"We are here for the Netherlands, we are here for the people"

In my previous posts, I discussed the potential for counter-jihad movements in Canada. I later expanded the subject to discuss how grass roots efforts that deal with Muslims' increasing power could be channeled into a broader political spectrum.

Geert Wilders is the quintessential leader of grass roots sentiments, who is also the leader of his political party, the PVV, in the Netherlands. Below are excerpts from his speech in Almere, one of the municipalities his party is predicted to win when elections are held this week, after the recent fall of the Dutch government. The English translation is provided by Gates of Vienna.

The Party for Freedom (PVV) has a breakpoint for negotiations for a Cabinet. We say: it is good to talk with us. We are here for the Netherlands, we are here for the people...

People, you know the PVV to be a caring party. We see that the backbone of the Netherlands is formed by the teacher, the nurse, and the policeman. All people who ensure that the Netherlands will be able to keep going.

In recent months, Raymond de Roon [PVV's justice spokesman in Parliament] has been meeting with quite a lot of people in this city. And those citizens over and over told our candidates: provide lower taxes for us; bring down those burdens! What they earn themselves, they also want to keep themselves. And thus the PVV is also setting to work on that right here in Almere: lowering the property tax, cutting the parking fees in half, and throwing out the sewage and waste disposal tax...

The Party for Freedom has been pursuing a marvelous campaign in recent weeks...Look, that is true PVV policy. Not counting policy reports, but helping citizens...

And I still have other good news for you. I heard from our party leaders in Almere and the Hague [the other city where the PVV joins the municipal elections], Raymond de Roon and Sietse Fritsma, what the main effort will be for the [coalition] negotiations in Almere and the Hague after March 3 [the municipal elections]: That will be a ban on headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions, foundations, or associations, if they receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality.

Dear people, we here in Almere will go against the flow for a great result on Wednesday [the municipal elections]. I am convinced that not only in the Netherlands, but also in Europe, many will be watching the PVV. You can make the difference. You can let this be known to the entire Netherlands on Wednesday: Almere chooses the PVV. Almere chooses for the future.

And you then will also do something else. With a resounding victory, you will lay the basis for the success of the PVV in the general election — when on June 9 hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people throughout the Netherlands will vote for the Party for Freedom.

From his sequestered life, shielded by body guards, Wilders is able to speak to the grass roots of Dutch society, securing votes and a new way of dealing with the crippling politics that has resulted in an erosion of his country.

This is how grass roots movements should work.

Grass Roots Counter Jihad Movements Need to Be Channeled into Politics to Effect Real Change

Geert Wilders discusses in one of his many speeches that ground level organizations are important in exposing the raw views of dissatisfied ordinary people. But that such discontent cannot remain at the grass roots level.

Mike Church and Larrey Anderson show in their recent American Thinker article, "Who will lead the TEA Party?" that leaders of the original Tea Party movement were officials in local governments, who were trying to diffuse the controls of the central (British) government. Ironically, they were in fact trying to uphold the Constitution of the time, which was English Constitution of 1688.

These original Tea Party members were not some anarchic, anti-government groups with haphazard radical protesters. Church and Anderson write, "these men were united in opposition to Parliament's usurpations of their liberties," and their leaders were "the equivalent of our finest state legislators, mayors, city councilmen, etc."

The current Tea Party movement is also not devoid of its government, or former government officials. Freedom Works, an organized body which influences the movement, has Dick Armey as its chairman. Armey is a former house majority leader, who makes statements like, "Let’s not leave them [the GOP] to their own devices."

Influencing and changing negative government authority should certainly be the ultimate aim of grass roots activities. This requires that their leaders be familiar with politics, with the intention of entering and leading in such a political environment, if not influencing that political environment from powerful external groups (as Freedom Works is doing).

If one does a survey of counter-jihad activities around Europe, there is a similar pattern. Grass roots discontents are channeled into politics and the formation of political parties, or political representatives. Wilders’s PVV in the Netherlands, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang Party in Belgium, Stop the Islamization of Denmark, the Sweden Democrats, all originated from movements or leaders who were sensitive to the agitated public whose grievances weren’t addressed by the major political parties.

A similar approach is necessary here. Counter jihad groups should form alliances with seasoned, and like-minded politicians. If there are none, then the onus is on these groups to form an appropriate leader. As the original Tea Party movement has shown us, a revolution has to mature and evolve into something substantial. People cannot live on slogans and marches alone. Concrete changes can only be made when leaders are also involved in politics.

The Only Individual Who Writes "Stop Muslim Immigration" Can Still Say and Write More; And This Is How:

One of the impressive things about Kathy Shaidle is that she openly writes about stopping Muslim immigration. No other blogger or writer has yet done so, as far as I know.

Although this is a first good step, my concern has been that Shaidle’s approach is simply a dramatic slogan, and that repeatedly posting such a statement will either go stale, or it will frustrate her readers (as I wrote in this email to her).

My suggestion to her has been that she argue her position more, showing people the practical and feasible approaches to eliminating the Muslim influence. This not only involves closing the doors on immigration, but a myriad of other steps as well (such as finding ways to reduce the already high levels of Muslims through some kind of out-migration policies).

By substantiating her slogan with concrete proposals and statements, she will have a better chance of allowing Canadians to understand the issues. Shaidle, in the past few months, has been asked to speak at numerous venues on Islam and related issues. So, her audience is bigger than those who read her blog.

I believe it is the responsibility of individuals, who have spent time studying and understanding Islam, to be as comprehensive as possible. This is not only for the benefit of the crowd which is in agreement, but for those who would benefit from well-presented and well-established information. The better the argument, the more converts.

Finally, the issues surrounding Muslims seem best solved through policies – of immigration, of multiculturalism, and even of rights and freedoms (of religion, for example). Therefore, counter-jihad groups and individuals have to consider attracting politicians and helping them to understand the issues involved, so that they can make effective policy changes such as "stopping Muslim immigration." Shaidle has an aversion for politicians, as she frequently states on her blog. But, ultimately, such a national catastrophe can only be resolved through national means.

Anarchy and grass roots can only go so far. Geert Wilders has certainly shown that movements from the ground up can end up in parliamentary halls.

Is There a Counter-Jihad Movement in Canada?

I'm trying to figure out if a genuine counter-jihad movement exists in Canada. I thought there was a potential for one with Ezra Levant's retaliation to the absurd Human Rights Commissions complaint against him for publishing Kurt Westergaard’s Mohammed cartoons.

I wrote extensively on this, and even set up an independent link on the side panel titled: Humand Rights Commissions. I felt that this was Levant's chance to turn the issue of freedom of speech and expression, as he is wont to do as a journalist, into the underlying factor that caused his three years of misery. And that would be Islam.

Levant, although he does talk about radical Islam, and writes scathing commentary about individual Muslims, has never connected the dots between the high levels of Muslim immigrants and the treatment he received. He believes it is just a small contingency of radical (and irrational) Muslims which is problematic. But, he never writes about the silent Muslim majority, which never denounced his three-year ordeal simply for publishing cartoons of their prophet. By their silence, these Muslims were in effect supporting their "radical" brothers. And this is surely the example for future events.

Other bloggers which have placed some priority to the Muslim issue are Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Jay Currie, Wendy Sullivan and bloggers who go by Blazing Cat Fur and Dr. Roy. There may be more, but these are the most vocal. All of them take Levant's stance that jihad is mostly a problem of radical Muslims.

But one of them, Kathy Shaidle, has started periodically to post "Stop All Muslim Immigration" on her blog. I recently sent her an email (posted here at my blog) telling her that it might help her readers if she elucidated further on her headline style postings. With the email, I also sent her links to Lawrence Auster’s articles on strategies to combat Islam, including stopping Muslim immigration, containing the Muslims that are already here, and finally finding ways to remove Muslims from our societies. It is a practical and feasible guide.

She returned my email by saying she would read these articles. But her next exclamatory "Stop Muslim Immigration" appeared on her blog without any qualifying statements just a few days ago. And I’m afraid she is not willing to pay much attention to my advice.

Despite their vocal protests against radical Muslims, and Shaidle's occasional headlines to stop Muslim immigration, I don't think this group of bloggers has identified itself as a counter-jihad group.

So, that leaves us with the newly formed Canadian branch of the International Free Press Society. I am familiar with their new President, Bjorn Larsen. In fact, he invited me up to New York City last September to participate in Kurt Westergaards U.S. tour (here are my follow-up posts on my trip). IFPS-Canada is still in its infancy, so I will wait and see what proposals its members make. Until then, I can safely say that there is no counter-jihad movement in Canada.

Commentary on the Activities Planned by the Freedom Defense Initiative

Yesterday, I posted on a new counter-jihad organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative, started by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.

Here is discussion of that organization at View from the Right, with useful commentary by Lawrence Auster on the various activities the organization plans to undertake.

Starting a New Counter-Jihad Organization Is Not the Solution to the Problem

A new organization has just recently been formed by two counter-jihad individuals, Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs, called the Freedom Defense Initiative. Almost half (or ten) of their twenty-three planned activities involve actions towards or against Islam. Although they don't call themselves a counter-jihad organization, these activities indicate that Islam is their main focus.

There are two other major organizations which, based on their activities, can also be considered counter-jihad: The International Free Press Society, and Act for America.

All these organizations are commendable. It takes a lot of energy to form a structured body for a cause. But, the FDI seems a combination of Act for America and IFPS. Therefore, I don't understand the necessity for building another organization if the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved (or are not in the process of being resolved).

The champion of these organizations, Geert Wilders, has already articulated the solution to the Islam problem. His main point is to remove the problem, not simply to defend ourselves against it. In other words, Muslims have no place in the West. And they can only be part of the West if they don't practice the sharia-based, jihad-supporting variant of Islam that is attempting to have a stronghold over the West.

As far as I can tell, none of these organizations has articulated the removal of Muslims who threaten Western civilization, and closing the immigration doors on all Muslims. They focus instead on a defensive rather than a proactive approach. This is ironic, since two (FDI and Act for America) publicize themselves as activists.

And Wilders’s positions have been articulated by another individual. Thus, both Act for America and the FDI actually have a mentor closer to home.

Lawrence Auster has proposed his points in a speech he gave for the conference Preserving Western Civilization, a year ago, and in many other articles he has published on the Islam problem.

In his speech "A real Islam Policy for a Real America" he makes the following propositions:

- With the exception of immediate family members of U.S. citizens, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other legitimate purposes, all entry into the United States of foreign persons known or determined to be followers of the religion of Islam, whatever their nationality or country of residence, shall cease.

- Any Muslim person with a temporary visa for business or diplomacy who advocates or promotes jihad shall lose his visa.

- Any resident alien who openly espouses jihad or who participates in any pro-jihad activities or organizations will lose his residency status and be deported.

- No resident alien who adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrine of jihad, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the doctrine of jihad and have no association with pro-jihad activities and pro-jihad persons.

- Naturalized citizens, whether they were naturalized before or after the passage of this law, who associate with jihad supporters or participate in pro-jihad activities, have shown that their oath of loyalty to the United States was fraudulent. Their citizenship shall be revoked and they shall be deported.

- All mosques, Islamic centers and schools that promote jihad or sharia in any form will be closed.

- The United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim naturalized citizens and their native-born descendants by offering all Muslim persons over the age of eighteen $50,000 each in a one-time fee to give up any claim of U.S. residency or citizenship, to return to their native land, and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States.

It is counter-productive to repeat the same things over again, without any clear progress. I’m sure that the FDI, the IFPS and Act for America have dedicated counter-jihad members, who really do go out on a limb endangering their lives and livelihoods for the cause they're fighting. But, it is surprising that they hardly pay attention to the methods their mentor Geert Wilders clearly enunciates, and Lawrence Auster, closer to home, has clearly outlined.

I will be bold and say that starting a new organization is not the solution to the problem. Starting a new organization with the mandate to solve the problem effectively, is the solution to the problem.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Latest Update

Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson,
the latest "power couple"

I haven't had time to comment on the latest Ayaan Hirsi Ali incident, although I don't really think it is that newsworthy, and was, in my view, pretty much predictable - at least in the attention-seeking aspect of it. Hirsi Ali has always seemed to find the limelight her favorite spot.

Ali is involved in a torrid affair with historian Niall Ferguson, who ditched his wife of sixteen years to link up with her. There is an article over at the British on-line magazine The Daily Mail, which humorously titles the piece: "The historian, his wife and a mistress living under a fatwa." Ali is standing next to Ferguson, held rather clumsily and defiantly by the adulterous husband. She is wearing a gaudy electric blue satin dress, looking both vapid and glitzy at the same time. The article calls them "a formidable couple," but I wonder how much Ali will ever get done now that she's officially entered the shimmering world of celebrities that the other Muslim who had a fatwa on his head - Salman Rushdie - belongs to. Rushdie keeps appearing at fashionable events, with a different woman at his arm every year or so. If I were Ali, I would be a little careful, since Ferguson apparently has had eight affairs in the past five years. But, that is irrelevant. Ali can also keep changing her own partners as many times as she wishes.

I believe Ali still works for the American Enterprise Institute in the United States. Her last published article at the AEI was in June 2009, which reprimanded Obama for not telling the "truth to Islam." But Ali has a bigger project than mere research fellow at the AEI, which I am sure is not a long-term (or indefinite) position. She has initiated a foundation called the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation whose aim is to: "defend and protect the rights of women in the West against fundamentalist Islam." The foundations has cleverly limited its mission to "women in the West." But I have never trusted Ali's statements as they stand, since I believe that she is an internationalist at heart, and cannot ignore for long all those abused Muslim women who are not living in the West. I suspect her next project will involve the migration to America, and the West in general, of Muslim women persecuted by Islam in non-Western countries, so they can live the free and safe lives that her AHA foundation would work hard to provide for them.

In any case, I wrote about her increasing detachment as a voice against Islam's presence in the West when she failed to materialize an ambitious book she had planned to write, Short Cuts to Enlightenment, which was supposed to have featured Mohammed being interrogated by Enlightenment-era philosophers. Her sequel to the film Submission also never came to fruition. Instead, she opted for another autobiography-style book, which is easy to write and probably more financially lucrative.

Her AHA foundation is true to her beliefs, at least. She is clearly a feminist at heart, and I've previously concluded that she's not a reliable spokesman for the West. Instead, she has decided to focus her attention on women just like her, Muslim or ex-Muslim women who are being "persecuted" by Islam. And like all social work-type activities, especially when dealing with "oppressed" or "victimized" minorities, I am sure this is a good career move and will provide her with financial stability, and respect by the liberals who love to sponsor such projects. And having her latest debaucheries written up in celebrity gossip magazines will not hurt.

New Developments on the Wilders Case

Here is an enlightening discussion on the Wilders trial at View From the Right. It appears that Wilders's trial has been delayed for several months. European contributors, including Dutch blogger Snouck Hurgronje and Belgian Paul Belien who is the Vice President of the International Free Press Society, give their insights on the trial in the ensuing comments. Apparently, no-one other than VFR and Snouck is reporting on this delay, including other vocal pro-Wilders sites in the States, Canada or Europe.

Snouck makes an interesting observation in the first link above:

I wonder whether Mr. Wilders agrees with us about Health Care. He got into politics on his expertise of the Dutch Health Insurance system. Beforehand he worked as a staff member for the Sociale Verzekeringsraad (Social Insurance Council) and before that on the treaty department of the Ziekenfondsraad (Council of National Health Insurance).

It is all intertwined, isn't it: Universal health care; Human Rights Commissions; repressing journalists reporting on issues regarding Islam; high levels of immigration. If one of these is running amok, then the others are there, or getting there.

Computer Glitches

I'm having some computer glitches, so blogging won't be as frequent.