“We Cannot Carry the Responsibility for the Whole World”

Last Tuesday we posted a video featuring the first few minutes of a debate on the Mediterranean migrant crisis in the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) led off with his proposal to emulate Australia’s “push back” policy, which has eliminated the flood of refugee boats by preventing even a single one from reaching shore.

Mr. Wilders engaged in vigorous debate with several members of opposing parties. The three most prominent of these — Jesse Klaver of the Green-Left, Sharon Gesthuizen of the Socialist Party, and Attje Kuiken of the Social Democrats — display various attitudes towards their opponent, ranging from angry self-righteousness through amused sarcasm to contemptuous condescension. Yet all three are united in their single-minded insistence that the poor persecuted refugees must not be sent back, but rather accommodated in Europe, no matter the cost.

Their attitude is strikingly reminiscent of the theological concept of Tikkun olam, or “healing the world”, which is much beloved by the (mostly secular) Jewish Left. Somehow, despite the well-known disdain of the Dutch Left for all things Jewish, Tikkun olam seems to have taken hold of the elite bien-pensants of the Netherlands.

This debate is an important one. Despite the complexity and particularity of the Dutch political context, it deserves our full attention. The position taken by the PVV’s opponents is representative of the dominant political attitude across all of Western Europe, against which Mr. Wilders is a voice crying in the wilderness. The gutmenschen of the political class — whether out of cynical political calculation or an earnest belief in the righteousness of their position — seem determined to commit national and cultural suicide rather than allow a single Third-World migrant to fend for himself and be responsible for his own fate.

The current Western zeitgeist concerning immigration and Multiculturalism was effectively caricatured sixty years in advance by the late American cartoonist Al Capp in a fanciful creature known as the shmoo. As noted in the Wikipedia entry:

“Shmoos are delicious to eat, and are eager to be eaten. If a human looks at one hungrily, it will happily immolate itself — either by jumping into a frying pan, after which they taste like chicken, or into a broiling pan, after which they taste like steak.”

Against the shmoos of Europe, Geert Wilders stands all but alone in his courageous opposition.

Many thanks to Phlegm, Vederso, and H. Numan for translating this clip, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. See the table below the video for more information on the parties whose representatives take part in the debate:

Major Dutch political parties:

PVV   Party for Freedom
    Partij voor de Vrijheid
    Classical liberal, Islam-critical
VVD   People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy
    Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie
PvdA   Labour Party
    Partij van de Arbeid
    Social democrats
SP   Socialist Party
    Socialistische Partij
    Left-wing populists, former Maoists, to the left of communists
CDA   Christian Democratic Appeal
    Christen-Democratisch Appèl
    Christian democrats, center-right
D66   Democrats 66
    Politieke Partij Democraten 66
    Centrist social liberals
CU   ChristianUnion
    Christian Democrats, left-wing, only “conservative” in being ostensibly religious
GL   GreenLeft
    Environmentalism plus hard left

Video transcript:

00:12   Speaker,
00:16   One million, ONE MILLION people are ready
00:20   to leave Libya for Europe in rickety boats,
00:24   the way to Europe via the sea.
00:28   They are the victims of merciless human traffickers,
00:33   and thousands are drowning. Men, women,
00:37   children. The terrible, shocking images people have seen already.
00:41   But Speaker, as long as hundreds of thousands
00:45   succeed in reaching Europe,
00:49   many others will calculate the risk and take the chance.
00:53   And the European Union…
00:57   only makes the problem bigger. Point 1 from the ten-point plan:
01:01   They say they will solve the problem by sending even more
01:05   ships – taxi-boats, patrol boats, close to the Libyan coast, not to
01:10   send back the migrants, but to bring them to Europe safely.
01:14   To pick them up, and BRING them to Europe.
01:19   Guarding our coast becomes only more complicated.
01:22   Our coast guard in reality is like a shuttle service that brings
01:26   more migrants to Europe.
01:29   (Interruption by Jesse Klaver, Green-Left, GL) Mr. Speaker. I hardly can believe it. What is Geert Wilders saying now? Is it better to let the people drown?
01:36   Those people who are in the Mediterranean Sea in rickety boats, we don’t have to save them?
01:39   Is that the solution?
01:41   (Wilders) If you have a little bit of patience, I will give my solution…
01:44   (Klaver) I am asking you a question so I would like to hear an answer. (Wilders) Ill give you one.
01:46   (Klaver) I have a question and I want an answer! (Wilders) You can stand there for hours, but I will give you my answer.
01:55   (Speaker giving procedure and rules) (Wilders) Let me continue.
02:11   I’ve already said Europe only makes the problem bigger. And Europe only makes the problem more serious,
02:15   and the stupidity has to stop.
02:19   And luckily, it’s already proven that it is possible. Look to Australia:
02:22   A civilized country, a Western country, that knows how to guard its borders.
02:28   Australia repatriates its refugees on safe boats back to their country of origin.
02:34   All of them. Without exception. “Push back” it’s called.
02:38   Boats with immigrants are stopped, and pushed back to the land where they come from.
02:46   And if those migrant boats are unsafe, Mr Speaker, because nobody wants those people to drown,
02:52   then they are replaced, Australia provides them with a safe boat.
02:57   But, back, BACK they will all go.
03:01   And what is the result, Mr. Speaker? The result is that fortune-seekers will not drown anymore…
03:07   Also those human traffickers don’t make money anymore.
03:12   The result is that the influx of immigrants will dry up.
03:17   Effectively, the human traffickers no longer enjoy success.
03:20   The people no longer drown, and Australia and if we echo them, Europe won’t get immigrants anymore.
03:27   (Interruption from Mme. Gesthuizen, Socialist Party, SP) In the hope that it now will please Mr. Wilders to answer;…
03:36   Hopefully Mr. Wilders is aware of [the news, it’s in all the newspapers] that many refugees depart from Libya…
03:40   I hope also that the PVV-group realizes the terrible stories these people bring along.
03:43   About the degrading circumstances these people had to live under, for sometimes weeks, sometimes months,
03:47   in Libya in sometimes degrading conditions and as Europe we surely cannot say; “Go back to a country…
03:51   …that is no more than a desert, back to a country where people the heads are chopped off on beaches…”
04:00   …Is that what PVV suggests here?
04:05   (Wilders) All have to go back, that’s my answer. All go back, without any distinction. (Gesthuizen is protesting)
04:08   Without discrimination. Without exception. (argues with Gesthuizen) All have to go back without exception.
04:18   And find a place in Libya on the beach or in North Africa where it is safe.
04:22   But I say Mr. Speaker to the (other party leaders) we can’t handle it. We in Europe can’t accept that many refugees…
04:30   We can’t handle so many immigrants. And if the leader of the SP, Mr. Speaker, is so concerned about people
04:37   drowning, then I say if we continue this way, people will keep on drowning.
04:43   Because everybody has the idea that by getting in these rickety boats they have a chance to reach Europe.
04:49   If we give the signal that we will safely deport them back, in a safe boat,
04:54   so that they will not drown, then they will not take the risk anymore and immigrants will not come anymore.
05:00   And that is the solution.
05:03   (Gesthuizen)The facts speak for themselves and what Mr. Wilders says is not true.
05:08   (Wilders) But it is correct. We also cannot handle all refugees in the world.
05:13   But if you claim here that it is okay to send people back to a bunch of murderers in Libya,
05:20   if you as a political party chose this consciously, if you dare to say that in this Chamber loudly –
05:25   Then you’re worth nothing. Then you’re a danger to mankind.
05:29   (Wilders) Mme Leader (to Gesthuizen), please don’t start crying, but she’s allowed whatever she wants, we live in a free country.
05:38   Oh, look! She’s laughing again. At the end everything will be okay again.
05:41   But I will say to the leader of the SP, whose name I forgot,
05:45   the only solution is, to send the people safely back.
05:51   But if we do what the SP wants, then, for every immigrant who comes to the Netherlands,
05:55   we will have to pay 26,000 euros a year.
05:59   Every immigrant! Meanwhile the Dutch guy on welfare is only getting 13,500 euros a year.
06:04   That money might better be used on the elderly of the Netherlands.
06:14   And it’s a shame, and YOU should be ashamed that the SP is not choosing that solution.
06:20   (Klaver) Australia makes agreements with other nations.
06:24   One could say: they’re outsourcing the (question of) care of refugees.
06:30   I’m very curious how Mr Wilders sees this; how he will make agreements with a nation like Libya.
06:34   But the question I asked a while ago, perhaps that I now can get an answer to, is the following:
06:38   If you have the choice between saving people and letting them drown, what then is the choice
06:43   Mr. Wilders makes? I have the strong impression that his choice is: let them drown.
06:48   If we cannot send them back, let them drown!
06:53   (Wilders shows photo) These are the boats the Australian government gives away to people arriving in literal shipwrecks.
07:00   Those boats are supplied with food, water, life-jackets, air conditioning and a diesel engine.
07:17   These are the boats given away by the Australian government to go back where they came from.
07:24   Because they do that, I’ll get back to that Mme Speaker, during the last 18 months Australia
07:29   has received ZERO REFUGEE SHIPS. Nobody even thinks of going to Australia,
07:34   because they really know they will not get into the country.
07:40   There (Australia) they have a pair of brass balls! They say: “We won’t do it. We won’t accept you!
07:43   We’d much rather use that money on our elderly in Australia.”
07:47   That’s what this (Dutch) cabinet should do. Because of that, people don’t drown.
07:51   (Klaver) Mme Chairman. Mr. Wilders goes every time to the situation in Australia.
07:56   I want to return to the Mediterranean. Mr. Wilders wants us to send them back.
08:04   I say, okay, but then one should make agreements with those countries.
08:09   I won’t see that happen any time soon. That’s what Australia has done.
08:21   That won’t happen with Libya. Then you make a simple choice: we let them drown.
08:33   I find this unacceptable. I expected a lot of Mr. Wilders, but not that he would tolerate that.
08:40   (Wilders) That remark is more stupid than stupid, because I already answered his question.
08:46   We transport them in decent ships, often better than the ones they came in. And send them back.
08:50   When the navies of all European countries — it doesn’t have to be as an European force, but it might be —
08:55   patrol coastal waters of Libya and people try to cross over, we send them back immediately.
09:03   They won’t even arrive in (our) territorial waters. You don’t have to make agreements with anyone for that.
09:08   Get back where you came from! That’s what we have to do.
09:12   (interruption of Voordewind, Christian Union, CU) Mme Chairman, let’s elaborate on that Australian example.
09:17   If Mr. Wilders had read, as he no doubt has, what they do furthermore, then Mr. Klaver is right,
09:24   Australia did make agreements with third nations (parties), for example Indonesia, to except those refugees.
09:28   Even stronger, they pay those countries money for that. The cabinet in which you (Wilders, PVV party) were an indirect partner
09:33   made some serious budget cuts on development aid and emergency relief.
09:37   Is Mr. Wilders willing to make agreements with countries?
09:41   And make lots of money available for that? Please, do not refer to Saudi Arabia!
09:47   (Wilders) No, Mme Chairman, we are not willing to do that. Because we won’t have to.
09:51   Have a look at the map. I don’t know how much geography you know.
09:55   People try to get to Australia from all over the world.
10:00   They arrive in the end in Australian waters. That’s not the case here.
10:05   What’s happening now. What Europe is doing already, is working as a taxi service
10:09   rather than a return shuttle service. When you patrol in coastal waters
10:16   you can literally push them back where they came from. Back to where they came from.
10:23   I won’t need any agreement with whatever nation to do just that.
10:28   (Voordewind) That sounds great on stage, and Italy indeed tried to do that.
10:34   However, you can’t send them back to a nation that’s in turmoil.
10:39   Think about Syria, Libya. Or in particular Lebanon, where 1 in 5 refugees is taken care of.
10:45   That’s not realistic. That’s why Australia made Financial agreements with other nations for that.
10:50   Is Mr. Wilders, the PVV party, willing to find money to create ‘safe havens’?
11:00   (Wilders) That’s repeating your question. Therefore, I repeat my answer to you:
11:04   it’s utterly unnecessary. You cannot compare the Mediterranean with Australia.
11:08   We should patrol in African waters and send them right back where they came from. We won’t need any agreements with anyone for that.
11:13   (interruption Pechtold, D66) Mme Chairman, I notice that Mr. Wilders uses the terms asylum and economic refugees interchangeably.
11:21   And that he thinks that the situation in the Mediterranean and Australia are equal.
11:28   Mme Chairman, to me it seems Borneo refugees differ substantially from the hell of Syria.
11:36   And yes, from Africa come people looking for a better life elsewhere.
11:40   However, very many people have to fear for their lives.
11:45   Their wife was raped in a refugee camp, your children don’t have a future,
11:49   you don’t have a roof over your head. You get the message: it (the trip) can be done,
11:53   and you end up in utter misery.
11:56   How can Mr. Wilders throw political refugees and economic refugees into one big pile,
12:02   and how can he, for heaven’s sake, continue saying the situation in Australia
12:07   is similar to the one in the Mediterranean?
12:10   (Wilders) That’s effective, and I want an effective policy.
12:14   If we were to follow Mr. Pechtold’s suggestions, we would have to receive everyone.
12:19   Those are millions of people! A million refugees are coming in one single year to Europe!
12:25   Mr. Pechtold says: “Well, there might be a couple of people who deserve our attention, so let’s take care all of them. Just in case.”
12:30   I assure you, when you (the refugees) go to Italy, you can go anywhere you like.
12:35   You’re registered, and then you go to Denmark, to Germany, to the Netherlands.
12:42   Why? Because the Italians don’t want them, and cannot receive (take care of) them.
12:46   In other words: this cannot work. Millions of people are moving our way.
12:52   We cannot afford to pay for them and our population doesn’t want it.
12:56   So what I say is: Stop all of them, and send them back!
13:00   (Pechtold) Chairman, in the simplistic view of Mr. Wilders, a million refugees are coming our way.
13:05   Reality tells us that regional countries are already overloaded with refugees.
13:09   A country such as Lebanon now has 25% of its population as refugees.
13:14   That would amount to 4 million refugees for our country, if we did the same.
13:18   Chairman, it cannot be that our country shuts its borders,
13:22   closes the dikes, so the problem cannot reach us.
13:28   I asked Mr. Wilders to compare both situations and see the difference between them.
13:37   What Mr. Wilders says is that we do have fireman,
13:41   but if you dare to leave the burning house we push you back in again.
13:45   (Wilders) We can’t listen forever to the sad and sorry stories of D66, the SP, and GL.
13:51   One million people. We cannot handle that. Send. Them. Back.
13:56   That is the only solution, and we shouldn’t even listen to the silly solutions of some of my colleagues here.
14:01   Mme Chairman, as I said, no drama is taking place in Australian waters, because of their (Australian) policy.
14:09   No refugees are going there (in boats) and nobody drowns.
14:14   That’s how they do it in Australia; the smugglers don’t make any money at all.
14:19   Because nobody wants to go to Australia.
14:23   As the Australian prime minister said: it’s the only way to prevent killing or drowning of people:
14:30   to stop them even boarding a boat. Chairman, what I propose, and that should be clear by now,
14:36   is that we need to follow the Australian example. That’s in our interest, as well as that of the immigrants.
14:42   Who are taken for a (boat) ride and even killed by the smugglers.
14:46   Drowned. That we don’t want. That, the PVV doesn’t want. That, nobody should want.
14:53   Chairman, let those (European) countries, as a Euro navy or independently,
14:58   patrol those waters. And send all migrants safely but firmly back.
15:04   Then, only then, will the problem disappear.
15:10   (Pechtold) Chairman, I’ll try it once again.
15:13   Does Mr. Wilders hold the opinion that migrants trying to go to Australia
15:17   are the same as those who try to come to Europe?
15:21   (Wilders) Chairman, we can’t handle the problem.
15:24   You can ask that question a hundred times, you will get a hundred times the same reply. WE CANNOT HANDLE THAT PROBLEM.
15:28   Thinking along your lines, how piteous those poor people are; can one compare the two situations: we cannot handle this problem.
15:35   One million people are coming this way. We can handle that neither numerically
15:39   nor financially. Send them back. That’s what we’ve got to do.
15:43   (Pechtold) Chairman, if those people drown in front of a camera, we state: “We can’t handle that”.
15:49   And later, in front of a camera, if we see they already are raped, beheaded,
15:56   apart from everything else happening, just being killed, Mr. Wilders.
16:01   We (the parliament) say, in the Free West, in the Rich West:
16:08   “No, we have the PVV, who don’t want to give a single cent of development aid,
16:16   who do not want to cooperate in international support missions to help countries in turmoil get their acts together a bit
16:23   and who handle the consequences with a simple ‘we can’t handle this’.
16:27   Chairman, this is a populist scam. A story that doesn’t compute.
16:30   A question as simple as ‘elaborate on the difference between Australia and Africa’ is not answered.
16:35   Why not? Because he can’t.
16:39   (Wilders) Chairman, the remarks by Mr. Pechtold strengthen my belief that we should send them all back.
16:43   All of them. Without exceptions. Without any exception for any group whatsoever.
16:47   I’d like to see those people go the other way.
16:51   Don’t let them escape to Europe, let them escape for example to the Gulf states.
16:58   Let them go that way. You know those super-rich states, such as the UAE, Oman.
17:05   You know them all. Countries that are vastly richer than whatever country.
17:09   I believe that those countries have, at this very moment, (no more than) 120 refugees.
17:14   Let them go there! Instead of coming to Europe.
17:18   (Pechtold) Chairman, now he owns up! (argument) Those Gulf states.
17:28   Those Arab states. Mr. Wilders can’t rave enough about how bad those states are.
17:33   Day in, day out. And now you want to send also the Christians, who try to board, in that direction.
17:38   You send them, in your own words, to their deaths.
17:42   Chairman, I’ll try it once more: Can Australia and Africa be compared
17:49   with the people who are in the boats? Yes or no?
17:51   (Wilders) Chairman, I’ve given the answer already a hundred times.
17:55   However, Mr. Pechtold doesn’t want to listen.
17:58   (Klaver) Chairman, Mr. Wilders is a master of not answering questions.
18:02   That doesn’t say one has to repeat a question all over again.
18:05   I saw something emphatic in Mr. Wilders. It startled me a bit.
18:11   He was talking about sending them back, also in their own interest and safety.
18:16   My question is: What is the opinion of Mr. Wilders about the safety situation in Libya,
18:21   in Syria, in Tunisia? What about the safety situation there?
18:24   (Wilders) Chairman, the whole coastline of North Africa, from Egypt up to Libya,
18:31   up to Tunisia, up to Algeria, up to Morocco, up to the Western Sahara.
18:36   In all the countries I just mentioned, you can’t fool me by saying ‘there are no safe zones there.’
18:41   Find them, I can give you a map and draw it for you. I can point the places to you where they can go.
18:48   But not, I repeat: not, to Europe. We can’t handle that and shouldn’t do that.
18:53   (Klaver) Chairman, Mr. Wilders tells us that most of them come from Libya at the moment.
18:59   Just point out where you want them to go on that map. Where they should go.
19:03   Point out to me on that map where they can go.
19:10   The fact is that those people don’t flee for the fun of it.
19:15   They flee from the horrors in those countries, they’re prosecuted, threatened with being killed.
19:19   They try to escape from war and violence. They don’t do that for the fun of it.
19:23   There isn’t a safe place. Where in Libya is a safe place where we can house them?
19:28   (Wilders) Chairman, those places can be found all over North Africa.
19:32   I said parts of Egypt, as well as parts of Libya,
19:37   especially round its capital, which cannot be compared with Benghazi and the east.
19:42   Better to send them there [lists countries] than to our country, to Europe.
19:50   I said let them flee the opposite way. Let them go to the Gulf states. Let them flee to southern Africa.
19:58   What you want — which is your right of course; we live in a free country — is to get them all here.
20:04   Use our navy to give them a free ticket to The Netherlands.
20:08   We can’t do that, dear gentleman of Green Left. We can’t. We can’t pay for it. The (Dutch) people don’t want it.
20:13   (Klaver) Chairman, the gentleman of the PVV, I’m going to ask him once more, for he is always explicit, clear;
20:21   however, now he is rather vague about ‘entire areas’ ‘somewhere in North Africa’.
20:26   The question remains: Where exactly? The question is, the conclusion is, gentleman of the PVV,
20:30   that there are no such places. Safe places where people can flee to.
20:34   Just be honest about it, gentleman of the PVV. That would make the debate a lot clearer.
20:42   (Wilders) That the gentleman of Green Left doesn’t understand it is his problem.
20:48   The major part of the North African coastline is safe.
20:51   They can go to Egypt Let them tomorrow go to Egypt. What’s unsafe about Egypt?
20:55   We don’t even accept refugees from Egypt!
20:58   The neighboring country from Libya? They can go there right away! Let them go!
21:01   Now you’re standing there with a mouth full of teeth (Dutch expression) Marvelous.
21:06   (Klaver) Chairman, I rarely stand somewhere with my mouth full of teeth,
21:10   most certainly not when I’m addressed by the gentleman of the PVV.
21:14   He again repeats there are many areas and neighboring countries. I’m also well-versed in geography.
21:21   Now, mention such a place, a city, a place they can go to. There aren’t any.
21:26   The fact remains that those people flee from the horrors, because of what they are,
21:31   what they believe in, for freedom of speech. Something that should touch Geert Wilders’ heart.
21:36   So even he would say, that is not a place to be sent to.
21:41   (Wilders) Chairman, all very sad and piteous. However, the entire coastline of North Africa is safe.
21:47   Perhaps the gentleman of Green Left can go there to see that for himself. So he can see it with his own eyes.
21:53   (Kuiken, PvdA, Social Democrats) Hello, Mr. Wilders, a lady from the PvdA here.
21:56   (Wilders) Pleased to meet you.
21:58   Ehhm, I see you’re in your element here. The gestures, the powerful statements, I grant you all that.
22:07   For the fun of it, I even go (partly) along with you in this debate. Let’s assume, all your solutions do work.
22:11   We send everyone who arrives here back. People who flee we keep in the region.
22:19   For the purposes of argument, I accept that. The question remains:
22:25   do you accept that we have a problem in Libya, that there is a war there, forcing people to flee?
22:32   According to me, the answer must be yes.
22:36   If so, does Mr. Wilders acknowledge that people are forced to flee that country?
22:41   Which measures does Mr. Wilders propose to prevent the necessity of fleeing?
22:50   I would like to hear just one serious suggestion from him.
22:53   (Wilders) Chairman, I’m not willing to come up with even a single suggestion.
22:57   Let them figure it out themselves. I said it a hundred times, let those people go to a different country.
23:03   Let them go to Egypt, Morocco. Let them go to the Gulf states, which are rich countries.
23:07   Let them clear up matters in their own countries. We cannot carry the responsibility for the whole world.
23:12   It’s their own responsibility. To settle matters.
23:16   It’s difficult as it is in The Netherlands to survive a cabinet with the PvdA in it!
23:20   Let alone that we go solve North African problems. We can’t do that.
23:23   We shouldn’t even try. To be here (in the parliament) in the opposition is difficult enough as it is already.
23:27   (Kuiken) Yes Chairman, I’ve been in the chamber long enough to know that when Mr. Wilders is in a difficult position he starts sneering.
23:33   I merely conclude: big words, we can talk about solutions, I sincerely want to follow his line of thought.
23:38   However when I ask him for merely one single concrete solution to prevent the necessity of people fleeing,
23:45   I don’t get any reply from Mr. Wilders. As always. I regret that very much.
23:50   (Wilders) Mme Chairman, by sending people back, we prevent people drowning.
23:56   By not sending them back, by giving them false hope, we give them the idea that they can reach Europe,
24:03   exactly that is why people board rickety wrecks and that is why many of them drown.
24:08   As we do as Australia does, we send them back, we, if necessary, give them a safe vessel
24:14   with air conditioning, food and water.
24:17   So they people know it’s useless to even try. Then they will stop trying.
24:22   So they won’t drown. This, the most humane solution so far, Mme Chairman, is the PVV proposal.
24:30   Chairman, I already said it: every refugee costs us 26,000 euros annually.
24:37   An elderly Dutchman gets less than half of that in AOW (old age pension) gross.
24:42   That is something to be utterly ashamed of.
24:45   I’m debating with what kind of parties here. Their own elderly constituents…
24:50   I’m deeply ashamed, Mme Chairman.
24:54   Chairman, our borders must be watertight. The Dutch have a right to that.
24:58   I ask the prime minister: implement that firm but humane example of Australia,
25:07   the push-back policy. Demand that tomorrow in Brussels.
25:15   So they (the EU) can finally do something right.

11 thoughts on ““We Cannot Carry the Responsibility for the Whole World”

  1. What is the meaning of those “center-right” and “socially conservative” Christian parties if they too are a part of of the suicide cult? Let’s please stop harping about the “Left,” except if we include “Christian” and “Jewish” in it.

    The far leftist -atheist Christopher Hitchens was far more “Islamophobic” than any bishop of the Anglican-Episcopal church I’ve heard of since 1970. The leftist Mickey Kaus has written more about America’s Suicide-by-Migra than all the “conservative” GOP presidential candidates in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 –together. The socialist George Orwell himself had more common sense and understanding of race and culture, East and West, than all major British Conservative politicians in the last 60 years, again, together, except Enoch Powell.

    So let’s just have two main categories of political parties: Pro-Ethnocide of Whites and Sucide of Western Civilization, and Against Ethnocide and National Suicide. Contracted it’s Death parties and Life parties.

    To be clear, there isn’t a single major Life party in the West that I know of. There are the sub-rosa perhaps-Life parties like PVV and Front National, that might be counted fully if they took the risk of taking the full position against National Death, therefore risking even more persecution and electoral boycott than they do in their milquetoast present.

    But the parties just reflect the peoples. Most Westerners support the Suicide Cult, even if they call themselves “conservative.” And nothing will dissuade them except a major whack by the 2×4 of history.

    • Takuan Seiyo

      “Let’s please stop harping about the “Left,”’

      Yes, indeed. In my opinion, the progressive Left of previous generations wouldn’t have supported the Trojan Horse of institutionalised multiculturalism, cultural relativism or the Islamic ideology in the name of ‘anti-racism’. Today there’s the Left (somewhere?) and the pseudo-Left of guilt-ridden, often racially patronising, useful idiots.

      I’m a leftist “Islamophobe”BTW, Islamisation is not a Left/Right issue.

    • Well said T.S.; it does seem that our politicians in Western Europe are, to quote Enoch Powell referring to British immigration policies in April 1968, “busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”. It would appear that the elites in neither Britain nor Western Europe, have learned from their terrible immigration errors in the interim.

  2. Personally, I see left and right as obsolete terms. Yes, the left still exists. It still strong. It merely changed their commercials and slapped a bit of paint on the same old rhetoric.

    The right (as in: anything opposing it) never really existed.

    All left wing ideologies share the same goal, they differ in how to reach it. Yes, they can quarrel amongst each other, try to lure in voters. But in the end the goal is the same for all of them: a classless society in which all are equal (but the Party a heck of a lot more equal).

    The right is a mishmash of republicans, monarchists, (protestant) theocrats, liberals, and god nows what more. They all have very different agendas and most of them hardly collaborate. Often they won’t even want to be in the same room.

    • The right (as in: anything opposing it) never really existed.

      The more or less founder of mid-twentieth conservatism would have agreed with you, but I doubt your world view and his co-incide much. In a way, I’m trying to say you’re both tough-minded but your respective conclusions are quite different.

      There is the ‘social’ right and the ‘economic right’. I lean more toward the latter as I am loath to interfere with others, or have them interfere with me…

      Sometimes I join forces with the populist aspects of the Tea Party bec they want government to shrink and they’re willing to put energy into making that happen.

      My favorite economic philosopher is Frederic Bastiat (my keyboard doesn’t have the French accents- sorry)
      Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

      Often the masses are plundered and do not know it.

      When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.

      And what is liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties – liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, or labor, or trade?

      He was only 49 when he died so his work exists in fragments. In that respect, I think of him as a kind of pre-Socratic.

      M.Bastiat wrote a brief monograph on government. Considering that his own country’s revolution finished two years before he was born, he’d had his short lifetime to see its effects and wasn’t impressed.


      Back then, in say 1830 or so, the American Experiment hadn’t failed yet. Many of us would like to return to that time, but we want to bring in broadband fiber optics, a phone glued to our ear, constant entertainment, and government-furnished benefits so we can avoid any discomfort. Sad, really…

      …on the other hand, if Iran ever follows through with its EMP plans for us, America WILL revert instanatly, except for those states which took it seriously and ‘hardened’ their airspace to prevent the effects. So far, only Maine has made any movement toward doing so…

      And will that nice European Union remain civilized as we scrape by on a 18th century “footprint”? More likely it will be the renaissance of piracy.

      And if anyone says we’ll “live in interesting times” I will personally break their keyboard in half. Please, please, find another old Chinese saying before the Chinese arrive. Personally, I like “a fish rots from the head down”.

      • “All men divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves.”

        Well, not a Chinese proverb per se.

        “Men purchase a present comfort at the price of future evils.”

        Also not a Chinese proverb.

        But the entire sum of all morality is to resist these two natural tendencies. Which is really only the second tendency, since it includes the first.

        This is why it is fundamentally impossible for anyone who does not accept and contemplate the eternal nature of the self to remain moral. They always eventually decide that they can escape the worse evil in the future because they will be dead by then anyway. Trying to make men moral when they don’t accept and contemplate their eternal nature necessitates ensuring that they can have no reasonable hope of dying before the full measure of retribution for their misdeeds has been exacted.

        Which isn’t very moral either.

        The best we can do is leave it up to people to decide for themselves whether they want to believe they’ll still be around to experience the consequences of their bad decisions, no matter how long it takes for them to come back home to roost, and act accordingly ourselves.

    • If what I have read can be believed, the terms left and right originated with the French parliament where the monarchists sat on the right and the anti-monarchists sat on the left.

      Since there are almost no monarchists anymore (excepting perhaps the pro-caliphate Muslim population) it’s a bit difficult to see how these terms changed over time.

      Left now seems to mean anti-traditionalist but pro-economic-authoritarian. Right could mean just about anything else.

      The problem is that we have for a very long time allowed neo-Marxists to control language. (Semantic control is a significant part of Marxist “revolutionary” theory.) This is evident from the number of times people have used the neo-Marxist terminology (islamophobic) just within the comments on this article.

      The unfortunate truth out there is that there’s a linguistic battlefield. Ideas have to either fight to win using tactics that actually work or they get killed. Right now the neo-Marxists seem to have a near monopoly on effective soldiers and commanders.

  3. If I may contribute my ha’peth worth..

    Terms like “left”, “right”, “centre”, “moderate” etc etc are frankly completely meaningless terms and only have the meaning the the prevailing powers that be append to them…

    At least that’s what a classically liberal centre left/right anarcho-syndicalist like me thinks anyhow.

    On a vaguely related theme I recall a story where Reagan was being wheeled into the operating theatre after he was shot and him asking the surgeon whether he was a republican? To which the surgeon apparently replied, “Mr President, in here everyone is a Democrat”…

    Which brings me to the following,

    When we are finally in the existentialist struggle in the next decade or so then the overwhelming majority of the current left/right/centre paradigm will suddenly ALL find themselves being fervent “democrats”.

    If one gets my drift…

  4. It seems like Geert has shaken the hornets’ nest – so he should expect the hornets to respond with a frenzied attack. For that, it would help if Geert had some more data ready, to face the inevitable hand-wringing that his speeches propose… for example:

    A list of countries and cities in Africa that are “safe”.
    A list of Gulf states with greater or (roughly) equal wealth to the Netherlands.
    A breakdown of the €26,000 figure per refugee (what does it include, where is it from?)
    Examples of “migrants” coming in not from war-torn regions such as Syria, but relatively wealthy places such as Nigeria.

    Also, points such as “we’d expect Christians to go to Gulf states?” should be answered straight away, with “As Christians have nowhere else to go, and assimilate well into the largely Christian society here, they can come, if they can prove that they are who the claim to be”.

    We can beat off the hornets – but only by being more aggressive than them! And yes – even risk being accused of the big R-word (the insinuation behind this, and all other attacks against Wilders, Farage and others). But reply with asking, if the harassment, costs and loss of quality of life (seen by phenomena such as white flight) locals face from accommodating “migrants” is a better alternative.

    • As an aside – if the hornets feel like they’re being faced with someone more powerful than them, they’ll switch to their next tactic: change the subject. Or finish the session.

      Once they do that, you know you’re onto a winner!

  5. I guess the most obvious thing that was not touched upon in this clip is that the “migrants” themselves actually choose to go to dangerous countries such as Libya (in order to reach Europe.) Subsequently it’s a little bit rich to claim that they cannot be return to Libya because this somehow constitutes an unprecedented danger.

    A glaring example of logical fallacy, or just wilful ignorance from hardcore multiculturalists?

Comments are closed.