I just helped translate a parliamentary debate with Geert Wilders (PVV) arguing against Joram van Klaver (GL), Alexander Pechtold (D66) and Attje Kuiken (PvdA). An interesting debate, warmly recommended to watch. If only because of my effort in translating it.
Now, I noticed something interesting: only Wilders knew exactly what he was talking about. The others, not at all. They simply knew the topic and their party’s position in it. All they did was to try to nail Wilders down on minor points and make him change his position to be politically correct.
Of course, it doesn’t work like that. Wilders is a very strong debater. One can only change a strong debater by presenting good arguments. None of them had any.
If you haven’t already watched this video, (and even if you have) you should know the facts. Here are a few:
- Most North African refugees come from West and Central Africa.
- From poor countries, yes. But not from war-torn regions.
- Only a minority come from war-torn countries, such as Iraq and Syria.
- Practically all refugees are young and adult males, between 15 and 35 years.
- They are predominantly Muslim.
- Women, children and/or Christian refugees are relatively rare.
- Many refugees openly state when asked that they come for the money.
- Most refugees are either analphabetic or semi-analphabetic.
- Most refugees have a Muslim and rural background, and many of them openly state they abhor Western society and what it stands for. They come, as stated above, for the money.
That’s not exactly what the media tell you, is it?
Wilders argued that the Australian solution should be tried: the “push-back policy”. When refugees arrive in Australian waters, they are send back immediately. If their boats aren’t seaworthy, Australia provides them with new and safe boats, food and water, navigation aids. Whatever they need to get back alive. Because no matter what, back they will go.
That simple policy is all it took to reduce the Australian refugee problem to nearly zero. Nobody even bothers to try, because it’s useless.
Our dynamic progressive trio above was appalled, if not outright horrified. How inhumane is that blond monstrosity on the rostrum!
According to van Klaver, Kuiken and to a (slightly) lesser extend Pechtold, all refugees are pitiful political refugees coming from war-torn nations, to be warmly welcomed with open arms (and open wallets).
All they did was repeat their questions ad nauseam or move the goalposts. If that didn’t work, they went for ad hominems. Because Wilders is … (a bad man, inhumane, etc.) his argument was invalid. Mrs. Kuiken did very well in that department, but of course Alexander Pechtold is the true master here.
Now, look again at my list above. Our progressive trio (GL, PvdA and D66 are all progressive parties) remained as vague as possible while blaming Wilders for not being specific enough. I can’t really make a firm list of what they see as refugees, but this is what I could distill out of it:
- The vast majority or all come from war-torn countries, such as Iraq and Syria.
- No mention of gender or age.
- Religion was not mentioned, unless Christian. And only then to (try to) counter Wilders.
- Women, children and/or Christian refugees were particularly mentioned.
- All of them were political refugees.
- Refugees fleeing to Australia were vastly different from those fleeing North Africa.
All three demanded very specific solutions from Wilders. None of them accepted any solution offered. Why? Because:
- it came from Wilders,
- it didn’t match their party’s ideology
- it would be admitting Wilders is right after all.
They’d rather go to hell in a hurry than commit such blasphemy.
At the end of the debate Wilders mentioned the annual cost of a refugee. At best €26,500. At best, mind you. Because it can be a lot more at worst. When they, at the taxpayer’s expense, appeal to the High Court or need expensive medical treatment, for example.
Wilders contrasted this with the state old-age pension (AOW). Each such state pension is €13,000 annually. That’s before taxes are deducted. There are plenty of people who have to subsist on this meager income. Wilders found this abysmal. The other three “social”-minded parties didn’t even want to talk about it.
There is one big difference between that old-age pensioner and a healthy young African men looking for nice place to retire in comfort. That pensioner paid for his paltry pension his entire life… The young healthy African man hasn’t paid anything at all, and expects a lot more.
There are many stories abound about refugees refusing accommodation, not accepting clothing or food because they want, demand and expect better. Very often they get away with it. Something our old-age pensioner doesn’t even try. He knows he’d be laughed away and might even get a deduction to teach him his proper place.
Generally speaking, refugees try to obtain housing in major cities and refuse to be housed in smaller cities and villages.
One item not mentioned is what is eventually to happen with those refugees. At the moment, the caring socialists want to do nothing. Just support them any way possible to come over, and take it easy. As easy as you like it.
Now, most of those refugees are young healthy African men in the prime of their lives. Many are either analphabetic or semi-analphabetic. What kind of jobs can they do? The demand for that kind of unskilled labor in Europe is practically zero.
You can’t have them roaming the streets or keep them in a hostel indefinitely. Sooner or later they either have to go back (or at least somewhere else) or start to become contributing members of society. The first option is out of the question (according to our progressive friends) and the second next to impossible. Educating semi-analphabetic adults is very difficult, and equally expensive.
Methinks that Wilders’ Australian solution is by far the most humane and affordable. The most inhumane solutions came from our progressive trio — they don’t want to do anything at all, apart from opening a free shuttle service, including free bed and breakfast, across the Mediterranean.
— H. Numan