Showing posts with label Joanie de Rijke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joanie de Rijke. Show all posts

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Geert Wilders, The Euro-Left & Salafi Islam


It is getting scary," she said. "He is becoming more extreme. He has made it respectable to speak out against Muslims."

Marjina Bernard, 52 y.o. Dutch Citizen, speaking about Geert Wilders, quoted in "Dutch Divided Over Geert Wilders as Radical MP Eyes Premiership," The Telegraph, 14 June 2009

Three years ago, Dutch politician Geert Wilders broke with the major Duthch Party, the Peoples Party, over their support for ascesion of Turkey to the EU. Wilders believes that the Salafi Islamicization of Europe needs to be resisted and immigration brought under control. A fierce proponent of freedom of speech, he is the anti-Obama. Instead of ignoring the many ills of Islam and engaging in moral relativism, Wilder speaks forcefully on the unvarnished truth of what he sees. Much of his criticism is summed up in his movie short, FITNA. It is not racist, nor is it anything more than you will find on this blog, such as the post "Dear Pakistan" and "What You Don't Know About Salafism Could Kill You." And do see the autobiographical post of former terrorist Tawfiq Hamid here.

Understand also that, through immigration, Islam is rapidly taking over large swaths of Europe. The problem is particularly accute in Wilder's Netherlands and surrounding countries.

"In the Netherlands, Muslims will soon make up the majority in all major cities. “Today, we have 1 million Muslims out of 16 million Dutch,” according to Frits Bolkestein, Dutch politician and former EU Commissioner. “Within 10 years, they will have an absolute majority in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam. We are staring into the face of a shortly to be divided community.

And this from Mark Steyn:

Brussels has a Socialist mayor, which isn’t that surprising, but he presides over a caucus a majority of whose members are Muslim, which might yet surprise those who think we’re dealing with some slow, gradual, way-off-in-the-future process here. But so goes Christendom at the dawn of the third millennium: the ruling party of the capital city of the European Union is mostly Muslim.

And the attitude towards this takeover among the European left is simply mindnumbing. To give you an idea of what Wilders is up against, please see this post on the recent travails of left wing Dutch journalist and nominee for Dhimmi Of The Millenium Joanie de Rijke.

After breaking with his party, Wilders established a new political party, Party for Freedom. Many ignored Wilders or attempted to silence him. Britain's morally bankrupt Home Office banned Wilder from entering the country and he has been sued several times under the EU's hate speech laws. Yet in three years, his party is now the second largest party in Dutch politics. It is garnering ever more interest from the realists - and causing ever more consternation on the left. This from the Telegraph today:

. . . To many abroad Mr Wilders, a Dutch MP, appears an old-fashioned racist whose views put him on a par with other far-Right politicians elsewhere in Europe.

Yet in its first ever test of national electoral support among the normally tolerant Dutch, his anti-immigration Party for Freedom which he founded in 2006 won 17 per cent of the votes – making it the second biggest party. That has shaken the country to its core – opening up the real possibility that, through the Dutch coalition system, Mr Wilders could win power at the next general election.

Now, like many others in the Netherlands, the Bernards are desperately worried. "This has the feeling of what happened to Germany in the 1930s," said Alfred Bernard, 52, a lawyer. "Wilders blames foreigners for everything. People are disoriented because of the economic crisis. Everywhere there is dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians.

"After this I really believe that Wilders could become prime minister in the 2011 parliamentary elections, or at least set the political agenda."

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Wilders, 45, was frank about that ambition. Asked about the prospect of taking power in two years' time, he said: "That is our biggest job. We had an enormous success last week and our biggest task is to keep up momentum. I am very confident that we will have an excellent result.

"If my party becomes the biggest party, I would be honoured to be prime minister."

Sitting in his office in the Dutch parliament building in The Hague, protected from the threat of assassination by 10 armed secret service bodyguards, he summed up his antipathy to the religion of many immigrants to the Netherlands.

"Islam wants to dominate our society," he said in fluent and only slightly accented English. "It's in opposition to freedom.

"If people are offended, that's not my aim. I don't talk about Muslims but about Islam. Everything I say is against the fascist Islamic ideology."

To the charge that to many his views appeared to be racist, he responded: "If that was true, we would never have been the second biggest party in the European elections."

Why, then, did Moroccans and Turks living in the Netherlands so fear him? "As long as they don't commit crimes, it's a baseless fear," he said. "If you adhere to our laws, if you act according to our values, you are free to stay. We will help you to integrate.

"But if you cross the red line, if you start committing crimes, if you want to do jihad or impose sharia, we want you to be sent out of the Netherlands and we will get rid of your permits to stay."

An admirer of Churchill and Lady Thatcher, he is charismatic as well as combative. Holland's conventional politicians – mostly dull men in suits – have no idea how to counter his politically incorrect taunts, which outrage the parliamentary chamber but delight his supporters.

He has come a long way since the days when he could be lightly dismissed as an eccentric fringe politician with an extraordinary blond quiff, known mainly for baiting Muslims.

"Half of Holland loves me and half of Holland hates me. There is no in-between," Mr Wilders said. "This is a new politics, and I think it would have a great chance of success in other European countries. We are democrats. On economic and social issues we are centrist. We want tougher laws on crime and we want to stop Holland paying so much money to the European Union.

"We would stop immigration from Muslim countries and close Islamic schools. We want to be more proud of our identity."

He admitted that he is frustrated at his image abroad, especially in Britain, a country which he admires. He claimed to believe in freedom above all else and pointed out that he is despised by Holland's Neo-Nazis, who dubbed him the "blond Zionist" because of his links to Israel – a country which he has often visited and where he counts politicians among his friends.

He is still angered at being banned from entering Britain, where he had been invited to show his controversial 17-minute film linking the Koran with the September 11 terror attacks. Muslim groups were among those who campaigned against his admission, and he dismissed the Home Office ruling as an attempt at "appeasement" of Islam.

Dutch liberals groaned when the British Government refused entry, because they knew Mr Wilders would milk the decision to generate massive publicity at home. He is also being prosecuted in Holland for promoting hate crimes, a case which is thought unlikely to succeed but which has allowed him to pose as a martyr.

. . . Then a dreamy look of a man convinced of his own destiny came into his eyes as he launched into a fresh tirade about the threat to Western civilisation from Islam. "Samuel Huntingdon was being too positive when he talked about a clash of civilisations," Mr Wilders said. "It is civilisation against barbarity."

. . . Dutch tolerance has shaped the Party of Freedom to be quite unlike most European Right-wing movements: its election campaigning championed the victims of gay-bashing gangs of Moroccan youths, and Mr Wilders talks often about the threat from Islam to women's rights.

His success is a sign of how the political landscape has changed. Even Dutch left-wingers now have to admit that there is a problem with Moroccan street gangs are a problem, and liberals wring their hands about the failure of immigrants to integrate since the first were admitted during the 1960s and 70s – many from Morocco and Turkey. . . .

Read the entire article. It may be that Wilders is appearing on the scene too late to stop what could well turn into a bloody conflict in Europe. That said, people like Wilders who are honest and realistic may serve to head off such an eventuality. I think Obama approach articulated in his Cairo speech - to mouth half truths and ridiculous moral equivalencies - will only make such a conflict more likely.








Read More...

Monday, June 8, 2009

Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award Winner?


Now, we don't want to jump the gun on this. It might be a little early to name a winner for Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award since there are 991 years left to go in the current millennium. But do read on - I just can't conceive of this one being beaten. It comes from Gateway Pundit via The Brussels Journal.

Most women who get repeatedly raped while being held captive might find that a tad objectionable. Not Joanie de Rijke, 43 year old left wing Dutch journalist who travelled to Afghanistan expecting to interview members of the Taliban. Taken captive by a Taliban commander, she was repeatedly raped by her Muslim captor while awaiting payment of a ransom. He even invited her to have a threesome with one of his three wives. After the ransom was paid and Ms. de Rijke was released, she defended her captor, saying she bore no animus: “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live” and, she added, "they . . . respected me" and that they gave her "tea and biscuits.”

Dhimmi on steroids.

And, also, mentally unbalanced.

This points to a fascinating insight into the dysfunctional psychology of the left, particularly in Europe where the problem of Islamicization is severe. Dutch politician Geert Wilders explained it this way before the Dutch Parliament:

This story . . . is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. . . . Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. One would expect: a woman is being raped and finds this unbearable. But this journalist is not angry because the Muslim involved also showed respect. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims – that is the one thing they will condemn.”

Wilders really rattled the cages of the Netherlands' elite with that one. Denunciations have filled the airwaves. But Wilders is right. And to Mr. Wilders points, Thomas Landen at Brussels Journal adds:

Her reaction confirms precisely what Wilders was trying to say. In reality the Taliban are not monsters because they call themselves Taliban, but because they behave like monsters. People like de Rijke, however, no longer judge people by their behavior and their actions, but condone them for the noble motives which they imagine have driven them to commit their acts. As Wilders said, “They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth.”

This attitude led Joanie de Rijke to travel to Afghanistan in the first place, with the aim of interviewing Taliban terrorists who had killed ten French soldiers. This attitude leads her editor to question whether the Taliban who abducted and raped de Rijke are “real Taliban” because “real Taliban do not behave that way.” This attitude recently led an American woman in Bakersfield, California, to approach a man lurking in the parking lot where she had parked her car because, as she told the police, though the man looked like a thug she did not want to appear racist. The man held her at gunpoint, threatening to kill her 11 month old daughter, and robbed and raped her. This attitude has led Western Europe to open its doors to large scale immigration from Muslim countries. This attitude, and here Wilders does not take the argument far enough, is worse than the Stockholm syndrome.

Those who have been abducted and suffer from Stockholm syndrome usually have not placed themselves in danger willingly. They had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The phenomenon illustrated by the case of Joanie de Rijke is that of people who for ideological reasons deny the existence of danger and subsequently put themselves in danger. Unlike ordinary Stockholm syndrome sufferers they do not begin to shown signs of loyalty to the criminal while in captivity, but have already surrendered to the criminal before their captivity, and, indeed, have ended up in captivity as a consequence of their ideological blindness.

And so, in a way Joanie de Rijke is right. She did not develop Stockholm syndrome while in captivity. She had the syndrome even before she left for Afghanistan. It is natural that she should resent her state of mind being described as Stockholm syndrome, because she considers it to be the state of mind of a righteous and intelligent modern intellectual. It is the state of mind which she shares with almost the entire political and intellectual class of Europe today, that of the hostage to political correctness.

And Dr. Sanity adds her own thoughts on this issue, tying it in to Obama's approach to the "Muslim world" articulated in his Cairo address. According to the good doctor:

[W]ilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.

The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.

The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.

Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom. . . .

Do read her entire post.

So is she Dhimmi of the Millennium? Or should we make it a group award to the entire Euroleft who are so upset with Geert Wilders for having the effrontery to pull back the curtains and shine some light on their incredibly dysfunctional society.








Read More...