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

you certainly don't disappoint when it comes to dickishness.

i was thinking of Eco's list. but only 1-5 of 13 points fit. damn he doesn't qualify as a one man fascist regime. i retract my slander of the gentleman's character.

thanks for the links. i'll use my reading on them.
i watched Fitna. what else is there to know about Wilders? he's either a racist, pandering to racists, or so unbelievably unskilled at public relations that he has inadvertently presented himself as a racist. it's simple, he's inciting violence.

there surely seems to be mosques in Amsterdam where violence is regularly incited as well. if wilder can be prosecuted then the individuals inciting violence in mosques can be too.

i'm calling into question the support i see for Wilders. If a Musilm was on trial in the netherlands for the same crime would he get your support as well?
Where does Wilders incite violence in Fitna? The whole film is taking suras from the Qur'an and comparing them with the practices of Islamists. No where does he say "Go kill Muslims", or anything such like.
but why the concern for this guy's "freedom"? from what i can tell this guy sounds really right wing. like fascist right wing.

So a person's rights and freedoms depend on you agreeing with their opinion?

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.

I'm not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim; I'm anti-Islamism.

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

Care to elaborate? Because you continue to write about free-speech issues.

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.

Relativism is the bane of Liberalism. Either Wilders has a fundamental right to express his ideas and opinions, or none of us do. The location where one expresses them is irrelevant.
Stephen Moore:
Relativism is the bane of Liberalism. Either Wilders has a fundamental right to express his ideas and opinions, or none of us do. The location where one expresses them is irrelevant.

well said.

I don't see Wilders as "racist" nor do I see him as "inciting violence" at all.
Sacha: I don't see Wilders as "racist" nor do I see him as "inciting violence" at all.

That's because he's not and he doesn't. What you are seeing here, very much the point of the main post, and now also seeing reiterated by Billy, is the time honoured practice of playing the race card when other arguments of substance cannot be found or fail. If you cannot win a fight fairly, you cheat - and that's what is being done here. Wilders is being dehumanised by being painted as a racist. It is a repugnant fallacy for many reasons, but mostly because islam is not a race, therefore raising issues with islamisation cannot be racist.

The hypocrisy that permeates the whole Wilders lynch mob is simply staggering. One has to wonder whether these falsehoods and strawmen are played out deliberately and consciously, or whether it's perpetrators genuinely are such stupid, short-sighted and shallow thinkers.
feltch grogan. evolved beyond color-sightedness. skeptical of mammals.
Just FYI Billy - if you look hard enough you can find a bestiality thread in case you aren't morally disorientated enough as it is.
thanks for the strait-forward answer.
So a person's rights and freedoms depend on you agreeing with their opinion?

no, i certainly didn't mean to say that.

Relativism is the bane of Liberalism. Either Wilders has a fundamental right to express his ideas and opinions, or none of us do. The location where one expresses them is irrelevant.

and i wasn't trying to make an argument for relativism. i was only recognizing that, in the real world, a person's rights are determined by the laws, practices, and beliefs of their country/society/people. even if universal justice exists in some real fixed or semi-fixed way (i think it might) we still have the problem of recognizing and agreeing upon what universal justice is. the discussion concerns a real, not hypothetical, case. so in my book local conditions are relevant.

thanks for the distinction regarding Muslim vs Islamism. noted.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service