Talk:Pim Fortuyn/Archive 1

Untitled

This is the 1st archive for the Talk:Pim Fortuyn page. This page is no longer live.

Long quotes

Are *long* quotes in foreign languages suitable in Wikipedia? What is the consensus on this issue? My thought is that a short, very important sentence could well be preserved in the original, but more than a sentence seems a bit unwieldy. Comments? Dze27

perhaps they could be converted to footnotes -- I only put them in in case anybody wanted to check or improve the translations.

Right-wing?

Apparently he is only called 'right-wing' by people trying to dismiss him. He did not accept this label for himself. So I removed the 'right-wing' description from the article.

But surely it would be useful to characterize his politics? Just saying "he's a politicians, formerly Marxist, controversial for his views on Islam and immigration" is almomst meaningless. You still don't know anything about what he stands for. AxelBoldt

The same could be said regarding Volkert van der Graaf. Right-wing and left-wing is a stereotype which isn't descriptive. It it far from NPOV. I wouldn't say he was a politician either because he wasn't in the Second Chamber yet. Rather, he was a politician in spe.

More useful still to state what his positions are, and let the reader decide for himself whether they are right-wing. As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton was right-wing; Rush Limbaugh (and, to be fair, most of the U.S.) would disagree with me. Not vital information except to illustrate that left/right statements are relative.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I don't think Bill Clinton is right-wing, or left-wing, or anything else, other than an opportunist who will morph into whatever is necessary to swing votes. But that is neither here nor there. The question of Fortuyn's political alignment is important because his views were different from what is typical in European politics - different from the right-wing and the left. The attempts to describe him as 'right-wing' do not aim towards clarifying what he stood for, but towards obscuring what he stood for. Instead of acknowledging the emergence of a real new political alternative, the European media seems to want to deny the existence of this alternative, and dismissing Fortuyn as "right-wing" is a means of doing this. This is being discussed in detail at http://www.andrewsullivan.com, btw, and I think a discussion should be included in the main article, though it may be hard to do this in a NPOV. - Tim

The current text is better than just saying he was 'right wing', But it might be better to attribute that description to a specific person or group. ClaudeMuncey

Pretty much every article you read about him starts with "right-wing populist". Or maybe only in the left-wing publications I tend to read... :-)

I also wonder why his earlier confessed Marxism has been removed from the article. It is similarly reported everywhere. I'll put it back in absent any objections. --AxelBoldt

I removed it because it said "Marxist professor" and I think his marxism preceded his professorship. but I don't have info on it.

Does anyone have a source which points out he was a Marxist in his younger years? I heard from here and there he was an Anarchist but i have no source either except for the TV and some other vague sources.

Tim, I wonder which of his positions are not traditionally right-wing. Anti-immigration, stronger policing, government out of education and health care would all be described as "right". Only his open homosexuality and support of tolerance in that area seems to not fit the typical picture, but it is hardly a central point of his politics. AxelBoldt

If I can jump in on that, AxelBoldt, while he wanted to stop further immigration, he did not advocate the repatriation of curent immigrants, in fact he proposed legalising everyone in the country by a stoke of the pen before closing the border. Very different from the Le Pen / Haider kind of rightwingism. Also, he never AFAIK advocated the dismantling of the Dutch welfare state. Yes, he did have rightwing followers, but "populist" is a far more accurate description of the man himself than "rightwing". IMHO anyway. clasqm

Pim felt that intolerant (mulsim) immigrants threaten Dutch liberal values, rights of women and minorities etc, so he wanted to stop the immigration. This resulted in his "right-wing" label. But isn't fight for rights of gays and women a "left-wing" cause?

Well yes and no. In the Netherlands that is not really left-wing but normal. So his leftwing aspects are pretty much ignored (you don't praise people for being normal), which leaves only the right-wing aspects. I suppose that in many countries this would be the other way around. I can imagine that in the US his right-wing aspects would be pretty much ignored for the same reasons and one would judge him by his remaining left-wing aspects. So what he is depends on your norms. But what norms are to be used here? Neutral norms that are the average of opinions in the world? But how do you establish those? The labelling is Dutch and that seems to make sense, and that is also pointed out. And the 'left-wing' aspects are also mentioned, along with the right-wing labelling, so the article isn't really misleading in this respect. DirkvdM 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam in which they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties.

That sentence is clearly POV. I don't know enough about Fortuyn to rewrite it a NPOV way maybe:

His main support came from white dutch and asian people from the not-elite neighbourhoods of Rotterdam. His supporters say this was because they had daily experience with the problem caused by illegal immigrants and gangs of african youngsters which had been tolerated by the other dutch parties. Saul Taylor 05:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Working-class" is a little more proper than "not-elite."

Fortuijn's support came mainly from the middle class, both in absolute and relative terms. There are elite neighbourhoods in Rotterdam? Crime in Rotterdam in fact declined; and declined because of, not despite, immigration, the "white" lower class becoming disproportionally more criminal if unemployed. Research clearly shows the major factor determining a vote for Fortuijn had been a selfish (i.e. "criminal") personality.--MWAK 10:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speeches and writings

Please add links to Fortuyn's speeches or writings (in full text) or add it here (quotation). Thanks

Pim

I'd just say that he's a man concerned with the rising of muslim intolerance, not with muslims themselves. He had is own thoughts and ideas. Categorizing those thoughts and ideas is not very easy. Saying that he was right or lef-wing is reducing a person to only two points of view (if I can say that when speaking of left and right in politics)

POV

I came here to correct a vandal, but I didn't feel happy with a plain revert since I didn't feel the article is good NPOV. One specific example:

The claim is made that Pim was "not anti-immigrant". At the same time, he wanted to almost comlpetely restrict further immigration. If this is done then it disallows people from re-uniting with their families and does descriminate against existing immigrants.

A serious attempt has to be made to find proper criticism of Pim, who was certainly a widely and strongly criticised politician, and to incorporate them into this article.

Legacy & left vs. right debate

I can't be bothered to write it at the moment, but I think it's important to write something on Fortuyn's legacy: the LPF, influence on contemporary politics & attitudes on immigration. Also, while Fortuyn did in fact combine elements form leftist as well as rightist ideology (and this should certainly be mentioned), there's no doubt that >90% of the people would categorise him as right-wing (maybe not far right-wing, though). His sympathy was also clearly with other right-wing parties (CDA, VVD) than with left-wing parties. So, in conclusion, I feel he should be labeled as right-wing (and populist as well, but that's another dispute), but it should be mentioned that his politics were also something entirely new, and combined right-wing and left-wing aspects. Junes 13:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greatest Dutchman?

Shouldn't there be a note that the Greatest Dutchman of All Time-election was reportedly not representative? The main voters were the people who agreed with Fortuyn, and the election was held when the wound of his passing was still fresh. In a national poll in which a more representative part of the population was consulted, Willem van Oranje came out on top! Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005

True, but we shouldn't underestimate his popular support. Fortuijn's basic message (one that perhaps frightened himself the most - his was a very tortured soul) was that it's really good to be bad, clever to be stupid, wise to be insane. We had to transcend moral corruption by embracing it. In Dutch society, where social control has been extreme ever since 1590, this dysangel came as a liberation for any idiot, criminal and crackpot. And who can honestly say he isn't one? Such is the eternal lure of Evil. We should be proud that only 17% succumbed. Now that He Himself has been promoted to Full Sainthood, we can again forget his message as it couldn't have possibly come from such a sublime genius. So thinking that he was the greatest is a step forward in the process of moral recovery. ;o) --MWAK 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

It should be noted that Pim Fortuyn was a Roman Catholic and that has funeral took place in the Cathedral of Rotterdan

Perhaps it can be put in a Trivia section together with his cocaine addiction and constant psychiatric treatment...Drugs and psychoanalysis clearly were more inspiring to him than christianity. --MWAK 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some facts

Just reading the intro paragraphs already reveals lots of errors. First of all, he was never a professor of anything, he just gave a bunch of lectures at the university, those are entirely different things.

Well, he was extraordinary professor. It's true his academic prowess didn't suffice to be a real one though... -- MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards.

This is mentioned further in the article. -- MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the book Fortuyn wrote that served as his election programme contained a lot of facts that are mostly ignored in this article, for instance the discussion about disbanding the military, etc.

Well, his views on anything were so inconsistent and volatile it's impossible to give a coherent account of them. :o) Should the Dutch have implemented the measures the book proposed their economy would have collapsed instantly, so we shouldn't take it too seriously. Fortuijn was simply trying to endear himself to the common people by showing he could be just as in(s)ane as the next man - even though he was an (extraordinary) professor. ;o) --MWAK 14:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Things that really have to be addressed in the article

For one thing, the styling of dates should be consistent throughout the article. While date month year (ex: 6 May 2005) and month day, year (ex:May 6, 2005) are both acceptable in Wikipedia, a single article should use one or the other. I propose nonth day, year just because it is used more in the start of the article and have tried to adjust it appropriately. Rlquall 22:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reply to some previous comments

"Nichiran 10:21, 15th of March 2005

We had to transcend moral corruption by embracing it. In Dutch society, where social control has been extreme ever since 1590, this dysangel came as a liberation for any idiot, criminal and crackpot. And who can honestly say he isn't one?"

Seems clear to me who's the crackpot here. Fortuyn fought the stifling political correctness which brought Western Europe into a new dark age. As a scientist Fortuyn found that problems could no longer be openly discussed. Crime rates among immigrants were even forbidden to be measured by the National Statistics Bureau (CBS). Any attempt to discuss the huge problems caused by immigration in the Netherlands steadfast led to being called a racist en in many cases prosecution by the government. A leading far right wing politician (Janmaat) was even sentenced to 2 months and fined 7500 guilders for the saying "The Netherlands is full" in a conviction that now even leftwing politicians (Boris Dittrich) en publicists (Paul Scheffer) admit was political. However right wing the beliefsystem of Janmaat may have been, any democrat left wing or right wing should have protested against this. No none feared speak out on any multicultural problem such as:

-high umemployment rate amongst immigrants
-the high crime rate amongst immigrants
-harassment of Dutch girls in public swimming pools and inner cities by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-harrasment of gays by prodominantly young North African muslim men
-total streetterror in some neighboorhoods committed by groups of young North African muslim men

until there was this man. Everyone was afraid of the "mind police" and being called a racist until Fortuyn had the courage to speak out. Not against muslims, but against intolerance. He was intolerant of intolerance. And he only said that if the anti-discrimination clause in the constitution meant that problems could no longer be discussed the freedom of speech clause should be seen as most imported. How dangerous it really was to be called racist Fortuyn found out just a few short months after his campaign began.....
And this assassination was only the logical conclusion of the left wing scare tactics which included a planned raid on his party office and house by leftwing anti-discrimnation group "Nederland Bekent Kleur". This organisation was in part government funded and funded by leftwing mainsream parties Groenlinks and PvdA. This raid was planned for just before the election and was ofcourse cancelled right after may 6th 2002. Fortuyn was also during his life threathened many, many, many times and assaulted by young immigrants and leftwing radicals. There were incidents in Rotterdam and Den Haag and daily threats via post, telephone and email. Further he was "tarted" by squatters who threw pies in his face made of human excrements and vomit. This is what you get in the Netherlands for trying to tell the truth.

"Next, he was not elected Greatest Dutchman, he was erroneously pronounced it at the end of the television show hosting the election, because their votecounting software had died (or something similar) - a day later the producing company acknowledged that in their election William of Orange was also the real winner, but they didn't want to change it afterwards."

I very much doubt this would have been said if a leftwing politician would have been chosen. In my mind Willem van Oranje was perhaps more deserving of the title but Fortuyn was certainly a good second. It show the total fear this man still inspires in leftwing journalists, politicians and television-makers in the Netherlands. Recalling an election like this afterwards.

"Well, he was extraordinary professor. It's true his academic prowess didn't suffice to be a real one though"

What are your academic kwalifications might I ask? He held the Albeda-leerstoel. A real professor and scientist, despite the childish apraisals of his academic talents which suddenly began to appear after he spoke out against the political and scientific elite.

My, my... At least Pim himself had a great sense of humour; as the comments above show, it's often sadly lacking among those who think they are his followers. Still some good points are made. I'll try to answer them.

1. Sure I'm a crackpot. But I know I am. You are too, but you think you're sane. That's what makes you so dangerous.
2. Also I'm very stupid — though I can say with complete veracity I'm one of the most learned men of my nation. Perhaps Pim was too, but it isn't implicated by the fact that he was an extraordinary professor. You see, to be a scientist, to be a real scientist, you have to do real research. Pim would never have been made a regular professor on the basis of his. Honest! (if you can't understand why, try find and read it).
3. And now to the facts good research would have showed. Is it true there were some truths that were suppressed, that only brave Pim dared to speak about? Well....in fact there are. But they're of a different nature from what you might think:

• Unemployment. Yes, immigrants in Dutch society do make up by far the largest number of unemployed. About three out of four in fact! What a painful fact! How can it possibly be explained? What do you say? They're a bunch of lazy profiteers? Now, mind your tongue...But fair enough: this is simply what most people think. Could there be another explanation, however implausible? Well, there is, but it's indeed very bizarre: it could be they're discriminated against. Sounds silly, I know, but it could be. In principle. How do we know which explanation is the right one? That's easy: you look at the numbers when general unemployment is low. If immigrants are indeed lazy they'll refuse to work under any condition, so unemployment rates won't fall for them. In 2001 equilibrium unemployment in The Netherlands was 5%, immigrants made up 15% of the work force. So what was the actual unemployment rate? Nearly 20%? It was at a low of 1.8%. Indeed unemployment among immigrants always declines more in good times (more than for non-immigrants, that is) — and goes quickly up again when times go bad. They're used as a labour buffer. In fact because of immigration unemployment rates are a tiny bit lower in general (it lowers the wages, so employment goes up). And of course if there were no immigrants at all, all unemployed would be "true Dutch", so immigration lowers the risk of unemployment for "normal people" four times! That's one of the facts politicians don't dare to speak about. They're not afraid of racism; they're afraid of racists... In our society, somebody has to live in a slum, unemployed; this then is the natural function of the immigrant. But when times are good, the immigrant has to be employed nevertheless. And this is dangerous; he might forget his place in society. In November 2001 unemployment rates were at their lowest; within three months Fortuijn began his movement; his largest following was among those who only have jobs because of collectively discriminating others.

• Crime. Most unemployed are immigrants (though most immigrants are employed). But most criminals are "Dutch" (63%) nevertheless, despite the strong causal connection between unemployment and crime. The genetic factor is stronger after all. But not so strong that most people aren't hardly criminal in absolute terms, once they get out of the slums. If there were no immigrants however, all people in the slums would be "Dutch" and even more criminal than immigrants because that genetic factor would really begin to generate nasty absolute crime rates. So immigration in principle reduces crime. However in Dutch society there were some drawbacks too:
  • Social cohesion diminishes.
  • Immigrants have much higher birthrates (the Dutch themselves are dying out— another cause of tension), so slums are filled to the rim with bored poor boys.
  • Some groups, like the Turkish immigrants, do not integrate very well, so their crime rates are low. Moroccans however integrate very well, being very simple illiterate people they hadn't the strength to resist Dutch culture. They took over Dutch lower class values and yes, this included the nasty habits of gang rape and gay bashing, so popular among the Dutch poor. Still, the average Dutch boy living next door to a Moroccan is three times more criminal than the latter and there are three million "Dutch" people whose sons exhibit the same crime rate as the Moroccan 300,000. And in absolute terms serious crime is not very high: the average Dutchman (immigrants overrepresented this time, so no quotation marks) is mugged by a Moroccan once every 10,000 years. You'll have to reincarnate 150 times before its your turn ;o)

In Dutch society immigration is roughly crime-neutral; i.e. if there were no immigrants crime rates would be just as high. The average immigrant boy is about 2.5 times as criminal as the average "Dutch" boy; but the true divide within Dutch society is not between immigrants and aborigines but between the lower working class and the rest: the poorest "white" 10% is 50 times as criminal as the other 90%. Of course it's natural to compare immigrant behavior to the conduct of modal Dutch — and then it's painfully obvious that immigrants are about 15 times more criminal — but that comparison is grossly unfair: the fair comparison would be that immigrants are just as poor as the poorest 10% "white" but three times less criminal!

Being a sociologist Pim knew all this very well. Being also a leftish radical himself (yes, till the moment he died) he felt deeply ashamed about the behaviour of pretended progressive intellectuals, who were full of sanctimonious talk of "multiculturalism", reciting the tenets of that creed in the "Leftish Church", but abused this political correctness to bolster a system that was in fact deeply racist. They too had a vested stake in this system, for as discrimination is quite beneficial to the poor "white", so its exploitation is enormously profitable to the rich. Labour immigration since 1960 probably rendered a net profit to the autochthonous population of about 1.2 trillion guilders, a full 800 billion guilders of which benefited the richest 10%. So intellectuals weren't too happy when Pim exposed their hypocrisy. Very true. But was this the reason they feared him? I doubt it very much, for there were other, more pressing reasons to do so:

1. Pim was a Freudian. He believed that by openly speaking about things, by no longer fearing but facing our darkest motives we could overcome them. He believed in catharsis. And he was as wrong as psychoanalysis is outdated. Human nature needs to be repressed. By opening Pandora's box you merely turn yourself into the wizard's apprentice, unable to control the forces you have unleashed. Pim literally had nightmares about this before the election — and subsequent events have sadly proven him right: populism, racism and fascism have since with some modicum of success tried to become legitimate again.
2. Pim was a narcist. As a sociologist he knew very well that a few generations are simply not enough time to solve these problems and that in fact assimilation progressed quite satisfactorily. But as a narcist he wanted to solve them all by himself, before old age wrecked his good looks. So he wanted a big event.
3. Pim was twisted. He didn't merely want to overcome our dark side; he wished to indulge in it at the same time. He wallowed in his xenophobic feelings. This appealed to those segments among the population who loved to see themselves as the victims of immigration. And of course there are many who revel in being free of any social control. Hence his popularity. This makes him a truly unique political phenomenon in modern times: a 21st century Alcibiades (who at the time carried a pink shield with a little Eros in it. Yes). But it also constitutes a higher-order evil, far more dangerous than every-day racism or fascism.

This is why half of the population panicked. And the societal organism activated a tiny part of its immune system and destroyed him. :o( --MWAK 07:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says Volkert van der Graaf, a supporter of immigration and enviromentalist. Was he a supporter of immigration? That's new to me and sounds a bit odd. The article on van der Graaf doesn't even mention this, so I removed that. Correct me if I'm wrong. DirkvdM July 3, 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Quotes

Why are there two different translations of the same quote in the article? They should be merged into one good translation.

The Debate

"as the comments above show, it's often sadly lacking among those who think they are his followers. Still some good points are made. I'll try to answer them."

Well, thank you for sharing your great wisdom with the ordinary folk. It's a common character trait of Fortuyn criticisers that they fancy themselves morally and intellectually superior to people who disagree with them. Unfortunately, your piece of writing is full of factual errors and outdated marxist rhetoric.

How strange, as I'm not a marxist but a Christian neoconservative :o). But don't we all think, deep in our heart, that we are superior?

I must say, I think you're more of the Lone Gunmen/Unabomber variety. You have a lot of crazy homebrewed theories that would never hold up in scientific debate. I'll try to correct some of them for the last time as we are wandering too far of the subject and you are so tiring. And please have the courtesy not to write all through my piece of writing but start a new thread. Things become unreadable. I had to go through a lot of trouble to increase readability of the piece.

"Also I'm very stupid — though I can say with complete veracity I'm one of the most learned men of my nation."

Very modest, really.....

It's just one of my many virtues.

Just read that statement back to yourself a couple of times.

"Perhaps Pim was too, but it isn't implicated by the fact that he was an extraordinary professor. You see, to be a scientist, to be a real scientist, you have to do real research."

Do you actually know anything about the Dutch universitary system? Doesn't show from the comment above. An extraordinary chair is a chair which is created by a university because of an application from an outside organisation that feels that a certain field at a university is not given enough attention. The time these chairs are occupied are in terms of 5 years which can be renewed. An extraordinary professor is every bit the professor a regualar one is.

I fear you're a bit naive here. That outside organisation also pays...

Well, that really proves your point.... Basic point is that Pim was a real professor. You can debate about the quality of his research, but that's true for all scientists.

"In 2001 equilibrium unemployment in The Netherlands was 5%"

You shouldn't look just at the actual unemployment numbers to see what the real unemployment number is either within the Dutch or immigrant population. There is an enormous amount of hidden unemployment. Just look at the number of people in the Netherlands that are on full disability (WAO). That numbers nearly 780 thousand people. Most of them not actually to sick to work, but laid of in an alternative higher paying way. 700 and 80 thousand people is a truly immense amount of people. More than 10% of the workforce. In fact, if we add the numbers up we see that more than an astonishing TWO THIRDS of all moroccan and turkish men over 40 are either on disability (WAO), welfare or are receiving unemployment benefits. Now you can use all kinds of marxist rhetoric to try to twist these numbers around. And use, as you do, statistics about the entire immigrant population, rather then statistics about these problem groups as you should. You cannot disprove or explain these numbers in the fashion that you do.

Remember that the issue was whether immigrants were unemployed because of their laziness.

Actually that's the issue you made out of it. My point and that of Fortuyn was that some cultures are more incompatible with Dutch culture than others. This incompatibilty causes these groups to have more problems integrating.

It's certainly true that most Turkish and Moroccan workers of the first generation have been forced into the WAO-system (mostly during the depression of 1980-1983) and have been trapped there ever since.

Agreed, however there is some personal responsibility also here.

But this doesn't show they're lazy;

Never said that buddy.

it simply means the incentives for not leaving the system are too great: they'd loose their possessions in their homeland once they would become dependent on welfare.

In theory. In actual practice the Moroccan government has refused for years to check wether Dutch Moroccans have possesions in their homeland if they are on welfare.

But the numbers for the second generation clearly show the dominant factor causing unemployment is discrimination.

Numbers can never show that. Numbers simply help make clear a situation. How that situation came to be is subject for debate. You use the easy time honored left wing explanation of discrimination. Though that explanation never seems to explain why it is that some groups consistently perform less than other groups. Is it because when immigration began in the 1960's the Dutch had very different predisposed views on Turks than on Moroccans? Different predisposed views on people from Spain than those from China? To the average Dutch citizen all of these groups were relatively unknown. The deciding factor on their performance is their cultural background.

What makes a difference in both my view and that of Fortuyn is the fact that people from Morocco for instance come from an almost medieval society where people have different views on raising their children, learning a foreign language, interacting with non-believers, the role of men and women etc. Some examples: Muslims from rural backgrounds tend to raise their daughters quite strict while setting loose their sons letting them be raised by the streets. In Dutch innercities you see a lot of muslim boys some as young as 8,9 or 10 years old who roame the streets at midnight. Not that harmfull in moroccan rural societies where these boys are raised also by the community as a whole. Very harmfull however in Dutch innercities with less supervision and nobody to correct them. Furthermore the lack of respect towards non-muslims and the great emphasis on honour in their upbringing makes a lot of these boys into monsters at the time they reach puberty. The girls on the other hand due to their strict upbringing tend to perform quite well in the educational system. All great reports and numbers available on this subject. Take a look at the ministry of education's emancipation monitor of the year 2000 for instance. Another integration inhibiting value of Moroccans and Turks for instance is the fact that Moroccan and Turkish men prefer a bride from their homecountry. An astonishing 60% of partners for marriage with dutch moroccan and dutch turkish men and women come from their homecountries. (source: SCP Jaarrapport Integratie 2005) Generally with moroccan and turkish men the reason is that they want a "virtuous" woman that obeys them. Moroccan and Turkish women that grew up in the Netherlands are generally too emancipated for them. And with this cycle the integration issues continue for yet another generation.

"In our society, somebody has to live in a slum, unemployed; this then is the natural function of the immigrant."

I'm curious, is your last name Marx? What outdated debating techniques you use. Your mistake in this entire piece is your portayal of "the immigrant". There are no problems as such with "the immigrant". "the immigrant" does not exist. There are only specific immigrant populations. Some thrive, such as the Chinese immigrant group for instance. Others have huge problems, such as the Morroccan, Turkisch and Dutch Antilles youth. You mix all their statistics through one another top it off with marxist rhetoric and voila, there's your argument. You should look at the specific problem groups. Predominantly immigrants from rural muslim countries. That's what Fortuyn debated also. You can't refute his numbers by using numbers pertaining to the immigrant population in general. Dubious numbers at that.

Certainly there is a hierarchy involved. But the relation of this hierarchy with integration is precisely the opposite from what you might think. Moroccans are at the bottom because they have adopted lower class values very well (stealing from your employer, being unruly, going on sick-leave whenever you have a cold etc). Turkish people have largely kept their muslim rural values and have a good reputation.

A better reputation than Moroccans surely, but let's not exaggerate. There are also huge problems with this group concerning their involvement in organised crime and their dependance on welfare, dissability etc.

But if there were just 1.6 million Chinese, would the basic situation be any different?

It would be very different, that's exactly the point. An underclass does not simply exist because it is needed. An underclass, and this is a shocker, actually expands if you let more people without any education and with traditions that inhibit integration flow into it. Hence Fortuyn's phrase: "It's mopping with the fossit still running if we don't limit immigration while we start addressing the problems."

"In November 2001 unemployment rates were at their lowest; within three months Fortuijn began his movement"

All the more reason to conclude that petty grievences and xenophobia caused by competition from immigrant labourers were not the primary reason for following Fortuyn. The primary reason was the oppressive climate of fear and hatred created by the politically correct elite against anyone who spoke out against them and said that which cannot be said. Namely that we are heading for a state in which freedom of speech only exists for those who aggree with them. Agree that there are no problems with specific muslim immigrant groups. That their huge numbers will not create a problem for us in the future in terms of economics and civil unrest. That the intolerant ideas many of these people have will not form a threat to our liberal western values. Fortuyn wun support because he dared speak out against this eventhough this was very dangerous. People admired his courage. Even you must admit he was just that, incredibly brave. This assisination did not come out of nowhere. People could see it coming. He could see it coming. Still he continued to speak out against the elite. That is why he gathered such a huge following. That and his incredible verbal talents, combined with too obvious collussion of the political elite and journalist elite against him.

I agree with you that the real nature of the phenomenon was that of a revolt against social control. But I doubt the revolutionaries were the champions of "western liberal values". Still, we've socialised them quite well if they think they are, no? That has been a consoling thought for me in these troubled times. :o)

If you can't see the dangers of importing large amounts of people from almost medieval settings and don't seem to realize that they don't simply copy our views in a generation or 2 and then fail to realize that that has consequences for our way of living I hope you don't fancy yourself a champion of western liberal values.

"But most criminals are "Dutch" (63%) nevertheless, despite the strong causal connection between unemployment and crime."

Being a criminologist and dealing often with these kinds of issues, this is an astonishing interpretation of the WODC-numbers. That WODC (scientific crime research centre) publication actually showed the tremendous overrepresentation of non-western immigrants in crime. There are 1,6 million non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. One tenth of the population. Cases against them make up 37% of all criminal cases. That is 3,7 times the rate to be expected. In individual groups suchs as Morroccans this can be as high as 5 times. You can't explain all of this away with poverty. Living standards for the vast majority of these groups are well above par. Nobody can deny there is a problem here. But the biggest problem is not crime. It is the selfchosen seggregation of immigrants from rural muslim countries. And there is blame there not only for the muslim immigrants, but also for the Dutch themselves. It lies also in the tradition of "verzuiling". Where groups of people live together in peace, but completely seperately. Where this used to be the catholic, protestant, liberal en socialist groups. Now there the Dutch en the specific groups of foreigners. Specifically the muslims from Turkey and Morracco. Who in their turn look down on our "questionnable" morals such as equality of men and women, rights for homosexuals and freedom of speech that can be used to offend the prophet and the islamic faith.

Well it would be even worse: if 90% commits but 63% of the crimes, immigrants would be over five times as criminal! But one should of course look at the percentage of youths of "dangerous" age.

Every single calculation that shows that there is a crime problem in the immigrant population does exactly that and still proves the positive correlation between certain ethnicities and crime. Take a look at the WODC studie "Criminaliteit en etnische minderheden; een criminologische analyse" which states that this positive correlation is undisputable.

-Yes, but it is much less strong than you suggest: non-western allochthonous residents commit about 26% of all crime, twice as much as to be expected. If we correct with even the few socio-economic factors used in the WODC and SCP studies, the ratio drops to 1.6. Hardly dramatic. And you keep avoiding the fact that Moroccans are better integrated than Turks and yet more criminal.

The 63% number shows that neither unemployment nor culture is the only factor, but genetics plays its role as well.

There are all kinds of corrective factors in measuring one can use. I agree that the outcome of an ethnic group's performance is due to lot's of factors. The diciding and most important one however is their cultural background is the point that I am making.

And of course most Dutch people are utterly convinced 90% of crime is committed by foreigners :o).

Well, I have seldom heard percentages from "most Dutch people" but that would not be far off. More than 50% of the prison population is of muslim descent and well over 75% are of non-Dutch descent. Again take a look at the wodc-website my friend. These figures also show that the "percentages of criminal cases"-statistic terrible as it is still present a more positive picture then there can be found a basis for in reality. Oh, wait a minute, let's blaim it all on racism and discrimination.

-And you accuse me of making wild estimates? :o) There are no official numbers on this, so you assumed there were 25% muslims of the first generation, doubled that number with the second generation and then added that generation to the 50% total foreigners of the first generation? Let me do a few swift estimates of my own: we know Turks and Moroccans of the first generation constitute about 10% of the prison population; those groups constitute two thirds of the total muslim population: perhaps 15% of prison population is therefore muslim; second genaration suspects are two thirds of the number of first generation suspects — and now we have only 25% muslims!

I'm not claiming immigrants are forced to steal merely to survive. I'm claiming they are less criminal than "Dutch" groups with the same socio-economic position and that they grow more criminal by internalising lower class values.

I would love to see the research you did on that. I would really love to see those figures as they are pure fantasy. Furthermore there is also a problem with your reasoning. You cannot compare an entire population like the Dutch Moroccan population with just the Dutch population in the same socio-economic position. If there are genetic factors involved in crime, and research shows that there is, they would be massively overconcentrated in that section of the Dutch population. The real question you should be asking yourself is: if the Moroccan population that came to the Netherlands have to same abilities as the entire Dutch population (and I take that they do), why is almost this entire Moroccan population in this poor socio-economic position? My answer is their incompatible culture plays a large role.

"They took over Dutch lower class values and yes, this included the nasty habits of gang rape and gay bashing, so popular among the Dutch poor."

Now these are truly mad ramblings. 99 out of 100 incidents with gay bashings are committed by muslim youths. And for gang rape, two thirds of the victims are of Dutch descent. More than 90% of the perpetrators are of foreign descent. This has to do also with their viewing western girls as easy, unmoral and sluts. A Dutch woman with make-up on in the wrong part of town runs a great risk of being called a whore for no reason these days in the Netherlands. This has to do with the above described "questionnable" morals we Dutch possess in the mind of many a muslim.

Again this is an illusion. Obviously as immigrant boys constitute the vast majority of lower clas youths in the large cities (where crime rates would be highest anyway),

A lot higher indeed since immigration began.

-Yes, but the autochthonous crime rates are also many times higher than in 1965.

they commit most crimes there. Gay people concentrate there also and are much more prone to report incidents, whereas they would keep silent in smaller towns.

Yes, in smaller towns gays are being beaten up massively by Dutch youths but they keep quiet for fear of being banished by the church elders..... In reality, especially the male Muslim population of Moroccan descent have a mentality that is contaminated with anti-gay sentiment.

That all this has little to do with muslim culture is shown by the fact that many rapist are Antillians and Cape Verdians and very few muslim Turks.

Actually muslim Turks are also very well represented amongst the perpetrators as well as a lot of Moroccans. Again this is a cultural issue. Wether it be imported Antillians and Cape Verdian-ghetto culture or muslim lack of respect for "unvirtuous" women

To deny that the Dutch lower class indulges in gay bashing and rape is very naive.

Show me the figures then that support your claim. Your claim that "the nasty habits of gang rape and gay bashing" are "so popular among the Dutch poor" is ridiculous.

"Still, the average Dutch boy living next door to a Moroccan is three times more criminal than the latter.

Actually, if you had read the WODC document you quoted so wrongfully, you could have seen that it is the other way around. Young Morroccan men are 3 to 4,5 times more likely to be criminal than their Dutch counterparts.

This all depends on your definition of "counterpart" and on the way you measure crime rates. Using incidents reported by the police tends to give a very distorted view as Moroccan gangs are much more closely monitored. But perhaps you misunderstood me? Certainly Moroccan youths are at least three times as criminal as the average Dutch boy — but not the average boy living in a slum!

Again I'd love to see your research.

-You have a point. But your theories are as yet unsupported too :o). The WODC numbers are very suspect; it seeme obvious their instruments are too blunt. They state that the average Moroccan boy is six times as criminal as the average "Dutch" boy; then they correct for just three socio-economic factors and these bring the ratio to four to one. But if all that should be attributed to culture it would mean socio-economic conditions for Moroccans would be roughly the same as for the lowest Dutch 60%. So one has either to admit economic integration in general is a surprising success — and has little to do with crime rates — or consider it a failure — and then accept this causes much, if not all, of the difference.

"In Dutch society immigration is roughly crime-neutral; i.e. if there were no immigrants crime rates would be just as high."

A statement that is simply not true. I supplied you with the factual evidence. Just go the WODC website.

You do understand the mechanisms involved? If there were no immigrants, more Dutch would be in the lower class.

Do you understand that I don't agree with you on that?

-Yes, but even the WODC-numbers, based on very limited research in this respect, show that the crime explosion of the eighties wasn't directly caused by immigration (and my rethoric was of course primarily directed against that popular belief). As the non-western allochthonous in general are about twice as criminal as their age-peers, they raise crime by 13%. Apply the SCP corrections and this drops to 8%. Not the 300% you seem to suggest. That the number of unemployed Dutch would have been much higher if there had been no immigrants is by far the most parsimonious assumption as unemployment is at about equilibrium and the majority of unemployed are immigrants.

Do you deny unemployment causes crime?

You cannot put it that way. People often misunderstand the postive correlation between unemployment and crime for a direct causal relation. That where unemployment rises crime also rises does not mean one is directly responsible for another. There are some steps in between involved. But that's a minor point. There is a positive correlation between the two.

The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of him who claims that they would be less criminal in this situation,

Actually, the burden of proof falls on him who makes baseless claims without backing them up with the facts.

when those Dutch already in this situation are more criminal. Sadly the WODC basically dodges these questions.

Yes, the WODC, the only scientific institute in the Netherlands that is entirely committed to studying crime is conspiring against the truths you teach.

"but abused this political correctness to bolster a system that was in fact deeply racist."

Again, you should write these believes down in your manifesto. This is simply a statement of your beliefs. It has nothing to do with science, or the facts.

Obviously :o).

Glad you agree.

"Labour immigration since 1960 probably rendered a net profit to the autochthonous population of about 1.2 trillion guilders, a full 800 billion guilders of which benefited the richest 10%."

Where do you get your facts. Actually, the Centraal Planbureau (government economic planning agency) calculated the total costs for 2010 of labour immigration at 117 billion.Tellar26 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I can understand your astonishment. The CPB calculated the costs in this way: they took the total of direct benefits generated by all individual immigrants during their lifetime and deducted the direct costs. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? But it isn't. There are also indirect benefits. Let me give an example. As soon as an immigrant starts to work he pays a certain percentage of his wage to support present senior citizens.

If you start to criticize the calculations of the CPB you should at least have tried to understand how the Dutch old age pension (AOW) system works, as you obviously don't. Unlike other countries the financing is capital-based. That means that the generation that will enjoy the AOW will have saved up for it themselves by the time they receive it.

-O, dear, in your haste to find fault with me you have become the victim of a painful confusion: indeed the individual or corporate Dutch pension contracts are capital-based. But that's not the collective AOW-system! That money flows right into the treasury.

When he becomes one himself he will be supported in turn. What he pays will be less than what he receives. So the CPB put that down as a general cost to Dutch society. Is that a fair calculation? No. The immigrant has children. They will pay, so to say, for him. Of course in time they will have to be supported as well. And so on, just as for Dutch people. But at the beginning of this series there was an anomaly. The immigrant didn't pay for his parents. They were outside of the system. This causes a one-time benefit to society that remains unaccounted for in the CPB method. These kind of effects make immigration strongly profitable to society as a whole: roughly about 400 billion up to 2005. But remember I spoke of the benefits to the original Dutch! Effects that don't benefit society as a whole but only the "Dutch" are totally disregarded by the CPB method: e.g. as immigrants occupy the lower wage positions, the autochthonous population moves to higher positions; the latter's risk of unemployment diminishes greatly; they now change the tax system to benefit groups where Dutch are prominent etc, etc. Let's put it in another way: if you slowly increase the population of a country by 10%, income will grow by about 10% also (keep in mind that immigrants are younger and that they make it possible for others to produce by taking over the risk of unemployment). But immigrants consume only 4%. --MWAK 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, read up on the system please. Then you can spare readers the Lord of the Rings type of fantasies you display here above. Outside of the fact that you don't understand the system, you do understand I hope that if TWO THIRDS of all moroccan and turkish men over 40 are either on disability (WAO), welfare or are receiving unemployment benefits that they do not nearly pay as much into the system as the average Dutch worker? That they stop contributing to the system at the moment other people support them? And that they continue to cost money from that point on? And that their children also being problem groups not only do not combat the financial problems caused by the increasing aging pension receiving population, but that they actually increase the problems because these next generations have so many problems they actually cost more then they contribute. Fine reports on that available on that phenomenon also from the SCP (goverment socio economic planning agency). This concludes my contribution to this debate. Please start reading up on the facts and stop fantasizing.

Tellar26 12:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, this effect has been accounted for. Its total costs over the years have been about eight billion guilders, compensated for about half by replacement effects. You seem to be very impressed by this phenomenon; but as the number of comparable Dutch workers living on benefits is quite high also, in absolute numbers we are talking of about 20,000 men extra. What will be the situation for future generations remains to be seen--MWAK 09:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To all the people discussing Fortuyn's views on this page

Please let me explain to those that are maybe not so familiar with Wikipedia, that it is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the worth of Fortuyn's views, but this is not one of them. Any discussion on the talk page should be primarily related to the encyclopedia article. If you feel the article is inaccurate, biased, incomplete or whatever, you are more than welcome to discuss this here, but just general discussion about Fortuyn really does not belong here. Junes 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It got a bit out of hand didn't it? :o) But talk pages also serve the additional function of providing background information when the article must be very circumspect because of POV problems. Which certainly is the case here.--MWAK 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I don't think this discussion is very productive when it comes to improving the article. Of course it can have other value, so I suggest you take this to one of your user pages, as I indicated on both of your talk pages. You speak of 'POV problems' but so far I have seen noone raising any specific concerns. Junes 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's because we've been so circumspect :o).--MWAK 09:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pim Fortuyn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I gave this article a b-rating, seeing that it already had one in LGBT studies and that, while insightful, it has the occassnell uncited statement. --Umalee 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)