Newt Gingrich Has Second Thoughts But Geert Wilders Flying To The U.S. To Help Pamela Geller Spread Hatred & Fear on "Hallowed Ground"

Having lived in Holland for 4 years, I took it on myself early to warn Americans about vicious professional Islamophobe and hatemonger Geert Wilders, knowing that it would just be a matter of time before he would be adopted by the fringe elements of the American right. Predictably, Arizona terror-supporter Jon Kyl was the first to bite and he was invited to address a fascist rally in Washington last year, CPAC, where he could mingle with Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Jim DeMint and other politicians who use hate and fear as their calling cards.

Now Wilders has joined forces with deranged American hatemonger (and profiteer) Pamela Geller who has invited the far right Dutch politician to address her Stop Islamization of America and Freedom Defense Initiative on-- when else-- September 11. It's disgusting that NY authorities allow hate rallies on hallowed ground. With even the most craven Republican political hacks like Newt Gingrich and Peter King, seeing which way the wind is blowing and fleeing from Geller, she's going to be stuck with a real bottom of the barrel group of speakers-- flotsam and jetsam like Bachmann and Steve King. And Wilders. Gingrich, after first bragging how he would be there, backed away when mainstream conservatives started realizing that trashing the Constitution might be a bad idea in retrospect. Gingrich offered a video greeting, which Geller greedily accepted. He's now withdrawn even that offer.

Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, described Gingrich’s remark as "madness.” And conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate, said “bringing the Nazis into the argument is always absurd in American politics.” Buchanan also suggested that Gingrich was trying to attract national attention to himself for a 2012 presidential bid.

...Wilders' website touts his appearance and the advertised attendance of Gingrich as "two eagles" who together can capture the mainstream media's attention on the mosque controversy. "Then there is speculation about Gingrich making a possible 2012 run for the GOP Presidential nomination," an Aug. 6 release on the site states. "It is not lost on many that Gingrich has come out in favor of national anti-Sharia legislation."

Wilders generated controversy on Capitol Hill last year when he screened his documentary film Fitna at the invitation of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). The short film shows verses of the Koran interspersed with extreme acts of violence, including the hijacked planes flying into the World Trade Center.

The Dutch politician's outspoken criticism of Islam has generated scores of death threats over the years and he lives under 24-hour security protection. The British government prohibited him from entering the country in February 2009, a ban later overturned following an appeal by Wilders. And the politician is currently on trial on hate-speech charges in the Netherlands, where he has called the Koran a "fascist book."

"I will go to New York and say what I want there,” Wilders told Dutch media. “Nobody will stop me. No mosque at Ground Zero!”

So only one of the crusading eagles will be joining sociopath Geller-- and the Dutch government is, to put it mildly, embarrassed and "has launched a damage-limitation campaign to try to counter what it fears is the disastrous international impact of the Islam-bashing populist Geert Wilders."

Maxime Verhagen, the acting foreign minister and Christian Democrats' leader, has voiced fears that Wilders's speech in New York will tarnish Dutch reputations. He has also taken the unusual step of circulating confidential orders to Dutch diplomats around the world on how to answer questions about Wilders's influence in a new government and on the fallout for Muslims in the Netherlands.

With characteristic robustness, Wilders has told Verhagen to mind his own business. He clearly intends to grab attention with a tub-thumping exercise in Islamophobia in New York.
"Good feeling. Important speech. No one will stop me. No mosque at Ground Zero," he tweeted after booking a flight to New York. "Stop Islam, defend freedom" is his rallying cry.

The tensions over 9/11 and New York come as Wilders savours his growing clout at home. His Freedom party is running at 31% in the most recent opinion poll, ahead of all other contenders, and he has spent most of this week at a secret location with Verhagen and Mark Rutte, the liberals' leader, haggling over the terms for a new coalition government.

Wilders, whose party almost tripled its seats, from nine to 24, in the June election, is not joining the new cabinet. Instead, he will prop up a rightwing coalition of liberals and Christian Democrats in return for pledges of a tough new crackdown on immigration and other policy concessions. If the talks succeed, Wilders will be in the enviable position of wielding power while abjuring responsibility.

The negotiations have been going on for a fortnight and are supposed to be concluded next week. But they are said to be going badly.

A coalition backed by Wilders would command the slimmest of majorities-- 76 seats in the 150-seat second chamber or lower house. The Trouw newspaper yesterday reported at least one dissident Christian Democrat MP would not support it, making it unviable.

Verhagen is in a difficult position. While negotiating with Wilders, he is also telling his diplomats how to undermine the rightwing maverick. Verhagen faces mounting resistance within his own party to collaborating, even if only tacitly, with Wilders.

Last week German Christian Democrats joined Dutch party dissidents in calling for a boycott of Wilders.

Dutch Nazi Geert Wilders On Trial This Week

When he was Secretary of State-- before he stole a presidential election from Andrew Jackson-- John Quincy Adams wrote that "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Those were the days! I went abroad to live for almost seven years while America was destroying the lives of millions of Vietnamese peasants. One of the great things about living abroad is, obviously, making lifelong friends in other countries. I still see my friends Toon and Mieke, and not just when I go to Holland or they come to the U.S., but also in other countries. Two years ago we went to Mexico City together and last year we spent a month in Marrakech. Now, America has enough problems at home for me to go looking for monsters to destroy abroad but Toon told me something in Marrakech that has haunted me ever since and that came roaring to life this morning: the head of his country's fascist Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, the power behind the current coalition government of more mainstream rightist Mark Rutte, would be the country's next prime minister.

Last time out the fascists came in third. The danger from Wilders has actually united Dutch Muslims and Jews in a common defense.

The Netherlands, one of Europe's first countries to allow Jews to practice their religion openly, may soon pass a law banning the kosher slaughter of animals. An alliance of a small animal rights party and the larger xenophobic Freedom Party of Geert Wilders is spearheading support for the ban on kosher and halal slaughter methods. The far-right's embrace of the bill, which is expected to go to a parliamentary vote this month, is based mostly on its strident hostility toward the Dutch Muslim population. The Party of the Animals (PvdD), the world's first such party to gain parliamentary representation, has argued that humane treatment of animals is more important than traditions of tolerance. Jewish and Muslim groups have called the proposed bill an affront to freedom of religion.

Wilders first came to attention on this side of the Atlantic when he released his viciously anti-Muslim propaganda film, Fitna. Since then he's gotten close with U.S. racists and wing-nuts, from Arizona Republican Jon Kyl to bizarre right-wing media whore Pamela Geller. Last week he announced he would be releasing a slanderous film about Muhammed, sure to disturb Muslims, Fitna II. His Dutch popularity immediately took a hit, the equivalent of two Parliamentary seats in the next election. The percentage of Freedom Party voters who say they would vote for the party again has dropped to 79 percent, the lowest level in the polls since 2006.

Meanwhile now, Wilders is in the middle of a hate speech trial in Amsterdam. Wilders' lawyers are trying to get the charges dismissed on a technicality and there should be a ruling today Monday.

Wilders says the trial is about his right to free speech. Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial say it is about their right to practice their religion freely. They say Wilders' strident anti-Islam tone has led to increased discrimination against them and even attacks on mosques.

Wilders is charged with inciting hatred against Muslims based on their religion or race, and for "making statements insulting to Muslims as a group." Each charge carries a maximum sentence of one year imprisonment, although a fine would be more likely if he were found guilty.

Nearly 100 public remarks by Wilders have been entered into evidence. Typical among them was an interview published in De Volkskrant newspaper in which he said: "The core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf."

Today Dutch Voters Told Geert Wilders, Vladimir Putin And Vladimir Trump To Go To Hell

Holland voted in parliamentary elections today, electing all 150 members of the House of Representatives. I lived there for nearly 4 years and never could get a firm grasp on their particular brand of multi-party coalition politics. There were 28 parties competing for seats in Parliament today. By this evening, the European headlines were blaring that the Freedom Party (PVV) of neo-fascist politician Geert Wilders-- a Trump ally-- had done unexpectedly badly and that center-right Prime Minister Mark Rutte would be back as head of government. We can be happy Wilders got slapped down, but Rutte is no bargain.

The Dutch had no intention of giving Putin an easy win by allowing him to hack-- for real hack, not the bullshit about propaganda-- the electronic voting machines the way he did in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. The Dutch switched to paper ballots. They had near record-breaking turnout (81%) and turned Wilders' and Putin's names to schijten (see, I told you I lived there for 4 years). The U.S. will never admit Putin hacked the machines in fear that no one will vote. Instead, they should switch to paper ballots like the Dutch did.

Yesterday the last Ipsos poll predicted the top 7 parties would come out of today's election with this many seats in Parliament:

• center-right VVD- 29 from 40
• religious right of center CDA- 23 from 13
• fascist PVV- 20 from 12
• centrist Labor Party PvdA- 9 from 35
• progressivish D66- 18 from 12
• left of center Socialist Party SP- 15 from 15
• left of center Green Party GL- 15 from 4

Earlier in the week, several polls had shown Wilders' PVV beating the VVD and winning the most seats. The projected score-- number of seats-- as of this evening is:

• VVD- 33
• CDA- 19
• PVV- 20
• D66- 19
• GL- 14
• SP- 14
• PvdA- 9

So the hackish centrist Mark Rutte will be Prime Minister again-- of another unpopular, ineffective, dysfunctional conservative government wedded to the kind of failed Austerity Paul Ryan is eager to import into America. Wilders had been endorsed yesterday by the French fascist candidate Marine Le Pen, although that doesn't seem to have helped him at all. He polled something between 17 and 18% nationally.

Although the fascists won in Rotterdam, the Green Party finished first in Amsterdam with 19.3%, followed by D66 with 18.2%. Rutte's VVD came in 3rd with 15.2% and Wilders' fascists came in 6th with just 7%. Nationally, the Green-Left Party, headed by 30 year old Jesse "Jessiah" Klaver, quadrupled their 4 seats and are suddenly a real power in Parliament. Klaver is often compared to Justin Trudeau-- there's a slight physical resemblance-- but he is definitely the anti-Wilders guy-- son of a Moroccan father and an Indonesian-descended mother-- he sounded more like Bernie Sanders than like Trudeau. "What I would say to all my leftwing friends in Europe: don’t try to fake the populace. Stand for your principles. Be straight. Be pro-refugee. Be pro-European. We’re gaining momentum in the polls. And I think that’s the message we have to send to Europe. You can stop populism." In a much-talked about TV debate he told Wilders that it was rightwing populism, not Muslim immigration, that was undermining Dutch culture and traditions. "The values the Netherlands stands for-- for many, many decades, centuries actually-- its freedom, its tolerance, its empathy… they are destroying it. It’s terrible when people are born in the Netherlands have the feeling they are not part of this society and it is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of. And I want to change that."

As Colonel Morris Davis tweeted this morning, "Too bad for Wilders there's no Electoral College where finishing in 2nd place can still be a win."

Rutte begins negotiating with his coalition partners-- presumably the CDA and D66-- tomorrow and, since he won, he gets to pick this evening's goodnight song-- his favorite:

The Dutch Trump-- Worse Than The Dutch Oven

Look, I like a good harira and a sumptuous tagine as much as anyone. But I haven't been to Morocco more than a dozen times because of either. I first visited Morocco early in 1969; it was my first trip to a "non-Western" country. I loved everything about it, but it was the generosity and welcoming nature of the Moroccan people that blew my mind. That's not just why I keep returning but it was in part why I immediately embarked on a 2 year journey that took me through Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, all Muslim-majority countries (as well as India which has over 170 million Muslims-- considerably more people, of all faiths, that live in Russia or Mexico).

1969 was also the first time I visited Holland, though more briefly than my stay in Morocco. Eventually though, I settled down in Amsterdam, got a job and lived there for almost 4 years. I wasn't happy a couple weeks ago when Dutch Trumpist politician Geert Wilders referred to Moroccan immigrants as "scum" while campaigning among Dutch versions of the Trump voters. What always shocks me about racists like the average Trump supporter and like Wilders is that they feel perfectly comfortable chastising an entire race or ethnic group based on their experience with generally desperate impoverished immigrants.

Campaigning, in his own weird way, is what Wilders is doing now. Even as Putin installs neo-Nazi Marine Le Pen (first round April 23, runoff May 7) as president of France, he has a March 15 general election in Holland to win-- for Wilders. Wilders' party, the far right PVV is on track to electing the most members of the House, doubling its number since the 2012 general election. Is he even worse than Trump? The NY Times described him as wanting "to end immigration from Muslim countries, tax head scarves and ban the Quran... omnipresent on social media but lives as a political phantom under police protection, rarely campaigning in person and reportedly sleeping in a different location every night. He has structured his party so that he is the only official, giving him the liberty to remain, above all things, in complete control, and a provocateur and an uncompromising verbal bomb thrower." It's not likely he'll be able to put a coalition together that makes him prime minister next month but he could exercise effective control over the whatever dysfunctional Dutch government is formed. Like Señor Trumpanzee, he's "unafraid to say things in the most direct, divisive, dismissive, and often disparaging and insulting of ways [and] many of his supporters feel buoyed and relieved that he is giving voice to what they cannot say, or feel they are not supposed to say." Sound familiar?

Geert Wilders, far-right icon, is one of Europe’s unusual politicians, not least because he comes from the Netherlands, one of Europe’s most socially liberal countries, with a centuries-long tradition of promoting religious tolerance and welcoming immigrants.

How he and his party fare in the March 15 elections could well signal how the far right will do in pivotal elections in France, Germany and possibly Italy later this year, and ultimately determine the future of the European Union. Mr. Wilders (pronounced VIL-ders) has promised to demand a “Nexit” referendum on whether the Netherlands should follow Britain’s example and leave the union.

“The Netherlands is kind of a bellwether, a lot of trends manifest themselves here first,” said Hans Anker, a Dutch political strategist who has worked both in the Netherlands and the United States.

“I wouldn’t rule out that Wilders could be prime minister,” he added. “This one is fundamentally unpredictable.”

Remarkably, Mr. Wilders, 53, has managed to build a movement despite his infrequent public appearances. Living under threat since the police discovered plots against him in 2004 has turned him into a politician ahead of his time, using the internet and later social media to talk to voters without the filter of journalists.

It has proved a particularly effective means of reaching disillusioned citizens. Other politicians have followed his lead but almost none have done it as effectively, Dutch experts said.

“He’s the most strategic, smartest politician out there,” said Sarah de Lange, a political science professor at the University of Amsterdam. “He’s very skilled. He’s a very good debater. He has media savvy. Internationally, he’s compared to Trump. But with Wilders every tweet is thought through, calculated. With Trump it’s emotional.”

Right now Mr. Wilders’s party looks set to win more seats than any other or to come in second. However, he has historically polled better before elections than he has performed in them. Still, after pollsters underestimated the likelihood of both Brexit and the victory of Donald Trump last year, no one is relying on predictions.

But whether Mr. Wilders’s party wins the most votes, or enters a government, hardly matters. He has already succeeded in one of his main ambitions-- to push politics in the Netherlands to the right and make possible a conversation about shutting out immigrants and dismantling the European Union that was unthinkable not long ago.

...Wilders describes himself as an outsider. Yet he is the third-longest-sitting member of the Dutch Parliament and has spent his life in politics since he was about 28... He maintains the image of being present through carefully dispensing Twitter posts, videos and television interviews. His rare public appearances guarantee that every time he ventures out he attracts a media circus.

Last week, he suspended his campaign appearances altogether after reports that a member of his police security detail was suspected of leaking his movements to a Dutch-Moroccan criminal gang.

Still, he manages to travel to give speeches outside the Netherlands, including at the Republican convention in Cleveland, where he spoke at the “Milo Yiannopoulos Wake Up Party,” a gathering of [severely mentally ill] lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people for Mr. Trump... He is described by political compatriots as friendly with Benjamin Netanyahu, the right-wing Israeli prime minister... [He] seems to try to outdo himself more for shock value and to grab attention than for practical effect, particularly on immigration.

“In 2012 his position was no new mosques in the Netherlands; now it is ‘close all the mosques,’ ” said Michiel Servaes, a Labor Party member in Parliament who has served with him. “In 2012 it was limit asylum seekers to 1,000 a year; now it’s ‘no new asylum seekers.’”

Yet Mr. Wilders’s stands have brought the mainstream right to advocate strict limits on aid for immigrants and helped spawn new small right-wing parties, all with strong positions against immigration and in support of stricter rules to push immigrants to accept Dutch culture, Mr. Servaes said.

Election Day In Holland... Today

Emile Roemer struggling against Big Business to save Holland from Austerity

I consider myself very lucky to have lived all over the world. Aside from the U.S., though, the country I lived in longest-- and the country that had the profoundest impact on me-- was Holland. Amsterdam gave me sanctuary when the U.S. was making war against Vietnam and I didn't have the intestinal fortitude to live in my own birthplace. I found Amsterdam to be the ultimate live-and-let-live society. I think I am, at least in part, who I am today because I spent 4 years there; it's like a second home and, of course, I still have close friends there. And Ik Spean een beetje Nederlands. So, of course I follow the politics there. Today the Dutch at voting for a new government.

There are 150 members of their lower House of Parliament-- and so many parties that it's all about coalitions, not about one party winning enough seats on its own. Now, keep in mind that no incumbent government has won reelection anywhere in EU since the start of the Austerity crisis. And Holland isn't going to be the first. It looks like the anti-Austerity Socialist Party is going to come out on top and Mark Rutte's governing right-wing VVD is going to take a big hit. But it's still all but certain that the moment elections are over tonight, building a governing coalition will begin.

Politicians are wary of talking about possible coalition partners before elections as they fear it could drive away voters. 

But at the same time, they want to start forging the next coalition as soon as possible to stave off the image of a rudderless nation in the aftermath of the election. Rutte remains caretaker prime minister until the new government is formed and his administration will later this month present a government budget for 2013, regardless of the election result. 

The leader of the House of Representatives, lawmaker Gerdi Verbeet, reportedly has earmarked Thursday afternoon for initial talks with leaders of the newly elected parties. 

In the past, Queen Beatrix has steered the process, but lawmakers earlier this year voted to cut the monarch out of the Cabinet formation. 

With the Dutch political landscape increasingly splintered-- 21 parties are running in the election and polls suggest 11 will win seats-- forming governments can take months, and even painstaking talks to hammer out policies all coalition partners can agree on are no guarantee the Cabinet will survive its four-year term. 

The last election was June 9, 2010, and it was not until Oct. 14 of that year that Rutte was sworn in as premier and leader of a minority coalition propped up by anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders. 

Just 18 months later, the government collapsed when Wilders refused to support far-reaching austerity measures aimed at bringing the Dutch budget deficit back in line with European Union-mandated limits. Wednesday's election will be the fifth in the Netherlands in just over a decade. 

We'll get back to putting together a coalition in a second. I just wanted to mention that Wilders is a deranged far right fascist very much in cahoots with the American Republican Party-- literally. Reuters broke the story on Monday how a bunch of crackpot right-wing groups in the U.S. took a little time out from raising money for the GOP to raise funds for Wilders, mostly because he's made himself a symbol of European Islamophobia, very much the way Hitler made himself a symbol of anti-Semitism in the 1930s. Several American right-wing extremists and notorious bigots and hatemongers, like David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller have been secretly funneling money into Wilder's political career, a practice of dubious legality.

David Horowitz, who runs a network of Los Angeles-based conservative groups and a website called FrontPage magazine, said he paid Wilders fees for making two speeches, security costs during student protests and overnight accommodation for his Dutch bodyguards during a 2009 U.S. trip.

Horowitz said he paid Wilders for one speech in Los Angeles and one at Temple University in Philadelphia. He declined to specify the amounts, but said that Wilders had received "a good fee."

When Wilders' Philadelphia appearance sparked student protests, Horowitz said, he paid a special security fee of about $1,500 to the Philadelphia police department. Horowitz said he also paid for overnight accommodation for four or five Dutch government bodyguards accompanying Wilders on the trip.

Wilders said in response: "I am frequently asked to speak abroad. Whenever possible I accept these invitations. I never ask for a fee. However, sometimes the travel and accommodation expenses are paid. My personal security is always paid for by the Dutch government."

Pipes and Horowitz denied funding Wilders' political activities in Holland. Both run non-profit, tax exempt research and policy organizations which, under U.S. tax laws, are forbidden from giving direct financial backing to any political candidate or party. U.S. law does allow such groups to support policy debates financially.

During Wilders' visit to Los Angeles, where Horowitz runs an organization called the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Horowitz said he organized an event at which Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed were auctioned. He said he did not remember how much money this event raised or what happened to the proceeds.

Horowitz agreed with the Dutchman's repeated, public comparison of the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Comparing the two works was a "fair analogy," Horowitz said. He said Wilders was "fighting the good fight."

Horowitz said U.S. backers helped Wilders raise money to pay legal fees to fight a ban from visiting Britain in 2009, where he planned to screen Fitna. The British government said at the time: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence."

I suspect no one wants to get into a coalition with Wilders' fascists-- but, as we've already seen, the right won't hesitate if it means they can maintain power for themselves. Commitment to a united Europe has dissipated in Holland, once the most staunchly pro-Europe countries. Many feel it came too fast and it shouldn't have come before they were able to turn "lazy" southerners into prim and proper little Dutchmen-- or at least Germans. And Dutch voters don't like bailouts any more than the German voters do. Nevertheless, betting is that Rutte's center-right part and the center-left Labor Party will form a coalition after the election, especially with Labor succeeding (in the opinion polls) in stealing votes away from the Socialists. Labour's leader, Diederik Samson is expected to be the next Prime Minister, so a turn a little tiny bit left, but not really Left in a way that would save Holland from the Austerity agenda.

Emile Roemer, the Socialist Party leader has said that "Over the past 20 years, Europe has been for the biggest businesses and the financial markets, and not for the common people" and there seemed to be a chance he would pull it off. But he seems to have gone over less well in the debates and it's now iffy whether or not the Socialists can exploit the hatred of austerity to actually come out on top.

What's certain is that the Dutch political landscape is likely to fragment significantly after this election. Polls predict the new parliament will have five or six parties with at least 10% of the vote each, and four or more smaller parties. A coalition consisting of at least three parties seems inevitable... [I]t's unlikely that either Wilders' or Roemer's party will join the new cabinet. The centre parties share many positions on the eurozone crisis: they are all in favour of the rescue of the euro and the budget deficit standard of 3% – they only disagree on whether this standard should be applied this year or later.

The other key factor that should bar Wilders and Roemer from government is their stance on the important social reforms-- such as greater flexibility of the labour market, healthcare cost containment and reform of the housing market-- that have been postponed for years. Rutte's conservatives and Samsom's Labour party disagree on who should pay for healthcare, housing and employment reforms, but they do agree that reforms are inevitable. With the SP and PVV as partners in cabinet, they would become practically impossible.

Of course, even if Wilders and Roemer stayed outside government, they would influence the tone of the political debate in the Netherlands. To an extent, they have already done so.

Many have predicted that after years in the sunshine, Wilders' party would lose votes in 2012. But the latest polls only indicate a marginal drop-off. As for the Socialists: although the SP will probably not become the second-largest party, they will gain more seats.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that popular support for the euro is weakening. Opinion polls indicate a growing scepticism towards the current euro funds for southern Europe. In the last televised debate, Rutte said that no new funds should be made available for Greece, and refused to sign up to the statement saying that "everything should be done to save the euro". For now, though, such soundbites are little more than campaign rhetoric.

UPDATE... From Holland

by Nicky Van Bottenburg


When I lived in Holland, Nicky's mom was just a child, the daughter of one of my colleagues from work, Bart. Bart introduced me to his grandson a few months ago when our friends Ellen and Paula got married. Today Nicky's a business student in Amsterdam and a Stephen Colbert fanatic. He probably knows more about American politics than most kids his age here in the U.S. but I asked him to write up the Dutch election results for us. He just sent this update.

As we near the 100% of the 75% turnout of the Dutch population older then 18, a clearer prognosis is being made, and center right VVD & center left Labor Party (PVDA) are going to be the big winners. Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad will open with: “Giants slaughter little one.” Both parties together are likely too have more than the necessary 75 seats in the House of Representatives to have a majority in the parliament making the third party nothing more than a formality. And whoever will be the prime minister, Mark Rutte (VVD) or Diederik Samsom (PVDA), will need the other and vice versa.

Almost as surprising as the big win for the moderate political forces, is the big drop of the PVV of Geert Wilders and the smaller than expected turnout for Emile Roemer's Socialist Party. One of the causes is the Anti-Europe stand of both parties, where Wilders did research for bringing back the Dutch Gilder and Roemer not seeing the necessity of listening to the dept. rules made by the European Union. Probably stepping out of the Europe is a step too far for most Dutch voters. Only possible all right-wing coalition for Rutte would be with Wilders, who has still around 15 seats, but not many parties would like to take that ride again. So a "purple government" is most likely.

Both parties blame the "tactical voter," voters who either don't want to see a right (VVD) parliament so voted for the moderate PVDA instead of the Socialists; or don't want to see PVDA so gave their PVV vote to the VVD. Normally D66 would be the victim of the tactical voter but it seems that PVV, SP, GroenLinks and CDA all saw there “floating voter” drift off to the bigger parties in the middle.

This can be seen as a call for an established middle where the bigger parties are joined by D66 (progressive and social-liberal political party) or CDA (The Christian Democratic Appeal, a Christian-Democratic party) where other parties like SP or PVV, which are more unstable, lose votes to Diederik and Mark. So as the De Volkskrant, another Dutch paper, headlines will say, “Het politieke midden is terug"-- The Middle Is Back.

Dutch Neo-Nazi Geert Wilders Must Stand Trial

I lived in Holland for 4 years after graduating from college. Although I had a close friend, Willy Wouda, who was a die-hard monarchist, I didn't know, nor even ever met, any real right-wingers. Of course, I was in Amsterdam, then very much a working class town. And in the 70s Dutch people were still a little touchy about right-wingers, the Nazi atrocities still fresh in the collective consciousness. But as much time has elapsed since I was there as had elapsed from the time of the Nazi occupation and when I first arrived. And Holland's right wingers make no bones about their... tendencies.

The head of a neo-Nazi/GOP type political party, the Freedom Party (PVV), which defines "freedom" as something exclusionary... sort of how Bush used the term, got some bad news today. Geert Wilders, a vicious racist and member of parliament, sometimes called the "Tom Tancredo of the Lowlands," was told by the Dutch Court of Appeals that he must stand trial.

If you haven't seen the Muslim-bashing movie he made that's landed him in hot water, Fitna take a look:



As rightists are wont to do, Wilders projects his own psychosis onto his perceived enemies, in this case calling Muslims "fascists" and likening the Koran to Mein Kampf, the Bible for right wing loons the world over. So right now Wilders is reduced to pleading the case for freedom of expression and the Dutch courts are drawing a line in the sand about "hate speech." The judges say he went beyond the leeway granted to politicians and that his statements and writings have been an incitement to hatred and discrimination.

Trying to rally Dutch xenophobes, Wilders claims that the ruling jeopardizes everyone who opposes the "Islamization" of the country. "Participation in the public debate," he whines, "has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted... Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?"

Maybe we could send Heath Shuler over to continue his work. American fascists and xenophobes, of course, stand firmly with Wilders.

Geert Wilders, Dutch Neo-Nazi, Banned From Britain, Is Being Hosted In America By Republicans

Wilders and Kyl... go together like a horse and carriage

The Dutch have some pretty unpleasant memories of the Nazi occupation of their country and Geert Wilders, whose own father fled Germany to get away from the Nazis, is as close as you can get to being one in Dutch politics without getting tarred and feathered. And plenty of people would like to tar and feather him as is. A right-wing member of Parliament, he left a mainstream conservative party, the VVD, in 2004 to start a lunatic fringe party called Groep Wilders, which he later renamed the Freedom Party (PVV); he's the only member of its governing board. His platform, although overwhelmingly xenophobic, racist and islamophobic also demands tax breaks for the rich, sending troops to fight in Iraq, rights for animals and cracking down on drugs. Wilders is widely viewed in Europe as a self-promoting buffoon-- just the way Europeans looked at Hitler and Mussolini... before it was too late.

Currently he is awaiting trial in Holland for hate speech and inciting violence against immigrants. He was invited to show his Islamophobic film, Fitna by two extreme right members of Britain's archaic House of Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Cox of Queensbury. When he attempted to take them up on the invitation he was banned from the U.K. and when he landed at Heathrow he was detained and shipped back to Holland on the first plane available.

Fortunately for extreme right loons, he found a predictable sponsor for his right-wing crap here in America where he's being hosted by a like-minded kook, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. He has also been invited to address the right-wing Republican circus this weekend in Washington, CPAC. He should fit it nicely with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Michele Bachmann and Malkin, Jim DeMint, Virginia Foxx, Mike Pence, John Boehner, Rick Santorum and other crackpots who are working towards inciting another American Civil War.

Holland's Leading Candidate For Prime Minister Was Just Convicted Of Inciting Hatred Against Muslims

Maybe because I lived in Amsterdam for 4 years and write about the politics there from time to time, I like to think that DWT readers were familiar with Dutch neo-fascist Geert Wilders even before he noisily aligned with Trump and even before Trump went from being a national joke to being a national tragedy. Yesterday, Wilders, the likely Trump/Putin candidate for prime minister of Holland next year, was convicted "of inciting discrimination and of insulting a group for saying that the Netherlands would be safer with fewer Moroccans," in a statement he made in 2014. The judges didn't convict him of inciting hatred and didn't fine him as the prosecutors requested. Using a typical demagogue tactic he led a throng of racists in The Hague chanting "fewer, fewer" after asking the question, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?"

Nina Siegel, writing for the NY Times speculated that "the trial seems to have improved his party’s standing, rather than diminishing it, among voters." A master of manipulation and classic propaganda technique, Wilders calls his far right party the Freedom Party (PVV), although what it advocates is far from freedom for millions of people living in the Netherlands. Just listen to his carefully misleading statement below (in English, not the language of his country). Wilders had boycotted the court for the verdict, using the opportunity to portray himself as a victim of the establishment, calling his conviction "a great loss for democracy and freedom of expression," instead. One day the 3 judges will regret that they didn't send him to prison and throw away the keys.

The general election is scheduled for March 15-- just 3 months from now. All of the most recent polls-- including one by Ipsos released Thursday-- show the Wilder's neo-fascists leading, more so after Trump's win here. The Ipsos poll has the PVV with 29%, the center-right VVD with 27%, a religious-right party, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) with 18%, the progressive D66 with 17%, the Socialists (SP) with 12% and the Labour Party (PvdA) with 11%, same as the Greens (GL). Most other polls have shown the neo-fascists with higher numbers,although none with enough support for an outright win. The VVD would be unlikely to form a right-of-center government without Wilders and Wilders would be unable to form a fascist government without current prime minister Mark Rutte and the VVD. Rutte always says he won't involve his party with Wilders unless he "withdraws" his racist statements about Holland's huge Muslim population, about 5% of the population. Part of Wilders' election manifesto is a promise to close every mosque in the country.

Tonight We'll Get A Good Idea Of How Successful Putin Has Been In Doing To The EU What He Did To The U.S.

Señor Trumpanzee with Italian would-be Mussolini, Matteo Salvini

In Europe, voting for the EU Parliament ends today. But Holland and the U.K. went first-- on Thursday-- and unofficial Dutch results show a gargantuan loss for Geert Wilders, the far right hate-monger who was leading in the polls. This is how it looks right now for the the Dutch delegation (26 seats):

• Labour- 18%
• VVD (mainstream conservatives)- 14%
• Forum for Democracy (neo-fascists)- 11%
• Freedom Party (Wilders' far right Trumpist/Islamaphobic party)- 4%

Turnout was up in Holland to around 37% but North Ireland, where there are 3 seats, shows over 45% voting. Votes there won't be counted until Monday, although the rest of the U.K. should have election results tonight. Here's how the U.K.'s seats are apportioned:

• Southeast England- 10
• London- 8
• Northwest England- 8
• West Midlands- 7
• East England- 7
• Southwest England- 6
• Scotland- 6
• Yorkshire & Humber- 6
• East Midlands- 5
• Wales- 4
• Northeast England- 3
• Northern Ireland- 3

This is how the British parties participating in the election stand on Brexit:

Brexit Party- leave
UKIP- leave
Conservative Party- leave but almost as confused as Labour
Lib Dems- favors remain but wants a new Brexit vote
Labour- complete confusion though most members want a new referendum
Green Party- remain with new referendum
Change UK- new referendum

Der Spiegel published an exhaustive look at the elections: The Right-Wing Populist Plan to Destroy Europe. The German magazine's point is that dramatic exposure of the far right's catastrophic Russian bribery scandal in Austria hasn't stopped the pan-European neo-fascists from battling on towards their goal of destroying the European Union from within its own institutions. Despite Geert Wilder's setback on Thursday, the elections ending today are likely to help them move along towards their goal.

Last Saturday European fascist leaders met in Milan, summoned by the would-be Mussolini, Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini. 11 neo-Nazi parties were represented, including Marine Le Pen from France, Geert Wilders, Jörg Meuthen from the Alternative for Germany party, as well as fascists from Bulgaria, Slovakia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Estonia.

Together, they performed what is by now well-known work, one with some surreal features: Full of bluster, the self-proclaimed "true Europeans" campaigned for entry into a parliament they despise. And they asked the people to give them the power to hollow out a European Union that has been painstakingly built over decades. All of it to the tune of Nessun dorma, along with Puccini's Turandot, its aria ending in fierce chanting: "Vanish, oh night! Set, stars! Set, stars! At dawn I will win! I'll win! I will win!" Vincerò!





On the stage in Milan, not a word was said about the drama unfolding in Vienna, as Heinz-Christian Strache, the head of the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), stepped down from his position as vice chancellor following the leak of a video demonstrating the depth of his corruptibility-- a scandal that also threatened to take down the entire Austrian government. And yet, in Milan they all pretended that nothing had happened. Even as they all knew: Quite a lot had happened.

This time around, it's not about some low-level party official sending Hitler pictures via WhatsApp on the Führer's birthday in provincial Austria. This time it goes right to the top level of the Austrian government, casting light on the worrying state of the Austrian political scene. The videos raise fundamental questions about whether the populists are fit for power. And whether they can be entrusted with government business. And whether Strache and his protégé Johann Gudenus should be regarded as isolated cases or as symbolic figures of a fast and loose relationship between right-wing populists and donations from foreign donors, rule of law and the truth.





Most Austrians, with the exception, perhaps, of FPÖ supporters, were likely to have been deeply shocked by the disregard to the country's constitution shown in the recordings, and many Europeans were astonished by the crooked behavior displayed by the second in command of a government of an EU member state. If the scenes in the Ibiza videos had been part of a TV crime show, people probably would have dismissed them as having been exaggerated and overdone.

..."IbizaGate" feeds into the well-founded suspicions that those thumping their chests as über-patriots in their countries have little problem with conniving with foreign powers, obtaining financing from dubious donors or even being pulled like puppets on a string when it comes to policy. The Strache scandal is undoubtedly detrimental to the original narrative offered by the right-wing populists-- namely that the parties are the lone forces defending the good people against "old parties" and other corrupt elites. But as Strache has now shown, it's the right-wing populists themselves who are in fact the corrupt elite.

Strache's German counterparts from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) have recognized the dangers of such discussions, but they don't want to admit it. Meuthen, one of the party's leaders, has been in damage control mode since last Saturday, describing the Strache Video as a "singular matter" reflecting abominable behavior, but also as a domestic issue relevant only to Austria.

...The Strache circus is of course also a problem for right-wing populists outside of Austria, because the issues raised by the video are a problem for them all across Europe. For months the AfD itself has been tangled up in several party donation scandals involving Alice Weidel, the party's floor leader in German parliament, as well as its leading candidates heading into this weekend's European elections, Meuthen and Guido Reil. Weidel is under scrutiny over a dubious election campaign donation of around 130,000 euros. In Meuthen's case, he is being scrutinized over 90,000 euros from dubious sources used to finance his campaign in a state election in Baden-Württemberg. And there are questions surrounding the nearly 45,000 euros used in a state election campaign in North Rhine-Westphalia for Reil, a member of the AfD's national board.

[Note: UK neo-Nazi, Nigel Farage is in the midst of a scandal showing that he's financed by Putin and devoted to Trump.]

No less troubling is the fact that the Ibiza video once again sheds light on the close contacts many right-wing populists in Europe have with Russia, a problem for which the AfD has also been in the headlines. In April, Der Spiegel, ZDF, La Repubblica and the BBC reported on the activities and connections of Markus Frohnmaier, a member of German parliament with the AfD. A document circulated inside the Russian presidential administration at the time of the Bundestag election campaign describing the politician as potentially becoming "a deputy under absolute control" of Russia.

The BND, Germany's foreign intelligence agency, and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the country's domestic intelligence apparatus, are currently detecting a change in the Kremlin's strategy. Rather than relying solely on its own media and channels for campaigning and aiming to steer the agenda, it is now focusing much more on individuals, a small group of parliamentarians were recently told in a classified meeting. They were informed that the people selected by Moscow included somewhere between a half-dozen and a dozen members of the Bundestag. One is Markus Frohnmaier. When contacted for comment, he responded: "I do not allow myself to be used by the Russian government for its purposes and would always refuse to accept attempts of this kind. The reporting about me is nothing more than a campaign."

Senior AfD politician Alexander Gauland is also a frequent guest in Russia, but he rejects any criticism because he claims to be following the foreign policy footsteps of Bismarck, who believed in strong German-Russian relations. Marcus Pretzell, at the time a member of the AfD and current member of the European Parliament, visited the Russian-occupied Crimea as "Guest of Honor" in 2016 and thought it petty when he was later questioned about who paid for the trip.

Similar episodes can be found all across Europe. When Marine Le Pen's Front National, now known as Rassemblement National, convened a party conference in Lyon in November 2014, the guest list was similar to that of Salvini's rally in Milan and delegates from Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party also attended. That same year, Le Pen's party had received two loans from Russian banks amounting to 11 million euros to help finance its election campaigns.

Two years later, the French right-wing populists asked Moscow for another 3 million euro loan, but it is unclear whether it was ever granted. There are, though, indications that Marine Le Pen may have promised not to criticize Russia's annexation of the Crimea and to promote Moscow's interests in exchange for the money. The suspicion, which Le Pen denies, is supported by mobile text messages from a well-known and high-ranking Kremlin official, who wrote among other things: "Marine Le Pen has not disappointed our expectations." And: "We will have to thank the French in one way or another."

In Great Britain, the National Crime Agency is investigating suspicions that Brexit leader Nigel Farage received money from Russia through indirect channels. Many consider it probable that the Kremlin sought to manipulate the Brexit vote to destabilize the European Union.

There is a greater amount of urgency surrounding these questions in the aftermath of the Strache-Ibiza video. Are economic interests at stake when Matteo Salvini's Lega party repeatedly advocates an end to the EU's "useless, or even harmful" sanctions against Russia? Do the Greek far-right parties get money for their frequently expressed conviction that there is a "natural alliance" between Greeks and Russians? How does Russia's president exploit the image he enjoys as being one of the last guardians of true values among European groups of both extremes? A leader who seeks to prevent what he describes as a weakened, immoral, decadent EU from prevailing?

"There is conspiracy of all the radical right-wing nationalists everywhere, apparently with the help of the Kremlin, or of oligarchs round the Kremlin, to disrupt this union," Guy Verhofstadt, a prominent Belgian member of European Parliament, told the Times of London on Wednesday. The German newspaper Die Welt this week quoted former French President François Hollande as saying that whoever votes for populists in Europe is "giving their vote to Trump and Putin."

That may sound preposterous, but it has long since become apparent in the European Council, where European heads of state and government still establish the broad parameters of EU policy. Coalition governments that include populist parties are often more open to influence from abroad than others. Once example is Middle East policy. Countries like Hungary have begun diverging from the European stance to serve American interests. Because Hungary stood in the way, the EU was not able to condemn the Trump administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a diplomatic mistake in December 2017. Budapest essentially became Donald Trump's advocate in Brussels.

The unanimity requirement for important decisions in the European Council thus gives populists veto power. And their partners abroad are quick to praise them for services rendered. Twelve days ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was showered with praise by the U.S. president himself during a visit to the White House. Orbán, Trump said, does a "tremendous job" and is "highly respected all over Europe."

That, of course, is far from the truth. In many countries, respect for Orbán is a thing of the past, and when it comes to domestic policy and the judiciary, his government is seen as having betrayed European values. Externally, Hungary has become a gateway for all those wishing to divide the EU. And the number of these open gateways is growing: Russia and the U.S. are not alone in their desire to weaken the EU block. China has also incorporated the EU, the world's largest internal market, into its geopolitical considerations and is searching for access.

The EU isn't equipped to stand up to such adversaries. It does have a couple of instruments it can use to punish intractable member states, but it hardly ever uses them. EU countries worried about being punished in the future regularly block their deployment. The dream of outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker that the EU might one day become a global political player seem illusory.

By chance, Juncker was in Vienna this week for a visit that had long been planned. He had apparently decided that he would remain silent about the Strache scandal-- but couldn't ultimately resist. "The idea that one country is put on a silver platter so that others can help themselves," he said, "does not reflect my idea of patriotism."

Jean Asselborn, Juncker's compatriot who is the foreign minister of Luxembourg, expressed deep discomfort. "The European right wing is unified by its desire to bring the free press and the judiciary under its control wherever they have power," he says. "That is true of Hungary and Poland, and that is shown by Strache's comments in the video."

The dangers presented by populists to European unity is significant, says Asselborn. "If European citizens continue placing their trust in these people, there is a risk that we could end up landing where we were back in the 1930s," he says.

The Austrian scandal was also of interest to Angela Merkel. On the Saturday Salvini's party in Milan and the political earthquake in Vienna were taking place, the German chancellor was standing in a basketball arena in Zagreb fulminating against the populists. "Nationalism is the enemy of the European project," she said from the stage. In the press conference that had preceded her speech, she said, "We are faced with populist currents that want to destroy a values-based Europe." Apparently referring to Strache, Merkel added: "That includes putting politicians up for sale. We must decisively stand up to all of that."

But the populists are currently finding success with their assault on the political establishment. They have representatives in parliaments across the continent, and established parties in almost every country in Europe are worried about their advance. In Sweden, the xenophobic Sweden Democrats received 17.5 percent of the vote in last year's elections, a result recently matched by the True Finns, whose overt nationalism fueled their success. The Conservative People's Party of Estonia, which has dedicated itself to the defense of the Estonian ethnicity, jumped from 8.1 percent support to 17.8 percent in March elections.

The numbers show that the populists are generally still far from securing a majority on a national or European level-- Poland and Hungary notwithstanding. But in places like Italy and Austria, they are becoming more than just convenient partners for parties in need of parliamentary majorities and in France, they could become the largest party in the country. In many European nations, it has become increasingly difficult to put together stabile governments made up of moderate political parties.

The communication strategies adopted by the right-wing populists are simply far better than the rather old-fashioned methods of the established parties. It is impossible to ignore the parallels to the 1930s, when the Nazis discovered the power of film and the possibilities presented by television-- as exemplified by the broadcast of the 1936 Olympic Games. The populists and extremists of today were much quicker to understand the opportunities inherent in the digital world than their political rivals, many of whom remain stuck in analog antiquity. Populists still use traditional media outlets, but are increasingly circumventing them.

The Germans may still be playing catch-up, but in Italy, France and Austria, the populists have learned to take full advantage of what the new media world has to offer. They may like to complain that they are being treated unfairly by the "leftist media" and libeled by the "fake news," but in truth, other channels have long since become more important for them.

Matteo Salvini reaches 3.7 million people directly via Facebook, the kind of follower numbers otherwise only seen with pop stars. It helps explain why he always seems to be the center of attention. The traditional political reports seen on Italian public broadcasters or in critical newspapers merely serve to round out his brand. As strange as it might sound, Salvini is one of the largest mass-media outlets in Italy, which works to his tremendous advantage. It means that he can present himself and his worldview free from pesky critical questions.

Austria's fallen Vice Chancellor Strache has 779,000 Facebook followers in a country with a population of not even 9 million. Like Salvini, he and his team are adept at using emotion, both positive and negative. Mother's Day and children's birthdays are celebrated with pretty pictures, hearts and kisses - the idyllic world the FPÖ professes to protect. Then he posts stories about ungrateful asylum seekers, sex criminals and unwanted migrants, often with his own indignant commentary. Strache's posts aren't just read and liked, they are also shared and commented on thousands of times, increasing their value.

Marine Le Pen similarly has 1.5 million followers on Facebook. Victor Orbán has 657,000. Some might argue that these numbers are something of a counterfeit currency and that their appearance in an article such as this represent the downfall of political analysis, but it is almost impossible to overrate their value. In this day and age, for politicians and others in positions of power, large follower counts mean message control, the ability to disseminate one's own messages without the inconvenience of a filter.

The more people follow a politician on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Instagram, the less dependent that politician is on the reporting of independent media and the fewer critical questions from journalists he or she needs to answer. Of course, it's not all hearts and kisses on their social media accounts-- they are badgered and taunted, and not all of their followers are fans. But anger and controversy serve to jack up the click numbers-- and in the new currency of digital attention, clicks are good, no matter where they come from.

It has become something of a parallel reality. Manfred Weber, the lead candidate in the European elections for the center-right European People's Party, doesn't even have 60,000 followers on Facebook. Weber presumably prefers devoting himself to projects he believes are more important than improving his internet presence. But it is doubtful that today's politicians can afford the luxury of such an approach. What has been true for the media for the last several years is now true for politicians as well: If you're not present in the digital world, you soon won't be present at all. Low name recognition translates to diminished election prospects, not to mention a weakened ability to attract younger voters or those voters who tend to stay away from politics.

Clever politicians like Salvini or Strache are perfectly suited to an era in which voters prefer watching videos than reading essays. But the current wave of populism aimed at the European Union and its Brussels headquarters is more than just a game being played by self-obsessed demagogues online media. The current form of populism, whose actors pose as the uncorrupted in a sea of corruption, has many roots: real problems and unrealistic expectations; broad fears of eroding financial security; feelings of being left behind. That is where populism derives its strength. And the anger that comes with it is perhaps best studied in the Eastern European countries that joined the EU a decade and a half ago.

These European elections are falling on a European anniversary that is being largely ignored. Fifteen years ago, the EU incorporated an entire group of Eastern European countries, enabling the peaceful unification of the continent-- an historical godsend that led to a Nobel Peace Prize for Brussels. Today, however, this same EU has a terrible-- catastrophic even-- image within the right-wing governments in these countries.

Bannon with a bunch of European neo-Nazis in Budapest

In many parts of Eastern Europe, the EU is seen as a conspiracy of overpaid, traitorous bureaucrats. Like the communists before them, it is said, the EU technocrats are intent on reeducating the Eastern Europeans. They see the EU as trying to tame nation, tradition and religion. The women are to have fewer children, gays and lesbians are to be allowed to get married and adopt, and Muslims from Africa and the Middle East are to be permitted to settle wherever they want. And the blame, in this view, lies entirely with Brussels.

That is the message delivered by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice party in Poland, and by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz Party. The governments in Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also include similar figures. EU-skeptics have become established everywhere in the region.

And yet, contradictions abound. No halfway influential party in Eastern Europe wants to leave the EU. Despite the success of the Kaczynskis and the Orbáns, the EU enjoys tremendous support from the Baltics to the Balkans, including 90 percent support in Poland. The governments clearly have no mandate to escort their countries out of the EU. Indeed, surveys indicate that people there have more trust in the EU than in their own elites.

There is an economic explanation. Between 2004 and 2020, 356 billion euros will have flowed into the 10 accession countries from the European Structural and Investment Funds alone. Struggling state economies have transformed into regions of significant growth. The EU brought in investors, financed road construction, built universities and developed data networks. City halls and hospitals were renovated with EU money. And Brussels also helped reform the public administration and the judiciary - and strengthen civil society.

The EU triggered a wave of modernization in Eastern Europe that took three decades longer to unfold in the west. Prosperity, of course, is not equally divided. Statistically, however, the standard of living has risen significantly in all the accession countries. Eastern European societies have also become freer and more mobile in the last 20 years. There is no "objective" reason to be opposed to the EU in Warsaw, Budapest or Ljubljana.

There are, however, subjective, less concrete reasons. Karel Schwarzenberg, who spent several years serving as Czech foreign minister and is a passionate supporter of the EU, argues that people know what the EU has done for them, but don't feel at home in it. He says that all too often, Eastern Europeans have been delivered the message that they are second-class members of the bloc-- poorer and still backwards, and that they should become real Europeans, real democrats before they speak up. A comparison can be drawn to the feeling former East Germans often have in reunified Germany.

It is a feeling not just experienced by politicians from Eastern Europe sent to Brussels, but by millions of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks in their day-to-day lives. Around 20 million people have at least temporarily left their Eastern European homelands to work in the West. Instead of getting to know the continent as student travelers or vacationers as many in the West were privileged enough to do, an entire generation of Eastern Europeans have experienced Western Europe as cleaning ladies, itinerant farmworkers and manual laborers. As domestic help for the wealthy of the West.

The resulting feelings of inferiority have fueled right-wing populists. The decades in which Eastern Europeans wanted nothing more than to emulate the West are over and a phenomenon has developed that the Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev describes by saying: "Imitation engenders resentment." That resentment, he says, is directed at the erstwhile role models. It is stoked by the populists, who transform feelings of inferiority into aggression directed against the Brussels elite and the "servants" of the EU in their own capitals.

In places like Warsaw and Budapest, people have begun to feel like they have already experienced the best of what the EU has to offer. Now everything coming from Brussels is a threat to their own culture and lifestyle: environmental requirements, gay rights, migrant quotas, all kinds of duties and obligations, the arduous negotiations that are the hallmark of democracy.

The 2015 refugee crisis plunged half of Europe into temporary chaos, but more than anything, it gouged out a chasm between West and East. The demand primarily from Western European countries - or, to be more precise, from Germany - that all countries must help when it comes to distributing the refugees triggered the release of dissatisfactions that had been developing for quite some time. People in the east felt like they had survived the collapse of communism, lost jobs and got jobs, changed themselves, changed everything, and still hadn't caught up to the West. And now they were supposed to look after people even weaker than them?

In Brussels, such a point of view is seen as petulance and leads to a loss of influence. Exaggerated nationalism and unilateralism aren't welcome in the EU. They are a dead end. Poland and Hungary, in particular, sideline themselves in negotiations, frequently avoid complicated issues and tend to pound testily on the table rather than patiently pursuing their own interests and trying to listen to and understand the interests of others.

This leads to a dangerous cycle: countries driven by nationalism achieve less and less in Brussels, which leads to increasing alienation from the EU back home. Blame for a lack of success is pinned on anonymous powers in Brussels, the technocrats, the immovable and corrupt elites, thus paving the way for the empty yet pithy slogans of the populists.

The disruptive potential of the right-wing fringe in European Parliament has long been limited to mere spluttering expostulations from the plenary floor-- and their occasional misuse of EU money for their own benefit. Instead of using parliament for serious policy work, they saw it as a stage from which they could send messages back home-- a stage adeptly used by Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and others of their ilk. For some time, they were content to mock Europe's legislative body, but that is now changing. Le Pen has undergone perhaps the most profound metamorphosis, and for her opponents, that should be rather unsettling.

For a long time, her focus was on "Frexit," on leading France out of the common currency. She saw anything European as evil and abhorrent. These days, though, she ends her campaign speeches with the battle cry: "Long live the real Europe! Long live France!"

The chant "vive l'Europe" is, despite the qualification represented by the word "real," a 180-degree reversal. Until this year, Le Pen had consistently campaigned on the promise of freeing her country from the yoke of the common currency. It is a promise that, most recently, failed to generate its desired result in 2017, when she performed so badly in a now legendary televised debate on EU issues with the ultimate election winner Emmanuel Macron that it seemed like her political career may have come to an end.

In the parliamentary elections that followed, her Front National party didn't even win enough votes to form its own parliamentary group, a failure that Le Pen interpreted as the result of widespread fear in France of leaving the eurozone. As a result, since fall 2017, she has been an ardent supporter of the "real Europe," a message that proved divisive in her party. But she was determined. She no longer wanted to frighten people away with "Frexit"-- and now she appears to really believe that an alliance with her new friends in Italy, Poland, Austria, Germany and elsewhere represents a plausible path to power for the right-wing movement.

That's not particularly realistic. Thus far, every attempt at a broad, right-wing alliance in Europe has failed miserably, with the Front National itself having been part of many of those failures. The new concept for a European Alliance for People and Nations is also unlikely to go anywhere and conflict seems unavoidable.

The AfD in Germany and Lega in Italy are roughly as far away from each other on economic and finance policy as the liberals from the FDP and the far-left Left Party are in Germany. There are also deep, seemingly unbridgeable ideological rifts between Le Pen's party and the PiS in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary when it comes to society, family and women. As such, the planned right-wing "super fraction" is nothing more than a typical populist mélange of braggadocio and canniness. Likely the most important motivation for cooperation is the prospect of forming a large fraction that would automatically become more visible in European Parliament. It would also be handed more responsibilities, receive more speaking time and, most importantly, get more money.