Right and Left upside down: Geert Wilders and the Tea Party Movement
Over the decades I was a Leftist, I lived under the evidently misguided belief that my side was for freedom and democracy and the other was rigid, old farts willing to do anything to preserve the ancien régime.
Well, nowhere have I been proven more wrong than Holland where the history of the last decade – from the 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn to the 2005 murder of Theo Van Gogh to the current controversy surrounding the trial (and political candidacy) of Geert Wilders – makes clear the we indeed live in a world upside down.
As a reminder, Wilders is the Dutch politician now on trial for “hate-speech” in the Netherlands. Among other things he has produced the film Fitna, accusing Islam of being a violent ideology, and called for the banning of the Koran in Holland in similar manner to the banning of Mein Kampf in that country. Many leftist, multi-culturalists have come down heavily on Wilders for this but the Netherlands is a complicated place and others see Wilders as a paragon of free speech and honesty. Needless to say, Wilders’ positions are defensible, even if his methods may have been excessive to our eyes.
Furthermore, many Dutch citizens are apparently on Wilders’ side because, in the midst of his trial, an election is being held and the standard bearer of the Freedom Party is enjoying tremendous popularity. From Reuters:
A Dutch Labour politician’s call to keep far-right leader Geert Wilders out of a new government has stirred anger among other parties who consider the move undemocratic and likely to drive voters towards him.
Wilders and his Freedom Party have been a focus of debate since the Dutch cabinet collapsed on Saturday, as the election which could be held as early as May will be a key opportunity for the anti-immigration group to increase its influence after a stunning success at European elections last year.
Frans Timmermans, a member of the Labour party and minister for European affairs, said on Monday that Labour would refuse to govern in coalition with Wilders’ party, and he called on other parties to consider a similar approach.
“The Labour party stands for a completely different Holland than the party of Wilders, and for that reason we cannot be in a government with him,” a spokeswoman for the Labour party said.
“He (Timmermans) dared other parties to think the same thing. Do they want to be in a government that segregates people by race and religion?”
Wilders has described the call as an “arrogant” attempt to ringfence his Freedom Party (PVV) and said it was an insult to the democratic system, telling Dutch media “the voter will seek punishment for this”.
Members of other parties have also described the move as undemocratic and warned that it could push voters into the arms of Wilders, considered a maverick among the political elite.
What can the Tea Party Movement learn from Wilders? Two things, I think. The first is courage. We are dealing with big issues. Don’t be afraid. Go for them. The public will reward you.
The second is to think globally (to use an old leftist phrase). America is an exceptional country, but the tendency among certain elements of the Tea Party Movement (not just Ron Paulites, but them especially) to use this exceptionalism as an excuse to roll up the plank and act is if the rest of the world does not exist is not only impossible, it’s absurd. Technology has made our globe the size of a peanut. Unwinding the global economy at this point is ridiculous and impoverishing to all. Pretending that ideologies, such as the one Wilders opposes, are not out to destroy our civilization is being willfully ignorant and self-destructive. Learn from Chairman Geert!
Okay, I’m being cute with that last phrase, but there is something to be learned here. Courage is global. Our values are global and wue should ally with those who espouse them. Here’s another example. And for an update on the Wilders Trial go here.
UPDATE: There has been some discussion on here about the matter of book-banning as it reflects on the Wilders case. As an author, it should go without saying that I unequivocally oppose book-banning. Regarding Wilders, I had the pleasure of meeting the man at a party in Los Angeles last year and spent thirty minutes or so talking with him, often one-on-one. He is extremely well-spoken and personable. I raised the issue of book-banning with him and he acknowledged that it was problematic in anglo-saxon society and also indicated that he personally opposed it, but he raised the question of banning the Koran in Holland because that country (and Germany) had already banned Mein Kampf. (MK is available only to scholars in restricted libraries.) He indicated this banning was a kind of publicity stunt aimed at a form of consciousness raising. I believe he was being honest with me. After all, the aim of his short film Fitna was to publish portions of the Koran that he deemed racist and violent in intent – essentially to publicize them.
“It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”–This from the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie, as quoted in this Mark Steyn article.
So whether or not you speak the truth is irrelevant, saying something disrespectful of muslims lands you in jail (or much worse, if you say it in a muslim-dominated country, which that one is well on its way to becoming).
Thank you, Mr. Simon for bringing this important information to our attention and for your courage. I thank you for your recommendations for the Tea Party movement. I wholeheartedly embrace your position. I hope that the hate-mongers who will target you turn out to be hoplessly self-detructive.
The trial is preposterous and sinister. I agree. But I wouldn’t make Geert Wilders into some kind of hero. Proposing to ban books is also an absurd, tyrannical impulse. My girlfriend is Dutch, and the consensus over there seems to be that this guy is an obvious closet xenophobe.
The unspeakable truth — unspoken because it’s been ruled illegal, or because the shamans of political correctness have condemned it — is the crux of virtually all political interplay in our time.
– Liberals don’t want to discuss the failure of Big Government and the welfare-regulatory state;
– Conservatives don’t want to discuss the failure of the War on Drugs or the support of “friendly” but dictatorial regimes;
– Libertarians don’t want to discuss the impossibility of an isolationist / open-borders state in an age of global religious warfare;
– Authoritarians don’t want to discuss anything.
We are being silenced by the willingness of those on the losing side of any particular argument to use intimidation and outright coercion to stifle candid discussion of the subject.
…and the suppression of open discussion of contentious subjects is an express route to fascism.
God bless and keep you, Geert Wilders.
#4 Is being a xenophone so terrible? If it means preserving and holding one’s own culture and traditions above those that were not born into it and who try to impose their will against the native-born of their host country, then I guess that makes me a xenophobe. I am so sick of the multicultural crowd telling me that my values should move over to make room for every other culture that has been allowed to usurp my own. I do not advocate violence against anyone, but I will not roll over and die either.
Thank you for your coverage of Mr. Wilders. He is a hero of Western Civilization a modern day Charles Martel.
Mr. Wilders call for banning the Koran is spoton. The Koran is a theo political hate book that calls on its followers to commit acts of evil against non believers. It has no place in our society and belongs in the trash bin of history along with Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.
The Koran call for ALL Muslims to overthrow our type of government and replace it with Sharia law. Forget Lefties but too many conservatives turn a blind eye to this in the name of political correctnes.
You’ll never here any of our talk show hosts tell you that its Islam that is at war with us not some fictive offshoot like “Islamofascism”, “radical Islam” or worse yet “terror”. Muhammad preached and practiced ISLAM. Geert gets it. So does our Lt. Colonel Allen West.
God bless Geert! Ditto Lt. Colonel Allen West!
Wilders is an impressive man who is very brave. While maybe not the ideal, in some eyes, candidate to stand up for free speech, he does so with gusto. What I find most amusing is that there is a chance of a snap election in Holland. He could see his party’s vote increase while he is on trail.
Please read Lt. Colonel West, the closet thing we have to Geert Wilders. He states -
” … our leaders MUST be held accountable for national security. War on Terror? NO. A nation does not go to war against a tactic. A nation goes to war against an ideology. Islam is a totalitarian, theocratic political ideology that seeks to control the globe and which must be stopped.”
“You need to get into the Koran…and understand their precepts. This is not a perversion. They are doing exactly what this book says.”
““You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask…the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453?”
Read more-
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/
Right on target, Roger!
I’ve met Geert Wilders and he is more like us in the Tea Party movement than anyone imagines.
http://libertyboy.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/could-geert-wilders-become-prime-minister-of-the-netherlands/
Well, Wilders may be an “obvious” xenophobe, or he may be a “closet” xenophobe, or he may be neither, but I fail to see how he can be both.
That’s not the point, though. Political parties in the Netherlands are paid for by the state. You will object, with good reason, that the taxpayer is the one who really pays, but the apparatus of the state, not the taxpayer, or the voter, decides who is a “worthy” recipient of funds. Yes, the money is allotted in proportion to votes received in past elections (thus militating against newly formed parties, incidentally), but funding may also be withdrawn from a party on ideological grounds. That has already happened in the Netherlands. To be deprived of public funding can amount to the effective banning of the party. This has occurred in Belgium, nextdoor to the Netherlands, where a political party with considerable popular support was deprived of funding from taxes and thus abolished overnight. (A private donation of more than 125 euros to a political party is illegal in Belgium.)
If Wilders is convicted, I suspect that his Freedom Party will lose any state funding in very short order. Like those Belgians, the Freedom Party’s supporters will virtually be deprived of their votes.
the tendency among certain elements of the Tea Party Movement (not just Ron Paulites, but them especially) to use this exceptionalism as an excuse to roll up the plank and act is if the rest of the world does not exist is not only impossible, it’s absurd.
So … we should encourage Muslim immigration to America? I don’t follow what you’re trying to say here.
Islams founder was a child molester. Mr. Wilders is a true hero.
“America is an exceptional country”; it is and American’s should watch out about getting in bed with any Euro right wingers. Remember, lefties coined the term right wing for the American non progressives. We are not really right wing and should be leery (or at least have eyes wide open) before dealing with any actual right wingers. We’re really ‘liberals’ in the common parlance outside the US and UK. What goes for ‘liberal’ in the US is actually “leftist”.
I’d support Wilders fight against ‘hate speech’ laws. We might have that same fight here soon and I believe in free speech…. But I wouldn’t go beyond that and actually get entangled with him or his people beyond that. If they want to pick up our ideas, that’s great… Still, I generally see foreign right wingers as political enemies and/or very similar to leftists. Those I know tend to even read left wing authors and like Mike Moore films.
Mr. simon: I have listned to many of Mr. Wilder’s speeches and watched the movie he has made… his style and approach are racist toward muslims without a doubt… however as an Iranian Muslim I condem this trial and I think it is bunch of BS… since when we put people on trials for the views.. after all we are talking about Holland here.. bunch of god damn politician wanting to get re elected are making him the scapegoat. he has every right to express his views… those politicain in Holland should take a ride to Iran and see for themselves what it is to gag people….
“his style and approach are racist toward muslims without a doubt”
what race is muslim?
I find myself gravitating to the siren-song of isloationism, if not absolute, at least a decided move in that direction, and I think it is philosophically and politcally justified.
It is interesting to see Stalin and Trotsky’s bitter falling out, over ‘Socialism in One Country’ vs ‘Global Revolution’, continually manifest itself in political and revolutionary movements throughout history to this day.
In this one, I and tending to side with Mr. Stalin (heh), and his ‘Socialism in One Country’. Namely, in modern American terms…. “We have to get our own freekin’ house in order, big time, before we can go back to much heavy lifting over spreading our values globally.”
This, I combine with the fact that I pretty much think NATO needs to be taken out back and put out of it’s misery. NATO is a mutual defense pact, and if it becomes an organization dedicated to the protection of Western socialism (and its attendant rabid anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, and anti-semitism), which it is very close to being right now, then it is doing more harm than good, and I as an American want no part of it.
So you are correct that to “roll up the plank and act is if the rest of the world does not exist” is in fact impossible, I would say that it is equally impossible for the US to play the kind of role that it has for the past 70 years. The radical left’s “long march through the institutions” set out to achieve that end above all else, and they have essentially succeeded. That might be reversable over time, but right now, we have spent ourselves into spiritual and financial exhaustion, and we CANNOT be the global force for liberty that we once were until we restore it here at home.
And that struggle will be one of titanic proportions. I hope much of the rest of the world can step up to the plate in the meantime. My read on it is, they have no choice, and they will do so, or they will die.
@14,
I think he is talking about the TP tendency to embrace liquidationist economics (clearly disproven by history) or the mantra ‘the government spends too much, end all foreign aid!’
“Right and Left upside down”? nothing new under the Sun. 126 years ago, Herbert Spencer wrote an essay which begins with the following line:
“Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type.”
Read it here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS1.html
More recently, George Watson has made a strong case (in The Lost Literature of Socialism) that socialism is a far-Right movement, and that it has been considered as such by many people up to ww2. If Watson is correct, the Jonah Goldberg has got it the wrong way around: it’s not that fascism is “left-wing”, it’s socialism that is “right-wing”.
My own take is that any movement that claims to stand for freedom and democracy is bound to attract hypocrites, unfortunately. As a consequence, those who really want freedom and democracy are driven to the opposite side. Even when the opposite side might still include people who are explicitly opposed to freedom and democracy: if you have to choose between totalitarians, the least bad choice is the honest totalitarians.
Roger, a very good article in my opinion.
Some people just do not get it, that the legislation being used against Geert Wilders is an attack on the freedom of speech.
The Dutch have gone the way of other European countries by their cowardly acceptance of Muslims.
They need to rethink this attitude.
However, this is true that there is a lesson for the TEA movement. It would be a good thing not to allow the Paulites to take over the movement. It would also be a good thing to make sure that the LaRouche crowd do not take over the movement. Both groups are dangerous,because of the attitudes that they espouse on social, rather than fiscal issues.
The leaders of the TEA movement need to distance themselves from the Paulites.
I wonder if Wilders really plans to stay with this Stalinesque show trial all the way to conviction?
And if so, does he plan to go to prison?
I think his better move would be get a conviction, stay out on appeal, and while appealing it, flee the country, preferably to the USA.
Then I would love to see the Dutch try to extradite him from here for the crime of making a film.
Good luck with that Holland. Even with a Socialist in the White House.
The Geert Wilders trial is absurd. It would be like living in a subdivision with certain rules. A new family moves in understanding those rules are in place. Now, the new family ignores those rules and one of the neighbors points it out. Finally, the new family calls for a town meeting to talk about doing something about the guy who pointed out their wrong doing. It’s about more than freedom of speech. This is about right and wrong and subverting the West into a culture that freedom loving people don’t want. Just the fact that they put him on trial shows that this oppressive ideology has taken seed in the West. I still don’t know how stating facts makes you racist or anything else. In the US, calling someone racist is what people do when they’ve failed to win a debate. Geert is just the man on the block who had the courage to point out the obvious.
Anyone who uses the term xenophobe in an accusatory sense needs to take an introductory logic class. Hint 1: a phobia is an irrational fear. Hint 2: something about assuming the conclusion in a premise.
“You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask…the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453?”
JUST WAIT! In just a couple of years, GEORGE W BUSH is going to invent the TIME TRAVEL MACHINE, and he is going to go back in time, wait in a dank cave for some Arab businessman to show up, at which time Bush, that evil maniac, is going to convince Mohammed to WRITE THE QURAN and wage war on ALL HUMANITY, so that in the FUTURE, that demonic madman Bush can make lots of money via Halliburton and the Military-Inductrial Complex! JUST WAIT! ISLAM IS GEORGE W BUSH’S FAULT!
Wow.
That’s right folks. BUSH is Allah. That evil, idiot, chimplike, genius.
“George Watson has made a strong case (in The Lost Literature of Socialism) that socialism is a far-Right movement,”
just ask stalin “international socialism” refering to adolph “national socialism”. who is “George Watson”?
“My girlfriend is Dutch, and the consensus over there seems to be that this guy is an obvious closet xenophobe.”
Xenophobe or fascist-phobe?
“My girlfriend is Dutch, and the consensus over there seems to be that this guy is an obvious closet xenophobe.”
I’ve heard such condemnations before:
Not many years ago, the “consensus” in Holland was that Pim Fortuyn was a xenophobic racist.
That accusation led directly to his murder by a Green Party member.
Was he a racist or xenophobe? No, it was all a lie. In reality, he was an outspoken libertarian.
So why was he defamed? Because his love of liberty led him to speak out against the growing problem of Muslim intolerance and violence. He said that Holland had to get serious about getting those Muslim immigrants to assimilate and to accept Dutch values of freedom, tolerance, religious liberty, and separation of mosque and state. He said that there should be a temporary moratorium on new immigration of Muslims until the existing population had successfully assimilated.
What he said was unacceptable to the multicultural Left, and so they embarked on a campaign to defame and demonize him. They lied endlessly about what he said and what he stood for. His murderer killed him precisely because of what was said about him by “progressive” politicians, journalists and academics.
I now regard accusations of racism and xenophobia by (the mostly leftie) Europeans as, to put it politely, suspect.
All you have to do is look at history. We ignore it every day that we refuse to see the threat. We fought and destroyed Nazism, yet another threat arises of equal or greater threat to our countries and we attack those who expose them? Originally, people immigrated to other countries to escape oppression. These people immigrate to spread oppression throughout the world.
If you think I’m being a xenophobe, when people moved to the US to escape communism, did they gather and riot? Did they call for murder? Did they demand the US change it’s policies to reflect communist ideals? They truly wanted to escape oppression. When you bring oppression with you and try to impose it on unsuspecting countries it is an invasion.
Wow. A good portion of you are serious bigots. I did not know it was this bad out there. Mr. Simon, you really should be ashamed of yourself for encouraging these people. Bad things may come of this, and you will be partially to blame.
I emphatically loathe the kind of multi-culturalists who think Shariah Law should be allowed within Muslim communities in the UK, but it seems to me like a lot of people hear, frankly, have a problem with say, Moroccan restaurants. What a disgrace. And I really do not mean all of you. There are a couple arguments on here I disagree with but still admire. But please disown the dangerous few more vocally.
PErsonally, Tim Rinaldi, I love Moroccan restaurants and have been all over the Arab world and enjoyed it greatly. Have you? As an agnostic, of course, Sharia law is loathsome to me. It is misogynistic and homophobic in the extreme. It is also inherently racist because it makes those who do not submit to Islam second-class citizens. In other words, it is religious-fascist.
Frankly, I’m not for any religion having strong influence in the secular sphere. I am an adamant supporter of the separation of church and state. I also favor gay marriage, etc. As for other people’s opinions, they belong to them. But I can understand why people are hugely angry at Islam at this moment. It is in drastic need of reformation. Until that happens, I will oppose it adamantly. I also oppose cultural relativism which is the enabler of Islamofacism. If you don’t see that, I suggest you study the relationship of certain French (deconstructionist) intellectuals and Khomeini. Wilders is not the problem. They are.
It is well to remember we are the only country which millions of people attempt to enter illegally every year.
@Tim Rinaldi
“Wow. A good portion of you are serious bigots.” – These are the words of someone who has no input to offer.
“Mr. Simon, you really should be ashamed of yourself for encouraging these people.” – So, stating the obvious is wrong?
“Bad things may come of this, and you will be partially to blame.” – Like what? A debate over freedom of speech? Over a dangerous belief that most people are opposed to? I suppose that is bad to some people.
“I emphatically loathe the kind of multi-culturalists who think Shariah Law should be allowed within Muslim communities in the UK” – If they want Shariah law in the UK they obviously have no plans to assimilate. So, it’s a good argument to keep them out in the first place. Once allowed, how long before it spreads across the whole country?
“but it seems to me like a lot of people hear, frankly, have a problem with say, Moroccan restaurants. What a disgrace. – Someone wants to buy a restaurant and make something for themselves that’s fine by me. As long as they believe in becoming part of our country, our beliefs, our laws. If they want Shariah law they need not apply.
“And I really do not mean all of you. There are a couple arguments on here I disagree with but still admire. But please disown the dangerous few more vocally.” – So stating our own personal opinions is dangerous? It’s not as though we are calling a fatwa or gathering the masses to talk of plans to exterminate a culture or race. I myself am saying to be wary of the schemes brought by a radical agenda to stop these things from happening.
I don’t understand what you posted for, except to ridicule the author of this article and the other posters. It’s you who should be ashamed for wasting post space.
The problem with isolationism is that it doesn’t work. Every time we try it we end up getting dragged into someone else’s war anyway, but we arrive late, after the danger has already grown far beyond what it would if we had faced it outright.
Okay. I love taking on the whole room. This works for me.
Alex, I fail to see how I ridiculed anyone. To use a phrase you are likely fond of, I just called it as I saw it. But after the tone of your last post, which any reasonable observer (not that there are too many here) would concede descended into ridicule, I now feel licensed to make a little fun of you.
First off, there would be no two-way discussion here without me. I directly contested, albeit anecdotally and very briefly, the gist of Roger’s post before your arrival. I feel comfortable that I am earning my keep. You, on the other hand, with your unreadable extended metaphors, and your obvious points about the undesirability of fanatical immigrants, are more or less white noise. And your last post post is a swamp of incoherence and babble that I do not have the stomach to engage with tonight.
Moving on.
Roger, I thank you for your measured response to my missives. I have in fact traveled in the Middle East extensively and also enjoy their cuisine. I disagree about Wilders, but that aside, I agree with most of what you said. But I do think you ought to distance yourself from some of these posters whom my animus is aimed towards. Also, and I mean this in earnest, who are those theorists? I am no Derrida fan for other reasons, and if it is indeed him you refer to, I would love to further cultivate my distaste for the man.
And now I will quote from the peanut gallery, which I should have done earlier.
“He said that there should be a temporary moratorium on new immigration of Muslims until the existing population had successfully assimilated.” – pst314
Focus on the repulsive implications of the phrase successfully assimilated. (and to the as-yet-unrevealed imbecile who will accuse me of siding with that fellow’s murderers, consider yourself headed off at the pass)
“These people immigrate to spread oppression throughout the world.” -Alex
“Is being a xenophone so terrible? If it means preserving and holding one’s own culture and traditions above those that were not born into it and who try to impose their will against the native-born of their host country, then I guess that makes me a xenophobe.” -Toronto Girl
“The Dutch have gone the way of other European countries by their cowardly acceptance of Muslims”- Aussie
Excellent article, Mr. Simon, but in post #34 you say that Islam is in drastic need of reformation. If Islam reformed it wouldn’t be Islam. Post-religionists such as yourself, while very intelligent and far more educated than most don’t seem to grasp that all religions are not essentially the same. The protestant reformation was not so much about differences over the message but the way in which it was delivered. There is nothing even remotely comparable in Islam. In Islam it is the message that is the problem; and that message came from a man who exhibited virtually all of the most disgusting traits of humanity.
What would be the impetus for Islam to “reform”? Could it be infidels meekly asking “pretty please stop killing us because we are civilized”?
Islam has absolutely no reason to “reform” because the infidels want it to do so. Especially when they are winning. Especially when,except for Geert Wilders, no one in the West will even play offense.
Islam cannot be “reformed” because there is nothing to reform. It needs to be rejected.
Chuck, I of course recognize that not all religions are the same. Far from it. In fact, there would be no separation of church and state had not Jesus made his famous remarks about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. I respect many religious people although I am not one of them.
Regarding the reformation of Islam, I recognize that it is not easy and that it would end up with something very different from what we have now. But it still needs to be done.
Paul de Man?
“Wow. A good portion of you are serious bigots.”
So you post and start off by saying a good portion of us are bigots and yet you were just turning this into a two-way conversation. Calling us bigots is not ridicule? What dictionary are you using? If you were really looking for a two-way debate you would have said you believed us wrong and then told us why. Not insult us. I see that you are now responding to my criticism in a condescending tone. You insulted us, now you are trying to shift the blame to me for calling you out for it. Your elitist attitude is showing.
“But after the tone of your last post, which any reasonable observer (not that there are too many here) would concede descended into ridicule, I now feel licensed to make a little fun of you.” – There you go insulting us again.
That’s not ridicule. It’s pointing out a fact you find disagreeable.
And I didn’t start off that way. It was a response to some of the vile comments posted. I get that impression you have maybe not read the whole thread.
Besides. This is politics. It gets a little rough and tumble. Don’t pity yourself.
Don’t mean to spam, but it’s telling you choose to pursue this elitist BS instead of defending any of the commentators I quote.
You do not know these people personally, so how can you say it’s a fact that they’re bigots? They have reasonable concerns. With all the events of the last decade alone you cannot deny their logic. I don’t see why I have to defend anyone.
“Focus on the repulsive implications of the phrase successfully assimilated. (and to the as-yet-unrevealed imbecile who will accuse me of siding with that fellow’s murderers, consider yourself headed off at the pass)” – I think “successfully assimilated” relates to them following the laws of the land. It’s not like anyone is asking them to turn purple. Just follow the rules and stop trying to change the countries moral code as is expected of everyone. After all, why would you move to another country if not because you like what they’re doing better?
If some of us moved to an alien planet and were rioting, killing, and demanding earth laws I’d understand if they halted immigration. If aliens came to earth and some of us wanted to move to their planet and they told us “sorry, earthlings are too violent and not ready to assimilate into our culture.” I would understand.
I think other countries and people need to work out their issues and not take them with them. This is about freedom and security, not about whose feelings will get hurt.
Great. Thank you for taking up the discussion again. I think you are demonstrating exactly my point when you bring up “successfully assimilated”.
You say: “I think “successfully assimilated” relates to them following the laws of the land. It’s not like anyone is asking them to turn purple. Just follow the rules and stop trying to change the countries moral code as is expected of everyone.”
What I was getting at before, is, how exactly is this to be judged? I do not think I exaggerate when I say this hypothetical is a kind of open-ended danger zone comparable to Jim Crow era voting laws.
Next you say: “why would you move to another country if not because you like what they’re doing better?”
Now I have to ask you, do you really think the immigrants who come to our great nation are really here explicitly to convert you? Think for a sec. Is this not a hyper-absurd suggestion? Obviously they are seeking a better life, like our own ancestors, who came with their own peculiar baggage.
And I take it you agree with my critique of the other commentators I quoted?
That was an excellent article, and expressed the depth of your feelings about this subject.
I know the following idea (bottom paragraphs) will seem absurd — I guess is absurd — but I’ve been thinking about it for several days and want to get it out there — just for contemplation.
It’s obvious now that in Europe, via the UN and the OIC, and here, in the US, that no matter what a religion professes and demands of its adherents — because it’s a religion we must “respect” it.
To condemn what is in a particular religion as unacceptable to our society — if it insists upon supplanting the civil laws of the nation practitioners are residing in with its own, demeans others as decendants of “apes and pigs,” makes demands of violence against those those different religions, and requires making war against other nations — from without or within — until that religion is supreme — To oppose this can get you put in prison in The Netherlands and ostracized as a racist here.
Why this is so at this point in time is another discussion. But it is so.
(Countersuits for discrimination and racism cannot, it seems, be filed either — on religious grounds — or whatever.)
If it were an ideology disconnected from a “religion” there would be no problem not only speaking out against it, but to prevent the practice of it. If it were not a religion.
And those who would protect the values of Western civilization — are not winning this battle — we are losing.
We’re losing because of our own dedication to the protection of the freedom of religion — and anti-racism ideals — gotten out of hand and turned against ourselves — to the point of absurdity. The title of Ed Driscoll’s article “Diversity Unto Death” says it all.
But since we seem unable to deal with this outright — deal with the fact that we MAY condemn aspects of a religion that are ideological rather than personal. (A la that the Constitution is not and cannot be interpreted to be a suicide pact.)
For the moment, why not try to bring out the absurdity by playing along with the absurd rules.
(I’d like to suggest this to Geert Wilders, or anyone here who could carry it to fruition. Needs a good writer.)
Create a new religion — including ancient mythology and a “revealed” “Book of Laws” — including the name of your diety and stories of “enemies.”
Place in your new “book” all the ideas you may be prosecuted for — if you weren’t practicing your religion. As a member or preacher of that religion, you may say whatever is within your “laws” and “books” with impunity — you are now protected.
I think millions who want to do something about the dangers that our absurd rules create, will join.
Surely, if there is ever a lawsuit, all the hypocrisy and absurdity will be revealed — and perhaps dealt with realistically, and changed.
As I said, I only suggest this, because the interpretation of our law has become self-destructive and needs to be re-examined — as of now we are losing this dangerous battle because of ourselves.
“Now I have to ask you, do you really think the immigrants who come to our great nation are really here explicitly to convert you? Think for a sec. Is this not a hyper-absurd suggestion? Obviously they are seeking a better life, like our own ancestors, who came with their own peculiar baggage.” – The better life they seek is due to our laws, our ideals, and our logic. If they move to our country and try to hold on to their old set of rules it is suspicious. Sharia law has no place in the US or EU. I don’t see the logic or reasoning in any of it. Our ancestors indeed had baggage, but they left most of it where they came from and assimilated. They kept much of their culture but adopted their new home’s ideals and rules.
They are holding onto beliefs that the rest of us evolved out of a long time ago. As far as them being here to convert me… I don’t know and as we’ve seen, some are here to kill us. At least some of them are definitely here under false pretenses. Forcing everyone else to tread lightly so to not offend Muslims makes no sense in a free society.
“And I take it you agree with my critique of the other commentators I quoted?” -
In these times it’s hard to say anyone has an irrational fear of Islam when it creates the fear. I’ve never read or heard any comments like these about any other religion. If you take away the terrorism then they would all be horrible statements. I just don’t think anyone is talking irrationally under the circumstances. At one point in time I had no opinion of Islam either way. I was never fond of Christianity growing up, until I grew up and realized it wasn’t a bad message, it was actually good. I’m still not a religious person. I fall under Agnostic. When the message is to kill, beat, or discriminate I stop listening. They have the right to express their beliefs but not the right to force them on me. That’s when I turn them off. I think everyone is fed up with the special interests of Islam. There’s a point when equal treatment becomes special treatment.
@Tim Renaldi,
Being Dutch myself, you utter complete nonsense about the popularity of mr. G. Wilders.
His star is rising in the political arena, as a lot of Dutch citizens are fed up with ‘special treatment’ for muslims.And special usually implies:’separate”
Separate swimming hours in community swimming pools, separate entrances in mosques, etc.
Muslims practice or regretfully condone ‘apartheid’practices in Holland, based on sexe.
They should start protesting LOUDLY against discrimination of females, homosexuals, Jews and other non-muslim communities.
You probably know of this by your Dutch girlfriend, or is she one of those multiculti-utopists?
Wilders has his flaws, but right know the only politician willing tot criticize Islam for its totalitarian ideology.
“My girlfriend is Dutch, and the consensus over there seems to be that this guy is an obvious closet xenophobe.”
Thank you for confirming what we suspected — Most of the Dutch remaining in Holland are mind-numbed, brainwashed, indoctrinated, Marxist, anti-American, anti-Semitic, spineless, morally depraved idiots.
So, Tim is a “real smart guy” and the rest of us are dumb.
“Now I have to ask you, do you really think the immigrants who come to our great nation are really here explicitly to convert you? Think for a sec. Is this not a hyper-absurd suggestion? Obviously they are seeking a better life, like our own ancestors, who came with their own peculiar baggage.”
Uh, yeah I do.
Go to MEMRI and spend a few hours.
Read the quran and hadiths, available on-line.
OPEC oil money has bought influence in our media, chairs at universities, greased the palms of many in government.
I may not have your slick presentation, but I recognize an invasion by a hostile culture.
Roger, I am a Christian and I also respect other religions. I agree with you about Jesus comment about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Jesus also said “do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? … by their fruits you will know them.”
Not only by their fruits but by their words do we know Islam and I am convinced there is nothing to reform. They have set the terms of this conflict and the terms don’t include reform. We don’t always get to set the rules but, nonetheless, we must play by them if we wish to survive. The only rule by which Islam has ever played is “us or them”.
They are clearly advancing. Why would they want to reform unless we in the West make it easier for them to reform than to continue on their present course? Asking Islam to reform now would make as much sense as having asked Hitler to reform after he had just overrun France.
Again with Islam there is nothing to reform. It is in fact a totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion. It must be defeated.
““his style and approach are racist toward muslims without a doubt”
what race is muslim?”
Well, ya know, anybody who disagrees with a liberal is a racist. It’s in the Bible, or is it Das Kapital? I forget which.
What a sewer. I am done after this.
For the record, Alex, I appreciate your very civil last post. I would encourage you, like Roger, to distance yourself from these cretins who keep popping up.
I don’t have a lot of time, so I am just going to clarify my views and be out.
I hate all religion. Always have. Since I was about ten years old. But of course I respect the many intelligent and sensitive people of all faiths I have known in my life, etc…
I did not even come close to arguing for tolerating shariah law in the western world. In fact I did the exact opposite. I do not remember exactly who twisted my words this way, and I do not really care, but please do not do it again, this is my real name.
Dutch CC,
I wholeheartedly agree that any apartheid style tendencies must be opposed without compromise. What I object to is this talk about deportations and immigration bans, as well as the vague and fuzzy sorts of anger coming from many of the posters here, which is OBVIOUSLY connected to a racist sensibility. Anyone who does not see this is blind, I’m sorry. All that can be done is to underline it for the interest of others who may be watching. You can’t reason with the madness itself.
Tim Rinaldi your posts are empty, empty of substantives but full with low level ad hominem attacks. Strange, multi-culturalists don’t usually make personal attacks on people that disagree with them. LOL
I like Geert Wilders personally and as far as banning the Koran, Europeans ban all kinds of things; all of Hitler’s writings, the swastika, denying the Holocaust (guy is just getting out of prison in Austria I think for doing same), so the Koran should be fair game to them. The Europeans think, apparently, that ideas can be handled by banning them. But if the European political and intellectual elites do not start grounding themselves in the reality of what Islam is, and is not, in Europe and in the world political opposition will become more and more reactionary, more fascist. One of the main fuels for the rise of Nazism was the unending horror stories coming out of the Russia after the Bolsheviks took over and their attempts to expand the revolution into Germany. It’s all replaying again. But this time everyone is disarmed by Political Correctness.
The unwritten rules for immigration in the past to the US were that when you came, you worked for your own shelter and what you put on the table, you left hatreds behind in the old country i.e. Turks and Armenians were expected to play nicely together on this side of the Atlantic and that you respected and lived by the laws of the land. If you followed these three rules you could be as ethnic as you liked with religion, dress, stores, banks, etc. It has worked uncommonly well.
A Muslim father in Peoria, Arizona ran his twenty something daughter down with his automobile; murder; thought about it, planned it, stalked her and murdered her! Just take a second to think about that, the bump and thump under your car and knowing it was your own daughter’s body. He did it because he was a Muslim and she was not, or not enough, or whatever the hell. Not exactly playing by the old rules or by any rules I ever want to see or hear of again.
I’m disgusted with him personally and contemptuous of what he professes to have been his reasoning. Am I to be told his is a minority opinion in Islam? Then brother I want to hear from the “majority” loud, clear and often because if I don’t how can I assume other than that with a wink and a nod that they really think she had it coming.
Impressive you manage to condemn and make us of the ad hominem in the same breath. For the sort of guy who likes the jargon of formal debate, your post is a rambling and impoverished buffet of right wing casuistry.
So according to you, because Europeans have this contemptibly weak grasp on freedom of speech, they should indulge themselves by banning the Koran? That couldn’t lead to WW III or anything…
You are either a moron or a nihilist. You tell me which.
Or maybe you just don’t the things you say very seriously, one of the luxuries of being an anonymous commentator.
58. Of course it could cause WWIII. That’s not a bad thing, because it would mean we were finally honest about the situation. War and human suffering, while terrible, are not inherently evil, and there are certainly worse things than war, even nuclear war. Vaporize Mecca, and maybe we’ll actually accomplish something.
Thank you, Myth Buster
My work here is done
And Mr Simon, come on, I read some of your book, you don’t really think like this do you?
Those arrogant self-proclaimed smart guys like Tim Rinaldi are just the kind of people Islam wants in the West. You see EVERYTHING in terms of race. This issue has nothing to do with race. It is about civilization versus barbarism and yes – dare I say it- good versus evil. It is people like you whose minds are so closed to the reality in front of you who will hasten the demise of your own life-style. When the Islamists are in control they will have no more compassion for those with your enlightened views than than they will have for the rest of us cretins.
One more thought on this. Terror, said Robespierre, is the natural emanation of virtue.
WWIII not a bad thing, myth buster? I hope you don’t really believe that.
Fight evil is not a bad thing, Roger, even if it means a full scale world war. Better to confront the enemy in pitched combat than to allow them to overthrow our government from within and install Sharia law on our soil without a fight. People often speak of war as though it were inherently evil. True, war is incredibly destructive, and generally best avoided, but it is not inherently evil, and neither are nuclear weapons. Islam is a virus, and it needs to be wiped out.
“Proposing to ban books is also an absurd, tyrannical impulse. My girlfriend is Dutch, and the consensus over there seems to be that this guy is an obvious closet xenophobe.”
Are you not aware that sale of Mein Kampf is illegal in the Netherlands and other European nations? If the Koran does indeed advocate intolerance, oppression, wars of conquest, and murder (as it clearly does) then the logic that bans Mein Kampf can just as legitimately ban the Koran.
So, if Wilders is to be called a racist and xenophobe for wanting to ban the Koran then many fine respectable Europeans can also be called racists and xenophobes for supporting the ban of Mein Kampf.
Now, whether or not books should be banned is another matter (I for one feel it is wrong for various reasons) but it’s unfair to exercise a double standard on this matter.
“I suggest you study the relationship of certain French (deconstructionist) intellectuals and Khomeini.”
I think you are referring to notorious postmodernist Michel Foucault, who was infatuated with Khomeini. Like other leading postmodern intellectuals, he had a tendency to fall in love with fascist movements.
I’d like to add to Dutch CC’s comments on the situation in the Netherlands:
Street assaults by Muslims are a routine occurrence. Targets are gays, uncovered or “immodest” women, Jews, and in fact any non-Muslim.
A very large fraction of Dutch Muslims are refusing to assimilate. What’s more, they make it clear that they despise Dutch culture and values, have no use for religious toleration and secular government, and hope to eventually be numerous enough to impose Muslim law on the nation. The Dutch people are justifiably worried about this.
Among the clearly non-racist and non-fascist people who have written about this problem is Bruce Bawer, whose book While Europe Slept explores that very problem.
“Focus on the repulsive implications of the phrase successfully assimilated.”
“I do not think I exaggerate when I say this hypothetical is a kind of open-ended danger zone comparable to Jim Crow era voting laws.”
Thank you for bringing up the Jim Crow era. It suggests a useful thought experiment:
Let’s postulate an alternate history in which the Netherlands is essentially as it is today except that the majority of the population is brown- and black-skinned. This hypothetical Netherlands, like the real one, has for a long time handled immigration with a very light touch: Immigrants were not expected to assimilate, but this policy had worked more or less because previous immigrants had assimilated voluntarily and had welcomed the Dutch culture of tolerance and respect. But now let us suppose that large numbers of white supremacists are immigrating to the Netherlands, and that their fraction of the population is also growing because they are having many more children than the native Dutch. And these white supremacists are not only refusing to assimilate, but are also expressing hostility to Dutch values and a desire to replace racial equality and civil liberties with a legal system based on white supremacism. Furthermore, they are attacking dark-skinned people on a daily basis. Assaults are common, but murders happen too. Would it be racist for the native Dutch to see these immigrants as a mortal danger to their society? To want to enact policies to get these people to assimilate? To halt further immigration until the problem can be solved?
Given the nature of the situation in the Netherlands (and other European nations) it is absurd and unjust to characterize opposition to attack as “racist” and “xenophobic”.
Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
-George Washington
I’d like to see the US and EU start acting in their best interests, rather than that of some foreign entity. Accommodating anyone because of religion, race, or creed needs to stop. I’ve seen people prosecuted for hate crimes because they’ve said unsavory things to Muslims or about them. Could someone direct me to perhaps a web page, newspaper, or perhaps courthouse where a Muslim is being convicted of a hate crime?
As far as banning books, it’s always a bad idea. Banning books erases history and makes us forget why some ideas are bad. Imagine 1000 years down the road someone comes up with a “new” idea which ends up being identical to Hitler’s ideas. It’s better that people are informed on the issues so they can realize why they don’t like a book rather than being told they don’t like a book. It’s a double-edged sword but I’d rather people are knowledgeable when they take up a side.
“As far as banning books, it’s always a bad idea. Banning books erases history and makes us forget why some ideas are bad.”
If we’re going to start enumerating the reasons (a bit of a sideline but what the heck) I’d point out that an even more important reason is that once the government has the power to criminalize speech then it will use that power against any ideas it disapproves of. Witness the persecution of Mark Steyn and others in Canada by so-called “human rights” tribunals. And in the case of Geert Wilders we have been told by the arrogant Dutch government that “truth is not a defense”. In the United States ordinary citizens are protected by the First Amendment, but even so we have seen cases of Universities effectively criminalizing un-PC opinions.
I agree 100%. I was just making a small point on why it’s bad in the case of the Koran and Mein Kompf. Once we start banning books we start on a slippery slope towards Despotism or Communism.
But it’s for your own good, Alex. They only have your best interests at heart.
ROFL, yup
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison
My comments on the book banning issue are in an update to the post above.
“It doesn’t matter what I say, you’ll call me racist anyway.”
–seen at a Tea Party protest
One of the most vile things the Left has done is to corrupt the language. Accusations of “racist” and “fascist” usually mean little more than “thought criminal” and are intended as a bludgeon to silence people and banish unwelcome facts from public discourse.
Tim Rinaldi: “Proposing to ban books is also an absurd, tyrannical impulse.”
Agreed. However, if the Dutch have declared the banning of Mein Kampf a good and necessary thing because of that book’s incitement to hatred of foreigners and Jews as well as its consecration of homicidal nationalism for the Germans, then exactly how is Mr. Wilders call for the banning of the Koran out of compliance with existing Dutch law?
How, with details please, is his call for the banning of the Koran not, in fact, required by Dutch legal precedent?
More on false accusations of racism:
“By the time I moved to Ede I had come to understand Holland better. It irritated me now when Somalis who had lived in Holland for a long time complained that they were offered only lowly jobs. They wanted honorable professions: airline pilot, lawyer. When I pointed out that they had no qualifications for such work, their attitude was that everything was Holland’s fault…She and Hasna told me they often didn’t bother paying for buses; they just invented appointments in town, and if the refugee office didn’t give them a ticket they said they were being racist. ‘If you tell a Dutch person it’s racist he will give you whatever you want,’ Hansa once told me with satisfaction.”
–from chapter 12 of Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The man that created Islam had many wives one as young as 9. Thst is in the Qu,ran.The Qo,ran is very dangerous and does not belong in any western country. Eric R. is exactly right, the Dutch country were I was born has been screwded by the invading muslims and by the present government. There is one man Geert Wilders with a very clear vision to right what is wrong that, if he wins in the June 9th election the country will keep it’s name and their own people will not loose their identity.