Who Speaks For Me?

I wrote yesterday that “Geert Wilders is persona non grata in Copenhagen”. This assertion did not sit well with some of my Viking friends, who do not consider it representative of their country as a whole.

Steen writes:

I saw your post, but it should be noted that the coalition partner in Denmark, the Conservatives, back Wilders’ visit to Denmark.

He included a link to an article from Politiken on the topic (written in the strange dialect that is still spoken in Sjælland, Fynen, and Jylland, and perhaps even in Bornholm).

Kepiblanc had this to say in the comments:

The caption “Geert Wilders is persona non grata in Copenhagen” is misleading. Nothing whatsoever prevents him from coming here, staying here, living here, talking here and — just like any other citizen — behaving generally.

The whole kerfuffle started when the politician Mr. Naser Khader made a deal with the government: if you want my support, arrange an official — i.e. taxpayer-funded — conference about freedom of expression in return. An offer they could not refuse.

Then, the Danish People’s Party proposed to invite Geert Wilders, of course. Now, our lame government backpedalled with the pathetic excuse that his presence would deter some Arab states from participating in some over-hyped ‘climate conference’ due in Copenhagen this autumn — a big UN stunt arranged in order to talk about something else, eat a lot of expensive food, drink their brains out, visit brothels and attract a little limelight upon our tiny, forgotten and insignificant country.

– – – – – – – –

Needless to say, our government is no different from other European governments: a collection of idiots.

But that’s just government. No ordinary Dane cares about government in any way, manner, shape or form. Mr. Wilders will be ‘persona extremely grata’ by — almost — all and everyone here in Denmark.

I concede his point: the actions of the government do not necessarily represent the opinions of the country at large. This is always the case.

But residents of all countries have to endure the characterization of the leaders’ actions as if they were their own. When Gordon Brown or Jan Peter Balkenende institutes some new idiotic policy, it is done by “Britain” or “Holland”. The policies of the Spanish government are ascribed to Spain, even if they are not supported by the people of Castile — not to mention the inhabitants of Asturias, Catalonia, Aragon, Andalucia, Extremadura, Galicia, and the Basque Country.

The Danes are such an eminently sensible people that they are forced to endure less of this governmental foolishness than most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, when the government in Copenhagen institutes a policy, it is “Denmark” which carries it out, whether most Danes like it or not.

The same is true for my country. I have to put up with the characterization of the actions of the morons in Washington as those of “the U.S.A.” It has always been that way, and always will be.

As for the current denizen of the Oval Office: I find his politics vile, his person repugnant, and the prospects for my country dire under his continued rule. Nevertheless, I accept the fact that the poisonous policies of his administration are billed as the deeds of “America”. That’s just the way these things go.

More than half the country voted for him, so he represents us. According to rumor he was especially popular amongst Deceased-Americans, and could not have been elected without their help.

But he is not as popular now as he was in November, and if the election were repeated today, he might not win. Nonetheless, he represents “America”, and will continue to do so until he is voted out of office or impeached — or until the country falls into anarchy and revolution.

11 thoughts on “Who Speaks For Me?

  1. You’re absolutely correct in the sense that, when the government of Denmark speaks out officially it represents Denmark, irregardless of how foolish they speak. However, in this case it is the PM that speaks for himself, not as the government. He does not (at least for now) have a majority supporting the view that Geert Wilders shouldn’t be invited to the conference, the Conservatives (coalition partner) are still supporting the invitation as is the supporting party DPP. So if Løkke Rasmussen (PM) wants to trumph his will he will have to go against the conservatives and DPP and ally himself with the socialist opposition — not very likely.

  2. Chin up BB. It is not so bad in the US as here in the UK.

    OTH we have an election soon, and Gordon the Baptist will be out in the wilderness,hopefully eating locusts.

  3. OK, Zonka, I take your point. So what is the official government position? Is Wilders invited, or not invited, or have they not decided?

  4. DP111 —

    I wish that I were certain that you are right.

    Opposition to Obama in this country is bound tightly by the straitjacket of “racism”. It is the universal opinion of the MSM that all critics of the Messiah are racists, which is also all but official administration policy.

    Since almost everyone, even conservatives, cowers in fear of the “R” label, this will keep the lid screwed on the cooker until the pressure builds up to a catastrophic level — which it must inevitably do.

    At least those in the UK who oppose Gordon do not automatically become “racists”. In that you have an advantage that is denied to us.

  5. DP111:… Gordon the Baptist …

    Could you please explain the reference for a poor, parochial American?

  6. Well, we could simply refuse to be cowed by irrational (and automatic!) accusations of racism.

    I mean, shoot! *everyone* understands the game, *everyone* understands that the accusation has long since been meaningless. SO why worry about it?

  7. The official government position is (as far as I understand it) that the list of attendees for the conference is in the hands of Naser Khader (now Conservative) together with the ministry of integration, and no final list of attendees have been approved or disproved. So everything is basically still up in the air, although the issue of Wilders is controversial and is sparking all sorts of statements from all sides both pro and contra.

  8. Ilíon —

    *You* refuse to be cowed. *I* refuse to be cowed.

    But for someone who works in academia or local government, for example, being called a “racist” can make life hell and even end a career.

    Social ostracism is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who enforce the common consensus. It’s easy for me to assert a principled stance, because I risk little by doing so. Others are not so lucky.

  9. But do we (both you and I, and conservatives in general) really refuse to be cowed by the “liberals” on this?

    How often do supposedly conservative Congresscritters join the injustice of a false “he’s a racist” pile-up — and then we conservatives continue to vote for him?

  10. Ilíon —

    I can speak only for myself. For anyone else, a judgment of how “cowed” a person is would depend on their circumstances.

    The example of Prof. Klocek at DePaul University has put the fear of God into any non-tenured academics who might otherwise want to speak their minds, but also wish to keep their jobs.

    As for those cowards in Congress, they are keeping their eyes on CNN, NBC, the NYT, and other MSM outlets. Like it or not, the major media still have a big say in who gets re-elected. Look what happened to Tom Delay for example.

    A media swarm can make a “racist” conservative into a former congressman. The media, of course, also ignore the “racism” when it’s a Democrat doing it, e.g. “Grand Kleagle” Robert Byrd.

    We wish it were different, but this is what we all have to live with.

    I still recommend a huge grassroots initiative to collect money and buy a major MSM outlet. Just think what might happen if CNN changed hands…

  11. “I still recommend a huge grassroots initiative to collect money and buy a major MSM outlet. Just think what might happen if CNN changed hands…”

    Wow Baron. That is a great idea. The lefties heads would explode with rage. The news organization would become more hated then Fox. I would also expect some sort of legislation to block said purchase.

Comments are closed.