Geert Wilders: The British government proved they’re “the biggest cowards in Europe today”
posted at 3:40 pm on February 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Just a taste of a day-long tirade he’s been on about their appeasement of jihadists by denying him entry, the highlight of which was calling them “more Chamberlain than Churchill.” I was remiss in my post about this on Tuesday not to mention that Wilders himself is a book-banner, and therefore a rank hypocrite when it comes to free speech. Hypocrites abound in this controversy, in fact: Wilders himself, Gordon Brown and the supposedly “liberal” UK, and the biggest hypocrite of all, Wilders’s nemesis in Britain’s Parliament, Lord Ahmed. Have a look here and here to see whom he deemed more worthy of an invitation than the guy who made “Fitna.”
Wilders is already on his way back to the Netherlands. Exit quotation: “The film isn’t offensive unless you are a violent Islamist.” Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
For those of you who know Ben from his posts here and his “Idiot’s Guide to Islam” series on Youtube he has a new book out:
Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam
Please check it out an help support Ben (an Iraqi ex-pat) with his important work.
TheBigOldDog on February 12, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Your equating Albert Einstein with Mohammad is taking illogic to an absolutely mind boggling level.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 5:27 PM
When someone is brave as this guy, we should say they have
“Geert sized Malkins”
TheSitRep on February 12, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Or shorten it to just “Girkins”
TheSitRep on February 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Charles Johnson is a California liberal, he’s into photography, bicycling, who woke up after 9/11 and said these guys are going to kill us if we don’t do something. He still hasn’t quite came to terms with all the unsavory implications that might end up being associated with “do something” if things go south, and that’s why he can’t understand why Europeans seem rather accepting of groups like the BNP these days. I think that if he lived in London instead of California he might value compromise more highly.
DFCtomm on February 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
All in Britain and the rest of Europe must denounce all disbeliever attacks on the Prophet, Peace be upon Him. They must also endorse the righteous court in Holland that has applied divine Sharia blasphemy rules to it’s citizens. They must also fully support the U.N. resolution passed in December prohibiting defamation of Islam including making such defamation a crime under international law. They must also turn the criminal Geert Wilders over to us to receive our religious punishment.
Aleph on February 12, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Our free and open society works specifically because no group within it decides to push for a political point of view via the use of violence. As we can see in the Netherlands, England, France, etc., when one side – the Islamiists – starts committing murders and burning buildings, and the other side sticks to free speech in and of itself as a defense, free speech loses.
We need to look into ways to defend our society, or else what is happening in the Netherlands, England, France, etc., will happen here too.
What is the correct approach? It must be something that is in keeping with our rights to free speech, and also protects us from the methods used by radical Islam to bring about acts of violence.
What are the methods used by radical Islam? This is well-established. Radical imams, in their preaching, refer to the passages in the Koran and the Hadith (the Hadith are descriptions of the life of Mohammed and his sayings) which call for rage and hatred. (Refer to Memri for many examples). Random members of such mosques then decide, on their own, without specific direction from an imam, to go out and commit an act of murder or other violence.
The connection between such a radical imam, and the one who commits the act of violence, is precisely what we need to look into. Quoting from a Saudi columnist, per an article today on Memri. http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD224109:
So there it is. If we tolerate imams who preach hatred, we will inevitably have radical Islamist here who commit violence. If we tolerate such imams in defense of free speech, we will lose our free speech, as we can all see is happening in the Netherlands, England and in France.
So, let’s say we decide we wish not to tolerate such imams. What is the correct approach?
The correct approach is precisely what needs to be discussed.
Vik_R on February 12, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I like LGF and admire Charles, but here he oversimplifies and misrepresents Wilders on the issue of the Qur’an. There’s a good post about this at Jihad Watch (And, yes, I’m familiar with the blow-up between Spencer and Johnson. It’s sad.)
irishspy on February 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I don’t agree with Charles on every single thing, but he has principles from which he does not waver. It’s not a fault. I would have thought conservatives – particularly those who refuse to compromise on issues such as life – could appreciate that much about him.
It’s odd to see such a quality criticized.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 5:40 PM
That all depends on what the “principles” are.
BTW, isn’t he the one with the big reputation for banning people who disagree with him at all?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM
So…are you suggesting that if he is concerned that someone he is associated with is a fascist sympathizer, he should override that concern? That not doing so is evidence of flawed character on his part?
I don’t want to mischaracterize your intent.
As for the ban question, no, not always. He does tend to ban people who lip off to him in his own house. That’s understandable, right?
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 5:52 PM
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM
That’s an oversimplification. I think he bans people who apologize for Spencer’s less than stellar ties to white supremacist groups. The mask slips a bit more on Spencer with every new revelation.
Can’t say as I blame him. I sure don’t like being associated with the “Muke Necca” crowd. If my blog got 10% of the traffic his did, I’d be pretty diligent about keeping the crazies out.
Krydor on February 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM
How big a coward do you have to be when the Dutch are calling you a coward?
Hell isn’t the Netherlands practically Nether-stan at this point?
SuperCool on February 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM
If he is suggesting that Robert Spencer is a “fascist sympathizer” then he is sick in the head. Maybe he thinks that Diana West is a “fascist sympathizer” too?
That is not exactly what I have heard, not even close.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Krydor:
You’re a liar.
The only problem with this is that I don’t have any ties to white supremacist groups.
What you appear to think are “new revelations” are actually simply libels. If you believe Charles Johnson, you have been rather seriously bamboozled.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Wilders a hypocrite?
Contemptible humbug, tossed off as usual without supporting argument, as is “Allahpundit”’s wont.
Why Wilders is not a hypocrite
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Hello, Mr. Spencer
I admire your courage and appreciate your work
Here is a list of people who the British govt HAS let in while denying access to Wilders ( courtesy of Gates of Vienna )
Janos Hunyadi on February 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
MB4:
In fact, yes, he has called her that also.
The libelous Johnson has amassed a pile of actually quite paltry “evidence” purporting to show that certain European parties are fascist. If one finds his “evidence” unconvincing, he thinks that that very doubt makes one a fascist sympathizer.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Well, that’s my own observation. I’m not there 24 hours a day, but I promise, that’s my honest impression.
And I don’t know what Charles thinks of Diana West.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Nice assertion without any evidence. Your lizard king has taught you well. Let’s assume for a moment that Johnson is correct. That Spencer intentionally joined a genocidal facebook group. Also, let’s assume that “Cato the Elder” just happened to be perusing that group’s page on facebook the very same day tha Spencer joined.
Let’s assume that Cato does this often, finds needles in haystacks on facebook and views the material even though he detests their genocidal creeds. Let’s also assume Cato had the best of intentions all along, how he was troubled that he didn’t contact Spencer directly, inquiring why he joined the group the same day he happen to discover it, before publicly “outing” him to Johnson.
That’s a lot of assumptions. This whole episode stinks from the outset of a setup. Either that or Spencer is not only a genocidal supremacist, but also a rather dim bulb for revealing his true intentions puiblicly on Facebook.
That’s another large, but rather suspect assumption, and yes I am sure you are right. Johnson’s mass banning escapades are all the fault of others and has nothing to do with Johnson himself.
Were you always this gullible Krydor, or did you perfect your gullibility incrementally, over a long period of time?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Well, we know now.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
capitalist piglet:
I do. He has called her, and Richard Miniter, and other worthy journalists, fascist sympathizers also.
His libels are unconscionable, and, if only one had world enough and time, actionable. But in any case, he has caused damage to the cause of freedom in the West, and his plummeting numbers and rapid fade into insignificance couldn’t come at a better time.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:19 PM
awake:
Clearly it was a setup. I was in a hurry and didn’t read the material about the group, but I am not at all sure that the group even said any of that when I joined it.
I am planning to report “Cato the Elder” to Facebook for abuse of his account, for what it’s worth.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Robert:
His “evidence” against you and Wilders is indeed paltry. However, I think he made a convincing case about VB.
Yes, his willingness to damn at the drop of a hat is disturbing.
irishspy on February 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Sentence first, evidence afterwards. Off with their heads!
Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
There’s some pretty disturbing stuff lurking in the shadows of some of the prominent “anti-jihad” sites. Stuff that suggests that we should fight fascism with fascism.
There are certain things we shouldn’t even consider, even if things do go south.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM
That sounds a lot like the Al Gore school of jurisprudence. Has anyone ever seen Charles Johnson and Al Gore together?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM
RightOFLeft:
Agreed, which is why I stopped reading GoV and Atlas when the controversy over Vlaams Belang broke out. Both seemed to be skirting that edge and in danger of falling off.
irishspy on February 12, 2009 at 6:27 PM
.
I didn’t ‘attack’ Allah, genius: I attacked YOU because you climbed out of your Madison Hole to bite at my ankles.
I didn’t say that you weren’t conservative: I said you attack conservatives–which is what you routinely do on this blog ( instead of attacking trolls )
Get a life, and get something right for a change–or, as you like to say, STFU
I like to pull Allah’s chain because of the whole Pagan Thing;
Allah likes to pull conservatives’ chains, and doesn’t need you to defend him……….
Janos Hunyadi on February 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM
irishspy:
You think his evidence is compelling? Filip Dewinter handling a book at a book fair? Photos of people together? I have a photo of myself with Jimmy Carter. I guess that makes me an addled leftist appeaser.
The fact is that the GoV piece discusses genocide as a possible outcome, it does not recommend or justify it. Given that Europe has resorted to genocide in the past, I fail to see why predicting that such a horrific outcome could recur is so heinous. And as for Atlas, there never was any skirting of any edge except in Charles’ libelous versions of events.
You should investigate these things for yourself rather than take this deeply dishonest man’s word for anything.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Maybe Charles Johnson should contact http://www.jewishworldreview.com and let them know that they have a “fascist sympathizer” writing columns for them. I am sure they would like to know.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM
In what way?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM
MB4:
This is just one aspect of the utter insanity of his position.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM
It’s worse than that, Robert. I saw a picture of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat together, so Robert Spencer and Jimmy Carter together, and Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat together, clearly you must be a Palestinian terrorist.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Dismayed to see Moral Relevance in a Hot Air.com column.
Geert makes a valid point. He draws attention to a valid issue. Instead of focusing on that, fence-sitters/Monday morning quarter backs engage in “Ya but Geert this and Geert that…”
Get informed, make a decision, stop straddling the fence.
Montana on February 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Geert Wilders is no rank hypocrite just a life long secularist struggling against Islamazation. I wouldn’t ban the Koran here but in America our rape rates of non-Muslims by Muslim hasn’t ht Dutch levels yet. But putting that aside, it’s a fallacy to claim a person who is pro-freedom can’t want ideologies he thinks support the destruction of those freedoms limited.
I am a free speech advocate but I support the banning of child porn and have argued for years amongst neo-pagans (of which I’m one) that a book written in the 70s by Gavin and Yvonne frost in which they instruct Wiccans to deflower their own children with dildos should be banned. By the logic of the great Charles Johnson that makes me a hypocrite.
I think the danger that book poses to the children of some of the people who get a hold of it trumps the issue of free speech. Is that hypocritical or simply living in reality?
But by that standard Johnson, who has banned comments on his blog that disagree with him, is also a hypocrite. I myself had comments removed when he was making spurious claims about pagan symbols being only used by “Nazis.” According to Johnson even though I’m half Black I’m a Nazi because I own a solar cross. If you try to point out that that’s absurd you’ll be banned. Isn’t that hypocrisy?
Look we ban much of NAMBLA’s reading material and we aren’t being hypocrites when we do so. The argument against Wilder’s position is that he’s wrong to lump the Koran in with material which is illegal in a free society (child porn for example) but that isn’t hypocrisy any more than us banning NAMBLA”S instruction guides as to how to molest children is.
It is important now that the West stand united against the movement to stop the criticism of Islam, Johnson’s attacks on Wilders, like his previous attacks on Robert Spencer, Pam Geller and Gates of Vienna are divisive distractions that only enable Islamic Imperialism to make further inroads into the west.
Rob Taylor on February 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM
MB4:
Once in college I even went to a costume party as Arafat. So that cinches your Johnsonian argument. Good thing “Killgore Trout” is here — he can carry the sensational news back to his master.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Allahpundit initially erred by failing to comprehend Wilder’s complex argument. He took the easy way out with Johnson. We should be thankful here, however. At least Allah and Ed are using the word Jihadist again, and not that awful, apologetic term, Hirabist, that was floated about some months ago.
Calling Wilders a hypocrite for being a “book-banner” was a gross oversimplification. Wilders should be supported and has proven to be the most important man in Europe to date, assuming of course, you want Europe to continue to exist as it had traditionally.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:44 PM
awake,
Bryan Preston knew what the jihad was all about.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 6:45 PM
In Charles Johnson’s world everything is nonsense. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it isn’t. And contrary-wise; what it is, it isn’t, and what it isn’t, it is. You see?
Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2009 at 6:45 PM
LGF used to be a good blog. But Charles seems to be an obsessive type person with issues about his own sense of superiority. It doesnt take a genius to realise that Charles is a liberal, but alas, one with a good brain (which is rare). He realised after 9/11 that they WILL kill all of us if they have the chance.
Other than his excellent anti-jihad and anti-moonbat blogging (which no one can doubt is excellent), much of his blog is devoted to fairly liberal ideas.
I actually dont think any of us should have a problem with that. Charles stands up to most Moonbats, he stood up for Bush (as much as any of us could), he stood up for Palin (I think?). If all Liberals were like him, then this world would be a FANTASTIC place. He is the liberal we all wish the world was full of.
I think we just need to realise that he isn’t a true conservative, and he isnt quite a normal liberal either.
Dont judge him as a conservative, because that`s not what he is.
gozzak on February 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Odd, I was talking about Spencer’s ties to overtly White Supremacist groups in Europe. As far as I know, and seeing as how Mr. Spencer is here, he has never repudiated those ties. Here’s an opportunity.
Oh, I’m not a member of LGF.
In case Robert Spencer has the time: what a bad analogy. Seriously. That’s a logical fail. A picture of you and Jimmy Carter is somehow the same as hanging out at a conference with White Supremacists?
Krydor on February 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Childish taunts from the lizard king a$$-licker-in-chief. You would have thought that you would have gotten the character’s name right at least once by now.
Enjoy your Muslim overlords, or is Medaura not your direct superior quite yet?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Indeed.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Robert:
Yes, I do think it’s compelling. Perhaps not dispositive, but enough to make me very wary. And it wasn’t just the photos of DeWinter hanging around with Le Pen or Buchanan. The VB youth literature and it’s obvious neo-fascist and anti-semitic art was very off-putting.
Calm down, Robert. I’m largely on your side and, in fact, think Charles was way off-base over that Facebook page, and childish for banning links from JW. As for investigating, I was a regular reader of both Atlas and GoV until well into the VB controversy, and I saw enough that I became very uncomfortable with both sites. We can disagree about my interpretation, but I didn’t just take his word for it.
I find myself in the middle, agreeing and disagreeing at different times with each side, and I continue to find value both at JW and LGF. This crack-up is a sad thing.
irishspy on February 12, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Churchill was not “soundly defeated” for office. He was re-elected in 1945, winning the seat for Woodford Division by a majority of over 17,000 votes.
The Conservative Party were defeated nationally for several reasons:
-Britain’s previously elected governments headed by Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain disarmed the country and re-armed far too late allowing Hitler the advantage in Europe.
-The wartime Government headed by Churchill was a Conservative-Labour “Grand Coalition” formed in Parliament. It was would be as if America’s war effort had been won by a Democratic-Republican coalition. So voting for Labour was not seen by anyone as an ungrateful repudiation of the war effort.
-The Labour Party avoided the mistake made by the Liberals (in 1918) of sticking with David Lloyd George who claimed credit for the victory. They dissolved the government immediately, campaigning for office partly based on the Conservatives failure from 1935-1940. Good electoral strategy as it turned out.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM
s/b Britain’s previously elected Conservative governments
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Only if he enjoys being lynched.
Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM
And they would be…..? You’re getting closer to making an argument out of an assertion Krydor.
Like is says in the Qur’an, bring thy truth if ye be truthful. Stop pussyfooting around and bring the artillery.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Robert:
One other point. In case you missed it above, I completely agreed with you about Wilders and the misrepresentation of his position on the Qur’an, linking to your recent post on the topic. This is another case where Charles overreacted.
irishspy on February 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM
A quote from the Gates of Vienna Blog:
It’s not that the author advocates genocide, you see, but it’d be a shame if Muslims didn’t submit to options 1 or 2. Again, he’s not advocating genocide – he’s damn near threatening it in order to advance a policy that only seems less monstrous by comparison.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Are you a fan of Joe McCarthy? Be honest now, with us as well as with yourself. Don’t just reflexively answer either. Give it some thought.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Calling Wilders “book banner” is hardly fair.
The Koran is nothing but hatred and incitment to violence. If someone stood on a street corner shouting it to a crowd he could easily be arrested for incitement to murder.
Wilders is not the hypocrite, but the idiots in the UK who are surrendering to Islam (there is no “moderate” Islam – there is ONLY Islam, as the Prime Minister of Turkey said recently) are hypocrites. There is no freedom of speech under Islam. There is no freedom period. But it is the Religion of Peace, and it’s followers will kill you to prove it.
We better wake up in the USA too. All this “war on terror” is meaningless if we ignore the REAL threat.
Posts like this one don’t make me feel confident that even self-called “conservatives” are smart enough to figure that out.
robscottw on February 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM
The worst thing the GOV people or any of the 910 folks has said, in my opinion, was that we shouldn’t take Iraqi refugees in if we lost Iraq. Granted this was enough to cause me to sever my relationship with the CVF and 910, but as for them making people uncomfortable…
What exactly is it that you’re talking about? They are anti-Islamazation. So what? Should they couch their concern for the collapsing west in more palatable terms by calling Muslims “Asian youth” and Jihadism “extremism?”
If they offend you people while talking about Jihadists you should hear what kind of things the Taylor household says about Christianity over diner. But maybe it wouldn’t bother anyone since LGF is hardly tolerant of devout Christians. Hmmm. GOV are fascists for putting the bad mouth on Islam but CJ isn’t for doing the same to Christians. Sounds hypocritical doesn’t it?
Rob Taylor on February 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Listing logical options is not a threat and I really doubt that anyone wanting genocide would advertise it.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Krydor:
I don’t have any ties to overtly white supremacist groups in Europe. Never have, never will. Charles Johnson is lying to you.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM
No link to the original I see. Are you sdaying that article actually supports genocide or if you do what most people on the ‘net simply won’t and read the whole article in context there is some other point about the tensions in Europe boiling over?
Rob Taylor on February 12, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Last night on LGF, I actually supported your assertion that you didn’t realize the nature of the group you were joining (and for everyone’s information, Charles did not ban me for taking that position); I believe what you said happened is possible.
Not knowing you, and not having studied the history of your disagreement with Charles, I think it’s fair to take your word that this was unintentional on your part.
However, I don’t think you can legitimately link your mistake to a trap set for you by Charles and “Cato the Elder” by referring to this as a “setup”.
I’m honestly glad you’re here because I wanted to ask you what solid evidence makes you believe such a thing, because your remarks appear to be either an attempt to deflect attention from your own carelessness in joining the group, or just your imagination working overtime. I don’t understand how the fact that Cato became aware of your Facebook activity is cause for reporting him to Facebook.
I hope you find the question fair, because I think that’s something that needs clarification. Is there something more than just speculation there? Charles has never addressed me personally, and we don’t know each other – but as someone who finds him to be a reasonable man, I would have a very difficult time believing that was part of a plot to smear you by luring you into making a mistake like that.
Is that fair?
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM
This is what I just posted over on LGF:
Honestly, this shit today has gone far enough. It’s like trying to boil water in a dry pot.
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 7:06 PM
If the initial “fictional scenario” was proven true, that the Islamists explicitly intended to take over Europe through violent aggression, when their numbers were substantial enough to do so, and also that they had no qualms about genocide against those who would not submit to or be subjugated under Islam, would option number three be so morally reprehensible that you would willfully surrender your way of life instead?
God, I hate people that use quotes to actually disprove their argument, by failing simple comprehension of “theoretical” arguments in favor of a self-perceived moral and ethical superiority.
Re-read that article at GoV and continue reading it until you get it.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM
I am also not going to talk about something called “Global War Against Terrorism” because “GWAT” is itself a misnomer indicative of the pathology of the elite class. Its squeamishness in naming the enemy is but one sign of a malaise that hampers a coherent effort. Had Scipio issued a rallying call for the War on Elephants, Hannibal would have marched into Rome in triumph. Had World War II been waged against Guderian’s Blitzkrieg, rather than against Nazism, the Reich would still have 927 years to go.
- Serge Trifkovic (I suppose that he is probably on Charles Johnson’s ever growing list of fascists too)
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:11 PM
The British Government probably just see Wilders as a shit-stirrer. They don’t want all the hassle of Islamists taking to the streets. It’s much easier to just ban the oddly coiffured Dutch bloke.
Sure, it’s cowardice…they just want an easy life.
I wouldn’t call it pandering though – remember, they have also banned Yousef Qaradawi and Louis Farakhan for that matter. Same reason: no shit-stirrers.
The banning has been BRILLIANT! It has brought Fitna tonnes more publicity than Wilders could have dreamed of. If he’d been allowed into the country, he’d have shown the movie and gone home. The papers would have ignored it.
Now Islamists have been shown up for manipulating the government through threats, the government look weak and millions are downloading Fitna.
Thanks Gordon.
uptight on February 12, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I linked it via LGF in a previous post I made.
I think the point is clear enough without quoting the entire article, but since you asked…
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/surrender-genocide-or-what.html#readfurther
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM
The article is descriptive. I read the whole scenario when it was first posted. It includes the possibility of Al-Qaeda’s top fighters flooding into Europe like they flooded into Iraq.
A genocide of Muslims is unlikely. They are not a helpless minority. They are not today’s Jews or any nonsense like that. They are an invading army and likely to start mass hostilities in Europe before the Continentals begin resisting.
Hopefully it won’t come to that but it is Muslims pouring into Europe who are the one waving signs around about the the “Real Holocaust” they’re looking to unleash. Now would be a good time to think about the future. Thinking about what might happen and defending against it is not immoral.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM
I’m only a lurker on LGF, and every once in a while, I post on Hot Air- but I read it all day long. I used to really enjoy LGF, but I stopped reading after all the vitriol against Creationists. I am a Conservative Catholic, and I don’t know if evolution is right, or Creationism is right, all I *do* know is that God actually did the original creating! But what gives with the hatred toward Creationists? I’m not even one of them and I’m offended. I miss LGF, but reading this thread gives me a teeny bit of insight. Too bad, it was a good blog.
ckdexterhaven on February 12, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I think that we know full well what Charles does best.
Well, I wouldn’t bet whatever is left of your 401k on a wager that you will keep your posting privilege on LGF for much longer if you keep that up.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:16 PM
MB4, what happened to you over there? If you don’t mind saying.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Mr. Spencer,
What friend at Facebook invited you to the group. Do you remember? Is there a record?
hepcat on February 12, 2009 at 7:18 PM
To the best of my knowledge, I have never insulted anyone over on LGF.
I save that honor for people here. ;)
If Charles wants to ban me, he obviously can, but I can’t imagine why he would. Am I missing something?
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 7:19 PM
I was banned at LGF for nothing more than hitting the plus button for Fjordman.
Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2009 at 7:20 PM
The specific facts about the situation are interestingly dubious at best.
Spencer owned up to being taken on facebook at JW. Has Charles Johnson EVER publicly admitted he made a mistake? EVER?
I’ve met a few people in life who were perfect, but they all share the same full-of-you-know-what-quality.
Spencer allows disagreeing comments on JW. Johnson bans all those discordant to his position, essentially establishing an echo chamber. That should tell you something.
Johnson using this weak reed example as a gotcha moment to validate his failed character assassination of Spencer, is another example in a long line of pitiful disingenuous attempts.
All of Charles’ foremer anti-jihad allies are now enemies. Now I guess it’s possible that they are all wrong, but please see my reference to perfect acquaintances that I have known.
For his childish taunts against Spencer here this evening, I fully expect a positive “ding” fest at LGF for “Killgore” tonight. Charles absolutely loves when his minions perform as directed and expected. If they don’t, they simply disappear. :)
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:21 PM
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
- Lenin
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:21 PM
For someone so against fascists Charles Johnson sure seems to employ their tactics a lot.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:22 PM
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Charles Johnson is a petty little man.
Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are heroes.
Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Hawaii Johnson was a deranged liberal lunatic and stayed that way. The fact he supports WoT now doesn’t make him a conservative.
Aristotle on February 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM
The whole premise of their blog is that Islamists want to take over Europe through violent aggression. That is their explicit thesis for the source of terrorism. It is not a hypothetical.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM
And to all the dimbulb rednecks who see this as an opportunity to bash Britain, look in your own back yard.
Look at Michael Moore and tell us the UK is finished.
Look at Jeremiah Wright
Look at Code Pink
Look at Breasts not Bombs and all those other Berkely freaks
Look at Chomsky, Juan Cole, Ward Churchill
Look at the New York Times blurting out secrets
Look at your President and his associates
Look at Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Barney Frank
Look at all the surrender monkeys who want to close Gitmo
Look around Dearborn
The UK isn’t finished – not while there’s a pulse in our veins. WE DO NOT SURRENDER. Don’t judge us by our liberal idiots and we won’t judge you by yours.
uptight on February 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Jeez – LGF isn’t the enemy
Focus, people, focus!
uptight on February 12, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Me thinks Spenser does protest too much!
But I guess when you are caught in either an out right lie or being proven to be incredibly stupid, protest is all ya gots left.
Jim708 on February 12, 2009 at 7:28 PM
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM
So then having read the whole piece you know it isn’t a call to genocide, right? That the author specifically says he doesn’t in the conclusion.
The article can be fairly critiqued for many assertions, but it’s key point (that the UK will become a Muslim country unless drastic measures are taken and none of those measures are in keeping with Western ideas of democracy) isn’t the simplistic “Let’s kill Muslims” you try to make it.
Rob Taylor on February 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM
RightOFLeft,
Ralph Peters made similar comments in a New York Post article a number of years ago. It written more as an insult to Europeans (bloodthirsty savages) than a serious scenario and he did not follow his thoughts beyond some historical stuff about the Huguenots being expelled from France.
It did not seem to bother anyone at the time.
Most conservatives, if they think about it all, seem to think that Europe will be overrun by Muslims or that this has already happened (this is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the writer) or that Europeans will rouse ancient atavistic hatreds against Muslims (this is often described as being “in the blood” though it is almost never assumed to apply to European-Americans) and crush them without mercy/shove them into ovens etc.
A realistic outlining of what may actually happen as outlined in the GoV scenario is far more useful to serious anti-jihadists than the shallow fantasies one usually encounters. The writer says he is not calling for genocide but considering what may actually happen whether one wants it to happen or not. Why not believe him and read the scenario as it was intended to be read?
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I’m not 100% sure what that tells me but it sounds rather like a goose-step. Charles Johnson sounds more and more like a cross between Joe McCarthy and Ted Haggard.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM
So, I ask again, what didn’t you understand a simple formulation of logically itemized responses to a “fictional scenario” where Islam has been labeled an abject threat to Europe?
Hello? Is anyone home?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Not very many people like being lynched. Would you?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Allahpundit-
You need to understand Wilder’s mordant sense of humor.
He is being a Socratic gadfly.
Something you are apparently too rushed to note or appreciate.
He’s pulling the legs of the cowardly Dtuch hypocrites with their own stupid laws.
And doing the same to the Brits… who invited him to Parliament to show FITNA, then backed out when Muslims yelled at them real loud.
Your moralizing simplicity is not of the charming variety.
profitsbeard on February 12, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Impossible to determine at this point.
Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2009 at 7:35 PM
A troll by any other name would smell as foul.
Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Nonsense. That is a baseless assertion. I have already obliterated your argument based on your own words. The Islamists are doing a damn good job through demographics already in Europe. GoV speaks mostly about the craven beareaucrats who are handing Europe to the Muslims piece by piece.
There are several here who have refuted your argument. Simply admit your error and let’s move on, shall we?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Exactly.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Wilders was invited to the House of Lords by the UK Independence Party and banned from arriving in Britain by the Labour Government. He was not invited and disinvited by the same set of people.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 7:38 PM
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Why a child of five would understand that. Someone go fetch a child of five to explain it.
- Groucho
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:39 PM
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Mr. Spencer,
Can you say something about this Facebook Friend who invited you to join the Facebook Group? Do you remember who it was?
Is there a record of who invited you to join the group?
hepcat on February 12, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Joe McCarthy is alive and well at LGF.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Why not ask him the question directly via email. He is obviously afk.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Well, I have certainly learned my lesson. I used to enjoy going to LGF years ago, much as I enjoy HA even now.
Sigh.
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM
In defense of McCarthy, Communism was a formidable enemy.
What’s Charles Johnson fighting exactly?
Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM
What are you whining about? Do you have a point?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »