Readers, who are interested in this line, must take a look at Carsten Hansen's review column at chesscafe this month.
Though I had some doubts, just reading the quotation has convinced me to buy McDonald's book.

To my surprise, I found 48 games with this idea; the oldest one Williams-Horwitz, London 1852. Here White played Ng5, f4, Nf3.
Black has done reasonably well and only 10 games ended in a draw. This suggests that White's setup is not so boring after all. Please be a bit patient; I will look at it seriously.
My first impression is to play e6-e5 anyway; as first impressions are not always reliable in the IZ, I must look at the queen's fianchetto too. After all White has a big hole on e4.

While I agree, that the double fianchetto is critical, I do not think matters are as simple as Wiilliams and Losetowin state. Especially after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 o-o 6.o-o d6 7.Nc3 a5 8.b3 Black has two other options:
the Simagin plan c6, Na6, Bd7, Qe8, Rb8 (not all prepatory moves are necessary) and b7-b5.
the almost unknown plan c6, Qc7 and again e5.
Anyhow, play will be very complicated within 15 moves. White can play for an advantage indeed, but I would not say without trouble.
The other critical line is 7.b4 in the above move order. I hope the readers will not mind, that I will not give concrete variations here. I want to apply them in email chess.

In answer to Geof Strayer: I never play 1.d4 f5 myself, as I want to avoid 2nd move alternatives for White. I only started the line with 1.d4 f5 for the sake of clarity.
In answer to the Bb4+ option: I kinda like 1.d4 d6 and only then 2...f5.
TalJechin is right: since Schwarz wrote his book on the Dutch in 1964, it is well known that Black cannot build a complete defense against 1.d4 based on the Dutch with Bb4(+). Moreover, it is typical for the Iljin-Genewsky to put that bishop on e7. I always do the latter, as this is easier to understand.
In my opinion White can only fight for an advantage against the Iljin-Genewsky with a double fianchetto. The good news for Black is, that even then play gets very complicated around move 15.

  In the line given in TalJechin's game after 9.Qc2, I rather doubt that White can speak of any advantage after any normal move, such as 9...Ndf6, 9...Qe8, or even 9...b6.  In fact, Black seems to have a very nice Classical Dutch position, and although I don't play the Classical Dutch as Black I wouldn't mind being Black in this position at all.

  On a somewhat broader note, and relating to MNb's original suggestion of the Classical Dutch as a fighting defense to 1.d4, I have a few comments:

  First, I think it helps to have the option of using the 1.d4 e6 move order, so I would think that the Classical Dutch is a "better fit" for people who play the French Defense.  Although the various anti-Dutch lines available after 1.d4 f5 may not threaten the viability of the Dutch Defense, they are somewhat annoying (especially the 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5 and 2.e4 lines) and substantially increase the theoretical work Black needs to do.  (I sometimes play the Dutch Stonewall against 1.d4, and I always use the 1...e6 and 2...f5 move order.)

  Second, I play 1.d4 and I have been searching for some time and without much success for a good line against the Classical Dutch.  I bought both Simon Williams' and Jan Pinski's books on the Classical solely for the purpose of finding a good line from the White side, but I haven't managed to come up with anything convincing.  (Rowson-Williams from the British Championships briefly gave me some hope, but after a little analysis I concluded that Black was actually probably okay out of the opening.)  One of the problems from the White perspective is that you often can get positions which are rather messy/unusual but (at least optically) seem somewhat better for White, which after analysis turn out to be just equals or unclear.   

  As one example, in the main line after 7...a5 8.b3 Ne4 9.Bb2 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Qe8, I have twice tried the 11.Qd3!? line given by Williams.  After 11.Qd3!? Qh5 12.e4 f4 13.e5 d5 14.Bd2 g5 15.gxf4 gxf4, Williams concludes that White may have a small edge but practical examples are needed. (Play the Classical Dutch, pp.25-26.)  In my first game (a correspondence game over the Net), I reached this position and was simply unable to come up with a constructive plan for White (despite almost 20 days spent thinking about this position!).  The problem is that Black has many moves to improve his position (e.g., Bd7, Nc6, Kh8, a5-a4, or Rf8-f7 and Ra8-g8), whereas White seems to have a good position but has difficulty coming up with a plan to improve it.  I am not sure what White's plan is here at all.  I ended up playing some natural but perhaps second best moves, i.e. Kg1-h1, Rf1-g1, Nf3-e1, Qf3, and Ne1-d3, but in the meantime Black had completed his development and opened the a-file and was, in my opinion, at least = and possibly better.  I offered a draw and was quite relieved when my opponent accepted.

  In my second game (a 3 0 game against Simon Williams himself) the first 15 moves also followed the line given in Williams' book, but I tried a more violent plan involving Rae1 followed by cxd5, and after exd5 I tried e5-e6!?.  (This was my new idea after analyzing my drawn correspondence game.)  Unfortunately, the Pe6 turned out to be somewhat weak, and Williams' chances on the kingside appeared to be at least as good as mine.  Analyzing this game later, I am not convinced I had any advantage out of the opening, and may have in fact been slightly worse after my e5-e6 move.

  I have tried other lines as well (some of the lines with an early b2-b4 before or immediately after castling, for example) without finding anything convincing.  So, although I do not really trust the Classical Dutch myself, I haven't had a great deal of luck trying to get an advantage against it either.  So, albeit reluctantly, I have to agree with MNb's suggestion that the Classical Dutch is a good choice as a fighting defense to 1.d4.   ???

          -Geof

I'll have to take a closer look at your Nc6, Qe8, Bd8 set-up. It does look OK for black so far. (But you play Kh8 twice in line B1)

However, I think white should use another move order, as it's unnecessary to allow Bb4-variations for one thing, and depending on black's response (for example if black goes g6) white might want to play c2-c3 and Nbd2 in some lines - with a firm centre g2-g4 may be interesting.

Given the few and hard to find examples (the plethora of different move orders doesn't make it any easier either) I suppose could offer one of my pathetic blitz games, where I tried a similar e5 idea. In retrospect this may not be so bad as I thought after blundering away a whole rook in the game. Though I don't think I'd play 12...e4 today. 12...Qe7 and c7-c5 is probably a better idea, but admitedly Nd7 isn't very happy - so putting it on c6 instead may be better.

JordanD (2216) - OrangeCrusher (2242) [A80]
Rated game, 5m + 0s Main Playing Hall, 20.08.2004

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 d6 4.e3 e6 5.h3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Ne4 8.c4 Nd7 9.Qc2 Bf6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 e5 12.Bh2 e4 13.Nd2 Qe8 14.Nb3 b6 15.a4 a5? 16.c5! bxc5 17.dxc5 dxc5 18.Bxc7 Be5 19.Bxe5 Qxe5 20.Rad1 and white should have an edge due to the weak a5-pawn.