Geert Wilders: ‘The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe’

by 1389 on February 8, 2011

in censorship, Europe, Gates of Vienna (colleagues), Geert Wilders, Islam, litigation jihad, Netherlands

Subtitled Video of Geert Wilders’ Speech

Originally posted on Gates of Vienna. Reprinted with permission.

Below is a subtitled video of the speech given in court yesterday by Geert Wilders.

Note: The subtitles used in this video are not based on the same translation that we posted here, so the text is slightly different:

Hat tip: Thrasymachus.


The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe

Originally posted on Gates of Vienna. Reprinted with permission.

Geert Wilders trial, part 2

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders on the opening day of his new trial on “hate speech” charges in Amsterdam. Many thanks to Vlaamse Leeuwin for the translation:

The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us for fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe — a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer, and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.


{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }

1 DvDH February 18, 2011 at 8:45 am

The legal processes are on trial as much as the persons charged under it, when it comes to what is often cited as “freedom of speech”.

In the end, the cases come down to freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred and when it crosses the line to illegality. Freedom of speech is important, if not sacred to us in the west (and should be for the rest of the world), but so is the rights to defend life and liberty to all. Are neo-nazis, holocaust deniers and those mongrels such as Ahmadinejad free and just to make their horrible calls to terror or are we hypocrits to condemn it, outlaw it for others but not for ourselves?

You may not like Muslims and Islam and you may believe (wrongly) in Eurabia and that all Muslims seek Sharia and a global Caliphate (again wrongly) but in the end if you are a hypocrit then you must give them the freedoms that you seek, or you must condemn those that cross the line among yourselves as well as from those you target.

Like the process against Geert Wilders, the trial is not only about the differences between freedom of speech and what consitutes illegal incitement to hatred, but it should not be forgotten that it is also a trial about Wilders, hatred and crossing that line of double-standards. Wilders recently condemned a cartoon that dipicted him as a Nazi but yet defended a more famous one that dipicted the Muslim Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.

His trial is important, not just on these two issues, but the ability of our courty system here in The Netherlands to be able to judge according to the law and the law alone. That is at the moment in doubt, not because of the weakness of the court system but the show-manship around it. As one senior Rabbi from Amsterdam said, “if Wilders had targetted Judaism as he has Islam he would already be in prison” – giving a very honest and clear point of view that the process is very much on trial, but let us not forget, so is Wilders.

Europe suffered at the hands of collective hate for centuries, with Jews and other minorities suffering enormously and regularly. Each targetted by under the banner of nationalism and basic logic being surplanted by allowing the rumor-mill and exagerations (or context-abuse) to take hold to allow whatever agenda was pushed. This has not changed and the power of the internet being itself becoming the tool and the under the guise of freedom of speech. It has become the home for freedom to lie, freedom to distort and freedom to hate. The Eurabia myth (that somehow the population growth of Muslims will make it a majority by 2050) has proven to be impossible, that the Muslim world is after a global Caliphate (when only terrorists and radicals based in Europe asks for it and the 56 Muslim countries show no support or interest). That Islam is the cause for poverty in Muslim countries but somehow the poverty in the other developing countries that are not Muslim are somehow for “other reasons”. That chopping-up, cutting and pasting portions of the Muslim Koran is acceptable and intpreting only what radicals say and not the other and more silent 90 per cent is acceptable and of course freedom of speech.

DvDH
A proud Dutch national with a hatred for hypocrisy

2 Hesperado February 19, 2011 at 4:03 pm

DvDH’s post is typical of the mind deformed by PC MC (if not frank Leftism) — a complex mush of claims, factoids, outlandish assertions, all mixed up with plausible-sounding bromides and appeals to various cliches. Every time I encounter a specimen, I am overcome with a wave of weariness, tedium and annoyance. It’s hard to tell whether such people do this on purpose, in order to inject obfuscation as a tactic, or whether their minds are simply that disordered.

Anyway, let’s palpate some of that mass of diseased tissue otherwise known as the comment of DvDH:

One can’t help laughing at how soon he contradicts himself and ties himself up in paradox:

“Freedom of speech is important, if not sacred to us in the west (and should be for the rest of the world), but so is the rights to defend life and liberty to all. Are neo-nazis, holocaust deniers and those mongrels such as Ahmadinejad free and just to make their horrible calls to terror or are we hypocrits to condemn it, outlaw it for others but not for ourselves?”

Notice first that he arrogates the right “to defend life and liberty” above even the right to free speech — and specifically wants to extend that higher right “to all”.

Then, in the same breath, he wants to deny that right to certain classes of people. Of course, he’s right about “neo-nazis, holocaust deniers and those mongrels such as Ahmadinejad” — but we cannot be sure he would apply that first epithet (“neo-nazis”) with fairness. Reading the rest of his tangled skein of an attempt at an argument, one would not be faulted for predicting he would affix that label on anyone who dares to criticize (let alone condemn) Islam and the innumerable Muslims who believe in Islam’s pernicious and anti-liberal beliefs.

Let’s examine the next glob from the pen of DvDH

“You may not like Muslims and Islam and you may believe (wrongly) in Eurabia and that all Muslims seek Sharia and a global Caliphate (again wrongly) but in the end if you are a hypocrit then you must give them the freedoms that you seek, or you must condemn those that cross the line among yourselves as well as from those you target.”

Here, he is claiming that we must give Muslims our Western freedoms, or we must condemn also those “among ourselves” who “cross the line”. We’re perfectly willing to condemn anyone, including those among ourselves, who say and do the outrageously hateful things Muslims are saying and doing all over the world. The instant that any group of people — be they white rednecks, Jews, Catholics, Eskimos, Buddhists, whatever — start saying and doing what Muslims are saying and doing all over the world, I will be the first to condemn them too, and then to restrict their rights to life and liberty (as DvDH would do to the classes of people he doesn’t like) . But they aren’t. So I see no need to.

Another part of the mess of DvDH’s comment involves unfair equation:

“Wilders recently condemned a cartoon that dipicted him as a Nazi but yet defended a more famous one that dipicted the Muslim Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.”

Wilders did not condemn that cartoon depicting him as a Nazi in terms of wanting to outlaw the cartoonist, or in terms of wanting to kill him and threaten death — as Muslims all over the world have done to the Mohammed cartoonists. All Wilders did was condemn the cartoon as egregiously unfair — and surely every individual in a sane society has the right to condemn their description as a Nazi, does he not?

“As one senior Rabbi from Amsterdam said, “if Wilders had targetted Judaism as he has Islam he would already be in prison” – giving a very honest and clear point of view that the process is very much on trial, but let us not forget, so is Wilders.”

Whether or not the “senior Rabbi” is correct about the difference in treatment had Wilders been focusing on Judaism instead of Islam (and somehow I think the Rabbi is exaggerating), this is a red herring fallacy. The point is whether Wilders is being accurate in his description of the problem of Islam; bringing in a hypothetical about Judaism is irrelevant to that point. Secondly, the accurate things Wilders is saying about Islam would be inaccurate were he to say them about Judaism — and about any other religion on earth, since only Islam is guilty of the faults Wilders is pointing out (most often using Islamic texts and the words of Muslim clerics and scholars themselves in doing so).

“Europe suffered at the hands of collective hate for centuries, with Jews and other minorities suffering enormously and regularly. Each targetted by under the banner of nationalism and basic logic being surplanted by allowing the rumor-mill and exagerations (or context-abuse)…”

Again, a red herring fallacy. Just because abuses were done in the past, and just because abuses can be done wherever the criticism/condemnation of a culture is raised, does not mean that in this instance, Wilders is doing it. To persuade us of this claim, DvDH would have to propose an actual argument, based solidly in the words of Wilders, and show that Wilders is using rhetoric where “basic logic [is] being surplanted [sic] by allowing the rumor-mill and exagerations (or context-abuse)…” in terms of his claims about Islam.

“The Eurabia myth (that somehow the population growth of Muslims will make it a majority by 2050) has proven to be impossible…”

First of all, the Eurabia term is not centrally about whether Muslims will be physically demographically a majority in Europe at some set date. It is about the nexus between certain influential and dominant European political and business leaders forging detailed and copious and influential alliances with the Muslim world, thereby facilitating the deep infiltration of Islamic interests in Europe. I personally do not think most of these Europeans have been doing this knowingly, as though they want to destroy Europe: it is, rather, just a reflection of the disease of PC MC and/or Leftism among them, whereby they cannot see the pernicious anti-liberal danger of increased Islamic influence in the West. As part of this general phenomenon, mass immigration has been an important factor, and serves to embolden Muslims in their sense that they are finally seeing a glimpse of their perennial dream to conquer “Rome” (i.e., the West). Let us not forget the words of the Algerian Muslim leader Boumedienne who in a speech at the United Nations in 1974, boasted:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

“…that the Muslim world is after a global Caliphate (when only terrorists and radicals based in Europe asks for it and the 56 Muslim countries show no support or interest).”

I’d like to see evidence of these two claims he makes.

As for his final sentence:

“That chopping-up, cutting and pasting portions of the Muslim Koran is acceptable and intpreting only what radicals say and not the other and more silent 90 per cent is acceptable and of course freedom of speech.”

It reflects that curious condition of PC MC — the inability to connect the dots, even when the dots are amassing as mountains of data all over the world.

3 DvDH February 21, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Hesperado does a great deal of talking but simply falls down onto the same claims against my post – just words and not much substance. In the end neither disproving nor giving much.

For a start the assumption that I am leftist falls down, I am centre-right and politically active on the conservative side. So much for assuming that one who disagrees with Wilders must be from the left (but then 80 per cent of us Dutch cannot all be left….

Apart from my language skills (I am better in French than English), I stick by what I have said regardless of the attempts to paint/confuse the crux of what I have said which is clear enough.

“Freedom of speech is important, if not sacred to us in the west (and should be for the rest of the world)…….”
One must wonder if Hesperado agrees or disagrees with freedom as he agrees with me but then in the same breadth considers it “laughable”. Thus we can assume that in reality he had actually nothing to say. Somewhere in there there is also the assumption that by criticizing Wilders’ inablity to actually distinguish between actual freedoms that somehow I am not also condemning “Islamists” who dislike freedoms (as apposed to very wide and contextually wrong “Islam”).

“We’re perfectly willing to condemn anyone, including those among ourselves, who say and do the outrageously hateful things Muslims are saying and doing all over the world”.
Actually no, what you are doing is in fact mimicking those unaccaptable standards and in the hypocritical way of calling it in the name of protecting those very values. Declaring the abuse of a minority onto a whole community and collective punishment. Nazism claimed the same thing, that liberty and freedom from various perceived negatives and a ficticious abuse. The tyranny of many dictators and oppresive regimes was based on the arguments of protecting the people from what it usually came down to, a minority. That is what the corruption of nationalism usually comes to.
“ All Wilders did was condemn the cartoon as egregiously unfair — and surely every individual in a sane society has the right to condemn their description as a Nazi, does he not?”
We can assume (obviously incorrectly) that he believes thus that Wilders will accept the right of any sane society to condemn the discription of the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist…….
“ The point is whether Wilders is being accurate in his description of the problem of Islam; bringing in a hypothetical about Judaism is irrelevant to that point. “………..” (most often using Islamic texts and the words of Muslim clerics and scholars themselves in doing so).”
Again incorrect and a vane attempt to deflect. The point is not Wilders’ assumptions of the guilt on an entire faith (which is ludicrous and absurd) but the case in court itself which comes down between what constitutes actual “Freedom of Speech” and what is “Incitement to Hatred”. If there is any “red herring” it is the defence’s case that it is about Islam at all, it is about targetting people’s faith. As for the words of Muslim clerics and scholars – or texts – that is what ‘cut and paste” is and context. Anyone can do it and it fails miserably each time. We can find enough evangalists or rabbis declaring horrible things and we can base it on sections of religious texts.

“To persuade us of this claim, DvDH would have to propose an actual argument, based solidly in the words of Wilders, and show that Wilders is using rhetoric where “basic logic [is] being surplanted [sic] by allowing the rumor-mill and exagerations (or context-abuse)…” in terms of his claims about Islam. “
Somehow I think this blog will not allow pages of texts. To find them is easy enough though, Fitna is full of it. Most of the actualy texts of war, orders to kill (them all) etc, are cut and pastes seen on many websites, carefully chosen avoiding often the paragraphs before and after that show the actual context it was written. As for the rumor-mill and exagerations, just read his garbage, by saying it the rumors start and his “immigration will overtake us” in his last statement is a perfect example of an exageration.
“It is about the nexus between certain influential and dominant European political and business leaders forging detailed and copious and influential alliances with the Muslim world, thereby facilitating the deep infiltration of Islamic interests in Europe. “
Most people who use the phrase Eurabia are only aware of the population-farce, and a farce it certainly is and disproven to the point that it is now an academic joke. Second generation migrants follow national trends and in some cases, lower rates – such as Turks in Germany at present.
As for the above garbage, it fails on the concept of the simple question, “what is an Islamic interests in Europe?”. There is an assumption of a singular entity within Islam and the various communities that make it up, and that assumption is the great excuse that drives bigotry amongst pretend-nationalists.
Nations must forge alliances with other nations, to not do so simply fails one’s national interests and isolationism is economic ruin in the modern world. Dealing with Muslim nations is a reality as there are 56 of them and they make up a quarter of humanity. Like the gargbage of a caliphate, all 56 nations have their own political interest and they do not share some singular Islamic goal. Apart from the various schisms and other theological differences between various Islamic communities, there is their own nationalism, schools of jurispudence, politics and even language, cultural and ethnic barriers to overcome – and somehow we are to believe here that they are all united in some secret “deep infiltration of Islamic interests in Europe”. That is laughable to the maximum.
Hesperado wants to see “evidence” of the following claims “…that the Muslim world is after a global Caliphate (when only terrorists and radicals based in Europe asks for it and the 56 Muslim countries show no support or interest).”
The anti-Islam movement often cites the claim that there is a goal of a world-wide Caliphate, just search the web and how often it comes up. In the end though, when one looks at all the junk on the web refering to it, it is almost all done by non-Muslims except for the radical Muslims in the west (Anjam Choudery), terrorist groups or those scholars talking at a theological utopian level (like evangalists talk about the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth). The reality of the concept of a Caliphate falls down immediately with even the slightest dossage of reality. None of the 56 Muslim nations seeks, claims or puts in its constitutions or goals to join some Caliphate. Even the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood declares that “only if the circumstances made itself available” that it would welcome the unity of Muslim nations to join together in a union similar to the EU under the leadership of a religous Caliphe. IE, it is not going to happen considering neithe the Organisation of Islamic Countries nor the Arab League cannot even agree to support, condemn or wage war against Israel.
“It reflects that curious condition of PC MC — the inability to connect the dots, even when the dots are amassing as mountains of data all over the world.”
This statement by Hesperado perfectly reflects the comment by Winston Churchill whe he said that “if one looks hard enough for something he will eventually see it, even if is actually not there”.
Hesperado. I am Dutch, many years ago I even was in the same party as Wilders before he ran amok and thankfully chose to leave us to go it alone. I, along with many conservatives, believe in tighter controls on immigration, demands and even stricter rules on integration. The use of deportation on abusers and apposing the rediculous European beaurocratic-controlled policies that allow the worst sort of people to not only come but to abuse our hard-earned standards. Similarly, we also appose the using and abusing of social issues, economic problems and other subjects via popularist and nationalist positions for what in the end is simply “politics”. Scapegoating a community (in this case the Muslims and Islam itself) for that purpose is simply ugly and beneath what we in Europe have learned the hard-way. The excuse that “they do it” does not work as we already know the problems that we face with unwarrented mass-migration and not sufficiently vetting those migrants and thus allowing radicals with all their cultural hangups to imbed themselves in our lands. Deal with those issues in a smart fashion , be tough but not ugly.

4 Hesperado February 22, 2011 at 2:39 am

I may reply in the next day or two, time permitting, to this additional mass of complex intertwining half-truths heaved onto the table for discussion.

5 1389 February 22, 2011 at 10:15 am

Thanks very much!

6 DvDH February 23, 2011 at 6:05 am

I await with enthusiasm actual facts and not just quoting Wilders and websites…

7 1389 March 1, 2011 at 6:25 am

Considering the fact that you posted a viciously bigoted comment against the entire Serbian people (see comments on You Can Help Dr. Srdja Trifkovic) and considering the fact that your IP address is that of a server in Morocco (and therefore it makes no sense for you to be talking about voting in Dutch elections), I would say that Hesperado and I have better uses for our time and energy than to respond to your barely-comprehensible comment.

8 DvDH March 1, 2011 at 7:04 am

Excuses never work. I work in Morocco, so does 20 thousand expatriate French, 5 thousand British and thousands of other nationalities.

As for my comments on the racist nationalist and defender of ethnic cleansing (Trifkovic), show me one racist comment that I made – you will find and give none.

Blog admin 1389 replies: This comment of yours [link] is indeed a racist and bigoted rant against the entire Serbian people.

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is neither a racist nationalist nor a defender of what you call “ethnic cleansing.” The latter has been practiced by Croats under Franjo Tudjman and by Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, NOT BY SERBS. I myself do say that, as a matter of simple self-preservation, the Serbs SHOULD have expelled their sworn enemies from all Serb lands a long time ago, before it was too late, but they never even attempted to do so, nor did Dr. Trifkovic advocate any such thing.

The truth is neither of you have in fact an argument against your comments and the coward’s way out that you are attemping proves my points to no end.

Blog admin 1389 replies: How dare you call me a coward or anything else! I warned you that any more hate-filled rants would be deleted without further notice. We have better things to do with our time than to waste it arguing with an Internet troll whose comments consist of incomprehensible drivel mixed with repetitive and groundless allegations and name-calling. It is pointless to attempt to rebut a comment that is so confused that it is impossible to be sure what the commenter was trying to say in the first place.

9 DvDH March 1, 2011 at 8:05 pm

Show me a hate filled rant. I have not said that I hate, nor promote hate against Serbs. What smacks of cowardness is the threat of blocking and deleting posts simply because you disagree with them. You do so because you continuously accuse my posts of being hate-rants.

Blog admin 1389 replies: Stop repeating yourself. I already cited your anti-Serb rant. I do not allow groundless accusations on this blog, simply because it is impossible for the accused to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on YOU, the accuser, to offer evidence (NOT hearsay, and not the corrupt verdicts produced from show trials in The Hague, which was funded by George Soros and NATO) to prove your case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If you cannot provide such evidence, you cannot make groundless accusations on this blog.

As far as I am concerned and I do not back down from my comment is the issue of radical nationalism that itself pushes hate and defends the ugly and destructive period during the Bosnian War. Before you jump down my throat, I also condemn those Bosniak and Croat war criminals and others that pushed agendas of hate during that period. Having said that, non-the-less, mankind has justifiably put the vast majority of blame upon Serb Nationalism that chose, for the purposes of creating a “Greater Serbia” were willing to murder tens of thousands (if not more) and we even now have a term based on it called ethnic cleansing. Trifkovic both represents and defends that position and that is my beef with him and I support his being blocked. Like it or hate it, agree or chose to disagree, or simply ignore my view – but calling it hate-filled or racist or bigoted is a load of BS.

Blog admin 1389 replies: Your accusations against the Serbs regarding mass murder are groundless. Every single accusation against the Serbs regarding mass murder or war crimes has been refuted over and over. However, because it is impossible to prove a negative, trolls like you persist in accusing Serbs of having committed these crimes.

In fact, mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing was perpetrated AGAINST the Serbs, by militant Croats and by Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims.

There was never any attempt to establish a Greater Serbia. I, blog admin 1389, am just about the only Serb who is, in fact, in favor of creating a Greater Serbia as soon as the opportunity presents itself. And some day it will! If you object to this, your argument is with ME, and not with Dr. Trifkovic, who never argued for ethnic cleansing or for a Greater Serbia. I am tired of Serbs constantly being overrun, expropriated, and even butchered for their organs by their enemies, with the rest of the world denying that any of these evils are taking place.

On the other post on the same topic (as this one is about the openly hate-ranting Wilders) one poster has chosen to put a sensible argument why they disagree with me – that is good posting and though I think that poster misses points, they are willing to show their views without immediate name-calling and threats to block for very questionable reasons. With all that said, I do accept that you have allowed those posts, so why the threats on this one?

Blog admin 1389 replies: Simply because the 1389 Blog comment policy forbids unsubstantiated allegations against any individual or group. Once again, the burden is ALWAYS on the COMMENTER to prove any allegations.

Speaking of unsubstantiated allegations, Geert Wilders has never engaged in “hate-ranting” – unless you consider it a “hate rant” to oppose the Islamization of the Netherlands. He has every right to defend his country, and to protect and perpetuate its existing system of laws and social mores. In fact, it is his DUTY to defend his country against hostile foreign invasion – and Muslims are required by the Qu’ran and the Hadiths to be hostile to non-Muslims. Islamic law makes no exception for the Christians and Jews who live in the Netherlands. The evidence of what Muslim dogma is all about is published all over the world. It’s no secret. You can read the Qu’ran, the Hadiths, and the traditional interpretations of Islamic law on the Internet. Study it thoroughly before you criticize me any further!

I take a MUCH harder line against Islam than does Geert Wilders. I consider allegiance to Islam to be incompatible with civilized life in any non-Muslim country, and I am strongly in favor of expelling Muslims from non-Muslim territory, and annulling the citizenship of anyone who espouses Islam, even if they are native-born citizens. If a Muslim wants to stay in a non-Muslim country, he or she should be required to PUBLICLY apostasize from Islam and to forswear any further contact with imams, mullahs, mosques, madrassas, or any other person or organization that spreads Islamic doctrine. I am also dead set against any form of aid to any Muslim country, organization, or institution.

This is NOT an issue of freedom of religion, simply because Islam is NOT a religion in the sense commonly understood in the West, but rather, it is an expansionist totalitarian enemy political philosophy that aims to take over the world by any means available, and that leaves no room for anything but itself. Islam has more in common with the Nazism of the Third Reich than it does with anything that we are accustomed to calling a religion. For that very reason, a surprising number of the Nazis of that era either were Muslims or openly sympathized with Islam. That is why I cannot, and will not, tolerate Islam.

If you object to this stance, your argument is with ME, not with Mr. Wilders or Dr. Trifkovic. Here again, it is the DOCTRINE that I oppose. I do not harbor personal animosity toward the individuals involved in Islam; this is a case of hating the sin rather than the sinner.

10 DvDH March 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm

“I do not allow groundless accusations on this blog, simply because it is impossible for the accused to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on YOU, the accuser, to offer evidence (NOT hearsay, and not the corrupt verdicts produced from show trials in The Hague, which was funded by George Soros and NATO)…”

Speaking of double standards.

I can interpret the following from the above with ease let alone other comments you made.

My comments are unacceptable and somehow without merit or credence and must be considered rubbish and yet somehow The Hague Tribunal (of which I have worked at and am proud to have done so) is rubbish and somehow not independant and some how run by Soros. Sorry, get real.

Blog admin 1389 replies: You actually worked at The Hague Tribunal and are proud to have done so? Words fail me!

The more you have become personally involved in a hive of evil like the kangaroo court at The Hague, and the more time and energy you have invested in it, the more difficult it becomes to shake off the indoctrination and begin to question what you were told, and what actually went on, while you were working there. Once you have become personally involved, you can no longer afford to let yourself see how deeply biased The Hague Tribunal was and is, and how thoroughly it was rigged against the Serbs! Even before you saw anything in your investigations, you (along with all of Western Europe and North America) had already been indoctrinated with the idea that Serbs were entirely in the wrong and the actions of their enemies were always justified. You believed the wrong people and accepted their interpretations, as well as various fabrications of evidence. You and the entire western world…I remember those days.

If the scales were ever to fall from your eyes, allowing you to see what you were involved in, you might not be able to live with yourself. Someday you may realize that you let yourself be caught up in a system that very much resembles what passed for “justice” in the Third Reich, though perhaps on a smaller scale. Modern society is not conducive to repentance. The presence of organizations such as the ICTY only serve to make it less likely that anyone in public life will repent of their errors, because any admissions of past errors might lead to their being hauled up in front of some other court somewhere else, in future years.

By the way, I never said that George Soros RAN The Hague Tribunal, only that he contributed funding toward it, and toward other supposedly “impartial” and “humanitarian” NGOs that have been making a wreck out of the world for the past two decades. The Russians are very wise to forbid him to operate within their borders. No, The Hague Tribunal does the bidding of the US State Department. Its main purpose is to silence any Serb in the former Yugoslavia who demands the same rights for the Serbian people that other nations demand, and get, for themselves. Its secondary purpose is to provide an excuse, after the fact, for the war against the Serbs.

Your desire for a Greater Serbia says much and can very well be concieved as the basis, overiding control and in fact the overiding bias to all comments here.

Blog admin 1389 replies: The Serbs have suffered grievously at the hands of Islam for over six hundred years. The ideology of Islam requires observant Muslims to be, by definition, a permanent enemy of all non-Muslims, including Serbs. After all this time, the very least that we deserve is the right to keep and defend our own land, and to banish our avowed enemies from it. Maybe YOU don’t care if your homeland in the Netherlands is overrun in this ongoing jihad, because you do not understand how dangerous Islam is. But I want to see the day when no non-Muslim nation, including Serbia, the Netherlands, Canada, and the US, continues to harbor Muslims.

Your comments about hating the “sin” rather than the “sinner” simply implies your assumption that Islam itself is evil and not the Muslims themselves which in the mind of the vast majority of humanity is backwards.

Blog admin 1389 replies: Yes, that is true. You might understand my point of view if, instead of believing all of the wishful thinking about Islam being a “religion of peace” (which it is NOT), you spent some time studying what Islamic doctrine is really all about, and what Islam requires of its believers. Suffice it to say that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have horrific consequences indeed.

A last comment and I will time to time drop in and comment, a point worth making. I was part of the initial and I should stress imediate inquiry into Srebrenica by the Dutch Foreign Ministry (on the Dutch actions of the event) and thus a witness to much of the events – and I mean within a week of the events. I have a huge dislike for those that either witwash, fabricate or apease – from ANY SIDE.

11 DvDH March 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm

“….. in a hive of evil like the kangaroo court at The Hague, and the more time and energy you have invested in it, the more difficult it becomes to shake off the indoctrination and begin to question what you were told, and what actually went …..”

“I do not allow groundless accusations on this blog, simply because it is impossible for the accused to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on YOU, the accuser,…..”

Note the contradiction above…..

As for your comments on Islam, I have been posted and lived in many Muslims countries and currently work/do so. I have studied Islam and observe the reality of its day to day life. I have seen its worst – 2 years in Iran, its most difficult – 2 years in Pakistan and its best – Turkey and Morocco (the latter I am now permanently based).

From the perspective academically and from the reality on the ground, I think what you say is pure garbage and since you have confessed to an agenda, not suprising.

It does not take one to be a rocket scientist to know the differnt views, interpretations, laws and behaviours from the varient 56 Muslim nations to know that your sad generalization simply falls flat.

An interesting point from you, when you talk about Greater Serbia you did not support it with anything but simply attacked Islam and rather badly from a historical and academic point as well. The Serbian lands that were conquered and controlled by the Ottomans (not Islam itself) were often well supported by the population and if one simply goes to a source that shows the pashas, military leaders and academics of the time within the area and in the Empire as a whole, many were Serbs and not converts.

Then again, you have committed yourself to an agenda and hey, just like the jihadists you constantly refer to, screw accuracy and basic tenants of logic.

A question, why did you name your blog as you did and ten refer to it as Counterjihad? The date refers to the battle which was a draw (though it wasted out the capacity of the Serbs to continue) but what suprises me is that the battle had nothing to do with a jihad as the last (and still is) jihad was in the 11th century in response to the claim of a crusade by Pope Urban II?

12 1389 March 3, 2011 at 7:07 pm

Srdja Trifkovic http://www.balkanstudies.org/, Julia Gorin http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/, Jim Jatras http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp, Jared Israel http://www.emperors-clothes.com/, and many, many others have done a great job of eviscerating the ICTY, and all of its pomps, and all of its works. I am aging, partly disabled, of severely limited means, and of even more limited energies. These people have accumulated such a vast superabundance of evidence that I could not possibly reiterate it all here. You should look at it yourself. It will take you months – or years – to go through it all.

If you want to know why I consider Islam to be exceedingly dangerous, please read Dr. Srdja Trifkovic’s book, The Sword of the Prophet. That was a real eye-opener, even for me. I understand that you like certain individual Muslims. Not all Muslims are bad people, simply because not all Muslims are devout Muslims. The real issue is that Islam itself is a force for evil.

I make no apology for my belief in “Greater Serbia.” All Serb lands in the Balkans should be united – everywhere that any Serbs live – including the entirety of Kosovo, and that’s that! Serbs in the Balkans never dare to come out and say this, because they’d be hauled off to the ICTY and left to die in prison. That is not a “bias” – that is love for my own people, and a willingness to state what is needed for their survival. I take personal responsibility for the survival of the Serbian people, because they are my extended family. Some commenters on this blog – the liberals and the “multiculturalists” – don’t seem to have any love for THEIR own people (whoever they may be), and that is truly sad.

1389, the year of the Battle of Kosovo, was when the Ottoman advance was held at bay for another three generations or so. That bought enough time for the rest of Europe to advance enough to survive the next onslaught. The Serbs under Saint Tsar Lazar sacrificed themselves to stop the Turks. They all knew that they were going to their deaths, and they went willingly.

The worldwide jihad is still ongoing, and the last jihad is still in the future. I hope to live to see the day that the last jihad is defeated.

13 Abélard March 3, 2011 at 7:46 pm

1389, you couldn’t have put it better as far as the Serb people are concerned, especially as far as that “ICTY” that persecutes Serbs so severely and has them die in prison (possibly by medical poisoning, as one could suspect was the case with Slobodan Milošević).

The best place in many ways to counteract the lies and evil Islâm universally poses is the website http://www.thereligionofpeace.com. Another place worth checking out is http://www.answering-islam.org. They both show just how the Qu’rân, Hadiths, Sunnas and other sources of Islâmic law and practise militate against human decency, period!!!

1389, I’d like to also commend you on another important point of truth: that the “liberals”, with their “political-correctness”, “multiculturalism”, “environmentalism”, “inclusiveness” and other such buzzwords really have NO love whatsoever for their own people!! For proof, one hardly needs look any further than how those wretches brothers-in-arms the Communists (which those “liberals” secretly happen to be!!) treated their own people, be it in the USSR, China, Cambodia and so many, many other places!!!

Under Ljéñin and Stáljin (combined), 40,000,000 Soviet citizens perished, including somewhere around 8,000,000 Ukrainians in an ARTIFICIALLY-induced famine in 1930-1933 on Stáljin’s orders (implemented in good part by Khrushchjóv!); Mao sent 60,000,000 Chinese to their deaths in 1949-76 (the time of his rule), and the extremest brutality of Pol Pot is a byword such that even his relatives disowned him!!!

Back to Muslim countries: from all I’ve read, neither Turkey nor Morocco (for all their “moderateness”) are anything to write home about: no freedom of speech, no democracy, no freedom of religion, no real tolerance at all!!!

14 Abélard March 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm

The Battle of Kosovo Polje of 1389/06/28 was NOT a draw: it was a serious (catastrophic) defeat for the Serbs who then became Turkish vassals!! Had they been victors (with Islâm, a draw is the same as a defeat – Muslims only respect FORCE!!), perhaps they might have had more self-confidence and thus joined the Magyars and other Crusaders in 1396 instead of the Turks, thus turning the Battle of Nicopolis into victory instead of defeat!!

The consequences of such a result might well have meant that Byzantium (Constantinople) could have withstood Muslim attack for a good while longer (order of decades, maybe centuries) and Muslims wouldn’t have populated the Balkans in preparation for today’s miseries!!

15 1389 March 3, 2011 at 8:12 pm

Abélard,

Thanks for commenting! I’m delighted to have commenters and contributors on this blog who are better educated and more articulate than I am. The counterjihad is a vast subject area and I cannot even begin to cover it all myself.

Would you like to contribute a blog post on the Holodomor (the artificially-induced and genocidal famine in the Ukraine)? The Ukrainians have a history of fighting against the Ottoman Empire, and they served as a bulwark to protect Russia against Muslim attacks.

Here is a service in honor of their memory:
See: Holodomor Panachyda–Requiem

16 DvDH March 4, 2011 at 7:00 am

“The Battle of Kosovo Polje of 1389/06/28 was NOT a draw: it was a serious (catastrophic) defeat for the Serbs who then became Turkish vassals!!”

I wish you would learn your own history. The battle was a draw with both sides taking incredible losses (as well as losing their main leaders).

The difference (and perhaps your confusion) was that for the Serbs it was their only Army whilst the Ottomans simply brought in another one and then took control. Add to that, not all of Serbia became a vassal and it took another 50-odd years for entire control.

“…..with Islâm, a draw is the same as a defeat – Muslims only respect FORCE!!…..”

That is gross generalization and emotive ranting and according to the blog-owner 1389 he does not accept such language and should be deleting it…… yeah sure…

“…. and Muslims wouldn’t have populated the Balkans in preparation for today’s miseries!!”

Strange words considering that today’s miseries in the Balkans was a creation of the communism of Tito and his forcing the movements of population and the Balkan conflict of the 90′s was an attempt by Serb Nationalists to take a huge land-grab and force/kick-out/kill Muslim Bosniaks & Croats?

Notice how if one makes up and rants emotive he gets invited to contribute, if the other disagrees and points out errors he is threated with being cut.

17 1389 March 4, 2011 at 9:34 am

You are not being threatened with being cut. No one is banned or IP-blocked from 1389 Blog. Literally ANYBODY, no matter how infamous they may be in real life, can comment here. We simply delete specific COMMENTS or parts of comments that contain foul language, commercial spam, explicit sex, groundless accusations, or other offensive material.

Just as an aside, we use a “plug-in” spam filter that automatically traps commercial (and sometimes abhorrently pornographic) spam and puts it into a “spam bin” for an admin to review and delete. Once in a great while, a non-spam comment ends up in the spam bin; when we find those, we approve and publish them.

There was never a “huge land grab” by Serb nationalists – only an attempt to protect the existing lives and property of Serbs in the former Yugoslavia who lived outside of Serbia proper. The boundaries within the former Yugoslavia were deliberately drawn to weaken and jeopardize the security of the Serbian people. Tito was very much an enemy of the Serbian people, though some Serbs made the mistake of supporting him anyway.

As far as Muslims only respecting force, note that the infamous Muammar Gadhafi stopped his nuclear weapons program only after George W. Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. Also see: In the Mideast, bet on a strong horse:

Smith takes as his prooftext Osama bin Laden’s comment in 2001, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

Abélard is, and has been, a member of the 1389 Blog team. Since he has some knowledge regarding the Soviet genocide of the Ukrainian people, I asked him to contribute a post on that. This has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion here.

18 Jim Jatras March 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm

DvDH is the one who needs to learn some history. Regarding his claim that the “battle [i.e., Kosovo 1389] had nothing to do with a jihad as the last (and still is) jihad was in the 11th century in response to the claim of a crusade by Pope Urban II”, he is clearly wrong on a number of points. The Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad (by proclamation of the Sheikh ul-Islam) against the Entente powers in November 1914. As the Caliphate was at that time invested in the Ottoman state, it is hard to dispute the declaration’s authority. (This also illustrates the fact that the Ottomans generally regarded their conquests, of which the Kosovo battle was an episode, as legitimated by jihad.). Since the 1914 Ottoman declaration (and the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924), we still should not ignore various jihads declared on the Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq (by scholars at Egypt’s pretigious Al-Azhar, see http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200404120847.asp), and especially Osama bin Ladin’s declaration of jihad against the United States in August 1996 (found here http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/declaration_of_jihad1.html). If DvDH wants to dispute the “authority” of these declarations — and if anyone has the moral authority to declare aggression, conquest, murder, kidnapping, rape, enslavement, robbery, etc., which is what jihad imposes on its victims — let him. But given the number of conflicts (including Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s) in which Muslim fighters and terrorists called themselves “mujaheddin” — literally, those who take part in jihad — one can’t ignore the fact that that’s what *they* think they’re doing. Who am I (or who is DvDH) to tell them they’re wrong?

The reference to Pope Urban’s crusade is likewise absurd. The Crusades were a limited (in time and venue) Christian counterattack to a jihad that had begun centuries earlier. Was the jihad conquest of Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in the 630s and -40s a “response” to Pope Urban almost five hundred years later? The jihad conquest of Spain starting in 711, was that a “response” to the Pope too? (And if these aggressions weren’t jihads, then what were they then? What “justifies” such violence in Islamic thinking if not jihad?)

DvDH says he’s been “posted and lived in many Muslims countries and currently work/do so,” and has “studied Islam and observe[s] the reality of its day to day life.” So what then? So, according to his “day to day” experience most Muslims, like most other people, generally are nice? How does that tell us anything about jihad as an ideological or historical phenomenon?

This is an absurd non sequitur. Who said Muslims, per se, are bad people? Thankfully most Muslims *don’t* live up to the “ideal” Muhammad set for them and are, objectively, “bad” Muslims. But how does that exonerate Islam per se? And when some “good” Muslims *do* live up to Islamic principles, including jihad — and the examples are myriad, starting with the Frankfurt shootings, Hashim Thaci’s organ-trafficking, the murder of the sole Christian government minister in Pakistan, murder of “apostates,” honor killing of girls, a daily catalogue of horror — they are not so nice as DvDH’s experience would suggest.

Addendum: Also see: Jihad Watch: Chechen jihadist calls for jihad against Russia to eliminate the enemies of Allah

19 DvDH March 4, 2011 at 7:57 pm

“As far as Muslims only respecting force, note that the infamous Muammar Gadhafi stopped his nuclear weapons program only after George W. Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein”

What I see here is gross generalizations that verge on bigotry. You would have been better to say Arab or some other race than “Muslim” which when put it makes it both inacurate, stereotyping and bigoted. It is rather like Serbs only know violence which would be the stereotypical view, incorrect but based on the same BS that you have just put. The reality is simple enough, you are using examples of events, contextually incorrect mind you, and most of all political and neither racial or religious. There are countless examples of strong-men situations that are not Muslim or Arab. It is rather like the farcical statement that says the Muslim world is poor and backwards because it is Muslim (and ignoring that the majority of Muslim nations are in the developing world). The argument falls down when one asks then why are all the non-Muslim developing nations poor?

“There was never a “huge land grab” by Serb nationalists – only an attempt to protect the existing lives and property of Serbs in the former Yugoslavia who lived outside of Serbia proper”

Actually it was neither and then a land grab. History is quite clear on the events leading up to the war. The bottom line was that the Bosnian-Serb population was pushed by the Serbian nationalists in Belgrade to boycott the referendum on the creation of an independant B-H and thus they played the spoiler and under the pretext that since they did not get it their way (as a minority and non-participant) that they should be protected by the nationalist/popularist lead government in Belgrade – aka war. Once the war started, it then (as all wars become) a land grab so that in the event of negotiations having all the cards (the land) becomes a bargaining chip.

One can argue the cases of Srebenica as being a perfect example of how it was not an “attempt to protect the existing lives and property of Serbs in the former Yugoslavia”. I find it disgusting and futile to attempt to justify the cold-blooded execution of aproximately 8,000 men and boys as a defencive action. Likewise the sharp-shooting and rocket attacking of civilians in Sarejavo (fully documented) as being for the protection of Serbs.

20 1389 March 4, 2011 at 8:42 pm

What I say about the Islamic world is neither a stereotype, nor is it bigotry. It is a simple observation of what an ideology is all about, and how an ideology affects human behavior. Anybody with normal powers of observation can see that, whenever any non-Muslim government gives money to, tries to help, or fights on behalf of, any Muslim nation or people, the leaders simply pocket those concessions and demand more. Exactly the same thing happened during the Cold War when western powers attempted to deal with Communist regimes. It’s because Islam, like Communism, is TOTALITARIAN. Fear is the only language that ANY totalitarian regime, or any believer in a totalitarian ideology, is capable of understanding. The only cure for totalitarianism is to defeat it, as rapidly and as decisively as possible.

Go here and read this book (available in .pdf format, free download):

Srebrenica: The Star Witness

Until you have read THE ENTIRE THING, and have carefully reviewed the other materials on The Srebrenica Project, don’t mention anything further about the supposed “cold-blooded execution of approximately 8,000 men and boys” at Srebrenica. It was, and is, a complete lie. Let me repeat: DO NOT MENTION IT AGAIN until you have read all of this.

In my opinion, considering the cruel tortures and massacres of Serbs that had taken place in the area, they would have been more than justified in using anything and everything, up to and including weapons of mass destruction, to retaliate against their Muslim tormentors. YET THEY DID NOT. Think about THAT for awhile.

Let me reiterate, DO NOT MENTION Srebrenica again until you have spent the next few months studying the other side of the story. If you do not understand English and/or Serbian well enough to read the material, then get someone to translate it for you.

21 DvDH March 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm

I was at the location within days, along with the first outsiders brought in. I spent 8 months on-site investigating, interviewing those from ALL SIDES and then a further 9 months continuing on the matter with literally thousands of documents from all sides.

The “DO NOT MENTION” threat simply does not stick and it would be much more honest on your part to just say “not matter what you say I will not believe you anyhow” to kill the subject matter but trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, especially those that simply know what happened, is a farce.

I was not part of any inquiry into Sarejevo and the shootings, so I will out of respect not mention details on that, but Srebrenica – no and I suspect YOU were not there.

I am not a Bosnian and I have no reason to be baised for any reason and I was part of the team that condemned both the leadership of the Dutch Battalion and the UN Political commanders for making it impossible to function and allow what happened. I have in particpated in writing the reports not only the case of “cold blooded executions of around 8,000 boys and men” of which I have no doubt happened but also 134 documented cases of murder, rape and torture of local Serbs that we came accross from that inquiry alone – not all done even with the excuse of reprisals. I can also tell you that there are two Bosnians currently serving prison terms from The Hague based on those.

I repeat it many times, ugliness happened on both sides and it is both shameful and disgusting for ANY side to try and whitewash or hide it. I am happy to support your site if you show unwarrented bias and bigotry towards Serbs (which I think certainly does exist and is why I stumbled on your site in the first place) but it does not work when it is a blatant attempt to hide or deny one side of the entire ugly story. In my honest opinion, if you showed the bais, the ugliness purpetrated against Serbs and at the same time showed and condemned the ugliness done by Serbs and condemned the blatantly shameful denials – then you would be standing on solid ground and could only garner respect from others.

I may also strongly disagree with your ideals for a greater Serbia but that is freedom of views and expressions and that right must be respected.

22 1389 March 5, 2011 at 8:32 pm

This comment thread has long since departed from the original topic, which was Geert Wilders’ warning about what is in store for Europe as a result of Islamic infiltration and the muzzling of those who seek to warn of its dangers.

Any further exchanges in this rather heated discussion should be entered in a post about that topic, namely:

Admin CzechRebel Answers DvDH

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: