Geert Wilders Comes To Town
Posted on October 20th, 2009
by David Lindsay |
|
I fully supported the ban on Geert Wilders from visiting Britain, as he was finally permitted to do this week. He is in the Pim Fortuyn tradition of opposing Islam so that the Netherlands can remain a drug-addled, whore-mongering country where the age of consent is 12, contrary to the wishes of its general public either in the staunchly Protestant north or in the devoutly Catholic south. That is not any West which I for one wish to defend. But then, it is not in fact the West at all. It is only the most extreme, and in that sense logically consistent, manifestation of the pseudo-West proclaimed by the neoconservative movement, or what’s left of it these days.
But this ban did at least show that such a ban was possible, even against an EU citizen, never mind against anyone else. So, yes, by all means ban Islamists. Ban Avigdor Lieberman and the members of his revolting party, just as we banned Meir Kahane when he was alive. And since we rightly ban David Duke, who has never really mattered but whom it is still right to keep out, so we should ban the signatories to the Project for the New American Century, and the Patrons of the Henry Jackson Society. So we should ban those American and other ecclesiastics who have expressed racist views about Africans and others who do not share their liberal sexual morality. And so we should ban Hans Küng, whose disparagement of the late Pope John Paul II’s Polishness made and make them the authentic voice of the age-old Teutonic racism against the Slavs; Küng only gets away with it because he is Swiss.
Neither the neocons, nor the liberal-racists, nor Küng really matter any more. But that is not the point. They could still do damage, and we do not want them here. Like the Islamists and like Yisrael Beitenu, let them be excluded from the United Kingdom. To use the technical term over here, their presence would most certainly not be, and periodically is not, conducive to the public good.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Surely, you realize that Wilders wasn’t banned for his hedonism but for his running afoul of the liberal elite in his support of restricting immigration. In any case, isn’t Wilders better than the liberal elite who fully endorse his hedonism but also support mass immigration of third world populations?
I’m also rather amused at your claim that blacks don’t share “liberal sexual morality” if this is the case, why are the majority of American blacks born out of wedlock? This hardly suggests strong family values. The fact is, blacks are perfectly fine with casual sex and abortion, they oppose homosexuality not out of any sense of conservatism but out of a hatred for those different than themselves and an all pervasive machismo most evident in rap “music”.
You sound eerily like the liberal Episcopalian bishops whom I have in mind, in their jaw-droppingly racist reaction to the solidly Biblical stance of their African brethren, who understandably regarded it as a silly question. Perhaps black Americans have been turned by living in proximity to white Americans?
We have quite enough problem people of our own without importing anyone else’s. Including Geert Wilders. Maybe they thought that he’d be harmless because he looks silly and his work is of low artistic merit? History teaches us otherwise.
Shouting “racist” are we? In any case your response does little to explain the hatred of western values among blacks. Although you do sound awfully similar to a liberal in your rush to blame whites for the problems of blacks. And just to be clear, I wasn’t endorsing homosexuality or Episcopalians.
Anti-immigration politicians from around Europe enter the UK not rarely. In fact, I do not think that Jean-Marie Le Pen is on the no-entry list at the UK Home Office, and he is far more consistently anti-immigration than Geert Wilders. I think you will find that Pat Buchanan is also not on the list, and if I am not mistaken, he fairly recently participated in a debate there on Churchill.
The difference with M’Heer Wilders is that the man is deliberately provocative in attacking one the world’s second most popular faith and painting its followers as violent, dangerous maniacs. He said the Qu’ran is a book of hatred and should be banned in the Netherlands. His point of entering the UK when he was denied entry was to host the screening of his provocative anti-Islam video.
Yes, I know there are a few crackpots who say similar things about Christianity, but they aren’t in politics because nobody takes them seriously (except for Hirsi Ali, also from the Netherlands, who was in Wilders’ ex-party, the liberals, is viciously anti-all religion and was hired by AEI and is promoted by neocons today).
In the “you sound more sterotypically liberal” war, it is clear that David is a bit more socialist/egalitarian and James is more liberal. Whatever. American Blacks do not have … well, let’s say the most disciplined sexual ethics as a group, but it is also silly to say that their social conservatism is due to fear of difference. I do not know their precise abortion rate, I would imagine it is just slightly disproportionately high per capita and maybe even below average per pregnancy, since it is upper middle class liberal white girls who are most likely to choose death.
Perhaps you can realise that their relatively socially conservative attitudes on right and wrong are based on experience, if not practice? They are mostly in a social class where there is not much room for messing up, whereas any us who went to a nice college knows that most people are protected from the consequences of misbehaviour there.
It is scary when a Government bans free speech.
Its scarier when a “Conservative” endorses the ban.
See Wilders movie Fitna. All he does is quote the Koran.
I urge you to read Ezra Levant. A brilliant writer,who hauled before the Alberta “Human Rights commission” for printing the Danish cartoons.
He shocked them by bringing his own video camera, and posting it on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g
Scary Government interrogation.
Oh, by the way. The Dutch Government charged Wilders for inciting hatred, chargers that were later dropped.
http://ezralevant.com/2009/01/hollands-national-suicide-note.html
You need to rethink your position on Geert Wilders.
Thomas is basically right. Le Pen comes here. I’m not sure if he should, but he does. PJB comes here, thankfully. But David Duke cannot. And until recently, Wilders could not, either.
Wilders is fundamentally a neocon. His “West” is their “West”, as it has come to be expressed most extremely in the Netherlands. He just doesn’t see, as they sometimes don’t, that that depends on an economic system which itself depends on unrestricted global migration.
I say again, James, Africans aren’t like that. West Indians are rarely like that, and only so since their youth culture began to be Americanized, also the problem with their Diaspora here. So where did black Americans get it from? Surely not from contact with white Americans, who very often are like that? I only ask.
American Blacks are only promiscuous because they live in proximity to American whites? Right. I also suppose AIDS is a plague in Africa because Africa is only an ocean away from America, and therefore a victim of white America’s bad influence. Oh wait, better not say an unkind word about Africa, because that would be “jaw-droppingly racist.”
I will say, however, that many of the anti-immigration parties in Europe sprang up as neoconservative, Thatcherite, Reaganite, “neoliberal”, pro-imperailist parties, but have evolved to become anti-Anglo-American and wary of global financial capitalism.
This was the case with the Front National in France, Lega Nord, and the Austrian Freedom Party. They’ve become relatively decent parties that criticise most American and European military adventures.
I mention this because I noticed an article in one of the Dutch newspapers last time I passed through the Netherlands alleging Wilders’ party was the most social democratic. I had known his policies to be the most libertarian. Maybe this is an encouraging sign that they are resolving at least the contradictions between ultra-liberalism and nationalism, or perhaps it is just another case of neocon welfare populism (while not caring about predatory global flows of capital) like we see in the Danish Peoples Party or here in Norway with the Progress Party?
I’m just glad I’m not Dutch.
Wilders has spent time in Israel and considers that colonial settler state as the first line of defence for the West against Islam. That makes it very clear of who provides him his funding. Wilders has his loyalty to this racist Israeli state with a supremacist religion and not to true Western values.
James: “Liberal elite” “Liberal elite” “Liberal elite”
Are you a consevative or a parrot?
Do you want a cracker, Polly?
The rest of America will listen to Conservatives and elect you again at the polls when you are not a bunch of mind controlled zombies.
STOP WATCHING THAT FOX NEWS YOU GOON!
Get a brain.
I think you have a point David, American blacks weren’t always as promiscuous as they are today. In fact, until around fifty years ago they weren’t much different from their white counterparts. Now what happened back then to so drastically change black culture? I suspect it was the spread of egalitarianism that led to the wider decline in the–already severely damaged–moral structure of the west. Regardless, it doesn’t matter why they act the way they do, only that they do act the way they do. A group in which the majority are born with no father hardly seems a prospective member of a conservative alliance
As to the connection between liberal social positions and nationalism, I suspect it might have something to do with the European decoupling of traditional values and conservatism exemplified by the french new right of Alain de Benoist.
Mr. Wilders stands like a man and sees what is happening around the world. He is entitled to his opinion.
I don’t believe the quran is a book of outright hatred, although i believe it has evolved into a book of conquest based on an individual perception of God.
Will history repeat itself? The Hindu Holoscaust was a terrible time for humanity. I fear a few extremist, which actually number in the millions, would gladly secrete a small nuke in their rectum and gladly earn their way to alllah land if they could. my question is, is he right?
James,
I do not see how you can blame egalitarianism for the wider decline in the moral structure of the West, as you put it. There is nothing in the egalitarian doctrine that specifically encourages moral degeneracy (maybe political degeneracy, but that is another topic). Undoubtedly, extreme individualism and hedonism have been the problem. I suspect part of the blame for this can be put upon the neo-Americanism that emerged during the Cold War, redefining the US as a country unlike others, without any nationhood, as a political credal nation that stands tall in opposition to fascism and communism.
If you define the essence of your nation as, above all, being against authoritarian/totalitarian systems, can you be surprised if you end up with the 1960s? Where are the ex-60s hippies today? Are they socialists primarily or extreme liberals, emphasising cultural tolerance and decadence? This is mostly true even for those who were extreme socialists at some point.
As for Alain de Benoist, I do not think he is relevant to social liberalism. As far as I know his work, he is not terribly liberal in any realm, even if he subscribes to neopaganism (in a fully detached, intellectual manner). Why is he anti-Christian anyway? Because he says Christianity promotes egalitarianism, leading to Marxism, etc. (i.e., EXACTLY agreeing with you concerning the source of our moral decline). And the man was never influential in party politics anyway. He thinks Le Pen is a cretin and the latter suspects his paganism and cosmopolitanism.
In fact, Christianity (not Calvinism, but that is not orthodox Christianity) is revolutionarily democratic/egalitarian in the history of world religion. (Unlike Judaism or Hinduism, anyone of any class or race can join, and anyone can choose to be saved.) But this did not lead to moral havoc throughout the Middle Ages.
I didn’t mean to say that de Benoist was socially liberal, merely that he rejects some traditional social values. For example, I believe that he thinks homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. However, I do agree with de Benoist on some points as you have astutely observed.
As to egalitarianism, I would say that it leads to individualism and hedonism. By rejecting any differences among people, egalitarians turn us all into faceless economic units with no real value or purpose. These consequence of the egalitarian philosophy eventually lead to the moral decay we see today.
The egalitarians have removed all traditional sources of authority leading to an aimless pursuit of pleasure. This didn’t happen in the middle ages, because when our ancestors were made to accept Christianity they didn’t just completely leave the old ways behind. Instead they brought their cultural predispositions with them fundamentally changing the nature of christianity. That being said, I think modern Christianity is much closer to the original Christianity than the Germanized faith of our ancestors.
Wilders is right
Not “far” right. At the moment his party is even concidered to be among the leftish, liberal in the Dutch parliament, fighting with the unions against rising the retirement age to 67 (now 65) and fighting for compasion with the elderly, gays, suppressed woman, and so on.
The Freedom Party is a genuine Dutch, liberal, common sense party, being on top, for a very long time, of the Dutch election polls.
Geert Wilders could very well be the next president of the Netherlands. And will act in a real Dutch tradition of tolerance and open mindness, so therefore not tolerating the intolerance of islam.
Glad to be Dutch.
James,
I am not sure what you mean by the Germanized faith of our ancestors. If I were to use the term, I would be referring to the Lutherans, and maybe, to the Calvinists. Modern Christianity in the US is probably rather far from original Christianity with the rising prominence of charismatic and non-denominational megachurches emphasising outward displays of emotion and easy salvation.
And unless you are arguing that after the demise of feudalism, people lost their sense of purpose leading to loss of moral compass, I still do not understand how egalitarianism is the direct cause of hedonism. I agree people are not equal in ability or circumstance from birth, and this is partly uncorrectable. I might also see how democracy, or at least the propaganda of democratic values, could be harmful. Perhaps you could expand your argument? I might agree with part of it.
iMac,
While there may be other readers here who are okay with Wilder, I do not think your arguments will be helpful. So his party has moved to a populist position on pensions? Fine, so have all the other right-wing nationalist parties. But you want sympathy because it is a liberal party defending homosexuals and feminists?
The Netherlands doesn’t have a president. And PVV lost the Euro elections anyway to the Christian Democrats.
In response to Tjeerd and Ruben, since it seems to me your contributions have just now appeared, you could easily quote the Old Testament and say that Christianity or especially Judaism (if you also delve into the Talmud) are religions of violence and hatred.
Such opinions and anti-Christian and anti-Jewish videos do in fact exist, but they are not promoted by leading politicians targeting a whole segment of society.
And Ruben, you believe the Quran has evolved into “a book of conquest, based on an individual perception of God”. So has the Bible for many Christians. That is the theocon-neocon nightmare we have in the US with these fake Christians like Rev. Hagee who want to use US military might to force God’s hand in the End Times.
There may be Muslim immigrants INVITED by liberal Western elites in Europe and North America, but the Moors are out of Spain, the Ottomans are out of Bulgaria and Greece … where is the American military? Which countries issue the most threats? Is Iran threatening to fire missiles at the US and instigating covert terrorist operations there or is the US threatening Iran and are they not funding a Sunni organisation to bomb their generals?
Who are the most serious aggressors in the world and what religious views, IF ANY, do they hold?
Thomas,
By “Germanization” I was referring to German Christianity. When Christianity was first brought the the Germanic tribes the religion was adapted to better fit them.
Before this Christianity was most popular with the lower classes in the Roman empire, these people were attracted by the promise of paradise after death.
The German outlook on the other hand was much different, being centered around the family and the tribe the Germans didn’t really feel that they needed to be saved. This lead to Christianity taking up some of those German values. An excellent book on the subject is “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity” by James Russell.
I think my approach to egalitarianism is slightly Nietzschean, although with some major differences. Egalitarianism destroys any sort of group identification, if we are all the same than there is no reason to identify with a group beyond economic interest. So, we can see that egalitarianism attacks society at its roots: the connections that bind people together.
Egalitarianism also attacks traditional sources of social order such as religion and the family by delegitimizing their claims to authority. So, we are left with nothing but disconnected individuals who have no groups to identify with and no authorities to look to for guidance. I think this leads to a world-rejecting view or “slave morality” that Nietzsche warned of.
When people lose any group identity, they are more likely to reject virtue and the advancement of something greater than themselves and instead seek wealth and pleasure. This destruction of society also leaves people open to the depredations of the state and large corporations leading to the economism we see today.
[...] Post Right – Geert Wilders Comes To Town [...]
This post by David Lindsay is a disgraceful smear.
(1). The age of consent in the Netherlands in 16 - not 12. And, according to Reuters, when the “Charity, Freedom and Diversity” party called for reducing it from 16 to 12, Geert Wilders “asked the government to investigate whether a party with such ’sick ideas’ could really be established.”
(2). According to Wikipedia, Wilders’ “Party for Freedom” calls for “a far stricter policy toward recreational drug use.”
So why is Lindsay making this stuff up and spreading it all over the internet? This post of his is a more or less verbatim reprint of a comment that he posted to several blogs back in February - so he’s had plenty of time to find out the truth about these things.
Apparently he’s just not interested. Why not?
James, I have that book and its thesis is well taken. As I remember, the early Christian missionaries to the tribes in the West found that Old Testament material appealed to the Germans more than the Gospels. So from the beginning, the tribal warrior spirit of the ancient Hebrews resonated in the North more with them than with the Mediterranean Gospel-centric church of the South. One can see Luther acting in the manner of an Old Testament prophet denouncing the priests of the temple (although not the king).
I can’t agree with your statement about Christianity being more popular among the Roman lower classes. Rome was thoroughly Christian by the time of its fall. Indeed the last Roman officials in any province were the Bishops, who were usually aristocrats. Sidonius Appollinaris is a good example of this phenomena, a person of senatorial rank, taking religious orders in order to maintain civil society and negotiate on behalf of the Roman community with the barbarians. Remember also that the barbarians who took power from Rome were themselves Christians. It was the second wave barbarians such as the Franks and Saxons who needed conversion.
I recommend “The Inheritance of Rome” by Chris Wickham as further reading on this era. It’s a magisterial review of the period between 400-1000AD.