Geert Wilders debate after Brussels attack.

Geert was never better than he is in this remarkable video.

For those who have seen other debates in Parliament with the Rt. Hon. Geert Wilders on the issue of Islam in Europe, you may notice a subtle change in the opposition who seem a little less hostile and a little less contrarian to the premise this time.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

4 Replies to “Geert Wilders debate after Brussels attack.”

  1. Karl Popper (Wikipedia): The paradox of tolerance[edit]
    Main article: Paradox of tolerance
    Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he said that intolerance should not be tolerated, for if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, he argued:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.[41][42][43][44]

  2. Wilders’ opponents just keep hammering at the same fake point over and over again – that Geert Wilders is saying that because some terrorists happen to be Muslim that all Muslims are terrorists. I’ve never heard Geert say that, but that’s what they seem to want him to be saying with all their hearts. And every time that Geert disabuses them of their disingenuous little slander, they go right back in and say it again and again.

    What Geert’s opponents are really saying, though, is that even if you know for a fact that twenty out of a hundred new arrivals from, say, Morocco, are terrorist sympathizers or worse, you are obliged to let them all into the country because the other eighty percent probably aren’t terrorist sympathizers, and it would be unfair to them to discriminate. Flabbergasting! They should be impaled for their stupidity and their cowardice and their treachery… Yes, impaled…

  3. The opposition are amazing. Every time Mr Wilders answers a question, they say, “you haven’t answered the question”, so he answers the question, and they say you haven’t answered the question.

    Q “What would you do about Islamic terrorism”
    A De Isimalize the Netherlands, deport anti social elements, close the Mosques.
    Q “But what would you do?”, again and again and again, Dissonance taken to psychotic levels.
    Amazing, just amazing.
    For all their self regard about how tolerant they are, they are just the same sort of people who threw themselves into Communism, or Nazism, or any other ideology, and then are completely resisting to any reasonable argument about how warped their ideology is.
    A look into hell, and the sort of people who cause it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *