Theo Hiddema: The Solution to Europe’s Islamic Problem Is More Race-Mixing

A couple of months ago I enthusiastically reported that one of the markers indicating the rise of the Dutch Alt-Right was the establishment of the political party Forum for Democracy. Their leader and founder Thierry Baudet has written and stated a number of solid points in the past, and has maintained those positions even in the midst of strong adversity. Shortly after being elected to parliament earlier this year, Baudet even made headlines in March with this brilliant “racist” and “neo-Nazi” comment:

It is an attempt at demonstrating self-hatred when we homeopathically dilute the Dutch nation with all the other nations of the world, so that the Dutch will eventually cease to exist. So that who we are, will never again be a manifested reality.¹

The party’s #2 in parliament, Theo Hiddema, however, recently reacted to Baudet’s statement, expressing his disagreement with this vile ditty:

Integration under the sheets . . . between Dutch women and Moroccan boys is beautiful, isn’t it? . . . Then you don’t need integration experts or projects.²

He went on to say that he is a proponent of miscegenation and that through it third-world immigrants and their descendants would be liberated from the bonds of Islam, which is the major threat to Western civilization.

Generally speaking, the Netherlands has a system of strong party discipline, as opposed to the weak party discipline of the United States. Whereas Republicans or Democrats have the right to identify with policies and positions radically at odds with their party’s majority position (in theory at least), in the Netherlands, members of parliament representing a party are not allowed to publicly express opinions at odds with the party’s platform.

Yet, Baudet and Hiddema managed to express directly opposing positions with regard to the national issue, one of the major reasons for founding Forum for Democracy in the first place. The reason this is possible is because the party’s position, though well-intended, is ultimately flawed. Like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, Forum for Democracy attempts to counter Islam with liberal values, which they present as foundational to Western society. One of the party’s positions is actually that:

If religious principles contradict Dutch law, Dutch law is always to be maintained.³

This position, considered in light of the first article of the Dutch Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of “religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex”, is radically left-wing. This constitutional article is both impossible to consistently implement and anti-Christian and anti-nationalistic to the core, yet Forum for Democracy maintains this over “religious principles”. They could have just said Islamic principles, and this wouldn’t have been a problem. Nonetheless, the core flaw here is that, like so many within neoconservative politics, the party is simply anti-Islam as opposed to being pro-white and pro-Christian West.

But as Cambria Will Not Yield so often observes, the West cannot and will not survive either liberalism or racial displacement. Its culture is intrinsically tied to, and its survival ultimately dependent upon, the religion and race that built it.