The humanists have found themselves in a bit of a pickle. After years of baying for Geert Wilders' blood, now that he's actually on trial for trumped up charges that he "fomented hate and discrimination" against muslims and islam, they really don't know what to do. They can't condemn the trial - that would look extremely hypocritical given their vitriol to date. They essentially already branded, tried, convicted and executed him as a hate criminal. Nor can they gleefully celebrate - it would take an awful lot of 'splaining in light of the never ending humanist manifestos and declarations. No, they do what they always do in these awkward situations - walk the expedient path of least resistance and stay silent. Like someone who's dropped a quiet fart in a crowded elevator, no sense in speaking up and drawing attention to yourself. Just walk away whistling like nothing happened.

Not so before the trial when he was fair game and the political punching bag for anyone left of centre, especially those whose other favourite pastimes are putting the boot into Israel and group hugs. Fitna, of course, was a popular target of the venom -

"Having watched Fitna when it was first excreted onto the internet, I find its sweeping generalisations is to the nature of Islam, and by extention Muslims, repulsive and of no intellectual value whatsoever. It's a piece of irresponsible propaganda produced by a right-wing, anti-immigration politician, purposefully designed to manufacture the kind of controversy on which that politician, and indeed his brand of politics in general, thrives." --, 11 February 2009

As was what a jolly good idea it is to restrict a person's right to travel on the basis of their opinions -

"February 2009, British Government did the right thing. They did not allow Geert Wilders to come on British soil in order to spread his venomous ideas under the umbrella of the anti-European UKIP party.

"Blocking an elected representative from a befriended country is indeed exceptional. But in my view, British Government set an example of integrity, ashaming Dutch Parliament, that allows a no-membership "party" to agitate on racial issues. Most parties in Holland, exception made for the left liberal D66 group as well as for the "Green-Left", are stuck like rabbits in the headlights of a Mercedes, not knowing what to do about this utterly un-Dutch Wilders movement." -- At Home in Europe, October 14, 2009

These are the more coherent of the sentiments expressed, though they are pretty much representative. To see how the new humanists really feel, just dive into the comments sections of YouTube. I won't defile our pages with any. Beyond all this then there's the surreal fringes of the Wilders' bashing - harping about his jewishness and implying he bleaches his hair out of shame at the alleged taint of non-white Indonesian ancestry [bad google translation]. There doesn't seem to be a limit to the shamelessness.

Contrast this with the here and now with the Wilders' trial in full swing -

Your search - wilders - did not match any documents.

Not Found wilders

Matches for "wilders": 0

Sorry, no results were found for wilders. Please try a different search term.

The silence is deafening. Google is a vacuum. I am happy to say though that this void is not replicated by the atheist blog world. The discussion is lively and generally disturbed at what is going down. Seems the godless can actually make the distinction that expressing disgust at this kangaroo court that is effectively steamrolling the rights and freedoms we hold dear and being a card carrying Wilders groupie are not necessarily the same thing. Of course there is some leakage, these thoughts have been aired at a|n over the last year -

"He also goes under the banner of "freedom of speech", but like any scum to protect himself and not others... It does frighten me that there are many Atheists, especially those who like Pat Condell who have photos of Geert Wilders and make him look like some freedom fighter."

"But note at the outset Wilders is described as "conservative Dutch politician and provocateur". Wouldn't this set off some alarm bell to anyone not in a coma?"

"Geert Wilders is a piece of shit and I think Bill Maher and Pat Condell should be ashamed of themselves for defending this idiot."

"People who don't live in The Netherlands seem to have so much sympathy for Wilders having no clue that he's only an extremist and a piece of shit. You see Pat Condell and Sam Harris defending him and not criticizing him for the shit he really is. Bill Maher being very naive and dumb interviewed Wilders in his Religilous and rather than treating Wilders with ridicule as he does with others in the film he seems to be nice to him."

"Harris is completely unaware about the European Muslims and the fact that Wilders is only right wing trash."

It should be noted that the folks that made those statements also babble about Israeli genocide in Gaza. The rest of a|n, thankfully, can see past dogmatic ideologies and are expressing concern at what is essentially political show trial and betrayal of liberal democratic principles and beliefs.

The humanist silence is not restricted merely to the trial either. The Netherlands in many ways is a poster child for all of this. They have already had two instances of Dutch citizens being murdered for expressing incorrect opinions - Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Though "murder" skirts the issues for what were political assassination as terrorism. Swept under the humanist rug as stuff better not thought about. Inconveniences that are better off forgotten. Nor does anyone need to know about trivia like Wilders being hung in effigy [google translate]. That's genuine free speech. Humanists defend free speech. As long as it's within party lines and not racist, or fascist, or islamophobic. Besides, it was an "art" project, probably by secular humanist students.

Looking over all of this and I am left with a sense of confusion. "Hate" is such a strong word to bandy about, and there is misdirection at who the actual haters are. The rhetoric is heated and passionate. The terms "hate", "fascist", "far right", "intolerant" and the Runnymede Trust's gift to muslims and humanists everywhere, "islamophobia" are thrown about with liberal abandon and an unmistakable twist of malice. Far too few commentators point out that "far right" in the European context is way wide of the mark -

"The European far-Right has certain characteristics – as well as being obsessed with race, it is anti-big business, pro-state intervention, pro-worker’s rights but anti-Communist, nostalgic about the countryside and often sentimental about animals, politically paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories, anti-gay, anti-American and, most of all, anti-Semitic Zionist (just as it used to be against “cosmopolitans” and “foreign intellectuals”)." --

It is a rule of thumb that those that squeal "fascist" and "far right" the loudest have zero experience with either. All these terms being hurled at Wilders are semantically being used much in the same way that "faggot", "nigger", "communist" or "witch" have been used in the past. As terms of derision and contempt. And - hatred. Wilders is a pussy and on the spectrum of far right and fascist politics, he isn't even on the scale. But that doesn't matter. Reality is not the objective here - emotional response is. The real "hating" is amongst Wilders' detractors.

Wilders' alleged hate speech when compared to even moderate muslim statements we hear daily are trivial and innocous. The humanists have taken it upon themselves to create a monster out of a person that is voicing an opinion about very unpleasant realities that are impacting in very real ways our ideals of liberal democracy. In doing so, they have set the stage for a real life prosecution of a "thought crime" which may have untold ramifications for the entire western world. They are sending a clear signal that we will use our own laws to hold ourselves hostage to islamic whim. This is a betrayal of horrific proportions.

It is interesting to read an extract from an interview with Afshin Ellian regarding his involvement in the Wilders trial -

You said the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?

“The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, but it’s about perception. If you cannot say that Islam is a backward religion and that Mohammed is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there also you cannot say such things. Here I’m free to say that Christ was a faggot* and Mary was a whore, but apparently I should stay off of Mohammed.”

Why has it all come to this ? Why has Wilder become the meat in the sandwich of all this ? The reason Wilders' gets so much press and so much attention is really stunningly simple. It is the systemic failure by those that choose to proclaim they are the guardians of our freedoms, such as humanists, to address and take ownership of the problem of islamism, islamisation and radicalisation. For the sake of tolerance, cultural sensitivity and accomodationism to a culture that will show no such consideration in return, they are prepared to sacrifice our hard won freedoms and liberties, and are prepared to jail those that may have a problem with all this.

If humanism is the spearhead of world secularism, then we are doomed to failure. I certainly do not want to be represented by it. Nor do I know anybody that I respect that would want to be represented by it. Should it represent atheism ? Sounds like a subject for another undead thread.Humanism as it stands now is completely divorced from the freethinkers that founded the movement and is little more than western self-hatred. "Tolerance" and "respect" are noble ideals - but they are not ones to be given freely. They need to be earned. And they should not be simply handed out gratis to cultures that in return demand the right to spit at our own.

Perhaps the final word should be left to an entity with Federal Bureau of Prisons register number 04475–046 in ADX Florence who sums up the humanist status quo ever so succinctly -

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser. -- Theodore Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future (aka The Unabomber Manifesto)

[There are no name capitalisation errors in this article. Capitals are reserved for terms worthy of respect]


“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last” -- Winston Churchill

Delia Ives and Matt Ditloff already posted this video, but it bears repeat viewing. Matt also collated the links below it.

Europe's cultural inquisition begins.

Wilders on trial

Geert Wilders' statement in court

Wilders pulls no punches

Wilders on trial for telling the truth

Wilders is not "far right"

Homophobic attacks on the rise in Amsterdam">

"While Europe sneered" by Bruce Bawer

Read my interview with Dutch news magazine AD Weekend



You can download an audio version of this video at

Subscribe via iTunes at

Tags: appeasement, geert, humanism, humanists, kangaroo court, show trial, why I am not, wilders

Views: 155

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I live in the US and I am a centerist. I have strong views against the far right and the far left.
What exactly would you like humanist organizations to do?

I am at a loss as to how I could have written things down any more clearly or simply.

To be consistent. To have a moral compass that doesn't spin on it's axis towards what is perceived to be populist. To have the balls to live by the beliefs you espouse without establishing special cases and exceptions. To not submit to fear or intimidation. Another good article on how humanist convictions have slowly become watered down and insipid to the point of worthlessness -,1518,669888,00.html

I like the author's comparison that the liberal humanist west's discussions on free speech have become "Like Eunuchs Talking about Sex".

The foundation stones of humanism are in free thought and the right to express those thoughts without fear or ostracism. That foundation is being betrayed and nobody gives a fuck. Whether Wilders is right or wrong is completely irrelevant - it's that we have sold out to the point that we would rather abandon him to his fate than risk hurting somebody's feelings.
First, it should also be noted that, if we get off our US-EU-centric platform, it is true that the majority of terror in the world is not perpetrated by people even pretending to Muslim - but Christian and Communist (see Asia and South/Central America) terrorizing people who aren't American or European.

Nevertheless, I never thought I would jump on board with certain people I still consider to be bigots considering that all my friends who are Muslim (quite a few) condemn the actions of terrorists, etc. Why is the Islamic din is so loud in the international community against free speech when it is applied in the form of criticism of their religion, but those same voices are so silent in condemning the actions of the terrorists who are actually the ones tarnishing the reputation of their religion/culture?

Why the hell (forget humanists) is anyone living in a free country willing to kowtow to this bullshit? Oh yeah - because we aren't actually free.

In the end, Geert Wilder will be 'martyred' or 'vindicated.' Either way anti-Islamic fervor will rise. There will be a backlash that will make bigots look reasonable and racists look like activists.
Can't believe I'm gonna quote Chuck Heston and MLK Jr. in the same post - but this is appropriate.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."
- Charlton Heston

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
- Martin Luther King Jr

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."
- Charlton Heston

@Howard. This quote is beyond apropos. I was just discussing the fact that so many people can't admit that those who hold the antithesis of their views can not only have clear and rational thought, but that some of those views can mirror their own and one should acknowledge that. felch quoting Theodore Kaczynski for this post is a perfect example of this. I agree with a good portion of those paragraphs, and I agree with Charlton Heston in this case.
Have to add my favourite -

Ignorance is no excuse for a law -- unknown

I have been searching for the true source of that quote for years with no success. If anyone does know who owns it, it would be appreciated.
I first saw it in a High Times circa 1976 and I suspect it is far older than even that.
The quote is quite nice - it is essentially that you should not legislate out of ignorance or fear or without fully understanding the full implications of your proposed law, or even attempting to understand. As examples, look at the carnage and misery caused by concerned citizen driven drug laws. More pertinent to this thread, see this article in the Deepak Chopra Post -

Kelly argues that the atheist manifesto, placed by a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation, constitutes hate speech in its hostility toward and mockery of religion.

Ignorant laws empower ignorant people and do nothing but damage society in the long run.
It's not a "morph", it's a deliberate play. The most likely suspect as the source may be John Seldon (according to the one person on Yahoo Answers who actually read my question rather than insisting on correcting my confusion), though I can't find a specific attribution for the quote to him.
up front, this is the first i've read about the issue (haven't read through all the links yet) but i just want to throw some questions/comments out to get a reading on where everyone stands.

@all but John D.

i can agree with Felch's criticism of humanists for their lack of consistency. i get it. i agree. it's necessary to take some kind of moral stance and stand by it when the realities of the legal system take effect.

but why the concern for this guy's "freedom"? from what i can tell this guy sounds really right wing. like fascist right wing. i understand i might not be completely informed here, but casting the man in that light, his kind represent a known danger compared to whatever threats immigration and "islamisation" poses. (name me a civilization or nation that fell because of peaceful immigration/migration)

in europe, fascism is still in the living's memory.

personally, i don't have a big problem with immigrants or immigration policies. but i understand that it's not a simple issue, and that there are some valid arguments for taking a more "conservative" view. the problem is that often those with a more conservative view simply represent veiled racist, nationalist, or fascist views.

so, i'm getting the picture that those making comments here tend toward what we in the US would call Libertarian views. (if i have slandered any of you, forgive me i mean no offence). I'm also getting the feeling that most here are tending to be a bit anti-Muslim and would probably justify this on the grounds that Islam is a poisonous religion. anyone care to comment on this?

what i'm wondering here is whether or not you have confused your enemy's enemy for your friend.

perhaps i'm wrong and this is simply a free speech issue. but it doesn't look so simple to me.

i believe in free speech and, as far as the law goes, i'm good with the way its handled in the US. but this didnt happen in the US, it happened in the netherlands. if this trial is going according to a written law, and this is the way the Dutch want to handle these things, then they should do it their way. (if i'm mistaken and the law is being twisted to suit political whims then i'll stand corrected)

i don't think this is the ideal way to deal with intolerance, but i don't think its an atrocity, and i don't nessesarily see it as a threat to "freedom". who knows? if it sets a legal precident it could be used to put pressure on islamic groups in the netherlands and curb most of the muslim practices that Wilders and others find so offensive. (like murdering filmmakers) comments?

to my mind, if any european country faces a threat of ignorant masses drunk on religion trampling on the basic freedoms of the innocent, then the threat would be more likely to come from "christians" who are reacting to percieved threats to their national herritage. i don't say this out of any kind of antimosity toward the west. and i don't really think someone like Wilders should be thrown in jail, but i don't think he should be left to go on inciting ignorant short-sighted rasists to vote in a police state. (public ridicule would have most likely done the job of getting rid of him)
you reread
i cast the spooky fascist light on Wilder, not on anyone commenting here.
billy poser: from what i can tell this guy sounds really right wing. like fascist right wing.

I suspect what you know about 'fascism' would leave space on a postage stamp. I find the best recent definition was that formulated by Milton Mayer for Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism - The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism.

About the only characteristic that you could accuse Wilders of is the third one -

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

And even then, he is no more guilty of that than you are by immediately branding him extreme right and fascist when really, he isn't even a blip on the scale. Let me quote a choice part of your outburst -

his kind represent a known danger

"His kind" ? Uhuh. "Let he who is free from sin... the mote in your brother's eye... glasshouses and stones... pot, kettle, black..." Etc.

You have no clue about fascism and you use it purely out of preconditioned habit as a snarl word against things you don't like. People like Sally, diametrically opposed to you, also use these types of meaningless snarl words - in her case it's "liberals". This situation sums up the status quo of politics in the western world - incoherent maniacs hurling barbed, and irrelevant, epithets at each other.

i don't say this out of any kind of antimosity toward the west. and i don't really think someone like Wilders should be thrown in jail, but i don't think he should be left to go on inciting ignorant short-sighted rasists to vote in a police state.

Less babbling, more reading. Off you go.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service