Oh please give me a break.

The murder of Theo Van Gogh was terrible, but I am astounded how it's always extrapolated to mean that the Netherlands is full of Islamic fundamentalists. One man's action is then taken to mean all Moroccans of Islamic dissent are terrorists.

Your line about European women forced to wear head scarfs is such inane bullshit.

Geert Wilders wanted to reach Theo Van Gogh's status and put out Fitna, which no one here remembers because it was wildly ignored by the west and east.

I mean holy shit I live in the Middle East. Am not at all religious. Yet for some reason you make it seem like we are all here sharpening our swords just ivying for pink flesh and blood.

In the same way I could say there is mass murder of Muslims by Chrisitan warlods and their bombs. ROFLMAO.

Oh and Theo's movies really fucking sucked... he tried insulting everyone into quiet submission until unluckily he got the attention of some loony bastard.

Van Gogh was killed for making this movie. Pinned to his body was a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This didn't happen in the Middle East, this happened in the Netherlands.

What was once the most enlightened, open and accepting society in Europe is now infested with the dregs of the third world and their primitive minds. Because of this, in some European neighbourhoods, indigenous European women are nearly forced to wear a headscarf for fear of rape. Some choose to dye their blonde hair instead.

In all fairness, the Dutch do deserve credit as they are on the forefront of fighting the Islamicisation of Europe with brave individuals like Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders.

Who would ever guess that we'd revert back to a world where politicians could fear being killed in their own countries.

Upvote not for the quality of the short film, but for the courage it took to publicize.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'artists, dutch, painting, post impressionism, vincent, van Gogh' to 'artists, dutch, painting, post impressionism, vincent, van Gogh, ears are overrated' - edited by rasch187

Van Gogh and assault rifles - TOGETHER AT LAST!

^Quboid:
Damn I want to go to Amsterdam so much. It is the best place in the world and not (just) because of the coffee shops.

where else can you ride a beach cruiser on cobblestone streets lined with 17th century canals while high off your gourd; or peruse the Van Gogh museum after eating space cake in the company of a gorilla?

there's at least six of us, that are cinemaniac enough to have certainly seen it.
ahh, yes. just checked the comments on the van gogh scene.

so many *promote-able queues, so little time, eh?

Man choggie.. reading his own shit is half of what makes Ginsberg so great.
I wish I could find a video for him reading "Death to Van Gogh's Ear". His voice becomes almost robotic.. he's chanting. The reading is such that the words hit you in an entirely different way.

"What moulting time is for the birds - the time when they change their feathers - so adversity or misfortune is the difficult time for human beings."

Vincent Van Gogh, December 1878

I'm an American who moved to a suburb of Amsterdam right around the time of the Theo van Gogh murder. My wife is Dutch, I'm getting to be pretty good at the language. Most Sundays, you'll find us in church--and the church will be packed. Our daughter's best (Dutch) friend is Roman Catholic; it was a big deal when she invited my daughter to her confirmation. Most of my friends are secular, and I think that one difference with the US is that atheists are pretty open about their views--sometimes to the point of being rude, but, then again, being blunt to the point of rudeness is a trait for which the Dutch are famous in general.

Dealing with the diversity of religious belief in the Netherlands is a difficult and interesting subject. The problem with this report is that it's overly simplistic and based on extremely superficial reporting--who on earth is this reporter to make such sweeping statements about this country? He obviously didn't talk to very many people, and he also obviously didn't step outside central Amsterdam, unless it was to go to The Hague for a location shot. The fact that they showed a building as the parliament when it wasn't is telling--how seriously would you take a foreign report on the U.S. if they put up a shot of the National Archives and said it was the Capitol?

Take the good old days that the reporter talks about when church attendance was 95%. Among Catholics, yes. Then there were the Protestants, who have historically held the wealth and the power and historically wanted nothing to do with the Catholics. And there was a secular (mainly socialist) bloc (not to mention the Jews). The entire society was segregated. You didn't just go to a Catholic (or Protestant or no) church; you belonged to a Catholic (or Protestant or secular) social club, your kids went to a Catholic (or Protestant or secular) school, you voted for a Catholic (or Protestant or secular) party, etc. Dutch tolerance meant that the different groups didn't try to kill each other; it didn't mean they had to like each other or even interact with other beyond what was absolutely necessary.

That doesn't mean that the more fluid society of today is better, but the story is much more complex than this report makes it sound. What worries me is that Fox News is doing so well in the ratings. If that many people are watching, some of them must believe this nonsense.

"And about van Gogh, he was killed by one insane muslim with a death wish. He had a low tolerance, not our society."

I thought part of the reason the reaction was so strong (mosque burnings and the like) was because of the widespread perception that there was NOT just one guy doing this. There was one guy who happened to be lucky enough to pull off the murder, sure. But isn't there an active, vocal, and dangerous minority of extremist Muslims in the Netherlands who would've been happy to do the same thing if only they had gotten there first? I mean, Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn't have to leave your country because of one or two crazy folks. There's a whole community of people in Western Europe that want her--and anyone like her--murdered. Moreover, the reporting in papers here on the Dutch reaction to the killing was usually framed in terms of "They think enough is enough!" rather than "They feel they have to nip this in the bud."

Now, maybe that widespread perception--if it even exists--is mistaken. In that case, though, you have to do the tough job of explaining why so many tolerant people came to have such an intolerant and mistaken view of the situation. (DISCLAIMER: even if this widespread perception weren't mistaken, that wouldn't justify the anti-muslim backlash).

Or, maybe all our journalism is as bad as Fox News (or I've misread it). But you seem to think your country becoming more like the U.S. is some drastic, catastrophic change for the worse. If I understand you correctly, you feel it represents the birth of a culture of intolerance. In my estimation, however, you didn't have far to go in that regard in the first place. From the outside, it seems like you've spent the last 20 years IMPORTING intolerance (and not from America, either).

" Lastly, Those same millions of other people are not so much outraged or pissed either when some infidel apostate gets a bullet between the eyes, or when a suicide bomber kills children in the "Name of the Prophet"."
That is just unfair, and untrue. Just like with other faiths and ideologies, there are people who believe in the god, but not in the literal texts. There are calls for violence in the Quran, just like in the bible, just like in many other 'sacred' texts. This doesn't mean that you can just call anyone who believes in it an accomplice. Just like with 9/11 and with van Gogh, as with the embassy-burning, there were some people who were for it, some people who were neutral about it, and people who were against it. All of them from the same faith. I think it is offensive if you just pile them all onto the guilty-pile. The are a lot of muslims who don't belive in violence, as there are a lot of people from other faiths or ideologies who do. This lack of ability or willingness to distinguish between them and just take some lable to damn them all is a very scary human trait. And we should all try to identify it within ourselves and reason against it.

but millions of other people also read that book, and didnt do what he did, so I would like to exclude that as the main reason.

Then all that remains is to find another reason. It is true that most muslims are not psychopaths, thats for damn sure, but the way I see it, no credit is due to Islam, the Quran or Muhammad for that. The reason most people dont behave at all the way these delusional fantasies says you should behave, is that on some level, reason kicks in with most people. Morals are innate. We have them genetically, and society shapes them and we cant help to think for ourselves from time to time, apologies due to Muhammad on that last one.

Again, if Islam is your ONLY influence, if it has indeed infected every part of society, top to bottom, you are in effect living in a Taliban-state, and everybody behaves more or less like this lunatic. The state itself, by LAW, can execute people like Theo Van Gogh for insulting the prophet, or god, or "faith" or who the fuck knows.

This persons probably only influence, was the Quran-fantasies, that was probably the only reality he knew, the only place he got his morals and his views about the world, he probably intentionally shut out all other communication with the real world, when we ask ourselves, "where could he possibly have gotten the idea that this was smart?", the answer is obvious: Thats exactly how the Quran wants you to behave, like a submissive, braindead amoeba in Gods hands. Again, people do not generally behave that way, but thats not the fault of the Quran, everything else is to blame for good behavior. Credit where its due. The Quran can only be blamed for the kind of behavior it endorses and promotes.

Lastly, Those same millions of other people are not so much outraged or pissed either when some infidel apostate gets a bullet between the eyes, or when a suicide bomber kills children in the "Name of the Prophet". But when some englishman writes a book, or a couple of Danes draws some cartoons, its riots in the streets, death sentences by proxy and without trial, imams and other charlatans condemning the "hideous acts" left and right, and of course the always so charming Christians who apologize that some faithful loon got offended.

And about van Gogh, he was killed by one insane muslim with a death wish.

If only that was true. Why was he "insane"?, why the death wish? Was it because he was schizophrenic? Beaten as a child?, Depressed? No. He had been reading a book that claims its the most perfect, inerroneous, FINAL word of God Himself, and that anyone who says otherwise deserve death and his killer deserve paradise. This deranged work of fantasy is protected by the faithful and the naive all the time, hailed as good influence on people and society, and granted tax-deductibility instead of the prison sentences that are due for brainwashing of children.

If FoxNews false claims about the Netherlands lack of religious tolerance was true, I'd move there in an instant.

I have no evidence that it's economy will bring America down, just a strong suspicion. The amount of debt America has is overwhelming, and it keeps getting larger and larger.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and its sources.
And about van Gogh, he was killed by one insane muslim with a death wish. He had a low tolerance, not our society. After this mosques were burnt, the media started using muslim as a four-letter-word, and everyone was afraid to say anything (unless they were politician). I am not saying this all started after the murder, it was going on before, but as you well know with 9/11, a national scare doesn't bring out the best in people.

I'm sorry to be skeptical, but what evidence do you have that our economy will "collapse under its debt?" Also, didn't the murder of Theo van Gogh serve to show you that you didn't have quite the level of multi-cultural tolerance you thought you did?

In other words, I'm wondering why you think that particular murder was a **cause** of declining tolerance, rather than the **result** of declining tolerance?

I hope I'm not coming off as confrontational here. I'm just trying to understand your perspective, and learn a bit more about the Netherlands.