LOG 16.06: Wilders, Europe, Comments [EN]

My recent Wilders articles have been republished on "best of blogs" fora like Medium4You and Agoravox, and on social websites like Facebook. Coming right after some 5 months of virtual interruption of my internet publishing activities, this is of course a source of satisfaction for me.

But a disadvantage of "multi-publication" is, that commenters are going to react on different platforms. They do not see what others said on other platforms. It causes a fragmented dialogue. The English version of my denunciation of Wilders' ethnic cleansing statements in Copenhague was republished by myself in my new "At Home in Europe" blog with Euractiv, as it is clearly a pan-European issue. Agoravox reprinted it prominently, and it received some interesting comments, to which I replied. That permitted me to develop my motives and clarify my thinking about the issues at stake. The same is true for comments at Euractiv itself.

A first comment on Agoravox came from somebody who calls himself Liberty Bell:

It is the Europeans who are being ethnically cleansed - from their own homeland. Each year record numbers of Europeans leave the continent for the USA or Australia whilst millions of Muslims settle in Europe.

The culture of Europe is being subsumed by an Islamic culture rendering many cities unrecognisable (and unsafe for non muslims). The people of Europe were never consulted by their political masters on this process.

Are Europeans supposed to accept this Islamic future and bow before their new colonial masters. It is inevitable that some should care enough for their children’s future to fight back.

Read Wilders’ speech first and then judge it.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/06/text(...)

I read the link to Gates Of Vienna and its source at Wilders party's website in Holland, and replied:

@Liberty Bell:

Wilders’ oddball Israel speech will soon be a subject in my blog. This is about his June 14th Copenhague TV appearance.

"Gates Of Vienna" is a privately USA funded hate blog, directed at Europe. They are so ignorant about European history, that they took the Christianization (15th Century) of the big Alhambra mosque in Spain for an example of "Islamization" of Europe! (Viz. their "Counterjihad Calendar" 2008, Month December)...

Indeed, Wilders went another step too far, when he speeched at a meeting organized by his danish racist friends around Pia Kjergaard. I noted, that he said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I am very much in favour of a two-state solution. One Jewish state called Israel including Judea and Samaria and one Palestinian state called Jordan."

Even Avigdor Lieberman himself couldn't have been more explicit about plans for another, and "final" ethnic cleansing operation! As I promised to Mr. Liberty Bell, I will take Mr. Wilders on account on that issue too!

An Eric who goes by the email address 2sexy represents the flock of hysteric commenters who appear everyplace, where the "Dhimmis" might be attacked:

Anybody who starts “thinking about Sharia and Jihad” or “Caliphate” should be deported too.

wilders is dead right,peaceful,lawful abiding people iv no problem with,

but those who want to impose sharia law are not welcome and should be deported to their country of origin

i can show many examples of some muslims who dont want to intergrate

Islamic groups want Sharia Law in Germany.... [etc.]

Follows an awful lot of links to the Daily Telegraph and other sources. My reply:

@2sexy (Eric)

If a majority of people are convinced that the world is flat (which was the reality until the sixteenth century), that is no reason to organize a pogrom on the minority who think that it is a sphere. But our beloved judeo-christian tradition exactly organized that. It corrected its faults soon enough, and I am proud of it. But the fact remains.

People like Wilders *know*, that it is impossible to "cleanse" Europe from Muslims, without creating a genocide or a holocaust. But they don’t tell. So, when they are telling the public, that it is only the "Sharia-Socialists" who stand in the way of their simplist solutions, they are lying and hate-mongering.

Ordinary people who are fed up with Muslims, or, more precisely, with insecurity and globalization, are not in favor of such a "final solution" (Endlösung). Just like the German people, however much antisemitically brainwashed, were left in the dark in 1941, when the Nazis decided to apply their "final solution" to the "Jewish problem".

That is why people like me, who have lived under Nazism and who have studied the ways, Nazism could develop, are committed profoundly, to expose the lies and the hatred, not of ordinary bloggers like you, but of the slimy profiteers of popular Angst.

Within the hour, Eric came back, and wrote:

I disagree wilders isnt advocating anything of the sort,

as far as my eyes see wilders is only advocating [my stess],

if people break laws be deported

its common in most countries,if serious crimes are commited there will be deportations

furthermore

how can wilders be a nazi when hes pro Israel?

you cant a nazi and be pro Israel at the same time its a contradiction

see here

Geert Wilders: EU is not Israel’s friend

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...

Freedom of Speech Summit: Geert Wilders Synagogue Speech part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKY3i_tYzos

My reply:

by Huib Riethof (IP:xxx.x4.0.162) le 16 June 2009
Sorry, Eric, but a real friend of Israel cannot be an enemy of its socialist founding fathers (Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Shimon Peres and Rabin - the last one murdered by Wilders’ extremist Israeli friends).

Like Wilders’ German friend Ulfkotte once said at an unguarded moment: "We reject Jewish practices like halal slaughtering as much as we do with the corresponding Muslim practices. But we tolerate the Jewish ones, for there are so few of them, whereas the Muslims are so numerous. They constitute a danger for "our culture"".

Well, as you know the reason, why there are so few Jews left in Germany (and, for that matter, in Holland, where the antisemitic Arnold Meyer movement in Wilders’ region lent an efficient hand to the Nazi exterminators), you can easily see, that, if people of Jewish descent become more populous, people like Wilders will turn against them, too.

The difficult problem of "who is really a friend of Israel and of the Jews in general"

The ill-reputed Californian Pepperdine Conference of US and European activists against "a Collapse Of Europe" because of Islamization (June 2007), already had a (private) session about advocacy against Islam. What does "advocacy" mean? It is nothing less than looking for holes in the Law, in order to justify discrimination and collective punishment. For instance, putting warning signs around mosques, saying that Islam is a danger to your security. A tobacco law ("Smoking endangers Your health") should serve as a legal support.

Eric has probably heard about "advocacy", as discussed in activist circles, and he is right: Wilders finds loopholes in the law, that permit him to bring forward his racist proposals. At the same time, he refers to general values that are anchored in our Constitutions, like freedom of expression, and the moment he is attacked about his misinterpretations of the Law, he starts to ride his high horses, accusing his critics of "betraying European values".

It is not always easy, to make a distinction between solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people, to which I am committed, and the self-serving identification by anti-Muslim racists with an agressive and ethnic cleansing Israel, that, alas, is very real, today. My Ulfkotte example is telling, though. Those new, racist "friends" of Israel, have only changed their rifle from one shoulder to the other. From the anti-jewish one to the anti-muslim one. The actual majority in Israel, understandably, do not say "no" to that support in what they consider as a struggle for life. Associating with the former South Africa and its Bantustans, was an earlier example of that eclectic policy.

We are lucky, that many Jewish groups in the European area, understand the mortal danger for their people and for their societies as a whole, of associating with racist agitators. They are implicitly criticized by the recent Israeli Governments, who repeat their calls for alija - French jews, for instance, should flee the "rising antisemitism" and not "accomodate". They vote against it "with their feet": more Jews, even Israeli citizens, are migrating TO France, than FROM it.

In the US, the situation is different, but not completely. A too great number of religious zionist people come over to Israel and enact a suprematist ideology, that is contrary to the original emancipatorial zionist ideals. A strong minority rejects that, and supports Obama policies.

I would like to provoke a clear and strict Jewish, Israelian, dissociation from the "new" racist "friends" of Israel. That is part of my mission. I have not many tools at my disposition. I exploit the ones I have. Your suggestions are welcome!

Comments on At Home in Europe

On At Home in Europe - Euractiv, I got a comment from:

Theijs Comment by Theijs | 2009/06/16 at 09:48:59

Dear Huib,

Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders

http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Gerechten/Gerechtshoven/Amsterdam/Actualiteiten/Amsterdam+Court+of+Appeal+orders+the+criminal+prosecution+of+the+Member+of+Parliament+of+the+Dutch+S.htm

Europeanly yours, Theijs

My reply:

Comment by huib | 2009/06/16 at 13:49:23

@Theijs: Thanks to mention it. I referred to the courageous opinion of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in an earlier post. As Wilders is now going “international”, viz; “european”, with his hate-mongering, I think, it may be the task of international Justice to do its job.

Then, I got a sophisticated comment from a Liberal, looking for guidance:

Comment by EuropeLiberal | 2009/06/16 at 14:11:51

Dear Sir,

I cannot agree with your comparison of Geert Wilders with Karadzic from Serbo-Bosnian war in 1990’s. First of all, if you know well Karadzic and his speeches and his acts, he was a real nationalist and extremist who wanted to eradicate and kill all Muslims in his territory. He was also a militant authocratic person who was anti-democratic, anti-civil and hater of ALL minorities (not only Mouslims). That is a significant difference with Mr Wilders. He is representing himself like a liberal person, like someone who is even protector of other minorities...such as gays (just watch that youtube video) and he wants to protect democracy and freedom of speech and civil rights (for all minorities), because he believes that core Islamic laws are threatening to destroy all those European values.
Therefore, it seems hard to put Mr Wilders in a group of extremists or far right nationalists...Indeed, he has some strong anti-Mouslim opinions, but at the same time, our European governments have so weak policies in that matter, and are TOO MUCH tolerant to islamist ideology that is massively spreading in Europe. I am strongly against any extremists..but in my opinion, Mr Wilders is as bad as some other politicians on the opposite side who are totally tollerant to influx of immigrants and to all other problems that we are facing (for instance greens are the opposite extremists of Mr Wilders).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6Nm75jJLI

I replied:

@ EuropeLiberal

Dear Sir,

Maybe, Wilders is indeed WORSE than Karadzic. The man has no understanding whatsoever of the core values of European Civilization. I developed some analysis of his rantings about women, about forgiving and about Jewish tradition in a recent series of articles. In Dutch, while a German translation has partly been published and English translations are coming up.
It is of mere academic interest, if he has to be categorized as a rightwing or a left wing extremist. He IS an extremist, who is subreptitously seeking for holes in our juridical system, in order to bring his message.

It is really worrying, that a person who considers himself as a liberal, should have the Fears he expresses. There is a great loss of confidence. I am convinced, that not only a systematic refutation of Wilders-like opinions, but a new freedom project too, should remediate that situation.

I am a candidate for participation in such a project.

Who takes the lead?

(A French version of the Wilders refutation comes up soon!)