I am currently reading Geert Wilders book “Marked for Death”. It is an interesting book with much useful information in it. I find it most interesting because some of his points I agree with and some I strongly oppose. In my way of defining points of view I would label Mr. Wilders as a PreModern nationalist. I would fall into the category of a PostModern nationalist. Let me explain.
I agree with much that Wilder says. If his were the main anti immigration party in the Netherlands I would be part of it. What I agree most with is the importance of controlling immigration so that the Netherlands (or Europe) does not become a Muslim Republic. If this were to happen the values, laws, and system would entirely change in an unfree direction. This must not happen. The freedom and values of the west must be preserved. This is a priority I agree with one hundred percent.
Where I disagree with Mr. Wilders is on his view of Islam and some of the tactics he would use. He is very clear and adamant in his view that Islam is not a religion but rather a totalitarian political movement and therefore should be treated as such. I see this as an incorrect and dangerous position to take. I agree that Islam is all inclusive and can intrude in every aspect of a person’s life. But this does not prevent it from being a legitimate religion. I know Evangelical Christians who stress that every aspect of their lives are under the Lordship of Christ. Hasidic Jews have rules and regulations that define even the most mundane of activities. Even a secular humanist of the atheist persuasion could argue that every aspect of his life is directed by the empirical method. Beliefs and religion are all consuming and we should not fault a person or faith for being such.
A second point of disagreement stems from this view of Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Wilders seems to think that just as communism faded away when the west stood up to it, that the same will happen with Islam. This is a foolish perspective to have. Where as communism was a corrupt and tyrannical system that mainly had the allegiance of the elites who benefited from it, Islam has the devotion and following of billions of common folk who have deeply integrated its teachings into their lives. To call the belief system evil and to launch a new cold war against it will be destructive to everyone involved. It will only strengthen the resolve of the Islamic faithful (umma).
Finally, Wilders talks about outlawing the Koran just as Mein Kampf has been banned in the Netherlands and rewriting the constitution denying freedom of religion to Muslims. This once again is foolish and will only create a strong desire of the people for that forbidden knowledge. The ADL/SPLC attack on free speech and free opinions has done much to move me to the right over the past few years. Censorship and enforced political correctness are counterproductive as is prohibition.
Wilders is a PreModern Nationalist that sees the world clearly as good vs evil. He of course is on the good side. I am a PostModern Nationalist who doesn’t see things quite as simply, but does agree on the pragmatic necessity of keeping the West from becoming Islamic.
My view is to each in their place. The traditionally Islamic parts of the world can remain under Islamic hegemony. The West must remain western in culture. It is a clash of civilizations, but it is a clash that can be peaceful and have ground rules. A detente with muscle and with mutual respect is the direction our two civilizations need to move in.