We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Geert Wilders was not really the one on trial…

… no, it was the highest institutions of the Netherlands who were on trial with their credibility and very legitimacy at stake.

Although I am delighted he was acquitted of all charges, frankly it is a disgrace that he was ever put on trial in the first place for simply stating his views about Islam and multiculturalism.

And the fact the BBC calls him ‘far right’ tells you nothing useful about Geert Wilders’ views but speaks volumes about the BBC.

22 comments to Geert Wilders was not really the one on trial…

  • jdm

    That “far right” descriptor is used, re-used, and overused in a manner almost as sloppy as “racist” is used. Indeed they’re often use together.

    And, Perry, you are dead on, it tells nothing. For example, last I looked, the Danish People’s Party is in almost all ways apart their position about immigration a good old fashioned socialist lite or or social democrat party. But they too are “far right”.

  • I really don’t see what the problem is with being labeled as ‘far right’ – personally, I would take it any time over being called ‘far left’, thus having been put in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

  • Laird

    Mr. Wilders had an interesting piece (Link) in the Wall Street Journal today; I hope you can open it behind the paywall. Apparently in Holland the courts themselves can order a prosecution, which is what happened in his case; the prosecutor argued for acquittal! What a strange legal system.

  • AnObserver

    The NYT link likely takes you to crippled page. Just copy the title into a search engine and that link will take you to the full piece…

  • jdm

    I really don’t see what the problem is with being labeled as ‘far right’…

    I sympathize with this perspective, but the follow-up gives implies the problem. The fact is, no “reasonable” person who “correctly” understands the term “far right”, would lump Stalin, Mao and Hitler together.

    That said, the term is useful only as a pejorative to indicate that those so labelled have “incorrect thoughts” and must be avoided.

    Sorry about all the quotes, I’m not a good enough writer to avoid them.

  • The fact is, no “reasonable” person who “correctly” understands the term “far right”, would lump Stalin, Mao and Hitler together.

    I am very well aware of that fact, jdm – that was just me doing my little bit towards correcting that situation.

  • pete

    If Wilders’ views are so repulsive it is surprising that ‘liberals’ want us to be denied the right to hear them.

    Surely they should want them to be widely broadcast so we can all see how dreadful they are.

    But no, ‘liberals’ have such a dim view of their fellow humans they don’t trust us to form the correct opinions about him.

  • John B

    Yes, “far right” is synonymous with death camps in the minds of those who have been educated by msm (99.999%).

    Even the Russians who wanted to return to Stalinism, at the time of the break up of the Soviet Union, were described by msm as the right wing (far right).

    Anything that hinders the collectivist agenda to destroy liberal democracy is “far right”.
    Common sense and a realistic appreciation of things is, as well.

    In case you haven’t seen it, here is Wilder’s ‘crime':
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/here-is-fitna.html

  • jdm

    I am very well aware of that fact, jdm

    I assumed so, a la your McCarthy comment on another thread. I just liked writing it. It’s good in Danish too (and German, I think), in which the word “decent” (anstændigt) is conflated with “right-thinking”.

  • ManikMonkee

    He clearly has some cuntish ideas, like OK so if that stupid centipede film gets banned so should the Koran which is far more offensive. But really if you’re a person who believes in evolution and a free market of ideas you have to believe that the right ones will win. This Dutch bloke clearly doesn’t… he’s pretty censorious
    Either way its worked out for the best but I wouldn’t heap much praise on this Gert chap

  • Schrodinger's Dog

    Pete (June 24, 10:09am) you wrote “But no, ‘liberals’ have such a dim view of their fellow humans they don’t trust us to form the correct opinions about him.”

    Quite. Liberals seek to deny us all our humanity. A computer will carry out the instructions contained in its software with absolute, unthinking, unquestioning accuracy; it is, after all, an automaton. Liberals seem to regard people as being like that; that they are incapable of free-will and will simply carry-out whatever instructions they are given. Hence the bans on “hate speech”. They think that unpleasant remarks about an ethnic or religous group will immediately prompt an orgy of racially or religously-motivated violence. This attitude surfaces in other areas, too, such as the (now fulfilled) desire to ban cigarette advertising. To a liberal, a person who decides to take-up smoking is not an individual making a decision – albeit a harmful one – of their own free will. No, rather he or she is simply an automaton acting on an instruction from an external source. Eliminate the instruction – in this case cigarette advertising – and the desire to smoke will be eliminated.

    Really there is no evidence people do act in this way. For example, about twenty years ago I met an old man who told me the Holocaust never happened. Did he change my mind on the subject? Not in the least. Rather I was simply appalled that he could hold such opinions. But I’d be even more appalled were he to be prosecuted for them. More generally, there is an awful lot of what would count as hate speech were it aimed at protected groups. For example, since the financial crisis began, some pretty nasty things have been said about bankers. But, so far as I’m aware, no bankers have been murdered or assaulted as a result.

    Rather, the concept of “hate” is just a pretext to suppress opinions liberals do not like.

  • Either way its worked out for the best but I wouldn’t heap much praise on this Gert chap

    Well I would. I am under no illusions he is a libertarian but frankly if you are waiting for someone who will pass a John Galt Purity Test to run for office in the Netherlands, you will never find anyone to support, ever.

    My view is Wilders and other like him (including quite a few people in UKIP) are often wrong but they are ‘reachable’… whereas 75% of the Tory party are functionally indistinguishable from Labour and the same applies to the LibDems and frankly are so intellectually lost… corrupt even… it is a waste of breath to give them the time of day. People like Wilders on the other hand might actually be movable on civil liberties issues (i.e. made more philosophically consistent).

  • Paul Marks

    There are differences between the leadership of the Conservative party and the leadership of the Labour party Perry – but just how small those differences are horrify a lot of Conservative Association members all over the country. Although, perhaps, living in Kettering gives me a distorted perspective (there were not many Cameron votes round here during the leadership election).

    Alisa – being called “far right” is better than being called “far left” like Hitler.

    Accept that the BBC consider Hitler “far right”. When they call someone “far right” they mean both “racist” and “Fascist” (not the same thing of course – but they are unaware of that).

    So someone like Wilders (in their eyes) is someone who hates people because of their race (he is a racist) and someone who wants to set up a dictatorship and a police state (he is a Fascist).

    And this is the sort of doctrine that is not only spread by the BBC (and the msm in America – where every major “quality” newspaper, bar the Wall Street Journal, is basically the Guardian, and both Time and Newsweek are basically the New Statesman), but also on “independent” television and radio.

    And in both the schools and the universities – of virtually every Western nation (including Holland).

    Of course Wilders is sometimes too game-playing for his own good. For example, he regularly points out that under Dutch law (the same law that ban “My Struggle” by Adolf Hitler) the Koran should be banned – because it advocates war (indeed war after promises of peace – in order to catch the victims off guard) against anyone who refuses to submit to Islam (and if anyone denies that – please refute the writings of Robert Spencer and others on this matter). This is translated as “WILDERS DEMANDS KORAN BE BANNED”, which rather undermines his position.

    However, it would never occur to the BBC (or the others) to call someone who wants the work of Wilders banned “far right” (in spite of the fact that before the modern alliance with atheist Marxists the Islamists were in alliance with Fascist and Nazi groups). This is how the terms of reference (what Perry calls the metacontext) are twisted.

  • If “defamation” of Islam is far-right, what does that make Islam?

  • John B

    In msm, Alan? – misunderstood.

    Yes, at least Wilders has the courage to resist being swept away by the collectivist mind conditioning.

    It’s resisting elite-consensus mind control that is the big ‘crime’.

  • hennesli

    This is the correct judgement by the Dutch court, even if Wilders is a vile little toad. Of course it’s ironic that he was acquitted of exactly the same kind of persecution he wants to impose on all Muslims.

  • Of course it’s ironic that he was acquitted of exactly the same kind of persecution he wants to impose on all Nazis who want to impose by force their views on everyone else.

    There, I fixed that for you.

  • PeterB

    Let’s be clear, as far as the P.T.B. are concerned this is actually mission accomplished.

    Geert Wilders has spent much of his time and a great deal of money over two years defending himself against these charges. Time and money he has not spent advancing his party. The acquittal serves this purpose better than a conviction. This case has been high profile in a fairly narrow way but I’ve seen very little of it in the MSM, and what I have seen has been relentlessly anti-Wilders, which might have changed if there had been a conviction. The acquittal says “Look, we really do have free speech, even for this asshole.”

    How many people will look at the efforts that have been put into OPERATION GET GEERT and conclude that they would not fair so well under such an onslaught and that, maybe, they should keep their mouths shut.

    As I said; mission accomplished.

  • Peter, I had very similar thoughts which I could not have put better myself. We are so screwed.

  • Chris

    Even though I’m glad Mr. Wilders won the trail, unfortunately the judges got the final laugh because it showed the average person that the state will go after you for expressing non-approved thoughts and most realize they don’t have the power or resources that Mr. Wilders has at his disposal.

    Either way it a heads they win vs tails you lose scenario. Truly, a sad day for freedom.

  • No, the precedent is set and it now makes it almost impossible for them to go after Geert again. You do not understand Dutch politics if you think this not only a big win for the PVV but also a strategic blunder by the other side. Legally they have lost their best weapon to keep people silent.

  • Paul Marks

    J. Van Der Kluft – I hope you are correct.

    Of course the Islamists (and their colaboraters) have other means of attack.

    For example, they can (via their control of the education system and the mass media) teach that Mr Wilders (and anyone else who challenges them) is a “nasty toad” who wants to “persecute all Muslims” (somehow resisting Islamic law is mutated in to “persecuting all Muslims”).

    Or (as they have done often before) they can simply murder anyone who resists them.

    The real question is why the establishment have so strongly allied with the Islamists (for, make no mistake, the Islamists would have no hope of victory without the aid of the establishment – especially the establishment intellectuals). Part of it is just “we want a quiet life” (appeasement), but the main part of it is NOT this.

    The main reason for the de facto alliance between the establishment and the Islamists is that the establishment is largely under the influence of the left (this includes the leadership of many of the supposedly liberal and conservative parties in the West, they are influenced by the stuff they were taught in university and so on) – and the left teaches a fierce hatred of the traditions of Western Civilization (it really is as bad as that).

    The left sees (or feels) a similar hatred in the Islamists – and so defacto allies with them (on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – the enemy being the traditions of Western Civilization).

    Of course the end objectives of the left and the Islamists are not really compatible (no matter how much stress is put on “Islamic Socialism”, “social justice”, “sustainable development” and so on).

    But they will cross that bridge when they come to it – i.e. after we are exterminated and/or enslaved.

    To defeat the Islamists, the left (which covers a lot more than the official groups of the left) must also be defeated.