Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are
Dutch journalist Joanie de Rijke, a sort of blonde Daniel Pearl wannabe, went to Afghanistan and sought to interview the leader of a Taliban group that had ambushed and killed ten French soldiers. Instead of giving her an interview, the leader kidnapped her, held her for six days while repeatedly raping her, then released her in exchange for $100,000 ransom. After her release, she said in media interviews that while her captors “did horrible things to me … [t]hey also respected me…. They are not monsters.”
Joanie de Rijke
is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters…. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims—that is the one thing they will condemn.Wilders’s speech has set off outrage among … the Dutch elite. In an excellent article at The Brussels Journal, a model of what journalism ought to be, Thomas Landen provides a full account of de Rijke’s kidnapping and brings out the meaning of her behavior, which he calls, not Stockholm Syndrome, but Pre-Captivity Stockholm Syndrome:
Those who have been abducted and suffer from Stockholm syndrome usually have not placed themselves in danger willingly. They had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The phenomenon illustrated by the case of Joanie de Rijke is that of people who for ideological reasons deny the existence of danger and subsequently put themselves in danger. Unlike ordinary Stockholm syndrome sufferers they do not begin to shown signs of loyalty to the criminal while in captivity, but have already surrendered to the criminal before their captivity, and, indeed, have ended up in captivity as a consequence of their ideological blindness.I would add this. De Rijke wanted to interview Taliban fighters who had killed ten French soldiers. So she regarded these enemies, not as enemies and murderers to be captured or killed, but as interesting subjects for a human interest story. She sought to legitimize them even before she met them.
She’s like Daniel Pearl. I’ve never seen Pearl criticized for his despicable, not to mention suicidally reckless, conduct in wanting to interview mass murdering enemies of the United States as though they were legitimate figures, and write them up in the Wall Street Journal. As Pearl himself made clear, he saw himself not as an American, but as a “journalist,” as a transnational person, occupying some neutral ground equidistant from both the United States and al Qaeda. He willingly put himself in the hands of people who he knew were enemies and murderers, and they proceeded to murder him. De Rijke got off relatively easy, perhaps because she’s a woman and not Jewish.
Also, in the photo of de Rijke, she looks like an addled fool in love with herself.
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:Stephen T. writes:
I’ll say it: I think (a) a woman is more likely than a man to put herself stupidly and obliviously in such circumstances in the first place, and (b) when she emerges alive from the ordeal of captivity and abuse come out feeling somehow “respected” and with reciprocal respect for her captors (BTW, her face looks elfin, like a computer-generated character in a Disney/Pixar film.)Roger G. writes:
I think that you accurately access people according to their words and deeds. But after making your judgment, you then, upon seeing their faces, mistakenly conclude that their appearance corresponds to their character. I’ll bet that both Joan of Arc and Nell Gwynn might have looked like that Dutch reporter.LA replies:
Joan of Arc did not look anything like Joanie de Rijk! For one thing, Joan was a devout virgin in her teens in fifteenth century France. Could she have had such a saucy expression on her face? For another, Joan was on a mission from God. Joanie is lost, confused, absorbed in herself.Christopher C. writes:
Did Joanie de Rijke have a husband she left behind?Gintas writes:
She denies explicitly that she is having Stockholm Syndrome, and Wilders says her denial is evidence. From the Brussels Journal article:Gintas continues:
My last comment, on thinking some more and re-reading your post, is just a re-discovery of Thomas Landen’s point, what he called Pre-Captivity Stockholm Syndrome. But I’m going a little further, that it’s not a Syndrome. It’s a deliberate, malicious plan of action on the part of Western elites. The journalist play-acted it for us as an object lesson: “Here, this is how we must behave properly before our soon-to-be Muslim overlords.”Mark A. writes:
In another world, when an enemy (Japan) killed members of our Navy in 1941, General James Doolittle flew a suicide mission of B-29 bombers to hit the Japanese home islands. If that happened today, I would imagine Joanie de Rijke would fly to Tokyo to interview Tojo himself. Ask him about his childhood perhaps.In connection with an exchange in another entry, “Am I too racial in my thinking about immigration?”, Kilroy M. from Australia writes:
Furthermore, I couldn’t help but notice Roger G. writing: “I think that you accurately access [sic] people according to their words and deeds. But after making your judgment, you then, upon seeing their faces, mistakenly conclude that their appearance corresponds to their character.” This is the point I was making with respect to race before I posed my original query to you.LA replies:
There is simply a difference of opinion here that no amount of dialog is going to resolve. As has been seen over and over at VFR, some people object to any critical observations about public figures based on their physical appearance. I of course disagree. I think people’s physicality, their faces, the photos of themselves they choose to put on their newspaper columns or book covers, can sometimes say a great deal about who they are. The notion that we should refuse to notice significant information that comes through people’s appearance and expression means that we should close off from our consciousness a major part of the world.LA continues:
Roger G. and Kilroy both believe that I, on seeing the face of public figures I am criticizing, mistakenly conclude that their “appearance corresponds to their character.” But isn’t it the case here that de Rijke’s face does in fact correspond with the things her public statements reveal about her character?Carol Iannone writes:
Your respondent Stephen T. in the Joanie de Rijke thread, and the whole Joanie incident, reminds me of D.H. Lawrence. Some of his work is about very modern females, liberated (for that time), and very dissatisfied, who make their way to some third world country where they somehow prefer the bondage and restrictiveness women face there.LA writes:
I sent Carol Iannone’s comment to the VFR readers’ list under this subject line:Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
I of course think it is thoroughly appropriate to think that physical appearance of people (public or not) sometimes corresponds with their character and it is fine to make critical observations about their appearance on that basis.David Yerushalmi writes:
Indeed. And, beyond her addled look, the fact that this is a blonde and fair-skinned Dutch European submitting to the physical assaults of her dark Muslim captors and subsequently embracing their “humanity” is telling in the extreme, and, as Wilders says, a metaphor for the West’s relationship to the violence and the threat of violence of the sharia faithful. We are raped by jihad violence daily and yet we yearn to find a universal bond that transcends our fundamental differences. And, in the U.S. we have transcended these differences by electing a man who himself claims a unique relationship to the Muslim world and whose race removes him from the sins of the West. He soon will be speaking to them from the citadel of sharia scholarship in order to speak to and embrace “the Muslim world” (in a way the Christian pretender Bush could not—albeit he certainly tried) while denying the notion of a Christian one. Neat.Hannon writes:
I assume this photo of her was taken before her exotic escapades. She may have a different deportment these days. Her appearance here seems to betray a profound, friendly sort of vacuity. I think she would smile demurely during any confrontation, not because she is filled with light but because she is mindless and has willfully betrayed what common sense she may have had at one time.June 2
James N. writes:
The conquerors always rape the women of the conquered. Always.Joe Catechissimo writes:
Male members of my Catholic faith community frequently comment on how “liberals look liberal”—particularly white male liberals, who look pasty, irresolute, lacking fortitude, mettle, and drive. It is hard to pinpoint a particular white liberal female type, since I believe their liberalism is more environmentally induced, and not as a result of a genetic mutation as with white liberal males.Felicie C. writes:
I agree with you that people’s personalities radiate through their facial expressions and manners, and if we deny this, we end up turning away from a great chunk of information available to us. I think that the “inner” and “outer” are greatly intertwined, and I have been conditioning myself to trust or at least listen to my gut reaction when meeting a new person, rather than dismissing my first impression out of hand.Tim W. writes:
Re “feminists don’t object to rape,” this is just a variation on the single standard you have discussed many times. Mainstream conservatives (right-liberals) complain that it’s a double standard for left-liberals to oppose discrimination as an evil, but then practice discrimination against whites. But it’s actually a single standard in which the primary goal is to supplant whites with non-whites, in which case opposing “historic” discrimination by whites while supporting discrimination against whites is to be expected. [LA replies: Exactly. The conservatives, who are right liberals, naively think of the left as inconsistent right-liberals, rather than as what they are, which is consistent leftists. The conservatives cannot allow themselves to see the truth, because that would mean publicly acknowledging that liberalism is not about making America more just, but about destroying it.EK writes:
YOU ARE HARD HITTING, TO THE POINT. AT THE CUTTING EDGE OF THIS WAR FOR SURVIVAL OF THE WESTERN WORLD (that seems tired of living and guilty for being alive).Paul K. writes:
One of the things I enjoy about your site is that you will comment on the appearance of people. You recently ran a picture of Ruth Gledhill (The London Times’ religious correspondent), adding “silly head” under it. She indeed looked like the assinine, self-satisfied liberal that her column proved her to be. Why not make that point?Roger G. writes:
You wrote:June 3
Ken Hechtman writes:
OK, I’m going to take the bait…You wrote:
LA replies:De Rijke wanted to interview Taliban fighters who had killed ten French soldiers. So she regarded these enemies, not as enemies and murderers to be captured or killed, but as interesting subjects for a human interest story. She sought to legitimize them even before she met them.I would put it differently. The Taliban officers I interviewed in 2001 were important and necessary subjects for a news story. When the Taliban got thousands of volunteers from all over the world, including several hundred from Western countries, that was news. When they prepared to fight an extended guerrilla war, using Pakistani supplies and recruits and safe havens, that was news. The public needs that kind of news in order to make an informed decision about our own war aims. But the only way to get that kind of news is to talk directly to the enemy and their supporters.
You’re making a reasonable point as to your own activities. However, when you went to Afghanistan, the Taliban was the ruling regime there. You were interviewing the officials of the regime running the country; presumably you went into their offices and talked with them in broad daylight. Pearl and de Rijke, by contrast, sought out contacts with people who were in hiding, with al Qaeda terrorist masterminds who had carried out 9/11, with Taliban insurgents who are actively fighting our own forces and seeking to overthrow the government with which we are allied and who had just killed ten French soldiers. Pearl and de Rijke set up surreptitious meeting places to be taken to these terrorists’ hiding places to interview them. What Pearl and de Rijke did was both less legitimate as journalism than what you did, and vastly more dangerous. Of course, you also got in trouble. But, again, pointing to the fundamental difference between your behavior and theirs, the trouble you got in was with the ruling regime of the country, who arrested you because they thought you were a spy and who engaged in some kind of official procedure to decide on your guilt, and who ultimately let you go, not with terrorist outlaws in hiding who were subject to no rules at all. If you had tried to interview the kind of people Pearl tried to interview, you, as a Jew, would have probably met the same fate. Instead of the Daniel Pearl Foundation there would have been the Ken Hechtman Foundation.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 01, 2009 10:31 AM | Send