A far-right party led by Geert Wilders, who wants to eradicate Islam, could win the most votes in parliamentary elections next week.
Pity the Dutch, if you can. The party led by a far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam populist named Geert Wilders is on course to gain the most votes in next week’s parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. But the journalists who have dubbed Wilders “Holland’s Trump” and “the Donald Trump of the Netherlands” may owe the U.S. president an apology.
Yes, Wilders is running as a divisive outsider who wants to “make the Netherlands great again,” and he rails against his opponents on Twitter. Yes, he has been lauded by a range of far-right U.S. conservatives, from Republican legislators Michele Bachmann and Steve King to “counter-jihad” activists Frank Gaffney and David Horowitz. And, yes, there’s his bleached-blonde bouffant hair.
Nonetheless, when it comes to Islam and Muslims, the bombastic leader of the Party for Freedom makes the president of the United States look positively moderate. Trump, remember, is trying to ban immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries; Wilders wants to stop all Muslim immigration. Trump plans to surveil mosques; Wilders wants to ban mosques. Trump says he will eradicate “radical Islamic terrorism” from “the face of the earth”; Wilders wants to eradicate Islam, period.
Think I’m exaggerating? Wilders claims Islam “is not a religion, it’s an ideology … the ideology of a retarded culture” and a “totalitarian” ideology. “Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe,” he has declared. “If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time.” For the Dutch politician, “there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam.’”
Consider also his tweet from late last year: “#2017in3words. No More Islam.”
#2017in3words
— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) December 30, 2016
No More Islam
No more Islam? How do you get rid of a religion without getting rid of the 1.6 billion people who follow it? This is the language of genocide, plain and simple. Wilders has always claimed that he hates Islam, not Muslims, but his explicit targeting of Muslim immigrants and institutions suggests otherwise.
Trump may have surrounded himself with anti-Islam ideologues but Wilders is an anti-Islam ideologue — and has been, according to his elder (and estranged) brother Paul, for a long time. He visited a kibbutz in Israel in his late teens, and more than 40 subsequent visits to the Jewish state helped convince him that Islam wants to “dominate” Western civilization.
There is also another fundamental and very important difference between Wilders and Trump. I asked former member of Parliament Fadime Orgu, who knew Wilders when they were both members of the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy between 1998 and 2004, about the constant media comparisons between Wilders and Trump. “He is not like Trump,” laughs Orgu, one of the first Muslims elected to Parliament in the Netherlands. Wilders, she tells me, is a “real politician” — the third longest-serving member of the Dutch Parliament — and he “is clever.”
Indeed he is. Unlike other far-right firebrands, Wilders cloaks his anti-Muslim bigotry in the language of liberalism and the Enlightenment. The Dutch demagogue has won over voters on the left by arguing that the Netherlands’ tolerant stance on social issues such as same-sex marriage is threatened by an “Islamic invasion.”
His attachment to liberalism, however, is as superficial as it is opportunistic. How can you support freedom of speech while calling for a ban on the Quran? How can you support freedom of worship while pledging to close down all mosques? How can you claim to be fighting Islamic extremism in the name of gay rights while allied with France’s Marine Le Pen and Italy’s Matteo Salvini, both of whom oppose gay rights?
And how can you claim not to be a racist or xenophobe while smearing and threatening immigrants from Morocco and their Dutch-born children? Wilders launched his election campaign in February by denouncing “Moroccan scum” whom he blamed for making “the streets unsafe.” Earlier, in December, a court in Amsterdam found him guilty of public insult and incitement to discrimination over remarks he made at a rally in March 2014. As Newsweek’s Winston Ross reported in a profile of Wilders:
Flanked by two bodyguards, he walked to a small podium as “Eye of the Tiger” played on a cheap PA system, to scattered cheers. “I ask all of you,” he said, waving his finger at the crowd, “do you want in this city, and in the Netherlands, more or less Moroccans?” His audience gleefully chanted, “Less! Less! Less!,” to which Wilders replied with a smile, “Then we will arrange that.”
Again, is this not the language of genocide?
Wilders has insisted that he isn’t advocating violence. Yet words have consequences, because hate speech can lead to hate crimes. Look at Anders Breivik, the self-described fascist who murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011 as part of his fantasy “civil war” against the “ongoing Islamization of Europe.” Breivik approvingly cited Wilders 30 times in his online manifesto and is reported to have attended a Wilders rally. Wilders may have denounced Breivik’s crime, but he implicitly acknowledged the latter as an ideological fellow traveler when he condemned him for “violently” distorting “freedom-loving, anti-Islamization ideals.”
As in the U.S., the U.K., and (so it seems) France, “anti-Islamization” is a vote-winning platform in the Netherlands. Astonishingly, Wilders’s party is polling neck and neck with Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. Can “Captain Peroxide” pull off one of the biggest political upsets in Europe since the Second World War and secure the Dutch premiership? For now, all of the major Dutch political parties have pledged not to form a coalition government with Wilders’s party. Cas Mudde, a professor at Georgia University and an expert on populism, tells me it is therefore “unlikely” Wilders will be prime minister come next Wednesday, but concedes that “everything is possible.”
Whether or not he becomes prime minister, Wilders has already succeeded in pushing the Netherlands — and by extension, the wider European Union — to the extreme right on issues such as Islam and immigration. “For a long time, Wilders has been able to set the Dutch political agenda,” notes Mudde. In January, for example, in a shameless attempt to woo Wilders’s supporters, Prime Minister Rutte published a full-page newspaper ad calling on people who “refuse to adapt, and criticize our values” to “behave normally, or go away.” Across the continent, and even across the Atlantic, politicians from across the spectrum have begun to follow his lead and borrow from his playbook.
As a result, it is difficult to disagree with Wilders’s own assessment of the future. “Even if I lose this election,” he said last month, “the genie will not go back in the bottle again.”
Top photo: Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch PVV political party, speaks at a conference of European right-wing parties on Jan. 21, 2017, in Koblenz, Germany.
This is it…
NSA “Project Dragnet Master Database”
All religions are fairy tales. But some religions are more conducive to extremism than others. I’d put Islam in that category. I wouldn’t go so far as to ban Muslims, but I don’t think the Muslim ideology offers a net benefit to any society.
It’s not false to say, on the piety scale, moderate Islam is a swollen 10.0 – which is why many Muslim clerics don’t consider the other religions to be legit. From their point of view, they’re right. Showing up to church for an hour once a week is really more of a feel-good social club. I seriously doubt in their heart-of-hearts, most Christians really believe in god at all. Religion is the sum of all pious acts in one’s life – not what you run around telling people you believe. There really is very little in the modern world for true hardcore religion, even when it’s totally nonviolent. If you drive a car or use a computer, you’re already complicit in the hundreds or thousands of years of rational thought and scientific development dependent on a world where none of these fairy tales ever happened, obviously.
Holland , the land of free speach as long as it is not Turkish. Before the Brexit referendum….European officials organised events to influence British voters to remain, before the Italian referendum Italian officials went to speak to the Italian expats all over Europe to vote Yes. Unfortunately this shows again the double standards of the establishment and political elites. Rutte you a s.bag populist.
The Netherlands aka The Banana Kingdom.
I expect you are from Turkey? I think you are under the influence of a president that is imprisoning journalists and teachers that do not share his opinion. I feel lucky to live in a country where it’s citizens are free to express themselves, regardless their religion, sexual orientation and opinion.
How can you be proud of a prime minister who categorises the population in ‘normal’ people who are allowed to stay and the others who have to ‘pleur op’. Also your freedom of speech is so sacred that you are not allowing Turkish officials to speak to their citizens living in your country and who have double nationality. You can be proud of your history as a nation of slave traders and colonisers and more recently of the behaviour of your dutchbat in Srebenica. These are just examples of your wonderful country, stay in your bubble and be happy !
Voice from Europe, why do you insist on keeping to live in the country whose history you consider so rich in negative events and traditions? Why do you persist in taking advantage of the generosity and magnanimity of the people whose country you despise?
Considering Erdogans plans with the constitution of Turkey I expect he was complimenting The Netherlands when he called the country a ‘Banana Kingdom’.
I still have several socialist friends in the Netherlands. They are not anti-Muslim or anti-Turkish. They object to dual citizenship as long as the Netherlands is a sovereign nation.
A sovereign state: the Netherlands lost its sovereignty a long time ago to Brussels !
As a person with journalist degree I’m saying you: article is terrible. For such unprofessional thing you should be fired as soon as possible. Have you every heard about balance of opinions? Have you ever heard that nobody gives a shit what you think? Whole article is totally personalized and “writer” tries to convince everybody that nationalism is bad. I bet your Muslim yourself if your “article” is so full of hate and personal opinion. Shit journalist. Your not a journalist even. Maximum- blogger. As for Nederlands I say “go Geert!” Finally Europe will get riden of this ideology of hate and all this dump people who follow it. Clever, educated, mentally healthy person can’t follow any religion, especially islam.
I personally hope a person with a journalist degree, like you claim you are, would know the difference between your and you’re, but that might be just me.
This isn’t breitbart, authors bash facists openly here. Hating facists is a public service.
Yes. And Anti Fa are the Stormtroopers of the New World Order.
As a personal who also holds a journalist degree and two national awards in my country, I’m really worried about your professional capabilities on the field – if you work on this industry at all.
Just by reading the title, one can see this is a opinion piece. Hence, it will be biased. The is no “neutral” opinion. Also, this piece brings a plethora of factual discussions – all of them validated through links and quotes (all of them true).
Question all you want. Hell, if you have a degree in journalism like you say, you’re supposed to and I’d be the first to join you. However, you must know what to call into question. Disagree with the author, fine. Question the quality of the article when it follows all technical aspects you supposedly learned at college, not fine.
I am hoping America can learn from the mistakes of Europe.
I see it is kind of a naïveté versus street wise outlook. People were blind because they had been programmed for political correctness from infancy and cognitive dissonance keeps them from questioning. And even if they begin to use critical thinking skills to analyze the facts and see the truth, it is too late.
Thankfully Muslims in the USA are a little more civilized / educated than those in Europe.
But I still think it’s foolish to believe that you can somehow melt together two very different cultures, Islam and western freedom with human rights. Cultural/nominal Islam is OK but pius Muslims don’t belong in America. Pius Muslims follow the example of Mohammed and Mohammed was a violent barbarian and a pedophile.
It is refreshing to see there are realists like Geert Wilders in Holland.I can only hope he wins the election and moves Holland in the right direction for prosperity and success.Angola is an example of a NOW highly prosperous and crime free nation which banned ISLAM altogether.
Its quite obvious to all and sundry that the vast number of muslim immigrants in Europe is testimony to the abject failure of Islam in their home countries.Geert is correct about Islam being an ideology as opposed to a religion,but even more so, it is a cult of hate.There is no nation in the world where Islam has succeeded.It has so badly failed everywhere that its psychotic apologists flee their home country seeking out successful CHRISTIAN countries to which they hope to export their ancient cult of hate.
A good example of a failed Islamic nation is the author’s own nation,Iran.This
Keeree(f**ked up) Eslami Jamhoory(Islamic Republic) is the most screwed up of all Islamic nations executing people due to their sexual orientation.
Let us all welcome Geert Wilders,truly Hollands only hope for salvation.
All religions have their ups and downs. The Ottoman Empire was rather tolerant of different religions. It even decriminalized homosexuality in 1858. In this regard, it was over 100 years ahead of the United States and most of Europe. Similarly, the Muslims in Spain were more tolerant and enlightened than the Christians in Spain. When the latter took over the country, they expelled both Muslims and Jews.
Islam is not a monolithic entity, therefore it cannot be subjected to a stereotype. In the United States, more evangelical Christians reject homosexual marriage than Muslims. I believe the problems that currently afflict the Middle East are related to the nations of the west attempting to dominate and control the area. This has produced a backlash against both secularism and liberalism.
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/10/six-jewish-companies-control-96-of-the-worlds-media/
People in the Muslim world have a tendencyto believe conspiracy theories especially those involving Jews. It’s in the news media and even in the education system. They will never make progress as long as they believe these silly ideas.
This tendency to believe in “conspiracy theories” (which is itself a loaded term) is cross cultural. People believe that their own beliefs are correct, and look for some simple explanation for why others don’t agree with them. The Arabs go with “the Jews control the news media” to explain why the rest of the world doesn’t agree with them, while westerners go with “Putin controls the news media” to explain why Russia won’t go along with what they want.
People everywhere are beset by groupthink.
Whoops – I didn’t read the link to tapnewswire.com before posting my comment. I have no sympathy for “the Jews control the news media” arguments, though I no doubt reveal my political leanings when I admit that I do think it is worth talking about the fact that a small number of corporations control the US news media. That said, I stand by my other comment.
He’s right, the genie is not going back into the bottle. It is important to understand that Wilders and his ilk are a normal and expected reaction to politicians doing very stupid and destructive things like deliberately inter-mixing incompatible ethnic and religious groups. That was, and is, an epic cultural failure foisted on the people of these societies. People want their lives, communities and nations back.
One might ask, what did you expect?
Medhi is using big words like genocide. No Muslim was ever haremd by Wilders nor by any other Dutchman because of hsis or her religion. For outsiders it is difficult to understand but when I was young it was for girls normal to were short skirts at night, or go topless to the park or for gay couples to walk hand in hand. Nowadays it is becoming more and more difficult. Mention one Muslim country were such liberal behaviour is allowed. Wilders is intolerant for the intolerant.
I’m sorry Ron but you are talking nonsense. There have been numorous occasions where a Dutch person has harmed a Muslim. You say that for outsiders it’s hard to understand, well for insiders it is also hard to understand why anyone would vote for this racist peroxide numbnut.
It was never ‘normal’ to walk hand in hand for gay couples, let alone for girls to wear skimpy clothes without being slutshamed. You pretend Holland has been this liberal paradise where everything goes and now Muslims are here and everything got messed up. There have always been sexists and homophobes, check the statistics and you’ll see most homophobes, also nowadays, are actually Wilders supporters.
Don’t push this utter bs into the world as though your insiderknowledge would let you know something this author doesn’t know. You are falling for and using the same rethoric of thinly veiled -by liberalism and enlightenment ideals – bigotry.
Yes I remember distinctly that goons were waiting at Amsterdam’s Central Station to beat up gay couples walking hand in hand.
Amsterdam has always been one of the most tolerant cities on Earth. Two of my forebears who escaped the inquisition in Portugal lived and worked (he had a bookstore) in Amsterdam around 1650 and are buried in the Ouderkerk cemetery.
The author forgot that there is another way of getting rid of Islam other than genocide: global inquisition.
But that’s genocide….
Not really….you can convert to Christianity.
still genocide! and which Christianity? is there any? Jesus has gone from Europe long ago…
The one that teaches forgiveness. All the rest is BS.
I hope that you are aware of the fact that Jews who refused to become “conversos” in Spain in 1492 were welcome in the Ottoman empire. Many settled unharmed in Salonika. Their descendants were not killed by Muslims but by NAZI’s many of whom still considered themselves to have been Christians.
If we pretend to be more civilized than Muslims we ought to welcome in Christian lands all Muslims who refuse to convert to Christianity.
I think there are three main things to criticize this article for. First: while Wilders’ platform may be extreme against Islam, he already knows that’s never gonna happen. He would need 51% of the vote, then also 51% of the vote for the senate in a few years, and that’s if he can get around the Constitution in a country that was founded on religious freedom – otherwise, make that 67%. Never gonna happen in a country ruled by coalitions… it’s just a starting bid on which he’ll no doubt compromise a lot to get done some reforms – which are definitely needed.
The second is the “genocide” term. If his call to reduce the influence of Islam is a call to genocide in your eyes, then calling him genocidal – probably the worst possible accusation – is absolutely a call for murder. Please turn yourself in and demand punishment. Of course, you won’t. When you do it, it’s “justified”.
That said, the other main criticism: no, he’s not that clever. He’s definitely a long-time politician who has found a strong platform. But just to illustrate: his radical anti-Islam policy is a display of his failures. Dutch culture is one of tolerance, especially religious tolerance, and a lot of people are turned off by his extreme statements, while they would probably support what he’s actually hoping to accomplish. Same with the EU: demanding a hard nexit scares people off; ceasing to contribute to the EU unless it sufficiently reforms, would likely have far wider appeal (and would have the same result). To name just two issues. And compared to Trump, Wilders does not have anywhere near the talent in rhetoric and making a strong profile.
Wilders is simply the candidate for reform. The only major candidate who is for national sovereignty, for our cultural heritage, and for the common people (SP being the main other, but it’s far behind). If he wins, it’ll be by the millions who vote for him and spit. It’s not his success. It’s the other parties’ failings.
And if we get a particularly low turnout, expect that a large portion of non-voters would have considered PVV is Wilders wasn’t such an asshat :).
One cannot overlook that the murder of Theo van Gogh several years ago sent shock waves through the Netherlands. One cannot overlook either the vile anti-Muslim propaganda of Ayaan Ali who was stripped of her Dutch citizenship for having lied when she applied for refuge status and who collaborated with van Gogh to produce a Goebbelsian anti-Muslim flick directed at Dutch women (I have seen it).
Why is it always a Muslim who cry’s wolf, when you can’t do that against Muslims and Islamic countries?
But you can….
@Rudy
That depends. As an atheist myself who spent quite a few years so disgusted with the Roman Catholic Church that I lowered the temperature of room with my icy glare when a priest entered it, I’ve done my share of defending reason and reasonableness against the irrational and harmful claims of supernatural and revealed truths issuing from organized religion. At 60, I continue to find much of organized religion, including some versions of Islam, harmful, illiberal and inhuman.
However, I have also formally studied religion as a sociological matter and realize it is a many-faceted thing. It is both the salt of cultures and their curse. It both gives spiritual and philosophical insight and corrupts. At this point, frankly, I regard a blanket condemnation of all religion in general, and of Islam in particular, as facile — a kindergarten-level of thinking no more sophisticated than any biblical literalist.
More salient for purposes of this discussion, demonizing particular religions has real-world, illiberal consequences., My fellow citizens who are Muslims have the same rights I do. An environment in which their faith and clothing choices are caricatured and distorted, and made into a cartoonish evil they simply is not — or certainly not always or usually — causes great harm to real human beings. It can and has resulted in severe attacks on civil liberties; I am a civil libertarian well before I am an atheist.
Wilders is fomenting hatred and attacks on civil liberties and generating the environment in which white Westerners — Christian, Jewish and secular — are not much disturbed by bombing the fuck out of Muslim men, women and children. He and many turn them into the sub-human Other who is not Us, and about whose rights we therefore need not be concerned, not even their rights to live.
I don’t care whether persecutors and killers of demonized groups commit these evils driven by their own sense of holding The One True Faith, or because the are secularists who think all religion is bullshit.
Some of the “debate” NEEDS to stop. Not by brute force or attacks on free speech, but becasue even militant secularists must be persuaded to finally turn to decency. You might consider that many Muslims are living in great fear and anxiety in Western nations and that talk about “genocide” doesn’t strike them as outrageous, especially given the West’s ongoing carnage in one Muslim-majority nation after another.
I deeply oppose all “hate speech” prohibitions, whether Canadian or European. Any of them. Including those applied to BDS activists on the grounds of purported “antisemitism.” I am consistent. If there is any area in which I am a chauvinistic American it is in my strong belief that we get free speech as nearly perfect as any nation in the world.
That is a fine comment.
Beautifully written and very insightful Mona. Always enjoy reading your thoughts here. Never posted here before but i just had to tell you how much i appreciate you POV here. I often see so much hate in these comments and its refreshing to see someone articulate this perspective. You see things very clearly IMHO.
Baruch Espinoza applauds you from his grave. He has written some of the most fundamental comments about irrational fear. Around 1670.
“If there is any area in which I am a chauvinistic American it is in my strong belief that we get free speech as nearly perfect as any nation in the world.”
Hear, hear. I was in Syria (before the troubles began) just after some European newspaper had published another cartoon denigrating the Prophet. It came up in conversation, and some very progressive Syrians who had befriended me kind of confronted me – they asked why we speak of free speech when these cartoons get published but put people in prison for disputing whether or not the holocaust happened.
Banning hate speech while allowing those cartoons to be published is not a coherent position. The US model on free speech is the way to go.
It is no more genocidal to imagine a world without Islam than to imagine a world without Scientology or the Ku Klux Klan. Islam is a belief, and it is a false belief, the veneration of a pirate who had no real insight to offer the world.
That said, freedom of speech isn’t about the right of people to talk who you know are right. It involves the right of people to talk who you know are wrong, because you accept that right ideas overwhelm the wrong in free and open discussion, in a way that seldom occurs in combat. A Christian might (should) say, “Hate Islam, but love the Muslim.” We are all deceived in one way or another, and we all have beliefs that bear periodic reexamination.
The basic program of the Trump variant of Islamophobia involves a fear of immigration. For countries to have borders is inherently an injustice (a violation of an assumed freedom of movement of all people) but is excused as a necessary military measure (to prevent outsiders not only from conventional terrorism, but more importantly from the inherent national terrorism of taking over at the ballot box and imposing anti-libertarian measures). As Trump has learned, these measures must be imposed in an orderly fashion, and must be oriented along the usual national defense basis of nationality. Some nations are less compatible in character, and represent less-favored sources of immigration; this may be based on religion but (again, as Trump has learned) is also based on a lot of other competing considerations. He still has a lot to learn, to say the least.
What makes Wilders more “virulent” than Trump is — solely — the European practice of banning “hate speech”. Most people in the US, even among the Trump crowd, don’t want to ban mosques because they understand freedom of expression. The problem in Europe is that you have things like Marine Le Pen facing a possible three years in jail for posting a few pictures factually showing what ISIS does to people, and even prosecution of Wilders for saying he wants “fewer” Moroccans! Yet at the same time, these Islamophobes are told they must respect the right of Muslims to exchange a book that calls for violent treatment of non-Islamic people (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence ), and to worship using this and even more violent hadiths.
The way that this is taken is that Muslims are afforded a right to express their opinion while the Islamophobes are silenced, which inevitably provokes a hostile reaction. The problem, of course, is that some Islamophobes try to reconcile the hypocrisy by denying the right of free expression to Muslims rather than recognizing that it is freedom of expression which is the priceless value to which they must adhere. The restrictions a strong free speech right imposes in the fight against Islam are precisely the restrictions which are needed to have any hope of success with it.
Religion isn’t going away any time soon. It might eventually, as secularism gains ground, but it will take a long long time, if that’s at all possible. Perhaps there’s a ceiling for prevalence of secularity in human societies. Anyone thinking that Islam can be eliminated in the foreseeable future is clearly thinking of genocide.
Nonsense! For example, Christianity keeps a veritable thicket of totems of religions it has vanquished through largely peaceful means. History is never free of conflict, but the conflict was not essential in its victory. To begin with, of course, the religion of Rome, Zeus and the Emperor, and of the Greeks. The Vikings were not beaten into submission by that handful of missionaries that were sent, nor were the Fijians. Even in Christianity’s most diabolical conquests in the New World, the guilt was not always so severe as “Christianophobes” have made it sound: Cortez would never have conquered a country with his puny little force if there were not a whole lot of Mayans tired of having their friends’ hearts ripped out on a high altar.
It is the proper and natural course of affairs for religions with something useful to say to assimilate or annihilate those that do not. That is no more genocide than the eradication of HIV would be a genocide. I mean, oh sure, someday hopefully soon there will be a tiny handful of bug-chasers and activists in the media bitterly lamenting the end of their almost-domesticated scourge, but I would not think twice about the touching traditions and vibrant community of the HIV-positive before waving whatever magic wand it takes to dispose of the virus once and for all.
Brilliant post.
I think Cortex conquered a country by having a massive technological advantage (guns, metal body armor) and by bringing diseases for which the locals did not have anti-bodies. Studies also show that the Mayan supremacy was already declining at the time that Cortez showed up.
I agree that some parts of Islam can be viewed as extreme but calling for the eradication of Islam because of them is narrow minded. Christianity has and had it own extreme customs but I don’t think you would call for the end to Christianity, or would you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence
I used to. I was practically a Dawkins clone 20 years ago. Since then two things happened: the Christians turned inward and (here and there) reformed the worst things that had stained their religion, and I became disenchanted with the sterile godlessness of the Left, particularly in the context of some paranormal phenomena that forced me to think deeply about the nature of qualia and free will. I came to realize that the religion had been judged too harshly, and not credited for some very serious social progress in which it had been indispensable.
As for Mayans, I was being too vague – really, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcala_(Nahua_state) for the specific people most directly involved, who formed the majority of the people led by Cortes against the Aztecs.
What a pathetic bunch of drivel. All of what you said is hilariously stupid.
Geert is the racist for money, not for free.
As long as the billionaires dream to exploit people to make themselves rich, and they justify this exploitation with lower worth of people with different nationality and color of skin, they will finance people like Geert, to spread racism and get consent of society for the economic exploitation of immigrants and Muslims.
Racism is financed by the rich people, to justify slavery in 21st century, slavery that brings them profit.
The rest are details, will Geert speak against immigrants, against Muslims, etc.
Hitler and Mussolini were financed by rich people, and present racists in Europe are financed by rich people.
Fascism is a violent mobilization of the middle class against the working class, and it creates new leaders from the rank-and-file who are able to get up in front of a crowd and turn it into a lynch mob.
This definition is the only one that allows fascism to be distinguished from just any old military or police dictatorship, or from the bluster of any nasty capitalist politician. It is therefore the only definition of fascism that will empower the working class to defend itself and actually stop a fascist movement before it gains traction. Screaming “fascism” every time a Republican gets elected will not work!
Trump is not a fascist, though the way he talks does embolden them, and the Klan -America’s main fascist group- tried to publicly celebrate his electoral victory in North Carolina. Other fascist organizations seem to have been proliferating all across the US over the last few years.
Geert Wilders doesn’t seem to be a fascist either, as far as I know, though I’m sure they like him. He even gets invited to public celebrations of xenophobia in the US. Has he led any lynch mobs yet, or is it all just talk?
This article documents nicely how much worse he is than Trump, at least in terms of his rhetoric, but it doesn’t really grapple with the question of fascism.
I am a muslim and I support Wilders.
Because, the youth is truly an issue.
Majority of Morrocan descent youth in Netherlands is in low education, and acts cool, creates problems. I call them rotten eggs.
There are also very good Morrocan and Turkish people.
The problem is not Wilders.
Wilders is saying bad things, but he doesn’t mean them.
I wish the left wing idiots had your insight.
Of course you do. You only like “Muslims” who are actually the hypocrites of the religion and you support the “Muslims” who assimilate and leave Islam like an arrow leaves a bow. This so-called Muslim has fallen into disbelief by definition.
And still I would rather live in The Netherlands than in any predominantly Muslim majority country.
Brilliant. You’re a European non-Muslim I gather, so why would it be any other way?
Indeed and you too would be horrified by the stories I get to hear from mothers with small children when they arrive as refugees in our volunteer centres. The level of violence in their Muslim countries and the way women and young girls are mistreated is inhuman.
Plus known homosexuals.
Extremism and extremist win always. Like Trump Like Modi and Now Like Wilders. So sad.
He will never be PM. All other parties won’t make a government with him. Remember he has “only” 16% of the votes. A big mouth yes just like the Mango Mussolini.
Indeed. Which is why we see the virulent, antisemitic, genocidal, bigoted hate-filled words of the Quran and Hadith being used to justify mass-murder on a virtual daily basis.
Breivik (the terrorist) slaughtered 77 innocents? Wow, Islamists call that a fucking Tuesday (or I guess Wednesday, considering today alone they butchered over 30 people in Afghanistan while disguised as medical practitioners).
I’ve said this countless times, but the reason for increasing hostility towards Islam and Muslims is simple – they (meaning the VAST majority of so-called “moderate” Muslims) refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong with Islam, or that Islamic beliefs are a root cause of any of the terrorist violence we see today.
I am one of those who thinks Islam desperately needs a modern-day reformation or evolution. However, I can appreciate and respect those Muslims who refuse this. What I (and millions of others, the number only growing exponentially) cannot accept is Muslims refusing to admit their religion is NOT perfect and that it is indeed playing a crucial role in this violence today.
Here is the OP Hasan on video comparing non-Muslims to cattle as animals, as well as equating homosexuality with pedophiles and other criminals:
https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601
The latter claim being especially ironic considering he reveres arguably the most infamous pedophile in history.
This is your so-called moderate Muslim. Naturally, he fits right in with The Intercept and their ilk.
Modern terrorism was innovated and perpetrated by Zionist Jews. Before this rabid, rapacious terrorism unjustly got them their State of Israel they committed terror as non-state actors. Now they do it mostly as and through a state.
Especially considering the relative numbers of Jews v. Muslims in the world, no belief system has been more terroristic and evil than Zionism.
Please ask me to document all of that. I’m entirely ready and able to do so.
I am sure that you know the case of Jacob Israel de Haan.
First of all, the “reformation” you talk about has appeared in the forms of extremist movements within the world of Islam. They all started out with the slogan: “Reformation”. Just look Salafism and Wahhabism, or those movements that are now referred to as “Islamists.”
Second of all, there are areas in which the traditional interpretations of Islam (mostly in the areas of the Law) need to be re-done to suit the needs, requirements, and courtesies as well as collective consciousness of humanity today.
Third of all, the type of re-interpretation that is needed will not take place in the Muslim world because it lacks freedom of expression and the ability to self-critique.
It can only happen in the West, which still allows more freedom of expression than the Muslim world, collectively, does.
Also, this type of re-interpretation requires challenging the religious and political orthodoxies, which is dangerous to do in most of the Muslim world today.
Fourth of all, it will not happen by throwing away the primary sources of Islam and the 1400+ years of scholarship. If it did, it would not find any traction amongst the Muslims, except with those who have in reality left Islam, but nevertheless identify themselves as “Muslims”.
Fifth of all, this type of re-interpretation is already happening in the West and elsewhere, by many legitimate and knowledgeable scholars of Islam and Sufi masters.
I will give you one example, but there are many: the blasphemy law.
One can be arrested, banished, or killed if one speaks out against, or even calls for its review, in some Muslim countries.
But if the West continues to make the lives of the Muslims living in the West miserable, it will put breaks on this reformation.
Even if he is to become the most voted MP the chances are small he will be governing the country since he will have to form a coalition first. The other prominent parties are most likely not to join hands with this far-right miscreant, fortunately for us, sane Dutch people.
In which case King Willem IV will have to ask the leader of the second largest party to form a government.
I really believe that Mr. Wilders has the best interest for his country. Europe in general can not continue on this suicidal path. I don’t believe that everyone hates Muslims, however they are becoming too vocal and are pushing their agenda’s. Europe should at all costs preserve their culture. If Muslims don’t like things the way they are, there are a lot of Muslim countries they may go to where everything is as they wish.
Comments below indicate readers would benefit from understanding how the United Nations defines “genocide.” From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948, in relevant part:
Yes. This is not what Wilders wants. Id be more worried about Hungary now locking immigrants up in camps until they get asylum. And the 10-20.000 immigrant children that get lost in Europe, often to (sex) trafficking. Thats the real genocide here.
You don’t see Wilders pushing for (c)?
No, Mona I dont. I do not think Wilders wants to kill all muslims. I do not like him, for clarity and I also dont think he is a real danger. Ive gotten used to him and am like ‘whatever’. I do agree he’s worse than Trump in this. But Wilders doesnt have nor can get the power to actually do that.
I think I may agree that Wilders isn’t calling (yet) for genocide. That said, I do wonder how you’d answer Mehdi Hasan’s question here:
Below, someone likened it unto opposing Soviet Communism. But that ideology could be “killed” by destroying its government, because probably most Russians didn’t identify as Communists (except to the extent they had to). Islam, by contrast, is a voluntarily believed religion found all over the word in 1.6 billion people. So, how would one answer Hasan’s inquiry?
“No more Islam? How do you get rid of a religion without getting rid of the 1.6 billion people who follow it?”
By convincing Muslims that Allah does not exist or by convincing Muslims that the Christian God is better or Calypso is better. The Christians convinced the Romans that Jupiter was not The Great God and they did it while they were persecuted by the Romans for years. (and then the same Christians started persecuting everybody else)
That was an answer to your question that proves the possibility of erasing a religion (to a large extent, not 100%) without committing genocide. As usual you have not critically analyzed what Hasan wrote. You completely accept the reality he gives you because he is confirming the reality you want.
Since you have no critical analysis skills and no debating skills, I bet you will start spreading the falsehood that I am anti Muslim and pro Wilders.
No, they did not. Christianity made many converts but it was the downfall of the Roman Empire that killed popular Roman religion.
By what means shall 1.6 billion people be convinced that Islam is false, and by whom? What does Wilders mean?
Historian John Cox wrote in a recent book on genocide:
Islam is the basic social glue in Muslim culture. So how is Wilders not advocating the attempt to destroy the recognized, stable, and permanent group that is the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How is Wilders not promoting a concerted effort to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion by destroying the organizing principles of their culture which Islam provides?
(
You do not believe that. The great frequency with which you feel compelled to declare it is simply more evidence that you do not — you could rely on it’s being obvious to readers of it were so. Instead, you spew this same inanity like the proverbial broken record in the apparent belief that repetition will generate conclusions that reading me will not.)
“You do not believe that”
Yes, I do. And I will repeat it as long as you keep demonstrating it. Example:
“By what means shall 1.6 billion people be convinced that Islam is false, and by whom?”
If your unique answer to this question is “genocide” then you will have as usual to create another reality where genocide means what you want it to mean. Islam, the belief that there is a god called Allah who has supernatural power IS NOT the only element that maintains cohesion in Arab, Indonesian, Turkish…societies. There are thousands of “Muslims” who live in those societies who barely practice Islam. Spend a few months in predominantly Muslim countries and find out yourself.
Again this is the answer to your question
1) Convince the Muslims that the Goddess Calypso, the Christian God…are better than Allah.
or
2) Convince Muslims that God does not exist
“by whom”
By Muslims themselves: example
a) Alexander Aalan, Karim Ashraf Mohamed al-Banna and many others born as a Muslim, convicted for stating that God does not exist
b) A poll conducted in 2012 by WIN/Gallup found out that 5% of Saudi citizens consider themselves atheists. NONE of them were victims of genocide.
Those millions of Saudis or other Muslims who are actively promoting the non existence of Allah, do they want to commit genocide?
So, again NO. You do not need to commit genocide to convince billions of people that a specific religion is false. You could not see that obvious fact because you do not have critical analysis skills.
“What does Wilders mean?”
I do not know. He is a racist. Ask him. I was answering to your question regarding how you can convince 1.6 billion people to reject their religious beliefs without committing genocide.
Your whole comment is about the commenter, not his argument.
Conclusion: You proved again your lack of debating and argumentative skills.
Checkmate!
I actually feel sorry for you. You run around listing my purported shortcomings and declare victory, all while insisting *I* am not addressing *your* arguments. And in doing so utterly fail to see how foolish that makes you look.
(It’s well beyond obvious you generally do not understand my arguments and those of many other of the bright people commenting here. If you did, and if you replied with something cogent, we’d address that. But you seldom post anything sufficiently interesting or compelling that merits substantive reply.)
In any event, you don’t seem to grasp that I have not intended to insult you by “calling names.” You genuinely have an embarrassing problem, revealing how insecure you are and how little you actually understand. I don’t think you can be helped; a lack of self-awareness at your level likely cannot be remediated, certainly not by other commenters online.
Another long comment about the commenter and not about the argument.
Have a nice day for now.
Hmm!
Looks like I was having a discussion with someone who likes to express his child-ego.
Do you really think that it’s remotely possible?
You seem to have a very superficial understanding of what Islam really is, and also seem to be delusional, unless what you wrote was in jest.
The word, islam, refers to the inner state of an individual — to the degree the lower self yields to the higher self (aka consciousness).
This reality is part of every individual, no matter the labels they’ve given to their paths — religious and non-religious alike.
But even if you are talking about a specific cultural manifestation of this phenomenon (a cultural wrapper, if you will), there is absolutely no chance that that mosaic will ever disappear from the face of the earth.
The outer forms, no matter the label, that are well-established today, aren’t going anywhere.
“Do you really think that it’s remotely possible?”
Yes it is. The number of Muslims becoming atheists in increasing not decreasing. Again, not a single of the millions of Saudis were forced to become atheists.
“You seem to have a very superficial understanding of what Islam really is, and also seem to be delusional, unless what you wrote was in jest.”
I met a cleric in Saudi Arabia who would think you are delusional. I am sincerely not interested in your interpretation of a religion. The bottom line is that genocide is not necessary to reduce the number of religious individuals. Islamic authorities know it very well. Hence, why they are keen to jail whomever says God does not exist.
There are many who are also converting to what they think Islam is.
Fareed Zakaria recently shared a statistic regarding the number of people who identify as Muslims in America: he pointed out that the number of people who are converting out of what they call Islam is just about the same as the number of people who are converting to what they refer to as Islam.
It is possible that this phenomenon is taking place in other parts of the world too.
I am aware of many who were born into Muslim families and cultures, who have left what they call Islam.
But the movement in the other direction is also taking place, and many who seriously adhere to what they call Islam are in no mood to suddenly opt out of their Islam.
Look for a member of that “Tablighi Jamaat”, sit down with them and talk religion with them. While you will certainly see a level of ignorance on many issues in them, you will also see the level of conviction about their paths they have.
Their numbers are growing, not decreasing.
The Sufi Muslims are also having quite an effect. I have known many non-Muslims who have embraced some form of Islam because of their interactions with the Sufi Muslims.
That said, it’s not about numbers to me. I presented to you a part of the overall reality that some do not seem to realize.
You may not be interested in it, but there are many, many people who have this interpretation, no matter how much you put your head in the sand to ignore it.
The reality of Islam is the experience of Oneness. This fundamental idea exists in other outer forms of religion, including Hinduism and Christianity.
One would have to be fundamentally delusional to even remotely think that any plenary religion (and the essence of all is the same) will someday just disappear from the face of the earth.
As I and others her have observed, Sufi, you are a treasure here in comments. As an atheist, I feel far more in common with you than with many, many other self-described atheists.
What you so often and patiently convey is lost on both the intellectually and psychologically impoverished, but many do get it. Even if your particular interlocutor here doe not grasp your points they benefit the wider readership.
BTW, I don’t know if you read fiction, but a novel I greatly enjoyed was “The Sparrow,” by Mary Doria Russell. The protagonist is a Jesuit priest whose circle of friends includes an atheist, former Irish-Catholic woman and a Sephardic Jew. Many interesting existential questions are pondered in this work that includes all of these individuals beings sent to the first planet discovered to have sentient life.
Once there, the nature of religion, what it means to be a person, and many other fascinating issues are intelligently explored, including theodicy — how to believe in any kind of benevolent deity given evil in the world. (Also, and somewhat unexpectedly, the concept of “meat” and eating it is somewhat explored.)
It’s one of the best, if somewhat dark, books I’ve read in quite some time. (A Muslim character does make an appearance, but he’s rather tangential.) I honestly could not tell you what the author’s ultimate verdict is on whether a god exists or not. She may not know herself. But she’s a physical anthropologist by profession who has thought deeply about religion in culture and it’s function for the individual, and brings those insights to her fiction.
Thanks, I’ll look into that book.
The one who likes to express his child-ego is concerned with numbers and outer forms, in a very delusional state of mind believing that plenary religions which are firmly established in diverse forms can just disappear. They need to work for education, mutual understanding and cooperation on many issues, instead of having wishful thinking about the eradication of all the outer forms of a religion, or two.
It is not satisfactory to engage with those who don’t present a sober, scholarly critic of what is generally known as Islam.
Some of them tend to rely on Wikipedia a little too much and just spew ignorance and venom repeatedly.
You should know better than that. I have absolutely no interest in what you believe or you don’t believe. That author suggested that it is only through genocide that you can get 1.6 billion people to disregard Islam. The commenter Mona agreed. Well, I disagreed. Why? Because if you spend a few months in Cairo, Indonesia, Turkey or Dubai you will meet hundreds of individuals who were born Muslims and do not care about Islam anymore.
There are scientific polls that showed millions of Saudis do not believe in Allah anymore. Those individuals were convinced without being subject to genocide.
I do not care about millions or billions of individuals who believe there is a god or there is not a god. Is genocide necessary to make people believe a religion is false or god doe not exist? Empirical evidence showed the answer is NO.
Again, you should know better than that. This is not an opinion for or against any religion or an opinion to support Wilders. This is a challenge to the author’s suggestion.
Very well, then, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. So let me ask you this direct question:
Do you really think that there’s a chance that the religion commonly known as Islam will some day disappear?
I just read your other post. So let me rephrase my question:
Do you really think that there’s a chance that the religion commonly known as Islam will some day disappear, not 100%, but to a large extent?
I do not know. Genocide can indeed cause a reduction in the number of people who believe in this religion or that religion. Or the rapid dissemination of new ideas can cause the same result without violence. I am pretty sure thousand years ago Romans or Greeks believed their religion would live forever. How many people truly believe Jupiter is God now?
In that case, it’s a personal judgement, or one would need to do a thorough study to find out if the number of people who adhere to the religion called Islam is rising or decreasing.
And in such a study, one would certainly need to count those people who have left Islam but outwardly profess to be Muslims (and I do know a few).
And there are in fact many converts to the religion called Islam, including natives in places like Canada.
So they’d need to be counted too.
Obviously, there’d have to be clearly defined indicators.
My personal opinion is that I don’t see any signs of reduction.
Of course, he would.
What else would one expect from a Puritanical Salafi?
They are exclusivists — religious supremacists: “Me, me, me, look at me, my religion is better than yours! My god is better than yours! Only adherents of MY religion will go to heaven!”
Well, he is not a Puritanical Salafi, but you would be welcome to discuss your interpretations of Islam with him. I am absolutely not interested in neither your interpretation or his.
“One would have to be fundamentally delusional to even remotely think that any plenary religion (and the essence of all is the same) will someday just disappear from the face of the earth.”
Who said that? Wilders?
There are still people who believe Mars is a God or there is a goddess responsible for the sea. That was not the point.
The question was whether genocide would have to be committed to reduce the number of followers of a religion. The answer is NO. That was not genocide that reduced the number of Romans who believed Jupiter was a God. It is not genocide that explains the growing number of Saudis who do not believe in God.
“Looks like I was having a discussion with someone who likes to express his child-ego.”
Feel free to scroll down to the next commenter. But I promise I will never call you names.
“Who said that? Wilders?”
—–
You did. Would you like me to copy and paste?
====
“Feel free to scroll down to the next commenter. But I promise I will never call you names.”
—-
I called you names!?
Hmm.
This what I said: “Looks like I was having a discussion with someone who likes to express his child-ego.”
Yes, please. copy and paste so I can apologize for my ignorance. I have never stated I was smart. I even specifically wrote the following to the commenter Mona to emphasize that it is impossible to eradicate a religion from the face of the earth:
“That was an answer to your question that proves the possibility of erasing a religion (to a large extent, not 100%) without committing genocide”
No. You did not call me names. I SAID I WOULD NOT CALL YOU NAMES. (As opposed to many commenters whom you probably do not believe have a child ego, but resorts into name calling competitions)
But again feel free to scroll down to the next commenter. I take no offense if you believe my level of intellect is inferior to yours and I am not worth of your attention.
Alright, there may have been some misunderstanding. I thought you were implying that I called you names.
I have also rephrased my question, which is the central issue in my discussion with you.
It’s all good. You challenge my argument, and I challenge yours. We can agree sometimes or we can agree to disagree. I do not believe Islam is superior or inferior to another. I just find the interpretations of religions not that interesting. That’s set.
Very well then, we’ll call it a day.
Take care,
I have an unorthodox hypothesis of why Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity. Remember what happened to them after death? Hades unless you were a God. Here come Paul and others who tell them: if you believe in Jesus Christ you can be a God yourself and rise to heaven to be with Him. That must have been incredibly powerful. No more Hades!
I understand that the after life view of Islam is essentially the same as that of Christianity.
The Muslims themselves will arrange that about the question whether Mo gets out of bed with his left or his right leg.
Mona, by criticizing Islam as we;ve done with Christianity and as a result some western countries have become more atheist/agnostic as Holland has. Criticizing religion is part of Dutch culture. So in this light, we should be free to criticize Islam and not be called racists or Islamophobes. I think this is what Wilders means when he says he isnt attacking muslims, he’s attacking their religious beliefs and Islam itself, just as the Dutch always have done with Christianity. A free society needs to be able to do that. I too want to get rid off all religion. Or better, all fundamentalist forms of it. That is my right to think. Doesnt mean I want to kill them. I think the genocide argument is a false argument. It is used to shut down debate. Listen to this Iranian ex-muslim living in Canada speaking out against ‘islamophobia’ being protected as ‘hatespeech': https://twitter.com/ExMuslimTV/status/839207439429951489
First of all, Islam is not monolithic. There is no such thing as “Islam” in existence today. There are many islams; that is, diverse paths based on differences in interpretations and practices.
Second of all, there is a difference between a critical analysis of Islam (provided one defines what one thinks Islam is) and Bigotry, Racism and Islamophobia.
Critics of what people call “Islam” exist within the fold of the world of Islam, which is a mosaic of different cultures, interpretations and practices.
Healthy criticism, especially when it is done in a sober, scholarly way, is extremely useful and productive.
But Islamophobia is a different beast altogether.
Islamophobia is akin to anti-Semitism (form may be different, but their inner reality is the same), which is different from healthy criticism of the various forms of Judaism.
In light of the current situation, it’s prudent to know the difference between healthy criticism of Islam/Muslims and Islamophobia and Muslimophobia.
Mona, you are incorrect for stating that Islam “is a voluntarily believed religion.” In the Quran, apostasy is punished by death; meaning that people leaving Islam or those who are already non-Islamic are targeted. Moreover, you completely ignore in your post the bloody origin of Islam in which Mohammed used violence subjugate the peoples of the Arabian peninsula during 629 AD. You also ignore the plight of religious minorities in predominately Islamic countries. I would be more than happy to respond to Hasan’s concerns. Wilders meant ridding his country of Islamic ideology, which IS antithetical to the freedoms of association and expression. There are countries that are already working to limit Islam’s influence such as Angola and Samoa. It’s silly to assume that Wilders wants to eradicated 1.6 billion people.
Wilders is pushing for (c). By banning Mosques he will make it impossible to practice a religion. This in effect will bring about that they will not be able to be who they want to be in the public space.
“By banning Mosques he will make it impossible to practice a religion.”
—-
Is he really this naive?
Chomsky should have read that Article of the Convention.
(e) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
So when a European country becomes majority Muslim, let’s say in 60 or 70 years, do you consider it to be genocide?
Veert wants what’s best for his country and heritage. Nearly every European major city is now majority Muslim. He wants his countries heritage back that has been decimated due to un-checked globalism.
I do not know which statistics you read. There is not a single major European city in which Muslims are a majority today.
I’m betting most people don’t realize how far back Wilders beef with Islam started. He made an anti-muslim movie called Fitna back in 2008. It superimposed passages from the Koran over acts of terrorism. He was subsequently arrested for hate crimes and a fatwa was issued by Islamic clerics. For his defense, he called some of the top scholars of the Koran to testify at his trial, maintaining that the truth could not be hate speech. Dutch authorities disallowed most of those he called to testify. His trial date was repeated continued until they finally cleared him of hate speech.
Wilders has been calling on Europe for a decade to beware of the fact that Muslims are flowing into European cultures and instead of assimilating to the culture of their new country are casting it aside and demanding Sharia.
This is happening all over Europe at an accelerating pace. Free speech is not a welcome part of Islam no matter how much the leftists pretend it’s not true. Wilders has been under 24/7 protection since the fatwa was issued due to his xenophobia. Muslim populations are growing in Europe while their influence over the poor and downtrodden continue to expand.
As long as Europe continues to point the finger at nationalists while ignoring the reality of empowering the disenfranchised that were set adrift by NATO policies in Libya, Syria and beyond, their culture is, in fact, under siege. It’s interesting to watch a reenactment of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
95% of europe is non muslim.
what is it that you personally cant do that you could before?
95% of the Germans were non-Nazis in 1928.
Yes on May 20 before the big Stock Market Crash. In 1930 18%. The came the banking crash of 1932. Nazi’s 37.27%. No correlation?
“He was subsequently arrested for hate crimes”
How typical that people like you can never resist to lie.
Wilders has never been arrested and his prosecution for incitement of hate (years later) had nothing to do with Fitna.
But hey, the whole idea of “islamification” of the Netherlands is a long proven lie too (far more people become “Muslim in cultural label only” every year than new Muslim are added) so it must be something inherent to your lot. Maybe that’s why you are all so obsessed with the concept of ‘Taqiyah’.
http://www.rferl.org/a/Dutch_Lawmaker_Wilders_Faces_Charges_Over_Fitna_Film/1373488.html
OK, he wasn’t arrested. My bad. Doesn’t change much of anything about my post. Perhaps the problem with your commentary is that you’re ignorant? My article is from 2009. Here’s a snippet from the article so you don’t have to go the extra effort of reading the whole thing.
“The prosecutor’s office says it will now bring detailed charges of hate speech against Wilders “within the year.” The case will then go to a court which will decide whether Wilders should be convicted on those charges and, if so, what penalties he must face.”
What, BTW, does, “your lot” mean? Observant? I really don’t give a hoot about Europe. If you’re comfortable with immigration without assimilation by a portion of those coming, by all means, open your doors and give them cash, food and housing.
Appalled to read some of the commenters considering genocidal calls to ethnic cleansing “realistic and common sense”. No, it is not. No, it is not a political disagreement. I agree though that Europe must return to its cultural values – of anti-Fascism in particular. Fascism cannot be normalized and must be defeated.
Calm yourself. No one said that.
If you don’t want to see fascism in America, you’ll have to defeat this.
pffft. That protest mob was wrong, but this isn’t fascism. Among other things, they aren’t the government, and won’t ever control the government. Or do you think what this letter describes is fascism, too?
They’re not fascists, but they are authoritarians, and for that reason they are assisting the extreme right. Even the Times recognizes this:
That’s not the NYT saying that; it’s Charles Murray. And if you want to talk fascism or authoritarianism, do talk to U.S. Zionists about their Canary Mission.
No, check again. That’s the NYT saying that “It’s an outcome that many on the right seem to be aching for.”
And? It’s not the NYT saying either that free thought is headed for demise or that the rightwing’s aching for it shows otherwise. The Times doesn’t take it seriously as an accusation as evidenced by this glib language:
You began by claiming this incident demonstrated “fascism” and then moved on to “authoritarianism.” Neither one of which the NYT claims is happening, much less at a level that needs to be “fought.”
The single greatest threat to free speech on campus today comes from Zionists vis-a-vis those whose views on the rights of Palestinians they do not like. That pervasive Zionist campaign is more McCarthyite than fascist, but far and away more of a problem than scattered leftists rather infrequently mobbing against Charles Murray or that ilk.
those who support fascism from the far right extremes dont perceive their politics to be fascistic. its been normalised by the likes of hate preachers such as wilders.
95% of europe is not muslim, and muslims are not a single monolithic bloc of having the same beliefs or culture, but you’ll find that the fascistic right do make that generalisation.
its how jews were targeted and killed by the nazis.
It is interesting and perhaps a bit disturbing to dissect the history and content of Europe’s cultural values. It is filled too with the values of the numerous nomadic tribes which invaded Europe, of the Vikings, of the anti-Semitic killer Crusaders, with the ever-repeating warfare. It has not been until after the end of WW2 that Europe might be called a region beginning its trek to civilization. Civilization is an aspect of culture.
This makes me despise Dutch society a little bit. That’s unfair, I know. Populations everywhere have a mix of ignorant, hate-prone people, and the Dutch are probably no worse than others. But seeing that idiocy clearly measured in pre-election polls does advertise very loudly just how rampant that disease is there. I guess my judgemental feelings are my own hateful side coming out to meet them. How shameful.
As a Dutchman myself I have to agree with you in large part of your opinion. Though what this article misses is the large opposed movement within the Netherlands as well. “Only” about 16% of the people voting (about 34% of the Dutch people) thinks about voting so far right. All the other parties in parliament (representing the other 84% the Dutch voters) have promised (ok, campaign promising) not to work with this man.
Even though he walks on the thin line of the law and has been convicted only once (yet) the vast majority of Dutch people are highly aware of the dangers this man imposes. Regardless of all of the above a multiple party system (28 parties available to vote for, about 9 truly influential to national politics) there will always be a loud screamer working the frustration many people have. And above all by not attending any debates (!!!) he chooses to keep playing this frustration instead of being realistic.
Yes, I agree it is concerning that such a large amount of people (about 2.7 million could be represented by him in parliament, about a million voting actively on him) share his ideas or accept his ideas choosing his other (honestly quite appealing, though mostly unrealistic) plans. I fear for the future if this man gains ground and he gains ground by the attention he is given from outside this really small country has around him. Germany was ( and still is) big enough to start a war. In 1940 Germany overran the Netherlands in only 4 days of “war”!
If I can choose let him boil in that little pot called the Netherlands, let him be opposed by 84% of the Dutch and even if he gains control… well how impressed will the world really be? This article makes him a danger, getting airtime makes him a danger. Us all opposing him makes him scream only louder and there will always be those following the loudest screamer. But let’s not make him more than a screamer because it is highly unlikely he will ever get any control in the Dutch parliament.
I grew up in Amsterdam. There was then a substantial streak of anarchism in the political nation. I wonder whether that still plays a role in the Wilders phenomenon.
Completely appalled by some commenters who claim that genocide is realistic and common sense. I agree that Europe must return to its values – of anti-Fascism, in particular. Fascism is not normal. This is not any disagreement over political views.
Must be nice living in a world where Islam is a religion of peace and suicide bombers,911,77,ft hood,San Bernardino,the pulse were figments of the imagination of a sick fuok
You didn’t grow up in a free safe open and inclusive society but in your 40s everything had changed including the population shift that makes the indigenous soon if not already a minority. Even the landscape had changed with mega mosques some not even in use but imams say it’s just a matter of time.
Conquest.
You wrote a hit piece on the one man standing up for the people putting his life at risk he continues to tell the ugly truth reporters are too cowardly to reveal.
Shame on the writer for connecting elders to Brevnic as if he really is responsible or ever called for anyone to act out in violence.
This is why the media is so distrusted and worthless.
Do your focking jobs or be cowards who enabled Rome to fall over and over again
Many Muslims have also claimed this.
all religions are ideologies.
When Islam has 1000 military bases around the world, I’ll believe that Islam wants to dominate the free world.
You believe military bases are the only way is the unique way to dominate the world?
What would make you think that some Muslims want to dominate the world?
Unless you have that much military power, you can believe anything you want, you aren’t going to dominate the world. There are real imperialistic threats, and then there are imaginary ones.
“Unless you have that much military power, you can believe anything you want, you aren’t going to dominate the world.”
Obviously, you are underestimating the power of money.
If he gets rid of Christianity and all supernatural cults then i will vote for him!
This is great. Let Geert Wilders and The Netehrlands try to get rid of Islam and Muslims. I want to see this. Let’s see how far he gets. I can also say, ‘Today, I will get rid of cars. No more cars.’
The only solution against rightwing populists over here in Europe is to make the governments of these countries care more about their own culture again.
Here in Austria we have seen the politicians hold speeches for victims of Islamophobia but silence for victims of syrian refugees. Their rationale is that they are silent about it because they believe it feeds Islamophobia, but the problem is that it comes out anyway, and the rightwing populists can use politicians being silent about it to further their ideology.
Sadly, politicians don’t understand this effect and that’s why more and more people in Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, France etc. become more popular.
Censorship is one of the main issues here. You reach the opposite effect if you always downplay or remain silent on the spike of violent crime that came with letting everyone in withou vetting.
In the USA vetting refugees etc. is normal. In Germany most who arrived there weren’t checked at any border at all.
This of course creates even more Islamophobia.
Yes, Konrad, very same problem in Holland. What you suppress often comes out in other ways. and the right gains by this. We have the internet and so people can find the facts now and disregared news outlets we know are lying and/or PC. I also do not think Europeans are xenophobic, perhaps a small part is. I dont think Europeans have problems with immigrants. I think its what they do, believe and want is what is the problem. As ISIS has said, its the left that allows radical Islam to grow, not the right. (Im not a right winger, but to keep the balance Im going to vote for a central/middle party these Dutch elections).
Although Americans view Europe as an embattled bastion of secular liberalism, one must also remember the grim and painful lessons of history when it comes to Europe’s past in history and it veered to the far right and descended into the abyss of the Second World War. It is the homeland of the Holocaust. Wilder has merely replaced Muslims for Jews in his xenophobic rhetoric. And what is even more disturbing, given this timely, astute and thoughtful essay, Europe is again sleepwalking toward the abyss. All bets were off when xenophobes elected Donald Trump as president. If I would compare this era to a previous one, I would say that we have officially entered since Donald Trump’s election a ” Weimar Republic” phase both here in the United States and also in Europe.
As the philospher Agnes Heller recently opined, Europe may see itself as the cradle of the Enlightenment and Liberal Democracy but for most of its history these values were not adhered too.
Today, sadly, we’re seeing a return to authoritarian xenophobia and toxic nationalism…
https://youtu.be/YxZ8XqN2mis
Actually Wilders is nothing like the Nazis – he does not plan to exterminate Muslims, nor does he say he will remove them from Holland IF they abide by the law and don’t impose their religion on others … he is seeking to protect Dutch identity and culture. What exactly is wrong with that?
The irony is, it is easier for new comers to protect their rights than it is for people whose country they enter – its all back to front and because main stream politicians will not stand up for the ordinary person its left to the more extreme ends of the spectrum to do so.
The dutch need to get Shell and all of their mines OUT OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES for starts!
AMEN. (Amin.)
Wilders is not a racist but a realist.
There is another party in the Netherlands that is far more worse than Wilders his party.
It is the “DENK” party.
A few turkish men, supported by Turkye, that say really strange things and post around a lot of hoaxes to get muslim people to vote for them.
I agree. The same exists in Germany where the “AFD” party is made out to be this far-right extremist party, eventhough you could compare them more with something between John Kasich and Geert Wilders.
The far-right extremist party in Germany is the NPD. This mislabeling by media outlets of the AFD is also causing them to become more popular because it shows that the media doesn’t do their research.
The AFD asks for border controls like the ones in the USA under Barack Obama, this is just realistic and common sense, but apparently the AFD being a german party brings out all the anti-german sentiment and bad comparisons…
Later the same outlets will be surprised that the rightwing populist parties like the AFD, FPÖ etc. will become more popular, but they have helped them
he is a racist maybe not to the extremist far right but he is to normal folk.
Am I missing something here? What religion is Saudi Arabia? Why are they not on the travel ban? Could it be that Trumps own words ” Saudi Arabian’s give me $40 to $50 million dollars for an apartment. I love Saudi Arabia” Now isn’t this a bit hypocritical coming from the man that is supposed to protect the USA from terrorism is actually in bed with the country that handed the USA 15 hijackers to MURDER over 3000 people? No lets ignore that and let him keep spouting his bullshit! This man should be thrown out of office on his FAT ASS and take the rest of his crooks with him! All of them should have been in prison decades ago. That include this whole corrupt government including the snotty nose congress and house of CARDS!
Guess we will never have a legitimate government in my lifetime, sadly. After almost 60 years. There is NO HOPE for the USA state of amnesia!
The delicious irony of right-wing authoritarian ideologues espousing the dangers of that kind of thinking.
Another delicious irony is their idea that freedom is achieved through force, imprisonment, and exile. I guess the only way you can sell stupid people the idea of freedom is by creating a criminal class for a point of reference.
Unfortunately, the “Wilders is a real politician” is true. Unlike Trump, who doesn’t have any actual ideas about good national policies or how to govern a country, WIlders and his party can at least talk intelligently and consistently on topics not related to hating Muslims. Voting for him, like voting for Trump, is still voting for hatred, but it’s not voting for hatred, chaos, and collapse. WIlders’s ideas about economics may be right or wrong, but they’re debatable ideas, not just promises to make magic happen.
The popularity of the racist Wilders is grossly exaggerated because it’s a good news story on the back of Trumps win in the USA. In the latest poll Wilders is predicted to get only 25 seats out of 150 in the Dutch Parliament. He has no chance of leading a Government. Similarly Marine Le Pen’s chances of winning the French Presidental election are very slim because of their 2nd round system where the 2 best from the 1st round go through to a runoff.
As usual, the Intercept maintains its apparent policy of no discussion of Ukraine allowed. For example, the Dutch referendum on the European Union ties with Ukraine? The role of the United States and NATO in destabilizing Libya and Syria and creating the world’s greatest refugee crisis since WWII? Not important topics?
http://www.dw.com/en/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dutch-election/a-37811574
So that’s real effect of the destablization of Libya and Syria and the massive refugee crisis that resulted. And the same goes for power plays in the Ukraine:
Nevertheless, the Dutch establishment government is pushing for ratification with Ukraine. What is the political effect of that?
I suppose the kind of right-wing neo-Nazi (but pro-IMF, pro-EU) nationlist sentiment in the Ukraine that Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Victoria Nuland (as well as Biden, McCain, etc.) promoted and still do, differs from the right-wing anti-Muslim pro-Israeli (but anti-EU) sentiment of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, so that’s why Ukraine is never condemned by the largely pro-neoliberalist Intercept; and Omidyar Network activities in support of Ukraine’s new pro-EU pro-IMF government are well-known.
This is all about neoliberal global imperialism, and its complete failure and its disastrous consequences for people all over the world. The angry populist response is not so surprising, is it?
Yes, Trump is Phase3 of CrookdClintOs plan.
And that has f**k all to do with Geert Wilders.
It’s the University of Georgia, not Georgia University.
Hasan oversells his point. Banning the Quran gives the lie to free some of speech, true. Banning new mosques or minarets undermines freedom of religion, agreed. And smearing Moroccans and their children as “scum” is undoubtedly racist and xenophobic. These alone are sufficient reasons to oppose Wilders.
But it is not a serious argument to interpret “no more Islam” as a proposal that the leader of the Netherlands will somehow eradicate, or aspire to eradicate, 1.6 billion Muslims around the world. Even his actual proposal to pay Muslims to leave, while xenophobic and wrong, is a far cry from “genocide” (look up Hutu rhetoric inciting the massacre of Tutsis as an example of the real language of genocide). It undermines Hassan’s credibility when he uses such extreme language to counter the ideas of the far right, when it is obvious to anyone who cares to look that Wilders is not advocating the killing of Muslims.
The author also suggests that because Wilders attended a conference with Le Pen and Salvini, he is allied with them — an alliance that, in one of the other articles cited by Hasan (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam), Wilders explicitly renounces. More evidence is needed to assert an alliance than a certain alignment of aims; and even if they *were* allied on immigration, it’s obvious that they might not be allied on all issues (a characteristic of lemmings but not thinking human beings).
Hasan also makes the common leftist maneuver of equating the distasteful speech of Wilders with the violent actions of Breivik, notwithstanding the denunciation of violence by Wilders. How then does one turn around and argue that moderate Muslims, or even fundamentalist but non-violent Muslims, are not responsible for terrorist acts by ISIS and al’Qaeda, who use religious rhetoric to justify their actions? Isn’t the strategy of “guilt by tenuous association” exactly the same strategy that Wilders is using, insofar as he holds all Muslims responsible for the fact that he has to live in hiding due to death threats, or for the Netherlands’ contingency plan to evacuate its diplomatic staff from the Middle East in the event that Wilders’ film is published?
It was Barry Goldwater who suggested that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. His legacy is the Tea Party. What will be the legacy of those who are willing to lump everyone on the right into the basket of genocidal maniacs (or, more gently, “deplorables”) and therefore unworthy of rational debate? This just perpetuates the conditions that led to the rise of populist reactionaries like Trump and Wilders in the first place.
Just a brief remark on your moderate muslims/ISIS analogy to Mehdi’s invocation of Breivik. That analogy doesn’t really hold up, because I believe Mehdi argues that Breivik’s hate speech inspires people like Breivik to commit their violent acts; you might argue Wilders condemns violence so that inference is not justified, but Wilders may contradict himself as it is hard to harmonize explicit anti-Islam/-immigration sentiments with pacifist sentiments. That just disregards the reality on the ground.
Back to your analogy though, which, if you think about it, actually would come to mean: moderate muslims inspire ISIS to do what they do, and that’s obviously not the case.
What gives you the right to go into someone else’s country and demand that the change it for you? They open their doors to take in refugees and instead of saying “thank you,” you spit in their face?
Someone did a study and found that for the same amount of money it take s to settle 10,000 refugees in the United States, you could settle 100,000 refugees in other Muslim countries.
That might be the best solution.
Lebanon, population about 4 million, has a million immigrants from next door. Jordan’s got a lot. Iraq is not currently a safe destination. The Saudis don’t want Shia refugees. Iran doesn’t want Sunnis. Palestine already has lots of refugees.
Meanwhile, for the amount of money the US has spent bombing Arab countries, we could take millions of refugees.
Wilders wants to stop all Muslim immigration.
Oh gee, terrible.
I WOULD STOP ALL IMMIGRATION.
Like we need more people? crowds? congestion? traffic? resource sapping? crime? competition for resources?
The criminals on wallstreet love the GROWTH CRAP.
You may find this shocking, but the crowds and numbers of people in the world is a function of population growth, not immigration. The more people there are, the more people they will make. It’s pretty simple math, basic ecology.
Perhaps you should campaign for sterilization or control the size of families?
And the more those “more people” will desire/be forced to migrate (or attempt to) to places where the prospects for prosperous/decent/bearable lives seem better.
And all the yammering, nativism, wall-building, blame, hatred, demonization, etc. will make exactly Jack Shit worth of difference.
“The Earth is a closed system. It contains a finite amount of ‘stuff.'”
Precisely.
It’s why the current global political climate is in utter shock. All the parties use the same old battle tactics, yet the game has changed completely. The ideas of nations is crumbling, especially fast cuz of the powers of the Internet.
I’d be willing to get more politically active if there were parties that advocated for a common sense of humanity, but those groups get demonized quick so they often falter. I’m truly hoping the current chaos will allow for a human movement to get going again, kinda like the Hippies with more direction.
Currently every person who is a citizen of a EU country has the right to immigrate to another of those countries limited only by criminal past records. Wilders cannot and probably does not want to prevent a French Muslim to settle in Amsterdam to become a seller of French wines.
Many people regard the extreme Islam [Wahhabism] as espoused and exported around the world by Saudi Arabia and implemented in places like Syria by ISIS as the same kind as practiced by the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. This is wrong, the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and reject the murderous ISIS brand of extremism who see every other religion, even the Sunni majority in Syria who do not agree with them as worthy of death. It is easy for rabble-rousers like Wilders to equate the two, it is to be hoped the Dutch electorate can distinguish the two. I have a lot of time for Mehdi Hasan especially after his grilling of the Saudi Ambassador here..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVs86JeNyeM
Lovely comment by Mehdi where he conveniently neglects to deal with the rising voices in Europe raising concerns about Islam. Mehdi loves to write about Islamophobia in western countries because he knows that he’ll find a receptive audience in western journalism who are trying to fuel white guilt sentiment in western civilization. Why else wouldn’t he highlight that his fellow muslims don’t crown themselves in glory with incidents like Cologne sexual attacks and molestation attempts at music festival?
Also Mehdi has never raised the same concerns about Coptic Christians being persecuted in Egypt and Libya? If he cared about minorities being attacked in western countries, shouldn’t minorities being attacked in muslim nations be also his concern?
Also stop using the number 1.6 billion people and then pretend you’re facing a genocide. Muslims are the fastest growing population in the world. Most of them are born in poverty. They are more likely to die of malnutrition or diseases than by genocide. If Mehdi really cared about his fellow muslims, he would be raising these issues also. Instead he is using a platform funded by a nation with zero regards for human rights to chastise western nations about human rights.
Now I see someone here not delusionally ignorant. Great points in your post. I get so heated after reading this and seeing the posts my comments are a mess so thank you for saying what needs to be said
Indeed Hank the increased sexual violence to European women is becoming a severe problem. As a feminist this worries me a lot. A large majority of German women indicate in polls they feel unsafer living in Germany now, for obvious reasons. The Swedish Stockholm police report a 60% increase in reports of drug and sex crimes. Its on the Stockholm police site. Gangrapes in Sweden were rare. I now too often read of gangrapes there. Im completely shocked by that. We are talking about Sweden of all places. In Norway sexual violence to women and girls also gone drastically up. I stopped caring about all the PC stuff on this and called a racist, Islamophobe etc. Europe has let in men from very misogynistic countries, and we see the results. Not to say I dont want muslims in Holland. But it needs to be controlled. The Dutch never had problems with immigrants, I never had. But now I do, see sexual violence and a homophobic religion..
To put in perspective, and Im in no way a Wilders supporter, the minister of finance from the social dem party PvdA has said Holland’s system cannot handle too many immigrants (see also Sweden) as it stretches our social benefits system beyond our capacity. Most immigrants from muslim countries end up in social welfare and in their own neighbourhoods. Integration is a problem. I want the left/middle to speak about this more and find solutions, so Wilders isnt getting so much support. I do not think Wilders wants a genocide, though Im happy he got fined for the statements about Moroccans as it was shocking.
> Again, is this not the language of genocide?
no, not even close. it’s consistent with the call for a ban on muslim immigration. neither is the call for banning islam in the netherlands (as outrageous as that is) the ‘language of genocide’. to accuse this person of promoting genocide on the basis of the evidence given is the language of hysteria. if he’s truly so horrible, what need is there to portray him as worse than he is?
the language of genocide might be HEBREW.
Citizens of the US tend to deny the attrocities of the mass murder of Palestinians and the land theft.
Using ‘the language of genocide’ is not the same as ‘promoting genocide’. Please use your feel for language to discover the difference.
the author explicitly equated a call to ban islam with advocacy of genocide:
> No more Islam? How do you get rid of a religion without getting rid of the 1.6 billion people who follow it? This is the language of genocide, plain and simple.
it’s hysterical nonsense
What makes this even more scary is that a similar campaign with Russian fingerprints on it (whether the Russian state, oligarchs, or simply amoral Russian hackers paid for by some right-wing Western billionaires, is anybody’s guess) to demoralize the left and center and further the fascists. This is happening in France, Holland, England, Norway, Germany and Austria simultaneously. It’s the same playbook, and is much like Putin’s own playbook (or Hitler’s) on how to take power. From 5 days ago: Randi Rhodes interviews intelligence professional Malcolm Nance about all this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPccn-DFGQ
To me, an extremely believable and incredibly chilling analysis and prognosis.
In summary, this is not a joke.
Glenn Greenwald is spot on with his critiques of establishment Dems for (1) using the Russian stuff as an excuse for Hillary’s abysmal candidacy;
(2) focusing so much on this that they ignore the destruction being waged by Trump and the Repubs on health care of millions, immigrant families, the environment, public schools, (3) being committed to their sell-out, disastrous neocon, neoliberal policies that ushered in Trump, and being incapable of admitting their own fault in this and in taking the desperately needed corrective action; BUT: that doesn’t mean this isn’t a very serious issue. It is NOT a “red scare” or McCarthyism because Russia is no longer Communist- it’s an oligarchy and a petrostate. Trump has much in common with Putin himself there, since both are oligarchs and both are greedy for oil money. But Putin is far richer and while Trump is a failed businessman for whom it is all about the money. For Putin it’s all about destroying NATO and the US, and having a President he can expertly manipulate. For Bannon it’s about destruction. So these three are natural allies and are having lots of fun.
As a Christian I pray you all find forgiveness in your hearts and move on with your lives.
Dear Mehdi, Let me answer your questions.
*You asked how Wilders his remarks about wanting no more Islam in The Netherlands or in general is not genocidal
To say Wilder is speaking the language of genocide is a leap of thought. A hasty conclusion fallacy. When the US said it wanted to eradicate communism during the cold war, of course it wasn´t the idea to kill each Russian. Its the system of communism that they wanted to eradicate. It would be actually crazy to think by saying they wanted to eradicate each and every Russian. The statement was not genocidal. The same with the statement of Wilders.
*To want less Moroccans in The Netherlands and have a certain immigration policy to limit immigrants is just that: A political statement with which one can agree or disagree. One can have the value-judgement that perhaps its racist, and thats fine with me if someone wants to interpret it that way. But one could simply also have the view its not racist, but merely a political view to have a certain immigration policy. Countries around the world have immigration policies that are disproportionate difficult for people from certain countries. That actually is the norm that there are differences in difficulties for people from different countries to go live in certain countries. But to say its a genocidal view to want less Moroccans in a country is a huge leap of thought! The more plausible explanation is to simply have a certain immigration policy. To bring up Genocide is imo slanderous.
Friendly Greetings,
Terence
Europe will be back to the good ole’ days of constant war, poverty and genocide if they continue down this path. That said, I blame the current leaders. There are too many corrupt people in their culture. The right is exploiting their failures but will continue the corruption with little opposition. They’ll call all dissent fake news or terrorism.
Stupid, greedy people with no integrity have led us to this point. And, because only a small group of dedicated liberals spoke out against it, the right will just laugh when anyone tries to stop them. This is probably the slow death of Europe. History is repeating itself.
There is no such thing as a European culture. Europe has many cultures.
Just like there’s no US culture since it’s a country of immigrants, right? ;)
Hopefully, wikileaks will dump documents exposing his opposition so he’ll win by a landslide.
Hi, I am from the Netherlands. We do not like that journalists only write about us because of Geert Wilders. Why don’t you write about how neat and fair we organize our elections (compared to the US)? Why dont’ you write about why we are much happier than people in the US?
Geert Wilders is considered dangerous and/or an idiot by… most Dutch people.
We see that he is guiding his own party like a dictator. And we are learning fast from what is happening in the US now. His party will have max 20% of the votes, but ‘thanks’ to Trump probably less.
None of the larger political parties wants to join him in a cabinet. There is therefore no chance at all he will be part of the government. Even if he gets the largest number of votes, he will be a minority. And even less chance that he will be prime minister. Also his speach about “less, less, less” Maroccans in the country has been condemned by a judge.
The actual challenge is that the normal parties will have ‘only’ about 80% of the vote and they should form a coalition with more than 50% of the total. As a consequence many of the remaining parties will be forced to cooperate in the new cabinet. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
But mainly I would say: Look at what else is happening in our country. Your American readers could learn far more from the positive than from the negative.
Well said. In the wake of Trump’s election Geert Wilders is just an easy news story for the lazy press. No one wants to write about the good news stories. The Netherlands is a great country full of tolerant, welcoming and kind people. That is not to say that it doesn’t have it’s social problems like every other country. So stop concentrating on the negative.
Sadly, most Americans pay attention to politics only when it affects us.
I’ve been paying attention and learning what a disturbing disaster mass Muslim immigration brings to a host country. America is the only country that hadn’t caved in a blasphemy law. Once you lose your words all you have is your fists or become a dhimmi. Gerry Wilders deserves respect for trying to save the coming generations from living under Sharia
Amen! Especially learning about the mostly positive consequences of same-sex marriage!
I’m so glad that The Intercept has hired brilliant commentators beyond the tripe that Greenwald is now putting out.