2
okt
Seneste opdatering: 3/10-10 kl. 1405
7 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

Åben post – vi regner med at hele talen foreligger idag på video. Da den er holdt på tysk, forsinkes den muligvis af tekstning.

.

“Geert, vi elsker dig,” råbte en kvinde inden Wilders overhovedet havde begyndt sin tale. Wilders advarede i talen i Berlin imod islamiseringen af Europa. Europas befolkninger er i fare for at miste deres identitet gennem spredningen af islam. Dette gælder især for Tyskland, men med Tyskland vil Europa miste sin identitet. Tyskland har lidt under to totalitære regimer og er nu truet af en tredje totalitær kraft, islam, sagde den hollandske politiker. Vesten har ingen strategi for at imødegå den. Tyskerne skal derfor vågne op og endelig lære at elske deres frihed. Det politiske etablissement spiller i hænderne på islamisterne. Vi accepterer ikke islamiseringen. Wilders stillede sig samtidigt på der forhenværende Bundesbank bestyrelsesmedlem Thilo Sarrazins side.

Foto: Med den tidligere kristdemokrat René Stadtkewitz grundlægger af det nye parti “Die Freihet”:

Wilders beskyldte Merkel for fejghed overfor islamiseringen, men hans tale i Berlin var overraskende lidt populistisk. Han henvendte sig til forbundskansleren og sagde at et nyt spøgelse går gennem Europa. Welt Online, Die Presse. RP Online.Deutschland Kontrovers (Snaphanens oversættelser og sammendrag.)

Stadtkewitz: “Hæv Deres stemme, fru forbundskansler !”

Delegates came from all over Europe to hear the speech. The ICLA group included people from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Austria, and Switzerland. Of the various anti-jihad political parties, the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti, DF), the Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), and the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna, SD) were represented in the audience.GoV: Dispatches From Berlin

Geert Wilders tale, tysk tekst.GoV: Let Them Come to Berlin og Tear Down This Wall ! Wilders taler for tredje år i træk på Christiansborg i København den 27 november 2010. Der var dem i Berlin, der fik kaffen galt i halsen, hvad følgende overskrifter vidner om: “Justizministerin kritisiert Wilders-Auftritt, Wilders attackiert Merkel, Wilders geht Merkel direkt an, Guttenberg nennt Wilders „Scharlatan“, Islam-Hetzer Wilders geht auf Merkel los – Hassrede gegen Islam.” Jeg er enig med Die WELT, et sådant hysteri berettiger talen overhovedet ikke til.
For nogle år siden kunne der være noget repeterende og skingert over Wilders´taler, som overkompenserede han retorisk for at dække over huller i sin viden, men med denne bekræfter han endnu engang, at han sagligt og retorisk absolut befinder sig i superligaen. Hvilken anden europæisk partileder bringer én mindelser om Churchill, Kennedy og Reagan – tre af de helt store ? Jeg bruger nødigt klichéen “statsmand”, – selv Poul Nyrup havde forsøgsvis ansigtet i “statsmandsagtige” folder efter 9 / 11, store, våde hundeøjne hvor depression skulle foregive alvor – men der er ingen vej udenom stillet overfor Wilders´ elán. Wilders holdt talen på tysk.

Wilders´ tale i Berlin

My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany.

Dear Friends,

I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however, did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to approves this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better future.

Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: “More than before mosques will be an integral part of our cities.”

My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our nations for our children. I hope that René’s movement will be as successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger’s Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard’s Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.

My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”

The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom Alliance without a strong German partner.

Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy in Europe. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. The wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the wellbeing and prosperity of Europe.

Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany’s national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology.

This insight is not new.

I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: “Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a ‘religion’; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views.” The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that “Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,” rather than a religion.

The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that “One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world’s great religions. We shouldn’t. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has … been well and truly Islamized.”

These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote – I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar – “Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam, this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali Sina says “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”

A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals clearly that Muhammad’s objective was first to conquer his own people, the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political and was backed by military force. “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah,’” Muhammad said in his final address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39: “Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”

According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political, were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There he established the first mosque in history, took over political power, gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the “City of the Prophet,” and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra, the migration to Medina – the moment when Islam became a political movement.

After Muhammad’s death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive governance of the world by divine right – including rules for jihad and for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article 24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that “all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” The OIC is not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on so-called “Islamophobia” in Western Countries which accuse us of human rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in our eye, but deny the beam in their own.

Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they convert to Islam.

Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world – including many in Germany and the Netherlands – do not follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.

In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis spoke of “the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Professor Lewis said that “The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same.”

The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature of Islam differs very little – and only in detail rather than style – from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following characteristics for these three ideologies.

* They use political purges to “cleanse” society of what they considere undesirable;

* They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;

* They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;

* They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control;

* They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of universal indoctrination;

* They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for religion;

* They subdue people who are given second class status;

* They induce a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. Adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance;

* They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival’s part as a sign of weakness;

* They regard politics as an expression of power;

* They are anti-Semitic.

There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even if it is unpleasant. Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could, and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we make the same mistake over and over again?
There is no better place to ponder this question than here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany and a city which was held captive by the so-called German “Democratic” Republic for over forty years.

When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a right, but also an obligation, to “live within the truth.” Freedom requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added, however, that “truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.” Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.

Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite – universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians – are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.

Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead? No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend freedom. To support such parties I have established the International Freedom Alliance.

As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me.

I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.

One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement – a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.

The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty – because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.

Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations, relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points out that the Cold War was “a war we never won. We never even fought it. … Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward the Soviet bloc – and appeasers don’t win wars.”
Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say that Western “imperialism” was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are now saying that Western “imperialism” is as bad as Islamic terrorism.

In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized that we must stop the “Blame the West, Blame America”-game which Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here, instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who are responsible for their own deeds only.

I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for it. Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for your freedom today.

I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo Sarrazin’s recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is coming to terms with itself.

I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin’s book myself, but I understand that while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing important and pressing issues. “Germany is abolishing itself,” warns Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.

In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not “kafir,” we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.” Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right – no they have a duty to their children – to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany’s right to preserve its identity.

We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.

There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was very clear about the duty of immigrants. Here is what he said: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

It is not up to me to define what Germany’s national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you.

My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he uttered the historic words „Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.“ President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate and stimulate these efforts.

Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by supporting a minority government – as we want to do in the Netherlands. President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.

Thank you.

Regeringsaftalen hjemme i Holland, som Wilders nævner  i talen, faldt på plads i eftermiddags. Regering med Wilders som støtte. Hollands kristelige demokrater har godkent en aftale. Man forstår at de vil indlemme ham, en Wilders i denne form er ikke rar at have spillende på modstandernes hold.

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

  • Johansen

    Stor tak og anerkendelse til Geert Wilders og andre vestlige mænd og kvinder, som forsvarer vores frihed. De er vores værn mod den påtrængende formørkelse.

  • Anne Larsen

    Geert Wilders er vor tids Churchill.

  • hans L

    Nu mangler vi så han bliver inviteret til et Bilderberg møde,

    • PBr.

      ????

  • Emeritus

    Hvad er det mon, der gør Geert Wilders synspunkter så frastødende og særligt umenneskelige?
    Opfordrer han til udenomsparlamentarisk virksomhed og gadens parlament? Næh.
    Ophidser han til vold og folkemord på uskyldige og anderledes tænkende? Næh.
    Til Euthanasi? Næh.
    Eller oprettelse af KZ-lejre, Zyklon-B gasning af de uønskede millioner og efterfølgende kremering af dem i særligt udviklede industriovne? Næh, det har man aldrig hørt om.
    Ja, men så andre forbrydelser mod menneskeheden da?
    Næh. På ingen måde. Der er ikke rapporteret om Blut und Boden eller ofre for hans hånd.

    Men han er alligevel suspekt og umenneskelig. Med de hol.dninger, han bringer til torvs, er der noget modbydeligt, noget, vi har set før, som lurer lige under overfalden.
    Hvad er der dog galt med manden?
    Der er det galt med ham, at han ikke går ind for dét europæiske projekt, som er bygget op siden krigen af en særligt kompetent, europæisk, politisk elite, styret af det, man har kaldt meritokraterne – de særligt egnede, dem som har haft næsten frie hænder, fordi de har bevist deres værd i kraft af deres meritter.

    Men trods deres anstrengelser kan det ikke være Europa, han er imod, (hvilken europæer kan være det?) – snarere er det elitens mere og mere dubiøse projekt, han er modstander af. – På grund af alt, hvad man ikke har taget højde for i prestigeprojektet, og hvad den manglende omtanke har medført.

    Derfor bliver han i sine kritikeres øjne også anset for umenneskelig, når han kan være modstander af noget så uskyldigt som den ufredelige bagage – især muslimer slæber med sig fra deres hjemlande. Han må være fremmedfjendsk,

    Men han er måske værst af alt også umenneskelig, fordi han ser sig selv som hollænder og insisterer på at blive ved med at kalde sig hollænder og at kalde det land, han kommer fra, for Holland.
    Fy! det må han altså ikke. Han går jo ind for ‘den nationale sællert’ som Uffe Østergaard siger. Derfor er han umenneskelig. Han er simpelthen en umenneskelig barriere for, hvor europæiske og internationale partilederne kan opføre sig.

    Umenneskeligheden går altså mere på, hvad Geert Wilders og Pia K. udsætter projektet og europæiske og internationale partiledere for, end umenneskeligheden går på menneskeheden som sådan. Denne særlige menneskehed henvises der i et væk til, men den tæller egentlig ikke rigtigt.

    Hvis GW derimod gik ind for at afskaffe Danmark og Holland og Belgien og Tyskland og Frankrig og Polen og Spanien og Portugal og Italien og Grækenland og alle de andre lande i Europa, så ville han forståeligt nok være langt mere medmenneskelig. Gik han til med ind for alverdens udokumenterede arbejdskræfters frie bevægelighed ud over enhver bæredygtighed ville han i medmenneskelighed kunne nævnes på lige fod med Ghandi og Desmond Tutu og Margrethe Vestager. Så ville han nærmest være guddommeligt medmenneskelig og blive modtaget med åbne arme i de rette kredse som en rigtig europæer.

    Som det er nu, er han så tæt på Zyklon-B eller Fanden selv med Pia K som Fandens oldemor, at alle må holde sig for næsen for ikke at havne i ovnen.

    Med venlig hilsen

  • Emeritus

    Ligemageriet er en venstrefløjs-specialitet, som socialismen fra begyndelsen har hængt sin godheds-parafrase op på. Den ultimative medmenneskeligheds forudsætning er i virkeligheden det kommunistiske fællesskab. Men virkeligheden har intet med lighed at gøre, og dermed kan man heller ikke komme til medmenneskeligheden via ligheden. Men Det europæiske Projekt er i høj grad sådan et lighedsprojekt. Derfor rummer det en tilsvarende høj uvirkelighedsgrad. Når jeg nævner det her, er det på grund af følgende citat fra Wilders tale i Berlin:

    ‘…We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own…’

    Det sidder dybt i Det europæiske Projekt, at alle kulturer er lige. Det mærker de europæiske befolkninger tydeligt virkningen af. Man burde fra starten have forudsat, at kulturer er lige så forskellige (også i kvalitet), som mennesker er. Men det kræver en helt anden form for generalisering, som snarere siger, at man er nødt til at respektere, hvad kulturerne hver især repræsenterer og lægge strategi derefter.’ Hvis man ikke respekterer forskellenes potentiale, men skærer alle over én kam (ligemageriet), kan man heller ikke forholde sig til potentialerne. Det er dette, som har været skjult for, for subtilt til eller ligegyldigt for tilhængerne af Det europæiske Projekt, men altså ikke for befolkningerne og det såkaldte parlamentariske højre som med præcision reagerer. Den folkelige forståelse er af naturlige grunde tæt på virkeligheden hvad projektets forsvarere ikke er. Derfor indhenter virkeligheden en skønne dag projektet eller meritterne og meritokraterne, som troede, de kunne gå på vandet, og en dag bliver de fældet fuldstændig som i fortiden.

    Lige som de røde lejesvende fælder sig selv i DR.

    Hvad rammes de dog af? En dobbelthed, som de ikke skænkede en tanke: Deres egen fortid, som stadig befinder sig i arkiverne og sagatidens ubodelige fremskrivning over enhver:

    Fæ dø
    Frænde dø
    Ét jeg ved som aldrig dø
    Dommen over hver en død.

    Med venlig hilsen

  • Pingback: Geert Wilders speaks in Berlin – English Subtitles « Snaphanen()