Geert Wilders downunder

GeertWildersstandardThe paradox of tolerance:

In his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper argued:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Predictable reactions of course to Geert Wilder’s trip:

Protest organiser Feiyi Zhang said: “we’re here to show we will not stand for Wilders’ racism and Islamophobia”.

She said his speech could incite violence against Muslims “and general fear of Islam”.

Protester Nadia Shamsuddin, a doctor and a Muslim, said she was “repulsed” by Wilders’ visit and views. “His promotion of oppression and racism is appalling in the civilised world”.

OK, let’s get down to this:

Islamaphobia – yep, he promotes that all right, as do half of the UK and probably most European countries. Europe did not go through all that bloodshed all those centuries ago only to lose the fight now. It’s already losing it to the global socialists, which is a deep and abiding insult to those who fought and died in two world wars against totalitarian regimes.

Racism – which race?

Oppression – he’s against the oppression which comes from Islam getting above a certain percentage in the host nation. So he’s an oppression fighter, not an oppressor. The oppressor is Nadia Shamsuddin in this case.

Civilized world – she calls what is happening in western countries, compared to how they used to be – civilized? Strange definition of civilized with the thought police keeping tabs on you.

Now, as to what Mr. Wilders actually said:

Mr Wilders said the Prophet Muhammad was a savage leader of a gang of robbers that raped and murdered and mutilated its opponents including the Jews in 7th century Medina and violence had carried on to Islam’s modern day supporters.

He said anyone who criticised Islam “is in grave personal danger” and “we cannot continue to accept this”.

European countries such as the Netherlands are “in the process of losing our cultural identity and our freedom and I am warning Australia about the true nature of Islam.”

“It’s not a religion; it’s a dangerous and totalitarian ideology.”

Yes. I’m waiting for the bit which is not true. Let me go back over it again – raped, murdered, gang, mutilated – yep, all in the history books.

Modern day supporters? Check this.

Loss of cultural identity? Leicester, other UK cities.

Far Right? If this is a mainstream European opinion, then those people are all far right, by this definition. Perhaps they should be told they are. In fact, they are supporting their indigenous culture and heritage. The sort of thing citizens tend to do.

There it is.

5 comments for “Geert Wilders downunder

  1. Greg Tingey
    February 20, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Ah, but it’s so INCONVENIENT, isn’t it?

    But, you know, islam is a religion, and they are all like that, if you let them, that is …..

    • February 20, 2013 at 11:24 am

      Greg, we know, we know – you have a problem with religion, no doubt for very good reasons. However, there is the urgent consideration that either this one is a real and immediate threat, or it isn’t.

      I welcome James’ focus in this piece is that there is an opposing argument which states that Islam is not an enemy, we are just being encouraged to think it is in the classic method described by Orwell.

      There must be a way to rationally analyse this by reference to observations and evidence.

  2. February 21, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    I’m copying this comment by Paul Weston, found on the Telegraph under an article about the jury in the Pryce trial, which has been dismissed in a landmark decision. The judge decided that this jury could not possibly handle the evidence, as shown by their questions and inability to comprehend the material put before them.

    A commenter takes the writer, Iain Martin, to task for not addressing the real issue:

    “Mr Martin, you ask what this debacle says about the state of British education and British civilisation, yet you fail to address the quite enormous elephant in the room – namely that ten out of the twelve good men and true were of black and Asian heritage.

    Perhaps they have not had the benefit of a Southwark inner city education, or if they had, then perhaps they learned more about their own personal self esteem than about the ancient and venerable institutions that established Great Britain as a First World country rather than the failed states from whence the jurors came.

    I understand that apart from displaying a profound ignorance about the more basic aspects of our legal system, the case was interrupted on several occasions in order to let some members of the jury pray – presumably to Allah one imagines.

    Mr Martin, how can you write such an article without mentioning this overwhelmingly important matter? Surely this diversity of intelligence should be something to proudly celebrate rather than be deliberately hidden away?

    I hate to say it, but not only does this astonishing event highlight the momumental (and predictable) failings associated with replacing our population with a foreign population, it also highlights the miserable and cowardly attitude displayed by mainstream journalists who simply refuse to recognise the most important issue of the 21st century.

    Daily Mail lists: eight women, four men, of whom two were white.

    Perhaps worst from my point of view is that letters sent out to jurors are in eight languages to ‘encourage’ non-English speakers.

    I can feel the caps lock itching and can barely contain my fury at the stupidity of a ‘justice’ system which puts this ahead of actual justice – which relies on the jury having the ability to comprehend the arguments and concepts laid before them. Not speaking and reading English well enough to read even a jury letter is a disqualification from sitting on a jury.

  3. February 22, 2013 at 12:03 am

    BTW the Usual Caveats (Daily Mail) article is refusing to take comments for “legal reasons”. It has gone as far as it dares.

Comments are closed.