Geert Wilders, Dutch anti-Islamist
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:58 pm
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
Van Leeuwen says his died mop is a "political symptom not taken serious enough". She thinks it was a brilliant move to step away from his Indonesian roots and hide his post-colonial revanchism. Although this may also be an example of his "classic Indo identity alienation."
Calm down don Quixote, the Holy Crusader against all arrogant windbags! It's just a Wordly Matter forum with opinions being exchanged. Although my views generally are extremely well sourced and reasoned out and not easy to trump by some quick and dirty copy & paste job, it's not that of a big deal to me. If you'd have some actual data point to add beyond a wiki entry: feel free! Don't let me hold my breath again though.Alex T. Jacob wrote:...how corrupt and inprecise are so many of the conclusions
You mean like citing the Jerusalem Post commenting on an Islamic issue in the Netherlands? Yeah, that was a bit of a reach, don't you think?This is a huge problem: you can find someone, somewhere, to support almost any conclusion, any a priori.
No, you don't understand: the point is anti-immigration, the repeated statement that "all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted" (Wilders) and the JP's "massive influx of Muslim immigrants", note the present tense.It wouldn't really matter how they got there, it is more a question that they are there.
Depends what you call "Europe", one often means here "Western Europe", "the West" perhaps or "Christendom" although the devil is here in the details of what's being meant exactly. And is the argument "our fates are not interwoven" really something one can weigh any future relationship with? It seems like nothing but veiled xenophobia.Jews have had so much to do with Europe and for so long that 'our fates are interwoven'. Can the same be said for Islamic culture? In the long run what will be the effect of Islamic culture on Europe?
There are many more politicians doing that. But the point is not the need, it's how one can build on traditions and values, growing with them, reinventing and re-energizing the will and direction of a people. To me, the type of thinking Wilders represent is a symptom of decay, not of strength. It's a wishing and pining for something that has left or is somewhere rotting (in Denmark?) and the only way to get out of it is not, not, not by pushing away forces that can potentially bring these new elements into the mesh. Being it Chinese, Indian or Middle-Eastern ways of doing or believing - which are all fluid enough to adapt and morph in a new environment in their own way.Still, in his talks, he [Wilders] makes some very good points about a need to preserve a solid connection with our own traditions, to value and revalue them.
And it's still ongoing. In your own words: "in the long run what will be the effect". Perhaps for the first time it starts to happen with the aim or possibility of equality, instead of some form of slave labor or creating some subclass of citizens.I don't think 'the West' (as seen over the last 4-5 decades)(taking into consideration youth movements and progressive trends in our cultures) has been at all short of sympathy and understanding and openness to other 'cultural modalities'.
This is the dead-end you bring into each and every conversation! It's not about "getting to a truth" or "definitive opinion", what a silly idea only you could have backhandedly introduced! It's more about how you get to the perspectives, how truthful or consistent the path is. And right there it can be used as a measuring stick, to examine various blocks and incapacities on that path. It's all very mundane perhaps, worldly, gross, but it's an arena which can work at times, as a playful reflection of the larger issues we have attempted to discuss in the past and with the same results.Alex T. Jacob wrote: I am not sure ....but I am not sure ...I guess that....a sort of nothingness. Nothing decided, nothing really understood.
andDiebert wrote:[Wilders is] nothing but a mouthpiece of a dark brown undercurrent of society with absolutely no dialog internally and no dialog with any opposing party or group. Any call for a public debate from and with Islamic groups and representatives he has always declined.
And this is somehow representing a defender for Western values and democracy or a serious stirrer of debate? It's only demonstrating a level of ignorance that is breath taking. Yes, discussion is needed and real problems demand real solutions and constructive approaches. Wilders represents one of the problems, that is: obscuring the language, the discourse in a way that makes it near impossible to ever move forward. And yes, this is what makes him so perfectly aligned in my view with many Zionist and neo-conservative types. Not that the issues they raise are not important and worthy of debate, it's how they kill dialog before it can start as if their true motive is something completely different than stated.
And this is not just opinion, it's more like inevitable. The only question is who will be taking the high road and who the low road.Diebert wrote:Open borders will in time change all identities and mix cultures. Fear of that and blaming misfortunes on that process is essentially a fascist ideology
It's the "biggest evil" in Islamic theology, worse than murder as it represents all that stands between a believer and his faith. Persecution, insult, slander, torture, economic pressures, and temptations are all caught by it. But for Muslims it represents evil in a nutshell.Alex Jacob wrote:Definition of Arabic word 'fitna'.
No more new comments or insights on Wilders' hysterics, but I can still address your madness. You will certainly have the last word, as you don't know how to stop, how to end, how to perish. To learn that is called wisdom.Hey! I thought you weren't going to post anymore on this subject!
What about a less shallow approach: "resistance to transcendence", with transcendence being certain processes, ranging from liberation of traditional, hierarchical societies for increases equality to "eliminating traditional fetters imposed on the human mind by poverty, backwardness, ignorance, and class" (based on : Ernst Nolte's: The Three Faces of Fascism).What is the normally accepted definition of fascism?
But there are no "Islamic people" left when you take away their 'evil faith' and ban their 'holy book', a ban he actually he calls for. Wilders desires the destruction of the 'Islamic people', to coerce them into being 'non-Islamic', as if that would ever happen. And the fact that he calls for it with such a grave accusative speeches is the reason he stands trial this year.He is not against Arab or Islamic people, and states this very clearly.
Hmm, why do you make an issue of that with Wilders pooping all over the Net for political purposes with no interest in accuracy? That's exactly the disingenuousness you keep on introducing.What Van Leeuwan is doing is quite like that. It is done for political purposes. Still, from the little clips I read, she qualified all her statements saying 'there is no way to prove this', but the damage is done: it circulates all over the web. What can you do?
There's no relationship at all between Moore and Wilders their production. And you imply here I agree with Moore's movie making or positions, why? The only interesting documentary he made was Bowling for Colombine. Perhaps you should compare Wilders with Al Gore's movie. Would make more sense. In some sense all documentaries have a slant, have sponsors and messages. But I do believe they should all stay out of parliament. And be vetted by neutral experts before release.It is called a hack-job and its just fine if 'your side' does it for an end you support. But if the opposition borrows the technique, it is 'evil'.
It's under the surface of anything considered holy or fundamental. Pim Fortuyn, the legendary predecessor of Wilders was shot by a left-wing environmentalist, trying to protect what he felt needed protecting. Desperate actions like that are getting more common these days with people rudely woken up and exposed to the danger and violence of their own threatened attachments, often in some self-destructive fashion.Under the surface of Islam there appears to be a rather dangerous and violent core