When Winston Churchill wrote his account of World War II, he titled it Triumph and Tragedy.
Tragedy? The Allies had won a complete, absolute victory. The cost in lives was horrifying, of course, but the aim had been achieved: unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. But Churchill had more geopolitical savvy than his allies. He knew that, by the decisions forced on him -- principally by the United States -- much of Europe that could have been saved was now in the hands of, or vulnerable to, the Soviet Union.
"The Russian domination of Central Europe was a disaster not only for the peoples of that portion of the continent but for all of the continent, for a long time to come ... ," John Lukacs wrote in 1945: Year Zero. "It meant the end of a certain kind of civilization, in the defense of which Churchill had gone to war. It meant that the kind of Europe which Hitler had attempted to replace by force could not be restored."
Although Soviet Communism was eventually defeated, after more than 40 years of Cold War, the kind of civilization Churchill wanted to save never revived. Not even in his own Britain, which is now socially and to some extent politically Marxist. Nor in the European Union.
Geert Wilders, a brave man, is on trial in Amsterdam for warning against the pending Muslim conquest of Europe. I won't summarize the details here -- you can read about them at Gates of Vienna. I'll just try to say a few words about the big picture.
Old Europe died in 1945. A lot of it was physically destroyed, but buildings can be rebuilt, and in fact some have been re-created exactly as they were before the bombs struck. But Europe's sense of itself, its individual nationhoods, its links with a past going back to the Roman empire, are gone.
What passes for Europe now is generic; its values include secularism, scientific materialism, making money, and entertainment. Its so-called leaders agree that its indigenous citizens are cursed with a terrible past best left behind as quickly as possible. The quickest way is population replacement. And the Third World, especially the Muslim portion, is happy to abandon their wretched homelands for Europe's pleasure garden. But not to abandon the tribalism and belief systems that caused the morbidity of their states of origin.
The New Europe is to be, officially, anything and nothing. Unofficially, in reality, its future is Islam unless the tide is turned soon.
Geert Wilders, like a few others such as the late Oriana Fallaci, has protested this fate. Straight out. Unapologetically. Had he been more evasive, more guarded, more "academic," he might have merely been scorned by the leftist EU Establishment. But like another European of many centuries ago, he has said in effect, Here I stand. I can do no other.
Arguing about whether the trial procedures are "fair" is to miss the deeper issue. Wilders should not be on trial. Not even if you welcome a Muslim Europe. He represents the feelings of many Europeans, or he would not be prominent enough for the EU bureaucrats to feel threatened by him. But if Wilders's views represented no one but himself, he should not have the state arrayed against him.
In the kind of civilization Churchill believed he was leading his nation at war to preserve, Wilders would have the right to profess his ideas anywhere, from any park where a few people gathered to listen or in front of TV cameras transmitting his words into every home that cared to tune in.
The trial, by focusing attention on the Eurocrats' criminalization of free speech, might begin a great resuscitation of the lands that were the matrix of the Western world. We can hope. It hardly needs to be said that the media, both in the United States and Europe, will give scant and biased coverage to this new Inquisition.
But even in Europe, individuals still put themselves on the line for the right to express Forbidden Thoughts. At Gates of Vienna there is a video of Wilders's supporters gathering outside the court house in what must have been a bone-chilling Amsterdam dawn with a wet sea wind.
Tragedy? The Allies had won a complete, absolute victory. The cost in lives was horrifying, of course, but the aim had been achieved: unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. But Churchill had more geopolitical savvy than his allies. He knew that, by the decisions forced on him -- principally by the United States -- much of Europe that could have been saved was now in the hands of, or vulnerable to, the Soviet Union.
"The Russian domination of Central Europe was a disaster not only for the peoples of that portion of the continent but for all of the continent, for a long time to come ... ," John Lukacs wrote in 1945: Year Zero. "It meant the end of a certain kind of civilization, in the defense of which Churchill had gone to war. It meant that the kind of Europe which Hitler had attempted to replace by force could not be restored."
Although Soviet Communism was eventually defeated, after more than 40 years of Cold War, the kind of civilization Churchill wanted to save never revived. Not even in his own Britain, which is now socially and to some extent politically Marxist. Nor in the European Union.
Geert Wilders, a brave man, is on trial in Amsterdam for warning against the pending Muslim conquest of Europe. I won't summarize the details here -- you can read about them at Gates of Vienna. I'll just try to say a few words about the big picture.
Old Europe died in 1945. A lot of it was physically destroyed, but buildings can be rebuilt, and in fact some have been re-created exactly as they were before the bombs struck. But Europe's sense of itself, its individual nationhoods, its links with a past going back to the Roman empire, are gone.
What passes for Europe now is generic; its values include secularism, scientific materialism, making money, and entertainment. Its so-called leaders agree that its indigenous citizens are cursed with a terrible past best left behind as quickly as possible. The quickest way is population replacement. And the Third World, especially the Muslim portion, is happy to abandon their wretched homelands for Europe's pleasure garden. But not to abandon the tribalism and belief systems that caused the morbidity of their states of origin.
The New Europe is to be, officially, anything and nothing. Unofficially, in reality, its future is Islam unless the tide is turned soon.
Geert Wilders, like a few others such as the late Oriana Fallaci, has protested this fate. Straight out. Unapologetically. Had he been more evasive, more guarded, more "academic," he might have merely been scorned by the leftist EU Establishment. But like another European of many centuries ago, he has said in effect, Here I stand. I can do no other.
Arguing about whether the trial procedures are "fair" is to miss the deeper issue. Wilders should not be on trial. Not even if you welcome a Muslim Europe. He represents the feelings of many Europeans, or he would not be prominent enough for the EU bureaucrats to feel threatened by him. But if Wilders's views represented no one but himself, he should not have the state arrayed against him.
In the kind of civilization Churchill believed he was leading his nation at war to preserve, Wilders would have the right to profess his ideas anywhere, from any park where a few people gathered to listen or in front of TV cameras transmitting his words into every home that cared to tune in.
The trial, by focusing attention on the Eurocrats' criminalization of free speech, might begin a great resuscitation of the lands that were the matrix of the Western world. We can hope. It hardly needs to be said that the media, both in the United States and Europe, will give scant and biased coverage to this new Inquisition.
But even in Europe, individuals still put themselves on the line for the right to express Forbidden Thoughts. At Gates of Vienna there is a video of Wilders's supporters gathering outside the court house in what must have been a bone-chilling Amsterdam dawn with a wet sea wind.
This reprehensible trial will turn out to be Wilders's triumph. Or part of the West's tragedy.
4 comments:
This is a hopeless prosecution of Wilders.
If Wilders is convicted of defaming the Koran, he wins, as the Koran itself is evidence that the conviction is wrong.
If Wilders is declared innocent or the prosecution charged for bringing a malicious and hopeless charge, Wilders claim that the Koran is akin, nay worse then Mein Kamph, stands.
From the beginning, from the very moment that a decision was made to bring Wilders to court, the government/prosecution had already lost. Round 1 to Wilders by a large majority.
The court's decision to remove 15 expert witnesses, the court and prosecution lost -shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. Standing count to court/prosecution/government - Round 2 to Wilders
If Wilders is convicted, as I've stated, he actually wins. But NOW he can appeal the conviction on several grounds, one being that his expert witnesses were disallowed. More trouble for the government, as this drags the trial and adverse publicity to even greater heights. It also makes PVV more popular. There is no end to this.
I sometimes get the suspicion that the Dutch government is doing this deliberately, for they must know by now, that the future of the Netherlands is bleak.
Its win, win , win all the way for Wilders, even if he is convicted. The more he is convicted the greater and more politically powerful he becomes.
I'm sure there is consternation in government at the way this trial is likely to proceed, if that is, they already knew beforehand, and planned it that way.
What is most certain is that the Islamic umma in the Netherlands, as well Europe, must be deeply concerned about this trial. They know, and are sensitive to such shifts of the wind, what this actually portends. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, that they are beseeching the government to stop the trial on some grounds - any grounds, for the continuation of this trial is a threat to Islam and the umma in Europe. If the government hasn't planned this all along, and actually is more concerned about the welfare of the umma then the Netherlands, then it is in a deep fix. If they abort, and the news comes out that it was done because of applications from the umma, then they are both sunk. If they don't, they are sunk anyway.
DP111,
Good observations.
Probably the Dutch government began the trial proceedings as a typical bit of fawning over their Muslim population. Item #12,683 designed to send the message, "See, we love you! No need to listen to those few 'extremists' who've hijacked the religion of peace!"
Perhaps they even expected Wilders to back down and apologize. It's been so long since they encountered a politician of principle that they forgot such a thing exists.
Anyway, it looks like a few of the reigning multi-culti bullies are beginning to make the kind of calculations you have and realized they are punching the tar baby.
One report suggests they have shifted tactics and have suspended the trial for months.
If that is true, the strategy is probably to wear down Wilders and his followers, keep him in legal limbo and out of the headlines, and force him to keep raising money to cover the costs of his defense.
Rick
Take a look at this
Dutch Fun: "Spoofing" Assassination
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/...
This has to be taken in the light of the murder of Pym Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh.
I do not know what to make of this. Is this a deliberate plan to intimidate Wilders or a plan to provoke the Dutch?
Muslims hate us in multiple ways. They are confident in victory. They want to see Wilders go to prison just like they cheered 9/11. Their parades and demonstrations show their hate openly. The few in government office often show it as well.
Their liberal allies also live in a milieu of hating whites and of extreme confidence. Both groups are supremacists. Both groups hate us when we speak the truth about them. Both groups have a physical need to use physical violence when we speak the truth. The Cartoonists and the Wilders trial both show that.
They will do anything to suppress our speaking the truth about them including murder. They go into paroxyms when we speak the truth. They have organizations like CAIR that are funded to do just that.
Post a Comment