Thursday, 1 October 2015

The American anti-Islam campaigner David Horowitz donated $20,000 (€18,110) to the Dutch anti-immigration party PVV, run by Geert Wilders, in 2014, government documents show. 
The donation from the David Horowitz Freedom Centre is the only one on the official home affairs ministry list of outside funding for the party last year. 
Since 2013, Dutch political parties have been required by law to publish all donations over €4,500. The PVV was strongly opposed to the move at the time. 
It is not the first donation Horowitz has made to Wilders. In 2012 he told Reuters news agency that he had paid Wilders for two speeches, but declined to say how much. 
Horowitz is considered to be one of the most influential purveyors of anti-Islam propaganda in the US, alongside Pamela Geller who has also supported Wilders in the past. 
Geller, who believes US president Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, has invited Wilders to speak several times. Daniel Pipes, who founded the pro-Israeli think-tank, The Middle East Forum, told Reuters in September 2012 he had funded police protection and paid legal costs for Wilders. 
The PVV does not quality for official funding for political parties in the Netherlands because it has no membership structure. Wilders is the only official PVV member.

Horowitz also funds Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, and probably Pamela Geller too. Pipes has given funding to Fjordman. Now I've nothing against these people. I have given a donation to Wilders myself and I have bought copies of Spencer's books I didn't need just to give him some financial support. Fjordman, in the past, has written some thought-provoking essays, although I think the Breivik incident knocked the spirit out of him since I haven't seen anything memorable from him since. There is, no doubt, much that is valuable and useful to be gleaned from these people, but European patriots should recognise their limitations. They are not going to criticise their paymasters. It is basic human psychology. Both Spencer and Geller used to have links to my blog on their pages and removed them once I started pointing out how Jews were helping Muslims colonise Europe.

So, by all means, go with these people as far as they will go. But then go further yourself. Be unafraid. Look at the truth unflinchingly. Do what they dare not do.


  1. Is taking Jewish money a bad thing?

  2. There are grounds to have many reservations over these 'counter-jihad' groups, not least that their funding appears to be from sources whose interests are not the same as those of Americans and Europeans. Wilders is a very questionable case: he is "the only official PVV member"?! On what grounds, therefore, are c-j sites proclaiming that his is the party enjoying greatest public support in The Netherlands? I have noted that Dutch people criticise him for his one-issue policies (anti-Islam). Also, his silence re his Jewish background (wife, mother, Indonesian family) means he was probably groomed by Jewish interests either as a puppet for their concerns or as limited, false opposition to the main Dutch parties; once again, this can be seen as a truly damaging effect on peoples' attempts to assert their own national, racial, religious concerns which should take precedent. Instead, they are led to waste time, effort, monies and hope on false 'future leaders.'

    And the venom of anti-Christianity still comes through on certain c-j sites, such as Gates of Vienna ('Max Denken' was just outed as Takuan Seiyo by an intelligent reader there, after delivering his usual swipes at Europeans and Christians with the standard holocaust and 'anti-semite' allusions and it was noted by another reader that Max Denken/T Seiyo was taking a certain gleeful delight in his perceived fate of Europeans). As for Jihad Watch, it was that site's anti-Christian articles by various authors (usually not Spencer himself) which led me, by links to the books quoted therein, to an understanding of the Talmud and Judaism as the true source of Islam. All these c-j sites, especially the American ones, are well part their limited usefulness. I also think their deliberately pessimistic view of the overall situation is intended to instill a resigned, defeatist attitude (rather like Mark Steyn's doomsday notion that white people could no longer reproduce sufficient numbers to retain their demographic dominance in their own lands (the demographic upsurge after the Black Death/bubonic plague of the Middle Ages disproves that idea).