You have types like Wilders everywhere in Europe.But now the cause? After the Second World War, race and identity were a huge taboo. We had seen what antisemitism could lead and watched from a distance to the racial problem in the US. So it did not have to, was the conclusion. We had to lovingly embrace people with a different background. The merciful Samaritan was the underlying archetype. The starting point was: Who does well, meets well.
This is a nice basic attitude if you occasionally catch up with a well-intentioned foreigner in your society, but there is another dynamic when there are large groups with a different culture and a religion that the secular society with its fundamental rights and its Tolerance rejects.Then you get parallel societies, with a hostile basic attitude and loyalties that lie elsewhere than in the Netherlands.
The problem was originally dealt with in a socio-democratic way; The newcomer was a vulnerable minority and had to be emanciped, so that they would be able to participate as full citizens in a democracy.Patience, tolerance, understanding, education and subsidy were the key concepts.
But large groups with a strong cultural and religious identity usually do not need to give up their identity and religion.They found that they were in a very tolerant environment, with generous subsidies being dealt with generously. In addition, claims were considered to be compulsion. All those measures that were once intended to allow people to be integrated into a hot bath were used to strengthen parallel societies.
These parallel societies are precisely hampering integration.Kuzu s slogan says it exactly: no integration but acceptance.
The natives experience these new cultural blocks as very negative, because they are a source of crime, intolerance and anti-Dutch Ideas.Moreover, there is a lot of tax money in the form of social benefits. The 鈧?虄Nederlanders see that politics would rather not do anything about it, because the established politics as death is to be labeled as discriminatory, as opposed to religious freedom and as xenophobic. In fact, everyone is still afraid to get on the wrong side of history, as happened after the Second World War with the Germans.
In Zo N climate, a politician like Wilders, who has started from scratch and has a supporters who agrees with him on all points in the field of minorities, can easily win many votes.He addresses a feeling that lives among the people, but that the established politics does not really dare to address.
He says what he thinks.That’s the big plus, so many think.
What a pity is: he does not think so crazy much or deeply.Every time the same simpless Riedeltje.
He is party leader of the second largest party in the Netherlands.Together with FVD, the PVV is鈩?n bit the only party you can still go to if you can no longer find yourself with all the left parties. You would think the CDA and VVD are right from the middle, but nothing is less true.
So there is very little left.
‘, ‘ I like to pull things wide.Wilders is mainly the product of a thought that the Western enlightened Society is on its return and that the prosperity that is the result of it will also deprive us. And see there: the ‘ Third Way ‘ politics-the Covenant between socialism and Capitalism-which in the Netherlands took its climax in the purple cabinets Kok and Rutte2, is indeed doing its best to break down social services by privatising them and Promote entrepreneurship. They say they have to do that to keep the system affordable, MAW they admit that decay is lurking. The paradox is that the acquired social rights need to be desobered in order to preserve them. That is of course at the expense of the weak.
The victims of this policy experience this as a decline and that is often evident in their neighbourhoods, because there is also a cutout.They form a limited group, but nevertheless form a formidable electoral squadron. They have the choice to vote on the SP, which appeals directly to his failure, or Wilders, who blames in scapegoats, in this case immigrants of mainly Islamic backgrounds. The story behind them is that they-hand in hand with the elite in politics-threaten the enlightened society. In this way, Wilders plays the ‘ culture card ‘, while the SP represents the ‘ Prosperity card ‘. In style They don’t run out of each other: the language is especially populist, noisy and rebelling. And the newest bubble tractor is called of course Baudet… Ideologically, the difference between him and Wilders is nil.
The falling society is mainly used as a ‘ frame ‘.Baudet, in particular, has almost made its elaboration an art. Whether the society really expires is difficult to determine. It also depends on what you use as a yardstick. If average prosperity is a yardstick, then it is not bad at all, on the contrary, the money is beating against the skirtings. But if you take something else-environment/climate/Nature For example-then it’s not good at all. And also the dichotomy, the slipping of the weak, the richer of the rich are precisely characteristics of decadence and decay. Whether Western society is really in decline, we will only know when a crisis erupts, for example if the climate is going on and we are no longer able to provide enough food, but for that kind of crises Wilders and Baudet do not The least, on the contrary.
It is therefore primarily a matter of perception by the electorate.By holding the electorate a frame that resonates, you can send the perception. Say for example: ‘ You see many immigrants in your ward ‘ and ‘ there is a lot of crime in your ward. ‘ That’s enough. Populists like to simplify and leave complicating facts, whether they are doing so or not. Lying may be again nowadays, thanks to Trump.
In fact, there is still a constant that always does money: the strong man/woman.That distinguishes itself mainly because he/she says how badly you have it, instead of saying how well you get it. The latter is what every politician always promises and is therefore not sufficiently distinctive.
“,” He is not very popular (anymore).
But there are people in every country on the world not satisfied with the 鈧?虄established Orde .Some because they don’t get what they want, others because they think what is being said by someone like Wilders are actually good, even though 鈧?虄mag it actually doesn’t. These two groups spread together than 鈧?虄the word according to Wilders . Wilders himself says nothing, since his 鈧?虄More-less Morocanian -miss he does not want to come to the fore. He had the chance to reign, but walked away. So he wants to kick alone, without being kicked. This too is a hallmark of such politicians.
What makes him 鈧?虄popular鈩?(it is only a small part of the population that really supports him) is that people, who normally vote in the established order, have now chosen for him, so as to give their dissatisfaction with the course of things.They did not do that to help a Wilders in power. Precisely because, when he had the chance to reign, he did not, when a large asntal of his electorate went back to the parties where they first voted for.
As long as there is a multi-party system, even the most popular politician, whoever it is, will not be able to get the overall power in the hands.
Stupid people and racists (not necessarily the same, but often though) you have anytime and anywhere.
Wilders and his are standard bearers for people who did not have the guts to come out.
Arrives after 9/11 everyone had something to kick against
I don’t agree with everything he says, but he does have the guts to say it.I miss that at most in the second chamber.
Politicians like Wilders and Baudet derive their right of existence from that one issue that all other parties are dealing with in a very cautious or negative manner.But obviously, that matter is very high for many people. Otherwise the PVV would not be the in size second party in the second chamber. As long as the rest of the politics in this area continues to poultice and keep up, figures like Wilders and Baudet will continue to yarn on spiders. Without that one issue, they are almost identical to the VVD.