Netherlands' Catastrophic Failure: Ignoring Machiel de Graaf's Warnings on Islam and Mosques—A Dire Lesson for America (Video)

In 2014, Machiel de Graaf of Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV) delivered an urgent speech in the Dutch Parliament, calling for the closure of all mosques and an end to Islamic immigration. His speech painted a picture of a Netherlands free from the issues he attributed to Islam’s growing influence. Ten years later, it’s clear that if the Netherlands had heeded his warnings, the country might be in a vastly different and better place today.

Bold Points from de Graaf’s Speech:

1. Economic Burden of Mass Immigration: De Graaf highlighted the immense financial cost of mass immigration. He stated, “Without Islam, the Netherlands would not lose something like 7.2 billion [Euros] a year on mass immigration.” Eliminating this burden could have significantly boosted the Dutch economy, redirecting funds to essential services and infrastructure.
2. Cultural and Social Disruption: De Graaf vividly described the daily confrontations with Islamic symbols and the social disruption caused by mass immigration. He mentioned Islamic headscarves, djellabas (traditional long robes), “hate beards,” and minarets as visible symbols of Islamic presence and influence. According to de Graaf, these symbols represent a form of “Islamic domination” and contribute to the cultural alienation of native Dutch citizens.
3. Public Safety and Security: De Graaf pointed to the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh as tragic consequences of Islamic extremism. He claimed, “Without Islam, Pim Fortuyn would not have been murdered by Volkert van de Graaf… Theo van Gogh would not have been slaughtered by Mohammed Bouyeri.” Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician known for his criticism of Islam, was assassinated by Volkert van de Graaf, who claimed to be protecting Dutch Muslims. Theo van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam, was brutally murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim jihadi. By taking a firm stance against Islam and other radical left-wing ideologies, the Netherlands could have created a safer environment for its citizens, reducing the threat of terrorism and violent extremism.
4. Protection of Civil Liberties: He argued that without Islam, the Netherlands would not face issues like honor killings, forced marriages, and anti-Semitic violence. De Graaf stated, “Without Islam, we wouldn’t have to deal with the policy of population replacement, nor with the policy of Islamic colonization.” A proactive approach to curbing these practices could have safeguarded the civil liberties and rights of all Dutch citizens.
5. Educational Integrity: De Graaf expressed concern about the influence of Islamic practices in schools, such as the introduction of halal meals and the celebration of Islamic holidays. He said, “Children at school would not be confronted with halal meat during Christmas dinner; Christmas trees would not be a subject for discussion.” Maintaining a secular education system would have ensured that all students received equal and unbiased educational opportunities.
6. Political Independence: He criticized the growing political influence of Islamic organizations and countries like Turkey. De Graaf warned, “No criminal Islamic organizations such as … Milli Görüs and Suleiman, which forms the long Islamic arm of Ankara in the Netherlands.” By curbing this influence, the Netherlands could have preserved its political independence and sovereignty.

Specific Measures Proposed by de Graaf:

1. Closing All Mosques: De Graaf emphatically called for the closure of all mosques in the Netherlands. He argued that mosques are not just places of worship but centers for promoting radical Islamic ideologies and fostering social division. “The only vacant property that makes the Netherlands better is empty mosques,” he declared.
2. Expelling Jihadists and Banning Their Return: He proposed the expulsion of all jihadists from the country and a ban on their return. “Jihadists must be expelled from the country and never allowed back,” he stated. This measure aimed to eliminate the threat of homegrown terrorism and radicalization.
3. Closing Borders to Islamic Countries: De Graaf advocated for closing the borders to individuals from Islamic countries. He believed this was essential to halt the influx of individuals who might not integrate into Dutch society and could pose security risks. “The borders must be closed to people from Islamic countries,” he urged.
4. Promoting Voluntary Migration to Muslim Countries: He suggested encouraging Muslims in the Netherlands to emigrate voluntarily to Muslim-majority countries. This, he believed, would help reduce cultural and social tensions. “The government must commit itself to voluntary emigration to Muslim countries,” he recommended.
5. Expelling Criminals with Dual Passports: De Graaf called for the expulsion of criminals holding dual passports, arguing that individuals who do not respect Dutch laws should not be allowed to stay. “Criminals with a double passport must be expelled,” he asserted.

Will America Learn from These Warnings?

The warnings from Dutch conservatives, including Machiel de Graaf and Geert Wilders, have served as a wake-up call for those concerned about the dangerous influence of Islam in Western societies. For over a decade, Dutch politicians from Wilders’ PVV party have cautioned against the dangers of unchecked immigration and the proliferation of Islam. Yet, instead of heeding these warnings, America is heading down the same dangerous path.

Decisive and Proactive Measures

Machiel de Graaf’s 2014 speech was a clarion call for the Netherlands to protect its cultural heritage, economic stability, and public safety. By ignoring his warnings, the country has faced an onslaught of attacks and hardships related to mass immigration and Islamic influence.

As America now grapples with similar issues, it appears very few U.S. politicians have learned anything from the Dutch experience. There is still time for the United States to avoid many pitfalls that have plagued the Netherlands, which have put its people in grave danger and caused unrest and financial hardship.

By taking decisive action to secure borders, stop Islamic immigration from countries with terrorist ties, and preserve national identity, America can safeguard its future. It is crucial for U.S. leaders to recognize the threats posed by unchecked immigration and the spread of Islam, ensuring that the nation remains a bastion of freedom, security, and prosperity for all its citizens.

Ignoring the lessons from the Netherlands would be a grave mistake. The U.S. must heed these warnings and implement policies that protect its cultural integrity, bolster economic strength, and ensure the safety and security of its people. Only through decisive and proactive measures can America prevent the turmoil and challenges that have beset the Netherlands and continue to uphold the values that define it as a great nation.

Transcript

Without Islam, the Netherlands would be a wonderful country. I have heard very few speakers yet on this subject, although everyone is of course concerned with their own issues during the budget.

Without Islam, the Netherlands would not lose something like 7.2 billion [Euros] a year on mass immigration. Without Islam there would not be any mosques in the Netherlands and people would not be confronted every day by Islamic headscarves and djellabas, ‘hate beards’ and minarets. A country without all the symbols of Islamic domination – wonderful!

What a country the Netherlands would be without Islam. We wouldn’t have to deal with the policy of population replacement, nor with the policy of Islamic colonisation, nor with the settlement policy in more and more districts in large and small cities.

Without Islam, the Netherlands would be protected, protected from the social disruption that is taking place as a result of mass immigration, that of hate preachers who come here through family reunification, victim behaviour, Moroccan crime, Turkish interference, and which take place by making Islamic demands for adjustment by the Netherlands and by the Dutch. All those barbaric, backward, totalitarian ideas from a seventh-century leader of a band of robbers, a mass murderer and paedophile.

Madam President, without Islam, Pim Fortuyn would not have been murdered by Volkert van de Graaf, who claimed that he acted out of piety with Muslims.

Without Islam, Theo van Gogh would not have been slaughtered by Mohammed Bouyeri, and my own party leader, Geert Wilders, would not need bodyguards.

Without Islam, politics would not be full of Islam-huggers, each one of them with their own cynical interest or naive outlook.

Without Islam, Madam President, in the Netherlands we wouldn’t have honour killings, and the phenomenon of nephew-niece marriages would virtually no longer exist. Jewish children would simply be able to go to school without protection, and gays and lesbians would be safe on our streets.

Without Islam we would have to spend something like half as much on welfare, we would need fewer prisons and police and much less money would go to deprived areas. Integration subsidies would be unnecessary. We would have less animal mistreatment, and apartheid would be a word in the history books.

Without Islam, highly qualified Dutch people would feel less inclined to emigrate.

Without Islam, sharia would not be insidiously introduced in more and more districts, and in their judgements, judges would not again … make allowance for it.

Without Islam, Minister Asscher would not have had his election poster translated into Turkish. In the Dutch Parliament no-one would ever have shouted, “May Allah punish you severely”, and no wash room or prayer room would have been demanded by Islamic members of parliament.

Without Islam, no criminal organisations such as … Milli Görüs and Suleiman, which forms the long Islamic arm of Ankara in the Netherlands … Madam President, the long arm of Ankara should be amputated. Ban these organizations, just like the organizations associated with Fethullah Gülen. Expel their leaders – as we call on the minister to do so, and close their offices. Is the minister prepared to do this?

Children at school would not be confronted with halal meat during Christmas dinner, Christmas trees would not be a subject for discussion, and the end of Ramadan would not result in empty classrooms.

Without Islam, no hundreds of thousands of Turkish people in the Netherlands who say that they do not think that violence against followers of other faiths and non-believers is wrong, and no hundreds of thousands of Turkish people who think that Islamic jihad fighters are heroes.

Without Islam, no problems with jihad fighters. Without Islam, no substantial level of threat concerning terrorism and no children rejoicing in the streets after the mass murders in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Yes, Madam President, imagine what a wonderful country it would be if you could leave all that behind you. Ask the minister whether he shares this vision and, if not, what vision the minister has concerning the ongoing Islamisation of the Netherlands.

Of course, I do not suggest that everything that is going wrong is the fault of Islam; but a very great deal of it is. I have just made that quite clear. Imagine a country without all those problems that I mentioned!

Even though there was immigration in the past from Suriname and Jewish people came from Portugal, there is a huge difference with the mass immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands. The other immigrants assimilated and saw the Netherlands as their new home; the Muslims who generally come here do not change, do not integrate, do not assimilate. No, they convert the Netherlands at our expense into their own homeland with all the mosques, and the original population are just guests.

Islamic immigration, the hijra, has been doing things this way for 1400 years and that will not change. Take a look at the situation in what once was Christian North Africa, and take a look too at Marseilles, at Brussels, or at the Islamic rape hotspot, Rotherham in England.

We are in an alarming phase, Madam President: over the past 40 years no-one has ever see such a change in the demographics. In cities such as The Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, more than half of the Dutch population has now been replaced by people from other countries, mostly Muslim countries.

The birth rate of Muslims is much higher than that of the Dutch, but in France, Belgium and Sweden it is even higher still, and with the open borders, then you know enough. In France, the birth rate among immigrants is 1.3 and for Muslims 3.5, which means that within two generations, within two generations the large majority of the population will be Muslim.

In 2013, the name Mohammed and all its variants such as Mohammad, Muhammed, Mahmoet was the second most popular name in the Netherlands, and this applies not only to the occupied areas in major cities, Madam President, it applies for the whole of the Netherlands, the whole of the Netherlands. The forecast for 2014 is really a startling one: in the first three quarters of this year, Mohammed with all its variants was the most common name for newborn boys in this country, and there is no reason to believe that this trend will reverse soon. The minister cannot avoid responding; what does he think the Netherlands will look like in 2025 or in 2030? Because if they continue with government policy in this way then it will become one huge Islamic mess, Madam President; the fertile polder will become a desert of clay. Muslims, said Bernard Lewis, are not the children of the desert but the fathers. Does the minister share this observation from this eminent historian, and can the minister indicate how he intends to stop the Islamisation?

One of the problems, Madam President, that Islam has brought to the Netherlands is the increased anti-Semitism. I will give you some national and international examples: four Jews were killed last Tuesday by Muslims in a synagogue in Jerusalem, while the inhabitants of Gaza celebrate with axes, knives and guns in their hands on account of this slaughter. The leaders of Hamas called the criminals heroes, and literally right in the middle of the Islamic festivities for this anti-Semitic act of terror, the Labour Party [PvdA] proposes to reward these leaders who have an incurable hatred of Jews with a state of their own! The Labour Party should be ashamed.

It is going too far to call the Labour Party an anti-Semitic party, but it certainly looks like they want to accommodate more and more the anti-Semitic views of the Muslim voters.

Madam President, Islam is bringing anti-Semitism back to Europe – since we were on that subject. In Toulouse and Brussels, Jews have been shot and killed by Muslims just because they were Jewish. In Amsterdam, because of threats by young Muslims you are no longer safe on the streets. Facts – wearing a kippah. I mean, that’s a fact. And during an anti-Israel demonstration in the Schilderswijk in The Hague a Muslim demonstrator said to a reporter, and I quote: “If all Muslims were to form a single front, we would have beaten the West and the Jews years ago.”

Madam President, to illustrate, last year David Suurland graduated with honours on the comparison between Nazism, Communism and Islam. Anti-Semitism is inherent in Islam, he also says. It would indeed be naive to think that fourteen hundred years of Islamic writings inspiring hatred of Jews would remain without consequences. I quote: “How often have Bolkestein, Fortuyn, Jansen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh and Wilders been accused of inciting racism and been prosecuted? When it comes to anti-Semitism among Muslims they were quite right, and we haven’t even mentioned the endemic hatred of gays or the intolerance for dissenters and apostates”, writes Suurland in an article in the NRC newspaper.

Does the minister subscribe to this interpretation from this researcher and, if not, what arguments does Minister Kamp have for this deviant position? What does the minister think about the fact that the Islamic preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, in 2008, called on the Muslims here in the Netherlands to punish the Jews as a follow-up to the last great punishment of the Jews by Adolf Hitler? And is the minister aware of the fact that the man who brought al-Qaradawi to the Netherlands called this Al-Qaradawi a respected authority, that this man al-Qaradawi is a reliable and learned man and an example for the Islamic community who says inspiring things about Muslims in society? What does the minister think of that, Madam President? Is the minister also aware of the fact that the man who brought al-Qaradawi here draws his inspiration from the books of the inspirer of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda, namely Sayyid Qutb, who has been called the godfather of the terrorism club Takfir w’al-Hijra by the Dutch Intelligence Agency, and he claims that the Qur’an is the principal guide for them? Does the minister know that? And is the minister aware of the fact that this man, according to two old party colleagues, has said that … you should not act too openly, you must act secretly, do it quietly.

Yes, Madam President, I am talking about party colleague Thyssen from the Labour Party, the right hand of this minister Mr Marcouch; and I will tell you, whoever votes for Asscher at the next elections will get Mr Marcouch for free, they are sitting together on the tandem. Marcouch is running hard in the direction of the complete Islamisation of society; Asscher doesn’t run because the cables have been cut.

And criticism, Madam President – of the hatred of Jews sanctioned by Islam, the hate towards gays, women and dissenters, the hostility to Western standards and values, democracy and the rule of law, the rejection of those and the glorification of violence – is labelled by the followers of Islam and those who agree with this ideology ‘Islamophobia’, dismissed as if you have a phobia, dismissed away because you dislike Islam.

This is nothing more than an instrument from the politically correct box of tricks, Madam President, to silence criticism of Islam, to pollute the debate, and to accelerate the destruction of Western society.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.” It was not De Graaf who said this, Madam President, I quote Mr Winston Churchill.

But soon, since I was talking about Islamophobia before the introduction from Mr Kerstmis, all that will be prohibited if it is left to the Labour Party. Criticism of Islam is in fact justified, and generally not wrong … Hence Churchill is in good company with others: Maimonides, also known as Ramban, Erasmus, Voltaire and [?], all men who promoted Western civilisation through research, through debate.

Those who all too easily make use of the term Islamophobia serve the opposite purpose: namely the decline of our society and the promotion of ignorance, as censorship on the path towards Islamic dictatorship. Does the minister share this view or not? We would also like a reasoned statement of the opinion of the minister concerning this.

Madam President, being polite is a choice, being threatened is not, and there as far as the PVV is concerned is a very clear distinction: verbal criticism is allowed, but violence and threats of violence are totally unacceptable. The law provides sufficient resources to tackle the latter. Comparing criticism of Islam to robbery, for example, once more lifts the tip of the veil on what apparently is the opinion within the Labour Party of our fundamental rights. The holy war that the Labour Party – Madam President, I have named him already, Mr Marcouch – is conducting against alleged ‘Islamophobia’ is the struggle against freedom of speech. It leads to the criminalisation of any discussion about Islam and thus in the long term to the criminalisation of any discussion of every religion.

What will Islam still allow you to say? That you can live quite well without religion? Or that Christianity is fine; is that not an insult to Islam?

Criminalisation of so-called Islamophobia therefore leads directly to the end of religious freedom and even more to the end of freedom of speech. Once again I ask the minister if he agrees with me and if not, we would like a reasoned, clearly reasoned standpoint from the Minister.

As I said earlier, Madam President, in the Netherlands a demographic disaster awaits us, an undesirable cultural revolution that is unparalleled, via the replacement of the population. In the coming decades the immigrant population will continue to grow, in contrast to the indigenous population.

… and despite pouring money into integration projects, urban renewal, advances for language lessons, allotments in the Schilderswijk and free WiFi, there is little prospect of improvement. The Moroccan problem that we have in the Netherlands will not decrease, but rather increase, and we can only hope that with this policy the increase is not exponential.

The schools are seeing an avalanche of children who are named after Muhammad. We are going to see the majority of all children at school being Islamic, and that is certainly, that is truly not a pleasant prospect. Madam President, the Dutch identity, the identity and culture is being destroyed by immigration and through the uterus. Various Islamic leaders literally said that, such as Gaddafi, but apart from the PVV no-one is taking it seriously. The annual integration report is quite clear about it: there never was any integration, there is no integration, and there never will be any integration either.

Or does the minister think that things won’t happen so quickly? If so, what does he think the near future will look like? Madam President, more than halfway. He who pays the piper calls the tune does not apply, unfortunately, for multiculinarism is a fine thing as such, but it does not bring integration any closer, just as multiculturalism doesn’t.

Now that the multicultural society is generally seen to have failed it is time for the next step, the replacement of a policy focused on integration with a policy focused on assimilation. Amongst other things, the integration policy has led to an Islamic parallel society and has increased the contrast in Dutch society. Open borders, the multicultural ideology, the integration policy, the all too easily given benefits to immigrants, these are harmful matters that are deeply anchored in the cultural relativistic and cultural Marxist epidemic that has afflicted the West for many decades.

Even worse, Madam President, cultural Marxism is one of the biggest causes of the soft policy on migration and migrants, and thus immigration itself. It has caused a blind spot in the eyes of socialists, but also Christian and liberal politicians who defend Islam from the standpoint of a supposed benefit.

Liberals see the arrival of a workforce, but the PVV sees that the coffee houses are full during work hours.

Socialists see Islam as a means of staying in power, but in 1979 we saw how Ayatollah Khomeini made such deft use of them to come to power, and after that had the socialists hanged first.

Christians see Muslims as brothers in faith and fall into the trap of that small step that leads from Christianity to Islam; but the PVV sees the step from Islam to Christianity is ‘rewarded’ (in quotation marks) with death, there is a death sentence for that. But we also see that many Christian politicians failed to fight against what they call in their profession of faith false prophets and false province, and in that they are expertly helped by the leaders of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. I am telling you that they are making a great mistake, and it’s actually a travesty that a secular party such as the PVV has to save their skins from the Islamic hell fire.

Liberals in the Netherlands, Madam President, should put an end to their relaxed attitude of, “they can believe what they want as long as they don’t bother me”, because that can no longer be tolerated. With that attitude they place liberalism in serious danger themselves. The socialists in the Netherlands, well sorry, I don’t know what to say about them, we will have to come up with a solution for that. And I have already talked about the culture-relativistic group of people.

Madame President, in conclusion, the message should be clear: the Netherlands must be de-Islamised, all mosques must be closed – especially the Wester Mosque in Amsterdam, by the city council of the minister, who was still a member of the city council when at the will of members the Wester mosque was built with millions in hidden subsidies.

The mega-mosque in Gouda, now postponed for six months, probably because of the elections so that the parties in power do not suffer any damage, must never be built, just like that thing in Groningen, in Selwerd, a disgusting place. The only vacant property that makes the Netherlands better is empty mosques. When is the minister going to organise that?

I’m almost done, Madam President. The integral approach to jihadism is a farce. Jihadists must be expelled from the country and never allowed back, even if they only have one passport. The borders must be closed to people from Islamic countries, the government must commit itself to voluntary emigration to Muslim countries. Criminals with a double passport must be expelled, and only if these measures are implemented will the Netherlands see a positive change.

The problems are obvious and so are the causes of these problems, and we therefore call on the minister to tackle the problems and do what needs to be done, because looking the other way, placation and appeasement are no longer an option.

En garde, I say to the minister. Thank you.