Munich and Geert Wilders

Since Her Majesty's Government took the remarkably ill-advised action of barring Geert Wilders from entering their "sceptered isle," there has been a rush to compare this effort of placating the Muslims of the UK with the actions of Chamberlain at Munich. This comparison is unfair.

Unfair to Chamberlain.

The oft-maligned "appeasement" policy of the British Prime Minister at the Munich Conference with Adolph Hitler was the consequence of a cold-eyed realism on the Englishman's part. Neither the UK nor its ally France possessed either the military means or the political will to offer firm resistance to the German dictator's demands. Put bluntly, the people of both the UK and France were not willing to contemplate war only a generation after the hectatombs of the Great War.

The recent barring of Wilders was not necessary. The UK has sufficient police capability and the majority of the British public (if not the New Labor elite) has the political will to maintain order in the streets. There was no need to cower before the threat of Islamist leaning "leaders" including one member of the House of Lords when they muttered dire threats against the public order should the infamous Wilders be allowed to step on British soil.

What Chamberlain did was behave realistically in full awareness of the balance of strengths and weaknesses existing in England, France and Germany. His actions gained great support at the time. Only later events made obvious that appeasement of Hitler was akin to throwing raw beef to a wolf in the hopes of inducing vegetarianism in the critter.

Only later did the word "appeasement" come to have the bad odor it has today.

The multi-culti elite of the UK has been bending over and spreading its collective cheeks to humor Muslims for months and months now. The epitomization of this hyper-accommodationist approach is seen in the video footage of London police backing up for blocks as a crowd of hate speech spewing, object-hurling Muslims jeered and chased.

The elite of New Labor has denatured the English language, perverted English cultural traditions, twisted public education, enforced unwilling compliance with Muslim snortings and generally acted in a snivelling, cringing fashion which would cause Churchill, or Gladstone or Pitt to twist in their graves at a high rate of knots.

Is it fair to ask just what HMG, New Labor and the multi-culti oh-so-sensitive elite crowd generally have gained for themselves or their nation by all these acts of submission? Has the internal security of the UK improved? Have Islamic governments or Islamist leaning groups shown an increased willingness to agreement through negotiated compromise? Have Muslims within the UK grown more tolerant? Accommodating? Generally amiable?

Anyone well oriented as to time and place (which requirement excludes multi-culti elitists) knows the answer to those all too well.

It is easy to dismiss the justifications offered by the British Foreign Minister who showed himself by his characterization of Fitna to be either a liar or a fool. The "threat to public order" emanated not from Wilders but from those who made the threats--Muslims, the lot of them.

What is less easy to dismiss is the reality underlying both the cause and the consequences of HMG's action. What is far less easy to dismiss is an alarming fact made self-evident by the Brown Ministry's interdict on Wilders.

Here it is, boys and girls. Best get a firm grip on it.

HMG, New Labor, the British multi-culti elite do not understand the nature and character of the war which has been declared upon them and the rest of the West by the apostles of Islamism. Brown, Miliband and Company do not get it.

The war which has been declared by Islamists and their ilk is not simply one of bombs, suicide vests, or aircraft flown into the sides of buildings all to the accompaniment of Allahu Akbar. The war is one of values and worldview, of the dignity and importance of the individual against the collective demands of ideology, of standing erect, free and proud versus kneeling, head pressed to the ground in submission to the dictates of dogma.

That is the war. It is a war which has been fought before. Fought against the Nazis, fought against the Commissars of the Kremlin, fought against the Bushido driven imperialists of Tokyo. Fought before. Won before.

Through its denial of Wilders' admission to the once proud bastion of free expression, England, Brown, Miliband and the rest of the cringing elitist crew have handed a defeat to the West which so far surpasses the temporary effects of Munich as to beggar the imagination. Simultaneously, it will have served to emboldened the followers of Islam to make more demands, utter more threats, become more expansive in their goals.

Not just in England. No.

The True Believers of the True Faith throughout Europe and within the US will all be encouraged by the Wilders Interdict to ramp up their (specious) claims for special treatment and consideration. They will be emboldened in their threats both veiled and not-so-veiled.

And, throughout Europe as well as within the US there are ever-so-sensitive, oh-so-multi-culturally aware members of the elite who will rush to emulate Miliband and his perversion of the cry-fire-in-a-crowded-theater dictum once offered by an American jurist. These High Minded, Lofty Thinking monuments to acceptance and embracement will comfort themselves with anodynes about socio-economic or political marginalisation of Muslims, bromides about the Muslim sense of being a "persecuted" minority, a mis-understood religion.

These well-intentioned but clueless folks are all members of The Society of the Perpetually Indignant and Concerned. They will pat each other on the back, assure one another, "We are not prejudiced. We are not fearful of those different from ourselves."

The High Minded and Lofty Thinking folks will nod gravely as they tell one another, "Not all speech should be protected. Certainly not speech that someone might find offensive."

Like the British man and woman in the street (as well as those who occupied mansions and the halls of power) who cheered Chamberlain as he waved his slip of paper and promise, "Peace in our time," those who approve of the Wilders Exclusion are wrong. Desperately wrong.

Of such seemingly small steps as the Wilders Affair are catastrophes constructed. Every small step on a very steep and extremely slippery slope carries with it the very real potential of disaster. Each tiny step seems so inconsequential, so utterly insignificant. Each appears quite safe and justifiable. Until a step too many is taken.

Then, as the glacier wall whips past, as the wind screams in the ear, as the canyon floor explodes into view. Well, by then it is just too damn late.