HELL, NO, GEERT WILDERS IS NO "FASCIST."

A REAL EUROPEAN VICTIM OF A REAL [MUSLIM] FASCIST


A very good blogger, Rusty at MyPetJawa, has waded into the controversy between the now-off-the-rails-lunatic Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs and us sane people. Rusty has adopted the Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?” argument, but it simply will not do at this time.

I felt I needed to address Rusty, so I have. As follows:

Perhaps an elderly warrior here can help to clarify things...

It appears to me that Rusty, as good-hearted and sincere as he is, does not understand the historical context behind the modern European restrictions on "free speech." This context is extremely important to keep in mind. The Europeans have exactly the same understanding of free speech as we do, but real-world politics has forced them to adapt. Ahem:

After World War II, the free Western Europe countries began to rebuild after the devastation. They had some very good people there, and most of the countries (incl. Germany) had significant experience w/democracy, BUT they also had millions of people who had been Nazi/Fascist officials, quislings, bureaucrats, collaborators, soldiers, militiamen, torturers, suppliers, etc. Got that? MILLIONS.

What to do, what to do?

The Allied [Western] big-shots consciously decided AGAINST the idea of "mass accountability," which at a bare minimum would have required millions of death sentences for murder, torture, crimes against humanity, etc. [just a few of the tippy-top people were hanged or shot] But this ensured that all these bad apples, most of whom were able-bodied and vigorous, were alive to make their ways within the New Europe.

In order to ensure that these nasty Nazis never even dreamed of rearing their ugly heads to try to restore the Reich, the new democratic regimes put in place very specific restrictions against very specific activities that wd be logical first steps to reviving it. Thus it became a crime in these countries to utter such words as "Hitler was a great leader" We need another Hitler," "The Jews got what they deserved," etc. Of course enforcement was spotty, but actually the Europeans were quite rigid in censoring any printed material justifying the Nazis, and remain so.

But after ~40 years, a strange coalition of leftists, Islamists, and crypto-Nazis banded together to "expand the notion of hate-speech," so that those very specific restrictions were ballooned OUT OF THEIR HISTORIC CONTEXT and applied to certain minorities as if Moslems, Turks, or Arabs had beenthe ones victimized by the Nazis in Europe. A more logical step wd have been to simply reduce/eliminate the old bans, since the passage of time had made those Nazi bad apples virtually irrelevant. Of course, European bureaucracies are even more notorious than our own for being against reducing restrictions. And, as Bat Ye'or has documented, those Eurocracies may well have been on the take, bribed by Arabian billionaires.

Into this modern crazed context, Geert Wilders has simply stepped up and pointed out that those new expanded anti-hate-speech laws now make the Koran effectively a contraband document. As a lawmaker, shouldn't he be in favor of enforcing the law? Shouldn't we all?

To call Geert Wilders a fascist is to defame him, pure and simple. He is targeted every day of his life, by REAL fascists, possessing guns, bombs, acids, knives, and their other favored tools of grisly mayhem. And eager to use them.

Rusty, with an open heart, I beg of you to keep this history in mind, and be very, very careful and cautious before you apply the label "fascist," to Geert Wilders. Or anyone else.

--An old soldier in this war,
Jewish Odysseus