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The PvdA (yes, them again) have always claimed to want a new referendum if the old one was deemed no longer valid, it was part of their 2006 election programme, it has been repeated over the past year and even their newly elected chairwoman has stated as recent as last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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
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.
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 thegovernment 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, thelabour 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.
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
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
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.
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.
Monday, September 3, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
