Pages

Showing posts with label Geert Wilders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geert Wilders. Show all posts

Geert Wilders still going strong




Photo © Snaphanen http://snaphanen.dk
I paid a visit to southern Sweden on October 27, 2012. The occasion was a visit to Malmö by a fellow notorious Islamophobe, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. He had been invited there to speak by Ingrid Carlqvist, the leader of the newly established Swedish Free Press Society. This is a brave but difficult initiative in a semi-totalitarian society, where the mass media are infamous for their crushing left-wing, multicultural and pro-Islamic consensus.
Malmö was historically one of the first Christian cities in what is today Sweden. It is currently set to become the first Muslim-majority city or town in the Nordic countries, but perhaps not the last. What once was a safe Scandinavian city has in recent years been plagued by a wave of armed robberies, rapes and bombs.
The performance of the Swedish police was a mixed bag. From my personal experience, they did a reasonably good job, but they apparently let through a few things that I didn’t seeKatrine Winkel Holmof the Danish Free Press Society reported about physical assaults on some of those who simply came peacefully to listen to Wilders’ speech. Holm criticized the police for giving violent left-wing thugs too much leeway to intimidate and attack people in the streets, trying to block them from entering, or bombarding them with eggs while calling them “Nazis.”
Upon arrival we noticed there was already a heavy police presence. To invite perhaps the most famous Islam-critical politician in Europe to speak in the most heavily Islamized city in Scandinavia was a slap in the face, not just to Muslims, but at least as much to their enablers on the far Left. Predictably, those leftists showed up in force. Not just from Sweden; they even imported violent left-wing thugs from neighboring Denmark to assault people.
They may unfortunately have managed to scare away a few potential listeners. For the most part, however, the heavy presence of the Swedish police, complete with horses, helicopters and armored vehicles, managed to keep the totalitarian thugs at bay. They were shouting slogans and carrying banners, as usual.  Most people paid little attention to them, since everyone already knew what they were going to say. These people haven’t substantially changed their slogans for the past 80 years, since the time of Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. Everybody who disagrees with them is a “Fascist.”
They can be very violent when they want to, and for years have physically attacked critics of Islam or mass immigration in Sweden while the authorities looked the other way. The AFA, or “Anti-fascists,” are remarkably similar to actual fascists, although that irony would be totally lost on them. They are what they claim to fight. These left-wing thugs seem to believe that we would be living in a socialist, multicultural paradise had it not been for the stubborn resistance of evil racists and Islamophobes, who must be stamped out at all costs. Sweden is expected to receive 50,000 asylum seekers in 2013, a very substantial number for a small Scandinavian nation, but for left-wing thugs, the natives cannot be turned into a minority in their own country fast enough.
All things considered, however, they were tamer this time around than might have been feared. The main reason for this lackluster performance was no doubt the heavy police presence, but partly also because it was a bit cold. These are revolutionaries of the PlayStation 3 era. Yes, they want to smash the capitalist system and beat up the fascists pigs who uphold it, but not today. It’s too cold, and mummy has some warm meatballs for them at home.
Once inside, I sat down in a room packed with TV cameras and journalists, and not just from Sweden. Norwegian TV2 and others have accused me of “hiding” from the press. They’ve wanted to interview me for more than a year. Well, this time I was sitting openly in a major Scandinavian city smack in the middle of a crowd full of members of the press. Even though my photo has been widely circulated in Norway, a team from Norwegian TV2 passed me by just a few meters away on multiple occasions and never noticed my presence.
Not too bright, these journalists.
To my great joy, I was allowed to meet Geert Wilders before he gave his speech. His security apparatus was very elaborate, as it should be for a person living with a constant threat of having his throat cut, but I’ve been told that it has been even more extensive in the past. Perhaps it varies according to specific credible threats. I knew that Wilders had heard of me even before the Breivik case, but we had never actually met before. I was delighted and honored that he wanted to meet me, and of course accepted immediately. Geert Wilders is a symbol of resistance, not just for the Dutch but for the whole of Europe and for Western Civilization.
Wilders found it very odd that I was forced to flee Norway, despite having never done anything criminal and never having met the perpetrator. We also talked a little bit about the losses suffered by his Party for Freedom (PVV) at the Dutch elections in September. He hoped that this setback would be temporary. In just a few years they had gone from zero to being the third-largest political party in the Netherlands, and had to train many inexperienced MPs. Wilders had also been personally harassed with a ridiculous show trial for racism and Islamophobia. Even so, he judged that the long-term prospects for the Party for Freedom were still very good, what with the problem of Islamization increasing year by year.
Geert Wilders is a forceful man, and one strongly feels his presence, not just because of the security guards who are always nearby, but also because of his personal character. He has real charisma, which is necessary for a successful politician. I noticed that some of the female members of the audience seemed quite enthralled by him. Yet he is also a powerful public speaker who addresses real and profound political issues.
He gave an eloquent and impassioned speech in Malmö about the threat of Islamization and the ongoing loss of freedom of speech in Europe. Wilders extended his focus beyond Islam alone and talked about limiting mass immigration in general, confronting cultural relativism and restoring a healthy pride in our civilization and our national cultures. He also emphasized that all of this is exceedingly difficult to achieve as long as the European Union, and not its member states, controls policies. The EU is thus at the heart of many of Europe’s problems.
Overall, it was a good meeting and a good speech. The event was met by the predictable outcry from hostile Swedish mass media, which refused to talk about the actual problems mentioned by Wilders, and merely focused on his alleged “hate.” Symptomatic of the response was an op-ed by the columnist OisĂ­n Cantwell, who was present at the speech, in the newspaperAftonbladet. He attempted to mock Geert Wilders and his audience without actually addressing any of the issues raised by Mr. Wilders. Mr. Cantwell apparently also thought it was funny that writer Ingrid Carlqvist no longer feels safe in her own home, in Sweden.
However, Wilders’ otherwise good speech repeated the claim that the Benghazi attacks in September 2012 on the US diplomatic mission to Libya were triggered by an anti-Islamic movie. It has now been well-established that this was merely a cover story. The CIA indicate that this was a regular and carefully planned Islamic terror attack, possibly by groups tied to al-Qaida, carried out on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks in the USA in 2001. It was not a spontaneous riot in response to some obscure movie. This claim is false.
It was later revealed that the administration of President Obama misinformed the public about this, and that Mr. Obama refused requests for more support and back-up to the US ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was murdered by Jihadist Muslims. This claim should not be repeated by Wilders or his staff in the future.
The “turbulent blond” Geert Wilders is the leader of the third-largest political party in the Netherlands, was once denied entry to Britain, and had his visit to Australia sabotaged by authorities who are more than willing to let militant Islamic preachers enter the country. He has to live with constant death threats due to his criticism of Islamic culture and around-the-clock police protection in Western Europe, possibly for the rest of his life. Wilders and others like him show great personal courage and integrity in standing up for what they believe in and confronting the forces of violent totalitarianism head-on. That stands to their credit.
The big question, however, is: Why should they have to?
Why should increasing numbers of politicians, artists and writers in Western Europe and elsewhere in the Western world have to live as virtual prisoners in their own homes, surviving only because of constant police protection, while we continue to import en masse members of the hostile tribes and backward cultures who are behind such threats?
It is criminal negligence by Western so-called “leaders” to promote open-border policies and continued mass immigration, including Muslim immigration, as sections of our cities sink increasingly into anarchy, our freedom of speech gradually vanishes and our cultural heritage is erased from our school curricula.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Geert Wilders: Marked for Death

By Fjordman
http://frontpagemag.com/
May 11, 2012


The courageous Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me in May 2012. The foreword to this title was written by the eloquent Canadian-born political commentator and cultural critic Mark Steyn, who has a special talent for writing about serious topics in a humorous way. He has published several books and written essays for publications ranging from the Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times to the National Review, The Australian and Canada’s National Post.

Steyn is honest enough to admit that when he was first asked to contribute to Wilders’ new book, his initial reaction was to say no. The main reason for this is the potentially high cost of being associated with a man who lives with constant death threats.

Yet, after taking a stroll in the woods, Mark Steyn felt ashamed at the ease with which he was caving in to the enemies of freedom, and decided to accept the offer after all. He recalled how the Canadian Islamic Congress boasted that their attempts by legal aggression to silence Steyn’s critical writings about Islam had cost his magazine substantial sums, and thereby attained their “strategic objective” of increasing the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.

In the case of Geert Wilders, that cost is not merely limited to money. Despite being an elected Member of Parliament in what used to be one of Europe’s freest and most tolerant countries, he is regularly vilified by Western mass media. When trying to enter Britain, a nation that once was a champion of liberty, he was detained by plainclothes border guards on arrival at London’s Heathrow airport in February 2009 and deported from the country.

The democratic Dutch MP had been invited to the House of Lords, where Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his 17-minute Islam-critical film Fitna. The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds he “would threaten community security and therefore public security,” not because he threatened to use violence, but because Muslims might use it.

Lord Ahmed from the Labour Party, Britain’s first Muslim member of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament, pledged to bring a 10,000 strong force of angry Muslims to lay siege to Parliament. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain claimed that Wilders has been an open and relentless preacher of “hate.” At the same time, London has become a notorious intentional center for Islamic militants, who spew hate on a daily basis.

Geert Wilders accused the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown of being “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe.” He was later allowed entry to the UK, however. He was also put on trial in the Netherlands accused of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups. Wilders was eventually found not guilty in 2011, but the entire process took several years.

As Mark Steyn puts it, “He is under round-the-clock guard because of explicit threats to murder him by Muslim extremists. Yet he’s the one who gets put on trial for incitement. In twenty-first century Amsterdam, you’re free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century. And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: ‘The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders’ (the Financial Times)… ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders’ (the Guardian)… ‘Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders’ (AFP) is ‘at the fringes of mainstream politics’ (Time). Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament.”

Maybe those who are out on the fringe are the ones who think that disliking Islam is “far-right.”
Yet it’s not just Wilders himself who is being attacked in this fashion. Those who dare to meet him or support some of his views could find themselves attacked by the mass media and the political elites in a comparable manner. Cory Bernardi, born and raised in Adelaide and currently representing the state of South Australia for the Liberal Party in the Australian Senate, in 2011 came under fire not only from members of other parties but also from his own — allegedly conservative — party when he wanted to facilitate a trip to Australia by Wilders.

The Sydney Morning Herald simply labeled Geert Wilders “an Islamaphobic Dutch politician.” The Melbourne-based The Age claimed that Wilders’ “objectionable” and “poisonous anti-Islam views” are “abhorrent and plainly wrong” and that his ideas are self-evidently “repugnant.” The newspaper continued to suggest that if Senator Bernardi did not dissociate himself from Mr. Wilders’ views, then perhaps his own party should demote him.

Wayne Swan, Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia under PM Julia Gillard, said Bernardi has right-wing extremist views. Other senior Labor Party members indicated that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott should discipline the senator and remove him from his portfolio responsibilities. Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett declined to say whether he believed Abbott should have Bernardi expelled from the Liberal Party, or copy the way former Prime Minister John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed as a candidate ahead of the 1996 national election due to her vocal opposition to non-European mass immigration. Australian Greens senator Richard Di Natale also condemned Bernardi’s associations with Wilders. “Multiculturalism is one of this country’s great successes and it must be defended,” he stated.

Wilders commented in an essay published in The Washington Times on May 4 2012 that “As I write these lines, there are police bodyguards at the door. No visitor can enter my office without passing through several security checks and metal detectors. I have been marked for death. I am forced to live in a heavily protected safe house. Every morning, I am driven to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in an armored car with sirens and flashing blue lights. When I go out, I am surrounded, as I have been for the past seven years, by plainclothes police officers. When I speak in public, I wear a bulletproof jacket. Who am I? I am neither a king nor a president, nor even a government minister; I am just a simple politician in the Netherlands. But because I speak out against expanding Islamic influence in Europe, I have been marked for death. If you criticize Islam, this is the risk you run. That is why so few politicians dare to tell the truth about the greatest threat to our liberties today.”

Wilders received his first death threats in 2003 after asking the government to investigate a radical mosque. In November 2004, after a Muslim fanatic murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh, policemen armed with machine guns pushed him into an armored car and drove him off into the night. That was the last time he was in his own house. Since then, he has lived “in an army barracks, a prison cell and now a government-owned safe house.” The security detail has become part of his daily routine, but it must still be hard getting used to being a virtual prisoner in your own country and unable to visit a restaurant or cafe in a normal manner.

Hostile journalists often denounce Wilders and his Party for Freedom as “populists,” but they are popular for a reason: They state uncomfortable truths that the ruling elites want to sweep under the carpet. The natives are rapidly being turned into a harassed minority in Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague, a pattern that can now be seen in far too many European cities.

Fifty-seven percent of the Dutch people say that mass immigration was the biggest single mistake in Dutch history. Yet what is arguably the greatest change their country and their continent have experienced in historical times is beyond honest discussion in the mainstream media.

Wilders goes on to note that “I have read the Koran and studied the life of Muhammad. It made me realize that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. I feel sorry for the Arab, Persian, Indian and Indonesian peoples who have to live under the yoke of Islam. It is a belief system that marks apostates for death, forces critics into hiding and denies our Western tradition of individual freedom. Without freedom, there can be no prosperity and no pursuit of happiness. More Islam means less life, less liberty and less happiness.”

Geert Wilders has sacrificed his personal freedom of movement and the prospects of a normal life in order to warn his country, his continent and his civilization against serious threats to their freedom. We should honor that sacrifice by listening carefully to what he has to say.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Author Geert Wilders: No Difference Between Islam, Radical Islam

By Henry J. Reske and Kathleen Walter
May 4, 2012


Controversial Dutch politician and author Geert Wilders is speaking out against Islam, but unlike most Westerners he does not draw a distinction between Islam and radical Islam, but claims that they are the same.

Wilders is a member of the Dutch parliament and founder of the Party for Freedom. He said outspokenness about Islam has taken a toll on his life. He has been threatened with death, been taken court, and been banned from other European countries.

“Anybody who dares to speak out against this ideology called Islam will pay a heavy price,” he in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV. “I lived with my wife for six months in a prison cell for security reasons. We didn’t commit any crime. We lived in army barracks and safe houses. I always say if I spoke up, which I’m not planning to do, but just for argument’s sake, if I spoke out against Christianity, all those things would not have happened. We use the pen and, unfortunately, they use the ax.”

Wilders is a controversial critic of Islam, campaigning against what he sees as the "Islamisation of the Netherlands." He has compared the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and has called for the book to be banned. He also advocates ending immigration from Muslim countries.

Wilders was banned from entering Britain for nine months in 2009; the ban was overturned in October 2009 after he appealed. In June 2011, he was acquitted of hate charges.

The author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me” said that Islam, “at the end of the day, will cost us our freedom, our freedom of speech.”

“I acknowledge the fact that the majority of the Muslims are law-abiding people,” he noted. “It would be ridiculous to even suggest that the majority of the Muslims are terrorists. They are not. There is only one Islam; this is the Islam of the holy book the Quran and the Islam of the prophet Mohammed. It’s not so much a religion, it’s an ideology.

“It’s an ideology that should be compared not with Christianity or Judaism, but with communism or with fascism. Let me give you one example: If you want to leave Islam ... the penalty for that is death. You have to be killed. This is not the case with Christianity or with Judaism. But it was the case in Nazi Germany or with Communist Russia. You have to see Islam for what it is because if we don’t, we will lose our free, Christian-based society.”

Wilders said that Islam has spread throughout Europe and led to honor killings, genital mutilation, and Sharia courts, aided by the “disease called cultural relativism.” He said that all cultures are not equal.

“In my book, I tell the American public, Europe is in very, very bad shape today and please don’t think that what’s happening to Europe today will not happen to America tomorrow,” he said. “It will happen to America tomorrow unless you fight for freedom, you fight for your own identity and you cut back on the Islamization of our society.”

One key bulwark in the fight against Islam is Israel.

“I know that we should all support the state of Israel,” Wilders said. “Israel is fighting our fight. Israel is exactly on the border of Jihad and reason and Israel is a beacon of light, a canary in a coal mine, so to say, in an area of darkness and tyranny. I believe that parents in America and Europe can sleep easily at night because Israeli parents lay awake at night worrying about their children defending our borders. The border of Jihad is our border.

“We share the same cultural values as Israel does. If Jerusalem falls, Athens will fall, Amsterdam will fall, and America will fall as well. They are fighting our fight. We should do anything possible to support the state of Israel. Certainly against this barbaric regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”


© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.