The main debate today was about the massacre in Norway and the link between the murderer and the Dutch right wing politician Wilders.
The killer referred to Wilders and his views a lot.
They share their views.
The guy even went to London to see Wilders and hear his speech.
One of the main messages of Wilders has been that it's five minutes to twelve and other apocalyptic junk and often we've asked ourselves here when I nutcase would act on those terrifying words. It was not if, it was when.
Ofcourse Wilders experienced a huge shock.
I think he never considered the idea that someone might think about a war with islam in reality.
Now he and his fellows are the first to claim they were not responsible for what the Norway killer thought and has done.
I think however that there is a far smaller dividingline between verbal force and physical force than those politicians realise. There are people who take their statements literally, as we can often see in the comments at the sites of the online papers. And there's a small group acting those feelings out.
The fact that the Norway killer mentioned Wilders and the country so many times in his manifest makes clear the killer found justification for his thoughts and deeds in the texts of Wilders.
Stirring emotions without setting limits is dangerous.
I expect this to be the debate of 2011: is democracy served by polarisation without limits and is Wilders in the sideline partially responsible for the thoughts of that guy that killed so many people?