Why Americans Need to Pay Attention to Europe

This man, Geert Wilders, is on trial, in the Netherlands, for expressing free speech, and in the greater scope, calling it like it is in the Netherlands as regards Muslims, their behavior, and Islamic extremism; further, that the ideology of appeasism and apologist rhetoric are destroying a country of free men for nothing more than the percpetions of “diversity” and “tolerance”.

Here are his brilliant, articulate and stunningly firm pronouncements to the falsehood that is the Dutch Court:


Please take the time to read the links on the matter before commenting.

The eerie part of this is that this is not a singular event, or an event without proper impetus. Considering the rise of attacks on homosexuals in Holland by Muslims and the events surrounding both Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, it becomes even more disconcerting that this sham trial is occurring.

A quote from the second link to make the points to Americans who are so busy in their obliviousness:

This is the exact same rhetoric being used in this country to support the positions of falsifiable “tolerance” and “diversity” at all costs to society.

To quote the famous/infamous Dave Mustaine of Megadeth: Washington is next.

Free speech is under direct assault, and America and Europe have very deeply rooted and symmetric connections, societally and politically. It is time to pull the head out of the sand, the war will be on our doorstep soon enough, as the enemy is already in our house.

I would argue that Islam or any religion is detrimental to developed society. It was pretty sad seeing these moronic islamists hold up “sharia for UK” banners when he came here.
Still, I didn’t see your post about how America would become less tolerant after France banned the headscarf in schools, or considerations about banning the burka. American and European soceities still have significant differences. Looking at the importance of integration in America, through something as simple as the diversity of accents in New York compared to London, it’s clear that America is much more mono-cultural. Statements like “It is time to pull the head out of the sand, the war will be on our doorstep soon enough, as the enemy is already in our house” are just sensationalist. Your country has a “fool for jesus” type character whose teenage old daughter fell pregnant withour marriage as a potential presidential candidate in 2012. I think you have much more immediate concerns.

You’re right, I live here, I have no idea what I’m talking about.

The accents of New York compared to London? It’s good to see that we don’t hold the only license for idiocy on the planet.

Actually, if you spent a few minutes on the web, you would see that there have been a number of recent linguistics studies showing that New Yorkers are losing their accent, it is actually becoming more and more rare, because of the overly broad demographic. Nice work, it took me only 0.24 seconds to prove you wrong: google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& … 0d3c90c6fc

I love the mono-cultural stupidity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi … ted_States

That didn’t take more than 0.24 seconds either. Just be aware that census reporting is skewed and only reliable as a general marker, many people, myself included, refuse to allow being surveyed by the labels offered.

Really plebe?

Another 0.18 seconds and …

google.com/#hl=en&ei=cZN1S_O … 0d3c90c6fc

We’re done here.

Fellow, your response to monoculturalism and integration in the US is to google webpages? Even worse, webpages that support my position: “And most experts do not think it varies by borough or neighborhood”. Your lack of intelligence is only balanced by your ego. Demographics? Culture = demographics? Have you ever been to, say, France? Do you know the difference between ‘demographic diversity’ and ‘cultural diversity’? Hint: France has a strong culture with significant demographic variation! Are you 12?

Islamic extremism in the US? Your link is… A google that has news articles by Clinton saying “transatlantic” terrorist organizations pose a threat? The reason American freedom is under threat is because of transatlantic organizations? Do you even understand why Wilders is anti islam (Hint: It’s not just about terrorists)? You make a convincing case for ‘No’.

The Swiss recently voted to ban the construction of new minarets. Where was your post then?
Where were you expressing outrage at the retardation required to consider electing the kind of public figure who scribbles notes on the palm of her hand while criticising a certain prominent figure for reading from teleprompters? You really have much more serious issues.

Admit you’re ignorant on the issue of Europe and islam as well as the religion in itself, and that you’re bitter the only thing you’re fucking on valentine’s is your hand/doll etc. I’ll leave you to it.

There is no difference between demographic diversity and cultural diversity other than semantics. What exactly is it that you think ascribes culture? It is the disciminatory differences noted by the brain that create in-group/out-group distinctions, which end in differing social mannerisms/coping mechanisms of exclusion, or what is called culture.

Your position isn’t supported, because “they think”; but if you know anything about New York, you know that it has always been separated by the burghs, but going there even now, those burghs aren’t closed demographically as they were even twenty years ago.

France? You think that’s an argument? Here’s some information for you for on France:

Metropolitan France: 551,695 km2
(Metropolitan - i.e. European - France only, French National Geographic Institute data)

Which is less area than our state of Texas, i.e. what you call a “country” is only a state here. So, seeing as you’re an ignorant plebe, I’ll explain it: geographic expanse and geographic diversity naturally lead to more diluted cultural difference as out-groups are affected to a greater degree by the resident in-group. Seeing as it is a condition of the physicality of the country, it has nothing to do with U.S. policy or any socially forced divisions by means of the society at large.

You really have issues with reading comprehension. The OP directly addressed the danger of suppression of free speech, worse, an act like Wilders is suffering, where his right to free speech is not only being taken away, but being criminalised; most demonstrably from, again as stated in the OP, an appeasist and apologist contingent which appears to be gaining strength.

The point that your inglorious self seems incapable of understanding; without free speech, liberalis cannot be maintained, and the same rhetoric being used in the Netherlands, and in Wilders’ case, is what is being heard here. For exactly the same reasons, “diversity” and “tolerance”. Again, in a show of supreme idiocy, I never mentioned terrorism as Wilders main issue. The cultural dilution of the Dutch, along with the acts of social violence, and policies in the Netherlands that are “seemingly” pro-Islamic, and standing completely in the face of/against the Dutch people’s is his main issue. Hence, why I included Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn in the OP. Go back and read.

Yes, I am responsible for the inefficacies of our media … lol. Why would there be any “outrage” at what Sarah Palin does or does not do? She isn’t an elected official, but your stunning idiocy of not realising that, is telling.

LOL, certification of ineffable cosmic stupidity, thank you, yes, please leave, you’ve said absolutely nothing of worth. Issue of Islam? It is a viral social disease, case closed.

E` adanto, ragazza, siamo fatti qui … lol.

Making a man whose stated goal is the legal restriction of free speech a martyr for free speech is a bit rich, don’t you think?

As for “far-right”, what label would you apply to a libertarian running on a Law-and-Order platform who vocally wants to remove the Constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, enshrine and elevate Christianity in the Constitution, re-unite Flanders with the Netherlands, and severely restrict immigration practices? I’d call that combination “far-right” without batting an eye.

I think you make too many determinations from the media Xunzi. He isn’t “far right”, and you should be ashamed at such a lack of analytical thought to be bought into that media labeling hype.

Everything written about him, regardless the fact that the left/right political spectrum argument is the worst false dichotomy/fallacy of bifurcation ever, that negatively brackets him within that label, is written by opponents who like to think themselves sitting at the opposite end.

The viral infection of the Muslim “belief” system, it isn’t even arguable, is directly responsible for the fall of the Middle East. A Middle East that was at one time the equal of the Greeks and the Romans for art, culture, science, discovery, exploration; then it fell to Islam and has for 1400 years, (the same span of time as the Roman Empire), been little more than a vacuum and/or sucking wound on the face of the globe.

In short, you’re dead wrong, and woefully bereft of the facts, just full of media bullshit. He is more concerned with the destruction of the Dutch culture by appeasism and apologism for Islam. Which no right thinking individual would find to be anything other than a viral plague; even considering the existence of extremism in Christianity, it pales in any comparison. In a more important aspect, extremist Christianity seeks to seclude itself, almost cultically so, where as the extremism of Islam is bent on destroying anything/one that refuses their advance.

When did you allow your mind to be bought? Decided that becoming one of the socio-political drones was a good idea?

Unlike most other religions, which, however begrudgingly, allow for other belief systems; and don’t even try any of that inane fucking bullshit that all religions, including atheism, aren’t busy trying to win converts so it is tantamount, Islams only goal is the eradication of any other system, and the instatement of totalitarianism. Even so called “moderates” are generally fans of extremism that ends in Westerners being killed. Hell, look at any ME poll on bin Laden, he’s still lauded as a hero of Islam by the majority.

I disagree with the idealistic narrative of Islam in the ME, but that is neither here-nor-there.

My point is that the constellations of views that he supports is hard to label as anything other than “far-right”. He may not define himself that way, he may be distinct from Fascists, but he does support all those positions I stated.

Yes, he does. Then the question is “why”?

Simple, Dutch culture. Don’t try to tell me you don’t respect someone who, however loudly or quietly, defends their culture, ey, "Xunzi"an?

I don’t mean to detract from your larger argument… but:

I don’t think this is accurate. For a number of centuries after Islam conquered the Middle East – intellectual discovery flourished; old knowledge was rediscovered and the golden years of the Islamic Empire equally rival those of any other empire in history. While Europe was on their knees prostrating themselves before the Church; the moors (and their conquered populations) were advancing the frontiers of science and mathematics. Look up any number of mathematical concepts and you’ll find their origin from that time period.

Now – like most empires – they certainly screwed the pooch and lost everything they once had – as evidenced by their current state of affairs. I suspect the Middle East of the 21st century looks very much like Europe of the 10th century – all religion and no reason. Islam endured century after century of Christian terrorism in the form of the various Crusades – and in that same vein, we now resist Islamic terrorism.

I obviously don’t have a problem with defending culture. Though I can have a problem with people doing it too loudly or too quietly. Doctrine of the Mean, come on. You know this stuff!

I don’t think elevating an ass-hat to the level of hero or martyr does anyone any good.

Doctrine of the Mean is so much rubbish; does not apply to human socio-cultural activity.

So, give explanation. You keep calling the man everything in the book, but have no substance in your argument. He’s an asshat because … what, he doesn’t agree with your egalitarian slant? He has a particular position, and sees no reason to move from it because it isn’t popular with the appeasists and apologists? He is shown to have support from the Dutch people?

Exactly, what has he done that is wrong? It isn’t Xenophobia or racism, he hasn’t made any comments about Arabs. He has rightfully, shown contempt for a totalitarian mentality, being forced on the Dutch people through legislation and now the courts. He’s wrong to call for freedom of speech against the hate rhetoric of Islam, but is an asshat because he sees that Islamists are being unduly protected by Dutch law, while they verbally/physically assault Christians, women, and homosexuals. Yet, he’s in court for speaking out against the retardation of that belief system, and the fact that the law protects against any speech or images of the Islamist “prophet”, but other religions aren’t afforded those same protections under Dutch law …

How about you put something out besides your opinion. You want to refute, but with no substance, so show me. I already posted the facts in the OP, what do you have?

Well, we can disagree on the vagaries of diminishment until the cows come home, but under the military command of Sayfu al-Lāh al-Maslūl, mid 700’s, is usually the time that the decline is said to have begun. After conquering Persian and Byzantine Rome, it moved towards decline, with what few bright spots there were under the Ottomans. So, it isn’t really a worthwhile argument, becomes a disagreement of degrees … and historians have already been down that road.

I’ve stated that he is far-right and provided solid reasoning for that.

I’ve stated that it is ironic to present a critic of free speech as a martyr to free speech.

You are reading more into what I am saying than is there. Grasping at straws?

Those are just your opinions, which does not an asshat make. What straws? I supported my position with more than opinion.

Your “reasoning” is anything but solid, it comes from the slant of knowingly holding a diametrically opposed position of “belief”, nothing more.

His views aren’t my opinion. He has stated those views on numerous occasions.

Whether those views taken together make him far-right isn’t my opinion either. There are a great many people who agree with that standpoint and, since where one lies on the political spectrum is arbitrarily determined by popular consensus.

Now, that someone’s political views being far-right makes them an ass-hat is indeed my opinion. But given that I’m a big ol’ lefty, it makes sense that I ought judge his character that way.

Okay, and … ?

Argumentum ad populum? You think that equates to what exactly? I think it makes them a bunch of shiftless, unreasoning asshat apologists and appeasists; properly translated as “gutless pussies”. That Islamic belief is having a widespread negative impact on Dutch society is fact. That Islamic belief is the direct cause of violence against Dutch people is fact. That the laws protect Islamic rhetoric of hate against anyone who doesn’t fit their ideological mold, and that those same laws criminalise any rhetoric against Islam and Muslims; those are both facts.

Which only shows that there isn’t any reasoning in your position, and that your position is so much emotionally driven balderdash.

Nahhh, you are working at it backwards here.

Really? With what evidence? Or authority by your opinion?

I’m not sure what the meaning is behind the title to this thread. Should we be more like them, or be warned by what they’re doing? I don’t see that much difference between us, both sweeping the Islam issue under the rug of diversity–turning a fear of the tyranny of the majority into the tyranny of the minority.

Wilder’s speech as it stands is commendable, and if it may cost him his freedom, courageous. If he’s on trial only for what he has said, it should be an open and acquit case.

Whether he is left or right wing is irrelevant to the issue at hand, but if as Xunzian suggests, he wants to Constitutionally enfranchise or support Christianity (words to that effect), then he is playing both sides of the freedom of speech issue, is anti-freedom of religion, and should be castrated politically for his hypocritical stand. IF!

The real tricky issue here is when does freedom of speech become incitement to violence or harm? How much can we hold the inciter responsible? You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but can you do so in an empty one? Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, but is money the only recognizable connection? No, authority within a group (mob, corporate, government, religious) is as well, but it is unfortunately hard to prove intent before the fact. If all a coven of Nazis does is carry swastikas. zieg heil and sing Über Alles, there isn’t anything legal than can be done. Freedom means the ability to be as stupid as you want, but only on your own dime.

Given the Islamic imperative to Jihad and the forceful imposition of Sharia Law as required of faithful Muslims in the Koran (Qur’an whatever), a good case can be made for incitement to violence unless the use of force to achieve those goals is specifically denied. What worries the Left is that if the intent to such incitement was deemed to be illegal, so would be socialism on the same grounds. Either could be legitimized by means of incorporation into the Constitution–something both the Left and the Theocrats have studiously avoided, in the US anyway, since the end of Prohibition in the 30’s and the realization that, for expediency’s sake, the Constitution must be skirted, not amended. To push for an amendment means you have to come out into the Sun.

Answer, undermine the leaders by building as many prisons and gallows for their followers who commit violence as necessary–and using them without delay with significant public support. Include the leaders in the use of those facilities when we can, but when other would-be ayatollahs/Alinskyites see what’s happening, they’ll crawl under the woodpile fast enough.