Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders;
You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
However, Geerts and his ilk are not interested in finding a workable solution…
Oh, come on, Van der Waart, you sound like the classic elite lefty politician/ bureaucrat/academic, the very people that have been fiddling while Rome burns on this issue. What part of the demographics do you not understand? What part of the catastrophic displacement of native Europeans by a group that are anti-secular by religious dogma, understand you only in a dhimmi context, and have religious permission to unleash violence on you to justify their religious ends.
Please. A big influx of a group with those cultural/religious characteristics would be a calamity anywhere on the globe. In fact it is one in places where Mulim numbers gain traction over their non-muslim neighbors.
What’s the coveted “solution” that is being dismissed? Gert Wilders has every right to be a part of the dialogue. That’s if you are being genuine in seeking an all-points-of-view democratic forum. Trotting out Kim Jong Il, Jerry Falwell and racism to stop the dialogue here is so hackneyed and tells me that you are very disingenuous. And, because the Dutch were racist in their past doesn’t mean they must forfeit control of their future.
I watched a PBS program here in Canada a couple of days back. The presenter (an American) was travelling through Europe. He started out in Amsterdam at the train station and went through Germany. Having been in these places recently it struck me as odd that the people in the film didn’t represent the ethnic breakdown that I would expect to see in such places. There were far too many white people! At the end of the program it showed it had been filmed in 2000. Then I realised just how much things have changed in a few short years. I no longer recognise London now. It has not changed for the better. The impending financial collapse will really throw a spanner in the works and already we have seen the rise of the right wing in Austria. trouble is coming mark my words.
just thinkin – yes, it is a kind of cult, isn’t it?
In the ME – why does it have to change? Because they can’t sustain their population within a non-industrial economy. And..the oil won’t last. At present, the oil revenues are being redistributed to the population; it silences them. But it keeps them out of any political or economic power; that’s what has led to Islamic fascism.
The ME externalized this fascism against the West. Bush pushed it back into the ME – and the fight is now between the fascists and ‘modernizers’ – but within the ME. The modernizers will win; you can’t go back to the 7th century, no matter how romanically pure it seems in your fictional words.
Over here, in the West, we have enabled ‘blocs’ of Muslims to remain economically and culturally isolate. Economically isolate because they are funded by grants and welfare – rather than having to face the integration required in the workforce. Culturally isolate because we have rejected their integration and encouraged them to remain ‘isolate’ and ‘different’.
Such isolation and such differentiation leads to anger on the part of the second generation. They want to fit in, not be pushed out as ‘diverse and different’.
penny – I think that van der waart (obviously Dutch) is speaking in a very rational and objective manner. Not in the least ‘leftist’.
The lesson from this that we should understand is that the situation is the making of Europeans, who lack the will to deal effectively with the extremist ideology of Islamism. Instead of insisting on the integration of all and deporting the extremist elements, they turned a blind eye. Of course when one is ashamed of one’s culture and heritage, one promotes the multicultural myth. Therefore I suggest that this internal sickness is the real threat to Europe rather than the Muslims, who are simply a result of it.
I fear that neither Canada nor the US appear to have learned anything from Europe’s demise. One only has to take note of the election campaigns taking place in both countries to observe that not a single candidate from any of the major parties is addressing anything of importance. In Canada where we continue to witness the elimination of our traditional freedom of expression and of the press along with the internet, there is silence. Instead of promoting less government, they promote more government interference, meddling and intervention. And the list goes on. We have lost the two elements which most contributed to the greatness of Western civilisation; individual freedom and a free market. So I say we are no better than the Europeans when it comes down to it.
van der waart posts comments like this:
“When it comes to objectivity, Wilders is the right wing equivalent of, I don’t know, Kim Jong Il.”
This is not rational in the slightest. In fact, in all of his posts he has only stated his opinion and made assertions without any factual support.
I’ve asked him to refute ‘Fitna’, for example, with facts. So far, this has been met with silence.
Based on that, I’d agree with Penny, regardless of the more or less civil tone he has taken. He’s a drive-by leftist.
BTW, ET,
I’m not a fatalist concerning the ideological problem that Islam is presenting in the west, either. However, the solution will require legislation such as Tancredo is pushing in the US and the Brit Conservatives are promising. In fact, it will require a lot more. And it may very well become bloody, before it’s resolved.
You’ve stated your opinion on numerous occasions:
“We dealt with it, stupidly, by actually accepting that a tribal perspective and economy can actually co-exist within an industrial one! It can’t. Societal infrastructures exist only in an Either-OR situation. Your infrastructure is either industrial (non-tribal) or non-industrial (tribal). Period.
How long can one economy support a population that does not contribute to it? Not long. But, as long as the leftists naively support multiculturalism, which promotes non-contributing members of the population…this will continue.
Now – will it cause the collapse of Europe? Will the world become Muslim? I’m saying -against the doomsayers – NO. I repeat: NO. Why not?
Because, as a societal structure, Islam cannot economically support a massive population. It can support a non-industrial economy; that’s actually what it, as an ideology, is focused on. A non-industrial, tribal economy and societal system.”
Fine. However, what will need to be done? Anti-sharia and anti-political Islam legislation? Ending multiculturalism? Outlawing leftist political parties? Or, will it simply happen by osmosis?
Islam has succeeded for 1350 years as a parasitic culture. It is continuing to do so, except now the host is western civilization. Does not the billions in foreign aid, welfare and constant capitulation to their demands, translate as jizya and dhimmitude?
penny – I think that van der waart (obviously Dutch) is speaking in a very rational and objective manner. Not in the least ‘leftist’.
Perhaps after his first post, injecting Kim Jong Il, Jerry Falwell wasn’t a good start. Gert Wilders isn’t suggesting a Third Reich solution to the problem, he is stating the stark reality for which he’s being vilified as a radical unfairly.
I’m very curious as to what is the “workable solution” that Wilders is obstructing? My point is that he should have a seat at the table in verbalizing his opinion.
Let’s agree to disagree.
Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Dubai are examples that even 7th century tribals can master petro dollars, banking, derivatives, hedge funds and do very well. Islam is adapting to the modern age and keeps their unique toxicity. And, the US hasn’t been a “nation of immigrants” for a long time. There are limits to that myth.
nellygoph:
You should go visit India, and Shanghai. You see all nationalities there, like you do in Canada or Europe.
Which means nothing in the context of actual immigration. There as many international workers in both places that aren’t immigrants, big difference. There are a lot of Chinese now in Africa exploiting their commodities, it means nothing in the context of immigration. They aren’t staying. And, we all meet nice people in foreign places, it comes with the territory of just passing through. I’m sure I’d be treated with warmth and hospitality if as an American I passed through Iran. It doesn’t change their goverment’s essential wish to see people of my ilk dead. Islam’s attitudes toward non-Muslim’s are at core dangerous to me in spite of their culture of hospitality.
…here’s a predicition:
If we, the West don’t smarten up with the Muslim and Political Correctness issues, we’ll be happy when the Chinese come.
You might be right, tomax7. The Mongol horde, led by Genghis Khan, certainly knew how to deal with them.
no penny, because SA uses ‘petro dollars’ is not a sign of it, as a sociopolitical structure, adapting to an industrial economy. The only proof of adaptation is allowing the population to form a middle class. That means democracy. At the moment, SA is two, not three, class. It is tribal; it has a hereditary elite tribe that is dominant – and the rest of the population.
Dubai and SA are not comparable. The UAE and Dubai are attempting to move out of tribalism and into a modern infrastructure.
Sorry- but the US began as an immigrant nation, and it continues to enable immigration. By this I mean that you can come to the US and immediately become a member of the middle class. You can’t do that in Europe.
irwin daisy – Islam was not parasitic when it was operating as a pre-industrial, agricultural sustenance economy in the ME and Africa. The problem with Islam is that it is primarily a 7th c. tribal sociopolitical and economic system – that was set up to be immune to change – by defining it as a religion. It has very little ‘religious’ about it, and most of that is lifted completely from the Judaic beliefs.
By setting up a belief system as outside of change ..wow..that’s difficult. But, it has to change because it can’t support a modern economy.
What needs to be done in Europe? Rejecting multiculturalism. And, insisting on integration within the local national laws. Allowing and insisting that the ‘isolate blocs’ of immigrants integrate and be middle class. In Europe, they were deliberately isolated as low class temporary workers.
The ME will, now that Bush has enabled democracy, sort itself out and change. It has no choice. It cannot repress a population that large; it has to empower them, ie, allow a middle class to develop.
nellygoph said this (not mac)
” most religious extremism takes place in parts of the u.s. I believe.”
In North America we have critters called gophers that hide under ground. nellygoph you would have to living underground to make that kind of statement.It’s not true.Hardly worth discussing.
Amy…good point. Canadian families are having their 1.2 children.Christian and Muslim families are having the 2+.
Another factor in this coming change is the high rate of abortion in the western world, but not the ME.
Check out The Demographic Winter.
penny,
Geert is a politician who wants votes. He is what you call a rabble rouser. Dutch politicians are not blind to the problem. They know what is going on. This debate started in Netherlands long before September 11th. Geert is not a constructive voice.
In any democratic nation, taking such a stance against a single minority group can set dangerous precedent. Classic lefty or righty is your opinion. The issue here is not just about Muslim and west – it also affects relationship between majority and minority. If you can target one, you can target all. At heart of htis issue is idea of citizenship. Are all citizens equal or do citizens of a certain group become less equal? Do they have same rights? And most importantly, can citizenship be stripped?
Law is currently blind to religion, and that is the way it must remain. Geerts wants to change this by focusing on one religion. Whatever the merits of this, the danger of the precedent it sets is too important to ignore. Hence my assertion that Geert is not lookign for a workable solution. Sane Dutch politicians are balancing a host of issues here.
“Gert Wilders has every right to be a part of the dialogue. That’s if you are being genuine in seeking an all-points-of-view democratic forum. Trotting out Kim Jong Il, Jerry Falwell and racism to stop the dialogue here is so hackneyed and tells me that you are very disingenuous”
I apologize. I did not mean to insinuate that he should be silenced. At the same time one must factor in his starting position before accepting his analysis as objective. In the same way that you would, on basis of your writing, adjust when reading what a lefitst has written.
Irwin Daisy,
“In fact, in all of his posts he has only stated his opinion and made assertions without any factual support.”
I have pointed you towards the sources for looking up facts. Ellie Vasta, Christian Jopkke, Mark Verkuyten etc. There is much literature on this subject. It is very topical in Netherlands.
“I’ve asked him to refute ‘Fitna’, for example, with facts. So far, this has been met with silence.”
You are too quick to judge. I had more pressing issues at hand. My response to this has not changed. I see as little point in refuting this as I do in refuting Michael Moore documentaries. They are entitled to their views. I do not feel need to subject myself to these views.
“Gert Wilders isn’t suggesting a Third Reich solution to the problem”
I stand by my contention that the issue here is about citizenship and the relationship of majority with minority. When policy makers and law makers consider this, they must consider precedent they are setting in this regard. Geerts is not saying anything unknown or unique. He is presenting it in a way that will boost his political profile. People more concerned with the future aree dealing with this issue in more pragmatic way – that is to put forth a solution that does not set a dangerous precedent for all minorities. At heart of this, is all citizens are equal regardless of religious beliefs.
“Islam was not parasitic when it was operating as a pre-industrial, agricultural sustenance economy in the ME and Africa. The problem with Islam is that it is primarily a 7th c. tribal sociopolitical and economic system – that was set up to be immune to change – by defining it as a religion. It has very little ‘religious’ about it, and most of that is lifted completely from the Judaic beliefs.”
Islam’s success depends on shariah and a major part of that is the dhimmification and jizya extracted from host populations. It has never produced anything original. It is and always has been parasitic. Supremacism is the key.
Furthermore, given it’s Beduin, desert beginnings, it hardly had any agrarian background, or knowledge. Mohammad got his financial start by pirating caravans, as usual. Then, expanding into slavery. This is why they slaughtered the men and saved the women and young children.
Agree with the religious component being lifted from Judeo/Christian belief (as well as various other beliefs, such as Sabianism). Islam is, if anything, a heretical sect, originally known as Hagarism. Perhaps, to a degree, to revenge and justify Ishmael’s illegitimacy.
” most religious extremism takes place in parts of the u.s. I believe.”
I find it hard to believe anyone would be silly enough to believe this, more likely it’s just a cheap shot. (Shot? bad choice of words…)
Check out the news on any given day; islamic extremists detonate bombs all over the globe, and are quite proud of it.
Meanwhile, it seems quiet in the United States, although there are those Christian “extremists” who smile and ask if I’ve found God. A little cloying, but not dangerous and I enjoy people who say they’ll pray for me rather than threaten to cut my head off.
Europe was okay when it was sperate and independent nations now its the EUROPEAN SOVIET UNION and its less free its just so unforunate for them
ET,
“What needs to be done in Europe? Rejecting multiculturalism. And, insisting on integration within the local national laws.”
Exactly right.
Geerts wants to change this by focusing on one religion.
As well he should because Islam is a political entity being foolishly afforded religious protection. And, tolerance of intolerance isn’t a virtue. Islam is anything but tolerant, but, sadly your offspring will find that out in due time.
Personally I think Holland is a goner. Those that can immigrate will, the remaining natives will need to cut a deal for the best dhimmi terms that they can get in another generation or two. I’m not trying to be insulting, it’s just my honest opinion.
penny, perhaps you are wilfully ignoring the core problem here or you simply do not understand it. Even if you take the religious aspect out, at the end of the day the issue boils down to the treatment of a minority in a democratic state. Precedents have to be set carefully. This is about Dutch democracy, not Islam.
Wilders and his folk claim to be concerned only about Islam, but this is sadly not the case. His supporters lack the sophistication to distinguish between Islam and other religions. They establish hostility by skin color. They do not ask individuals if they are Muslim or not – it is simply assumed that they are on the basis of appearance. Wilders, and many far right politicians have been adopting a very simple tactic. Set a precedent against Islam while public opinion favours it. This precedent can then be used against any minority that is deemed “un-European”. The dangers inherent in this approach are obvious to see.
Your opinion on Holland is either ill-informed or mis-informed. While it is topical in North America to talk about Eurabia, the numbers do not add up. Holland has 1 million Muslims in population of 17 million. This is hardly overwhelming.
Islam in Holland is not a uniform bloc either. There are divisions within Islam that further undermine its supposed agenda. In layman terms, some Muslims are Muslims in name only, while others are ultraconservative. They do not have same agenda.
And so on and so forth. Nor is the government blind to this problem – I should point out that the first warning about Islam was issued in early 1990s by the leader of the Dutch Liberal Party. At the same time, the Dutch government needs to address this issue without setting a dangerous precedent that you either do not want to accept, or do not want to comprehend.
As for Holland, I would leave it to the Dutch government, and not pay too much attention to local rabble-rousers like Wilders,.
penny, perhaps you are wilfully ignoring the core problem here or you simply do not understand it. Even if you take the religious aspect out, at the end of the day the issue boils down to the treatment of a minority in a democratic state. Precedents have to be set carefully. This is about Dutch democracy, not just Islam.
Wilders and his folk claim to be concerned only about Islam, but this is sadly not the case. His supporters lack the sophistication to distinguish between Islam and other religions. They establish hostility by skin color. They do not ask individuals if they are Muslim or not – it is simply assumed that they are on the basis of appearance. Wilders, and many far right politicians have been adopting a very simple tactic. Set a precedent against Islam while public opinion is against Islam. This precedent can then be used against any minority that is deemed “un-European”. The dangers inherent in this approach are obvious to see.
Your opinion on Holland is either ill-informed or mis-informed. While it is topical in North America to talk about Eurabia, the numbers do not add up. Holland has 1 million Muslims in population of 17 million. This is hardly overwhelming.
Islam in Holland is not a uniform bloc either. There are divisions within Islam that further undermine its supposed agenda. In layman terms, some Muslims are Muslims in name only, while others are ultraconservative. They do not have same agenda.
And so on and so forth. Nor is the government blind to this problem – I should point out that the first warning about Islam was issued in early 1990s by the leader of the Dutch Liberal Party. At the same time, the Dutch government needs to address this issue without setting a dangerous precedent that you either do not want to accept, or cannot comprehend.
As for Holland, I would leave it to the Dutch government, and not pay too much attention to local rabble-rousers like Wilders.
Van der Waart talks about Muslims. Others talk about the supremacist political ideology of Islam not being compatible with democracy.
See the difference?
Irwin, I have never seen such a one-trick pony be so proud to be a one-trick pony. It is not a compliment.
Wilders belongs to a supremacist political ideology that distinguishes between Whites and ‘blacks’ (the term used for colored people in Holland). He doesn’t want just Islam out – he wants everyone out. Islam is the whipping boy of the day, and he is using it to set dangerous precedent. Mark my words – if he succeeds, it will not end with Islam.
While there may be a supremacist political ideology of Islam, it is far-fetched to suggest all Dutch muslims are supporters of such, as you are insinuating.
I have read your posts and I can only conclude that you like flogging dead horses. There is nothing new or original in any of those posts – they all repeat the same theme- inherent dangerous supremacism of Islam. You need only post that once. There is no need to respond to everything I write by repeating yourself. If you have something new to say, do feel free. Or else, this is like discussing issue with parrot that knows only one line.
Europe has been working and realized in this modern era where both individuals and governments are working to repay the banks, the more children a couple has the LOWER the standard of living they have. The Muslims have been moving into Europe, going on welfare and breeding like bunnies.
Sad but the meltdown of the financial world whether it is orchestrated by the banks or not will force governments to cut back or even eliminate welfare to tens of millions across Europe. The reaction by the Muslims who have grown to believe it is their right to live in Europe, be paid to do nothing and allowed to breed will precipitate the kind of backlash that MAY (possibly) save Europe from themselves. The moronic politicians will no longer dare blame the “systemic racism” of the Europeans as an excuse for the Islamic rioters. The backlash will be grassroots and will be the LAST opportunity to save the Western civilizations from a purely Mulsim Dark Ages that will last a thousand years.