Darkness descending – again 7

Christianity brought a thousand years of darkness down on Europe. The Enlightenment dispelled it. Now Islam threatens the continent with a deeper darkness.

A few brave individuals are fighting to keep the light of freedom burning.

One of those individuals is Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP who has dared to speak out against the Islamization of Europe.

His trial resumes today in Amsterdam.

Here is his speech to the court:

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

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 all over 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.

See our posts: The new heresy, January 11, 2011; An honest confession of hypocrisy, October 23, 2010; Civilization on trial, October 11, 2010; A stink of Fox, March 12, 2010; Freedom versus Islam, January 20, 2010; The West on trial, December 16, 2009.

Posted under Commentary, Europe, Islam, jihad, liberty, Muslims, News by Jillian Becker on Monday, February 7, 2011

Tagged with ,

This post has 7 comments.

  • C. Gee


    I have just noticed Jillian’s post, which covers much of the ground of this one. I do not want you to feel set upon, but as I have spent some time on looking at the videos and composing my response, I’ll post it. Here goes:

    Yes, Benjamin Franklin, a hero of mine, was a lover of liberty. Like Voltaire, he may be trotted out to avoid the difficult work of deciding the proper limits to freedom in hard, real life.

    On administrative detention: this is for people suspected of conspiring to commit terrorism, of which the Dutch secret service estimates there are several hundred. Under the penal code and the protections it accords to criminal accused, they cannot be taken off the streets. Administrative detention is proposed as way to protect the public from the new kind of wrong-doer who is more like an enemy combatant, traitor, or insurrectionist, than a criminal. Administrative detention is not without due process. It is overseen by a court, there is appeal, evidence is presented and the detainee may answer the case against him, with representation. Punishment is either deportation to country of origin, or jail. The underlying principal to administrative detention is that the wrong-doer is acting against the state (as much as individuals within it) and therefore forfeits the rights the states accords to citizens. Israel has administrative detention, as does America, as do many countries, often as an adjunct to efficient immigration law enforcement.

    Wilders also advocates a policy where three-time convicted criminals who hold dual citizenship are stripped of their Dutch citizenship and deported to their second country. This is unexceptionable.

    On “not allowing” immigration to Holland by “non-western” (Muslim) people: Wilders proposes a 5 year moratorium, as he already sees the Islamic culture coming to prominence, if not predominance, in certain cities. He cites statistics which show that the majority of crimes are committed by Muslim immigrants, who also take the lion’s share of welfare. He argues that the unassimilated Muslim population is already too large. Germany has a guest worker arrangement that controls workers achieving citizenship. Many countries control immigration by systems of preference according to national origin, among other criteria.

    The BBC interviewer tried to make it into racial prejudice (apparently he regards Turks as non-white), but it is not hatred of darkish skin, but fear of an unassimilable hostile culture which underlies Wilders moratorium policy. Smears of racism always stick, as the BBC thoroughly understands.

    On banning the Koran: Wilders believes it should be treated like Mein Kampf under Dutch law.

    Quite frankly, I do not know how “essential freedoms” are being sacrificed in these policies. On the contrary, I see only attempts to save the essential freedoms guaranteed by Dutch law, from encroachment by Sharia. And let’s not forget that it is Wilders’ own right to free speech that is being “sacrificed”.

  • George

    There is a difference when people are preaching world conquest and violent global takeover around the world. I have no problem with anyone believing or practicing his/her religion ( even though I am NOT religious ) as long as they can assimilate into the society and “fit in” by getting along with others and obeying & respecting the laws that govern that nation or society. When people have a massive world scheme to force the entire world under their theological submission , then I have a serious problem with that. I know for a fact that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people but their is indeed a rising violent and terroristic percentage ( even though currently the minority ) that is bent on global takeover to put the world under Islamic rule.
    Anyone who can’t see and understand this situation has mental “blinders” on and must be living in a cave which a large part of the world is obviously virtually doing. I’m making a general statement here and not directed at anyone in specific and we must call it the way it is. These are pure facts. When people preach an agenda for world conquest and world submission then the world had batter wake up and face reality or to be blunt ( we are doomed ). this situation around the world is serious and we as a global society had better start taking it serious. This “political correctness” BS could very well get us all killed. These people are spreading globally with their murderous and tyrannical agenda and when we try to appease them it only emboldens them to go full steam ahead. Our niceness is looked upon as weakness and the only thing they understand is military brute force . The world had better wake up before it’s too late. They are positioning their key players around the world and then one day while the world is asleep it’s CHECKMATE !!!! When we bring the OLIVE BRANCH , they in turn bring the POISON IVY . What is it going to take to make the world open their eyes and call it like it is. You can’t “play fair” with these individuals considering the fact that they don’t respect our laws or rules and we had better throw the rule book out the window ourselves and take the bull by the horns and stand up and fight back or we are going to lose our country and the world will be bowing down on prayer rugs. Believe it or not—-this is reality !!! Liberals will be the first ones the purveyors of conquest will go after considering their decadent , degenerate, and immoral behaviorial lifestyles which the conquestors abhor virulently. People had better stop this appeasement mentality and , wake up and smell the coffee. The global sand in the “hour glass” continues to run out and the world clock is ticking. Wake up people !!!!!!!!!!

  • Macnvettes

    I agree that Wilders should not be prosecuted for his views and speech on Islam, however, his positions are very highly discriminatory. He wants to ban construction of mosques, put a tax on women wearing headscarves, prevent islamic people from immigrating into the Netherlands, and ban the qu’ran. While he wants freedom of speech, he also wants to block others’ right to the same. He is a hypocrite that we happen to agree with on a few points, but he is no hero.

    • C. Gee

      “While he wants freedom of speech, he also wants to block others’ right to the same.”

      No. Wilders sees freedom of speech being blocked by special treatment of Islam under law. He argues that were the laws limiting speech – and other freedoms – to be equally applied, Islam would be treated as Nazism, the Koran like Mein Kampf (which may be possessed, but not sold), and militants of Islam like the enemy they have declared themselves to be. He sees a return of blasphemy laws – with Islam as sole beneficiary. The laws against incitement, hate speech, sedition, treason, libel, slander are not enforced against extremist Muslims, but shield them. Actual incitement of Muslims by Muslims, who threaten to commit and do commit real hate crimes because speech offends them is rampant. Fear of legal or physical harm has effectively established self-censorship among the host population, a far more effective silencing than government censorship. The culture of freedom is being steadily corrupted. Wilders himself may be about to be a victim of that corruption – precisely because he has called attention to it. That makes him into a something of a hero, I think.

      If there is discrimination, it is in Islam’s favor. If there is hypocrisy, it is in militant Muslims’ exploitation of Western freedom in order to destroy it.

      • Macnvettes

        You should watch him in his own words, he talks about administrative detention (detention without charges of citizens of his own country), not allowing muslims to immigrate into his country, and banning the koran. His desired ends are admirable, his means to those ends are not. And lest he fool you with his argument of safety on the administrative detention argument, I leave you a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


        • Jillian Becker

          I’ve watched all three. The BBC interviewer is typical of the organization: arrogant, ill-informed, pro-Islam as all lefties are.

          Wilders, apart from mouthing the mantra or sharing the unproved assumption that “most Muslims” do not share the aims or approve the methods of the “extremists”, says nothing I disagree with.

          He would rather ban no books, but if Mein Kampf is banned as a book of evil ideas, he says, then the Koran should be banned for the same reason. How is that objectionable?

          As to burkas – have you tried wearing one? I took a couple to a lecture I gave in the City of London a few summers ago and got men to put them on. The men found them intolerable. Do you think women should be forced to wear them? Do you think any woman has a natural desire to walk about in a black tent? Burkas are the uniform of slavery. Women are slaves in Islam. They cannot be allowed to be slaves in Holland.

          It could not be clearer that Muslims should not have been allowed to immigrate into Europe. Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. We have posted numerous posts demonstrating how this is the case, and illustrating the dire results of that immigration.

          Administrative detention of terrorists is a good idea. Forcible expulsion of alien offenders is an excellent one.

          Benjamin Franklin was never confronted with a war waged by would-be totalitarians using the methods of terrorism and infiltration. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies. What Western civilization is threatened with is not a little temporary loss of safety but its total destruction. Its hard to see how Europe can escape becoming Islamized unless certain serious measures, at the very least those Geert Wilders proposes, are put into effect immediately.

        • Macnvettes


          I have never tried to wear a burka, but I have no desire to do so either. To put a tax on any article of clothing is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If I wanted to wear a paper bag on my head out in public, I have the freedom to do so. I probably won’t get served at many places, but no government tells me what I can and cannot wear, only that certain areas of my body must be covered in public. To me, freedom is defined as being able to swing my fist as far as I can without hitting someone else’s nose. I also disagree with you on administrative detention. It is not a legal process, if it were, a warrant would have to be issued, or charges filed. In the U.S., we do not have administrative detention of our citizens, Gitmo is for combatants on a battlefield. I also disagree with banning immigration based on religion, that again is the mark of a fascist regime. If they feel their culture is at risk, why not instead put quotas on people from specific countries? That is something that we do here in the U.S. The objectionable thing about banning any book is that the decision is made by a board of people with their own political agenda, no books should be banned, including Mein Kampf. If you truly believe in freedom, you believe in as little government intervention as possible. Wilders is trying the Fascist approach. Control of a population through taxation, discrimination based on religion, limiting speech, and a mechanism for arbitrary imprisonment (admin. detention). I agree with Merkel, Sarkozy, and Cameron when they say that multiculturalism has failed. A nation cannot have different laws and courts for people based on religion, or treat their citizens differently because of their background. They need to be a melting pot, like the U.S. used to be, now we have organizations for people based on race, religion and national origin, questions on every conceivable type of form that try to lump us into different ethnic, religious, racial, and gender groups. The only group that can’t have their own lobby is white Americans, because that would somehow be racist. When it comes to combating religious extremism, I choose freedom over fascism any day!