Thursday, June 23, 2011

Geert Wilders Walks

Free Geert banner

According to H. Neuman, Geert Wilders is a free man!

[And according to new reports, he's gonna keep on walking, right into a candystore]

*** UPDATE***


A few readers have emailed with further stories, plus a reminder or two:

Mark Steyn, on NRO, says in part:

“On the edge of legal acceptability,” eh? As for the latter part - “the broad context of a political and social debate” - the genius “jurists” are effectively conceding what I said when this racket got going - that the Dutch state was attempting to criminalize the political platform of a popular opposition party. That’s the sort of thing free societies should leave to Mubarak & Co, and even then, you can only get away with it for a while before people draw the obvious conclusion.

Nevertheless, as in all these cases, the process is the punishment. The intent is to make it more and more difficult for apostates of the multiculti state to broaden the terms of political discourse. Very few Europeans would have had the stomach to go through what Wilders did - and the British Government’s refusal to permit a Dutch Member of Parliament to land at Heathrow testifies to how easily the craven squishes of the broader political culture fall into line.

And at the end the awkward fact remains: Geert Wilders lives under 24-hour armed guard because of explicit death threats made against him by the killer of Theo van Gogh and by other Muslims. Yet he’s the one who gets puts on trial.

That’s the Netherlands, 2011.

The Netherlands has been like that centuries before 2011. Our favorite Dutch historian, Arthur Legger, has been outing the Dutch elites for years. He has suggested repeatedly that we return to the truth of what the Dutch really did -- or tried to do - to Spinoza. They might have succeeded but Spinoza had the last laugh: he died before they could kill him.

Legger says (in 2008) that his friends from other countries were asking what was going on:

How is it possible that so many Dutch politicians favour censorship and lawsuits, and that leading men of opinion openly and repeatedly compare Wilders to Goebbels and Hitler? How is this possible with your tradition of Spinoza?”

“How” indeed. As Mr. Legger has said reiterated to those willing to listen [my emphasis below - D], Dutch freedoms are limited to those the state considers ‘safe’:

The public comparison of a well known individual with Hitler, Mussolini or Mussert (leading Dutch Nazi collaborator) and the removing of the social safety net belongs to an ingrained Dutch tradition, well known to the Dutch. If you’re judged too harmful to the Dutch State, Culture and/or its Business (and these three are highly intertwined), the ruthless reflex sets in and it’s game over - including, sometimes, death. Recently the world was able to witness this flaw in our character: Pim Fortuyn, “fascist” adversary of the Left and winner of the elections, was murdered in 2002; Theo van Gogh, “racist” mocker of muslims, jews and the Left, was murdered in 2004; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “heretic” critic of the Left and of islam, was effectively banished in 2006.

As I remember the story, she realized that her university studies in the Netherlands hadn’t included any knowledge of Dutch history, of what the state authorities do to people like her. That is, they simply leave the miscreants alone and unprotected and ignorant of Dutch history:

Tellingly, all four of them, if you include Wilders, used ‘Spinoza’ as their buzz word - it was his Enlightenment ideals against those of the attackers of western freedom. Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali and Wilders mainly opposed orthodox islam, Van Gogh mainly wrote against the naive fool who hands his freedom over out of laziness and decadence.

[…]

…state terrorism [is] sanctioned by Dutch mentality: ‘if you stick out your head too often, we’ll chop it off’. Also, the Dutch Constitution’s Article 7 on the Freedom of Expression was not written with John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in mind. Mill preached total freedom of speech because “even a raving madman might say something sound”. In Holland this position is only defended by some philosophers of the University of Amsterdam. Philosophy professor Pieter Pekelharing (University of Amsterdam) is a bit of a loner when he states that: “Geert Wilders is an intolerant fool who nevertheless has every right to say stupid things. Also, we cannot rule out the remote possibility that he is right on the dangers of Islam” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).

Indeed. The “remote possibility” that Wilders may be right is surely staring this man in the face every time he visits a Moroccan enclave after dark. Oops. You mean he doesn’t do that? If Mr. Wilders says “stupid things” then surely the tolerant wise man, Professor Pieter Pekelharing, is brave enough to visit a no-go zone and prove Wilders’ assessments of the dangers of Islam-in-your-face is just talk?

Back to the politically incorrect and inconvenient truth about Dutch history from Mr. Legger:

Mill’s ideas on liberty were never fully incorporated into the Dutch rule of law because the reshuffling of power that took place in 1848, and which in the following decades led to our present parliamentary system, was mainly intended to check and balance a despotic and incompetent king - and had very little to do with a democratic revolution. The constitution handed power exclusively to a very small group of high-brow, male ‘haves’, who were allowed to vote and sit in Parliament because they paid a high amount of taxes (and where of good social standing).

The “solution of 1848” decidedly did two things: the King’s power was curbed and the growing unrest of the elite (“we pay taxes, but we have no say”) was eased. Whatever happened later on - the first political parties after the 1880s, men’s general vote in 1917, women’s vote in 1919, and so on- was never the intention. On the contrary the constitution was intended to curb freedom, and we are now stuck with it, mentally and legally.


The will could be found to free ourselves if the faculties of Reason and Discernment hadn’t atrophied over the years. In the West we have come to love these “curbs” on freedom. Kiss your shackles.

One has only to look at the treatment of poor Gregorius Nekshot to know the Dutch fear of those who stick their necks out…so to speak. In fact, this man’s nom de plume is brilliant:

…With “Gregorius” he refers to Pope Gregory IX, who instituted the Papal Inquisition, and “Nekschot” means literally “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents.”

By coincidence Nekshot appeared with Mark Steyn when they both received the Sappho Prize in Denmark. The former wore a burka to the event since he is still at risk from the Islamothugs in Europe.

But never mind. Mr. Nekshot is so obviously dangerous that it took ten policemen to haul him away for hours and hours of “questioning”. Maybe they thought his cartoonist’s pen was loaded? Maybe they’ve watched too many SWAT-team movies?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Europe News has a post up about Wilders’ appearance after the decision:

[…]

A short while [after his acquittal], Mr Wilders emerged to speak to a throng of more than 50 journalists, many from foreign news organisations. Mr Wilders was visibly relieved. He is a tall man, but he stood even taller as he spoke of his victory.

“I am very pleased and happy. Its not just a victory for me, but for freedom of expression in Holland …. A great burden has been lifted off me.

He concluded his remarks with the Dutch equivalent of “I’m as happy as a kid in a candy store.”

This report also includes some plans his enemies - known as “the injured parties” - have to drag this through the EU. They’ve gone as far as they can in the Netherlands, but we’ll have to see what the Euroweenies can create out of these spurious charges. They have lots of money and too much time on their hands.

Mr. Wilders will continue to need support in this ongoing lawfare war. Given the deep pockets of those determined to destroy him, that means practical support like funding from those of us who stand behind him.

But meanwhile, back in Holland, even as Mr. Wilders savors his victory Arthur Legger nudges us about the reality of Dutch democracy:

…our heritage is not Spinoza and his professed freedom. Our heritage is Providence, propaganda and social control: the one who deviates will not go unpunished.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Let's take it from the top, one more time:

According to H. Neuman, Geert Wilders is a free man!

Acquittal for Wilders

The court of Amsterdam has Geert Wilders acquitted on all charges.

The court acquitted Wilders of group-insults. According to the court it was sufficiently shown that Wilders statements were addressing islam as a religion, not to individual muslims nor as a group.

The court also acquitted Wilders of inciting hatred or discrimination.He made his statements as politician. Some of his statements were,according to the court, course and on the edge of what is legally allowed, but not punishable.

The court specifically talked about the movie Fitna. The movie has,according to the court, offensive, shocking passages, but the PVV leader remained within the boundaries of the law. Therefore, also full acquittal also on this charge. [my emphasis - D]

Is everybody happy or what??

As the prosecutor himself said back in May, Geert Wilders did not incite hatred.

So the judges, perhaps, had no choice? I wonder what scared them off?

73 comments:

Jihad Resistance said...

Happy??? Happy??? Try overjoyed and thrilled!! This is a huge victory for freedom. Bye Bye Islam in Europe, remember the date, June 23rd, the day Islam began to decline in The West!

Miki said...

Excellent! :-)

Nick said...

Go Geert!

Shaunantijihad said...

Great news! Now, if only the dhimmies had pointed out that all the "shocking passages" in Fitna, were quotes from the Koran, then we might be moving forward.

Nick said...

As a politician, with a certain amount of power in Holland, can Geert now bring some kind of action against them for wasting public monies on a politically motivated, logically indefensible trial? You know, kick them while they're down.

Nick said...

If things get too bad here in years to come, it looks like learning some Dutch and flying over the water might be a possibility now ...

JS123 said...

I like Geert and am glad he was freed, but he still presents his argument as wanting to protect individual rights rather than wanting to protect the continued existence and self-determination of the Dutch people.

Npinkpanther said...

Hopefully this win will go on to see his party succeed at the elections

cornholio said...

I don't think this is the last time the corrupt Dutch judiciary will be going after Geert -- unless Geert ceases criticising the religion of peace. Geert looks really beat up and gaunt in that picture as well -- I'll bet this took a lot out of him.
Congrats on beating the bastards Geert.

sameer said...

Congrats all !! It is a historic day :) Go Geert ... you are my hero !! No surrender to Islam !!

Lawrence said...

Good news, for sure.

Dymphna said...

@ cornholio--

You're thinking ahead! The govt can't do anything more since those who complained don't have the standing legally to pursue it any further.

However, such legal-beagle distinctions don't bother the EU courts so these people may be able to pursue Mr. Wilders via the Euroweenies in Strasbourg.

His enemies have plenty of money and lots of time.

I wonder when it will occur to them that they serve to keep Mr. Wilders in the limelight??

Vladtepesblog.com said...

Wilders will be releasing Fitna II shortly. Lets see what happens then. For some reason I don't feel this is a victory. Perhaps because this was a lengthy, unfair, punitive process where Wilders was nearly acquitted already and then brought back to trial for disingenuous reasons by the chief prosecutor.

Perhaps because Wilders has to travel with 4 armed bodyguards everywhere he goes and sleep in a different place every night because of Muslims who wish him dead for his exposure of the agenda and beliefs of those same Muslims. This has not even been addressed yet and should have been all the evidence necessary to avoid this trial in the first place.

A victory would be what Geert has been asking for. A kind of 1st amendment in Dutch law, if not in European.

descendantofacrusader said...

Excellent news! The shire is yet safe.

As Aragorn in Lord of the Rings proclaimed before the Dark Gate: “Hold your ground, hold your ground! ...my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight!”

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I like Geert and am glad he was freed, but he still presents his argument as wanting to protect individual rights rather than wanting to protect the continued existence and self-determination of the Dutch people.

The two are inextricably linked. As things stand, the state overrides the rights of the individual in order to enforce its multicultural society. If the state were forced to protect the rights of the individual, the multicultural project would collapse almost immediately, as most of the cultures imported to make it are collectivist in nature. They would, in effect, be forced to leave.

pacificwaters said...

Don't cheer too much. There's till Lars Hedegaard in Denmark and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria as well the way she was was treated by US immigration in March.

"
I have been humiliated.

Yesterday, I entered the United States in Miami and was treated like a potential terrorist. My crime? Meeting with friends in West Palm Beach, staying at a hotel, rather than with those friends, and traveling too much even though I am a housewife and mother. That according to the words of the immigration officer, who simply refused to believe me. ...
“Are you a practicing Christian?” Mr. Supervisor wanted to know.
My rational side asked what it was the custom’s inspector’s business, but reality told me to answer the question. I sported my small silver cross dangling on my chain. Yes, I said, I am. (Actually, I am more Christian, than practicing, but this should not matter in any case.)

“Ma’am, what is THE UNITED WEST?” I told him the truth, that it was to be launched this weekend, an organization to defend Western civilization, Western values, universal human rights, our way of life. He stared at me, told me that he would have to look into this, and left to talk to his colleagues behind a glass wall. I must say that his demeanor was never hostile. He just didn’t know how to categorize me.

After an endless five minutes Mr. Supervisor returned, more friendly than before and said that while he is absolutely on my side, there are radicals on both sides, clearly implying that I was considered a Christian radical.

This was getting really bizarre. Me, a Christian radical? He and Mr. Customs Officer hammered some information into the computer, probably making my future entries into the US almost impossible, and told me that everything would be OK.

Mr. Customs Officer wanted to proceed to the checking of my suitcase, but Mr. Supervisor denied permission. I was OK, at least for this time. “Ma’am, thank you for what you are doing, but may I politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric and not cause any trouble while you are here in the US. Like I said before, there are radicals on both sides.”

Again, I nearly fainted at the bizarreness of this situation. “Yes, sir, of course,” I managed to say. “May I also suggest that if you are convicted after your appeal that you get a visa from your nearest consulate,” he added. We had discussed my trial briefly before he went to consult with his supervisors. I said I would, and was sent on my way."

pacificwaters said...

I'd past the url for the full article post but i is a very long url. Just search "Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff US customs". It's rather frightening.

Melvin Muskrat said...

Good for Geert, champion of liberty!

Gerry T. Neal said...

Excellent news! Now if only those who charged him in the first place were now forced to pay his expenses and a fine for fraudulent prosecution, justice would actually be served.

Nick said...

The Guardian's got it's own take on events. See link.

Patrick said...

It is truly a good day.

-Pat

Lawrence said...

Dutch freedoms are limited to those the state considers ‘safe’:

This is where things are going here in the U.S. as well. Whatever we deem "safety" related we embrace, regardless of the long term consequences.

We arm Police SWAT teams (effectively police commandos) with automatic military assault weapons and give them authority to bash down the doors of people's homes unannounced. All in the name of "safety", often with little more than random suspicion of illegal activity.

We have our own "hate speech" laws now, all in the name of "safety" of those who might be offended by differing opinions.

We have our EPA that pretty much writes their own environmental policies based on nebulous regulations. Relegating humans to secondary or tertiary status behind trees and animals. All in the name of safety.

And anyone who speaks up against anything "safety" related is branded a fool.

Lawrence said...

pacificwaters said... Mr. Customs Officer wanted to proceed to the checking of my suitcase, but Mr. Supervisor denied permission. I was OK, at least for this time. “Ma’am, thank you for what you are doing, but may I politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric and not cause any trouble while you are here in the US. Like I said before, there are radicals on both sides.”

Mr. Supervisor was being kind in giving her some very sage advice under the circumstances of the current Politically Correct approach his colleagues are trapped into following.

We all need to heed his words, all of us, especially those of us who present or reflect any kind of Non-PC/MC point of view.

The PC-MC sycophants are afraid of "radical" thinkers of any stripe. Which include pretty much everyone who contributes or posts on this forum.

Gerry T. Neal said...

This is an important first step. The true victory for freedom will come when charges of incitement to hatred are no longer laid against people like Geert Wilders but against those who call for violent jihad and when silly laws like those used to persecute Wilders are striken from the legal codes of all Western countries.

europyre said...

Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice !

An island of sanity and freedom in a politically correct ocean of madness.

Zenster said...

europyre: An island of sanity and freedom in a politically correct ocean of madness.

More like a tirelessly bailed out lifeboat than any island. Sadly, I'm with cornholio on this one as neither do I "think this is the last time the corrupt Dutch judiciary will be going after Geert".

For all of the right reasons, Geert is the paradigm shifting, myth busting little boy who has clearly pointed out that the EU's reigning PCMC emperor is buck naked.

Not anytime soon will Wilders be forgiven for having such audacity to tell the truth in a time of universal deceit. Per Orwell, Geert is a revolutionary and a most dangerous one at that.

Be that as it may:

GO GEERT!!!!!

Steen said...

Though Neckshot would not appear on the final group photo, he is here together with Mark Stein last year from the MOST amusing conference, I ve ever attended:

http://snaphanen.dk/upload/2010/09/Steyn-Vilks-Rehman-Kholghi-Nekschot-Vartorv-11.9-2010-071.jpg


http://snaphanen.dk/2010/09/17/mark-steyn-in-scandinavia-ii/

cumpa_29 said...

I am happy at the verdict, but remain pessimistic in the long run. Not only does Wilders have to watch his back from potential jihadis wishing to reap their eternal sexual rewards at his expense, but sooner or later I fear that someone high up in the Euro food chain will utter: "Who will rid us of this meddlesome Dutchman?"

sulber nick said...

Nick directs us to the Guardian's take on this - read it and it was as predictable as one would imagine. The attached comments are not quite so predictable - seems even Guardian readers are waking up to the reality of Islam.

Dymphna said...

Steen-

We are a lazy crew 'round here. So I made your links clickable cuz they're worth it!

Steen's group shot @ Nekshot's speech

Scroll right if you don't see GN at the podium.

Mark Steyn in Scandinavia

Good pictures here, too. Looks like an interview w/ Steyn, called here "The One-Man Global Content Provider”

--------------

Also, I may do an update later with your WSJ essay of Wilders' happy words...however, it's behind a subscription wall at the moment. But some lucky readers do have access...

====================
sulber nick-

That paper is usually worth reading for the comments. I mean for taking a current pulse of opinion...

philip.zhao said...

Mr. Wilders, your war is far from over. Keep on fighting and take your country back !!

Sagunto said...

Legger's critical view on Dutch history (and especially the dubious role of Calvinism and the house of Orange) is supported by many sources. He seems, however, rather uncritical of the enlightenment. Same goes for the questionable role played by J.S. Mill where freedom is concerned. He also seems to have a problem with profits. I wonder why.

Sag.

P.s.: I'm pretty sure it is H. Numan, not Neuman

Dymphna said...

Sagunto--

I'll stick with Legger anyway, warts and all.

Legger knows enough to inform me about what happens to Holland's Pim Fortuyns. Since profit-taking is not the topic here I'm not at all curious about his economic theories.

Same with Wilders' views. He's no libertarian fire-brand, that's fer sure. Probably nothing we'd agreee on there.

What he is for the moment is a drink of water in a desert of pc/mc sand dunes. Wilders is a gift to us weary banner-carriers. One of a few good men & women willing to risk their lives for our future.

As Momma always said, "perfect is the enemy of good enough"... right now, at this particular moment, Wilders is definitely good enough indeed.

Dymphna said...

P.s.: I'm pretty sure it is H. Numan, not Neuman...

Indeed.

Momma was right again. I'll be darned.

Sagunto said...

Dymphna -

"a drink of water in a desert of pc/mc sand dunes."

Good enough for me ;-)

Sag.

hmpinney said...

in all fairness, the cost of geert's bodyguards should be subracted from the welfare payments collected by those people threatening to kill him.

Steen said...

its ok, Dymphna. There is also no 1, without Neckshot but with ths Steyn audio:

Steyn in Scandinavia: “You will have to kill us all”

http://snaphanen.dk/2010/09/13/steyn-in-scandinavia/

Blogger said...

From the BBC:
"This is a precedent-setting case that now allows people to feel like they can say more than they felt they could say before," said John Tyler, political editor at Radio Netherlands.

"The acquittal of Geert Wilders has big implications for free speech in the Netherlands."

PatriotUSA said...

Reading through all the above comments
and noting this 'victory for Wilders' one , including myself has to be pleased...

Now after that I must agree with Vladtepes and what he said.

This is not the end and the dhimmi stooges of the EU and throughout europistan will take this as the final verdict nor will it be the end of Wilders and how he has and will be continual villified and hunted after by muslims who want him dead. islam will settle for nothing less and may Wilders be around for a very long, long time as we need him even more than before all this started.

Wilders is indeed a revolutionary, Zenster.

Fitna II, I can barely contain my excitement for its release.

Dymphana,
Great post and very well done.

Salome said...

According to Die Presse, the parties whose complaints led to this prosecution are now considering going to the European Court or the UN Human Rights Commission. Get ready for a few more rounds.

Hesperado said...

I must disagree with the tenor and purport of everyone here.

The Dutch law and its prosecutors are not at fault. What is at fault is simply that they are targeting the wrong targets.

Instead of training their law and their legal zeal appropriately against the real bigots and inciters of hatred -- Muslims following Islam -- they train their law and legal zeal on those who criticize Muslims following Islam.

That is, precisely, the only problem here. All else -- on both sides -- is distracting obfuscation.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

You nailed it.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Sagunto.

Now, those who disagree with me could retort:

"Yes, but why are the Dutch lawmakers targeting the wrong target?"

That's where we diverge, in the answers we speculate (even if those who differ from me aren't speculating, but proclaiming apodictic certainties).

Those who differ conclude that the Dutch Elites are evil, and that's why they are defending the wrong people/ideology whilst punishing the wrong target. I point to the fact that in pursuing their legal logic, the Elites in cases like these (whether Dutch, Austrian, etc.) are not substantially different from Eisenhower, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Rudy Giuliani, McCain, Mitt Romney, Edmund Burke and countless others (including minions of ordinary people who are not Elites) who cannot possibly be evil.

Therefore, it's a simple matter of fitting the evidence to a more plausible hypothesis. At junctures like these, one detects a smelly fish when contra-indicating evidence is manhandled to be made to fit the original hypothesis: thus, all the unlikely co-conspirators (unlikely because they are obviously not Leftists; and/or are not Elites) are somehow made to fit. Thus, grand theories are woven about how this nefarious evil ideology took over the modern West like a virus (the recent elevation of Burke to a position of being a potential cure for the virus took an unexpected turn, when I found quotes of him defending Muslim Indians, and Muslim India, and Islamic law itself); meanwhile, all those ordinary people are explained by being stupid sheep easily led by the nose, or caught up in Kafkaesque webs of bureaucracy which they are powerless to remedy -- moving the theorist effectively smack dab into agreement with the deranged paranoia of a Noam Chomsky in his condemnation of the West as crypto-totalitarian.

Really now, there must be a calmer, more judicious way of explaining this than by damning the West as it is in favor of some nucleus of White Barbarians and Monks ready to hunker down like Mad Max for the coming Apocalypse.

Dymphna said...

@ Salome-

You;'re right. It's not over.

As I said in the post itself:

Mr. Wilders will continue to need support in this ongoing lawfare war. Given the deep pockets of those determined to destroy him, that means practical support like funding from those of us who stand behind him.

The "ongoing" part was one of the 'knowns' from the get go. Strasbourg was always their destination if Geert won.

We're celebrating GW's small but vitally strategic victory before tackling the next round.

I hope that everyone who reads our comments section will hit that donate button at Wilders' website.
---------------

@ Hesperado--

I must disagree with the tenor and purport of everyone here...

Well, no doubt you "must" do that. After all you wouldn't be characterologically consistent if you didn't show up to rain on our Cheerios, now would you?

In fact, your opening salvo there could pretty much sum up your whole rhetorical approach. Perhaps you could save it for future use...a shortcut.

however, it was already gob-smackingly obvious that this attack on ethnic populations throughout Europe is the whole point of persecuting those like Wilders who have the courage to speak up.

See, we already know what the government was doing. But I disagree profoundly with your solution. As do Wilders and Levant. We don't need to point those laws in another direction. We need to abolish the laws themselves.

Listen to Wilders' words in that conversation with Levant. The laws must go. That is what we work toward. We do not want to turn the guns in another direction -- i.e., on the Muslims. That's a pc thrall. The endgame is ressurecting free speech and burying hate speech laws.

Meanwhile the purpose of this thread,(sans your imprimatur) is to celebrate one victory in a long war. ONE small step in the right direction.

And celebrate we will.

Hesperado said...

Dymphna,

I'm not a proponent of hate speech laws unless that speech is seditious (where the term "seditious" already includes "deadly"). The harms that current hate speech laws in various places intend to prevent are harms not so much against insurrection against the state but against crimes against Ethnic Minorities. If not strictly seditious, such crimes would be destabilizing for a progressive society that prides itself on the progress of protecting Ethnic Minorities from the white crimes of which they have been (and continue to be) purported victims.

Islamic speech is both hate speech and seditious; both inextricably linked. Many other types of non-Islamic hate speech could also be seditious; it just so happens they are extremely rare and enjoy no global network and rich history (not to mention thousands of acts all over the world of actualizing that speech into physical violence), as does Islamic hate speech.

Speech that identifies Islamic speech as seditious, and that thus rationally warns against it, of course should not itself be deemed seditious; that would be preposterous. Unfortunately, through a complex concatenation of historical and cultural factors, the West has painted itself into a corner where a precise inversion tends to take place in various contexts -- journalistic, pop-cultural, academic, political, and legal: namely, the inversion of leveling the accusation of hate speech against those who identify Islamic speech as seditious hate speech.

If we persist in staying on the level of general principles, this inversion tends to retain traction. But if we insist on moving the discussion to actual facts demonstrating that Islamic speech is in fact hateful and seditious, and do not permit the widening out of the discussion to general principles (other than the pragmatic principle of preventing deadly sedition, on which virtually everyone agrees), then we can begin to readjust rationally to deal with the problem of Muslims. (Wilders seems to have been pursuing a double-track in this regard -- presenting the evidence to show that "radical Muslims" are seditious; while upholding general principles in order to protect his right to present that evidence.)

Of course, a complex inertia stands in the way: the PC MC veneration of Ethnic Minorities and excessive self-criticism of the West.

It's analogous to a man whose best friend since childhood seems to be betraying him terribly and in the process endangering the lives of others. His other friends try to tell him that this is happening, but he insists, "My best friend can't possibly be guilty of that," even when much evidence of it is presented to him.

Now, if this man is obtuse, or insane, or somehow in evil collusion with his friend -- then we have a ready explanation for his reluctance past the point of rationality. But the more likely explanation (particularly when we have encountered relatively good and intelligent individuals doing roughly the same thing) is that he is stuck in the mode of putting his loyalty and trust in his friend above the growing evidence that his friend doesn't deserve it. At some point, the evidence will reach a threshold where the man's obstinacy will break and he will condemn his friend. In the meanwhile, all our energy should be spent on hastening that process before the friend does too much damage.

Lawrence said...

Gerry T. Neal said... This is an important first step. The true victory for freedom will come when charges of incitement to hatred are no longer laid against people like Geert Wilders but against those who call for violent jihad ...

Uhmm... yeah...

How come jihad hate-speech isn't being prosecuted also?

Zenster said...

Lawrence: How come jihad hate-speech isn't being prosecuted also?

That is because it is regarded as "religiously protected" expression of one's faith. A useful but definitely not equivalent comparison would be that of the anti-homosexual passages in the Bible.

Rarely, if ever, do Christians carry out the Bible's recommended death penalty for homosexuality. However, there are many fundamentalist Christians who quote the Bible's passages about homosexuality being an abomination and so forth. They are rightfully protected by religiously protected speech laws.

Sadly, no one bothers to distinguish about how Islam, to this very day continues to impose the exact same death penalty against homosexuality along with open advocacy of genocide against the Jews and a host of other murderous threats which are in clear violation of traditional free speech laws.

This is a principal reason why Islam must be declared a political ideology so that such language can become actionable.

As an aside, by "traditional free speech laws", I mean to note currently accepted limitations on actual Free Speech. The primary example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. In fact, doing so is perfectly legal, but only if the theater is actually on fire. Another example is the making of death threats.

A personal friend of mine advocates unlimited Free Speech to the extent that you could even shout "fire!" in a crowded theater and not be charged with that, specifically in and of itself, as a crime.

However, any injuries or other claims (e.g., heart attack), arising from that act would justify arrest and prosecution. Much like making a death threat should mean nothing but attempting to actually carry it out suddenly gets you detained and charged. The previous speech episodes are then useful evidence, just as the shouting of "fire!" in the theater would be as well.

I used to argue against my friend's position but, with the increasing restrictions being placed upon Free Speech, my position is beginning to shift towards his idea of unlimited Free Speech. It can be argued that we would be far better off without any restrictions on Free Speech than even minor ones that pave the way for further proscriptions, just as we have now seen with so-called "hate speech" laws.

Remember, openly proclaiming sedition or advocating genocide might not be punishable but it would sure zoom you straight to the top of the FBI's Christmas list and with good cause.

I welcome feedback from others here at GoV concerning this concept.

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

There are specific legalities, which vary from country to country.

Beyond that, there are general principles that undergird these legalities, and from which one may extrapolate either new laws, or the amendment or abolishment of existing laws.

In addition, there is logic which anyone can perform, taking into account the elementary principle of self-defense of a society against those who seek to destabilize and/or destroy it through physical violence (for no society that is not suicidal willingly allows others to destabilize and/or destroy it without being physically forced to).

With all that on the table, then, we can consider the following simple examples:

A person who goes around saying "I believe in killing people named 'Frank'" is probably not going to be punished by any law of any free democratic Western country.

Even when that person starts going around saying, "I want to kill Frank Peterson of 1123 Sedition Lane, Apartment 23 in Baltimore, Maryland", he may still not be saying anything illegal (though law enforcement will begin to perk its ears up, as Zenster notes).

However, when that person organizes a group (or joins a group that advocates mass-murder and which has already murdered several times) with the explicit aim with specific plans to murder the aforementioned Frank Peterson, then its speech related to that aim would, I think, cross the line into being illegal.

Now, when we move beyond abstract hypothetical scenarios and consider an actual group, called "Islam", which has already tortured and mass-murdered countless people all over the world and has been stopped numerous times from trying to plot more of the same in the name not merely of thrill kills or murder for the sake of murder but specifically to overthrow governments -- all we the West have to do to make the speech of Islam illegal is make a few elementary connections based on concrete facts:

1) Islamic speech is directly related to terrorism-based sedition

2) Muslims are capable of connecting their Islamic speech to terrorism-based sedition ("jihadism"), willing to do it, and already have a track record of having done so innumerable times throughout history and in our time now -- and in fact only show signs of escalating that deadly seditious behavior.

3) The escalating number, geographical extent, severity, and effective randomness of potential terror attacks along with the difficulty of pinpointing jihadist actors in order to distinguish them from purportedly non-seditionist Muslims attains a sufficient quality and degree such that this becomes a problem that, in the interest of protecting our societies from jihadism, cannot be limited to waiting for actions after the fact of speech, but must outlaw the speech itself as directly related to deadly sedition.

Conclusion:

All the ingredients for the above argument are already present in Western democracies populated by relatively intelligent people (in and out of government, on all points of the political spectrum, Left, Right and Center) who want to protect their societies; and not a jot or tittle of any of our Western laws nor ideologies (neither liberal nor conservative or anything in-between) has to be changed in order to criminalize Islamic speech and take rational steps based on that to protect our societies from Muslims whom we will have already determined (once we shake ourselves awake from PC MC) are sedulously bent on translating that speech into seditious action.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

You wrote:

"I point to the fact that in pursuing their legal logic, the Elites in cases like these (whether Dutch, Austrian, etc.) are not substantially different from Eisenhower, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Rudy Giuliani, McCain, Mitt Romney, Edmund Burke and countless others (including minions of ordinary people who are not Elites) who cannot possibly be evil."

Are you suggesting that the elusive proponents of the "evil elitist" hypothesis actually think that McCain and Bush can't possibly be evil? In other words, that the "evil elitists" pushers that crowd your comments are judging from some neo-con perspective?

I for one have tried to convey the "do-gooder elitist" option as an alternative. That's where we differ.

But let me illustrate your point about Islam being the decisive factor in this show trial. Some people btw, maintain that this isn't a show trial, because if it were, a conviction would have been certain. I don't agree with that view.
So let's compare the show trial of Geert Wilders with another show trial in Holland, that of famous Dutch writer Gerard Reve, some time ago. I use this comparison to show that the only difference is as you point out, Islam. I'll keep this short: Reve was put on trial for insulting Christianity and was acquitted. The difference with the Wilders trial: Reve's acquittal was judged by the general public to have de-criminalized perceived insults to Christianity. It was a show-trial, that was aiming to "show" that Reve's insults were acceptable. Now today, in spite of Wilders' acquittal for similar charges, this trial is generally felt as an attempt at criminalizing those who are critical of Islam. Conclusion: these show trials where meant to "show" the public quite different things, i.e. Christianity can be attacked/insulted/villified and so on, while Islam, on the other hand, can not.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Sagunto,

"Reve's acquittal was judged by the general public to have de-criminalized perceived insults to Christianity."

How do you ascertain what the general public judged about that Reve case?

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

"How do you ascertain what the general public judged about that Reve case?"

Interesting question.
How - as a Dutchman - do you ascertain, for instance, that the general view among the Dutch public was that Holland should have been the 1974 World Champions at football, being the far superior team?
Answer: simply by being part of Dutch society.

Some things are debatable, but on some issues there's widespread unanimity among the general public.

But let me ask in return: how do you ascertain that the general public - in Holland for instance - is in tune with the PC/MC sentiments entertained by the political nomenclatura?

Take care,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Sagunto,

Given Dymphna's curious rule that seems to apply only to me, my reply to you is at this link. (Though I don't know what word limit she would enforce on me, it's safe to say that 324 words (the number of my reply to you linked above) is too much.)

Zenster said...

Hesperado, please do us all a favor and NOT try to fob yourself off as the aggrieved party after so thoroughly offending your hosts and their guests. Your conduct is unbecoming and puerile. It is rather apparent to me that post-length is not so much the issue as plain attitude.

That said, thank you for making an earnest attempt to tackle this, admittedly, thorny issue. Workable answers to this problem will point towards how to finally dismantle the PCMC superstructure and, eventually, Islam's protected status in the West.

Hesperado: However, when that person organizes a group (or joins a group that advocates mass-murder and which has already murdered several times) with the explicit aim with specific plans to murder the aforementioned Frank Peterson, then its speech related to that aim would, I think, cross the line into being illegal.

Let's play "word substitution" with your previous paragraph and see how it works out:

However, when that person organizes a group (or joins a group that advocates mass-murder and which has already murdered several times) with the explicit aim with specific plans to murder the aforementioned JEWS, then its speech related to that aim would, I think, cross the line into being illegal.

Yet, as we plainly see, Islam enjoys relative immunity from any penalty with respect to its genocidal doctrine.

Admittedly, "JEWS" is far less specific than “Frank Peterson of 1123 Sedition Lane, Apartment 23 in Baltimore, Maryland”; yet, it still more than qualifies as so-called "hate speech", if not an outright death threat against any and all Jews. So, why the immunity?

1) Islamic speech is directly related to terrorism-based sedition

Without any wish to defend such clearly reprehensible activities; Islam, nonetheless, continues to be shown deferential treatment ― both in the purported name of religiously protected "free speech" and ― at the hands of, not just law enforcement, but even the parties (e.g., Jews and Christians), who are its intended victims.

So long as this pertains, there is little hope of any change. Again, none of this is meant to distract from the importance of making this distinction and keeping it in mind at the ballot box.

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

3) … protecting our societies from jihadism, cannot be limited to waiting for actions after the fact of speech, but must outlaw the speech itself as directly related to deadly sedition.

How then do you propose to enact this direct curtailment of Islam’s ostensibly Free Speech? Agreed, that it is seditious in nature. So, perhaps, the better question ― and by far the more difficult one ― is; “How to make the authorities understand that Islam is inherently seditious in nature and congenitally disposed to the use of random mass slaughter (i.e., terrorism) in order to obtain its goals?”

… not a jot or tittle of any of our Western laws nor ideologies (neither liberal nor conservative or anything in-between) has to be changed in order to criminalize Islamic speech and take rational steps based on that to protect our societies from Muslims…

This is something I have maintained for years ― at least the part about existing law being wholly adequate to the task ― that we already have the legal firepower necessary to paralyze Islamic jihad. Thus do we see, time and again, that the real question resides in motivating the electorate and government which they put in place to pursue a course of simple self-preservation. Yet, this continues to be a monumental task.

What are the conditions that militate against this most basic awareness? Is it a new-found ideologically blind universalism in the Christian Church? Is it a weird divide-and-emasculate strategy of Liberal Jews seeking to cripple any possibility of further Western-based genocides; all the while remaining blind to their eternal enemy, Islam? Is it an indiscriminate “do-gooder” mentality ― predominately among Liberals but also found in Conservative circles ― that is obsessed with uplifting those who could not give a damn about joining the modern world, save to loot it?

Most likely, it is a combination of all of these acting in particularly perverse concert that inhibits our usual auto-immune response to invasion and colonization by Muslims. What are the most prominent and efficient tools for increasing public awareness of this? Obviously, the one we are using right now, the internet. is a key component. What others are there besides a painfully slow process of electing more individuals like Senator Allen West until a majority is placed in office?

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

Given Dymphna's curious rule that seems to apply only to me, I have linked my reply to you here.

As she has not set a word limit on my posts, it is safe to say that 405 words (the word count of my reply to you linked above) exceeds the unique limit on my replies, and thus on my reply to your far wordier two-part post of 742 words which, by the same curious rule, it is safe to say will remain permitted.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

The "facts" stated by you in your linked answer are a reflection of your political opinions, guided by the framework of your PC/MC thesis. Of those three assertions, I can only subscribe to the last one.

When the majority of people in several European countries vote "NO!" in a referendum about the EU constitution (a thoroughly PC/MC experiment), there's ample indication that the public isn't in tune with their "representatives". That they allegedly are, in spite of evidence to the contrary, is just part of your idiosyncratic defence of the current socio-political order in the West.

Take care,
Sag.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: Given Dymphna's curious rule that seems to apply only to me, I have linked my reply to you here.

You can stop with the wounded act anytime. Dymphna has rather politely explained to you what the real problem was. You are merely trying to pull a bait-and-switch with the issue. It's not working.

Permit me to say that you manage to alienate a lot of people, myself included, by always, always, ALWAYS taking exception to something, no matter how infinitesimal, rather than demonstrating a more useful broad agreement to begin with and then diverging.

You talk about the "inchoate" AIM even as you sow seeds of disharmony yourself.

Pot → Kettle → Black

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

Come on, let's be fair to Hesperado. He's not defending "the current socio-political order in the West", he's defending the following two theses:

(1) That the majority of Westerners are not stupid sheep or dupes being manipulated by a conspiracy of clever elites who manipulate them into compliance with PC MC, but rather well-meaning people who feel vaguely that the root ideology of PC MC is mostly a good thing, even if it is being carried to excess; and

(2) That many of the "elites" who hold positions of power and influence in the system are not evil, but feel the same way as the masses, and adhere to the same basic beliefs.

Now, let me be clear: I am not arguing in support of everything he says. In particular, I think he goes too far with #2 -- he downplays what I consider the likely proportion of corrupt, venal, and power-hungry cynics among those who rule us. They don't all have to be evil ideologues -- just a few of them, really, but employing a lot of amoral, greedy, and ambitious hucksters to do the rest of the dirty work.

In any case, be fair to him. What I outlined above is the case he is attempting to make.

Sagunto said...

Baron -

Thank you for your cogent summary of Hesp's PC/MC thesis. I think it's fair to say that I've spent a lot of time discussing this issue and even asking you for a special topic. I criticize his thesis because I think it is important to enhance its "ecological validity". To be clear: I agree in general.
I take issue where Hesperado tends to defend his thesis by suggesting that those who question some of his assertions either think of common Westerners as sheep or of politicians as conspiring evil-doers.

I hold the position that there's widespread discord among the public in Holland about the way our democracy is functioning, more in particular, the way our Bismarckian welfare state is expanding into territories that were considered off limits by earlier generations. Part of this intrusion is the political push for multiculturalism (= islamization).

The public in Holland is deeply suspicious about Islam, and it shows in the growing popularity of Wilder's party, and the fact, for instance, that the PVV was the winner in recent high school elections (90.000 subjects up to 18 years old). Let's not forget that there's also a deep distrust of politicians in general. A large part of the populace doesn't vote at all. So no, people are not sheep, and many politicians are ill informed do-gooders like I've stated (per Chesterton) on many occasions. But there's a mismatch between the lofty MC ideals of the upper echelons of society and the grim reality of social disintegration felt by the general public in our big cities due to state sponsored islamization.

There are questions to be asked as to why Wilders' party is not by far the biggest in the country. Those are the questions that matter, but Hesperado already has the answer: it is proof of his quess that PC/MC politicians are elected because the public is PC/MC in exactly the same way. I think he's got it wrong in that respect and I also have the impression that he thinks of this PC/MC congruence as a relatively small problem, only to reap big consequences in the case of Islam. I think that even without Islam it would be a big problem.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Baron.

To the probable relief of Dymphna, my 500-word reply was lost due to computer problems.

Sagunto,

"I think that even without Islam it would be a big problem."

It is indeed a big problem without Islam; but with Islam, less so.

Tea Party in the US: a million people mustered to congregate in Washington DC to demonstrate political activism -- against what? Islam? No. Against other conservative issues, apparently more important than Islam. These are politically INcorrect "conservatives" we're talking about.
If they can't put Islam on the front burner (or even on the platform at all),then obviously the hoi polloi are not concerned about Islam enough.
It's the same all over the West.

Until I see at least ten public demonstrations no less than one million each, in ten different cities in the West, demonstrating specifically and exclusively against Islam (and not against vague "immigration" or "the economy" or China or the Kitchen Sink) -- then I will be convinced that the majority of Ordinary People in the West are seriously against Islam.

And not one second earlier.

Sagunto said...

Baron -

On a further note - and I hope I'm not being too elaborate here - let me clarify my position.

There's a widespread yet barely mentioned belief that our monetary system is somehow not involved when we discuss socio-political matters. This artificial split may be illustrated by the term "social conservative", implying a welfare state "BigGovist" position in economic spheres. The inverse variant would be the "social liberal" who is conservative about public spending.

Perhaps this common habit of discussing social issues apart from economics has something to do with what I consider to be the elephant in the room here: the monetary system that disrupts the free market (and consequently our basic freedoms), and which underlies and reinforces our Western welfare states, feeding the PC/MC/WS social engineering industry. Again [@Hesperado], not evil, rather: too kind, and zealous at that.

When this blind spot is allowed to remain, then the starting point for discussions will always be the implicit acceptance of our current monetary system that gives rise to all kinds of well intended interventions by welfare state administrators. When things are thus discussed within the boudaries of the welfare state playing field, I can see why many would be inclined to take issue with "greed" among evil politicians, banks and businessmen, to account for society's woes, including multiculturalism. And I agree with Hesperado that this is misleading. But equally misleading i.m.o., is his assertion that those "elites" (for want of a better word) are, indeed, well-intended, but that this in essence is not really a bad thing, only when it leads us all to totally mislead ourselves about the evil and violent nature of Islam. He wants to believe that if it weren't for Islam to have become part of the equation, our welfare state system is basically a good thing. That led me to the statement you contested.

I hope I've done a better job now of making myself clear. The shortest way of doing so would have been to simply state that my faith in a political solution would be restored if Ron Paul would adopt your views on Islam. But that would perhaps incite people to digress and take issue with this particular congressman ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

I submit that with your particular take on the general PC/MC thesis, you need people to view Islam as the most important issue in politics. That would be the logical consequence of your main assertion, i.e. that the current system for all of its shortcomings is basically good, were it not for its blind spot pertaining to the existential threat of Islam.

Your statement about the many people in the US who congregated "to demonstrate political activism -- against [..] other conservative issues, apparently more important than Islam", basically reflects some of the main preoccupations among intellectuals (be it the threat of Islam to freedom, or free speech and so on; which are perfectly important issues no doubt), that are different from the main concerns of common Westerners.
You seem to think that for the general public the threat of Islam either must be more important than their prime concern - which is not "free speech" I'm sorry to say - but economic justice, or they don't care about islamization. Perhaps that's true for the current situation in the US, I don't know. In Holland, the mere fact that islamization is on its way to reach the top 3 of the political agenda among average tax payers and shake the public out of its age-old habit, is in itself proof of the great concern that many have about the danger of Islam, besides the still more important issue of economic justice.

Meanwhile, I'd like to thank you (and the Baron as well) for this interesting exchange.

Take care,
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

Perhaps this common habit of discussing social issues apart from economics has something to do with what I consider to be the elephant in the room here: the monetary system that disrupts the free market (and consequently our basic freedoms), and which underlies and reinforces our Western welfare states…

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. This is the core of the matter, and I’ll get back to it in a minute.

In my opinion, what Hesperado’s thesis fails to take into account is the varying levels of corruption among our elected officials and appointed administrators. This is what distinguishes their opinions from those of ordinary citizens.

Consider an average taxpayer who might be inclined to take a bribe, or cut a special deal for friends and relatives, or embezzle, or allocate himself a larger piece of some lucrative pie — when possessed by ordinary people, these characteristics don’t matter all that much to society at large, nor do they greatly affect the direction of political affairs in the country. But with public officials they certainly do, and the higher-placed the officials, the greater the impact of corruption.

There can be varying degrees of corruption:

Low level: The guy who will occasionally bend the rules a bit to award a contract selectively and repay a favor to an important campaign donor, or accept a diamond necklace for his wife from some foreign potentate with an interest in reduced tariffs.

Medium level: A party functionary who consistently grants special treatment and access to backdoor deals for cronies from his hometown, in return for cash and in-kind favors directed to himself and his associates.

High level: An elected official whose modus operandi is cynical and entirely directed towards the accumulation of more wealth and power. All transactions with him involve payoffs of some sort. No pay, no play.

Any American who follows national politics can think of at least several examples for each of these three levels. It’s hard to establish how widespread these behaviors are, but we do know that they exist, and are not rare. Not many national politicians can escape the necessity of engaging in at least one low-level corrupt transaction at some point in their careers.

As the “global warming” issue has amply demonstrated, there can be massively corrupt interests pushing an ideological fad. I don’t think the major components of PC MC are any exception: there is certainly a lot of money to be made in the “diversity training” industry, and therefore the motivation to suborn elected officials to establish such training programs in federal, state, and local government agencies.

[continued]

Baron Bodissey said...

[continuation]

For our purposes, the most obvious source of corrupt influence is the oil wealth of the despots in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Petrodollars have turned many a retired politician into a lobbyist for sharia finance, or an advocate of ecumenical outreach towards Islam. They thus can reach back through the corrupt networks associated with their former offices and influence policy decisions concerning Islam. This helps explain how the military and the government became so riddled with agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

There’s no doubt that some officials are well-meaning folks who simply believe most of the PC cant. But how many? And how large is their influence compared with that wielded by their thoroughly corrupt colleagues?

A wealthy and powerful evil person can take advantage of the general corruption to work his will through a network of corrupt officials and lobbyist. It doesn’t take a whole lot of evil persons; just a few, plus a lot of cynical and venal associates.

I wouldn’t underestimate the power of venality in all this. And venality is only deadly when too much money passes through the hands of the central government.

Which brings us back to Sagunto’s original point: the monetary system. Fiat money has allowed governments to accumulate incalculable wealth, and given them complete control over its outflow. This is what enabled the level of corruption required to try Geert Wilders or install Barack Hussein Obama in power.

The good news is that all of this will come to an end shortly. The major currencies are now being debased, and the fiat money system will soon collapse. The power that national politicians enjoy, whether they are corrupt or honest, will then vanish. The carriage will turn back into a pumpkin and the grooms will be mice once again. The party will be over.

After that — who knows?

Hesperado said...

Sagunto,

It's just a matter of priorities:

1) First you notice the house is on fire and you try to put out the fire;

2) Then, after you've taken care of 1 (if you think it's important) you hire an electrician re-do the electrical wiring of the house.

The West is healthy enough to have a mature productive discussion about economy after it's woken up to, and begun to deal with, the problem of Muslims. (That's generously taking for granted that your opinion about the economy is the Truth.)

Hesperado said...

Meanwhile, it seems I cannot, in this specific regard, be so generous with Baron and some others here (and I'd also put Auster in this Wing of the AIM); as for them, apparently, Islam is peripheral to the house on fire, which is a process entirely independent of the problem Islam, of which the latter is just one flagrant (but not necessary) symptom among many of the former which would have been devolving whether or not Islam had come along.

Sagunto said...

Baron -

When the party's over, turn on the light.. ;-)

Hesperado -

I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy here. When I point to our monetary system, I'm talking fundamentals. Therefore, instead of likening it to some faulty wiring, I think the very foundation of your imaginary house would be more appropriate.
While I acknowledge the roof is burning, my concerns are also with the crumbling foundations underneath the house.

A better comparison still would be to say that there's not even a roof to begin with. Monetary interventionists thought they knew better than the market. I'll keep this short while leaving the housing analogy intact.
By the artificial manipulation of interest rates, the builders were made to believe they had more resources (say, more bricks) than they actually had. When they came to the roof, the malinvestment became clear and the house couldn't be finished, resources wasted. Your roof is the sky. That's what you get when welfare state monetary policies run supreme.

In this reconstructed new analogy, we need to find another place for Muslims (since there's no roof to set ablaze), for I do believe that Islam, and Muslims as its agents, indeed is our primal and existential foe. But instead of doing al the work, I'll leave that final touch to your imagination ;-)

Thnx for the exchange (both of you),
Sag.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: There’s no doubt that some officials are well-meaning folks who simply believe most of the PC cant. But how many? And how large is their influence compared with that wielded by their thoroughly corrupt colleagues?

Excellent point, Baron. I have long maintained that corruption plays a central role in much of this world's problems. That Islam remains a thoroughly corrupt entity goes without saying. (Then why say it?)

Your premise avoids the unlikely overarching conspiracy theory motif yet, does establish a second tier conspiracy with respect to those corrupt officials who act in concert to perpetuate corruption and all of its nefarious practices (e.g., lobbying).

Sagunto's pointing in the direction of that economic "elephant" is a good thing for this discussion. More than anything, it would e of immense help to redefine colluding negative elements (e.g., corrupt officials, corrupting Saudi money, etc.), so as to redirect the energies of conspiracy theorists into more productive channels.

There is a conspiracy, but it is only that of criminals who all have a vested interest in actively discouraging effective enforcement. All of the emphatic misdirection about "hate crimes" and other "social justice" issues is solid testimony to how very badly these corrupt entities wish for us to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".

Egghead said...

On some recent post, admittedly perhaps in a different context, Zenster mentioned that Islamic violence was random.

Well, yes and no.

A million man march against Islam would be difficult to organize because people are legitimately afraid that violent Muslims would target them at that march and afterward.

Note that when Muslims create havoc in public demonstrations in England, the Muslims cover their faces to avoid recognition. And, young aggressive criminal Muslims are unafraid of older passive disarmed indigenous Englishmen causing bodily harm - especially when the English police actively protect Muslims.

If masked white people in the United States demonstrated against Islam, the PC MC media would evoke images of the racist masked KKK, and the dare-I-say-it PC MC population would find that association so unacceptable as to decline to march - and decline to support marchers.

I think that it would be useful to compare a burqa to a KKK costume - and put that association in the general consciousness. In other words, Muslims = The New KKK - against non-Muslims.

Back to Zenster's comment about randomness. Muslim violence is actually highly targeted against non-Muslims who challenge Islam.

Indeed, it is the identity of the Muslim perpetrator that is random - when all Muslims have doctrinal authority to go jihadi at any time against any non-Muslim anywhere.

Zenster said...

Egghead: Back to Zenster's comment about randomness. Muslim violence is actually highly targeted against non-Muslims who challenge Islam.

Which may as well be random due to the fact that all non-Muslims effectively "challenge Islam". Without wishing to be too insouciant, I am obliged to inquire; "And your point is?"

Far more salient is the last several posts. Egghead, I know that you are fond of the conspiracy aspect regarding Islamization. Would you please take a moment and consider what I have just sought to isolate as a more likely "conspiracy" of simple social vandals via their own network of corruption as compared to some truly nefarious scheme orchestrated by this world's political and corporate elite.

As is so often the case Occam's razor definitely slices and dices in favor of systematized corruption instead of any heavily schematized plan for transnational world government. Not that such a thing doesn't exist, it's just that they don't have anywhere near the recruiting power which you assign to them.

Egghead said...

Zenster: "Without wishing to be too insouciant, I am obliged to inquire; 'And your point is?'"

Well, since you asked.... :)

Zenster, I understand you point, and I believe that common garden variety corruption is definitely in play.

However, to me, the vastly larger threat is the now open operation of multiple simultaneous serious conspiracies against the continued existence of the United States.

The oldest and most effective conspiracy is the New World Order or transnational world government via the United Nations and European Union.

The second oldest conspiracy is the Communist Party of Russia via the Democratic Party.

The third oldest conspiracy is La Raza via mass Hispanic immigration.

The fourth oldest conspiracy is Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood, IOC, and United Nations.

The fifth and newest conspiracy is the People's Republic of China via economic sabotage - and now planned U.S. military bases.

Of course, I prefer to call each conspiracy to be a concerted plan commenced by self-interested parties noticing and capitalizing upon weakness, confusion, and corruption among our politicians and populace.

By the way, my word verification here is gread (sounds like greed).

Zenster said...

Egghead: Zenster, I understand your point, and I believe that common garden variety corruption is definitely in play.

Thank you, Egghead. I have sent the Baron a very brief article consisting almost entirely of maps which will show the correlation between corruption, war, poverty and Islam. Islam being one of the largest and most corrupt entities of all.

Egghead said...

Zenster: "Which may as well be random due to the fact that all non-Muslims effectively 'challenge Islam.'"

To be clear:

Yes, as we all know, the mere existence of any non-Muslims challenges Islam, and thus all non-Muslims are fair targets for random (really devout) jihadis committing random acts of terror.

However, the more that each individual non-Muslim sector (law, police, media, schools, churches, military, etc.) or each non-Muslim individual (Geert Wilders, Ann Barnhardt, etc.) openly challenges Islam, then the more Muslim terror attacks are concerted terror acts committed by random (really devout) jihadis against those openly challenging sectors and individuals.

Thus, while every non-Muslim bears a random risk of terror attacks, every non-Muslim who openly challenges Islam bears an infinitely increased and certain (versus random) incidence of terror attacks.