By the way, hello all. Some of you know me, some may not. Nice to be in a place where I can be myself–along with my own humble one author site of course.
It was a watershed election in the history of post-War Europe, an election whose reverberations will be felt right round the world—an election making Britain’s own historic election of 2010 long downright prosaic. In The Netherlands the first country to break away from the bonds of feudal Europe and embrace free speech and tolerance—a true Party of Freedom have won 24 Parliamentary seats—thus making them the biggest centre-right party in The Netherlands, trouncing the ousted erstwhile Government Christian Democrats.
The Party of Freedom or PVV are not a party easily categorised as leftist or right-wing, however. They are fiscally conservative, mildly Eurosceptic(verly mildly)—but in the areas of free speech and secularism—something the Dutch have a prouder history of than Britain, America or France, the PVV and their leader Geert Wilders, could be better described as a militant Enlightenment party—a party who through democracy want to re-establish the traditions of free speech, sexual liberation and tolerance that have shaped the Dutch state since the age of William of Orange, Oldenbarnevelt and Spinoza.
The PVV have since their inception followed in the footsteps of the great slain populist Pim Fortuyn in warning that militant Islam is a threat to the traditions of absolute freedom inherent in Dutch history and society. My views on the subject are clear—I want the West to stop their war on Islam currently raging in the Moslem world. I want the west to stop supporting corrupt kings and vile dictators in the Middle-East, I want moderation rather than one-sidedness in the Palestine/Israel conflict. At the same time I want Militant Islam to know it is not welcome in the West, not in Britain, not in Holland, not anywhere. I don’t want the Middle-East turned into a new Crusader Kingdom and I don’t want Europe to be a new Maghrib. Whilst Wilders and myself have stark differences in our analysis of the Middle East, we are most certainly comrades in our struggle against violent religionism and in particular militant Islam.
Wilders to be sure is not the kind of restrained conservative that Disraeli or Macmillan or frankly myself, nor is he a traditionalist like Joseph Chamberlain nor Churchill. In this sense he is a pseudo-conservative voice of liberal progressive ideas—ideas forsook by establish left wing parties who are more Stalinist than Voltairist in many respects these days.
The supreme example of this is the UK Labour Party, no longer the freedom loving, historically informed party of Michael Foot. Rather they are a party whose contemporary legacy has been shaped by wars of aggression, the oppression of foreign peoples, and a police state at home which appeases the same militant Islam in London that it seeks to bomb into submission throughout the Middle East. Make no mistake about it, Blair was the most dangerous leader of a ‘European’ state since the war—he caused more death and wrought more havoc on the world than Franco, Honecker or Ceauşescu. There was no greater display of the anti-freedom, neo-East German Communist ethos of the modern Labour Party then when Jacqui Smith(whose homosexual pornography loving husband, the Islamists would have a thing or two to say about), banned Geert Wilders from entering the UK—a man who now is on the high road to Government in The Netherlands—this same man, who Labour have tried to paint as some kind of fascist much the way the former Communist apparatchiks of the EU slander the freedom loving Nigel Farage in similar epithets. But this blood libel against those following in the traditions of Swift, Voltaire , Orwell and Hitchens, is fast being exposed as the tired, hysterical rants of extremists running to foment war upon war—running to support dictatorship after dictatorship—peoples who can only be honestly supported by religious radicals or outright terrorists.
In sharp contrast to Smith’s shame, stands the foresight and bravery of UKIP leader Lord Pearson—a man who along with Baroness Thompson(cross-bencher), invited Wilders to the House of Peers to discuss the rise of militant Islam in the west. Lord Pearson and Wilders have respectfully and publically disagreed on a number of issues, but Lord Pearson realised the importance of allowing Wilders to voice his message of descent against a dying status quo—just as he did when he used his wealth to give a similar voice to anti-Communist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn many years ago.
What a contrast The Dutch Party of Freedom are to the UK Labour Party—a party not fit for this century nor this hemisphere. I wish Geert Wilders every bit of luck in helping to shape the future Government of a nation whose gift to the Europe and the world was the example of freedom—freedom for all, but those who would wish to enslave.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Ah jolly good, I’ll look at how to do that for next time.
Is that the ‘slug’ button, I’ll need to press to condense it?
Hi Adam. Good to see you here.
Knowing your Beaconsfield and ‘One Nation’ sympathies, I have accepted Coningsby as a friend on MyT on the assumption that it is you.
Are you Coningsby67 as well?
Yes John that’s me(kicked off my old account). Glad you caught on. I’ll be popping in here and there though these days I’m mostly found http://agonenation.blogspot.com/
Agh, Adam, great to see you here but Geert Wilder? Hello, he’s the Dutch equivalent of Nick Griffin! Dreadful, far right fascist Muslim hating nasty.
Ok, I may be being a bit unfair but, honestly!
Ara,
He’s simply nothing of the sort, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so when not viewing him in the wider cultural/historical context. The Netherlands has a long history of militant tolerance and free speech. The phrase ‘militant tolerance’ may at first sound odd–but it’s part and parcel of the Dutch experience. Throughout the 80 Years War Holland was fighting the first modern war for independence and was fighting a parallel internal war over ideological precepts within United Provinces. This led to the deaths of the DeWitt brothers and of Oldenbarnevelt–the Dutch were prepared to fight for intellectual concepts from an early stage.
After 1648, Holland became at peace with a consensus not of fights full AN IDEOLOGY but fights for ALL IDEOLOGIES–thus becoming the world’s first true liberal democracy–far before France ever was. Crucial to this analysis is the notion of vigorous debate but without physical vigour attached to it–not the physical vigour of an absolute state nor the vigour of angry partisans amongst the demos.
Wilders must be viewed in light of this tradition–he is a secularist liberal, not a dogmatic anti-gay, anti-drugs, anti-art fascist of the ex-National Front milieu. He must be viewed through a Dutch prism not an English nor British one. There is no clear parallel in English history. The early years following 1649 were somewhat analogue to this, but England never became(of you’ll forgive the ironic expression) a Mecca for free thought in the 17th century under Cromwell that the early Dutch Republic did. England’s reaction was a new conservatism albeit a religiously radical one, and one more pluralistic amongst low church debate than is often remembered, but Holland’s reaction was the advent of liberalism one hundred years before the birth of Voltaire.
As you know though, Ara. I’m a fair man, I’m called a traitor when I decry western war, murder and intervention on the side of corrupt kings and dictators in the Moslem world and I’m called a racialist when I decry militant Islam’s attempts to establish a new Maghrib. The truth is I’m on the side of my society staying free and secular and I’m on the side of the Arab world being free from foreign molestation.
The short version is that Holland didn’t win independence and establish the most liberal and free country in world history(putting the UK, France and US to shame in this respect) by throwing off the shackles of Spanish absolutism and Roman Papism, just to fall under the yoke of new dogmas.
Yikes, Adam. Thanks for the considered response. I have to admit that I know very little about Dutch history, but I don’t think that Cromwell should be blamed for stifling free thought in England. He was a catalyst for the advent of the ethos of the rise of the merchant classes, who espoused protestantism very much as did their Dutch counterparts.
So, interesting but I need to find out more about Dutch history before I can agree that Mr Wilder is truly a secularist liberal, and a worthy product of his country’s historical past.
I believe he is a politician in the tradition of Mr Griffin who is merely jumping on a bandwagon; that is immigration and Islam.
Just seen your comment #8 Adam after I posted mine.
I see your point but need to do some more research. I will return when I have more time and energy!
Ara,
Indeed Cromwell’s legacy is one that is mixed–curiously his radical/proto-capitalist legacy, early Colonial legacy and indeed concepts of limited government that are the clarion call of neo-Whiggery and Thatcherism are his most enduring legacies, far more than that of a religious dictatorship. Dutch history should be studied as vigorously by non-Dutch people as the French Revolution is. Pity, it’s not.
..but I cannot help but think that your enthusiasm for Mr Wilder has more to do with his opposition to a federal Europe than his extreme views on Islam.
Ara,
His Euroscepticism is so utterly mild, that were he an MP or Peer in Parliament, he’d barely qualify as a Eurosceptic. What mustn’t be ignored though is his convincing democratic mandate to be part of the new Dutch coalition. Just to show you how fair I am, against loud voices of derision, I often remind people that Hamas are the democratically legitimate voice of the Palestinian people–in spite of the fact that Hamas are terrorists and extremists. One cannot ignore what people say in hopes it will change peoples minds. But as a little research will show, he’s the kind of person that in 1789 would have been the arch enemy of LePen’s forebears, let alone an amateur like Griffin–an amateur compared to both a Nazi apologist like LePen and the militant liberal Wilders .
Protestantism, Adam is really the antithesis of a religious dictatorship, and yes a reaction to the holy Roman Empire and the divine right of Kings. More to do with the rise of nationalism and the emergence of a middle class, I would have thought.
OK, my brain hurts, but interesting, Adam. I will return.
Protestantism yes–the years 1649-1653 yes, but The Protectorate…that was rather a singularistic form of government.
Adam, singularistic? P-lease. It is noteworthy that Wilders’ immigration views are shared by Ed Balls, the Labour Lout in waiting. On Islam, however, he is the only honest politician in the West.
Adam, I’ve been trying to comment on your Bogroll but WordPress won’t let me. So here’s what I wrote under your latest post there:
‘Adam, you need to try shorter sentences and use plain English. Your style is early-Dickensian/first-year sixth-form, laced with fine-sounding allusions which serve only to confuse. E.g. “like an inquisitional Gordian Knot ties the mouth though the threat of financial retribution”. Nobody can interpret that – even you.’
Good to see you here Adam.
Hello Adam Welcome
Hi everyone,
Many thanks!
Adam, you ignored my comment # 18, judging by your new post about language.
Janus,
I wrote that the other night–unlike this proposal I’ll never ‘change’ my language–mainly because I can’t.
Adam, talking about interpreting flowery language, how would you interpret the expression “closed minded pig man” which I heard recently?
Adam, I rather enjoy your ‘flowery’ language, your good temper and your humour. Welcome. 🙂
Right, you lot.
I have to say that so far, Adam, who is a newcomer to this site, has been welcomed by some; that is good.
His writing style has been been a subject of discussion, mostly critically, but hardly anyone has commented upon the subject of his post.
OK, I haven’t come back as promised, Adam, but I have had a busy day and I am again at the wrong end of it!
So, what is going on here?
Hello everyone,
Just to be clear, anyone who wants to discuses anyone’s style–that’s fine. I’m here to discuss substance, only because the other bores me to tears.