Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Geert Wilders' closing speech at his trial for inciting hatred against Muslims

Is this 'one of the greatest speeches of our time', or 'an incitement to hatred'?



Anonymous Sov_Res said...

Wilders, one of few great men left, will be found guilty.

And the light of the enlightenment will burn yet more candles dimmer, as Europe progresses inexorably towards its Islaic destiny.

1 June 2011 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


1 June 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

A little more erudite, please, Mr DanJ0.

1 June 2011 at 19:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everything this Wilders fellow stands against is all Danjo stands for.

I hope that was erudite enough YG.

Geert has left freedom in the Courts hands, if they do not embrace it, then the Dutch know where they stand with the Courts.

We are up against our Governments our Courts and the Danjos of this World, who believe in a Liberty to do as they please.

Not a liberty founded on Christ.

1 June 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's a lot of name-dropping of illustrious people from the past and it's the reiteration of the value of freedom of speech which JS Mill type liberals like me obviously support. That's pretty much it as far as I can see.

He makes some political statements about the threat of Islam and what he sees as the Islamisation of his country. Fair enough, I'm inclined to agree to some extent. Whether I agree with his method of dealing with that, I don't know as I don't really follow his career. I don't know the details of what he is being tried for here either.

We need to be very robust in this country in dealing with religious intrusion into the lives and freedom of others. Perhaps you have seen this story on the Telegraph site today which will no doubt thrill Mr Rottenborough et al. The line between the free speech and incitement or threats is sometimes quite hard to define. We need to get smart at tying it down though.

1 June 2011 at 20:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Everything this Wilders fellow stands against is all Danjo stands for."


Have you decided what my 'suitably harsh punishment' will be yet for holding classical liberal views? Or are you going to leave that one hanging in the thread below? I'd like to get the measure of it and you.

1 June 2011 at 20:07  
Anonymous martinb said...

Not one of the great speeches, but a bloody good one.
The west needs more politicans like Geert Wilders.

There is an Enlish text of the speech available on 'Gates of Vienna'.

1 June 2011 at 20:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Have TPTB taken down the vid, or am I just thick?

Wilders is one of the very few men I would vote for.

1 June 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's there but also on youtube with video ID tnjZEZggkkA

1 June 2011 at 20:12  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Geert Wilders is a true patriot and stands in the long and noble tradition of the defence of freedom of belief, and expression once known fully in the UK and limited in Europe.

His speech was an example of a dignified, soundly reasoned and transparent declaration of his motives and actions.
Where then is the 'crime'?

His quotes from Kafka and Luther were apposite and powerful.
He was, and is right, in that "truth is on trial today".

Nobody should be convicted for uttering their beliefs in a free and open society.
The judges have his integrity to consider and should lay aside all bigotry and prejudice accordingly.
Let us hope and pray that their decision will accord with what should lie in their collective conscience.
Most emphatically Geert Wilders is not guilty.

1 June 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger English Viking said...


Not in Norway, it ain't.

1 June 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

If Wilders is before a Jury, he has a chance.

Before a panel of Judges? He's a goner. They'll lock him up with muzzies, and hope he dies.

1 June 2011 at 20:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'd like to get the measure of it and you" says Danjo

Thank you for showing an interest, but the passion is not reciprocated.

1 June 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I should also add to my exegesis that Wilders is saying again and again that he intends to carry on doing whatever he has been doing to end up where he is. Fair enough. If the court takes against him and he wants to be a martyr for it then that's a fair way to achieve it. But you have to admire the stance even if it flies in the face of pragmatism.

1 June 2011 at 20:21  
Anonymous PJ said...

Wilders claims to be a champion of freedom. Why, then, does he advocate the banning of the Koran?

1 June 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Thank you for showing an interest, but the passion is not reciprocated."

Ho ho.

I think you've bottled your response in the thread below. That doesn't really make sense in the context of your previous words. You should do a Wilders even if what you want to say makes you look god-awful.

1 June 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger Bigland said...

Pj: "Wilders claims to be a champion of freedom. Why, then, does he advocate the banning of the Koran?"

As I understand it, he calls for consistency: Mein Kampf is banned in his country, so he argues the Koran should also be banned, since it is similar in content.

1 June 2011 at 20:45  
Anonymous IanCad said...

History will judge. If, (God Forbid) he is bumped off by a Saracen fanatic, then it will be hailed as a very great speech.
The Dutch are making a disgrace of themselves by dragging this man into court. We should hang our heads in shame for allowing our rulers to ban him from our shores.

1 June 2011 at 20:50  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Wilders is without doubt a brave voice in the wilderness. I wish he was a Brit.

If I was a praying type he would be permanently in them.

1 June 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"As I understand it, he calls for consistency: Mein Kampf is banned in his country, so he argues the Koran should also be banned, since it is similar in content."

Shouldn't he be arguing that Mein Kampf should have its ban reversed instead if he's in favour of free speech?

I've read Mein Kampf. It's bizarre, crap, poorly written, and philosophically rambling. Yet important for understanding what a mentalist its author was.

Of course, banning the Qur'an would make it extremely difficult for Muslims to continue to be Muslims in Holland, which is the main reason I think Wilders is going for that approach.

Of course, we have some experience in England with internecine religious struggles and the effectiveness or otherwise of suppressing one by the other.

1 June 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Agree with the content or not it is a pretty mediocre speech as speeches go. Short on substance and high on emotion. Little reasoned argument, just a series of one lined, self-obsessed statements about hard done by he is and how he is fighting the great fight.

He sees himself as a martyr for the cause of freedom, Christianity and western values. He compares himself to great historical figures. One suspects he would welcome a conviction and a prison term.

"Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health." Is he a narcissist? Sounds like it and they do make impassioned speeches.

"Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest."

He is also on record as saying:

"We [in the West] are all Israel"
"Israel is the West's first line of defence (against Islam)"

Ummm .... I wonder. Incitement or reasoned debate?

1 June 2011 at 21:21  
Anonymous IslamHater said...

I hope all those who were instrumental in bringing this prosecution against Geert Wilders up end in the same manner that Theo van Gogh did — shot through, head-hacked and bleeding to death in a gutter.

I hope they end up in Hell too.

Islam is a disease far worse than smallpox. The only sensible thing to do about it is quarantine it and eradicate it from the face of the Earth.

But I guess some you might balk at that. Still, that's what it will come down too.

1 June 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous len said...

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell.)
And telling people the truth will not win you many friends,because a lot of people do not want to know the truth.And those do not want to know the truth become part of the lie.

But truth has a habit of breaking through, rearing up, and biting one in ones rear end.
Perhaps if we learn the lessons of History truth would seem to be a more valuable asset.
Political Correctness is a two edged sword which is being used against those it is supposed to protect by stifling free speech and open discussion of threats to our Society whether these threats have substance or not.

1 June 2011 at 21:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Last Dodo in typically Arch-appeaser style! Even Danjo has more cock and brains than that little feathered fellow! I bet if the Pope started to speak out like Wilders has and Dodo would suddenly be all in favour it, mindless drone that he is!

1 June 2011 at 21:45  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

If I were not gay, Danjo would be my type of man...

1 June 2011 at 21:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

Islam Hater,

Sounds reasonable to me. Apart from the going to Hell bit.


I don't know how old you are, but judging by the inane content of most of your posts/beliefs/opinions, you are fairly young.

Probably young enough that, when you get to 70 (D.V,) you will have witnessed the utter destruction of the West, G.B, Free-speech and anything else that is good and wholesome.

With your ridiculous displays of weakness and liberality, I doubt you'll make it that far; some muzzie will have offed you for not wearing a burkha long before then.

1 June 2011 at 21:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think you've bottled your response in the thread below" says Danjo

You are just fishing for some hate monger Danjo, so you can do a liberal song and dance.

I have been involved in the Lawful Rebellion since 2006 cocker, its not about being evil. Its about stopping evil and you don't seem to recognise evil when it stares you in the face.

You will never get my measure, because you do not respect the sacred nature of an Oath.

Let alone one after the order of Melchizedek.

1 June 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "You are just fishing for some hate monger Danjo, so you can do a liberal song and dance."

Just seeking to clarify the meaning of "a suitably harsh punishment" in the context of what you said.

1 June 2011 at 22:12  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Yes, It's a speech in our time but let's see it written on a piece of paper

1 June 2011 at 22:20  
Anonymous IslamHater said...

"Sounds reasonable to me. Apart from the going to Hell bit." — English Viking

Thanks. I'm glad to hear it. As for the Hell thing: yes, I meant to qualify that (with a weaselly "if it exists") but in my rabid frenzy of hate it got lost in all the foam.

Nice axe. Wield it well — when the time comes.

I wonder if the spacing will come out right this time.

1 June 2011 at 22:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Islam Hater,

I can assure you, I'll weild more than an axe when the time comes.

What I meant by the 'Hell' comment was not that I believe that its existence is in doubt, just that that particular punishment is not one I would wish on my worst enemies.

To see them despatched to the next life (or death) is enough for me. God can decide the rest.

Just get rid, one way or another, while there is still time.

1 June 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Owl said...

Some odd comments!

Let's see, if someone makes a joke or caricturises Jesus, I may not like it but I have to accept another persons opinion. If I make a joke about Mo or caricturise him then I risk getting the chop.

It isn't hard to see where Gert is coming from.

Gert makes his comments and lands up before a court!

Where is Gert's freedom of speech?

Holland was previously famous for it's attachment to individual freedom.

What a sad day for the western world.

1 June 2011 at 22:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1 June 2011 at 22:51  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Geert Wilders is a far right populist. Very dangerous in liberal deomocracies as the history of the mid-twentieth century shows.

"I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam", he has said. There's a difference? The eqivalent of saying: "I don't hate Christians, I hate the followers of Christ."

He identifies Islamic extremists as somewhere between 5% and 15% of Muslims, but argues that no Muslim can be moderate without becoming apostate. Circular reasoning.

You can't beat it can you? How do you turn a minority of law abiding moderates into a majority of fanatics? Outrage and threaten them and create a climate of hatred!

A one trick pony - eliminate Islam from the world. Sure that'll succeed. A tactic to gain power and support? A far right populist who feeds on the fear of the man in the street, who's policies are as dangerous to freedom as extreme Islam.

Anonymous, I think I know who you are and you do like scriptural quotes:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

The approach adopted by the Pope is to strive to prevent contention, strife, and war; to use the influence of the church to reconcile opposing parties and not to inflame passions.

Nazi Germany, circa 1935, would be a good place to start to learn lessons from history about the other way!

1 June 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger Owl said...


Gert Wilders is only slated as "far right populist" by left oriented socialists still struggling to hold on to their concept of controlling the masses. They see him as competition.

As the Fabian socialists have infiltrated most areas including the courts, they consider themselves strong enough to convict a man for saying what he thinks.

They have badly miscalculated.

If they convict him then the Kraken wakes. If they acquit him then the Kraken wakes.

Do try to think a little deeper.

1 June 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger Bigland said...

DanJ0: "Shouldn't he be arguing that Mein Kampf should have its ban reversed instead if he's in favour of free speech?"

He could, but then he'd be accused of being a Nazi. Oh, wait...

The Last Dodo: "'I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam', he has said. There's a difference? The eqivalent of saying: 'I don't hate Christians, I hate the followers of Christ.'"

That's not equivalent, since "followers of Christ" is (more or less) a synonym of "Christians". There is most definitely a difference between a set of rules/beliefs (e.g. Islam, Christianity) and the human beings that believe them (e.g. Muslims, Christians).

1 June 2011 at 23:10  
Anonymous Intersellar Alliance Assement of Human Savages said...

Whilst the humans are at present simple savages, incapable of even visiting their nearest stars, let alone planets,our scientists predict that in about 300 of the human years the savages will be able to do so. We must therefore watch the situation- if, the humans continue on a democratic trajectory then all is well, we can welcome them into the intergalactic community. If Islam becomes the dominant force on this planet, then the interstellar alliance must prepare for the worst, even, perhaps war.

1 June 2011 at 23:20  
Anonymous Interstellar Alliance said...

Further note- Perhaps this Cranmer is a worthy spokesperson for the humans? We could freeze his grace until the humans have reached civil behaviour. His Grace : Clearly above average intelligence, erudite and far sighted. We must investigate further...

1 June 2011 at 23:23  
Anonymous PJ said...

Bred in the Bone...very interesting...very interesting indeed...

1 June 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

He speaks as a true patriot. Is it now a crime to oppose the spread of an ideology that rejects Christianity and persecutes non-Muslims?

1 June 2011 at 23:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It was a speech from the heart from a man who has a genuine love for his county and fellow countrymen. If he's not acquitted then there is something wrong with those who are sitting in judgement of him.

What are they going to find him guilty of, caring for his country? All he's done is point out and advise on a major threat to destroy their way of life and set civilisation back hundreds of years. If he's not acquitted then that means hundreds of years of civilisation down the drain and those who fought for freedom of speech would have fought in vain and that will be like a kick in the guts for the many millions who seek to protect it. I always thought the Dutch were forward thinkers.

2 June 2011 at 00:07  
Blogger srizals said...

Definitely an incitement of hatred! But I love his hair though, makes me think of the villain in the Incredibles. Hope the Incredibles would survive this one, in the real world.

2 June 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger English Viking said...


I can't begin to express my hate, because it would probably lead to my arrest.

Muslims are fine; in muslim countries. Leave them together long enough, they'll eradicate the problem themselves.

Islam is like the the shit on your shoes: stinky, toxic and easily cleansed.

2 June 2011 at 00:46  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Owl said ...
"As the Fabian socialists have infiltrated most areas including the courts, they consider themselves strong enough to convict a man for saying what he thinks ... Do try to think a little deeper."

Where did I say he should be convicted? If anything this would just strengthen his support as you point out.

We were asked to comment on the quality of his speech. Using the criminal law to curtail extreme and provocative statements by politicians is a whole other debate.

I'm not a Fabian. I just find the divisive and inflamatory approach of the likes of Geert Wilders unacceptable. Just as I find speeches by Islam extremists, Zionist extremists and, yes, Christian extremists equally unacceptable. I'm opposed to anyone or any group that divides by emphasing difference.

It wasn't the speech of a peacemaker, that's for sure.

I repeat:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

2 June 2011 at 00:55  
Blogger English Viking said...


Go to the match, did you?


BTW I'll not stop. Not until I either get banned, or you admit your lie.

C'mon, just admit it, and you have my word I'll not mention it again. Confession is good for the soul.

2 June 2011 at 01:11  
Blogger Alcuin said...

I have said elsewhere that human decisions (in social, cultural and political matters) are not based on reason. A far more primitive part of the brain is involved, where emotions rule and the factors involved are fear, venality, pecking order and loyalty.

Our intellect is only employed after the decision has been made, in order to justify it, Bart Simpson style, regardless of how defensible it be. Wilders, right or wrong, is a shrinking island of courage in a pusillanimous sea of obfuscation. I happen to think he is right, and would challenge anyone to find any flaw in his analysis of Islam.

His analogy with Luther is very apt. Europe stands at a fork in its history. It can stand (and die, if necessary) on its feet, or live on its knees. This is not a case that can be hushed up, the whole world is watching, and will judge Dutch justice by the result. If Wilders is found guilty, the words of the judges will be mercilessly dissected around the world.

2 June 2011 at 01:14  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I is difficult to disagree with anything Mr Wilder has said.

To say that speaking the truth goes a long way to preserving freedom, is one thing. Knowing the truth with which to speak, and therefore preserve freedom, is quite another.

I prefer the quote.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Not entirely true, but essentially an important thing to bare in mind, as if there was just one thing our own establishment love with a passion, then it would be for their own subjects to exist in a state of almost perpetual fear, or better still terror.

IMO the the perceived threat from Islam to freedom inside westernized nations is almost infinitely greater then the actual threat.

After all it was not foreign or domestic Islam that gave us political correctness and the many laws that now go with it, it was our own elected LABOUR government.

As it will also be our now elected Con/Lib government that we act to preserve PC, and all that goes with it.

We can not blame Islamic fundamentalism for this, neither can we blame it for the mass immigration of many Muslims over the last 15 years.

We can however blame our own ESTABLISHMENT, because blaming individual political parties for this type of thing, is exactly what our own establishment want us to do. Blaming individual political parties is only going to further blinker us from the inroads and repressions of our true enemies.

Fundamentalist Islam can only harm our FREEDOM, if our own establishment wishes it to do so. Which IMO, it most clearly does, otherwise we would not have this particular problem, either in this country, or any other country in Western Europe, or The USA.

Perhaps Mr Wilders is strongly alluding to this point, but cannot bring himself to actually spell it out, or dare not do so.

I would go as far as saying that UK resident Muslims, very much in common with conservative thinking people as a whole, face far more daily, and serious threats to their own preferred way of life, then does the average UK citizen.

2 June 2011 at 01:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Last time I'll comment on this.

I don't appease bullies no matter how persistent.

Whether I went to a particular football match really is none of your business.

Get a life!

2 June 2011 at 01:45  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Is Wilders right? Of course he is, he's extreme right. But is he wrong? Critics of Islam have been murdered in the Netherlands. Nobody has been killed in the Netherlands for their religious opinions since the 17th century. Can you envisage the Archbishop of Canterbury raising an army to attack the Archbishop of Westminster? I thought not.

Not only is Wilders right, he is not wrong.

2 June 2011 at 02:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I do not consider the main part of speech incitement , making the point that if we are we are free , we have to not be in fear of law in speaking .The appeal to the judges to consider he has done no wrong in speaking seems pretty fundamental to me.
The nuaiance that a liberal party politician would not be put on trial for saying islam would be no threat to Netherlands culture ,is a most interesting point.For those in government that have pushed mass immigration as the necessary modernity ,it is clear that given enough migration a country and its perhaps long established peoples stabilty/culture , becomes somthing else by an automatic process.
His resentment at the change that increased demands and pressure brought about by Islam to his countries subconcious identity ,makes the case that the law is benign to the upkeep/protection viability of what would be considered an indigenous culture/language/beliefs.
Courts may define boundries and civil rights , but what of cultural dissolving ? He rightly asks a more fundamental question of who has the rights to protect his country from harm via immigration or an ideaology that seeks to change his culture.

It perhaps didnt have his useual flair and he kept pressing certain key aspects of the important freedom right before the law.

My encounters with dutch people ,I found them to quite open and definite in what they speak (as opposed to our often more reserved styles),that in some ways must be a testament to their culture.
He is of course brooching the idea that islam seeks to change Dutch culture and seek to remove all that isnt islam.That in itself is not incitement ,as stark as his opposition is to it.The hidden possibility that his pro immigration politicians are themselves inciting cultural destruction ,but the law does not recognise there actions as such, is interesting .

Imagine trying to explain your rights of religous freedom in a country with sharia law ! would your rights to celebrate easter be treated with the same law ? has allah not already said how you are to treat the non muslim lawfully in sharia?. No such similar legal stick exists in the christian based legal system/country.

He didnt touch on other aspects of immigration and in that sense as a man speaking for dutch peoples freedoms and culture as being higher than what Islam proposes,it is a great speech.

A nazi speech would have sounded somewhat different , it is worth remembering that the Nazis formed out of the people knowing the loss/defeat of their country. He is though perhaps pointing out that nazism is a natural outcome if the law fails to honour the freedom inbuilt into the history/story of indigenous cultures that fought for their own countries law to express its own peoples freedoms.

2 June 2011 at 02:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell it to the Judge Danjo, because unlike Geert Wilder I believe you will face trial.

2 June 2011 at 06:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Tell it to the Judge Danjo, because unlike Geert Wilder I believe you will face trial."

Well, thank you for sharing that with me. I guess we'd both better hope that the Judge doesn't turn out to be Allah, if that is what you want to turn your original comment into.

2 June 2011 at 06:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bigland: "He could, but then he'd be accused of being a Nazi. Oh, wait..."

Then he has nothing to lose and something to gain by being consistent to his ideals of freedom of speech himself. But he isn't.

2 June 2011 at 06:25  
Anonymous len said...

It is perhaps not so surprising the selectiveness of Liberals on the matters of free speech when it comes to a subject they disagree with! .
I suppose liberals only can be 'liberal' with their own personal agendas.

The word to describe this I belive is hypocrisy.

2 June 2011 at 07:08  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

We have less freedom to day than 60 years ago. People should be allowed to express what they feel without persicution.Mr Wilders has only expressed what he can see is happening. He is correct, it is a political trail as some people cannot face up to the truth of reality.
If he is convicted, then it is those that convict him that are the Nazis.

2 June 2011 at 07:36  
Blogger Bigland said...

DanJ0: "Then he has nothing to lose and something to gain by being consistent to his ideals of freedom of speech himself. But he isn't."

True, he could have switched his argument to say, "If the Koran won't be banned under Dutch Law, then neither should Mein Kampf." But it's a minor point, a matter of tidying up an argument. His purpose is still plain: to draw attention to what he sees as fascism in Islam.

2 June 2011 at 08:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

If pointing out the bloody obvious is inciting hatred then many of us are also co-defendents. I will stand up and be counted with Wilders because the alternative is to capitulate and bend over, taking it from the radical extremists who constantly incite death to all infidels as they spread their fascist hatred across the face of Europe and the rest of the world.

2 June 2011 at 08:45  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

It is not often that I agree with the majority sentiment on this blog but yes Wilders is a very brave man who expresses clearly the threat posed by Islam. I don’t agree with some of his ideas, support for Christianity and of Israel but without doubt Islam poses a grave threat to Western Democratic values. We must all stand up to this threat and not leave it to a few brave individuals.

2 June 2011 at 09:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

History when it repeats it’s self is disturbing, the
speech is not outstanding in but important to the state
of society in the EU political mind set. The man is correct
in his assertions, just as the two students in the time of
national socialism in Germany were, they were know as
the “White Rose”. Then we have the Hungarian uprising
followed by the Czechoslovak uprising and so on throughout
the whole of the last century. Now we have the defunct left
and the “water melons”, green outside but red all the way
through, supporting the unsupportable. The dictatorship the
muslim want to install has not even been thought of by any
Christian society even in the middle ages. Back then they knew
enough not to want to be dominated by them and were stopped
at the gates of Vienna. So what is happening to our long fought
for freedoms of speech together with the right to association?
With the queers, muslims and wilting liberal
lefties protesting about their rights and freedoms every one
else has to bow down and submit to any perverted half wit
that wishes to change society to his or her own ideas. This
has to stop now or Euroarabia could become a reality.

2 June 2011 at 10:32  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "It is perhaps not so surprising the selectiveness of Liberals on the matters of free speech when it comes to a subject they disagree with! .
I suppose liberals only can be 'liberal' with their own personal agendas.

The word to describe this I belive is hypocrisy."

Names. Examples. If you choose to run with the pack here then there's no hiding places for intellectual cowardice or oblique snideness.

2 June 2011 at 10:33  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "So what is happening to our long fought for freedoms of speech together with the right to association?"

Well, some of us who argue for those things put a consistent name to our arguments and develop them over time so we own them all. Have you considered doing that yourself? It might make you look better, I think.

2 June 2011 at 10:39  
Blogger I am Stan said...

No your Grace it`s not "one of the greatest speeches of our time", its dull and plodding compared to Kennedys rallying of America with "ask not what" or Kings "I have a dream" or Churchills " fight em on the beaches"

Is it an "incitement to hatred", well for some I would say yes, but then some don`t need much inciting do they?

However its in Dutch, which is not the most poetic language eh!

Putting aside is it or isn`t it, free speech should be the right of everyone, even Muslims and English Viking, I reckon he will be found not guilty.

2 June 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger srizals said...

English Viking, were you bullied at a fragile age of development or something, by Muslims? Were your country invaded by Muslims for no apparent reason? Were your family member, almost every one of them killed and maimed by Muslims?

Ironically, many Muslims have a positive answer for these questions, only it won't be referring to the boogie-men of the day, how about you? Could you please justify your hatred before it consume you. Are you suffering from any type of depression? Or is it pure guilt or the haunting fear of retaliation for having such a monstrous attitude? Why not treat people like you wanted them to treat you? It's the golden rule.

2 June 2011 at 11:07  
Anonymous len said...

Many of my'brothers and sisters in Christ' are being persecuted, threatened and murdered by Muslims.All in the name of Allah.

You may accuse us in the West (being supposedly Christian Nations )doing the same to Muslims.
But I put it to you that no genuine Christian wishes to threaten, kill or maim Muslims.
The most 'dangerous thing a born again Christian will do to a Muslim is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them.
This gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of God`s love and reconciliation, not a call to war.

2 June 2011 at 11:39  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

@ srizals, "Why not treat people like you wanted them to treat you? It's the golden rule."
Couldn't agree more. The 'Golden Rule' clearly states. "Do unto unto others as you have them do unto you." However, I am intrigued, as I am sure are many others, as to whether or not, in Islam, the Golden Rule applies to non-moslems (particularly those of the Jewish faith)? Just asking.

2 June 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Oops. Correction, "Do unto unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you."

2 June 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

srizals said...
"English Viking, were you bullied at a fragile age of development or something, by Muslims?2

Srizals - he hates everyone who disagrees with him!

I suspect he was an isolated little boy in the playground looking for a gang to join.

Also a product of the worse kind of mid-1970's 'comprehensive education' mixed ability classes where those in need of extra classroom support were integrated with other more able kids.

A boy name 'Sue' - who grew up tough and grew up mean!

2 June 2011 at 12:58  
Blogger English Viking said...

Said the liar.

2 June 2011 at 13:41  
Blogger English Viking said...


First, last and only comment you'll get from me on this matter, as I consider you almost as bad a troll as Dodo.

Yes, my country has been invaded, and yes, two of my my family members have had their lives utterly ruined by dirty muslims.

Islam is a foul scourge which ruins every person and nation that embraces it.

2 June 2011 at 13:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Take the rebuke as a compliment. The Norse is the Troll on here. They originated in Norway and inhabit smelly caves.

He may mature one day as he ages and gains a more balanced outlook. I'd guess he's having an early mid-life crisis.

2 June 2011 at 14:23  
Blogger srizals said...

Well, you look like a troll with an axe, literally EV, no offense. Could you be more specific, like, what year till when, and how did your two family members had their lives ruined by dirty Muslims?

Andalusia was not. Jerusalem was not. It wasn't the Muslims that washed the holy place with blood. Spain ended up in ruins not by Muslims. It's the Spanish themselves that end up killing each other. China end up with the Taiping rebellion and the opium wars instigated by you know who, the natives of America, former South Africa, Australia lost their nations and practically were annihilated by the 3G governing a specific race which until today still showing no sign of relenting. Some of them, of course.

If marking me as a troll is your best argument against me or an excuse of deafening your ears to reason, than I can say no more. I leave you be with your hatred.

The choice-is yours, always.

2 June 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger Josh VB said...

Will be interesting to see what happens and what reaction there will be if he's found guilty. He is right that freedom and truth go hand in hand. If we can't speak the truth, all sorts of freedoms will quickly erode.

Also, want to thank Dodo for making me laugh:

"I'm opposed to anyone or any group that divides by emphasing difference."

Very ironic.

2 June 2011 at 15:07  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Be it good, bad or indifferent as a speech, it doesn't much matter; it was the truth.

Is 'truth' an incitement then, to hatred?

If so yes; then will living a lie mean peace? Peace in our time; or eradication for our grandchildren?

2 June 2011 at 15:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Kiwi, we treat two kind of people differently, first, our enemy that seek out our destruction/enslavement, second, our friend that seek out our friendship, with the intent of prospering one another, despite glaring differences, of course. We can live together if we really want too. We just need excuses to kill and plunder.

True, there are bad Muslims that had abandoned the code of war and honour, they are after all, only human. Humans do crazy things when they were treated inhumanely after certain lapse of time. Ask the wise psychologists or any scientists, better, ask yourself. Don't forget the other tens of millions (close to 2 billions) that do not endorsed them.

True, resentment is growing like never before in the Muslim world, Christians alike. It started with the holy date of 9/11. Not before, even though the Muslims had suffered Nakba 1948, Sabra and Shatilla 1982 and countless humiliating defeat by Israel, heavily funded and supported, especially militarily by you know who.

Laos ended up being bombed for daring such a stunt. Some would be "punished" almost tens of years later by a so-called attacks on buildings by so-called "Muslims". (London would never be bombed by any "Christians". They were done by Nazi and IRA).

Others got their whole country turned upside down by tons of bombs. Some Cambodians are making a living by collecting metal from US bombs, remnants of a forgotten war, but I suspect the Iraqis won't be able to do the same, not unless they wanted to be contaminated by nuclear/radioactive waste from the depleted uranium bombs used by you know who.

An act of aggression by individuals is one thing, an act of aggression by a sovereign nation against another, is another different thing. You can't mix them both.

As for the bad treatment of Christians, Len, what are you referring too? I knew too much, too many sad things in this world that made other things look pale in comparison. I knew about Srebrenica. I knew in agony about how Muslim women were raped systematically and released only when a later abortion is deadly for both. I knew about how hundred of Muslims were locked inside of a house and burnt alive. I knew how Thais shot in cold blood unarmed protesters and pilling them up like logs in sardine can aka military trucks and killing them slowly in agony, 78 of them in one shot. Which one Len? How many countries Len? To what extent?

Kiwi, the Jews of Medina accepted Prophet Muhammad and made treaty with him, promising to protect and help each other against aggression and never to support each other enemies. You can google up the treaty made between the Jews of Medina and him in the net. The Jews are seen as the people of the book by Muslims, so do Christians. How about Muslims? How do Christians look to them?

Some of the content, if I may, your grace,

"The Jews shall contribute (to the cost of war) with the Believers so long as they are at war with a common enemy. The Jews of Banu Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah, Jafnah, and Banu al-Shutaybah enjoy the same rights and priviledges as the Jews of Banu Aws.

“The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The close friends of Jews are as themselves. None of them shall go out on a military expedition except with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound.

“The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the Believers for theirs. Each, if attacked, shall come to the assistance of the other."

True, The Last Dodo, but I'm not giving up on him, yet.

2 June 2011 at 15:40  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


I'm not sure if it's really about 'truth' being an incitement to hate. Isn't it more about the 'how' of delivery rather than the 'what'?

If Islam is a flawed and oppressive religion then the way to tackle this is surely to use reason and debate. This is what the early Apostles and disciples did.

If Muslims are brainwashed into an ideology, then attacking that ideology will be fruitless.

If liberal democracies are conceeding too much to Islam, then seek to change that through democractic means not rabble rousing and inflaming passions.

The language of Geert Wilders is intended to alarm Christians and anger Muslims. Two, opposed fearful and hatefilled groups? Not good for democracy - but then, perhaps that's the objective.

2 June 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger srizals said...

Kiwi, do you know what happened when Jerusalem fell into the Crusaders' hands? Who were killed together and died like brothers? Muslims and Jews or Christians and Jews? Spanish Inquisition would demonstrate a similar result.

What about the current Palestinians? Were they Christians-Muslims oppressed by Jews or Christians-Jews oppressed by Muslims? Thanks.

2 June 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Josh VB said ...
"Also, want to thank Dodo for making me laugh: "I'm opposed to anyone or any group that divides by emphasing difference."
Very ironic."

Happy your enjoyed this.

I think on a blog it's okay to shre your views. However, once the'yr greeted with a stream of abuse, then giving back as good as one's get is acceptable.

If you read the streams you will see that various bloggers on discovering I was a Roman Catholic resorted to profaning my Church. After a time I decided to join their little game. With hindsight, I do have some little regret but hey-ho, that's okay, we'll see what happens from now on.

In the world of public affairs, just as in private matters, the effort should be towards patience and understanding.

2 June 2011 at 16:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

The Last Dodo - Quite, but isn't that just what Wilders is doing, sounding the alarum for Christians, the West, everyone?

Should we mind that it angers muslims?

Let's face it, it doesn't take much to get 'em hot under the collar, regardless of the manner of the address.

2 June 2011 at 16:49  
Blogger Josh VB said...

Sorry Dodo, my last comment was ungracious.

2 June 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

A lot of European governments these days are are drunk on multiculturalism, and like all drunks they don't see that there is a problem with it and especially not with the Islamic ideology that is threatening their and our very being.

To criticise each other, and that includes criticising Islam , Mohammed and the Quran too is the only way we learn and become more rounded.
What Geert Wilders is seeking to do as well as protecting freedom of speech is to get acknowledgement that there is a problem with the backward Islamic ideology being so strong and prevalent in their country. Once they do this then they can start to work out democratically how to deal with it through legislation and law.

The left liberalism of hugging to their bosom all those of other faiths without looking at a shred of history or heeding even the slightest warning has to stop. Mr Wilders is stating the obvious and lets hope the judges are sober enough to receive it.

2 June 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Well, we all know that being drunk and being Westerners are two inseparable things, Marie1797. Could you please list some of our backwardness if you can't list them all here? Maybe then I could share some unnoticed backwardness practised by you.

2 June 2011 at 17:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"if that is what you want to turn your original comment into" sayeth Danjo

My original comment Danjo is consistent with my regular posting here.

The fact that I believe we are a Country of divided loyalties and my allegiance is to kith and kin is no secret.

You seek clarification and wish to get my measure, they say be careful what you wish for as it may just happen.

Your liberal dream has come true and now as the Chineese curse goes.

May you live in interesting times.

2 June 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If our liberal democratic State is conceding too much to a religion like Islam then the answer is to stop conceding so much. But the only way to do that and remain the sort of country we are is to stop conceding so much to all religions. You know it's what we have to do, we might as well get on with it.

2 June 2011 at 17:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "You seek clarification and wish to get my measure, they say be careful what you wish for as it may just happen."

Blimey. If whenever you try to string a paragraph together all you come up with is an eclectic mish-mash of, well, stuff then I expect you'll trip over your own shoelaces on the way and inflict on yourself whatever mish-mashed something you'll be carrying so I don't think I have anything to worry about. Your avatar is a perfect choice.

2 June 2011 at 17:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your liberal State is your problem.

Me and mine surviving the Balkanisation and destabilisation of our Homeland is my lookout, we are in different camps. Accept it.

2 June 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Me and mine surviving the Balkanisation and destabilisation of our Homeland is my lookout, we are in different camps. Accept it."

Well, if a Dad's Army is all we have to protect us if things do kick off then we're doomed.

The problem I see is that if people like Wilders propose a policy of paying Muslims to leave Holland then what is that actually saying. I hate to use slippery slope arguments but the next thing after that when it inevitably fails is people with pitchforks pushing them out.

Now, if all Muslims (cultural or religious) were like members of a terrorist group bent on murder and mayhem then I'd be happy to wield a pitchfork myself but they're not. Lots of them are normal, decent people, albeit people whose worldview is distorted by religious ideas.

Even an encompassing religion like Islam sits on top of local cultural ideas and values. We've seen that in spades over our European-wide history with Christianity, and we (well, people who live in an integrated area) see that here in the UK with Islam. The underlying cultural values are key to tempering any excesses.

Liberalism is about freedom. Freedom is one of its core values. Wilders has fallen into the trap of thinking one can oppress whole classes of people in order to promote freedom, only to find he has merely promoted the freedom to hold acceptable ideas. That's not true freedom.

Look closely at the anti-Muslim rhetoric. Ethnic purity. A class of people charged with having a collective hate-agenda. Clashes of culture. Proposals to reduce the Muslim population in the UK to as close to zero as possible. Books to be banned. Anti-Muslim newspaper themes, including made up stories. And so on. We've seen this before.

I'm an atheist. A gay atheist. A gay atheist who wants a secular State. That is, I'm no friend of Islam. But I'm damned if I'll stand around claiming to be a liberal and let another round of 'ethnic cleansing' take place. There's a marketplace of ideas and Islam ought to be tackled there, not with pitchforks.

2 June 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ And with a rigorous and robust application of the law when people behave in way which is harmful to other people of course.

2 June 2011 at 18:28  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Josh VB said...
Sorry Dodo, my last comment was ungracious."

No worries Josh VB I've been known to occassionally commit the same misdemeanor.

A firm purpose of amendment and an 'Our Father' usually strengthens me for future temptation, although it is hard to resist this inclination when sorely tested by some!

2 June 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Srizals
“Well, we all know that being drunk and being Westerners are two inseparable things, Marie1797. Could you please list some of our backwardness if you can't list them all here? Maybe then I could share some unnoticed backwardness practised by you.”

And we all know that being violent, oppressing and beating women, men marrying little girls and being Muslim are two inseparable things. The difference is we don't beat you lot up and destroy your places of worship, in fact you can preach hatred in our streets and not even be jailed whereas if I were to do the same in a muslim country I'd be tortured and killed.

We could go on listing negatives but what's the point you don't go and live in a strange country and then demand that you can't be criticised when you attempt to push your cultural ways onto others that are quite happy as they are thank you.

Our people change more often than not, whereas your brainwashing culture of never to be criticised or ridiculed absolute violent ideology does not. It's about time that you opened yourselves up to ridicule.

2 June 2011 at 19:22  
Anonymous Jack Flash said...

Srizals. So the Shias and the Sunnis are all loving, huggy brothers, sharing a meal and a joke as they discuss peacefully and democratically the differences that exist between them eh?.
Or would it be more honest to say that their idea of peace is to pick up an AK47 and kill everyone that opposes your point of view,
Jews, Kurds, Christians, Homosexuals, Atheists etc, not excepting each other of course. Well I suppose a world full of Dead people would be peaceful, Dead peaceful.
I'll give you this, you've got some brass neck and nerve to show up here and criticise others.
Geert is at least more honest and less devious than you. I hope that the court clears him.

2 June 2011 at 19:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, if a Dad's Army is all we have to protect us if things do kick off then we're doomed" sayeth Danjo

Protect us?

There is no us.

You claim to be libertarian, then brag how you have evolved our Nation with socialist engineering.

Every problem that comes up, you search for more rules and regulations to strip us of our liberties, just to make your programme (pogrom) work.

You look after yourself, I don't need backstabbers on my side.

2 June 2011 at 20:35  
Blogger Owl said...

Fabian socialists with an agenda are quite happy to bleat on about their defense of freedom, their defense of equality.

Dan0J is so wrapped up in his defense of his homosexuality that he does not even seem to be aware of the problem this mentality has created.

Dodo is so sensitive to his Roman Catholicism that he reminds of an eight year old lad who can't figure out what his wicked uncle is up to.

I and most likely many people on this blog are also RC's. That doesn't mean to say that we have to act and think like three wise monkeys.

Freedom according to the socialist is in reality no freedom at all.

Multiculturism is a (once again) failed socialist ideal. The aim of divide and conquer didn't quite work as we Brits have remained Brits despite all our differences.
It is difficult to know how to get out of this unwanted mess. We will muddle through as usual but a line will be drawn eventually.

Cameron, Clegg and Obarmy are part of the problem not the solution. I think even HG is beginning to realise this.

The destruction of our society is an obvious aim and to do that they have decided that destruction of the family is a neccessary step on the way.

The average Brit doesn't have a problem with the average Muslim.

The problems are being deliberately created and mass immigration of a culture which is very much at odds with our own is only going to create more strife. The fear factor is very important.

We are only seeing a part of the problem when we get angry about Islam.

Muslims who choose a british way of life are not a problem and never have been.

Socialism in all its mindless PC glory is the problem.

2 June 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed Owl.

We should be at liberty to rid our Isles of immigrants unwilling to peacefully coexist.

That should not be a faith issue but a plain and simple matter of Law.

Then we can enjoy the freedoms of a functional Nation that need not fear where the State is headed.

2 June 2011 at 21:41  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

Shias and Sunnis blow each others mosques up!
Just to prove how they are 'right'.

As I understand it the Shia persuassion wanted to keep it in the family and the other lot wanted a more open procedure. I ask you!

2 June 2011 at 21:52  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Wilders closing remarks here

2 June 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "Dan0J is so wrapped up in his defense of his homosexuality that he does not even seem to be aware of the problem this mentality has created."

It's a forum full of bigoted Christian religionists with extreme right wing views so I cut my cloth accordingly. This is not the only forum on which I post and I have a different approach on each. I suppose I should be pleased that you at least recognise the position of 'average' people, unlike most here. But what's a 'Fabian socialist with an agenda'?

I normally get called all sorts of things here, from Marxist, socialist, fascist, 'liberal' (single quotes significant apparently), and even an Hegelian. By observation, all of those things are just the personal demons of whoever says them, with little relevance to me at all. Is a 'Fabian socialist with an agenda' your personal demon, Sir Owl?

2 June 2011 at 22:31  
Blogger Owl said...


"It's a forum full of bigoted Christian religionists with extreme right wing views so I cut my cloth accordingly"

Thank you for making my point. Think about it.

If you wish to call manipulators of society my personal demon, then please do.

You may well be right for all I know. Is anything that I find wrong a "personal demon" in your opinion?

Such curious logic.

2 June 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "You claim to be libertarian, then brag how you have evolved our Nation with socialist engineering. Every problem that comes up, you search for more rules and regulations to strip us of our liberties, just to make your programme (pogrom) work."

And here's an example. I claim to be a JS Mill type liberal. If things like suffrage for women are the product of 'socialist engineering' then hurrah. To me, it's just social justice and nothing much to do with socialism. Perhaps I'm a product of my time and you are a throwback to the thinking of 100 or more years ago. What rules and regulations am I advocating that bother you? Specific examples please. As for 'pogroms', I think you will find it is the extreme right wingers here advocating forcably shipping our Muslim citizens off our shores. Is that not an explicit progrom, unlike the normal, natural social adaption and evolution we have enjoyed for centuries? Where's your complaints about pogroms there? Or are pogroms okay as long as the victims are people you don't like?

2 June 2011 at 22:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl, again, what are 'Fabian socialists with an agenda'? Am I one, for example, in your eyes?

2 June 2011 at 22:51  
Blogger Owl said...


I do not know if you are or not (which should be bloody obvious as I don't know you).

Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis and Edward R. Pease were founder members and had an unconventional approach to sexuality which may have influenced your thinking.

The society's use of gradualism is already seen in many areas, invariably restricting freedom "for our own good".

Your ideas go along similar lines which bring you into conflict with your "personal demon". The same religious types who caused you so much pain in your youth (as you said in an earlier post).

You now refer to people on this blog as "bigoted" "religionist" and "right wing" which suggests to me that you use selective reading.

On consideration, you may not be a paid up member of the Fabian society, they also use "useful idiots" to further their cause e.g. Stonewall.

2 June 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


I'm not quite getting the link between Fabianism, muli-culturalism and destroying society through attacks on the family.

I just about get modern day Fabianism eroding family responsibility through the State taking on too many of family duties and creating dependence but where does muli-cuturalism fit in?

Is the idea that equitable status can be given to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting or disadvantaging any specific or particular ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values really redundant? And, if so, what about diversity and equality generally? Surely we are in a pluralist society?

Now I believe the world would most certainly be a better place if everyone was a Christian and lived according to the Gospels. However, it isn't and they don't.

We live in a secular and morally relativist culture. Then there IS the question of which form of Christianity and what central values should become law. Would abortion be illegal? Homosexuality? Divorce?

Choppy waters!

2 June 2011 at 23:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I value freedom. Mostly I value negative freedom, where people are as free of constraint as possible in a complex society like ours. But I also value positive freedom, albeit to a lesser extent, where people are encouraged to reach their potential. The latter bit drags me away from libertarianism.

With freedom comes the potential for individuality and for diversity. It's inevitable, as far as I can see. So, where does national culture come into it? Culture is maintained in part by social institutions. But should it bear down on individuals? Are citizens obliged to conform? We're all products of the society we grow up in of course but it has a varying effect on each of us.

If some of our citizens, and I mean people born here in particular, choose to be Muslims then is that a matter of personal freedom? And if those people lobby peaceably for certain things then is that a breach of liberal democratic principles which are core to the culture of this country? Is it an advocate of freedom who stops certain lobbying before it has a chance to succeed, or is it an advocate of freedom who does not try to constrain the lobbying but argues against it in the lobbying forum?

It seems to me that some people here see Islam as such a threat that they think it is okay to restrict the freedom of our citizens to hold those beliefs. Other people here even see people with socialist beliefs, people who can't even be labeled as 'immigrants' in order to undermine their status as citizens despite being born here, as traitors. Traitors. Is that anything really to do with freedom? Or is it okay to break a few eggs there to make an omelette, so to speak?

2 June 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger Owl said...


It's a long story. The founders of the Fabian society were marxists.

Mainstays of the society were Beatrice and Sidney Webb who managed to visit Soviet Russia under Stalin and come back with glowing reports.

Their aim is and always was, to change society. Blair and Brown are also Fabians and their success in bringing England to it's knees is open for all to see.

Do read up on them, you will be surprised how far ranging their tentacles have become.

No, I am not a conspiracy fanatic. I just watch what is going on.

Just as a hint, a society that is off balance or, even better, in a state of fear, is far easier to manipulate.

As an example, most people by now realise that the global warming rhetoric is not backed up by reliable/proved science.

We are still inundated by completely silly reports which are pure propaganda. To install fear.

Mass immigration and terrorism makes us feel threatened. Why else create this problem in the first place.

No Dodo, you have been told how plural our society is. It's a lie.

If you haven't heard the Brit blood boiling by now then you are stone deaf.

Read up on it and think a little deeper. The illogical acts of our politicians start to make sense.

Unfortunately for us.

3 June 2011 at 00:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 June 2011 at 00:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "The society's use of gradualism is already seen in many areas, invariably restricting freedom "for our own good"."

Paternalism, you mean.

I know who the Fabian Society were and I know who they are now. I have never voted Labour or any of its derivatives. I loathe the communitarianism of New Labour. Socialism in the theoretical sense fills me with horror. Clause 4? God, no. Unions? A pain in the butt these days, and an anachronism unless one lives and works in a single-industry part of the North East. Getting the picture?

"Your ideas go along similar lines which bring you into conflict with your "personal demon". The same religious types who caused you so much pain in your youth (as you said in an earlier post)."

They do? You think I advocate paternalism? Isn't the Roman Catholic church guilty of exactly that? Lakester argues that I should be celibate (I paraphrase) because of his god's plan (your god's plan?) for mankind. God knows, you see, that it is bad for us to pursue lifestyles which are off message. Telelogical, you see. Should we all be fighting your Church and it's Fabian socialist style agenda?

Did I say that religious people caused me so much pain in my youth? I certainly don't recall that. They probably did indirectly at the macro level by perverting society towards an unpleasant attitude to gay people but that's not personal.

I was never openly gay in my youth, you see. I'm not openly gay now. People around me suspect of course. And I hear a fair bit of homophobic crap even now because people think I am One Of Them rather than gay. Most of the open abuse comes on the internet from Christians and I invite that by playing the gay man to their unpleasant side.

"You now refer to people on this blog as "bigoted" "religionist" and "right wing" which suggests to me that you use selective reading."

Bigoted - well, we're all guilty of that but I get a regular stream of homophobic abuse from people posting as Anonymous. Not that it bothers me of course, I like to be sardonic as often as possible. Religionist - Christians here are arguing for maintaining a Christian State, actually for returning more to it, and insisting that the foundations, active ones I mean, of our nation's ethics are Christian. Right wing - is that actually in dispute at all? The pro-monarchy posts, the established church arguments, the bemoaning of social changes, authoritarianism ... it's practically ancien regime. On top of that, we have members of BNP and EDL as regulars here doing some dreadful posts at times. We have people arguing for 'deporting' Muslims even when they are born citizens of our country. Is that enough justification for all of those attributes I have used? I can do more. Selective reading? Hardly.

3 June 2011 at 00:26  
Blogger Owl said...


Selective memory as well.

According to your post, you were seriously considering suicide at the time.

Good to know that you were just kidding.

So it's just the defense of your secular humunistic society which motivates you. Good to know.

Jung wrote that a man never loses his religion, he just changes it.

The lad knew what he was talking about.

The trouble is that it's similar to the smoking ban. It would have been fairer to have smoking and non smoking pubs. It would have been choice but some vocal non smokers pushed the ban through (based once again on dodgy science).

They made a religion out of it.

The seculars are doing the same.

They do not want to give the people a choice of where they educate their children.

The children have to be indoctrinated into a secular society.

They are forced to learn the religion of secular humanism and to do what the secular state tells them to do and to think what the secular state tells them to think.

Far more dangerous than any other religion.

Yes, I understand you now.

3 June 2011 at 00:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "According to your post, you were seriously considering suicide at the time. Good to know that you were just kidding."

Woahhhh there. As I recall, I was saying that at aged 18 or 19 I could see no future in a society which appeared to me to be anti-gay. That is, my family expected me to get married and have children. People back then tended to treat gay people as objects for abuse. The law didn't treat gay and straight people equally. And it was pre-internet so meeting other gay people are rather difficult. Did I talk about religious people in any of that? Not that I recall at all. I can go back and find it I think as I roughly recall when it was.

"Yes, I understand you now."

You mean you make up what you want to suit your prejudices. I write a whole load of stuff explaining in detail why you appeared to be misguided and your gish gallop away. I see you're just another fuckwit now.

3 June 2011 at 00:58  
Blogger Dodo's Long Lost Other Half said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 June 2011 at 01:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

DanJ0: "Did I say that religious people caused me so much pain in my youth? I certainly don't recall that."

Sir Owl: "Selective memory as well. According to your post, you were seriously considering suicide at the time."

DanJ0 (the post in question): "His Grace: "We are in a nation in which hundreds of young gay (mainly) teenage boys commit suicide every year, struggling with issues of sexuality."

I was a teenager who very nearly did that back in 1982. I actually got to the point of sitting on a window ledge of a tower block at my university.

In truth, it wasn't a lack of courage or a sudden sense of optimism that stopped me but the realisation that it would probably kill my mother too if I let go.

Why did we want to do it? Well, in my case I had a CofE upbringing and a mono-cultured middle-class background and parents who simply wouldn't understand.

I looked around, aged 18, and realised that society in general didn't want the likes of me around. I realised that I was never going to get married and have children like 'normal' people.

I then looked forward and realised that I would be under significant peer group pressure to have girlfriends, and family pressure to get married to a 'nice girl' and produce the much anticipated grandchildren.

I couldn't imagine living past the age of 30 and thought what's the point in even trying to get that far? Looking back, I'm extremely glad I didn't let go. Things have changed significantly in the last 30 years.

These issues are not really personal issues but society issues. We're products of society and we have to live in a society that either accept, rejects, or is indifferent to us.

I'm 'sorted' in the gay argot now, which means I'm comfortable with who and what I am. I'll tell you what though, I look around on the internet today and the place seems full of filth and bile and hate about us from Christians. A subset, admittedly.

We've moved forward a great deal and the environment is much better for teenagers now but it's still a negative place for people who lack confidence and are finding their place in the world."

Hope this helps.

3 June 2011 at 01:08  
Blogger Dodo's Long Lost Other Half said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 June 2011 at 01:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, the Fabian socialist type agenda of the Catholic Church?

3 June 2011 at 01:18  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


I do see your point of view and have to admit I agree society is moving in a dangerous direction inspired by materialistic and atheistic values. It is also confused as Christian values are eroded and individualism replaces any sense of family and community connectedness.

However, I think the causes are many and varied and, whilst I'm not a 'conspiracy theorist' either, I do wonder sometimes about the possibility of some form of orchastration between elites in what is and what is not allowed.

There are clear advantages for some, of both left and right wing persuations, in continuing to inflame the hatred between the Christian West and Islam and between Islam and Israel. There are also advantages in perpetuating the confusion that arises in societies that are diverse. The list goes on ...

The problem is how one should respond as a Christian. It's not so much a question of my thinking deeper. It's more an issue of holding onto my values and expressing and testing these in words and deeds. I also recognise you will come to differant views about best to express the same values. That what makes for freedom of speech and freedom of action - within the confines of reasonableness.

3 June 2011 at 01:20  
Blogger Dodo's Long Lost Other Half said...

Hi Folks

Dodo has been reunited with me after many lonely years and so will be far less angry in the future - except towrds the Norse. He is a nasty man!

Of course, he'll be off to bed much earlier too. Afterall, we have to do something about our near extinction.

Me, I won't have anything to do with all this political and religious stuff. Happy to leave that to you gentleman but hope youall become a little bit more civilised. You're suppossed to be better than us animals.

I suspect we'll have the media after us too so we will be taking out a 'super injunction'.

Night, night.

3 June 2011 at 01:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a good speech; just a pity the man is so mistaken and prejudiced about Islam. A rebel without true cause.

3 June 2011 at 03:19  
Anonymous len said...

Dod ,
I see you alter ego has appeared to back you up.
This means you can be twice as wrong now.

3 June 2011 at 08:03  
Blogger Gnostic said...

britologywatch - which part of Islam is Wilders mistaken about? The bit that blows up public transport or flies it into sky scrapers? How about the bit that honour kills women for stepping over the patriarchal line and wants to throw gay people off cliffs or indeed hangs them elsewhere? Or the bit that hates us so much it wants to kill us all and steal our lands? Or do you mean the silent majority Islam that stands by and does bugger all about the nutjobs claiming to speak for them? The list is long.

3 June 2011 at 08:12  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Wilders' speech is good, methinks. His delivery is interesting too - unemotional, just matter-of-fact. Which is apt, because that's what he's presenting.

I join those who wish we had a leader of his calibre.

3 June 2011 at 08:15  
Anonymous len said...

History will judge Geert Wilders.In hindsight, in the light of coming events.

I would say that the best 'witness' for the defence would be to put the Koran in the dock .

Ask what the motives are of those who crash planes into buildings,cause explosions ,execute innocent people,what inspires them to do this?

These are the questions that everyone should be asking.

Whilst most Muslims are law abiding people, what pushes some 'over the top', what is the trigger that sets them on the course to radicalisation ? . This is the question Western Governments should be asking themselves.
Free speech is vital for any free Country and this also is what is on trial here.

3 June 2011 at 08:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Gnostic (comment at 8.12 today). Wilders is 'guilty' of condemning Islam based on extreme instances (such as the examples you refer to) rather than the way it inspires hundreds of millions of people across the world to lead lives based on values of community, family, social responsibility, holiness and faith.

Other people have condemned Christianity en bloc in the black and white way you and Wilders condemn Islam. Similarly, you could write off the German people as a whole based on what was done in their name in the war, or Serbs for what people like Ratko Mladic and his subordinates did in the Bosnian War, inspired by a version of Orthodox Christianity.

It's easy to condemn others based on a black and white view of the world - harder to accept the grey that unites us.

3 June 2011 at 09:54  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

A fine speech by a fine Patriot but Atlas Shrugged (01:37) makes a very good point about where the actual threat to our freedoms lay, with our own establishment. It is our own establishment that allows the spread of Islam into our country as it must suit their agenda. It sure makes repression a lot easier.

3 June 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger Owl said...


"You mean you make up what you want to suit your prejudices. I write a whole load of stuff explaining in detail why you appeared to be misguided and your gish gallop away. I see you're just another fuckwit now."

Brillant answer!

Are my opinions of the secular society now "prejudices" because they do not fit in to your own "objective" point of view?

Which "prejudices" are you specifically referring to?

I am not quite sure what a "fuckwit" is but is doesn't sound complementary. I think you can do better than that.

I'll give you a bit of help.

I probably have more problems with the RC church than you do, and I was born into it.

My thinking tends more to Locke than Mill on the subject of Paternalism although this is somewhat beside the point.

I think that "toleration" is suffering badly under the secular religion. It is below the surface which might make it seem to be an improvement. Forced so called "equality" is an illusion and the vacuum awaits.

The level of toleration towards homosexuals has grown over a far longer time than you appear to appreciate. What you see as an improvement over the last number of years is, in fact, a reversal of this trend.

I am probably more on the side of toleration than you seem to think.

3 June 2011 at 10:42  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

No apology about the claim of selective memory then, Sir Owl? I've readjusted what appeared to be your misguided view of what I'm about, I've justified myself over your claim of selective reading, and I've reversed the claim of selective memory back onto you yourself. Those are examples of your prejudices. I'll write some more later on the latest stuff you've written if you're reverting to debate again. We can pretend you didn't write your unfounded claims if you like. Probably for the best, I'd say.

3 June 2011 at 11:36  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

srizals, I am disappointed, but somehow not surprised, you were unable to supply a direct answer to the question, repeated here: “I am intrigued, as I am sure are many others, as to whether or not, in Islam, the Golden Rule applies to non-moslems (particularly those of the Jewish faith)?” Instead, you chose to obfuscate by introducing a raft of contentious, to your way of thinking, ‘historical facts’, clearly with the intention of provoking endless sub-arguments. Please, you can do better than that, surely? One more time, the ‘Golden Rule’ clearly states, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Does Islam teach this philosophy applies to non-moslems, everyone in fact?

3 June 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger Owl said...


Who are you trying to kid!

My statement "Selective memory as well" was in reply to your post from 00:14 which you later conveniently deleted after my post to you.

Do I have to add selective deleting
as well?

And you call me a "fuckwit"!

3 June 2011 at 12:30  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Seeing Wednesday's article this morning with the question "Is this 'one of the greatest speeches of our time', or 'an incitement to hatred' ?" (and not seeking to compete with some of the further out of the comments above):

Very obviously the speech is not an incitement to hatred. Nor have I seen anything reported, of Mr Wilders or by him, that is or is meant to be anything but opposition to incitement to hatred and the promotion of reason and political honesty, among the peoples of the Netherlands, other European countries and of North America.

There is a grave threat (among the peoples of Europe and North America) in the exercise of political and judicial power and authority against dearly won political and social freedoms. The stand Mr Wilders has taken, in this and other speeches, may come to be valued as a courageous challenge to this menacing state of affairs.

A person whose "values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism" could truthfully claim to hold as a philosophical conviction that "the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in [the Arab] countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as Islam remains dominant", basing that conviction on the facts such as those mentioned by Mr Wilders in his speech at the trial and elsewhere (e.g."A Warning to America" --Cornerstone Church, Nashville , 12 May 2011: the words quoted are from that speech).

To be of that conviction would not require either hatred or irrational fear of the "Arab countries", or of Islam or Islamism as a belief or programme for inciting the denial of Judaism and Christianity, and as a political ideology for supremacy in the name of Islam or Islamism over Judaism and Christianity, and also of Humanism.

3 June 2011 at 12:36  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

The Last Dodo 15:41

If liberal democracies are conceding too much to Islam, then seek to change that through democratic means not rabble rousing and inflaming passions.

The problem with that piece of reasoning is the lack of proper democracy we now have. Certain topics, and Islam is one of them , are untouchable due to the bloody Political Correctness bequeathed upon us by NuLabour.

You now have a political class that will acknowledge in private many things are wrong and need fixing but you try getting them to say it publicly. radical Islam, first cousin marriage, grooming of young kuffar girls, the war on drugs, black gang crime etc. Not one of the spineless control freaks will stand up and be counted and so if they won't, the rest of us are going to get nowhere trying to use 'democratic means'.

3 June 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Oh I forgot to add that other Elephant amongst the herd, a Referendum on EU membership.

3 June 2011 at 12:49  
Anonymous len said...

I think looking through these posts that Danjo has a stereotyped view of Christians which he is desperate to prove,because his whole philosophy hangs on that one point.
Christians are bigots(thinks Danjo) because if the motive behind what they do and say is Love instead of hate it totally destroys his philosophy.It is the same with atheists they must destroy every little glimmer of light in cause it breaks out into a blaze of light which will expose all their false' reasonings.'
That is why Danjo tries(with desperation sometimes) to destroy and trample on every Christian post.

Well the message of the Gospel is a message of Gods love(yes love) for humanity and however much you resist this and try to prove it different,that is the truth.

I am not saying that we Christians always preach this truth in the most accurate way and we sometimes err on the side of our Humanity instead of the Spirit of Christ and I humbly apologise if I have offended anyone`s sensibilities .

However I continue preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all who have ears to listen. The Gospel is the good news for all who accept it.

3 June 2011 at 13:21  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "My statement "Selective memory as well" was in reply to your post from 00:14 which you later conveniently deleted after my post to you. Do I have to add selective deleting as well? And you call me a "fuckwit"!"

:O :O :O

What are you claiming I posted? It was the repost, almost word for word, save for a couple of spelling changes I think.

3 June 2011 at 13:50  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "I think looking through these posts that Danjo has a stereotyped view of Christians which he is desperate to prove,because his whole philosophy hangs on that one point."

Len, you're too dim to know what that is matey. You've switched from a wannabe Elijah, to fake godliness before it was too tough to keep up, to following Viking round trying to throw barbs from behind his back at Catholics and anyone else you think you can get away with in a crowd. It's not great, is it? Just stick to quoting scripture and worrying about the End Times. It's cringey but, well, rather less embarrassing.

3 June 2011 at 13:58  
Blogger Owl said...


No it wasn't.

It was the "I don't recall...." post.

Good try, nearly made it.

3 June 2011 at 14:11  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Again, what are you claiming I posted? Even just the gist of it?

3 June 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger srizals said...


I have given the historical background of fundamentals that govern interaction between Muslims and Jews. For some reasons, you're neglecting it to highlight what you thought as true. If it's the question of Muslims’ relationship with Jews and non-Muslims (particularly Jewish faith) the answer is obvious, Islam treat them as equal humans. You seem dislike the notion of historical references, why?

The current resentment towards Jews began in 1948 until now (strangely only in Israel, the Jews in Iran is aok). Today, now, they have a very good chance of ending it all by admitting their mistakes of killing and driving the Palestinians out of their lands with the might of terror. Apartheid South Africa, the forefathers of Greet Wilders, is a good example on how an apology and a confession of sins, with appropriate corrective measures, would prosper everyone, and forgiveness could take the place of hatred. Now I ask you, how do Jews treat the others in the lands stolen by them? Starting from Dier Yassin 1948 until now. As equals, slaves, inmates or moving targets in pogroms? Answer me honestly.

3 June 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger Owl said...


"I was a teenager who very nearly did that back in 1982. I actually got to the point of sitting on a window ledge of a tower block at my university.

In truth, it wasn't a lack of courage or a sudden sense of optimism that stopped me but the realisation that it would probably kill my mother too if I let go."

Sounds like you were seriously considering suicide to me. Which was all that I said.

The deleted post was (as I have already said) the "I don't recall..." post, after which you dug out the post I was referring to by yourself.

Why are you just confusing the issue? You are not under personal attack from me.

I have some reservations about the secular religion that you adhere to which seems to want to replace all religions with itself.

I distrust it even more.

I dislike the people who manipulate society for their own ends even more than that.

Is that simple enough.

3 June 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger Owl said...


Are you posting from this planet, or is there some kind of parallel universe where everything is back to front?

3 June 2011 at 15:09  
Blogger srizals said...


Israel Shamir, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Gilad Atzmon and various Jewish movements,

are living proof why Muslims don’t hate all Jews and vice versa. They hate the Jews that stole from them and killed them. Is this wrong and unnatural? Do you dare wearing their shoes and worship your dreaded proud nemesis?

The list of dissident Jews goes on

It is no longer available on the net I think, but some managed to save them as proof.


3 June 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous len said...

Your 'liberal mask'seems to be slipping a bit.Needs a bit of re-arranging
I`ve been called a lot worse than 'dim' so that doesn`t bother me in the least.In fact you can insult me as much as you like because (being a Christian) I will always forgive you.:)
The only thing I have in common with EV is a love of the Truth, Biblical Truth.
So that`s all cleared up then,remember Jesus does not condemn you (others might)because Jesus took all condemnation on Himself.The only thing that can happen is that you condemn yourself by refusing to accept Jesus`s sacrifice on your behalf.

Bless You.

3 June 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger srizals said...

I don't think so Mr. lwo, I think you are the one that is living in a twilight zone. It's rude to interrupt the elderly when they are speaking. Mind your manners, young man.

3 June 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Britologywatch: I don't condemn all, just the ones who are pains in the fundamental. That includes fanatical religious terrorists and brain dead politicians who think they know what's best. I don't blame the German people for the war I blame radical political ideology. It's very similar to radical relgious ideology and just as evil.

You seem to be assuming I care about religion. I don't. Not Islam and not Christianity. I will never submit to any illogical and authoritarian dogma that tells me either that I am inferior and a chatel because I'm female (Islam) or I was born into sin and should spend the rest of my life atoning for it (Christianity). It's all BS and an unrelenting system of population control.

Killing and controlling people in the name of some invented supernatural desert goblin should be met with the contempt it deserves. Twisting the secular laws and freedoms of any country to appease such should be resisted. Lecturing me about faith and holiness won't change my opinion. I don't need to fall to my knees before an altar or tip my backside to the heavens to lead a decent and honest life or to be a good wife and mother. The day I need a priest or an imam to guide my thoughts and actions will the day they diagnose advanced Alzheimer's and put me in a home.

Wilders is right to highlight a serious problem that no one else has the balls to address. If radical Islam wasn't a problem I would be condemning his words too. But it is so I won't. I'd feel the same way if the radicals in question were Christians. To be honest I think that all who believe it is their place in life to dictate how others should live and treat us like children should get lost and leave us alone. That goes double for scumbag politicians.

3 June 2011 at 15:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Danjo, I am unable to clarify my position any further.

You are State, I am lawful rebellion.

Opposite camps.

Your struggle with the State is for rights and privilages, as belonging to the person, mine is one for truth and justice.

As belonging to a living soul.

Atheists do not grasp that.

I do not deny socialists have won some victories, but where is your soul?

My folk put their life and soul into our struggle.

3 June 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Your 'liberal mask'seems to be slipping a bit.Needs a bit of re-arranging"

You keep saying stuff like that but you don't seem to be able to back it up when I ask for examples. In truth, I think you don't actually understand what liberalism means but like to parrot the cliches anyway. It's pointless, really.

3 June 2011 at 16:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 June 2011 at 16:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "Sounds like you were seriously considering suicide to me. Which was all that I said."

What you actually said was: "Selective memory as well. According to your post, you were seriously considering suicide at the time. Good to know that you were just kidding." in addition to your theme of my selective reading, also now debunked.

As the suicide post shows, you've been making stuff up, or mis-remembering to suit your prejudices perhaps, as religious people didn't feature prominently in my youth and certainly not over my sexual orientation. No personal demons of mine regarding religious people back then.

But that happens rather often here, from making me a fan of Marcuse or Hegel, to describing me as a Marxist, to thinking my liberalism is oppressive, to thinking I am a trainee doctor, to claiming I've been educated at the LSE, and so on. It's complete bollocks, mostly, which was the original point I made.

3 June 2011 at 17:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Gnostic: "I don't condemn all, just the ones who are pains in the fundamental". Yes, but Geert Wilders condemns Islam per se, not just the extremists. As do you, it would seem, along with Christianity - which is certainly a view Wilders does not share, as he attacks Islam in the name of Western values, which for him include Christianity. Sounds like you should really also regard Wilders as a 'scumbag politician' (in your words) who should get lost. (I'd have to say I'd agree with you on that point.)

I'm bound to say your views about Christianity appear just as caricatural as Wilders' and your views about Islam. I wonder what 'His Grace' (the author of this blog) would have to say about it.

Oh well, to each his own.

3 June 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: " have some reservations about the secular religion that you adhere to which seems to want to replace all religions with itself."

So, onto this. Which looks like more bollocks. As I have said, time and again, and again, is that when I talk about a secular State it means I want religion removed from State institutions. Specifically, I want State power removed from religion's propagation.

I support Article 9 of the HRA. I am not wanting to install an atheistic society through a secular State. As a JS Mill liberal, freedom of ideas is very important to me. That includes ideas about gods and metaphysics and alleged purposes. I am quite prepared to defend the right of people to use common space to manifest their religion, provided it is peaceful and does not break the Harm Principle.

You talked about schools earlier. I am happy for comparative religion to be taught in RE classes. Theology is fine as an academic subject. Philosophy of all types and teaching critical reasoning is perfect. I'm happy for the theory of evolution by natural selection to be described as one explanation of speciation and for its limitations to be hammered home. Popper's philosophy of science ... yes too! In short, I'm not advocating proselyting humanism, just academic subjects in an academic way.

No, why I think faith schools are a problem is that they proselytise religion outside of lessons too. The framework of the school is polluted by it. Moreover, I think they're socially divisive. We really need children of Muslim and Christian parents to interact with children from other sub-cultures for the well-being of all of us. If parents want to indoctrinate their kids with religion then let them do it in their own time and with their own dollar. I'm even a survivor of Sunday School myself.

3 June 2011 at 17:28  
Anonymous Jack Flash said...

Fast rewind 2000 years to Jerusalem
The Jews were living here and had been for centuries. No sign of Muhammed or Islam. c600a.d Islam is established by force of arms and genocide. 1300-1923 Turkish Ottoman Empire. 1917 Turks driven out of Jerusalem by British. Palestinian identity conferred on ALL occupants who lived here, Arab, Jew and Christian.
Towards the end of the Ottoman occupation wealthy Arab landowners from Syria, Egypt & Lebanon, acquired enormous tracts of real estate from indigenous tribes of Bedouins. Then made huge prophets by SELLING land to Jews from the U.S and Europe.
Turkish records reveal that in 1915almost 1,000,000 acres of palestine was owned by only 144 Muslim Arab entrepeneurs. Who leased it to tenant farmers for exorbitant rents, bankrupting many. eventually these entrepreneurs drove out their muslim bretheren so that they could SELL the land to the Jews for a huge profit.
In 1937 the Hula valley in the North was a mosquito infested wilderness, owned by Syrian Muslims who lived in Damascus, they leased the land to poor Arab peasants who lived in mud huts, scraped a living and died in droves from Malaria. In 1934 the Jewish National BOUGHT 51 Sq Miles of this wasteland for $4.500,000 and planted 20 Jewish Settlements on it. The settlers drained and reclaimed the land, eradicated the mosquitos and Malaria making the land productive and arable. By 1935the Jews had PURCHASED 145.000 acres and by 1948 almost 80% of the land up for sale had been BOUGHT by Jewish people. the rest of the land which was inherited by Israel in 1948 was ownerless desert.
So let us not have any more talk of land stolen by the Jews, when history can prove, Firstly that Israel has an ancient claim to this land. Secondly they purchased it, fair and square from Muslim Arab entrepenuers that made a lot of money out of the deal.
Mr Srizals. comments?

3 June 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Jack Flash,

At last, someone who knows what they are talking about.

3 June 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Britology - even politicians tell the truth sometimes. You like to twist what I say but I have yet to hear your argument about why radical Islam in particular isn't a problem. Please note that I don't have a problem with Muslims or any other religion that is content to settle and integrate with its adopted country. I do have a serious problem with the frothing at the mouth fundamentalists who believe that killing for their god is the ultimate in gloryfying that god;s name. You seem only too keen to lay the blame of extremism at the door of someone who has noticed the radicalised "religion of peace" is actually anything but. Wilders hasn't blown up a bus or a train or a plane to put his message across but he scares the crap out of a certain demos to the point where he is being demonised. Why is that?

3 June 2011 at 17:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An excellent map for resolving the matter of land and peoples.

3 June 2011 at 17:58  
Anonymous Jack Flash said...

Just putting the Record straight.

3 June 2011 at 18:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you, Mr. Flash. In days of yore (when I used to fly over the area), I always noticed the difference between the green, cultivated, cared for, Israeli territory - and its surroundings. Your outline explains some of that for me: I always wondered.

3 June 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its the age old question of wheather land rites come by conquest, or purchase.

If by purchase, then how did the seller come by it?

Like the old tale of the vagrant sleeping by the road, when along comes the Lord of the manner saying

"Oi, you there, off my land this instant!"

"How is it your land?" asks the vagrant

"My Father fought for it and his Father before him, and his Father before that!"

The vagrant rolls up his sleeve and says "Then I will fight you for it"

The moral of this story is, atheists have no promised land but would have us all living in their Godless land of broken promises.

3 June 2011 at 19:18  
Blogger English Viking said...


I'll fight you for it.

3 June 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger Owl said...


Why are you defending when you are not being attacked?

You haven't debunked anything and if you had taken the trouble to read my posts properly you would keep coming back with red herrings.

You are entitled you your opinion as I am to mine and I don't have any need to insult you for it.

You seem to handle criticism of your homosexuality very well but loose your cool at any criticism of a secular society.


3 June 2011 at 21:17  
Blogger English Viking said...


Gayboys, eh?

3 June 2011 at 21:57  
Blogger Owl said...


Now you've lost me.

3 June 2011 at 22:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Viking, the Champion of England will be expected to meet me on Coronation day.

Your office was established by William the Conquerer, are you decended from Marmion?

Did your office go to the Ludlow line, by the female lineage of Shem?

In what sence are you related to the Dymoke family?

3 June 2011 at 22:21  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

srizals, Jack Flash says it all with his “Fast rewind 2000 years to Jerusalem” comments. Well said Jack.
“The current resentment towards Jews began in 1948…” Come, come now, is this your idea of a joke? Your list of self-hating Jews was very impressive though. Unfortunately, nothing new here. You see, in the free world that includes Israel, peaceniks, activists and political dissidents like Noam Chomsky are allowed to criticize the state, and say pretty much what they like without fear of retribution. Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to provide a comparable list of home-grown critics living in the Islamic world, say in Iran, Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc etc.
Back to the ‘Golden Rule’ discussion; here’s some examples of how it works, Israeli style - The following report details Israel/Gaza cross-border activities for the week of May 22nd-26th, 2011
During this period, a total of 1,248 truckloads crossed from Israel, carrying 34,012 tons of goods, fuel and development assistance for Gaza’s civilian population. 340 truckloads of construction materials were transferred into the Strip during this period.
In addition, 826 tons of cooking gas were transferred into Gaza while 434 patients and accompanying individuals exited Gaza for medical treatment and 145 international organization staff members entered the Strip.
10 truckloads of vehicles were transferred into the Gaza Strip last week and one truckload of flowers to be sold in European markets was exported from the Strip.

Since 1995, Israel based Save a Child's Heart (SACH) has treated more than 2,600 children suffering from congenital and rheumatic heart disease aging from infancy to 18 years of age from the “four corners of the Earth” - 43 countries where adequate medical care is unavailable.
40% of the children who underwent cardiac surgeries are from Africa; 49% are from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Iraq and Morocco; 4% are from Eastern Europe and the Americas and 7% are from Asia.
The annual number of children treated by SACH has grown dramatically from 48 cases in 1996 to over 200 in 2010.

So, here we have it, Israel provides humanitarian aid and medical treatment to Palestinians, and in return, Palestinian terrorists are targeting Israelis for death? Is that how the ‘Golden Rule’ works in your world?

4 June 2011 at 06:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Gnostic: of course any ideology that advocates blowing up innocent civilians is a moral abomination by any standards: secular-liberal, Muslim or Christian.

However, devising effective measures to counteract the genuine security threat from violent extremists and whipping up irrational Islamophobia are two different things. There's no evidence I know of that Wilders' campaigns, including the wonderful free publicity he's getting from the court case, are doing anything for the Netherlands' or the West's security. If anything, perhaps, the opposite, because it perpetuates the idea that the West is at war with Islam, which confirms some wrong-headed young Muslims' conviction that Islam is engaged in a jihad against the West.

Wilders is not a peace maker.

4 June 2011 at 08:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "You haven't debunked anything and if you had taken the trouble to read my posts properly you would[n't] keep coming back with red herrings."

We have an ostrich as well as a dodo here now. Bless.

4 June 2011 at 08:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kiwi, have you heard of a Serge Grishenkoff. If not, the name is worth a google.

4 June 2011 at 08:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

britology: "If anything, perhaps, the opposite, because it perpetuates the idea that the West is at war with Islam, which confirms some wrong-headed young Muslims' conviction that Islam is engaged in a jihad against the West."


We're in danger of some people creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of a clash of civilisations.

4 June 2011 at 08:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Danjo 4 June 2011 08:17?
Bredinthebone 4 June 2011 08:18?

We didn't just get out of bed together, honest!

I am spending too much time in Cranmers Gay chat room ;-D

4 June 2011 at 08:22  
Anonymous len said...

The Secular State is the panacea for all ills of the Atheists.

It is also a'sacred cow ' which must not be questioned or else one will get a 'tongue lashing.'

So much for the' liberal view '.

4 June 2011 at 08:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, does the Roman Catholic Church have a Fabian socialist type agenda too?

4 June 2011 at 08:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Len: "So much for the' liberal view '."

You simply don't understand liberalism. Why do you bother posting nonsense like that? You just make yourself look incredibly dim. Debate and the competition of ideas is at the core of liberalism. JS Mill talked about a marketplace of ideas? Do you even know what he's talking about? Jesus wept.

4 June 2011 at 08:30  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo.I bow to your superior intelligence.
Define liberal.

So we can all understand

4 June 2011 at 08:41  
Anonymous len said...

found one definition of liberal is this you?

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; ...

Any help.?

4 June 2011 at 08:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We're in danger of some people creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of a clash of civilisations" sayeth Danjo.

Have you been visting the wishing well and communing with the fates?

Be careful young atheist, you under estimate the powers of the sacred spring.

4 June 2011 at 08:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, read a fecking book about it.

I can probably guess what you think you are doing. Liberal just means "nicey nice, wishy-washy, politically-correct person" to you. Therefore, pointing out that I engage with people rigorously here means I'm a hypocrite. That is, you're trying to do the reverse of what I do with Christians showing how god-awful some of them are despite the love-thy-neighbour message of the Bible. Well, it doesn't work, you cretin, because liberalism doesn't actually mean that. It's a political philosophy.

4 June 2011 at 08:51  
Anonymous len said...

I think Danjo might be teetering on the edge of the sacred spring, or is it the font of all [illogical] knowledge.

4 June 2011 at 08:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Be careful young atheist, you under estimate the powers of the sacred spring."

I think you under-estimate the powers of skunk weed by the look of most of your comments.

4 June 2011 at 08:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, if you were born in Saudi then you'd be whipping women for back chat and quoting the Qur'an. If you were born in Salt Lake City then you'd be quoting stuff about Kolob to any poor fecker in ear shot. You're just a dim foot soldier for whatever god army would recruit you.

4 June 2011 at 08:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh souless Danjo, the man who tempted fate, without any insight.

Don't panick, don't panick!

Who do you think you are kidding MrDanjo if you think Ole Englands done.

4 June 2011 at 09:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

britologywatch - islamophobia is a weasel word. It's played like a card in much the same way that the word racist is. It is designed to close down debate and I see it as a sign that the other side of the debate has run out of anything approaching rational argument and has begun to obscure the playing field with ad hominems. I learned to cope with being called nasty names in infant school. I am not impressed by your use of the word, nor am I intimidated.

Wilders guilty of publicity seeking. That's a good one! Bin Laden was a much bigger self publicist don't you think? He made his statement in the blood of thousands. Wilders might have trodden on an ant or two on his way to the court for doing nothing more than holding an opinion you don't like. And if you believe that one Dutchman speaking his mind constitutes a threat to the security of the west then you have made my argument succinctly.

If you are not a radical and do not support radicals why do Wilders' words bother you so much? Whenever I hear someone ranting about the West and linking it to some mythical boogyman called Satan, I don't try to shut them up or reach for a molotov, I laugh because the ignorance and hatred being spouted speaks for itself. It is a more profound and successful anti-radical islam argument than I or even Wilders could ever make. And yet radical islam fears Wilders. Maybe radical islam should discover laughter instead of giving its hair trigger insult gene so much exercise.

As for peacemaking, isn't Wilders the one who requires an around the clock bodyguard to protect him from peaceful islamic assassins? Are you suggesting that peace should only come from one side and the only peace acceptable is the dhimmified version of put up and shut up or else we'll threaten western security? That isn't peace. That is threatening behaviour. Why act so surprised and hurt when Westerners take exception to being threatened by peacefully standing up and saying so?

4 June 2011 at 09:34  
Anonymous len said...

You are now telling me what I do, and what I think...... Blimey.

I have seen the Light(Jesus Christ and the Gospel of Truth ) you are stumbling around in the dark , blinded by Satan.

And you call me dim?

4 June 2011 at 10:41  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo, A scripture for you to get your' teeth into',perhaps to study and meditate on in a quite reflective moment?.

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."(2Corinthians 4.4)

If you don`t believe in the existence of Satan or think you are too 'intelligent' to be deceived, ... the Truth is Satan already has you.
The Gospel is the bright shining light which will illuminate your darkness.

4 June 2011 at 10:50  
Anonymous len said...

There are two types of 'wisdom' one from above and one from below.

James 3:14-16 reveals an earthly wisdom that fails to consider God, His sovereignty and will. It
is limited to what man can discover himself, leaving no room for spiritual truth. When
people pursue their own selfish ambitions and personal agenda, this will only bring about
conflict, confusion, rebellion, turmoil and disorder. James goes on to describe the broad
kind of destruction that results from earthly, human wisdom for it leads to “every evil
thing.” Contrasted with this worldly wisdom, James makes it clear there is a wisdom
“which comes down from above” and is characterized by a humility and gentleness that’s
heavenly, spiritual and from God.
The further we move away from God and rely on human wisdom alone the worse things are getting in every aspect.

4 June 2011 at 11:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, I expect all religions have passages in their associated texts which their foot soldiers use to justify their actions, sometimes vile ones, to themselves and others. Your bible is just a book to me, written by men, and without divine inspiration. What's the point of quoting bits of its creepy, often unpleasant, and immoral text at me? Better I think that you look in it yourself for suitable texts to beat yourself up over regarding your treatment of Dodo recently.

4 June 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous len said...


Christians are supposed to contend(earnestly, vigorously, with passion ,) for the True Faith. This may seem foreign to you but having found the Truth false religion stands out like a carbuncle on an elephants rear end. This contending for the Faith includes challenging false religions and their proponents ,Dodo even.Not got anything personal against Dodo only his stand against the True faith.

Jesus warns us not to be lukewarm.So I will follow His advice and( with the greatest respect) discard yours.

Thanks for your interest though.

4 June 2011 at 14:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Christians are supposed to contend(earnestly, vigorously, with passion ,) for the True Faith."

Muslims too, I expect. In fact, that's pretty much a requirement of all religions I expect in order to maintain their hegemonies. What's the point of foot soldiers, the guillible the better, if they don't have certainty and be willing to act on it.

4 June 2011 at 15:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But that isn't what I meant about your shame over Dodo. You basically took the opportunity to jump on him while he was surrounded. It was like watching a flock of hens attack another bird en masse because of a perceived weakness, and not too pleasant to watch actually.

4 June 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Kiwi, if the Muslims bought the whole London, can they kicked out the rest of the English throughout England?

Anyway you have been lied to, or honestly read a 'tailored' history.

Jewish lands were only 1,682 sq km, 1,465 sq km belonged to the Arabs, while 17,178 sq km belonged to expelled land owners in 1948. Better look it up. Could you share your references?

You got it all wrong, what now?

Kiwi, you don't pet a few puppies while killing and torturing the whole pack, it doesn't change the fact that you had destroyed the entire pack.

I can't read the hearts and minds of the said kind Jewish contributors, but it doesn't change anything. If a thief broke into your house, clobbered your head and take everything you had, while comforting your scared children, does that make any difference? How old are you Kiwi? I'm beginning to wonder. Hope this one got through and exist long enough for you.

4 June 2011 at 17:29  
Anonymous len said...

The Dodo`s are multiplying,I think they can take care of themselves.
I think you do Mr Dodo a disservice he seems quite able to give an account for himself.

Your philosophy(I seem to remember you saying )is to put pressure on one to reveal the 'inner man' so I would expect you to agree with your own Philosophy.?
Or perhaps that only applies to 'putting pressure on me ?

Liberals what are they like?

4 June 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "I think you do Mr Dodo a disservice he seems quite able to give an account for himself."

I expect so. I manage quite nicely on my own too. But that's not the point. The point is about the people acting as packs, not the victim of those people.

"Liberals what are they like?"

Well, you're not the one to ask that's for sure. You seem to be completely clueless about what it all means.

Christians ... what are they like? Well, some of them are pretty unpleasant and immoral despite what their religion tries to teach them. Not really a surprise though. We have a long history in this country demonstrating what tends to happen when Catholics and Protestants start fighting between themselves in the name of their shared god.

4 June 2011 at 17:50  
Blogger srizals said...

Actually there's more information available in the net, but I'm putting one of them here. If I may.

Palestine was vibrant, godliness, lively and beautiful. It ended with the killings of the Palestinians in 1948 until now. You have not answered my question. Please do when you're thinking of your next comment.

4 June 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous len said...

I don`t know if you actually believe the stuff you are posting here or are you just practising your "Al Taquia"

4 June 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger Owl said...


Your aggresiveness and your stifling of debate as soon as it goes in a certain direction becomes more and more apparent.

You slipped up badly with your deleted post which you maintained was just the same as your following post with some spelling mistakes.

It wasn't. You had forgotten your own story!

Stifling debate and trying to set different posters against each other is nothing new.

You often request examples instead of debating a point, then you pick out something petty from the examples and move the debate in a different direction.

When you think that someone is getting close to figuring out your act, you resort to insults.

You may be homosexual but I doubt it. it seems to be just a cover.

I would suspect a common purpose graduate who is beyond authority and possibly a Dawkings disciple.

Yes, I understand you and I feel sorry for you. It must be a sad sort of life.

Especially as you have failed.

4 June 2011 at 23:40  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, I haven't started to quote the Bible regarding the Jewish biblical rights yet. So please read up before uttering your thoughts on it. People will respect you more.

5 June 2011 at 00:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "You slipped up badly with your deleted post which you maintained was just the same as your following post with some spelling mistakes. It wasn't. You had forgotten your own story!"

Owl, you lying turd. Both you and I know you are lying through your teeth about that. You were caught bang to rights and that is the best you could do rather than show some integrity and fibre and apologise. You know, some Christians say that their god is an almost tangible presence, like someone sitting in the room with them. I don't know if you're just a cultural Christian like many but if not then being able to do that with an almost tangible allegedly godly presence nearby shows how ineffectual your religion is to moral good in the real world. You're a good example of the sort of Christian filth polluting our society.

5 June 2011 at 07:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You didn`t answer my question, so I assume the answer must be ...yes.(are you practising al Taqiyya)

How can one tell if a Muslim is practising Taqiyya, well, I suppose the answer is(as you won`t answer) we cannot tell.
So how can we accept ANYTHING you say?.

People would have more respect for you and your posts if you just 'came clean'on this matter.

5 June 2011 at 08:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not anon (08:01)

5 June 2011 at 08:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You have achieved one thing here Owl which none of the others here has ever managed to do: made me actually angry in the real world. I'm normally personally detached from the content of forums.

I don't have a high opinion of online Christians in general, thinking they're worse than normal people with their hypocrisies, self-righteousness, and false certainties. I put it down to their natural evil which is probably constrained by their church communities in real life and desperate for release.

But mostly it is just unsavoury words and opinions. Not that I haven't come across online liars before but you have set the bar to a new low on a religious-oriented site as you know you are lying, I know you are lying, and you know that I know you are lying. It's so open and bare-faced that it's passed through the screen. So well done you, you can score yourself a hit there.

5 June 2011 at 08:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Catholics and Protestants do not 'share a God'.
(Not your first error on this blog.)
Another thought;
Would you consider 'gays' getting together to force public opinion of them to change 'hunting in packs'?

No? I though not....very selective and just a tad hypocritical don`t you think? .

Not being very PC with some of your comments now are we?, your 'humanist, truth seeker,halo is slipping a bit.

5 June 2011 at 08:23  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Bred in the Bone said, "Kiwi, have you heard of a Serge Grishenkoff. If not, the name is worth a google."
Never heard of him until now. Did a Google, came up with this:
Very funny, not sure what your poin is though.
Cheers anyway.

5 June 2011 at 09:19  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

srizals, you've lost me, I believe your recent comments should have been directed to Mr Jack Flash, not I.
The 'Golden Rule'? Remember?

5 June 2011 at 10:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stereotyping Christians.?

How very un- P C.

Political Correctness ,isn`t that a vital element of the Godless 'new morality'?.

5 June 2011 at 11:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its not my point Kiwi, its Serges point and an interesting one.

In the World of biblical Nations, we cannot avoid recognising Serges rights along with those of others.

Even Danjo has a right to his point of view, he just does not have the right to force others to live in his version of reality.

Unless we come together as a particular people, with a common history, heritage and culture. We are destined to be divided individuals with nowt in common.

5 June 2011 at 11:06  
Anonymous len said...

One thing has become obvious to me looking back through the posts on this blog.
It would seem that your main purpose here is to 'prove' Christians to be liars, hypocrites, and phonies .This I believe would validate(in your eyes)your own lifestyle and philosophy.
Christians can act in their 'humanity' rather than in the Spirit.Does this invalidate them................Certainly not.
As the new birth takes place in the Spirit not in the soul we(Christians ,if born again)are 'works in progress'.This path is not without some pitfalls.But if we fall we pick our selves up ,
repent and carry on.
The Christian journey with all its slips and falls is taken us ever upward.It is a Mercy of God that He does not Judge us as humanity does.
We Christians are imperfect beings, as Paul described us, we are 'jars of clay'containing a treasure( the Spirit of Christ within.
So provoke a Christian long enough and you can probably get a response to justify yourself but what does this prove?.The only thing that this does prove is that Christ alone is sufficient to live a Godly life and we(Christians )should rely on Him alone.

5 June 2011 at 11:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Political Correctness ,isn`t that a vital element of the Godless 'new morality'?."

Len, political correctness is not liberalism either. I am not obliged to be politically correct. I suppose eventually you will hit on something which is true in your various retorts and attacks ... but by accident I expect.

"So provoke a Christian long enough and you can probably get a response to justify yourself but what does this prove?."

I don't need to provoke very hard, just scratch the surface. That I show many online Christians for what they are is just a sideline to challenge any claimed moral authority, I make reasoned arguments about topics too and in particular balance the extreme right wing element here.

Forums tend to polarise, I realise that. People make mistakes. Arguments fall apart. Facts turn out to be not facts. People are cariactures of themselves. And so on. Sparring is all part and parcel of it and this is an open forum as far as it is possible so I cannot suppress debate. And we know each other solely through our published words so any harm done is trivial.

That said ... I know for a fact that Owl is lying through his teeth. Both he and I know. It's analagous to having a car accident, the police turning up, and the other party suddenly presenting a complete fabrication of the events to avoid culpability whilst looking directly in one's eye. It's leaves one open-mouthed, and outraged at the perfidy. And it shows just how moral bankrupt that person is.

As for allegedly validating my own lifetyle and philosophy by showing many online Christians for what they are, I have no need for that sort of validation at all. My lifestyle and philosophy are essentially self-supporting. You're thinking like a foot soldier. Christianity is just a political movement to me. Like New Labour. It exists in my public space and I reject it and seek to prevent some of its adverse consequences.

5 June 2011 at 12:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older