Wilders in Wonderland
by Paul Weston
When Alice fell down a rabbit hole and embarked on her adventures in Wonderland, she discovered a thoroughly surreal environment in which the White Queen was able to advise the Mad Hatter that… “quite often subjects are punished before they commit a crime, rather than after, and sometimes they do not even commit it at all.”
Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.
Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.
Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large).
If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blond mane flowing over his animal-skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.
But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared as a criminal by his very own countrymen.
It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film Fitna does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.
He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate-filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self-awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.
- - - - - - - - -
According to Gates of Vienna’s correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.
The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.
The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.
No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which they may draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.
This may also turn out be something of an embarrassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?
“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”
In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent. Are the liberal/left not aware of this?
Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a pyrrhic victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.
What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.
This is not the case, of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:
“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”
Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to?
Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late ’20s and early ’30s as to the swelling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.
There is one crucial difference however. The ’30s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.
Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is war with Europe. Right now. Today.
It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.
It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.
Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.
When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.
It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assassination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.
There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders’ casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.
Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.
When the Germans finally began Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat — which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means — the leaders attempt to silence resistance.
The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland, would have Alice in need of Prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.
To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life, is not just normal liberal lunacy. These politicians are guilty of treason.
If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.
It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitors’ class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.
Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever-growing public anger they seem intent on stoking.
Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.
Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.
IFPS deserves to become a household name in its fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from “Change We Really Don’t Want To Believe In.”
So do your bit and spread the word.
Cross-posted at the International Free Press Society.
©2009 Paul Weston