.... Kansas City.
Kansas City, here they come.
They're going to Kansas City.
Kansas City, here they come.
They've got some crazy gov't benes there
And they're going to get themselves some.

A good friend (muslim) who WORKED social services in the area relayed to me the amusing anedote of the  disabled Somali goat herder who qualified for approx $3600 in SS benefits alone. I'm not sure how one qualifies for being a disabled Somali goat herder, bring in a sandal covered with goat dung? Or, if bipedal, perhaps two sandals, no need to raise the suspicions of sharp eyed government bureaucrats. 

Peter raises a good question, because even though I believe Traveller is systemically right, the existing system in the developed social services world we live in has so many holes in it, it does raise the question is one just bailing out the Titanic?

It must be a fantasy world to consider islam the 'biggest threat' in Europe. In these times of incertainty the banking gambles, social welfare for elderly, health systems, civic education, pollution and unemployment should be considered a lot more 'threatening' to Europe's people than religious disputes. Wilders is not only an islamophobist, his remarks on Greece and other Mediterranean countries document his disdainfulness and lack of solidarity, incapable of a 'European thinking'. He's a plain pusillanimous nationalist and his repression to disconnect the terror attack by the Norwegian Rambo from his own hate speeches is ridiculous and confirm a sick mind.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

I agree with kapitein André. If socialists and social democrats tended to ignore or deny the problem until recently, the right keeps pointing and exaggerating it without giving any solutions. It is easy for Wilders to say that he wants to stop islamisation in a “democratic” and “peaceful” way, without saying how.  It is easy to point to the overrepresentation of foreigners in prisons, without telling what you are going to against it. (besides putting them even longer in prison) At the end, people are left with a feeling of desperation and they are bound to get to the conclusion that violence is the only way.  

In 2006, at least 5% of the Dutch population (approx. 850,000 people) was Muslim.  In 2008, Muslims accounted for 5.8% of the Dutch population and over half of the population Dutch nationals of non-Western (i.e. non-European) descent (11%).  These numbers have no doubt risen since then and it is probable that there are over 1 million Muslims now in the Netherlands.

It is difficult to see how Islam can be extricated from the Netherlands in a "democratic and non-violent way".  Even if the will of the majority prevailed and Islam was prohibited, what of the Mosques and Muslims?  Will Muslims be forced to officially abandon Islam?  Will Mosques be closed?  Does Geert Wilders plan to repatriate Muslims to the countries of their birth or ethnic origin?  What if they resist?  What about crypto-Islam?

It is highly unlikely that Dutch Muslims would not violently resist any attempt to eliminate their religion.  It is clear that Mr Wilders believes that the continued existence of Islam in Europe will lead to violence - from "low-level insurgencies" to full-blown civil wars and ethnic cleansing.  Yet even if the onus is on Muslims to integrate, etc., how can a civil war be fought non-violently and democratically?  Does Mr Wilders expect the Muslims to strike first, allowing the other side to claim self-defense and the moral highground?