Geert Wilders, Marked For Death

wilders-marked-for-death-cover.jpg

A review of Geert Wilders' latest book: Marked for Death - Islam's War Against the West and Me.

Following the defeat of fascism in World War II and the collapse of Soviet communism in the late 1980’s, Fukuyama and others posited the ‘End of History’ thesis, by which was meant that ideas of freedom and liberal democracy had won the day. How wrong they were! During the long years of the ‘Cold War’ and of the ‘Pax Americana’ in Europe and East Asia, cultural changes were gradually taking place in sheltered countries whose cultural elites in media, academia and politics, began to lose touch with the realities of the world. Deep resentments, born from both envy and free-rider guilt, were taking hold in many minds and, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, anti-Americanism raised its ugly head even in official policies of various West-European countries. Freed from the fear instilled by an immediate external threat, Europeans came to believe in illusory ‘soft power’ and that freedom could be ‘free’.  

Much of the media and education systems preached moral relativism in countless ways, and multiculturalism became an explicit dogma and official policy in many political circles. Economic globalization and lax immigration policies opened the door to the rise of a new form of totalitarianism in Europe, islamofascism, facilitated by the immigration of millions of Muslims and sustained by the proliferation of legislated restrictions on freedom of speech.  These restrictions usually took the form of so-called anti-hate, anti-discrimination, and/or anti-negationism laws, but they were inevitably selectively applied and all had the same deleterious effect on European cultures.   They stifled free thought and speech, and they were abused by the powerful to silence their critics.   A few selective examples of ‘Kangaroo trials’ in a couple of countries (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, etc…) sufficed, and self-censorship has become the order of the day in Europe.   That is the ‘big picture’ context in which this book by Geert Wilders should be seen.               

Wilders paints a grim picture of daily life under constant death threat from radical Muslims and illustrates the craven responses from major contemporary political and cultural figures in the Netherlands, and more broadly in the West, to islamofascism.  His claims about Islam as a violent intolerant ideology are well documented in this book through appropriate references to numerous Koranic verses, the Hadith, speeches, etc...He also contrasts the responses of contemporary Western politicians with quotations from major American historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and the like.  He explains well, and documents, that Islam does not really preach and follow the Golden Rule (that we would do unto others as we would have them do unto us), and thus clarifies why President Obama’s Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, was so misguided.  Such appeasement and projection of moral weakness can only strengthen Islam’s political agenda and weaken courageous individual Muslims who resist intolerant Islamic doctrines.           

While Wilders is right in claiming that Islam is incompatible with Western constitutional systems and attendant individual liberties, it is not always clear that he is willing to extend such liberties to Islamists and their ideas.   That is understandable for someone who is (intolerably) “marked for death” by barbarous Islamists, but other free people can genuinely disagree about appropriate methods to fight this new fascism in our midst.  By all means, debate, expose, speak freely, reject pc-speak and political correctness in general, assert your constitutional rights, insist on strict maintenance of ‘rule of law’, but beware of bans that would push this ideology underground and that would create ‘martyrs’ (in the minds of many naive Westerners).  Wilders is very good at exposing how the ruling paradigms of cultural and moral relativism in the West are undermining our basic freedoms, and exposes the nefarious role played by Western apologists domestically and by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (of 57 Islamic countries) internationally.       

Wilders is not defeatist and believes that the tide can be turned, in part because of the recent political success of his new Freedom Party in the Netherlands and very recent courageous actions by the current Dutch government.  While one could argue about some of his specific recommendations, the underlying principles he defends are solid and commonsensical:  defend freedom of speech, reject cultural relativism, counter Islamization, and cherish national identity.             

Americans, Canadians, Australians and others in the relatively ‘free world’, better take heed and learn from the recent experiences of Mr Wilders and of other brave singled-out Europeans, because their cultures too are displaying similar trends of preemptive capitulation to islamofascism, and they are going down the same ruinous cultural path that Europe has followed in recent decades to growing bondage. Mark Steyn wrote an excellent and entertaining foreword to this book.  He puts it well at the end:

“Geert Wilders is not ready to surrender without exercising his right to know, to utter, and to argue freely—in print, on screen, and at the ballot box.  We should cherish that spirit, while we can”.  

Indeed we should, while we still can, not only for our own sake, but for that of our progeny too.        

 

__________________

Buy "Marked for Death - Islam's War Against the West and Me" from Amazon US or Amazon UK.

"Marked for Death"

Here is one more review of Wilders' book.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/04/wilders_agonistes.html

 

It's difficult not to agree with Marc Huybrechts' review, his analysis is entirely correct, except for kappert who wants protection for Wilders after he would be shot.

The reason the Dutch government reluctantly spends money for Wilders' security is that the threats are serious. They don't want a repeat of the murders which occurred already. Of course kappert "the pacifist" ignores the existence of those murders.

 

I for one would like to be surprised, please kappert, tell me the business of Opus Dei.

protected life

A comparison of Fontuyn, van Gogh and Wilders as justification for 'eternal police protection' is an argument only the Dutch government knows. Pim Fontuyn would be embarressed to be compared with Wilders, I think. To check on Opus Dei, please read the following links:

 

http://www.hottopos.com/geral/opbast.htm

 

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/hanssen/10.html

 

http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/

The 2 first links refer to

The 2 first links refer to the standard general BS about Opus Dei.

The third link divides the general BS into 8 specific general BS themes.

It's all the old hearsay which circulates since 20 years. 

Nothing was ever concretely proven.

Mind you, I am sure some members of Opus Dei are less than clean like in every group of humans, but please don't compare them to extremist moslims.

@traveller

I agree to your last paragraph. However, many accusations ahainst Opus Dei come from South America, there's a lot in Spanish and Portuguese to read. To prove that 'the Church' has done something wrong or even criminal, is generally a hard endevour. With regard to Wilders: it seems his anti-muslim-propaganda does not convince the Dutch anymore. Wilders new playground reveals itself in polemic statements against the 'Diktat of Brussels', the Euro and the EU in general. It is odd, too, that his manifest appears only in English and is published only in the United States. It seems GW does not believe his fellow countrymen to follow him on his chosen hate-path. The US is much more open to that kind of sh...

@ kappert

No, it's much more simple, in the US they still have free speech, in Holland, and the whole of Europe also, we don't have it anymore.

runt

 

The 'big picture', as it features in the introduction, is only shared by a minority of Dutch citizens, and certainly cannot be applied on 'Western culture' or countries with a democratic law system in general. Most Europeans do not see any threat by non-Christians. Wilders paints an apocalyptic picture of daily life under constant death threat from radical Muslims which is hardly experienced by common citizens. Only his fancy media appearances and lightning speeches induce such a world. His creation of 'islamofascism', as ridiculous as it is, is not adopted by other countries or political parties, and most right-wing politicians cannot even explain what that notion should mean. Unfortunately Wilders does not compare the Bible with the Quran, which drives him straight forward to pick up arguments evidencing a violent, intolerant religion, as if radical Salafi ideas would be representative for the whole Muslim world - that is as if Opus Dei would be identified as the essence of Christendom - utter nonsense. It escapes me how Thomas Jefferson or Roosevelt may have anything to say on Islam.

Wilders likes to play the role of a martyr, 'marked for death', although there were no attempts to kill him. His speeches may inspire hate-mongers and wannabe killers, or persuade senior citizens to march 'against mosques', though, on the other side, Wilders obviously denies any influence on the Norwegian Rambo … … …

immature

1) One can onlways count on Kappert to reveal how immature he remains.  To illustrate: is it so difficult to comprehend that daily life can seem to be more "apocalyptic" to someone who regularly receives credible death threats than to a dhimmi apologist for Islam like kappert?  It does require a certain degree of imagination and empathy.

2) What about Kappert's manifest tendency to keep his head in the sand w.r.t. unpleasant facts (unpleasant, from his perspective that is)?  

- He denies that Wilders is "marked for death".   How is that possible?  There have been countless threats issued, but K does not want to see or hear them.  And why is the Dutch state spending millions of euros to protect Wilders, even when the naive-left was in power in The Hague?  For the fun of it?  Van Gogh, Fortuyn...never heard of them?         

- Jefferson, Roosevelt, Churchill, etc..."escape him". Whose fault is it that kappert is ignorant of what past great Western leaders had to say about Islam?  Or what Western academics had to say about Islam BEFORE it became too dangerous, and before freedom of speech became a theoretical abstraction in contemporary Europe. 

-  He claims that Wilders does not compare the bible to the koran.  How does he know?  Has Kappert read this book (which makes many references to the bible)?  Does he know the bible, and more importantly, does kappert know the Koran?    Most importantly, does he even want to know the content of the Koran and the actual practices in countries were Islam 'rules'?  

3)  And what about his blatant craven immorality? "Common citizens" do not experience constant death threats, he states.  So what?  Does he think that common Germans under the nazis received such threats if they kept their mouths shut?   Islamofascists can better make distinctions than K can.   When the nazis came after the Jews, common German citizens did not seem to mind much. That about sums up Kappert's attitude towards the victims of islamofascism today.  It must be their own fault!!  

4)  And what about his inability to make contextual and proportional comparisons?   He compares Opus Dei with salafists.    That is like comparing Angela Merkel to Erich Hoenecker.   Is Opus Dei issuing fatwahs on a regular basis, or even on occasion?   

5)  Does Kappert know that Muslims cannot (openly) 'leave Islam' in virtually all Muslim countries, on pain of death!  Is that legal FACT relevant to his naive disctinction between so-called' "moderate" Muslims and radical Muslims?   Of course, he would have to read this book (or many other informative books) to understand how delusionary his distinction really is, and for a head-in-the-sand guy that is too much to ask. 

@marcfrans

1) So, GW receives regularly death threats, you say. I spoke of attempts to kill him - so far, none.

2) No idea whatsoever why the Dutch state spends frivolly millions to protect this guy.

3) marcfrans compares Muslims with Nazis. No comment on that necessary.

4) Maybe marcfrans would be surprised to know the businesses of Opus Dei!

5) Why should one leave Islam in a Muslim society? The same 'death penalty' waited for the Christians in the European Middle Ages. Countries with state/religion separation apply the rule of free choice of religion, that goes for Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, Bosnia, Russia, and most African countries with Muslim population.

+) It seems, marcfrans accepts 'maturity' only when the Westerns glories defeat all other cultures, which brings us back to fascism.

liberal paradox

While Wilders is right in claiming that Islam is incompatible with Western constitutional systems and attendant individual liberties, it is not always clear that he is willing to extend such liberties to Islamists and their ideas.

This, of course, underscores a fundamental antinomy for any liberal system; systems that posit right prior to and as a foundation for the civil order.  As such, liberal systems have within themselves the germ of their own demise, simply because an abstract notion of right trumps any and all notions of inherent difference among peoples. 

The way out is an either/or, but not a both/and.

Question(s)

@ mpresley

1)  During the Cold War, did you advocate banning Marxist ideas and Marxists from Western countries, even though they represented a mortal threat to the survival of "liberal democracy"?   

Admittedly, communism as an ideology did not even last a century, whereas Islam as a totalitarian ideology appears to have much longer 'staying power'. 

From a practical standpoint, your "either/or" solution has no chance of ever being implemented.  You are never going to convince enough fellow citizens in Western countries to ban a religion and/or an ideology as such, only specific 'practices'.    So, one has then two 2 options:

- one gives up, or

- one focuses on the preservation of freedom of speech.  The one thing an intolerant 'religion'/ideology cannot cope with is precisely freedom of speech.   Muslims, on the whole, are not stupid.  If they get exposed to freedom of speech, Islam cannot thrive in such an environment.   It is the only practical way to make "both/and"  real.

2) Rights can both be an abstract notion and a concrete reality.  For example, the First Amendment in the US still means something real today.  In Europe freedom of speech is no longer respected but increasingly narrowly circumscribed, and hence has become meaningless.  

3) "Inherent differences" is an assertiion, not a proven fact.  There are lots of examples of former Muslims who have escaped their former mental bondage in an environment of genuine 'free speech'.   Their earlier "difference" apparently was not "inherent".  Wilders' friend, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and refugee (first from Somalia, later from Holland) living in America today, is a good example.   Kappert could learn a lot from reading her book "Nomad', but that is based on the unrealistic assumption that Kappert would want to learn something 'new'.         

1) during the Cold War years

1) during the Cold War years I was too naive and unschooled to understand the problems of democracy.  Which was a good thing since I was, back then, a soldier in the army, and soldiers are not required to think, but simply to do as they are told.

2) Agreed.

3)  If one accepts the notion of essentialism, that essences are real, then the question becomes, "what of their nature?"  The essence of men is generally known, according to a certain tradition, as their form, or their formal cause.  It is usually accepted that the form of men, as distinguished from their material substance (matter being the principle of individuation), is the same for all; with differences among individuals stemming from differences within their matter (the material cause).  I wonder whether this presumes too much, and if it is rather more correct to consider whether the form of different groups highlights essential differences?

The reason this could be important is that our current secular belief in "equality" presupposes a sort of univocal metaphysical essentialism.

Western Paradox - Seen Clearly by MrPresley and Geert Wilders

MrPresley distills the Western dilemma perfectly, which the author, Mr. Huybrechts, above seems himself perhaps not to understand. The only thing that also comes to my mind would be to change out the word "liberal" in the comment for the term "Western-Christian". The term "liberal" (whether in the European or American sense) in all cases refers to a society and political systems based in Western-Chrisitan tradition, thought, and history. The Western-Christian system does exactly as MrPresley says: it is a "system that posits right prior to and as a foundation for the civil order."

The comment sums up the entirety of the dilemma we all face in every Western country right now. We are faced with the dilemma of how to allow for one very specific form of discrimination or intolerance (that is, to allow ourselves to discriminate against and not tolerate the discrimination and intolerance inherent in Islam) without causing the allowance of this one form of necessary "discrimination" and "intolerance" (of intolerance) to spread into all other parts of our societies, laws, goverments, thought, behavior, etc. and, thereby, undo the entirety of what is and long has been otherwise the most stable, democratic, open, tolerant societies, laws, goverments, thought, etc. that this world has ever known. I'm reminded by MrPresley's note of the Peter Carl essays from a few months back, most especially Part III - Breivik v. Hitler.

Western-Christian thought has given us all of the freedoms, peace, and stability we have in the West. In order to preserve it, we must, however, recognize that all ideas/thoughts/beliefs are not equal and then "discriminate" against and challenge those ideas/thoughts/beliefs (and those who carry them) that do not measure up to this or do not create the stability, openness, tolerance, freedom, equality, etc. that our own Western-Christian ideas/thoughts/beliefs have created. Christianity allows for (and requires) this within its system of belief. It requires believers to judge consistently and equally their own as well as other's beleifs and behavior according to the measuring stick of the New Testament and its message of Love and Jesus' life.

At that same time, it is important to point out, it also requires us NOT to judge others. We are to judge other's beliefs and behavior, but not the person. ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Mary Magdalene's behavior as a prostitute was judged - and she changed her ways; she as a person, however, was not judged - she was instead embraced.) We've developed an amnesia about enforcing the required standard. It is exactly this amnesia that has caused our present perdicament: in a now largely "secular" West we have fully internalized the idea of not judging others as people, while fully abandoning the Christian idea of the need to judge behaviors and thoughts based upon the New Testament message of Love and universal equality, via the Reformation, that has created all we have around us.

PC is merely a symptom of all of this. The idea of applying the Christian Golden Rule in our thoughts and words is a very good one; it has given us all we have in the West. Doing so is simply doing and saying to others as one would have said and done to oneself. However, as people have become religiously and theologically illiterate in the West, we have forgotten that this Golden Rule must be based in judging thought and behavior and using that one standard of "right" that applies to all ideas and to all people. And that standard, as MrPresley rightly says, that "abstract notion of right," must involve a conscious choice, an "either/or", and it must trump "any and all notions of inherent difference among peoples" or ideas.

In throwing out PC or changing our way of thinking on all of these matters, we must understand where the "baby" (stability, openness, tolerance, freedom, equality) comes from (Christian-Western thought) so we don't throw it out with the "bathwater" (our abandonment of the understanding that we must judge beliefs, ideas, and behavior) provided to us from within this very same system of thought and belief.

In the end, I believe tha answer is not to be found in counteracting Islam or Muslims by applying equally flawed "hate-speech" or "hate-crime" laws. Such laws are, in fact, merely Western mirror images of Muslim blasphemy and Muslim dhimmi laws - and will be used against us by Muslims and Islam as such at some point in the future. Such laws should be abandoned and abolished immediately all across the West. Free Expression and Free Exercise must reign supreme. Actual violence and crime should be punished; not the thoughts a person supposedly MAY have been THINKING when he or she carried out that violence or crime - or wrote a poem, or made a speech, or directed a film.

We must, instead, begin to discriminate by deporting those individuals (and their entire families with them) who refuse or even fail to integrate, educate themselves, become civically active, etc. We must massively cut back on immigration from Muslim countries. We must simply begin to send home those who have come to our countries and who have nothing exceptional to offer. We must deport all individuals (together with all family members attached to the same visa) convicted of crimes (1 felony or 3 misdemeanors) or who are involved in polygamous relationships. We must begin to openly and publicly challenge at every opportunity - and in public fora, including public schools - all aspects of Muslim theology and the behaviors of Muslims who refer to their "culture" or that Islamic theology as the basis for their thought or behavior. We must also revise our entire system regarding asylum and refugee status worldwide.

If we do the above, we can make the "either/or" choice MrPresley rightly suggests we must make while at the same time recognizing that our systems will only remain free and stable if we continue to posit right prior to and as a foundation for the civil order in all things - except that it should NEVER allow "right" to be "trumped" by or as to any "notions of inherent difference" in the ideas and beliefs held by the peoples who we allow to come and settle in our countries. Well said, MrPresley.