From the publishing company that gives us the New York Times and the state that gave us “gay marriage” as a constitutional right, lessons from the murder of Theo van Gogh: Madness in Holland. The richness of the text makes comment all but impossible.
That “editorial,” that filthy piece of trash, was beyond words
“Xenophobic intolerance”? Let’s get this straight: They’ve been marching willingly, trance-like, toward their utter national replacement and doom these last couple of decades, without daring to make a peep of protestation or express the slightest doubt, just like the image of the Eloi in “The Time Machine” movie marching slowly-but-surely, in unquestioning obedience, to the Morlock siren-call to go underground to be killed and eaten—they’ve been doing nothing but that, nothing but committing national suicide, these past couple of decades, precisely in the name of not being xenophobic or intolerant, and … now they’re “xenophobic” and “intolerant” anyway? Hey, wait a minute—who’s intolerant around here? Yes, it’s all coming into focus now as we see, finally, who the intolerant ones really are …
And, horror of horrors, 47% of Dutch (not even a majority!) may want to cut back on Morrocan and Turkish Moslem immigration? In a country which is one of the most densely populated in the world, a country which Pim Fortuyn said was “full,” where, exactly are all these additional Turkish and Morrocan immigrants supposed to go, pray tell? Completely apart from their ethno-cultural and racial incompatibility if admitted in large numbers, how in the world are they supposed to fit purely physically, when the population is already packed into Holland like sardines?
Only the blind are unable to see the seething hatred in this editorial, hatred for, yes, white Euro Christianity. The writer of this piece of anti-white-Euro-Christian filth just cannot WAIT to see the last of … the Dutch people.
So, tell us, Boston Globe—Who are the “intolerant” ones again?
As for the rest of this piece of garbage masquerading as an editorial, it’s as Jim Kalb says—impossible to refute point by point because it is simply beyond words, it is so exceedingly appalling, untrue, evil, and nakedly hate-filled.
________________________
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
Madness in Boston
There are so many eggregious insults to justice and intellectual honesty in this piece, its difficult to know where to start, Jim.
I suppose there will come a time, perhaps sooner than we think, when a majority of white American readers will begin to discriminate in such things. There is, in this respect, a bridge of awareness that, once crossed, can never be re-crossed. Many a politically and racially unawares conservative and many a blue-collar democrat (“old” Labour supporter where I come from) crosses that bridge. Nobody ever crosses from the other side into ignorance and liberalism. Not a soul.
Bloggers such as you exemplify the honourable and decent nature of that brief journey to awareness. You refute the vile interpretations placed upon us by the kind of people who run the NYT. But it is a fact that violence in men will do as violence does, and there are those among us who will be violent. They are profoundly unhelpful. They are a barrel full of tar for anyone whose desire is to besmirch us. But we have to cope with that, especially since there’s likely to be more of it in the future. Society will ineluctably slip into a more dangerous times – or we will fade away in silence.
The Left doesn’t miss a beat,
The Left doesn’t miss a beat, right down to the obligatory (if in this case very slightly veiled) reference to the ultimate moral touchstone: the Holocaust. HRS
yay white (“Christian”) power
say it brothers!
it’s GOOD to hate the Other. “they” don’t deserve anything better!
(don’t mind me, i’m a brainwashed, brainwashing elitist liberal)
this site just gets more ridiculous every day
Dave
A few extremists?
The Dutch government has recently estimated that 3-5% of Muslims in Holland hold to radical views. If there are 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands, this means that there are up to 50,000 Islamic radicals, rather than the isolated single one talked about in the editorial. Presumably this is why the police weren’t able to adequately monitor the man who murdered van Gogh, despite his known connections to radical groups.
As an aside, I wonder if the editorialist knows the sensitivities of talking about a “recurrence of fascistic will” in Holland. There never was a “fascistic will” in Holland, with that country being bombed and occupied during WWII. The Dutch, correctly enough, see themselves as victims of an invading force, and would not be pleased to be simply lumped together with the invaders.
You don’t know anyone who hat
You don’t know anyone who hates you do you, Dave? Or the “other”. You just made that up. I suppose you think that if you holla the old “r” word or prattle on about homophobia or anti-semitism – generally say “hate” quite a lot – the other guy will be all demonized to hell and just collapse right there in front of you in a heap of revealed immorality. Right?
Wrong.
I admit, it’s a strategy that has worked well in the past. White peoples everywhere have willingly indulged in a lot of misguided and meaningless guilt. But this phenomenon is dying now – because it is and always was a simple lie. Perhaps in time it’s only remaining use will be to you, Dave: to bestow a false sense of moral superiority upon you. But you see, it’s really just anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-traditional cultural marxism. It isn’t morally superior at all. It isn’t about morality. Superficially, it’s about egalitarianism. Beneath that it serves the goals of the people who invented it. Do you know who they are, Dave? Do you know where your faux-morals and paper-thin social prescriptions came from?
When you worked all this out, Dave, and when you can stop calling folks who have some understanding silly names – because, after all, you don’t have any ideas to offer, do you? – you can join us across the bridge. Enjoy the journey. As I say, it’s a one-way trip of a lifetime.
destination: Hell?
“It isn’t about morality. Superficially, it’s about egalitarianism. Beneath that it serves the goals of the people who invented it. Do you know who they are, Dave? Do you know where your faux-morals and paper-thin social prescriptions came from?”
yes, I’m just a dupe—I admitted it! (of whom, again? “marxists”? “feminists”? “non-whites”? “homosexuals”? who are the “people that invented” my opium of choice?) I’m a dupe who studies Calvinist theology and firmly believes that modern liberal-democrat ideas are the only logical development of truly Christian thought!
as always, I’m ready to meet moralistic immoralists on the battleground of morality anytime they wake up and stop hiding behind the appeal to authority.
Dave
It’s possible to be a left-liberal Calvinist? I don’t see how
Dave Fiore, this isn’t the first time you’ve referred to yourself here as a left-liberal Calvinist. You’ve described yourself that way in previous threads. I’m pretty sure I once replied that “a left-liberal Calvinist” couldn’t exist because it was a contradiction in terms. I don’t remember your refuting that.
Here, for succinctness, is a one-sentence definition of Calvinism, taken from the dictionary: “The theological system of Calvin and his followers marked by strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the depravity of mankind, and the doctrine of predestination.”
Since the left-liberals reject all three of these pillars of Calvinism—they reject the sovereignty of God, they reject the notion of the depravity of mankind (it’s often pointed out, for example, that liberals assert the complete utopia-like perfectibility of man by means of re-education, Pavlovian conditioning, etc., a possibility denied by conservatives), and they ESPECIALLY reject the doctrine of predestination (the left utterly rejects all possibility of any inborn, inherited, “predestined,” or “fated” aspects of the human condition or of human destiny whatsoever, of any conceivable variety, even down to one’s biological race and sex)—since your side seems, then, to reject all that, seems to reject the whole basis of Calvinism, how can anyone on your side be a Calvinist, unless he first stop being a left-liberal?
________________________
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
see my coment on the position of social conservatism
I’m sure I have replied to your query before Fred—the logic of Calvinism (as opposed to the reified body of Calvin’s original thought—which is wonderful, but, like all texts, is a means, not an end!) leads directly to me.
Dave
Sorry, Dave — I think I’ll need a little more convincing
No, I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer me before, Dave. But thanks for the outline which you just posted in the other thread, and for following:
“[…T]he logic of Calvinism (as opposed to the reified body of Calvin’s original thought—which is wonderful but, like all texts, is a means, not an end!) leads directly to [my ideas].”
Yeah, sure it does, Dave. Calvinism leads to all your positions on things.
That’s like when Stalinist apologists in the West assured everyone that Christ and the Sermon on the Mount led directly to what we now know as … the Gulag Archipelago, the genocide of the Ukrainian Kulaks, the Maoist “Cultural Revolution,” and Pol Pot’s Cambodian Killing Fields.
Anything else, Dave? …
________________________
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
You’re completely right, Fred…
I think you have a pretty fair understanding of the emphases of Calvinism, and while we may not agree about its specifics (since, of course, I am Calvinist, and you are Roman Catholic), I think you and I have a hell of a lot more in common, both theologically and politically, than either of us has with Dave. (That’s not to minimize our differences, just to highlight the size of the gulf between both our worldviews and his…)
You’re absolutely right; one can’t be a true Calvinist, and be a left-liberal, any more than one can be a Christian, and a Marxist. Similarly, I remember, a year or so ago, some Randroid who also claimed to be not only Randian, but both a Lutheran and a Calvinist; see http://jkalb.freeshell.org/posts/board/messages//15.html here. I no more believe one can be a left-liberal and a Calvinist, than that one can be an Ayn-Randian, and also both a Lutheran and a Calvinist – how absurd!
But hey, one can be leftist and http://www.crcna.org/ CRC, or http://www.pcusa.org/ PC(USA) (or up here, http://www.presbyterian.ca/ PCC)… Or a http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/node/1162 Wiccan/Episcopalian…
There is one partial exception to leftists’ rejecting biology
… when it suits them, to promote gay rights, they are happy to blame homosexual orientation on genetics – “I was born that way!”, as if that excuses their behaviour. Nevertheless, even there, they are hypocrites, because other times, they talk about the fluidity of sexuality, and about orientation not being fixed, but a continuum, etc. etc.
The role of the media
I may feel as irate as any of you, but I do not think that it is a mission of the media to promote riots and street fighting. On the other hand, it is certain that common Dutch citizens, most of them whites, should not be encouraged to revenge, but the writer goes too far trying to promote thosese well known feelings: white bad consciensce, and self-hate.
“Madness”? No. It’s Holland starting to come to its senses.
It’s funny how the publishing company that gives us the New York Times and the state that gave us homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right didn’t include discussion of the following in their lessons from the murder of Theo van Gogh (see here):
“Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP and controversial critic of Islam, has two policemen by his side even when in his high-security parliamentary office in case someone tries to decapitate him. Each day, he does not know where he is going to sleep that night, as he is taken from safe house to safe house in a convoy of armoured cars. He was taken into hiding when police investigating the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh on November 2 uncovered a network of radical Muslims with advanced plans to kill Mr Wilders, and other ‘enemies of Islam.’ A video circulating on the internet offered 72 virgins in paradise to any Muslim who beheaded him. ‘My life has changed completely. I am sleeping very badly. To think that someone plans to kill me is something that no person would have a good night’s rest about,’ he said. ‘Even though I have this protection, I am afraid. Even when I am on the floor of the parliament, I don’t feel comfortable.’ “
I mean—maybe some of the Dutch folk who want to see immigration into their country from Morocco and Turkey decreased are concerned about stuff like the above, and how it’s transforming their once-peaceful surroundings into a nightmare? Did the publishing company that gives us the New York Times ever consider that before shamelessly libeling these good folk?
Well, thank goodness the folk in question aren’t waiting for the approval of the company that gave us the New York Times before acting to defend themselves:
“On Monday [Mr. Wilders] will set up his own political party. Opinion polls suggest that it would be the country’s second-biggest, getting 15 per cent of the vote or 23 seats of the parliament’s 150.”
Many in this country join me in bidding you Godspeed in your courageous efforts, good and brave Mr. Wilders!
________________________
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
Addendum
I forgot to mention: of course, if Mr. Wilders were in Flanders, the party he’s planning on launching would be outlawed as “racist” before it even got off the ground—outlawed no doubt by a certain French-speaking judge in a certain “fair and impartial” court in Ghent. Future generations of your country and maybe of all of Europe will thank God, Mr. Wilders, that you were born north of that border!
________________________
“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.