Today marks the fifth anniversary of the beastly assassination of Theo van Gogh.
Last night during a party convention Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende lamented - what is unbeknownst to him - the use of postmodern rhetoric in politics (it's also known as pomo lingo). The basic tenets are: facts are irrelevant, the truth is whatever you want it to be, and since everything is in the service of expediency, no bars where ad hominems and expletives are concerned.
Two years before Van Gogh wannabe politician Pim Fortuyn was murdered, in what was the first political murder since the founding of the country. Fortuyn was shot by a postmodern econut who claimed to act on behalf of an endangered minority, the Muslim collective. Van Gogh was slaughtered by a Muslim radical, acting on behalf of the same 'endangered' ideology.
Both murders set the country into turmoil. Both murders were preceded by the Left-Islamic ideological complex relentlessly demonizing the victims. A familiar pattern is emerging.
Van Gogh set out as a Leftist, but sprouted brain cells and moved over to the Right. We know since yesterday that Fortuyn had asked Van Gogh to become his Minister of Culture. One of Theo's first acts would have been the abolition of government subsidized film productions.
Fortuyn set out as a Socialist as well, but soon abandoned Leftism and developed his own specific brand of politics in the tradition of American grassroots liberalism. John F. Kennedy was his hero. In practice his politics were much more statist and socially liberal than would ever have been acceptable in pre Barack Hussein Obama's America. But that is still a whole lot less than is currently the case in the Netherlands.
Both men liked to provoke middle class sensitivities and Leftist notions of political correctness, each in his own way: the more outrage, the better. Van Gogh considered himself some sort of a court jester (reason why he figured he was safe), and called Muslims goat f@ckrs at every opportunity.
Fortuyn was openly gay, wheeled around in a chauffeur driven limo, wore tailored suits and was accompanied at all times by his two effeminate pet dogs.
Consider that the Netherlands, for all its small l liberalism is first and foremost an egalitarian society in which everyone is expected to conform to the middle ground. Mediocrity is the norm. The two stood out like fly-fishers in the dessert.
More importantly, both were what the Left considers to be sell-outs. A greater sin one cannot commit. As commented on in part II of "The Cosmology of the Progressive Narrative" , conservative and Republican African Americans know allll about it. Stray too far off the porch or the plantation and the entire progressive collective comes down on you like a ton of bricks.
In the US in recent history we have seen how this "aims justifies the means" mentality set itself against the opposition: they morphed from opposition, to opponent, to enemy. It's a matter of incremental re-framing which we know as the soft power of political correctness: from a violation against accepted civility (you lie!), to socially reprehensible, to illegitimate and immoral.
Another time honored Marxist method are smears of fascism, extreme right and racism. It has reached such heights that it's a wonder people haven't stopped caring about it. The recent slurs are so ludicrously remote from reality that it has become a farce. Recently spoof has surfaced picturing White House spokesman Robert Gibbs as Washington Willy, a variation on Baghdad Bob, a measure of self-made narrative taking the place of reality.
In the Netherlands meanwhile the liberal Left, the Postmodern Left and the progressive middle ground have begun their assault on liberty in earnest. Singled out and targeted is Geert Wilders. Politics is war, the aim justifies the means, no bars allowed to stand in the way of Wilders' destruction.
Yesterday the in-house Leftist newspaper De Volkskrant opened with an article about a leaked, state sponsored, 'scientific' investigation into Geert Wilders and the Freedom Party. The method is positively fascist and shockingly dishonest, precisely because it is done under the cover of 'science'. A freeish translation is available here.
The basic, potentially 'explosive' findings are that Geert Wilders' Freedom Party is "extreme Rightist", "mobilizes fear, Islamophobia (how scientific!) and hatred of the system", "creates a threat", and "undermines democracy and social cohesion". In short: Wilders is an enemy of the state, a danger to security.Unfortunately, in the recent polls the party of evil still manages to amass some 27 seats in Parliament. It somehow never enters their heads they're slurring all these potential voters in the process.
Who are these 'scientists' who are constructing a perception of Wilders as an extreme Right wing "populist" as the enemy within? Possibly all come from the Postmodern school which states that science is but a Western narrative and proves nothing objectively true (which is actually true of their departments of linguistics, anthropology, sociology, etc., etc.).
That said, let's see - no Wikis, no national peer reviews, no international peer reviews, and that's just for starters. Only one of the triad, Prof. Dr. Bob de Graaff of Leiden University can be considered a serious investigator, albeit with a far Leftist slant (more details at the bottom of the translation).
Had these investigators not been professionals a possible conclusion might have been a case of psychological projection. But these are experienced ideologues who know how to spin a narrative. The enemy must be destroyed at all cost! Unfortunately many of our leaders are criminally naive. The Dutch MP doesn't recognize pomo lingo for what it is, and has no inkling he's being played like a violin by political ideologues masquerading as scientists. Another saw no problem in voting our way into sharia law, while yet a third specimen proposed to solve the self-induced problems of multiculturalism by simply "adding a hyphen"!
It sends chills up and down your spine to realize what has become of the free world. We've lost our way, and are well on our way of losing our liberty as well. But our leaders are manipulated by Grima Wormtongue c.s. into investigating the redoubt for evidence of the enemy within, while the real one is already rattling the gates!
Updated:
Elsevier Magazine: Minister of Integration one ups the scientists: "if Freedom Party grows very large, the rule of law is in jeopardy" (in Dutch)
Elsevier Editorial: "Five years after the murder of Theo it isn't Islamic terrorism that is endangering the security of the country, but Geert Wilders - at least, according to his opponents. The world is on its head: is Islam a symbol of democracy, rendering all critique a threat? Or is Islam Leftist, so that criticizing it is Rightist, or even extreme Rightist? One would almost think so. It is remarkable this debate is going on precisely five years after the murder."
"A number of politicians and pundits have security detail; standup comedians reluctantly admit they circumvent the subject out of fear (yes, bullying and terror works!), and exhibitions are called off because of threats from Muslim circles. Wilders vents his opinion but he's never threatened anyone. But he does endanger 'the system' in speaking up where others remain silent, which made him very popular with the voters."
Elsevier/Afshin Ellian Blog presents the short history of the term 'goat f@ckr'. Around the year 1900 Dutch soldiers used the term to indicate Asian British colonials. It again occurs in Dutch literature in 1988. Van Gogh used it at first in a column in 1995 entitled "Hurrah for Islam" about Salman Rushdie. After Van Gogh's death in 2004 no one ever dared use it again.Related:
- "Theo van Gogh Commemorations" (2007)
- Breitbart: "Amsterdam grapples with integration since filmmaker's murder"
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment