Six Questions With Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is on a one-week visit to the USA. The first stop on his tour was The American Spectator, which has published an interview with him. Some excerpts are below:

Six Questions With Geert Wilders — A defender of Western civilization speaks

Geert Wilders is the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom, the fourth largest in that country’s parliament, and perhaps the Netherlands’ most controversial political figure. Wilders, whose 2008 film Fitna confrontationally opposed the encroachment of Islamic culture into Europe, has become an international figure while being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Calling himself a “right-wing liberal,” Wilders advocates curbing immigration into the Netherlands and other Western countries from Islamic nations, closing radical mosques, denaturalizing violent Muslims, and reducing the power of the European Union, among other things.

In America this week for a one-week tour, Wilders chatted with The American Spectator about Islam, the civilizational conflict, and what must be done to keep the West free.

How big is the threat to the West from Islamic civilizational jihad? Is our focus on terrorism overlooking other, perhaps more insidious means?

Islam is a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination. It wants to establish a worldwide caliphate, ruled by Sharia law — undemocratic, intolerant, barbarian, inhuman.

Terror and violence are just one method which is used in order to achieve this aim. There are other methods, such as conquest by hijra (immigration). Muhammad himself gave this example of hijra when he conquered Medina. This town, which was originally a tolerant and partly Jewish oasis, became Islamic after Muhammad and his followers settled there and took it over.

Western leaders focus solely on terrorism, but fail to see the purpose which terrorism is serving: Islamic word dominance. They should focus on fighting the global imperialist plans of Islam and treat terrorism as one of the means used to achieve this goal.

How would you characterize the Dutch experience in assimilating Muslims?

The Netherlands failed to assimilate Islam. So did the other European nations.

Western Europe is in the grip of cultural relativism. It no longer believes in the superiority of its own Western Judeo-Christian and humanist values. These Western values have brought Europe peace, prosperity, liberty, and democracy. But, unfortunately, European political leaders no longer seem to understand this.

The newcomers were not asked to assimilate. On the contrary, the Europeans told newcomers settling in their nations: you are free to violate our norms and values because your culture is just as good, and perhaps even better, than ours. Muslims were allowed to build enclaves on European soil, where Western values are despised and hated.

The Islamization of Western Europe is a direct result of this. European nations did not assimilate Islam but rather encouraged it to continue to live according to its culture, which is intolerant, inferior, and totally incompatible with Europe’s culture and civilization.

Read the rest of the questions and answers at The American Spectator.

16 thoughts on “Six Questions With Geert Wilders

  1. Every nation has failed to assimilate Islam. It by its nature is exclusionary and elitist.

    Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or an ignoramus.

    • Good points. Perhaps a better and more accurate word than “elitist” is “supremacist” ?

    • Why blame the nation “that fails to assimilate Islam”?
      Islam does not want to be assimilated. Islam wants to conquer, not assimilate.
      Your premise is absurd on its face. Your second sentence and your first are incongruous. Which is it: the nations are at fault or Islam is exclusivist?

      Clear thinking is needed if anyone anywhere hopes to understand the existential threat faced by the West by Islam.

      • The assimilated don’t become a part of the whole without affecting the whole. We need to decide how assimilation will change us and then decide whether or not we wish to be changed in that way.

      • Harriet, in the formulation Not a Dhimmie replicated from Wilders ” … failed to assimilate Islam” it is not used in the sense of blame allocation. Think of it more like the statement: “He failed to prevent his own murder” where someone tried to outrun their knife wielding assailant, but the assailant caught up with him and was then unable to prevent the assailant plunging the knife into his neck fifteen times.

    • This is not true. The Hui of China are fully integrated and found all over the country. The Xinjiang Ughyurs are a different group altogether, but they have a legitimate territorial grievance.
      The Muslim societies of Malaysia, Indonesia are also fairly stable, and Singapore has little trouble with its Muslim population.

  2. I find it unbelievable that no mainstream Western leaders have openly criticized the coercive aim that all jihadist groups have of imposing Sharia. Maybe they think that this would be perceived as “racist” since Islamic doctrine calls for it, or, what’s more likely, they are simply ignorant about Islamic doctrine itself. In any case, it’s time that more leaders follow Wilders and defend us from aggression – and religion should not be exempt.

    • All western leaders are compromised.

      If you follow the pedophile scandals in the UK, you’ll see how pervasive and entrenched sexual perversion is in government and entertainment.

      It’s a very simple equation: Muslims have an age-old penchant for human trafficking, and politicians have a narcissistic appetite for unending “break-all-the-rules sex.” Add those two factors together – supplier and addict – and you’ll begin to understand how much blackmail there is in the highest levels of all governments.

  3. Islam is a radical concept that forces all of diffrent faiths to either convert to their way or face the sword Now if christians had forced someone to convert under the penalty of death the media scandal mongers would be on it all week long

  4. Spurwing Plover, you nailed it. If white, Christian males even pretended to convert to Islam, all of a sudden the left would realize that it was evil. As long as Islam is perceived to be mostly non-white, to the left it is beyond reproach.

  5. Earlier today I listened to the chimps’ weekly tea party that we in Britain know as Prime Minister’s Question Time. For those not in the know this is when time is set aside in the House of Commons for the opposition to question the prime minister on matters of policy and for the prime minister to explain that policy.

    I don’t go out of my way to listen to politicians but if there’s a radio on I tend to listen to it. I’m puzzled at what I heard. The main issue was immigration – and curiously both sides of the house were agreeing that something needed to be done to limit it.

    This seemed to me to be counterintuitive.

    In my communication with my Conservative MP he has always been at pains to emphasise that, “No one could seriously disagree that, taking everything into consideration, Britain has benefited economically from immigration.” That’s the bottom line as far as the Conservatives are concerned: Immigration is a net economic benefit.

    This the same argument that the alleged ‘opposition’ use, although they’re keener than the Conservatives to stress the “many social and cultural benefits that accompany immigration.”

    And both sides would have readily agreed with the statement that “taking everything into consideration immigration has benefited Britain economically socially and culturally.” This has been platform for decades.

    Yet now there’s an across the floor agreement that immigration must be controlled and cut – of course there’s difference in the detail but the principle is shared.

    What does this mean for the cross party agreement on the net benefit of immigration? Does that no longer stand? Is immigration no longer a net benefit? And if that’s the case, when did it change from being a benefit to being a disbenefit?

    I must write to my MP for his explanation. Previously I’ve written to him to ask about the cost benefit analysis he used to arrive at the conclusion that ‘taking everything into consideration immigration has been beneficial’ – specifically I asked what factors he saw as benefits and what as costs. His argument was circular; immigration is good because it is good. He refused to elaborate. I wonder if his argument now is that immigration is not good because it not good.

    Western governments are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place – how can they compromise the need to limit immigration with the belief that immigration is good without exposing their own inadequacy incompetence and dishonesty?

    • That would take some seriously “careful” math: to arrive at the notion that inviting the 3rd World into your country is an economic boon.

      Ask it this way: “Was our economy hurting because we didn’t have ENOUGH poor people, so we needed to import some?”

  6. Islam is a Death Cult.

    You try to leave, they try to kill you.

    That’s all one needs to know about Islam, and this central dogma renders it repellent and deserving of nothing but contempt and exclusion from Civilization.

    Wilders is one of the few sane voices in the West.

    We need every government leader to come to his realization about the Death Cult of “Submission”.

  7. “That would take some seriously “careful” math: to arrive at the notion that inviting the 3rd World into your country is an economic boon.” It certainly would. I’d had have been happy though if he’d just defined the pros and cons of immigration as he saw tham and said that the balance as he saw it was in favour of immigration. He didn’t though because like the rest of the traitorous garbage in the House of Commons he’s a coward and lacks the moral fortitude to put himself on the line.

Comments are closed.