Dutch Labour Party Chairman: “Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Blond?”

This isn’t the first time that one of Geert Wilders’ political opponents has indicated that it would be a good idea for someone, somewhere to rid the world of the PVV leader. This time, however, it’s the chairman of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, who has called Mr. Wilders a “danger to democracy”.

Below is a statement sent out by the PVV about the veiled threat against the party leader:

Wilders: Labour has blood on their hands if someone shoots me

If someone assassinates Geert Wilders, all of the Netherlands will know that the blood is on the PvdA’s hands, the furious PVV leader said in response to PvdA chair Hans Spekman calling him a danger to democracy and society.

Wilders told BNR that the PvdA is trying to demonize him, like they did with Pim Fortuyn, who was killed in 2002. “The suggestion that I am a threat to democracy is not only very inaccurate, it also shows that the PvdA learnt nothing from history. We saw with Melkert and Pim Fortuyn where demonizing leads”, Wilders said to the broadcaster.

“What do you do with someone who is a danger to democracy? We saw what Volkert van der G. [the animal rights activist convicted of assassinating Fortuyn] thought should be done with Pim Fortuyn. Again, I hope that the bullet does not come, but if that bullet comes from the left, then the Netherlands will know that the PvdA letters are written on its side.”

Below are excerpts from an interview with Geert Wilders about Hans Spekman’s statement:

But the PvdA chairman stood by his remarks:

Many thanks to H. Numan for translating both videos, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling.

The following report by H. Numan provides additional context and analysis of this latest invitation for some unhinged “activist” to rid the Netherlands of Geert Wilders.

Who’s a danger to democracy?
by H. Numan

A few days ago I reported a story about a peaceful demonstration intentionally and willfully demolished by the mayor of Amsterdam. Yes, you read that correct. It wasn’t by accident, it was deliberate. In a nutshell: Pegida asked for and got permission to demonstrate in front of the town hall of Amsterdam. AntiFa immediately applied for a counter demonstration, and got permission to demonstrate 50 meters down the road. AntiFa is well known for its violence. It wasn’t their first demonstration that turned violent, and it certainly won’t be their last.

Of course things got out of hand right from the start. In the end the police had to evacuate Pegida members to safety. Their demonstration never took place. The mayor send a message: my city is a red city. It has been a red bastion for a century, and I’m going to keep it that way!

The story continues. On Monday the chairman of the Labour party, Mr. Hans Spekman said in public he considered Geert Wilders a real danger for democracy. His arguments were matching his ‘fashion style’, or rather the lack of it. He considered Wilders to be dangerous, as he had called for a revolt. Revolting is obviously trademarked. One can only revolt® when it’s approved by the Labour Party©. Talk about ‘out of context’… Something all politicians are keen to claim, especially our Labour party. Of course this was a open door for Wilders, who was more than happy to kick it in. For non-Dutch readers: Wilders and the PVV party have never called for violence, nor for an armed revolution. Very much unlike the Labour party, I might add.

If you look at Mr. Spekman you think you see a hobo. That’s an act. Mr. Spekman actually attended university, but flunked. He is the leader of the Labour party and as such a very well-paid politician with a lot of power. His net income (after tax!) is €4800 monthly. You would think he lives on the dole, sleeps under a bridge and is allergic to soap and razorblades. And you’d probably be inclined to give him a fiver for a bowl of hot soup. However, it’s an act. He is simply performing. His act is to pretend to be a poor working man. As his party is pretending to represent poor lower-class Dutch workmen. As an actor, he’s good. As a politician, much less so.

Of course Mr. Spekman has no problems with dangers to democracy. As long as his party is the danger. He doesn’t even want a democracy. He much prefers a people’s democracy. If Spekman were sincere, he would have asked the mayor of Amsterdam to resign forthwith for endangering democracy or sheer stupidity — in the off-chance it was an honest mistake. Not one word about van der Laan, but plenty about Wilders.

Now, do understand the problem Spekman is facing: his party is consistently polling below ten seats in parliament. On a good day the poll, maybe eleven… which hasn’t happened for a while. At the same time the PVV is polling over forty seats, and that number is going up. They go just as consistently up as the Labour party goes down. That really hurts.

Who is dangerous for democracy? Would that perhaps be the mayor of Amsterdam, who deliberately allowed a notorious extreme left wing group to counter demonstrate against Pegida, in order to bully them (and the PVV) into silence?

Would that be Aleid Wolfsen (in Dutch only) who blundered where he would, and bullied a newspaper into withdrawing an entire edition because he didn’t like an article about himself?

Could it possibly be Wim Cornelis, who as mayor of Gouda completely failed to provide law and order? He let Moroccan youths literally run wild. So much so that there was even talk of sending in the army to restore law and order. All while going on luxurious fact-finding trips to Ghana where he built a mansion for after his retirement (Dutch only) at the taxpayers’ expense?

Or is democracy damaged by Bert van der Roest, the alderman of Utrecht (Dutch only), who embezzled €70.000 and was lightly slapped on the wrist for it?

All these representatives of the people are PvdA members, and their chairman Hans Spekman defended each and every one of them (until this very day!) up to the hilt.

— H. Numan

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Transcript Video 1:

00:00   Do you have any idea why he said that?
00:03   It looks a bit like Ad Melkert Who in the past railed against Pim Fortuyn.
00:07   Yes, regrettably that comes to mind.
00:10   It’s a matter of cheap accusations.
00:13   We’ve seen in the past what can happen,
00:16   what happened when Fortuyn was vilified — I hope a bullet won’t come.
00:20   But if it does, all of The Netherlands knows it has four letters on its side: PvdA [Labour Party].
00:24   We wouldn’t want that to happen.

Transcript Video 2:

00:00   … who said: Hasn’t he [Wilders] learned anything from Pim Fortuyn?
00:03   Yes, and he has a right to respond: But I stand by my words.
00:07   And I worry how our society at this time is developing.
00:12   More and more people oppose each other.
00:15   We, the Labour Party, since our creation have always fought against exclusion, As I do right up to this very moment.
00:18   You said: since our creation The PvdA isn’t doing too well.
00:22   You said this out of frustration,
00:25   for fear of members and voters defecting to Wilders?
00:29   Not at all; I’m not frustrated in the slightest.
00:32   When I think about the welfare state we have built for the past 70 years, that welfare is of a high level,
00:39   so that children can study. I couldn’t study, 70 years ago. If I look back, I’m not frustrated, but rather optimistic.
00:46   I worry about our society About the volume of the screamers [people yelling = Wilders’ followers].
00:50   The large body of people who long for solidarity but can’t find it.
00:56   You said you worry about the volume of the screamers. But you explicitly express yourself in public.
01:00   You also attack. Because I draw a line on behalf of those people
01:06   who want solidarity. Who may worry about refugees, sometimes.
01:09   Who may even be against refugees, sometimes. Who sometimes are fanatically in favor of refugees.
01:12   But notice that the debate is being hijacked by extremists.

20 thoughts on “Dutch Labour Party Chairman: “Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Blond?”

  1. It is a pity that the Nazi = far right myth was allowed to penetrate so far into the folklaw of Europe, otherwise Europeans would be able to take a step back and see that they are dealing with the same old, same old socialism that was sold by both Hitler and Stalin.

    Street violence is a socialist domain trait and they excel at it. One might say that it is their signature tune.

    As are the lies, the lies, the lies, always the lies……

    • Left left = international socialism
      Right left = national socialism

      Doesn’t leave much room for anything that doesn’t involve socialism now does it?

      Socialist mission accomplished.

  2. Similarly, during question session in the French Senate, recently the Deputy, FN, Gilbert Collard asked a question:

    “You know it — the Islamic State has just made the National Front its “target of choice”

    When he was interrupted by laughter.

    “If this makes you laugh when IS targets the French and attacks, I can only have for you contempt. If one of you, a socialist, a communist, was threatened by IS, it wouldn’t make me laugh. And I wouldn’t boo. Here, we have been compared to IS, when it was being said that we were dispensing propaganda.”

    “If anything happens to us, you are accomplices!”


    Really a sorry state of affairs, Europe, France and the Netherlands are looking deeper into a dark void.

  3. Recently–after coming to the ugly conclusion that we of the right have been yapping, clicking and whining for too many decades and to no practical avail and, if we don’t realize our ineffectiveness, that we have become the main obstacle to preventing the comming conflagration–I began to create a list of those who can be considered role-models for doing more than yapping, writing, posting and describing.

    1. Geert Wilders
    2. Pamela Geller
    3. Tommy Robinson

    • Perhaps you should add to your list Hassan al Banna, Nicholai Lenin, and the Frankfort School.

      These entities successfully, over decades, carried out a covert program of indoctrination and subversion, infiltrating the organs of government, education, and communication. The end result is, as Orwell described in 1984, there is not even a sufficient vocabulary in the public mind to adequately describe the events which are taking place.

      I’m wondering if we don’t need to do the same thing to promulgate the principles of liberty, freedom, and nationalism. Develop subversive organizations devoted to passing along the concepts of freedom and national self-determination, and embark on a decades-long program to subvert the socialist organs of government and public opinion.

      The difference between the side of fascism and liberty is that liberty recognizes the search for truth, and allows, encourages dissenting ideas. I have no objection at all for communism to be taught in universities. I have every objection to allow communists to assign grades and affect the careers of students. It is beyond insanity to allow your enemy to have authority over your children.

      I think the implicit model we are now using is that with enough publicity, exposure, and education, the people and governments will reluctantly carry out rational actions. But, as the case of Wim Cornelis, mayor of Gouda, shows, most politicians are interested only in hanging on without an explosion until they can retire in a far-off place with a nice nest egg to last the rest of their lives.

      The fascists and communists have consciously worked to insulate the government from public opinion, even if public opinion became mobilized. It seems to me any movement intending to predominate will have to copy some of the methods of the fascist, communist, and Islamic movements which have met with such success.

  4. The way that Parliament, and the Dutch legal and electoral system are dominated by Marxists, I do not doubt that Wilders be eliminated eventually. Hope not!

  5. >>>This time, however, it’s the chairman of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, who has called Mr. Wilders a “danger to democracy”<<<

    "Democracy is indispensable to socialism… The goal of socialism is communism… Hatred is the basis of communism." –Vladimir Lenin

    Communism kills.




  6. The choice of phrase “Who will rid me of…” mirrors Islam with

    The apostle said – according to what Abdullah Burda told me, “Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?”


    When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”

  7. Do these left wing misfits not understand that the more third world illiterates that they welcome into the Netherlands the more their welfare state is endangered! They have paid NOTHING into the system, they are in the main unemployable, they will have long term health problems and are ideolocally opposed to the Dutch way of life. Give me Geert Wilders every time, God forbid that any misfortune should befall him because of this odious little man’s remarks. Do the right thing people, turn the well known phrase “gentlemen prefer blondes” into “Holland prefers blondes” at the earliest opportunity!

    • That’s where you go wrong. They really do bring in loads of money into the system. By creating a new group of people that needs to be taken care of, need education, prisons, prison officers, psychiatrists, welfare workers, translators, more police…
      Those are the jobs they create (by their presence) and that is what politicians refer to.

      Of course you are 100% correct, as this is all paid by the taxpayer.

  8. Reminds me very much of the Labour (sic) Party in Britain – self deluding and corrupt.

Comments are closed.