Rights vs. Privileges

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

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

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

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."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Reproduced with permission from the Ayn Rand Institute - Dutch Concerns

More Pat Condell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

Site unblocked

Today, DutchConcerns has been unblocked again after having been blocked for some time by Blogger on allegations that it might be a spamblog. This is the mail I received today:

Hello,

Your blog has been reviewed, verified, and cleared for regular use so that it will no longer appear as potential spam. If you sign out of Blogger and sign back in again, you should be able to post as normal. Thanks for your patience, and we apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Over at Gates of Vienna, Anon suggested my blocking may have been related to my linking to Foehammer's Anvil:

my suspicion is that the person who previously tangled with Foehammer's Anvil is now picking off people who frequent Foehammer's site. R. Hartman and Lady Predator are two of Foehammer's readers who have blogs with Blogger. Lady Predator's blog was recently blocked, too. According to her, someone with a verizon.net account visited her blog 10 to 20 times a day for a few days, each time for only a few seconds (just enough time to press the "FLAG BLOG" switch)

Let's just hope the free speech blogs will not continue to be terrorized this way, should this suspicion be on the money. If I remember correctly, GoV also got blocked after Baron Bodissey reported on Foehammer's Digg ban...

More Dhimmytude...

The Dutch newspaper NRC.next published more dhimmytude today, in response to the commotion caused by Minister Ellen Vogelaar's interview in Trouw, which got some attention earlier on this blog. The opening lines tell a story in themselves:

"In the US, Muslims are Americans, just like the rest. Minister Vogelaar's attempt to reduce the fear for Islam recently caused angry reactions. Why is it that Muslim immigration in the US progresses so much smoother?"

The article continues by relating to a Muslim basketball event in Sterling, VA, held in the local mosque. For an hour, players yell instructions at each other in both English and Arabic. There's a lot of physical contact, all part of the game. Sajjad Ahmad, a 27 year old financial advisor who started the initiative, explains that "it's a way of showing young Muslims how to integrate in American society without giving up Islam".

According to the article, Muslims in America are much more integrated than in Europe. Americans feel that Europe is handling the immigrationproblem unwisely. Daniel Benjamin (former aide to Pres. Clinton) stated that the EU keeps immigrants too much outside of society. Well, I've got news for him: immigrants keep themselves out of society. They refuse to integrate. They chase people from their old neighbourhoods and create no-go areas for the natives. And all the while government pampers them with free money, housing and every right to make their backward sharia demands. According to Benjamin it's our fault that Muslim youth don't finish their schools. Well, he could have a point there: if you shower them with free taxpayer's money, why would they ever want to go work for a living? But I'm sure that's not what he meant.

"Americans take in new immigrant groups much easier. The fact that after 9/11 there were no successful terrorist attacks in the US, while Europe suffered losses in Madrid, London and Amsterdam (Theo van Gogh) proves this" (emphasis added). Ehh.., how exactly does that prove anything?

"America has a big heart towards other religions. Not one nation-wide paper published the Danish Cartoons, as it was felt that Muslim feelings would be hurt." How's that for dhimmytude? According to the article, a survey by Minnesota U. last year confirmed that distrust towards Muslims has increased since 9/11. But it also states that "when you ask an American whether they would have their child marry an atheist rather than a Muslim, the vast majority of the respondents will choose the Muslim". I rather doubt that, unless the survey was held among the American Muslims from the second paragraph of this post.

The article rampages on, also mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali. According to ex CIA analyst Marc Sagerman, she has her facts wrong. He says she cannot prove her statement that Islam itself feeds terrorism. Typical dhimmytude: a Western bureaucrat claims to be more informed than a woman, who was victim of Islam herself, fought herself free, analyzed Islam thoroughly and has a strong and valid view on the subject. Apart from that, Sagerman is simply proven wrong by 14 centuries of Islamic savagery.

Apart from anything else, a Pew Research Center Study showed that Muslims in America are only about 1% of total poulation, while this is over 5% in The Netherlands. And they have a much harder time entering America than the Netherlands: they have to cross an ocean and have an education, among other things. They are excluded from public welfare (for the first 5 years if I'm correct), while in Europe they just have to cross open borders and get welfare, housing and medical attention starting from day one.

"Only 5% of American Muslims support Al Qaeda; in Europe this percentage is much higher" (emphasis added), according to Luis Lugo, a Pew director. I think it's fair to say we get more of the backward inbreds, compared to America, and over 5 times as many, relatively speaking.

This article, intended to support Vogelaar's statements, clearly shows the leftist guilt cult that has taken over Europe and The Netherlands. It's our fault Muslims won't behave. We don't treat them well enough. Well, most Muslim crimes are tolerated, as they are induced by their religion, and critics will get labeled fascist, racist, Islamofobic, xenofobic and a number of other terms I'd never heard of about two years ago. But the lemmings are clearly heading for the cliffs.

By the way: the same article mentions a visit to Barak Obama's Islamic haidresser. Barak, of Islamic descent, frequents an Islamic hairdresser. Whether this has any bearings on his intentions after he gets elected (hope not) cannot be said, but I'd be careful. After all, given the article's info, only 1% of American hairdressers should be Islamic. Maybe it's 'just' political correctness, maybe not...

Gates of Vienna is back!

Blogger has unblocked GoV again. So it probably was an automated glitch. Let's at least hope so and think positive about it.

Gates of Vienna blocked by Blogger

Here's a message GoV's Baron Bodissey left in the comments to his latest post on GoV:

------------------------------------------------
I just attempted to post at Gates of Vienna, and was told by an automatic message that our blog is suspected of being a spam blog, and has been blocked by Blogger.

The full text of the message:

“This blog has been locked by Blogger's spam-prevention robots. You will not be able to publish your posts, but you will be able to save them as drafts.”

And here’s what Blogger says about what we are suspected of:

“What Are Spam Blogs?

“As with many powerful tools, blogging services can be both used and abused. The ease of creating and updating webpages with Blogger has made it particularly prone to a form of behavior known as link spamming. Blogs engaged in this behavior are called spam blogs, and can be recognized by their irrelevant, repetitive, or nonsensical text, along with a large number of links, usually all pointing to a single site.”

I followed Blogger’s instructions, typed in the visible letters to prove that I was not a bot, and am now awaiting a response from the Powers That Be.

In the meantime, I can’t even post a notice at Gates of Vienna bout what is going on.

If you don’t think Gates of Vienna is a spam blog (and assuming that your blog has not also been blocked by Blogger), please post a notice about what has happened. If you know of a way to contact Blogger or Google, please let them know that Gates of Vienna is *not* a spam blog, regardless of how politically incorrect it is.

That’s: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

Thank you.
7/17/2007 9:46 PM
-------------------------------------------------------

GoV is not a spam blog, but its messages may be not exactly the kind that the Special Envoy on Racism and Xenophobia of the Useless Nations might want to read. Let's hope that it's a genuine mistake, caused by all trackbacks to and from GoV, and that there's not a more sinister reason. Given earlier information, obtained from (a.o.) FoeHammer's Anvil, I'm not too sure.