Geert Wilder’s One Page Manifesto: The Future for Holland?

Sharing is Caring!

by Mark Angelides

Barring some surprise electoral catastrophe, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV), will likely win the popular vote in the Dutch elections today. His hard-line stance on immigration and (more specifically) integration has set the tone for many of the parties vying for a share of the power. In an effort to counteract PVV’s popularity, many traditionally mainstream (centrist) parties have started veering to the right. Wilder’s appeal comes, in part, from his very straight forward and direct manifesto; he sticks to the message, and anyone who is reasonably literate can read and understand his points in a matter of minutes.
The manifesto has received mixed responses, with some media agencies saying that Wilders seeks to “rid the Netherlands of Islam”, and others saying this is a more “Holland First” platform that prioritizes traditional Dutch values. Wilders famously stated in an interview in 2008, that “Islam is not a religion; it’s an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture.”
The actual manifesto is a single side of A4 paper and contains 11 pledges, each one sentence long, with only one of the pledges fleshed out. Here they are (translated and provided by :
1) de-islamize the Netherlands
– Zero asylum seekers and no more immigrants from Muslim countries: we are closing our borders.
– Withdrawal of all residence permits already granted to asylum seekers; asylum seeker centers closed down.
– No more Muslim veils in public functions
– Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order
– Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims
– Criminals with double nationality stripped of their Dutch citizenship and deported
– Syrian fighters not allowed back in The Netherlands
– All Mosques and Muslim schools are to be closed and the Koran banned.
2) The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
3) Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
4) Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
5) Rents to be lowered
6) Age of retirement back to 65 years old. Pensions for everyone.
7) No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
8) Past budget cuts involving care will be reversed.
9) Plenty extra funds for defense and police
10) Lower income taxes
11) 50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes
Financial benefits per point [ED: the savings for the Dutch State that each of his points will provide]
1. + 7.2 billion Euro
2. to be calculated at a later date
3. to be calculated at a later date
4. -3.7 billion Euro
5. -1 billion Euro
6. -3.5 billion Euro
7. + 10 billion Euro
8. -2 billion Euro
9. -2 billion Euro
10. -3 billion Euro
11. -2 billion Euro
If you have any strong feelings on the Wilder’s platform, let me know in the comments section below.

See also  Inflation, President AOC, and other future risks my daughter will face
See also  Why Warren Buffett may be wrong about America’s future

13 thoughts on “Geert Wilder’s One Page Manifesto: The Future for Holland?

  1. Wilders is too extreme and too much focused on Islam, is the general Dutch opinion. But all other parties avoid the issue, whining about genders, climate change and such. All politics, ideologies and non-issues aside, the problems with immigration and integration are very real and very close, as in right nextdoor, and need to be addressed.This manifesto must be seen as a cynical joke. What Geert proposes is just not possible; even if everybody voted PVV today it would take tens of changes to the Dutch constitution, a hundred years and a billion cases in court to realize those goals. But all parties in the Netherlands write lenghty and complicated manifestos filled with particracy slogans, promising the world and in the end, delivering nothing, cheating their voters decade after decade. Wilders exposes that hypocrisy with his ‘one A-4’.
    Turnout as of this moment is higher than usual. The Dutch version of “the flyover country” is reacting. People want a NEXIT, want their sovereignty back no matter what the polls say. In 2005 63% voted against the EU in a referendum. I would not be surprised if 70 or even 80% would vote ‘no’ if that referendum was repeated today.

      • A major component of Racism is a deficient Ego. Look at the U.S.
        The ‘exceptionals’ are ignorant liars & thieves.

      • “Islamophobia” isn’t even the correct word, because it literally means “fear of Islam”. But we’re not afraid of Islam, we’ve taken some serious time to study it, and the more you know about it the more you support politicians like Wilders. This is a violent, barbaric, medieval death cult focused on taking over the world. Before you can be an “info warrior” it would help to search out some info.

    • Wilders is on target. Liberals might find his solutions to a REAL problem uncomfortable and are Islam deniers, but measures have to be taken.

  2. Other EU member countries should have a manifesto like the one above . One thing is missing though . The power to the people to recall parliamentarians that are incapable and useless .

    • Agreed but since he is advocating Citizen empowerment and direct democracy, such a notion is passe for him maybe. But until it is achieved, such a measure like term limits and recall will have to be applied.

  3. Odd pattern that I don’t think is pure coincidence.
    Just about everywhere in the world, we see an establishment candidate (Clinton, Macron/Fillon, Merkel/Schulz, Rutte, …) running against a self-proclaimed populist who wants some of the right things, but just happens to be nutty enough to think Muslims are to blame for everything, we need to throw more money at the war industry, we need to throw more money at the total surveillance state, and welfare needs to be eradicated, and who tends to go too far with immigration restrictions (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, Petry, …).
    Not in a single country do we see a populist who wants the right things, places the blame for the Mid-East mess where it belongs (HINT: it’s the relatively recent invaders and their Western supporters), dares to stand up against the banksters, wants to dismantle the war industry and the total surveillance state, and wants to put some limits on immigration without going to the other extreme.
    I wonder why – could they all be fake opposition, so people think something is changing when in fact they’re just pushing the same old agenda forward with a different focus?

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.