Dutch Concerns

The REAL State of the Union

2012-01-25T20:07:00.001+01:00

Instead of 'low taxes' I'd have preferred the Judge to say 'no taxes', as he is very well aware that taxation is theft, but otherwise there is not a word amiss in this short video. It shows the dire state 'the free west' has come to be in.

"What if ...YOU were silenced?"

2012-01-09T20:01:00.002+01:00

What if the perceived differences between Republicans and Democrats are just that: perceived...?

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a number of rhetorical questions. Take a minute and think about the answers...

Jesse Ventura: do not vote!

2011-12-25T00:18:00.001+01:00

The video below shows Jesse Ventura's press conference after his 4th amendment (TSA) case got thrown out. The government does not want to risk a jury trial, instead it wants the case 'judged' by government paid judges.

Watch the government's agenda being played out. This is not just happening in America. 'Courts' are being used everywhere to deny citizens their lawful rights. In the Netherlands, it's happening to people like Erwin Lensink and, recently, Sietze Planting. People who are unlawfully held imprisoned, without due process.

In America, if it can happen to former navy seal, former mayor and former governor Jesse Ventura, it can happen to anybody. Please bear in mind that ~~president~~usurper Obeyme only last week signed into law the fact that any American citizen can be rounded up and locked away indefinitely, without due process, and that FEMA is now openly recruiting to get its camps manned. Draw your own conclusions.

While the questions can't be heard, they become apparent from Jesse's answers. Listen to what caused Jesse Ventura to lose his patriotism, and think of what that means to a former Navy seal. The 'Fascist States of America' are on a downhill slope, steep since Bush, steeper since ObeyMe, and Europe is following in its footsteps.

Listen to what Jesse has to say, and listen hard. Jesse will no longer vote for Democrats or Republicans, as both parties are willingly destroying America and with it, the free world. He has stated he will vote for Ron Paul, should Paul go independent, and even be willing to be Paul's running mate. He's even thinking about running independent himself, if that's what it takes to get constitutional rights restored. Rights are not privileges.

Some voices say that anything is better than Obama, be it Romney, Gingrich or Perry, but if 'better than Obama' is going to be the criteria for the next elections, America is doomed. Simply because 'better than Obama' is too easy a goal; to save America and the West in general, we need a dramatic change. Socialist Obama has damaged America and the free world significantly in just three short years; damage that cannot be easily undone, damage that will take hard working taxpayers years, possibly decades, to repair.

But only if capitalism can be restored, well, let me rephrase that: if capitalism can finally be allowed to sow and harvest its fruitful prosperity. Because capitalism is much denounced, while nobody really knows what is is. What people call 'capitalism' today really is corporatism, and corporatism is fascism. Jesse addresses that aspect as well. Listen and learn.

Politics is the problem

2011-12-14T20:24:00.000+01:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano is being interviewed by Reason's Nick Gillespie about the state of affairs in America and his latest book: It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Opening statement:

I'll say this plainly, I've said it before - Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do.

Exactly.

You're home at night and someone knocks on the door and you answer the door and there's a guy with a gun and the guy says "Give me your money; I want to give it away in your name." Why, is this guy crazy? You call the police and you find out he's an IRS agent.

Yes, that's what taxation is: theft, robbery.

Watch and learn. Enjoy!

The Government War on We the People

2011-11-28T19:25:00.001+01:00

Europe: the End of Democracy

2011-11-22T19:55:00.001+01:00

The newly selected, not elected, strong man in Italy, Mario Monty, is ex-Goldman Sachs. Like the management of the ECB. Appointed by the Eurocrats, removing all semblance of democracy from Italy. While democracy is an evil system (after all, it brought us those Eurocrats), the EU was built and defended on the notion of being a democratic union, while in reality not being one. But now, all pretence has been dropped, and a democratically elected leader, Silvio Berlusconi, has been evicted to be replaced by an inside man for the EU, without any possibility for the Italian people to interfere. Italy is now officially a dictatorship. Who will follow?

A Dutch free newspaper, De Pers, featured an article today on a Goldman Sachs takeover of the Dutch Government. A tale-telling passage from that article:

A Goldman takeover will be cheered by the Goldman Sachs-loving royal family. However, that takeover will have a drastic impact on the monarchy. Bea will be evicted immediately and replaced, not by Alexander, but by Friso, who worked at Goldman for four years and ten months and who, on top of that, is married to a former gangstergirl with a burning ambition and a great talent for hiding the truth.

A must-read for Dutch-reading visitors; highly recommended.

The Meltdown of the European Union

2011-11-11T17:15:00.000+01:00

Just look at the smug arrogant faces of Barosso and Van Rompuy; they know Farage is right on the mark, but they don't care. They're sure that when it all comes down they'll escape the consequenses. Well, I certainly hope they're wrong.

The European Euro crisis discussed

2011-11-10T20:03:00.000+01:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano (A Nation of Sheep) interviews Nigel Farage.

In loving memory: Common Sense

2011-09-22T17:38:00.001+01:00

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
   - Knowing when to come in out of the rain,
   - Why the early bird gets the worm,
   - Life isn't always fair, and
   - Maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, don't spend more than you can earn and adults, not children, are in charge.

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers: I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, do nothing.
Published by a Friend

(copied from an anonymous internet source)

London Vermin

2011-08-11T18:14:00.001+01:00

Your tax dollars at work...

2011-03-15T09:15:00.004+01:00

This is very illustrative of how the media are trying to destroy Western Values. While this video is about American taxdollars at work to enslave the (involuntary) payers of those taxdollars into islamic submission, this is all too common around the Western world. The Frankfort School program continues.

Hat tip: Dutch blog Het Vrije Volk.

The Criminal Truth

2011-01-31T16:22:00.003+01:00

The latest Pat Condell video is a very important one. Pat clearly explains what the Main Stream Media do not want to address, and that's how the peoples of the Western culture are being sold out to islam by making the truth a crime. Once upon a time, treason was punishable by death. These days, the traitors are applauded by their peers, leaving their subjects to pay the price, at gunpoint.

This is what you get when cowardly power-mongers assume the power & violence monopoly of the state. Honest and honorable citizens have no fighting chance defending themselves against these thugs. It may require a people's uproar like currently is taking place in the islamic world; unfortunately, those will ensure the Muslim Brotherhood will assume power, and all those people now burning the streets and looting the shops will find themselves in vessel states of Iran before they realize it, and possibly be longing for times gone by very soon.

I wish I could say: "Enjoy Pat's latest", but there's precious little to enjoy. However, this video is a must see for anyone who still values what's been left of our culture and freedom. Dear reader, I present you Pat Condell's The Criminal Truth. Peace.

Leftist mentality explained

2011-01-17T19:58:00.006+01:00

Free Speech in Europe - a must-view

2010-11-17T21:13:00.003+01:00

The Left openly drops all pretense

2010-10-05T19:03:00.004+01:00

Today the Dismissal-court, headed by 'impartial' Left-wing 'judge' F. Bauduin, has confirmed the use of plural in the headline of my previous article: we indeed have Kangaroo Courts in The Netherlands: it has denied the appeal for dismissal by Mr. Moszkowicz. Geert Wilders' judge may have used some 'unfortunate choice of words' but he was 'in no terms prejuduced'.

Says Bauduin, member of (a.o.) the Morocco Fund, in which his name is one of only two Dutch ones. Looking at the list of his 'other activities' (thanks, Artikel7) it quickly becomes clear he is no friend of Geert Wilders' PVV, but prejudiced himself, so he should have stepped aside instead of heading the dismissal court.

As it is, one 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing 'judge' judges another 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge to be impartial, only because that other 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge himself claims, after showing prejudice, to be impartial. One would think that the choice of Morocco loving Bauduin as dismissal-judge is a rather 'unfortunate choice of judge' given the fact that Wilders' case touches on the issues The Netherlands have with problematic Moroccan youth...

Well, at least it becomes clearer day by day what a circus the Dutch ' justice' system really is. First, we have an unprofessional judge who lets his personal bias against Wilders prevail in his job. Then, the justice minister himself appears to have had a part in the decision to prosecute Wilders. And now we have another unprofessional, Morocco-loving judge, who 'impartially' decides that the biased judge is impartial. What's next?

These are interesting times (remember Confucius).

Kangaroo Courts in a Banana Monarchy

2010-10-05T08:23:00.005+01:00

Yesterday, the political trial against Geert Wilders started. While the court earlier already denied Wilders the majority of his witnesses, it allowed only three out of eighteen, claiming that it did not need to hear the same story multiple times, it yesterday once again showed its true (green+red=brown) colors: when Wilders announced he will appeal to his right to remain silent, the lead judge commented that it looked like Wilders lived up to his MSM reputation of posing a statement and then avoiding the debate.

A more clear demonstration of prejudice is hardly thinkable, as anyone following the debate knows that Wilders is always prepared to defend his opinions, and explain the delicacy of his position. Yesterday Wilders commented that he felt more like being in conversation with a D'66 (Democrats '66, the left wing traitor party more commonly referred to as Dhimmy'66) colleague than with an independent court. He also said he did not take back a single word, but that he was not responsible for statements he never made, but which were attributed to him by others.

Wilders lawyer, Mr. Moszkowicz, informed whether the lead judges opinion was shared by the other two judges, as he needed clarity on how to proceed. The two declared that their leader had spoken for the court, after which Mr. Moszkowicz appealed for the entire court to be dismissed.

Today, the dismissal-court (wrakings rechtbank, I 'm not very familiar with the English legal terms) will decide whether or not the judges will be replaced, effectively meaning a return to square one, or whether they will ignore Wilders' appeal and have the trial continue as if nothing happened. Nothing is certain, as the dismissal court will be presided by another left-wing judge, Mr. F. Bauduin, who judged the harm done to premier-to-be Pim Fortuyn, our democratic system (well...) and our legal system by extreme left-wing killer Volkert van der Graaf not severe enough for a life sentence (the killer of Theo van Gogh did receive a life sentence, though). Well, that murder 'only' encompassed a coup d'etat, no less, but as it was a coup for the Left, it was more than welcome. Van der Graaf will be a free man again in 2014.

Today, 'newspaper' De Telegraaf runs an article revealing that Justice minister Hirsch Ballin has been involved in the prosecution of Geert Wilders, in a very early stage (2008). This Justice minster has been involved in more dubious developments around Geert Wilders, amongst others in the state-directed panic on Wilders' film Fitna. Hirsch Ballin is also the man behind the unfounded arrest of Gregorius Nekschot, a cartoonist critical of islam and left-wing politics.

Last week, Hirsch Ballin very strongly opposed the new coalition in the Netherlands, where his party CDA will rule with the VVD, supported by Geert Wilders' PVV. The CDA party members have voted for this coalition with 68% against 32%, a two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, Hirsch Ballin is trying to get the seats in parliament now filled with 32% dissidents ("to reflect the voting"), which would effectively blow up the new government before it started. Today the final result of that circus is expected.

The Telegraaf's article reveals that the justice department has asked professor Rick Lawson, tied to Leiden University, to investigate the chances of successfully prosecuting Wilders. After a ten-page analysis, Lawson concludes that there are sufficient grounds to prosecute. Internal emails from 2008 now show that this advice led to euphoria, and that the people involved (a.o. the Amsterdam court) would discuss this with the Justice minister and the head of the prosecution department. While this department (OM) decided not to prosecute, the Amsterdam court later forced it to do that anyway.

Wilders' lawyer is stunned about the revelation: "Not only has a possible prosecution of my client been discussed at the highest ministerial level, but on top of that, political considerations have played a role in the decision to start prosecuting."

According to the OM, nothing untoward has happened: "The minister is politically responsible for the OM. He regularly has to explain to parliament why the OM decides to prosecute (or not) in sensitive cases. So the OM has to inform him. The law provides for cases where the minster disagrees with the decision of the OM, and allows him to instruct otherwise". Yeah, sure.

This is the same Hirsch Ballin who has been linked to possible corruption over ten years ago already, who has blocked all investigation attempts against Joris Demmink, the highest officer in the Justice department who has been accused multiple times of pedophilia (and worse) but is still in function, and who has been involved in a scam with Harm Brouwer, head of the OM, to get the murderers of Marianne Vaatstra, a 16 year old girl raped, mutilated and killed by 'asylum-seekers', off the hook.

The same Hirsch Ballin also, who has been trying hard to get internet censorship laws pushed through parliament while he still can, before he has to move out of the way. The proponent of a party, whose fossil members complained over the past few weeks on how Wilders endangered the justice-state. The Netherlands are no justice-state anymore, and have not been for quite some time already. The justices are accountable to noone, appointed by the crown, guided by the leftist preferences of that crown, and many are provably corrupt.

Kangaroo Courts in a Banana Monarchy. The Netherlands have truly sunk way below sea level, not only physically, but also morally, the queen and her 'elites' guiding the way down.

Today at 14:00 it will be decided whether Wilders' trial has to be re-done from the start, or whether the corrupt Left will abandon all pretense and just continue openly on its way to avoid obstructions on the path of the Frankfurter Schule.

Fascism in The Netherlands

2010-08-20T20:03:00.001+01:00

While on July 1st 2008 fascism was already introduced into the horeca sector when Dutch Government took away the right of bar owners to run their property as they saw fit with the introduction of the smoking ban, Labour (PvdA) in Amsterdam overbid the CDA smoking ban by taking away the right of home owners to do with their home as they see fit, a living ban. Here's the deal:

Anybody owning a small home or apartment with a purchase price of up to 163.000 euros (upping that to 200.000 is under consideration) and not living there permanently (i.e. the owner has not registered in Amsterdam) will be forced to rent his property out to the social sector, even if the property is used during the week to avoid commuting to the owner's proper home, which happens quite a lot.
One drawback is that you cannot be registered at two addresses. So if your normal residence is some other house, even nextdoor, there is no way to register for two houses.

The other drawback is that houses in this pricerange easily 'do' mortgages of 700 euros monthly and up. As Dutch government have decided that social rent for these houses is around 400 euro's, maxing out at 548 for more expensive ones, owners are forced to become landlords of their own property, paying out up to 1000 euros monthly, and receiving only 548 euros max.

Labour calls that 'fair', as they 'really cannot allow homes to stay empty', 'empty' meaning nobody's registered there. That owners now will face severe losses, as well as the use of their property, is just 'tough luck'.

While this is against European law, which states that governments cannot force home owners to rent out their property below its cost, PvdA doesn't care. It claims housing need is such that this policy is just and justified. Guess who will be PvdA's preferred new renters.

Typical leftist hypocrisy shows through: ex mayor Job Cohen (PvdA, of course) will be allowed to stay living in his luxury mayor's home, while his residence is elsewhere. Also The city of Amsterdam owns (how a public body can own property is something for another discussion) a stock of around 400 social rental homes, which are not rented out, but exploited by hotels like Barbizon and Krasnapolsky at 200 euros a night.

If housing need is so severe that private owners should be robbed of the use of their property, which I would consider unthinkable, then at least Amsterdam should stop their fraudulous behavior with its own stock, which is specifically intended for social rent.

While the city admits this fraud, it also has a 'solution' for it. It suggests that the rating standards for its own stock should be changed such that it no longer follows country-wide rules and thus is exempted from the rule. Reasoning behind it is that purchase prices are such that cost-effective renting out at established prices is impossible.

Yeah. Sure. Do as I say, not as I do.

Welcome to The Netherlands, welcome to Amsterdam, welcome to Labour. Although even VVD (Fredom and Democracy Party, supposedly conservatives) are now part of the city council, so VVD is accomplice. Welcome to open fascism, where the state denies owners their property rights.

Labour supposedly is 'social', caring for the 'laborers', the lower and middle classes. Just look at Gordon Brown, who can be rented to speech now for a mere 100.000 euros an hour. Yes that's per hour. Well, they should probably pay me that amount for me to suffer an hour of listening to this criminal. Oh, and he 'does not expect to have to pay for business class trips and luxury accomodation', while he does expect to 'travel extensively' for his speech tours. For an extra 20 grand, his wife gets to be part of the package as well.

There's nothing 'social' about socialism. The only thing Labour and, more generally, the political Left, is good at, is disrupting society, while taking care of their own, at the expense of others. Abolish the state, introduce anarcho-capitalism.

Dutch Elections and the PVV ban

2010-06-18T08:37:00.000+01:00

As I'm involved in other activities, I do not find the time to write at the moment. For an update on what's going on with Dutch Elections, please read this excellent article on Gates of Vienna. Don't miss the comments either.

Controversy on Smolensk air crash

2010-05-13T13:17:00.005+01:00

A couple of videos have surfaced on YouTube which have stirred some controversy on the Smolensk air crash in which the Polish president Lech Kaczynski died, amongst others. Below the fold you'll find two videos, one by Jane Bürgermeister, questioning what really happened, and the other an enhanced version of a video mentioned by Bürgermeister, which appears to show that shortly after the crash, before any emergency services arrived, survivers were being shot and killed. While some of Bürgermeisters comments seem a little far fetched, she poses a number of legitimate questions to which, to date, no answers are being given.

Allegedly, the person who shot the second video was stabbed and killed in hospital, in an incident referred to by authorities as an accident. I haven't been able to confirm this claim, and neither why this person would have been in hospital in the first place. If true, this would be a bit too coincidental for comfort.

What struck me first about the crash is the fact that apparently so many 'important' persons were on that single flight, something any security adviser worth his paycheck would have vehemently protested against. Businesses won't let strategic staff or specialists fly together, as a precaution against endangering the businesses' future by such an accident. So why would a government. Did they all deem themselves so important that they had to be on the government plane? Whatever the reason, it's bad strategy, as is so painfully proven here.

On to the first video; Jane Bürgermeister:

and here, the second:

Please leave your thoughts in the comments.

Hat tip: GeenNieuws

Nigel Farage in plane crash

2010-05-06T17:11:00.004+01:00

This morning, UKIP politician Nigel Farage was involved in a plane crash, while taking off for a day of campaigning over parts of the UK. Today, the UK holds elections. The plane landed upside down, while still on the airport. Although information is limited, Nigel is reported to be only mildly injured, while his pilot is worse off, but not life-threatening.

Lets hope both recover soon, and that the cause of the accident will be not only found out, but honestly reported. Nigel has made a lot of enemies within the establishment, by freely speaking his mind and questioning authority, and one can only hope his plane was not sabotaged.

BigotGate

2010-05-04T17:44:00.007+01:00

Or: How politicians really see their voters.

The fact that politicians as a rule are lying through their teeth while changing their story depending on their audience should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nor the fact that they will only openly state what they really think if they feel secure and unexposed.

The reason behind the changing stories is of course that when an audience hears what it likes to hear, chances are that their members will treat the politician as a friend, and maybe even vote for him. On Wednesday, April 28, just outside Rochdale, Lancashire, UK, campagning Gordon Brown spoke with mrs. Gillian Duffy, a Labour voter who subjected him to some honest, critical, but relatively mild, questions. As it turned out, Brown could not deal with the concerns of this lady, and unwittingly showed his true colors. Please watch the video below, notice Brown's body language, and especially the remark at the end of the video, while Brown is driven off.

Now that's what we've come to expect from politicians these days. The SkyNews crew, sensing a little scandal, hurries after mrs. Duffy te get her response:

While mrs. Duffy appears to have a keen eye for what Labour has doen to her England, she does not appear to have linked the decade of decline to the schemings of her party; she may not be aware of the documents that fairly recently surfaced and showed that Labour intentionally has used mass immigration since 2000 as a means to disrupt society. Her esteem for Gordon Brown, however, sure got quite a dent this time.

BBC radio 2 called on Brown for a public apology, again look at the man's body language:

From his performance it is clear that Brown mainly regrets being overheard, and now had to eat humble pie in an attemt to twist his way out of what clearly was his honest opinion of mrs. Duffy. Afterwards, Brown was driven back to Rochdale, where he spent 45 minutes with mrs. Duffy to offer his sincere apologies. This is what he had to say about it afterwards:

Boy, is he relieved. Does he really believe that people will now consider him to be sincere? How can politicians face themselves in the mirror, without feeling disgusted to their core?

Who is John Galt?

The Totalitarian Failure called European Union

2010-04-09T18:26:00.006+01:00

Despite having had imposed the maximum fine for 'undesired' behaviour, Nigel Farage continues to point out the fact that the EU President, a position that according to demissionary MP Peter Balkenende did not exist and hence there was no constitutional nature in the Lisbon ~~Treason~~Treaty so the 2005's referendum's NO could be overruled, is an appointed position, not an elected one. Herman van Rompuy was selected, not elected, by other unelected officials, removing the vox populi from the political process in the EU. The peoples of Europe have no means to remove this man from office, as he, and most of his accomplices, are not accountable to anyone.

The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 was the second Coupe d'Etat inside 7 years in The Netherlands, the first being the assassination of MP-to-be Pim Fortuyn in 2002. If Geert Wilders will be convicted for peacefully venting his opinion, than that will mark the third one, all inside a single decennium, and the perpetrators are getting away with it.

Listen to Nigel Farage's words of truth.

The latest Pat Condell

2010-03-28T13:07:00.003+01:00

Harare on the river Maas (updated)

2010-03-05T19:31:00.012+01:00

(The city formerly known as Rotterdam)

Local elections were held in The Netherlands on March 3, and who has been watching them would not have believed these were elections in a European country. Where European states send observers to countries like Zimbabwe in order to ensure no irregularities take place it has become time for coutries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela to return the favor.

Labour politicians issued campaign posters in Turkish, Moroccan and Arabic, as otherwise the uneducated, unassimilated, analphabetic immigrants would not be able to understand where to get their free lunch. "You cannot exclude these people from the democratic process" is their legitimation. In my view, someone who doesn't understand the slightest about his guest country should not be allowed to influence that countries politics by being granted the privilege to vote. But then again, how else is labour to stay in power?

Well, they have some other tricks to that effect up their sleeve. Like ignoring voting laws, and hijacking ballot boxes. It did have some undesired side effects, like non-native candidats taking over labour in Helmond, where out of 6 seats only one will be occupied by a Dutchman, while the complete PvdA section in Feijenoord (~~Rotterdam~~Harare-on-the-river-Maas) had already been taken over by Turks earlier, causing local labour to urge people not to vote for labour... Immigants have taken over more PvdA councils, often by 50% or more, but nowhere as bad as in Helmond or Feijenoord.

The Dutch voting law is clear on procedure in the voting booth: never more than one person in the booth. In ~~Rotterdam~~Harare-on-the-river-Maas, people of islamic descent were very often in the booth with two or tree people at a time, with teh excuse that the voter needed help as she (mostly) did not understand what to do. Well, if you don't know what to do, you should not be there. This was largely allowed by the staf of the voting localities (the full staff of two localities was replaced as it was all too obvious), while for natives the rules were enforced to ridicule.

One voting commissioner even sent back home his own wife, as she had left her ID at home and thus could not present it, a new rule, instigated in a fake attempt to stop fraude committed by immigrants. A commenter in a national paper had this to say about it: His pencil will probably not be sharpened for a while... in reference to the fact that for the first time, voting machines were banned as these are deemed to be unreliable and easily rigged, and voting has been reverted to using a red pencil on a ballot form.

As far as rigging goes, in a white neighborhood of ~~Rotterdam~~Harare-on-the-river-Maas, two ballot boxes dissapeared, to be found empty when they were recovered later. The news failed to make the Main Stream Media, no surprise there. The Mayor of ~~Rotterdam~~Harare-on-the-river-Maas, the Moroccan Ahmed Aboutaleb, sees no harm in all this and feels that 'closer scrutiny in the future', the standard response for all irregularities, should suffice. Which never happens, of course. No reason for even a recount, while there's plenty of reason the have the entire Rotterdam election redone. Well, he's a labour immigrant, so what would you expect.

Leefbaar Rotterdam, the party that saw life under Pim Fortuyn, has only 600 votes or so less than Labour (PvdA), so for that reason alone the lost ballot boxes could make a lot of difference. The largest party gets the first attempt to form the local council for the coming for years, and even while the number of seats are the same, 14, the PvdA will be considered the largest party, as it has slightly more votes. Labour has already announced to ignore the votes for Leefbaar, and to form a coalition with three other parties (the minimum to reach a majority).

Which goes to show that democracy has nothing to do with it, as democracy would dictate that the winners of the elections should be ruling the city, democracy being mob rule, the Terror of the Majority. Leefbaar has always said not to exclude labour, but hey, labour, being labour, only has complete ignorance and disdain for voters. Hopefully Leefbaar will raise a proper stink, and insist on redoing the elections. If that does not happen, Rotterdam, once one of the world's greatest sea ports, can be written off completely and live on under the name of Harare on the river Maas. And The Netherlands will truly and irrevocably have become a banana Monarchy. Time to get rid of the Oranges, too...

UPDATE
With lots and lots of items coming from the blogosphere, the MSM has finally woken up and is calling for a recount. One of the empty boxes was 'accounted for' as the votes were supposedly found in another ballot box. Reportedly, 105 votes had been omitted, 5 Labour and 100 Leefbaar. It was also found that out of 15 districts, only 3 had counted properly. That's what you get if you leave the handling and counting of votes to the stakeholders...

The recount chant of course is silly, a typically leftist approach of starting 'investigations' in the middle. Starting at the start, the obvious approach, would leave them empty handed, more often than not. I mean, what good will it do to recount votes of which we already know they were cast in a fraudulent manner? The hope is of course that the repeated focus on a recount will lull the voter into submission that this is enough, according to Goebbelian doctrine: repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth.

While a proper recount will show a difference, the only real solution is to have the entire election redone, with proper control, and with independent vote-counters. Maybe, just maybe, that may even happen, but then again: hasn't this proven that the whole political system is corrupt, null and void? Isn't it time for something completely new?

Free Speech in the EU is very expensive...

2010-03-03T20:54:00.010+01:00

Nigel Farage, the outspoken UKIP member in the European Parliament, has been fined for exercising his right to free speech and telling an inconvenient truth in that Parliament. Here the 'offense':

And here's the result:

Free Speech is very expensive in the EU these days.

While I did not think the ad-hominem bit very strong, I can understand where it came from, and it shows that even Nigel is getting fed up with the totalitarian bunch that runs the EU. In a way, as he stated, he's only returning the favor. Anyway, he's corrected that now, by apologizing to bank employees, who might indeed rightfully be offended. But remember: being offended is a choice!

The Crooked Judges of Amsterdam

2010-02-06T00:06:00.003+01:00

Or: How the Truth Became Illegal. Well, it's been that for a while, but never as openly as in the case against Geert Wilders, who is facing prosecution for stating the truth. Mark Steyn had something to say about that, and so does Pat Condell, who should be taking care of his health. Michael Badnarik already suffered a heart attack, in his quest for the Constitution, which is bad enough, so we don need Mr. Condell following his ways... Listen to Pat, and 'enjoy'. I'm fully aware it's not the right term, but boy, do we need a voice like his.

Geert Wilders on Trial

2010-01-21T17:40:00.005+01:00

Yesterday, the Kafkaesque Prozess against Geert Wilders started. Wilders took a few minutes to address the court. Please find below Geert's personal message (English subtitled).

Hattip: Vlad Tepes

Full translation:
Speaker, judges of the court,
I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiral, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.

Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism

2010-01-07T18:22:00.002+01:00

"Multiculturalism is not about knowing anything about other cultures; it's just about feeling warm and fluffy about them."

Hat tip: Lagonda

Stop Injustice to the People of Iceland!

2010-01-04T20:07:00.002+01:00

To: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown and Secretary of Treasury of The Netherlands Wouter Bos

WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby Petition the above officials to withdraw their claim that all the people of Iceland should be held responsible for the mistakes made by officials and bankers of the involved countries with regard to the demise of Landsbanki/Icesave.

RELEVANT FACTS:
This petition is created by Dutch libertarian blog www.vrijspreker.nl that speaks out for individual liberty and opposes abuse by the state. It is important that all morally responsible people, especially in UK and Holland, show to the Icelandics that we support them and are explicitly not supporting our government in their decision.

Total amount claimed by The Netherlands and UK amounts to 3.8 euro billion. Since Iceland only has 320,000 inhabitants, this results in a staggering 12,000 euro per inhabitant. Apart from the fact that the legal basis is very weak, the claims have no moral or ethical foundation and will lead to the robbing and prolonged suffering of ordinary citizens such as elderly, hard working laborers, children and disabled, all of them not being involved in the failings of Landsbanki/Icesave whatsoever.

Instead the governments of The Netherlands and UK should focus on finding and bringing to justice all involved greedy bankers, officials and regulators.

The Icelandic parliament has narrowly approved the payment plan with Dutch and UK governments with only 33 of 63 members. The people of Iceland are however increasingly against the bill. Polls suggest that 70\% is against it. Also more than 56,000 people have already signed a petition, handed over to the president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.

Mister Grimsson has now asked for some time to consider the bill, which will only be effected once he signed it. Should he not sign the bill, the bill will be left to a referendum.

THE UNDERSIGNED RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE UK AND DUTCH OFFICIALS:

1) to respect fundamental ethical and moral values and to drop their excessive claims of in total 3.8 billion euro on the government and therefore ordinary citizens of Iceland
2) to find and bring to justice all involved bankers, companies and government officials

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Klick here to sign the petition.

Breaking: The Price of Liberty

2009-12-24T01:18:00.003+01:00

Michael Badnarik suffers heart attack

Michael J. Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections and a former software engineer and radio talk show host has suffered a heart attack. Badnarik is also the president of the 2009 Continental Congress.

Badnarik was in Madison, Wisconsin, attending a hearing regarding a raw milk case when he collapsed, according to Gary Franchi, the National Director of Restore the Republic. “After the hearing he got in a car to go to lunch with friends, He then slumped over. His friends attempted CPR and contacted the paramedics. They attempted to revive him 3 times with no success. Upon the 4th attempt his heart was revived yet with erratic behavior,” writes Franchi in an email.

Read the whole story on Alex Jones' Infowars.com.

Michael spent most of his life studying the constitution, and teaching Constitution Classes, showing how unconstitutional America has become these days. Lets hope he fully recovers and can keep up the good work. Very worthwhile are the podcasts he did for WeThePeopleRadioNetwork in 2007 and 2008.

Enjoy and learn. Let's not make the Price of Liberty be paid in vain.

Nigel Farage quits European Parliament

2009-12-18T19:48:00.007+01:00

Nigel Farage, feared by the politically correct, has decided to quit the European Parliament in order to take on the British establishment at the next UK elections in 6 months time. In my opinion, a wise decision, as the EP is a toothless wolf; the only democratic aspect to the EU as in that the EP is elected. However, more than advising the EC, who can decide to ignore that advise, is not in their power.

Let's hope Mr. Farage can avoid the fate of Mr. Fortuyn...

Hat tip: Vrijspreker reader/debater Surfer.

Government and Crime

2009-11-30T16:50:00.008+01:00

Now that western governments are caught red-handed with their climatism racket scheme, the definition of crime is being reinvented. Dutch environment minister Jacqueline Cramer, a communist, is appalled by the crime of hacking the email system of the climatism mob. Even though the 'scientists' involved have acknowledged that the material is genuine, Cramer is convinced that the 'criminals' did some 'selective shopping' and have manipulated the material to make climatism look bad. She refuses to discuss the evidence, but keeps stressing that the hackers should be identified and proscecuted.

Please note that, before she came into office, Cramer signed a page-wide newspaper support petition for fellow communists who committed burglary in a government building in order to steal documents on nuclear energy plans...

Now that not only the UK has been proven to be involved, but also New Zealand, the true global proportions of this lie, led by Al Gore (how apt a name) become visible. In Australia, the government may fall over the hoax.

However, the silence is deafening. The Main Stream Media do not publish anything substantial on the matter at all, and while Dutch newspaper The Telegraaf mentioned the scam and the surrounding silence, it also keeps publishing climatist items without any reference to the scam. Dutch government turns a deaf ear and a blind eye and keeps pushing for an international treaty in Copenhagen in December, and presenting laws imposing yet more CO2 taxes that should cost the Dutch taxpayer another 20 million euros in 2012, to pay for the climate regulations. It will drive up energy bills by as much as 300 euro for a lot of people.

Also planned for 2012 is the infamous 'Kilometer heffing', the per-kilometer charge for driving, which will double the current cost of mobility, while the current taxes on mobility are only returned in infrastructural improvements by some 20%. The rest goes into leftist hobbies, like immigration of analphabetic muslims and others that have no ability to help improve the economy, only drain it. Under the 'heffing', every driver will be followed by GPS, so the state will always know exactly when and where someone was at any given time, what route was taken and what speed was driven at. Public transport offers full control as well, as anonymous tickets cease to exist in favor of a chip system requiring travelers to check in and out for each journey, informing government where they are. GSM tracking will fill in the blanks. Totalitarianism in optima forma. Such is the state of affairs these days.

As Dutch party PVV, of Geert Wilders, opposes these crippling measures, elitists join together in order to try to arrange a repeat performance of 2002, when they succeeded in getting Pim Fortuyn killed by demonizing him. Almost every day, someone hits the media with a comparison of Wilders to Nazi-Germany, completely forgetting (well, ignoring and trying to hide from the people) that Hitler was a socialist, like themselves, and was very tight with islamists, again, like themselves.

While to some it is very obvious that they try to associate someone with evil that really is tied to themselves, many fall for the rhetoric. In a country where Hitler is said to be far right, where in reality he was as left as the current government, the people cannot even blamed for their blindness: brainwashing starts at a very young age. What they can be blamed for is their refusal to learn, to even open their eyes and engage whatever is left of what once was their brain.

Stefan Molyneux made a very clear case why government by definition will consist of criminals: it's the only place criminals can legitimize their crimes and get away with it. Ayn Rand made similar observations, a long time ago already.

We are facing grim times, and if we can't get these criminals before a court of law (real law, not the leftist PC law) soon, times will get more grim very quickly. Until the people finally have had enough, and the lynching starts. We should find a way to prevent that, as then there will only be losers. But given the way Dutch government appears to be in a real hurry to rob its citizens blind, I'm not very hopeful.

Nigel Farage speaks the Truth

2009-11-27T10:57:00.006+01:00

And gets clobbered for it

November 25 in the Eurpean Parliament, November 27 on DutchConcerns.

or: How Eurabia becomes a totalitarian state at frightening speed...

Hattip: PrisonPlanet.

The Crime of Telling the Truth

2009-11-05T21:58:00.006+01:00

Due to serious lack of time I've neglected this blog for too long, and it does not look I'll have much more time in the near future. Apologies to my followers for that. However, the latest Pat Condell is a complaint to the abject slaves of Islam in Dutch governement and a warning for America to wake up. As always, Pat is telling the truth that many, especially those in power, do not like and would love to hide.
Enjoy, and stay vigilant.

Hanging Geert Wilders

2009-09-10T15:01:00.006+01:00

Last Tuesday a doll was found hanging in the vicinity of The Hague Central Station. Four persons were arrested who claimed the hanging was an 'art-project' and the doll, with a picture of Geert Wilders knifed to it, was an 'object of art'. I didn have time to report on it before, but GoV correspondent VH translated the news article for Baron Bodissey, who published it on his site. I've taken the liberty to reproduce that translation here (thanks, VH):

Police in The Hague this Tuesday found a doll in the vicinity of the Central Station of the Hague [at the Koeklamplaan] on which a picture of PVV leader Geert Wilders had been stuck with a knife. The doll was hung from a tree with a rope around the neck. The police arrested four persons who confessed their involvement.

That is what the police of the Hague have made public. Around the photo of Wilders, fake blood was smeared. The doll also had a bag over its head. The police, in consultation with the public prosecutor has confiscated the doll. Geert Wilders, according to the police, has indicated that he will file a report of the threat with the police.

The four arrested suspects, three women and a man, 18 and 19 years old, are from the Hague, Leiden and Nootdorp, and said the doll was an art project as part of an assignment for school. Two of the women have been released; they seemed to have nothing to do with the matter. The other woman’s involvement is being investigated at the moment. The man remains a suspect, a police spokeswoman said.

No doubt, the 'art' claim is intended to escape prosecution, as another 'artist', who placed 16 altars resembling memorial shrines for Wilders in various spots in Rotterdam, was let off the hook earlier.

9/11 Revisited

2009-09-10T06:41:00.005+01:00

In a staged interview with Mr. Obama, actor/director Charlie Sheen revisites the still uncleared issues on 9/11, requesting a new investigation from the man that promised change and more openness from government. Given the fact that Mr. Obama is most likely not a legal president, and that all his actions since his inauguration are completely opposite to his promises, I will not hold my breath.

However, the issues Charlie Sheen puts forward are now undisputed, and have not been listed so clearly together so far. It's refreshing to see an established celebrity using his brain instead of blindly adoring the Obama cult and its suffocating socialism, like so many celebrities do. Well worth a read: Twenty Minutes with the President.

"The Government Can"

2009-09-03T15:51:00.000+01:00

Respect for a Security Threat...

2009-07-01T20:53:00.001+01:00

The latest from Pat Condell. So true.

Aufmachen! Kontrolle!

2009-06-29T20:12:00.009+01:00

In large parts of the world, the German words 'Aufmachen', Kontrolle' and 'Ausweis' do not need translation, like the Dutch word 'Apartheid' is a world-wide tribute to the glorious past of the Dutch (ahem). These words are rightfully associated with the rulers of Nazi-Germany, who during WorldWar II imposed a lot of socialist rulings that were kept alive by the socialists in power after the war. One of them is taxation on owning a radio or TV. This rule was enforced Gestapo-style (complete with long leather coats, boots and hats, breaking and entering) until it was ~~disbanded~~ included into the income tax regime (in 2000!), making it independent of owning such a device.

It turns out that those who loved their Gestapo performance didn't like having their hobby taken away from them, so they now dreamt up something new: house-inspections. A reader of Dutch blog Vrijspreker sent in a personal experience with this Nazi-division, and it is truly horrific.

One fine day, his doorbell rang, and as he was upstairs he inquired from his window who was there. It turned out to be the 'Haagse Pand Brigade', that came to inspect the house. He informed the 'Brigade' that there was nothing for them to inspect, after which they immediately turned hostile. They would visit again, and next time he'd better let them in, or they'd break down his door and enter without his permission, either with or without his presence.

Wow, how's that for a free country. Or should I say: a more and more openly fascist country. It turns out that the city had combined databases of the police, city, energy suppliers and some others for 19.000 addresses, and as a result of that wanted to 'inspect' 13.000 of those addresses for things like fire hazards (read: weed farms) or other 'socially undesired' aspects. The guy owns his house, has an honest job to earn his living and cannot think of anything that would warrant suspicion. When trying to talk to the local government on it: surprise!, they can't think of anything either! But they persist in threatening him, in writing!, and if he refuses, well, surely he must have something to hide? Yeah, you're a criminal unless proven innocent. Say the worst criminals of all.

The official fax number they gave him, for his formal complaint, is a 'no-answer'number, despite being confirmed by 3 different city council representatives. A working number, found on the internet, accepts his fax, but then staff cannot find it, as they "don't know where that fax machine is"... So after stalling a few days, they asked him to complain through snail-mail, making his objections seem even more delayed. No go...

So far, his complaints have prohibited the second visit, but the playing field is still wide open. When our poster mentioned 'burglary' to the city's official, he muttered that burglary is illegal, pretending not to grasp that our poster was referring to his team's threatened practices.

Worst thing is that these practices turn out to be happening over the past 4 years already, in various cities, where Rotterdam earned an official reprimande for it's conduct, but the councils just carry on. Most people do not even object to this vast invasion of their privacy; they're dumbstruck by 30 years of socialist abuse, completely brainwashed and numbed into an endless trust in the state.

Well, if you ever find somebody on your doorstep saying: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", slam the door, and run like hell. One of the most annoying (if not surprising) things is that 'freedom fighter' Wilders is nowhere to be seen in this matter. As I state in the left margin, I do not agree with a number of aspects of Wilders, and this is certainly one of them. Problem is that all other parties are worse, overall.

The case has certainly drawn lots of attention, Dutch shock-blog GeenStijl wrote about it, as well as various other blogs, and GroenLinks (the Green Left) in The Hague's local council will be asking questions on July 2nd. But then, there are other issues with GroenLinks in power.

Followers of this blog know I'm slightly (...) irregular on posting (time, time, time), but I'll try to write updates when significant progress is made (one way or the other). Stay tuned.

Blasphemy

2009-06-11T15:33:00.003+01:00

"Obama is God", how's that for blasphemy?

At least this guy admits Obama is not pro-America, but he seems to think that's a God-like quality.

Should anybody really be surprised, that this inhabitant of the White House, who cannot prove to be a constitutional POTUS, who seeks dialog with people who over 30 years have proven to have only America's destruction as their goal, who shows more openly each day to be a muslim himself and who seeks to drive all businesses that keep the American economy afloat either to their grave or out of the country should turn out to be the worst thing that could happen to the US, and thus, the world since Carter and the Clinton administration?

America, stay on watch! Your freedom is being taken away hand over fist, like ours here in Europe. Obama means business, like the government in Atlas Shrugged meant business.

Who is John Galt?

Voting for the Eldorado of Prostitutes

2009-06-03T19:19:00.005+01:00

Tomorrow, June 4th, the citizens of the European countries are having the chance to vote for the European Parliament, the toothless paper tiger that merely advises the anti-democratic European Commission and costs the European taxpayer a fortune for the pleasure.

Basil Venitis, professor at University of Indianapolis, Athens Greece, wrote a piece on it and sent it to Dutch blog Vrijspreker. I take the liberty to publish it here. It's about the Eldorado of Underworld, its Eldorado of Corruption and its Eldorado of Prostitutes. Enjoy.

Ayn Rand, forerunner of venitism, points out that the right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system, and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny. A majority vote is not an epistemological validation of an idea. Voting is merely a proper political device, within a strictly, constitutionally delimited sphere of action, for choosing the practical means of implementing a society’s basic principles. But those principles are not determined by vote.
Rand asserts that individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights.

When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited, and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.

We urge all Europeans to not vote in June, because their vote might be interpreted as a legitimacy of the illegitimate European Parliament. Venitis considers the European Union null and void confederation, because Europeans did not vote for any constitutional treaty! Despite voters refusing to give Brussels any more power, the unelected Eurokleptocrats are trying to pull off the biggest powergrab in history by imposing a camouflaged constitution, bypassing all nonos. We demand every EU Member State to hold a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty.

European Union(EU), aka Eldorado of Underworld, a vampire confederation of the absurd, condones the European Commission(EC), aka Eldorado of Corruption, the European Parliament(EP), aka Eldorado of Prostitutes, Pasok and Nea Democratia, the two most corrupt political parties on Earth, and Costas Caramanlis, the most corrupt primeminister on Earth and neplusultra of mumbojumbo! No Graecokleptocrat has ever gone to jail! Impunity of Graecokleptocrats is the most freakish justice in the world!

Election rallies remind you of sheep on slaughter! Caramanlis addressed an open rally of Nea Democratia in Larisa on Saturday night. Barbarian Caramanlis ridiculled the Pasok slogan socialism or barbarity and claimed that people are being deceived when promised by barbarian socialist leader Papandreou that the Stability Agreement will change. In reality, both Pasokleptocrats ans Neodemokleptocrats are barbarians! The outrageous total immunity of Graecokleptocrats is the most disgusting thing on Earth!

These untouchable shitscums of the Greek parliament and the Greek government rob billions of euros form the Treasury, churn billions of euros of the nest eggs and pension funds of poor workers, grant valuable public land to gay monasteries in exchange for huge kickbacks, receive billion-euro-kickbacks for purchasing arms from US and Russia, and receive billion-euro-kickbacks from Siemens, JPMorgan, Man, and other corrupt companies in exchange for lucrative contracts, elimination of antitrust penalties, and purchasing overpriced defective equipmemt, airplanes that cannot balance, and helicopters that fall down!

The corrupt premier made an extensive reference on the pseudosupport of farmers, on the public works in Thessaly which are under construction and attacked Pasok underlying that the opposition party attempts to turn the country into an arena. Costas Caramanlis, born in 1956, became primeminister of Greece on March 10, 2004, under the banner of transparency. He is the leader of the right-centrist party Nea Democratia, the most corrupt political party on Earth, which his corrupt uncle Constantine Caramanlis founded.

Greeks voted for Costas Caramanlis, because he promised to end Graecokleptocracy. Instead, he expanded Graecokleptocracy tremendously, becoming the most corrupt primeminister on Earth! Archikleptocrat Caramanlis belongs to Hague, for crimes against Greek humanity! But most probably there will be a coup d’etat, which will surely hang Caramanlis or shoot him at dawn! That’s why Caramanlis has his suitcases ready to escape to America, in a similar fashion to his uncle who escaped to Paris in order to avoid hanging!

”From Larisa we send today a message of dynamic massive participation to our mutual fights. From the heart of Thessaly plain we send a message to the whole agricultural world, a message of positive choice. We answer “yes” to our mutual future Europe. We answer “yes” to Greece that is moving ahead with responsibility steadily and with determination. We answer “yes” to the road of self confidence, optimism and safety”, Karamanlis said.

Venitis notes the relationship of the Eldorado of Underworld(EU) to its Member States can be fairly described as synergy in kleptocracy! When Greece joined EU in 1981, Greeks hoped EU could control Graecokleptocracy. Instead, to their horror and great disappointment, they saw EU encouraging Graecokleptocracy and imposing the hateful VAT on poor Greeks. Graecokleptocracy fully resonates with Eurokleptocracy! All Eurokleptocrats now emulate Pasokleptocrats and Neodemokleptorats, the most corrupt politicians on Earth!

Vatmonger Emperor Barroso of the European Commission(EC), aka Eldorado of Corruption, is in cahoots with Costas Caramanlis, the most corrupt primeminister on Earth, to completely enslave Greeks to Brussels, and yoke poor Greeks with VAT. EU, a Theater of the Absurd, brought no catharsis, but a new layer of vatpachyderm kleptocracy, climaxed with the JPMorgan scandal and the Siemens scandal! The new EU treaty under consideration is just an ergonomy of Eurokleptocracy!

On Papandreou’s slogan of socialism or barbarity, barbarian Caramanlis said that Papandreou can not brand the majority of Greek citizens’ barbarians and accused him of consciously misinforming people and denying reality. According to Caramanlis the real dilemma is the choice to contribute and be devoted to national interest rather than the party’s interest. On reference to the financial crisis the corrupt premier said that the government’s target is to turn the international challenge into a national opportunity.

Caramanlis repeated his government’s commitment for the strategic development of Regional Greece and branded Thessaly an endless project worksite. He underlined that Nea Democratia will provide 80% of National Strategic Framework sources to regional Greece. In addition, he repeated that for the following five years the Agricultural Development plan will provide farmers with funds that amount to seven billion euros. What is more, he said, farmers are now being financially boosted with eighteen billion euros coming from direct community support.

Caramanlis referred on the government’s reforms that target at reducing state expenses and will set to put a barrier to losses while they will lead to the purification of the wider state sector. Our target is clear he stressed and concluded: Greece must come out from the crisis with the least possible consequences. Greeks must step to a better tomorrow with confidence. We must be the winners of the global crisis. Together we must give the fight. Together we will pull through. And I assure you that we can pull through this time also, he pointed out. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

After the completion of his speech, Caramanlis asked Public Works Minister George Souflias to come up to the podium and together they waved at the crazy crowd that responded enthusiastically to his bullshit. Minister of agricultural development S. Hatzidakis, Nea Democratia secretary general L. Zagoritis as well ministers and members of the most corrupt party on Earth attended the Premier’s hoodwinking speech.

Venitis claims that two major parties in every republic try to commoditize all voters, transforming them to vegetables in the center field! Rabblerousers gravitate to two dominant antivenitist parties running for the center, trying to offend as few people as possible. This produces an antivenitist groupthink where kleptocrats avoid the issues when they’re running for office. Most voters are disappointed in both major parties, sold to JPMorgan, Siemens, Man, OTE, gay monasteries, and other infamous organizations. Voters are hungry for a new approach, a new party, truly committed to substantive ideas, and not just to getting elected and focusing on their particular election cycles.

Lemmings are Arctic rodents of poor eyesight, which can drown en masse. Taxstrucks behave like lemmings when they masochistically vote for taxmonger kleptocrats who get billion-euro-kickbacks from JPMorgan, Siemens, Man, and other supercorrupt corporations. American lemmings are those who vote for Republicans or Democrats. British lemmings are those who vote for Laborkleptocrats or Tories. Greek lemmings are those who vote for Pasokleptocrats or Neodemokleptocrats. Eurolemmings are those who rely on the spinmill of Brussels bromides. Are you a lemming? Are you a victim of taxation and kleptocracy? It’s time for soulsearching and vision examination.

Taxstrucks who want the government out of their wallets, their bedrooms, their businesses, and their lives must vote for venitists. Only venitists try to minimize government and maximize individual liberty. Basil Venitis says it’s not a shame to lose an election, but it’s a shame to compromise your venitist values in order to win an election. Obsession with polls is a sign of a weak soul. Taxmonger kleptocrats are willing to say anything and promise everything in order to win an election. Of course, after the election most promises are conveniently forgotten. The two major parties need an awakening call from venitists.

Venitis declares that vatmonger kleptocrats promote phobias and bogeys in order to take the attention of voters away from taxation and kleptocracy, and to have a fantastic opportunity to present themselves as Moses who leads the people to salvation! Rabblerousers make a living out of convincing people that the sky is falling. The essence of statesmanship in a venitist society is just the opposite, helping people understand the facts and proposing real solutions to real problems. You have to know when to stop doing something. Hitler did not know. Mousolini did not know. Archikleptocrat Caramanlis did not know when to stop receiving billion-dollar-kickbacks. Vatmonger kleptocrats do not know when to stop looting the producers and fooling all taxstrucks. They do not understand that the parasites and the host die together. Avast scaremongers now!

There are no enemy countries, but only enemy governments. Most probably, your own government is your worst enemy! Your government robs you at gunpoint, mostly in the form of indirect taxes. Most governments are cocoons of kleptocrats! All humans are a single race, Homo Sapiens, with exactly the same genes. There were also other human races, but they disappeared 30,000 years ago. Kleptocrats try to separate humanity into countries and nations, in order to loot their territories in a systematic way! But I’ve got you, and you’ve got me. We are all brothers and sisters, and we all have to fight vatmonger kleptocrats together. I came to this world to sing my song, and you came to this world to sing your song. We should not let taxmonger kleptocrats stop us.

All democracies eventually become kleptocracies, where those taxmonger kleptocrats in power redistribute societal wealth to themselves. Those at the bottom of the society’s pyramid accept this unfair state of affairs because they too benefit from their society’s relative advancement. It’s a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. Taxmonger kleptocrats maintain power by disarming hoi polloi, making the taxstruck masses happy by distributing some crumbs, sinecures, and graft, maintaining a huge flow of kickbacks from JPMorgan, Siemens, Man, and other infamous corporations, and constructing an antivenitist ideology justifying overtaxation and kleptocracy.

Corpfare is corporate welfare, such as subsidies, bailouts, and monopolies, granted by government to davajides, pimps of kleptocrats. Corpfare destroys the level playing field that free markets depend on, creates a corrupt relationship between government authority and special interests, transforms corps to corpses, and is unconstitutional. Even loans by government-sponsored entities constitute another form of subsidy. Zombiecorps, zombie corporations, badly in need of structural reform, but kept alive by state subsidies, badly hamper growth. Basil Venitis figures that at least four trillion euros is wasted on corpfare worldwide every year. This year, Venitis projects a waste of ten trillion euros in bailouts!

Lenders should recognize that there are repercussions for risky loans, and borrowers should realize that there are consequences for taking loans they can’t repay. If it’s financial collapse, or having your house foreclosed, so be it. It’s bad antivenitist economics to remove the incentives, which encourage sensible and responsible decisions. We need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives of venitism to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of antivenitist kleptocrats.

The less a government does, the fewer reasons there are for antivenitist individuals and organizations to petition their government for special favors. When government is small, kleptocrats don’t hold the fate of entire industries in their well-greased palms. Federal bureaucrats don’t wield unbridled regulatory power to break top executives. Big decisions are made by private actors in private settings, and obey the Venitis Laws. Gigagovernments are intrusive. The endless array of subsidies it dispenses and the regulatory schemes it fosters give birth to rent seeking. Rent seekers form antivenitist associations to protect their interests. They create antivenitist committees and hire pullpeddlers. They write checks to the powerful committee chairmen.

Taxmonger kleptocrats, especially Pasokleptocrats and Neodemokleptorats, the most corrupt politicians on Earth, extend generosity and largesse to corrupt corporations, such as JPMorgan, Siemens, Man, and gun dealers, gay monasteries, such as those of Mount Athos, and terrorist countries, such as Turkey which terrorizes EU islands every single day! But the present kleptocracy is hardly an aberration. Nor is it confined to a single administration or political party. The institutionalization of handouts and corporate welfare usually occurs behind the guise of job creation, earmarks, cutting red tape, and other fig leaves.

JPMorgan and Siemens are the most infamous trademarks of Eurokleptocracy, helping Pasokleptocrats and Neodemokleptocrats with billion-euro-kickbacks. JPMorgan engineered the grand churning of Greek pension funds, but labor union leaders keep their mouths shut, in exchange for seats in the parliament! Siemens has deposited two billion euros in the secret offshore accounts of Graecokleptocrats, in exchange for lucrative contracts. No huge kickbacks means no lucrative contracts, pure and simple!

The first known democracy was established by Phoenicians in Arados, now known as Arwad, the only island of Syria, in the early second millennium BC. Democracy is very expensive, very inefficient, and extremely corruptive. Kleptocrats, especially Pasokleptocrats and Neodemokleptorats, the most corrupt politicians on Earth, buy votes with pork, boondoggles, sinecures, and favors, raid nest eggs, churn pension funds and the Social Security, rob the treasury, and get huge kickbacks from JPMorgan, Siemens, Man, gun dealers, construction companies, and gay monasteries. It’s high time to end this freakish cycle which spirals out of control to complete destruction, and replace democracy with venitism.
The most efficient political system is venitism, where everything is private, there are no taxes at all, there is no parliament, and a powerless infinitesimal government is chosen and supported not by hoi polloi, but by the most generous benefactors.

Voting for the EP is an act of evil, as it legitimizes the propaganda that the EU is a democratic institution, a notion which could not be farther from the truth.

Libertarianism - The Key to Freedom

2009-05-21T12:36:00.003+01:00

One picture can be worth a thousand words...

The Obama Deception

2009-04-03T22:12:00.003+01:00

Already referred to in below post, but until now not published on this blog yet, due to time constraints. I planned to publish this over two weeks ago, but did not get round to do the English article. I already published this in Dutch on HetVrijeVolk.com and Vrijspreker.nl, as I think this video is very important and deserves the widest audience possible. I agian have no time for an accompanying article though, but decided to post the video anyway. I may add an essay to it later on.

Hat tip: Foehammer

Gates of Vienna: Is Pro-Köln Right?

2009-04-03T21:59:00.004+01:00

Gates of Vienna: Is Pro-Köln Right?
I think they are spot-on. But the whole islamisation game is part of the government's Russian Doll structure of diversion procedures. As are the fascist laws like anti-smoking bans in private properties, the persecution of (slightly) speeding motorists, the pampering of criminals and last, but not least, the Financial Crisis. Even the (s)election of an unqualified ursurper as would be POTUS is intended to enhance the people's cry for more government intervention, and thus, increased government power.

Western nations are true Nations of Sheep, of boiling frogs. People are slowly being poisoned and robbed of their individualism, of their freedom. But the masses refuse to object. When the NWO is a fact, they may wake up, but I won't hold my breath. Whomever has read a little bit about the London G20 will have to admit there are no tin foil hats among those who claim the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group are working very hard to achieve that NWO. As Prison Planet.com states:

World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.
Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”

In other words, give global institutions the power to regulate national policy as part of the creation of global government.

What Zoellick is outlining is essentially the end of national sovereignty and the reclassification of national governments as mere subordinates to a global authority that is completely unaccountable to the voting public of any country.

Zoellick and his agenda are the reason Wolfowitz had to be discredited, when he started demanding Return On Investment figures on third world wellfare, a demand that would severely hamper the spending of taxpayer's money for the NWO agenda. Dutch politician and top-scumbag Ad Melkert was all to willing to help discredit him, assisted by his sidekicks Herman Wijffels and (Bilder-)Bert Koenders. Melkert was rewarded by a promotion to another Useless Nations position, while Bert will undoubtedly be thanked by Dutch Queen Bea, also Bilderberg, whose father, the "Dutch SS-Nazi Prince Bernhard" (quoted from The Obama Deception) started that organization.

The criminals are really caring for one another.

The deliberate crisis

2009-03-05T21:12:00.008+01:00

It's getting clearer by the day that the financial crisis was created deliberately in order for governments to strengthen their power, so they can implement even more socialist/communist laws. Nationalisation of banks and other industry is almost normal these days, and that should tell anybody something. A simple tell-tale that it's deliberate is the fact that the Dutch government will NOT cut its own spending, its leftist hobbies, a single Euro.

On subsidies, foreign 'aid' and other matters they could cut their spending by some 80 billion here, but instead they only talk how it's going to hurt for every Dutchmen, for we have a real crisis, and oh, by the way, Bilderbert (Bilderberg Bert) Koenders is prepared to spend an extra 25 million on Hamas...

Eight months ago our finance minister (Bos, labour) assured us there would be no crisis, that it was an American thing and Europe was sound. Then we 'might feel some impact' and now we have a 'very serious' crisis. Well, we shouldn't be surprised; the only thing labour's really good at is lying through their teeth.

And it's all the shareholders' fault now. Not a word about the expensive, government run financial markets watchdogs that never raised an alarm, not a word about ex-politicians being high up and well paid in the banking business that never uttered a sound, not a word about the fact that this whole crisis was government engineered in the first place.

You'd think they'd stop, or at least park, their plans for mileage taxing, that will cost billions. But no, that's 'good for the economy' and more importantly, it'll enable them to tell for each car-driving citizen where he was and when he was there.

Well, government spending has never ever helped the economy yet, as governments have no money. They cannot create wealth, they can only confiscate it, as Reagan accurately pointed out. And I could well do without the infringement on my privacy.

And finally there's climatism. Even while the Al Gore sponsored agendas of GIS and the IPCC are increasingly exposed, and global cooling is underway (perfectly normal climate fluctuations), governements keep pushing for climate control measures, that cost billions and will bring nothing, at best, and a flood of unanticipated bad consequences at worst.

Goal is global poverty and wealth and power for a small self-appointed 'elite'. It will be the end of civilization, the beginning of utter chaos. This is the agenda of the Franfurt School, whose teachings have produced Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness and Critical Theory.

Obama is killing America, but I fear Berg's proceedings will go nowhere. The current line followed by the 'judges' is telling: nobody will force Obama to prove what he cannot. Alan Keyes recently made some very accurate statements. The video is below, in my previous post. The only possible saviour there is the American people rising up against their 'government', as intended by the second amendment. Short of that, the states' waking up to their constitutional sovereignty may help stopping the Soros circus. It's unbelievable that the elections wound up to be between the possibly worst candidates available, and that the worst candidate won, even though his constitutional qualifications were already challenged but not investigated.

In The Netherlands, Balkenende came into power in 2002 after a Coup d' État, by the killing of Pim Fortuyn, who was going to end Political Correctness. Now Geert Wilders must be proscecuted because he's making too many waves; another Coup inside 7 years. Having Geert killed would be just that bit too obvious, so they need to find another way. Britain has already refused him entry to the country, on false grounds. Unfortunately for the socialists, he polls as the number one party now. But as Stalin already said: it's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes. So now they need any excuse to establish their power and, who knows, even decree the state of emergency, suspending all democratic processes, 'for the general good'. Well, Ayn Rand wrote about that 'general good'. We all know where it leads.

Oh yes, it's deliberate all right.

Alan Keys on Obama

2009-02-26T20:25:00.002+01:00

For anyone that had not understood yet what's amiss with Obama's 'presidency' and the economic bailouts: Mr. Keys has a very clear way of stating it.
Watch and THINK!
Something's rotten in the state of Washington.
Hat tip: Foehammer.

A UKIP compilation on the matter

2009-02-13T23:37:00.002+01:00

The speech Wilders could not give

2009-02-13T23:25:00.001+01:00

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

Read it all on Het Vrije Volk

Geert Wilders banned from the UK

2009-02-12T19:51:00.009+01:00

Today the unthinkable has happened: a Dutch MP, invited to the UK by a member of the House of Lords, has been denied entrance to to the UK when following up on that invitation. All because Gordon Brown's dhimmy government is afraid of threats uttered by Lord Ahmed (instated by that other dhimmy of sorts, Tony Blair), that he would organise riots by 10.000 muslims should Wilders be allowed to show his film Fitna. The BBC reports that "Wilders wanted to show" his film, while the truth is that Wilders had been invited to show his film by the UK Independence Party. Subtle difference, is it not, Mr. Goebbels?

Think about it: a western MP, denied the right to visit a peer EU country by that country's government, only because of islamic threats. Although there have been numerous indications of the abject manner in which Brown cowardly bends towards islamic demands, there has never before been a clearer statement that the UK has surrendered to the status of a Saudi colony: submission, the prime incentive of Islam, and also the title of the film Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh made with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

We all know how that ended: Theo was killed and Ayaan was expelled from The Netherlands. She is still fighting the Dutch government over promises related who'd be paying for her protection.

UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch made a very true but sad statement:

"Indeed, any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film's message and the need for it to be shown. The subsequent action by the Home Office to try to deter Mr Wilders from coming to the UK has, we believe, been rightly condemned by the Dutch Foreign Minister, and is a further example of the appeasement policies of the British government in giving in to the threats of militant Islam."

He and cross-bencher Baroness Cox also issued a press statement, asking this rhetorical question:

"Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said 'Ban the Bible'?"

Of course not! All this was yesterday, when Brown's government had warned they would not allow Wilders into the country. Nevertheless, Wilders went ("I already have that ticket, so I might as well go") and was indeed denied entrance.

Given the very weak response of the Dutch government (which issued a "serious complaint") it does not really seem to care too much, most of its members despise Mr. Wilders anyway. I would think this matter requires a slightly stiffer response than just saying "Phew".

After the death of Free Speech in The Netherlands this is a new serious blow for western freedom and values in general and European lifestyle specifically.

See this link (pdf alert) for the letter Geert received on expressing his intention to accept the UKIP invitation (hat tip: Het Vrije Volk).

Gregorius Nekschot speeches in Denmark

2009-02-04T19:04:00.003+01:00

For the first time since his being imprisoned for practicing Free Speech, Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot sought publicity by speeching in Denmark, on invitation from Lars Hedegaard, president of the Danish Free Press Society. To maintain his anonymity, Nekschot spoke while dressed in, how fittingly, a niqaab. From his speech:

In the Netherlands, satire is an old tradition. This tradition began seven centuries ago, in the thirteenth century, with the epic poem Reynaerd ‘the Fox’. The poem Reynaerd ‘the Fox’ ridiculed nobility and clergy – the highest civil and religious authorities of that era. The author must have been a wise man, he managed to keep his identity a secret. Monty Python’s movie Life of Brian pokes fun at Christianity. The movie stirred up anger and controversy in 1979. Nevertheless, the movie could be watched almost everywhere. The makers, Terry Jones, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin received neither death sentences nor did the Public Prosecutor lift them from their beds and put them behind bars.

These two fairly random examples illustrate that in Western Europe, religion – in the cases mentioned Christianity – has been ridiculed for ages. First this was done anonymously or under pseudonym, later openly. In Western culture, rationalism, science, humanism and democracy, in a lengthy and painful process, created the separation between Church and State. Freedom of Speech became a constitutional right in many countries. Thus, ridiculing Christianity, without fear of losing one’s life, has been possible for quite some time.

When large numbers of migrants with a different cultural and religious background came to Western Europe, things fundamentally changed. Poorly educated – and without exception raised under dictatorial regimes – a lot of immigrants with an Islamic background cannot agree to our separation between religion and politics, no matter how self-evident this separation appears to us.

Monty Python makes fun of Jesus in Life of Brian. A comparable movie about the life of Mohammed – the founder of Islam – is out of the question. The dreadful fate of film director Theo van Gogh says it all. The horrible and sadistic manner in which Theo van Gogh was ritually slaughtered by a fanatical Muslim meant a return to the Dark Ages for the Netherlands as far as the freedom of speech is concerned. Anyone who has the urge to say something about Islam has to do so most carefully.

On May the 13th of the year 2008, however, the cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was dragged out of his house by ten civil servants and thrown into jail. Moreover, his home was searched and his computer, mobile telephone, agenda and sketchbooks were confiscated. Cartoons that allegedly discriminated against ethnic minorities and against Muslims caused captivity and a far-reaching infringement of his privacy. Such is the state of affairs in the Netherlands, a country which until recently, was seen as broad-minded, ‘free-thinking’, and enjoying a satirical tradition of more than seven centuries.

Read the full speech, with some photographs and a clip from the introduction by Lars Hedegaard, on snaphanen.dk.

Shame on the Netherlands

2009-01-25T16:17:00.002+01:00

What kind of justice system is it, where the truth is inadmissable as evidence?

More immigrants in Dutch government?

2009-01-24T18:30:00.005+01:00

Yesterday our Interior Minister, Ter Horst, who got promoted to that position after as a mayor being fined for DUI and then pressuring the police commissioner to keep that a secret (and therefore nicknamed 'thirsty') , decreed that each department wil have to employ six immigrants a year in high positions, replacing native staff. Whether she specifically means muslims is not clear, but I do get the impression, as she defends the idea by stating that "otherwise 'the people' will no longer recognize their government".

Which is BS of course. 'The people' never ever get to see these civil servants anyway, and for 'the people' to recognize their government it would be much better if the political diversity of the civil servants would reflect that of the population. Especially since all the stifling rules are designed by these servants, that long ago forgot that they are supposed to be just that: servants.

Getting more immigrants into top positions will only move these departments even more to the left, as virtually all immigrants vote left, as that's where their wellfare is being guaranteed... A boozed up idea? Possibly, but more like just the sort of evil we have been getting used to expecting from these socialists. She was mayor of Nijmegen, a.k.a. Havanna aan de Waal because of its leftyness.

Her plea does unintentionally prove one thing, though: a government position is not about qualifications or ability. Knowing the right people is enough to ensure a well paid position where you can do a lot of damage out of sheer incompetence. You only have to be a woman, or an immigrant, or whatever species happens to be considered to be 'left behind' today and thus elegible for 'positive discrimination'. Abilities are totally unimportant, it's all being paid for by the taxpayer anyway. But it remains discrimination, effected by the one body that never ever should discriminate, if only because that body holds both the power and the violence monopoly. Americans have the Second Amendment for this, but other nations do not; certainly not European nations.

On a side note: Jill Biden said as much to the American people when she revealed that Joe was given the choice between VP and foreign minister. Two different jobs, requiring different qualifications. Does not matter at all. A loyal slave gets its reward.

It seems that The Netherlands' going downhill speeds up day by day, but maybe that's to be expected. As I put on top of this blog: the average lifetime of a democracy is around 200 years, so the Dutch one should be about to die...

The Death of Freedom of Speech

2009-01-21T20:22:00.008+01:00

Today is a black day for the Netherlands. A judge (?) ordered that Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) politician Geert Wilders must be prosecuted for his criticism of islam. Note that the ruling (again, like all other criticism of Wilders) mixes muslims and islam, where Wilders always has maintained a clear division between the two. A deliberate falsification. This marks the end of Free Speech in the Netherlands.

From the PVV website:

The Freedom Party (PVV) is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders: “Apparently this is The Netherlands today. If you speak out you might be prosecuted. To participate in public debate has become a dangerous activity.”

“If I have to appear in court, not only I will be prosecuted, but also hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who reject the Islamisation of the West. In Dutch Parliament only the Party for Freedom is willing to speak up for the preservation of our culture and our many freedoms.”

The Freedom Party leader now faces legal proceedings that will probably take years to conclude and will also involve enormous legal fees.

“We depend on small donations. The Freedom Party is the only party in Parliament that does not accept any government funding. This court decision jeopardizes the very existence of the Freedom Party. We simply cannot afford the enormous legal expenses.”

“This is a black day for freedom.”

Personally, I think it's not so much about whether Wilders can be convicted of hate speech; there are Dutch politicians, like Socialist Party's can't-keep-my-hands-to-myself-with-women Harry van Bommel, who openly called for an intifada by Hamas last week, which really is calling for violence, but these have nothing to fear, they do not even have to leave parliament.

The real goal here is to remove the only non-Cultural Marxist party from the political stage. As with Pim Fortuyn earlier, they are well aware that they cannot reach that objective democratically; too many people are getting fed up with the fascist bunch of islamists that's currently in power. They cannot repeat the trick they did on Fortuyn, so they had to think of something else. And they found it: bankruptcy.

Whether or not the state can win this case is irrelevant; the state finances itself with money extorted from its workers, called taxmoney. Wilders has to pay for his defences himself. The state has bottomless pockets, Wilders does not. Wilders party is the only party that does not accept state-subsidizing, but is financed by private gifts. Once Wilders is bankrupt, his party will be gone: objective achieved. Even if the state would lose, and have to pay damages to Wilders, he'd have to start from scratch again.

The man's already under permanent surveillance because of threats on his life, and now he's being financially challenged as well. And the state can repeat this trick as often as it likes: there's no hope of winning.

As Vlaams Belang's Filip Dewinter stated: "This is an attempted murder on the PVV."

It's just a different tactic to what was chosen for Pim Fortuyn.

A peaceful 2009?

2009-01-04T20:48:00.003+01:00

There seems to be little chance of that. At least not according to Hamas member of Parliament Fatih Hammad on Al Aqsa TV, who more than clearly demonstrates why the Religion of Peace is in fact the Religion of Death. Food for thought, for all those who claim Israel to be the culprit in the current fights in Gaza.

Happy Christmas

2008-12-24T10:50:00.004+01:00

To all visitors of this blog, believers and non-believers alike:
A very Happy Christmas with Pat Condell's latest: Water of Life.

Enjoy!

Fascism is back!

2008-11-18T16:03:00.013+01:00

While the left in The Netherlands still rise to any opportunity to express their abhorrence of their companions Mussolini and Hitler, the fascists of the 1940's, their fascism has returned full force to Dutch PM Balkenende's regime. Jan Peter Balkenende's government, already having exposed itself as a traitor to the country and the citizens of The Netherlands by ignoring the people's NO in the 2005 referendum on the European Constitution and its rewrite, the Lisbon Treaty, handing over The Netherlands' sovereignty to Das Vierte Reich, is now dictating what business owners can and cannot do with their own property.

The first step onto this particular path of fascism was taken when the Dutch government forced owners of bars and restaurants to make high investments in air cleaners for their establishments to diminish the effects smoking had on the atmosphere. Reasoning behind this was 'public health', which of course has nothing to do with it. It's up to the establishment's owner whether or not he want to present his personnel and clients with clean air or a blue haze one can cut and fold.

If personnel doesn't like it, it goes to work elsewhere; if clients don't like it, they stay away and the establishment goes bust. Simple as that. The free market will decide what the client likes and thus what businesses will florish and what not.

Allowing private ownership but not the freedom to use that ownership to the owner's advantage is the defintion of (state) fascism. Combined with nationalism, one gets National Socialism, which the left claims to be far right, but which of course is as left as it can get. But hey, the best lies are the ones repeated most often, Goebbels already knew that.

Fascism means one has to pay the cost of property but cannot reap the benefits. When the Dutch government ordered a full smoking ban for restaurants and bars in The Netherlands last July, it took another step onto the path of fascism. Bar and restaurant owners no longer had the freedom to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment as they saw fit.

Now many establishment owners are facing nearing bankruptcy due to this ban, more and more are ignoring the law and allowing clients to smoke again, much to the chagrin of the non-smoking lobby and, surprise, the Association of Bar and Restaurant owners. While one would expect this Association to stand up and fight the government to get the ban lifted, it actually whines that it's not fair that bar owners get fined for breaking the law. Because, they claim, a bar owner is not a policeman, and it's the clients that break the law, not the bar owner. Thus, the client should get fined!

They do have a point, of course, a bar owner is no more a policemen than any other entrepeneur is a tax collector, but still each one of those has to collect, administer and hand over VAT on his activities for/to the national tax extortionists. But the conclusion is invalid. There is no market for non-smoking bars, otherwise they would've been in existence for a long time already. Restaurants already had voluntarily split their space in smoking and non-smoking sections, as second hand smoke is much more of a burden while eating a meal than while chatting and drinking.

Today's practice is that smokers that still visit their bar go outside to have their smoke, and now the anti-smoke lobby wants a ban on smoking in open air, as well as on smoking inside one's car. But as people do not like to have their butt frozen off just for having a smoke, they tend to stay home more as the temperatures drop and the rain pours. Because of this, bars now openly advertise that they will allow smoking.

But that was miscalculating the Dutch government's hunger for power abuse. The state has the monopoly on both power and force, and if it makes a law it will damn well see to it it gets obeyed. So it will start a strict regime on upholding the ban, as bar owners that allow smoking falsificate competition, which is an economical crime, and thus can lead to loss of the business permit, and thus closing of one's livelyhood.

Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged undoubtedly recognise the rant Dr. Ferris presented to Hank Rearden, where Ferris states that governments are after power, and there's no power to be had in obedient citizens. So in order to create criminals, a government will create laws that cannot be obeyed, and then it will excert its power. Written in 1957, Atlas Shrugged frighteningly accurate describes the machinations of today's governments, from nationalisation of banks to taking away all personal freedom from those who create wealth, in order to favour the needy, the greedy, the parasites, of which politicians (and monarchs) are of course a prime example. The more people get dependent on government, the bigger it gets, and the more power it yields.

Before July 1st, a bar owner that conducted his business as he saw fit was a hard working citizen, making his living in a fully legal fashion. Now, without changing anything in the way he conducts his activities, he has become a hunted criminal, only because the state changed the rules, interfering in matters that are way beyond the scope of the state's primary but negated duty: protecting individual rights.

The Dutch are ruled by criminals.

The Left's Wet Dream

2008-11-03T08:11:00.003+01:00

A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.
Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.
Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.
Calls to Somali government officials and the local administration in Kismayo rang unanswered Saturday.

Source

Can anybody with even a basic sense of morality understand why the 'leaders' of the western world spend so much time and (tax payer's) money on promoting the 'values' of the Religion of Peace?

Financial Crisis

2008-10-01T06:43:00.002+02:00

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."

—Ayn Rand, 1975

Need I say more?

Geert Wilders on Islam

2008-09-29T16:05:00.006+02:00

On September 25, Dutch MP Geert Wilders was invited to New York as a speaker for the Hudson Institute. Please take a few minutes to read the transcript of his speech:

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done. More...

Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) took the opportunity to conduct an interview with Geert.

For those of you that need a reminder of where this political correctness Geert mentions stems from, Bill Lind provides some clear insights.

The Road to Serfdom

2008-09-15T20:38:00.003+02:00

It's been too long since my last post, but I've just been too busy and, actually, still am. But developments in The Netherlands are showing the political agenda of the state, set to enslave the Dutch, and proclaiming every citizen to be a criminal unless proven innocent, where every rational human being knows that a negative can not be proven.

The Dutch state is on a cruisade to abolish privacy. It wants to ensure that it knows the whereabouts of each and every citizen, as soon as he or she leaves home. Public transport is being changed in such a way that it is no longer possible for anyone to buy a ticket anonymously. Private transport is changed in similar fashion. Roadtax (taxing property) is to be replaced by a toll system (taxing use). Already the intention of abolishing roadtax is being reverted by plans of implementing regional toll, that can 'obviously' not lead to national roadtax reductions. New province-based taxes are also already thought up, to replace the taxes that will be included in the new mileage tax. But it gets worse, much worse.

The intentions of the state are to follow each and every vehicle by sattelite (GPS) in order to be able to determine when and where that vehicle was at any given time, in order to be able to charge it based on the time and location. The stated incentive is to encourage people to drive at 'cheap' times, when the roads are relatively empty, and the only way of doing that is by tracking cars through GPS. This is nonsense, of course, even apart from the fact that the roads are almost never empty anymore, due to willful neglection of infrastructural maintenance while draining car drivers' pockets.

Earlier this year, in Orlando, I saw how tolls were arranged in a purely anonymous manner, either through cash payment or through an e-pass. While in Orlando the rates seem fixed (large fixed signs indicating the amount) it should be very simple to use matrix displays to indicate amounts and change the rates based on the time of day and traffic density. While an E-pass is replenished from a (named) credit card account there's no link between the passing of the gate and the owner of the e-pass, or the license plate of the car: the amount gets deducted, and the vehicle is only photographed (linking it to the location) if the toll was not paid.

But aparently this is too simple and possibly too cheap for the Dutch state. While the systems still need to be developed (with taxpayer's money) the state has already announced the penalty for tinkering with the GPS boxes that must indicate the car's location: a fine of 67.000 euro, or 4 years imprisonment. Murder is cheaper! In the words of Camiel Eurlings, minister for traffic, the severity of these sanctions are justified by the financial implications for the state, in line with (other) tax laws.

This statement says it all. Think of how easy it will become for the state to fine speeding once every trip is monitored and every violation of any arbitrary speed limit will be known. Think of how the state will notice anybody who drives to Luxemburg a couple of times a year, thereby becoming a suspect of having a foreign bank account, out of reach of the greedy Dutch state. Think of the endless possibilities for a governement of knowing all its citizens' whereabouts.

You can get away with murder with less punishment these days. And still, there's no climate for an uproar. This will in great part be due to the fact that in Europe people are not allowed to bear arms, and thus have no real defense against the state, with its power and violence monopoly. Apart from the Swiss, that is. This should again be a warning to all Americans not to hand in their right to self defense, and fight the states that want to abolish the constitutional right to bear arms, or even want to turn it into a privilege. Privileges can be handed out and taken back, at will.

The peoples of Europe have willingly walked the Road to Serfdom for a long time. Before they reach the end, things likely will get ugly, but it can still take quite some time before that happens. People still have too much to lose. They're like frogs being cooked slowly. But for protests to be successful, these protests must be massive, and there's little chance of that. We're too decent, unarmed and not trained to fight. Exactly why the Founding Fathers made the right to bear arms part of the constitution. A criminal government cannot do as it pleases when the people can defend itself. In Europe, governments can do anything they like, and get away with it. And unfortunately, the Dutch government is as criminal as they come.

Islam is not a victim

2008-07-26T17:05:00.002+02:00

Yet another brilliant and well-balanced Pat Condell video. The man has a way with words I cannot even hope to match. But his opinions I share fully, as you'll know if you visited this blog more often. He needs all the support he can get, as he's now finally received a death threat from the Religion of Peace.
Enjoy.

Reality Check

2008-07-15T16:31:00.002+02:00

Last Sunday, Stephan Pastis published a brilliant Blogger's Reality Check in his strip Pearls Before Swine. Enjoy.

RealID, anyone?

2008-07-15T16:30:00.001+02:00

A Secular World is a Sane World

2008-07-02T19:18:00.002+02:00

The latest from Pat Condell. Nothing to add.

Dutch apologies for Fitna...

2008-06-23T20:18:00.010+02:00

As you may or may not know, Jordan is preparing an international arrest warrant for Geert Wilders because of his movie Fitna. 'Wilders has offended all muslims worldwide and should not escape punishment', according to Amman. One wonders what's so offending in Fitna. After all, Wilders only put a number of public newsitems in sequence, accompanied by the applicable Koran verses. Most people in those (video) items (not the victims, obviously) seemed to enjoy themselves pretty well, so according to Amman it's insulting to videotape a party and then show the world the partygoers' beaviour. The impression this makes on me is that muslims seem to be offended by being confronted with their own atrocities. A bit rich to blame the messenger for that...

Now the islamic world has approached Dutch companies to inquire about their position on Fitna, and most companies have presented as their official position that they are not involved in religious activity, and therefore distance themselves from 'the controversial movie'. For Dutch Airline KLM this proved not to be sufficient, as the company is now listed on the latest boycott-poster from The Messenger of Allah Unites Us.

So two Dutch companies, Zwanenberg and Friesland Foods, decided to take it one step further an sided with islam, in a futile (and can I say: typical Dutch) attempt to avoid being boycotted by Jordan, selling out to their oppressors-to-be, like true Judases; the well-known attitude so generously shown in (the run-down to) WorldWar II. They placed page-sized ads in Jordan newspapers, apologizing for and condemning Fitna and praising the islamic initiative to get islam-criticism criminalized everywhere. Willingly giving up our Western values of free speech and freedom, bowing before the tyrants, for a few pieces of silver. On their own websites, no indications of this abject activity is to be found, as they are probably afraid of losing their native customers. Cowards.

Well, wouldn't that be a good idea? Having these dhimmy companies' products boycotted by all the world except Jordan? For the list of brands to boycott, please visit here, oops, I mean here, and here.
If you'd like to complain by email, you can do that here and here.

Klein verzet also reports on the subject.

Dutch webmaster 'summoned' bij Amsterdam police

2008-06-19T21:06:00.006+02:00

On feb 1, 2008, I wrote an article here on how Dutch political party PvdA tried to silence Dutch weblog Hoeiboei. Today, Hoeiboei's webmaster was summoned (Dutch) to report to Police station Surinameplein 118, on Friday June 20 (tomorrow) at 18:00 hours, to be heard about certain texts on the internet.

Pretty short notice, and pretty vague. With the Gestapo-style arrest of Gregorius Nekschot still fresh in memory, this is the next step in Dutch oppression of freedom and free speech. On the very day that Dutch parliament debates the actions in the Nekschot affair, another Dutch freedom site is being intimidated.

Hoeiboei's webmaster is contemplating to ignore the 'request', but the wisdom of such an action is debatable: when will they come to pick her up, like Nekschot? Will her not-showing be used as an excuse for more strong-armed action? She has tried to obtain more info on the backgroud of the summons, but the police refuses to provide any further details. She will be informed as and when she will arrive at the indicated time, no earlier. Is it unthinkable that the same PvdA faction, led by Arco Verburg, is behind this new attack on Hoeiboei?

Think about that 'indicated time'. Friday evening, 18:00 hours, and only a day's notice. Friday evening, 18:00 hours, when every 'normal' citizen has dinner and starts his/her weekend. Could this be a lure to keep her in custody as 'nobody can be reached during the weekend'?

The refusal to provide any background information, neither in the summons nor in the phonecalls and visit she made to the police station, are normally ground enough to completely ignore the summons. But given the way the Dutch, and particularly Amsterdam police are more and more operating in Nazi-style (an old habit from WWII, when they were very helpful in tracking down Jews and delivering them to the occupying forces), this may well upset a judge who may later need to issue a ruling in the matter.

And from a personal point of view: is it worth lying awake at night, worrying about things to come? The best approach seems to be, given the short notice and all, to decline the invitation refering to other obligations, and setting a new date and time, preferably not on a Friday, and certainly not at a time that one will likely need to bring clean underwear and a toothbrush...

The Ecologists' True Nature

2008-06-17T18:32:00.007+02:00

This sticker shows the ecologists' true nature. Environmentalism isn't about nature, it's about destroying capitalism, the only true source of wealth and prosperity, and the number one reason why America is the leading nation of the (still somewhat) free West.

By showing their true agenda, the environmentalists show what they're made of: Franfort School. Marxists to the core. Funny how these people always prove to be the most hypocrite of all. Example: Al Gore. Possibly the most wasteful American citizen, definitely the most wasteful citizen globally who has the nerve to tell other people to change their lifestyle. In the mean time living a life so luxurious that most people connot even begin to imagine how that must be.

Oh, and being accomplice to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, if only by his support for Rachel Carson, who singlehandedly caused malaria to return by banning DDT, and whom Gore adored and commended by writing the prologue in her book. Say no more... For morality please do not look towards the liberals. Do not vote for the Dems. Then again, the GOP hasn't done much to correct these crimes either. These are dire times...

Yes! The Irish said NO!

2008-06-13T22:30:00.006+02:00

The Irish have voted NO to the Lisbon Treaty, aka the Lisbon Treason. The pro-EU camp is devastated, certain as they were that their Goebbels-like propaganda would have ensured a yes majority. Dutch television reported disappointedly that 'this is a black day for Europe. The treaty that intended to make the EU more democratic has been rejected by the Irish'.

How's that: more democratic? The treaty was aimed at shifting more power from the nation states to the unelected leaders of Eurabia. The EU was already preparing the abolishion of the WOB, the law that forces politicians to provide insight in their governemental procedures and decisions, whenever requested.

Balkenende, the Dutch PM that boasted that he had made the Treaty acceptable to the Dutch by removing the flag and the song, and ensuring there would be no EU President, already announced that he will ignore the Irish NO and go ahead as planned. Interestingly, Dutch television also reported that preparations for selecting (mind you, not electing) the EU president (say what?) would now be delayed. It also claimed that the EU should not be stopped by only one country being against it.

What happened to the demand of unanimous consent? How is only one country against it? To begin with, there are three countries against it (FR, NL and IE, in that order) and most of the others never got the chance to speak out.

The Irish were the only ones that were granted a referendum. It was mandatory because of the Irish constitution, and it's binding: Irish government can't just ignore it. As the Treaty is almost identical to the earlier Constitution, voted off by the French and the Dutch, there are now three countries not accepting the Treaty, but the French and Dutch governments chose to ignore their citizens in favor of their own political careers.

Balkenende hopes to become the first EU president, but Blair has also put his sights on that position, as has Sarkozy. Balkenende stands a fair chance though, as he is weak and has no will or power of his own. He is the ideal puppet for the big players, as he provides them with the ideal scapegoat for their totalitarian intentions.

The Irish Connemara turned out a 85% NO vote, reason enough for me to go out and buy a bottle of Connemara Irish Peated Single Malt, as a token of my appreciation, and have something to celebrate the Irish NO with at the same time.

Still think voting makes a Difference?

2008-06-04T08:43:00.003+02:00

Or: How the Dems ensure their preferred candidate comes out on top.

The same party that brought us the much vaunted “Count Every Vote Act of 2005” has now corruptly settled upon the “Count Every Other Vote Act of 2008.”

State leaders in Florida and Michigan, understanding the interest of their citizens lay in overturning the current silly system, dared to move their election dates. So now their votes will not be counted equally. At first they were told none of their votes would count. Now the party has compromised and said that the delegates from these states will be seated at the convention, but they will each be given only one half of a vote. Think of it as “the two and a half fifths compromise” – a modern sore on the butt of what used to be democracy.

Read Mac Johnson's brilliant article Dr. Dean's Disaster on how voting is being manipulated on Human Events.

And be sure not to miss Telescoping You's equally brilliant comments halfway down page 1...

Dutch Blogger arrested

2008-05-17T23:59:00.004+02:00

Dutch blogger Gregorius Nekschot was arrested earlier this week for publishing 'offending' cartoons that are deemed to be blemishing islam. A force of no less than 10 police officers arrested him and cleaned out his house earlier this week. He was kept in jail for 1,5 days. Note that this was an action by a 'double hatted' proscecutor, who is both head of a so called anti-discrimination unit, run by the state, and which is focused on discriminating against indigenous Dutch citizens while 'protecting' imported foreigners of mostly muslim descent, as well as a state proscecutor. His name is Paul Velleman, and most likely he has a great career ahead of him with Balkenende's gang.

Note that no judge has ordered the arrest of Gregorius Nekschot. It was an illegal action by the Dutch so called justice department, against a citizen that has done nothing except criticizing islam and Dutch governement, as well as a number of politically correct dhimmies. Apparently his sharp pencil is deemed to have killed and maimed several people.

It becoming clearer everyday that freedom of speech and liberty in general is getting limited by the day, analogous to the situation in the 1930's. Velleman now has qualified as a true Neo-NSB member and found worthy of Balkenende's gang. The inquisition is back. The iNazi's (international socialists) are on track. As yet it is unclear whether Nekschot will be proscecuted (for what?).

The most likely goal of his arrest is to reveal his true identity to those who'd like to put a fatwa out and to intimidate other Dutch bloggers. We cannot give in to that. Dutch police is helping the thought police, like they once helped the Nazi's to get rid of the jews. It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me ashamed to be Dutch, if that what being Dutch means these days.

This blog shows its solidarity with Gregorius!

CapMag.com interviews Craig Biddle

2008-05-06T18:59:00.003+02:00

Capitalism Magazine recently published an excellent interview with Craig Biddle, the driving force behind The Objective Standard.

"Genuine capitalism—which is not what we have in America today—is the social system of individual rights, in which the government does one thing: protects everyone's right to act on his own judgment, so long as he doesn't violate the same right of others. Under capitalism, everyone is free to keep, use, and dispose of the product of his efforts—free to achieve whatever kind and degree of prosperity he is willing and able to achieve—free to live his life as he sees fit. Under capitalism, there is no forced altruism—no stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no tying Peter's hands so he won't outperform Paul, no forbidding Peter and Paul to engage in consensual adult sex, no forbidding Mary to have an abortion, and no sacrificing soldiers to spread democracy to savages who want theocracy."

A must-read for supporters of individual freedom.

The Philosophy of Liberty

2008-05-02T18:44:00.004+02:00

Today, a response to an article on Dutch blog Vrijspreker.nl alerted me to the fact that many readers concentrate on the blog's articles only, and pay little attention to the items in the side bars. For this reason I'd like to draw your attention to one specific side bar item on this blog: the animation about the Philosophy of Liberty. It takes less then 5 minutes to watch, and it explains in abundant clarity what Liberty is all about, and how your rights are based on rightfully earned property.

If you're in a quiet environment please mute your audio before clicking the link, if you're not, consider leaving the audio on. Some people have stated that the background music amplifies the message, either because it helped them concentrate or otherwise.

Please enjoy The Philosophy of Liberty (opens in a new tab/window).

The Danger of Environmentalism

2008-04-19T20:51:00.001+02:00

By Michael S. Berliner

Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.

The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.

In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists have made "development" an evil word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power--and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees. No instance of the progress that brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those "protecting" the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.

Nature, they insist, has "intrinsic value," to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. As a consequence, man is to be prohibited from using nature for his own ends. Since nature supposedly has value and goodness in itself, any human action that changes the environment is necessarily immoral. Of course, environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants something.

The ideal world of environmentalism is not twenty-first-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the "environment." Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation that consistent environmentalists would cheer--at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology.

The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man--the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For environmentalism, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do.

They don't mean it? Heed the words of the consistent environmentalists. "The ending of the human epoch on Earth," writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, "would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.

The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the "needs" of the nonhuman.

To save mankind from environmentalism, what's needed is not the appeasing, compromising approach of those who urge a "balance" between the needs of man and the "needs" of the environment. To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life. To save mankind requires the return to a philosophy of reason and individualism, a philosophy that makes life on earth possible.

Michael S. Berliner is cochairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

This Op-Ed was published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Calgary Herald, and El Nuevo Herald (April 22, 2004)

Fitna released + update

2008-03-27T22:24:00.006+01:00

Tonight, at 19:00 Dutch time, Fitna was released on the internet. The movie by Dutch MP Geert Wilders shows Islam in its true form. There's nothing insulting about the movie, unless the muslims are insulted by their own actions, which, after all, would be in line with all their outrage so far.

The Dutch version can be found here, while the English version is here. It remains to be seen how long the film will stay online. For now, one can only say "Go LiveLeak" as that's the only site so far that had the guts to host it.

Here's the English version:

Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende has mobilized almost all the world, especially the human rights respecting muslim world (not), to ask for forgiveness for a movie he had never seen; and would they please not react violently. This is called a modern European leader. Free thinking, non-indoctrinated Dutchmen would call him today's incarnation of Anton Mussert, who was shot after WorldWar II for collaboration with the Nazis. Who had excellent ties to the muslim world, by the way.

Human rights champion Syria was allowed to issue an official warning on the movie in the European Parliament, of all places, that Wilders would be responsible for all muslim violence resulting from this movie. Yeah, like I'm responsible for being hit by a DUI driver just because I happened to be on the road.

It'll be interesting to see what will come of this. But one thing's for certain: it'll be very hard for this movie to create as much turmoil as its announcement has done over the past few months.

Initial response from Dutch muslim organisations is one of relief: there's no ground for concern. The movie is deemed to be non-insulting and non-provoking. This can only be seen as an acknowledgement of its thruthfulness, which in itself raises some severe questions about why the western world keeps promoting islam and appeasing (and funding) fundamentalist muslims.

UPDATE
March 28th: Well, that was quick! LiveLeak was forced to take Fitna offline to ensure the safety of their staff. Makes you wonder who orchestrated that threat. Never mind, Fitna is now in the Torrent realm and can be obtained by anyone who wants to download it. Here's how:

Download uTorrent from here, and VLC from here.
Go to http://isohunt.com . You'll find a Dutch and an English version, with lots of seeders.
Download the version of your choice with uTorrent and play it with VLC.

uTorrent requires no installation (standalone Windows .exe), VLC does. Make sure to unselect all associations when installing VLC or it will hijack all your multimedia extensions, making it the default player for everything (if you forget, you can undo this later as well).

March 31st: Go Liveleak, once again. The courageous people of LiveLeak put Fitna back online.

Obama and Rev. Wright

2008-03-26T22:17:00.013+01:00

Barack Obama is probably a more dangerous candidate for the American presidency than Hillary Clinton, the lying former First Lady who will also mean little good for freedom loving American citizens (not that the republican(?) alternative, McCain, is much of an improvement). View this video (from here):

and read this article by Thomas Sowell on Capitalism Magazine:

"[Obama's] voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together. The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability."

And while you're at capmag.com, check out this article by Walter Williams as well: Obama's Speech Ignores The Fundamental Issue:

"Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama."

Obama is an extreme left-winger, and we can well do without those if we want any chance at maintaining at least what little freedom we have left.

The Lisbon Treason

2008-02-20T16:43:00.002+01:00

What the treaty of Lisbon does

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments...There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of MEP Group leaders, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- Former French President V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech to the European Parliament, 27 June 2007

An EU Constitution

The Treaty of Lisbon is a revamped version of the treaty which gave the EU its own Constitution over and above the constitutions of its Member States, but which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in referendums in 2005. Instead of accepting that decision the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents decided to give the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly, but not to call it a Constitution, and on no account to hold referendums on it for fear people would reject it again.

Why an Irish referendum?

A referendum must be held on it in Ireland however because the Supreme Court laid down in the 1987 Crotty case that sovereignty in this State rests with the Irish people and that only they can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or else refuse to surrender it as the case might be. The purpose of the referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to make EU law superior to Irish law in the areas set out in the Lisbon Treaty.

Lisbon gives the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly: The two current basic European Treaties are called "The Treaty on European Union"(TEU) and "The Treaty on the Functioning of the Union"(TFEU). These two documents include all the previous treaties from the 1957 Rome Treaty to the 2002 Nice Treaty. The EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected would have repealed these two treaties and replaced them with a document called "A Constitution for Europe". The Lisbon Treaty implements 96% of the legal content of this "Constitution for Europe" by proposing amendments to the two basic EU Treaties and thereby turning them into the effective Constitution of the new Federal EU that Lisbon would bring about.

The following are the main changes Lisbon would make in the EU's two constituent Treaties:

1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law: We would still keep the Irish Constitution, but "Declaration 17 concerning Primacy", which is attached to Lisbon, makes clear that EU law would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two. EU law and national law deal with different areas and matters, but the EU now makes the majority of our new laws each year. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make laws binding on us in many new areas - see points 6 and 8 below - and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.

2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation: It does this in three legal steps: (a) giving the new European Union which it would bring into being its own legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States; (b)abolishing the European Community which we have been members of since 1973 and replacing it with the new Union; and (c)bringing all spheres of public policy either actually or potentially within the scope of the new Union. From the inside this new post-Lisbon EU would seem to be based on treaties between States; from the outside it would look like a State itself. It would have all the normal powers of a Federal State except the power to force its Member States to go to war against their will. Lisbon would then make us all real citizens of this new Federal EU for the first time, owing to it the normal citizen's duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. We would still retain our Irish citizenship, but the rights and duties attached to that would be subordinate to those of our EU citizenship in any case of conflict between the two. Post-Lisbon, we would be like citizens of Virginia vis-a-vis the USA, or like citizens of Bavaria vis-a-vis Federal Germany. This new Federal EU would sign Treaties with other States, would have its own political President, Foreign Minister and foreign and security policy, its own diplomatic service and voice at the UN, and its own Public Prosecutor. It would make most of our laws and would decide what our basic rights are in all areas of EU law.

If the EU's politicians are creating an EU Federation, that Federation should be run along normal democratic lines, with its laws both proposed and made by people who are elected to make them, either in the European Parliament or National Parliaments, and not by the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and Court. But that is not on offer in the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon means less democracy at EU level, not more.

3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland: It does this by replacing the voting system for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty by a primarily population-based system which would give most influence to the Member States with big populations and reduce the influence of smaller ones like Ireland. Under Lisbon a "weighted" or "qualified" majority vote(QMV) for making EU laws in future would be 15 States out of 27 as long as they included 65% of the EU's total population. When Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973 we had 3 votes in making European laws as against 10 each for the Big States, a ratio of one-third. Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements we have 7 votes as against their 29 each, a ratio of one-quarter. Under Lisbon Ireland would have 4 million people as against Germany's 82 millon, a ratio of one-twentieth, and an average of 60 million each for France, Italy and Britain, a ratio of one-fifteenth. Under Lisbon Ireland's voting weight vis-a-vis the other 26 Member States would fall to one-third its present level, from 2% to 0.8%. Germany's would go from 8% to 17%, France's from 8% to 13%, Britain's from 8% to 12%.

4. Lisbon removes Ireland's right to a permanent EU Commissioner: The Commission is the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, which are then made by the Council of Ministers, with some powers of amendment for the European Parliament. Under Lisbon Ireland would have no member on the Commission for one out of every three Commission terms. This means that for five years out of every fifteen, laws affecting all our lives would be put forward entirely by a committee of EU officials on which there was no representative from Ireland. The Big EU States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner also, but their size and weight give them other means of exerting influence on that key body. As Dr Garret FitzGerald and others have emphasised over the years, being represented on the EU Commission is especially important for smaller States like Ireland.

5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission: It provides that Ireland's present right to "propose" a national Commissioner and to have that proposal accepted by the others if we are to accept their proposals, would be replaced by a right to make "suggestions" regarding a name, but with no guarantee that a particular suggestion would be accepted by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who would decide the list of Commissioners as a whole by qualified majority vote. If the Irish Government were to suggest someone as its EU Commissioner who had, for example, antagonised the government of some other Member State in the past, or who was regarded as not enthusiastic enough for further EU integration, it could be asked to suggest another name as more acceptable. The Commission President, appointed by vote of the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents, would in practice decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be. The new Commission President could ask a Commissioner to resign at any time, just as a Taoiseach has full control over his cabinet. The new Commission would be like an EU Government, except that this government would not be elected by the citizens.

6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments: These new areas of EU law-making include civil and criminal law, justice and policing, immigration, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, culture, civil protection, public health and the EU budget. There would be majority voting also by EU Foreign Ministers as regards implementing decisions in foreign policy. The EU Council of Ministers would obtain power to take decisions by qualified majority vote on many matters other than EU laws - amounting to 68 in all - so that Member States would no longer exercise a veto regarding them.

This increase in EU powers simultaneously increases the personal power of the 27 national politicians who make up the EU Council of Ministers by enabling them to make further laws behind closed doors for 500 million Europeans, while taking power away from the citizens and national Parliaments which elect those politicians and which have made these laws for their own countries up to now. Each shift of power from the national level to the EU entails a further shift of power from the Irish Dail and people to Irish Government Ministers at EU level. It hollows out our national democracy further. The Treaty also increases the power of the non-elected Brussels Commission, which has the monopoly of proposing European laws to the Council of Ministers, by giving it many new policy areas to propose laws for.

7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to EU control of Ireland's company taxes: Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the"Treaty on European Union", the "simplified revision procedure", which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents by unanimious agreement among themselves to shift many areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the "escalator clause", which former French President Giscard d'Estaing said was "a central innovation" of the EU Constitution he helped draft. This shift to majority voting would cover areas like company taxation, but exclude defence and military matters. A National Parliament can veto the use of this mechanism, but citizens can not, as we would have accepted this method of rule by agreeing the Lisbon Treaty. National Parliaments usually back their Prime Ministers anyway. After Lisbon is ratified there would be no need, practically speaking, for further EU referendums.

If the Taoiseach of the day has agreed with his fellow Prime Ministers and Presidents, the switch to majority voting on company taxes would go through. If he has agreed, the National Parliament could revolt against him and object, but it is not required to vote for the use of the "escalator". This leaves the citizens in the position of depending entirely on the backbone of the current Taoiseach or his successor to continue defending Ireland's company tax position, which has been so important in bringing foreign firms to Ireland and so central to our modern economic development. Already the EU Commission has drafted proposals for introducing a Common EU Tax Base for Company taxes, but has postponed its publication until after the Irish referendum. Does this encourage confidence that the "escalator clause" will not be used to bring in EU tax harmonisation?

Lisbon opens another door to EU tax harmonisation if national differences in company tax lead to "distortion of competition"(Art.93 TFEU). This amendment inserted by Lisbon would enable the EU Court of Justice to apply the EU's internal market rules on competition matters, where majority voting applies, to matters of company tax. This could be another way around the present unanimity requirement for such taxes.

Lisbon also permits the EU to raise its "own resources" by means of any kind of new EU tax to finance the attainment of its many objectives(Art.269 TFEU). The 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents would have to decide unanimously what taxes to impose, and once National Parliaments approved, that would be that. There would be no need of a referendum in Ireland or anywhere else in the EU, for we would have permitted this development by voting for Lisbon. It is hard to imagine the 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents refraining from exercising this power to give the new post-Lisbon Union its own major tax revenues once it is up and running under their political direction.

8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights: The new Treaty gives the EU the final power to decide what our rights are in all areas of EU law, including Member States when implementing EU law. It does this by making the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time(Art.6 TEU). This would make the 27 judges of the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg the final decider of our rights in many areas, instead of the Irish Supreme Court or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which decides these rights at present. If Lisbon gives the EU Court of Justice the power to decide what our rights are in the large area of EU law, it is likely that the Commission will in time propose laws to ensure their uniform application across all EU States, as has happened in the case of the other Treaties up to now. The EU Court of Justice has laid down in several court cases that National Law must be applied in a way that is consistent with EU law, for the latter has supremacy in any conflict between the two. This principle must logically apply to rights issues also. This raises the real possibility of clashes over rights standards in sensitive areas where there are significant national differences between the Member States at present: for example, the right to life, the right to marry and found a family, the right to strike, rules of evidence in court, the rights of children and the elderly, trial by jury, censorship law, the legalisation of hard drugs and prostitution, rights attaching to State churches, conscientious objection to military service, succession, property, family law, labour law. Lisbon also provides for the new Union, like any European State, to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would provide plenty scope for conflict between the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg over human rights issues.

9. Lisbon militarizes the EU further: The Treaty requires Member States "to progressively improve their military capabilities". It introduces a "start-up" fund for common foreign policy and military operations to be financed by Member States outside the Union budget(Art.28). It contains an Article which the current Slovenian EU presidency has admitted is a "mutual defence clause"(Art.28A.7): "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power." This is a new departure for the EU and would commit all Member States including Ireland. In the light of this mutual defence clause there would be no constitutional need for a further referendum in Ireland before we committed ourselves operationally to the military defence of other EU countries, for Lisbon would be that referendum. Lisbon also allows sub-groups of Member States to make more binding commitments to one another with a view to "the most demanding missions" on behalf of the EU, without a requirement of a United Nations mandate.

10. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission's proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it: It might reword the draft law, as happened with the Constitution, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it.

The European Parliament cannot propose a single European law, but it gets more influence under the new Union's Constitutional structures. It can put down amendments to draft laws coming from the Council and Commission in the 32 law-making areas that would be transferred to Brussels from the National Parliaments, although the Commission and Council must agree them if they are to pass. National Parliaments would of course lose their power. Ireland has only 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament. When Ireland was part of the UK in the 19th century it had 100 members out of 600 at Westminster, where all UK laws were both proposed and made.

The Lisbon Treaty also provides for a right of petition to the Commission by one million European citizens asking it to propose a new EU law, but there is no obligation on the Commission to do anything apart from "considering" such a request. It can ignore it or reject it. In other words the citizens, if they get a million signatures, have the right to complain and then hope for the best.

Is Lisbon necessary to make the EU more efficient?

The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Po University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that "the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU's institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement." The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well.

If we reject the Lisbon Treaty will we be forced to vote on it again? Europe Minister Dick Roche has stated that if we vote No to Lisbon, we will not be asked to vote again on the same Treaty, as happened when people voted No to the Treaty of Nice. Nor can we be ostracised or thrown out of the EU - anymore than that happened to the French and Dutch when they rejected the EU Constitution, of which Lisbon is a revamped version. We need to send Lisbon back to the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents and tell them that we want a better deal - for Ireland's sake and Europe's sake. We want a more democratic, not a less democratic EU. Ireland can do it, on our own behalf and on behalf of all the peoples of Europe, if we have confidence in ourselves and resist the misrepresentations of what Lisbon is really about, and all the bullying and threats. A Vote No is a Yes to something better!

This document has been prepared by the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Ave., Dublin 9; Tel.: 01-8305792; Secretary Anthony Coughlan. It has veen vetted for legal accuracy by authorities on Irish constitutional and EU law. Please copy it or adapt it as you please and pass it on to others, without any need of reference to its source.

If you wish to send a donation to help support our work, which is entirely voluntary, please send it to the above address and make out any cheques to Bank of Ireland Account No.30081817.

Contact: info@free-europe.org

From the telex: PvdA wants to silence Dutch weblog

2008-02-01T19:52:00.000+01:00

Dutch weblog HoeiBoei was summoned by its provider Ilse Media to remove the name of Enver ~~Hoxha~~Varisli from an article and a comment both dated 2006(!). What on earth could've triggered that? Varisli was a member of "Meldpunt Moslimdiscriminatie" (Dutch Complaints Bureau on Discrimination of Muslims) then. The anonymous summon was entirely unbased, as merely Enver's full name had been mentioned in a critical news article.

Nevertheless, Ilse claimed that "a complaint had been received from city subdivision De Baarsjes" about the weblog. "Personal details of 'Enver Varisli' are being published in two places. Now that we have received an explicit complaint, it is a violation of privacy law. We therefore request to have the offending items removed within 24 hours, or else we will be forced to temporarily close down your blog." Signed: Weblog Support.

De Baarsjes is ruled by the PvdA, like the rest of Islamsterdam.

HoeiBoei responded that they checked the articles and found no violation of any law and no personal information had been published, so they requested a specification of what was deemed to be in violence of the law and a 24 hour delay. The response was as simple as arrogant:

"Our previous request was clear enough, and the grace period is long enough. Further delay is not possible and not subject to discussion. And contrary to your claim: personal details are being bublished. See definition: "any information regarding an identified or identifyable natural person". That would include his name, as "the best-known directly identifying information is the combination of first and last name"". Signed: Weblog Support

HoeiBoei has now arranged for a back-up weblog at blogger.com (Dutch).

The thought police is definitely closing in on us.

It gets worse

2008-01-23T17:32:00.000+01:00

The article below, Enriching Dutch Culture, now has a sequel. After the chairman of her PvdA faction, Peter van Heemst, called Ismaili's action "very silly", he immediately smoothed over her 'mistake' as her getting so much hatemail that she could not take it anymore and lost control. Well, she had enough control left to google out that the sender of the HuT-quotes had claimed to be a freemason on another forum, a fact she used in the mail to him. In the end Van Heemst claimed people in his council had been getting death-threats because of Ismaili's mail, which could not be confirmed.

That's an old PvdA trick, by the way. Ad Melkert supposedly received a loaded gun in his mail once (makes a bit more impact in the media than just a bullet) but that proved to be a hoax. Same for torture practices conducted in Irak; another PvdA hoax. Now this. Noone inside the PvdA saw any reason to ask this stupid girl to leave. But it gets worse.

Another activity of Ismaili has now been uncovered, proving once more that she did not write the earlier mail in a state of mental distress (that is, no worse than her usual state) and even that she probably acted deliberately. A claim was laid that that very evening she signed a petition for HuT, adding the following quote: "Het wordt tijd om ons te ontdoen van een cultuur die onze islam beschadigt en de ware schoonheid van de islam uitdragen. Alleen zo zullen wij groeien in onze islam. We moeten geen energie steken in het veranderen van anderen maar laten wij zelf veranderen."

Translation: "It is about time to get rid of a culture that damages our Islam and start proclaiming the true beauty of Islam. Only thus will we grow in our Islam. We should not spend effort on changing others, but let us change ourselves". After she initially denied having signed such a petition, Leefbaar Rotterdam, the opposing local party simply produced it. After that, she had "no comment".

The HuT 'constitution' has a lot of friendly stipulations:

Article 1 stipulates that the state should be entirely Islamitic
Article 7 stipulates that apostates must be killed.
Article 26 stipulates that non-muslims are not allowed to vote.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is deeply racist: muslims have privileges; non-moslims do not.
Friendly quote from article 56: "Jihad is a compulsory duty on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus, every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad."
Article 109 states that "the separation of sexes is fundamental".
And article 112 ensures us that women cannot hold "positions in power".

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a social party; hardly distinguishable from the PvdA:

Article 152 establishes that the State should care for people without money. The state is also responsible for housing.
Article 156 determines that the economy is run by the state.

Even after all this has come into the open, the PvdA has no problems keeping this infiltrator aboard in the city subdivision council. The president of the CDA faction even stated that he's ashamed of being Dutch, for what is being done to Ismaili!

We are truly being betrayed by these two parties, that currently are governing (ahem) The Netherlands. This is no ignorant dhimmitude; this is wilful treason. There used to be a penalty on that.

UPDATE:
The PvdA has now changed her view. She has now asked Ismaili to give up her position, as her lying about the petition has lost her the trust of the faction. She has said to give it some thought.
Stay tuned.

Enriching Dutch Culture

2008-01-14T20:02:00.000+01:00

Dutch politicians always refer to Islam as

enriching our culture

Here's an example on how that works:

Last Saturday, Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf had an article on a new Islamic movement in NL, Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's supposed to be an Islamic political party. Some quotes:

We do not agree with freedom of speech, for we denounce democracy

and

What you need is a heavy bomb-attack

Nobody will take action against these movements, but try to say something half as bad towards Islam and you're in trouble (seen the items on Lionheart?).

Now someone decided to email a response to these people, and received a reply from Bouchra Ismaili (Dutch), from Rotterdam's local council for subdivision Charlois. It's totally illiterate, so I can't really bring myself to fully translate it, but it starts off with:

Listen you dirty fool WE STAY HERE hahahahahah DROP DEAD

She then continues to call the writer a Satan lover, and actually states that he and his kind are the foreigners ('allochtonen'), not the immigrant muslims, and that they should convert to Islam. She rants on a bit about the writer being slave to the devil, and that she'll leave judgement to

the judge of judges ALLAH A RAHMAN OU RAHEEM!!!

Guess what Dutch political party this moslima is a representative of? Only one choice really: PvdA, 'Partij van de Allahs' ('Allah Party'), Labour Party. The singlemost corrupt and Islam-appeasing party in NL. The Dutch are being sold out to Islam, by their very government. If it were up to me, this lady (cough) would be sent back to Morocco, covered in tar and feathers.

But then, I am 'Islamophobic' and 'xenophobic'...

A Nation of Sheep

2008-01-07T21:01:00.001+01:00

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is among the fiercest defenders of individual rights. Both in his daily appearances on the country's most-watched cable news network and in a series of books (most recently, A Nation of Sheep), Napolitano consistently and defiantly argues that the only legitimate government is that which respects its citizens rights in all cases.

In late October, Napolitano gave the keynote address at the conference Reason in DC, where he delivered a spellbinding speech that blended a masterful understanding of American history with a blazing outrage at the excesses of the new security state. "Who [is] the greatest violator of the Constitution?" asks Napolitano. "George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln."

Click here to view the Judge's speech (approx. 40 minutes).

GoV: A Letter to Gordon Brown about Lionheart

2008-01-07T20:03:00.000+01:00

A Letter to Gordon Brown by a Danish blogger

British FoS Suppression

2008-01-07T10:34:00.000+01:00

Today I discovered the shocking news about anti-Jihad blogger Lionheart. The UK has now succumbed to Islam to a level that Freedom of Speech no longer is recognised.

Lionheart, currently abroad, will be arrested on re-entry of his native country, on charges of

suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

Read his story on his blog, and the comments Pamela Geller wrote on her blog Atlas Shrugs.

When we tie in this story with the older charges brought against Mark Steyn, the sad conclusion has to be that Freedom of Speech is on the way out fast in the formerly free Western world, that is surrendering to the intolerance of and colonisation by Islam. While non-muslim people in Saudi-Arabia are not even allowed to use certain highways muslims in the West get all their demands fulfilled, including those that would not have a snowballs hope in hell in their native countries.

Words never killed people, and while the truth may sometimes hurt, it should be spoken and heard. Islam continually confirms what it is being accused of, by doing exactly those things they deny to be doing: "Islam's the religion of Peace, and anybody disputing that will be beheaded". And they're getting away with it as well, with all the anti-'hate-speech' commissions that don't even have half a brain but are there just to appease the destructive agenda of the Frankfort School and its Cultural Marxism.

Who will stop the Dhimmytude that has now firmly rooted in the West's suicidal elite's policies? When will the West say "No, I will NOT comply!", finally draw its line in the sand, and stand up to defend it?

Rights vs. Privileges

2007-11-21T21:44:00.000+01:00

This article is a reproduction of Chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik's book Good to be King. It very clearly explains the principal difference between rights and privileges, and how the constitution does not grant you your rights, but merely lays them down. Any “rights” that are granted are mere privileges, that can be taken away at a whimp. This fundamental difference is very important in understanding individual freedom. Learn and enjoy.

The most important concept in this book is the difference between rights and privileges. For that reason, this chapter can be downloaded from my web site at no charge, and may be reproduced and distributed without written permission, as long as it is copied intact and without modification. A right is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power, privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another … the powers of free action.” Please note that rights are “inherent” in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means.

Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isn’t heavy, you can be certain that it’s not made of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and “suck out the heavy.” You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead.

Now recall some of the dreams that you’ve had. You can’t put the unpleasant ones into a bag and bury them in the back yard. You can share your dreams with others, but you don’t have to worry that someone will steal them from you when you’re not looking. Your dreams are an inherent part of who you are. No one can extract your dreams from you. The same thing is true about your rights. When you die, your dreams will die with you. If someone kills you, they will deprive you of life, but they can never deprive you of your right to life.

I define a right as something you can do without asking for permission. The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission. Any time you need permission to do something it is a privilege. Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as “a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.” Rights and privileges are opposites. I have three corollaries to the definition of rights. They are:
• All rights are derived from property;
• Every right implies a responsibility; and
• The only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others.

Let me demonstrate the principle behind my first corollary with an example. Suppose I walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth, across my land anytime I want without asking anyone’s permission. Walking across my land is a right. Now suppose I want to walk to the store located on the other side of your land. Can I walk back and forth across your land anytime I want to? Certainly not. Not without your permission. It is a privilege to walk across your land. Assuming that we’ve been neighbors for a while, it is possible that your response would be, “Sure you can take the shortcut, Mike. What are friends for?” So on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I walk to the store making my way across your land. Let us now assume that something unpleasant happens to you. You misplace a winning lottery ticket, or your significant other leaves you for your best friend. You wake up Thursday morning in a terrible mood, looking for an opportunity to vent your frustrations. As I begin to make my way across your land you shout, “Hey, mister! Walk around! That’s what fences are for!” The important concept here is that privileges are granted, and they can be revoked at any time for any reason. Once again, rights and privileges are opposites.

Property! This is the one-word answer to any question regarding the Constitution. Any time there is a dispute about rights, the argument can be settled by determining who owns the property in question. Prior to the American Revolution, a man born into the proper family was thought to possess all of the land in England, and he claimed all rights as well. The king could bestow privileges on the people he favored and, being the king, he could revoke those privileges at any time. He could also have a person sentenced to death for any action he found insulting. All his power came from his ownership of property. When Christopher Columbus marched out of the water onto a beach in North America, he immediately proclaimed ownership of the entire continent for Queen Isabella of Spain. Subsequent settlers would each declare ownership of the land for the royalty they felt they owed allegiance to. The king’s power and prestige was directly related to how much land he possessed—which explains why human history consists almost exclusively of continuous warfare.

The Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” This statement refutes the idea that only the king had any rights. Instead of accepting privileges controlled by a human king, we claim the same rights that every king has ever claimed. We consider this to be “self-evident” now, but it was necessary for us to defend this idea by fighting a bloody revolution that ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The significance of this treaty was to transfer ownership of the land from the king to the people in America. Hence, the American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property. The ownership of property is the most important distinction between freedom and tyranny. This idea is so important that John Adams, the twelfth president (right after George Washington) wrote: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Regardless of your religious views, I think it can be safely said that anything as sacred as the law of God would hold considerable weight in any argument. Unfortunately, not everyone in America holds property in such high regard. Most of our problems in the United States can be traced to a blatant disregard for private property. Examine the quote of another American president, Theodore Roosevelt: “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” If I own a piece of property, I control what happens to it. If the community has the “right” to regulate my property whenever it wishes, then I do not truly own the property. I am merely occupying it through the generous will of the majority. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

This is a very simple concept understood by every two-year-old. Every two-year-old has two favorite words. Both are attempts to express their will over their environment. The first word is “no!” which is the equivalent of a royal veto — an attempt to forbid mother from doing something we don’t approve of. This statement is rarely a successful veto, but it is uttered with the same assumption of autonomy as any king who ever lived. Their other favorite word is “mine!” frequently shouted with a presumption of unquestioned authority, regardless of the item being claimed. The child claims ownership of any item they wish to have control over. They already understand that if it is “mine!” then I am the one who will determine what happens to the item. In other words, “I have the right to do what I want with it.” Of course children have an incomplete understanding of property, having a much more difficult time with the concept of “yours.” Parents spend countless hours trying to teach their offspring not to touch other children’s toys unless they are given permission. The problem does not go away in later years, either. Siblings sharing the same room will often draw a line down the center of the room to establish “ownership” and control over a given area and the property that it contains.

Adults assume that they have a much better understanding of property than children do, but that is not necessarily the case. Americans do not legally own property in the manner that they believe they do, because they do not exercise autonomous control over their property. What would happen if you erected a derrick in your backyard and started drilling for oil? Would you be surprised if the county sheriff drove up and asked to see your permit? In order to drill for oil you must own the property under “allodial title.” Unfortunately, if you pay property taxes, then you do not own your property to the degree that you thought you did.

It may surprise many of you to learn that the federal government claims ownership of much of the land in each of the states, especially in the western states. Much of the rest is claimed by the states themselves. This is clearly an important topic, unfortunately not one that I have time to explore rigorously here.

You probably don’t own your car the way you think you do. If I give you a “gift certificate,” do you have the gift, or just a piece of paper that represents that gift? When you finish making payments on your auto loan, does the bank send you the “title” to the car, or simply a “certificate of title”? The certificate of title is a piece of paper that only represents the title of the car. Each car that is manufactured has an MCO, or “manufacturer’s certificate of origin,” that is the true title for the car. Because most cars are purchased on a payment plan, the dealer sends the MCO to the state agency that controls the registration of vehicles. The MCO is microfilmed and then shredded to make it much more difficult for you to obtain the actual title. If you are able to pay cash for your car and you know enough to demand the MCO as part of the purchase agreement, it is possible for you to purchase an automobile and own it the way you currently believe that you own it. The figure on next page shows a copy of an MCO obtained by a patriot friend of mine. He is not required to register his car with the state, and he travels in it without license plates. All of this is perfectly legal—although you may admittedly have some difficulty convincing the police officer who has detained you for what appears to be a traffic violation.

Property may be an adequate source of rights for land, but what is the source of your right to life? Many will argue that your right to life comes from God, however that debate is outside the scope of this book. Whether divinely created or scientifically evolved, one thing that is indisputable is the fact that your body exists. It is also widely assumed, at least in the contemporary United States, that you own your own body. If someone else owns your body, then you are a slave. The institution of slavery was based on the premise that other humans were considered to be property, and thus could be bought and sold like any other commodity. That idea is loath to many of us now, however the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude was not passed until December of 1865. You cannot successfully claim your right to life until those around you respect your body as property that you alone control. Even today the women in Middle-Eastern countries are treated as the property of men, and children are still sold into slavery around the world.

The second corollary on the subject of rights is the fact that every right implies a responsibility. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as the heads and tails of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. I have a right to wear a gun on my hip, but I also have the responsibility to make sure that no one is injured by it. Furthermore, carrying a gun does not give me a right to your property. I only have a right to my property, not to yours. It is a widely held position that a six-year-old child has the right to life. I have never personally met anyone who has argued otherwise, but do not assume that this is a universal proposition. Does a six-year-old child also have the right to keep and bear arms? Very few of us—not even I—would allow a child to walk around with a loaded firearm. That’s because a child does not have the mental capacity to grasp the possible consequences and implicit responsibilities of using a gun. To a child, everyone is immortal just like Wile E. Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons. A child thinks that if you fall off a cliff, there is a brief puff of dust and a few seconds later you’re zipping along on rocket roller skates. Unfortunately, that type of rapid recovery isn’t possible in the real world.

Americans have grown weary of their responsibilities, and our government has been only too eager to relieve us of those burdens. When two people have a child, they have a responsibility to determine what the child will learn and what values it should adopt. Over the years parents have become complacent about that responsibility, turning it over to government schools that offer “one size fits all” education. Then parents have the audacity to wonder why their children haven’t adopted the values they would like them to have. Instead of planning for their future, our parents and grandparents allowed the Socialist Insecurity Administration (sic) to take money from their paycheck to create their retirement program. Today, everyone is concerned that Social Security doesn’t return enough money for basic subsistence, much less the money people need to enjoy their golden years. If people had retained that responsibility for themselves, placing their money in a simple savings account with 5 percent interest, they would easily have more money than they currently get from the government. By allowing the government to assume our responsibilities, we have gradually given away many of our rights.

My third corollary on the subject is that the only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others. To put it another way, you only have the right to your property. You do not have the right to anyone else’s property. Many people believe that they have a right to health care. There is even a presidential candidate who recently suggested a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right. A right to health care suggests that you should be able to walk into a doctor’s office and insist that she or he correct your illness for free, or for a significantly reduced cost. Would you be willing to do your job for free for anyone who steps in off the sidewalk? I sincerely doubt it. You’d be very busy—and very, very poor. Why should your doctor provide services for free after spending all the time and money required to graduate from medical school? “Don’t worry!” people tell me, “the government will pay the doctor’s salary.” Oh, really? And where does the government get the money to pay the doctor’s salary? From taxes, of course. But for every $100 the government takes from my wallet, they keep $50, the HMO keeps $25, and the doctor gets what’s left. Wouldn’t it be easier and far more efficient for you to walk into my house to take $100 out of my wallet yourself? You’d be able to pay for even better treatment than you’re getting right now. There is, of course, one small problem with that plan. I am a strong Second Amendment supporter. If you come into my house in an attempt to take money from my wallet, you will soon be going to the doctor for something far more serious than whatever you were suffering from in the first place.

You should have learned this in grade school, but just in case you missed it, you do not have a right to other people’s property, not even when the government takes it away from them and gives it to you. That is the basis for socialism, and that is exactly what the Constitution is intended to prevent.

Link

Rogue State Medeland

2007-11-02T21:57:00.001+01:00

The Netherlands have now openly and fully qualified for the title of 'schurkenstaat' (rogue state). What's a rogue state? Traditionally, a rogue state is a state that abuses its own citizens. These days, other properties that are considered are support of terrorism, violation of human rights and dodging of (international) law. However, a listing of properties holds a limitation. Far better is a more general definition. A state can be considered a rogue state when it violates basic rational moral values.

The Dutchman does not exist, according to beloved import-bride to the heir to the throne Maxima. When taking into account the number of imported, mainly Islamic, people that 'enriched' our country ('Medelanders') it might indeed be better to call the State of The Netherlands 'Medeland'. Because there's no doubt about the existence of the 'Medelanders'. Whomever views Medeland with a critical eye only has to look at the month of October to inevitably conclude that Medeland indeed has become a rogue state.

PM J.P. Balkenende (residing under would-be queen Beatrix) threatens to conduct a coup should his gang approve a concept-law that would require a referendum on the sale of Medeland to Eurabia. Beatrix has the State Council, also residing under her, present an obvious lie about the European Constitution ("the new treaty has no constitutional aspects") and parliament absorbs it as were it the word of God himself. Coup avoided, mission accomplished. The voter is put offside, only the useful idiot during election time, when most corrupt Dutch party, PvdA (Labour Party, Party of the Ayatollahs), swore that they would insist on a referendum should the 'new' treaty look anything like the original one. Well, it did, and they didn't.

The already criminally high tax burden is increased even more, and public health care is being revised again: anyone that does not abuse the system is going to pay more for those who do. And as a rule, there's less money available to Dutch citizens, while trainloads of taxpayer's money disappear to distant horizons: 4.5 billion euro is spent annually on 'development' countries, while a 'normal' amount, in perspective to what other European countries spend, would be 1.2 billion. Mind you: these 1.2 billion are wasted as well, and would better be returned to the taxpayer, for the majority of the money ends up in the wrong pockets, while the remaining bits that do end up in the intended spots do not make any structural difference. 4.7 Billion euro has gone 'missing' with Bertje Koenders' department (as is habitual with the PvdA, the Portemonnaie van de Ander, Other People's Wallet), and nobody gives a toss. Much of that money goes to terrorist outfits like Hamas and Fatah, and the 'benefactors' have no say in that. The Development Ministry could be closed tomorrow; none of the beneficiaries would be the worse for it, but the Dutch taxpayer would benefit quite a bit. Leaves a buch of civil servants that need to find a real job, but hey, they might learn something.

According to the CDA, the Christian Democratic party, the produce-price of gasoline could be 12 eurocents lower, ignoring the fact that the consumer price consists for more than 65% of taxes. In the past, we had gradual tax increases with two real jumps, one ten cents (4,54 eurocents) and one 'temporarily' 25 cents (11.33 eurocents) that were never returned to the taxpayer. But parliament blames big oil. Motorbike riders will not be exempt from the intended mileage-taxing, as it "would be imcomprehensible that they could use the roads for free". The amount of bikers compared to motorists is neglectible, and most bikers pay double already anyway as they also own a car, and cannot drive both vehicles simultaneously. Combined, bikers and motorists put up a whopping 18 billion in taxes annually, of which only close to two billion are being returned to them in infrastructure, the blood vessels of the economy. What do you mean, "use the roads for free"? We're being screwed for 16 billion euro; the State is an expensive whore.

A man tries to kill two police officers and gets killed in the process. The would-be killer is depicted in the MSM as a victim (also see this article), and we hardly hear anything of the fate of the police officers, other than that they were saved in hospital. Day after day the MSM reports how the state failed at helping the 'schizophrenic' 'victim', up to and including theories on possible relationships between inbreading and schizophrenia. We still have no news on the police officers, whether or not they're out of hospital yet, but the lady that shot the guy will face an investigation: couldn't she have shot him in the legs?

That the state failed is beyond argument, but not for the reasons claimed by the PC media. The overwhelmingly Moroccan neighborhood burns non-Moroccan owned cars every night, à la Paris; news about it suppressed in the MSM, because they're 'offended' by the killing of one of their's. What does the state do? While Islamsterdam is burning, the police picks up football hooligans a few blocks on, and raids partygoers in order to search them for possession of drugs. Stops pushbikes to fine riders who do not carry proper lighting. Job Cohen, mayor and self-Islamiser of Amsterdam, drinks more tea with the Moroccans. The 'hard approach' is undesired, says dhimmy Cohen, but apparently that only goes for the voters for his Party of the Automobilefires.

A child molester, caught in the act (!) while sexually molesting a 9-year old, and admitting to six more cases of child molest, was set free by a judge because the molests 'were not severe enough'. Only to be picked up again for sexually molesting an 18-year old. But as the that case was already known by the justice department, who refused to investigate it, the case was thrown out and the guy was set free once again. This is akin to a rape license! Is the judge connected to Dutch boss-of-justice-department Joris Demmink (Demmink is known to be guilty of child-rape but it cannot be proven as he, covered by a series of Justice Ministers, remains in function and thus obstructs any investigations)? Or maybe the perp has details on Demmink? Why does the Justice Department refuse to investigate serious crimes like (child) rape? I just read it failed to investigate 200 child-porn cases, a quarter of the cases carried over from 2006!

Our fake monarchy visits India, one of the few, and possibly the only country in the world where the rise of capitalism leads to more childlabour, instead of less, which is the rule in other upcoming countries. This is due to the criminal Indian 'kaste'system, which abuses the lower 'kastes'. But our fake queen won't utter a word on the subject. No inconvenient questions, please.
The Dutch heir to the throne, Wim Alex, nicknamed Prince Pils (Pils is short for pilsener, beer) follows his imported wife into politics, a field thus far avoided by the 'Royal' Family, as it is full of mines. After inquiring with the Indian authorities whether they subsidise their farmers in order to not use valuable water in raising their food crops (!) he goes on to visit neighboring totalitarian state Bhutan to 'help' the dictators there with advice on how to convert their monarchy into a democracy like the Dutch, i.e. how to convert their dictatorship into another one. Whomever might think Wim Alex would use the occasion to inquire about all the Nepalese that were chased out of the country and now reside in UN fugitive camps would draw the short straw: no such luck. Same thing for the Christians, who are being persecuted; no inconvenient questions here.

Gross indignation and a courtcase by the fake Royalty were the result of the publication of pictures of the Dutch infant princesses on a pedophile website, Martijn. You won't hear Wim Alex about all those other kids posted there, who are equally unroyal but not related to these imposters, and even now, nobody cares about those unknown kids. Selective indignation, therefore, and thus, class justice. The reports on the event are inconsistent, as usual: "After the pictures were removed from the public part of the site, they still appeared on the member pages. Martijn claims that after the summons these were also removed, but the state information service claims they cannot verify that". Question: How does this relate to the claim the pictures were there in the first place?

In the mean time, highschool classes are split into discussion groups where half a class has to defend Al Gore's Global Warming propaganda and the other half the debukers, with the 'Swindle' as base material. Accompanying material are IPCC materials and MSM articles that still uphold the hockeystick graph (debunked in 2003) and 1998 as the hottest year in 10 centuries (debunked in August 2007). The midieval warming period is also left out of the handouts. This is criminal misinformation, if anything, as part of the public schooling system. Pupils are trained to defend what's already recognised as outright lies, a perfect training for politicians and, as such, a great example of Frankfort School tactics.

A not yet sworn-in judge, apparently too stupid too realise she could not serve as first judge yet, ruled to hold six suspects in custody, among them a confessed rapist and a confessed murderer. Because she was not sworn-in, her judgement (with two 'real' co-judges) was deemed illegal and the suspects were set free. Yes, free; unfortunately I'm not joking here. Form before content, "the constitutional state demands it", the safety of society is of no concern here. If the constitutional state demands the release of confessed heavy criminals, I know of some more people that should not be in prison, because chances are they are innocent, and only convicted willfully on false and manipulated evidence. The list of such cases grows by the day. Why would our justice department go to great lengths to get innocent people convicted? Why do judges insist on releasing suspects who confessed to their crimes?

There are several (Dutch) websites that clearly illustrate the many things that are wrong with Dutch 'justice', like the sites of Paul Ruys, Stan de Jong and Klokkenluider Online. Medeland deceives and lies to its citizens. The Dutch are extorted and sucked dry in order to pay for all Medelanders, but are themselves treated as second-rate citizens. Crime pays and therefore rules; as long as one has a loud mouth and threatens to use violence when 'offended', politicians crawl to be be of service. Any notion of morality and decency has been destroyed by the state. Medeland absolutely qualifies as a rogue state.

How can this situation be resolved? A cabinet crisis is highly improbable: the ones currently in power have sunk so low in the polls that they'll compromise on just about everything, in their own interest. New elections would wipe them out. On HVV Michiel Mans calls for a protest on the Dam in Amsterdam, to voice our frustration. I'm not such a protester myself, but I just might consider to join the band, even while chances are that it won't matter a bit. The one thing you can be certain of is that the Kafka and AFA fascists will show up to stir a riot, unbothered by the police and Cohen.

What does help? The 'method Pinochet'? Elimination of Balkenende, his gang and his extreme left-wing cronies? Although prosperity advocates (I've read that Pinochet received advise from Milton Friedman) historically made very small amounts of victims when repairing economies compared to their leftist opponents when ruining them, the prosperity-bringer's victims are always brought to attention in order to stress how evil these people were. All this while those victims without exception are the socialist do-gooders who feel the unsuppressible need to tell others how to live their lives, violently if necessary. Socialist victims are preferably never mentioned. Exception to this rule are genocides and the Holocaust but, oh irony, only to serve yet another socialist agenda. I'm not in favor of these methods, however, sometimes you have no choice. It's not as if Pinochet would have reached his goals if he'd let the Che Guevaras and Fidel Castros have their way.

How do we stop Balkenende's gang (intranslatable word game: de Balkenbende)? How do we get rid of Cohen? How to dismiss the monarchy? For preventative elimination, as was done with Pim Fortuyn by the extreme-left, it's too late; the damage already has been done. Elimination now is useless as well: while Pim was unique and irreplaceable (whatever opinions you may have on the man) for every socialist a clone sits waiting to take the vacant position. The main disadvantage of Libertarianism (in this respect, in others it's a huge advantage) is that Libertarians do not feel the urge to tell other people how to live their lives. The only thing a libertarian wants is to be left in peace, and to leave the other one in peace as well. Thus, a libertarian does not long for power, and therefore has no incentive to conspire with others on how to obtain that power. Socialists always abuse this lack of organisation among libertarians.

On closing, I'd like to refer the reader to the excellent (Dutch) post on Communism by André, based on a video brought to our attention by Seneca, featuring Michael Badnarik. From it, you will see that Medeland is indeed a rogue state, heading for oblivion, like all socialist/communist states before her.

The Trouble with Islam

2007-10-18T08:34:00.000+02:00

According to Robert Spencer, the problem with Islam is not “radical” Islam, for which an imagined “moderate” Islam is the solution, but Islam itself. While that may be true in the Islamic world, it is not what threatens us.

The problem with Islam for the West is the West. The dhimmytude that allows wahhabist countries to fund Islamic organisations in the West, that allows Muslims to impose religious demands on public places and that refuses to prosecute and punish Islamic violence.

I don’t know the English equivalent, but we have a saying ‘gentle doctors make stinking wounds‘ and true enough, the ‘gentle doctors’ appeasing Islam are creating increasingly serious infections.

Just a few days ago we had a Moroccan enter a police station, jump over the front desk and stab the policewoman on duty in the chest. She fled and got stabbed in the back, twice. A male collegue that came to her rescue got stabbed in the neck and shoulder. By that time, the policewoman had her gun out and shot the guy. Care to guess the newspaper headlines?

"Policewoman shoots and kills boy at police station"
"Victim stabs two police officers and dies in cuffs"

How’s that, eh? The victim is a ‘Policewoman’ while the perp is a 'boy' and the ‘victim’. They kept the perp’s identity hidden but sent Moroccan 'neighborhood fathers' out into the neighborhood, which told us something. The guy was a known offender, had already stabbed someone with a screwdriver earlier and was under ’successful treatment’ for mental problems (and yet his prints 'could not be identified'). A day earlier we had a Turkish schoolboy stab and kill a Moroccan classmate over a pen.

There are more and more signs Eurabia is on the verge of a civil war. Half the police is fed up with the soft approach, while the other half wants to continue the ‘dialogue’, and Islamic scum laugh their asses off at these softies. Why should we tolerate what their own Islamic homeland won’t even tolerate? How about the Ted Nugent approach?

Dutch (and French) citizens are being delivered to Eurabia without having a say in it, while having voted a clear NO only two years ago. But the flag and the song have been taken out of the constitution, which is enough to negate that NO, according to Dutch godfather Balkenende (I must be careful not to offend the mob here, as I truly think the mob have more of a moral code than the Dutch government).

While our MP pipes he’s so great for taken the flag and song out he issued a directive yesterday that the EU flag will from now on be part of flagging protocol. So while it’s not official anymore in the EU constitution, it’s now official by rule. If only they could be punished for their crimes. But they’re above the law, and even if they weren’t, you probably could not find a judge that would condemn them. The EU wants to impose another 20 million Muslims on Europe, cultural suicide and Caucasian genocide.

And it’s all ‘democratic’, like Hitler was ‘democratic’ and Chavez is ‘democratic’. Problem is we’re not allowed to have guns, so we don’t have them, and even if we obtain them, we’re untrained to use them properly and effectively. So as long as the violence threat to the dhimmycrats in power is not coming from Islam, they know to be pretty safe in continuing their evil ways. But none of these dhimmycrats live in Islamic neighborhoods themselves…

They still (purport to) see no danger, well, sleep on, except someday they will be woken up.

It Isn't Easy Being Green

2007-10-15T22:31:00.000+02:00

It is no surprise to find environmentalists condemning consumers who "buy green"--because, at root, environmentalists are against buying anything.

By Keith Lockitch

It isn't news that environmentalism has gone mainstream in a big way--with organic food in every grocery store, hybrid cars on every freeway, and every mass-market magazine declaring green the "new black." More than ever before, consumers are buying into environmentalist ideology--and buying products that purport to impact nature less, in order to impact nature less.

One would think that serious environmentalists would be thrilled about this trend--thrilled that the public seems willing to take ecological marching orders and do its duty to the planet. But they aren't: A backlash against "buying green" has arisen in environmentalist circles, with critics disparaging the new eco-consumers as "light greens," and condemning the "Cosmo-izing of the green movement."

Surprising? Not really. Not if one grasps the deeper meaning of environmentalism.

Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices--like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins--but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of "society." People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the "greater good." And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not--on this view--be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Though environmentalists will often claim to be opposed to merely "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources, their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. The environmentalist goal of "preserving nature" unavoidably conflicts with the requirements of human life: Man's basic means of survival is to reshape nature to serve his ends, to take the raw materials of his environment and use them to produce values. But this requires "touching" nature, not leaving it untouched. Even organic crops require land and water and energy; even hybrid cars are built of metal and plastic and glass, and use up fuel. All human activity, on whatever scale, violates the environmentalist injunction to "leave nature alone."

This is why it is no surprise that environmentalist leaders would condemn "buying green" as a consumer trend. Says Michael Ableman, an organic farmer and environmental author: "The assumption that by buying anything, whether green or not, we're solving the problem is a misperception. Consuming is a significant part of the problem to begin with." In other words, the very act of consuming--i.e., pursuing material values in support of our lives--is a "problem."

Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.

Anyone who thinks that it's easy being "green"--that "eco-chic" is consistent with the principles of environmentalism--had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping bring into power. Environmentalists' call for minor sacrifices for the sake of some undefined "greater good" is the first stage in their call for sacrifice as such, for no human benefit whatsoever.

If environmentalists are now confident enough to start attacking "buying green" as superficial and hypocritical, we had better take them at their word and stop buying anything they have to sell, especially their poisonous ideology.

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Reproduced with permission from the Ayn Rand Institute - Dutch Concerns

More Pat Condell

2007-10-11T21:14:00.000+02:00

No comments required here. Pat Condell has a way with words I could never equal. So I won't even try.

The Myth of Islamophobia

More Demands from Islam

Pat Condell on Islam

2007-10-02T18:46:00.001+02:00

Pat Condell is an English standup comedian, who has a very clear and politically incorrect view on Islam and what happened in Brussels on 9/11 this year. I must say, I do like his choice of words...

The Trouble with Islam

Islam in Europe

Coup d'Etat #2

2007-09-26T16:13:00.000+02:00

This week, Dutch Prime Minister JP Balkenende announced his intention to perform the left's second coup inside 5,5 years. Just under 5,5 years ago, on May 6th, 2002, established election-winner Pim Fortuyn was killed by an extreme-left killer. The next coup was planned to happen shortly. Of course, only the bloggers complain, the MSM sides with the coalition, and even parliament takes no corrective action, although it claims to be 'outraged'.

The issue at hand is of course the EU constitution. In 2005, Balkenende signed the constitution, without awaiting the result of a referendum that was to be held on the subject. A campaign was launched to influence Dutch opinion favorably, (with a "No", I look like a fool", JPB said) and sure enough, Balkenende was made to look like the fool he was. As the French also said "No", other referenda were cancelled, as unanimity was no longer possible.

Now the EU constitution has been renamed, but according to JPB, it's no longer a constitution, so a new referendum is not required. Well, he's correct on the latter; it's the same thing under another name, and we already said "No" to it. But that's not JPB's reasoning. Not only the treaty has another name, but the Foreign Minister for the EU also has, and of course JPB managed to get the song and flag out of it. Big deal. But To JPB, this makes all the required changes so it can now be forced down our throat.

The PvdA (yes, them again) have always claimed to want a new referendum if the old one was deemed no longer valid, it was part of their 2006 election programme, it has been repeated over the past year and even their newly elected chairwoman has stated as recent as last Monday evening that the was in favor of a referendum. By that time, JPB had already blatantly stated that if legislation was drafted that demanded a referendum, he would overrule parliament and not sign the legislation, thus blocking the referendum. This is unconstitutional, and never heard of before. The US president can veto legislation, but the Dutch MP cannot. This is a coup.

In the mean time, the Dutch State Council already had advised that a referendum was unnecessary, as there were "no constitutional elements" present in the 'new' treaty. Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, however, had already warned the European public they were being betrayed: the 'new' treaty was just a renamed, reworded version of the same thing. He should know, as he wrote the first one. He was still in favor of it, and warned to European 'leaders' not to hold referenda, but he did not approve of the claims that it was an entirely different treaty.

Now PvdA has agreed not to hold a referendum, in exchange for keeping the current tight rules on firing people in business. Whatever the relation is between handing over one's sovereignty to Eurabia and the hiring and firing of people by local businesses is beyond me, but both steps are bad for the Netherlands. It has to be made easier to hire & fire staff, or else unemployment will stay unnecessarily high. But no, in exchange for Eurabia, we keep to be stuck with rigid and very costly firing rules. The PvdA obviously avoided the coup as well, as now no legislation will be drafted.

Rumour has it that JPB has threatened the PvdA with handing in his resignation if it kept insisting on a referendum. That would have meant the much welcomed collapse of government, and the demise of Islamist party PvdA in new elections. But they want to stay in power very desperately. So they continue to sell out to Eurabia and everybody else, as they always have been doing. Dutch government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the state by definition has to be a criminal organisation; this government certainly is.

I wrote on Dutch 'Democracy' before; well, it's officially down the drain now. Welcome to the Dutch provence of totalitarian Dictatorship Eurabia.

Dutchmen Don't Exist

2007-09-26T15:21:00.000+02:00

At long last it has finally become clear why the Dutch government keeps claiming there's nothing wrong with replacing the Dutch society of (rapidly shrinking) freedom wit the 'culture' of Islam: Dutchmen don't exist. It's official now, as imported queen-to-be and national cuddle-immigrant Máxima has proclaimed such in a personal speech.

She spoke at the presentation of a report by the WRR, the Wetenschappelijk Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (Scientific Council for Government Policy), that doesn't have not a single scientist among its members, but has no lack of dhimmies. "In a globalising world, possession of multiple passports is more and more a given. Not only for 'New Dutchmen', but also for emigrating Dutchmen".

This is a blatant lie. Fact is that Dutch law does not allow multiple passports. If I were to obtain US citizenship, my Dutch citizenship would be cancelled immediately. Nevertheless, we have Turkish and Moroccan secretaries of state, that reside under foreign as well as Dutch law. The Turkish secretary of state cannot acknowledge the Armenian genocide, as she's punishable by Turkish law, and as Turkish citizen could no longer travel to Turkey for the threat of being arrested.

Nevertheless, if an immigrant gets to stay here but refuses to give up his old passport "because his country does not allow it", he ceremonially receives a Dutch passport and is welcomed as a Dutchman. The logical thing would be to deny him Dutch nationality, but the political correct attitude is that the immigrant cannot help it. Well, that's the immigrant's problem, isn't it. Our earlier mentioned Turkish broad can give up her Turkish passport, but openly refuses to. Still, she got a Dutch passport as well as to be secretary of state. Her sister is also involved in immigration policy. Dangerous (to NL) positions for people with foreign loyalties.

If a Dutchmen offers criticism of Islam, and of the demands that Islamists and Muslims make (separate swimming hours, female gyneacologists, mosques-with-whining, no biology lessons on pigs, the list goes on and on) he's islamofobic, xenofobic, racist and what else. An ex-chief of police openly stated on television this week that Geert Wilders "should be 'done in', and all his voters should be deported if they can't cope with the reality of The Islamic Netherlands". Nobody raised a complaint about it, except of course the bloggers. Mr. Wilders has never made any statements that even come close to this, but he's the racist xenofobe.

But now we know why: we do not exist. So Islam is not replacing western values, as you cannot replace what does not exist. Miss Zorreguieta quickly mentioned that the Argentinian does not exist either. Well, she should know: many Argentinians vanished without a trace during the reign of the Junta her father was part of, and she never openly condemned that. So also there we now know why: Argentinians don't exist.

Máxima claims to have spent seven years in trying to find the Dutch nationality, aided by many lovely and wise specialists, but alas, she hasn't found it. This dumb broad, possibly the most expensive marry-in into the fake monarchy that claims power in the Netherlands, is supposed to be the next fake queen of a country that by extension of her own admission does not exist. On the fake part: the Oranjes lost their color and their royalness a long time ago. The bloodline has been severed twice, both times at a William III. So the Oranjes do not exist either.

Possibly the most stupid thing about this high-cuddle-immigrant's speech was the fact that she has now openly sided with the Cultural Marxists, while the Oranjes have always avoided making political statements in public. But then again, it does not matter. A would-be queen from a non-existing royal family makes statements on a non-existing racist, xenofobic people. Glad this is reality, it would be too far-fetched for fiction. Herbert Marcuse can be a proud man.

The Argument for Libertarianism

2007-09-21T16:57:00.001+02:00

Recently a discussion developed in the comments on an article on Gates of Vienna between one of the posters and me, as the poster threw libertarians in with multi-culturalists as the worst type of fanatics (while having previously stated that Islamists were, but that's a side note). The remark was triggered by an observation by Baron Bodissey that multi-culturists no longer need the nation-state, prompting the remark that libertarians also hate the state. Apart from the fact that this remark is unjust, it also ignores the vast difference between 'the state' and 'the nation-state'. Multiculturalists no longer need the nation-state, but they still very much need the state, as it enables them to extort the working people in order to waste the extorted money on their own immoral goals. As the comments section on GoV is hardly the place for a discussion like this, as it digresses off topic, I decided to devote an article to it and invite the reader to discuss it.

Libertarians don't hate the state, but they do object to it. They want to get rid of the state for precisely the same reasons the parasites support it: the massive fraud and corruption that is inherent to any state in general, and the welfare state in particular. A state has to be, by definition, a criminal organisation, having the monopoly on violence, and the ability to legalize its actions by creating laws that allow them. But that does not make those actions less criminal.

It's the state that allows Islam to colonise our countries, it's the state that criminalises free speech if that involves criticism that it does not want to allow, like Islam-criticism. It's the state that lies to their citizens about its true intentions. It's the state that takes taxpayers' money to hand it to the looters. It's the state that places the interest of groups above that of individuals. It's the state that goes to war. And because the state has the monopoly on violence, its citizens cannot defend themselves (try paying no or less taxes, you'll be lifted from your bed at gunpoint before you can say 'democracy').

Libertarianism is the closest thing to the original American Constitution, in that it guarantees (not: 'grants') people only three rights (negative, natural rights): life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself: you’ve got to put effort into it to achieve it. A fourth right, following from this, is the right to earned property: you get to keep the produce of your work. You don’t have the right to a house, a car, a boat or a million dollars in the bank; you’ve got the right to work for it, and once you earned it, by honest labour (physical or mental), then it’s yours to keep.

Basically libertarianism knows only one rule: you are free to pursue your own goals, as long as you do not impose on anybody else’s same freedom to do so. This is quite a bit different from ‘doing as you please’. The freedom to live your own life comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences of your voluntary choices. Ground rule is: no violence, except in self-defense. If you think about it, you do not need any other laws than this rule, based on negative rights. All positive 'rights' are assigned by people, and thus arbitrary.

When I read these angry, prejudiced reactions to libertarians it always makes me wonder where people get this hate. They are so far off the mark. Libertarians don't hate. Libertarians love individual freedom, free speech, free market, free enterprise. The state has to go because the state blocks these values, out of self-interest, by applying violence. It cannot be denied that states invariably end up killing their citizens, because when the breaking point is reached, the angry mob no longer can be controlled. Read F.A. von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. In the mean time, the state tries desperately to take away the citizen's right and ability to defend itself, in order to stay in power. In America, politicians call for gun control. In The Netherlands, where guns are already illegal, if you run across a burglar inside your house and hit him KO, you get charged with assault. The burglar, who does not honour the property rights of his victim, gets to claim all his own rights. The perp is made the victim. Rediculous: if you don't respect other people's rights, you forfait your own.

In the libertarian view, there are no illegal immigrants. Immigration has never destroyed a state. Colonisation has. Unless you hate everybody that looks different than you, has different beliefs than you and a different religion than you, there's nothing wrong with open borders. Immigrants, real immigrants, adapt, because it's in their best interest to do so. They move to a new venue because they feel it's better there, that they will have a better opportunity to pursue their happiness. Immigrants don't have a future if they don't adapt, as in a libertarian society there is no welfare state. They have to learn the language and work for their money, just like any local. If they are criminal, they will be punished, just like any local, and expelled.

Colonists, on the other hand, don't adapt, they want to submit their new society to their own values, rules and laws. As such, colonists are a threat and should be expelled. Most Islamic 'immigrants' to Western society are no immigrants at all, but colonists, which is why it's wrong to welcome them into our region. What rational logic is there in moving somewhere because the social and cultural values there offer more chances than the present ones, and then insist on taking these lesser values with you? It makes no sense, and thus betrays the real Islamic agenda.

I invite the reader to watch this short animation, read this article and read some publications by Ayn Rand, Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Walther Block, the list goes on... Think, think and think again. And then if you still feel that there's something fundamentally wrong with libertarianism or objectivism, put your arguments in the comments.

Dam Bursts at Al Dura Trial

2007-09-21T08:08:00.000+02:00

Earlier this month I reported on the Al Durah hoax. Jihad Watch has a follow up on the appeal made by Philippe Karsenty against the unfavorable October 2006 ruling that convicted him of defamation of France2, the state owned Frech television network. Finally a judge had the insight to request the 27 minute raw footage of the incident.

Maître Bénédicte Amblard, representing Charles Enderlin and France 2 in their libel suit against Philippe Karsenty (Media Ratings) dropped her pencil and lost her composure when presiding judge Laurence Trébucq, overriding the opinion of the Avocat Général, firmly demanded handover of the 27-minute unedited film.

There's no guarantees on how this case will eventually develop, but at least there's now a firm crack in the dam that held all the sewage in. Let's hope France2 and all its propagandist affiliates are finally shown for what they really are: despicable criminals, aiding and abetting propaganda that has cost the lives of thousands of innocent people, just because they fabricate 'evidence' of events that never happened.

I really wonder whether if France2 gets convicted it will be sued for supporting or even instigating terrorism. Based on what political correctness has got away with so far, I fear the answer to this one will be negative.

Please take some time to read the full article on Jihad Watch.

The Demonizing Far-Left

2007-09-05T19:00:00.000+02:00

On August 25, 2007, Dutch MSM newspaper NRC Handelsblad, calling itself the Whetstone for the Mind, nicknamed (by others) NSB Handelsblatt, has published a condemning article on 'far-right websites'. The article headed Rise and Fall of Right-Extremist sites. Coupled to the article, under the heading of Right extremist sites on the internet, investigating far-right opinions on the internet was a very amateuristic PDF, listing the sites deemed to belong to the (extremist) right. Some entries on the list were not even websites, but article headings, like Moord op Theo van Gogh. Among the sites listed were two other sites I publish on, Vrijspreker, a libertarian site, and Het Vrije Volk, a freedom of speech site.

Obviously, the blog community exploded. Het Vrije Volk filed a complaint with the Journalist Council, and Vrijspreker sent an email-complaint to the editors of NRC. Vrijspreker received a return-email of the piece's writer, Joep Dohmen, who very patronizingly responded to explain why NRC was a good, objective and trustworthy newspaper and all those rightwing blogs were unreliable. With NRC, one could hold the editor accountable, NRC had nothing to hide. In the meantime, the editors had silently changed the PDF heading into Overview of freespeaking, right and right-extremist websites. Hmm... nothing to hide? Dohmen claimed many, many sites had been inventoried, not only right-wing, but the list contained no recognized left sites at all. I use the word recognised here as there were some neo-nazi sites on the list, but neo-nazis are not right, they're left, as I explained in a recent article.

Vrijspreker responded again, and placed the mail-exchange online. Next thing was an outraged protest by Joep Dohmen that his email had been personal and confidential, that Vrijspreker did not have the right to publish it, and that it should be removed from the article. Vrijspreker obliged by replacing the email-text in the article with a condemning response to the demand, and publishing a new article drawing attention to it. One of the commenters then placed Joep's removed email back on-line, after another site had plucked it from Googles cache.Then Joep demanded that his photo be removed, threatening with 'taking steps'. Yeah, accountable, nothing to hide, objective, threatening...

In the mean time, the PDF had been removed from the site, but Dutch blog Geen Stijl had a mirror. All 'corrections' and the removal of the PDF were done silently, without any attempt at rectification. It would seem that the old media had not realised how difficult it is to get something, once publiced, off the internet. Typical MSM attitude.

Because of Joep's demand to have his photograph removed, site owner Hub Jongen sent him an open letter, again published on the site, informing him that the photograph could be found in various places using Google Image search, and that no copyright information had been attached to the image. He then proceeded to publish the picture again, this time with a bar across the eyes, like in a wanted-shot.

Another Dutch MSM newspaper, Algemeen Dagblad, now also received a 'private and confidential mail' from Mr. Dohmen, who is really getting desparate. The mail is not to be published, by any means. In it, he claims again that a journalist makes himself vulnerable and should be held accountable, among other things. It seems good old Joep is prepared to go to great lengths to keep his scheming out of the public eye. Well, too late, mate.

The net result is that numerous sites have addressed the issue, and that both NRC and Mr. Dohmen have been exposed (again) for what they really are: exponents of the Politically Correct, (far-)left MSM, attempting to demonise anything and anyone that utters non-PC opinions. NRC played an important role in demonising Pim Fortuyn, which ended in Mr. Fortuyn being murdered on May 6, 2002 by a left extremist. It would seem Mr. Dohmen's lying in the mud on the left side of the road. From that position, any traffic passing is automatically on the right, or even far-right, should it stick to its proper lane.

Dutch 'Democracy'

2007-09-05T16:13:00.000+02:00

After having toured the country for 100 days, ~~spending~~ wasting over € 3 million in the process, and after having been on ~~holiday~~ recess for another 100 days, the Dutch Governement finally published what they had learned during those first 100 days: more taxes. Labour (PvdA) is back in government, and the robbery of the working class is restarted at full power. The criminal organisation known as 'Balkenende IV' is increasing VAT by 1% (up from 19% to 20%) and duties on fuel and alcohol, as well as the spending on (Islamic) colonists (no, they're not immigrants, immigrants adapt), development aid and other 'good causes' around the world. But it takes away € 600 million from our own care for the elderly and handicapped, "because there is no money" to pay for it. But government has given itself a 20%, soon 30%, payraise, per annum, and the civil servants a raise of 13% over 4 years. No such thing for the private workers, that pay for these wages by way of increased extortion by the taxman.

Public psychological care is granted to muslims when they go on their extended holidays to their home countries. They can have these extended holidays as they live on welfare anyway and have been relieved of their duty to try and aquire a job. But they have all sorts of mental illnesses, so the mental aid workers travel with them to Morocco in order to be able to assist them where and when required. All paid for by the ~~government~~ taxpayer, but not voluntarily. But native elderly and handicapped? No sir.

Private housing corporations wer 'requested' to fund Ellen Vogelaars 'prachtwijken' plan, and when they refused, finance minister Bos just made a law that enables him to loot € 3 billion of private money from these corporations. This will severly hamper those corporation's own maintenance and renewal plans, but who cares. Based on the socialist adagium that the strongest shoulders must bear the cost for the 'poor' corporations in the whole country are now forced, at gunpoint, to pay for the atrocities caused by the Dutch immigration policies, that have changed prosperous neighborhoods into slumps and ghettos. The money spent on these neighborhoods is wasted completely, as it's the people that cause their neighborhoods to decline.

Do I still need to explain that government is a synonym for 'criminal organisation'? Somebody will have to stop these looters, before The Netherlands ceases to exist. The best way to do that is to have the coalition fall apart and have new elections. The Socialist Party is being ripped appart by internal scandals, the ~~labour~~ muslim party PvdA is dropping in the polls (to 20 seats), and the Freedom Party PVV of Geert Wilders is rising (to 19). However, PVV is still subjected to a cordon sanitaire so the race is not run yet. But our current course is headed straight for the cliffs, the place lemmings like to jump off into oblivion.

The Evil Jimmy Carter

2007-09-05T15:44:00.000+02:00

Recently, I reported on the Mohamed Al Durah hoax and the role France 2, a French state television network, played in it. I also mentioned briefly how France was instrumental in helping Iran to be born by harbouring Ayatollah Khomeini.

But Iran was also very much helped by Jimmy Carter, who even back in 1976 already proved to be a real Dhimmycrat. Carter, who in 1977 spent Christmas with the Shah of Persia, worked between 1975 and 1978 fiercely to destabilize the Shah's position, by launching a 'human rights' campaign, aimed at the release of "political prisoners", among which radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Carter was in no small way supported by the British government. The Shah never stood a chance. Read the detailed article on American Thinker.

It would seem that Carter can be held at least partly responsible for today's Islamisation and the war on terror. Nevertheless, he keeps defending terrorist activities. In January 2007, his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid caused 14 members of his own Carter Center staff to resign. The amount of fiction was so overwhelming that even his own cronies could no longer stand it. And there's much, much more. Little Green Footballs has a wealth of articles on this evil character.

But he'll probably never be held accountable for his actions, and for the hundreds of thousands he helped killing.

A New Dreyfus Affair

2007-09-03T20:27:00.000+02:00

Many of you may remember how France played an important role in the creation of the totalitarian Islamic state of Iran by harbouring the Ayatollah Khomeini until such time he could safely go back in order to terrorise the Iranian people.

Less common knowledge is a more recent affair, the 'killing' of a Palestinian boy by 'Israeli fire' that was filmed and aired in 2000 by France 2, a french state television network (and many other networks around the globe), and has been used as propaganda by Islamist terrorists many times. The whole thing was staged, a hoax, set up by Talal Abu Rahmeh, a stringer working for France 2 and CNN. Recently, Joanna Chandler published an article on the hoax on FrontPage Magazine.

Please take some time to read the article and watch the video's. It is essential that more people become aware of the methods 'Palestinians' use, aided and abetted by the western state television networks of the west.

The History of Political Correctness

2007-09-03T20:16:00.000+02:00

For anyone wondering how it came about that Political Correctness came to bloom on both sides of the ocean, and why it seems to be aimed at the destruction of western society, this video may be a very informative one. For anyone who can spare 22:24 and is interested in backgrounds on today's dhimmytude, this video is a must see. You will at once understand why most, if not all left politicians embrace Islam, as it is the ultimate means to their end. A transcript of a speech by Bill Lind on the subject was also brought to my attention. It's well worth reading.

Dutch Pendulum Swings to the Right

2007-09-03T19:20:00.000+02:00

Being cramped for time, it's been a while since my last post. Inventorising things and translating it into some form of proper English is a time consuming effort, and I need to work to pay for a living.

Today, Mr. Paul Belien conveniently obliged me by publishing an article on developments in The Netherlands. Although the pendulum is still left of center, it's moving in the right direction.

Please read Mr. Belien's article on Brussels Journal.

I have to make one remark on the story: Mr. Belien steps into the common trap of denominating Neo-Nazis to be far right. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neo-Nazis belong to the far left, as Nazis were left. Hitler was left, and his propaganda minister Goebbels has stated that openly: “Der Idee der NSDAP entsprechend sind wir deutsche Linke. Nichts ist uns verhaßter als der rechtsstehende deutsche Bürgerblock.” (According to the idea of the NSDAP we are German left. There's nothing we hate more then the German citizen's block that stands to the right). See this German language forum.

Also on Brussels Journal, you can also find multiple articles by Mr. Belien, also in English, on the banned SIOE march in Brussels on September 11, as well as a lot of background on the collapse of Belgium, the dreamed model for the European Union, commonly known as Eurabia.

The articles on Belgium are easily recognised by a The Belgian Crisis button, while the demonstration articles have a Brüssel poster.

Dutch Corruption

2007-08-04T12:20:00.000+02:00

Remember Dutch Development Minister Bert Koenders (PvdA), who along with his German counterpart brought the Ad Melkert (PvdA) concocted Shaha Riza affair to the Worldbank’s attention, initiating the ousting on false grounds by fellow Dutch politician Herman Wijffels (CDA) of Paul Wolfowitz? Well, if anyone needed any more proof that Wolfowitz had to go for no other reason than his program to reduce corruption by insisting on ROI results rather than just pissing away large quantities of taxpayer's money to unknown and unverified destinations, here it is.

The Netherlands is spending more money on development than any other country in the world: 0.82% of GNP, amounting to € 4.3 billion, annually. At the same time, trade between Third World countries and The Netherlands is not florishing; due to European trade barriers aimed to protect EU farmers, third world countries cannot sell any farming products to the EU. This is in line with the policies designed to keep the poor poor, as thousands of jobs in 'development' will go once the poor get richer.

Where all the money ends up is unclear, like with the money spent by the Worldbank. Over the period 1993 - 2006, € 5.7 billion is still unaccounted for by what's now Koenders' department. Nobody knows where it went. Oh well, it's just taxpayer's money, so why would the state care? Once you run out, you just raise the taxes, right?

Recently Minister Koenders organised a single day festival in The Netherlands to get attention from businesses and corporations for the UN Millenniumtargets, which (among other things) aim to reduce world hunger and halve the amount of people that have to live on less than 1$ US a day. Koenders is setting the example by offering € 50 million of taxpayer's money for this. The event featured a number of artists, including Marco Borsato, who offered their services pro bono. Nevertheless, the single day event, which attracted all of 5,000 people, cost the taxpayer € 1 million, of which € 750K went to the organisers of the event, a bureau called BKB.

If in the EU the state wants to have something built or organised, and the amount of money involved is over € 137K, this has to be put out for public tender throughout the EU. For this event, Koenders ignored this (mandatory) regulation and simply gave the event to BKB. The catch here is that BKB is not just an event organiser. The name BKB is based on the names of its owners: Booij, Klusman and Van Bruggen. In the 90s of the previous century, Booij and Van Bruggen were the leaders of a PvdA youth project called 'Niet Nix'. They were also, with party support, candidate for a duo-partyleadership of the PvdA which didn't make it, and they were involved in the PvdA election campaigns of 1998, 2003 and 2006. Immediately after they started BKB, they were often contracted by the government, not only from PvdA led departments, but still.

Nobody really knows why the event was necessary, and why it had to be organised in an area that's pretty limited due to all sorts of environmental restrictions, which drives cost up as a rule. Critics agree that it was a useless event, at the wrong time, and the wrong place: "PvdA Minister Bert Koenders purposely broke the law for a completely unnecessary event", writes weekly magazine Elsevier. From the outside, it appears as if the event was dreamt up to generate money for BKB.

Dutch SP MP Harry van Bommel said that "BKB appears to be the commercial faction of the PvdA", but Koenders claimed he was in a hurry (why?) and thus resorted to the 'trusted bureau' of his party-friends. Koenders' Ministry refuses all comments. Not only could the deal with BKB have been € 200K less expensive ("We just would have had a stage less", Van Bruggen said), other agencies would have liked to have been given the opportunity to organise things for even less. Koenders now says he was pressed for time and made a mistake.

But that's a lie. Dutch leftist newspaper De Volkskrant, which is normally very supportive of the PvdA had an article that clearly shows it was not a mistake, but an intentional favor to his old time friends: Koenders was livid. According to him this deal should never have become public knowledge. He concluded that he could not even trust government officials close to him. "Who did this to me" he demanded angrily, when questions were asked in Parliament on the matter by coalition partner CDA's Kathleen Ferrier.
Towards fellow PvdA partymembers he said that this was a deliberate action by the CDA aimed at discrediting him. As if anyone needed to. It's unbelievable that a government Minister, who should be beyond suspicion, involves himself in corruption and then should complain he cannot trust others. He is the untrustworthy person here, and should be fired without compensation immediately. But that won't happen. He'll be given another chance and be more careful about it. After all, his own party deemed this to be a "beginner's mistake". And given the amount of corruption inside the PvdA this most likely addresses not the corrupt behaviour, but the fact that he got caught.

Development does not have its own department, but 'lives' inside the Foreign department, headed by CDA's Maxime Verhagen. There has always been animosity between Development and Foreign Affairs, and current relationships are pretty bad. As over the past few months Koenders has constantly been seeking publicity, even in area's that do not belong to his responibility, the current commotion about his position is not unwelcome to the CDA. But even inside the PvdA Koenders has no support for his actions. He has been criticised for his nonchalant attitude when answering the questions in parliament, and 'his credibility has been severely hampered'. Gosh, after the Wolfowitz affair, I wasn't aware Koenders had any credibility left.

The € 50 million Koenders promised for the UN Millennium targets will benefit yet another set of friends of his, the Evert Vermeer Stichting (EVS), where he used to be a comittee member in the early 1990's.

While Koenders is not alone as a rule-dodger, he's the only one that obviously favored a befriended bureau. Dutch Minister of Youth and Family André Rouvoet, from Christian party CU, also made hole-and-corner arrangements (€ 280K). Ella Vogelaar, our official Muslim appeaser, arranged for a bustour worth € 595K ignoring the rules. Vogelaar claims the tour actually consisted 40 tours of € 15K each, which were thus exempt from the rule, even though the deal was with a single agency. How can you have a single day, national bustour for € 15K? People can fly to Ibiza for an 8 day holiday for under € 750, all inclusive. To get to € 15K, you'd need to pay for 20 people's holidays, have some change left, and still the organiser would make a profit. Oh well, it's only taxpayer's money.

In total, € 43.3 million was spent (on unnecessary events) by the government through hole-and-corner deals on this year's 100 days 'reconaissance trips', the only purpose of which was an attempt to hide the fact that the coalition didn't have a clue on what to do. Only difference was they talked with the usual supects on various places in the country, rather than in their offices in The Hague. Once the '100 days' were over, holiday recess started, giving them another 100 days of inactivity and not having to take responsibility.

The only thing the Dutch government has done since they came to power in November 2006 is force the General Pardon, revert the deportation of criminals back to their home countries, waste € 43.3 million on useless activities and promising to waste a lot more, reopen the borders to Christian Reverends (the excuse) and Islamic Imams (the reason) and surrender to the European Union's totalitarian power play. The lemmings are certainly heading for the cliffs.

HitlerJugend, all over again...

2007-07-30T22:40:00.000+02:00

The Dutch Government is on track for creating the HitlerJugend all over again, by introducing a new program for youth care, called Electronisch Kind Dossier (EKD), or Electronic Child Dossier, starting from birth. Looking at the plan, a better name would be Einheits Kinder Dienst, or Unified Child Service, as the project aims to monitor and signal all medical and other development of children. Investigators will judge how much of a burdon kids are for parents, and whether or not parents are deemed capable of raising their kids.

This means that goverment officials will get unlimited access to all medical details of all children between 0 and 19 years of age, no more medical privacy. If you happen not to be deemed capable of raising your kids, you will be forced to accept 'help' from youth care 'professionals', which get a golden opportunity for indoctrination from birth, instead of having to wait until children start visiting school. And as it's government who will decide whether or not you're capable, dissidents and members of the Freedom Of Speech and Individual Rights movements will have to fear that their children will be taken away from them, as they will never be raised to be good and obedient socialists. It's a collectivists wet dream, HitlerJugend all over again (Einheit der Jugend in der HitlerJugend means Unity of youth in the HitlerYouth). Boys from Brasil rings a bell as well.

Let's look at what the project's intentions are:

Monitoring and Signaling
This item I covered briefly above

Assess the needs for support
Here we're getting on dangerous grounds already. Given the not-so-good reputation of youth care in NL, who's competent to be the judge of that? We've had numerous cases in the recent past where kids were killed or damaged for life by incompetent parents, that had been guided by youth care for months or even years. So why should we trust their judgement? They're good at criticism of others, but once they're exposed they refuse all responsibility. So who will decide when and what support wil be needed? Not the parents, apparently.

Screening and vaccination
Early detection and prevention of specific medical abberations and the offering of vaccination. This is more or less standard practice already; it's not clear whether vaccination will become mandatory.

Provide information, advice, training and guidance
Both parents and youngsters will be able to obtain guidance and advice, individually or in groups. But it looks like the 'guidance' will be offered, not sought, on the basis of the monitoring's findings. So people that feel they do not need guidance may well be forced into it, because they will be deemed unfit to judge.

Affect external factors that influence health
Environmental factors that may influence a child's health will be evaluated and acted upon. So we may expect even more lunacy on fine dust, power lines, GSM antennae, traffic exhaust fumes, until the entire economy grinds to a halt. And then some.

We may expect that norms will be lowered even further, still more limiting laws will be instilled, until it is virtually impossible to obey them. Already in 1957, Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

It's a totalitarian statist's wet dream: a full electronic file on every citizen, from the cradle to the grave. Combined with the intended Pay-per-Drive system, which allows for monitoring al that citizens movements whether by car or train, it will provide for perfect scapegoats for crimes whose real perpetrators should not be caught. Total control, you can't even fart without the state knowing all about it. Knowledge is power. But I'm sidetracking here.

This extensive medical file will later on become part of the Electronic patient file, which covers all medical details of an adult. It's a great idea: all information an a person, centrally stored, countrywide available at tyhe push of a button. It cannot get lost, it can be searched, and correlations can be made that will help improve the quality of (youth) health care dramatically. Sounds good, but we know from experience that information like this can, and thus will, be used for purposes that are now claimed not to be the intention. Where it will lead is already visible in the UK: fingerprints, schoolresults, diets and even whether or not parents are a proper rollmodel will be to the file, starting from 2010. And there it is: rollmodel. The creation of unified children, obedient slaves to their government, working for the needs of others without ever complaining. HitlerJugend. It won't succeed, but it'll make life hell for those who are subjected to it.

Privacy is void, autonomy is shot, freedom is out of the window. The information will be readily available for future politicians with even less moral ideas and slavery will be the net result. And it will cost a fortune and probably never work. A fortune as government historically has no control over budgets, initial estimate is 72 million euro, but a 150 million has already been rumored. Never work as historically governments are notorious for failed projects, certainly on this sort of scale. But it'll cost the taxpayer a lot of money, money that could have been used to spend time with the family and drive the economy.