Thursday, May 3, 2012

WTF! Hate Speech pOmO Fee-Faw-Fums Wilders?

- De Mul website: all priciples are equally unworthy - 
A decade after the first political murder in the Netherlands in modern history - of the right wing politician Pim Fortuyn - the critters are once again crawling out of the woodwork in order to drop a few poisonous memes into the culture. A pOmO ideolog philosopher can't pass up an opportunity like that - can he?
NRC newspaper reported that Rotterdam politician Marco Pastors, one of Fortuyn's last political heirs, has withdrawn his cooperation to a speech commemorating the Fortuyn legacy. The speech will be held by Rotterdam Erasmus University professor and anti philosopher Jos de Mul (wiki). Pastors thinks the speech is "inappropriate and disrespectful". In his speech De Mul is suggesting that the murder of Fortuyn had become inevitable after his attack on Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution (stipulating the non discrimination principle). "When he did, Fortuyn substituted politics for civil war", fee-faw-fums De Mul. He says he does not want to apologize the murder *ahem* ...but...
(...) declaring the politically natural state [sic] inevitably calls for some symbolic of actual violence: it is in any case implicit in an act suspending the rule of law". 
The premise entails two exploding cigars *Marx Brothers worthy*: I don't mean to excuse murder, but I do  so nevertheless *dishonest coward* is faint cover. The second sophistry is the equivocation of public debate and the act of repealing the law. So who is subverting the rule of law here? Fortuyn, Wilders (to whom this omertà seems to be implicitly addressed *wOw*), or De Mul himself?
A brief investigation of De Mul website reveals this ponderer of life is fascinated by fate, inevitability, karma, predestination, as well as other variations of determinism that denies human free will *OMG*. His premise regarding inevitability may well be like the man with the hammer who sees nails everywhere he looks *LOL*
Article 1 is originally a negative right, marking the limits within which government can operate. But in the last 25 years or so the article also pertains to the relationship between citizens. This corrupt pOmO interpretation of the law constitutes a violation of natural property rights. However abominable, this was not Fortuyn's concern.
Like Wilders he was looking for legal means to defend against stealth islamization. The debate has come a long way in the last decade. We now know that repealing Article 1 would have been like throwing the baby with the bathwater.
Wilders had made the proper identification. Islam is religion in part, but it is much more a martial ideology - a Sorelic myth - psychological narrative to spur the followers in to armed conquest. Well into the nineteenth century religion was the only conceptual framework available (mark for example the pseudo religion of Auguste Comte, based on science) which explains why Mohammedanism was cast into the mold of religion.
But all that doesn't stand in the way of De Mul's poisonous suggestions and insinuations. A moral and honest man would never justify murder under any circumstanes. You'd almost think some are preparing the ground for the third political murder in the Netherlands (the butchering of Theo van Gogh being the second). But no, wait...that's not how these highly ethical idea workers operate! Don't ever think their end justifies the means...