A short while ago, Jerome tipped me on the succeeding publication in the Globe and Mail written by Doug Saunders, who made a trip to The Hague to personally find out what Geert Wilders stands for. His analysis is a fine one, and one that is consistent with the impression I personally have of Wilders' ideas on Islam.

The scary world of Geert Wilders - The Globe and Mail

This is the disarming thing about Mr. Wilders, the thing that allows many otherwise moderate Dutch voters, including some gay-rights leaders and leftists, as well as a surprising number of otherwise sane foreigners, to give him a chance: He comes to his politics from a position of "anything goes, let it all hang out" liberalism.

"Whatever colour or sexual preference, whatever people have, it doesn't matter as they're all welcome in our party and we don't discriminate in any way," he tells me.

I've briefly dabbled before with what lies behind the hair of Wilders, in a story from last year, when the focus was more on the anti-EU sentiments.

European Tribune - Inside Geert Wilders

In his own words, he describes himself as a "libertarian" and his greatest political role-model is Margaret Thatcher. Wilders likes to refer to or quote Mark Steyn a lot, when it comes to demographics. He renounces fascist parties, such as those by Le Pen and Haider, and next flirts with the Republicans in the States, and joins the table at Fox News for a chat with Bill O'Reilly.

Liberalism is a fundamental element in the value system of Wilders, and the bullet points of his party takes bits of outright libertarianism. However, the party's (constantly shifting) political stances are not 100% libertarian; they are evolving in equilibrium with Dutch majorities (which also aren't constant). The PVV is chameleonic in its approach to attuning to popular sentiments, and so the best label there is for the PVV is, indeed, "populist".

Although I've stressed this at previous occasions, it bears repeating that bashing Wilders as a racist or a fascist is entirely unhelpful. His party does not reject anyone on skin colour. The label fascist is too ill defined these days, rapidly becoming a cheap slur. Wilders' staunch defence of anything Israel decides is at odds with the anti-semitic streak of fascism. In other words: calling PVV racist or fascist detracts from what matters, and Wilders uses these assaults as a stick to beat his opponents.

What matters at this point is Wilders' well defined ideas on Islam, which go beyond simple antipathy directed to foreigners:

The scary world of Geert Wilders - The Globe and Mail

He is best known for a 2008 short film, Fitna, that juxtaposes Koranic verses and extremist Islamic teachings with scenes of terrorist violence and Islamist oppression. (He presented the film in London yesterday, in the House of Lords.) In isolation, it can be viewed a number of ways. It could be warning everyone about the dangers of Islam, or Muslims about the political manipulation of their faith, or everyone about the deadly consequences of literalist religious belief.

Those last two ideas find a lot of sympathy in liberal-minded people. I try them out on Mr. Wilders: Would you consider making a second Fitna about the dangers of politicized Christianity or Judaism, and the violence that's emerged from both?

He bristles at the idea. "I see many differences between Islam and other religions. In fact, I see Islam not so much as a religion as much as an ideology. As I see it, the aim of the Islamic ideology is to dominate and to submit the Western societies to their belief, and this is unlike the other religions. I say that Islam is not another branch on the tree of religions - it has to be put in the corner of totalitarian ideologies. That's why I compare it with communism and fascism - I see the comparisons between the Koran and Mein Kampf."

He then talks about a concept he calls al-Hijra, "the Islamic doctrine of migration," a Trojan-horse doctrine that commands Muslim believers to move to a non-Muslim country, have as many children as possible, then seize power. This "concept" seems to have come from a speech by Libya's Moammar Gadhafi but is absent from any existing practice of Islam.

With a screed like this, Wilders is committing a "failure of the elite" - when those who should know better, don't. We knew that. But it struck me when coming to the end of Saunders piece: Wilders is operating internationally, and although he's particularly favouring the Anglo-Saxon world, Wilders has shaped and put on paper an ideological seed that can easily spread to other countries for similar politicians. This goes beyond populism, acting on anti-foreigners sentiments or fanning national "pride" for political gain. This is dogma, and Wilders is spawning an ideology that mirrors a new kind of anti-semitism, directed to other "outsiders".

Saunders concludes:

The scary world of Geert Wilders - The Globe and Mail

his words and the message of Fitna are exactly - to specific phrases, to the tone of louche brotherliness - what was said about the Jews.

It wasn't the people but the "the code of Jewish ethics," the well-documented desire of Jewish believers to take over countries and industries and societies. Judaism wasn't another religion but an ideology, closely linked to communism ("Judeo-Bolshevism" was your grandfather's "Islamo-fascism"). And it was the terrorism and violence that Judaic beliefs always seemed to bring to societies. Don't forget that Kristallnacht, the concerted violence by the Nazis against Jews and their property in 1938, was provoked by an act of Jewish terrorism, the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris. The connection between the Torah and the violence was evident to many decent and otherwise liberal-minded people.

This is not to say Geert Wilders is a Hitler or his followers are all racists. But we shouldn't pretend that his core ideas are in any way reasonable, rational, freedom-loving or tolerant.