Geert Wilders Takes on Islam in the Name of Liberal Values
By • 2/19/08 |
Geert Wilders. |
I got into an argument last weekend with a commenter named JAB over my idea that white preservationists should present themselves as the true defenders of liberal values. JAB thought that this kind of critique of multiculturalism would never lead any farther than programs for the integration of non-whites into white societies. Well, there’s at least one European anti-immigration party that proves him wrong: the Dutch Freedom Party, headed by Geert Wilders.
Wilders, whose party occupies nine of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, objects to Islam in the name of liberal values:
“My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,’ he emphasises. “We’ll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.” Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.
Wilders actually calls himself a liberal and, accordingly, criticizes Islam on the basis of its illiberal treatment of women and its intolerance towards homosexuality. “There is no equality between our culture and the retarded Islamic culture. Look at their views on homosexuality or women.”
And Wilders is no integrationist: “he wants the ‘fascist Koran’ outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim ‘criminals’ stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported ‘back where they came from.’”
Repeat: he wants to pay Muslims to leave, as well as to make it impossible for them to practice their culture by outlawing the Koran.
The strategy is working well for him. He enjoys 15 percent support among the Dutch electorate. He’s currently working on a film that will “show the real face of Islam.” The majority of the Dutch people think it should be aired, but the government may suppress it out of concern over the reaction in the Islamic world.
Wilders has paid the price for his campaign against Islam. Because of constant death threats, he’s had to live for three years under police guard and often in secret locations.
The man’s story and political program have plainly captured the hearts of a large part of the Dutch public. I think realists the world over should take a page from his book and argue for white preservation in the name of liberal values.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
There are limits to freedom of speech. Fraud, libel, and slander are a few obvious examples. Another reasonable limitation upon freedom of speech is the suppression of forces that threaten the very foundation upon which freedom of speech can be exercised. Thus, for instance, the Nazi and Fascist rehabilitation movement is justifiably banned in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, and other parts of Europe. Like Fascism, the growth of Islam in Europe threatens the very foundations upon which a free society can exist — pluralism, individualism, democracy, and freedom of speech. Islam is to today’s Europe as Fascism and Communism were to previous generations. In fact, Islamic ‘extremism’ in Europe is more powerful, influential, and politically organised than Mussolini’s fascio ten years prior to the March on Rome.
Therefore, I am completely in favour of banning Islam in Europe.
I agree with Andrew Wilkins that the only reasonable choice for the very survival of freedom in Europe is to utterly ban Islam. The implementation of such a choice would not have been hesitated by the likes of, say, Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle, if the current Islamic threat had existed in their day.
This seems so ironic on the surface ” The only way freedom can survive is to ban a religion”, but freedom of religion in the West has always been freedom to be whatever kind of Christian denomination you belong to, freedom to be a Jew, and freedom to be Athiest or Agnostic. None of these choices allowed for any group that wished to eliminate the other choices as radical Islam does. None of these choices involved allowing the freedom of a group that is bent on destroying all of our freedoms.
Besides, Islam is and has always been, an all-encompasing way of life. It has been every bit as much about government and societal constructs as it has been about religion. Also, It has always been implemented by force and terrorism. We must confront this force with force, We must fight it with all we’ve got because they are fighting to change us, control us, defeat us with all they have!
“Wilders actually calls himself a liberal and, accordingly, criticizes Islam on the basis of its illiberal treatment of women and its intolerance towards homosexuality.”
In Europe, saying that you are a liberal, or neo-liberal, means that you are a libertarian or classical liberal, not a socialist or Euro-Racial Marxist.
Wilders would be considered a libertarian, or a libertarian leaning Republican, if he were a politician in the United States. For instance, Wilders says that he admires Thatcher - not something you would expect a European leftist to say.
I just wanted to make that distinction to avoid confusion.