Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · North American affairs · Slogans & Quotations May 4th, 2015 |
 75 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
while I agree with the quote it’s a tad hypocritical coming from somebody who wants the government to ban books.
Muhammad Art Show. Texas, USA.
Two “critics”, apparently oppressed victims of religious micro-aggression or something, traveled from Arizona and timed to “protest” when the event was scheduled to let out,(it ran a little late so only a security guard was wounded) shot dead on the spot.
Anyone ELSE want to “negotiate”? (Bruce Willis-The Fifth Element)
hennesli, why did you do that?
Seriously.
An attempt at mass murder is heroically thwarted and you come out with that?
Wilders’ life has been made a living hell and that’s your response?
Dutch leftists ban Mein Kampf and celebrate ‘victory’ in parliament and Wilders says if you are going to be consistent you should also ban the Koran and your response is to demonise Wilders?
I would settle for being able to say whatever I damn well like about said book, and its admiring readers, without fear of getting arrested.
In my opinion those who deny the validity of a law, such as the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general, cannot claim protection under that law. And those who demand we submit to their whims can basically go the Hell.
JohnW: It may be that hennesli has simply swallowed the Left’s narrative on Mijnheer Wilders and Islam, and thereby has fallen into an accidental approach, perhaps an explanation would assist.
As for the basis of asserting that Mijnheer Wilders wants to ban the Koran, where is the primary source for that assertion?
On Wikipedia, the article on the gentleman appears to be blatantly misleading, as it backs up an assertion that he wants to ban the Koran with what is more readily construed an appeal to the Left for consistency, having said that, the link appears to be to an article on RT.
Or, if you like, he is calling the Left hypocrites, and saying that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Is that a reason why the Left would hate him?
There was never a man so hated, as he who told the truth.
I have little love for Islam, however I cannot trust a politician who openly calls for the banning of religious texts, odious as they might sometimes be. If that makes me a ‘Leftist’, then so be it.
http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php/in-english-mainmenu-98/in-the-press-mainmenu-101/77-in-the-press/in-the-press/1117-enough-is-enough-ban-the-koran
hennesli – both Mr Ed and John W. have already explained to you that Mr Wilders is using rhetoric.
The left ban books in Holland (and elsewhere) – Mr Wilders points out that if the left were consistent in their own arguments they would ban the Koran – as an “incitement to hatred”. So “lets ban the Koran”.
As two people have already explained this to you, you should not need me to explain it to you as well.
Either the law in the Netherlands banning “incitement to hatred” should be repealed, or the Koran should be banned. The law should either be applied evenly – or repealed.
You will now quote me as saying “the Koran should be banned”.
Paul Marks – I suggest you red the link I posted, he is not saying ‘if the Left were consistent they would ban the Koran’ he is saying ‘we should ban the Koran’.
Furthermore If banning religious texts is consistent with Dutch Law then there is obviously a problem with Dutch Law. I realize that to those who buy into the Steynian ‘Eurabia’ narrative, and see the West as engaged in some existential struggle with Islam there is a temptation to make a hero of people like Wilders. But being anti-Islam does not automatically mean being ‘pro-freedom’.
Wilders has a good point. Until the readers and followers of the Koran are despised and suppressed to the same degree that the readers and followers of Mein Kampf were and are, Western civilization is in grave danger. It’s not the books, it’s the ideas. Some Ideas are equivalent to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and should be similarly treated.
And don’t mess with Texas!
The ideas in the Koran are odious, and no civilized person would condone them. That said, book-banning does lead to adverse unintended consequences, not the least of which is the attraction of the forbidden. Censorship is rarely an effective means of opposing ideas, even those as vile as these. Banning Mein Kampf makes no sense today (it might have made some sense, temporarily, in the years immediately following World War 2, but no longer), and neither does banning the Koran.
That said, it also makes no sense to treat the Koran with respect. It’s only a book, after all: sheets of mass-produced paper with splotches of ink mechanically printed on them. It is entitled to no more reverence than a paperback in the remainder bin. If people want to show their disgust with the ideas it contains by burning copies, or urinating on it, or wrapping it in bacon, that is not only their right but is probably a useful approach. It’s a forceful demonstration that the ideas it contains are no more acceptable than were Hitler’s. And if that upsets some people, well that’s their problem, not mine. The proper response to such people is “You have no right not to be upset by contrary ideas, nor to have your own ideas treated with respect.”
The more easily offended someone is, the more frequently offended he should be.
hennesli. You have now made your point. Now, who started the shooting in Texas? And if Mijnheer Wilders was one of the targets, might that not explain, even if it does not excuse, his viewpoint?
i.e. When the shooting starts near you, is he going to be a co-belligerent with you, or against you?
@Maximo Macaroni
> Some Ideas are equivalent to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and should be similarly treated.
Whenever I hear that whole “fire in a crowded theater” thing it makes me cringe. Simply because the context in which Oliver Wendell Homes spoke it is rather terrifying.
The phrase comes from a judgement in a case Schenck vs. US, in which the defendant was seeking to nullify the Alien and Sedition Act 1918. His supposed crime was distributing flyers opposing the draft for the First World War. Surely all here would very much support the right of citizens to use words to oppose something so drastic as the slavery of the draft. And yet we use this phrase to say “yes there are limits to free speech” which perhaps there are. But advocates of free speech say “it is a slippery slope” and the very phrase “fire in a crowded theater” is an example of precisely that slippery slope.
FWIW, Charles Schenck spent six months in prison for the horrendous crime of advocating against the government’s right to force young men to fight in a war for a cause they did not believe in.
hennesli : I suggest you red the link I posted, he is not saying ‘if the Left were consistent they would ban the Koran’ he is saying ‘we should ban the Koran’.
I did read it, and he’s saying precisely what you say he’s not saying. It’s right there in black and white :
Why don’t we ban that miserable book? After all, we also decided to ban Mein Kampf!
He’s calling the left hypocrites, and rightly so.
To rob us of our freedoms, we have elected governments. These governments like to think they have a monopoly on the use of force which should in theory prevent religious organizations from encroaching on their privileges.
Sadly, it is not “barbarism” nor “Islam” which will rob us of our freedom of speech, but our own governments. Leviathan is alive and well, though at least on Thursday we get to choose which glib Oxford PPE graduate will be Prime Minister.
See, there’s your problem. If you could only elect a Cambridge man…
I am curious- why did the Americans decide to have a separately-elected President, instead of allowing the Congress to vote on a Cabinet-style Executive? And does it confer actual benefits, or symbolic?
If I remember right, under the original Articles of Confederation, the states were still largely sovereign, and there was no President of the USA. Under this arrangement, the federal government was weak, and found it difficult to raise taxes. Clearly this was unsatisfactory to the sort of people who like to raise taxes, so, amongst other things, a President was a feature of the 1789 Constitution, and everything has been just fine ever since.
Nicholas, you misunderstand the original plan for electing presidents. Basically, they were selected by the states (the entities which actually created the federal government), via something called the Electoral College. The Electoral College was made up of delegates selected by the state governments, with each state getting the number of electors equal to its total congressional delegation (which gives a slight advantage to the smaller states). We still maintain the form of the Electoral College system, but we have thoroughly bastardized it by having the electors chosen by the people, rather than by the states themselves. It’s much the same problem as with our direct popular election of Senators (who were originally supposed to be selected by the state governments, to represent the states qua states). All of this is the creeping tyranny of democracy.
We don’t have a “cabinet-style executive” because the president isn’t supposed to be subservient to the legislature, but co-equal with it. They serve entirely different functions.
Laird, I think you mean they are supposed to have different functions, but both houses are self-serving, surely? If they can get votes by collaborating, they do!
I suppose, in theory, having a Chief who is independent of the house of legislation looks like a good check on the powers of such a person, as congress is supposed to clash with him, but it also makes decision-making slower, and can result in gridlock.
Lee, have you read that article to the end? Because, while somewhere half-way through it he is saying what you are saying, at the very end of it he is saying something quite different, to wit: I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the influx of Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands:
Darn, messed up the quote – here it is:
Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.
Oh, I believe you. It’s your own government, and those of others, who will rob you of your freedom of speech.
One might also fairly add that he is saying this because some people who adhere to the teachings in that book are quite openly out to kill him, and can only be stopped by lethal force. And the fact that he is fed up suggests that he would not want to ban it, were it not for the actions he faces.
Sure Ed, no one here had seriously claimed that he does not have compelling reasons for saying what he said – however, compelling reasons are not sufficient to make it right or wise.
Well, it’s certainly a puzzle isn’t it? Islam, the Koran – what to do about em, eh? Dearie me. What to do? What to do?
Lets all earnestly discuss or argue about what Geert Wilders might or might not have said about it, eh? Or about whether the “context” was this or that. That should get us to the real crux of the matter.
Nobody’s discussed all that yet, have they? Oh, they have? Bother.
But whatever you do, don’t nobody pay no mind to that thar heffalump in the room.
I mean, it really does matter doesn’t it? Whether the man quoted as saying:
– is generally regarded in our opinion as being true to that statement himself, or something, rather than whether the statement itself can stand on its own two feet and is the correct sort of statement for Western society to uphold.
Yeah, let’s just decide whether we should ad hom the guy and argue about that.
Ah, the chattering classes.
Never mind. In the end up, when we’ve exhausted ourselves discussing anything but the heffalump, surely we’ll find that appeasement and dhimmitude seems to be the safest – the preferred – approach so far.
That should work.
Searching through hennesli’s link, I found Wilders’ speech at Garland, Texas. It is indeed a provocation to the endless legion of cowards in government. The speech encapsulates what has been said in this link. It is nothing but formidable:
“Muhammad’s followers fight us with bloodbaths, but today here in Garland we fight them with humor.
Because bloodbaths enslave, while humor liberates.
Let me end by quoting Sam Houston, the founding father of this great state of Texas:
‘Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.'”
A full transcript can be found here: http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/36-fj-related/geert-wilders/8337-speech-geert-wilders-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-garland-texas-3-may-2015.html
“Sadly, it is not “barbarism” nor “Islam” which will rob us of our freedom of speech, but our own governments. Leviathan is alive and well . . .”
As JohnK said, the main problem is not “barbarism” or “Islam” but the widely held opinion among educated people from our own Western European tradition, who believe incorrect and offensive views should simply not be tolerated, and who think that the state is a great thing because it provides a mechanism for ensuring that those views should not be heard.
“Searching through hennesli’s link, I found Wilders’ speech at Garland, Texas. It is indeed a provocation to the endless legion of cowards in government. ”
So – what exactly do you want the “cowards in government” to do?
Maybe a good starting point for our cowardly government would to not be led by a politician who willingly mouths dangerous platitudes such as:
“The future must not belong to those who slander Islam”
Mr Ed: i believe that the proper form of address is “Heer Wilders”.
Of course the SQotD should stand on its own merits: if it had been uttered by Stalin, or indeed Mohammed, it still ought to be judged on its own merits … ideally.
Still, following hennesli’s link, i agree that, on the face of it, Wilders called for banning the Koran.
OTOH that was in 2007: quite a few years ago, and at the same time after the Cartoon Jihad. I follow what i call the Viking ethic: when people put themselves outside the law, they are no longer morally entitled to the protection of the law. In other words, i do not respect a person’s right to something if this person does not respect my right to the same thing — in this case, free speech. (It might still be expedient to allow them to make fools of themselves, but they have no moral right to it.)
On the gripping hand: Wilders has long been associated with the Danish People’s Party, and is now associated with Marine Le Pen. He is associated with Putin at one remove, by 2 different paths. You are welcome to your own conclusions about that — keeping in mind my 2nd paragraph above.
I believe Mijnheer Wilders is correct, no?
Personally I would like them to get the hell out of the way and allow civil society to work, which is to say not legislate against expressing perfectly reasonable views about Islam on the grounds it is ‘hate speech’. Winning a culture war against Islam would actually be trivially easy if not for the cowards in (western) governments preventing our side from actually fighting that culture war.
No, not good enough. Either provide some link indicating he is actually following the Putin line like the odious Le Pen or even more odious Orban, or there is no conclusion to be drawn from that whatsoever.
My Dad’s boss met Gorbachev when he visited London c.1985, I met someone last year who met Himmler and Göring. That does not make my surname ‘Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact’.
The ‘barbarism’ Mijnheer Wilders refers to is our own Euroelite IMHO.
Talking of freedom of speech…
I work in Clerkenwell in London and last Friday was the Mayday union march as Karl Marx had a gaff locally.
The SWP set up a stall outside my office and when I went our for a coffee they asked me to sign a petition against UKIP “racism”
Being a proud kipper I calmly asked then my they thought UKIP were racist. Got a bullshit answer so asked another question..
Took about 5 minutes before the thickest guy on the stand said “I can’t wait to get the gulags back for the likes of you”
The hard left are cunts. If you want to know how collectivism killed 100 million people in the 20th century its because the hard left types enjoyed doing it.
If the London Nazi party set up at stall, almost everyone would object and the SWP, HnH etc would object violently. After all the Nazi’s killed 20 million.
But the various collectivists of the 20th Centutry killed over 100 million. Why do we not treat the SWP et al the same way? Is it becuase the Nazi’s were horrible “Right wingers?”
The Nazis were “right wingers” only in the fevered imaginings of the ignorant.
Nicholas, to your earlier point: decision-making is supposed to be slow; gridlock is good. Anything which slows down the relentless pace of legislative growth gets my support, up to and including a well-placed asteroid.
Right-wingers are not as altruistic as Left-wingers and Muslims.
I dunno ’bout that. Wasn’t Adolf head of the Progressive National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), or something? – commonly known as the Nazi Party?
Or is “Socialist” spelt wrong? Maybe it should have been spelt “Communist”?
Under Hitler’s rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state which controlled nearly all aspects of life. He was a great leader whom many have tried to emulate, but so far fortunately failed.
But back to the subject quote:
Surely this is a motto that the West could live with, no?
The Victorian Prime Minister William Gladstone is recorded as once brandishing the Koran in the House of Commons, announcing with great authority and prescience “so long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world”. On another occasion, Mr Gladstone is recorded as referring to the Koran as “this accursed book”. Goodness knows why he would have said these things, but wouldn’t one implication seem to be that it was that book that was the problem? – or, more accurately, the religio-political ideology which it contained?
To address that as the issue, you could ban both things – the book and the religio-political ideology – since they represent an existential threat (QED) to the rest of human kind. Just to ram the point home, you could also consider obliging Islamists to draw pictures of their prophet Mohammed (pbuh) whilst they are eating pork, or something. That would seem to be kinder than killing them, which is the sort of “solution” this forum seems to otherwise drearily keep ending up with when discussing the problem of “The Religion of Peace”™.
Allah is all knowing.
The most violent people I have ever met are lefty pacifist types. I suspect they are like volcanoes. A person either lets of a bit of steam every now and then or they cage it and go the full Thera. I had an argument about Karl Marx last night which resulted in me being assaulted with a meat cleaver. No real damage done apart to my marriage – my wife did it. My wife is a somewhat lefty pacifist. I mean she doesn’t even like violent games. The previous time I was assaulted seriously it was by a total git who was also way left-wing. I looked at him “funny” so he chucked a big glass pub ashtray (remember them) at me. It missed. So I gave him the kicking of his puff. But it had been waiting. He spat on my copy of The Times because I was reading an interview with Bill Gates.
Basically the less liberal (genuinely liberal) you are the more little things grind and then eventually it goes ballistic. If you can’t call a cunt a cunt because that is demeaning to all women or something it builds until it releases eventually.
One of the most telling aspects of this for me is the way that the press is in my opinion much less inclined to provide a fig leaf for the 2 Jihadists, who on anyone’s money went there to violently waste those who had the temerity to tell their religion where to put its stance on free speech. Although the MSM have clearly sought to use some of the usual buzz words about Wilders and Co., they have not been anywhere as keen to portray them as the wrongdoers as they usually have been. I’ve thought for a while the MSM has been running out of moral stock on this issue and the terrible events of this year really do seem to be too big and too obviously morally wicked for even them to spin. Published opinion does not equal public opinion, and sooner or later they have to acknowledge this.
That’s because Lefty pacifists have a specific definition of ‘pacifism’, in that they believe that it means that those they wish to destroy are not allowed to fight back, or even protest.
Charles Manson was, and remains, the ultimate hippy.
Alisa : have you read that article to the end? Because, while somewhere half-way through it he is saying what you are saying, at the very end of it he is saying something quite different
Alisa – Yup, I did read it all. Obviously it’s a matter of interpretation to judge in what sense he’s speaking, away from the sentence in which he explicitly makes the comparison with Mein Kampf. I think the point of the piece is to insist that Islam is fascist – he’s drawing a parallel with Nazism. I don’t think he actually wants to ban the Koran, he’s only calling for it to be banned as a rhetorical device to establish his real points :
1. Islam is just as fascist as Nazism
2. The left are hypocrites in wanting to ban the holy book of the latter without banning the holy book of the former
If the whole piece had contained no reference to the comparison with Mein Kampf, and if he hadn’t made the comparison before, I’d believe he was serious about banning mosques and the Koran. But in context it’s just a rhetorical device. Of course, he’s a politician and he gets votes from folk who really would like to ban the Koran and mosques, so he may be happy to be misunderstood by such folk.
I made a suggestion two years ago that I will repeat now:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Any comments?
How about:
Perry:
So – what exactly do you want the “cowards in government” to do?
Personally I would like them to get the hell out of the way and allow civil society to work, which is to say not legislate against expressing perfectly reasonable views about Islam on the grounds it is ‘hate speech’. Winning a culture war against Islam would actually be trivially easy if not for the cowards in (western) governments preventing our side from actually fighting that culture war.
Well, personally I would like them not to legislate at all concerning the expression of views, reasonable or unreasonable.
My problem with “hate speech” legislation is not that it will cause a loss in a “culture war” but that it takes away a freedom that the state should not take away.
Politicians support “hate speech” legislation that bans criticism of Islam for exactly the same reason that they support “hate speech” legislation that bans criticism of blacks, gays, Jews, etc. And, to be honest, I don’t think the main reason for that is fear of Islam. It is that they don’t believe in freedom of speech. And if it is motivated by fear at all, it is not so much that they fear Islam as that they fear being out of line with progressive opinion.
Indeed John, which is another way of saying: Personally I would like them to get the hell out of the way and allow civil society to work
And my reply to:
Sure, but going back to the original quote, what we are talking about right here right now *is* the culture war, at the point where is starts to bleed into real war with people getting shot.
Finally found the time to check and you are right. I had been deceived by the way to open a formal letter:
Geachte heer Wilders
But in the main body of a formal letter one can use any of the following:
de heer Wilders
meneer Wilders
mijnheer Wilders
I don’t think that i have ever seen the last form, though, certainly never heard; but coming to think of it i have usually heard men (including myself) addressed as “meneer Lastname”; except when on a first name basis.
And if some commenter here at Samizdata attempted to provide the sort of validation for M.lle Le Pen that meneer Wilders provided for her in the runup to the Euro elections, would you also say that there is no conclusion to be drawn from that whatsoever?
Mind you, de heer Wilders has gone downhill since he started his own party, but i still see the point of voting for him; just as i still see the point of voting UKIP, in spite of Mr. Farage’s own prezident Putin problem, previously discussed in this forum.
I would say: show me links to where Wilders made pro-Kremlin statements, or the stories indicating he has taken loans from Kremlin controlled banks.
at the point where is starts to bleed into real war with people getting shot.
Well, call me boring, but if are going to talk about real war with real people getting killed, I would say that in terms of numbers, ISIS and Boko Haram and the perpetrators of 9/11 and 7/7 are beginners and amateurs compared to the regimes that decided to invade Iraq in 2003.
Ah but John, the regime that they overthrew, that good socialist Saddam, had probably killed more Muslims than anyone else living on Earth at the time, what with his domestic slaughter, his slaughter in Kuwait and the first Gulf War, which hadn’t ended by a peace treaty, and the Iran-Iraq War.
Try arguing that point in Erbil, John. Or for extra added points as you clearly despise Kurds, how about Halabja? I doubt anyone would kill you because it is not like that in the KRG area, but I would be surprised if someone does not spit in your face.
Oh, people might well spit in my face – but just because people in Erbil don’t like it does not mean that my point is untrue.
Lee:
That is precisely my hunch and what’s bothering me in that piece. But you may be right that we cannot know for sure from that piece only, and so should give Wilders the benefit of the doubt. As far as I’m concerned though, the jury is still out.
Your point is preposterous. Saddam Hussain was not just a domestic mass murderer but repeatedly launched costly wars on his neighbours. The notion it was unreasonable to get rid of him because it led to many people being killed is asinine. The reason many Kurds would spit on you was Kurds prominently featured amongst those your Ba’athist friends killed. They also now feature as the primary beneficiary of his fall, so good luck finding all too many there who will argue it would have been better to leave him in power.
your Ba’athist friends
Seriously? “You clearly despise the Kurds” struck me as silly, but this is ridiculous.
As for ” The notion it was unreasonable to get rid of him because it led to many people being killed is asinine”, well – I disagree.
Well you are clearly a supporter of the Ba’athist regime as you lament its fall (your objections sure as hell cannot be a mere aversion to violence, given the history of the Ba’athists that you think should still be running Iraq)…so… it seems reasonable to call you a friend of the Ba’athists.
Also as the Ba’athists were prolific mass murders of Kurds (amongst others) and it is only the fall of Ba’athism in Iraq that has made Kurds there a great deal safer (and prosperous) than they were, and that is even considering the current war against the Daesh, I conclude you are anti-Kurdish, as clearly their welfare is at the very least unimportant to you.
It is not just Mr Wilders – it is also Pamela G.
The establishment are saying that the shooting was her fault – that she provoked the attack and on and on…..
Lots of denouncing of the “extremist” views of the lady no denouncing of Islam (just the normal dodging of the “little” point that Islam has been the sworn enemy of the West since the 7th century).
It is hard not come to the conclusion that the West is doomed.
Get a grip Paul. There are also great throngs of people who have been loudly supportive of GW and PG over this.
I suppose his call for so called ‘voluntary repatriation’ and banning the building of Mosques is all a clever rhetorical trick as well, he does not really mean any of it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
FWIW (not a lot) I wrote ‘Mijnheer’ simply because it occurred to me as a (not the) Dutch honorific for Geert Wilders, where I got it from may be a combination of:
1. Reading a Tintin book in Dutch or Flemish many years ago, getting through it mainly on the basis of speaking English and having been taught some German.
2. A relative whose job it was to buy Dutch books for the UK government and thereby having a passing exposure to Dutch literature through early years.
It may be, for all I know, to a native speaker seem to be an affectation by a direct translation of ‘Monsieur’ but to my ear it sounds polite. We repeatedly see Geert Wilders described as ‘far-right’, he appears to be fed up with people trying to kill him and willing to defy his tormentors. He is also ‘Eurasian’ per a Wikipedia page, being part-Indonesian.
I am very much against involuntary repatriation by the state of anyone who is not an enemy combatant. But once the culture war actually starts to be fought, with events precisely like the one involving Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller, I would be delighted to see some Muslims, the kind who take their religion seriously and literally, decided they are no longer welcome in the west… and thus voluntarily and at their own expense repatriate themselves… which is to say fuck off back to the ‘Muslim World’. Yay for free association and disassociation!
Not quite so keen to see Mosques banned however: like I said, free association and all that.
as you lament its fall
And can you show me why you think that I lament its fall?
The logic of “You think that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was wrong, therefore you lament the fall of the Ba’athist regime and therefore are a friend of the Ba’athists” seems to me to be pretty bizarre.
I suspect that I may not be alone in thinking it so.
You lament what caused the fall of Ba’athism in Iraq, but you do not lament the fall of Ba’athism?
As Tonto might say: White man speak with fork tongue.
I suspect that I may not be alone in thinking it so.
The most charitable interpretation is your remarks are akin to hearing that a woman walking home one night has just shot dead a notorious rapist murderer who attacker her and saying “I deplore the ownership of firearms but I am of course delighted she did not get raped and murdered.” Yeah, right.
So, Wilders is an imperfect ally in an imperfect world? So was Stalin.
Pretty much. But rather less imperfect than Stalin methinks.
So, Wilders is an imperfect ally in an imperfect world? So was Stalin
And now we have come full circle. Wilders, Geller, and all those people at the art show? They are just like Stalin. They are the ones to blame.
They deserve to be murdered in cold-blood.
Islam on the other hand containing more than 150 graphic injunctions to slaughter and silence opponents – well, that’s a Religion of Peace!
As for the man who founded the religion…hate-crime legislation forces me into silence.
Demonise Wilders and Geller, real living people, and that’s okay but criticise a dead ‘prophet’ or his religion?
No way!
At least it’s a change from being just like Hitler; which is why i was the first to mention Stalin in this thread.
Ah, a Right Oppositionist!
What I meant is that if we could put up with Stalin’s ‘imperfections’, we can certainly put up with Wilders’. Nothing else.
@PersonFromPorlock
I stand corrected. Indeed.
Reiterate what Laird said, May 5, 2015 at 6:20 pm, and tattoo it on the forehead of each person:
Gridlock is good. Gridlock is one of the important practical protections (such as they are) that prevent Legislatures from prohibiting every dam thing they don’t like, including Spumoni ice-cream, and requiring everything they do, or pretend they do, like Obamacare. Unfortunately, as the example of the latter shows us, gridlock will fail before a cunning attack.
Maximo Macaroni,
To read Mein Kampf is to be a nazi or nazi sympathizer? To read the bible is to be a christian? To read the koran is to be a muslim sympathizer? Really? Would you care to put your money where your mouth is?