A Logical analysis of hatred and haters

August 4, 2011
By

Geert Wilders, the fascist leader of the Dutch right-wing “Freedom Party ”, is a hate-entrepreneur pur sang. In an interview of 17 February, 2008, with The Observer, Wilders admits that he hates the Qur’an and the Islam:

Free speech or hate speech? ‘I don’t create hate. I want to be honest. I don’t hate people. I don’t hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology.

Wilders must suffer from a severe form of cognitive dissonance, because of this doublespeak. His statement can be analyzed in two contradicting  categories:

  1. Confession
  2. Denial

Wilders denies hating Muslims and he denies creating hate, but in the same breath, he admits hating the Qur’an and Islam. The cognitive dissonant sense comes to the surface when one realizes the outcome of his statement. I analyze it in a logical sequence:

Practicing Muslim = A; Qu’ran (Book) = B; Doctrine (Ideology) = C; Wilders = D

Conclusion:

A believes in B and C, which are hated by D; since B and C are inherent to the doctrine A adheres to, D must hate A too.

The logical deduction here is simple, but of major importance. Let’s continue with a speech he held in the USA in February 2009 at a conservative synagogue (Boston, Massachusetts). Wilders speaks of the imminent threat by Islam for the West, including Europe and the USA:

I have come to America with a mission because all is not well in the Old World. There is a tremendous danger looming. It’s difficult, unfortunately, to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamisation of my continent, of Europe. And this is not only a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself; it’s also a threat to America and to the sheer survival of the West as well. And I have warned, I have warned against the dangers of the Qur’an, against the dangers of the Islam in numerous interviews, in opinion articles, in speeches, and of course, which is my job, in the parliamentary debate. But pictures often say so much more than words, and that, in fact, is why I made my short film, Fitna.

Wilders speeches, media utterances, and his movie Fitna, contain a subliminal message of “violent retribution”. By focussing on the violent side of Islam and claiming it will try to take over the West by any means necessary, Wilders is preparing his followers and supporters for nothing but an equally violent response at the very least. In Fitna, Wilders presents the viewer with his  evidence that there is a Militant fundamentalist Islamic movement. Furthermore, he  shows atrocities such as the 9/11 attacks and the beheading of Eugene Armstrong, an American contractor killed in Iraq. It is a lunatic fringe that commits these horrific acts  in the name of Islam. Nevertheless, Wilders dismisses this notion by stating that there is no such thing as moderate Islam or a moderate Muslim. The true message of what must happen to Islam and its believers is shown at the end of Wilders’ movie. An animated cartoon of Islam’s last prophet Muhammad is shown. In this scene Muhammed wears a turban with a bomb in it. The bomb explodes. This animation is a visual expression of the intense hatred and exposes a desire for violent retribution.

The significance of Wilders’ hatred can be analysed as following:

Islam = A; Practicing Muslims = B; Imminent threat = C; Violent (fascist) character of Islam = D; Violent retribution by anti-Islamists = E; West = F; Wilders = G

G hates A and B because of C and D; G stresses on E in order to save F.

From this assumption, we can conclude that Wilders is steering towards a violent clash between Muslims and anti-Islamists. Let us now analyse the line of thought Norwegian massmurderer Breivik subscribed to, based on his own admissions in his voluminous manifest:

Islam = A; Practicing Muslims = B; Imminent threat = C; Violent (fascist) character of Islam = D; Violent retribution by anti-Islamists = E; West = F; Breivik = G

G hates A and B because of C and D; G sees E as the only solution to save F.

After the massacre  perpetrated by Breivik, everyone started looking for answers. When people started pointing out that Breivik shares Wilders’ hatred against multiculturalism in general and Islam in particular, PVV- supporters had their response ready. “Breivik had been planning these attacks long before Wilders founded his political party “, is an often-heard rebuttal. However, on closer examination this argument is rather dubious. Firstly,  at this time there is no evidence of that Breivik started planning his terrorist acts in 2002 as he himself claims.  Breivik may be giving ancienity (historical dating) to his ideological development in order to make his philosophy appear more ripened and sound. Secondly, Wilders political career did not start with him founding the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV)  in 2004. He became an MP for the Dutch Conservative Party (VVD) in 1998 and he started speaking out against Islam in 2002.  Even if Breivik first got his idea to commit these atrocities in 2002, that does not in any way rule out that he was influenced by Wilders.

In another article, I offer a further analysis on Breivik and Wilders’ violent rethoric.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Time in the Netherlands

Promote Politeia Libertas

Share

Categories