Here’s an interview with Geert Wilders on Australian TV.
Near the end, the broadcaster asks if Wilders would ask every immigrant whether he’s a Muslim or not. The Dutch politician responds that he only says that there should be no immigration from Muslim countries. The Australian asks specifically if that means a Jew from Egypt or Christian from Lebanon can’t come to the Netherlands. Wilders says they would be banned. This doesn’t make sense and indicates the PVV leader isn’t just worried about Muslim immigration, but non-Westerners in general. He just can’t say that and uses Muslims as his boogeymen, which practically makes a lot of sense.
In a biography, Wilders himself seems to play down his Indo heritage. Anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen analyses Wilders' Eastern heritage with the concept of displacedness, and classifies his standpoints as "post-colonial revanchism". This analysis is met with agreement in Indo communities. However, in an interview, Wilders denied van Leeuwens' speculations.
Ignoring the post-colonial gibberish, could trying to cover up his Indo heritage be the motivation for Wilders’s absurd dye job? Wilders's hair has always made me suspicious of him, as there's just something not right about an originally dark-haired (I think) but now graying 50 year-old man wanting to be a blond. Now I think I understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.