Geert Wilders brands Dutch hate speech trial 'a charade'

Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders has told a court that his trial for alleged hate speech is a "charade, a disgrace for the Netherlands, a mockery for our society".

In a televised statement on the last day of the trial, he said that if he was convicted "millions of Dutch citizens will be convicted with me".

The charges were brought after he led a chant for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands at a rally 18 months ago.

He denies inciting racial hatred.

Mr Wilders has denounced the trial as an attempt to suppress freedom of speech. If convicted, he faces a fine and a year in prison. The verdict is due next month.

Read more:Geert Wilders brands Dutch hate speech trial 'a charade' - BBC News

The Netherlands The EU’s New Bomb Is Ticking in the Netherlands - by Simon Nixon

Geert Wilders: "a lot of talk and spin, rather than substance"

If the European dream is to die, it may be the Netherlands that delivers the fatal blow. The Dutch general election in March is shaping up to be a defining moment for the European project The risk to the European Union doesn’t come from Geert Wilders, the leader of anti-EU, anti-immigration Party for Freedom. He is well ahead in the polls and looks destined to benefit from many of the social and economic factors that paved the way for the Brexit and Trump revolts.

But the vagaries of the Dutch political system make it highly unlikely that Mr. Wilders will find his way into government. As things stand, he is predicted to win just 29 out of the 150 seats in the new parliament, and mainstream parties seem certain to shun him as a coalition partner. In an increasingly fragmented Dutch political landscape, most observers agree that the likely outcome of the election is a coalition of four or five center-right and center-left parties.

Instead, the risk to the EU comes from a new generation of Dutch euroskeptics who are less divisive and concerned about immigration but more focused on questions of sovereignty—and utterly committed to the destruction of the EU. Its leading figures are Thierry Baudet and Jan Roos, who have close links to British euroskeptics. They have already scored one significant success: In 2015, they persuaded the Dutch parliament to adopt a law that requires the government to hold a referendum on any law if 300,000 cIfitizens request it. They then took advantage of this law at the first opportunity to secure a vote that rejected the EU’s proposed trade and economic pact with Ukraine, which Brussels saw as a vital step in supporting a strategically important neighbor.

This referendum law is a potential bomb under the EU, as both Dutch politicians and Brussels officials are well aware. Mr. Baudet believes he now has the means to block any steps the EU might seek to take to deepen European integration or stabilize the eurozone if they require Dutch legislation. This could potentially include aid to troubled Southern European countries such as Greece and Italy, rendering the eurozone unworkable.

Indeed, the Dutch government gave a further boost to Mr. Baudet and his allies when it agreed to accept the outcome of the Ukraine referendum if turnout was above 30%, even though it was under no legal obligation to do so. This was a major concession to the euroskeptics, as became clear when strong turnout among their highly motivated supporters lifted overall turnout to 31%. With Mr. Wilders’s party, currently polling above 25%, and both Mr. Baudet and Mr. Roos having launched their own parties, Dutch euroskeptics are confident they will be able to reach the 30% threshold in future referendums.

From the rest of the EU’s perspective, the central question of the election is whether mainstream Dutch parties can find a way to defuse this bomb. That won’t be easy.

The first challenge is to find a way out of the Ukraine impasse. Prime Minister Mark Rutte remains committed to ratifying the deal but he needs to do so in a way that won’t expose him to charges of ignoring the referendum result, thereby stoking euroskeptic support. Dutch, EU and Ukrainian negotiators will sit down next week and try to hammer out a legally binding clarification that makes clear that the agreement doesn’t include military assistance and doesn’t offer a path to Ukraine’s EU membership.

But even if the rest of the EU and Ukraine can reach such a compromise, Mr. Rutte may not be able to secure the backing of the Dutch Senate, where he lacks a majority. Opposition parties don’t want to be seen to be participating in what will inevitably be portrayed as an establishment stitch-up so close to elections.

The second step to defusing the bomb is to amend the referendum law to exclude international agreements. But while pro-European politicians privately say this is their goal, few are willing to say so publicly. Parties on the center-right don’t want to antagonize their increasingly euroskeptic voter base, while much of the center-left is hamstrung by its past support for the referendum law, which they backed because of a long-standing enthusiasm for direct democracy.

Instead, some mainstream politicians are privately pinning their hopes on the Christian Democrats, a center-right party currently in opposition and traditionally suspicious of direct democracy, riding to the rescue by insisting on an amendment to the law as a condition of any future coalition agreement. Yet the Christian Democrats don’t appear in any mood to let other parties off the hook so easily: The party is currently leading the parliamentary opposition to the government’s efforts to ratify the Ukraine deal.

Not surprisingly, the mood in Brussels, where this situation is being watched closely, is gloomy. One top official reckons the chances of the Dutch government defusing this bomb at less than 50%. Those may turn out to be the odds on the ultimate survival of the European project.

Read more: The EU’s New Bomb Is Ticking in the Netherlands - WSJ

People Power: People are fed up: "Populism against the Establishment - a Global Revolution in the making?"-by RM

There has never been a greater divide than that of today between the forces of Populism and the Establishment.

Most people are fed up with their corrupt governments and the power of corporations over the political environment, media, etc,  except, obviously, the "1% have all" global elite..

A Harvard University working paper explains this development as follows:"Rising support for populist parties has disrupted the politics of many Western societies. Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic insecurity perspective--emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors" of the population to progressive value change.

Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change. cultural backlash thesis.

Populist leaders like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Norbert Hoffer, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders are prominent today in many countries, altering established patterns of party competition in contemporary Western societies. Cas Mudde argues that the impact of populist parties has been exaggerated.

But, nevertheless these parties have gained votes and seats in many countries, and entered government coalitions in eleven Western democracies, including in Austria, Italy and Switzerland.2 Across Europe, as is demonstrated, their average share of the vote in national and European parliamentary elections has more than doubled since the 1960s, from around 5.1% to 13.2%, at the expense of center parties.3 During the same era, their share of seats has tripled, from 3.8% to 12.8%.

Even in countries without many elected populist representatives, these parties can still exert tremendous ‘blackmail’ pressure on mainstream parties, public discourse, and the policy agenda, as is illustrated by the UKIP’s role in catalyzing the British exit from the European Union, with massive consequences. 

The electoral fortunes of populist parties are open to multiple explanations which can be grouped into accounts focused upon (1) the demand-side of public opinion, (2) the supply-side of party strategies, and (3) constitutional arrangements governing the rules of the electoral game."

But unhappiness with their situation and the rise of populism does not only limit itself to Western and Industrial societies.

• Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than € 2.30 a day.
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
• 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

Why? Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

And now, here we have the US Presidential elections, with two candidates who in all reality are products of the Establishment, but both courting the populist movement.

Though Clinton has suffered from her perceived coziness with Wall Street, she took a hard line against “those who get rich by cheating everybody else.”

And she warned:“I want to send a clear message to every boardroom and executive suite across our country,” Clinton said. “If you scam your customers, exploit your employees, pollute our environment or rip off the taxpayers, we will hold you accountable.”

Billionaire Donald Trump is even more blunt and probably also slightly more honest when it comes to showing he is standing up for the "have-nots"   But while doing this, he is also demolishing the US Republican party as we know it.  Nevertheless, his most lasting impact may be more substantive — he has pushed the GOP into a much more populist corner on policy, challenging the party’s platform on everything from free trade to entitlements. The Republican party will never be the same again.

And last but not least - Donald Trump boasts he can’t be bought by the special interests and advocacy groups that normally fund political campaigns.   Yes indeed he can now safely label himself the   "billionaire populist".

Whatever the result will be of this totally unorthodox US Presidential election, one thing is clear - a political revolution is in the making around the world, and if we think this is as bad or dangerous as it can get - think again.
©
EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Geert Wilders, 'Fewer Moroccans,' and the Question of Hate Speech - by Uri Friedman

In March 2014, during a rally in The Hague, Geert Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, where Dutch Moroccans constitute 2 percent of the population. “Fewer, fewer!” the crowd chanted. “Then we will arrange that,” the Dutch politician responded, flashing a smile. The remarks lasted only seconds, but they launched a years-long legal battle that resulted, this week, in a trial. Wilders is facing charges of deliberately insulting a group of people based on their race and inciting discrimination and hatred against them.

Over the next few weeks, the trial will revolve around one question, The Wall Street Journal reports: “Is the right of free speech for politicians absolute, or should it be restricted to protect against discrimination?”

Here’s the video when Dutch prosecutors claim Wilders’s free speech veered into hate speech.

Note Almere-Digest: You might like Wilders or you may hate him, but to qualify the above speech as a hate speech, rather than a derogatory political speech, is somewhat far fetched, specially for a nation which respects the right of 'freedom of speech". 

Read more: Geert Wilders, 'Fewer Moroccans,' and the Question of Hate Speech - The Atlantic

The Netherlands: No Justice in the Netherlands - by Judith Bergman

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders' appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that."

Because of the "fewer Moroccans" statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for "deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race." Second, for "inciting hatred or discrimination against these people."

Wilders' defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: "Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,", Knoops said "The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this."

As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. "It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions." Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders' freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.

The court's response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance" and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians' freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.

Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:

    "We also have sh*t Moroccans over here." -- Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
    "We must humiliate Moroccans." -- Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
    "Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." -- Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

The court discarded Wilders' defense attorney's argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.

The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language ("sh*t Moroccans") and what could be considered direct incitement ("We must humiliate Moroccans"). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone "sh*t" because of their ethnic origin?

It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.



Read more: No Justice in the Netherlands

The Netherlands: Geert Wilders PVV drops 6 percentage points in latest election popularity political poll

The ruling VVD would be the biggest party in parliament if there was a general election tomorrow, according to a new poll from Kantar TNS, formerlly TNS Nipo.

The poll gives the right-wing Liberals 27 seats in the 150 seat parliament, or 18% of the vote. Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam PVV, which was on target to win 29 seats in the September poll, has now slumped to 23.

In June, Nipo put support for the PVV as high as 36 seats, or 24% support. The middle ground is still held by the Liberal Democrats (D66), Socialists and Christian Democrats on 18 and 16 seats respectively.

Wilders who has alligned himself closely with Donald Trump, and even went to the Republican convention to openly endorse him can expect even more backlash from that decision if Trump looses in November

Almere-digest

POLAND: population rejects Right-Win Gpvernment pplicies

Tens of thousands march against right-wing government in Poland Tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets of the Polish capital Warsaw Saturday to rally against moves by the rightwing Law and Justice government that they say undermine the rule of law. http://f24.my/2d0wqZg

United Nations: UN rights chief slams ′demagogues′ Trump and Wilders

Speaking in The Hague on Monday, United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein accused US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of spreading "humiliating racial and religious prejudice" and warned of a rise of populist politics that could turn violent.

Zeid said Trump and Dutch nationalist Geert Wilders (picture above, left) are among the "populists and demagogues" - which also included Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, leader of France's National Front (FN) Marine Le Pen, and the UK's leading Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage - who have mastered propaganda like the "Islamic State" (IS), saying that they "benefit from each other."

"All seek in varying degrees to recover a past, halcyon and so pure in form, where sunlit fields are settled by peoples united by ethnicity or religion," Zeid told the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation, adding that promises to recover such a past were fiction.

"Its merchants are cheats," he said, accusing populist leaders of using "half-truths and oversimplification" to feed the fears of "anxious" individuals.

It was a simple formula "to make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others."

"Make no mistake, I certainly do not equate the actions of nationalist demagogues with those of Daesh," Zeid said, using the Arabic term for IS. "But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists."

Wilders ahead in opinion polls

Ahead of the Netherland's elections in March next year, Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) launched its campaign platform last week, vowing to "close mosques, Islamic schools and ban the Koran" if elected.

The PVV, which has been leading in opinion polls, also vowed to reverse the "Islamization" of The Netherlands by closing the borders, shutting asylum seeker centers, banning migrants from Muslim countries and stopping Muslim women from wearing a headscarf. Wilders also wants to leave the European Union (EU).

Zeid said on Monday that he was angry "because of Mr. Wilder's lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear."

"We must pull back from this trajectory," Zeid warned, adding that there was a risk "the atmosphere will become thick with hate" which could "descend rapidly into colossal violence."

Reacting to Zeid's speech, Wilders said in a text message to French news agency AFP that the Jordanian prince was "an utter fool."

"Another good reason to get rid of the UN," the populist politician said.

"Islam and freedom are incompatible whatever this Jordanian bureaucrat says," Wilders added.



Read more: UN rights chief slams ′demagogues′ Trump and Wilders | News | DW.COM | 06.09.2016

USA: The Rep0ublican Convention:Geert Wilders at the first day of the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio

Last week Monday, American time, over 50 thousand people gathered in Cleveland, Ohio for the start of the Republican convention. Among them is PVV leader Geert Wilders, who was pleased as punch to see Trump be officially named the Republican candidate for U.S. president, despite opposition in the Republican party trying to stop it.

“In America you see the same happening as in the Netherlands. The hard working people, what they call the blue collar workers here, no longer feel represented by the political elite. That people no longer want the policy of open borders, immigration and Islamization”, Wilders said to Dutch newspaper the Telegraaf.

Wilders was recognized by some, others had to ask who he is. “He’s a bit like that story from the Netherlands with that little boy with his finger in the dike. So he tries to stop the misery in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe”, a woman in her fifties said to the newspaper. But not all were in favor of his visit. “Was that Geert Wilders from Holland?” a passerby with a anti-Trump sign asked. “Another guy just trying to divide the world instead of uniting. Let hims stay in Holland.”

The first day of the Republican convention was relatively chaotic, with the anti-Trump camp demanding the opportunity to support other candidates. They demanded a roll call vote on the plan, so that representatives of all States can have their say, according to NU.nl. The party leaders declared that there was too little support for such a vote, leading to much shouting and the Colorado delegation, among others, walking out.

Trump was officially named the Republican presidential candidate. There’s not much chance of his opponents stopping him, as he got more than enough delegates behind him during the primaries.
RrEAD MOREl Geert Wilders at the first day of the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, 18 July 2016 (Photo: @geertwilderspvv/Twitter)

The Netherlands: Geert Wilders says the Netherlands needs a leader like Donald Trump - Really ?

There will be a lot of people who There will be a lot of people who ‘whine, scream and yell’ if Donald Trump becomes president of the US but in the end it will ‘all be fine’, PVV leader Geert Wilders told BNR radio on Monday.

Wilders is in the US to attend the four-day Republican convention, at which Trump is expected to be named Republican candidate for the presidency.

Trump, Wilders said, is ‘someone who is good at getting himself heard’ and who focuses on ‘the interests of his own people’. ‘He will be a real American leader, who might not always be the best one from a European perspective, but one who defends gthe interests of his own people.

Note EU-Digest: Democracy only works in a country if the majority  people who vote are not ignorant and being able to separate the empty slogan populists from the true politicians. We can only hope this will be the case in the US in November and in the Netherlands next year. 

There will be a lot of people who ‘whine, scream and yell’ if Donald Trump becomes president of the US but in the end it will ‘all be fine’, PVV leader Geert Wilders told BNR radio on Monday. Wilders is in the US to attend the four-day Republican convention, at which Trump is expected to be named Republican candidate for the presidency. Trump, Wilders said, is ‘someone who is good at getting himself heard’ and who focuses on ‘the interests of his own people’.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Geert Wilders says the Netherlands needs a leader like Donald Trump http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/93300-2/

Read more: Geert Wilders says the Netherlands needs a leader like Donald Trump - DutchNews.nl

The Netherlands: Why does Anti-Islam and Anti-Immigrant Geert Wilders' hides his Indonesian roots?

Geert Wilders in his yonger days

Dutch newspaper "de groene Amsterdammer reported that for years there have been rumors circulating that in reality Geert Wilders is an 'Indo' (an Indonesian-European, an ethnic mix that originated when the Dutch colonised Indonesia).

A Dutch genealogist said he had found several Indonesian ancestors of theright-wing populist Dutch politician known for his rabid anti-immigrant and anti-Islam ideas. Now anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen describes how his roots can be seen as the driving force behind his outspoken views.

In an article in the left-wing weekly De Groene Amsterdammer Van Leeuwen asks: "Is it possible that the post-colonial and family history have made Wilders what he and his politics are today?" The article is an intellectual attempt to analyse what drives Wilders to say that "all immigration from Islamic countries should be halted" and that "all fundamental problems in the Netherlands are related to immigration".

Wilders now dies his hair peroxide blond -

The conclusion reached by Van Leeuwen is that these statements - plus the fact that he dies his hair peroxide blond - are indeed related to his genealogical link to the largest Islamic country.

Geert Wilders' increasing popularity made his Party for Freedom the second largest Dutch party in European parliament in June. Known for his anti-establishment and anti-immigration politics, Wilders has been calling himself a 'Dutch freedom fighter'. But given that his mother's roots lay outside of the Netherlands, Van Leeuwen says a sense of 'displacedness' is the recurring, underlying motive in his statements.

The 6-page article reveals that Wilders' grandmother, Johanna Ording-Meijer, came from an old Jewish-Indonesian family and that Wilders lied about this in his 2008 biography. However, Van Leeuwen, an expert on the position of Indo-Dutch people in the post-colonial age, goes beyond the notion that a politician known for judging others on their ethnic roots can himself be traced to foreign ancestors.

Van Leeuwen went into the national archives to find the sad story of Wilders' grandfather on his mother's side. Johan Ording was a regional financial administrator in the Dutch colony who suffered several bankruptcies and was fired while on leave in the Netherlands in 1934. He was reduced to begging when the government refused to give him a pension, but later made it to prison director. Van Leeuwen suggests that Wilders is out to avenge the injustice done to his grandfather.

But more than anything, he was defined by his Indo-roots, she says. Indonesia was a Dutch colony until 1949 and many mixed-race people moved to the Netherlands after the Indonesian independence. Van Leeuwen describes how these people were put in the same 'cultural minority' box with labour immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, whom they felt no connection to at all. More so, they had always felt very patriotic about the Netherlands and harboured strong sentiments against Islam, the dominant religion in their motherland.

Van Leeuwen explains how this group has long been part of extreme-right movements (many supported the Dutch Nazi party NSB in Indonesia in the 1930s) while others belonged to the far-right of the right-wing liberal party VVD. She puts Wilders' statements in the conservative and colonial tradition of this group, which strongly believed in patriotism and "European values".

Van Leeuwen's analysis goes beyond the personal level: "The fact that Wilders obviously operates in a post-colonial political dimension, without it being recognised, says a lot about how the Netherlands dealt with, and still deals with the colonial past. Keep quiet, deny, forget and look the other way have been the motto for decades. Because of that, no one could imagine that what happened in Indonesia 50 years ago could still have its impact on modern-day politics."

And the hair? Van Leeuwen says his died mop is a "political symptom not taken serious enough". She thinks it was a brilliant move to step away from his Indonesian roots and hide his post-colonial revanchism. Although this may also be an example of his "classic Indo identity alienation."

Wilders has not responded to the publication.



Almere-Digest 

The Netherlands: Political Coppy Cats: Introducing You to the Dutch Donald Trump

Geert Wilders - a Dutch version of Donald Trump

Trevor Noaha, a US Comedian with South African roots, recently took the Trump comparison game a step further when he introduced viewers to Geert Wilders, the Dutch Party for Freedom leader (and Trump endorser).

The Netherlands version of America’s presumptive Republican nominee for President has a lot more in common as you will note from the video clip below, with Trump,  than just having a fluffy, combed hairstyle..

Fortunately there are many comedians who are still able to make fun of these "political derelicts", like Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage and several others.

Unfortunately they have also attracted many misguided followers, very much so as Hitler and Mussolini did in the past - and you hopefully know how that ended? 

In the meantime to make sure you don't take these so-called "nationalist politicians" too serious click on this: comical clip about Geert Wilders — if only to take comfort in the fact that the U.S. isn’t alone. 

Almere-Digest

EU-USA: Cult of Personality: How Trump Uses the Playbook of Europe's Far Right - by Emily Cade

For months, pundits dismissed Trump’s candidacy, arguing that once voters started paying attention, his lack of substance would crater his support.

Now that he’s the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, it’s clear the early naysayers sorely miscalculated. The lesson from th

is race: A strong cult of personality can trump ideology. And that’s been proved by generations of demagogues. The support behind Italy’s Benito Mussolini was “more about the leader than...about the party or the ideology,” bypassing or even upending the traditional party structures, says Arfon Rees, a specialist in Soviet and Russian history at the U.K.’s University of Birmingham.

There are other parallels, says Joseph Sassoon, an associate professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. When Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, “this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches,” says Sassoon, referencing former leaders of Iraq, Libya and Egypt. “ An essential component of the cult of personality is it cannot be shared with anyone.”

German philosopher Max Weber coined the term charismatic authority to describe leaders whose power is built on their “exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character,” as opposed to the rule of law or simply brute force.

Many may not regard Trump the candidate in an admirable light, but to his followers, his business success and his personal wealth — which freed him from the unseemly campaign fundraising dance of his primary rivals — make him inviolable. American politicians are “all bought and paid for by somebody,” 62-year-old Trump supporter Nick Glaub said outside the suburban Cincinnati Trump rally.

“The only person that isn’t is that man right there,” said Glaub, gesturing to the community center where the real estate mogul had just spoken.

Trump’s charismatic authority stems from this belief that he is above politics-as-usual, says Roger Eatwell, a politics professor at Britain’s University of Bath. And it goes beyond his reality-TV fame. “Celebrity...tends to be a fairly passing phenomenon, and it doesn’t tend to be a very emotional phenomenon,” Eatwell explains. But Trump’s campaign offers something deeper: “a sense of identification.”

There is, however, one glaring difference between the Republican front-runner and Europe’s right-wing leaders in 2016: Trump’s conspicuous wealth. While he flaunts his billionaire lifestyle, Europe’s populists play up their everyman credentials. Nigel Farage, head of the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, “loves to be photographed in an English pub” having a beer, says Eatwell.

It’s a show of solidarity that’s important on a continent where class remains a salient divide and austerity’s bite is deep. Americans, in contrast, embrace capitalism far more openly and aren’t necessarily turned off by Trump’s gilded excess.

Note EU-Digest: It is interesting to see that many voters in the US and the EU have not learned from the past .....in politics and economics, nationalism has always turned into a disaster when it was applied by politicians in power as a national state policy

Instead, politicians seeking unity and cooperation among political parties and nations have usually succeeded in creating peace and prosperity at home and abroad.

The rise to the top of far-right politicians in Europe and the US  is a guaranteed recipe for political and economic turmoil.

 Cult of Personality: How Trump Uses the Playbook of Europe's Far Right

The Netherlands: Counter-Islamification Wilders Will Fly To USA To Support Trump - by Oliver JJ Lane

Donald Trump and Geert Wilders:
 "Birds of a feather flock together"

Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) founding leader and member of parliament, Geert Wilders, has said he will speak at the United States Republican convention in the summer in support of likely party candidate Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, who is presently facing charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Moroccans in his native Netherlands is a prominent leader in the European counter-jihad movement and has praised the Trump candidacy for its unaccommodating stance on Muslim mass migration.

Speaking out after Ted Cruz and John Kasich stood down from the Republican candidate race and left Mr. Trump as the only credible candidate earlier this week, Mr. Wilders said of Mr. Trump: “He has guts, a lot of good ideas and speaks to broad groups in society”, reports Rotterdam’s largest newspaper Algemeen Dagblad.

Of the coming race against the candidate most likely to lead the Democrat Party into the 2016 election, Mr. Wilders said: “Clinton may well win in the primaries, but she is incredibly unpopular with the ordinary man and woman in the U.S. I give Trump a good chance”.

Reflecting on the rise of right wing populist politics on both sides of the Atlantic, including the seemingly all-conquering Mr. Trump and the likely victory of anti mass migration candidate in this month’s Austrian presidential elections, Mr. Wilders remarked:

“The patriotic spring in the U.S., Europe and Netherlands is unstoppable, trust me”.

Mr. Wilders called for Europe to close its borders to Muslim migrants in November, shortly before Mr. Trump called for a temporary halt on Muslim migration to the United States. Clearly impressed, Mr. Wilders said at the time: “I hope [Donald Trump] will be the next US President. Good for America, good for Europe. We need brave leaders”.

The PVV leader takes a keen interest in the United States, and was present at the Garland Draw Mohammed Competition attack in 2015. Although he is a veteran campaigner himself, he has been taking clear hints from Mr. Trump’s forthright campaigning style, channeling the famous slogan by remarking “Make the Netherlands Great Again!” last month.

Looking forward to the 2017 elections in the Netherlands, Mr. Wilders said: “On March 15, 2017 we will return the Netherlands to the Dutch”.

Note Almere Digest : Donald Trump  and Geert Widera are probably not as stupid as they appear to be, because they have a very good understanding of what stupid people want to hear.

Read more: Counter-Islamification Wilders Will Fly To USA To Support Trump

EU Politics: Austrian (European) Democrats Must Unite To Stop The Far Right - by Robert Misik

"Alarming populist"ultra-right-wing surge in European politics"

The resistible rise of the Far Right in Austria. The presidential election is on a knife-edge before the deciding round of the deciding round of at the end of May.  It did indeed come as a shock that moment when the blue bar on the TV screen last Sunday at 5 pm shot upwards: 35 per cent of the votes for the far right FPÖ presidential candidate Norbert Hofer with his nearest challenger – the Greens’ ex-chairman Alexander van der Bellen – pretty far behind on 21 per cent.

And the candidates of the two ruling (former) big parties, the Christian democrats and the social democrats, had shrunk to barely more than ten per cent. Nobody had bet on an upset on this scale, not one political expert, not one opinion pollster.

For the FPÖ this first round of the presidential election represents the biggest breakthrough they’ve ever had in a federal election. Behind it lie several pivotal reasons. First: the candidate and his campaign. From a FPÖ point of view the candidate and campaign were simply brilliant. One banked on Austria First, anti-EU, anti-refugees and on the well-honed, all-encompassing anti-Establishment messaging. But with Hofer they had a candidate who came across as a man one could trust, a little bit nerdy, a shade too boyish. Of the type: a right-wing radical nobody can be afraid of; an extremist but harmless. So he was the ideal figure to exceed his party’s potential support so dramatically. If party boss Strache is like an agitator who frightens people away then Hofer is the nice and sweet son-in-law type one can plump for one time at least out of sheer dissatisfaction with the rest.

This explains why Hofer ended up significantly ahead of the expected potential vote for his party. This potential is in any case frighteningly high and is nurtured by everything that generally favours right-wing populists in today’s Europe: utter disenchantment with the political and economic elites, the feeling of the “man on the street” that nobody gives a fig. Add to that in Austria: rage about a grand coalition of those parties that have marked post-war Austria, which, in the eyes of the people, have for ever and a day viewed the country as in their possession and today put dreadfully incapable apparatchiks into the top jobs. This is all embodied in the person of the chancellor, Werner Faymann. The candidates of the two established but now former big parties experienced a pretty unprecedented collapse. Incredibly, Faymann clings to his seat even after this debacle as in no way responsible.

The next four weeks will be tricky. The FPÖ man Hofer has by no means won. Of course, the significant gap between him and second placed but favourite Alexander van der Bellen is a shock to the system for the centre-left camp. And courage and energy are now required if this advantage is to be wiped out. We need solidarity among democrats – though this is complicated by the fear it might possibly help Hofer if the entire country, from the chancellor to the cardinal, lines up against him, enabling the FPÖ to bang the drum: “Look, the entire Establishment is joining forces to block the candidate of the little people.”

From today’s perspective the final round in four weeks is on a knife-edge. Hofer has comprehensively exhausted the voter potential of the FPÖ but can still net a few votes from the conservative camp. Traditional Green and social democrat voters, on the other hand, largely stayed at home in the first round. So that means van der Bellen might win on the backs of non-voters. If he wins the bigger part of voters for the independent, liberal democrat candidate Irmgard Gris and, on top, half of those who voted in the first round for the SPÖ candidate, then he might well get over the required 50 per cent plus-1 hurdle. Equally, the FPÖ has got huge momentum after this first round result – it’s brimming with confidence.

Blocking Hofer as federal president is anyway just the immediate minimalist programme that, even if it succeeds, will do nothing about the deep crisis afflicting the political system. The government is a spent force, the social democrats are a lifeless torso with a chancellor and party chairman Werner Faymann who has absolutely zero credibility after the dozens of twists and turns and endless tactical manoeuvrings he’s carried out. The governing parties haven’t even the shred of a positive idea in their heads about how one can help the country progress. For months polls have shown that the Freedom lot would be the biggest party when it came to National Assembly elections. And by a distance too: The far right is on a stable 32 per cent, with the Christian and social democrats ten points behind.

The old political scene is breaking up. If we want to stop the turn in Austria towards ‘Orbanistan’ it would require open-heart surgery: the social democrats in particular would have to get rid of the greater part of their political top brass and do so whilst chained to a government whose protagonists simply block each other. It’s not entirely impossible that might happen but let’s put it like this: This is not exactly the best time for such an operation. The country is tilting to the right and a left-wing alternative that can use popular disenchantment and dissatisfaction to its own purposes is nowhere in sight. If the social democrats cannot execute this U-turn then such an alternative will have to be built with lightning speed. The next parliamentary elections are due in 2018 but nobody is betting on the coalition dragging on for as long as that after this debacle.

Note EU-Digest: "It is high time for Europeans to recognize the dangers of this "populist" ultra-right-wing surge in European politics. For those that seem to have forgotten - remember that man with the mustache?  - also from Austria - who promised many things which would make a better and stronger Europe. It turned out into a disaster ".   

Read more: Austrian Democrats Must Unite To Stop The Far Right

Netherlands: 61% of Dutch voters say no to ratifying EU-Ukraine deal "pushed down the throat of the EU by the US"

Ukraine Referendum: EU needs an independent foreign policy

The majority of Dutch people who went to the polls in the Netherlands on Wednesday April 6  to express their opinion on the proposed association agreement between the EU and Kiev have rejected it, preliminary results and exit polls have shown.

Sixty-one percent voted against the Netherlands ratifying the treaty, which would strengthen economic and political ties between the 28-nation bloc and Kiev, an exit poll conducted by the Ipsos center shows. Some 38 percent of the voters supported the move, the exit poll has shown.

If the turnout surpasses the 30 percent threshold, making the “no” vote valid, the government will reconsider ratifying the treaty, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said.

"It's clear that 'No' have won by an overwhelming margin, the question is only if turnout is sufficient," Rutte stated. "If the turnout is above 30 percent with such a large margin of victory for the 'No' camp then my sense is that ratification can't simply go ahead."

Ukraine’s foreign ministry announced that it is examining the results of the referendum, but pointed out that it was a non-binding expression of public opinion and that it will wait for the Netherlands’ final decision on ratification of the EU-Ukraine deal.

“We are counting on the decision to be in the interests of Ukraine, the Netherlands and Europe,” Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mariana Betsa stated.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian opposition said that the results of the referendum represent disappointment with the Ukrainian government.

“This is like a cold shower for the Ukrainian politicians who believe that loud shouting and wild hopping is more important than efficient work,” Aleksander Vilkul, a leader of the Opposition Bloc Party, said. “This is an assessment to those who think that no one will notice excessive corruption.”

Although Rutte promised that a valid “no” vote would not go ignored, he said that the government would take its time in deciding exactly how to respond to the public’s opinion.

A political analyst in the Netherlands noted that this referendum result was not an Euroskeptic endorsement, as proclaimed by the right-wing Dutch anti-Islamist Geert Wilders, or a pro-Russian declaration, but rather an indication that the majority of Europeans are  tired of being dragged into US political and diplomatic "escapades", be it in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere, and rather prefer to follow an independent foreign policy.

EU-Digest

EU: Will Populist Parties Run (Ruin) Europe? - by Judy Dempsey

Populism and Nationalism, two destructive political forces

Populism is on the rise in Europe but is unlikely to win enough votes to run Europe. Yet the risk that populism will run Europe by proxy is real if mainstream governments do not address the phenomenon’s underlying causes.

Leaders of the center-right and center-left are racing to embrace right-wing populist demagoguery in the hope of catching a few votes. This tactic does not pay off, as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico discovered in Slovakia’s parliamentary election on March 5. His embrace of the right-wing anti-immigration card boosted far-right parties more than his own. If voters want xenophobia, they will choose the real thing.

But Fico’s experience does not seem to be persuading mainstream politicians to stop chasing right-wing populism. Governments’ responses to the refugee influx are paralyzed by a fear of populism’s rise in upcoming elections.

Worse still, populists are framing the way in which the refugee challenge is debated. These fears are blocking the emergence of alternative solutions, in turn giving populists even more ammunition. If mainstream politics does not recapture the debate with alternative proposals and a vocabulary that reflects its principles (those that have held Europe together), it will put itself at the mercy of a populist minority.

Contrary to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s boldest dreams, illiberal national populists will not run Europe anytime soon. In many countries, the shrinking center still just about holds. But this should provide little comfort. Populists don’t need to run Europe to ruin it. Of course, the poison works best in countries where authoritarian populists control the government. The proudly illiberal regimes of Orbán and Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party, would fail to meet the Copenhagen criteria for acceding EU states.

But populists do not need to control the government to feed on and fuel a new age of fear in Europe: fear of the Other (especially Muslims) and fear of global competition. Populists’ seemingly easy answers—pull up the national drawbridge to keep Muslims and competition out—put pressure on terrified establishment elites and drag political culture to previously unseen lows, depriving policymaking of the oxygen of reason.

This trend is now also threatening to engulf Germany, so far one of the last islands of liberal democratic normalcy. If you want to know what a neurotic Germany feels like, take Bavarian Minister President Horst Seehofer as a harbinger of things to come. Not a pretty prospect for the dream of a self-confident liberal Europe in the twenty-first century.

Populist parties already run many European countries. Look at Central and Eastern Europe, where populists formally make up the government, or at France and the UK, where they set the tone of the political debate to a greater or lesser degree. There are reasons to believe that populist and other fringe political forces will increasingly shape Europe’s political landscape and polarize it along liberal versus illiberal or globalist versus territorialist dividing lines.

But the real question is not whether populists are likely to grab power in one or two more EU member states—although a French presidency led by the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen would be the end of Europe as we know it. The real (and currently materializing) threat is that so-called mainstream parties will gradually give up their fundamental principles of human rights, civil liberties, equality, and openness out of panic fear of a populist surge.

The rise of populism is sometimes a high but inevitable price to pay for a firm policy of not bowing to external pressures. The right-wing Alternative for Germany versus Chancellor Angela Merkel is a case in point. Perhaps Europe needs to accept this price. And instead of seeking to accommodate populists, Europe should try to mobilize those large parts of society that have lost not only confidence in the elites but also the belief that the stakes in today’s politics are high. If liberal democracy and open societies fall in Europe, it will happen by default, not because of an outright rejection by the people.

Read more: Judy Asks: Will Populist Parties Run Europe? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Netherlands Politics: Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls - by Corina Ruhe and Celeste Perri

Geert Wilders

The European Union is teetering, and Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders wants to tip it over the edge.

Wilders, 52, whose party leads opinion polls with calls to close Dutch borders to refugees, pledged to immediately pull the Netherlands out of the 28-nation EU should he become prime minister in elections due in March next year. The EU is unraveling and that’s to be encouraged, he said, urging the U.K. to quit the bloc in its forthcoming referendum.

“We are not sovereign any more; we are not even allowed to form our own immigration policy or even close our borders and I would do that,” Wilders said Thursday in an interview in the Dutch parliament building in The Hague. “I would wish the Dutch to be more like Switzerland. In the heart of Europe, but not in the European Union.”

A household name in the Netherlands since 2004, when he split from the mainstream Liberal party to form his own on an anti-Islam platform, the bouffant-haired blond has enjoyed a swell of support as voters grow increasingly alarmed at the arrival in Europe of more than a million refugees from Syria and elsewhere.

The latest poll showed him winning the most parliamentary seats -- as many as Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Liberals won in 2012 -- if elections were held now.

After years of turbulence surrounding Greek membership of the euro, the focus of uncertainty in the EU has shifted to Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron is set to call a referendum as early as June on whether the U.K. should stay in or leave. Wilders said he “hopes” Britons will opt to quit, with a knock-on effect on the Netherlands.

Note Almere Digest: Geert Wilders has never shown how he will carry out his plans in case he succeeds to pull the Netherlands out of the EU. 

He is a danger to the long-term economic, political and social stability of the Netherlands. His motto so well put by the French is : "Après moi, le déluge". 

Read more: Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls - Bloomberg Business

European Parliamentary Elections - Eurosceptics: Netherlands' Geert Wilders cuts up EU flag in Bruxelles - by Nikolaj Nielsen

The Mouse which roared

Scissors in hand, anti-EU nationalist Geert Wilders of the Netherlands on Tuesday (20 May) vandalised the European Union flag in front of the European Parliament in Brussels.

In a publicity stunt amid the dozen or so cafes at Place Luxembourg, overlooked by the parliament’s tall glass structures, Wilders cut out a yellow star before unfolding the Dutch flag in its place.

The nationalist, who runs the Dutch Freedom Party, is convinced he will be able to form a new group of eurosceptic MEPs following the upcoming European Parliament elections. He wants the Netherlands to leave the Union, regain its sovereignty, and shut down its borders to asylum seekers.

His other goal - to pull apart the EU from within by forming the anti-EU faction in parliament - will require at least 25 MEPs from seven EU member states.Wilders says he will be meeting with other eurosceptic politicians next week in Brussels to work out a deal.

“It is our task to try to work together to overstep our differences, to not get into fights about our leadership, to overstep ‘our shadows’ as we say in the Netherlands,” he said.

He was short on details.

Note EU-Digest: Europe gets a taste of the type of politicians which represent the Eurosceptic group running in the elections for the European Parliament.

Read more: EUobserver / Netherlands' Geert Wilders cuts up EU flag

Far Right Dangers in Europe: "In parts of Europe, the far right rises again" - by Sonni Efron

As Europe marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, the war that destroyed Old Europe, far-right parties are gaining ground across New Europe.

Most of the far-right parties are pro-Russia, opposing U.S. and European Union efforts to isolate President Vladimir Putin for his intervention in Ukraine. They are expected to do well in the May 25 European Parliament elections.

Last month, I traveled to Hungary and Greece, where the neo-fascist movements are strongest. In Hungary, the extreme-right Jobbik party won 1 in 5 votes in last month's parliamentary election. In Greece, even as the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is being prosecuted by the government as a criminal organization, it remains the fourth-largest political party in the country. Golden Dawn lawmaker Ilias Kasidiaris, who sports a swastika tattoo and once read from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on the floor of Parliament, is running for mayor of Athens.

Both parties deny being inherently anti-Semitic or anti-Roma, but their symbols and rhetoric suggest otherwise. Party leaders are unapologetically hostile to LGBT rights, and Golden Dawn is vehemently anti-immigrant. And in both Greece and Hungary, many voters appear to be either overlooking the neo-fascist message or embracing it.

Despite international condemnation of Jobbik's anti-Semitic, anti-Roma vitriol, support for the party rose from 18% in the 2010 elections to 21% last month. Among those reelected to office was a Jobbik member of parliament who demanded that the government draw up a list of Jews in official positions because they posed a "national security risk." Another winning candidate claimed that "the Gypsy people are a biological weapon" of the Israelis who have "occupied" Hungary. These are not idle words in a country where Roma have been terrorized or killed in organized attacks.

Read more: In parts of Europe, the far right rises again - Los Angeles Times