Yesterday our Interior Minister, Ter Horst, who got promoted to that position after as a mayor being fined for DUI and then pressuring the police commissioner to keep that a secret (and therefore nicknamed 'thirsty') , decreed that each department wil have to employ six immigrants a year in high positions, replacing native staff. Whether she specifically means muslims is not clear, but I do get the impression, as she defends the idea by stating that "otherwise 'the people' will no longer recognize their government".
Which is BS of course. 'The people' never ever get to see these civil servants anyway, and for 'the people' to recognize their government it would be much better if the political diversity of the civil servants would reflect that of the population. Especially since all the stifling rules are designed by these servants, that long ago forgot that they are supposed to be just that: servants.
Getting more immigrants into top positions will only move these departments even more to the left, as virtually all immigrants vote left, as that's where their wellfare is being guaranteed... A boozed up idea? Possibly, but more like just the sort of evil we have been getting used to expecting from these socialists. She was mayor of Nijmegen, a.k.a. Havanna aan de Waal because of its leftyness.
Her plea does unintentionally prove one thing, though: a government position is not about qualifications or ability. Knowing the right people is enough to ensure a well paid position where you can do a lot of damage out of sheer incompetence. You only have to be a woman, or an immigrant, or whatever species happens to be considered to be 'left behind' today and thus elegible for 'positive discrimination'. Abilities are totally unimportant, it's all being paid for by the taxpayer anyway. But it remains discrimination, effected by the one body that never ever should discriminate, if only because that body holds both the power and the violence monopoly. Americans have the Second Amendment for this, but other nations do not; certainly not European nations.
On a side note: Jill Biden said as much to the American people when she revealed that Joe was given the choice between VP and foreign minister. Two different jobs, requiring different qualifications. Does not matter at all. A loyal slave gets its reward.
It seems that The Netherlands' going downhill speeds up day by day, but maybe that's to be expected. As I put on top of this blog: the average lifetime of a democracy is around 200 years, so the Dutch one should be about to die...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Death of Freedom of Speech
Today is a black day for the Netherlands. A judge (?) ordered that Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) politician Geert Wilders must be prosecuted for his criticism of islam. Note that the ruling (again, like all other criticism of Wilders) mixes muslims and islam, where Wilders always has maintained a clear division between the two. A deliberate falsification. This marks the end of Free Speech in the Netherlands.
From the PVV website:
The real goal here is to remove the only non-Cultural Marxist party from the political stage. As with Pim Fortuyn earlier, they are well aware that they cannot reach that objective democratically; too many people are getting fed up with the fascist bunch of islamists that's currently in power. They cannot repeat the trick they did on Fortuyn, so they had to think of something else. And they found it: bankruptcy.
Whether or not the state can win this case is irrelevant; the state finances itself with money extorted from its workers, called taxmoney. Wilders has to pay for his defences himself. The state has bottomless pockets, Wilders does not. Wilders party is the only party that does not accept state-subsidizing, but is financed by private gifts. Once Wilders is bankrupt, his party will be gone: objective achieved. Even if the state would lose, and have to pay damages to Wilders, he'd have to start from scratch again.
The man's already under permanent surveillance because of threats on his life, and now he's being financially challenged as well. And the state can repeat this trick as often as it likes: there's no hope of winning.
As Vlaams Belang's Filip Dewinter stated: "This is an attempted murder on the PVV."
It's just a different tactic to what was chosen for Pim Fortuyn.
From the PVV website:
Personally, I think it's not so much about whether Wilders can be convicted of hate speech; there are Dutch politicians, like Socialist Party's can't-keep-my-hands-to-myself-with-women Harry van Bommel, who openly called for an intifada by Hamas last week, which really is calling for violence, but these have nothing to fear, they do not even have to leave parliament.The Freedom Party (PVV) is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.
Geert Wilders: “Apparently this is The Netherlands today. If you speak out you might be prosecuted. To participate in public debate has become a dangerous activity.”
“If I have to appear in court, not only I will be prosecuted, but also hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who reject the Islamisation of the West. In Dutch Parliament only the Party for Freedom is willing to speak up for the preservation of our culture and our many freedoms.”
The Freedom Party leader now faces legal proceedings that will probably take years to conclude and will also involve enormous legal fees.
“We depend on small donations. The Freedom Party is the only party in Parliament that does not accept any government funding. This court decision jeopardizes the very existence of the Freedom Party. We simply cannot afford the enormous legal expenses.”
“This is a black day for freedom.”
The real goal here is to remove the only non-Cultural Marxist party from the political stage. As with Pim Fortuyn earlier, they are well aware that they cannot reach that objective democratically; too many people are getting fed up with the fascist bunch of islamists that's currently in power. They cannot repeat the trick they did on Fortuyn, so they had to think of something else. And they found it: bankruptcy.
Whether or not the state can win this case is irrelevant; the state finances itself with money extorted from its workers, called taxmoney. Wilders has to pay for his defences himself. The state has bottomless pockets, Wilders does not. Wilders party is the only party that does not accept state-subsidizing, but is financed by private gifts. Once Wilders is bankrupt, his party will be gone: objective achieved. Even if the state would lose, and have to pay damages to Wilders, he'd have to start from scratch again.
The man's already under permanent surveillance because of threats on his life, and now he's being financially challenged as well. And the state can repeat this trick as often as it likes: there's no hope of winning.
As Vlaams Belang's Filip Dewinter stated: "This is an attempted murder on the PVV."
It's just a different tactic to what was chosen for Pim Fortuyn.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
A peaceful 2009?
There seems to be little chance of that. At least not according to Hamas member of Parliament Fatih Hammad on Al Aqsa TV, who more than clearly demonstrates why the Religion of Peace is in fact the Religion of Death. Food for thought, for all those who claim Israel to be the culprit in the current fights in Gaza.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Happy Christmas
To all visitors of this blog, believers and non-believers alike:
A very Happy Christmas with Pat Condell's latest: Water of Life.
Enjoy!
A very Happy Christmas with Pat Condell's latest: Water of Life.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Fascism is back!
While the left in The Netherlands still rise to any opportunity to express their abhorrence of their companions Mussolini and Hitler, the fascists of the 1940's, their fascism has returned full force to Dutch PM Balkenende's regime. Jan Peter Balkenende's government, already having exposed itself as a traitor to the country and the citizens of The Netherlands by ignoring the people's NO in the 2005 referendum on the European Constitution and its rewrite, the Lisbon Treaty, handing over The Netherlands' sovereignty to Das Vierte Reich, is now dictating what business owners can and cannot do with their own property.
The first step onto this particular path of fascism was taken when the Dutch government forced owners of bars and restaurants to make high investments in air cleaners for their establishments to diminish the effects smoking had on the atmosphere. Reasoning behind this was 'public health', which of course has nothing to do with it. It's up to the establishment's owner whether or not he want to present his personnel and clients with clean air or a blue haze one can cut and fold.
If personnel doesn't like it, it goes to work elsewhere; if clients don't like it, they stay away and the establishment goes bust. Simple as that. The free market will decide what the client likes and thus what businesses will florish and what not.
Allowing private ownership but not the freedom to use that ownership to the owner's advantage is the defintion of (state) fascism. Combined with nationalism, one gets National Socialism, which the left claims to be far right, but which of course is as left as it can get. But hey, the best lies are the ones repeated most often, Goebbels already knew that.
Fascism means one has to pay the cost of property but cannot reap the benefits. When the Dutch government ordered a full smoking ban for restaurants and bars in The Netherlands last July, it took another step onto the path of fascism. Bar and restaurant owners no longer had the freedom to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment as they saw fit.
Now many establishment owners are facing nearing bankruptcy due to this ban, more and more are ignoring the law and allowing clients to smoke again, much to the chagrin of the non-smoking lobby and, surprise, the Association of Bar and Restaurant owners. While one would expect this Association to stand up and fight the government to get the ban lifted, it actually whines that it's not fair that bar owners get fined for breaking the law. Because, they claim, a bar owner is not a policeman, and it's the clients that break the law, not the bar owner. Thus, the client should get fined!
They do have a point, of course, a bar owner is no more a policemen than any other entrepeneur is a tax collector, but still each one of those has to collect, administer and hand over VAT on his activities for/to the national tax extortionists. But the conclusion is invalid. There is no market for non-smoking bars, otherwise they would've been in existence for a long time already. Restaurants already had voluntarily split their space in smoking and non-smoking sections, as second hand smoke is much more of a burden while eating a meal than while chatting and drinking.
Today's practice is that smokers that still visit their bar go outside to have their smoke, and now the anti-smoke lobby wants a ban on smoking in open air, as well as on smoking inside one's car. But as people do not like to have their butt frozen off just for having a smoke, they tend to stay home more as the temperatures drop and the rain pours. Because of this, bars now openly advertise that they will allow smoking.
But that was miscalculating the Dutch government's hunger for power abuse. The state has the monopoly on both power and force, and if it makes a law it will damn well see to it it gets obeyed. So it will start a strict regime on upholding the ban, as bar owners that allow smoking falsificate competition, which is an economical crime, and thus can lead to loss of the business permit, and thus closing of one's livelyhood.
Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged undoubtedly recognise the rant Dr. Ferris presented to Hank Rearden, where Ferris states that governments are after power, and there's no power to be had in obedient citizens. So in order to create criminals, a government will create laws that cannot be obeyed, and then it will excert its power. Written in 1957, Atlas Shrugged frighteningly accurate describes the machinations of today's governments, from nationalisation of banks to taking away all personal freedom from those who create wealth, in order to favour the needy, the greedy, the parasites, of which politicians (and monarchs) are of course a prime example. The more people get dependent on government, the bigger it gets, and the more power it yields.
Before July 1st, a bar owner that conducted his business as he saw fit was a hard working citizen, making his living in a fully legal fashion. Now, without changing anything in the way he conducts his activities, he has become a hunted criminal, only because the state changed the rules, interfering in matters that are way beyond the scope of the state's primary but negated duty: protecting individual rights.
The Dutch are ruled by criminals.
The first step onto this particular path of fascism was taken when the Dutch government forced owners of bars and restaurants to make high investments in air cleaners for their establishments to diminish the effects smoking had on the atmosphere. Reasoning behind this was 'public health', which of course has nothing to do with it. It's up to the establishment's owner whether or not he want to present his personnel and clients with clean air or a blue haze one can cut and fold.
If personnel doesn't like it, it goes to work elsewhere; if clients don't like it, they stay away and the establishment goes bust. Simple as that. The free market will decide what the client likes and thus what businesses will florish and what not.
Allowing private ownership but not the freedom to use that ownership to the owner's advantage is the defintion of (state) fascism. Combined with nationalism, one gets National Socialism, which the left claims to be far right, but which of course is as left as it can get. But hey, the best lies are the ones repeated most often, Goebbels already knew that.
Fascism means one has to pay the cost of property but cannot reap the benefits. When the Dutch government ordered a full smoking ban for restaurants and bars in The Netherlands last July, it took another step onto the path of fascism. Bar and restaurant owners no longer had the freedom to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment as they saw fit.
Now many establishment owners are facing nearing bankruptcy due to this ban, more and more are ignoring the law and allowing clients to smoke again, much to the chagrin of the non-smoking lobby and, surprise, the Association of Bar and Restaurant owners. While one would expect this Association to stand up and fight the government to get the ban lifted, it actually whines that it's not fair that bar owners get fined for breaking the law. Because, they claim, a bar owner is not a policeman, and it's the clients that break the law, not the bar owner. Thus, the client should get fined!
They do have a point, of course, a bar owner is no more a policemen than any other entrepeneur is a tax collector, but still each one of those has to collect, administer and hand over VAT on his activities for/to the national tax extortionists. But the conclusion is invalid. There is no market for non-smoking bars, otherwise they would've been in existence for a long time already. Restaurants already had voluntarily split their space in smoking and non-smoking sections, as second hand smoke is much more of a burden while eating a meal than while chatting and drinking.
Today's practice is that smokers that still visit their bar go outside to have their smoke, and now the anti-smoke lobby wants a ban on smoking in open air, as well as on smoking inside one's car. But as people do not like to have their butt frozen off just for having a smoke, they tend to stay home more as the temperatures drop and the rain pours. Because of this, bars now openly advertise that they will allow smoking.
But that was miscalculating the Dutch government's hunger for power abuse. The state has the monopoly on both power and force, and if it makes a law it will damn well see to it it gets obeyed. So it will start a strict regime on upholding the ban, as bar owners that allow smoking falsificate competition, which is an economical crime, and thus can lead to loss of the business permit, and thus closing of one's livelyhood.
Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged undoubtedly recognise the rant Dr. Ferris presented to Hank Rearden, where Ferris states that governments are after power, and there's no power to be had in obedient citizens. So in order to create criminals, a government will create laws that cannot be obeyed, and then it will excert its power. Written in 1957, Atlas Shrugged frighteningly accurate describes the machinations of today's governments, from nationalisation of banks to taking away all personal freedom from those who create wealth, in order to favour the needy, the greedy, the parasites, of which politicians (and monarchs) are of course a prime example. The more people get dependent on government, the bigger it gets, and the more power it yields.
Before July 1st, a bar owner that conducted his business as he saw fit was a hard working citizen, making his living in a fully legal fashion. Now, without changing anything in the way he conducts his activities, he has become a hunted criminal, only because the state changed the rules, interfering in matters that are way beyond the scope of the state's primary but negated duty: protecting individual rights.
The Dutch are ruled by criminals.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Left's Wet Dream
A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.
Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.
Calls to Somali government officials and the local administration in Kismayo rang unanswered Saturday.
Can anybody with even a basic sense of morality understand why the 'leaders' of the western world spend so much time and (tax payer's) money on promoting the 'values' of the Religion of Peace?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Financial Crisis
"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
—Ayn Rand, 1975
Need I say more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
