Geert Wilders – Bigot, Closet Fascist or Wannabe Führer?

Many may never hear the name Geert Wilders unless they are Dutch, interested in European culture-clashes or have sympathies towards far-right movements.   If you do, there are frenzied discussions and political point scoring that appears each time his name is mentioned.  What is clear is that the truth receives the least of  considerations and most involved do not really know who really is Wilders and what motivates him.

Far-right blogs frequently show his photo on their side-bars with “I support Wilders” without the slightest knowledge of his history, motivation or manifesto and the usual lines that come from any comment and criticism is that “he risks his life every day standing for his principles” as if they know the context or why.

Wilders has chosen to target the entire faith of Islam and its followers and more recently eastern-Europeans by abusing context and current socio-economic crisis (real or media-inspired) in a vain atttempt to become somehow the “saviour” of The Netherlands.

Background and its impact:

Geert Wilders was born in Venlo of an ethnic white-Dutch father and a mother with mixed Dutch-Indonesian heritage.  In his first attempt at a biography he put great emphasis on his father’s origin and quietly avoided the background and heritage of his mother.  His early life seems mundane, he worked as an insurance salesman and as a noted anthropologist Dr van Leeuwen has identified, he most likely suffers from “post-colonial revanchism” which may explain his selective-intolerance of outsiders.   His mother, whom has had huge influence in his life (though he avoids ever mentioning her), may well have suffered serious displacedness (cultural confusion suffered by communities displaced), which many white or mixed white/Indonesian nationals born in the Dutch East Indies suffered because they neither fitted back in Holland completely but had no choice move there as they were expelled from Indonesia on Independence.   Also from his mother he more than likely has that strong artificial Dutch patriotism many these white or mixed-heritage origina nationals have.  This group more than often suffers additional revanchism which is a “political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses” that alos often manifests itself in ultra-strong nationalism and supremacist tendencies.

His political aspirations and defined radical views have been uniquely tampered from his stays in right-wing Israeli settlements (see paragraph below) that appear to contradict his nationalism and racial views.   What is clear is that his taste for politics cam from his becoming a speech writer for the liberal-right VVD party’s deputy leader.   Eventually he became an active member of that party including sitting in parliament but quickly left it because they supported the possibility of discussing Turkish membership of the European Union.  His limits from an installed revanchism quickly limiting his capacity to make-it in mainstream politics and thus forcing him to go the only direction possible – towards the one-way street of radicalism.

He had stated, but then carefully avoids repeating, that he learnt his politics from the extreme elements of the VVD and his regular “enjoyable times” in Israel.   He has publically stated that “but nowhere did I have the special feeling of brotherhood that I always get when I land on (sic) Ben Gurion International Airport“   His original stay in Israel mostly involved working within far-right moshavim or specially created and politically-motivated Zionist social working collectives.  When confronted by the contradictions of being strongly pro-Dutch to a nationalist level but with strong feelings towards a multicultural Israel that includes nationals from countries he often criticizes, he quickly defends that relationship by refering to the strong “Judo-Christian” bond that both nations share.  Wilders of course conveniently forgetting that he is a frequently quoted calling hismelf an aethiest.

On leaving the mainstream VVD, because of incapacity to discuss issues relating to links with Turkey, Wilders simply followed a predictably narcisist pattern and created his own political entity called the PVV (or Freedom Party).  The pace of his down-hill slide into the moral abyss increases from this point on.

The PVV is referred to as a political party, because of archaic Dutch laws that allow for almost no controls or standards on the make-up of a political party.  In simple terms the PVV would have been declared invalid or illegal almost anywhere else in the world including in most developing countries that Wilders has so much disdain for.  The PVV has no voting membership or democratic principles within it at all!  It is by any definition a total dictatorship run by the Party’s owner a Mr Geert Wilders.   He is able to choose who is and who is not a member, who sits in what position and who is a candidate for election or not.   There is no voting on policies or manifesto at all.  If you are a member of the PVV then simply put, you paid a fee to be part of his “club”.   Recently there has been a down-turn in long-term membership by the departure of frustrated original members whom assumed that candidates for future elections will come from the rank and file of the party.  No such luck.  Wilders chose to advertise for candidates in the Newspapers or seek them out.   One such ex-member stated that  “I joined to avoid Hamas or Hezbollah starting up in Holland and found that they had more democratic values than our own party”.    The irony is clear.   

Amongst those he chose in the current candidate list for the forthcoming national elections included Gid Markuszower the Dutch local representative of the far-right Israeli Likud Party – somone who was also in dispute with local authorities on a number of occasions for wearing a hand-gun in public.  He later resigned.   Another candidate that had to resign – well, she claimed health reasons, was someone who claimed fake academic qualifications.   In simply terms, Wilders is the Fuhrer of the PVV and it is “his” party, he does what he wants and he wants radical right-wingers that will suit his agenda.

The Manifesto of the Wilders Club or PVV is indicative of the radicalism of Wilders and yet only scratches the surface.   The following summary of main points was published by the PVV and this English translation is from DutchNews.NL with full acknowledgement and respect.

  • No more immigration from Islamic countries
  • Ethnic registration of everyone arrested
  • Deportation of foreigners who commit crimes and strip dual nationals of Dutch nationality
  • Closure of all Islamic schools, ban on new mosques
  • Ban on the Koran and burqa, introduction of a tax on headscarves
  • No more development aid, apart from in emergency situations
  • Limit on refugee numbers of 1,000
  • No more work permits for Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians
  • Fewer civil servants
  • No pension age increase
  • No change to mortgage tax relief
  • No cuts in unemployment benefit and student grants
  • No increase in healthcare own risk payment
  • 10,000 more police officers and 10,000 more nurses
  • Lower taxes

With only a quick glance, one can easily identify that the manifesto comes from a fringe radical group that has neither a real political platform nor seriously desires to have one.  To understand the psychology behind the modus operandi of Wilders we must look more closely at this bricolage he calls a manifesto.

  • Western Europe is the last region on the planet to make “ethnic registration” enter into politics.  The Nazi era has ensured that.  Time and time again, Wilders’ views turn back to race-based values that again confirms his revanchism issues. 
  • Though deportation of foreign criminals may be logical and supported by many, including myself, the subject of stopping dual-nationality is a serious constitutional subject that cannot simply be taken flippantly and without major consideration to internal laws and agreements with other countries.
  • Wilders’ bigoted targeting of anything Muslim is well-known and the only logic in closing Islamic schools is pure generalized social targeting which is illegal under Dutch descrimination legislation.  If he said all religious schools, that would be farer but also against the law.   Wilders often says he is not targeting or has no issue against Muslims but only the Koran, carefully avoiding crossing legal boundaries.  Doing so makes himself look foolish to anyone whith the slightest knowledge or is able to read, who knows that the Koran and Muslim are the same thing, one does not exist without the other.
  • The ban on the Koran is simple bigotry and a human-rights abuse, the ban on the Burqa is something esle that more and more people accept, including many Muslims themselves.  It is a cultural-tribal item that in fact has nothing to do with Islamic doctrine or the Koran.   Taxing of headscarves is not only impossible but again a human-rights violation and it is clearly a morality issue and such a ban will also affect pious Eastern Orthodox women who chose to do so as well.  W we can safely assume that Wilders did not care to think this through.
  • The Dutch people are historically amongst the most generous when it comes to giving development aid and it comes also as a bargaining chip in Dutch business interests and as a contribution of its international obligations.  The method used is giving lots of development aid and including troops such as in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the same time, declining other costly activities under the basis of “we have already done our bit”.   Wilders rhetoric is another example of the lack of political professionalism and seriousness by Wilders that simply would not work, and clearly, Wilders himself should know this as he was for eight years the speech writer for the VVD’s Foreign Affairs spokesman.  We can add that such a diatribe as this point obviously confirms that Wilders is targeting not the Dutch people at all but the already radical right-wing population.
  • Similarly, closing down the input of refugees to 1,000 (which basically is nothing) would impact on The Netherlands’ capacity to deal with the rest of the world.
  • Wilders again has mixed race and profiling with his concept of no working permits to Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians.   Forgetting that Poland is part of the European Union and banning them would be legally impossible under the Dutch signature to various European Charters.  It is not only impossible but a ludicrous idea that again confirms that this declaration was not for the entire population but only those that are already support him.   Selecting particular countries for not allowing work permits for the basic reason that “Wilders does not like them” would be diplomatically catastrophic with all countries condemning us for being – well being discriminating and bigoted.
  • Fewer civil servants may sound a plausible platform, I would argue that the civil service is a bit large but what is Wilders’ reason?   Saying it because it sounds good, has he a policy also in his manifesto to re-employ the newly unemployed and how are those jobs going to impact the country?   Actually continue further and you will find the opposite.
  • No pension age increase is probably because he thinks he is more popular with the elderly on the far-right or  with aged conservatives.  That it helps create jobs is negligible so that is not likely the reason.
  • No changes to mortgage relief is in fact costly, it was created to cover a particular period and thus is a negative drain on the economy to continue it.  If it is to be kept, money must be found to pay for it and he is already losing more money by keeping more elderly from the workforce and those newly unemployed ex-civil servants.
  • Similar to the aged, Wilders wishes to attract the unemployed and students on his side whom he thinks are upset at life – it can be the only answer, as no other party will blatantly mention either way about unemployment benefit simply because they know that it is amongst the most expensive government cost.
  • His comments on health care are surprising on all fronts.  Wilders has, in his short periods of actually sitting and debating in parliament (he actually avoids it) and it raises the question if he actually understood the issue.  He actually does because he was part of the health-insurance industry and thus he is simply vote-catching. 
  • The most fascinating part of his manifesto is in fact his demand to create 20,000 jobs specifically divided into two areas – policemen and nurses of 10,000 each.   The requirements to be a policeman are strict and to be a nurse requires study – thus it must require more schools.  Both require time, planning and costly effort.   He cannot just hand the unemployed civil servants nursing certificates and commission the rest as policemen.  The sources must come from graduates and leaving students, the unemployed or – he will love this – from inviting qualified immigrants.  The Netherlands has had a shortage of nurses and many positions were filled by foreigners, I am sure he did not include them. 
  • With this costly and socially unacceptable manifesto that would blow his budget he would logically be forced to find the money from the only other source, taxation but no – somehow Wilders would also lower taxes.

The manifesto is almost like a schoolboy dreaming that he was a grown-up and making believe what he thinks may be right or what would sound good to his schoolyard buddies.

What is clear is that he is not serious in his actual politics and that can be shown from other very interesting points about the man and how he behaves.  Wilders, holding such unacceptable bigoted and distasteful values and saying it  certainly can be dangerous, not just to pushing his bigoted lines in front of known radical groups that would kill him, but to the nation as a whole – and he knows it.   The damage it causes by polarizing the community and provoking unwarrented behavoir on all sides is well documented.  So why is he not “eaten alive” in parliament?  The Tweede Kamer or Second Chamber that he sits in does not have the same rules like the Parliament in Britain or the House of Representatives in the United States  into the requirements to actually do something.  Wilders is granted the right to speak twice a week, once as an MP and once as a party leader.  He is also allowed to ask questions on each “subject” as a party leader.   What Wilders actually does is make his two speeches, almost always incendiary and ensuring it sound shocking which we assume is for the Press and the far-right to run stories.  After that question he does not sit down to debate and receive responses but simply gives his excuses to the Chair and leaves!  He gives his “deputy” the task of asking at question time but with no instructions to answer anything.  The Dutch Parliament statistics tells us that Wilders has the shortest ever actually presence in parliament than any other MP in history.   He does so for one reason only, to avoid debate. He avoids debate in all spheres, both at work as explained above, but also in public.   His argument there is security, so we must ask why he runs away from debate in parliament?

The security excuse does not work as well with the public sphere, as he has been offered frequently live-feed debates and he has refused all of them except on two occasions and then he attempted to push the subject agenda and simply did not answer some questions.   Those two were not even debates, they were question and answer sessions but of course Wilders’ followers have claimed them as clear evidence of serious debating and somehow even saying he won them.

As I have explained in another article, radicals from all sides are ultimately forced to lie to follow that unacceptable and unjust stance they push.  The natural force of public interests simply will force it.   They do so mostly through the simple tool of avoiding full-context at all costs.   Wilders has done so on many occassions and the clearest example of this is the production of his show-piece, the film Fitna.   For those that have seen or read the transcript of Fitna, it is a hodgepodge of selectively chosen quotes from the Koran whilst simultaneously showing other carefuly chosen images of specific radical events and using it as a base to declare that the Koran is evil (and by implication, Islam and all Muslims).   The 7th century Muslim holy book is declared similar to none-other than the 19th century manifesto of Adolf Hitler that is banned in The Netherlands.  Similarly, like other agenda-based context abusers, he will use the excuse that everything he has quoted was an authentic verbatim quote and the images were from real events.  That they are cut & paste and carefully melded together by Wilders for his agenda is of course never mentioned.

Fitna is clearly a hate-creating propaganda exercise that does not hold any weight except to incite hatred against a particular segment of the Dutch community that also happens to follow the faith of a quarter of humanity.  Wilders has been charged with two counts of “incitement to hatred through collective means against the Muslim of The Netherlands and in particular the Dutch-Moroccan community” – the second charge in regards to Dutch-Moroccans is not based on the Fitna film but from other particularly defamatory statements and articles.

The court case has been, according to Wilders and his apologists, a political case and that he has only been exercising his freedom of speech.   Both claims of political influence and freedom of speech are obviously false and clearly have nothing to do with the case at all and instead it can be argued easily that the only politicising of the case has been done by him and his followers.

The Dutch Judicial System has a global reputation of being not only fiercely independent but has a history of it being willing to crash governments and even sanction the Royal Family if necessary.   Dutch tribunals will look at the Wilders’ Case based only on the existing laws and nothing else.   The only flexibility that the Judiciary has is that if they consider a law to be inadequate in comparison to other existing laws is able to force the Attorney-General to raise the matter to the Dutch Senate or the Second Chamber.  If the Attorney-General refuses, they can force the President of the Senate to raise it there independently.

If Wilders continues to politicize and accuse that the Judiciary are politically motivated, as it was the Judiciary via the Crown Prosecutor’s Office that charged him, he could find that he is further charged with attempted interference in the legal processes.   The punishment for that is that any sentence given he is automatically given the maximum term and that means for him a prison term.

Bigot, Closet Fascist or Wannabe Führer?

I called this article “Bigot, Closet Fascist or Wannabe Führer?”   I did so for a particular reason.  How can we categorize Wilders?    He is a bigot, that is text-book-clear an there is a probably family-cultural and psychological cause that may explain his politics and bigotry.   That obvious bigotry dominates his political agenda throughout and its constant links to race and racial profiling confirms that a severe case of revanchism in his personality also exists.

That warped value level and his willingness to go to extremes implies that he has also crossed over the limits of the political spectrum further to the right than ever.  To go to the extreme of the far-right by definition is textbook fascism and there are elements of Wilders shown in his manifesto that are certainly fascist values.   Fascism dictates the need for profiling and discriminating to assure a selective result demanded.  Wilders constantly demands radical profiling and selective refusal of work permits to certain groups, including those from within the European Union.   He was willing to leave mainstream conservative system and experienced political party that has held power, the liberal-conservative VVD,  because they were willing to simply “consider discussing the possibility of debating” the Turkish membership application of the EU.  The only other groups within the EU to disassociate even the concept of starting such a debate has been fascist groups in Greece, Italy and in Spain.

There is a spectre of authoritarian and totalitarian leadership style also from Wilders, remembering that his own party the PVV is in fact only a membership club with absolutely no democratic elements within it at all and he has total dictatorship of that party which is if we were speaking in the German language would make him the Führer.  Why would he demand less from the Dutch people?   He certainly, as do all radicals by their very nature, assume that the people are in general stupid and require to be told what to think – be it real, a lie or a cleverly worded but totally out of context story.

Fortunately the Dutch people are not stupid and they have constantly voted mainstream in national politics.  Just as predictably, they are prone to protest voting in local or even in regional polls.

The far-right whom has embraced Wilders as some form of champion has also fallen for his own propaganda hook, line and sinker.   The recent claims that the polls and increases in votes for Wilders made him not only the most popular politician in The Netherlands but also that his party will win the majority and he will become Prime Minister.   All the far-right websites and blogs jumped to print such articles and non have showed how impossible that is nor that it is not based on facts.   They all quietly said nothing when the reality sank in after the claimed “success” of the PVV in recent local elections.

The PVV actually only sat for three elections of which they chose because of the likeliness of winning them.  They won the largest number of local seats in two of the cities that they contested.  All the statistics of percentage growth was – as usual – out of context.  How anyone can consider that at a national level when they sat for only two cities is beyond belief, but obviously not to a radical with an agenda.   That was the only positive side for the PVV, the problems for them had only begun.  In those two locations with the largest number of seats – not a majority in any sense – they had the right to seek coalition partners to control those city councils.   They could not.   In both cities they failed and thus under the law, the next largest was given a shot and both chose to create coalitions that normally would never happen – the strongly conservative liberal VVD and the Labour whom normally are the ones to fight each other for rule and opposition chose to work together rather than be seen as even considering dealing with Wilders and his PVV.

The PVV will win seats in the national election, as there are strong social and economic problems as well as the real and existing problem with immigrant groups that are radical, dangerous and anti-integration will ensure a radical response by some.   That the bulk of the population will fall for that unacceptable is doubtful and the usual pattern of the Dutch people choosing from the mainstream four parties will continue. 

The other side is that if circumstances somehow and shockingly chose a parliamentary majority for Wilders, he still will not become Prime Minister.  That is because under the Constitution, the Dutch Monarch must “invite” a political leader to form a government.  She (Queen Beatrix) does not have to ask the largest party and she has made it clear that she will have nothing to do with a party that deals in bigotry and exclusion of any member of Dutch society.  Crown Prince Willem-Alexander has backed-up his mother and will also do the same should he during become King.   No PM Wilders, period.

If the laws are sufficient and not ambiguous, Wilders will be found guilty and either fined or given a prison sentence and fine.   In either case, he will be banned from Dutch and European parliament and his party will disappear in its present form.   Wilders will not disappear from public life though as he has crossed the line of no-return.  That he may be killed if the militants get the opportunity is possible but presuming that he is not, he will simply follow the right-wing circuit here in Europe and over in the United States making turning the “fabulous five” of Spencer, Fitzgerald, Gellar, Schlussel and Hirst-Ali, into the “sensational six”.

About donny2811
Trots Nederlands, goed gereist en een begerige politieke centrist met een speciale afkeer voor basissen.

5 Responses to Geert Wilders – Bigot, Closet Fascist or Wannabe Führer?

  1. eslaporte says:

    And smoking is healthier than fascism!

    Islamification of the Netherlands and Europe is a myth! This myth must be exposed…and when it is…Wilders goes back into obscurity – or perhaps to a mental hospital?

    Nice blog! If you have not heard of http;//
    Have you seen
    Looks like you have…


  2. donny2811 says:

    Thanks for the comment eslaporte. I have seen loon-watch, it raises many questions and shows holes in many radicals which is interesting.

    I do, however, find that loonwatch itself falls a little radical in its endevours and tows the smackdown mentality on its targets which is really a certain group alone. I do agree that these people need to be shown for the ugliness that they are but I am trying to direct my own blog and comments towards a generalized issue about how radicals go about their efforts and how context is lost.

    Krapuul is very good, I rather like it. I will try and not copy something that is already good and well established but I might be linking them.

    As for this topic, Wilders and in general, where there is smoke there is always is or was fire and radicals like to exegarate it, fan it and even some will go as far as to throw oil on it for their own agenda or in the case of Wilders to be seen as someone important.

    Islamization of Europe certainly does not exist, there are small groups that would like it, there is a real and dangerous problem with radicals and those that have links to terrorism and I am personally very angry and upset with the fact that many Muslim organisations do nothing overtly and publically about it and worse many support anti-integrationism which I am apposed to.

    Certainly many Muslims and muslim groups are trying hard to create the right atmosphere, support integration etc, but by far most do not and if we cannot see it in the public-sphere, then it is as good as not at all. They do give ammunition to the Wilders’ of this world as much as he does back to those radicals. I will certainly talk more about that later in items.



    • donny2811 says:

      I am trying to improve my English as well with this blog – as a secondary task.

      To clarify as I am not even sure that I said it correctly above:

      I have a dislike for anti-integrationists no matter what their background and faith. I have grown up with Muslims most of my life and I think for a white-Euorpean I have a fair understanding of them. I see no reason why Muslims cannot integrate fully into Dutch society – in fact they done so over the last 60 years very well. So for me, Muslims who “want to come” to my country are welcome but they should be obliged to support and follow the morals and standards of my country and not to some other place. I would expect that same rule to apply to anyone chosing to go to another country and I would do so if I moved abroud, including to the Muslim world.

      My work takes me regularly to three cities/countries – Rabat in Morocco, Tunis in Tunisia and Istanbul in Turkey. I love all three countries and though I do not stay and live there, I respect and to a degree am well integrated into their societies which in turn gives me even more understanding and respect for those places I “want to” go to.

  3. Personally,I am tired of the sophistry and different guises that are used in the name of liberalism,tolerance and governmental apathy.I have been musing about the controversy that is immigration for some time now and it appears that Governments,not the indigenous voting public,decide arbitrarily on what sort of immigration is to be encouraged and welcomed.My solution is democratic and practical and I suggest that the voting public in Australia,New Zealand,the United States,Canada,and every jurisdiction in Western and Northern Europe have the opportunity,through a referendum,to decide as to whether or not they wish to have any further black or brown migration, from Africa and Asia, allowed into their respective countries.Lets put this controversial issue to the test and let the people decide.My personal views tend to support the thinking of Herr Wilders because he has the “stones” to take a stand,unlike the gutless leftist pandering guttersnipe who are prepared to sell out their own people in the name of political correctness and multiculturism.Europe is Ggradually waking up to the fact that yes…the infidel Moslem is a threat that needs to be stopped dead in it`s tracks.The indigenous WHITE Dutch people must be masters of their own house and this rule applys as well to the U.K.,France,Germany and every other European country that is under siege from the pernicious evil which is Islam.If the Muslim rabble is not happy with this situation then they have the option of humping their respective butts back to Iran,Iraq,Pakistan,Somalia or where ever the hell they came from.Believe me,they won`t be missed!This insidious encroachment,of uncontrolled immigration and refugee admittance, is a TROJAN HORSE of herculean proportions and it needs to be crushed and annihilated NOW!So my challenge to all you little liberals with blinders on…lets have the people decide,NOT GOVERNMENT,and let us decide with the ballot and see what the verdict is.Encouraging signs point to the integrity and honest conviction of the Dansk Folk Partiet in Danmark,the unheralded success of the Swedish Democratic Party with their outstanding leader Jim Akesson back on September 19 and the tenacious honourable conduct of Geert Wilders who is a true Dutch patriot.Even Sarkozy in France is confronting the insanity of Islam and insisting that these creatures abide by a Westernized dress code.Great trees from little acorns grow and I have every confidence that Europeans will fight and prevail and keep their countries European in culture,thought and ethnicity.The Moslems have been brutally crushed before by Charles Martel in 732 at Tours in France and by a combined force of Germans,Austrians and Poles at Vienna in 1683.They have been humiliated and crushed before and with,God`s grace,it could happen again!

    • donny2811 says:

      I also support more stict controls and guarentees of integration (even to forceable contracts) and have great concerns about radical Islamists.

      Mind you, I haven ot seen for such a long time basic classic suppremisist bigotry and hatred as what you have just put let alone the complete garbage about what you obviously “wish” Islam is and Muslims are.

      It was a trade-off to allow your bigoted post but in the end I approved it to 1) show that opinions are allowed and 2) allow you to shoot yourself in the foot.

      Oh, just so your contextless history can be improved a bit, Martel won in Tours in 732 not because of brilliance nor was it “brutal it was a toss-up” but because a large portions of the Berbers returned home due to succession issues after the death of their leader.

      Ah well, reality often is the first thing thrown out the door.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: