Peter van Ham er seniorforsker ved Clingendael, et nederlandsk forskningsinstitutt om internasjonale relasjoner. Han slår fast at leder av Frihetspartiet, Geert Wilders, fremdeles er en ensom politisk svale, det til tross for at terrorister ”myrder mens de holder koranen i hendene”. De ”liberale progressive insisterer (likevel) på at ingenting av dette har noe å gjøre med islam. Ikke en eneste nederlandsk partileder eller opinionsdanner vil innrømme at Wilders har rett. Det er fem grunner til det,” sier van Ham.
Den første grunnen er at da må de gi opp ideen om den suksessrike multikulturen og dermed også gi slipp på tanken om at Wilders er en større trussel enn radikal islam.
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 successful, 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 it’s own citizens in almost every matter? And why keep praising multiculturalism now that it has to face it’s limitations? It is much easier to deny and twist the facts, and to portray Wilders and his electorate as stupid and dangerous.
Den andre grunnen er nok en hard nøtt å knekke. De må innrømme at de tok feil, som jo er en nær sagt uoverkommelig øvelse for både politikere, akademikere og journalister/redaktører. Man tror en slik innrømmelse vil ødelegge ens renommé. (Jeg har dog alltid ment det motsatte, at å innrømme feil er en menneskelig styrke.)
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 politicians 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 to big.
Den tredje grunnen er økonomisk: svært mange lever av asylindustrien og integreringsarbeid – akkurat som i Norge.
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 it’s existence. Admitting that Wilders is right not only means that Dutch immigration and asylum policy must be changed, but that also 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.
For det fjerde kan en innrømmelse få geopolitiske konsekvenser. Man kan ødelegge relasjonene til islamske land, som despotene i Saudi-Arabia som trives med å piske mennesker på den hellige fredagen, som småbarnsfaren Rauf Badawi .
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.
Til slutt: Man må ikke undervurdere det personlige hatet mot Geert Wilders. Slik hat finner man jo også i de såkalte tolerante, liberale og progressive rekkene. Jo mer rett Wilders får, dess mer intenst vil de hate ham. Han skal ødelegges og totalt marginaliseres.
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 it’s electorate.
Det var litt vanskelig ikke å la tankene gå til en bok som heter Mens orkesteret fortsetter å spille, og forfatteren av denne boken – som ingen partiledere vil gi noe som helst rett, ei heller hans egen partileder, ser det ut til. Men at han har en høy standing i folket, se det skal han vite. Det både ser og hører jeg i mitt daglige virke.
Vi er altså mange ”på gølvet” som er villige til å ta de eventuelle sanksjonene som måtte komme ved å stå opp for fornuft og sannhet.
De må det også være mange av i Nederland, da Wilders’ parti nå er det største.
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 pollsup 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 the Islam even though the Islamization of Western Europe is steadily and rapidly continuing.
Jeg møtte nylig en journalist som gjør følgende hver gang han møter en svenske: han spør hva denne svensken tenker om Sverigedemokraternes stadig økende popularitet, nå 19 prosent på siste måling. Hver eneste gang skjer følgende: Svenskene kan knapt uttrykke sterk nok avsky for og fordømmelse av disse mørkekreftenes fremvekst.
Da sier han: ”Hadde jeg bodd i Sverige, som nå skal ta imot 100 000 asylsøkere årlig, så hadde jeg også stemt Sverigedemokraterne.”
Hva tror du responsen er da? Nettopp, demningen brister totalt. Lettelsen velter ut over å kunne dele fortvilelsen over en politikk som økonomisk og verdimessig ruinerer landet.
Den testen skal jeg også ta hver eneste gang jeg treffer en landskvinne av Åkesson og Wilders, akkurat som jeg kontinuerlig tester ut hva folk synes om Christian Tybring-Gjedde, som gir responsen; ”han ja, hedersmannen!”.