Sunday, May 02, 2010

GEERT WILDERS RANT

Geert Wilders - good or bad for Israel?


Geert Wilders sides with Israel for many of the same reasons that the neo-nazi Flemish nationalists smile upon the Jews of Antwerp: they hate Arabs. The perception of a common enemy, even if opportunistic and assumed, masks significant differences.
That Wilders and the pro-Israel camp may seem on the same page does not mean that there is anything more than a concomitancy of convenience, certainly not a fundamental concord.


BEYOND A FRINGE

Geert Wilders' intemperate remarks, especially in Dutch, attract more extremists than are good for any side.
When there are race-riots in Holland, it will be because of his statements. And the excesses that will be committed will also tar Israel - because it will be Israel's supporters and fellow travelers who will have committed them. That, in any case, will be the perception.
You are judged by your friends and especially your ideological associates.

What he says drives more people in the Netherlands away from the American and Israeli side than it attracts, and a huge percentage of the people who are attracted are not a blessing.
They are not quite as bad as “White Stormfront Netherlands”, but a large number are definitely in the vicinity of that ballpark.
Think of many of his supporters in Europe as being Fascist-Lite ('now with fewer calories, also fewer brain cells').


THE DUTCH WOMB
Unless you read Dutch (I do), speak Dutch (I do), and write Dutch (I do), and know Dutch history (I do), particularly the political history of the post-Napoleonic development of Dutch parliamentary democracy (I do), the political developments in the Netherlands since WWII (I do), and most especially have familiarized yourself thoroughly with Dutch politics and society in the post cold-war period (I did), and more to the point: lived there (I did, nearly two decades), use Dutch on a Daily basis (I do), and know the peculiarities of Dutch society (I do); unless all of that, whatever you say about Geert Wilders and Dutch society is more than likely wrong.

People who do not speak, read, and write Dutch have no way of understanding the social and political context of Geert Wilders' remarks and statements in Dutch. Like Yasser Arafat, he speaks differently in his own language to his own people than he does when he's playing to the English-speaking peanut gallery. His demographic in the Netherlands is absolutely not the same is his audience in the English-speaking world.

Add to that the fact that the Dutch legal, social, and political frameworks are also quite different, and the chance of being staggeringly, inanely off-kilter in one's worship of the sainted Wilders go through the roof.


TUMULT AND DISCORD
Frankly, all those Pamela Geller types who rant Geert Wilders' praises, while demonstrating that he is the only contemporary Dutchman of whom they have even heard, and that his party is virtually the only exposure they've had to Dutch politics, should shut the F up.
I really mean that.
Americans pontificating about Geert Wilders are irritating fools.
Period.

I can recommend several books about the Netherlands for the interested.
For those who prefer Wikipedia, it would do you no harm to start reading at Egmont, Johan De Witt, Batavian Republic, Baron Van Lynden van Sandenburg, Thorbecke ........ just a few names for you to start.
Let me know when you hit Biesheuvel, Den Uyl, Van Agt, Lubbers, and maybe we can talk.


Please note: While I disagree with much that Geert has to say, I thoroughly despise many of the same people and organizations that he opposes.
Particularly the PvdA and the SP.

And also, do please note that Geert Wilders is one of those Europeans in favour of bailing out of Afhganistan and leaving the USA to clean up the mess. Which was made particularly clear at the time that the Balkenende Cabinet collapsed back in February.
In this regard, he is on exactly the same page as the Dutch socialists, whether labour (PvdA) or rebranded Stalinist (SP).

Quote:
"Voor de PVV is het helder: weg uit Uruzgan, weg uit Afghanistan. Natuurlijk moet de Taliban worden bestreden, maar niet meer, voor zover we dat al deden, door Nederland. Ons land heeft meer dan genoeg gedaan. Het is mooi geweest. "
End quote.

[Translation: 'For the PVV it is clear; get out of Uruzgan, get out of Afghanistan. Of course the Taliban must be fought, but no longer, insofar as we actually did fight them, by the Netherlands. Our nation has done more than enough. It's been fine.']


On a completely irrelevant side-note, the next time some dumbass twenty-something fool starts fondly reminiscing about hashish, the red light district, tolerance, and tulips, I very well may commit manslaughter.

Lastly, I do not apologize for the arrogant tone of this post.
Feel free to disagree with whatever I have said - any comments you choose to leave here will probably amuse me - but do not expect me to take your opinions seriously; it is quite likely that I will not.


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Wilders referred to Srebrenica. This is a traumatic experience for the Dutch ever since. No other country wanted to take the place of the Dutch. No attempt was made to help the besieged Dutch soldiers from the attacking Serbs at the time. The Dutch had asked for support, but for some unknown reason it did not come. The answer lies in Paris. Mr. Wilders was afraid the Dutch had to stay in Uruzgan forever. In advance the Dutch government had said how long the Dutch soldiers would stay there. Apparently NATO thought the Dutch not to be serious about that.

The back of the hill said...

Thank you, Anonymous, for that clarification.

Yes, the Dutch are leaving the Afghanistan adventure. In that sense, they're leaving the US holding the bag.
But yes, the other Europeans aren't exactly stepping up to the plate either. And the bigger European nations have, in recent decades, been remarkable adverse to international responsibilities. One would think that in the tradition of their "white mans' burden" approach to world affairs, they would not have been quite so reticent. Piddling contributions, and lots of hot air. Bluster, but no real balls.

In one sense, that is actually good; it puts paid to the grand role they have assigned themselves.

Brassé-Limburg said...

Hi ------ !

The SP are not rebranded Stalinists but Maoists actually. (A lot of other leftwingers have joined them however.)

The back of the hill said...

Thank you. I knew that many of them came from the kenML ("Kommunistiese Eenheid Nederland - Marxisten Leninisten") background, but I was unaware that they were still the majority in the party.
For an American audience, both seem much to be Stalinist, though not all Stalinists are equal ("four legs good, two legs bad").

Toch!!! said...

Wat dan te denken van de vorrote Franse Socialisten, met die mijnheer Hollande?

Ook een fijn zootje.

Search This Blog

FOG CAUSES FITS

When I woke up on Tuesday the fog was thick enough to cut it with a knife. Much much later it had disappeared. My late lunch in Chinatown wa...