Is Europe dead or dieing?

Does Fortuyn's anger reflect the mood of the public?

In a comment on Lawrence Austers VFR I wrote about a clip of an angry Pim Fortuyn vowing not to take Islamization anymore:

This clip indicates the mood of a significant part of the European public.

Mr Auster replied:

Snouck says the clip reflects the mood of a significant part of the European public. I sadly disagree. No one EVER sees such ideas and feelings being expressed in public in Europe. If such ideas and feelings were being expressed by a significant part of the European public, Europe would be a different continent from what it now is, and would be on the path to saving itself, instead of being on the path to Islamization and death.

That is a big compliment to Mr. Fortuyn and Mr. Wilders. But is it true that such ideas or feelings are not EVER being expressed in public? Obviously the Islamisation of Europe is advancing in most European countries, including The Netherlands. But in Flanders the Vlaams Belang, in Italy the Lega Nord, in Denmark the People's Party, Switzerland the People's Party and in Germany Denmark's People's Party, Holland's Party for Freedom, Switzerland's People's Party, in Germany Pro-Deutschland are speaking up against Islamization and mass-immigration as VFR commenter Bjorn Larsen also points out.

How must opposition to Multi-culturalism be expressed?

As a proof of his statement Mr. Auster says:

If such ideas and feelings were being expressed by a significant part of the European public, Europe would be a different continent from what it now is, and would be on the path to saving itself, instead of being on the path to Islamization and death.

Is this really so? Would Europe be choosing live if this sentiment was expressed by the public? Firstly, the public is not able to express itself coherently, so it must be leaders who give words to the mood of the public. Secondly, the way to do it must be acceptable to the public. The reason why Fortuyn was acceptable was because he initially expressed himself as a defender of European freedoms and equality. If he had started off as he did in the video he would never have gathered a following. These expressions only became acceptable after he had become a electoral power. I do not even think it is all that important, that this sentiment is expressed in this way at all. It is important that the sentiment exists in the leadership and the public. But opposition must be expressed in a calm and deliberate way in order to not to preclude it from becoming respectable.

There is a decade of struggle ahead

I do not think Europe is as dead as Mr. Auster seems to think. An opposition is being built against Multiculturalism, which has the mainstream. Multiculturalism is losing ground as more and more bad news about immigrant communities is coming out. But it will take at least a decade of hard work before there will be a new consensus in the smaller countries and the bigger countries may even take two decades.

Pim Fortuyn shows his true colours

The night of Fortuyn

Two counter-jihadists who go by the nom de guerres of Vlad Tepes and VH have translated and subtitled many Dutch videos which have been given wider circulation on the GoV blog. One that really needed to be subtitled is a part from a documentary "The night of Fortuyn". This documentary shows the night of the coup against Pim Fortuyn on 10 February 2002. Fortuyn had been a leader and spokesman of the Leefbaar Nederland party. The party board had appointed Fortuyn in order to challenge the cartel of political parties that run the Netherlands. When Fortuyn during a Volkskrant interview showed himself hostile to mass immigration of Muslims the leadership demanded that he either resign or promise not to make any anti-immigration and anti-islamic remarks anymore. Fortuyn refused to shut up and at some point late at night he gave his motives for doing so in an tirade which was filmed. In this he gave vent not only to his own rage but to the rage of many Dutchmen and it explains the popularity of his platform and Geert Wilders' platform. If you are not Dutch and you wonder where the support for Geert Wilders and the PVV (Freedom Party) is coming from here is part of the answer.

Fortuynist Livable Rotterdam goes national

Marco Pastors, the leader of the fortuynist Livable Rotterdam party has registered a national party list called één NL (One Netherland).

The new right winged party emphases intergration, security, education, social security and administrative rejuvenation. All those who live in The Netherlands will have to accept Dutch culture as “Leitkultur”, the dominant culture.

As a Rotterdam Aeldorman Marco Pastors showed himself to be one of the most able administrators of the crop of the 2002 Fortuynist politicians. The Livable Rotterdam party performed well in the 2006 march municipal elections, receiving a very significant portion of the ethnic white vote. The platform of Livable Rotterdam is not explicitly ethnic, but rather culturalist pro-Dutch and anti-multiculturalist.

The leading man of Livable Rotterdam/One NL is a boon to any party due to his administrative gravitas. Whether he will be able to formulate a attractive political platform and attract significant political support is however questionable.