The original web site for the film Fitna was officially banned and removed from the internet, but the entire film can be viewed in English or Dutch HERE.
I would be interested in hearing perspectives from members on this forum about Geert Wilders views.
1. Are they racist and/or xenophibic?
2. Is there any truth or legitimacy there?
3. Whether his views are legitimate or xenophobic, what is the role of the concept of free speech here? Should his opinion be freely voiced, or do they constitute some meaningful sort of "incitement to hatred" that ought to be silenced?
If you are interested in this topic, here are a few more Youtube clips of him talking about immigration and culture and such.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 08 Apr 2009 17:51 Post subject:
Islam is not a race, or even an ethnic group, it is a religion. Are they they xenophobic? Yes, likely.
I have read many things he has wrote. My personal opinion is that he describes 100% accurately a small percentage of the overall Muslim community, the problem is he does not always qualify his statements this way. He does this once in awhile.
I think the O'Reilly Factor interview was good....what he said made a lot of sense, and I don't disagree with him, but I have seen him speak in a different way before (or not seen but read and interview). He does call for a moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations until they can integrate the ones they have. I don't see this as unwise, he does not call for deporting people. I think people likely feel this is a slippery slope though and I can understand that. One could make a similar argument about blacks in the late 60's and early 1970's...there were riots, bombings, ambushing police, etc. Most black people did not participate in this, but that is the same with Muslims in Europe.
I think Britain was wrong for banning him. They said they did it because he he is a threat to community harmony. That's likely true, but the issue is why? He is seen as an intolerant man, true enough but if his mere presence or a speech can cause such public outrage as to lead to violence than that means there are a large population of people in the UK who are also intolerant and will revert to violence over public debate. That to me is scary.
Britain should not tolerate this from their people, the law should be enforced if these Muslims or others don't like it they should be arrested and tried. You can't have a civilized society with behavior like this.
As a researcher, and a black Surinamese, born in Surinam when it was still a Dutch colony and everybody carried a Dutch passport, living in Holland for 29 years: I tend to link the appearance of political leaders like Geert Wilders with the fact that during WWII almost 75 % of the Dutch Jewry perished in Nazi camps. For Belgium it was about 45%, while in France only 35%. During the German Nazi occupation (1940-1945) the Dutch gave assistance to the invader, but even went as far as organising their own ‘Jew hunt,’ to flush out Jews who were kept in hiding by their fellow Dutchmen. Queen Wilhelmina mentioned in a radio address in 1942, from London, that ‘The Jewish fellow countrymen where systematically being exterminated by the invader,’ which shows that the Dutch knew precisely what was happening with the Dutch Jews. So I tell anybody who wants to hear, that blacks, coloureds and Muslims have to prepare themselves for sudden flight. Especially when Wilders PVV-party will join the government. At that time the Nazi’s did not announce their plans with the Jews, Blacks, Roma, gay’s and others, but today we know very well how it all worked out for them.
So you think this guy is secretly a NAZI who wants to put Muslims in concentration camps? Wow, I must be a black Nazi then.
Well, when your own kind has been menaced for 350 years by the Dutch or when your own life is threatened in so many ways, you need to come to some sort of conclusion. Nazi's come, off course in all kinds of colours and shapes; this is not particular to white people. I have found for example that the black and coloured European elite (1500-1789), claiming blue blood, used human leather to bind their precious books.
What strikes me is how openly they speak today in the same manner as the Nazi’s of old did: like discussing who is 'really' Dutch or talking about banning people from using public transports. This was one of the first measures which were taken against the Jews before the war.
Islam is not a race, or even an ethnic group, it is a religion. Are they xenophobic? Yes, likely.
I have read many things he has wrote. My personal opinion is that he describes 100% accurately a small percentage of the overall Muslim community, the problem is he does not always qualify his statements this way. He does this once in awhile.
>
Is Jew a race or a religion? Somehow the Nazi found Jewishness to be biologically hereditary.
Surinam Blacks and Berbers in Holland are deemed mentally inferior and prone to 'schizophrenia.'
The Moroccans and the Turks were brought/invited to Holland in the 50-60-ties to work in the dangerous, dirty factories and do cleaning work. 'A useful Turk is one with a broom in his hand.'
The majority of the second and third generation is doing very well in universities and business, due to immigrant discipline and clean living, and thís is deemed a threat. The hatred invoked by the likes of Wilders is directed against the Muslims and blacks who do well, but they talk about the one junk who robs a bus driver.
What is meant with integration? It is not about following the law, speaking the language, paying taxes and helping to improve society. It’s about helping Dutch neo-colonialism and viewing 'the other' as less then human. Which has always lead to endless genocidal missions and weapons trade in Africa, by the 'peace-loving' Dutch.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 10 Apr 2009 11:23 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Islam is not a race, or even an ethnic group, it is a religion. Are they xenophobic? Yes, likely.
I have read many things he has wrote. My personal opinion is that he describes 100% accurately a small percentage of the overall Muslim community, the problem is he does not always qualify his statements this way. He does this once in awhile.
>
Is Jew a race or a religion? Somehow the Nazi found Jewishness to be biologically hereditary.
Surinam Blacks and Berbers in Holland are deemed mentally inferior and prone to 'schizophrenia.'
The Moroccans and the Turks were brought/invited to Holland in the 50-60-ties to work in the dangerous, dirty factories and do cleaning work. 'A useful Turk is one with a broom in his hand.'
The majority of the second and third generation is doing very well in universities and business, due to immigrant discipline and clean living, and thís is deemed a threat. The hatred invoked by the likes of Wilders is directed against the Muslims and blacks who do well, but they talk about the one junk who robs a bus driver.
What is meant with integration? It is not about following the law, speaking the language, paying taxes and helping to improve society. It’s about helping Dutch neo-colonialism and viewing 'the other' as less then human. Which has always lead to endless genocidal missions and weapons trade in Africa, by the 'peace-loving' Dutch.
Actually you could say Jews are an ethnicity. Most Jews from around the world can find much shared culture, although it is obviously divergent, and the fact they tend not to marry outside their faith or convert outsiders (generally, historically speaking) and that one does not even have to practice or can declare themselves an atheist and still be accepted as a Jew by other Jews (although a lapsed one) informs me it is more than just a religion. The fact Judaism is commonly tracked biologically by mother. Ethnicity and race are not the same thing, not in American English. If you go to Israel, I'm not sure what standard you are using but you will see that not all Jews share the same "racial" phenotype...not even close. Generally though, you can trace most Jewish groups back to the Middle East due to genetic affinity, especially the Levant...but not all.
In this way it is like Hinduism. After all India came from Hindustan, meaning the country of Hindus. Hinduism is Indian culture, it is the only thing that unites them. Even Christians in India practice many Hindu rituals, because they are such a cultural norm.
This is quite different from Islam and Christianity. Islam was founded by Arabs and Christianity by Jews, but most Muslims today live in Asia (India and Indonesia) and most Christians live in Europe and America and the majority of those people do not have ancestry to the founding groups or practice the same cultural norms as the founding group, nor speak the language (generally).
Quote:
Surinam Blacks and Berbers in Holland are deemed mentally inferior and prone to 'schizophrenia.'
By who? What authoritative sources says this about the entire population?
Quote:
The Moroccans and the Turks were brought/invited to Holland in the 50-60-ties to work in the dangerous, dirty factories and do cleaning work. 'A useful Turk is one with a broom in his hand.'
Chinese were brought here to work railroads, Catholic Irish were brought as indentured servants originally, and blacks as slaves and indentured servants. No one forced the Chinese to come here (well general there were some Chinese in China kidnapping other Chinese and selling them but this was not the norm). NO one forced Turks or Berbers to come to the Netherlands to work, they could have stayed in their nations and built up their own countries so their kids did not have to immigrate, the Dutch did not colonize either North Africa or Turkey.
Quote:
The majority of the second and third generation is doing very well in universities and business, due to immigrant discipline and clean living, and thís is deemed a threat.
What does very well mean?
What does it mean in relation to the majority ethnic Dutch population? What is the crime rate? What is the income per capita?
Integration means:
Quote:
It’s about helping Dutch neo-colonialism and viewing 'the other' as less then human. Which has always lead to endless genocidal missions and weapons trade in Africa, by the 'peace-loving' Dutch.
Uhm...the Nazis did not want to integrate Jews they wanted to exterminate them or completely remove them from German society.
What does neocolonialism have to do with immigrants in the Netherlands "integrating" into Dutch culture. Can you give an example of how these are linked.
What does arms dealing in Africa have to do with a Turk or Berber in Amsterdam?
What does neocolonialism have to do with immigrants in the Netherlands "integrating" into Dutch culture. Can you give an example of how these are linked.
It’s not possible for me to supply you with proof and scientific research as it would entail a whole day of searching. Most of my sources are in Dutch and from the Dutch media in the past 29 years. So you mostly have to content yourself with my private opinions. I have however collected some pieces on this schizophrenia business on Egyptsearch.com.
Because of neo-colonialism, social injustices and wars young men and women all over the world have to leave their countries for a better feature. This was also the case with the German and Irish immigrants to the US who are now considered true Americans. Just recently about 250 African ‘boat refugees’ drowned in the Mediterranean: young men, women and children. In my understanding these growers of chocolate should have had a good life, if they were paid a good price for their cocoa-beans. But because of trade barriers by the European Union and the US, they remain exploited and poor. I was lured to Holland because I weekly saw a ‘Polygoon Journaal’ before the main movie, which described Holland as some kind of heaven and the Dutch like the most kind-hearted and rational people ever. Unknown to me this was terribly propagandistic and deceitful.
I’m aware of this stuff about race and ethnicity but I’m talking about how all this science was used and to what effect, as this is more then some debating exercise to me, but a means of survival. As you know many Jews fled Germany before the Holocaust began as they were clever enough to read the signs. I have heard that some Jews survived by not heading the call for registration as Jews and not wearing a yellow star, as Jews were ordered to do.
When I speak briefly about weapons trade and neo-colonialism I'm talking about the ‘real’ integration which is demanded of so-called immigrants, but which is never openly stated. Yearly a special committee from the Dutch parliament gets a secret briefing on the Dutch weapons trade. I understand that a lot of these deals are made in Africa, and that they supply both opposing parties in the many regional wars in this continent. So, the kinds of integration they really aim at is for immigrants becoming part of the status quo and not join any critical, anti-imperialist, counter-culture, anti-war or fair trade groups. They have to submit their sons and daughters to the Dutch army to go and kill Iraqis and Afghanis in their own lands.
Perhaps you are able to understand that in every nation (ethnicity, social class) one finds criminals and people who mess up, but to assume that such is a trait of a whole nation is ignorant racist thinking. Without living in the US I understand that in Texas only 14% is black, yet Texan prisons are populated by 64% blacks. This means that Blacks are targeted because of their race and social class. It’s the same with the Antilleans, Moroccans and Surinamese over here.
Early morning buses and tramways are filled with Black, Coloured and Muslim Dutch workers, doing the jobs the whites sneer at. I wonder if they would strike for half a day, they would finally get the respect they deserve.
Guys, would you mind holding off on this debate for a moment? The topic is interesting, but it does not fit any existing forum because it is inherently polemical but also of global interest. The "U.S. Society" and "Biracial Individuals" forums allow advocacy but are restricted to U.S. issues. And this "International Stories" forum is global but forbids advocacy because it is meant for scholarly exposition, not for rough-and-tumble debate.
Like I said, the topic deserves discussion, but this website is just not geared at present to handle advocacy debates (pro or con) of other nation's policies. I am currently considering creating a new political advocacy forum of global scope, but it might take several days or more to set up. So, if you would just "hold that thought" for a little while, I would appreciate it.
I am currently considering creating a new political advocacy forum of global scope, but it might take several days or more to set up. So, if you would just "hold that thought" for a little while, I would appreciate it.
Sorry folks. We will not be opening a political advocacy forum for global issues after all. For the forseeable future, this website will continue with the policy of forbiding advocacy anywhere but in the two U.S.-oriented forums that are set up for political debate, and allowing non-U.S. topics only where advocacy is disallowed.
I have unlocked this thread so that members may continue on the original topic, but without moral nor idealogical posturing.
This is certainly an emotional topic by nature. My initial reasons for posting about Geert Wilders stem from ongoing discussions across a couple of the aggregate forums here on ODR pertaining to the concept of multiculturalism as a specifiable form of diversity management. Elsewhere we had discussed multiculturalism in the US and had also contrasted the American approach with that of France, which I think most of us agreed demonstrated a more assimilation based society. The Netherlands strikes me as an example of a European nation, in contrast to France, in which the multicultural approach has been something of the dominant model for the past several decades at least. Yet, there is an obvious reaction to this model, in recent years, as evidenced by changes in Dutch immigrant policy and by such events as the assassinations of Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn.
I do agree, without a doubt, that most of Geert Wilders stronger assertions are xenophobic and even racist on some level. Namely, he confuses ethnic-cultures as fixed as opposed to fluid and ever-changing entities, and he makes absurdly generalized statements about groups. For example, "our culture is superior to theirs." This does not address or objectively criticize a certain feature common to a group, but the whole of the group and all who identify with it at once.
But I also hear much in his Geert Wilders' speaking that relates to points that I myself have made and agree with. For example, that intolerance of intolerance can not be meaningfully said to be a legitimate form of intolerance. Or that I am not a cultural relativist. Or that I do not think multiculturalism to be a sound policy. In contrast, I see no inherent xenophobia or racism in these sorts of ideas.
intolerance of intolerance can not be meaningfully said to be a legitimate form of intolerance. Or that I am not a cultural relativist. Or that I do not think multiculturalism to be a sound policy. In contrast, I see no inherent xenophobia or racism in these sorts of ideas.
This comes down to what I call "Defense of Western Values." Apparently, this issue has become a big thing in Europe, and interest is growing in the U.S.
The question seems to be: Which cultural traits (religion, language, costume, food, music, folklore) are socially harmless, and so their suppression is mere xenophobia or ethnocentrism. And which cultural traits (honor killings, child genital mutilation, killing of apostates, suicide bombings) are destructive of Western values, and so their tolerance is idiot multiculturalism run amok.
Surely there must be some objective way of drawing a line between the two. Perhaps "intolerance of intolerance" is the key. Western society can safely accept ethnic beliefs and behaviors that affect only the believer himself or herself. But tolerance cannot safely be extended to those whose beliefs include the murder, torture, or mutilation of others.
In this light, I strongly recommend a re-reading of two paragraphs of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Chapter 4. These are paragraphs 3 and 4, starting with "The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others."
What I cannot accept as a citizen of the Netherlands that the Dutch police is not in the business of keeping the law and catching criminals, but to broadcast the ethnicity of the lawbreaker. Why do they do that? The only reason I can think of is to make ‘The Other’ a second class citizen. To foster hatred against Muslims, Blacks and others. In this way they can be manipulated as a group as well. Like by withholding them jobs to force them to sign up with the military. The effect is already that when ever some hideous crime is committed one automatically expects it to be by an ‘immigrant’ but usually it is not. The famous murder of Pim Fortuyn was by a white man. Van Gogh was killed by a crazy, manipulated Moroccan, but many believe it to be a complot by the Dutch secret service, because of the many strange details. I compare it to the US 9/11 hoax and the ‘vaporised planes’ to get American folks to hate Arabs and get behind the Iraq invasion by Bush. All of the Dutch youth is acting out, which is something from the times we live in and the use of drugs and alcohol. But also as a form of social protest for not being heard by the government elite. Yet they single out the ‘foreigners’ who are in reality born and bred citizens of Holland. In Morocco they are considered ‘Dutch men’ because they have become Europeans in their thinking. When does one stop being considered a foreigner and becomes accepted as a citizen? We recently had this scandal that Dutch doctors where performing ‘vaginal reconstruction’ operations, paid by medical insurance, for women who demanded a ‘designer vagina.’ So they stigmatise a whole nation while they themselves cut up women vaginas. Then we have found out that a lot of child pornography is distributed from the Netherlands, while The Netherlands is supposed to be very concerned about the welfare of children. Dutch husbands, many veterans, do kill their wives, their children, their in-laws and even the family dog. But this is called ‘problems in the personal sphere’ and not related to their religion or culture. That’s only in the case of a Muslim, or a brown or black person doing the same thing. In many cases the police did not respond to early complaints, which could have prevented some of these killings. The Netherlands, Britain and Germany who own a company Urenco, sold atom-bomb technology to Pakistan, which sold it to Iran and N. Korea. Yet the Netherlands claims it was stolen by a Pakistani spy and all these countries demand sanctions today.
What part of "no ideological posturing allowed" do you not understand? No more warnings. The next time that you post an ideological message into this forum I will immediately suspend your posting privilege.
Stripped of its moral judgment, your message boils down to four factual claims:
1. Dutch police are not in the business of keeping the law and catching criminals, but of broadcasting the ethnicity of lawbreakers.
2. Many believe Van Gogh was murdered by the Dutch secret service.
3. The 9/11 tragedy was a Bush hoax to get Americans to hate Arabs.
4. Urenco sold atom bomb technology to Pakistan.
You have 24 hours to provide sources for those four claims.
Well if you put it this way, I see no other course then to retract all these private opions which you want to call factional claims. But I will post some sources in the course of time, so the people who want to can still be informed.
UNHCR: Netherlands: Police attitude and response to violent crimes perpetrated against Dutch citizens of Muslim background; recourse available to individuals with a complaint against the police
Quote:
According to Piotr Bysina, a "police legal expert," complaints can be made against the police for
abuse of ... power, discrimination, not taking necessary action, being violent and other behavior. Complaints are not investigated if the misconduct occurred more than a year prior to the complaint.
Stripped of its moral judgment, your message boils down to four factual claims:
hate Arabs.
4. Urenco sold atom bomb technology to Pakistan.
You have 24 hours to provide sources for those four claims.
CIA knew of Khan network, says report
A former US defence official has claimed that in the 1990s, his office often sought to get the State Department to make diplomatic complaints to Pakistan about Dr A Q Khan’s activities, which “seriously violated multilateral agreements to which the United States is a signatory and US law against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” but his requests “fell on deaf ears”.
F Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Defence Secretary, writing in the Washington Times recalls that his office frequently monitored efforts by Dr Khan’s worldwide network to divert technology to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development programme.
“We also sought Central Intelligence Agency assistance. The CIA has close ties with Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
Indeed, my office would often work with US Customs to track down some of Khan’s US technology acquisitions to halt them before they were exported to Pakistan.”
Maloof wrote that a former Dutch prime minister has recently contended the CIA knew of Khan’s nuclear acquisition efforts from the early 1970s.
Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers in a recent interview, asserted that the CIA had even intervened to halt any Dutch court action against Khan.
According to Lubbers, the CIA had urged that the Pakistani scientist be allowed to continue his activities so they could be monitored.
“The CIA request to the Dutch strongly suggests it may have known of Khan’s efforts to assist North Korea and Iran in their nuclear development programmes. It also suggests the CIA helped facilitate such diversions and may have been aware of Khan’s liaisons with al Qaeda and other terrorist elements,” he suggested.
The former US official stated that the CIA was monitoring the role of the BCCI bank through which Khan moved money.
The CIA also had its own accounts at the BCCI bank and used the bank to funnel millions of dollars to the fighters battling the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden also had accounts at the bank. BCCI was used by al Qaeda and other terrorist entities in the 1980s to launder money, he alleged.
Maloof wondered why the US was giving President Musharraf a pass on access to Khan, despite the apparent damage he had done. He opined that this might be because the Bush administration had recently informed Congress that it wanted to sell 18 new F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.
According to Maloof, “During this entire period of trying to halt Mr Khan’s activities, the CIA worked with the Pakistani ISI to recruit mujahideen to fight against the Serbs in the Balkans.
“This was done with the cooperation of the Pakistani government even before Mr Musharraf became president. Recruiting for the Balkans in effect made the United States an ally to Osama bin Laden and Iran in the effort to defeat the Serbs in Bosnia, Kosovo and then Macedonia.
“That co-operation continued even after bin Laden announced a jihad against the US in 1998. Khan has had a lot to do with linking the technical co-operation we see between North Korea and Iran not only in nuclear but also in missile development,” he said.
Your message alleges that a Pakistani illegally diverted nuclear technology from non-weapons to weapons use. You need to provide a source that Urenco intended, or even knew about, this diversion.
Also, I am not sure that the other sources you cited are valid. Some are nothing more than your own claims repeated in other websites. I shall bring this up with the other moderators, but it seems to me that quoting yourself as your own source is less than rational. Your claining that the 9/11 tragedy was a hoax is particularly egregious, since your source is nothing more than your own counterfactual claim that aircraft cannot disintegrate when they crash.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 15 Apr 2009 17:28; edited 1 time in total
The question seems to be: Which cultural traits (religion, language, costume, food, music, folklore) are socially harmless, and so their suppression is mere xenophobia or ethnocentrism. And which cultural traits (honor killings, child genital mutilation, killing of apostates, suicide bombings) are destructive of Western values, and so their tolerance is idiot multiculturalism run amok.
I still have much to work out on this topic myself regarding the particulars, but I believe that there is a clear difference between these two categories that stems from rationally based human rights principles. We need not belong (or not belong) to any particular human culture group to recognize that others have interests outside of our own and to consider those interests to be worth caring about. This applies not only to "respect" for cultural norms, but to respect for victims of cultural norms as well.
fwsweet wrote:
In this light, I strongly recommend a re-reading of two paragraphs of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Chapter 4. These are paragraphs 3 and 4, starting with "The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others."
It's been a while. Thanks for that. Certainly worth another look and absolutely relating to what we are talking about. I'm working through it, again.
Your message alleges that a Pakistani illegally diverted nuclear technology from non-weapons to weapons use. You need to provide a source that Urenco intended, or even knew about, this diversion.
Also, I am not sure that the other sources you cited are valid. Some are nothing more than your own claims repeated in other websites. I shall bring this up with the other moderators, but it seems to me that quoting yourself as your own source is less than rational. Your claining that the 9/11 tragedy was a hoax is particularly egregious, since your source is nothing more than your own counterfactual claim that aircraft cannot disintegrate when they crash.
Can you advice me in this.
As a critical person you read many sources, you try to read between the lines and come to a conclusion: a personal opinion. Like in the case of Khan, without even looking at the outcome, I wondered why any country would have a foreign national work in its most strategic industry. Why would Urenco hire somebody like that, and even grant him full access to all sensitive information?
If I'm wrong for assuming that planes only vaporize in episodes of Star Trek when a ray gun, a phaser is shot at them, then you could help with examples that such a thing can happen in real life. I have researched this thing in google and posted some thing that might be a falsification, but does not convince.
So how do I inform others about my own weighted view on things?
Certainly worth another look and absolutely relating to what we are talking about. I'm working through it, again.
I read it when I was a teenager and it impressed the hell out of me. In essence, his point is that no matter how repulsive or self-destructive another person's acts may be, as long as he or she is a sane adult, society does not have the right to coerce. Others have the right to persuade, exhort, preach, reason, or argue with the person. But so long as the person hurts no one but himself or herself, society does not have the right to bring the power of the State to bear (to deprive the person of life, liberty, or property).
I think that it impressed me, well over half a century ago, because I had just read about police who successfully stopped an attempted suicide by shooting the person dead.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
