Folk-lore, tales shared over many generations, real folk songs that actually can be sung. In two words: local tradition. Something people actually desire to defend, a sense of place. Is that what we're talking about here? Let me try to point out the difference with the concept of race.

Though it is obvious, certainly from a distance, that traditionalists share a common outlook, the abstract concept of "race" is almost completely foreign to such a way of life. Race featured prominently however, in political statements of 'enlightened' socialists from the 19th up till halfway into the 20th century. How about this one, for instance:

… “True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine.” For I am of the opinion ..//.. that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the east?” …

… “This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom” ...

Chilling isn't it? This grandiose talk about collective rights and race? Perhaps you might not expect it, but the author is Friedrich Engels who wrote it in the German “Telegraph für Deutschland” (January, 1841). Race was the socialist and progressive vogue of the day among the elites, until it vanished from their discourse (of course) after 1945.

Today's multiculturalism is race-talk rephrased and reinstated by the everlasting progressive elitists who have always fancied  themselves to be way "above the ordinary", and in a position to grant privileges to all sorts of groups as if they were some kind of divine puppetmasters controlling the ropes that make others dance to their tune (or so they think).
They are in fact the self-appointed managers of societies they are rapidly turning into multicultural colonies, to be run like in the days of old, when all different kinds of 'representatives' had to be appeased and if necessary played against each other. Read the old books of 'progressive' or 'ethical' colonialism and you'll know the modern-day multicultural leftist ethos (which also features prominently in the Third World development industry). Race-talk was always big among the Revolting Elites whenever it was fashionable and usable as a tool for social engineering. I'd be worried if I were you, about the 'progressive' companions you might encounter, as soon as the concept of race becomes really fashionable once more.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

culturally assimilated jews

Sagunto: ...your position seems to echo the usual stance taken by politicians that allow islamization to continue because they grant the islamists the "protective shield" of "freedom of religion".

Au contraire, I am quite willing to support the suppression of Islam and freedom for other religions.

Sagunto: I believe that Scruton (West/rest) is still searching for the "thing" that precedes any political system in society, trying to answer the Böckenförde-thesis that "Our secularized liberal state lives from sources it cannot (re)generate itself". I'm sure you've heard of it.

Yes. Note that Scruton considers races (or sub-races) and nations to be equally viable communities. More on this in my next replies.

Sagunto: The weaknesses and ailments have been meticulously described (Dalrymple); searching for solutions in some political, let alone 'race'-based doctrine, as some would suggest is i.m.o. not the right kind of "medicine" against islamization that would inspire ordinary people to defend their individual rights

Organised violence is generally not mobilised to defend individual rights; rather it is usually mobilised to defend collective ones, rhetoric notwithstanding.

@ Armor

1) Your first paragraph is nonsensical. Any state can, and ususally does, "reflect the culture of a particular nation".  This has nothing to do with "European" or any other such designation, irrrespective of whether such is used in a geographic or in a cultural sense.   You still have not defined the term "European" in any sense, whereas I have clearly defined it already in a cultural sense (in terms of common adherence to certain values). 

Indeed, if "half" of the population of any particular nation or state would consist of recent "immigrants", then common sense would dictate that one could normally expect a lot of frictions and problems in such a society.  Such problems are not rooted in 'race' but in cultural differences.  If you could parachute 4 million Frenchmen into Norway, over a short time period, it would surely create a lot of societal problems.  If you would parachute 4 million Pakistanis in Norway, it would most likely create even more societal problems, not because Pakistanis on average look different than Frenchmen, but because the cultural (behavioral) differences with contemporary Norwegians would be so much greater.  These are simple GENERAL 'predictions', not pertaining to any specific individual.   

2)  You have a 'fundamentalist' and obsessive tendency to limit the term nationhood to 'race', which is absurd.  Any good encyclopedia and/or dictionary could tell you that the root of the word can be found in the old latin word for "birth", but that in modern parlance it gets interpreted in a variety of ways.   There is nothing 'definitive' about your desire to confuse the term "nation" with "race", as opposed to emphasizing commonality of birthplace, or of language, or of other 'mores'.   

3) Indeed, ethnic homogeneity can help to promote 'peace', particular of the superficial kind.  If it does foster 'peace', it will not be because people look 'alike' physically, but because of the quality of their common culture. To illustrate this negatively, the expulsion of culturally-assimilated 'jews' by the nazis did not make Germany more "peaceful".  Far from it!  Moreover, I am not really interested in superficial peace, but rather in human freedom.  I am more interested in knowing that my 'rulers' respect my individual freedom than whether they 'look' like me.  You obviously think - or rather 'feel' - different, and if most Bretons feel the same way then they are bound to loose their freedom over time.

Once again, I believe in the right to cultural self-determination (up to a point, because this can raise real moral dilemmas in certain extreme situations), except in cases where such self-determination would threaten the freedom of 'outsiders'.  I do not believe in the freedom of cultural self-determination for 'pirates', be they radical islamists or of whatever 'culture', to threaten the freedom of others. And, I would agree with you that the continuation of current 'liberal' immigration policies - i.e. policies that fail to INSIST on the assimilation by immigrants  into the existing CIVIC culture of any particular Western country -  are much more likely to lead to "mass murder" in the future than more restrictive immigration policies would.

4) Your last two paragraphs are, again, nonsensical.  Just like the Kapitein, you refuse to ask the ultimate question of what the purpose of nationhood must be.  You are both moral relativists, NOT in the sense of positing absurd moral equivalencies (as so many naive-lefties and multicultarists do), but rather in the sense of refusing to make NECESSARY moral judgements.  

...That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!..."

William Shakespeare 

What has Zen Master wrought with his simple slip of the tongue ("the good Kapitein")?  Well, he has elicited a very lengthy exposition on the Kapitein's 'values' (big question mark), or rather on his world view.  As clarification, that is definitely a 'plus'.  But it has also brought forth more questions than answers.

I want to make one very important point.  The Kapitein's juxtaposition of "liberalism" and "nationalism" should be categorically rejected. Indeed, they must be seen as complementary and not as opposites.   I am no less a 'nationalist' than the Kapitein, in the sense that I believe that human - i.e. individual - freedom is only possible within nations, as opposed to within (some woolly and abstract concept of) a nonexisting 'international community'.  Nor is it to be found in naive notions of multiculturalism.  The nation can provide the necessary cultural and legal structure that makes meaningful individual freedom possible, but NOT ANY nation.  Ultimately this is a matter of "civic virtue", i.e. of values and not of ethnicity.  

There is no denying that ethnicity, common ancestry, etc...can be important factors supporting patriotism, and thus nationhood, but they do not guarantee or ensure individual freedom.  At the same time, empirical observation in our own time (and in history as well) confirms that ethnic nationalism, as opposed to civic nationalism, can lead to the worst excesses of human tyranny.   

One cannot escape the ultimate question of what the purpose of nationhood must be.  Human morality is fundamentally about the human individual, it is not about nations.  Strictly speaking, nations are never 'right ' nor 'wrong', only individuals are (in differing degrees).  And the only morally acceptable purpose of nationhood must be about ensuring individual freedom, which is a prerequisite for humans to be able to act like humans, i.e. to be able to choose to act morally right or wrong.   To the extent that 'ethnicity' helps serve that purpose it is a good thing. But, equally, to the extent that "ethno-centrism" destroys or prevents individual human freedom, it is a bad thing.    There is nothing wrong with ethnicity, in and of itself, but if one confuses ethnicity with human morality, then ethnicity (and even nationhood) becomes an obstacle to human freedom.  

"..Unfortunately, such policies, though seemingly supported by philosophical positions, were made possible by environmental factors including the supremacy of Protestantism in the settler societies of North America and Australasia, and later (arguable) the decrease in religiousity. The "Muslim Question" changes these circumstances such that permitting their religious freedom may have dire "temporal" consequences.."

In the concluding sentence, your position seems to echo the usual stance taken by politicians that allow islamization to continue because they grant the islamists the "protective shield" of "freedom of religion".

Moreover, when you speak about "environmental factors" that allegedly made possible a free religious marketplace and then proceed to point towards protestantism, then a slightly biased take on history becomes visible. It is a familiar, albeit a little outdated claim for sure, but I don't think it is substantiated by historical facts, nor would any historian today subscribe to it (perhaps a "historian" like Lee Harris would).

It is hardly possible to generalize beyond the specific historical events in different parts of Europe (England, France, Low Countries, "Germany") where different protestant sects originated, but on the whole, protestants were persecuted and persecuted (among) themselves as soon as they got (state) power. Extreme protestants who were persecuted in Europe by other protestants or Roman Catholics (France) and therefore went overseas, became persecutors themselves as soon as they got the chance (e.g. the history of Maryland). Calvin-style protestantism in the Northern Netherlands (roughly the 7 provinces) attracted only a small minority of politico-religious extremists aiming at nothing less than founding a theocracy at the shores of the North Sea (police state, Geneva-fashion), who where from the very outset fiercely opposed by the majority of the population (35% even remained Roman Catholic) and the ruling mercantile classes of the cities. The watered-down version of protestantism later maintained an uneasy balance of state-sponsored suppression of religious groups whilst allowing their half secretive presence/practise among the population.

So no "philosophical positions" here Andre, just the gradual outcome of a violent struggle for power between different religious groups which was always used by 'politicians' of the day to foster their own geo-political agendas in Europe. Protestantism in the harsh day to day reality never really equalled "freedom of religion", though there have been protestant advocates of something that comes close to it (Locke).

Nationalism on the other hand is in many ways directly related to several protestant attempts at "reformation" of religion and society. I don't think that nationalism and patriottism are one and the same ballgame, by the way. I believe that Scruton (West/rest) is still searching for the "thing" that precedes any political system in society, trying to answer the Böckenförde-thesis that "Our secularized liberal state lives from sources it cannot (re)generate itself". I'm sure you've heard of it.

I'm not sure however that nationalism is the ultimate answer, though I much prefer today's nation-states above the megalomanic EU-cracy. Europe on the whole is rapidly becoming a weakened host and thus easy prey for the parasitical process of islamization. The weaknesses and ailments have been meticulously described (Dalrymple); searching for solutions in some political, let alone 'race'-based doctrine, as some would suggest is i.m.o. not the right kind of "medicine" against islamization that would inspire ordinary people to defend their individual rights

kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

Sagunto: Sounds as if you think individual liberties are somehow incompatible with being loyal to a group, which I agree is vital in 'defending one's keep'.

On the contrary I believe that it is entire possible to support a balance of individualism and communitarianism. As such, I regard myself as a liberal nationalist. Unfortunately, the conception of liberal nationalism as propagated by its proponents, notably Yael Tamir, subordinates the nation and national self-determination to liberalism, which is cosmopolitan as opposed to particularist. Moreover, their conception of nationalism is devoid of reference to common ancestry and its concomittant ethno-racial implications. In fact I consider "civic" nationalism to be merely statism without the state's raison d'être, which is the nation, and ethnic nationalism to be the only true nationalism. Therefore, I would refer to myself as a national liberal to distinguish myself from the so-called civic nationalists. Heterogeneity forces a contest between liberalism and nationalism: marcfrans has chosen for liberalism; I have chosen for nationalism. It is useful with such a dilemma to refer to Roger Scruton, who believed that liberalism wrongly constrained national expression, in his essay Is Patriotism a Virtue?

Sagunto: Apart from that, it also seems that you consider Islam to be primarily a religion...To keep the religious market open and free (e.g. of state interference) i.m.o. is a great virtue of any open society.

Unfortunately, such policies, though seemingly supported by philosophical positions, were made possible by environmental factors including the supremacy of Protestantism in the settler societies of North America and Australasia, and later (arguable) the decrease in religiousity. The "Muslim Question" changes these circumstances such that permitting their religious freedom may have dire "temporal" consequences.

Sagunto: There is however one type of justified discrimination that rises above this level, i.e. the ability to discriminate between good and evil.

Whether evil is subjective and personal or objective and universal, discrimination and judgement is key to the survival of individuals and societies. One did not have to compose or read a philosophical treatise against National Socialism to legitimately, in my opinion, plant a mine for an approaching German convoy.

Sagunto: ...Islamic doctrine should be the obvious and prime target of any counterjihad-effort. Islamic doctrine is to be resisted as a totalitarian ideology, not as a religion like your 'logical' train of thought seems to suggest...it is Islam that should be resisted and banned, not religious freedom. Before someone spots a 'logical inconsistency' here, I'll repeat once more that I do not consider the Islamic doctrine a religion.

All religions are cultural, ideological and philosophical to a degree. Specific cultures have adopted specific religions and denominations within them. It is no coincidence that the Reformation took on the features (not completely of course) of a clash between Germanic and Romantic civilisation. Nor is it a coincidence that Islam resembles a pan-Arabic Judaic sect, nor that the Persians are Shi'ite and the Arabs Sunni, nor that Arab Al-Qaeda and the Pushtun Taliban have a tense relationship. Overall I hold Christianity to be the religion most detached from any ethnocultural grounding or base of support, principally due to its universal cosmopolitanism. Though propogaged peacefully and forcefully, the former is its hallmark in contrast to Islam, which is extremely tribal and ideological.

atheling: True values or principles do not change or modify with "experience". Indeed, it is a superior person who can adhere to principles despite his experience or despite whether or not those principles affect him personally. Moral relativists change their "values" according to how they affect them personally. That is infantile.

Firstly, those norms which are Western and considered by many Westerners to be "true" have in fact evolved over time, principally because individuals and societies gained "experience", which caused them to question, analyse and revise the norms of their time. That Christianity and Judaism can thrive in the 21st Century, that rationality and the scientific method has not made eugenics and stratification the major features of modernity, and that Islam can only feel threatened by change is evidence that "values or principles" "change or modify" over time. Indeed, the Enlightenment was the maturation of ancient norms.

Secondly, moral relativism is not about changing values; on the contrary it merely holds that there are no universal objective norms. Essentially it considers morals to be subjective, and while this contradicts the moral absolutism of most religions, it does not prevent its "adherents" from living "moral" lives or taking fixed moral positions. In fact it is arguable that religious "moderation" marked by tolerance of other religions' norms is actually morally relativist as such a position accepts that your way is not superior or the only one.

Thirdly, I agree that basing one's morality exclusively on environmental factors e.g. I am poor, therefore it is acceptable to steal, etc. However, I do not believe in moral codes that force a person to unreasonable contradict his or her (or human) nature (e.g. no sexual relations prior to marriage), or ones that are grounded in the immorality of the person in question e.g. original sin. Clearly it is a balance between strength of conviction and environmental adaptibility. Because I am not advocating a specific course of action, this would no doubt classify me as a moral relativist, although the vast majority of religionists I encounter have differing interpretations of morality, albeit constrained by certain bounds e.g. the Bible, Q'uran, etc.

"..It is distateful. If a muslim tries to attack G.Wilders, G.Wilders should not be blamed for it.."

An obvious truth, though alas not for everyone I'm afraid. But my further guess is the author might have had a crack at some sort of sick joke.

I mean, to suggest (in the context of islamization) that someone who opposes Islamic doctrine is "on a suicide mission" is to use a description that is normally applied to islamic terrorists. There's a fine line I think, between the use of bitter irony and malevolent sarcasm. Perhaps Mr. Landen crossed it.

I reckon he did

Think you made some valuable observations. This one though leaves me with serious reservations:

"..In prior comments, you have noted that the purpose of religious freedom is to accommodate atheist, agnostic, Catholic, heretic (protestant - I kid here) and Jew alike, not to compel them to become atheists or agnostics. Therefore, emphasizing individual liberties is not going to radically solve the "Muslim Question".."

Sounds as if you think individual liberties are somehow incompatible with being loyal to a group, which I agree is vital in 'defending one's keep'. Apart from that, it also seems that you consider Islam to be primarily a religion.

To keep the religious market open and free (e.g. of state interference) i.m.o. is a great virtue of any open society. There is however one type of justified discrimination that rises above this level, i.e. the ability to discriminate between good and evil.

I kinda resent phrases like "solving the Muslim question", not because of its sought-for offensive connotations but because Islamic doctrine should be the obvious and prime target of any counterjihad-effort. Islamic doctrine is to be resisted as a totalitarian ideology, not as a religion like your 'logical' train of thought seems to suggest. In the Netherlands, for instance, a politician and a filmmaker have not been assassinated because of our constitutional freedom of (choice for/against) religion, or because Buddhists are in violent opposition to Roman Catholics (largest rel. group in Holland) who on their part are seen blowing themselves up at fundo-Agnostic training facilities on a regular basis.., but because of ongoing islamization of our society.

So it is Islam that should be resisted and banned, not religious freedom. Before someone spots a 'logical inconsistency' here, I'll repeat once more that I do not consider the Islamic doctrine a religion. My 2cts.

Sag.

By the way, anyone else thinks the title of this article is perhaps catchy but also a bit distasteful?

@ Armor

I think that you should try to remain factual and make honest observations, when forming and formulating opinions about me and/or anyone and anything else.

1) The immigration problem is a "cultural problem" in the sense that widespread naivety about the impact of unconstrained immigration inevitably will lead to many other problems (such as your people replacement problem, murder/rape problem, etc...).

2) I have been 'fighting' for the preservation of traditional European values (post-Enlightenment) for much longer than 1 year and 47 weeks.  I also think that there is no evidence whatsoever that I defend "loony-left notions".   I certainly do NOT think that it is "more important to denounce European racists than to resist the replacement of European people".  In fact I have repeatedly stated in the past that you are perfectly entitled to resist such "replacement".  Defending cultural self-determination, in and of itself, has nothing to do with "racism".  Judging an INDIVIDUAL on the basis of fysical features, rather than (cultural) behavior, that is racism and certainly 'primitive'.

3) I cannot possibly speak for Pollard. You are certainly stuck in a logical dead-end, or circular reasoning, if you think that a person is "European" because of "European" parents.  The question then becomes what is a "European parent"?   You cannot solve the problem of having to define the term "European" by simply placing it in front of a noun like "parent".   Beyond the simple notions of geographic location or of 'nationality', to me what distinguishes post-Enlightenment "Europeans" from many other people in the world is a broader adherence to a particular set of values. Among the latter, the most important are (or were?) freedom of (political) speech and equality before the law.  Obviously cultures change over time, and it is thus quite possible (even likely) that European cultural values are changing.  In the future "European" may come to mean something very different from what it meant in the past, beyond the obvious 'eternal' factor of geography.  

4) Indeed, "ethnic suicide" was not a traditional European value.  It probably is nowhere in the world a value.  However, given the cultural dominance of multicultural and other loony-leftist ideas in many European education systems and media, perhaps some might say that it appears to have become a contemporary European 'value', as opposed to a traditional European one.  But that wouldn't be correct.  Ethnic suicide is obviously not a "value" that is consciously adhered to by many Europeans, even today.  It is more likely a result from the abandonment of many traditional values by many Europeans, rather than a 'value' in itself.

Zen Master: At some time the people of the EU will need to ‘put boots on the ground’ to remove the physical threat from the Islamic immigrants. Some time in the immediate future, there will be civil unrest, as in the Paris riots. When this happens, the EU leaders need to have plans for a military and police response to this threat to having an ‘orderly and safe society.’
 
Agreed.

Zen Master: The ME immigrants do not understand modern culture or history and they are unwilling to ‘assimilate’ into your society. They regard the EU citizens as being cowards who are afraid of them. They are willing to fight and die for their religious ideals.
 
Also agreed. If massive waves of Germans emigrated to Great Britain in the 1930s, would one be surprised if anti-Semitic attacks increased or if Mosley's BUF received more support? Would the solution be to convince them of the benefits of British culture and liberal democracy?
 

Zen Master: The day will arrive when the citizens will need to have a strong military and police force who are trained and willing to fight and win. I don’t think the leaders of the EU are thinking about this ever happening.

The Eastern Europeans will be useful in this regard. It would not be the first time that Slavs have had to take the brunt of the Muslim onslaught; the Poles, Russians and Serbs know their enemy and how to deal with him.   

 
Zen Master: I suspect that the Kapitein and I have had some of the same training. I have had training and experience in ‘crowd and riot control’ and I have been in the middle of two riots.
 
Unfortunately not. Although I have strolled through all areas of Paris at night and alone. I suppose that counts...
 
Zen Master: Some people think that anything other than brutal force are signs of weakness. In a riot, you can’t allow the rioters to have anything other than a defeat.  They must leave battered and bruised. If they think they won, they will do it all over again.
 
Exactly. Muslims do not want more money or freedom; they want to win, and want you to know it. It is a zero-sum game.

Firstly, I would contend that neither soccer hooliganism nor reality television constitutes the type of passion that I am referring to, although there are clear and present links between the former, and (ultra)nationalist and supremacist groups. Secondly, the values of socio-political and economic freedom are grounded by a sense of community that provides succor to individual liberties. The community in question is largely national, and the settler societies of North America and Australasia notwithstanding, and associated with ethnic and racial affinities, among others. Thirdly, a socio-political shift towards liberalism and individualism is incompatible with the assimilationist model of immigrant integration, because it permits a vast range of cultural beliefs and practices and identity formations. In prior comments, you have noted that the purpose of religious freedom is to accommodate atheist, agnostic, Catholic, heretic (protestant - I kid here) and Jew alike, not to compel them to become atheists or agnostics. Therefore, emphasizing individual liberties is not going to radically solve the "Muslim Question". If you return to an assimilationist model, are you going to force Muslims to be free? Force them to be Muslims? Although a culture can be liberal, liberalism is not a culture; the same is true for socialism. I consider myself to be a centrist liberal democrat (more importantly, because I believe that liberal democracy is superior to other forms of government, I am not a relativist), however, that does not mean that I have abandoned tribal or national loyalties, or that liberal democracy is the best solution to every problem. You unfortunately appear to be under several illusions, namely: (1) the "Muslim Question" is a religious/ideological issue only; (2) the problem is largely the result of multiculturalism and political correctness, not Islam itself; (2) non-violence and appeal to freedom is capable of defeating violent totalitarianism; and (3) any course of action that is anti-democratic or anti-liberal is to be avoided, even if the result is defeat. If one is going to have jackboots on their streets, they might as well be their jackboots and not the enemy's. Your opinions will be quite constructive once the civil war has successfully been completed; until then, you are in no position to offer meaningful solutions to the "Muslim Question" due to your ideological committments.

@ Marcfrans:

IMHO Kapitein Andre is not wrong all of the time.  You know his personality better than I do.  I suspect that the Kapitein and I have had some of the same training. I have had training and experience in ‘crowd and riot control’ and I have been in the middle of two riots.   Some people think that anything other than brutal force are signs of weakness. In a riot, you can’t allow the rioters to have anything other than a defeat.  They must leave battered and bruised. If they think they won, they will do it all over again.

The young ME immigrants don’t ‘respect’ a culture that allows defiance of law and order. They respect the physical force by the authorities of their native lands.  Not to sound racist, but they are a more primitive culture than that found in the EU. When they defy the laws of their host country, they first expect to be ‘punished’ in some way.  When they are not punished, they lose respect for the authorities in the host country.  Then they return to riot and burn more cars as in Paris.

Before long they realize the citizens of the host country fear them.  To the ethnic citizens, the new arrivals are completely different than the native born youth. They are violent, they are angry, they are full of hate, envy and contempt for the citizens of the host country. They pray five times a day and most of the ethnic citizens practice no religion.

I do understand your thinking Marcfrans and, it is difficult to disagree with you.  If you had the experience of the Kapitein, you might agree with him more.

@ Zen Master

I don't know in what sense you are using the adjective "good" here, and I can't think of any appropriate sense that would 'fit' the subject in question.  The Kapitein has NOT found the crucial western weakness.  The West is not lacking "passion" - there is passion galore in the West (think of soccer hooliganism and so-called reality TV shows), and even more sentimentality! - but rather it is lacking conviction and courage.  Conviction in 'own' values (e.g. like freedom of speech), and unwilligness to fight for own values, that is what ails most of the West.   I have not seen the relativistic Kapitein expressing adherence to 'values', only to ethnicity.   

It is doubtful that there will ever be a "military response" within the EU to immmigrants.  Nor should there be.  The immigration problem is not a military problem, but rather a cultural problem. And, given the ruling ideology of multiculturalism, one can expect that the immigration problem is not seen as an immigration problem as such, but rather mistakenly as a collection of other 'problems' (like racism, injustice, social inequality, capitalist exploitation, etc...).  

So, instead of following the captain in his fanciful prediction of coming 'civil war', expect a gradual descent into a 'Lebanization' of Western Europe, i.e. political compromises that will in the end not prevent civil war, but that will forstall it long enough until it will be too late to recover freedom and democracy.  

The good Kapitein has found the western weakness in fighting Islam:

“If contemporary Islam has demonstrated anything, it is that the willingness to fight, die and suffer for one's cause can confound the military of the most advanced societies. The Revolution in Military Affairs has come up against a factor it cannot comprehend: passion.”

At some time the people of the EU will need to ‘put boots on the ground’ to remove the physical threat from the Islamic immigrants.  Some time in the immediate future, there will be civil unrest, as in the Paris riots. When this happens, the EU leaders need to have plans for a military and police response to this threat to having an ‘orderly and safe society.’

The ME immigrants do not understand modern culture or history and they are unwilling to ‘assimilate’ into your society. They regard the EU citizens as being cowards who are afraid of them.  They are willing to fight and die for their religious ideals.  They don’t want to fight the army or the police. They only want to fight an outnumbered and unarmed citizen.

The day will arrive when the citizens will need to have a strong military and police force who are trained and willing to fight and win. I don’t think the leaders of the EU are thinking about this ever happening.   

Landen: Last Monday, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission said that the Iranian nation would definitely react to the Dutch insult.

Iran does not have a nation.

Landen: The former ambassador of Malaysia in the Netherlands warned that the movie will lead to “severe riots in the Muslim world.”

This is like an alcoholic warning that he might drink at an upcoming birthday party.

Landen: While that is true, Wilders, if he were a sensible and wise politician, would take into account the possibility of “economic boycotts, riots and other horrible things.”...Of course, if Wilders or innocent Dutch citizens get killed as a result of the backlash over the Wilders movie, only Islam, only the perpetrators of the “horrible things” are responsible. But Wilders should ask himself whether people will see it that way.

People can see it any way they want. It is high time that the yoke of fear of Islam was shaken off by Europe. Either the Dutch can be part of the victor's circle, or they can sit on the sidelines as various outside forces sweep across their fields, as they did before.

Landen: What will Wilders do if, as a result of his movie, Jihadists in the Middle East take hostages among the Dutch expats? How will Dutch public opinion react to that? If the Wilders movie results in (fatal) attacks on Dutch citizens and Dutch interests abroad, it might lead to an anti-Wilders backlash.

Dutch expats should be aware of the dangers of working in Muslim countries, as well as the benefits, namely money. Subordinating one's cultural survival to economic interests led to this crisis in the first place.

Landen: If there is a backlash in public opinion against Wilders, the positions of all who are critical of Islam might be affected and speaking out may become even more difficult than it already is. A wise general, a great leader, outsmarts a ruthless enemy rather than choosing martyrdom for himself, let alone for others.

There are plenty of would-be wise leaders of the anti-Islamic movement. Unfortunately, what is required are grunts and martyrs, men and women prepared to fire the opening shots and accept the consequences. If contemporary Islam has demonstrated anything, it is that the willingness to fight, die and suffer for one's cause can confound the military of the most advanced societies. The Revolution in Military Affairs has come up against a factor it cannot comprehend: passion.

Landen:  [Wilders] has to walk on the edge of the abyss. Trapped within the Dutch system he can only attract the attention of his compatriots and ring the alarm bell by exaggerating.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wilders is not exaggerating the severity of the clash between Europe and Islam.

Landen: When the Dutch tell Muslims that if they want to live in the West they must accept Western values (which is true) they confront them with kissing homosexuals and public nudity...One has to be an anti-Koran puritan to propose legislation like that in a country teeming with sex shops that sell an abundance of kinky objects which Dutch citizens are allowed to “own in a household context,” and where ‘coffee shops’ serve cannabis.

Freedom of sexual orientation, public nudity and liberal attitudes to sexuality and narcotics are Dutch values, at very least contemporary ones; the Quran is neither Dutch nor Western.

Landen: Will [Wilders'] provocation, at this moment, in the present circumstances, advance the cause of the counter-Jihadist movement?

Yes. Referring to the social movement in question as "counter-Jihadist" separates Islam from jihad. If the majority of Muslims are liberal, moderate and desirous of peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial cultural interactions with the West then this majority will ostracize its supremacist elements. The Germans were offered the same choice.

In any event, the anti-Islamic movement will benefit greatly from increased provocations and low-level violence, although the latter, currently regarded as criminal and not political needs no encouragement. Robberies and assaults by gangs will force Europeans to organise for self-defense, gang-rapes will induce brothers, fathers, husbands and boyfriends to retaliatory rampages, and the ineffectiveness of law enforcement authorities will highlight vigilantism as a viable alternative to their uselessness.

Landen: [the Grand Mufti of Syria] said that “Should it come to riots, bloodshed and violence [following the Wilders movie], then Wilders will be responsible.”

O.K. And if a single girl is assaulted on the streets of Paris, Stockholm or Oslo, the Grand Mufti should be held responsible. I support his calls for greater accountability in European society.

What's the deal with that Muslim marriage site advert BJ is now carrying?  What kind of traffic are they getting from these pages?  Did they search the net and decide - presto!, this is where we want to place an ad?

I think what he's doing is brave and I support his right to do so, although an analogy seems to be a political protestor lighting themselves on fire to gain attention to their cause.

The problem comes from what happens, as you raise, when hostages are taken or there is some other violent provocation. His country, as pretty much all of Europe, no longer has the ability to project force beyond its borders. And so, the government has no option other than to capitulate in the face of violence, and it will simply add to the national humiliation, and the sense of powerlessness that seems to be gaining in Western Europe.

Hopefully Wilders will not be murdered for his thoughts.  Expressing thoughts should not be punished by death.  But this is just the ‘western point of view,’ not the view found in Islamic countries. Murder is often the expression of resentment by Muslims living in the West.  His murder would waken so many of the people who fell asleep about 1970. Hopefully is will never happen.

Have you read Mein Kampf?          Yes / No

 Have you read the Qur'an?          Yes / No

Comprehension test:

Quote: "Theo van Gogh ... called Christians "pimps",said that "Jewish diabetics made the crematoriums smell of caramel" and that Muslims worship " a pig called Allah".

Did the Christians:

a) shrug

b) sue

c) slit his throat

Did the Jews:      a)   b)   c)

Did the Muslims:  a)  b)   c)

"Everyone else - except few - are too scared to say what they think."

Yup. They are the ones who have turned into Islamophobes.

Fortunately, the good example offered by the few - like Wilders - can change that quite quickly. 

"In the first half of the last century the country was the most prudish; in the second half of the century it took hedonistic secularism to its furthest limits."

That description can be ascribed to the U.S. as well.  We're accused of "puritanism" all the time, yet if one reads the news and follows pop culture one can easily see the secular - nay I prefer the term "paganistic" - hedonism which exists. 

Having a natural abhorrence for book banning, I agree with the other commenters here about banning the Koran.  By banning the Koran we would lose our evidence of the intrinsic violence and cruelty that exists in Islam.  After 9/11 I bought a Koran and decided to read it after hearing many rumors and stories about it and Islam.  It was quite an eye opener.

Let people decide for themselves if they wish to read something. We don't need more government interference into our personal lives.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

I agree, don't ban the Quran. GW must know this too, because many of his arguments come directly from this book. Let everyone read it and learn from it, know why Islam is not a religion of peace.
GW says he wants to ban it, but I think he actually only wants to bring attention on it because the situation is so urgent.

However in short, GW is needed. Who else will stand up?
Everyone else - except few - are too scared to say what they think. You have to think of every word you say. Self censorship is the result.

Lot's of things to say about this topic, but let's see what tomorrow brings, I believe it's a demo in A'dam. More to talk about to come.
Also read today, that the monument for Van Gogh was set on fire.

"I agree that banning the Quran is, as with most things, not a wise thing to do.

I second that. Just make it mandatory that a list of suras/verses abrogated by the constitution is required to accompany every copy sold.

Quoted from the article: "Instead of banning the book, why not ban those who want to subject society to it?"

I agree that banning the Quran is, as with most things, not a wise thing to do. In fact, just the opposite may be better: to make the Quran more accessible to the major public. There's no better way to understand what this religion stands for than to read the Quran, and this could make the less involved people open their eyes.

Banning the Quran would not have any positive effect, and would quite probably not be accepted by the majority of people.

Worth remembering is that, as long as you're not indulging into libel or falsehoods, being provocative actually means you're provoking something out that's already there. A doctor may provoke a wound to bleed, if that helps the healing. Left-wingers in the 70's did all kinds of lesser or greater provocations - some useful, many crappy - but defending the right to provoke is utterly important.

In this case, provoking fundamentalist Islam to reveal its true face may be just the medicine we need. The Dutch government should have as its 1st priority the active defense of the rights of its citizens against violent or even terrorist bullying. Appeasement doesn't cure the ailment at hand. 

One could play a nice game with this article when touched by a bit of boredom because of its length: spot the myths & clichés about "the Dutch".

My suggestion to the author would be that though using clichés itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (for one it allows for simple short descriptions), at least try to use the ones that are a little closer to the truth.

Positing 'puritanism' as some kind of core-determinant of typically Dutch behaviour and mentality is beyond the old and worn-out 'calvinist' myth, it's a bit silly.

Nice to read this one though:

It is perfectly possible to make a critical movie about the Koran without being deliberately provocative, such as the one this website posted two weeks ago. However, that is not the Dutch way of doing things.

Well perhaps for me as a Dutchman it wasn't a typically Dutch way to post this documentary over here 2 wks ago. Perhaps I was in typically Dutch disregard of the usual Dutch way of doing things when I made the Dutch subtitles to go with the docu, but I can not deny that I am Dutch ;-).

Nor can it be denied that the whole myth of "Hollanditis" a derogatory term coined by Walter Laqueur in 1981 ("Hollanditis a new stage of European neutralism") has long since been busted by several political historians (e.g. Eichenberg, 1983).

Furthermore, to repeat statements by Theo van Gogh completely decontextualized, amounts to nothing more than a caricature of the man. I think it's a bit of a disgrace to the memory of Mr. Van Gogh. The same mistake is made when statements of Mr. Wilders are just taken 'at face value' without context, for instance the fact that the man has been forced to live under abomiable conditions due to continuous death threats. Threats that preceded Wilders' statements about the Koran, by the way.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

What Wilders is doing is a necessary step in the process of waking people up to the loss of freedom that has been happening. It will be shocking and offensive to some, perhaps many, but that is what is required to be effective in a society that has numbed itself to all lesser stimuli. The Dutch have an urgent need to be brought back to their senses as Western Europeans, to cast off the yoke of multicultural bondage, and to become a free people again. Strong medicine is required for serious ailments, and Wilders seems to be simply a necessary step in the process.

Hopefully?

The whole pré-setup of the movie (comparison with 'Mein Kampf', 'horrible' clichés on Islam, successor of van Gogh), shows that GW is not more than a pop-star of the early 70s in self-promotion. The film will be ignored by the majority of Dutch, and hopefully few Muslims will take it serious at all.

The film will not be offensive to islamists, because it will depict them as anti-jew, anti women, anti gay. They are proud to be so.
Mein kampf is in all the best seller lists in the islamic world, so calling them fascists won't hurt them.
But it will hurt and insult the muslim apologists and the so called leftists, because they don't like to be caught defending fascism, anti-semitism, misogyny, gay-hate and anti democratic practices.

"What will Wilders do if, as a result of his movie, Jihadists in the Middle East take hostages among the Dutch expats?"

I think this is exactly *not* the way to phrase the question. Wilders does a relevant piece of information about the Quran and Islam - sure, it's negative - but it falls to the government to protect the citizens' rights to do so. The point is not to try to stifle Wilders and the likes, it is to make pretty damn sure our rights to provoke and be critical be protected.

If that requires sending the navy, so be it.