Talk:Pim Fortuyn/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right-wing? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Legacy & left vs. right debate

message: 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)
thread_title: Greatest Dutchman?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Some facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Things that really have to be addressed in the article 

message: "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.
# 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.
# 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).
#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:
#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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  reply to some previous comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's because we've been so circumspect :o).--MWAK 09:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all the people discussing Fortuyn's views on this page 

message: Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment