Knobier12
287 posts






Lidewij de Vos is helder over de Islam: "Uiteindelijk vind ik niet dat de Islam bij Nederland hoort." "Moslims komen nu in hele grote aantallen naar Nederland. Vorige week, in een debat over integratie, zei Ergin van Denk: over 10-20 jaar zijn Nederlanders een minderheid. Toen zei Ergin: dus nu wordt het tijd dat jullie in onze cultuur gaan integreren." "Ho ho, dat is niet wat we willen." Interview van september 2025.


#denk #islam #nederland Wat? Geen enkele leugen schuwt van Baarle om de bizarre hatelijke ideologie te verheerlijken. Er is nog nooit iets positiefs vanuit de islam gekomen. Niets. Van baarle is een bewijs ervan



well, as I said in a QT where I also ratio'd you, your piece is about people quitting their jobs because they can't handle hearing criticism of Israel and Zionism at work. That's not being purged from public life. There is zero evidence that any alleged reduced acceptance and representation has anything whatsoever to do with Jewish identity, but rather advocacy for genocide, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who advocates for genocide, occupation, and ethnic cleansing is likely to face pushback by their colleagues and others, as they should. In short, your entire argument is predicated upon conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionist sentiment, and also conflating Zionists' discomfort with hearing Israel criticized with being excluded from public life. The reasoning is entirely circular, and you're upset because people can't be fooled anymore.






Muslim women in Iran offer their babies as martyrs while chanting “Death to America and Israel” at the end of this ritual. A death cult that offers its own children.


De erfbelasting mag best omhoog, vindt econoom Jona van Loenen. "Het is gevaarlijk als we een samenleving krijgen waarin werken niet loont, maar de bankrekening van pap en man wel. Daar moeten we een open discussie over voeren." #StandvanNederald #WNL







A few years ago I recorded an episode of my podcast Forbidden Territory for @UGent (in Dutch) about the heritability of IQ. We also touched on the third rail of racial differences. Why? Because I believe academics should be free to investigate even the most “dangerous ideas.” My guest, Han van der Maas (a renowned IQ researcher at the University of Amsterdam), explained that individual IQ differences are highly heritable, but that he does not believe in differences between racial groups. His statistical and methodological arguments (e.g. Simpson paradox) convinced me at the time. Still, he hedged his bets: it remains possible that future evidence might show racial differences. And researchers should be free to investigate that hypothesis. Forty-five colleagues from my former philosophy department apparently think otherwise. They are urging the rector to fire @nathancofnas because he claims that the IQ gap between racial groups (such as whites and blacks in the US — differences that are themselves not disputed) may have partly genetic causes, rather than purely social ones like marginalization or discrimination. They label this “pseudoscience and racism.” I understand why many people are shocked by Cofnas’s claims. But this clearly falls within the scope of academic freedom. For years, the psychoanalysis of Jacques Lacan was taught and researched at my department — a complete pseudoscience. Dozens of theses and PhDs were written about it, all scientifically worthless. No one batted an eye. Unlike my colleagues, I published several papers explaining why (Lacanian) psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific (drive.google.com/file/d/0B_K-qt…). Yet I never demanded that my colleagues be fired. None of the signatories have any peer-reviewed publications on IQ or genetics. I have a letter recommending Cofnas' work on IQ from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal Intelligence. Even if the hypothesis of racial IQ differences could be shown to belong to the realm of pseudoscience, that still would not justify dismissal. If @UGent caves in to this demand, it will be another blow to academic freedom at my alma mater — following the new rector’s illiberal statements suggesting that researchers questioning the safety of vaccines or the Gaza “genocide” are “crossing a line that must not be crossed.” Such calls for dismissal from people without any expertise are also strategically unwise, as they only fuel “red-pilling.” When academics appear determined to suppress a dangerous idea at all costs, people understandably get suspicious: "What are they trying to hide?" And so trust in academia erodes further. youtube.com/watch?v=YHhbWm…


Ik bedoel maar. Het gaat dus niet om religie, maar om een specifieke religie.

Denk-kandidaat flyert in Duindorp: ‘Opkankeren jij, je bent toch niet doof?’ ad.nl/den-haag/denk-…









