Wilders at House of Lords, March 5: "Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail"

Compare this speech with the bleatings of our Politically Correct politicians. This is a true Son of the West. God Bless, Geert Wilders.

Don't you just KNOW that Lord Nazr Ahmed was just DYING to scream: "ISLAMOPHOBE! RACIST!"

I would just love to have seen the expression on his face (whether he was present or chose to boycott).

Brave, articulate, relentless, indomitable.

This man is a hero for our time. For all time.

Don't ya just love this guy!

He's got a pair.

"Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That's a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage."

Hear! Hear! Bravo Geert!

"Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone."

Absolutely. End quote.

Geert, the new Winston. And once again this is Europe's darkest hour.

I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do.

Based on this statement, especially the last one, I cannot share Wilders' optimism. He might wanna take a look into the history of Islam on his fantastic assumption that because the vast majority of Moslems are not Jihadis it's correct to conclude that they are separate from their activist column.

*** 92:8 ***

Make that activist rail. As in third rail. Both groups of Moslems are riding on the same rail.

"we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender."

Can't better that, so I follow it till I die.

Geert is a man among men...Bravo...The only question...was anyone really listening? I certainly hope so....

There is no question that Geert Wilders does his homework and he recognizes the growing responsibility that he is carrying the message and the flag of freedom in the EU Countries seemingly almost alone. The EU needs to see other speakers standing with Geert Wilders and locked in arms with this brave man.

Protecting and defending freedom from tyranny is every mans duty and responsibility. It is what freedom loving people have died for on the battlefronts of so many wars brought on by despots and demogogues and wanna be dictators for centuries.

The enemy of freedom is on our doorsteps,his retrograde ideology is invading our Univerity campuses,he is influencing our politicians,he is using our courts in efforts to suppress our rights of free speech and he is loud and demanding in the nature of his ideology in efforts to intimidate those who should be defending Western values on every front---Ask Wafa Sultan..

We are being led by politicians who think they can appease the adherents of Mohammedism and they are wrong in every respect.

Just as Chamberlain who for years tried to appease and make deals with Hitler. Sadly Chamberlain finally learned that lesson to late and in the last year of his life.

We cannot make deals with Islam because they are here to dominate , and subjigate all non Muslims to the will of allah no matter what.

GEERT: "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam."

In Hesperado's worldview, this statement makes someone like Wilders PC/MC.

Happy Dance! ...Bravo, Geert!

Patrick Henry centuries ago, Geert Wilders today.

Is the world listening?

"Courage" should be Geert's middle name.

Speaking the truth requires guts -- telling it as it is, without PC editing. Churchill would be proud of Wilders. We all should be proud of Wilders.

The threat of Islam has now been spelled out clearly in the British Parliament. This could be a turning point for the UK and for Europe. Are there more Churchills there, or more Chamberlains?

Fucking great speech! I can't help wondering how it was received? Did the Labor MP's storm out? Did they even attend in the first place? Was the chamber half empty? Three quarters empty? Was there a rousing ovation at the end? Was it broadcast on BBC television?

A slam dunk.

If we survive the Islamic assault from Hell, Gert will always be pictured as the one leading the charge.

Pssssssssssssssssst all you who do not believe darkness is upon us ...

Open your eyes.

Hey Obambi, look and learn.

A brave and stirring speech. Thank you, Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders - The Lion of Europe. That should be the title of a movie..............can't see it being produced in today's Hollywood. But, time wounds all heels........

Wonder how much muslims actually know about their own religion. Remember that in the islamic world non education is preferred, thus no learning, no understanding and know questioning.

Muhammed himself admitted that he was not a true prophet of GOD. Surah 29:27 states clearly that, as far as Allah and the Qur'an are concerned, the only true prophets are those related to Isaac (Ishaq) or Jacob (Yaqoub); yet Muhammad, according to Muslim tradition, is related to Ishmael and not Isaac or Jacob.

Ayatollah Khomeini, an Iranian "butcher" gives us a clear insight into what awaits countries who fall to Islam's satanic grasp:

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explains what happens when these murderous mullah's take over:

According to Khomeini:

"Killing is a form of mercy because it rectifies the person. Sometimes a person cannot be reformed unless he is cut up and burned. You must kill, burn and lock up those in opposition."

The Qur'an teaches that the world is flat. This doctrine is believed by a great many Islamic scholars even today. The Jewish/Christian Bible revealed that the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22 and via Job (26:7). Speaking of God in Isaiah 40:22, the Jewish/Christian Bible says; "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. Funny isn't it, that the Bible said the earth was a "circle", even when everyone believed the earth was flat". Job 26:7 says, "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing".

- In many places, the Qur'an alludes to the fact that the earth is flat and its mountains are like poles which create a balance so that the Earth does not tilt. See Qur'an, Suras 79:30 (And the Earth after that He(Allah) FLATTENED it.; and 18:47 (and you will see the earth a leveled plain

Muslim Doctrine of Taqiyya (or lying is ok): In the west very few people understand a very important doctrine of Islam called Taqiyya (Taqeya, Taqiya). Until we understand this in the west, we will never be able to deal with the Muslim world properly. Taqiyya roughly translates as lying for the faith. A Muslim may tell any lie when they are threatened. In short, a Muslim can lie as a holy duty to deceive and gain an advantage over the unbeliever. The non-prophet Muhammad sanctioned this when he said; “he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.” Can we imagine Jesus, Moses or Buddha saying “Hey lying is good!”? Is it any wonder that freemasons think the same way Muhammad does?

Muhammad's first wife - Khadija, died a few years before he fled to Medina. Later, he was encouraged to take another wife. At the age of 49 he was betrothed to Aisha, age six in 624 A.D. Aisha was his closest friend's, Abu Bakr's, daughter. Abu Bakr was Muhammad’s daily companion and one of his first believers and successor of Muhammad. We can rightfully imagine 6 year old Aisha picking up her toys and moving to Muhammad's house, where he demurely waited until she was nine to have sexual intercourse with her.

In the first year of Muhammad's residence at Yathrib (now Medina) the "Prophet" who never prophesized, celebrated his marriage to Ayisha. Ayisha was then only a young girl (jariyah) of 9-years old per Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud and Tabari Aisha was 9 when they Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage with her. Muhammad 52.

Aisha herself testified to these facts:
“The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married me when I was nine years old.”

Source: Sahih Muslim (by Imam al-Mawawy), vol. 3, p. 577.

Lying with a 9 year old girl in this century or in the 7th century is abominable. It was abominable then in Arabian society also. Particularly distasteful about Muhammad, is that after Muhammad deflowered this young 9 year old girl, he also taught that his followers were to follow his "sunnah" or lifestyle. And his followers do follow the example of this warrior "prophet", who made no prophecies. In the last century, the cruel Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten-year old girl, when he was 28 years old. This "mad Ayatollah" called marriage to a prepubescent girl a "divine blessing". He is quoted to have said to fellow Muslims; "Do your best to ensure your daughters do not see their first blood in your house".

Ayatollah Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstration was a "divine blessing." He then told Muslim fathers: "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house."

It is estimated that about 10% of Muhammad's marauding troops were homosexuals. For these too, stolen booty was not enough. In order to keep these homosexuals in line, Muhammad had to make concessions to their dreams as well. Muhammad had to find more selling points besides big busted virgins and rivers of wine. He needed young boys to quench their thirst. The Qur'an fulfills homosexual dreams as well:

Sura: 52:24 - Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded. Sura: 56-17 - Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness). Surah 76:19 - And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls

Black Muslims

Say it loud. "I’m Black and I’m proud… not to be Muslim"

One of the most bizarre manifestations of African-American pride is its contemporary identification with Islam. The Nation of Islam (Black Muslim movement) plays on the racism against black people by white people hence you hear them use terms like "white devils", etc.

The Muslim Hadith says Muhammad was a white man, so Black Muslims actually serve Islamic whites, even though they speak against whites.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Hadith says the following about blacks:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256)
Hadith; vol.9:162,163: Muhammad warned that dreams of black women meant disease was forthcoming. Black Muslims today are so uninformed that they don't even understand that Muhammad had many black slaves and called them raisin heads (Hadith vol.1:662, vol.9:256 )

Muslims are told that Africans “annoy the Prophet” (Ishaq 243), have hearts “grosser than a donkey” (Surah 9:61) and that blacks should be left to die if injured, and should be denied intercession and entrance to heaven (Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 137). Yet and still Louis Farrakan and his followers will tell us the lie that Christianity is the white man's religion. Jesus came for all regardless of color, but Black Islam is especially designed just to lead Black folks to hell! It was the peaceful Christian's in America who stopped all slavery here.

The story goes that in 1930 Allah appeared to the people of Detroit in the form of a mysterious man named “Fard.” Allah’s human form seemed to be of African and Arab descent and claimed to have been born in Mecca, a descendent of the prophet Muhammad. He preached a message of racial identity and claimed that Islam was the true religion of the black people of America before they were robbed of it by the White man.

In fact, Fard was really just a small-time conman named Wallace Dodd Ford, who served three years in San Quentin for drug-dealing. He drifted into Detroit at a time when many African-Americans were beginning to form racial identity groups around charismatic personalities such as Marcus Garvey. Of course, race consciousness was hardly just a “black thing” at the time, as the 1920’s were also when Ku Klux Klan influence peaked in America.

Interestingly, Ford was neither of African or Arab descent, as he claimed. He was a mix of European and Polynesian. But he did recognize an opportunity when he saw one, and the street preacher soon built up quite a following among those who could appreciate an overtly racist theology that persists to this day in spite of its zaniness.

According to Ford, and his Nation of Islam, Africans were the original and only people of the world (divine and uncorrupted) before whites were invented by an evil scientist named Yakub in a malicious experiment with tragic consequences. Islam is the true religion, and, at some point, a spaceship will be sent by Allah to eliminate the white people from the earth.

Another sad aspect of Black Muslims is that many African-Americans are drawn to Islam out of racial pride, thinking that there is some sort of association with Africa. Muslim evangelicals in the black communities and in prisons often play this up in an attempt to persuade the gullible into rejecting Christianity as the “white man’s religion.”

In the First place, Christianity in Africa predates Islam by almost 600 years. Christian missionaries were on the African continent within two decades of the Crucifixion. Secondly, unlike Christianity, Islam had no interest in missionary hospitals or the poor. Arab contact with Black Africa was for one purpose only, plain and simple. That same as it is now: slavery. The awful truth is that Arabs ravaged Africa for more than 1000 years before Europeans ever got their hands on black slaves. These black Muslim slaves died from over work and lived in squalor. By contrast, the four million slaves brought to America over the course of 200 years managed to leave the most prosperous group of African descendents on the planet.

Orthodox Islam does not want to be identified with the Black Muslim movement in America. It is seen as heretical and is not considered part of Islam.


These are just part of a greater reading. Folks read it and understand that islam is sent from satan not God.

Wonder how many of the black muslim understand what is said and felt about them

www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Its long but well worth the read and totally expose islam for the fraud it is. Pass it on .

Geert, the real man.
How will the MSM report it tomorrow?
Can't wait to read what the muslims' favourite newspapers and the Left-leaning newspapers will write about this speech and the film.

A very useful speech, I don't know whether British people will understand Wilders' message.

Bravo, keep on going until we defeat Islam.

A very fine speech indeed -- but regrettably, the distinction between the ideology and its adherents is a false one, as Wilders' own proposal for a halt to mass Muslim immigration "because more Islam means less freedom" indicates. (Perhaps it was inserted pro forma, to avoid giving the appearance of calling for a pogrom.) Did we make such a distinction between Nazi ideology and its sieg-heiling, goose-stepping followers during WWII?

Withal, kudos to Wilders for his stand. One can only hope he is both exonerated and elected.

One of our jobs is clear, send this speech to every living soul you can. Copy it , mail it , frame it, set it in stone, someday it will be written in brass at the foot of the monument commemorating our emancipation from the islamic invasion. God bless Mr. Wilders, someone who finally has picked up the torch of freedom, while almost all other clueless and cowardly leaders have failed to do so and have already surrendered.

"Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture." You gotta love this guy.

How about a British Freedom Party?

"More Churchills, fewer Chamberlains"

A tall order, in a Europe where one notices among the ruling classes si peu d'esprits, et tant de sots.

Interesting article from 2007..
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/071228-dutch-queen-mc-redirected

Hope Geert's got an Ace (or two)up his sleeve..Poor guy. Battling forever against the odds {lefties,islam,courts,England,ie Jacquie Smith,Lord Achmed) with death threats and living in seclusion every day..Jesus Murphy,what a life.

So let's drop Her Majesty a wee note in support of Geert.I know I will. With any luck she'll come to her freakin' senses. He deserves it that's for sure. Here's her address.

http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/Organisation/Addresses

The speech is groundbreaking but I don't feel immigration or Sharia law per se are the chief threats. The imposition and or teaching of Sharia law in as much as it conflicts with basic human freedoms and all forms of jihad need to be addressed in the law and criminalized. Those who impose elements of sharia contrary to individual rights should be subject to criminal and civil penalties. For example, any social or physical pressure put on a person who wishes to change their faith should be against the law and subject to civil and criminal penalties. If individuals such as an Imam and members of his mosque conspire to do so they should be subject to criminal conspiracy charges.

This straight from the Dutch Government site..

The Queen also plays a role in forming new governments. After general elections or if a government falls, she receives the presidents of the Senate and House of Representatives, the vice-president of the Council of State and the leaders of the parliamentary parties in the House of Representatives.
After receiving their advice, the Queen asks one or more senior political figures (informateurs) to investigate the chances of forming a government. If they succeed, she then follows their advice and instructs one or more politicians (formateurs) to form a government.
The Office arranges, through the Government Information Service, for the publication of her instructions to informateurs and formateurs. Political responsibility for the course of government formations is borne by the newly appointed Prime Minister, who is accountable in this respect to the States General.

I'm including photos of a pair of wooden shoes my father brought back from Holland in 1945,after he helped liberate her country.
If that doesn't turn her around she's hopeless.

Rock on Geert!

Well here's another address I found..Guess I'll be writin' two of 'em.

Letters to the Queen should be addressed to:
Her Majesty the Queen
c/o the Queen’s Office
Postbus 20016
2500 EA Den Haag
If the sender’s name is not clearly stated on a letter it will not be dealt with.

"I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be afraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better."

GO GEERT! BRAVO!

It's so encouraging to see someone stand up!

Of course, the MSM won't mention or will quote out of context.

------------------
Get that man a Hawaiian birth certificate!

Wilders for President 2012!
------------------

http://www.monetalia.com/paintings/large/monet-houses-of-parliament-sun-fog.jpg

Ironic. The call for an American style Constitution in Europe while our own Administration would love nothing better than to get rid of our own.

I love how he throws Churchill right in their faces.

"Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.:"

Sir....I salute you...

Is America worth defending?

Your damn right it is!!

http://sagebrushpatriot.com/america.htm

Thank God, literally, that SOMEONE isn't too scared to stand up for common sense, for freedom and for democracy (as opposed to sharia, which is the exact opposite of democracy). I wish we were all a bit more like Geert Wilders in his fearlessness. I wish I was. Islam is a formidable force - but we must resist oppresion and take-over. We must resist out nation and its historic values being totally erradicatted by this totalitarian system. May WE ALL STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH. Thanks.

Thank God, literally, that SOMEONE isn't too scared to stand up for common sense, for freedom and for democracy (as opposed to sharia, which is the exact opposite of democracy). I wish we were all a bit more like Geert Wilders in his fearlessness. I wish I was. Islam is a formidable force - but we must resist oppresion and take-over. We must resist out nation and its historic values being totally erradicatted by this totalitarian system. May WE ALL STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH. Thanks.

There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. Bravo Geert, I know it too, I work with the people you describe.

Geert - "That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam".

Forgive me Geert but I don't agree with you on this, I am not sure (yet) whether there is moderate Islam or not, but I do know that without muslims there is no Islam, and without Islam there are no muslims.

Therefore Geert you are just trying to be clever, trying to make finer points which don't exist, trying to create fissures amongst already vunerable muslims, and trying to make yourself look idealistic and educated.

I have no doubt that Geert is an educated man and a considerable orator. I also believe that he must be allowed to speak as he does; but I cannot agree that he can speak on a platform where muslims are not allowed to refute his tall claims.

Take the muslim away and Islam cannot exist; and yet he says he has no problem with the muslim. That circular argument is just nuts. Because of his influence I believe that Geert will become as influential and as dangerous as Khomeni.

I can see lots of tensions being created when Geert is tring to extract muslims from Islam; it's just not possible.

I know that I will not be able to persuade anybody here of this, but you all know it's true.

Khomeini made life for Muslims more miserable the Geert would ever do....

Ladies and gentlemen

by all means pop over to New English Review.

The redoubtable Esmerelda Weatherwax, or Granny Weatherwax (that was the first nom de plume she adopted here) was present in person to see the rally on behalf of Wilders, and the UAF rally against him.

Her account, with many pictures, is well worth reading, slowly and carefully.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/26312

Among other things, she observes that the pro-Wilders rally, made up of the EDL, the March for England, and people from the general public, including elderly men and women (just look at the pictures and see the grey heads), was addressed by a young Sikh speaker, and that the proceedings included (I quote her account, verbatim):

"a minute's silence for the latest British casualties in Afghanistan

"and [for] *the two Sikhs beheaded in Pakistan last week for refusing to convert to Islam* {my emphasis - dda}.

This was followed by the National Anthem."

Shoutout to all non-Muslim Indians on the frontline against Jihad who may be reading this, especially Sikhs: your sacrifice and bravery in resisting Islam even unto the point of death, have just been placed alongside those of British soldiers, and remembered and honoured by ordinary British non-Muslim citizens, there outside the Tate Gallery in the heart of London.

Islam and Muslims are inextricably linked. There is not one without the other. To say Islam's not OK but Muslims are, is like saying Nazism is not OK but Nazis are. Ridiculous.

So, I can't agree with Geert on his "Islam no/Muslims yes" platform, but I suppose his disingenuousness has to do with political reasons.

I can't agree with Geert on his "Islam no/Muslims yes" platform.

Wilders is a profound disappointment. His half-assed protest is baked in fear of what the consequences would be for Infidels if he or some other public figure would dare to tell the whole truth, which is the real truth.

*** 33:21 ***

He does not represent hope; he represents only a somewhat slower slide into the Hell that has been sucking us down for 1,399 years now.

I think what Geert is trying to is. "Radical" Islam is the disease, which will destroy our society, and Muslims are the vector.

Hespardo:

Thanks for pushing the analysis to more precision.

My thought is that the Wilders position is intended to allow individuals and the religion to reform, however remote the possibility.

Either islamic doctrine must change from dominance and imperialism (reformation) or its followers must refute and repudiate those fundamentalist aspects and develop a modern and respectful system. Can the religion survive being civilized is a different question. The likelihood of a civil war would be high.

At the end, the distinction between muslins and islam may be a game of semantics, but the formulation allows the possibility that the individuals involved can make their own decision to reject religious hegemony. The idea is to be generous to the possibility of human and humane development. There are many example of people leaving cults that have been de-brainwashed and returned to reality; it is a different question if a domineering cult can be reformed into a civilized religion. The distinction between the religion and the people seems a valid and useful one.

That's "Jordanian Newspaper" and not the plural. My fault.

Hello Hesperado, I am learning from you so much and this topic is so near to my hart, that I am very grateful you help me to develop it in my mind ever further.

You:
"But I think there is plenty of room for him to integrate more anti-Islamic (and therefore anti-Muslim) coherence into his message in an intelligent way that would not make his position any more difficult. While on the other hand it may not appreciably help his position in the eyes of the mainstream PC MCs, at least he would be more coherent and faithful to reason which ultimately, in the long run, will be the very heart of how, and why, the West will win."

Agreed on the coherence and faithful to reason-part. But since we can never achieve perfection, is it acceptable to you if we proceed from our own goals, with our own values and rules, which we protect and yes, want to expand at the cost of Islam? That we then only start with the attack on Islam, the ideology, not yet with the attack on all Muslims?

That we get expert on both ideologies, as good as, and better than any Muslim-scholar? That we then compare the 2 competing beliefsystems very accurately? And that is happening already at lightning speed now, thanks to sites like Jihad-Watch.

That we present our goals, honourability, expert knowledge of both Democratic and Islamic beliefsystems to the world, both to Muslims and Political Corrects? Together with our insistence of treating Islam as a manmade, not divine beliefsystem, and therefore our insistence that it is treated in that way, just as the Freedom-party-ideology is?

That we also insist that Islam (and the Democratic beliefsystem) not only belongs to the Divine-Origine-believers of it, but every bit as much to us, the Human-Origine-believers of it? That both sides can be as honorable and knowledgeable and both sides should be equally respected and listened to? This point we then hammer to the Political-Corrects out there.

And finally, can we not boldly state that there are 2 competing beliefsystems that are at stake here, that both vie for ultimate supremacy; the Democratic beliefsystem and the Islamic one? And that the first wants to let the second one be for a substantial part but the second one does not want the first one to survive?

Meaning that the ultimately first and foremost loyalty we seek from people everywhere, in their vast majority, in both Western Countries AND Islamic countries, is loyalty to the Democratic belief-system? That supreme loyalty, in vast numbers, to the enemy of that (Islam), yes, that that ultimately can/ will lead to war?

Of course that would mean leaving alone China, Russia and other non-democratic, non-Islamic countries. Of course it would not yet engage in declaring all Muslims enemies, which IS a logical step to take. But would it not be a great beginning?

You rightly say that the vast majority of Muslims are beyond hope, and basing our strategy on baseless assumptions could be reckless. No, no Muslims should ever be trusted. But if we would do the above, would that not be a good enough start of our defense?

Great speech to the House of Lords, I hope they listen! I hope the rest of Europe listens as well, and can somehow drop the political correctness, maybe grow a couple and stand up for something. Hooray for Geert Wilders!

Demsci,

"But still, illogically as it is, but at least it is a beginning; maybe we can leave the many "quiet, neutral Muslims-in-name-only" alone for now and focus on the 2 ideologies?"

At best, I would agree, I guess, that as a strategy given the severe limitations presented by PC MC, focusing on the ideology and ignoring the human carriers & agents of that ideology (at least ignoring the vast majority of them while only concentrating on the tiny minority who are actually blowing up buildings or saying dangerously extremist things) with the expectation that eventually that relatively exclusive focus will unfold its logical implications into an unavoidable wider focus on Muslims in general, the Wilders method may well be helpful.

That said, however, those logical implications will have a more difficult time unfolding in the future -- or they may never unfold or may likely unfold in less effective ways -- if their rationale is not kept alive in the minds of Westerners now and into the foreseeable future during the time that we are agreeing to try to support and implement the Wilders strategy. I.e., the seed or core idea of the more holistic point of view nneeds to be thought by a certain number of us in the anti-Islam movement now, or it may never be thought. The holistic logic is not automatically inexorable: it needs human beings to think it, articulate it, and hope for its practicability. It's not going to just sprout up spontaneously, independently of humans.

So at the very least, I say some of us need to keep that logical vector alive now, and into the foreseeable future, in order to facilitate the future transition from this incoherent Wilders strategy to a more coherent paradigm and plan of action.

For readers who haven't read my previous comments above that clarify some of my terms, see:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/wilders-at-house-of-lords-march-5-freedom-must-prevail-and-freedom-will-prevail.html#comment-647574

and

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/wilders-at-house-of-lords-march-5-freedom-must-prevail-and-freedom-will-prevail.html#comment-647623

There is the closely related additional problem that many (perhaps most?) of analysts and/or activists in the anti-Islam movement really sincerely do not agree with the holistic paradigm, and unless they rather radically change their mind in the foreseeable future, they never will agree with it. So such disagreers will provide additional impediments to that process of unfolding from the Wilders strategy to a more holistic, coherent strategy.

Finally, I would add that this isn't merely a battle of ideas where one idea is distasteful and the other is palatable. This is a deadly struggle where innumerable multitudes of people from a world-wide organization are possessed by an extreme fanaticism that leads them to want to attack and kill us, and to undermine, destroy and conquer our societies to replace our societies with societies based on their ideology. And they are not sitting around waiting politely for ideas to "unfold": they are planning deadly infiltration and attacks now, as they have been for decades, so far most of which have been thwarted often by sheer luck, but enough of them have been intolerably successful. Western societies (and those societies relatively civilized by the West, such as India) should not be expected to tolerate successful attacks like 911, London, Madrid, or Mumbai -- and the intolerable nature of this is only augmented by the many plots to attack us that have been luckily thwarted. It is reasonable to suppose that far deadlier mayhem is in the offing while we pursue our incoherently piece-meal strategy, and while that incoherently piece-meal strategy will, if successful within its logical parameters of what "success" means, have some good effects -- such as slowing down the construction of new mosques and Islamic centers, cracking down on the visible extremists, curtailing certain Islamic behaviors that facilitate ongoing stealth invasion (such as limited bannings of hijab, etc.) -- the actual danger from innumerable Muslim fanatics will continue to escalate, because we will be doing nothing about the millions of Muslims already within our Western societies and continuing to multiply fruitfully.