The Trial of Geert Wilders: Totalitarian Humanism in Action

Read the report from the BBC. (hat tip to Brady Campbell)

I’m not a fan of Wilders. His politics are basically the same as those of the neocons, e.g. Zionism, Islamophobia, and neoliberal economics. Nor do I agree with ideas like banning the Koran, minarets, headscarves, or burquas of the kind that some immigration restrictionists in Europe have proposed or enacted.

Murray Rothbard argued that it is the nature of the state to create a mess with its actions, which leads to calls for increased statism as a corrective measure, which creates more chaos, which leads to still more calls for state efforts at correction.

As I’ve argued before, mass immigration of the kind we see today is not naturally occurring but is the product of the state and of the economic arrangements imposed by the state. Sam Francis explained how this works a bit in this video. I also tried to explain the true relationship between the state, class theory, and immigration in this article for Lew Rockwell a few years ago. Most libertarians and anarchists are blind to this issue at present because, having drank the liberal Kool-Aid, they regard mass immigration as an ideal unto itself, irrespective of the role of the state or capitalism in fostering it.

Mass immigration has the effect of dramatically altering the host culture, which in turn leads to calls for state-imposed forms of cultural protectionism such as banning minarets, censorship of Islamic religious books and speech, banning burquas  and headscarves, etc. But those things are only symptomatic of the real problem. Western civilization could certainly survive the presence of an occasional burqua or minaret. It’s when immigration becomes so massive as to amount to demographic overrun or fundamental civilizational alteration that it becomes a problem. Naturally, many will want to take action to prevent such a thing, but they will do so in superficial ways like banning burquas. Meanwhile, the cultural protectionists (so-called “xenophobes”) will come under the attacks of the proponents of multiculturalism, who instead of calling for bans on minarets, will attempt to censor and repress the “xenophobes.”

In essence, both Wilders and those who are putting him on trial represent two different strands of “totalitarian humanism.” Why does Wilders oppose Islamic cultural influences? Because he regards them as illiberal, sexist, and reactionary. He compares the Koran with Mein Kampf. Wilders, the supposed “fascist,” actually has much more in common with militant liberal anti-religionists like Christopher Hitchens.  His opponents represent another thread of totalitarian humanism that regards denunciation of a non-European, predominantly Third World religion like Islam as racist, chauvinist, or colonialist.  It’s a question of liberalism versus multiculturalism.

The proper solution to the problem of mass immigration is to eliminate the support it receives from the state (which would involve abolishing much of what the state does at present), followed by economic decentralization, and restoration of full freedom of association, property rights, and community sovereignty.

Categories: Uncategorized

6 replies »

  1. This is an interesting analysis. I certainly regard mass immigration as a threat to Western identity, and I find it hilarious how the LLers are so blind to this. I remember reading a post once where Aster emotionally condemnded “European xenophobes for trying to stir up bigotry against Muslims”…as if a society controlled by those she was defending would return the favor.

  2. Yeah, we’ll see how well transgendered rights fare in Eurabia. This fits in with Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberalism as suicidal if taken to its extreme conclusions.

  3. “It’s a question of liberalism versus multiculturalism.”

    Between those two, yes, but the problem is that the liberalism which Wilders and Hitchens represents is at the very core of America–it is America; all men are created equal. Multiculturalism is born out of the very essence of this statement. It is a modification of liberalism since liberalism wasn’t liberal enough. You should notice the “chauvinist” nature of the statement–men, European men, are equal. Since we are unable to discard our “gender roles” culture is used as a substitute for “man”, with an imperative; all cultures deserve equal esteem. Thus, the whole business of the now hackneyed word “culture” becomes questionable. One should also notice how the imperative itself is never subjected to questioning.

    I doubt that America can “defend” itself against the problems presented here if not only because America is inherently liberal. Philosophically America is in no position to deny immigration because it has no way of viewing the issue as a problem. Everything in our constitution is based upon equality, i.e., modern-subjectivism. Even though liberalism/America imports a particular understanding of what a human-being is [this is where the multiculturalists begin to fume], it grants equal access in any case–this is its fatal mistake. What must be discarded is democracy, and since liberalism/democracy must be discarded then the notion of “Western-Civilization” must be vigorously delineated and clarified. What are we supporting when we say Western-Civilization? Is a holistic conceptualization enough?

  4. “This fits in with Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberalism as suicidal if taken to its extreme conclusions”

    That’s the argument that is made for hate crime laws aimed primarily against whites and while I think there is some truth to that statement, it seems that most people are looking in the wrong direction when it comes to threats to western civilization. There is no realistic threat of a renewed fascist movement and no one takes seriously the handful of people who actually old such views. On the other hand, the people are prosecuted for holocaust revisionism, even if they hold negative views of other races, have far more in common with the liberals who despise them than the liberals do with the minorities that liberals put on a pedestal. I think this comes from a false universal, which is blind to the fact that liberalism came from the west. This is why the neo-cons plan to spread democracy throughout the world is misguided and naive.

  5. “There is no realistic threat of a renewed fascist movement and no one takes seriously the handful of people who actually old such views. ”

    I had an exchange with a reader of my Schmitt series at AltRight regarding a similar matter:


    As Michael pointed out above, modern liberals are not even capable of properly and accurately identifying their own rational self-interests.

Leave a Reply