« From The Economist | Gene Expression Front Page | Demographic realities »
March 28, 2003

Pim Fortuyn killed to "protect" Muslims

I hope retro-progressive multiculturalists won't assail me for a link to this article, Gay Politician Killed 'To Protect Muslims' in the Gay News Forum. Here is a very telling quote:

He said: "I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.

The radical Left activist likely does not see the irony in killing a man who spoke of the dangers to freedom of speech and action in Dutch society with the growth of Muslim influence. Now that many on the Left are whispering about anti-Semitism because of their solidarity with the oppressed people of color, perhaps they will start to engage in homophobia as well, since it is a decadent practice often condoned by the "white power structure." When you look at it numerically, it seems like a no-brainer, a small segment of Western society that is shielded by outmoded Eurocentric values such as liberty and freedom set against the panoply of diversity and the time honored traditions of people of color....

I am tempted to paraphrase Niemoller here, "First they came for the Jews, and then they came for the queers...."

(thanks for Steve Sailer for pointing me to this story, though the choice of website to link to was all mine)

Update: Sailer on Pim in this week's VDARE column.

Posted by razib at 01:40 PM

Hmm, I don't recall Fortuyn advocating violence against anyone. But I'm sure that's what he really meant when he suggested that the Netherlands should halt further immigration.

I have a friend whose socialist brother is a student in Amsterdam. When I brought up Fortuyn to my pal, the first thing out of his mouth was a contemptuous criticism of the late politician's immigration ideas. Ironically, this friend is a Likud who intends to move to Israel and be a politician. Yet he cannot understand why Fortuyn might dislike Muslim immigration.

Posted by: duende at March 29, 2003 12:33 PM

I can understand easily

Posted by: h at March 30, 2003 06:08 AM

I thought Sailer column was (I mean this in the most respectful way) a little nutty. He says that those who demonize anti-immigration reformers are responsible for any violent actions upon those reformers.

By the same token, are the horde at LGF responsible for the recent beating of a Muslim in California? Is Charles Johnson responsible? Are abortion rights activists who demonize doctors responsible when some loony kills those doctors?

I don't think so. Words are not violence. People who are not in positions of authority can say what they want. People who demonize steve (or razib) may be mean. They're not killers.

Posted by: Ikram Saeed at March 31, 2003 10:27 AM

i didn't get that from the column-steve has been commenting on this topic for a year now, and the VDARE piece was a bit short.

was pim a self-interested hedonist that sometimes appealed to the more xenophobic natures of his countrymen? well yeah, he was. but for me, my biggest problem is the lumping of pim with le pen or even haider. the latter have superficially the same agenda as pim, but it seems clear that while le pen & his followers yearn for the ancien regime, pim wanted to freeze the status quo of dutch society-liberal, tolerant, etc. the problem comes from the idea of tolerating intolerance and what not. conservatives chide liberals for thought control, so of course, i'm not one for telling muslims they can't be wack islamists. but the best course is probably to discourage (legally) practices like bringing over underage girls from the old country as brides and reducing the rates of immigration from any one country so that a self-sustaining and self-contained ghetto doesn't form....

of course, european countries have a different problem then americans, they are more blatantly organic and ethno-racialist in conception, at least mythologically. whether the united states is propositional is something that is being debated (in some circles), but germany or even the netherlands never was. the french like to pretend that they are, but we all know their problems with beaurs.

Posted by: razib at March 31, 2003 04:58 PM