Jihad: It’s about Abortion and Gays, Stupid! Or Isn’t It?

From the desk of Paul Belien on Thu, 2006-03-16 15:52

Since 1 March people who want to settle in the Netherlands are required to pass a preliminary exam at the Dutch embassy in their native country. This so-called “integration test” includes a film which exposes the would-be immigrants to scenes of kissing homosexual men and topless women. The message is that “If you can’t tolerate gay lifestyle and public nudity, you can’t come.”

Citizens from EU member states and from Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan are exempt from the test. Fortunately this applies to the United States, too. Otherwise Americans – most of whom do not approve of the public display of depravity and nudity – would not be allowed to settle in the Netherlands.

Participation in the compulsory exam costs 350 euro, which the candidate loses if he fails the “integration test.” The exam can be taken at 138 Dutch embassies and consulates worldwide. The participants are obliged to buy the film (even if they find it offensive), as well as a CD ROM and a picture book. However, a censored version of the film, without the gay kissing scene and the female nudity, has been made for countries such as Iran, where the distribution of homosexual and nude material is illegal. This means, ironically, that the people living under these oppressive regimes can pass the test without having their moral values violated.

Skilled workers earning more than $54,000 per year are also exempt from taking the exam. They, too, will not be subjected to watching the scenes of kissing men and topless women, which means - again ironically – that only the poor will have their moral sensitivities shocked by this portrait of Dutch liberalism.

I have argued before that Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war, between the proponents of secular hedonism, the defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality and the forces of Islamic Jihadism. For the secular hedonists currently holding sway in the Netherlands, Islamic Jihadism and the traditional morality of civilised people are one and the same thing. During the past decades the Netherlands have become the moral cesspit of Europe. I also pointed out in an earlier analysis that it is no coincidence that the collapse of Western civilisation, complete with political assassinations, has first become visible in the country which, in the past three decades, has taken secularization, multiculturalism, tolerance of alternative lifestyles, drug abuse and other fads to their furthest extremes.

In 1954 Karl Popper warned that the “moral framework” is the most important safeguard of a society because it

“serves as a basis which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between conflicting interests where this is necessary. It is, of course, itself not unchangeable, but it changes comparatively slowly. Nothing is more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework, as it was consciously aimed at by Nazism. In the end its destruction will lead to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of all human values.”

This is precisely the Dutch pathology. It was Irving Kristol who remarked that though Hitler lost the war his philosophy won. By forcing kissing gays and public nudity on people, the Dutch hope to stop Muslim extremism, but they will only hasten their own collapse through the spread of cynism and nihilism. In the war for the defence of Western civilisation, the cynics and the nihilists will be of no use. Most of them will not fight, but will sooner surrender, while the others do not know who their friends are and who their enemies. The Dutch liberal secularist Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently told the Belgian authorities that they should ban the country’s largest party, the “islamophobic” Vlaams Belang. In an interview with the Antwerp newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen (1 February), she said why she regards the VB as a dangerous party:

“I would ban the VB because it hardly differs from the Hofstad group [a Jihadist terror network in the Netherlands, involved in the assassination of Theo van Gogh]. Though the VB members have not committed any violent crimes yet, they are just postponing them and waiting until they have an absolute majority. On many issues they have exactly the same opinions as the Muslim extremists: on the position of women, on the suppression of gays, on abortion. This way of thinking will lead straight to genocide.”

The Dutch “integration test” illustrates the same attitude that seems to inspire Ms Hirsi Ali: Immigrants are welcome if they condone gays. They are not welcome if they oppose abortion. If this is how “good” immigrants are to be selected from “bad” ones, it will certainly not solve the basic problem of the West, its birth dearth. On the contrary.

Vreemdelinger, Inwoner, Buitenlander

Submitted by Brian Soper on Mon, 2006-04-03 02:00.

Foreigner, Resident, Outsider
I am mostly in favor of a government that actively attempts to filter good immigrant prospects from bad. It is troubling to read about the exceptions to this law and the fact that many of the more closed societies that it was designed to inform are given a pass in precisely the public exhibitions of freedom that they would most likely find objectionable.

Of better intent was the desire that by testing prospective immigrants, the women of future immigrants would not be so traditionally bound to the house or subject to what Western society views as domestic violence.

It might also be just as useful to enlighten people seeking immigration to the Netherlands or any other Western country that as a first generation immigrant, they will for the rest of their lives be 1- a Foreigner, 2 - a Resident but, and always 3 - an Outsider. This is no less true for any Westerner that might chose to immigrate to Thailand, Brazil, China or Japan. An immigrant that is capable of earning the $54,000/year will find that outside of the sphere of his work colleagues he is still “observed” by public measure as an outsider. If you are an immigrant “anywhere” in the world - That’s life.

Even myself, White, Blonde of hair and Blue of eye and with my mothers maiden name - van Horn am nevertheless so indelibly American that even if I learned to speak colloquial Amsterdamse would for the rest of my days still be known as American.

Every immigrant should be made to understand that when people leave the land of the birth, they leave the nest; they leave what they know and in seeking a new home in a foreign country they are seeking the help of a nation for the interest of one. You have little right to expect anymore than what is offered. Dissolution, frustration, helplessness and resentment will in all likelihood accompany what good you find.
“Your choice – You asked for it.”

The change of Dutch immigrationlaw

Submitted by Poul Nielsen on Sat, 2006-03-18 12:14.

The change of Dutch immigrationlaws seems ok. If the test of immigrants - result in a better understanding of the dutch society, instead of violence between immigrants groups and native dutch people.

Some immigrants from the 3'rd world, cannot understand the tolerance we have in Europe - regarding peoples sexual orientation. They are becaming violent, offended - and assult innocent's because of the way they are living.

If immigrant's don't accept the dutch society - why immigrate to the Nederlands? - They are free to stay away from the Nederlands ...

The Dutch pathology, neocons and lies, lies, lies

Submitted by Paul Kruger on Sat, 2006-03-18 12:05.

"This is precisely the Dutch pathology. It was Irving Kristol who remarked that though Hitler lost the war his philosophy won."

Paul Belien manages a neat trick here: citing neoconservative Jew Irving Kristol in support of Belien's absurd proposition that Adolf Hitler's "philosophy" is responsible for the Netherlands' (and by extension, the West's) homosexuality and mass prostitution of White women, in opposition to what he calls "traditional Judeo-Christian morality."

Jesus.

Hate Hitler and White people all you want, and worship Jews all you want, but the behavior in question resembles Jewish-dominated Weimar Germany far more than it does Hitler's National Socialism, which unquestionably opposed such behavior.

Dutch pathology

Submitted by Paul Belien on Sat, 2006-03-18 13:20.

@ Poul Nielsen: If indigenous or "native" Dutch (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali) do not want to allow immigrants who feel upset by gay lifestyles, abortion and the like (euthanasia, etc.), into their country that is up to them.
It just strikes me that some regard these characteristics as basic to Dutch identity, while many Dutch conservative Christians - who are as "native" Dutch as Ms Hirsi Ali herself - oppose these lifestyles. Hence my argument that the likes of Ms Hirsi Ali are not merely fighting Islamic extremist and Jihadism but rather traditional morality in general.

@ Paul Kruger: I do not doubt that Hitler and the hardline Nazis were opposed to traditional Christian morality, which they wanted to eradicate (note the parallelism between euthanasia legislation in Nazi Germany and in the Netherlands, where they kill those that are deemed unworthy to live). This hatred of Christian morality is something the intolerant secularists and the "Socialists" of every denomination have in common. Mr Kristol may be a neoconservative Jew, and I may disagree with him on other topics, but regarding the moral nihilism of the Nazis having survived the Second World War as Europe's dominant ideology I agree with him. (by the way: as far as I know Mr Kristol is white, or is a white man not a white man if he is Jewish?)

Re: Dutch Patholgy - race as a perception?

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-03-18 13:55.

"by the way: as far as I know Mr Kristol is white, or is a white man not a white man if he is Jewish?)

Hmmm! That seemed to depend..If you were Jewish and in South Africa before Nelson Mandela and others triumphed accxording to the Afrikaans government
you were "white" if you looked "white enough!" Any Jews that did not were politely asked to ..leave. One of my best girl friends married a sephard from Yemen
her family had been in South Africa for years. She was aceptable. The government objected strenously to him!
Appearance and perception then I take it can be put as an argument. But a Frenchman that I knew who's family supported Vichy during the war said," What did I think the Jewish ghettos were formed for, their health?
They were being kept apart because they were different.
Oriental, as if were."
So obviously even in Europe there were perception differences. I suppose if you looked Ashkenaz or germanic you were alright, even many Sephards were alright. But the darker the Sephard then once again perceptions arise. This is merely a thought to possibly answer the question.

Odin be Praised!  Baldur Save Us!

Subdivision of questions

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Fri, 2006-03-17 14:39.

Contrary to what you imply the exam is not excessively biased. Here is my subdivision of question based on http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article247893.ece

Pure knowledge with little or no moral bias (geography, events, history, ...) 1-16, 18-29, 31-39, 41, 44-46, 48, 61, 63, 80, 86-90, 93-97, 100
Individual and parental responsability : 17, 62, 64, 69, 70, 71, 76, 83, 84-85, 92, 99
Separation of church and state and freedom of religion : 30, 53, 60
Democracy : 40, 42, 43, 47, 54-55
Anti discrimination : 49
Woman equality : 50, 51, 58, 59, 91
Gay rights : 52, 56
Gun control : 57
Importance of education : 66, 72-75, 79, 82
General couresy and good manners : 67, 68, 98
Childrens rights : 77-78

So out of 100 questions only 10 could be construed as being liberally biased (and that includes such conservative shockers as 51 "can a woman choose her own marriage partner", 58 "is female circumcision allowed", 59 "is beating up women allowed" or 78 "do children wear uniforms")

On the other hand no less than 3 questions on traditional courtesy (68 "should we make an appointment with people we want to meet" 98 "we give each other a hand at the start of a meeting") 3 questions on the importance of protecting religion from the state, 6 questions on democracy and 12 questions on individual and parental responsability (uniformly presented as good)

There is no mention of gay marriage, euthanasia or abortion in the exam at all. I think the questions reflect more upon the possible moral values of potential immigrants than upon the morals of the Dutch society. Rightfully so. It's them who should adapt.

Continued due to word limit

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Fri, 2006-03-17 14:04.

So, are Western society changing at the right pace? More to the point : is Holland changing its attitude towards homosexuality at the right pace (and right direction?) Let me try to defend the position that the Dutch are mostly right up until now.

First while it may be possible to find a majority opposing behaviour as shown in the picture above, an honest observer will note that it is a fringe excess. In general you will not see such displays in public but on the day of the Gay Parade. Western societies have a long history of tolerating excessive festivals (eg carnival) provided intentions are clear and its duration short. I'd say the Gay Parade is fully in key with that tradition and it seems likely that there is broad popular support for allowing it even if only a minority participates.

Next is ordinary gay acceptance (can we trust gays around children, is ordinary public gay affection just as ordinary as between man an woman, etc...) From what I read and see, this acceptance has been relatively slow. Openly gay people lived normal lives in artistic circles already at the turn of the century. Between talk of homosexuality and the first on-screen homosexual kiss, a significant time lapsed. And certainly some issues that progressed just as quickly and transformed society much more radically (from farmer ethics to capitalism, introduction of race equality, divorce in heterosexual marriages, free market thinking, ...)

Last is gay marriage and gay adoption. Both are relatively new and it is undisputed that the Dutch are at the forefront of that particular cultural battle. I can concede that the jury is still out there if you concede that support for both rights is growing. Part of that growth comes from agents provocateurs pushing a certain agenda (history is filled with great people who were agent provocateurs at their time), but part of the growth is also a genuine acceptance of something that people recognize as not threatening.

Not entirely honest

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Fri, 2006-03-17 13:52.

Approving public displays of depravity (sic) is not a precondition for being allowed to settle in the Netherlands. So sensitive Americans, even if they had to watch it in indignation would still be accepted.

It is undeed unfortunate that people from countries like Iran can't be shown the full version. But please note that the video is only learning material. If the applicant is confident he can pass the exam without watching, that's fine too. By the way, the exam is always uncensored and is much less graphic, see http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article247893.ece) Small sidestep : nrc today carries an article that Irans law take objection to sodomy. Homosexuality in itself is not punishable by law.

However, the most interesting part of your article is on the recurring theme of the breakdown of traditional morals in society. Here you offer a quote from Popper who acknowledges the changing nature of morality pretty explicitly.

So the question is not : should traditional morality not change at all (as you seem to imply), but at what pace should it change. Too quickly indeed can lead to a fatal breakdown of the traditional framework. Although if references of the second world war are permitted allow me to point to exactly such breakdown in Japan right after signing its surrender. Which I think we all agree was rather positive for all parties involved.

No change however can lead to the same catastrophies. Analysts repeatly point to the rigid nature of society in Arab countries as a prime factor for discontent and hostility.

What both extremes have in common is not the breakdown of the values in itself but the breakdown of popular support for those values. A moral democratic deficit if you wish.

The three-way

Submitted by Uroskin on Thu, 2006-03-16 23:28.

The coterie of Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists waging war on secular hedonism, a.k.a. any western lifestyle that regards all its citizens of equal value, laughs at young earthers, creationists and assorted ignorant bigotry, is called the "Coalition of the Circumcised" .

"... the collapse of Western civilisation, complete with political assassinations, has first become visible in the country..."

You meant to say there was no political terrorism before Fortuyn and Van Gogh? Didn't they teach you any recent European history in your school? Must have been a British one. We must be grateful Ms Hirsi Ali didn't attend that one.

I'd say we need more kissing in the streets, not less. And as for topless women, well, if that floats your boat...

http://uroskin.blogspot.com

Worried

Submitted by Bob Doney on Thu, 2006-03-16 19:13.

This is all very worrying. I'm dreading the return of the warmer weather, when all the pretty young things round here get their kit off and expose their midriffs and ankles. A lot of kissing and groping inevitably follows down at the shopping mall. Old cynics and nihilists like me come over all peculiar, and can just about remember what it felt like to have stirring loins.

I've done my bit for the birth dearth, however, and I won't be tempted to have another dip in that pond.

I sometimes wonder how they go on in Australia, where Anglo-Saxon reticence meets Mediterranean climate. It must be one endless, rolling orgy.

Bob Doney