2010 October 02 Saturday
Burqa Ban And Halving Of Immigration In Netherlands

It is still possible for a Western government to take steps to stop demographic deterioration. The political party headed by Geert Wilders (whose Fitna video about Islam is worth watching) has made a deal with the newly formed minority government of the Netherlands to cut back on immigration and ban burqas.

They also announced tougher measures on immigration and public security and said they will propose a ban on the burqa and other full-body robes worn by some Muslim women.

The tighter rules on immigration reflect the influence of the anti-Islamist Freedom Party. This party, also known as the PVV, has promised to support the minority government, which will consist of the Liberal Party VVD and the Christian Democrat Party CDA.

In northern Europe efforts to cut back on immigration are achieving success. More rightward leaning parties are coming to power and cutting back on the importation of people whose religions and cultures are not compatible with Western Civilization. We need these policies in America.

Wilders wants an end to Islamization.

The announcement came yesterday from anti-Islamic MP Geert Wilders.

"A new wind will blow in The Netherlands," Mr Wilders declared in The Hague. "We want Islamisation to be stopped."

Hurray Mr Wilders. He is achieving these successes in spite of an attempt by the Dutch elite to use the legal system to silence him. The Netherlands does not recognize a right to free speech.

The leader of the PVV anti-Islam party faces five charges of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement in the trial, which begins on Monday.

I am reminded of George Orwell:

"The controversy over freedom of speech and of the press is at the bottom a controversy over the desirability, or otherwise, of telling lies. What is really at issue is the right to report events truthfully, or as truthfully as is consistent with the ignorance, bias and self-deception from which every observer necessarily suffers. "

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

I especially like this one:

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "

A proposal: A number of blogs should organize a day to protest to the Dutch government the prosecution of Geert Wilders. We should all write posts about Wilders that day and also organize emailing, physical mail letters, and other forms of protest against the Dutch government's attempt to silence Wilders.

The coalition expects to cut immigration in half.

The coalition will aim to halve immigration, emulate Denmark in making it difficult for the spouses and children of immigrants to join them, and deport immigrants found guilty of crimes meriting sentences of 12 years.

The coalition will make it especially hard for unskilled immigrants.

The government said it plans to make it harder for immigrants already living in the Netherlands to bring other family members here and also would make it tougher for unskilled immigrants with little chance of finding work to move to the country.

Progress is even possible in Sweden.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, whose videos for last week's election showed a veiled woman overtaking a pensioner in a rush to collect welfare cheques, now hold the balance of power between the center right government and the opposition.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is still pushing for another big immigration amnesty in the United State.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 October 02 01:01 PM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
no i don't said at October 2, 2010 3:43 PM:

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "

I also like that quote from 1984 very much. I think Orwell is a great writer and probably one of the most accurate prophets along with A. Huxley.

So, in order to avoid "doublethink", let's not forget that christianity is not that different from islam. They are both really harmful to Western Civilization. There is a lot of sense in Pat Condell and Richard Dawkins.

Cheers!

Sycamore said at October 2, 2010 6:40 PM:

> let's not forget that christianity is not that different from islam. They are both really harmful to Western Civilization.

Islam is awfully beautiful, and unmistakably superior to Christianity. The problem is not Islam, it's foreign peoples who are a bit more violent, pushier, less disciplined, and stupider than the Dutch people, with or without Islam.

Even if none of that were true, and there were no religious extremism either, why would Dutch want to meld their culture, and eventually their biological traits with Muslim peoples (they will interbreed and meld into one, given enough time living in the same territory). WOuld it be so terrible for them to go on being Dutch, having a coherent culture and past and future to be interested in, coherent families, coherent neighborhoods to live in, rather than being idiotic and/or piggish deracinated modern consumers? I say 'no' and I say the same for other peoples as well.

Randall Parker said at October 2, 2010 9:48 PM:

Sycamore,

What is beautiful about Islam?

Daran said at October 3, 2010 3:20 PM:

I doubt that there would be a Western Civilization without Christianity. Despite it's many faults at least the Catholic Church is interested in an uplift of the masses, and has a reasonable track record on the same. Atheism / socialism may aspire to an uplift but tend to devolve to the lowest common denominator. Islam is about subjugation of the masses, and it's awful results can be seen in the countries where it took hold.

Yes You Do said at October 3, 2010 6:12 PM:

"So, in order to avoid "doublethink", let's not forget that christianity is not that different from islam. They are both really harmful to Western Civilization. There is a lot of sense in Pat Condell and Richard Dawkins."

Yeah, because it was a bunch of nuns who flew passenger planes into the WTC. And once, I was asked if I was interested in Christianity by some guy handing out brochures. True terror...

Mike said at October 3, 2010 10:32 PM:

The thing that really needs addressing is family reunification. Britian actually slashed non-family related immigration from Pakistan and other Commonwealth countries in the early 70s, but thanks in large part to family reunification exceptions, the Muslim population of Britain has continued to explode. Also, even in countries with relatively strict skilled immigration policies, family reunification makes up around 40 percent of immigration numbers.

Mike said at October 3, 2010 10:33 PM:

The thing that really needs addressing is family reunification. Britian actually slashed non-family related immigration from Pakistan and other Commonwealth countries in the early 70s, but thanks in large part to family reunification exceptions, the Muslim population of Britain has continued to explode. Also, even in countries with relatively strict skilled immigration policies, family reunification makes up around 40 percent of immigration numbers.

adam said at October 4, 2010 2:49 AM:

Christians did not fly a plane into the WTC, but the Catholic Church has a lot of blood on it's hands. A few Crusades and an Inquisition, for example. The Christianization of Europe was often peaceful and often brutal.

This sort of brutality makes sense, given the horrifying barbarism that pervades Deuteronomy, Judges, and several other parts of the Old Testament. And the belief that salvation is only possible through Christ justifies a believer to do anything in his power to convert a heathen, because any amount of worldly suffering is justifiable if it saves a person's soul from eternal damnation.

If you're interested in reading the Bible, I recommend The Brick Testament. Unfortunately it is not complete, but what is there is excellent.

Thankfully, most Christians don't take the more barbaric aspects of their holy texts too seriously these days. Though some do openly call for the execution of homosexuals. And the Pope has worked hard covering up sex abuse by priests.

If only the majority of Muslims would ignore the more horrifying aspects of their dogma like modern Christians do, we'd have substantially less to fear.

Yes You Do said at October 4, 2010 6:34 PM:

-Christians did not fly a plane into the WTC, but the Catholic Church has a lot of blood on it's hands. A few Crusades and an Inquisition, for example. The Christianization of Europe was often peaceful and often brutal.-

Thankfully the last Crusade was back in 1983. Over 20 years since...And if you're going to mention the Old Testament, you might as well be horrified of Jews. I've had me bad pastrami and matzo ball soup, let me tell you. Not to mention if you have 2 Jews, you've got 3 opinions! Run, run I tell ya!

Randall Parker said at October 4, 2010 6:49 PM:

adam,

The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim conquests. Those areas the Crusaders invaded had been Christian territory. The Muslims kept attack for centuries.

In said at October 4, 2010 7:31 PM:

So, in order to avoid "doublethink", let's not forget that christianity is not that different from islam. They are both really harmful to Western Civilization. There is a lot of sense in Pat Condell and Richard Dawkins.

Wrong. I agree with Daran. Western Civilization was built upon ethical and humanistic structures that I do not think would exist without Christianity. Condell and Dawkins fail to see this. They fail to consider the drawbacks of tearing down the religious institutions that promote ethical behavior. For example, look at all of RP's posts on the current marriage culture. This kind of culture damages our society and the non-shallow can clearly see pathology and degeneration emanating from this culture. Christianity was there in the past curb the impulses of women and men to make them act for the good of society.

Randall Parker said at October 4, 2010 8:30 PM:

Adam,

The Crusades were a counter-attack against a militarily expanding Islam. The Crusaders tried to recapture previously Christian territory.

adam said at October 4, 2010 10:27 PM:

Randall,
You are mostly correct, but some campaigns were led against Eastern European pagans, and there's the famous sack of Constantinople in 1204 where the Catholic Church attacked the Eastern Orthodox Church. Now these were motivated more by political convenience rather than a close reading of their holy texts, but those texts nonetheless contained several examples of God demanding such militaristic conquest from his Israelites. This certainly did not discourage the devout from engaging in campaigns of naked conquest.

Christianization has overtly been used to justify the conquest of America and African slavery in the Americas. The line of reasoning goes that while our conquest and enslavement may not be nice, it's ultimately in the best interests of the conquered and enslaved, because we are saving them from eternal damnation.

Clearly this doesn't justify generations of slavery. Those following generations are already saved, and so threat of force is not needed to convert them. Yet slavery continued for generations. I've no illusions here; slavery and conquest would have happened without religious justification. But the fact that Christian dogma offers a justification for horrible acts is problematic.

Randall, you've said before that the problem with Islam is the base texts. I read very similar problems in the base texts of Christianity and Judaism as well. Modern Christians and Jews are not a menace to our freedoms and our way of life the way modern Muslims are. Why is that?

I think the problem is faith, or believing in strong claims without substantial evidence to back it up. Secular faith (in communism and the blank slate, for instance) can be just as destructive as religious faith. What seems to make Jews and Christians less dangerous than Muslims is that they have less faith in their holy texts. For example, 95% of Americans believe in God but only 75% believe there is only one path to salvation. Most don't believe the entire Bible is literally true, and choose to ignore its more gruesome bits. This takes the venom out of Christianity and leaves you with something reasonably germane to a free society.

What keeps this from happening to Islam? Many Muslims are as moderate as most Christians and Jews, but there's a lot more hard line fundamentalist Muslims. Why is that? I wish I knew. Consanguineous marriage? Poor education? The doctrine that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, such that reading it is an act of worship while reading translations is not, seems like a probable partial culprit. Perhaps all of these are partial factors.

adam said at October 5, 2010 11:07 AM:

I screwed up. 70% of religious Americans believe other religions can also lead to salvation salvation. Most Christians in the US believe that it is important that you believe in some sort of spirituality, and not so important that you believe in Christianity, which is a radical departure from the base texts. John 14:6 says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Savant said at October 5, 2010 4:07 PM:

Count me in - great idea!

no i don't said at October 6, 2010 2:23 PM:

"I doubt that there would be a Western Civilization without Christianity"

You call this mess "civilization"?

Hmmm, pretty low standards you got there, for what the term really means...

no i don't said at October 6, 2010 2:29 PM:

"Yeah, because it was a bunch of nuns who flew passenger planes into the WTC. And once, I was asked if I was interested in Christianity by some guy handing out brochures. True terror... "

This poor middle schooler has never heard of the hundreds of thousands of women, men and CHILDREN tortured and burnt to death during one thousand years of Inquisition and Crusades. (With the pope's blessings of course)
Only 1000 years of that...

This is what I'm talking about when I mention childish mentality; lack of historical context, narcissism, etc.

no i don't said at October 6, 2010 2:43 PM:

No In said, religious institutions do not necessarily promote ethical behavior. They promote MORAL behavior which is subjective. When you talk about ETHICS you are talking about something objective, something that can be taught not imposed.

We have heard of Professional Ethics, but never of "professional morals". That means that you if you go to a doctor, you expect to come out at least a little better than when you walked in. That means that when you work an honest day you can expect the honest pay agreed upon. That's Etics. That means that killing -in itself- is bad. Ethics goes always in favor of life and its forms. Morality aims towards pleasing and not offending alleged "gods".

Morality tells you that jerking off or pre-marital sex is a sin and insults God, while Ethics tells you to respect the autonomy and dignity of a person; so Ethics is understood by everybody in the world, whether muslim, jew, christian, agnostic, atheist, budhist, iraki, russian, american, venezuelan, black, white, oriental or indian.

Men have done so much harm in the name of morals!

no i don't said at October 6, 2010 2:58 PM:

Investing in christianity or islam means investing in after-death "rewards", "heavens", "virgins". Investing in gods means investing in death. So lets send gods where they belong: The Realm of the Absurd.

Both christianity and islam are harmful simply because they are militant. Budhism and Hinduism also have their dogmas, but at least they are not militant and war-loving. Budhists don't force you to believe, to think the way they do; for them personal enlightenment is an individual task.

Freud was right, so I'll say it again and again: Childish mentality lingers still in the majority of mankind.

"Our Daddy in heaven" jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!

In said at October 7, 2010 6:39 PM:

no i don't
Nice straw man of Christian morality. Of course, you didn't mention the large amount of overlap between Christian morality and your version of ethics.

Anyways the problem militant atheists like yourself and Dawkins haven't figured out yet or adequately addressed is how to make people choose to be ethical behavior apart of traditional religion. I'm not claiming that there aren't other ways but keep in mind traditions develop over many generations because there is some net benefit to society. You don't realize that tearing them down is unleashing barbarism.

adam said at October 7, 2010 11:43 PM:

In,
As I see it, the deeper problem with Dawkins is that he denigrates the religious moderates and liberals, who should be allies to atheists, not adversaries.

Randall Parker said at October 9, 2010 10:12 AM:

adam,

Whether a liberal is a natural ally to an atheist depends far more on their views of economics, morality, and other issues than it does on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

There are too many forms of religious belief and non-religious belief for me to think I can see all secularists as allies and the same with the religious groups.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright