It’s about time—now, may the Take Back begin for the Dutch and may this be a harbinger for all of Europe and America.
This from frontpagemag.com.
On November 22, seventeen years after its founding by Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom (PVV) won a huge victory in the Dutch elections.
With 23% of the vote, the PVV went from 17 to 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives.
The conservative British commentator Paul Joseph Watson called it:
[T]he biggest political earthquake in Europe since Brexit.
The lefties who’d shown up to follow the returns at the headquarters of other parties exhibited the same shock and grief that we saw in the faces of Hillary Clinton and of her voters at the Javits Center on Election Night 2016.
Even as the final results were being tabulated, a group of “experts” on the Netherlands met at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Enterprise Institute for a 90-minute discussion of the exit polls. There were five people on stage, but very little range in views. All five were unsettled by Wilders’s success.
Erik Voeten, who teaches Geopolitics and Justice in World Affairs at Georgetown University, accused Wilders of “Islamophobia” and “xenophobia” and claimed that he “wants to do things that are contrary to current Dutch law, European law, and international law.”
Stan Veuger of AEI called the PVV “extremely radical.”
How radical? Wilders, charged Veuger:
[W]ants to ban the Koran, ban mosques, ban Islamic schools.
Echoing word-for-word Voeten’s observation that such moves would violate “Dutch law, European law, and international law,” Veuger pronounced that the very idea of Wilders as head of government was an “inconceivable option.” He even suggested that the “stringent security measures” that Wilders has to live with 24 hours a day might make it “difficult for him to function as prime minister.”
And why exactly does Wilders live with “stringent security measures”? Because moslems have repeatedly threatened him with assassination.
Veuger was far too discreet to mention that delicate detail.
Matthias Mattijs, a Belgian who teaches International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins, maintained that the likes of Wilders could not possibly become prime minister. And Arthur van Benthem, who teaches Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School, worried that the election results would stall important action on “climate change” and “energy transition.”
The Dutch government, you see, has set itself the goal of eliminating all non-electric cars by 2030 and of cutting ‘cattle farming in half’ to satisfy EU rules on nitrogen emissions. How, asked van Benthem, could the Netherlands attain these manifestly worthy objectives now that Wilders, that deplorable figure, has pulled such numbers?
Not until an hour and 26 minutes into the conversation did Brookings Institution fellow Constanze Stellenmüller, who is German, mention the recent events in the Holy Land—which of course explain why support for PVV leaped from 12% to 23% after October 7.
NOTE: No sensible Dutch voter could follow the news about the massacres in kibbutzim and at that desert dance party and not think about the angry young men in the moslem enclaves in their own cities?
As long ago as 2004, 68% of Dutch people ‘felt threatened by immigrant or [moslem] young people’ and 47% ‘feared that in due time they would have to live according to Islamic rules in the Netherlands.’
Since then, the moslem population of the Netherlands has skyrocketed—for fourteen years, the mayor of its second largest city, Rotterdam, has been a Moroccan named Ahmed Aboutaleb—and concerns about where all this is leading have only intensified.
Hamas’ assaults on Israel brought
Dutchmen’s worst imaginings to life.
Yet, here is how Stellenmüller framed it. She said:
The Dutch have the largest per capita Turkish minority in Europe, [plus] significant Arab minorities [and the Israel-Hamas war is consequently] translating into increasing tensions domestically.
This, she said, represents a challenge for Wilders:
[He] has the choice now of kicking this beehive or being a responsible politician.
May we please strive to understand the suicidal ignorance in Stellenmüller’s words:
If Wilders wants to be a ‘responsible politician,’ he’ll drastically tame his rhetoric about immigration and make nice with Muslims; if—assuming his victory translates into greater power—he keeps his promises by trying to rescue his country from Islamization, he’ll be ‘kicking a beehive.’
Clearly, all five—ignorant, unaware, head-in-the-sand—participants in this event were on the same page. For example:
– Wilders, as one of them put it, is ‘out of the mainstream.’ But who’s to define ‘the mainstream’—them or the voters? Wilders, pronounced Voeten, is ‘far out of line’ on immigration. Yes—far from the political establishment’s consensus.
– Mattijs recalled nostalgically the ‘brief moment in 2020’ when ‘cosmopolitan elites’ assumed that the challenge of the COVID pandemic would lead voters to ‘want serious people in government’ and would thus put an end to ‘populism.’ Of course, by ‘serious people,’ Mattijs meant people like himself and his fellow panelists; by ‘populism,’ he meant Wilders.
As the author described, the topic of a one-day conference in Washington, D.C., many years ago was the future of Europe. There were two or three dozen speakers—each of whom was more pompous and self-important than the previous—until the final speaker. With minimum exception, all attendees were diplomats or ex-diplomats. Most if not all saw Europe’s future as bright and sunny. After lunchtime, talk about the danger of mass moslem immigration was introduced by what became an unpopular speaker. Those gathered became unanimously filled with contempt and condescension.
Islam a danger to Europe?
What a gauche proposition!
Who let this lout in?
Soon after, the Netherlands was embroiled in an existential crisis. Twenty-one years ago, Pim Fortuyn—an eloquent sociologist turned politician whose number-one issue was the danger of mass moslem immigration—was nine days out from an election that was expected to propel him into the prime ministership when he was brutally assassinated.
On that day, the cause of preserving Dutch liberty in the face of Islamization took a disastrous hit. Years passed. Eventually Wilders founded the Party for Freedom, which over the years went up and down in the polls, coming tantalizingly close to power and then dropping away again, as the cause of saving the Netherlands from Islam competed in voters’ minds with other issues of the day.
But since then has come October 7. We may conclude from the election results that the news of Hamas’ chilling butchery caused more Dutchmen than ever before to recognize just how fragile their freedom and safety are and, in consequence, to reject the feckless establishment—as represented by those panelists at AEI—in favor of Wilders. And for good reason. The Dutch want their country to be saved.
Today:
If mosques are preaching violence, by all means close them down; if madrassas are teaching Jew-hatred, close them down; and if [moslem] immigrants have criminal records, send them home tout de suite.
Is any of this against Dutch law? If so, change the law. Is it against EU law? Then quit the EU, like the Brits did. Is it against international law? Then the hell with international law.
Geert Wilders has provided a plan to address this current existential threat, a plan with which the Dutch people can live and keep the culture they have developed.
God speed to Geert Wilders and to the Party for Freedom.
