Geert Wilders 'Fitna'

[gags]

Republican Senator John Kyl from AZ is the one who invited Geert Wilders to the US for a showing of Fitna at the Capitol. If anyone is in the DC area, there's a reception for him at the Omni Shoreham on Friday, February 27.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_s...ting-fitna.html

[Jake_Ellison]

Republican Senator John Kyl from AZ is the one who invited Geert Wilders to the US for a showing of Fitna at the Capitol. If anyone is in the DC area, there's a reception for him at the Omni Shoreham on Friday, February 27.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_s...ting-fitna.html

Why would anyone around here show up to greet that asshole? We just think he has a right to say what he says. It doesn't mean that we agree with him, or with the contents of that insane right wing AtlasShrugs blog which should never be allowed to use a name as similar as Rand's novel.

[gags]

Why would anyone around here show up to greet that asshole?

Perhaps someone is interested in hearing what he has to say. I'm not suggesting that people shower him with rose petals.

[Jake_Ellison]

Perhaps someone is interested in hearing what he has to say. I'm not suggesting that people shower him with rose petals.

Why, out of six billion people, would this man qualify to make it onto someone's "I'm interested in hearing what he has to say." list?

Edited February 25, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[K-Mac]

Uh, you don't have to go. Chill out.

[Jake_Ellison]

Uh, you don't have to go. Chill out.

Does that mean that I'm wrong? If so, how?

If no, why chill out?

Oh, and watch the tone. We're not exactly on friendly terms, since last time, when you called me a racist for no good reason. Why would you assume that you get to advise me on how blunt I ought to be?

[K-Mac]

Wrong, right? It was just a fact posted...he will be here at such and such a time. No response is even necessary. You chose to go out of your way to be a jerk, now deal with it.

Funny how you act like I owe you something. I could care less that you don't like me and the comments you made in another thread were racist.

Why do you assume you get to advise me on tone?

If you want to raise your blood pressure over the fact that some people are going to go see "that asshole", go ahead. I suppose some of us have better things to do.

Edited February 25, 2009 by K-Mac

[Jake_Ellison]

Funny how you act like I owe you something. I could care less that you don't like me and the comments you made in another thread were racist.

You do owe me something. You owe me a quote in which I'm being racist. You've been owing me one since you called me a racist.

Now that you repeated the charge perhaps it's time to pay up.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[gags]

Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to figure out why you would urge someone to go and listen to him. You don't seem to have an answer beyond insults.

He's in the news.

He made a film about Islam and the danger it represents.

He's a controversial figure.

I'm interested in sizing his views up in person.

Edit: I'd also like to ask him about some of the contradictions in his views, specifically claiming to be an advocate of free speech while trying to ban the Koran.

Do you need me to continue listing reasons or are those sufficient?

Edited February 25, 2009 by gags

[K-Mac]

You do owe me something. You owe me a quote in which I'm being racist. You've been owing me one since you called me a racist.

Now that you repeated the charge perhaps it's time to pay up.

I already did, so you can review that thread at your leisure. I owe you nothing.

Iirc, you're young and from the UK. If I were an Objectivist there, I'd probably be bitter too. Perhaps I should cut you some slack, but I just get tired head from people being crappy to each other for no good reason, especially on this website. I simply suggested you chill out. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Keep freaking out.

[Jake_Ellison]

I already did, so you can review that thread at your leisure.

No, you didn't. You took a cheap shot at me by calling me racist without any arguments, just as most people who don't understand why being rational is more important than spewing nonsense would, and when I explained to you that holding someone responsible for the actions of a group they belong to is not racism, you ran out of words. You resorted to the same passive aggressive reflex you are resorting to now: we should be nice to each other, followed by veiled insults.

Why? What reason would I have to be nice to someone who assaults me with stupidity?

Iirc, you're young and from the UK. If I were an Objectivist there, I'd probably be bitter too. Perhaps I should cut you some slack, but head from people being crappy to each other for no good reason, especially on this website. I simply suggested you chill out. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Keep freaking out.

Here's the biggest red flag in the world. When I hear this, I know I'm dealing with someone dishonest:

"Perhaps I should cut you some slack, but I just get tired ..."

Really? Was that your thought process: Oh, look at this nice young man, I should be nice to him for reason unknown (blank out, to quote AS). Oh, but I'm such a nice person, and I deserve to be around nice people, his un-niceness tires me. I'll go ahead and tell him to chill out. But I'll mean it in a nice way.

Or was this your thought process: This guy really pisses me off, but people know me as a nice person, so let's pretend to be nice while I insult him. I'll tell him to chill out, since then we can all pretend that I'm being constructive and positive. After all "chill out" isn't the most passive aggressive thing to say I can think of wink wink.

Are you really telling me that there are people in your life who take the phrase "Chill out." as constructive criticism? Are there really people who become nicer when they're told to chill out? Unless they're channeling their aggression into killing hookers at night, I can't imagine how that could possibly work out for you.

I think you need to be less nice and more honest. Learn from gags: he didn't hold back and pretend to want to get along with me when he didn't like my post. He told me what he thought of it.

P.S. I will get off this now, not because niceness is bursting out of me, but because it's not that interesting. So consider the matter closed.

[K-Mac]

Alright, so you choose to keep freaking out then?

[K-Mac]

No, you didn't. You took a cheap shot at me by calling me racist without any arguments,

Uh, no, reread that thread and quit bringing it up here. I directly quoted you, then added my comments.

What reason would I have to be nice to someone who assaults me with stupidity?

Assaulted?

Well let's see, you want reasons? Perhaps they're not stupid? Perhaps they're not wrong? Perhaps you misspoke? Perhaps you didn't present a very good argument? There could be any number of reasons.

As Dalton so eloquently put it in the wonderfully awful movie Roadhouse, "...be nice until it's time to not be nice."

Here's the biggest red flag in the world. When I hear this, I know I'm dealing with someone dishonest: "Perhaps I should cut you some slack, but I just get tired ..."

Yes, dishonest...that's the exact word most people use to describe me.

Really? Was that your thought process: Oh, look at this nice young man, I should be nice to him for reason unknown (blank out, to quote AS). Oh, but I'm such a nice person, and I deserve to be around nice people, his un-niceness tires me. I'll go ahead and tell him to chill out. But I'll mean it in a nice way.

Well, when I was young and immature, I would fly off the handle all the time. (Although I don't recall freaking out about someone posting a reception date and time.) I'm a very passionate person and there's certainly nothing wrong with being passionate, but there's an appropriate time and place for everything. I was just trying to get you to revisit your unnecessary and rude comment...

Why would anyone around here show up to greet that asshole?

You might as well have told the poster he's a stupid idiot for posting that here. Talk about veiled insults!

Or was this your thought process: This guy really pisses me off, but people know me as a nice person, so let's pretend to be nice while I insult him. I'll tell him to chill out, since then we can all pretend that I'm being constructive and positive. After all "chill out" isn't the most passive aggressive thing to say I can think of wink wink.

No.

Are you really telling me that there are people in your life who take the phrase "Chill out." as constructive criticism?

If they're freaking out and honestly need to chill out, yes, I would suggest that to them. If they're lying to themselves about whether or not they overreacted to a simple comment/situation, then they may be as insulted as you obviously were.

P.S. I will get off this now, not because niceness is bursting out of me, but because it's not that interesting. So consider the matter closed.

Oh, the matter's closed. Damn.

[Jake_Ellison]

He's in the news.

He made a film about Islam and the danger it represents.

He's a controversial figure.

I'm interested in sizing his views up in person.

Edit: I'd also like to ask him about some of the contradictions in his views, specifically claiming to be an advocate of free speech while trying to ban the Koran.

Do you need me to continue listing reasons or are those sufficient?

Eh. I guess he is interesting. There's a weird contradiction there: he's part libertarian, part fascist. In fact I'll go as far as to say that he's more libertarian than fascist, and he's nowhere near as bad as Le Pen or the Austrian far right. Still a fascist though, and motivated by an irrational fear of foreigners.

A good explanation for that contradiction would be that he is pushing buttons on people who feel excluded from the political process. There aren't enough of them to have their particular set of views represented in Parliament, so they've found this guy, who is willing to cater to several ideologies at once. If that's the case, I'll doubt he'll fess up at the reception.

P.S. As someone who's been spending quite some time in Europe, I can assure you that there won't be any good ideas coming out of this continent any time soon. Here's a principle one can go on: if it's popular in Western Europe, it's bad.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[RationalBiker]

I'm turning on the air conditioner in this thread because it appears to be getting hot. If you guys want to discuss "Fitna" that would be great. But please discontinue the personal tit for tat stuff.

[Lagroht]

back to topic: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world...ilders.intv.cnn

[Jake_Ellison]

sorry, never mind.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Lagroht]

Speech Geert Wilders New York, Four Seasons (Monday Feb 23, 2009)

Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons. In 1982 President Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

<<

[fountainhead777]

Good speech. I would say I agree on most if not all of his points.

[rebelconservative]

He isn't a hero. He advocates banning the Koran.

I think that he can be considered a hero for standing up to Islam and the politically-correct left, for defending Western values and free speech.

Does he really advocating banning the Qur'an, or is this merely rhetorical? I don't know. Either way, he is not perfect, but his stand for free speech is commendable and we can use his own principles to question his censorship of the Qur'an.

Speech Geert Wilders New York, Four Seasons (Monday Feb 23, 2009)

"Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry"

Clearly, Mr. Wilders feels that it is permissible to restrict free speech to prevent people advocating violence towards others. I don't agree with that, I would not ban the Qur'an or Mein Kampf, but his defence of free speech is not necessarily inconsistent with banning a book that does preach violence.

[Grames]

I support Geert Wilders' attempt to expose Islam for what it is. His necessarily rationalistic way of trying to use Dutch law against hate speech makes him vulnerable to that same law. But it is the law that is ultimately wrong not Wilders. The Koran is explicitly violent in that old shool, Old Testament way that characterized christianity before and during the Reformation. Furthermore, it has specific doctrines about how to organize society that makes it inherently political and irreconcilable with political freedom.

[softwareNerd]

Geert Wilders might end up being (a minority) member of Netherlands' next government. According to "The Economist", he is against reigning in the budget as much as some of the other members of the potential coalition. Also, one of his party members is pushing for 500 cops to police animal-cruelty!

I post this as additional evidence that he is no friend of freedom.