A member of the Jihadist Hofstadgroup, which murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, has been found dead in his home in Zierikzee. He was found dead with his mouth covered with foam and is suspected to be poisoned (Dutch).
The toxological laboratory in Rijswijk is conducting an investigation. The family of Rachid B. suspects poisoning too.
Rachid B., a.k.a. Abu Fadil helped Syrian Redouan al-Issa, the inspirator of the Hofstad terror cell to escape to the Brussels airport on november 2 2004. This is on the day that Van Gogh was killed by Mohammed Bouyeri, another member of the Hofstad cell.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Antifa
Hyphenated-Canadian:
"Your report is both interesting and disturbing. Does the average Dutch citizen care about this or is he passive? Is there any outrage in the Netherlands over the way Fortuyn's murder has been handled by the authorities? "
Snouck:
Not anymore. Immediately after the murder this was so. But right now there is little focus for a policy directed at the animal rights violent fringe in The Netherlands. On the other hand the cabinet has effected an anti-squatter law, in order to defend property rights of real estate owners.
Half a year ago there was a huge police action against "kraakpanden" or "squatter fortresses" in Amsterdam. Squatters from about 20-30 of these fortresses in the citywere evicted with some buildings having been occupied for decades.
The municipal authorities in cities with many squatter "fortresses" are trying to get the law scrapped and mounting a press campaign. Obviously they are collaborating with the squatter movement.
The Fortuynist movement was funded by real estate developers with a grudge against the violent extreme left squatter movement which conspire with bureaucrats and municipal politicians. There is a lot of overlap between the violent animal's rights movement and the the squatter movement. But the squatter movement is weakening and the animal's rights movement seems more lively, from what I can see.
Pim's Ghost:
"I can only wonder why Pim did not hire his own security, why would he have not taken this step? "
Snouck:
The Netherlands has for a long time been very peaceful, so people's minds are not open to such measures. There had been measures discussed with Fortuyn when he was with Livable Netherlands and often there were 2-4 bodyguards from a firm called HSC (I think) to protect Fortuyn from attacks. Also there was his chauffeur, Mr. Smolders who actually ran after and overtook Volkert after the assassination. Fortuyn also had no helpful attitude to be protected. He refused 24 by 7 protection.
The protection from the government that Fortuyn asked for was in my interpretation a call against the hate campaign the politicians of the cartel undertook during the elections, especially the dangerous and silly comparisons to the Second World War that people often use when they run out of real arguments.
Also Fortuyn had studied the campaigns of the governments sponsered extreme left (squatters) against anti - immigration parties in the 80ies, which culminated in the attack on a hotel in Kedichem in 1986. During this action squatters attacked a hotel that was hosting a conference of mr. Janmaat. Janmaat is probably the Dutch Haider, the leader of the CD (Centre Democrats). The hotel was burned down in broad daylight. The secretary of Janmaat, a mrs. Schuurmans, actually lost her leg which had to be amputated, when she jumped from a window on the second story of the hotel.
The government subsidized and cuddled the squatters and the "Antifa". The attackers of the hotel were never apprehended or imprisoned for their violence. There are still attacks on right-wing groups, by violent Leftists.
Winston Churchill said after the Second World War:
Future Fascists will call themselves anti-fascists.......
"Your report is both interesting and disturbing. Does the average Dutch citizen care about this or is he passive? Is there any outrage in the Netherlands over the way Fortuyn's murder has been handled by the authorities? "
Snouck:
Not anymore. Immediately after the murder this was so. But right now there is little focus for a policy directed at the animal rights violent fringe in The Netherlands. On the other hand the cabinet has effected an anti-squatter law, in order to defend property rights of real estate owners.
Half a year ago there was a huge police action against "kraakpanden" or "squatter fortresses" in Amsterdam. Squatters from about 20-30 of these fortresses in the citywere evicted with some buildings having been occupied for decades.
The municipal authorities in cities with many squatter "fortresses" are trying to get the law scrapped and mounting a press campaign. Obviously they are collaborating with the squatter movement.
The Fortuynist movement was funded by real estate developers with a grudge against the violent extreme left squatter movement which conspire with bureaucrats and municipal politicians. There is a lot of overlap between the violent animal's rights movement and the the squatter movement. But the squatter movement is weakening and the animal's rights movement seems more lively, from what I can see.
Pim's Ghost:
"I can only wonder why Pim did not hire his own security, why would he have not taken this step? "
Snouck:
The Netherlands has for a long time been very peaceful, so people's minds are not open to such measures. There had been measures discussed with Fortuyn when he was with Livable Netherlands and often there were 2-4 bodyguards from a firm called HSC (I think) to protect Fortuyn from attacks. Also there was his chauffeur, Mr. Smolders who actually ran after and overtook Volkert after the assassination. Fortuyn also had no helpful attitude to be protected. He refused 24 by 7 protection.
The protection from the government that Fortuyn asked for was in my interpretation a call against the hate campaign the politicians of the cartel undertook during the elections, especially the dangerous and silly comparisons to the Second World War that people often use when they run out of real arguments.
Also Fortuyn had studied the campaigns of the governments sponsered extreme left (squatters) against anti - immigration parties in the 80ies, which culminated in the attack on a hotel in Kedichem in 1986. During this action squatters attacked a hotel that was hosting a conference of mr. Janmaat. Janmaat is probably the Dutch Haider, the leader of the CD (Centre Democrats). The hotel was burned down in broad daylight. The secretary of Janmaat, a mrs. Schuurmans, actually lost her leg which had to be amputated, when she jumped from a window on the second story of the hotel.
The government subsidized and cuddled the squatters and the "Antifa". The attackers of the hotel were never apprehended or imprisoned for their violence. There are still attacks on right-wing groups, by violent Leftists.
Winston Churchill said after the Second World War:
Future Fascists will call themselves anti-fascists.......
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Dutch police finds murderous connections to Fortuyn's assassin
Volkert van der Graaf, ideological killer
Dutch daily "De Telegraaf" published exerpts of a confidential police investigation report (Dutch), in which clues are put together adding up to a picture of Volkert van der Graaf's extra-legal activities as a animal rights activist. The report is remarkable because it is one of the very few police reports into the violent animal rights activists in The Netherlands. This report was composed by the Investigative Branch of the National Police (Nationale Recherche, Korps Landelijke Politie Diensten).
Volkert is the assassin of populist Fortuyn. He shot Fortuyn on 6 May 2002, at 18:00 hours in Hilversum, The Netherlands. Hilversum is a town near Amsterdam where most of the media have their national offices and their studios.
Not the first assasination
There have been suspicions that it is not the first killing Volkert carried out for a long time.
Chris van der Werken, a civil servant responsible for environmental policy in the North Veluwe, an agricultural part of the country, where both Volkert and van der Werken used to live and work. Volkert as an animal's rights and environmental activist subsidized by quasi-governmental organisations ("Postcodeloterij" and "Actie Kinderpostzegels").
Chris van der Werken was shot in the back when he was taking a stroll in a forest in 1996.
Volkert and Chris van der Werken had a conflict about a plan both their organisations were collaborating on. A plan to reduce the ammonia emissions of pig breeders. This was in 1995 and 1996. Chris van der Werken was a moderate.
The animal rights network, an infrastructure of the left
A bit of background: Volkert was working for the Environmental Offensive Foundation or VMO ("Vereniging Milieu Offensief"), a foundation he had founded himself and of which he was a administrator and paid employee. The organisation was funded by subsidies, alotted by sympathetic politicians. The organisation was a part of administrative bodies and councils that deal with environmental policy. A lot of his work consisted of lobbying provincial and municipal polities, in addition to starting up environmental complaint procedures against farmers who wanted to change or enlarge their operations.
Those were his legal activities. Volkert was also a member of a group called the "Furious Potatoes" (De Ziedende Bintjes). This is a group that carries out illigal violent actions against fur breeders, companies that carry out animal tests and firms that operate in a way that is environmentally unsound. These groups are connected to the extreme leftwing squatter movement. Their activities are again often subsidised directly and indirectly by sympathetic politicians. Politicians hinder and disband police units investigating violent activities of animal rights and environmental activists. The activists are known to terrorize police investigators and their families. Biologist Margreet Jonker, a researcher into cancer treatment using test animals, was one of the few who dared to come forward to testify about the violence and threats against her and her family, by these governments sponsored left wing terrorists. Dutch judges are full of sympathy towards the terrorists and let them off with minumum sentences.
The new facts in the police secret file
The Investigative Branch (Nationale Recherche) report mentions:
1. a "Farmer B." who told police that Chris van der Werken had come to his farm in a state of shock because Volkert had threatened to kill him. This was a few weeks before he was killed.
2. witnesses who were walking nearby the liquidation on country estate "Welna" saw a red Opel Kadett, the car Volkert used at the time.
3. Both Fortuyn and Van der Werken were bravely shot in the upper back by multiple shots.
4. The landlord of Volkert of the house where Volkert was living at the time of the murder of the civil servant has declared that he entered the house unannounced during the tenancy of Volkert van der Graaf and found a pistol on the attic were Volkert slept. He identified the pistol as a Walter PPK.
5. Volkert has no alibi for the time of the murder of civil servant Chris van der Werken.
6. A friend of Volkert spoke with Volkert about obtaining a pistol, to commit suicide. Volkert had said that he knew how and with whom to procure pistols.
7. Both murders involved the use of ammunition that does heavy damage to the human body. Both used heavy automatic pistols (in van der Werken's case a Walter PPK and on Fortuyn a Star 9mm) and rapid fire hitting with all bullets fired. Achieving rapid aimed fire takes practise.
International co-operation hardening the Dutch scene
The Dutch animal rights and environmental activists have a working co-operation with like minded extremist British organisations as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), a violent British organisation.
Again support in high places
One of the most shocking attacks is the abduction of Ferry de Vries, a fur trader. He was bound and gagged and beaten up by 10 masked animal activists. Later during the court case against the abductors the judge shows all kinds of sympathy for the abductors who go off scot free, no jail time, just corvee, maximum 200 hours. A symbolic punishment. The activists got all kinds of possibility to propagandize during the court hearings and even to show a propaganda film about fur breeding.
Volkert van der Graaf is an example of the way these organisations operate. They create legal entities. They do not fund raise or appeal for money from the public, but are funded by chums in the governments, provincial and municipal administrations and bureaucracies. Their activities are encouraged by mainstream environmental organisations as Lekker Dier and Greenpeace. They gather information (maps, registers, notes of meetings) using their legal fronts and use the information for attacks by the underground organisations, such as SHAC and the "Furious Potatoes/De Ziedende Bintjes").
In case of investigations by police they use their contacts in the Leftist parties Greens, Socialist Party and Labour to disband the Investigative Teams. In case of prosecution due to theft, destruction of property and accounting ledgers of firms the judges show their sympathy and give the activists very light sentences.
And so the violent environmentalists scene grew throughout the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies. A hairtrigger gun, just lie-ing about.
The aftermath of Fortuyn's murder
Let us now go to Fortuyn's murder. During the 2002 election campaign Fortuyn challenged the establishment political cartel. He received broad political support for the party he had joined, Livable Netherlands. Three months before the elections the establishment manage to have Fortuyn thrown off the Livable Netherlands party list. The challenge to the cartel has been fended off.
Pushed by Van Gogh Fortuyn starts a new political party. Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF). Soon he is again dominating the polls. Support levels are as high as 20-30 percent of the electorate again. Due to the fact that The Netherlands does not have a two party system, this translate in real political power. Municipal elections show a landslide in Rotterdam, home turf of the Left since 1945.
The establishment panics. Especially the Left because their organisations are so dependent on subsidies. Subsidies that Fortuyn says he will end.
A killer from the animal rights organisations network kills Fortuyn. Co-incidentially there is a car nearby with policemen with bulletproof vests and guns. They arrest Volkert within 10 minutes.
But they do not go to his house, to search for clues and a wider involvement.
Cover-up
A politician of the Greens in a nearby town of Wageningen, a hotbed of Green and animal rights activism, an acquaintance of Volkert hears the news that Fortuyn has been assasinated. His name is Jack Bogers and he is a Green Aelderman. He makes a phonecall within minutes after the assasination to a friend of Volkert, Sjoerd van der Wouw, working for the same organisation as Volkert. Sjoerd van der Wouw enters the house of Volkert and erases the hard disk of Volkert's computer.
Obviously Sjoerd and Jack suspect or know that Volkert is the killer of Fortuyn. At the time the identity of the killer is not known and there is widespread speculation that it is a Muslim.
Only the next day the police search the house. They still found some clues, amongst other things plans and blueprints of buildings and premises of targeted firms.
It looks as if Volkert was a tool for other people who knew what he was up to and what he was capable of and did not want him stopped. Fortuyn was threatened and had asked the Ministry of the Interior for protection against assasination. This protection was denied by the Minister himself, Labour politician Klaas de Vries. Fortuyn had also said on TV that if he would be shot the blood would be on the hands of the politicians denying him protection.
In conclusion: Klaas de Vries was in charge of the police, which had the arrest team ready to apprehend Volkert as he killed Fortuyn, but which did not search Volkert's house until at least some of the evidence had dissappeared.
And Sjoerd and Jack, the Green aiders of Volkert were never prosecuted.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
A strengthening Anti-American coalition
The response to the terror attack on New York in 2001 was the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries were not able to resist the US military superiority and succumbed to occupation.
Both however are massive liabilities to the US, eating away resources.
The ruling elites of Non-Western nations looked on in initial alarm at the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Their fear was for their own hides in case the US might try something similar with their own nations, removing the elites from power and bringing Iraq-style disorder to their nations.
Already before the war in the Middle East there was concern in China and Russia about US-hegemonism. In order to strengthen themselves these nations, which are growing in economic and societal power and centeredness started to improve their co-operation.
Initially the co-operation took the form of weapons sales by the cash-starved Russians to the Chinese, plus the transfer of military technology to the Chinese military. Later the co-operation was solidified in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a formal alliance with a permanent secretariat and staff, based in the capital of China. Kazakhastan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan also became members of the alliance.
Important goals of the alliance is furthering trade between the member states and the fight against terrorism against the member states. China is a dynamic economic and monetary powerhouse and an increasingly strong competitor of Western Nations. Russia is also becoming economically stronger, while it also has technological and military production strength. It furthermore has vast oil reserves, which are increasingly becoming scarce, hence the rising price of oil. The other nations in the alliance are also strong in oil and commodities, underwriting the economic expansion of the more prosperous members of SCO.
Recently Iran, India, Mongolia and Pakistan became members of SCO. This means that the alliance now borders on US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Four members of SCO have nuclear weapons (Russia, China, Pakistan and India). The alliance gives Iran enormous strategic depth.
The US is under pressure of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And under pressure of Sunni nationalist and Islamic groups of fighters. These groups are fighting in a highly dispersed pattern, in order to nullify the US lead in firepower.
The US forces fighting the Sunnis in and around Bagdad, the core of the Sunni demographic in Iraq are depending on a long supply line to the port city of Basra on the Persian Gulf. Astride the supply line lie the Shia villages, towns and cities. The Shias thus control US logistics. Weapons, food, spare parts, re-inforcements, fuel, medical evacuation can be turned of if the Shia Mullahs. The Shia Mullahs have been put in power by the US organised elections. And by the dismantling of the old Iraqi Army and the nationalist Baath party, which left religious and tribal groupings as the only forms of social and political organisation in Iraq.
Iran is also able to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world due to their ability to interdict shipping when it travels through the Hormus Straits, the bottleneck for transporting Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Iranian and most of Saudi Arabia's and Gulf State oil deliveries. Just threatening the flow of oil to Asia and the West would send the oil price sky high, slowing down investment in the US economy and hurting the US labour market, which is already under pressure from out of control Mexican immigration.
The US has a technological edge over Iran, militarily. It will be able to destroy Iranian air defense easily and defeat the Iranian Army in the field. However it will run in far greater trouble than it is currently in when it tries to occupy Iran's population centres and faces a new urban guerrilla from its 68 million population.
And then the Iranians will be able to pull the plug on the US Army in Iraq's logistics lifeline and deny the world economy of its oil in a market that has no swing capacity, as in 1973.
The threats that the US have uttered against Iran on Israel's behalf are essentially empty.
Both however are massive liabilities to the US, eating away resources.
The ruling elites of Non-Western nations looked on in initial alarm at the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Their fear was for their own hides in case the US might try something similar with their own nations, removing the elites from power and bringing Iraq-style disorder to their nations.
Already before the war in the Middle East there was concern in China and Russia about US-hegemonism. In order to strengthen themselves these nations, which are growing in economic and societal power and centeredness started to improve their co-operation.
Initially the co-operation took the form of weapons sales by the cash-starved Russians to the Chinese, plus the transfer of military technology to the Chinese military. Later the co-operation was solidified in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a formal alliance with a permanent secretariat and staff, based in the capital of China. Kazakhastan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan also became members of the alliance.
Important goals of the alliance is furthering trade between the member states and the fight against terrorism against the member states. China is a dynamic economic and monetary powerhouse and an increasingly strong competitor of Western Nations. Russia is also becoming economically stronger, while it also has technological and military production strength. It furthermore has vast oil reserves, which are increasingly becoming scarce, hence the rising price of oil. The other nations in the alliance are also strong in oil and commodities, underwriting the economic expansion of the more prosperous members of SCO.
Recently Iran, India, Mongolia and Pakistan became members of SCO. This means that the alliance now borders on US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Four members of SCO have nuclear weapons (Russia, China, Pakistan and India). The alliance gives Iran enormous strategic depth.
The US is under pressure of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And under pressure of Sunni nationalist and Islamic groups of fighters. These groups are fighting in a highly dispersed pattern, in order to nullify the US lead in firepower.
The US forces fighting the Sunnis in and around Bagdad, the core of the Sunni demographic in Iraq are depending on a long supply line to the port city of Basra on the Persian Gulf. Astride the supply line lie the Shia villages, towns and cities. The Shias thus control US logistics. Weapons, food, spare parts, re-inforcements, fuel, medical evacuation can be turned of if the Shia Mullahs. The Shia Mullahs have been put in power by the US organised elections. And by the dismantling of the old Iraqi Army and the nationalist Baath party, which left religious and tribal groupings as the only forms of social and political organisation in Iraq.
Iran is also able to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world due to their ability to interdict shipping when it travels through the Hormus Straits, the bottleneck for transporting Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Iranian and most of Saudi Arabia's and Gulf State oil deliveries. Just threatening the flow of oil to Asia and the West would send the oil price sky high, slowing down investment in the US economy and hurting the US labour market, which is already under pressure from out of control Mexican immigration.
The US has a technological edge over Iran, militarily. It will be able to destroy Iranian air defense easily and defeat the Iranian Army in the field. However it will run in far greater trouble than it is currently in when it tries to occupy Iran's population centres and faces a new urban guerrilla from its 68 million population.
And then the Iranians will be able to pull the plug on the US Army in Iraq's logistics lifeline and deny the world economy of its oil in a market that has no swing capacity, as in 1973.
The threats that the US have uttered against Iran on Israel's behalf are essentially empty.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Coalition Catfight
Okay. All you watchers of the news in The Netherlands must have noticed that the government has fallen.
So what happened?
1. Leftist Nova television program broadcast a special on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the religion basher from Somalia. Ayaan had been lying in order to obtain asylum status. Just as an estimated 95 percent of the asylum seekers. E.g. She had given a false name.
2. Iron Rita Verdonk revoked the citizenship of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In 24 hours. This implied that Dutch parliament had a non-dutch national in its midst, which made void all its deliberations in the past 3 years. Totally radical, dude!
3. The political class went ape. The "Left" demanded the resignation of Iron Rita and the "Right", the government, frantically tried to find a way to get out of crossfire.
4. The government consists of 3 parties. Liberal-Conservatives (VVD), Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Democrats '66 (D66). This last party is both left and right and is in fact the rudiments of a party based on a personality, who has left the national political scene due to age, drink and general fatness.
5. D66 just had seen a leadership battle between someone who won (otherwise unimportant so I won't distract you with his name) and Lousewies van der Laan, daughter of a Dutch career diplomat. Lousewies is a VERY ambitious member of the international political class. She lost the struggle for leadership of her party and was already making plans to go back to Brussels to interfere in peoples lifes from the lofty heights of the European Parliament. She was full of spite and the spirit of revenge. Hell hath no etcetera etcetera etcetera.
6. Verdonk had just lost the leadership battle of the Liberal-Conservative VVD against Mark Rutte. She was breathing fire. As usual, only more so.
7. The economy is picking up in a big way in The Netherlands after a very bad crash in 2000. This is good news for the rightwing coalition. They now would enter the time to harvest. They want to stay in power.
8. In order to cover her behind Verdonk demanded Aayaan to eat humble pie and sign a statement to the effect that Verdonk never did anything wrong when she declared Ayaan not a Dutch citizen. The statement said also that Ayaan had not lied about the name she gave to the Dutch authorities, as had been alleged, because according to Somali Family Code Ayaan was entitled to carry that name. That is so rich.
9. In order to keep the pasport, needed to keep her job at the AEI in Washington, Ayaan was happy to sign a statement that the moon consists of green cheese and 2 plus 2 equal 97. Hence: she signed. Ayaan is one of the few winners in this story.
10. Then there was a debate over Verdonk and the government cabinet had to defend Minister "Iron" Verdonk against a motion of distrust.
11. The PM defended Verdonk like a lion, all through the day and evening. He has a reputation for clumsiness and not being in charge. He was going to show them.
12. Then at 3 o'clock in the morning he slipped while being grilled by the Greens (Femke Halsema, Green Leader) and admitted that Ayaan's agreement (about the lies and the name and all) had been agreed to by the government, because Verdonk would not want to be humiliated too much. I wonder where our PM whose name I will not mention in order not to further confuse my foreign readership got his reputation.
13. The "Left". The Left consists of Labour, the ex-maoist Socialist Party and the Greens. Labour is doing well (nice leader), so is the Dutch version of the Shining Path (nice leader). But the Greens do not do too well, because their pretty leader Femke Halsema has sex appeal but no voting appeal, which just goes to show these two thing are not the same.
Femke "Halsje" Halsema
So what happened?
1. Leftist Nova television program broadcast a special on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the religion basher from Somalia. Ayaan had been lying in order to obtain asylum status. Just as an estimated 95 percent of the asylum seekers. E.g. She had given a false name.
2. Iron Rita Verdonk revoked the citizenship of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In 24 hours. This implied that Dutch parliament had a non-dutch national in its midst, which made void all its deliberations in the past 3 years. Totally radical, dude!
3. The political class went ape. The "Left" demanded the resignation of Iron Rita and the "Right", the government, frantically tried to find a way to get out of crossfire.
4. The government consists of 3 parties. Liberal-Conservatives (VVD), Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Democrats '66 (D66). This last party is both left and right and is in fact the rudiments of a party based on a personality, who has left the national political scene due to age, drink and general fatness.
5. D66 just had seen a leadership battle between someone who won (otherwise unimportant so I won't distract you with his name) and Lousewies van der Laan, daughter of a Dutch career diplomat. Lousewies is a VERY ambitious member of the international political class. She lost the struggle for leadership of her party and was already making plans to go back to Brussels to interfere in peoples lifes from the lofty heights of the European Parliament. She was full of spite and the spirit of revenge. Hell hath no etcetera etcetera etcetera.
6. Verdonk had just lost the leadership battle of the Liberal-Conservative VVD against Mark Rutte. She was breathing fire. As usual, only more so.
7. The economy is picking up in a big way in The Netherlands after a very bad crash in 2000. This is good news for the rightwing coalition. They now would enter the time to harvest. They want to stay in power.
8. In order to cover her behind Verdonk demanded Aayaan to eat humble pie and sign a statement to the effect that Verdonk never did anything wrong when she declared Ayaan not a Dutch citizen. The statement said also that Ayaan had not lied about the name she gave to the Dutch authorities, as had been alleged, because according to Somali Family Code Ayaan was entitled to carry that name. That is so rich.
9. In order to keep the pasport, needed to keep her job at the AEI in Washington, Ayaan was happy to sign a statement that the moon consists of green cheese and 2 plus 2 equal 97. Hence: she signed. Ayaan is one of the few winners in this story.
10. Then there was a debate over Verdonk and the government cabinet had to defend Minister "Iron" Verdonk against a motion of distrust.
11. The PM defended Verdonk like a lion, all through the day and evening. He has a reputation for clumsiness and not being in charge. He was going to show them.
12. Then at 3 o'clock in the morning he slipped while being grilled by the Greens (Femke Halsema, Green Leader) and admitted that Ayaan's agreement (about the lies and the name and all) had been agreed to by the government, because Verdonk would not want to be humiliated too much. I wonder where our PM whose name I will not mention in order not to further confuse my foreign readership got his reputation.
13. The "Left". The Left consists of Labour, the ex-maoist Socialist Party and the Greens. Labour is doing well (nice leader), so is the Dutch version of the Shining Path (nice leader). But the Greens do not do too well, because their pretty leader Femke Halsema has sex appeal but no voting appeal, which just goes to show these two thing are not the same.
Femke "Halsje" Halsema
14. This little mistake by the PM gave Lousewies van der Laan a chance to get her revenge on life and all those ugly people opposing her. She sunk her knife in the back of our hapless, unsuspecting PM and the cabinet was dead. She supported the vote of no confidence by Femke Halsema against the cabinet. And because her party supports the cabinet and is part of it, that was a thrust of death.
15. Nobody supported Lousewies van der Laan and Femke Halsema. Everybody kept his powder dry and looked on, while Lousewies and Femke battled on to remove the hated Verdonk. Catfight!!!
Conclusion:
Now the coalition has fallen the Christian Democrats and the Liberal Conservatives have the perfect scapegoat. Lousewies of D66. D66 may well dissapear. Lousewies will somehow be parked in Brussels as a Europarliamentarian, it is a kind of Valhalla for national politicians who have not quite made it, but are a part of the political overclass anyway. And the salaries and perks are nothing to complain about.
Losers:
Christian Democrats and
Right-Liberals
Femke Halsema the pretty Green girl leader
Lousewies van der Laan the diplomat's daughter
Lousewies' party D66 which may well dissappear (oh, delight!)
Rita "Rusty and Blunt" Verdonk
And as usual: the common citizen.
Winners:
Labour and
the Socialist Party
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who found an exiting new sponsor, the American Enterprise Institute.
Next:
New elections will be held in November. Until then a provisional government will manage the political side of the country. If the economy keeps picking up the "Right" may not do too bad. Probably Labour will fare good as well and there will be a centrist government of Labour, Christian Democrats and Liberal Conservatives.
Nothing much will change. The days of political instability in The Netherlands are still not over. The country is not in a state of political chaos either.
Quandary, that hissing, restless state of the sea between ebb and high tide best describes our current situation.
Postscript:
Some astute commentators comment that according to the Somali Political Code, the Dutch coalition is still in power.
"Youth" terrorizing ambulance staff
The Netherlands is currently experiencing a warm summer. People are living more on the streets and meeting each other. And these days this means that people meet people from other races and cultures. An enriching experience.
As Mayor Job Cohen foretold there would be trouble this summer.
The usual suspects are causing the trouble. Morroccan youths.
Moroccans (Dutch)attacked ambulance staff and a doctor that tried to help one of their friends who was incapable with drink after a visit to the municipal swimming pool.
Moroccans youngsters (Dutch)terrorize city cleaners.
Moroccans lads (Dutch) beat up a man on a bike and another man while stealing his mobile phone.
In public transport (Dutch) in The Hague, white female conductors are addressed as "whore" by eight year old Moroccan kids. It has become their first name, they say.
According to the police the cause of the violence is the "warm weather". There is of course a correlation. But how did the mayor know in advance that it would be Moroccans that would cause the trouble? And would other people apart from the mayor be able to speak out on the matter? Or is it still the High Priests of Western Civilisation who have the sole right to make pronouncements on race and ethnicity in general and Moroccans in particular?
Monday, June 19, 2006
The Right advances in Belgium
Vlaams Belang the right wing anti-immigrant party of Flemish Dutch speakers in Belgium is the only party showing growth in polls published in the past few days.
All the other parties are falling, but Vlaams Belang ("Flemish interest") is growing and representing the votes of more than a quarter (26,8) of the Dutch speaking electorate in Belgium.
The establishment politician and their lackeys in the controlled media are calling for a ban on the party. This is the only way they can deal with the unstoppable growth of support for the nationalist right.
Recently the political cartel called for the subsidies for political parties that all parties receive in Belgium to be cut. This has angered the voters and " chased" them to the banner of the nationalists.
All the other parties are falling, but Vlaams Belang ("Flemish interest") is growing and representing the votes of more than a quarter (26,8) of the Dutch speaking electorate in Belgium.
The establishment politician and their lackeys in the controlled media are calling for a ban on the party. This is the only way they can deal with the unstoppable growth of support for the nationalist right.
Recently the political cartel called for the subsidies for political parties that all parties receive in Belgium to be cut. This has angered the voters and " chased" them to the banner of the nationalists.
Dutch Military hates Multicultural Society
Researcher Rudy Richardson published a report today about attitudes towards non-whites and Multiculturalism in the Dutch armed forces. The report was quoted by Algemeen Dagblad and widely quoted by the Dutch media today.
It turns out that more than 75 percent of the lower ranks and a "large majority" of the higher ranks of the Dutch armed forces are hostile to the Multicultural society. They think the armed forces should remain a white bulwark and not increase the present 8 percent non-whites that are in the defense forces.
A majority of the generals, officers and the lower ranks is also hostile to Multiculturalism and supports the widely held notion that intergrating Black, Turks, Moroccans ("Turkse, Antilliaanse, Arubaanse, Surinaamse en Marokkaanse collega's") into the army leads to an increase in trouble and a loss of trust between comrades. The hostility increases the lower in the ranks the researcher gets.
The situation has been long reported to be similar in the police. Although the police makes an effort to increase the ratio of non-whites to Dutchmen in the police the turnover of new policemen is so high that the non-white to white ratio of the police does not exceed 10 percent.
The hostility is particularly marked towards Muslims, who are widely regared to be "terrorists". But it also extends to other non-Europeans, such as Carribean blacks.
Interestingly the number of Indonesian officers and NCOs exceeds their percentage of the total population. The loyalist Indonesians who came to The Netherlands after the collaps of the Empire in the Far East were often servants of the crown, serving as bureaucrats or soldiers in the colonial administration. There have not been similar problems between the Indonesians and the Dutch in the military as between the more recent immigrant waves. This means that the hostility can not be put down to "racism" as a the pc media is naturally doing.
Researcher Rudy Richardson thinks the situation must be corrected by "education" and the usual bollocks. Yeah right. We can not think for ourselves.....
It turns out that more than 75 percent of the lower ranks and a "large majority" of the higher ranks of the Dutch armed forces are hostile to the Multicultural society. They think the armed forces should remain a white bulwark and not increase the present 8 percent non-whites that are in the defense forces.
A majority of the generals, officers and the lower ranks is also hostile to Multiculturalism and supports the widely held notion that intergrating Black, Turks, Moroccans ("Turkse, Antilliaanse, Arubaanse, Surinaamse en Marokkaanse collega's") into the army leads to an increase in trouble and a loss of trust between comrades. The hostility increases the lower in the ranks the researcher gets.
The situation has been long reported to be similar in the police. Although the police makes an effort to increase the ratio of non-whites to Dutchmen in the police the turnover of new policemen is so high that the non-white to white ratio of the police does not exceed 10 percent.
The hostility is particularly marked towards Muslims, who are widely regared to be "terrorists". But it also extends to other non-Europeans, such as Carribean blacks.
Interestingly the number of Indonesian officers and NCOs exceeds their percentage of the total population. The loyalist Indonesians who came to The Netherlands after the collaps of the Empire in the Far East were often servants of the crown, serving as bureaucrats or soldiers in the colonial administration. There have not been similar problems between the Indonesians and the Dutch in the military as between the more recent immigrant waves. This means that the hostility can not be put down to "racism" as a the pc media is naturally doing.
Researcher Rudy Richardson thinks the situation must be corrected by "education" and the usual bollocks. Yeah right. We can not think for ourselves.....
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Nationalist madness of Dutch working class turns areas into cosmic centres of headache
Appearently there is some kind of footy tournament going on in Europe and the world. The European Championship?
I do not care much about sports.
What is interesting is that in the UK people are being told not to fly their flag to show their support for their national team. And half a year ago a British soldier coming back from the Iraq war was told to take down the flag (St. George) he was flying because there had been a complaint (1!) from a (1!) Muslim.
The footy fan was told by his Housing Chief. I guess a Housing Chief is a bureaucrat who has something to do with council housing.
I wonder what would happen if they tried that in The Netherlands. Dutch working class neighbourhoods, well, white working class neighbourhoods turn into areas of "Oranjegekte" or "Orange-frenzy". Look at the picture, below. All the houses and bars will be decorated in this way. It is really peculiar. This picture is quite moderate.
I haven't seen streets in Amsterdam decorated this way, but probably in Amsterdam-North there will be some streets decorated this way. It used to be so that the country would go crazy when the Dutch football team was competing for the European and World Championships. But it seems to be getting progressively worse.
At the same time a survey by motivaction, a marketing research firm, revealed that 1 out of 10 Dutchmen regard themselves as racists and that hostility to Islam and Muslims runs very high, both in the cities and on the countryside. A third of the Dutchmen regard themselves as a "little bit racist".
As far as I know such figures have not been published before. The definition of racism in the survey was befuddled, as examples of hostility to Islam were also taken as tokens of racism.
But it turns out that large numbers of Dutchmen not only view themselves as racists, but will also identify themselves as such to researchers. Well...
I think that one of the reasons why Dutchmen go to such extremes to show their support of the national football team, because they see it as a moment when they can assert their ethnic and national pride.
Another thing:
with Queensday (30 April) THE big hit for wearing Orange items were orange plastic helmets of the STAHLHELM model. The model adopted by the stormtroopers at the end of the First World War and the standard helmet of the German Infantry in World War 2.
Talk about politically incorrect.
So what does THAT mean?
I do not care much about sports.
What is interesting is that in the UK people are being told not to fly their flag to show their support for their national team. And half a year ago a British soldier coming back from the Iraq war was told to take down the flag (St. George) he was flying because there had been a complaint (1!) from a (1!) Muslim.
The footy fan was told by his Housing Chief. I guess a Housing Chief is a bureaucrat who has something to do with council housing.
I wonder what would happen if they tried that in The Netherlands. Dutch working class neighbourhoods, well, white working class neighbourhoods turn into areas of "Oranjegekte" or "Orange-frenzy". Look at the picture, below. All the houses and bars will be decorated in this way. It is really peculiar. This picture is quite moderate.
I haven't seen streets in Amsterdam decorated this way, but probably in Amsterdam-North there will be some streets decorated this way. It used to be so that the country would go crazy when the Dutch football team was competing for the European and World Championships. But it seems to be getting progressively worse.
At the same time a survey by motivaction, a marketing research firm, revealed that 1 out of 10 Dutchmen regard themselves as racists and that hostility to Islam and Muslims runs very high, both in the cities and on the countryside. A third of the Dutchmen regard themselves as a "little bit racist".
As far as I know such figures have not been published before. The definition of racism in the survey was befuddled, as examples of hostility to Islam were also taken as tokens of racism.
But it turns out that large numbers of Dutchmen not only view themselves as racists, but will also identify themselves as such to researchers. Well...
I think that one of the reasons why Dutchmen go to such extremes to show their support of the national football team, because they see it as a moment when they can assert their ethnic and national pride.
Another thing:
with Queensday (30 April) THE big hit for wearing Orange items were orange plastic helmets of the STAHLHELM model. The model adopted by the stormtroopers at the end of the First World War and the standard helmet of the German Infantry in World War 2.
Talk about politically incorrect.
So what does THAT mean?
Dutch Commandos battle Taliban in Afghanistan
Dutch Commandos (Dutch) are in Afghanistan as a part of the Deployment Task Force (DTF). The region where they operate is called Uruzgan. The task of the Dutch Commando's is to prepare the way for a Dutch Army force (1.400) which will deploy in Uruzgan for 2 years as a part of the US-led efforts to fight terrorism ("The War on Terror").
The Commandos (Dutch) killed dozens of Taliban fighters in the past few months. Amongst them was also an "important leader" according to kolonel Henk Morsink, the DTF Commander.
The Dutch Commandos had 6 heavy fights with fighters in the neighbourhood of the provincial capital Tarin Kowt. The Commandos were pinned down by Afghan fighters. With helicopter gunship support (Dutch Apaches) the Commandos managed to wipe out Taliban and hostile forces.
The most likely weapon to be selected by the Apache weapons officer is the M230 30 millimeter gun.
Using the Commandos in small groups to recconnoitre (recce) the country is a nice tactic. It encourages the Taliban to group themselves in a bigger group with more fire power thus forming a target that can be engaged with a heave weapon platform such as the Apache.
The Commandos had a few hairy escapes in their encounters with the Taliban. They thank their guardian angel.
The Dutch Ministry called the mission "do able", although it is admitted to be the hairiest mission in a long time. The present governing coalition gives the mission full support, but will be replaced in 2007, before the indicated end date of the mission.
Personally I do not see the point of the mission. The Netherlands or the West has no interests in Afganistan. The mission of Nato in Afganistan is to support the US in El Jorge's Great War on Terror.
This mission is doomed to fail. Obviously the West has to respond to Al-Qaida's terror. But invading countries in the Middle East is not a way to harm Al-Qaida decisively. Western Armies in their wars in the Third World since 1945 constantly defeat the enemies they face. And they constantly fail to translate the military victories in political gains.
It is time for the West to rethink the way it wages war.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, May 29, 2006
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
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
Sunday, May 21, 2006
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 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.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, May 15, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Hirsi Ali controversy breaking out
The lies Hirsi Ali (Dutch) told to get into The Netherlands are coming out in the open.
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.
Somali-born Hirsi Ali lied when she was 22 in order to get asylum in the Netherlands and improve her life.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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
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 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).
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)