The Wilders Momentum

Yesterday’s local elections in the Netherlands resulted in a victory for the Freedom Party (PVV) of opposition leader Geert Wilders. On June 9th the Dutch will again be called to the voting booths for the general elections. Yesterday’s outcome reinforces the PVV’s momentum, which may result in a political landslide next June with repercussions all over Europe.

In yesterday’s local elections – the first ever in which Wilders’ party, established as recently as 2007, participated – the PVV became the biggest party in Almere and the second party in The Hague, two of the country’s major cities. The PVV won 21.6% of the votes in Almere and 16.9% in The Hague. The parties of the left had mobilized Muslim immigrants to come out and vote against Wilders. Many of them did so.

The Hague and Almere were the only two municipalities where the PVV fielded candidates for yesterday’s local elections. The PVV would also have done well in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, but decided not to run there. Wilders is leading a young party which still lacks a solid local structure. Rather than concentrating on quantity and fielding candidates wherever he could, even if he was not sure about the candidates’ background and talents, Wilders concentrated on quality. He could not afford to take the risk that in the three months remaining until June 9th, local PVV newcomers might discredit the PVV’s good reputation.

Wilders is a shrewd but cautious political strategist. He has learned from the experience of the LPF, the party of the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. In many respects Fortuyn stood for the same ideas as Wilders. After Fortuyn’s assassination the LPF fell apart in quarrelling factions. In 2007 the party lost its 8 seats in Parliament, while the PVV gained 9 seats in the first parliamentary elections in which it participated.

A poll taken yesterday by Dutch state television NOS predicts that Wilders will gain 24 of the 150 parliamentary seats next June. This would make the PVV the third biggest party in the country, after the Christian-Democrats (CDA) of the current Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, and Labour. There are, however, other polls, such as the De Hond poll, which many consider to be the Netherlands’ most respected, which predicted yesterday that the PVV is to become the biggest party with 27 seats.

CDA currently has 41 seats; the NOS poll predicts that it will drop to a mere 29, De Hond predicts an even lower 26 seats. Labour currently has 33 seats and is predicted by NOS to drop to 27 and by De Hond to 24 seats. The center-right Liberal Party VVD is predicted in both polls to keep its current 21 seats. The Christian Union (CU) has seven seats in both polls, one more than the current six. Hence, both NOS and De Hond predict that the current center-left coalition of CDA, Labour and CU loses its parliamentary majority. A center-right coalition of CDA, Wilders’ PVV, VVD and CU would in both polls have a comfortable majority of 81 seats.

Geert Wilders is currently the most interesting political phenomenon in Europe. He is an anti-establishment politician who has a good chance of becoming a leading member of his country’s next government. Wilders defends Dutch national sovereignty and opposes the European Union’s centralizing policies. He also defends Dutch national identity and opposes the Islamization of the Netherlands. Wilders’ themes appeal to people in other European countries as well. They are equally concerned about the loss of national sovereignty and identity and feel that Europe’s traditional parties no longer speak for them.

From the center-right to the center-left Europe’s establishment parties share the consensus that Islamization and EU centralization are inevitable and must be facilitated if the parties want to survive and hold on to power. Wilders, however, is a politician who, in a Buckleyan tradition, “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

On international issues Wilders adopts positions which also go against those of Europe’s ruling political and intellectual establishment. He is an opponent of Turkey’s entry into the EU, an outspoken defender of Israel and an advocate of stronger American-European relations. This makes him unpopular with the media, but it has not harmed him with the electorate.

During the past three years, Wilders has been screening and training potential candidates for the parliamentary elections. To avoid attracting political opportunists and quarrelsome wranglers, he has been bringing potential candidates together in “class rooms” every Saturday. He has also had them coached by the party’s current parliamentarians. When the Dutch government fell two weeks ago, Wilders announced that he was ready for the elections and able to field a list of decent and capable candidates.

Wilders has carefully avoided international contacts with foreign anti-establishment and anti-immigrant parties who have been tarnished by anti-Semitic elements in the past. Wilders regards support for Israel as the litmus test to decide with whom he is willing to cooperate. His only official contacts so far have been with the Danish People’s Party (DF) and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The PVV leader has traveled to Denmark and Britain to speak at the invitation of the DF and UKIP. Last year, the British Labour government banned Wilders from entering Britain when he traveled there to speak in the House of Lords at the invitation of UKIP leader Lord Malcolm Pearson. The ban has meanwhile been overruled in court. As it happens, Wilders will be in London tomorrow, Friday, to hold the speech which he was prevented from holding in February 2009. On this occasion he will also show the short documentary Fitna which he made in 2008 to warn the world about Islam, which in his opinion is a dangerous ideology rather than a religion.

Wilders has succeeded in making Islamisation one of the major themes of the coming elections. Ironically, the Dutch authorities have helped him by taking him to court over Fitna. They have accused him of racism and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-Western ethnic minorities. Although Wilders is an elected member of Parliament, he could be taken to court because the Netherlands, unlike some of its neighboring countries, does not grant politicians immunity from prosecution.

The Public Prosecutor argues that by stating his opinions on Islam, Wilders has “insulted” Muslims. The politician, however, emphasizes that he has never said anything negative about Muslims; he has always carefully restricted his criticism to the ideology of Islam and has done nothing else but state what he honestly sees as the truth. Wilders asked the court for permission to summon 18 expert witnesses in his defense. These include academics, former Muslims, but also Islamist apologists of terrorism. In early February the court brushed aside the request, allowing Wilders to summon only two Dutch academics plus the Syrian born American author and former Muslim Wafa Sultan. Moreover, to prevent the trial from turning into a trial about the nature of Islam – with Islam in the dock rather than Wilders – the court ruled that the three experts will only be heard behind closed doors. Finally, the court decided to postpone the case for a few months.

If the case is reopened before June 9th, it will seriously hamper Wilders’ electoral campaign because he is obliged to attend the court’s sessions. On the other hand, it could gain him the sympathy of additional voters and bring his ideas even more into the foreground as the major theme of the elections.

If the PVV manages to become the largest party in the Netherlands, Dutch Queen Beatrix is expected to ask Wilders to try to form a coalition government, although the Queen is not legally obliged to do so. It is the tradition, however, that the leader of the largest party becomes the nation’s next Prime Minister.

In Almere last week, Wilders announced that one of the first things a PVV led coalition will do is introduce a ban on headscarves for civil servants and for all institutions, foundations or associations that receive municipal subsidies. He added: “For all clarity, this ban does not include crosses or yarmulkes, because those are symbols of religions that belong to our culture and are not – as is the case with headscarves – a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”

The American journalist Diana West, author of the book The Death of the Grown-Up, says that Wilders is “so important as a politician leading the reversal of the Islamization of the West” because of the clarity of the distinction which he makes between Islam and other religions. “He defies the multicultural lock on truth as he rejects the cultural relativist’s denial of identity.”

If Wilders becomes the next Dutch Prime Minister he will be able to influence decision making at the level of the European Union and become a major political figure on the international scene. Some observers expect that the mainstream Dutch center-right parties – the Christian-Democrats and the Liberals – will not be willing to form a coalition with him because they want to keep him away from the international political scene. If that is the case, however, the most likely outcome of the June elections will be a center-right minority government that depends on the support of the PVV. The Netherlands have no tradition of minority governments. Denmark, however, has. In Denmark, the center-right governs with the support of the Danish People’s Party. It is a formula which has allowed the DF to set the government’s agenda without being part of the government.

Wilders is familiar with the Danish model. In the past three years he has met the DF leadership in the Danish Parliament on two occasions. Not being a member of a government coalition, whilst still being able to set its agenda, might be an attractive alternative to the shrewd Dutch political tactician. It would also give him the opportunity to continue visiting Western countries, including America, to warn the West about the danger of Islam and to build an international political movement opposing multiculturalist relativism.


Rule of law # 8

@ truepeers

Thank you for very thoughtful comments and, yes...I read it through till the end.  I hope your optimism about Canada is justified, and I would take your current Prime Minister any time over the current US President.  However, remember that Harper heads a minority government, and thinking about his recent predecessors and current competitors in parliament...doubts re-emerge.

Our respective positions are clear enough.  In my view, the survival of freedom and democracy is ultimately a matter of culture, not of formal structures.  And the necessary central cultural value to that end is respect and defense of the freedom of speech, i.e. of opinion, of every citizen.

Rule of law 7


It is far from proven that the US will outlive Canada as a more or less free society. To my mind, what most distinguishes English Canadians from Americans is that we have a greater sense of loyalism to the state - we are first of all refugees from the first American civil war. Traditionally, this has not been a reason to doubt free speech - the loyal subject doesn't counsel or accept arbitrary measures (to paraphrase the motto of one of Canada's newspapers). Given our national origins, I think we are rather less inclined to conspiracy theories about powers intent on using the state to nefarious ends. This makes us perhaps less attentive to the need to watch the growth of government and perhaps more conformist or less imaginative in various ways, but we are no less sure that the state belongs to us and that it has to serve our national interests, as circumstances dictate.

As a Parliamentary democracy, we give more power to the chief executive officers, whereas in the US the Congress is more influential. Still, while we have debate back and forth among the various powers of the state, Parliament is ultimately supreme; it gets the last word on any fundamental question/decision, and not the courts or government ministers. The result of all this is that Canadians are better able to pinpoint responsibilty and insist on accountability (from their Ministers, via Parliament), while the US government can suffer from gridlock and obscure backroom deals that get added onto huge omnibus bills.

Pragmatically, elected politicians must be the responsible actors for fundamental decisions about when a society is and isn't threatened by an imported or domestic anti-constitutional threat. As long as Canada remains the kind of society it is, no law and no politician is permanent; and accountabililty for mistakes is readily identified.

To assume any country, even the freest, will never face the day when it will face existential threats from within or without is too optimistic. Human resentment is a universal and deluding/corrupting force, not least in free socities; in fact increasing freedom only increases the problem of resentment and this often leads to Utopian and violent political religions, for reasons we could go into.

Any intelligent child can immediately distinguish between words (speech) and deeds. If adults often cannot, it is because they do not want to make the distinction, i.e. because they are dishonest and adjust their 'position' on free speech in light of "circumstances", i.e. when it suits their sectarian interests.

-I am not being consciously dishonest. Every time I speak, it is also an action or intervention in time (my time and yours - are you still reading?). Every time I act before others, I communicate in signs, whether or not they are verbal. Of course we can make distinctions about different forms of signification, as any child can. And yes it often is useful to distinguish between deeds and words. But I don't think it is true that words and humanly-significant actions are things absolutely different; anthropologically, i believe they share a common origin.

Rule of law # 5

It is amazing how decronstructionism in academia (and thus later in the media and in many people's minds) has succeeded in making all language meaningless.  Apparently, anybody can interpret anything in any way he/she wants!

It is ridiculous to say that a piece of clothing is "speech".  A piece of clothing is a physical thing, and different people wearing a particular piece of clothing can have very different motivations for wearing it.  How could we live in a free democracy if we were to allow politicians or government to arbitrarily interpret people's possible motivations and criminalise the implied 'speech' or opinions expressed? That is totally arbitrary, an abuse of power. How ridiculous is it to ban a headscarf, while the street is full of Mao or Che shirts! How ridiculous is it to declare freedom of religion in a constitution and then punish people because their clothes MIGHT or could be interpreted as representing religious symbols!

I have no problem with banning pieces of clothing or setting clothing standards. Burkas should be banned on the street or in public places on safety grounds, not because of arbitrary interpretation of possible underlying motivations. Employers should be free to set clothing standards in their businesses, government should be free to regulate clothing of civil servants, policemen, army staff, etc...Because nobody MUST work for a particular business or for a particular government. But, I do oppose criminalising opinions or real 'speech'. If you allow the latter, you open the door to fossilised power and eventually to tyranny of a ruling orthodoxy.

Rule of law 6


There are many Canadians, including myself, who consider free speech a fundamental Canadian value deeply rooted in our constitutional history. The highest courts in the land have said exactly this, and shown some reluctance to override freedom of speech when interpreting that part of the 1982 Charter that allows laws that are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" to limit speech and other Charter rights. The courts' intepretations of what limits on free expression are acceptable in a free and democratic society have been narrow. This, however, has not stopped certain bureaucratic rogue elements in the "Human Rights" Commissions and their defenders in academe from eroding free speech rights (although they have been recently called on this and widely shamed when they went beyond targeting easy, socially and politically inconsequential scapegoats - so-called "basement nazis" - in procedures unknown to most, and let some Muslims initiate claims against two well-known public figures). I think we may be in the process of correcting this erosion, politically; and we are also seeing some recent court decisions that give us reason to think the judges are also concerned to buttress free speech.

Canadians fight a culture civil war just as Americans must today confront forces eroding free speech. I am not sure the two countries are greatly different in this respect. The move to allow Sharia courts in the mediation of family law was rejected in Ontario, after a fierce debate, though I would acknowledge there remains pressure to move in this direction from some Muslims. We have too many true believers, to be sure. But it is not difficult to find Canadians freely denouncing Sharia thinking. There has been some de facto recognition of Muslim polygamy by the welfare-providing authority in Ontario, even though polygamy remains, supposedly, illegal. Meanwhile the federal government is actively speaking up for Israel while defunding Islamist groups that have found a way to become clients of the bureaucracy.

Marc, despite your claim that you and I are fundamentally at odds, I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that a maximally free soceity is least likely to have to face down a totalitarian threat with bans, etc. and so maximizing freedom should be our policy. I have made this argument often. Having said that, I don't believe that any one key ever opens all doors. Corruption of the best is not a rare event but inevitable sooner or later. I doubt that the US will never again have to face the choice of banning certain kinds of seditious preaching, though there are of course many ways to do this - one does not need to take the route of absolute proscription - as was the case with Communist agitation. Communism was variously restricted in the US, even as it was a product of Western history and as such had to be worked through one way or another.

Today, the cultural-leftists who are undermining freedom in the West are using exactly the same fake argument that you use for justifying banning certain speech. They too, claim to be defending 'democracy', freedom, the Constitution, etc...

-that may be true if you greatly reduce our arguments to some purely formal similarity. But if we have become too stupid to distinguish between the two different uses of an argument, if we are not able to relate the argument to an understanding of what kind of society we are, what is going on today, and what truly threatens us; if no amount of free debate can distinguish "threats" to freedom, then we're already or forever lost to cultural relativism and this discussion is pointless.

But this is just why "circumstances" must be allowed to matter in debate. The attempt to discover some absolute and universal metaphysical principle to live by doesn't work because the fundamental constitution of the human is both paradoxical and pre-metaphysical. There is no virtue or principle that is sufficient unto itself or that can't be the source of its own undoing.

Rule of law # 4

@ truepeers

We fundamentally disagree.  I understand that for you, as a Canadian, the First Amendment (to the US Constitution) is not at the civic core of your Canadian identity, and I am convinced that that is one major reason why sharia is making headway in Ontario and elsewhere. If Canadian and European authorities did not 'control speech', as they do today, but were to allow total freedom of speech, including criticism of Islam, then Islam would face much harder obstacles in Canada and Europe today. It is precisely because freedom of speech is not respected, nor defended, that islamisation is proceeding rapidly. It is, in a sense, put 'above the law', unlike the rest of us, by pc-authorities and media. In a similar vein, it is precisely because freedom of speech was not an acquired cultural value in Germany, and not defended by the authorities, that the intimidation by the nazis in Germany in the early 1930's 'worked' and that society did not resist when the nazis started abolishing it. Today, the intimidation of islamic fundamentalism 'works' in a similar way.

Today, the cultural-leftists who are undermining freedom in the West are using exactly the same fake argument that you use for justifying banning certain speech. They too, claim to be defending 'democracy', freedom, the Constitution, etc... 'Speech', any speech, neeeds to be defended (by the authorities) and opposed with...better speech (by everybody). And if better speech cannot do the trick, you can forget about democracy. One can not maintain democracy with nondemocrats. Ultimately this is an internal cultural war, between those who respect freedom of speech and those who do not. If you want to protect society from "the islamist agenda", society must be able to know exactly what that agenda is, and that requires freedom of speech for the islamists as well for those who will criticise and 'expose' it. If people in general allow arbitrary consideration of "circumstances", in a manifestly NONWAR situation, to violate freedom of speech, your freedom cannot be assured. And today it isn't in Canada and Europe, precisely because speech is 'regulated' and controlled there.

With your reference to "refusal to specify nothing ever worth banning" you are setting up a strawman. I clearly stated that in a genuine democracy the legislature can ban all sorts of things, i.e. all sorts of ACTIONS or DEEDS, but it can not give speech rights to some citizens while not giving it to others. Political authorities should NEVER be allowed to judge the 'content' of speech if you want to prevent dictatorship and tyranny of any particular group. In a democray, power must alternate from time to time, and that requires genuine free elections, which in turn is inconceivable without freedom of speech.

Any intelligent child can immediately distinguish between words (speech) and deeds. If adults often cannot, it is because they do not want to make the distinction, i.e. because they are dishonest and adjust their 'position' on free speech in light of "circumstances", i.e. when it suits their sectarian interests.

Banning clothing, symbols, etc... has nothing to do with 'speech'. It has to do with actions or deeds.

Rule of law # 2

@ truepeers

The relevant important distinction is not between precision and vagueness, but between speech and deeds (or actions). 

In a 'free' country, i.e. a genuine democracy, speech (which reflects opinions) should be free, so that society through the political democratic process can adjust over time to problems and new circumstances.  Speech, or opinions, should never be criminalized.  Actions or deeds, of course should be subject to criminal law as established democratically in the legislature.

Precision, though generally important for good legislation, is not the crucial yardstick. It is quite conceivable that a legislative majority could impose a 'tyranny' through very PRECISE legislation that infringes on basic constitutional individual rights.

So, the real problem with "hate speech" laws is not that they are often vague or imprecise, but rather that they are banning speech or opinions. Speech, any kind of speech, is never a proper subject for criminal law. Of course, you are right by pointing to the danger of politicised judges arbitrarily ruling on so-called "hate speech". But, arbitrariness is always a danger in any case of jurisprudence, not only hate speech. The real problem with hate speech laws is that they attack 'speech', i.e they reflect the idea that it is acceptable to shut some people up, which amounts to banning certain opinions from the public sphere. Laws that criminilize speech and thus opinions (e.g. like negationism) are a precursor to loss of democracy and freedom and to the establishment of an intolerant orthodoxy or autocracy. By contrast, laws that concern clothing (like head scarves) deal with behavior or deeds, not speech. In this particular case they certainly reflect a general atmosphere of low tolerance in society (for obvious reasons).

Rule of law 3


I generally agree with you that any criminalization of speech puts us on a slippery slope to tyranny. But I cannot hold this to be an absolute truth in all circumstances. Sometimes closing certain doors is necessary to maximize freedom in a society. For example, could Germany after WWII have insured its freedom or, dare one value this, its stability, by not outlawing the Nazi party and related forms of representation? And it's not just a question of having to bow to external powers; let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that internal order were the only concern... But where one can make a reasonable case for banning Mein Kampf - Germany 1945 - it does not follow that it is reasonable to ban it in most places and times.

I think the lesson of Germany is that defenders of freedom should have violently opposed the Nazis in the 1930s, nothwithstanding the election results of 1933. When there is a power that clearly threatens the constitution, where that power proposes to change the constitutional order with no democratic recourse for changing it back again, then I think defenders of freedom have a duty to fight to close certain doors, and if they can do this when they still hold some power in society and yet the threat to take over is sufficiently strong and recognized as such by democratic actors, then isn't it better to act sooner than later? So, in discussions of the Islamist agenda in Europe, these are the kinds of questions I would bring to bear.

This kind of deference to circumstances and to the unique unfolding of events in a time and place is why I call for the utmost specificity in banning things and why I think this must always be done by responsible and accountable political actors and not judges interpreting generalized proscriptions. True, "precision" is itself no guarantee against tyranny but neither is a refusal to specify nothing ever worth banning.

As for your distinction of speech and deeds, I don't quite see how this can be maintained - just how is the wearing of a head scarf, in an environment where that is a politcized act, an act fundamentally different from a verbal championing of one's faith/politics? Are the esthetic performance, and the speech act, not just two aspects of signification, something that is always both action and representation?

I can appreciate the difference on some levels. For example, penalizing a driver for speeding may be just while banning his opinion as to the best speed limit is not - unless perhaps there is a political movement that proposes to overthrow the constitution and it talks of "speed limits" as a way of promoting violent hate for the slow.... Anyway, if the question is banning actions/representations that threaten the constitutional order, how would we distinguish preaching Jihad and Sharia from wearing the symbols of Islamist politics (not that a headscarf must be seen to be the latter)?

Crosses, yarmulkes, & headscarves ARE speech

"Banning clothing, symbols, etc... has nothing to do with 'speech'. It has to do with actions or deeds."

I must respectfully disagree with the view above. The wearing of crosses, yarmulkes, and headscarves -- just like national flags on one's lapel -- is a form of speech. It also happens to be a form of devotion. It merits a double protection under both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Turkey and France have bought themselves gratuitous society-wide politicization over the headscarf issue. There's no need for The Netherlands to do the same, especially after its rich historical experience of the 16th and 17th centuries and the loss of Flemish Catholic Belgium in the 19th.

Support from the left?

Mr. Belian,

Thank you for the article on a topic that, as debendevan notes, gets little coverage in the American mainstream media.  The polls are interesting in that they show the existing center-right party holding steady in its number of parliamentary seats and the new Freedom Party arising from nowhere to become perhaps the largest party in parliament.  Is it safe to say, then, that the Freedom Party's support comes mainly from voters on the left?  Or are these voters who have previously been sitting out the elections?

Excellent article on a very

Excellent article on a very promising political development in The Netherlands. The Libertarian Party in the U.S. -- which tolerates "9/11 Truthers" in its ranks -- could learn much from Wilders' attention to the recruitment of worthy candidates.

Wilders' proposed ban on headscarves -- while permitting crosses and yarmulkes -- strikes me as insulting and counterproductive. Rule of law implies equality under the law, not gratuitous discrimination. Headscarves are a non-issue in the U.S. If municipalities in The Netherlands can't countenance inoffensive expressions of adherence to a foreign faith, let the authorities be consistent and ban Islam and its practitioners altogether. Burqas are another matter altogether; they are as degrading to women as polygamy is.

Rule of law

"Rule of law implies equality under the law, not gratuitous discrimination."

-stated in the abstract, this sounds about right. But consider that as soon as you pass laws banning all of a kind, e.g. "hate speech" laws that attempt to ban all forms of "bad" "discrimination", you actually create a situation in which your judges become politicized and necessarily full of arbitrary dictates on what does or does not offend the ban. Is a Marx t-shirt a religious symbol? a hate symbol? Well, why not, you totalitarian-sympathizing judge!!??

So I think that in order to have a non-arbitrary rule of law, things that are to be banned must be named explicitly and carefully delineated by the legislature, that the legislators take full responsibility for the action, with their intent clear, so that they may be de-elected, or not, as the people see fit - and so courts making judgments as to the constitutionality of laws can judge clearly their intent. Likewise, if one proposes a discriminatory immigration policy, the intended discrimination should be cleary and frankly specified by the responsible political leaders.

I do not think that banning should ever be done lightly in a free society. In this case, I think that banning head scarves is wrong if society, in its considered wisdom, has not found reason to outlaw Islam explicitly (and what about Orthodox Jewish women or CHristian sisters who cover their heads? - does Wilders propose to specify only Islamic headscarves?). I would draw the line only at veiled faces because these are to me unquestionably supremacist symbols declaring one religion must supersede the established "religion" that insists on maximizing interpersonal, face-to-face, mutuality. Likewise, i would outlaw various kinds of specifiable hate preaching before I outlawed head scarves.

Ban Islam explicitly

It is a hostile foreign political movement with the express aim of destroying Western Christian civilization, and exterminating, enslaving, or converting (though the latter may be redundant) all Christians and Jews. It is crazy not to ban it in the West. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither is natural law. A "free society" has the natural right to defend itself from those who would destroy it.

Can the same things be said of liberals and leftists? Yes, but they are domestic enemies; a different set of considerations applies.

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are rules for the internal functioning of a political community so that the community can be governed as well as possible. They do not apply to those outside the political community, e.g., those who do not identify with it and do not seek to cooperate with its other members to realize its ends, and those seek to destroy it or enslave it. If we can't tell who those are, when they are telling us themselves every day, we are doomed.


There was a hilarious moment on Dutch/socialist television when a reporter asked a woman with a headscarve what she would do in case it was banned.
Answer: "I would ask my husband if that would be a good thing".
No further comment.

A clear lesson for Vlaams Belang

Great.  Let's hope Bruno will learn something from all this:

1. Focus on quality. Test, check and reject lowlife candidates, opportunists and hypocrites.  
2. The Saturday classes. Forge a real team, force them to temper their ego's.
3. A clear distinction between islam and the other religions; drop the idea of equal treatment of all religions.
4. Stop bashing "the foreigners". Focus on islam, demonise muslims.
5. Embrace immigrants and religions that bring economic and moral value to Flanders.
6. A clear and distinct support for Israel.


To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.

Stir as little as possible.

- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC

over reaction

Two cities voted GW in second rank, do not over react thinking that this is 'Holland'. I bet the result in the forthcoming general elections will be far under the desired 30% for the wild(ers) party. How to learn from this? Tempered egos, no equal treatment of religions, demonise muslims, support Israel, embrace economy and moral, and quote Lao-tsé? That's too weird!

Great News!


Thank you for this dead-on analysis and very timely report. It is an exciting development that the U.S. media either neglects or ignores.

Those of us in the rear echelon (so to speak) in this global war stand with you in the excitement that Wilders' rise must spark for you and others closer to the scene of action.

Best regards,

de bende van