The Netherlands are a member of the European Union which is becoming increasingly totalitarian. Democracy leads to socialism and socialism leads to a totalitarian state. The average lifetime of a democracy is roughly 200 years. The Dutch democracy has reached that age...
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Totalitarian Failure called European Union
Despite having had imposed the maximum fine for 'undesired' behaviour, Nigel Farage continues to point out the fact that the EU President, a position that according to demissionary MP Peter Balkenende did not exist and hence there was no constitutional nature in the Lisbon TreasonTreaty so the 2005's referendum's NO could be overruled, is an appointed position, not an elected one. Herman van Rompuy was selected, not elected, by other unelected officials, removing the vox populi from the political process in the EU. The peoples of Europe have no means to remove this man from office, as he, and most of his accomplices, are not accountable to anyone.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Harare on the river Maas (updated)
(The city formerly known as Rotterdam)
Local elections were held in The Netherlands on March 3, and who has been watching them would not have believed these were elections in a European country. Where European states send observers to countries like Zimbabwe in order to ensure no irregularities take place it has become time for coutries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela to return the favor.
Labour politicians issued campaign posters in Turkish, Moroccan and Arabic, as otherwise the uneducated, unassimilated, analphabetic immigrants would not be able to understand where to get their free lunch. "You cannot exclude these people from the democratic process" is their legitimation. In my view, someone who doesn't understand the slightest about his guest country should not be allowed to influence that countries politics by being granted the privilege to vote. But then again, how else is labour to stay in power?
Local elections were held in The Netherlands on March 3, and who has been watching them would not have believed these were elections in a European country. Where European states send observers to countries like Zimbabwe in order to ensure no irregularities take place it has become time for coutries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela to return the favor.
Labour politicians issued campaign posters in Turkish, Moroccan and Arabic, as otherwise the uneducated, unassimilated, analphabetic immigrants would not be able to understand where to get their free lunch. "You cannot exclude these people from the democratic process" is their legitimation. In my view, someone who doesn't understand the slightest about his guest country should not be allowed to influence that countries politics by being granted the privilege to vote. But then again, how else is labour to stay in power?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Free Speech in the EU is very expensive...
Nigel Farage, the outspoken UKIP member in the European Parliament, has been fined for exercising his right to free speech and telling an inconvenient truth in that Parliament. Here the 'offense':
And here's the result:
Free Speech is very expensive in the EU these days.
While I did not think the ad-hominem bit very strong, I can understand where it came from, and it shows that even Nigel is getting fed up with the totalitarian bunch that runs the EU. In a way, as he stated, he's only returning the favor. Anyway, he's corrected that now, by apologizing to bank employees, who might indeed rightfully be offended. But remember: being offended is a choice!
And here's the result:
Free Speech is very expensive in the EU these days.
While I did not think the ad-hominem bit very strong, I can understand where it came from, and it shows that even Nigel is getting fed up with the totalitarian bunch that runs the EU. In a way, as he stated, he's only returning the favor. Anyway, he's corrected that now, by apologizing to bank employees, who might indeed rightfully be offended. But remember: being offended is a choice!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Crooked Judges of Amsterdam
Or: How the Truth Became Illegal. Well, it's been that for a while, but never as openly as in the case against Geert Wilders, who is facing prosecution for stating the truth. Mark Steyn had something to say about that, and so does Pat Condell, who should be taking care of his health. Michael Badnarik already suffered a heart attack, in his quest for the Constitution, which is bad enough, so we don need Mr. Condell following his ways... Listen to Pat, and 'enjoy'. I'm fully aware it's not the right term, but boy, do we need a voice like his.
Labels:
Freedom of Speech,
government,
Islam,
Political Correctness
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Geert Wilders on Trial
Yesterday, the Kafkaesque Prozess against Geert Wilders started. Wilders took a few minutes to address the court. Please find below Geert's personal message (English subtitled).
Hattip: Vlad Tepes
Full translation:
Speaker, judges of the court,
I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.
Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.
I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.
I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.
Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.
Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:
It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.
In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.
This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiral, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.
Hattip: Vlad Tepes
Full translation:
Speaker, judges of the court,
I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.
Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.
I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.
I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.
Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.
Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:
It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.
In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.
This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiral, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism
"Multiculturalism is not about knowing anything about other cultures; it's just about feeling warm and fluffy about them."
Hat tip: Lagonda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)