Dutch researcher: Geert Wilders is right

I met Geert Wilders when he was in Denmark in 2014. He struck me as a humble, polite man with a big heart.

Translated by Thomas from NRC:

“Author: Dr. Peter van Ham, Senior Research Fellow at the Clingendael (Netherlands Institute of International Relations)

Subject: Progressive liberals are banning critical thinking about Islam, says Dr. Peter van Ham.

Dr. Peter van Ham is working as a Senior Research Fellow at Clingendael (Netherlands Institute of International Relations) in The Hague.

PVV (Freedom Party) leader Geert Wilders has warned for many years of the threat of Islamic terrorism. And while terrorists have murdered while holding the Quran in their hands, all progressive-liberal parties insist that none of this has anything to do with Islam. Not a single Dutch party-leader or opinion maker wants to admit that Wilders is right. There are five reasons for that.

From an ideological point of view, it makes sense that progressive-liberal parties choose to see the PVV as a bigger threat than radical Islam. PvdA (social democrats), D66 (social liberals) and SP (socialists) all believe in a succesful, multicultural society and find it hard to abandon this belief. Every ideology consists of a coherent set of ideas. Admitting that Wilders is right means admitting that Dutch society is less successful than they want to believe. Giving in to Wilders immediately begs the question: Why at all do we need such a large, meddlesome government that thinks it knows better than its own citizens in almost every matter? And why keep praising multiculturalism now that it has to face its limitations? It is much easier to deny and twist the facts, and to portray Wilders and his electorate as stupid and dangerous.

Moreover, there are many personal reputations at stake. Politicians and opinion makers almost never admit that they were wrong about something; that they have underestimated a threat; or overestimated their own abilities. For example, not a single politician has admitted that the introduction of the euro went wrong. In the same vein, we hear no mea culpa now that the threat from Islamic terrorism increases. Because whoever admits publicly to have made mistakes on such an important topic, undermines his own credibility. D66 leader Pechtold presents himself as a kind of “anti-Wilders”; whatever the PVV stands for, the D66 opposes. To admit now that Wilders is right, is therefore impossible for all progressive-liberal parties. The damage to their reputations would simply be too big.

Major interests and many jobs are at stake. It’s not so much about the politicians’ jobs, but about those people working in the immigration, integration, and asylum sector. The successful, multicultural society is allowed to cost a lot of money, and many are making a good living because of its existence. Admitting that Wilders is right not only means that Dutch immigration and asylum policy must be changed, but  also that other policy areas – such as development aid – should be revised.

Anybody working in these vulnerable sectors realizes that the PVV should not be put in the right, no matter what happens. They prefer to downplay the Paris attacks and the threat of Dutch jihadists, and are trying to solve these problems with more social projects for disadvantaged young people and districts.

Admitting Wilders is right also has far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Turkey and the Gulf States interfere explicitly with the fate of Muslims in Western Europe. Not too long ago, the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan compared the German anti-Islamization movement “Pegida” with the Islamic State. Netherlands prides itself on excellent international relations with almost all Muslim countries, from Turkey to Yemen and even Saudi Arabia. The economic consequences of admitting Wilders is right could be dire. This explains the position of the VVD (conservative liberals) on Islam and their insistence that Wilders is wrong.

Finally, the personal hatred towards Geert Wilders should not be underestimated. Progressive-liberal Netherlands prides itself on its own tolerance and broadmindedness, both of which end abruptly when it’s about Geert Wilders and the PVV. Now that the PVV seems to be proven right regarding the growing threat from Islamic terrorism, they attempt to marginalize and demonize Wilders even more. This strategy is also used to intimidate the PVV and its electorate.

Any pupil, student, teacher, or government official who dares to publicly support Wilders, can count on social sanctions. Hence the remarkable silence in the Netherlands, even though the PVV is the biggest party in the opinion polls at 27 seats and would become the largest party in parliament.

Ideology, personal interests and aversion ensure that Dutch politicians will continue to underestimate the threat from Islamic terrorism, or even deny it. We let progressive liberals ban critical thinking about Islam even though the Islamization of Western Europe is steadily and rapidly continuing.

Share this:


  1. “Progressive liberals ban critical thinking about the Islam”, is clearly the problem.

    The term “progressive liberals” is a nice way of saying “incompetent know it all busy bodies” who won’t let facts get in the way of their own political dogma.

      • I am a progressive liberal and I personally think that any Muslim that rapes or condones murder needs to be rounded up , their passports revoked and deported to their country of origin. And that might be their grandparents country of origin. Form a special court with judges’ identities
        protected . Get their sorry arses out. Destroying the culture. Or lock the nut jobs up.

      • Frankly generalization regarding left wing liberals is bullshit. We have tough views of how to handle Muslims. If you don’t have the guts to deport those who harm or threaten to harm others, round the rapists up and make it a death sentence. Can’t have these barbarians on the streets. The saving of Sweden and other cultures depend on it.

  2. Of course Geert Wilders is right!!! The left wing progressives/liberals in Europe and in the US behave like angry adolescents determined to prove themselves right and their parents wrong regardless of the facts on the ground or the consequences of their commitment to a flawed strategy. Theirs is the classic argument where emotions and vested interests deny reality and rationality. It is a foolish immature and culturally suicidal strategy. GROW UP! Sometimes your parents actually are right! Islam is an existential threat anywhere its numbers increase and tilt toward sharia law and away from secular law. There is no peaceful co-existence with Islam. Islam demands surrender. The progressives/liberals need to separate themselves from their anger and ideology and ask themselves if they prefer living under the tyranny of sharia law or the freedoms guaranteed by secular law.

  3. Hello there…….its me again………Don Laird….

    Just a question,

    For all those who post additional material yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    For all those who post pensive, mildly philosophical musing, by-products of trepidation and cowardice, yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    For all those who chaff and quiver at direct language in assessing the Muslim and what it needs to neutralize it yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    For all those ersatz academics who offer well thumbed tomes historical and cry See!! See!! See!! Its Happened before!!!…yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    For all those who chirp in on blog threads with hot winded condemnation of the Muslim and its stock in trade; mass-murder…..yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    To all of those who recoil in horror at the sight of blood yet watch everything around them slowly destroyed by the Muslim yet say nothing about the road that must be traveled to solve the Muslim problem.

    Let me ask you this……and I am talking to all of you who read this……

    Would John III Sobieski and his Polish Hussars have won the day if they were numbered by the gutless and cowardly?………by the faint of heart who are loathe to use the word “deportation” or “kill”

    Would the Crusaders have won the day if behind those red crosses were the yellow hearts that abound across Europe and North America today……..by the faint of heart who are loathe to use the word deportation or kill?

    Would Charles Martel won the day at Tours if he had armies of those men who were satisfied to live lives of quiet desperation and surrender to the mass murdering Muslim?

    This same question can be asked of all those who sit and quiver the moment someone points out the painfully obvious………that to rid ourselves of the Muslim problem, sleeves will have to be rolled up, blood will and must be shed, mosques deconstructed and the Muslim removed from our midst, in their entirety.

    There is a reason Enoch Powell turned his back on his people when they approached him just before his death to once again rise and lead them; he knew them for who they were, he knew them for who you are……..gutless, dithering cowards, wrapped in the robes of the ersatz academic pacifist, gutless dithering cowards……..each and every one…….Enoch Powell simply refused to be betrayed twice.

    In closing, to the readers…….get used to the sight of blood, lots of it……..it will be yours and that of those women and children you abandoned, your women and children…….spilled by those whose boots you lick, spilled by those from which you now beg for mercy……spilled by the Muslim.

    Perhaps you may find this provocative, perhaps you may be “offended” by the smite to your ego, perhaps it offends your delicate pacifist sensibilities…….perhaps, but in any case, in seeking your answer to what your future will be like living life under the boot-heel of the Muslim and who put his its filthy boot-heel on the neck of you and every one of your countrymen……..go look in the mirror.

    The Muslims’ thunderous knock, Islam’s thunderous knock at Western Civilizations door can be heard echoing around the world…………go to the door and open it……let it in…….let it roam your streets…..let it rape and butcher your wives and daughters………let it destroy everything your ancestors built.

    Food for thought, catalyst for action.

    Regards, Don Laird
    Dogtown Bastard
    Alberta, Canada

  4. Dear Mr. Don Laird.

    I’ve read your above post over and over and over. I can’t get enough of it. I’ve printed it out, it will be hanging on my wall.

    Your words are poetry on a sad theme!

  5. Don Laird, the time has come to leave nothing behind but orphans and widows. They must be exterminated, killed, NOT taken prisoner.

  6. Why don’t muslim asylum seekers go to Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates , Oman, Saudi Arabia or any of the other rich muslim countries? These are Islamic countries therefore more suitable for them.

    How has any European country benefited by opening it’s borders to non-Europeans? Do they make Europe a safer place to live? Have they made Europe great? Are they good for tourism? Do they bring anything positive to Europe? Do they respect the citizens of Europe and the customs? Do they support themselves without burdening the tax payers? Do they love Europe or what they can get from her?

    Do they victimize the European people in large proportions to their small numbers? Wouldn’t crimes against the European people foreshadow their true intentions? Do they trash up the areas they inhabit in Europe? If they victimize the host country’s people and trash up their land after they have been given a new start at life, wouldn’t that be like a direct “screw you”? Do they demand you to change your ways and customs so they can tolerate you? Do they respect the peoples government? Your family? Your people? Your culture?

    If they are guilty of three of these questions then It would be safe to say they should not be in Europe. There is more harm than good for Europe and her people.

    If a European country don’t let the hoards flood their land they are called “racist” and “Nazis” if they let them in, their country will be torn apart. Which one is easier to live with? Which one does the most damage? Which choice is beneficial to the European country and it’s people? Wake up before it’s too late.

    • Because it’s all about sticking two fingers up and proving their dominance(or trying to).If they moved to Saudi or any other islamic country there would be nothing to prove,it’s already islamic.The whole point is to move to a free country,gradually increase in numbers,either by immigration or breeding,and then start the demands,until their needs/customs/ trump the needs/customs of the host country.Multiculturalism and social cohesion are other ways of achieving this,and in a democracy the needs of the many trump the needs of the few,but under this system,the few take precedence over the majority.That is sufficient for the muslim until they can achieve the numbers,and by then it is far,far too late for that particular country.Islam is a danger to any country that is not islamic.Geert is right every single time,he speaks the truth,a lion of a man.

  7. As long as politicians refuse to face the problem of Islamization of Europe, people will gravitate to parties that call for expulsion and other forms of stopping the spread of the Islamic ideology. In other words, current political parties are paving the way for more extreme solutions to living with Muslims in Europe, making such (liberal) parties directly responsible for a resurgence of European fascism.
    Sticking our heads in the sand has never been a solution. Remember the Weimar Republic and smarten up folks. The masses aren’t totally stupid, although you have tried to blunt their brains enough. Do something about the problem before others do.

  8. To those who want to deport or kill the muslims — how can we do it within our laws? Realistically, how do we save our country? Do we suspend the Constitution and civil rights, as sometimes done in wartime, then put the military in charge of our country to round them up and boot them out, including women and children?. The same treatment for their non-muslim supporters/enablers, the Left and the well-intentioned Christians and Jews? Then, how easy will it be to get our Constitution and our republic back? The only other, very messy “solution” is civil war. I like that one much less than military dictatorship. The outcome is much less certain. Admitting millions of muslims to immigrate and live among us is the worst mistake our govt. ever made.

    • I don’t see why another islamic country(s)can’t take them…why not,they are their”brothers and sisters” aren’t they? If you were a vegetarian you wouldn’t wander into a butchers shop and start complaining because you saw a dead animal would you? What would you expect to see there? Somebody quite rightly would tell you to go out of the shop then,and go to one more suited to your choice(for want of a better phrase)and so it is with muslims.Why do they persist in going to countries that aren’t islamic?(See my answer to Angus,above).So…..muslims will not go willingly and wherever they set their foot is deemed islamic territory.I’m afraid it would have to be done forcibly,those willing to go peacefully be allowed to do so.Letting them live amongst us is signing our own and our children’s death warrant…and for what? Tell me what do they contribute to your society?

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Nederlandse onderzoeker: Geert Wilders heeft gelijk | 'Identitair Verzet Limburg' Limburgse Verzetsstrijders & Peter de Realist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.