Dutch Vote for Tolerance; Establishment Media Vote for intolerance
Funny thing, Dan Rather and Jim Lehrer didn`t
mention it at all last night. But Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard, who got used to outflanking the
American media establishment when he was covering Bill
Clinton, had already
it: a massive vote for the anti-immigration Pim
Fortuyn List in yesterday`s Dutch election.
And he was right. According to Reuters, [Dutch
Voters Shift Right in Dramatic Election], the
Pim Fortuyn List, which didn`t even exist in the last
election, came in second, with the Christian Democrats
first; the center-left coalition government of Willem
Kok was destroyed:
Christian Democrats (CDA) were decisive winners, with 40
of parliament`s 150 seats. Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) came a
staggering second with 26 seats on its election debut.
All three [government] coalition parties hemorrhaged
The late Pim Fortuyn was an immigration skeptic who
objected to the massive immigration that is
transforming Holland. Holland is land of tolerant,
hardworking Dutchmen and women who had few racial or
religious prejudices. While majority Protestant, it was
famously tolerant towards Catholics and Jews in the last
two centuries, when such tolerance was not universal.
Holland today has a lot of tolerance for victimless
crimes like drug use and prostitution. They also
That was a reason for Fortuyn`s immigration
skepticism. The new immigrants from North Africa and
not tolerant at all.
They were misogynist,
and intolerant of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. He
didn`t want that in Holland.
reports from Holland that
"During the interview [Fortuyn]
was asked why he was so critical of Muslim immigrants.
He said he found it shameful that foreign Islamic clergy
here used offensive language against gays in this
country, and that Muslim men tried to impose medieval
rural customs in the Netherlands. `How can you respect a
culture if the woman has to walk several steps behind
her man, has to stay in the kitchen and keep her mouth
shut,` he said. "
Conservatives who have concerns about feminism,
homosexuality, et cetera, never go to the length that
the mediaeval Islamists do. In Islam, they have
polygamy, any one of which would have been viewed
with horror by an eighteenth-century American or
While conservatives are occasionally accused of
wanting to go back to the 1950`s or even the nineteenth
century, Islam is stuck in the eighth century, and does
things that would horrify a 12th century
positions were unexceptionable unless you`re a
Eurocrat, or have a mania for diversity.
Occasionally European rightists are accused of being
“anti-democratic” as if they were planning to cancel
all future elections once elected, like Adolf Hitler, or
an African dictator. But in fact, immigration
restriction strikes European (and American) elites as
too democratic. Their
bipartisan consensus ensures that immigration
restriction will never be presented to the people for a
vote. That`s why
third parties have been successful in Europe, and
why Fortuyn seemed to be a breath of
When the subject of immigration comes up,
Establishment journalists just
lose their minds.
Example: Heather Mallick [send
her mail], of Toronto`s
Globe and Mail,
column attacking French, American, and Canadian
voters, in language which could get her arrested under
Canada`s anti-racism laws if she`d used it against a
privileged minority, for voting for candidates she
didn`t approve of. A couple of quotes should give the
flavor of her thought:
“17.8 per cent of
Frenchmen are so nasty you could strip floors with them
and so dumb you could use their brains for Styrofoam
“I label American voters
as 35 per cent malevolent, mainly because of the Deep
South factor and the rage that the ready access to guns
brings, and 48 per cent hopelessly stupid, which
encompasses the 35 per cent.
She ends her column by saying
Next up: The Netherlands,
where a recently assassinated fascist could handily win
the next election.
That`s the kind of thing that killed Pim Fortuyn. And
it`s still going on after his death.
The strangest thing about these journalistic voices
of hate is their basic guiding principle, the thing
they`re in favor of, the thing that you and I and the
majority of Americans don`t have, according to them, can
be defined in one word: tolerance.
If this is tolerance, can I have some intolerance?
I`d feel safer.
May 15, 2002