Well, Geert Wilders does.

I don’t share your blithe unconcern for the issues raised by Wilders, Steyn, et al. First of all, despite what you say, there is a genuine and important distinction to be made between seeing ideological Muslims as representing a dire and clamant cultural and political threat to the West, and a jello-kneed fear of offending them. Simply lumping the two together as “fear” in order to breezily dismiss both is just a way to avoid serious consideration of the issue.

Likewise, whether the 8th-century Franks would have been looked upon by modern Europeans as somewhat barbaric is not the point here either, nor is the fact that Asia has absorbed some Western cultural influences (and it is arguably the shallowest and coarsest aspects of Western culture that seem to be its most popular exports over there).

No – the question I asked, which you did not answer, is what is a Dutchman who likes living in a Dutch culture supposed to do to preserve that culture in the face of an alien demographic invasion that threatens to destroy it, and has already made significant progress in doing so? As I said above, there are lots of Muslim countries, but the distinctive cultures of Holland, Sweden, Belgium, England, etc., face extinction by a fast-breeding, invasive cultural species.

Perhaps the ultimate torchbearers of Western civilization will not live in the geographic West. That’s alright.

No, that’s not alright; Europe is worth defending.

I’m taking the long view on this, I guess. The “Christian” civilization (I use those quotes because, really, how much did medieval society resemble Christ-like behavior) that defeated the Muslims at Poitiers would be unbearably barbaric to any sane 21st century Westerner. I suspect that societies 12 centuries hence will be equally unrecognizable to us. Cultures change, civilizations change. Maybe Europe will become more Muslim-like in that time. Maybe it will become something totally different. 12 centuries before Poitiers, that very spot was the abode of tribes the Romans considered savages, was it not?

If you really think the West is somehow losing influence in the world, you haven’t been to east Asia recently. For every British Muslim marrying his cousin, there are 100 Thai and Chinese and Korean kids scrabbling all over each other to emulate Western lifestyles. The axis of world civilizations is indeed tilting, but not only in the way Steyn thinks. Perhaps the ultimate torchbearers of Western civilization will not live in the geographic West. That’s alright. How many “Westerners” are there in the Bible? A few tyrants, as I recall.

Btw, this article is a far more laudatory take on Wilders, if you haven’t seen it.

This is in no way an unrealistic scenario. It is, in fact, happening before our eyes, and is the avowed purpose and ambition of Muslim ideologues in Europe — a purpose every bit as explicit, and every bit as dangerous, as the call for Lebensraum in Mein Kampf. Indeed, as Mark Steyn reminds us in his essay (I do hope you have read the linked document), the governing caucus of Brussels is already majority Muslim.

There are already lots of Muslim countries. Geert Wilders would like there to continue to be one small country in the world that is culturally Dutch; a Europe that remains culturally European. I think that in this he is a voice of reason in a continent that has gone suicidally mad.

What do you recommend?

First, the obvious problem with his European First Amendment plan: Wilders has called for banning the Koran entirely. How does he reconcile this position with his new party platform as free speech martyr?
“I’m the one who normally opposes the banning of books, this looks very contradictory,” Wilders acknowledged. However, he explained, “the left” and “liberals” applauded a ban on Mein Kampf and the Koran should fall under a similar category.

And:

“If (Muslims) commit a crime and commit it again they should be sent away, even if it means they should be denaturalized and stripped of Dutch citizenship,” Wilders said.

He speaks for himself, doesn’t he? You’re not going to keep the fundamentalist beast at bay by unleashing one of another stripe.

I reiterate that I think it was cowardice of the British to refuse to allow him entry, and I’m glad the USA has not done the same. But I think it is mistake to lionize this fellow. Personally I found his film to be unwatchable agitprop.

One of the prices of living in a free society is allowing zealots among you; including Wilders and Muslim fundamentalists. You are required to act against them only when they violate fundamental civil rights or collude / accomplish criminal acts. But then, I’m a First Amendment fundamentalist, myself. Sharia law or other forms of irrational medievalism have no place in that society, I should add.

Thanks for the links.