Verdonk not elected as VVD party leader

This news is just out.

Mrs. "hardline" Verdonk (Dutch) was not elected to party leader of the Liberal Conservative VVD. Instead Marc Rutte, the candidate put forward by the VVD hierarchy has been elected by the VVD membership.

This is in my opinion a positive development. Mrs. Verdonk does not have the necessary quality to operate on party leadership level.

Dutch Internal Secret Service breaks trust

The journalists who were intimidated by the Dutch Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD) recently published their findings on the leaks at the same AIVD.

Joost de Haas en Bart Mos, the reporters, published a groundbreaking article last Saturday in the "De Telegraaf" newspaper on the lax security culture of the Dutch Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD).

A former Secret Agents, a mr. Paul H., revealed that operatives of the AIVD were free to copy and take home copies of secret and confidential documents. There was no system or practice in place to registrater copies.

This practice included operations reports mentioning the names of informers, as was declared by Paul H. to the State Investigative Police ("Rijksrecherche"). This same State Investigative Police interrogation report was again leaked to the "De Telegraaf" journalists!! "De Telegraaf" has been able to peruse the full transcripts of the police interrogation.

Paul H. has been arrested the beginning of May on suspicion of betraying State Secrets on criminal boss, killer and arms trader Mink Kok.

According to Paul H. it became practice to copy secret and sensitive documents after mr. Sybrand van Hulst took charge at the Internal Intelligence Service. This was in 1997.

Remarkably Sybrand van Hulst is leaving the Internal Intelligence Service and is being replaced by Gerard Bouman, the head of the The Hague Police Department.

This means that the Internal Intelligence Service, which is the main tool of surveillance on the Mujahid is seriously hampered in its ability to gather information from human sources on the Islamic Fighters in The Netherlands. Informants must wonder if they will not end as Jules J., the informer who was killed after a security leak in 2003.

Jules Jie

Dutch newspaper editors want to meet Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD) about wiretaps

This blog reported earlier about the investigation of the office of the Public Prosecutor against two Dutch journalists who uncovered a leak in the Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD).

The subject of the case is a Dutch Gun and Drugs Merchant: Mink Kok. The Internal Intelligence Service regards Mink Kok the most dangerous criminal in the Netherlands, due to his corrupt contacts in the investigative branch of the police and the same AIVD. Kok spends 2 million Euros per year on bribing officials. He has been doing that for 15 years. One of the corrupt officials was Paul H. Paul H. was a secret agent for the AIVD from 1980 and 2001. He was arrested on may the 4th. Paul H. had been sending letters with sensitive information to Mink Kok for years, detailing to Mink Kok any progress the police and secret service might have made in gathering information on Mink's activities and organisation.

Mink Kok is now serving time for the 1993 murder (Dutch) on big time pot dealer Jaap van der Heijden. Mink appears to be still in charge of his organisation. Mink Kok and his organisation continued to receive information from their informants within the Dutch security apparatus while the leader was in jail.

The journalists, Bart Mos and Joost de Haas, found (Dutch) out from their own sources in the police, that information from the Ministry of Justice and the AIVD against Mink Kok's organisation was passed on to Mink.

In a baffling twist the police arrested the two journalists and detained them, forcing them to give a DNA sample to the public prosecutor and demanding they rat on their sources. Bart Mos and Joost de Haas have refused.

Even more baffling is the revelation that the Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD) has been wiretapping the journalists for months in order to get hold of their sources.

Today several Dutch newspaper editors have requested talks with the Internal Intelligence Service (AIVD), stated chief editor Arend Joustra of Elsevier.

Mr. Joustra stated the public interest demands that the public is informed by independent journalists. The wiretapping of investigative journalists compromises the sources of said journalists, as informants will not come forward if they fear journalists may - unwittingly - be ears for police and the Internal Security Services. Moreover wistleblowing on corruption and collaboration between personnel of Security Services, the Judiciary and the Police is very difficult under such circumstances.

According to a recently published report criminal networks are becoming increasingly powerful in Amsterdam and other mayor Dutch cities. The have a strongly corrupting influence on police and other government and municipal services.

The Guild of Main Editors and the Dutch Society for Journalists have a meeting scheduled with the leadership of the Office of the Prosecution on June the 15th. This is a regular meeting which will be used to raise the issue of AIVD interference with investigative journalism.

The people are irrelevant

Ben Bot the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs ignores the will of the people. More than a 100.000 Dutchmen (Dutch) participated in an opinion poll about the inclusion of new states into the European Union (EU).

A large majority of 67 percent is hostile to inclusion of Turkey into the EU. Only 22 percent of the population supports Turkey's inclusion. Minister Ben Bot said that the public is okay with allowing Turkey into the EU, as long as the conditions are clear. But in the same poll a majority of Dutchmen also rejected Turkey if it meets the inclusion criteria.

This is the standard reaction from the elites to popular hostility towards EU projects. Ignore it. The EU project goes on, regardless of the opinions of the population. The elite is on a collission course with its own population.

Hirsi has to go, Verdonk nose dives

Dutch Minister Verdonk of Immigration Monday sent Hirsi Ali a letter declaring her Dutch citizenship null and void. This was within 24 hours of questions being raised in Parliament about the lies Hirsi Ali told to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service concerning her supposed life in Somalia before 1992. Television program "Zembla" raised the issue about her story she told about being a refugee from Somalia, which was a war thorn country at the time while she had grown up in peaceful Kenya. She also gave a false name.

Hirsi Ali has an offer from the American Enterprise Institute to join their Washington thinktank. Without Dutch citizenship she will have to travel to the US as a refugee, with a refugee pass.

The letter of Verdonk had a crushing effect on Hirsi Ali:
The letter was the last straw that led Hirsi Ali to resign with immediate effect from parliament on Tuesday and formally announce she is moving to the Washington to work for a neo-conservative think tank.

Initially Hirsi was working for the Wiarda Beckman Foundation, the research institute of the Labour Party. When the Labour Party did not allow her to critizise Islam she moved to the Liberal - Conservative VVD. The VVD gave her a freer hand to critizise Islam's patriarchal and aggressive nature. Ayaan Hirsi Ali attacked the constitutional Freedom of Education (article 23) because it gave Dutch Muslims the right to create Islamic schools and shielding young Muslims from Western ideas. However the members of the old guard of the VVD tried to dissuade Hirsi of attacking Dutch Freedom of Education. When Hirsi carried on her attack she lost support of the party as both the old guard and the rank and file supporters of the VVD regard Freedom of Education sacrosanct.

Foreign media generally overlook the attachment of the Dutch Right wing to Freedom of Education. One often sees Dutchmen writing on forums like elsevier.nl and telegraaf.nl that multiculturalism is a failure and that they do not want to sacrifice their children to state education and intergrated Multiracial schools.

Hardline Minister Verdonk lost a lot of support due to her weak defense of the attack on the legal status of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

But it has done her more harm than good. Opinion polls conducted among VVD members shows support for former front-runner Verdonk has nosedived. And VVD MPs have made it clear they no longer see Verdonk as their future leader.

Yesterday night the Amsterdam stand-up comedians were ridiculing Verdonk and Hirsi Ali. Dutch politics is still unstable and volatile as a result of mass immigration in the 90ies and the attempt to force Multiculturalism on the population.

The Dutch love their freedom. They resisted the attempt by the Multiculturalists to take away their freedom in the Fortuyn revolt of 2002 and they resist the efforts of foreigners who try to make a Multiracial society work by enforced ethnic and ideological intergration ("Gleichschaltung") of the school system. However the problems remain unfixed.

A new development is that now the whole legitimacy of asylum is being eroded in the eyes of the population. Pundits are pointing out that a large percentage of asylum seekers lied to get entry to the Netherlands just as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and are really just economic migrants.

The saga continues.

The Iron Wall

Ethnocentrist: The question is, do we still have time to correct this, or is the damage already done and the momentum too strong to fix the continent?

Fjordman:
I hope we still have time to reverse this, otherwise the West will truly be finished this time.

Snouck:

from the Zionist classics, there is a nice piece on this. By right-winger Zeev Jabotinsky, the forerunner of Menachem Begin.

It is called: the Iron Wall

Harsh and depressing? Perhaps. Read it. Read for "Arabs": "Europeans". Read for the "Jews": "Muslim immigrants".

And mark the phrase "some kind of unfounded view of this race of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network."

Europeans and Americans are supposed to be bribed to accept the ethnic and cultural transformation of their nation through the supposed economic benefits of immigration. That is an insanity. What is even more insane is the hysteric enforcement of this policy by the "intellectual terrorists" that run education and media.

Formulate your own conclusions to what should happen to these traitors.

"Contrary to the excellent rule of getting to the point immediately, I must begin this article with a personal introduction. The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples – polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.

After this introduction I can now get to the point. That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save them from such dismay. Apart from those who have been virtually “blind” since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to “Palestine” becoming a country with a Jewish majority.

Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those “great explorers,” the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.

Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.

Some of us imagined that a misunderstanding had occurred, that because the Arabs did not understand our intentions, they opposed us, but, if we were to make clear to them how modest and limited our aspirations are, they would then stretch out their arms in peace. This too is a fallacy that has been proved so time and again. I need recall only one incident. Three years ago, during a visit here, Sokolow delivered a great speech about this very “misunderstanding,” employing trenchant language to prove how grossly mistaken the Arabs were in supposing that we intended to take away their property or expel them from the country, or to suppress them. This was definitely not so. Nor did we even want a Jewish state. All we wanted was a regime representative of the League of Nations. A reply to this speech was published in the Arab paper Al Carmel in an article whose content I give here from memory, but I am sure it is a faithful account.

Our Zionist grandees are unnecessarily perturbed, its author wrote. There is no misunderstanding. What Sokolow claims on behalf of Zionism is true. But the Arabs already know this. Obviously, Zionists today cannot dream of expelling or suppressing the Arabs, or even of setting up a Jewish state. Clearly, in this period they are interested in only one thing – that the Arabs not interfere with Jewish immigration. Further, the Zionists have pledged to control immigration in accordance with the country's absorptive economic capacity. But the Arabs have no illusions, since no other conditions permit the possibility of immigration.

The editor of the paper is even willing to believe that the absorptive capacity of Eretz Israel is very great, and that it is possible to settle many Jews without affecting one Arab. “Just that is what the Zionists want, and what the Arabs do not want. In this way the Jews will, little by little, become a majority and, ipso facto, a Jewish state will be formed and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on the goodwill of the Jews. But was it not the Jews themselves who told us how ‘ pleasant’ being a minority was? No misunderstanding exists. Zionists desire one thing – freedom of immigration – and it is Jewish immigration that we do not want.”

The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.

A plan that seems to attract many Zionists goes like this: If it is impossible to get an endorsement of Zionism by Palestine's Arabs, then it must be obtained from the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps of Egypt. Even if this were possible, it would not change the basic situation. It would not change the attitude of the Arabs in the Land of Israel towards us. Seventy years ago, the unification of Italy was achieved, with the retention by Austria of Trent and Trieste. However, the inhabitants of those towns not only refused to accept the situation, but they struggled against Austria with redoubled vigor. If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.

But an agreement with Arabs outside the Land of Israel is also a delusion. For nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus to agree to such an expensive contribution (agreeing to forego preservation of the Arab character of a country located in the center of their future “federation”) we would have to offer them something just as valuable. We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.

Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.

All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.

Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.

I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now."

The historic core of The Netherlands and other European countries is ethnically White and culturally Christian. If you want to call me a Nazi for stating so go ahead.

It is so. And the more divergence is allowed from this core by mass immigration, the more horrible and cruel the correction will be.

Not because I want it to be so, but because that is how it is when populations compete (that is what Fjordman implies when he is talking about "reversing") over the same natural and cultural resources.

Hirsi Ali controversy breaking out

The lies Hirsi Ali (Dutch) told to get into The Netherlands are coming out in the open.

Somali-born Hirsi Ali lied when she was 22 in order to get asylum in the Netherlands and improve her life.

News programme Zembla reported on 11 May that Hirsi Ali hid her actual name, Hirsi Magan, and her age when she sought asylum here in 1992. Immigration officials might otherwise have established she was under the care of the UNHCR in Kenya.
She was granted asylum here in a record five weeks. How come?

She told a heart-rending story about having to flee Somalia to escape an arranged marriage, went to a refugee camp in Kenya, and from there got to the Netherlands. Once here, she faced the constant fear of retribution from her angry family.

The right story for an asylum seeker. And she has made good in the intervening years. A member of parliament for the VVD, she has not flinched from her criticism of aspects of Islam and Muslim immigration despite numerous death threats.
Hirsi Ali was living in Kenya for over 10 years before coming here and didn't experience five civil wars in Somalia as prominent VVD member and current EU commissioner Nelie Kroes claimed in 2002.

Hirsi Ali said, and the VVD confirms, she told them back then she had lied to the immigration service. Why then did the VVD present Hirsi Ali as a person who survived the turmoil in Somalia?

And if Hirsi Ali was so afraid of retribution from her family why did she contact a Dutch-based family member on arrival. Why did she appear in a documentary made by the Dutch Muslim broadcaster within a year? Why did she maintain contact with her father? And why did members of her family tell Zembla that Hirsi Ali was present and happy at her wedding when she maintained she was neither.

Let us not be fooled here. It was well known that Hirsi Ali lied to get into The Netherlands. It is well known that 90 percent of Asylum seekers are well-off persons from the third world using the Asylum laws to get into The Netherlands over the back of the local population.

Hirsi Ali is a member of a well-off Somali family that is using the hospitality of The Netherlands to go on her personal Jihad against Islamic theocracy. That is a nice goal, but it would be better if she would be doing that from her own country, using her own family and tribe's resources, instead of using us and ours.

Cover Up?

Two investigative journalists of "De Telegraaf" have been arrested for harming State Secrets by the office of the public prosecutor in Breda, The Netherlands.

The journalists (Dutch), Bart Mos and Joost de Haas have published part (Dutch) of an Dutch Internal Security and Intelligence Service (AIVD) report. The report concerned the activities of a major Dutch mafioso and criminal, mr. Mink K. The report had been leaked to criminals by high placed officials of the Ministry of Justice.

This same Ministry of Justice has now arrested the two Dutch journalists and has been putting pressure on them, taking DNA-material from them and interrogating them for hours, yesterday (Tuesday).

The incident has the appearance of a cover-up of corruption at high level in the Dutch Judiciary. There are persistent reports of infiltration by criminal networks of the Dutch police and judiciary in the past 15 years.

(This news has been out since this morning and only De Telegraaf, Elsevier and De Gelderlander have carried it, as far as I can tell).

The Church speaks out. In Australia

Cardinal George Pell has written a thoughtful piece on the confrontation between immigrant Islam and secular Australia. He enumerates the usual problematic nature of Islam, its offensive, universalist notions, its connection between violence and spirituality, its emphasis on procreation and its ability to sustain high birth rates in connection to the low Western birth rates. A most salient paragraph in my opinion is:

"These two examples show that there is a whole range of factors, some of them susceptible to influence or a change in direction, affecting the prospects for a successful Islamic engagement with democracy. Peace with respect for human rights are the most desirable end point, but the development of democracy will not necessarily achieve this or sustain it. This is an important question for the West as well as for the Muslim world. Adherence to what George Weigel has called “a thin, indeed anorexic, idea of procedural democracy”[21] can be fatal here. It is not enough to assume that giving people the vote will automatically favour moderation, in the short term at least[22]. Moderation and democracy have been regular partners in Western history, but have not entered permanent and exclusive matrimony and there is little reason for this to be better in the Muslim world, as the election results in Iran last June and the elections in Palestine in January reminded us."

"Belief in a thin, [...] procedural democracy". The idea that society, organised human life can be reduced to a simple procedure, a ritual, is one of the biggest threats of the West to itself.

There were the usual nauseating cries from the Left demanding that the Cardinal be punished for speaking out, because naturally the Left knows better and everybody disagreeing with them is an idiot who has to be silenced.

Such a nice thing that Truth has been contracted out to the Left. Saves everyone a lot of thinking for themselves.