Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A hero's welcome to the U.K.: handcuffs?


Geert Wilders has announced that he intends to fly to London tomorrow, despite a Home Office warning that he — a member of the Dutch parliament — will not be admitted.

In the world of diplomacy, such an act would be nearly equivalent to a declaration of war. But of course Britain's rulers — no milder word fits the case: U.K. citizens are virtually powerless against their own government and the E.U. — are at war against Wilders.

They have sided with the jihad preachers in their own population, against a brave man who refuses to accept the ever-advancing state of Eurabia. As Lawrence Auster writes, "If the exclusion from Britain of an elected member of the Dutch Parliament stands, that would be a definite sign that Britain has passed the threshold from a left-liberal regime to one that is simply and frankly leftist and anti-Western."


How are the British papers that matter playing the Wilders issue, which is almost impossible to exaggerate as symbolic of the Establishment's fawning over Muslims?

As of this writing, the supposedly conservative Telegraph has nothing about it on the home page, although it has room for a link to an article headlined "India makes cola from cow urine." Neither does the left-wing Guardian, although you can learn there about "Valentine's dates with a difference: Forget candlelit dinners. This year, try a scratch-and-sniff cinema or formaldehyde dodos."


The new tabloid, comic-book version of the once-respectable Times reports, "A far-right Dutch politician will attempt to defy a government ban on his entering the UK tomorrow, amid a diplomatic row over his right to visit." (Shouldn't that be "far-right to visit"? Someone who makes a film quoting the Koran and is intemperate enough to suggest that its hateful verses actually mean what they say can't be called "far-right" often enough.) The Times also describes Wilders as "an outspoken anti-Islamist."
The Home Office’s decision yesterday to refuse Mr Wilders entry on account of his extreme views provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Secretary to call David Miliband to protest at the decision.
So, we are to take it that in the Times writer's mind, being an outspoken anti-Islamist constitutes having "extreme views."

Not only are the British rulers cowardly in bowing to pressure from the the most intolerant among the Muslims they have so determinedly recruited for their country, but they have been handily outfoxed.


By accepting the dare, Wilders has already won. If the British government backs down, it will be a victory for free speech and for Britons who aren't ready to accept dhimmitude. If they actually are foolish enough to arrest him, it will be a
cause célèbre generating far more publicity and sympathy for Wilders's cause than if they'd just let him in without a fuss — and, to boot, it will show the world how far the appeasement mentality has taken hold in Whitehall.



David said...

In late-1930s Britain, appeasement wasn't just about placing unwise faith in a also had domestic implications. Winston Churchill spoke of the “unendurable..sense of our country falling into the power, into the orbit and influence of Nazi Germany, and of our existence becoming dependent upon their good will or pleasure…In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands” which “may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty.” A “policy of submission” would entail “restrictions” upon freedom of speech and the press. “Indeed, I hear it said sometimes now that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians.” (excerpt is from The Last Lion: Alone, by William Manchester.)

Churchill’s concern was not just a theoretical one. Following the German takeover of Czechoslovakia, photographs were available showing the plight of Czech Jews, dispossessed by the Nazis and wandering the roads of eastern Europe. Dawson, editor of The Times, refused to run any of them: it wouldn’t help the victims, he told his staff, and if they were published, Hitler would be offended. (same source as above.)

When a German diplomat named Ewald von Kleist came to Britain, at great personal risk, to warn the government about Hitler's true intentions, he was treated with contempt. Neville Chamberlain: "There are certainly a great many arguments which might be brought to bear against his allegations. We have recently heard other voices from Germany claiming that Hitler's warlike intentions are to be taken seriously and, consequently, this suggests that we should respond to them with gestures of conciliation." The British ambassador to Germany, Henderson, urged the government to ignore any warnings issued by von Kleist and his associates. "Their information," he asserted, "is one-sided, partisan, and intended soley as propaganda against Hitler."

Rick Darby said...

We know now that Wilders was refused admission the U.K., though not arrested. Wilders made his point, or rather the British authorities cooperated in making it for him. The incident has not gone unnoticed — even the left-wing media can't resist a dramatic story, however they try to slant it.


It is simply uncanny how often events in contemporary Britain seem to be a movie remake of the appeasement years, 1933–1938. Appeasement (Part I) is at least understandable: memories of the carnage and "missing generation" of the Great War were still fresh in people's minds, sons and husbands had disappeared in the mud of the trenches, and you can understand the urge to wishful thinking concerning Hitler.

But how to explain Appeasement, the remake? There are many factors: the belief in Marxist circles that they could use Muslim immigration to destroy conservative, middle-class Britain; unwillingness to acknowledge having made a mistake by Islamizing the country; and, once again, that wishful thinking that is so great a factor in human behavior.