Geert Wilders: “My Voice is the Voice of Many”

Geert Wilders made his final statement at his trial for “hate speech” in a high-security courtroom at Schiphol in the Netherlands today. His words remind me of these lines by Walt Whitman:

I do not say these things for a dollar,
                or to fill up the time while I wait for a boat;
It is you talking just as much as myself — I act as the tongue of you;
Tied in your mouth, in mine it begins to be loosen’d.

Below is the English translation of Mr. Wilders’ statement.

Final Statement of Geert Wilders at his Trial, 23 Nov. 2016

Mr. President, Members of the Court,

When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am. Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and The Netherlands.

For centuries, The Netherlands has been a symbol of freedom.
Who one says “Netherlands”, one says “freedom”. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition.
And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.
We Dutch say whatever is close to our hearts.
And that is precisely what makes our country great.
Freedom of speech is our pride.
And that, precisely that, is at stake here today.

I refuse to believe that we are simply giving this freedom up.
Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words.
And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.

Moreover, members of the court, for me personally, freedom of speech is the only freedom I still have. Every day, I am reminded of that. This morning, for example. I woke up in a safe house. I got into an armored car and was driven in a convoy to this high security courtroom at Schiphol. The bodyguards, the blue flashing lights, the sirens. Every day again. It is hell. But I am also intensely grateful for it.

Because they protect me, they literally keep me alive, they guarantee the last bit of freedom left to me: my freedom of speech. The freedom to go somewhere and speak about my ideals, my ideas to make The Netherlands — our country — stronger and safer. After twelve years without freedom, after having lived for safety reasons, together with my wife, in barracks, prisons and safe houses, I know what lack of freedom means.

I sincerely hope that this will never happen to you, members of the court.
That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS — and who knows how many individual Muslims — want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.

However, if you had experienced it — no matter how much you disagree with my views — you might perhaps understand that I cannot remain silent. That I should not remain silent. That I must speak. Not just for myself, but for The Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism. Against immigration from Islamic countries. Against the huge problem with Moroccans in The Netherlands. I cannot remain silent about it; I have to speak out. That is my duty, I have to address it, I must warn about it, I have to propose solutions for it.

I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.

And so, I stand here before you. Alone. But I am not alone. My voice is the voice of many. In 2012, nearly 1 million Dutch have voted for me. And there will be many more on March 15th.

According to the latest poll, soon we are going to have two million voters. Members of the court, you know these people. You meet them every day. As many as one in five Dutch citizens would vote Party for Freedom, today. Perhaps your own driver, your gardener, your doctor or your domestic aid, the girlfriend of a registrar, your physiotherapist, the nurse at the nursing home of your parents, or the baker in your neighborhood. They are ordinary people, ordinary Dutch. The people I am so proud of.

They have elected me to speak on their behalf. I am their spokesman. I am their representative. I say what they think. I speak on their behalf. And I do so determinedly and passionately. Every day again, including here, today.

So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in The Netherlands.

You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.

Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of The Netherlands. And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of The Netherlands. And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.

Of course, I should not have been subjected to this absurd trial. Because this is a political trial. It is a political trial because political issues have to be debated in Parliament and not here. It is a political trial because other politicians from — mostly government parties — who spoke about Moroccans have not been prosecuted. It is a political trial because the court is being abused to settle a political score with an opposition leader whom one cannot defeat in Parliament.

This trial here, Mr. President, it stinks. It would be appropriate in Turkey or Iran, where they also drag the opposition to court. It is a charade, an embarrassment for The Netherlands, a mockery of our rule of law.

And it is also an unfair trial because, earlier, one of you — Mrs. van Rens — commented negatively on the policy of my party and the successful challenge in the previous Wilders trial. Now, she is going to judge me.

What have I actually done to deserve this travesty? I have spoken about fewer Moroccans in a market and I have asked questions to PVV members during a campaign event. And I did so, members of the court, because we have a huge problem with Moroccans in this country. And almost no-one dares to speak about it or take tough measures. My party alone has been speaking about this problem for years.

Just look at these past weeks: Stealing and robbing Moroccan fortune-seekers in Groningen, abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands other examples; almost everyone in The Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.

I tell you: If we can no longer honestly address problems in The Netherlands, if we are no longer allowed to use the word “alien”, if we, Dutch, are suddenly racists because we want Black Pete to remain black, if we only go unpunished if we want more Moroccans or else are dragged before the penal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the court to silence an opposition politician, who threatens to become Prime Minister, then this beautiful country will be doomed. That is unacceptable, because we are Dutch and this is our country.

And again, what on earth have I done wrong? How can the fact be justified that I have to stand here as a suspect, as if I robbed a bank or committed murder?

I only spoke about Moroccans in a market and asked a question at an election night meeting. And anyone who has the slightest understanding of politics knows that the election night meetings of every party consist of political speeches full of slogans, one-liners and making maximum use of the rules of rhetoric. That is our job. That is the way it works in politics.

Election nights are election nights with rhetoric and political speeches, not university lectures, in which every paragraph is scrutinized 15 minutes long from six points of view. It is simply crazy that the Public Prosecutor now uses this against me, as if one would blame a football player for scoring a hat trick.

Indeed, I said in the market in the beautiful Hague district of Loosduinen “if possible fewer Moroccans.” Mark that I did so a few minutes after a Moroccan lady came to me and told me she was going to vote PVV because she was sick and tired of the nuisance caused by Moroccan youths.

And on election night, I began by asking the PVV audience, “Do you want more or fewer EU?” And I also did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because we need to regain our sovereignty and reassert control over our own money, our own laws and our own borders. I did not do that.

Then I asked the public, “Do you want more or fewer Labour Party?” And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because they are the biggest cultural relativists, willfully blind and Islam-hugging cowards in Parliament. I did not say that.

And then I asked, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because people with a Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit-dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals who also have Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality, and by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals which we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Liberty.

I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement in the market and election night, as well as on election night a few moments after I had asked said questions. It is extremely malicious and false of the Public Prosecutor to want to disregard that context.

Disgusting — I have no other words for it — are the actions of other politicians, including the man who for a few months may still call himself Prime Minister. Their, and especially his, actions after said election night constituted a real persecution, a witch hunt. The government created an atmosphere in which it had to come to trial.

Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave more vilely and more falsely.

But also the then Minister of Security and Justice, who, it should be noted, is the political boss of the Public Prosecutor, called my words disgusting, and even demanded, he demanded that I take them back. A demand by the Minister of Justice — you do not have to be called Einstein to predict what will happen next, what the Public Prosecutor will do, if you do not comply with the demand of the Minister of Justice.

The Interior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, too, both from the Labour Party, expressed themselves similarly. In short, the government left the Public Prosecutor no option other than to prosecute me. Hence, in this trial, the Officers of Justice are not representatives of an independent Public Prosecutor, but accomplices of this government.

Mr. President, the elite also facilitated the complaints against me. With preprinted declaration forms. Which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to remarked, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.

And a sample made by us showed that some complaints were the result of pure deception, intimidation and influence. People thought they were going to vote, they not even know my name, did not realize what they were signing or declared that they did not feel themselves to be discriminated against by me at all.

Someone said that, at the As Soenah mosque after Friday prayers alone, 1,200 complaints had been lodged because it was thought to be an election. There were parades, led by mayors and aldermen, like in Nijmegen, where CDA mayor Bruls was finally able to show off his deep-seated hatred of the PVV. The police had extra opening hours, offered coffee and tea, there were dancing and singing Moroccans accompanied by a real oompah band in front of a police station; they turned it into a big party.

But meanwhile two representative polls, one commissioned by the PVV, the other commissioned by De Volkskrant, showed that, apart from the government and media elite, 43% of the Dutch people, around 7 million people, agree with me. Want fewer Moroccans. You will be very busy if the Public Prosecutor is going to prosecute all these 7 million people.

People will never understand that other politicians — especially from government parties — and civil servants who have spoken about Moroccans, Turks and even PVV members, are being left alone and not prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor

Like Labour leader Samsom, who said that Moroccan youths have a monopoly on ethnic nuisance.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.
Or Labour alderman Oudkerk ,who spoke about f***ing Moroccans.
Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.

And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television — I quote verbatim: “Basically one would feel inclined to say: let’s kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again”?

And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: “Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here.” End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred, and not by us but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.

But the Public Prosecutor does prosecute me. And demands a conviction based on nonsensical arguments about race and on concepts that are not even in the law. He accuses and suspects me of insulting a group and inciting hatred and discrimination on grounds of race. How much crazier can it become? Race. What race?

I spoke and asked a question about Moroccans. Moroccans are not a race. Who makes this up? No-one at home understands that Moroccans have suddenly become a race. This is utter nonsense. Not a single nationality is a race. Belgians are no race, Americans are no race. Stop this nonsense, I say to the Public Prosecutor. I am not a racist and my voters are neither. How do you dare suggest that? Wrongly slandering millions of people as racists.

43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.

I tell you: If you convict someone for racism while he has nothing against races, then you undermine the rule of law, then it is bankrupt. No-one in this country will understand that.

And now the Public Prosecutor also uses the vague concept ‘intolerance’. Yet another stupidity. The subjective word intolerance, however, is not even mentioned in the law. And what for heaven’s sake is intolerance? Are you going to decide that, members of the court?

It is not up to you to decide. Nor to the Supreme Court or even the European Court. The law itself must determine what is punishable. We representatives are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.

That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.

Mr. President, Members of the Court,

Our ancestors fought for freedom and democracy. They suffered, many gave their lives. We owe our freedoms and the rule of law to these heroes.

But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.

If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, The Netherlands ceases to exist, then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.

By asking for a conviction, the Public Prosecutor, as an accomplice of the established order, as a puppet of the government, asks to silence an opposition politician. And, hence, silence millions of Dutch. I tell you: The problems with Moroccans will not be solved this way, but will only increase.

For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear being called a racist.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I conclude.

A worldwide movement is emerging that puts an end to the politically correct doctrines of the elites and the media which are subordinate to them.
That has been proven by Brexit.
That has been proven by the US elections.
That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy.
That will be proven next year in France, Germany, and The Netherlands.
The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.

And I tell you, the battle of the elite against the people will be won by the people. Here, too, you will not be able to stop this, but rather accelerate it. We will win, the Dutch people will win, and they will remember well who was on the right side of history.

Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance.

Because everywhere in the West, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.
The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell.
Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think.
They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.

They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in The Netherlands.

As I said:
I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.
I do not speak just on behalf of myself.
My voice is the voice of many.
And, so, I ask you.
not only on behalf of myself,
but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:
Acquit me!
Acquit us!

17 thoughts on “Geert Wilders: “My Voice is the Voice of Many”

    • A brave man Geert Wilders who has dedicated his life and liberty to try to secure the freedom of the Dutch people from their treasonous elite. Thank you for your courage without men like you Geert, the lights really will go out in Europe.

  1. Suppression of the word is an act of control.
    Control is the act by a single person who demands that his will be followed.
    This was the traits of Hitler which did so much damage to the Netherlands.
    I would have thought that that was a hard learnt lesson never to be repeated.
    Whoever has a problem with free speech has a problem with themselves not the speaker.

  2. God Bless Geert Wilders. Stupidity will eventually cure itself. Unfortunately….quite a few decent people will be swept away in the aftermath of this ” Insanity “….along with the Psychpaths who have fostered these problems.

  3. They will never silence this man and they had better consider with much thought his words to them before passing any judgement on him for something that millions of other Dutchmen think!

  4. As usual, when another hinge point in Geert Wilders’ Herculean battle against those in charge of the microphone comes ’round, we put up excerpts from this timeless essay, written in eight years ago by an (expatriate) Dutch historian. IIRC, Arthur Legger lives now in California…[reminder to self: this essay needs to be copied to a permanent file in case we lose access to this site in the future].

    This excerpt is longer than usual. That’s because I want to entice our readers to click on the link. If you do decide to read further,when the site comes up, scroll past the image of Theo van Gogh, which is more or less where I broke off. Prepare to be chilled…

    Marts 2008 – Arthur Legger


    If you like to think of Holland as the cradle of free speech and the Enlightenment, don’t read this

    ‘Nobody needs permission beforehand to publish by print
    thoughts or feelings – while taking into consideration
    every person’s responsibility according to the law.’
    (Article 7, Dutch Constitution)

    Again the ruthless reflex sets in. Because that lies at the core of our Dutch character: the social annihilation of the deviating individual –including a neat political murder, every now and then (we never go after a group, that is not done after our very active partaking in the Holocaust).

    The latest news on the chronicle of the death foretold of right wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders, infamous for his bleached haircut from outer space, is that the CEOs of Dutch multinationals fear loss of profit because of Fitna. The Movie. Wilders gained notoriety because of his wish to ban the Koran and his severe criticism of islam in comparison with “our shared Dutch heritage of Humanism and Enlightenment, as it was successfully proclaimed by our highly esteemed Spinoza”. The captains of industry state that Wilders’ movie will prove too critical and, hence, will harm their age-old connections and business in the Arabic world and Indonesia (a former Dutch colony). The highly successful and erudite lawyer Gerard Spong, a very nice fellow from Surinam (independent in 1975), is hired to sue Wilders: “For irresponsibly damaging Dutch interests”. It almost goes without saying that many of these directors, managers and members of the board have been key members of the public service, previous Cabinets included, or will be in future times. The Union of IT Businessmen In The East (FME) strongly seconds their concern: “The real problem is that Wilders’ movie fits a pattern of confrontation: the Danish cartoons; the war in Iraq. The movie might prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” (Intermediair 11, 13 March 2008). “Wilders, don’t do it!” prays Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the VNO-NCW (Union of Dutch Business). “Surely you know that when it really counts the reverend is always traded for the businessman” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).

    Also, the Dutch media, via their coordinating National Broadcast Institute, the NOS, issued a shared statement that they will not air Wilders’ movie “because of fear of attacks and not to give this irresponsible person a platform for his xenophobia”. The news agency of the Dutch Parliament (Nieuwspoort) will not provide Wilders with the possibility of showing his movie, because “the making of movies is not part of a parliamentarian’s work”. (The head of the NOS is always a former cabinet member.) Not surprisingly the Socialist, Christian and Liberal parties backed this blocking of Wilders (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).

    Sorry, we cannot censure

    Our current Cabinet, headed by prime minister Balkenende, put even more pressure on Wilders not to show Fitna. Seeking support from France and other EU members Balkenende made it quite clear that “unfortunately we cannot censure the movie of Mr. Wilders beforehand, but we strongly advise him to reconsider for reasons of State Security”. Also he asked EU understanding for Wilders’ “silly behaviour, for which damaging consequences he and he alone will be held responsible”. Also, the Cabinet demanded complete transparency of Wilders’ financial situation and of his political movement, the PVV (nine seats in Parliament) – even though this is not demanded by law (ANP News Organisation, 16 March 2008). Hans van den Broek, former minister of Foreign Affairs in three Christian cabinets during the 1990s and currently Member of the State Council – the most prestigious body of advisors of Parliament and Cabinet and directly appointed by the Crown – is significantly less scrupulous: “I understand that the Prime Minister thinks that his hands are tied, but nevertheless I most strongly advise him to stop Mr. Wilders by every means available, including total censorship, because the interests of the State, politically and economically, are in the greatest danger” (NOS TV interview, 26 March 2008).

    Still, Prime Minister Balkenende’s statement lacked nothing in clarity: If they come for you, you’re on your own. You are fully responsible for the effects you cause. You’ll have to rely on your bodyguards, we will not protect you.

    Farewell Enlightenment

    These last few weeks [back in 2008- D] my foreign friends have called and asked me: “What the hell is going on in the Netherlands? How is it possible that so many Dutch politicians favour censorship and lawsuits, and that leading men of opinion openly and repeatedly compare Wilders to Goebbels and Hitler? How is this possible with your tradition of Spinoza?”

    They didn’t like my answer. Nobody likes their academic wet dreams about the 17th century cradle of Enlightenment and Freedom to be disturbed.

    The public comparison of a well-known individual with Hitler, Mussolini or Mussert (leading Dutch Nazi collaborator) and the removing of the social safety net belongs to an ingrained Dutch tradition, well known to the Dutch. If you’re judged too harmful to the Dutch State, Culture and/or its Business (and these three are highly intertwined), the ruthless reflex sets in and it’s game over – including, sometimes, death. Recently the world was able to witness this flaw in our character: Pim Fortuyn, “fascist” adversary of the Left and winner of the elections, was murdered in 2002; Theo van Gogh, “racist” mocker of muslims, jews and the Left, was murdered in 2004; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “heretic” critic of the Left and of islam, was effectively banished in 2006.

    Tellingly, all four of them, if you include Wilders, used ‘Spinoza’ as their buzz word – it was his Enlightenment ideals against those of the attackers of western freedom. Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali and Wilders mainly opposed orthodox islam, Van Gogh mainly wrote against the naive fool who hands his freedom over out of laziness and decadence. They were not shot or deported by the State. The elite merely closed its ranks and left them alone, unprotected. In regard to the murder of van Gogh the director and staff of the Dutch Security Agency largely knew what was going on and what was about to happen (Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, had even been their informant for a few months), but nevertheless decided to remain passive. On Tuesday the 16th of March 2008 the Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs, Mrs. G. Ter Horst had to admit this fact in Parliament after the publication of the “Van Gogh report” by The State Commission for Controlling the Dutch Security Agency (the CTIVD).

    A less known recent example of State bullying is also highly telling: The journalist and writer Willem Oltmans, mocker of the monarchy (never do that!), the establishment and Dutch industry, was put out of work, any work, by successive Dutch governments for a period of 25 years, starting in 1971. After being a Don Quijote for years he finally had his day in court. The State was forced to pay him 5 million euro. Which they stalled for years in the hope he’d die of old age. He gracefully refused to do so, however, and at the age of 75 collected his cash and bought his longed for piano.

    These examples of state terrorism are sanctioned by Dutch mentality: ‘if you stick out your head too often, we’ll chop it off’. Also, the Dutch Constitution’s Article 7 on the Freedom of Expression was not written with John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in mind. Mill preached total freedom of speech because “even a raving madman might say something sound”. In Holland this position is only defended by some philosophers of the University of Amsterdam. Philosophy professor Pieter Pekelharing (University of Amsterdam) is a bit of a loner when he states that: “Geert Wilders is an intolerant fool who nevertheless has every right to say stupid things. Also, we cannot rule out the remote possibility that he is right on the dangers of the islam” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).

    I urge you to read the whole essay. Having done just that on numerous occasions since first coming across Legger’s work (not till well after 2008, unfortunately), each reading seems to bring out an important point I’d forgotten since an earlier perusal. This time it was this:

    …But it’s important to realize that even if the Dutch Republic was the cradle of the Enlightenment, it never was the place where it was allowed to grow up…

    Yeah, that about sums up this trial. It’s quite similar to the post-WWII Soviet show trials (where Wilders is brought in from his virtual imprisonment). This mockery of justice is a kabuki theatre performance put on by those who never had to grow up.

    • Notice how his writing is what we – the Baron and I – have come to call “the Dutch style” – cool, dark and bitingly humorous, a bit cynical.

      You can see this in H. Numan’s work; in some of Wilders’ speeches; in the numerous essays in our archives, written by the anonymous VH. He was an ethnic Dutchman who wrote reports for GoV for a long time. Eventually, the safety of his family trumped what I called VH’s mentoring of us Americans.

      The style of Legger’s writing resonates with the essays both have written for us. I’m glad Mr. Numan is far from the Netherlands; that means we don’t have to worry about his safety.

      • I believe that we who care to take the time to comment on this site are on the right side of history.

        Your presentation of those more noted reflections from the more enlightened only confirms that conviction.

  5. the winds of change are blowing all over europe
    The Dutch have a real champion and if there is still justice in the Netherlands then i have a lot of hope for that Famous European Bastion of Liberty.
    If not then i fear for EUROPEAN FREE SPEACH and a rise of the real far right as a back lash

  6. These so called judges had better hope that the Dutch folks do not start thinking like the Scots-Irish ( with guns ) !

    • Being Dutch myself I wouldn’t be to sure of that.
      In Dutch we have a very colorfull word “bijltjesdag”, the day of the ax, the day of reckoning.
      That day is coming closer and closer.

  7. Basically the judges view criminals as clients.They want to encourage as much criminality as possible so that they can point to their caseloads and make the case for higher pay.And that is why they cannot abide hearing that Moroccan criminals with dual nationality should be stripped off their Dutch passports and deported.Fewer Morrocans will mean fewer crimes and less work for them .Some judges might in consequence suffer pay cuts or be retrenched .And hence the necessity of silencing Geert Wilders.

  8. Just occurred to me why the Dutch elite hates Wilders with such ferocity. He makes them look like idiots. He makes them look like traitors to their own history, like regressives who trenchantly cling to beliefs that threaten their country and way of life. All their lives they’ve believed automatically they were the good guys on the side of truth and light, and somehow they’ve morphed in the public mind into neo-Nazi thugs. They must think they’ve entered an alternate universe. And they can’t help but lay it all somehow at Wilders’ feet. Doesn’t this sound so much like how American leftists can’t understand how the Democrats have somehow morphed into users of Orwellian thought-controlling political correctness, who won’t even use the term ‘radical Islam’, who support groups like Black Lives Matter, who celebrate increased racial division. Leftists in the US & Britain & Europe must feel like they’ve entered a Tim Burton movie, never to be seen from again. If Wilders is found guilty, he’ll pull off a Brexit Trumpian landslide next year. Good on ya, Geert!

    • Stephen-

      They are traitors to their own history, culture, and people, like Leftists throughout the world.

  9. The majority of Europeans which are the non- ideologicals, now find themselves surrounded by traitors and criminals. The traitor classes in politics and media are reminiscent of criminal gangs threatening the peoples to stay calm while they are destroying the lands ON PURPOSE by letting in savages by the millions. For decades people wouldn’t listen to the wake up calls. For decades they went on sleepwalking, and voting for the usual parties. There is a deep and scaring truth in the old saying: You can’t turn the tide. This year – 30 yrs too late – however, it seems as if the tide is actually turning. God bless! But it is long past the point of no return. Europe as we knew it is gone. The future looks grim, and I wonder how dare they, the politicians! They live in bubbles but it won’t protect them from angry hordes.

Comments are closed.