Latest news: Wilders has been refused entry to the UK because his visit "would constitute a threat to public order".

http://www.radionetherlands.nl...

I'm glad to see Leonard finally getting his due on this one.  He has done very little television, and told me he didn't enjoy doing it, but he did it, occasionally, when he thought he had an opportunity to have the right ideas heard by a large audience. Who cares if he doesn't come off as smooth as someone who spends his whole life in front of a camera?  I surely don't.  

Yaron Brook is more comfortable on television, and is close to Leonard's ability in being able to respond to the likes of O'Reilly on these issues.  But no one can get to the root of the matter, off the cuff, quite the way Leonard can.  I always thought it was too bad that he didn't want to do more television...if I dropped the context of his hating it so much and his being able to write his third book instead.

I saw intensity.

And we can't have that!

I saw intensity.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

 I saw Peikoff's anger as so far over-the-top that he failed to convince, or at least engage, his audience. The purpose of an interview, surely.

Apparently that puts me firmly in the loathsome camp of the passionless pomo-cool. I'll live.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."

-George Best

I've watched the clip and am very impressed with Piekoff. His message especially stands out all the more starkly against an American foreign policy that will be going precisely the opposite direction from this point. I see on only his second day Obama has managed to rile the Israelis by phoning the leader of their Palestinian enemy to introduce himself first, before them, showing ably the direction he is intending to take in the Middle East.

Near as I could tell, Leonard didn't make remarks I've heard attributed to him, such as turning Iran into a glass parking lot.

He didn't.

He explicitly said as a civilian he wouldn't presume to tell the military by what means to achieve its objectives.

I watched the youtube clip, but I could hardly make out much of what Leonard was saying, and the jerking around of the image is so hard on me I don't want to watch it again without a lengthy break first.

Is there somewhere a transcript of the proceedings?

Near as I could tell, Leonard didn't make remarks I've heard attributed to him, such as turning Iran into a glass parking lot.

Ellen

___

Lindsay, you thought that his delivery helped him to get across his message?

His delivery was consistent with the message. Passionate, a sense of urgency, seething hatred for the savages we're up against. This whole website is about being passionate about rational values: a no-no in this loathsome Age of Pomo-Cool, I know, but what care I about that? I'm not going to fault anyone for getting overwrought by the standards of pomo-cool.

Incidentally, if you want to see someone really lose the plot in a way Leonard did not, keep watching O'Reilly. When he blows his stack, especially at his colleague Geraldo who blows his stack right back, he makes Leonard look like a parson.

 'Does anyone here have major regrets about America's actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?'

Thanks Olivia; good point.

Lindsay, you thought that his delivery helped him to get across his message?

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."

-George Best

I usually like O'Reilly's perspective - he's a good strong voice on many issues, this war being one of them. But he, like many christians, has a conflict of interest when it comes to selfishness or sacrifice.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I've still not viewed the interview on Linz's link, but from what I have seen of O'Reilly on Fox, I just took him for a Christian mystic (read fool) and thus have never given him much of my attention.

But I'll examine the interview soon.

that O'Reilly said;"You may get us into a war that we don't wanna get into.... a third world war."

Where the hell has his head gone?! Islamofascism has already started this war and O'Reilly knows that well enough - he's even said it enough. If America hit Iran hard, the rest of the Islamic world would cower in demoralization knowing if they commit acts of aggression, the same fate would lie in-store for them also. It would rightly throw them into the moral dilemma for the responsibility concerning their own innocents, instead of that inappropriate burden being shouldered by America. Does anyone here have major regrets about America's actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It comes down to what one believes about this war: is it truly a struggle for the survival of our own civilization or not?

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

'In this instance, the first and lasting impression of Peikoff is of a raving priest from the fringes.'

Then Peikoff is probably doing something right.

Who cares how he came across? He said what ought to be said.

The fact that Scherk notes Peikoff out-O'Reillyed O'Reilly says it all. O'Reilly considers himself a true moralist of christian persuasion, but he got hit by a more ethical morality (selfishness). Of course he's going to call Leonard "crazed." Sound, rational principles *should* put today's popular big-mouths on the back foot - it's a worthy thing. This war is too important to have to mince words over. Can you not see how beautiful that was?

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Agreed, William; his delivery means that he comes across as absolutely bonkers.

You too?

I give up.

And Mark - forgive my impatience, but for fuck's sake keep up, for once. I provided the link on this very thread if I'm not mistaken. Why do you keep doing this Rip van Winkle thing?!

I think this last lot of alcohol  we've got might be a bad batch.

NO!  Just busy Linz: I've got until 31 March to file every tax return otherwise penalties apply, so with 30% of my years work still to complete, I am not able to read through the threads here, or participate, as much as I would like. 

Taking a month off April, then I'll be back from mid-May.  :)  And I'll read whole threads again.

 'In this instance, the first and lasting impression of Peikoff is of a raving priest from the fringes.'

Agreed, William; his delivery means that he comes across as absolutely bonkers.

But that, obviously, is a secondary issue.

The contents of the interview are extremely confronting (and I was pro the invasion of Iraq right from the start and so not exactly an appeaser) and it requires more than a little thought and reading before I can sanction what Peikoff suggests.  On that note an old ARI op-ed of his presents a very strong case without all the crazy bug-eyed  distraction.

Part of Piekoff's argument is that the flattening of Iran will '...terrify the terrorists...' into submission and force other governments to actively hunt down terrorists within their borders. I don't know if that argument is sound, though; wouldn't the outrage just provide the perfect recruitment tool in other parts of the world such as Indonesia and southern Thailand, for example? And if that were to be so, do you flatten them too?

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."

-George Best

Mr. Scherk - I'm afraid you are the slovenly one, and not just slovenly but dishonest, as in the way you misrepresented Peikoff. It is you who should check your premises. Your way of not dealing with Hamas and Al Qaeda is tantamount to pinning them on your wall and would lead precisely to what Peikoff described to O'Reilly. As I say, both logic and passion are foreign to your pomowankery.

As a matter of interest, how do you think Israel should have responded to the rockets coming in from Gaza?

And Mark - forgive my impatience, but for fuck's sake keep up, for once. I provided the link on this very thread if I'm not mistaken. Why do you keep doing this Rip van Winkle thing?!

Is the Peikoff/O'Reilly interview online?

I try to watch Fox, but I can't stand the garish sets and those bloody boring three minute 'international' interludes they keep putting in. Their formats are dreadful.

Lindsay, one of the most wonderful things about the way Ayn Rand thought, and one of the sharpest of the precision instruments in her toolkit, was the insistence on clear reasoning.

Primary among them was her injunction to bear witness to reality, not to cherished notions, and to correct one's assumptions.

This is summed up in the rule of thumb, "check your premises."

This is also the sharpest tool in the kit of science and all allied careful reasoning. Check, test, attempt to disconfirm. Make sure your grounding assumptions are firm and unshakeable and reflect the hard facts that make up reality.

Many a scientist or thinker has put forward a hypothesis and treated it (for a while) as a cherished and beloved infant. Many such scientists have been baffled and hurt by points in their own data that tend to obviate their conclusions. Given a choice, and there is always a choice, they can rigourously examine their hypotheses: do they conform or not?

If not, the choice is clear: modify or discard the hypothesis or initiating assumption. A discomfirming instance or data point is a red flag. A scientist or thinker who ignores or fudges over a disconfirming instance does a disservice to himself and to his enterprise.

This is basic -- but it runs against the human propensity to self-justify and confirm one's initial opinions. It is a hard struggle to think with critical faculties constantly engaged.

Here, you do yourself a disservice. You presume that I support Al Qaeda and Hamas. This is your premise.

Surely you understand that this is slovenly.

You have, and can, and will again do better. I appreciate when your tool is sharp and your mind at its most incisive. But the dull blade of prejudice and unexamined assumptions are hobbling your enterprise. I mean, in all sincerity, that sloppiness in thinking, whatever its intent, undercuts any conclusions drawn from such slop.

Your Hamas/Al Qaeda pin-up premises are faulty in this regard; such flabby argumentation leads to ridicule, Lindsay -- no matter who makes them.

That is why I ridicule your reasoning from time to time, and there is no getting past it. If you don't want ridicule, don't put forward ridiculous, counterfactual assumptions and feeble, slovenly reasoning.

______________________

Own goal for the Vicar, again.

WSS

Imagine, if you will, the kind of normal conversation you and I have with other people: We speak, they speak, we consider, they consider, point, counterpoint.

This kind of conversation is no longer normal. People both inside and outside Objectivism are shocking listeners. Talking over is the norm. It's now even incorporated deliberately into soap operas and movies. Interviewers like O'Reilly make a virtue of it. It's all part of the universal epidemic of what's euphemistically known as attention-deficit (meaning: scattiness. For empirical referents see Airhead America). For all I love Fox News I just abominate the fact that they run headbanging over their news summaries and inject those mindless swishy noises into interviews. Utterly insulting. By contrast, I had dinner with Leonard once. He didn't bark at me (as I agree he is wont to do in public q&a); he listened, just as I did to him, and we had a conversation just like the one you describe (helped by the fact that in those days you didn't have to contend with headbanging caterwauling in restaurants).

But I digress. Here's a classic example of the kind of misrepresentation you engage in when on one of your pomo snideness-binges:

BO': "I don't want to see women and children indiscrimitately [sic] slaughtered."

LP: "There is no alternative!!! Squawk!!!"

Now, Peikoff's actual response was, "But you'd see the slaughter of innocents in New York." The logic of which is impeccable, as was his logic throughout the interview. You dislike both his logic and his passion. I'm getting a better understanding of what the guy has had to contend with all these years.

Your pin-up boys in the likes of Hamas and Al Qaeda, Mr Scherk, use innocents as human shields. Their deaths are the responsibility of those who so use them, as Peikoff also pointed out.

Lindsay, I am coming in late to this thread, and to your friendly request of the O-liars and other spawn of evul to answer with their impressions of Pope Leonard on O'Reilly.

A few preliminary points, about lumping and splitting.

My name is Ellen Stuttle. I agree with and support everything written on OL by the single collective mind that informs all opinions there.

Though there does seem a difference between Bob Kolker's opinions on ARIan warfare (and the necessity to strike hard and fast against US/Western enemies) and Barbara Branden's opinions, and James Heaps-Nelson's opinions, and Bob Mac's opinions, and Ellen Stuttle's opinions, and Robert Campbell's opinions, and the opinions of the other pseudo-objectivists who post there, you have pointed out that the actual differences are only apparent: all are appeasers of Sammadite peemobonking treasonautry. How you discern the similarities I grant to the single all-seeing eye in your forehead, and to your ability to lump together dissimilar things under the same rubric.

Peikoff's appearance on O'Reilly was one of those sad and wince-worthy moments where ARI's stock in the world goes down precipitously. Although I share Ellen's distaste for the Pope's Preston Manning-like quack, I have seen this video before, and regularly listen to the recorded encyclicals on his site.

You will note that Peikoff is used to no opposition in conversation, let alone interviews. He is generally most comfortable barking out his conclusions to a clutch of stenographers, and is most happy in situations where his opinions take precedence in every way over the opinions of others. Imagine, if you will, the kind of normal conversation you and I have with other people: We speak, they speak, we consider, they consider, point, counterpoint.

For the Pope of Objectivism, this is no longer possible. When he speaks, the general rule is that Others Must Listen. If they belong to his church, then they are expected to nod in agreement, clap, and then adopt his opinions as Writ. It is a handicap of being Pope and Emperor of all thought and all philosophy that when others make the mistake of speaking, it is necessary to talk right through the interjection, and to bark and hoot and declaim The Truth no matter the venue, the audience, or normal communication customs.

In this instance, the first and lasting impression of Peikoff is of a raving priest from the fringes. I wince at his tendency to rant through, on, over, above and behind any attempt to engage him in the normal give and take. Anyone who has seen Obama on O'Reilly, or Donahue on O'Reilly knows that O'Reilly generally reserves the right to rant on, through, above, over and behind the voices and questions of his guests. O'Reilly generally is able to bluster and boom and shout down anyone. In this instance he was defeated by the greater instransigent rectitude of Peikoff. Peikoff out O'Reillys O'Reilly.

Quite an achievement.

As for the content of his rant, the second wince (after the first wince at his awful voice and the trembling hysteria of his delivery) comes when he declaims that in war one must not ever, under any circumstance, concern oneself with so-called innocents.

The mind boggles.

Here is the Pope of Objectivism giving the line that offers great succour and encouragement to enemies to put aside the conventions of war. America's enemies need not concern themselves with strictly military targets in their guerilla campaigns. Since a Peikoff military will bomb the fuck out of civilian populations without a thought to the modern notions of precision, the terrorists may take the Peikoff Doctrine that an enemy territory contains only enemies to its logical conclusion, and bomb the fuck out of anything that moves within the territory of the US, its dependents and allies, its embassies and its bases, restaurant chains, tourist buses and barges. In this manner, Peikoff becomes that which he decries, and removes the moral grounding of war:

LP: "If we hit the right country [Iran] . . . you will terrify the terrorists."

BO': "What if you are wrong?"

LP: "What if two and two isn't four?!!"

Yup. If I -- Pope and Heir to Reason -- am wrong, then two and two is not four. And you are an ignoble appeasing lowlife.

"Exterminate the enemy!!! Consider no repercussions!!! Terrorize the Terrorists!!! Kill them all, all one billion of them!!! Two and two is four!!! Squawk!!!"

From that point on, the exchange slumps into complete Kook Rant. O'Reilly begins to think that he has in his studio someone detached from reality. Beyond the quacking and hooting is a third-rate mind who brooks no questioning, let alone opposition. By the end of the exchange we see clearly that O'Reilly has 'gone off' Peikoff.

BO': "I don't want to see women and children indiscriminately slaughtered."

LP: "There is no alternative!!! Squawk!!!"

BO': "Yes, there is."

LP: "No, there isn't!!! You ignoble appeasing lowlife!!!"

BO': "You are crazy. I am sorry, but you are crazier than me, and I am plenty crazy."

LP: "I am the Pope!!! Two and two is four!!! Bomb the fuck out of all of the enemies!!!"

BO': "You are the Crazy Pope."

LP: "I am the Pope of Bombing!!! I hope the terrorists' dirty nuke gets you but not me!!!"

BO': "Are all Objectivists like you?"

LP: "Yes. All TRUE OBJECTIVISTS!!!"

BO': "Thank you, Doctor Peikoff . . . you have done a great service to the right-wing movement of which I am part. If anyone thinks I am the worst ranting nutbar on the air, I have disproved it. Bomb away."

LP: "I am still talking!!!"

BO': "But no one can hear you. I am calling security. Get your hands off me. Fuck!!! Get this nutbar off me!! Fuck!! Fuck!! Fuck!!!"

LP: "Cowards!! Traitors!! Sammadites! Poomobonkers!!!"

________________________

Bill Reilly goes nuts:

Bill Reilly goes nuts (Dance Remix):

WSS

http://au.youtube.com/user/Ezr...

This guy republished those cartoons that sent Muslims in Europe crazy(ier?) and was pulled infront a beaurocrat from the Alberta Human Rights Commission to explain himself.

He's so far spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees while the complainant pays nothing, it's paid for by the tax payers.

He video taped the entire interview (or interrogation as he puts it), and some of it is quite good. 

Just thought i'd share it for those who may not have seen it.

Linz: "My question was, do you agree or disagree with what he says to O'Reilly?"

I'm not going to disentangle all his incoherent shouting, but when he says in the beginning "I'm absolutely not concerned with innocents", I certainly disagree. That killing innocent people may in some circumstances be unavoidable if we want to beat the enemy doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it.

"Again, who on earth said there wasn't?! I myself have been in hot water for claiming such music to be the best."  

I mentioned those composers while you suggested that if you don't think much of the Warsaw Concerto you must be some pomowanker ("fashionably snide pomo-hatred of the likes of Warsaw Concerto"). That certainly doesn't apply to me - I love classical music, I hate rock music and I think that postmodernism is silly nonsense. Your brush is way too broad.

"Peter's failure to supply his pic or real name."

In December I've sent you a private email with that information, which you can easily check.

stuff from Leonard. Wow. A relief to hear the right end of extremism at last, harsh though it is. O'Reilly's "compassion" for the enemy translates as the sacrifice of his own countrymen. In an insidious struggle of this kind one cannot afford such a sentimental luxury. The Islamofascist world has to either back down totally or be thoroughly demoralized beyond repair. We know they're not going to do the former. It is written.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I couldn't tell you the precise physics/neurologic details (indeed, the question of those details and whether my mild case of childhood polio was the origin has been the subject of considerable puzzlement on the part of several doctors), but I can't read a computer screen for more than an hour straight without the "twitches' being set off. The flicker seems to be worse with youtubes, but it isn't absent with any form of computer-screen reading. (I can't watch TV either.)

If all you're talking about is the problem of innocents, I'm not among those who expect no innocents to be killed in a war. From what I've heard said about LP's interview, he recommended turning Iran into a glass parking lot.

I'll watch for myself ASAP.

Ellen

Just out of curiosity, how does watching videos differ from staring at a computer screen in terms of your neurological issues?

My question was too broad. I just meant the issue that Leonard was addressing--namely, the question of innocents in war (although he does discuss attacking Iran as the fountainhead of Islamic terrorism). If you find his statement "pretty crazy" as you expect, I assume this is based on some alternate theory on the issue?

Michael

I'm by no means any expert on the history of Islam and of the MidEast mess.

That's obvious enough. But you're prepared to dismiss Leonard's solution, sight unseen, refusing even to see what it is?

I'll watch it Sunday IF I feel strong enough -- can't afford the aftermath before then. (Something you don't take into account is that 5" of watching a youtube means, for me, 45" minutes lying in a dark room recovering from the neurologic reaction which is set off by the flickering. I watch almost NO youtube links.)

Meanwhile, I'm curious as to why you'd anticipate that I'd have some sort of "solution" to "the terrorist problem" (by which I'm assuming you mean Islamic terrorism). I'm by no means any expert on the history of Islam and of the MidEast mess.

Ellen

Where are the voices one would expect to be raised in Peikoff's support?!

Too scared to support a man who gets justifiably angry??

Because anger is "uncool"?

Cowards!! Traitors!!

I hope the terrorists' dirty nuke gets you but not me. Or Leonard. Or Bosch. Or Sandi. Or anyone else who has the guts to tell it like it is. But I really hope it gets you, you ignoble appeasing lowlifes who have remained silent.

Chomsky? Popper? Well, now it becomes intelligible, but not excusable. Lowlifes one and all!!

Ellen,

You are hairsplitting. You made a judgment before even having seen it. Well, watch it, and report back what you find wrong with it and what your solution is to the terrorist problem. I am curious as hell.

Peter,

Ditto. Put forth what you disagree with, otherwise your opinion is completely empty--no surprise there, though. Maybe you can even mix in some of your Popperian nonsense and Chomsky's theory of language!!

Boy, how I miss you both. Why all the fleeing from MSK's cesspool?

The ongoing "tolerationist" refusal to view or comment on the Peikoff/O'Reilly interview, other than to prejudge it. Peter's failure to supply his pic or real name.

Is anything I said about O-Lying Brandroids untrue?

Expecting is not pronouncing, a difference I don't expect Linz to notice but which I do expect to be registered by some others here.

If you're open to the possibility that it's not "pretty crazy" it might pay to watch the thing and find out for sure. Your hearing could surely withstand 5 minutes of Leonard's voice (less if you consider that O'Reilly does some of the talking).

I agree completely with your support for Wilders, but I suspect if he were an Objectivist you'd be calling him a lunatic with anger management issues.

The issue of supporting Wilders is likely to be lost sight of amidst Linz's distractions.

HERE is a direct LINK to information about how to contribute financially.

That link, and much more, can be found on a website called "Atlas Shrugs" -- Here for the Home Page.

Ellen

___

Linz so habitually distorts what others say, it's dangerous to say anything when he's around.

I did not "[pronounce] it [LP's appearance on O'Reilly] 'half-crazed.'"

I said, exactly: "I expect I'd find whatever it is [LP recommended] pretty crazy."

Expecting is not pronouncing, a difference I don't expect Linz to notice but which I do expect to be registered by some others here.

Note to Richard Wiig: See my "Addendum" below your post.

Ellen

Disagreeing with that raving lunatic Peikoff with his bulging eyes doesn't make you automatically a compromising Chamberlain.

My question was, do you agree or disagree with what he says to O'Reilly? Ellen refuses to watch but pronounces it "half-crazed" anyway. You, Peter, call Peikoff a "raving lunatic" but don't say what it is you disagree with. Such rigour!

There is more music than rock noise and the Warsaw Concerto.

Who on earth said there wasn't?!

There is also great music, by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Van Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, to name a few.

Again, who on earth said there wasn't?! I myself have been in hot water for claiming such music to be the best.

Sheesh!

False dichotomies. Disagreeing with that raving lunatic Peikoff with his bulging eyes doesn't make you automatically a compromising Chamberlain. There is more music than rock noise and the Warsaw Concerto. It doesn't make you a pomo if you're musical enough to realize that the latter is a piece of pompous kitsch. There is also great music, by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Van Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, to name a few. Personally I'm not interested in cheap and shallow music, I'm probably too musical for that. 

Huh? This kind of thing always flabbergasts me.

 I haven't watched that Leonard Peikoff youtube and I'm not planning to watch it. 

to those reading who have some capacity for reading fairly:

The reason I won't listen to Leonard is because I cannot bear his voice (on tape; it isn't, or at least didn't used to be, quite as hard to take in a live lecture setting). About once every other year I listen to a segment of one of his taped courses, brought by one of the two friends of ours who spend Thanksgiving with us. I then need about two years in between to recover from the assault on my hearing.

Ellen

I'm not at all surprised. Total evasion. Total refusal to face the issues square in the eye and pronounce judgment, the way Leonard does fearlessly. You're prepared to dismiss what he advocates as "pretty crazy" without bothering to find out what it is. I can see why you would evade and Babs would hate. You, she and your ilk are the Chamberlains who make Hitler possible. The world right now, and America in particular, is exactly the way you want it, fashionably snide pomo-hatred of the likes of Warsaw Concerto included. I hope you're satisfied. And I rest the case I make in SOLO's Credo.

Linz,

I haven't watched that Leonard Peikoff youtube and I'm not planning to watch it.

I don't know specifically what he recommends. I expect I'd find whatever it is pretty crazy.

I don't have some answer as to what to do. I don't think there is any quick fix, and I think that so much is being done so wrong in so many ways in the Western world, a huge amount of cleaning up our own house is the first order of business.

This is as much of an answer as you'll get from me.

Ellen

Ellen, Peter, Scherk and whoever else from O-Lying:

What is your view of the ARI view of the way to deal with Islamic totalitarianism? As expressed by Leonard here:

Linz,

Is that your idea of "a question"?

LOL.

Ellen

I thought you O-Liars were soft on Islamo-fascism, consistent with O-Lying's generic appeasement of evil across the board, especially in the esthetic realm. Am I wrong? Do you have the same problem with the ARI's policy of blasting the bastards to smithereens that the truly evil Babs (who once pretended to be a friend of Israel) has?

Ellen, about your first question: I don't know. I remember seeing it in a second-hand bookshop when I was a student, so perhaps it wasn't banned then. But I think it has now been banned for several decades.

Your second question: no, I hadn't heard of Pamela Geller before. 

Peter,

I agree about the hypocrisy of banning Mein Kampf and not the Koran, although I wish he'd merely pointed out the hypocrisy instead of calling for banning the Koran too.

How long has Mein Kampf been banned in the Netherlands?

Also, do you have any easily available link which explains how the "inciting hatred" offense is defined and what the penalties are?

Speaking of "courageous dissenter[s] in Dutch politics" immediately reminds me of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. On the torchlight.typepad link you provided, there's a link to a blurb about her:

http://www.ayaanhirsiali.org/

[Scratch a question I asked. On second thought, maybe Ms. Ali wouldn't want the answer known.]

The torchlight site has links to lots of further stuff in English.

One of the links is to a site called "Atlas Shrugs":

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...

That site provides direct information on how to contribute to Wilder's expenses.

It also has many other stories which I think folks here would find of interest, and links to further sites.

Had you heard of Pamela Gellar (the site's owner)?

Ellen

Ellen,

Yes, Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. Of course I don't agree with his statement that the Koran should be banned, but he does have a point when he points out the hypocrisy in banning Mein Kampf and not the Koran, which is at least as bad, if not worse. What's sauce for the goose...

His offense would be inciting hatred. As I said in my first post, I think it's unlikely that he will be condemned - the case is far too weak-, but the point is that this procedure that will take years will cost him hundreds of thousands of euros, which in effect would finish his party (in contrast to other parties his isn't subsidized by the government).

Even while I may disagree strongly with Wilders on some points, I think it's of vital importance to support him as practically the only courageous dissenter in Dutch politics who is not afraid to tell the truth about the Islam (and will therefore have to be guarded 24 hours a day for the rest of his life) . 

Because the Q'ran is not banned in the Netherlands, it should be according to their own law regarding Hate Speech. The same effing law that has put Geert Wilders on trial for quoting a book which is not banned!!!

Double standards, double Dutch and its disgusting fascist controllers.

Peter,

I'm not understanding this situation. Larry got an email today from Karen Minto about it, in which she included a link to a Fox News Story -- here.

According to the news story:

"In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Koran 'the same way we ban "Mein Kampf."' He said both Adolf Hitler's work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values."

And:

"I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," [Wilders] wrote once in national newspaper De Volkskrant. "I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Is Mein Kampf banned in Holland? (I can't applaud someone's supporting and calling for book-banning.)

And what would be the nature of the "criminal" offense with which he'd be charged?

Ellen

"It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: 'The sky over New York and the will of man made visible."

Wilders Speech - Sep 25th 2008 at Political Islam.

"Who is John Galt?"

"WHEREAS Geert Wilders has exercised his fundamental human right of freedom of expression and spoken out, with facts and evidence, of the threat posed by radical Islam;

WHEREAS certain elements within Islamic communities have threatened a boycott of Dutch goods if Geert Wilders is not punished by the Dutch government for exercising his freedom of expression; and

WHEREAS certain elements in Dutch industry and the Dutch government are suggesting that Geert Wilders be prosecuted civilly or criminally, in order to prevent such a boycott;

IT IS RESOLVED that, in the event that the Dutch government attempts, in any way, to punish or prosecute Geert Wilders, civilly or criminally, for exercising his freedom of expression, the undersigned will initiate a boycott of any and all Dutch goods."

Sincerely,
The Petitioners

"Who is John Galt?"