Ayaan Hirshi Ali - Geert Wilders: Hope in The Netherlands - Main contents

Currently, the terrorist threat in the Netherlands is substantial. And, as I recently wrote, the threat is an overwhelmingly Islamist one, in spite of European governments’ rhetorical attempts to lump jihadists in with disaffected teenage boys who enjoy frog memes. At present, Dutch jihadists (an appalling phrase which probably seems unremarkable to the average jaded European) have been mobilized by the recent turmoil in Gaza.

In the small but densely populated Netherlands, where taboos against sensitive topics are difficult to maintain, Islamism is impossible to ignore. As it happens, the Netherlands is a perfect example of a country which was warned against excessive immigration by academics, journalists, and politicians who were predictably labelled “far right.” The Dutch centrists didn’t listen, and the Netherlands is now addled with the predictable ills of a nation burdened with millions of poorly integrated Muslim migrants.

But people are waking up. Geert Wilders, who won the Dutch elections six months ago and will establish a coalition government with right and centre-right parties like the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), was one of those early opponents. Wilders founded the Party for Freedom (PVV) in 2006 and proceeded to stir up international attention with his film Fitna (2008, meaning “division among people”). The film exposed what is already out in the open: The underpinnings of Islamic violence, misogyny, antisemitism, intolerance of apostates, etc.

Wilders drew attention to Quranic verses such as:

Q4:56-57

Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment.

…which speaks for itself. Very few European elites were prepared to listen, however: In the ensuing controversy, Wilders was banned from entering Australia and the UK, even after having been invited by a House of Lords peer, Lord Pearson.

Now, after years of institutional Salafist growth in the Netherlands and other destructive outcomes of Dutch pandering to the EU consensus on issues like climate change, Wilders can no longer feasibly be described as “divisive” or “extreme.” Democracy reveals where people are united as well as divided. At present, the Dutch are relatively united under their opposition to yet more immigration. According to a recent poll, the majority of Dutch voters, including those leaning Left, want to limit the number of asylum seekers.

The poll also shows that Dutch people strongly prefer importing migrants who come to work (“labor migrants”) from Europe rather than further afield. Wilders’ leading policy reflects the desires of the population, desires which respond to the predictable difficulties of integration. It also reminds us that the PVV, now almost 20 years old, was not “extreme” when it warned of the outcomes of rampant immigration, a warning which mainstream liberal media outlets like the NPO (the Dutch public broadcasting system) have long branded as paranoid fearmongering or outright hate.

The very same media outlets secretly love Geert Wilders (almost as much as SNL loved Trump while pretending to hate him). They love him because he gives them the opportunity to scold and demonize the Right: His politically unconventional, often crude manner of speaking offends liberal pieties and provides a reliable source of outrage. The NPO employed a similar tactic to that of America’s CNN when it claimed that Wilders “scores high on the untruthfulness scale” (whatever that is), claiming honesty (and, by extension, truth) is whatever toes their political line.

The NPO and other pillars of Western “consensus” media still insist on calling Wilders “far-right.” Take this recent example from Politico, whose sub-headline reads: “Far-right radical seen as last chance to avoid EU pollution rules.” What this article gets right is that Wilders is indeed “everything European centrists loathe:” Honest and angry about the gruesome reality of immigration into Europe; unpalatable to pearl-clutching diversitarians; unapologetic in representing primary industry workers who have been despised by EU bureaucrats for decades. As Ed West incisively discussed back in 2010, it is a dirty but prevalent media tactic to brand Wilders far right:

Wilders simply believes that becoming a minority in one’s major cities because everyone is too embarrassed to offend anyone by raising the issue is taking northern European shyness a bit far.

Fourteen years later, they’re still at it.

What Wilders’ electoral victory tells us is that his main enemies are not ordinary people, but the Blob: The Netherlands’ diversitarian and increasingly commercialized mainstream media. The media’s relationship with big corporations is important: As elsewhere in the West, a constant stream of migrants from the developing world guarantees cheap labor and quick fixes to labor shortages. When you next encounter the claim that Wilders is divisive, ask yourself what “divisive” is supposed to mean. Wilders reflects the Dutch majority view on immigration; his promise to establish four nuclear power plants answers the people’s cries for greater energy independence. When Wilders stood with the Dutch farmers during the 2022-23 protests that forced the nation to reconsider its highly punishing emission cuts, he was standing for the nation’s primary industrial backbone.

I will devote a separate piece to the mainstream media’s distorted representation of popular ideas as dangerous populist ideas. For now, I should acknowledge that many, including critics of Islam and immigration, find Wilders’ style a bit too much. Wilders certainly is more brusque than his polite precursor Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated by a lone wolf Leftist in 2002. But he exists because mainstream politicians have failed to do their jobs in representing the will of the people and defending them from harm. If you don’t like the Farages, Trumps, and Wilderses of the world, then demand that mainstream Consensus Men actually protect their own people. Strong political rhetoric and intolerance of the establishment are symptoms, not causes, of the real problem.

Read this article on the website of Restoration Bulletin.