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]

The best enemies imaginable

These guys crack me up. Geert Wilders finally makes it to Britain after a court overturned the disgraceful ban, and he delivers his anti-Islam message in Westminster… and how do his enemies show that Wilders is wrong to characterise them as a threat to western civilisation?


In one TV interview I saw, one of the Muslim protesters said “he should just come out and talk to us and get our point of view”… very reasonable… whereupon a second bearded paragon of the Religion of Peace interjected words to the effect “If he did not have all those police around him, we’d show him what we do to enemies of Islam” (if anyone spots an on-line video of this exchange, please post it in the comments).

I just cannot avoid smiling at these guys who are always so keen to give a televised performance of “Crazed Muslim Lunatics” straight out of Central Casting any time someone sticks a microphone in their face.

Although I disagree with Wilders’ ideas regarding banning the Koran, is it not remarkable how when he says profoundly reasonable things, defending the rights of Jews and Gays no less to be free from the threats promised by a great many Islamic commentators, somehow almost all the mainstream media tag him as “far right”.

35 comments to The best enemies imaginable

  • Ham

    Fortunate for civilisation is that there were only twenty of those maniacs there protesting. I like to think that they are little more than an embarrassment to Islam in Britain.

  • Yup. Geert is “far-right”, just like that nice Mr Fortuyn. I think it’s got to do with Victimhood Poker. Islam trumps women or gays. So you’re only allowed to speak up for women or gays if you speak up even louder for Islamists. Unless you’re black, in which case you can do what you want (vis a vis oppressing women and gays, for example).

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Demonstrations like this are so self-defeating that you have to wonder if the ‘troops’ aren’t ringers. Maybe it’s just that they’re so confident of victory that they don’t care what the unbelievers think.

    But at least we’ve forced them back to square one. The jihadiis’ main job is once more to capture the West’s attention, no easy task: there are so many pretty butterflys to look at….

  • J.M. Heinrichs

    I think what he proposed was that, if there is justification under Dutch Law to ban “Mein Kampf”, then there is justification to ban the “Koran”.

    Some discussion here: Widers quotes.


  • I think what he proposed was that, if there is justification under Dutch Law to ban “Mein Kampf”, then there is justification to ban the “Koran”.

    That is certainly logical and I agree that if Mein Kampf can be banned under Dutch law, it makes no sense to not also ban the Koran (and the Communist Manifesto frankly). But as I also oppose banning Mein Kampf for the same reason I oppose banning the Koran…

  • And it is hard not to be struck by how the calm and indeed urbane figure of Wilders contrasts with the debatably sectionable demonstrators outside. Truly if Wilders has a message for the world, these protesters seem to see it as their job to make his words fluorescent, bold and underlined for all to see… like I said… they are the best enemies imaginable.

  • veryretired

    But the political and media elites will ignore Wilders, or attempt to obstruct him and block his message, while catering endlessly to the likes of these islamicist protesters.

    Why? Abject moral, cultural, and political cowardice.

    Wilders won’t try to kill them. The islamic fanatics will.

  • Stonyground

    It is strange to have someone using his right to free speech to call for a book to be banned. Personally I don’t agree with banning things generally. If we don’t like an opinion, let it be heard and refuted, I think that the same should be applied to Holocaust Denial.

    The Koran contains a great many incitements to violence and murder but so does the Bible, does Wilders want it banned as well?

  • “The best enemies imaginable”

    They’d be better still if they’d only lie down for a nap right in the middle of the M1.

  • Stonyground,

    The Koran contains generic incitements to violence against everyone who isn’t a muslim. The Old Testament, on the other hand, contains incitement against specific peoples who were enemies id Israel at the time. I am not aware of passages which mirror those of the Koran.

    This is of course moot to Christians, because the New Testament contains no such passages at all, and its message of love, in theological terms, supersedes any calls to violence the Old may contain.

    In terms of calls to violence the books are not comparable.

  • If we don’t like an opinion, let it be heard and refuted, I think that the same should be applied to Holocaust Denial.

    I agree completely. However as an earlier comment points out, Wilders is operating within the Dutch legal context and established fact that books are indeed banned by the state… thus it is hard to argue logically against the notion that if Mein Kampf can be banned because it deranges people, then surely so must the Koran as it also (demonstrably) deranges people.

    I agree neither should be banned, but I also take the view that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice. Tolerance can only be reciprocal or it is suicidal and irrational. If someone refuses to tolerate me (and tolerance is not the same as acceptance) and therefore is prepared to use force to suppress me, I will demand the same for them. I do not think that is an argument for banning the Koran, but it is indeed a viable argument for taking people at their word when they threaten violence against ‘unbelievers’ and reacting with force.

  • ChristianMan'sView

    Kudos to CountingCats for making that point about the New Testament:

    “…the New Testament contains no such passages at all, and its message of love, in theological terms, supersedes any calls to violence the Old may contain.”

    It is dismaying to hear of or read seemingly ignorant and moronic statements such as, for example:

    “The Koran contains a great many incitements to violence and murder but so does the Bible…”

    Such statements indicate that whoever uttered them needs to sit down with the material in question and actually read it and understand it before trying to pass comment.

    I can recommend a study of the New Testament as something that will tend to provide inspiration and hope for all that is potentially good in mankind.

    I can recommend a study of the Koran to do just the opposite.

    Indeed, the Koran provides such an antithesis to the New Testament and Christian ideology that many people have suggested that it may have been sourced from a very ancient Enemy indeed.

    Not for nothing perhaps, is there is a 15th-century fresco inside St. Petronio in Bologna that many Muslims have tried to destroy (either the fresco or St. Petronio), because it is insulting to Islam. The fresco, painted by Giovanni da Modena, represents a scene from Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, and depicts Muhammad in Hell being devoured by demons.

    How could someone have supposed that the second and final true prophet of Allah would get there, I wonder?

  • Christian Man: the comment you quoted refers to the Bible, which includes the Old Testament that indeed contains specific calls to violence (see the first part of Counting Cats’ comment). So whoever made that comment is far from being ignorant, although he may have been comparing apples and oranges, as Cats pointed out.

  • You’ve hit it right on the head, Perry. They are the best advertisement for Wilders’ assertions imaginable.

  • Stonyground

    Countingcats is correct, the incitement to violence in the OT is directed at specific people and not just unbelievers generally as are those in the Koran. The problem arises when someone wants to cite God to justify violent acts they simply cast themselves as the biblical heros and their enemies as the villains.

    Christianman, I have read the Bible all the way through from cover to cover, I feel that that is the least that I would be expected to do before commenting upon it. So I can tell you that the New Testament contains incitement to violence as well as the Old.

  • RW

    Hat tip to Anna Raccoon for this.

    Try the Islam 4 UK website“. While much of it seems nutty or a red rag to the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and others, sections such as the Islamic plans for Trafalgar Square are an absolute hoot. A spoof? Or perpetually out to lunch once Ramadan is over?

  • stephan

    Am I the only one who is noticing that the words on those posters the protesters are carrying look photoshopped in?

  • Am I the only one who is noticing that the words on those posters the protesters are carrying look photoshopped in?

    Yeah you probably are. And seeing as large numbers of people walked past them as they stood next to the Houses of Parliament…

  • Paul Marks

    I also disagree with Mr Wilders about the Koran and the “Sayings of the Prohet” work.

    If one gives the state the power to ban opinions then it may well turn round and ban ones own opinions – as Mr Wilders should know.

    However, what Mr Wilders says about Islam is correct – as shown by above works (see Robert Spencer’s examination of them – unlike me he can work with others from the works in the original classical Arabic) and the life of “the Prophet” (his life of murdering, raping, enslaving and so on) and, indeed, the very protestors Perry point to.

    As for the “mainstream” media attacking Mr Wilders as “far right” – well they would also attack thee and me and “far right” Perry.

    Saying “but we oppose banning the Koran” would not save us from “mainstream” media attack.

    This is because the “mainstream” media (such as the BBC and, indeed, ALL the broadcasters in Britain) are scumbags – people so blinded with their hatred of traditional Western Civilization that they will ally with anyone (even the Islamists) in order to destroy the West.

  • Verity

    Islam is an aggressive, primitive and ambitious desert moon cult (not a lot to look at and think about in the desert at night over the centuries) that long predates Mohammad. The Socio/Gramsci/Marxist/Trot/Thought Fascists running Britain identified it as a handy rod with which to beat the backs of the British, who arrogantly imagined themselves free in their own country.

    This has worked to a large extent, in that many indigenous, and long-term immigrant, Brits have been intimidated by the violent, primitive nature of these people suddenly living among them, and,inexplicably, being accorded privileged treatment. Except now, the Lefto-Facists have a tiger by the tail.

    As an aside, the Jack Straw tendency introduced the (non-Islamic*) burqa for British police women, and if officers want to investigate a Muslim home for explosives, their sniffer dogs have to wear “booties” because dogs offend the tender sensibilities of Islamics.

    *The burqa and all that ghastly black paraphenalia is a sensible (and ancient) reaction to the continually blowing sands of the Sahara, for nomadic people. It keeps the sand out of eyes, noses, ears and mouths. The keffiyah, for men, provides similiar protection. The long garments keep the killer sun off the skin. This garb long, long predates Islam and has absolutely nothing to do with the religion. That is why young women wearing it in Luton look so risible.

    (Mohammad, for all his many, many flaws, at least had enough wit about him not to hand out fashion advice. He never gave dress advice, except to say that both women and men should dress “modestly”.)

    While I’m on a roll, I propose that the next time they have an earthquake in Pakistan, we not send our British sniffer dogs over to get involved in the rescue work. I suggest we let the Pakistanis handle it, given their lack of respect for dogs, and all.

  • stephan


    Just an observation, I live in Canada and certainly couldn’t have walked by these posters. Besides that, the stuff written on them seems so over the top that one is tempted to assume comical parody instead of someone actually dumb enough to attempt gaining sympathy by displaying garbage like that.

  • Stonyground: Care to elaborate, neighbour? I recall Jesus saying that he who lives by the blade dies by the blade (ok, the sword, but still), Paul saying we’re fighting not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities, Stephen asking that his stoners’ sins not be held against them (in conscious emulation of Christ), putting on the full armour of God, which is pretty much spiritual in nature. I also recall Jesus saying to turn the other cheek when we are struck in the one, and Paul reminding is that vengeance belongs to the Lord.

    Must have missed the part where Apollos says to “strike the Roman where he lies, and if the Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, they will say ‘O Christian! Behind me lies a Jew.'”

    Much appreciate your pointing them out to me, if you would be so kind.

  • guy herbert

    stephan, Albion,

    I don’t think this is photoshop. The mainstream media with their own photographers manage consistently to reproduce the same messages. It is that the signs are designed to show up well on photographs. Al Mahjaroun has a standard style, just as the SWP does, but it is more modern being devised more recently.

    I depart from Perry in that I don’t believe these are the best opponents Wilders could have asked for. They might be the ones he deserved, having moved on a bit from the legitimate and desirable defence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and criticism of traditional Islamic doctrine, to become a career panic-monger.

    People determined to talk up the threat of Islam need to show ordinary Muslims being aggressive and extremist. But this mini-mob clearly didn’t represent Britain’s the mainstream Muslims – who don’t wear the scruffy beardy-weirdy, faux-Arab radical get up (or in the case of women only very rarely more covering than a hijab), and don’t have a significant proportion of black and white converts. The looked like what they are – a tiny bunch of complete nutters. If you can judge a man by his enemies, then Wilders is in trouble.

    Compare the MCB, which is the biggest alliance of mosques and other Muslim groups. It liked him being excluded; but now he is here, it is urging people to ignore him.

  • guy herbert

    … Not that I should suggest the MCB is exactly representative. It is still a self-selected group of religious types and communitarians, considerably more disposed to give a damn about Wilders than the average nominal Muslim.

  • Peter McFarlane

    It’s a religion of peace, and they’ll kill anyone who says it’s not!!

  • They’re storing up trouble for themselves. As a recipe for somewhat delayed but inevitable personal and pantocultural disaster, I would recommend to them that they continue to do what they do.

  • Nigel

    “Am I the only one who is noticing that the words on those posters the protesters are carrying look photoshopped in? ”

    How do they look fake? They’re pretty convincing if they are.

    What do you think their signs really said then?

  • llamas

    I do not know the situation as of today’s date, but in the not-too-distant past, the sale of “Mein Kampf” was not illegal in the Netherlands and it could be found both in translation and in the original German, new and used. I do not believe that the sale of the book itself is by definition illegal. I have myself seen multiple copies of it offered for sale by a reputable used-book dealer in the Netherlands – probably 10 years ago, now.

    I believe that the situation is actually one of those lovely grey areas where the sale and possession of the book is not per se illegal, but selling it might – or might not – expose the seller to some vaguely-defined charge of ‘promoting racial hatred’ or the like.

    Just to clarify, discuss away.



  • Jim Dacre

    I wandered by those scruffy wankers during the demo and I assure you that really is what the signs said.

  • Nigel

    I think stephan needs to do some google image searching for the many demonstrations in Britain where the signs were even worse than those on display in the above photo.

  • Stonyground

    Hello Gregory
    It is true that the NT does not promote violence in quite the same way as the OT although there is a considerable amount of violence in it. Although Jesus did advocate turning the other cheek, he also stated that he came to earth to promote violence (Matt 10:34-36). There are also plenty of passages that a determined religious zealot can misuse, such as the parable that ends with the words “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:12-27). Quite a few times the righteous and the sinners are likened to wheat and chaff the latter always being thrown onto the fire (Matt 3:12 and 13:49) I think that some might be inclined to take this a bit too literally and oh I don’t know, burn people alive. There is a nice parable about beating servants (Luke 12:47) I’m afraid I don’t have time to look up all of Paul’s hate filled rants against those who according to him are worshipping false Christs or to reference his rampant sexism and homophobia. Finally there is the promotion of violence against yourself, chop bits off for God (Matt 19:12 Mark 19:47).

    To be fair to Jesus it seems pretty certain that words were put into his mouth by his biographers.
    Hope this helps.

  • watcher in the dark

    Interesting poster that says “Islam will dominate the world” with “Freedom can go to hell” underneath.

    Now were I the PR main man for these people, I would swiftly point out that what this is saying, dear bearded ones, is that Islam is thus the opposite of freedom. You cannot have islam without freedom going south. So there are large numbers of people who might think this is not a good idea.

    Unless of course it is a threat, in which case carry on, chaps!

  • Paul Marks

    Islam is the opposite of freedom – it is “submission to God”.

    God (to the Muslim) does not follow natural law – no natural law can constrain God (who is the only free will being) and his actions are not limited by any physical or moral law.

    Human (on the other hand) actions are predetermined by a chain of causes and events (unless God acts), and even if someone converts to Islam is predetermined – it has been set in stone since the start of the universe.

    Sadly some Christians believe all of the above as well – especially people from the Calvinist tradition.

    As for fake banners – there has once been a joke banner.

    A (brave) man decided to mock the Islamists by joining one of their demonstration with a “Behead those who say Islam is violent” banner.

    The joke fell a bit flat when he looked around him and spotted real Islamists carrying banners with very similar wording.