Dutch politician Geert Wilders is investigated for being an Israeli stooge

Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller
Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller

[Editor’s note: I wrote a couple of months ago that Wilders, along with the rest of the far-right ‘populist’ leaders in Europe such as Farage in Britain, LePen in France and lesser known but equally dangerous figures in Germany, Poland, Norway and elsewhere were all, without exception, Israeli stooges. I was attacked for pointing this out, by the same people who attacked me for exposing Trump’s close ties to the Zionist mafia and Israel. Now Jonas has done some research into this area, exposing Wilders, perhaps some of those who failed to heed my words will reconsider and look again at who these people really are and realise that their agenda is to destabilise the nations of Europe by sowing racial and ethnic divisions – divide and conquer on behalf of their masters. Ian]

…by Jonas E. Alexis


The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has just released an article which reports that Geert Wilders, leader of Holland’s far-right anti-Muslim Party of Freedom, was investigated in the past by the country’s General Intelligence and Security Service (AVID) over his “ties to Israel and their possible influence on his loyalty.”[1]

This was obviously not a surprised, for Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum and David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine “helped fund Geert Wilders.”

Wilders has been a stooge of the Israeli regime since the beginning of time. He has been in good standing among the Neoconservatives since he started his political career. In fact, he has been praised by pro-Israel groups in the United States for being one of Israel’s best friends. He even bragged about being called “a Zionist pig” and admitted that he has been a Zionist shill since the 1980s.[2]

“But,” you might say, “what’s wrong with Wilders allying with Pipes and Horowitz?” Plenty.

Pipes and Horowitz are two of the most pernicious people in the Neoconservative movement. They don’t care whether innocent people live or die in the Middle East. They don’t care whether America goes down the tube in a moment. They don’t care whether your sons and daughters are going to pay huge consequences for perpetual wars all over the Middle East. They don’t care whether American soldiers come back in body bags or with brain injuries.[3] They only care about fulfilling their essentially diabolical plan.

If you think this is far-fetched, then let us ask Daniel Pipes himself. Pipes declared back in 2013 in the Neocon magazine National Review that “the West should prevent either side [the so-called Syrian rebels and Assad] in the civil war from emerging victorious by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.’”[4]

For people who have been living under a steady-diet of the Zionist mass media and for those who don’t have a clue of what’s going on in Syria, Assad has been fighting the Syrian rebels/terrorists since the beginning of the war. He also has been protecting the small minority of Christians in the region. Under his leadership, both Christians and Muslims were able to live in peace and harmony.

Now we have Pipes saying that we all need to support both Assad and the terrorist group which goes by the name of “the Syrian rebels” so that they can end up killing each other.

What if innocent civilians die in the process? Well, it is a small price to pay. What if mothers and children end up losing everything they have, including precious friends and neighbors? That again is small price to pay. The Zionist war is more important than anything else. Does Pipes know that this plan is diabolical? Yes. Here is again his admission:

“This policy recommendation of ‘helping whichever side is losing’ sounds odd, I admit, but it is strategic.”[5]

Strategic to whom? To people who have submitted their will to the moral and political order? Or is it strategic only to people who have rejected metaphysical Logos in all of its manifestation?

Wilders and Pipes
Wilders and Pipes

But what about David Horowitz? Is he a nice guy? Let’s see how he responds to people who were against the Iraq debacle:

“[T]his is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anyone who is a supporter of human rights, or who believes in freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic countries.

“He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers of an oppressive regime. He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political process that give them rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years…

“The rationale for this war was not, as critics claim, stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. This is a misunderstanding that was the product of political arguments during a Democratic primary season that were intended to unseat a sitting president, but they had grave fallout for the credibility and security of the nation itself.”[6]

Obviously Horowitz had to dismiss all of history in order to perpetuate the Neoconservative fabrication that the Iraqis and Afghans have been liberated through the Neocon wars. No serious historian can look at Iraq and Afghanistan and say that they are better than before. As former U.S. Colonel and noted historian Andrew Bacevich puts it in his study Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed their Soldiers and Their Country:

“Apart from a handful of deluded neoconservatives, no one believes that the United States accomplished its objectives in Iraq, unless the main objective was to commit mayhem, apply a tourniquet to staunch the bleeding, and then declare the patient stable while hastily leaving the scene of the crime.”[7]

The only way Horowitz was able to produce such nonsense because he has been abiding by a principle which essentially denies order and practical reason. He himself admits:

“For nearly two hundred years, Jews have played a disproportionate role as leaders of the modern revolutionary movements in Europe and the West. By carrying the revolution to its conclusion, socialists would usher in a millennium and fulfill the messianic prophecies of the pre-Enlightenment religions that modern ideas had discredited.”[8]

So there is a fundamental issue here. The far-right movement in Europe, as we are beginning to see, is to some extent a Zionist enterprise. If these people really want to protect Europe, why aren’t they protesting against perpetual wars in the Middle East? Why aren’t they asking the Israeli regime to stop killing precious Palestinians and innocent people? Why are they only talking about “Muslim terrorists”? And why aren’t people like Alex Jones addressing these issues?

Wilders, according to the Jerusalem Post, is “calling for a total halt to non-Western immigration and bans on Muslim headscarfs and the construction of mosques,” but the same Wilders is not calling for a total halt to the Neoconservative Mafia in the Middle East. There is certainly a vital contradiction here, and unless the far-right in Europe addresses the major issue, people in the movement will continue to make a fool of themselves. The Post continues:

“During Wilders’ visit to Los Angeles, where Horowitz runs an organization called the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Horowitz said he organized an event at which Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed were auctioned.”[9]

Imagine the reaction if a Muslim makes fun of a rabbi or even a Jewish person. Imagine the reaction if a Muslim happens to mention the Holocaust in a negative light. The entire Zionist media would go up in flame declaring that “anti-Semitism is on the rise.” Neocon puppet and Zionist whore Ann Coulter would be all over the place saying that we need to bomb those Muslims.


[1] “Report: Dutch Secret Service Investigated Far-right Leader’s Ties to Israel,” Haaretz, December 6, 2016. Thanks to my dear friend Mark Dankof for sending this article to me.

[2] Cnaan Lipshiz, “Far-Right Dutch Politician Brings His Anti-Islam Rhetoric back to Jerusalem,” Haaretz, January 11, 2008.

[3] Gregg Zoroya, “360,000 veterans may have brain injuries,” USA Today, March 3, 2009.

[4] Daniel Pipes, “Support the Syrian Rebels?,” National Review, May 12, 2013.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Horowitz, “Why We Were in Iraq,” FrontPageMag.com, March 21, 2013.

[7] Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 94, 105.

[8]  Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 966.

[9] “US groups helped fund Dutch anti-Islam politician,” Jerusalem Post, September 9, 2012.

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Interesting to note that one of Wilders’ advisors, charged with digging up dirt on Muslims and Islam, ended up converting to Islam.

  2. this is funy and silly at the same time. Its ppl like you that seats in the ‘free money’ and jumps like mad when it hurts a little. Its fair being in defensive and protecting EU countries values. The imigrants majority muslims dont know how to live in the modern EU society they want their social values to their lives etc. It hurts I know as we arent used to it. But it hurts more when EU countries ruined Libya, Iraq, Syria , Egypt just to name a few. Did they need the ‘demokracy’ that ruined their social values? wait you dont understand their values thus fire some missiles so they can listen to you. Live and let live silly boy.

  3. Obviously concerning matters on Muslims, what is considered a steadfast lunacy in Europe is considered progressive and extravagant in USA. Thankfully the Dutch people don’t regard this clown as morally high as his donours. Good to mention that there are other terrorists out there as well, hiding under NATO’s cloak. Terrorist is usually a reference to someone small in army size, rather as to lone vigilante gunmen who make an exception for terrorism. Terrorism in the west could not make a single move without western clandestine agencies.

Comments are closed.