The West has shamefully ignored the clear warnings Pim Fortuyn gave his life for, standing by as Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies actively seize control of Western nations, undermining our freedoms and cultural foundations.
Yesterday marked the 22nd anniversary of the assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Beyond his role as a politician, Fortuyn was a multifaceted individual—a notable author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist, and academic. He gained prominence for founding the Pim Fortuyn List (Lijst Pim Fortuyn or LPF) in 2002.
His legacy remains vital to the Netherlands, serving as a poignant reminder of the dangers posed by Islam and left-wing radicals to Western societies. Fortuyn wasn’t merely a public figure; he stood as a staunch defender of Dutch culture and freedoms. Tragically, his life was cut short by a communist assassin sympathetic to Islam on May 6, 2002.
Fortuyn’s assassination should have sounded a loud warning about the deep-seated conflicts within Western societies regarding identity, values, and particularly, the importation of Islam into the West.
Fortuyn, a flamboyant, openly gay Catholic politician who called Islam “backward” and favored zero immigration, was shot dead, plunging the Netherlands into a political crisis. Tipped to become the country’s next prime minister, Fortuyn’s death galvanized temporary support for his political movement and prompted politicians from across the spectrum to support an unprecedented immigration clampdown. However, not soon after his murder, the threat of mass illegal immigration and the dangerous effect of open borders and Islamic immigration were quickly forgotten by many.
The Defense of Dutch Values
In 1997, Fortuyn published a book titled ‘Against the Islamization of Our Culture’, which stirred controversy among leftists and Muslims in the Netherlands. Within its pages, Fortuyn delivered a stark warning about the threat Islam posed to Dutch norms and values. He argued that the Dutch, due to their advanced individualization, were at risk of losing sight of their cultural identity and the hard-won achievements that defined it. These include the separation of church and state, the rights of women, and the acceptance of homosexuality.
Fortuyn contended that with the decline of communism, a new adversary emerged in the form of Islamic culture. He saw it as fueled by a global fundamentalist wave, which he saw as a response to the uncertainties brought about by globalization. Rather than advocating for aggressive measures, Fortuyn proposed a nuanced approach, advocating for the promotion and defense of Dutch culture, particularly its modernist and Enlightenment values. He emphasized the importance of preserving these values against Islamic influences, especially for immigrants, without imposing them forcibly on the entire Dutch population. Just before the September 11 attacks, Fortuyn even called for a “Cold War” against Islam, advocating for a non-military defensive stance. Subsequently, the attacks and the ensuing War on Terror thrust Islam into the forefront of Dutch politics for the first time.
Fortuyn’s sharp critique of Islamic immigration was rooted in a clear-eyed view of the threats to the West’s foundational values, such as freedom of expression, secular governance, and rights for women and the LGBTQ+ community. His strong stance and brutal honesty made him a threat to the left-wing establishment and their open-border great replacement scheme.
Fortuyn highlighted the tensions that arise when an intolerant ideology like Islam meets a liberal democratic society. He famously referred to Islam as “a backward culture,” arguing that its adherence to traditional values and religious doctrines clashed with the progressive ideals of Western democracy. Fortuyn expressed his concerns: “I do not hate Islam. I find it a backward culture. I’ve traveled a great deal in the world, and wherever Islam rules, it is appalling.” “I am also in favor of a cold war with Islam. I see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion.”
On the topic of multiculturalism and integration, Fortuyn was equally forthright, emphasizing the necessity of assimilation into Dutch society: “I have no desire to go through the emancipation of women and homosexuals all over again.” “Not integrating means leaving. The borders have to be hermetically closed.” “If it were legally possible, I’d say no more Muslims will get in here. The influx of Muslims would threaten freedoms in the liberal Dutch society.”
The Impact of His Assassination
The assassination was carried out by Volkert van der Graaf, a left-wing environmental and animal rights activist who also expressed sympathy for Islamic causes. During his trial, van der Graaf claimed he murdered Fortuyn to prevent him from using Muslims as scapegoats and targeting vulnerable societal groups to gain political power. His trial commenced on March 27, 2003, and he was convicted on April 15, 2003, receiving a sentence of 18 years. However, he was released on parole in May 2014 after serving only 12 years, fulfilling two-thirds of his sentence in line with Dutch legal norms.
Many contend that Volkert van der Graaf’s act was a stark political assassination. Critics argue that the judges either overlooked crucial aspects of the case, were swayed by his arguments, or were possibly complicit. At the trial, van der Graaf stated, “I saw Fortuyn as a danger to the weaker members of society.” Echoing Minister Zalm of the VVD, who labeled Fortuyn as dangerous, van der Graaf also believed Fortuyn posed a significant threat due to the potential power he might gain, prompting van der Graaf to conclude that Fortuyn had to be stopped. He expressed a strong aversion to Fortuyn’s ideas and his method of articulating them. “I saw that the other party leaders were unable to contend with him,” van der Graaf testified, “Verbally debating with Fortuyn was futile; I knew the depth of his convictions having known him for a long time. I saw no alternative but to end his life.” Volkert’s actions severely undermined democracy, jeopardized public security, and profoundly shocked society. Despite the gravity of his crimes, he served just 12 years in prison.
Van der Graaf’s fatal attack was not just against Fortuyn but also on the principles of democratic discourse and the very right to express a different opinion.
Forewarnings and Demonization
In the weeks preceding the May 2002 general elections, Pim Fortuyn foresaw potential dangers stemming from the severe criticisms he faced. The polls showed that his party, The Pim Fortuyn List (LPF), was poised to make significant gains, potentially becoming the country’s largest party. However, Fortuyn, a bold critic of immigration from Muslim-majority countries, was frequently maligned by both the Dutch political and media establishments.
The demonization took various forms: Prime Minister Wim Kok accused him of “inciting hatred,” while others in the media made more direct personal attacks. A Christian newspaper columnist hoped he would contract AIDS soon, and a leader of the Dutch Socialists likened him to French conservative politician Jean-Marie Le Pen. Even more extreme, a psychotherapist publicly branded his personality as showing “psychopathic elements,” and he was compared to advocates of racial violence.
This campaign of vilification culminated tragically. Fortuyn, having received numerous threats, explicitly accused his critics of creating a perilous environment. He warned, just days before his death, “If something happens to me, then they [the people demonizing me] are co-responsible. They have created this climate. This has to stop.” His plea went unheeded, and he was assassinated by Volkert van der Graaf, an activist who perceived Fortuyn as a threat that needed to be eliminated to “protect Muslims from being scapegoated.”
Fortuyn’s concerns about being targeted were further echoed in his last column, published posthumously, where he discussed an incident involving Filip Dewinter, a Belgian conservative politician, who was assaulted and demonized in a similar fashion.
Fortuyn’s Enduring Legacy
Two decades on, Fortuyn’s questions about integration, cultural identity, and the limits of tolerance continue to resonate in the Netherlands and across Europe. His fears about the dilution of Dutch and, more broadly, Western cultural values in the face of unassimilated immigration have only become more pertinent amidst ongoing societal debates. His legacy is a complex tapestry of intellectual rigor, positions against leftist and Islamic ideology, and an unapologetic love for his country’s heritage. Fortuyn’s life and subsequent assassination serve as a stark reminder of the price many have to face to defend Western values against ideologies like Communism and Islam that seek to undermine them.
Tragically, Fortuyn’s assassination was not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing trend of targeted violence against those who openly critique Islam. This pattern has become increasingly prevalent as Western countries continue to accommodate large influxes of immigrants, some of whom adhere strictly to Sharia law. In a hauntingly similar case, filmmaker Theo van Gogh, another vocal critic of Islam in the Netherlands, met a brutal end for his outspoken views.”
Haunting Echoes of Ideological Battles: Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn
The following video is haunting; both the interviewer, Theo Van Gogh, and the subject, Pim Fortuyn, were murdered in the Netherlands due to their outspoken views on Islam—Fortuyn by a communist who claimed to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution, and Van Gogh by a Muslim enraged by his film “Submission” criticizing Islam.
In the interview, Fortuyn articulates to Theo Van Gogh his unwavering defense of Western democratic values against the challenges posed by Islam. Unyielding in his commitment to free speech, Fortuyn confronts the “subsidized thought police,” advocating for open and necessary debates on cultural and Islamic integration without fear of reprisal.
Despite facing intense legal and physical threats and media scrutiny, his unwavering courage highlights his dedication to preserving modernity and foundational freedoms. Tragically, his bold stance ultimately made him a target, leading to his assassination—an act that underscores the peril faced by those who dare to challenge Islam.
In 2004, Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, was brutally stabbed to death for directing “Submission: Part 1”, a film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that critiqued the treatment of women under Islam. The assassin, Mohammed Bouyeri, did not merely kill van Gogh; he also pinned a letter on his chest with a knife, threatening other prominent critics like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This murder came just two years after Pim Fortuyn, a professor turned politician who aimed to save his country from Islamization, was shot dead.
Fortuyn once remarked, “We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house,” a statement that underscores his concerns about the cultural clashes within Dutch society. Similarly, after van Gogh’s assassination and under continuous threats, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee the Netherlands in 2006. Both incidents starkly demonstrate the extreme reactions elicited by criticism of Islamic practices.
This pattern of targeting critics was not isolated at the time. From Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who faced an axe attack while hiding in a safe room with his granddaughter, to Swedish artist Lars Vilks, Danish Islam critic Lars Hedegaard, who was shot at in his home by a Muslim dressed as a postman alleged to be Basil Hasan, and even British Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, all have suffered or been threatened with death by Muslims. These individuals were often portrayed not as victims but as provocateurs by significant segments of the media and political figures, who claimed their actions had ‘provoked’ such attacks.
This troubling narrative also affected Lars Hedegaard, a Danish journalist and historian who survived an assassination attempt by a young immigrant. Despite the clear intent to kill him over his criticisms of Islam, initial media reports and public discussions frequently highlighted his role as an “Islam critic” and his prior hate-speech trial, for which he was acquitted, rather than the attack itself.
Pim Fortuyn and his LPF party helped establish Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party (PVV), whose criticisms of Islam and immigration echo Fortuyn’s. Wilders has faced severe repercussions for his critical stance on Islam, living under continuous threat and in hiding due to persistent security concerns. In 2022 alone, he received 600 out of 1,125 death threats made against Dutch MPs, with extremists, including Pakistani politicians and a cricket player, publicly advocating for his assassination. Rewards for his death have even been posted on jihadist websites, promising paradisiacal rewards.
To ensure his safety, the Dutch government has implemented extraordinary security measures for Wilders, including a bulletproof vest, a specially designed bomb-proof house with shatterproof windows, and constant protection by bodyguards. He travels in an armored police vehicle, living a life akin to those in conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ongoing threats have required tens of millions of Euros in security costs over the past two decades, reflecting the extreme dangers faced by critics of Islam in Europe. Wilders remains a prominent figure despite these risks, especially following his recent electoral success. He champions the concerns of those who feel unrepresented and heightens the need for Dutch authorities to be vigilant in their protection.
Reflections on a Tragic Anniversary
As the West reflects on the 22 years since Fortuyn’s assassination, it is crucial to remember the lessons about the importance of safeguarding democratic values and the cost of ignoring or downplaying the challenges posed by Islam and communist ideologies, which are incompatible with those values. Fortuyn’s outspoken defense of Western culture and his ultimate sacrifice continue to be a touchstone for discussions on freedom, Islamic and left-wing intolerance, and the nature of true liberalism.
Fortuyn also underscored the dangers posed by globalism and its impact on national identity. His words resonate as strongly today as they did two decades ago, serving as a crucial reminder of the necessity for vigilance in safeguarding national identity and cultural integrity against global and ideological pressures. Moreover, the violent measures taken by Muslims and Communists in their pursuit to influence Western nations should have served as a stark warning to leaders in Europe and America. Unfortunately, it appears that many have overlooked or disregarded Pim Fortuyn’s warnings and his assassination, failing to heed the lessons they offered.
Tragically, in the years that followed, Western nations have witnessed a surge in the presence of Islamic supremacists who have formed alliances with communist elements, wreaking havoc and influencing policies in our societies. More and more critics of Islam have been silenced—some through violence, others forced into hiding or suffering professional and personal ostracization.
These forces have infiltrated various levels of government and continue to gain power across many Western nations, as evidenced by pro-Hamas protests and other forms of violent activism. This alliance’s growing influence underscores a disturbing trend: too many have either ignored Fortuyn’s warnings or are too frightened to speak out, fearing retribution. As we mark this anniversary, more people are needed to confront these threats boldly, honoring Fortuyn’s legacy by refusing to succumb to the threats he so bravely fought against.
News Link: https://rairfoundation.com/fatal-cost-criticizing-islam-west-remembering-pim-fortuyn/
