Muslims want to interpret the Koran literally? How many are violent? Apparently none, as you have yet to give us even a single example. Your long bolded post (#93) contained no mention of any Jewish mayor.

No idea....for Christianity it took the reformation and the enlightenment, for Judaism is took the destruction of the 2nd Temple....so something big.

I agree that you have no idea. The roots of violence are not based in religion. The existence of non-religious violence should be enough of a clue.

Oh, it's not so much about race....I'd have problems with White Muslims or Muslim converts just as much as Arab ones....

Yes. We are aware that your bigotry and prejudice is on religious grounds rather than racial ones.

je bedoelt dus:
"Blocking poverty, regression, ethnic tensions, racial segregation, disunity, violence and intolerance from getting in."

You see, the restriction of immigration of Muslims in no way changes the opportunity for money or knowledge to cross the border, as there is no restriction on these concepts....

Please show me how immigration is responsible for poverty, regression, ethnic tensions, racial segregation, disunity, violence and intolerance. Personally, I don't think you can.

social/racial/ethnic/relgious/cultural problems in Holland with Islam...


Chasing ghosts...

Well that was a nice stroll down off-topic lane, but I've always prefered to make my posts relate to the OP.
Your suggestion that Muslims are "violent" is also off topic then? Christians are less violent than Muslims?

Historic Christianity has nothing to do with the current social/racial/ethnic/relgious/cultural problems in Holland with Islam.
Nothing? Surely you jest? Radicalism will envoke past grievances and lead to chaos. It is being proven on a daily basis. You are a radical who hates Muslims and staying stuck in that attitude will make it worse for your kind. Guaranteed.

Striving Together in Dialogue
A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/striving-e.html)

In modern times and in many countries, emerging national identities, rooted in cultural bonds, strengthened by an awareness of common interests and destiny and shaped by the rules of a new political order, brought Muslims and Christians closer to each other. New relationships transcended traditional barriers. They were distinct from those based on religious affiliation without necessarily contradicting them. These relationships sometimes gave primacy to national solidarity and minimised the need for interreligious dialogue. In some quarters it was feared that religious identity, made explicit in dialogue, might threaten national unity.

The issue with Dutch culture/Muslim culture and really immigration and multiculturalism in general is explained here:



And more from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because she raises some really good points:

"In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qu'ran and the Dutch constitution.

In a "no-holds-barred polemic" interview in the London Evening Standard,[51] Hirsi Ali characterises Islam as "the new fascism". "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate—a society ruled by Sharia law—in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and "apostates like me are killed." Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. Violence is inherent in Islam—it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.""
You know, it's polite to provide links when you blatantly and apparently uncritically copy/paste stuff.

After all, how would we know the context and understand the deeper meaning? If I added the next line from your quote:
At the Sydney Writers' Festival in June 2007, she balanced her arguments, saying "I am a Muslim"
Sounds strange, all by itself, doesn't it?
Islam is not violent?
Not as such, no.

Not when it is a national crisis.
There is no national crisis.

They are rare and are not acting on Judaism but rather on politics. For instance, what they beleived was unacceptable negotiation with the Arabs, so they assisinated the Prime Minister of Israel. Politics. Terrible, very terrible and I won't defend them at all....but it is not the same as Islamic states or Islamic laws trying to bring the world backwards, stone women and demolish 18th/19th century Liberalism....
How is it not the same? And not acting on politics? Politics inspired by religion, as with your jewish example, but politics still.


Christianity has been used wrongly.....it is, ironically, a religion of peace which has, over history, been made, BY MAN, into the most violent religion of all. Though thankfully, most of it's violence was in history and now it is generally peacful.....Islam..however, has not become peaceful yet.
But that's only because Islam has been used wrongly.....it is, ironically, a religion of law which has, over history, been made, BY MAN, into the most violent religion of all. Though thankfully, most of it's violence was in history and now it is generally peacful.

There is no national crisis.
Or is there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#The_Netherlands

You know, it's polite to provide links when you blatantly and apparently uncritically copy/paste stuff.

After all, how would we know the context and understand the deeper meaning? If I added the next line from your quote:

Sounds strange, all by itself, doesn't it?

Not as such, no.


There is no national crisis.


How is it not the same? And not acting on politics? Politics inspired by religion, as with your jewish example, but politics still.


But that's only because Islam has been used wrongly.....it is, ironically, a religion of law which has, over history, been made, BY MAN, into the most violent religion of all. Though thankfully, most of it's violence was in history and now it is generally peacful.

TAI also conveniently omits that Ayaan Ali Hirsi has basically profitted off selling a large book of Biased Sample to a willing audience, using her own personal experience and oppression to somehow come to the bitter conclusion that every single Muslim in the world (including Sufis) are all Talibanesque douchebags with nothing better to do than oppress women and set up a World Caliphate™.

Or is there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#The_Netherlands

AFAIK I'm not in a crisis situation. If this is a crisis then I'm wondering what real panic and anarchy would be like :)

AFAIK I'm not in a crisis situation. If this is a crisis then I'm wondering what real panic and anarchy would be like :)

In his case, the government changing its mind on immigration and welcoming the Muslims. He'd call that a "successful terrorist invasion" or "first step in the establishment of the Caliphate™".

Or is there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#The_Netherlands

No. Really. Trust me. There isn't.

An academic debate and a theoretical discussion does not a "national crisis" make. Honest.

Trust me.
That's the problem, I don't.

Not only is it a national crisis, but it's a inter-national crisis because in the EU, there is free-movement, thus the gazillions of Africans who come to Spain, for instance, don't actually all stay in Spain. Same with those that come to the south of Italy....

There is no crisis. You're stretching it waaay too much.

There are problems, yes, but if this is a crisis then it's the lamest crisis ever.

There is no crisis. You're stretching it waaay too much.

There are problems, yes, but if this is a crisis then it's the lamest crisis ever.

Any time Arab Muslims aren't being deported and/or shot, he considers it a crisis.

Any time Arab Muslims aren't being deported and/or shot, he considers it a crisis.
Thank you for puting false wording into my mouth....and I've said it before:I'd have the same problem with White Muslims and/or converts to Isam.....it's not so much about race....

Thank you for puting false wording into my mouth....and I've said it before:I'd have the same problem with White Muslims and/or converts to Isam.....it's not so much about race....

Two things though. The immigration rant is never about Muslims of other ethnicities, and when Muslims in general aren't being deported and/or shot you'd consider it a crisis in any case.

:D

Oooh, TAI, I know what your next thread can be about.

The Danish people's Party and their role in the upcoming Dutch elections. They're using the typical xenophobic drivel that these far right parties use to garner support from ignorant folk.

· The far-right Danish People's party, the country's third strongest political force, is campaigning on a platform of defending the Danish values they say are under threat from immigrants. Last month, it used a picture of the prophet Muhammad on election material, under the slogan "Freedom of expression is Danish, censorship is not".

linky for the stinky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2208385,00.html)

Two things though. The immigration rant is never about Muslims of other ethnicities, and when Muslims in general aren't being deported and/or shot you'd consider it a crisis in any case.

:D
....No, no! Please, do go on! I really enjoy your feel good responses...they are just soooo juicy and entertaining, however, sadly I do prefer reality and the reality is that if you used atleast 2% of your brainpower, a task which I admit, for you, is easier said than done, you'd know that my whole Switzerland SVP campaign thread was generally focused on Islamic immigrants from the Balkan, that is, White people....Yeah, that's right..the major issue there with immigrants is from White people....

Ah, but, reality can be such a drag when it spoils your fun, so let's go back to your feel good alternate reality, where little annoying things such as the truth, reality and facts don't get away your you're oh so witty responses.

Oh, no...please go on. Please, continue. I'm simply dying to hear more of what you think, since we both are certainly aware that there isn't really much to hear about what you know.

.... my whole Switzerland SVP campaign thread was generally focused on Islamic immigrants...

You never did answer my question as to how many Swiss actually support the SVP immigration policy in that thread.

You never did answer my question as to how many Swiss actually support the SVP immigration policy in that thread.
He didn't have the answer? He was making stuff up?

Actually in this thread, he has also sidestepped some obvious facts. :D

....No, no! Please, do go on! I really enjoy your feel good responses...they are just soooo juicy and entertaining, however, sadly I do prefer reality and the reality is that if you used atleast 2% of your brainpower, a task which I admit, for you, is easier said than done, you'd know that my whole Switzerland SVP campaign thread was generally focused on Islamic immigrants from the Balkan, that is, White people....Yeah, that's right..the major issue there with immigrants is from White people....

Eastern European minorities, who are hardly considered "white" enough by Western or at least United States standards.

Ah, but, reality can be such a drag when it spoils your fun, so let's go back to your feel good alternate reality, where little annoying things such as the truth, reality and facts don't get away your you're oh so witty responses.

Coming from a Kimchiteer who had the galls to bitch about the Swiss Left having no respect for democracy long after cheerleading Augusto Pinochet's overthrow of a democratically elected government, a comment on cognitive dissonance is a fucking laugh riot. Right up there with a Chinese Consumer Safety Guide, Britney Spears's child care advice, and Ted Haggard lecturing on the evils of homosexuality.

:rolleyes:

Oh, no...please go on. Please, continue. I'm simply dying to hear more of what you think, since we both are certainly aware that there isn't really much to hear about what you know.

And the world thanks you for taking precious time from your life to bother telling everyone "I Don't Care."

That's the problem, I don't.

Not only is it a national crisis, but it's a inter-national crisis because in the EU, there is free-movement, thus the gazillions of Africans who come to Spain, for instance, don't actually all stay in Spain. Same with those that come to the south of Italy....

Oh. Right. Well, let me dispense with the friendly tone then, and rephrase that:

Crisis? No. Hell no. The Netherlands is not having any sort of national crisis. You have yet to prove it. An academic debate does not a crisis make.

You seem to be making up a lot of stuff, and you make random claims (like the "gazillions of Africans" - you could find a number, but chose to exaggerate instead. Well done) that you don't back up. You don't differentiate between the types of immigrants. You don't define "muslim culture" nor "dutch culture".

In short, you fail at making a point - you succeed at ranting though. Oh yes, that you do.

Eastern European minorities, who are hardly considered "white" enough by Western or at least United States standards.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Care to prove your point that by European standards and American standards Eastern Europeans are not White? Oh, and darling, before you go on about America not admitting them to our glorious nation of freedom, perhaps take a slight peak out from behind your shield against reality and realize that maybe that was because they were from the commie lands and we were in the middle of a cold war, which has nothing to do with them being White or not and even less to do with how they are viewed as non-white in Europe...

....and even if you could find something on America saying that Eastern Euros arn't white...what exactly would this have to do with the situation in Switzerland, again?

Look before you leap, crawl before you walk, think before you speak.
Stop. Hating. Freedom™.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Care to prove your point that by European standards and American standards Eastern Europeans are not White? Oh, and darling, before you go on about America not admitting them to our glorious nation of freedom, perhaps take a slight peak out from behind your shield against reality and realize that maybe that was because they were from the commie lands and we were in the middle of a cold war, which has nothing to do with them being White or not and even less to do with how they are viewed as non-white in Europe...

It goes back well before the Cold War.

The Immigration Act of 1924. Restricted immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans in favor of Northern Europeans- in effect saying that the Eastern and Southern Europeans weren't White Enough. Not to mention cut off immigration of Asian, African and Middle Eastern natives altogether.

....and even if you could find something on America saying that Eastern Euros arn't white...what exactly would this have to do with the situation in Switzerland, again?

Because it proves that the largest majority of gripes against Muslim immigrants are linked to non-"white" majority-Muslim ethnicities, and is thus de facto racism. And that you're trying to hide your de facto racism behind "It's all about t3h 3b1l m05l3mz".

Look before you leap, crawl before you walk, think before you speak.
Stop. Hating. Freedom™.

A Pinochet Lover telling me to stop hating freedom. What utter and complete bullshit.

Thank you for puting false wording into my mouth....and I've said it before:I'd have the same problem with White Muslims and/or converts to Isam.....it's not so much about race....

Mmmm.... Irrational islamophobia. :)

It goes back well before the Cold War.
Oh it does indeed, it just has nothing to do with your reasoning. See below:
The Immigration Act of 1924. Restricted immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans in favor of Northern Europeans- in effect saying that the Eastern and Southern Europeans weren't White Enough. Not to mention cut off immigration of Asian, African and Middle Eastern natives altogether.
Yes, and before that Americans only wanted British immigrants and tried to exclude Germans and Scandinavians....Perhaps it's just that they wanted more of their own kind? Unless, of course you want to explain to me that Germans and Scandinavians are not White? I sincerly hope not since you've been doing a fairly poor job of convincing me that Swiss think that Eastern Europeans are non-white....

So...care to tell me how you know that the Swiss consider Eastern Europeans and South Eastern Europeans non-White. Don't sidetrack it to America, please.

Because it proves that the largest majority of gripes against Muslim immigrants are linked to non-"white" majority-Muslim ethnicities, and is thus de facto racism. And that you're trying to hide your de facto racism behind "It's all about t3h 3b1l m05l3mz".
All 'it' proves is that you've somehow managed to avoid the part where I explained how the biggest problem with foreigners, something that SVP campaigned on, is Balkan immigrants, thus White people...

A Pinochet Lover telling me to stop hating freedom. What utter and complete bullshit.
A Machiavellian leader. Hereo: Guerrero Contra Marxismo
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/38/Augusto_Pinochet_official_portrait.jpg
http://www.peres-fondateurs.com/~resistance/docs/2006/08/pinochet.jpg

Because it proves that the largest majority of gripes against Muslim immigrants are linked to non-"white" majority-Muslim ethnicities, and is thus de facto racism. And that you're trying to hide your de facto racism behind "It's all about t3h 3b1l m05l3mz".

The most visible Dutch muslim population mostly consists of people with Turkish and Moroccan ancestry and is white to tanned. Especially the Moroccans are the ones associated with trouble like setting fire to cars, molesting gays and so on. The stereotyped Turk is someone who still does not speak Dutch after living in the Netherlands for over 30 years and has the face fully covered when female.

Most blackskinned people in the Netherlands are from Suriname and the Antilles. The stereotype there is that they are involved with drugs and related crimes.

Pim... what a jackass. Though I didn't wish him what he got in the end.

Stop. Hating. Freedom™.Like the freedom to immigrate?

The most visible Dutch muslim population mostly consists of people with Turkish and Moroccan ancestry and is white to tanned. Especially the Moroccans are the ones associated with trouble like setting fire to cars, molesting gays and so on. The stereotyped Turk is someone who still does not speak Dutch after living in the Netherlands for over 30 years and has the face fully covered when female.

Most blackskinned people in the Netherlands are from Suriname and the Antilles. The stereotype there is that they are involved with drugs and related crimes.
And I would guess that Gauther is non-European by his ignorance of Europe (if he is European, God help him devolp his brain) but Eastern Europeans and South Eastern Europeans are White, are they not.
(Explained here)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13203940&postcount=137

....if you used atleast 2% of your brainpower, a task which I admit, for you, is easier said than done, ...I'm simply dying to hear more of what you think, since we both are certainly aware that there isn't really much to hear about what you know.

Reverting to insults already?

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.... think before you speak.

And more insults.

...if he is European, God help him devolp his brain...

And more.

My turn. TAI, how do you define Muslim culture in the Netherlands?

Or are you going to simply ignore my question again?. If you do, it will look like you don't know how to answer the question, which I suspect is the truth.

je bedoelt dus:
"Blocking poverty, regression, ethnic tensions, racial segregation, disunity, violence and intolerance from getting in."

You see, the restriction of immigration of Muslims in no way changes the opportunity for money or knowledge to cross the border, as there is no restriction on these concepts....

closing the borders blocks racial segregation?

These "problems" you describe are temporary problems. The Netherlands had similar problems with germans economic refugees in the 19th century. The newspapers wrote the same hate-mongering crap as they are doing today.
Dutch people can be very naive and arrogant. They often don't realize how small their country is and that they need interaction with the world.

How good would dutch football be without immigrants?
The same thing goes for the rest of society. The Netherlands is not full, it just needs to get in touch with reality, and move forward not backward.

closing the borders blocks racial segregation?

These "problems" you describe are temporary problems. The Netherlands had similar problems with germans economic refugees in the 19th century. The newspapers wrote the same hate-mongering crap as they are doing today.
Dutch people can be very naive and arrogant. They often don't realize how small their country is and that they need interaction with the world.

How good would dutch football be without immigrants?
The same thing goes for the rest of society. The Netherlands is not full, it just needs to get in touch with reality, and move forward not backward.
Yes it does block racial segregation, because of you allow these mass-multicultural soceities, they always become self-segragated. From Islamic enclaves in Europe, to the Hispanic neighborhoods of Miami, to the black ghettos of Los Angeles, to the Russian and or Polish areas of Germany, to the Turkish areas of Berlin...to the...ect

You're worrying about "Dutch football" at the expense of soceity.....:rolleyes:
Holland is a small country and does not have room for all these people, even more so when they self-segregate and fraction the Netherlands into factions.

And I would guess that Gauther is non-European by his ignorance of Europe (if he is European, God help him devolp his brain) but Eastern Europeans and South Eastern Europeans are White, are they not.
(Explained here)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13203940&postcount=137

Do you have glaucoma? Because he mentioned Turkish and Moroccan ancestry, which means they're descended from Arabs. And not too long while back, being descended from a "non-White" ethnicity was sufficient to disqualify you as "non-White." Again you're trying dodge questions like you're in the middle of a Keanu Reeves wet dream fantasy simply because you're painting yourself into a corner like Corny used and still does on the occasion. Among which is me bringing up the U.S. Immigration Act of 1924 to point out how Eastern and Southern Europeans aren't generally considered White Enough.

But hey, we love Kimchiteers with a doublethink mentality to worship Old Gus and at the same time bitch about how t3h 3b1l m05l3mz are threatening freedom and democracy.

:rolleyes:

Yes it does block racial segregation, because of you allow these mass-multicultural soceities, they always become self-segragated. From Islamic enclaves in Europe, to the Hispanic neighborhoods of Miami, to the black ghettos of Los Angeles, to the Russian and or Polish areas of Germany, to the Turkish areas of Berlin...to the...ect

Don't forget the racial ghettos of Montreal, a very multicultural city. Oh wait. There aren't any! Then I guess multicultural societies do not automatically segregate.

I guess you were wrong, TAI.

You're worrying about "Dutch football" at the expense of soceity.....:rolleyes:
Holland is a small country and does not have room for all these people, even more so when they self-segregate and fraction the Netherlands into factions.

Prove that Dutch society is at risk. Until then, you're merely ranting. Again.

I guess you can't tell me what Muslim culture in the Netherlands is. Then how could it be in conflict with Dutch culture?

Yes it does block racial segregation, because of you allow these mass-multicultural soceities, they always become self-segragated.Do individual countries typically consist of people who are a single race?

Do you have glaucoma? Because he mentioned Turkish and Moroccan ancestry, which means they're descended from Arabs. And not too long while back, being descended from a "non-White" ethnicity was sufficient to disqualify you as "non-White."

Not in the Netherlands. As a foreigner, certainly, but not a non-white.

Ironically, discrimination has increased in the last few decades. Originally (say 30-50 years ago) the idea that a black or arab unemployed citizen - especially if it was a mother - would be refused welfare was enough to enrage the neighbourhood. Nowadays the voices that call them leeches are far more common.

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures
and the Dutch.

Like the freedom to immigrate?
There is no universal freedom to immigrate because borders are internationally legal and as such can restrict one's 'right to immigrate' should the nation, acting in it's national interest, feel the need to do so.
Ironically, discrimination has increased in the last few decades. Originally (say 30-50 years ago) the idea that a black or arab unemployed citizen - especially if it was a mother - would be refused welfare was enough to enrage the neighbourhood. Nowadays the voices that call them leeches are far more common.
Perhaps because back than immigration (from these people) was not in the same enormous numbers it is now, to the point where it's a national issue and one that threatens the future of the country. Many of them are leeches and should be treated as such.
There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures
and the Dutch.
Smoke and a pancake? Bong and a blintz? Cigar and a waffle?

Do you have glaucoma? Because he mentioned Turkish and Moroccan ancestry, which means they're descended from Arabs. And not too long while back, being descended from a "non-White" ethnicity was sufficient to disqualify you as "non-White."
Which is interesting in itself, but fortunatly the situation in the Netherlands has nothing do with the situation in Switzerland where I was talking about immigrants from Eastern and South Eastern Europeans who aren't Turks nor Moroccans but are, nonetheless, White.
Among which is me bringing up the U.S. Immigration Act of 1924 to point out how Eastern and Southern Europeans aren't generally considered White Enough.
Which is irrelevant because it does not explain your statement that the Swiss do not consider Eastern and South Eastern Europeans White.

Do individual countries typically consist of people who are a single race?
Depends. For instance, Finland, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Japan, Belerus...ect do...

Others like America, Canada, Australia, South Africa...ect don't....but which type has more ethnic problems? Are the former nations in the wrong because they are not the eptiome of a multi-ethnic multi-racial soceity? Are the latter better because they are even though it's citizens often times fight and even hate each other among ethnic/racial lines?

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures
and the Dutch.

*sniffle* :(

There is no universal freedom to immigrate because borders are internationally legal and as such can restrict one's 'right to immigrate' should the nation, acting in it's national interest, feel the need to do so.The same thing could be said about anything else.
The right to free speech, private property, to life.

Depends. For instance, Finland, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Japan, Belerus...ect do...

Others like America, Canada, Australia, South Africa...ect don't....but which type has more ethnic problems? Are the former nations in the wrong because they are not the eptiome of a multi-ethnic multi-racial soceity? Are the latter better because they are even though it's citizens often times fight and even hate each other among ethnic/racial lines?Well, if we allow no immigration or very little immigration then Finland, South Korea, Iceland, et al will be racially segregated.

The same thing could be said about anything else.
The right to free speech, private property, to life.
I disagree. The Right to free speech, private property, life ect are (by all the Western nations, which have borders) interationally legally reconigzed rights of men, while the right to immigrate with disregard to borders, is not.

Well, if we allow no immigration or very little immigration then Finland, South Korea, Iceland, et al will be racially segregated.
It is up to these nations if they want to have no immigration, little immigration or open borders....after all, who are we to decide? Multiracial nations are not the God-given universal truth that every nation must follow? Who's to say Japan must give up it's tradition of being homogenous because we, as Westerners, beleive that our [failed] multicultural states are correct and their homogenous state is not?

I disagree. The Right to free speech, private property, life ect are (by all the Western nations, which have borders) interationally legally reconigzed rights of men, while the right to immigrate with disregard to borders, is not.In order for that to be true, there would have to be an international body that writes and enforces these laws.

It is up to these nations if they want to have no immigration, little immigration or open borders....after all, who are we to decide? Multiracial nations are not the God-given universal truth that every nation must follow? Who's to say Japan must give up it's tradition of being homogenous because we, as Westerners, beleive that our [failed] multicultural states are correct and their homogenous state is not?Weren't you just complaining that multicultural societies are racially segregated? If individual countries can be racially segregated, why not areas of those countries?

In order for that to be true, there would have to be an international body that writes and enforces these laws.
It is accepted as correct by the ideas of the Western enlightenment.....It is what is currently viewed as the rights of humanity. The right to live whereever one wants, is not one of these currently accepted rights.

That's just how it is, whether you like it or not.

Weren't you just complaining that multicultural societies are racially segregated? If individual countries can be racially segregated, why not areas of those countries?
They are nationally segregated, not racially....and why would you WANT segregation in a nation, it just creates disunity and ethnic/racial tensions.

It is accepted as correct by the ideas of the Western enlightenment.....It is what is currently viewed as the rights of humanity. The right to live whereever one wants, is not one of these currently accepted rights.

That's just how it is, whether you like it or not.So how many nations have to agree with the right of people to immigrate wherever before it becomes one of "the rights of humanity"?

They are nationally segregated, not racially....and why would you WANT segregation in a nation, it just creates disunity and ethnic/racial tensions.As does international segregation.

So how many nations have to agree with the right of people to immigrate wherever before it becomes one of "the rights of humanity"?
False comparison because if, let's say, Switzerland wishes to reduce the number of immigrants, then they are able to do so and that in no way limits the rights of the would be immigrant in his home country. However, if that would be immigrant is denied freedom of speech or whatever in his home country, then he is harmed. The disilustion of borders infridges on the happiness of the people living in that nation, should they want their border intact to protect their nation. It's a national issue as opposed to an individual liberty.
As does international segregation.
How does Japan's situation of being homogenous cause disunity and tension?

False comparison because if, let's say, Switzerland wishes to reduce the number of immigrants, then they are able to do so and that in no way limits the rights of the would be immigrant in his home country. However, if that would be immigrant is denied freedom of speech or whatever in his home country, then he is harmed. The disilustion of borders infridges on the happiness of the people living in that nation, should they want their border intact to protect their nation. It's a national issue as opposed to an individual liberty.Confiscating money and property from tourists doesn't deny them freedom in their home countries either. If doing this makes the people of a country happy, should they be able to do so?

How does Japan's situation of being homogenous cause disunity and tension?In the same way that segregation within an individual country does.

Confiscating money and property from tourists doesn't deny them freedom in their home countries either. If doing this makes the people of a country happy, should they be able to do so?
Yeah, sure...then they just won't recieve anymore tourism and then that country will hurt because of it...then it will realize the wrongdoing of it's actions and reverse it's policies to protects tourists because they benefit the economy.

In the same way that segregation within an individual country does.
Wait, no...explain to me exactly: "How does Japan's situation of being homogenous cause disunity and tension?"
One/if you tackle that then we can move on.

Yeah, sure...then they just won't recieve anymore tourism and then that country will hurt because of it...then it will realize the wrongdoing of it's actions and reverse it's policies to protects tourists because they benefit the economy.And likewise the Dutch immigration policy hurts the Netherlands, but this doesn't mean the Dutch will realize the wrongdoing of their actions anytime soon.

Nonetheless, this doesn't answer the question of whether or not a country would violate anyone's rights by taking their property.

Wait, no...explain to me exactly: "How does Japan's situation of being homogenous cause disunity and tension?"
One/if you tackle that then we can move on.That's the point - there's no difference between an individual country being segregated and the international system being segregated. Therefore, if there is no disunity in the international system as a result of people choosing to segregate, then there is no disunity in an individual country solely because of people choosing to segregate. (I emphasize the choice of segregation to differentiate it from forced segregation, such as apartheid or bans on immigration.) Therefore, if there is disunity within an individual country, then it is for other reasons than people choosing to live in particular neighborhoods.

*sniffle* :(
Aaaw :fluffle:

In truth, I really like the Dutch. I'm looking forward to going back to Amsterdam, Den Haag, Eindhoven and Apeldoorn :)

Wait, no...explain to me exactly: "How does Japan's situation of being homogenous cause disunity and tension?"
One/if you tackle that then we can move on.
I find this interesting. You demand an answer before "we can move on", yet you refuse to answer quite a lot of questions directed at you and your views, if you don't dodge them or outright ignore them.

Quite interesting indeed...

Jello Biafra, I'll get back to this when I have the time.

Jello Biafra, I'll get back to this when I have the time.

Somehow, I doubt this. This is probably based on the fact that you have ignored the vast majority of questions and criticisms that have been directed at you.

You aren't even able to define what you are talking about when you say 'muslim culture'. It would be too much to hope that you can provide reasonable responses to Jello Biafra's points.

I havent red the majority of posts here but I'm assuming that most posts were negative due to poll results and my other assumption that majority of NS Generalites are left-leaning North Americans.

Nevertheless, everyone should agree that Fortuyn made a big impact to political landscape in Holland and even Europe. That's quite an accomplishment.

From BBC which is itself left-leaning self admittedly:


Pim Fortuyn stepped onto the Dutch national political centre-stage in February, when he founded his anti-immigration party, the Pim Fortuyn List, and by early May he was dead.

In those three months he transformed the dull, predictable politics of the Netherlands.

He claimed to resent any comparison with other extreme right-wing leaders, and particularly Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.

During our interview in Rotterdam last week, shortly before his death, he threatened three times to walk out when I mentioned their names and asked him if he was a racist.

'Archetypical right winger'

But he did not. Publicity was too important for him to throw away.

Whatever his public statements, he shared most of Mr Le Pen's views, except on the question of Israel.

But he knew that he would soon become the most important politician in the country, and was clearly expecting to win 28% or more of the vote in the next week's election.

Therefore he toned down some of his views to suit a broader electorate.

But in many ways - his avowed homosexuality apart - Fortuyn was an archetypical right-winger.

He had the same frank, sarcastic humour as Mr Le Pen, and there was a similar air of menace to some of his younger supporters, as there is to some of Mr Le Pen's.

Contempt for media

His deputy was a black immigrant from the former Portuguese colony of Cape Verde; Mr Le Pen has also had prominent black candidates in his entourage.

The Pim Fortuyn List was his personal vehicle, just as the National Front is Mr Le Pen's.

His confidence was as superb as his manners, his house and his way of dressing.

In a country where every educated person speaks English, Fortuyn was unusual; his English was rather halting, and he would have done better to answer my questions in Dutch.

But he had clearly developed a contempt for journalists, and he had never had to face a really attacking interview before.

He was floored more than once, and lost his temper; always a mistake in dealing with the media.

'Courage'

But Fortuyn was not short of courage.

He kept his beautiful house in Rotterdam, even though it had become surrounded by housing estates where immigrants lived.

Other Rotterdam politicians headed off to the wealthier outer suburbs.

His own opinions, which seemed so violent to his opponents in the Netherlands, sometimes attracted an equal degree of violence from them.

He knew the dangers to himself, but said he could not afford the cost of a round-the-clock bodyguard.

The police did not seem to feel he was in any danger.

Spectacular loner

His death leaves the Netherlands badly divided, angry, and frightened at what has happened to the peaceful quality of political life.

As for his party, it may well get a big sympathy vote when the elections come round, but it is highly unlikely to last long without him.

His success was brief and brilliant, he was a spectacular loner, who is more likely to be remembered for the hatred he gave rise to than for his own achievements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1974184.stm


The death of Pim Fortuyn comes just nine days before Dutch national elections in which polls had predicted he would win enough seats to lead one of the country's largest parties.

Once written off by Dutch politicians and media alike, Fortuyn recently burst on to the political scene with a heady cocktail of policies which was finding favour right across the Netherlands.

The 54-year-old sociology professor was a flamboyant character who combined custom-made Italian suits and a flashy lifestyle with hard-hitting anti-immigrant views.

Professor Pim, as he liked to be called, shocked the Dutch establishment in February with a call for the repeal of the first article of the constitution which forbids discrimination.

As a result he was sacked as leader of his own party, Livable Netherlands.

Image boost

But the controversy, if anything, enhanced Fortuyn's reputation, and that of his new party, Lijst Pim Fortuyn.

He went on to win around one-third of the votes after standing as a candidate in municipal elections in Rotterdam, the country's second largest city.

Polls suggested that in national elections due in May Fortuyn and his party were set to pick up enough seats in the country's 150-seat parliament to become a significant political force in their own right.

Some polls predicted that they would garner as many as 26 seats - or 17% of the parliament.

The shaven-headed former academic and columnist was openly gay, distinguishing him from the bulk of Europe's far-right, traditionalist politicians.

Fortuyn's Rotterdam residence, christened "Casa di Pietro," was styled on an Italian villa and filled with precious artefacts which he loved to show off.

He lived there with his two small dogs called Kenneth and Carla, served by a butler, and boasted a chauffeur-driven car.

Anti-Islamic attacks

He used his sexuality as fuel for his fire against Islam, which - like many other religions - does not accept homosexuality.

He slammed Islam as a "backward culture" - a view which he expounded at length in a book called Against The Islamisation Of Our Culture.

Born in 1948 to a conservative Catholic family in a small town in the north-west of the country, Fortuyn went to Amsterdam in the 1970s to study sociology and later became a professor at the University of Groningen.

Over the last 10 years he made his name as a columnist and commentator, producing a number of articles and books on society and politics.

Fortuyn's anti-Muslim views, calls for an end to all immigration and pledges to come down hard on crime struck a chord with voters despite the country's celebrated reputation for liberalism and religious tolerance.

The Netherlands was the first country to legalise gay marriages, regulate prostitution, approve and control euthanasia, and tolerate the over-the-counter sale of marijuana.

Youth appeal

Fortuyn wanted to reduce significantly the number of immigrants and asylum-seekers who arrive in the Netherlands each year, from a current 40,000 people to just 10,000 "in no time at all".

"This is a full country," he said. "I think 16 million Dutchmen are about enough."

He had a particularly strong appeal amongst the young.

Nearly one half of 18-30 year-olds recently polled want to see zero Muslim immigration, and said they would be voting for Fortuyn in May's ballots.

Even those who did not intend to vote for him agreed the maverick leader had a certain attraction.

Analysts said Fortuyn found support among voters who would traditionally veer to the far-right, but also among those fed up with the existing political landscape and centre-left government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1971462.stm

Nevertheless, everyone should agree that Fortuyn made a big impact to political landscape in Holland and even Europe. That's quite an accomplishment.It's certainly true that he had an impact, but it was a highly negative one.

It's certainly true that he had an impact, but it was a highly negative one.

I do not consider it negative.