“We Will Never Be Intimidated”

On Tuesday, Geert Wilders gave his first interview to the news media since last weekend’s thwarted terrorist attack in Garland, Texas.

Many thanks to H. Numan for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this clip from RTL:


0:00   Mr. Wilders, you spoke at a meeting in Texas, about cartoons showing the prophet.
0:06   An attack was committed, in their own words, by IS (Islamic State).
0:08   Did that scare you?
0:12   Yes, of course it did. Maybe not because it happened, but it never happened that close to me. And I’ve experienced a lot of things.
0:17   I’m very happy the two perpetrators didn’t get into the building, what they were clearly
0:21   planning to do, shooting as they went.
0:27   But they didn’t get very far past the alert security.
0:32   It does show how serious the problems are.
0:35   It was a meeting not meant to provoke, but a response
0:40   to an event shortly after the murder of the editor of Charlie Hebdo.
0:47   In January, at exactly the same location, Muslims met and
0:51   agreed we should never allow cartoons, that freedom of speech must be limited.
0:55   And that’s why this meeting was held on the same spot.
0:58   I think we should learn a lesson from this.
1:01   What lessons?
1:03   The lessons that, one shouldn’t be intimidated, that one should display cartoons,
1:10   that you shouldn’t pull in your head, for whomever.
1:16   Otherwise, the message to those using violence is: “This really works!
1:19   “The moment we shoot or threaten to shoot, they get so scared they start quarrelling amongst themselves, so the cartoons stop.”
1:26   I think the reaction we should be showing is that we’ll stand up for freedom of speech, ALWAYS!
1:31   That we’ll do that without violence and in a democratic way,
1:35   but we will never be intimidated. Therefore, those cartoons should be shown in very many places,
1:40   especially right now, be shown, such as in the Dutch Parliament.
1:44   I’ll make a request there to the presidium of the Parliament to show those cartoons even here.
1:50   I hope every Parliament will do that.
1:51   The moment you do that, and send the message “no matter what you do, how many threats you utter,
1:55   “what acts of violence you commit, the effect will be that we’ll show more rather then fewer cartoons,
2:00   because freedom of speech is so sacred to us that we will never let you take it away from us”,
2:05   then you do something that’s really effective.
2:08   That’s what should happen now.
2:09   We find one should say everything, you won’t have to, everything should be possible and permissible.
2:13   There are people who think somewhat differently about this.
2:17   And there are people who say: if you really want to organize these kinds of meetings, you deliberately
2:22   provoke them, like a red flag in front of a bull.
2:28   You don’t provoke them; because once again: this meeting was
2:30   A response to the meeting on the same spot, same building, same room, in Garland, Texas,
2:35   where Muslims after the murder, the horrible horrible terrorist murders in January
2:39   of the editors of Charlie Hebdo, said: no more cartoons, we’re
2:42   going to outlaw this, we forbid it.
2:47   And that’s why we said, Pamela Geller said, and invited me to help there,
2:50   We’ll congregate in the same place to show
2:53   we won’t be bullied.
2:56   That is the response we should show now.
2:59   The idea is not to provoke those people, or to irritate people, but to show we won’t be intimidated,
3:03   and that freedom of speech is something good.
3:06   What also plays a role, I want to be honest about this, is that the prophet Mohammed
3:11   Is an example for 1.5 billion people in this world.
3:17   Thus, as long as this is the case and they don’t accept reality and truth of this (freedom of speech), matters will never improve,
3:22   neither in Islam, nor the situation in the free West.
3:25   That Mohammed wasn’t a friendly chap.
3:27   He was a man who killed, ordered beheadings,
3:30   just like ISIS, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda do, until this very day.
3:36   He had entire Jewish tribes beheaded, he raped a little nine-year-old girl.
3:40   He lied about everything.
3:44   Mohammed was the biggest terrorist of all times within the history of Islam
3:47   and now an example conduct for very many Muslims.
3:49   The moment we don’t dare to say this with honesty, are not ALLOWED to say this, not allowed to depict him in a cartoon —
3:55   You know Kurt Westergaard drew Mohammed with a bomb on his head —
4:00   that will be the end of it.
4:01   We should, must be able speak the truth.
4:03   And we should stand on our right of freedom of speech.
4:05   That is the only point we stand for. If we omit this, it’s all over for our freedom.
4:11   Monday’s experience in Texas: Does that make you more careful, or invite you to tell your story even more?
4:17   Well, in any case, to tell it more often.
4:19   For again, a response may never be based on silence enforced by violence.
4:26   We met/gathered there with a number of non-violent cartoonists who showed
4:31   they found freedom of speech more important than
4:36   the use of violence.
4:38   Again, not to provoke, but as a response to a meeting they (the Muslims) held
4:42   to outlaw cartoons after murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo.
4:46   I will now do what I was doing already, incidentally, in The Netherlands as well as elsewhere, fight even more
4:52   To show Islam and freedom do NOT go together.
4:55   If we want to keep our freedom in the free West, we should counter Islamization.
4:59   We should show who this prophet Mohammed really was. He wasn’t a nice man to be used as an example for so many people
5:04   He was a terrorist, for even now, people kill, and kill cartoonists, to avenge him.
5:14   Horrible events, which should never be accepted.
5:17   I fight for freedom. I even founded a party named Party for Freedom.
5:22   It’s my lifework to resist Islamisation.

11 thoughts on ““We Will Never Be Intimidated”

  1. we are now accelerating into oblivion at breakneck speed



      • Hell doesn’t exist. Just like 72 virgins don’t. Now here is a lolly, and go to sleep.

        • oops. I didn’t notice the nature of your comment.

          Since we can’t prove or disprove the ‘fact’ of an afterlife, I use William James’ ideas in his Gifford Lectures. The notion of a “radical empiricism” says some things lie outside of proof and yet we can validly make assertions about them. I realize that radical atheists don’t agree with Mr. James’ pragmatism, but he is well worth reading – it always pays to read those we don’t agree with.

          The Varieties of Religious Experience: Unabridged Edition

          This was written at the turn of the century or so, and no doubt there was a centennial celebration. It hasn’t been surpassed, at least in English.

        • Hell certainly exists on earth in places. If you were in a hell-like psychological state, for whatever reason, it would also exist right where you are now.

  2. If you were to ask people in Garland, TX if they recognize ISIS or other Muslim terrorist groups as their legitimate government, they would say no.

    A) If you were to suggest than an illegal operation of some sort, illegal according to federal or state law, be conducted in Garland, TX you would get objections. Not just because it’s illegal, but because federal SWAT teams might descend on the operation and might end up shooting people etc. It makes sense for people to object to such an operation because they do recognize the governments involved as legitimate and wouldn’t want to be affected by the associated enforcement action.

    B) If you suggest that a Mohammed art contest be conducted in Garland, TX, illegal according to sharia law, enforcers from terrorist groups such as ISIS, or lone wolf devout Muslims may show up to enforce sharia law by killing many people. Some people in Garland, TX would object to this violation of sharia law because some sort of volunteer sharia law enforcement might show up to enforce sharia law by trying to kill people.

    So what exactly is the difference between A and B? In both cases, a government or would-be government is able to enforce their authority over people if they submit, or (in Arabic) islam.

    So are Americans going to islam to case B and effectively declare ISIS/Islam to be a de facto government with authority over them? I guess we will find out as more of these Mohammed art contests are organized.

    • I don’t know if you’re aware why Pamela Geller chose Garland as the site for her group’s Constitutional pushback against the inroads Islam has made in the US? Back in January, it had been the site of a conference declared “the annual” (I don’t think they wanted to give the game away by calling it “the FIRST annual”) conference to jinn up – pardon the expression – more respect for the Profit and make a little money besides…


      In this first case, there had been many protestors in Garland when the Muslims showed up in January for their gig, with a questionable keynote speaker.


      Love the signage in that report.

      Here’s some info on the Imam:


      I don’t know how Ms. Geller was able to get that site for her conference, but good on her: it was strategically smart, if dangerous. And she knew that going in. That was a good example of using your own wealth and others’ donations to create the kind of crisis there needs to be if this country is to come to its senses. So good on her.

      I think maybe Garland wants to shed of the whole thing, both sides…which is why we’re hearing grumbling now. As people have been pointing out for years, you may not choose war but war may choose you.And that is going to continue to happen as cartoonists all over the West step forth…or, otoh, they may all end up like Gregorius Nekschot in the Netherlands:


      He more or less “voluntarily” ripped his own tongue out (or put down his pen, take your choice of metaphor) in order to continue breathing in and out. No more cartoons.

      His style was intriguing, though the content was so deliberately offensive it was hard to get your mind around. If he had been born in the U.S. would he have continued on or would he have long since gone underground here too?

      Anybody remember Molly Norris? Poor woman had no idea what Islam was. She was simply a cute lil Leftist vegan (or whatever) who knew the creed: “be offensive”. So she brightly chirped “I know! Let’s all have a “Draw Mohammed Day” and bitterly learned that Islam changes the equation in such “protests”. She thought she was just offending the religious Right until she got her very own fatwa…Have no idea if she ever came out of hiding in Seattle. Hope she found a job teaching or something. She and I corresponded very briefly but I couldn’t get past the angry terror/Leftist brain to really talk to the person beneath.

      I often think of her as the paradigm for what is going to happen to so many of the clueless Left when they find themselves the target of Islam for their own socio-political views. Do gays really think Islam is on their side? How about feminists? If they *are* aware of what Islam wants to do to them, why are they whistling past the graveyard?? Or do they believe their bubble bullet-proof?

      • Yep, I did know about the “stand with the prophet” conference, or whatever it was called, and it was blatantly obvious that it was a jihadi taqiyya fest from the beginning. So I do know why the draw Mohammed contest/exhibit was in the same conference center, and the decision made perfect sense.

        I actually did draw Mohammed on draw Mohammed day and posted the drawing on Facebook. (That was apparently before Facebook started islaming to terrorist sharia enforcement.)

        This may be the key point at which the usual obnoxious leftists started islaming to terrorist sharia enforcement tactics, and the point at which islaming to Muslim terroristic threat became the mainstream norm on the left.

        They may claim that they’re just islaming to sharia law because they don’t want to needlessly offend anyone, but when have they ever cared about offending anyone? The reality is that they’re just cowards islaming to anything that they think will result in believable violent threats against them, and those just happen to come from Muslim terrorist sharia enforcers, so that is who they are islaming to.

        Yea, they’re willing to “speak truth to power” unless that power is willing to kill them for it. Under violent threat they’ll just islam themselves to power, not speak truth to it.

      • The saddest thing in this country is the sheer amount of apathy that allows a handful of creepy, cowardly guys to threaten the rest of the populace.

        Instead of people demanding that the authorities give the boot to these Shariah creeps and “religious” leaders, that would have been done even in the 60’s and send them packing. We tolerate them in our presence and we either simply ignore the plight of the bullied or if the victim exercises his/her rights like Pamela did – we blame the victim and demonize her. I keep hearing from the news commentators what she is doing is filthy, racist and that the ADL and SPLC have condemned her organization as a hate group.

        Amazing isn’t it. Try to shine a light on Islam like Pamela did – which BTW has been quite polite and lacking in vulgarity that defines much of TV today and all the pampered doyens and multi-millionaire commentators make her to be as bad as the Westboro Church and the NeoNazis.

        On the bright side she smoked out a lot of quislings among the political class(almost all), the MSM(almost all) and some powerful Christian “leaders” as well. Now we know who our friends and enemies are.

  3. That the reporter had to ask the question, “What lessons?” goes to the very heart of why the majority of people are still clueless as to what Islam truly represents.

    There are very few people in positions of authority/power who have connected the dots between Islam and Muslims and the alphabet soup of Islamic fundamentalists now running amok on the world stage.

    We are in a war with Islam whether we choose to recognize that FACT or not. It is not a war where two or more sides face off against each other while all participants hope for victory over the other, but asymmetrical warfare where the enemy wears no uniform or bears allegiance to any nation but the Ideology of Islam, and chooses individually to commit sabotage and murder at his time of opportunity against those he professes to hate.

    And that is the ‘bare bones’ of who and what we are pretending to not be at war with.

  4. “War and Remembrance”, anyone?
    While remembrance is fading away, wars continue, not offshores, but right at your doorsteps !!

Comments are closed.