Geert Wilders: “I am risking my life in defense of freedom in the Netherlands”

Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, June 1st, 2011

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of Islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honor. I am risking my life in defense of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armored cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honorably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.
Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilization.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.

0

VIDEO: Socialism’s Legacy – Alan Charles Kors

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many optimists claimed that the world was now somehow “after socialism.” There are reasons, however—structural, political, moral, and intellectual—why the collapse of Communism did not entail the end of socialism. This talk will explain why there can be no “after socialism” until the West comes to ultimate terms with the catastrophic legacy of international communism.

ALAN CHARLES KORS (B.A., Princeton; M.A. and Ph.D., Harvard) is the Henry Charles Lea Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, and he is a co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He is the author of numerous books on European intellectual history and American higher education. Dr. Kors has served on the National Council for the Humanities, and been honored with many awards, including the National Humanities Medal and the Bradley Prize.

Learn more at: clemson.edu/​capitalism

0

Video: The Doctor Cog in the Obamacare Washington Machine

Health Care Reform: Setting Doctors Free [Livestream]

Dr. John David Lewis: Obamacare is a moral assault on free people, and an attack on human life itself.

Government medicine treats doctors as cogs in a giant machine, run from Washington, as if treating patients required no independent thought or action. Twenty-eight states have filed suit against Obamacare, claiming it is unconstitutional. But it is much worse than that. It is a moral assault on free people, and an attack on human life itself. John Lewis has a unique perspective on this issue, both as an advocate for individual rights and as a cancer patient. Don’t miss this hard-hitting lecture on the deepest evil of government medicine.

John David Lewis is a Visiting Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program at Duke University, and a senior research scholar in history and classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University. He has taught at the University of London and Ashland University, and is a fellow of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship. He has a PhD in classics from the University of Cambridge. He is an outspoken proponent of free market medicine.

1

Event: The History of Ancient Greece — The Early Fourth Century

From John David Lewis Ph.D.:

I will be doing a three-day course on Greece in the early fourth-century: The History of Ancient Greece: The Early Fourth Century.

The fourth century BC is often seen as the decline of the Greeks, a process that began with the defeat of Athens by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. But this gives short-shrift to a vital period. At this time the Athenians achieved a stable government under decent legal processes, the Greeks developed nascent federal political systems, markets thrived, orators brought forth groundbreaking ideas, and the philosophical schools of Plato, Aristotle and others were established. In bloody clashes the slave society of Sparta was neutralized, and freedom greatly extended. This course focuses on the defining political events of the first half of the century. Emphasis is placed on the political and military events that set the stage for the rise of the Macedonians under Alexander the Great.

The course draws in part from chapter two of Dr. Lewis’s book, Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History.

Check it out here–and sign up!

0

RPR Interview with Dr. John David Lewis (Audio)

RPR has an insightful Interview with Dr. John David Lewis on Islam and
the war on terror. Dr. Lewis talks about the left vs the right: who
presents a bigger threat? Is Marxism a religion? Why is America’s
education system so bad? How is President Obama doing on foreign policy?
Just how bad is Obamacare? and much, much more. Definitely worth a
listen. [Link]

0

What is The Best Single Book To Learn About Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Objectivism?

Ayn Rand’s philosophical ideas are spread through hundreds of fiction and non-fiction works, radio addresses, taped and untaped lectures, seminars, and discussions.

Until the publication of Leonard Peikoff’s magnum opus Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, there was no single book, the interested student of philosophy could turn to, that presented Rand’s philosophy as a single integrated whole.

Thanks to Dr. Peikoff this is no longer the case.

Leonard Peikoff’s *Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand* covers every philosophical topic that Ayn Rand held as important–from the objectivity of concepts and the metaphysical nature of man, to the virtue of selfishness and the purpose of art, this book covers it–and more.

Whether you are a scientist seeking to ground the principles of physics in reality, or an artist who wishes to understand the nature of art, or a philosopher puzzled over the problem of universals, or a teenager wondering about the meaning of life, or a historian wishing to grasp the link between the events in Nazi Germany and Ancient Greece, or a journalist seeking to grasp the cause of the slaughters in Bosnia and the cause of the slaughters in the schools of America, or a mother who wants to teach her child when one should and should not lie, or a businessman engaged in the virtue of making money, or a psychologist wishing to understand the relationship between the emotions and thought, or a college student in search of earth shattering ideas for a graduate thesis, or a teacher wishing to understand the way the mind works, or a priest searching for a rational basis for morality — Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand will have something of immense value to offer you — intellectually, morally, practically, and personally.

It is clear (Peikoff is a lucid writer), organized (the book presents Rand’s philosophy from the ground up, thus showing how her philosophical statement that capitalism is the moral system is inseperably tied to the metaphysical observation that A is A), and tightly written (Peikoff focuses only on essentials).

If you ever had any questions on the philosophy that Ayn Rand presented in her novels, or on the subject of philosophy in general (college students take note), this book has the answers you are looking for.

You may not agree with everything in the 494 pages this engrossing book. You will agree that it was worth reading.

Highly recommend. Required reading for all individuals interested in understanding Ayn Rand’s ideas.

0

Sneak Preview Film Screening Event: Dystopia Now? The World of “Atlas Shrugged”

From Objectivist Summer Conference 2011:

Sneak Preview Film Screening Event: Dystopia Now? The World of “Atlas Shrugged”
Saturday, July 2, 2011; 9–10:45 PM 

Come join us for a sneak preview of the soon-to-be-released feature documentary Dystopia Now? The World of “Atlas Shrugged.” Producer/Director Chris Mortensen will screen his controversial 90-minute film on the genesis, impact and continued relevance of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

This extensively researched film includes enlightening interviews with Rand biographers, scholars, prominent businessmen, journalists and others, as well as never-before-seen footage of Ayn Rand. Don’t miss this chance to see the almost-completed film before this fall’s official release. Registration information for this event is available on our Registration Options and Pricing page.

0

How to Save Israel

From Ron Pisaturo:

This call for 1967 [border] lines, along with the qualification about swaps, illustrates the absurd extreme to which Obama will push his evil premise … that the solution to the problem between Israelis and Palestinians should be based on “the needs of both sides.”

For Obama and a long line of American Presidents before him, right and wrong, good and evil, earned and unearned are irrelevant considerations; what counts is need. Since Palestinians need just as much land and wealth as Israelis do, and since Israelis currently have more of these things, it is Israel that must make concessions.

See the full post at Ron’s blog.

0

I Am John Galt Reviewed in Capitalism Magazine

Professor Harry Binswanger gives his thoughts on I Am John Galt over at Capitalism Magazine:

Given the book’s title, and given that the authors are not known Objectivists, I expected pretentiousness and ignorance. I was wrong; I’m pleased to say it is neither. Despite its shortcomings, the book has two great virtues: 1. it exhibits a far better understanding of Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism than I can recall seeing from anyone outside “the movement,” and 2. the writing is supple and first-handed, gliding you comfortably along a 300-page journey. 

0

Salsman: Kill The Un-American Patriot Act

Richard Salsman over at Forbes.com in Kill The Un-American Patriot Act: makes the case for repealing this monstrous act:

[…] The misdirection and dishonesty so emblematic of the Act is dramatized
by its acronym, “USA PATRIOT,” which stands for “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” No law that so violates Fourth
Amendment rights can be said to “unite” or “strengthen” America. The Act
effectively jettisons that long-cherished principle of civilized
criminal law and American jurisprudence: that one is presumed innocent
until (and unless) proven guilty. Under the Act we’re all assumed to be
guilty unless we prove our innocence
. What could be more un-American than that?

[…] Americans have been made no safer since 9/11, even though the PATRIOT
Act has dramatically enhanced the prerogative and power of the CIA, FBI,
DHS, DEA, IRS, ATF, TSA and the police to search phone records, e-mails
and medical documents, or to issue search warrants absent judicial
pre-approvals. The Act also has expanded the Treasury’s power to invade
financial privacy and transactions.

The Act has significantly broadened the arbitrary discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities to detain and deport even legal immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts or financing. With the TSA, perfectly innocent American travelers are subjected to horrible and invasive treatment which if experienced at their workplace would be deemed unlawful sexual harassment. In the end, absolutist governments are staffed by officials just like these – those who operate above and beyond the law which others must abide.

That quintessential American, Benjamin Franklin, wrote correctly, in 1759, that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Indeed, without liberty we must lack the prosperity and righteousness needed to defend our security. These principles are embodied in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in its Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to ensure that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The PATRIOT Act and its auxiliary measures work slowly but surely to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.

[…] By definition, anyone who dares to oppose the PATRIOT Act is presumed to be “un-patriotic.” In fact, by opposing it we oppose an American police state. That’s precisely where this horrid Act inexorably moves us, especially given the open-ended nature of the so-called “war on terrorism,” which is an unwinnable war aimed at a tactic which involves no specific end date yet also no specific place on earth where it might not occur. This irrational, self-defeating scheme of “security” entails an eternal and ubiquitous state of emergency – a setting which only empowers government to impose “extraordinary measures” to curb and quash our rights and liberties, without end or limit. It’s well known that today’s conservatives care little for our Fourth Amendment rights, but what about those hypocritical civil libertarians, who were right to protest and fight when Mr. Bush violated rights with the Act, but now stand by silently as Mr. Obama does the same thing?

0