Dutch Politics Thread

Post Reply New Topic

Hey you'll this a thread where hopefully we can all discuss Dutch politics and the upcoming election. Personality I am not Dutch but over the past two years I have been paying much attention to this country and the movements that are taking place. In particular I am concerned about the rise of Geert Wilders and what he means for the country.

What do you think he means for the country?

He is often portrayed as a sort of neonazi, racist troglodyte, despite his stated opposition to such ideologies and his personal history. Opponents on the left tend to cast him in these very simplistic roles, but he keeps behaving in ways that defy those stereotypes.

I think his opposition to Islamism and the mass immigration of people who reject Dutch traditions and culture in favor of salafist Islamism is a perfectly natural response to the aggressive insertion of those alien cultural forces into Dutch life.

The dishonesty of those who lump this reaction together with simple race-prejudice or right wing xenophobia makes it very hard to have a rational discussion about essential Dutch values.

I would love to hear what Theo van Goch would have to say about the current campaign but his voice hasn't been part of the national discussion lately, and that's a sure sign that there is a real problem there.

Sam Harris has some cogent, appropriately nuanced thoughts on Trump's Muslim ban that seem relevant to a discussion of Wilders:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-f ... muslim-ban

There is a piece in the Atlantic that may be of interest to those who are following Geert Wilders:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ch/506018/

A thought experiment, for the sake of developing the arguments:

Suppose there were a country named Hatelandia where 90% of the citizens where members of the Christian Identity movement and members of a Christian Identity church and more than 80% of them expressed support for the KKK and all it's activities, I would not want to see mass immigration from that country. I would welcome refugees from Hatelandish oppression, but would not want to see vast numbers of Hatelanders who wanted to move here and bring their Hatelandish way of life with them. I would not want to see some significant percentage of my town replaced by Hatelandish immigrants. I would ask my representatives to prevent that from happening.

Is there something immoral about my feelings in this? Would it be wrong or somehow hateful of me to reject Hatelandish culture and seek to prevent supporters of Hatlandish ideas from immigrating?

Another view of Wilders:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/why- ... -politics/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39016179

Bolkestein was no longer the party leader when Wilder broke off. Since he took on job in Brussels after he lead his party to an electoral victory gaining lot of votes in traditional PvdA (social-democrat party) strongholds,mostly Dutch working class communities. However Bolkestein had also spoken out against Fortuyn, when the later also raised the issue of integration.

Also while their might be conservative elements in the VVD, the same can also be said formerly Maoist party SP (a socialist party). The VVD however does not call themselves conservative, but (classical/right?) liberal.

I found Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography interesting, also for her discussion of these political questions in the Netherlands.

But the reaction of lumping all muslims and people from Islamic countries as a bad influence on any culture they immigrate to or going as far as stereotyping them all as extremists and extremist sympathizers, is similar to the views of the likes of neo nazis, white supremacists and racists in general or at least they certainly use xenophobia to gain support for their cause. Also people bring up the treatment of women and homosexuals in Islamic countries and how unjust it is and so the solution is keep all the refugees and immigrants from those places out? Including those oppressed women and homosexuals.

Of course I think it is important people in those countries fight for their rights and bring international attention to it, however in particular regions of the middle east that are war torn hells...there isn't much the civilians there can do by staying.

But does he actually do this? I think the answer is yes, but only to an extent. But it's important to take note of the reality that this isn't a binary position but something more like a linear scale. I don't think he is in the same place as the nazis, but I think he is more comfortable lumping people together than I like.

The problem that I see with this comparison is that if you reject every issue he raises as being "nazi" then you silence the real problems that have come with immigration from Islamic countries that are driving his support. Those tensions are not going away and if you delegitimize all debate on them as racist or nazi, you ensure that only fringe voices will be heard and supported by people to whom these issues are important.



People like Ayan Hirsi Ali?
https://www.rnw.org/archive/ayaan-hirsi ... nels-anger


There is an interesting and thought provoking piece about all this in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... -hirsi-ali



OK, but if those civilians are looking for a place to live an work without being killed in a war, but otherwise have no interest in the culture or values of the west but would like to bring Salafist Jihadism with them, why should they be coming to a western nation for refuge? What about the prosperous Muslim nations that already have that culture? Couldn't they seek refuge in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Indonesia?
I understand the oligarchs there might be reluctant to take them, but I don't see how that makes it the obligation of the Netherlands or the US to import a population that deeply opposes the foundational values of those nations.

By the Martin Luther King standard (judging them by the content of their character, not the color of their skin) a lot of people from Syria, Morrocco, Algeria, Libya and Iraq bear nasty ideas and are unfit for participatory democracy. Recognizing that is not racist or unjust.

Maybe to the journalist fom the Spectator. a classical liberal is a conservative? Or maybe in that writer's political calculus, making anti-immigration statements automatically makes a person and their associates right wing?

Both are possible of course. However that is why I also brought up the Socialist Party that, at least under Marijnsen, had similarities with the American Buchanan when it comes to immigration. Also I think that in one of his book about conservatism Scruton mentioned how Anglo-Saxon conservatives have embraced liberal thinking when it comes to the
economy.

What do you think of current developments in Dutch politics? Wilders?

I think the OP may have abandoned this thread, but that's no reason we can't talk about it!

Next month are the elections. The PVV probably will do well. But I wonder if Wilders actually wants to take governing responsibility, considering he had such opportunity before. But instead choose to just give support to the governing coalition back then.

The VVD in their electoral rhetoric are trying to convince that they care about issues they brought up the last years, unless of course the elections where coming.

PvdA might loose some votes against Denk, basically a pro-Erdogan party that also supports measures in the Netherlands that it would not support in Turkey.

Among the newcomers there is also FVD, which presents itself as a rightwing version of D66, wanting binding referendums. And was founded as a response to how the Dutch government handled the result of the referendum about a treaty with Ukraine. They also have a reasonably charismatic party leader.

Jesse Klaver of Groenlinks is also a young newcomer. I do not know about him. I get the idea that he is a bit Grachtengordel (bobo might be a good English equivalent for that).

Wilders is a populist, capitalising on the knee-jerk reactions of the general population in response to (primarily) islam and immigration.

I can agree with him on a few points, like his zero-tolerance for criminal behaviour while waiting on a decision for your immigration request, but a blanket ban on immigration, banning islam (the religion) and similar points, i just can not get behind.

As a specific example: he proposed a "head rags tax", where you would have to pay out of the ass to wear a headscarf (indeed, he used the term "rags"), simply to reduce the visibility of islam.

The Washington Post has an interesting story: This province explains the dark vision of the leader of Dutch populism

Wilders is Spencer/Bannon hybrid with Trump's hair. Nuf said.