[Rei Murasame]

The far-right support for the Arab interests in the Levant was a geostrategic experiment idea, where the idea would have been to build relations with the Arab nationalists and have them contain Israel, with a view toward eventually ending Israel and having it revert back to being 'Palestine'.

That was considered useful because in a hypothetical far-right future, having a non-Jewish satrapy in the Levant in the Palestine area, would make life easier on a geopolitical level, because it would mean not having to talk to Jews. Hence, the Palestinian cause was supported.

However, the Palestinians, and pretty much all of the Arabs proved themselves to not be interested in fighting on the basis of race, and they were also not interested in being progressive or building nation states. Instead, most Arab radicals turned toward political Islam, and worse yet, they wanted to migrate themselves into Europe. No one ever wanted them in Europe.

At that juncture, the view among far-rightists changed, and the stance of 'wish Arabs and Jews the best of luck killing each other' emerged. In that conception, the view became that the Jews should be encouraged to go and live in Israel, and the hope is that Jews and Arabs will keep killing each other and that Europe will get to mediate their regional crises forever, in ways that benefit Europe. None of that is supposed to involve migration of any sort either.

Noir's narrative doesn't make any sense, because Noir is conflating 'cynical support for Palestine', with 'a desire for mass migration'. If cynical support for Palestine were a precursor to Arab mass migration, then Japan and China should already be full of Arabs, because the elites of both those countries are consciously doing that. Yet it has not happened. Noir's narrative cannot explain that.

[noir]

EU rope can't grasp how any European with a sound mind would allow Muslim immigration. But there were such agreements between EC/EU and Arab states. Beside immigration there was propaganda on behalf of the Muslims.

Eurabia by Bat Ye'or

Allow me to go a little further into the themes of this cultural jihad within multiculturalism. Through the myth of Andalusia, Islam tries to prove its historical, cultural and demographical legitimacy in Europe. Several European leaders have affirmed that Islam is at home in Europe and that it is at the root of European culture. Thus, it can legitimately impose itself, invoking multiculturalism in the education system – as the Obin Report pointed out for France (2004) – and in the European legal and cultural spheres with the introduction of shari’a principles, as well as of Islamic customs and political ethics, under the mantle of multiculturalism.

These Eurocrat directives have been "wholeheartedly embraced, applied and monitored by European leaders, intellectuals, and activists", such as the socialist finance minister of France and 8th president of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, who said that "Islam is a component of Europe's value system, and this fact must be acknowledged in order to prevent the exclusion of Muslims"

[Rei Murasame]

Meanwhile in a reality 'apparently' unknown to Bet Ye'or:

Session 1: BEST PRACTICES: A EUROPEAN JEWISH MUSLIM DIALOGUE

Jewish as well as Muslim Authorities from Serbia, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden were heard. Several speakers explained the efficiency of their strategies to fight extremism. In Germany where many neo-Nazis groups are violent, the Jews will help the (Turks) Muslims to be heard. They speak out together to defend their rights especially on the important subjects of circumcision, ritual slaughtering, at the government. They want to be sure that their children go through the right path. Their relations as well as their cooperation are excellent and they want to make it official. In United Kingdom, where anti-Muslim bigotry is strong, the extreme right aggravates tensions in promoting hatred and violence in the Muslim districts. Jews will enhance the role of the Muslim righteous who saved Jews during the Holocaust; A conference of British Imams and Rabbis work together productively with the ministries on the field.

The most remarkable step greeted by the participants was the case story of the creation by Rabbi Michel Serfaty of Amitié Judéo Musulmane de France with his partners and his Muslim co-chair Scherazade Zerouala for the Paris district : the bus of Friendship between Jews and Muslims has since 2007 crisscrossed the French towns and suburbs with local press conferences. The most efficient means to fight against discriminations and prejudices are Jews and Muslims involved to speak out together and “SAY NO TO HATRED”. Ignorance, fear and contempt breed violence, and that is the way to face it. This action carried on for 9 years, going on round France 8 times, with 10 people, and 15 sub-branches in the country was a challenge : mostly to build a united front to make a correct presentation of the Jew and the Muslim in our work with children and their mothers.

[...]

And:

In Brussels, leaders of Islamic and Jewish communities from several European countries today presented a joint declaration to the presidents of the three main European Union institutions. Ahead of a meeting of European religious leaders representing all major faiths in Europe, Bosnian Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric and Brussels Chief Rabbi Albert Guigui handed the document on behalf of the 33 signatories to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy.

The declaration stresses that “Jews and Muslims live side-by-side in every European country and our two communities are important components of Europe's religious, cultural and social tapestry. Both Muslims and Jews have deep roots and historical experience on this continent.” It raises concern about “increasing manifestations of Islamophobia (anti-Muslim bigotry) and anti-Semitism in countries across Europe.”

The joint declaration goes on to say: “Bigotry against any Jew or any Muslim is an attack on all Muslims and all Jews. We are united in our belief in the dignity of all peoples” and urges “all Europeans of conscience to put a stop to any group that espouses racist or xenophobic ideologies long before they are in a position to gain legislative or other power. We must never allow anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or racism to become respectable in today’s Europe. In that regard, we call upon all political leaders not to pander to these groups by echoing their rhetoric.”

[...]

Quelle surprise! Jews have been opposing all attempts to stop the manifestation of 'Eurabia' at literally every step of the way, and have been holding entire conferences detailing stratagems on how best to fuck over Europe.

[The Sabbaticus]

Geert Wilders' paternal grandmother, Johanna Meijer, stems from a Jewish-Indonesian family. Wilders' political views are defined by his Indo-roots and he harbours strong sentiments against Islam because Islam is the dominant religion in Indonesia, according to Van Leeuwen. It's also possible that the OP may also belong to this group of colonial Indo-Dutch people who were first interned and eventually repatriated to the Netherlands after the Imperial Japanese Army took control of the Dutch East Indies.

You're now speculating about my provenance?

The 6-page article reveals that Wilders' grandmother, Johanna Ording-Meijer, came from an old Jewish-Indonesian family and that Wilders lied about this in his 2008 biography. However, Van Leeuwen, an expert on the position of Indo-Dutch people in the post-colonial age, goes beyond the notion that a politician known for judging others on their ethnic roots can himself be traced to foreign ancestors. Van Leeuwen went into the national archives to find the sad story of Wilders' grandfather on his mother's side. But more than anything, he was defined by his Indo-roots, she says. Indonesia was a Dutch colony until 1949 and many mixed-race people moved to the Netherlands after the Indonesian independence. Van Leeuwen describes how these people were put in the same 'cultural minority' box with labour immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, whom they felt no connection to at all. More so, they had always felt very patriotic about the Netherlands and harboured strong sentiments against Islam, the dominant religion in their motherland. Van Leeuwen explains how this group has long been part of extreme-right movements (many supported the Dutch Nazi party NSB in Indonesia in the 1930s) while others belonged to the far-right of the right-wing liberal party VVD. She puts Wilders' statements in the conservative and colonial tradition of this group, which strongly believed in patriotism and "European values".

You've posted this article before. It fails on several points:

1. An 'independent researcher' had decided to take it upon himself to conduct genealogical research on the family history of Wilders without his knowledge or permission. The intentions are pretty obvious. It was probably meant to illustrate the whole 'melting pot' background of European populaces, but it mostly came across as racial vilification and petty bigotry. Something the 'left' is supposedly 'above'.

2. It references a left-radical newspaper (which masquerades itself as centre-left) and the 'conclusions' of a left-radical anthropologist who has never even so much as spoken to the man, yet is offering 'insight' to the underlying motives for his political views. Aside from the fact that these 'conclusions' do not even fall within the purview of her speciality, she also hasn't even so much as interviewed any of his immediate relatives, which is the cornerstone of her argument. Perhaps a diary entry would have been helpful?


3. This is a picture of him during his younger days:



He doesn't look Indonesian to me, despite his Indonesian roots, certainly not with that European brown hair. His choice for peroxide blond hair therefore appears to fall in the same category as Donald Trump's disastrous comb-over. Standing out amongst his peers.

4.

The 6-page article reveals that Wilders' grandmother, Johanna Ording-Meijer, came from an old Jewish-Indonesian family and that Wilders lied about this in his 2008 biography. However, Van Leeuwen, an expert on the position of Indo-Dutch people in the post-colonial age, goes beyond the notion that a politician known for judging others on their ethnic roots can himself be traced to foreign ancestors.

In the period that Wilders grew up, his roots didn't even have any cultural significance, nor did he have the physical appearance to draw any untoward attention to himself along racial lines.

5. His strategic alliance with the Israeli lobby has shielded him from the worst of what the Church of Multiculturalism could do to him. The public prosecution's office and the judiciary still went after him, but they failed miserably.

[Rei Murasame]

5. His strategic alliance with the Israeli lobby has shielded him from the worst of what the Church of Multiculturalism could do to him.

Wilders' strategic alliance with the Israeli lobby, stems from the fact that he is a Jew, and as such, after he decided to oppose Islam, the way in which he chose to oppose Islam was always going to be orientated so that that he'd be causing only minimal inconvenience to Jews.

It is not some kind of complex political calculation. Wilders is a Jew. Therefore, Israel.

2. It references a left-radical newspaper (which masquerades itself as centre-left) and the 'conclusions' of a left-radical anthropologist who has never even so much as spoken to the man,

Wilders hasn't denied a single word of it.

[noir]

Sab, never heard there were Jews in Indonesia. With Wilders, is it false racial vilification? Even if he got Indo roots, where and when there were Jews in Indonesia? Strange story

It's common vilification. During the war the Nazis spread the rumor that US president, Roosevelt, had Jewish roots though he was Dutch origin.

Far right site

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-roosevelt.html


Anti far right site

http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=203

[The Sabbaticus]

Wilders' strategic alliance with the Israeli lobby, stems from the fact that he is a Jew, and as such, after he decided to oppose Islam, the way in which he chose to oppose Islam was always going to be orientated so that that he'd be causing only minimal inconvenience to Jews.

He spent time in Israel during his younger years, as part of a Kibbutz. His Jewish provenance however hasn't been verified. Supposedly according to 'Jewish law' he's Jewish, but he obviously didn't grow up in a Jewish household.

It is not some kind of complex political calculation. Wilders is a Jew. Therefore, Israel.

He grew up European, his family lived through the Nazi-occupation of The Netherlands. Israel wasn't even founded back then. It was a new state.

Anyway, Jewish organizations have been distancing themselves from Wilders after his 'Less, less' statements, with regards to Moroccans. Most of these organizations have an Islamophilic tendency, giving credence to the concept of 'Islamophobia' and such.

Given Wilders recent gains their support is no longer relevant. These (American) organizations are legitimizing the Islamic lobby, and as such, they're only helping to speed up their own demise.

There are of course many Jewish factions, and not all share the same opinions.

Wilders hasn't denied a single word of it.

Except that he has.

Sab, never heard there were Jews in Indonesia. With Wilders, is it false racial vilification? Even if he got Indo roots, where and when there were Jews in Indonesia? Strange story

It's common vilification. During the war the Nazis spread the rumor that US president, Roosevelt, had Jewish roots though he was Dutch origin.

Far right site

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-roosevelt.html


Anti far right site

http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=203

Somewhere along the line a Dutch colonial married a native Indonesian. Supposedly this Dutch colonial had Jewish ancestry, but it's based on etymology, not on fact. He did however marry a Jewish-Hungarian woman.

[Rei Murasame]

Hold me. I don't know if I can live in this world anymore.

So let me get this straight. You are somehow unsure about the Jewiness of Geert Wilders, and unsure about where his allegiances lie, even though:

• He is the descendant of intermarriage between Dutch colonial administrators in Indonesia, and Indonesian comprador locals.
• The Dutch side of his ancestry has been revealed to actually be Jews.
• He visited Israel as a child and was part of a Kibbutz.
• He has the flag of Israel featured prominently on his office desk.
• He went to the wailing wall.
• He has made strongly pro-Israel speeches.
• He claims that Judaism is 'part of Europe' and claims that 'Judeo-Christian culture should be the dominant culture'.
• According to Jewish law, Geert Wilders is Jewish.
• All of his arguments are couched in terms of defence of Judeo-Christian culture, and Jews.
• He was literally backed by centre-right Jewish lobby groups from the United States.
• He was literally married to a Jewish Hungarian woman. He literally put his penis inside her vagina for a number of years.

And you are having trouble deciding whether he is a Jew?!

YOU MUST BE TROLLING, tell me that you are trolling! This is why Europe is fucked-up, if you guys can't identify friend or foe even when it's flamboyantly in your face, I don't know what to tell you at this stage!

[Rich]

We have a kind of dialectical totalitarianism. Our dominant ideology is Jewish - Muslim supremacism. But its a spectrum from extreme Jewish supremacism that hates Muslims on the one extreme to extreme Muslim Supremacism that hates Jews on the other. The good people of the centre spend their time and mental energies trying to reconcile the absurd contradictions of this ideology. The problem with normal totalitarianism is that people rebel against it. In the current system dissidents actually reinforce the stability of the system.

I'm not saying that anyone sat down and dreamed up Islamo-Zionism and Islamo-feminism, but they are the dominant strands of the ruling ideology. Note Islam and Jewish supremacism are not races, they are ideologies. Fascists and Communists are most likely to spot and call out the absurd contradictions within the dominant ideology, but that does not mean that everyone who calls out and mocks these contradictions is a Fascist or a Communist.

[The Sabbaticus]

He might be Jewish, that's correct.

Either way, there are factions within the Jewish 'establishment'. There is also the distinction between the Jewish ethnicity and the Jewish religion. Things are not as clear-cut as you would like them to be.

[SolarCross]

We have a kind of dialectical totalitarianism. Our dominant ideology is Jewish - Muslim supremacism. But its a spectrum from extreme Jewish supremacism that hates Muslims on the one extreme to extreme Muslim Supremacism that hates Jews on the other. The good people of the centre spend their time and mental energies trying to reconcile the absurd contradictions of this ideology. The problem with normal totalitarianism is that people rebel against it. In the current system dissidents actually reinforce the stability of the system.

I'm not saying that anyone sat down and dreamed up Islamo-Zionism and Islamo-feminism, but they are the dominant strands of the ruling ideology. Note Islam and Jewish supremacism are not races, they are ideologies. Fascists and Communists are most likely to spot and call out the absurd contradictions within the dominant ideology, but that does not mean that everyone who calls out and mocks these contradictions is a Fascist or a Communist.

That's an interesting idea. But I wouldn't be too hasty about ruling out the possibility that someone or something did purposefully design this hypothetical situation.. Nothing human, no human lives long enough to plot such massive millenium long scams. An entity may exist that has designs on enslaving the whole human race to him, with jews, christians and muslims being both his conquests and his vehicles for future conquests. Some sort of trickster demon that gets into people's heads with flattery (chosen ones), threats (burn in hell) and seductions (50 doe-eyed virgins). We may as well call this demon jehovah since his slaves call him that. For example how do leftists know they are supposed to play fifth column for islamists in europe? Something whispers to them.

[The Sabbaticus]

^

The age of superstition.

If you want to rejoin the Mother Spirit you should bury yourself inside of an oak tree.

[EU rope]

Several European leaders have affirmed that Islam is at home in Europe and that it is at the root of European culture.

OK, that made me laugh. Islam is at the root of European anti-culture, not culture. The root of European culture is Greece with it's naked statues and freedom of mind. Compare that to the Muslim ninjas, that are freaking out if their ankle is showing under the cloth - those attitudes are just opposits.

[noir]

It's common assumption that only the left support the Arabs. Definitely wrong since in Germany at least the high echelon and the business elites were always conservatives and pro Nazis


Jürgen Möllemann was a German politician of the Free Democratic Party. He served as Vice Chancellor of Germany (1992–1993) in the government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl. He was a long-standing supporter of the Arab cause and took illegal money from them.

Shortly before his death, Möllemann had been confronted with allegations he had been involved in illegal arms deals and evaded taxes on millions of euros he allegedly earned from those activities. To enable a full investigation on these charges, the Bundestag lifted his parliamentary immunity on 5 June 2003 at 12:28, 22 minutes before his death. The tax evasion charges were dropped after his death, while other investigations are ongoing.[3]

The source of the finance remains unclear. Mr Möllemann said he had provided euro 840,000 ($981,000) out of his own pocket. Others suspect secret backing from one of the many Arab contacts he had fostered during 20 years as chairman of the German-Arab Society and through his consultancy firm specialising in the Middle East.

Möllemann was president of the Deutsch-Arabische Gesellschaft (German-Arabic Society) from 1981 to 1991 and from 1993 to 2003, until his death.

“As president of the German-Arab society, Möllemann was a great advocate of Arab issues and has done a lot to promote economics,” said Peter Goepfrich, head of the German-Arab Chamber of Commerce in Cairo.

Möllemann had very good contacts, especially in the Gulf countries, and in Lebanon and Syria. “He was well respected and considered a friend”, Goepfrich said. The German media is reporting after his death that Möllemann became wealthy through his “good contacts” and huge commissions earned from weapons sales to the Arab world, particularly to Saudi Arabia. German authorities are conducting an investigation into Möllemann’s finances and his immunity as a parliamentarian was lifted on the same day that he died.

“Möllemann’s death is a great loss for the Arab world,” said Mahdi Hamad from Jordanian national television. The accusations of anti-Semitism against Möllemann were unfair, he added.

The storm around Möllemann grew after he brought Jamal Karsli, a Syrian-born Green Party delegate, into the FDP. Karsli accused the Israeli military of using “Nazi methods” against the Palestinian population under occupation.

[The Sabbaticus]

Wasn't there still a distinction between Arabs and Islam in the nineties, even with the Saudis? The prevailing orientalist mode of thought was that they would abandon their primitive superstitions. But reactionary leftism has since elevated a religion to the status of 'inviolability'.

The Christian right in Europe has also started to court the favour of immigrants of Muslim background. They consider them to be ideologically similar. Just like the reactionary left, they mostly focus on religious distinctions. Preferring to identify these individuals as Muslims, and emphasizing their Muslim character.

[noir]

Wasn't there still a distinction between Arabs and Islam in the nineties, even with the Saudis? The prevailing orientalist mode of thought was that they would abandon their primitive superstitions. But reactionary leftism has since elevated a religion to the status of 'inviolability'.

The Christian right in Europe has also started to court the favour of immigrants of Muslim background. They consider them to be ideologically similar. Just like the reactionary left, they mostly focus on religious distinctions. Preferring to identify these individuals as Muslims, and emphasizing their Muslim character.

Who made the distinction? The scholar Bernard Lewis warned not to make such distinction

"As nationalist movements in the Arab world have become genuinely popular, Lewis asserted, so have they become “less national and more religious –in other words, less Arab and more Islamic. In moments of crisis –and these have been many in recent decades –it is the instinctive communal loyalty which outweighs all others.” The key point, Lewis insisted, is that “Islam is not conceived as a religion in the limited Western sense but as a community, a loyalty, and a way of life and that the Islamic community is still recovering from the traumatic era."

One of a series of articles and books Lewis would publish on more or less the same topic over the next two and a half decades, “The Return of Islam” set forth his explanation for the growth of Islamist movements and ideologies in the Arab lands and the wider Muslim world. Lewis began by chiding journalists and others for their “recurring unwillingness to recognize the nature of Islam or even the fact of Islam as an independent, different, and autonomous religious phenomenon...”Modern Western man, now secularized, could not grasp that “an entire civilization can have religion as its primary loyalty.” To remedy this, two essential points had to be grasped: “One is the universality of religion as a factor in the lives of the Muslim peoples, and the other is its centrality.”

From the start religion and state had been intertwined in Islam, and that remained the case today. Secular nationalist ideologies had made few real inroads among Muslims, for they never “corresponded to the deeper instincts of the Muslim masses, which found an outlet in programs and organizations of a different kind –led by religious leaders and formulated in religious language and aspiration.”

As an example of this Lewis cited the Muslim Brothers, which was founded in Egypt in the late 1920s and grew into a powerful mass movement before being crushed by the Nasser regime in the 1950s. He also noted the use by Yasser Arafat’s FATAH movement of Islamic terminology and the persistence of religion-based identities and political alignments elsewhere. As nationalist movements in the Arab world have become genuinely popular, Lewis asserted, so have they become “less national and more religious –in other words, less Arab and more Islamic. In moments of crisis –and these have been many in recent decades –it is the instinctive communal loyalty which outweighs all others.” The key point, Lewis insisted, is that “Islam is not conceived as a religion in the limited Western sense but as a community, a loyalty, and a way of life and that the Islamic community is still recovering from the traumatic era when Muslim governments and empires were overthrown and Muslim peoples forcibly subjected to alien, infidel rule.” The “return” of Islam as a political force was thus completely unsurprising: it was for Lewis inherent in the very nature of Islam itself and in Islam’s failed encounter with modernity. And as the last line of Lewis’s article suggested, it constituted a serious threat to the “Judeo-Christian” West: “Both the Saturday people [i.e. the Jews] and the Sunday people [the Christians] are now suffering the consequences.” Whatever else one may say about him, Bernard Lewis showed remarkable consistency over the decades. This 1976 essay is founded upon the same conception of Islam as a unitary civilization whose basic patterns were set a millennium or more ago and which continues to shape the beliefs and behaviors of Muslims everywhere even today that was central to his 1953 essay “Communism and Islam,” discussed in Chapter 4. And as we will see, Lewis would make exactly the same argument into the twenty-first century. For him Islam had always been, and remained, a civilization whose essential characteristics and historical trajectory could be deduced from the texts of the “classical” period and which did not, cannot, really change.

.

[EU rope]

The key point, Lewis insisted, is that “Islam is not conceived as a religion in the limited Western sense but as a community, a loyalty, and a way of life and that the Islamic community is still recovering from the traumatic era."

Oh, poor Muslims, they couldn't take over the world the first time but don't you worry, the next time Allah will grant them victory because they are so traumatized, and misunderstood, and offended, and insulted, and misjudged, both Shia and Sunni (and some others). They only have to remove those who oppose them.

[noir]

EU rope, do you think there is any other option in Europe than Muslim victory? Even if they will not be the majority they still compromise much of the younger generation

[The Sabbaticus]

Who made the distinction? The scholar Bernard Lewis warned not to make such distinction

I don't think many hearkened his words. Your excerpt more or less affirms my assertion. It's an interesting book by the way. Care to pass me an E-copy?

"Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalis By Zachary Lockman"

[EU rope]

EU rope, do you think there is any other option in Europe than Muslim victory?

Yes, in matter of fact, I do - I hope God will stop the Muslim abomination with a nuclear war (note wave 4).