The far right promises to do disturbingly well on June 9th

Dear T. Klein:

I am surprised at the conclusion you draw in the following comment:

"interesting to mention that Wilders' aversion towards the Islam is easily explained by noting that Wilders' himself is the son of an immigrant. Wilders' mother is from the old Dutch colony of Indonesia, and she was practically forced to immigrate because of Muslim oppression towards Christians as Wilders' mother. A simple matter of being biased through nurture."

Are yous seriously suggesting that if one has suffered as a result of Islamic oppression, that their opinion of Islam is therefore of no account? I personally would have drawn the opposite conclusion.

So opposition to large-scale immigration by a group who is largely indifferent (if not in fact hostile) to the host country makes one 'far-right' now, does it?

@Kurt Lessing

"Muslims are normally peaceful easy going people."

You must be kidding, right. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. My suggestion is that you spend some time reading a history book, or better yet, speak to some Armenians or Greeks before spouting such complete blather. Next, I would recommend you read "Unveiling Islam" by Ergun Mehmet Caner & Emir Fethi Caner. Or better yet, why don't you immigrate to Egypt or some other Muslim country and live the experience of being a 3rd class citizen. Islam is exclusionary.

PS. I have well educated Muslim acquaintances that insist that Spain is a Muslim country. Think about that before you make such inane comments....

I am puzzled by the fact that The Economist found it fitting to remove Globalista's much acclaimed and excellently argued contribution. Is The Economist under Islamist threat or has it internalized politically correct censorship? I sincerely hope it is not the latter.

Dear Economist Editors:

A Geert Wilders electoral success is only "disturbing" to those who want a continued erosion of European Enlightenment/Judaeo-Christian identity; a continuation of the discredited policies of multiculturalism and 'diversity'; the continued mass-immigration of ethnic groups whose allegiance lies with their religion (Islam) rather than their adopted country.

Islam is fundamentally at odd with values, ranging from the equality of women, separation of religion and state, tolerance towards gays and other minorities, freedom of speech to the rule of (secular) law to mention only a few of a whole number of issues which are fundamental to Western democracy.

Islam's 7th century mindset has no place in 21st century Europe - despite the left-wing/liberal establishments attempt to sneak it in by the back door.

Pim Fortuyn was assassinated which bought the Dutch and the European establishment some time. Geert Wilders has made clear that their time is now up.

Dear Mr Klein,

Whilst I agree with your point that 'the rational' should take precedence over 'the emotional', I think it doesn't apply to Wilders to the degree you claim, if at all.

His party is pro-free market, anti-bureaucracy, mildly Euro-sceptic - which are all in line with a general libertarian/conservative approach. On top of this, and this is what sets him apart from the rest of the Dutch (and European) establishment, he sees how crucial Western values like the ones I mentioned before are being slowly eroded to accommodate an ever more strident and aggressive religious minority with values utterly alien to the West.

Take perhaps the most fundamental of our political rights: freedom of speech/expression. Muslims clamour that it needs to be curtailed in the name of 'religious sensitivity' and from a desire 'not to offend'.

The risk of causing offence is the price we pay for freedom to express our opinions. To curtail freedom of expression because a particular opinion offends a particular group is really the thin end of the wedge.

Sadly, unlike the US, we don't have a constitutional 'first amendment'. One of the very very few politicians who have realised the danger of this is Wilders. For that he deserves enormous respect, despite the fact that the methods he employs to broadcast his message, isn't always the most sophisticated.

Dear Mr Klein

I'm sad to say that my first post on this thread has been deleted (although it had over 40 recommendations - or perhaps because it did).

The Economist clearly wants to stifle debate on this issue, much like the establishment is trying to silence Geert Wilders.

I'm sure you and the Economist moderators are happy to carry on without me.

Best of luck.

In the Nineties the VVD was riding high and was the only big party in the Western World purely based on Classical Liberal ideas (Mills etc.)i.e. not conservatives.
Mass immigration and 9/11 turned out the be the end of the liberal high times. Wilders is from the VVD (he left because the VVD was in favor of Turkey's entry in the EU)
The essential principle of liberalism is that it is in favor of individual liberty, but how to deal with people whose individual choice is not to adhere to western values? Not a problem if that is a tiny minority, but that phase is long passed. The Netherlands and the West have undergone a massive transformation because of mass immigration from non western countries and absolute liberalism is dying with it.
We need something new. I guess something more like conservative liberalism. Liberalism that acknowledged that it is rooted in Western culture and only is applicable in those cultures and must defend the cultural heritage outlined in the other posts.

PVV Solutions
Limit immigration.
Each person may only bring in one non-Western partner.
Ban on entry of ex-partners.
No family formation and reunification for criminals.
Independent residence after 10 years (instead of after 3 years).
The provision of a deposit in family formation.
Immigration for family only (spouse and children below 15 years).
Family formation, only for partners of 24 years or older.
No EU policy on family formation and reunification.
Better control of income and cohabitation requirements.
False information in application for residence: Always reject request.
Dutch residence permit: resident in the Netherlands or license revocation.
Eviction by Royal Air Force.
Without entry permits one may not wait in the Netherlands for residence. application
One request for per person only.
Deportation of criminal immigrants.
Assimilation contract for immigrants.
Promote return migration to the country of origin.

This article is an excellent demonstration of Nassim Taleb's dictum that, after reading newspapers, people are more ignorant than they were before. I read Wilders' draft party program, written when he left the VVD party to set up his own. Apart from immigration/integration, it was exactly the sort of policies that The Economist used to advocate: smaller government and more democracy (i.e. more power for the voters to change government, which has been a problem in The Netherlands since time immemorial). But you will never learn about party programs from reading The Economist: it's all about putting labels (e.g. "far-right") that give the readers the impression of understanding things, while leaving them in the dark.

David Hadden:

"The sad thing is that the general population of muslims does not disown these radicals, but offers them financial and moral support."

Too much of the Muslim population does so, I agree (any is too much). But "the general population" of Muslims? I seriously doubt that.

Would those who condemn Mr. Wilders for his view that the muslim population represents a threat to Holland please read the Egyptian newspapers and the speeches made by the senior clerics at the annual Haj in Mecca. Also, please read what is being preached in Mosques from London to Toronto. The message is clear - generally the vocal muslims reject the culture and values of the host countries and will do what it takes to change their adopted land, even if it means resorting to violence. Please read the court procedings in the current Toronto trials. The sad thing is that the general population of muslims does not disown these radicals, but offers them financial and moral support. What insanity makes countries like Canada and Holland admit immigrants who are committed to our cultural and physical distruction? This is not a hidden agenda, nor speculation, but clearly expressed in media such as Al Jazeera and in mosques in Canada and the UK. Mr. Wilders has my respect and support; I wish him and his party success.

@Grobanista
While I found a couple of good points in your previous posts, I think it unwise for you to start parallels with Nazi-era decisions in your defense of Wilders. Hitler also tended to blame most of his country's problems on a group of people who had immigrated to his homeland and then "refused to conform". While you may have some legitimate points about maintaining democratic ideals by preventing the influx of those who don't support them (not uniformly true of those who follow Islam, but certainly in some cases), try to avoid the overused comparisons to Hitler if you want to make a cogent argument.

@Macumazan
When I look at your ahistorical use of the word "liberal", you must be American. Did it ever occurr to you, that all of your founding fathers would have called themselves liberals?
In civilised countries, such as the Netherlands, you don't use the military against your citizens. As for your charming invitation to immigrate: Europe has dumped its Geert Wilders for centuries on U.S. soil, which is now a place, where you can get away with creationism.

Extremism breeds extremism and so the murder of Theo van Gogh produced Geert Wilders. A pity. The Dutch always had a reputation for being levelheaded.
Muslim are normally peaceful easy going people. In Germany we have Turkish immigrants who are quite successfull with small and not so small businesses, because they have the unfair advantage over autochthonous Germans of being less grumpy. We have a problem with uneducated Turkish youth, who are giving us exactly the sort of trouble uneducated autochthonous youth are giving us. The reason is, that our schools fail those from uneducated backgrounds. And as we did not select our immigrants like, say, Australia, we have a lot of uneducated immigrants. So instead of abolishing constitutional rights to express oneself or to worship, we might improve our schools.

Dear Mr Klein

You write:
"[Wilders] radical views and populistic rhetoric does not make him a suitable law maker, especially in a politically balanced country such as the Netherlands, where the solution is always sought and found by co-operation and compromises."

This is exactly my point. When you deal with religious fanatics whose aim is to fundamentally change, and destroy, all the values you hold dear, you cannot 'co-operate and compromise'.

Neville Chamberlain tried to 'co-operate and compromise' with Hitler. Let's call that what it really is: Appeasement.

We need Churchill's approach to meet the Islamist threat. And, with respect, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

The Economist now opposes democracy when stating "The far right promises to do disturbingly well on June 9th".

What about the democratic process is so "disturbing"? The article never explained this.

@nfinityman
With your allusion to the Armenians killed by the Ottoman Empire you probably mean to imply that racist mass murder is a muslim trait. Well, I am a German, and that makes your comment, what was the choice word you used, inane. And I know Ottoman soldiers en route to Vienna impaled babies. Well, my Turkish neighbours don't. And I agree that I would rather not live in Egypt. May have something to do with Egypt being dirt poor and ruled by a dictator. I insist that we have in Germany agreeable Turkish immigrants, so the religion cannot be the problem. I have to admit, however, that they will never be true Germans, as even third generation Turkish immigrants still tend to caress their wives more than their cars. But we try not to mind too much. And by the way, we have Turkish and Greek immigrants and they are not at each other throats.

Dear all,

I am glad that people like T.Klein focus on 'rational thought' and facts. Indeed, if 'we Westerners' want to stay true to our values, the last thing we ought to revert to is unilateralism and socio-cultural extorsion.
Instead of continuing to exclude groups of people on a very arbitrary basis - many people cast as Muslim may only originate from Maghreb countries, and do not at all practice the rites of Islam, and also it is not unheard of that Kurdish are followers of another faith than Islam, e.g. Christianity. Dictating people what they are, and preventing them from expressing their personal identities (plural), is in my view very non-Western. As was the whole infantile riot on the issue of having more than one passport (just as one can have more than one identity).

Living in The Netherlands and being Dutch, I could agree that there have been some major issues concerning immigration. But I would also like to stress that this debate has never been an optimistic one, and never got beyond naming the problems - Mr Wilders is no different in this tradition.
The current political debate is not being waged on the issue of creating institutionalised civic nationalism, with all people possessing citizenship sharing a common civil ideal, and all people being tought about their citizenship rights and obligations in school from an early age onwards (as is very normal in other countries, e.g. Spain, I believe).
In Holland, it seems not to be possible for anyone to have a hyphenated identity (e.g. Spanish-American): one is simply not allowed to be a third generation Moroccan-Amsterdammer girl, no, she is only 'allochtoon'.
The debate is not being waged about the possible gains and values of second and third generation immigrants (who apart from Dutch and English often speak fluent Arabic, Turkish, Portuguese, Spanish or French) for the highly internationalised Dutch economy. So far, I've heard only the Ministry of Foreign Affairs being enthusiastic about the difference these individuals can make for the better.

I'm very much afraid that Mr Wilders will indeed come have influence over the way my country is governed, or at least in the way that its society will shape itself.
In my view, Mr Wilders does not offer any (realistic) solution that is inherently and ontologically consistent with the Western values he seems to hold so dear.
Benjamin Franklin once said that 'any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both'. Although the issue is not identical, this same line of reasoning can be followed in the case of Wilders. We will sacrifice our identity the moment we start making far-stretching restrictions.

What The Netherlands need now in my view, is responsibility. Responsibility of politicians to debate openly about this (something Mr Wilders' PVV has not done so far, excluding journalists from his party meetings), but most nominally responsibility of all civic Dutchmen to reach out to eachother and start realising what is at stake. The responsibility to take a long-term perspective, instead of giving in to decisions based on ignorence and fear.

If things really have to change, then let them change for the better, and start implementing a policy on civic nationalism that unifies the country under common human ideals.

@ Grobanista

I can't believe they censored your comments.

Keep fighting the good fight, and know that it is ok to have principled and well thought out positions that diverge from the current liberal group think that is leading Europe down the path of self destruction.

I will probably vote for Geert Wilders, or Geert as Joe Sixpack calls him. For years our politicians have ignored the problem of immigrant scum, little gangsters of 6-25 years old mostly with a Moroccan background, that "owns" the streets in normal neighbourhoods. Wilders is the second person, first was Pim Fortuyn but he got murdered, who actually wants to do something about this. To me priority #1 is not the economic crisis but giving my country back to the people who deserve it and get every Dutch person that commits a crime in jail and every criminal immigrant (about 50% of Moroccan guys in the big cities have a police record) kicked out. Getting a tough stand from the Moroccan government in this matter is unacceptable.

The Netherlands have always been appreciated as a country of tolerance, an empty and disastrous bubble created by the "smart" guys from the The Hague and the inner-city of Amsterdam, at the expense of my fellow countrymen, especially those from the lower social classes. If it's up to me we stop this political correctness and start thinking about what really serves the people and not what serves "BV Nederland", as we call it. This means: no more Uruzgan, stopping developmental aid, anti-immigration policy towards the 3rd world except former-colonies, complete legalization of soft-drugs and a much tougher voice in the EU to corrupt states like Greece but also tighter cooperation with proper countries like Germany and Northern-Europe, who suffer similar problems like immigrant scum in their streets. If that will cost us a seat at the G20, a high-profile job at the UN or an important commissioner in the EC, so be it.

It's the Dutch people versus the Netherlands that we have to vote about in the next election.