Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Dutch Ambassador Defends Islam at an Indonesian Madrassa

Official Dutch appeasement of Islam now extends all the way to Indonesia, with the Dutch ambassador acting as an Outreach Extension Agent.

We just received the following press release from Geert Wilders’ office:

Dutch Ambassador to Indonesia should resign

The Dutch ambassador to Indonesia, Nikolaos Van Dam, gave a speech (pdf, in English) defending Islam at a Koran school in Jakarta last week

Freedom Party chairman Geert Wilders: “While speaking to an audience at the Institute for Quranic Studies in Jakarta, Mr Van Dam acted as an advocate of Islam, rather than a representative of the Netherlands.

“In doing this, he has lost all credibility. Instead of trying to defend Islam Mr Van Dam should be defending the universal human rights and be committed to improve the situation of the Christian minority in Indonesia.”

Freedom Party MPs Geert Wilders and Barry Madlener demanded the resignation of Mr Van Dam in written questions to the Dutch Secretary of State.

[Post ends here]


R. Hartman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R. Hartman said...

Can't find any party details, but there are a few more 'Van Dam's in Dutch politics, PvdA (well, one switched to the Socialist Party recently, after many years PvdA), and none of them have ever shown any signs of morality.

I'd almost say: what else is new. The Netherlands is doomed. Everything is blown out of proportion (not only in NL, though) and the propaganda machines run at full steam.

A sympathy campaign has been started because of the 'attack' on the 'royal' family that never was one (and neither was the 'attack'), but as these parasites are more expensive than all other royal families in Europe together, the mocking people needs to be diverted.

Queen Bea fervently promotes tolerance towards the intolerant, while building mansions in Mozambique and Argentina, as save havens for when the shit hits the fan. So finding that a Dutch ambassador promotes intolerance towards the tolerant should not surprise anyone.

The great harbour city of Rotterdam is now still only 52% native, the rest is import, causing lots of unrest and jabbing up the criminal statistics. Antillians and Moroccans are the fastest growing groups. Geert's PVV has asked questions about that as well: will the government finally put a stop to islamic imports? But the traitors that rule NL will most likely ignore him again.

Geert is right, of course, this 'ambassador' should be sacked on the spot and sentenced to live the rest of his life in Iran or Saudi Arabia, without further compensation by the Dutch taxpayer. But as always, nothing will happen...

Gregory said...

Ya know, you should stop this damned censoring that you participate in. I am soon going to stop visiting your site. And I don't want to listen to crapola about family friendly reading.....most kids nowadays don't read anything, because they can't . And they don't look at the news on tv either.None of all of this is 'video-game'enough for them.

Baron Bodissey said...

Gregory --

What the heck are you talking about? We haven't deleted anything here!

R. Hartman said...

If you're refering to the first response on this article, I suggest you put on (or off, whatever provides the crlearest view) your goggles.

The comment states:
"This post has been removed by the author."

That means I removed my own post, and reposted it with some corrections.

Please don't smear GoV's intentions with false accusations.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

How long is it until next election in NL? I mean I wouldn't give up just yet if Geert Wilders would become PM if it was election today. Then again, if it is several years ahead, then I don't know. A lot could happen until then.

R. Hartman said...

Robin, should be 2010 if the current lot doesn't collapse. Probably not, as they are mortified with the polls, so all principles are down the drain (as far as they ever had them) just to stay in power.

I just fear that Geert will never become PM, as Pim (Fortuyn) never got to be PM. I think that as soon as it looks to becoming inevitable you'll find his protection is hired by the state... And Geert is no Pim. But Bea doesn't want either of them; I guess they both refuse(d) to play her daddy's Bilderberg games.

And we can't have somebody in power who's likely to reveal the hidden plot, can we now...

R. Hartman said...

As an afterthought (although I've posted it before):

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they'd invent a full blown islamic attack threat (like the recents general rehearsal) just to get them an excuse to call the state of emergency, just to suspend 'democracy' (as if we have one) and thus delay/suspend elections indeterminately.

But thinking that elections will make a vast difference is delusion; there are too many appointed, unelected members of 'old politics' in places that cannot be cleared overnight (all mayors and provence commisioners), as well as local governments (elections there are in a different timeslot) to delay and frustrate any real reform.

As we saw with the asylum seekers that really neede to go: mayors refused to identify them and carry them over to the border guards. Most cities and villages are in control of socialist factions, we don't have any real liberal parties anymore on the local level.

The old liberals are just in it for electoral gain these days, meaning they overtake the socialists on their left side.

It's sure looking grim here, but Obama (sin laden) is doing his utmost to catch up...

X said...

There have been rumours of something similar happening here in the UK. Brown knows he's going to lose the next election but he's not stepping aside to let someone else take the fall for him. There's the civil contingencies act, which has been amended to include a provision for the suspension of elections in the case of unspecified "emergencies". Whether this would then butt up against older constitutional provisions (yes, we do have a constitution, it's just not called that) which state parliament cannot create any new laws or collect taxes without an election has yet to be seen. Who would bring the case to court when doing so might see you locked up for being a potential threat to the state?

The rise of the BNP might be a potential "threat" that would require unusual powers to be exercised. It's difficult to say if he would do something this stupid, though.

We'll see.

Sir Henry Morgan said...


Sean Gabb, chairman of the Libertarian Alliance in Britain, gave this as a recipe for regaining control from the Left. It may be that the Netherlands may need to put a similar recipe in place (and every other Western country - including America, Baron).

" We face a ruling class, confident in its ideology, entrenched in all the governing institutions, unwavering in the advancement of its agenda. How can we even contemplate a reaction against all that it has achieved and is planning to achieve?

In the technical sense, there is no problem. There is one institutional weakness of the ruling class. It is large. It is diverse. It can accommodate endlessly various emphases of purpose. But it also overwhelmingly draws income and status from a single source—the State. Its attack on us is like the many different jets of water from a shower head. Yet, as with a shower head, its entire force is regulated by a single tap. Whoever can seize control of that tap controls the dependent force.

The ruling class may be able to frustrate the positive agenda of an opposed government. But it has no defence against a purely negative agenda. What needs to be done, therefore, is obvious. It is what the Marxists call a frontal attack.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that we can seize power. How we might achieve this I will not for the moment discuss. It is enough to assume that we can gain a majority of the seats in the House of Commons and form a government in the normal way. Let us further assume a ruthless counter-revolutionary purpose. We are determined on a policy of reaction—that is, to undo all the bad acts of the last twenty governments or so in this country, and to destroy the institutional bases of our class enemy. Granting all this, let us see what ought to be done.

I begin by explaining what should not be done. Frontal attacks do not involve moderation. We do not accept any need in the short term for conciliating the ruling class. In its more hopeful days, the Thatcher Government tried this. Back then, even the better Ministers thought they were members of this class, and tried persuading it, and playing it off one faction against the other. We could try the same, in the hope that the Internet and the decline of its legitimising ideologies would one day reduce its power.
The problem with this approach is that it carries a high risk of failure. If we wait for any natural decline of the ruling class, it may not leave us with very much to save. Also, it might well prove less reasonable with us than it often did in the 1980s—then, after all, it was divided over economic policy. We might find it flatly opposed to everything we wanted to do.

Certainly, it would resist withdrawal from the European Union. We would have to face down an army of interest groups, all with privileged access to the media. If we did get our way, we would be hounded with every adverse statistic and comparison that could be constructed. We would eventually lose power to a government controlled by the ruling class that would hold a referendum every two years until the country rejoined. And this would happen on one of the core issues of the conservative movement. On other issues, it might not matter what mandate we could show. Our Government would exist on sufferance.

No—my counsel is for open war. Moderation has its place, but not here. If we ever seize power, by whatever means, it will give us one chance of victory. Defeat will be followed by no second chance. Given control of the House of Commons, I would not bother seeing the present ruling class as an unavoidable ally in government. I would regard it as Margaret Thatcher did the unions—as an enemy crying out to be smashed.

I suggest, therefore, that within days of coming into power, we ought to shut down large parts of the public sector. We should abolish the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Education and Training, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, plus whole divisions of other ministries. We should shut down most of local government—especially anything to do with child welfare, consumer protection, racial equality, and town and country planning.

At the same time, we should abolish all the statutory agencies. This includes English Heritage, the Arts Council, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, whatever has replaced the Health Education Authority, the Serious Fraud Office, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, all the regional development councils, and all the “self-financing regulatory agencies” without exception.

The fact that I have mentioned some organisations and not others does not indicate that these others are to be saved: the schedule to our Act of Abolition and Repeal should run to hundreds of pages. We should abolish functions, destroy records, sell off physical assets, and sack people by the tens of thousand. Pension rights could be respected according to law, but at least a third of government should no longer exist after our first month in power.

The chief purpose of what I suggest is not to save money for the taxpayers, or to free them from a bureaucratic tyranny. Though libertarians will think these desirable ends, and though they will undoubtedly prove beneficial after a few initial difficulties, they do not commend themselves equally to all sections of our movement, some of which will think more about the difficulties than the benefits. The chief purpose is to destroy the present ruling class.
Moving as fast as we can, we must abolish as much as we can of its institutional means of action and support.

What makes a sinking ship such good drama is the collapse of hierarchy and every other relationship that it sometimes involves. The connections that normally hold people to each other in effective groups are severed, and what was a stable society is dissolved into a terrified mob—some fighting desperately to get into the few lifeboats, others clinging to broken spars, others drowning in quiet despair. That is what we should be planning to do to the present ruling class.

Dealing with one institution at a time sounds the more sensible and moderate approach. In fact, it would only lead to a series of set piece battles, in every one of which the enemy could deploy its full weight against us. The general shipwreck that I suggest is far more likely to succeed. People who are on the dole, or working 14 hours a day in telesales to pay mortgages—and whose friends and contacts are nearly all in the same position—will have lost their ability to oppose or delay us. Their verbal opposition, though loud, would be no louder than if we did nothing. So long as we kept our heads, any

Karl Marx himself would have agreed. Writing in April 1871, he declared that “the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution….”( Quoted in V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917), Chapter 3—available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm (checked June 2007))
He and his followers are useful not only for analysing the situation in which they have placed us, but also for suggesting the means by which it can be reversed. The declared objects of their revolution were always unattainable. But their close study of revolutions is to be respected. We must smash the present ruling class, and replace it with one of our own.

Nor do I think there would be much procedural opposition. Once we were out of the European Union—our very first public act—the courts would again be subordinate to the Queen in Parliament: we could legislate, relegislate, and legislate again to get our way. As for the new House of Lords, it has no legitimacy as an upper house, and we should make sure to pack it with our own supporters. We could win.

The same considerations should guide our media policy. We should take the BBC permanently off air. I accept that it has existed long enough and been prominent enough to qualify as an historic institution. I also accept that, bias aside, it probably is the best broadcasting organisation in the world. But I see no alternative to shutting it down.

Anyone who thinks it can be captured and firmly governed by our people is dreaming. There are not enough of us with the necessary technical and managerial skills. At best, we might put a few of our people at the top—only to see them bypassed or marginalised. Besides, the hegemonic function of the BBC is not confined to its programming. It also gives employment to people who might under our management be scrupulously impartial, but who would continue using their status and contacts to fight us in other media.75
Nor do I think privatisation a good idea. As said, the BBC is a great broadcasting organisation. Freed from state control, it might easily grow larger and richer and more powerful. This would not necessarily diminish its function as a propaganda tool for the present ruling class—look at CNN and the other American networks. Therefore, it must be destroyed, its copyrights transferred to a successor company for licensing to other broadcasters.

Turning to these other broadcasters, we should as a matter of course abolish all the licensing and regulatory bodies that presently guide their activities. This would destroy more ruling class jobs and power, and allow viewers to get more of the programmes they really wanted. It would also lead to a rapid expansion of private broadcasting, in which many of the sacked from the BBC would find new jobs. I see no reason here for concern: moved into different cultural environments, people often behave differently. Even if some present ruling class influence did remain, it would not be our business to intervene further. Our media policy should be to destroy a hegemonic grip, not establish one of our own.

That is why I will say nothing about the newspapers. What they choose to publish is beyond the normal sphere of government concern. This being said, it would be interesting to see how long The Guardian stayed in business without its daily subsidy from advertising jobs in the public sector.

Our education policy would need to be more complex. On the one hand, we should cut off all state funding to the universities. We might allow some separate transitional support for a few science departments. But we should be careful not to allow another penny of support for any Economics or Law or Sociology or Government and Politics department, or for any course with the words “media”, “gender”, or “ethnicity” in its name. Doubtless, many students would be upset to lose their chance of getting a degree; but we could find some compensation for them—and, bearing in mind the mixture of worthless knowledge and ruling class indoctrination from which we would be saving them, they would not suffer on balance.

On the other hand, we would have to keep the schools open—not because their teaching is needed, but because of their childminding function. Most people would neither notice nor care about losing things like the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, but they would object to having to find somewhere else to put their little ones during the day.

Therefore, the schools would stay open. The compulsory attendance laws would be abolished, and encouragement given to the founding of independent schools—a voucher scheme might be useful here. All teacher training colleges would be closed, and the removal of formal hiring privileges would make their qualifications worthless. But state education would continue for the moment. The schools in each area would be put under the absolute rule of boards of guardians. These would be chosen by lot from qualified candidates, and empowered to collect a local rate to pay for their activities. The purpose here is not to improve state education—though that could easily be the effect—but to insulate it from the displaced ruling class and its satellite interests. This is also the purpose of avoiding elections to the boards—as these would soon be corrupted by organised minorities.

Something we should leave substantially alone is the welfare state. The main assumption behind which the present ruling class justifies its looting of the taxpayers is that any cuts in public spending must fall on the welfare budget.

Of course, it is a false assumption, but it does not help that libertarians have always made a great noise about the corrupting effects of state welfare, and that libertarian schemes of improvement always give prominence to privatising or abolishing it. This shows a failure of political understanding.

All else aside, it would be madness to give the now displaced ruling class an issue on which it might claw its way back from oblivion. It may be regrettable, but most people in England like welfare. They like the thought that if they lose their jobs, they will receive some basic support, and that if they fall ill, they will receive treatment free at the point of use. That is what is wanted, and that is what a government of reaction must continue providing.

It need not actually be very expensive. Most people would rather work than claim; and in a free economy, there would be no lack of work. As for the National Health Service, the main expenses here come from structures that currently exist only to divert funding to or through the hands of the ruling class. Strip these out, and the costs might come substantially down. I would suggest privatisation of all medical services—though paid for by the State, these do not have also to be provided by it—and radical deregulation of all the medical professions: such regulation does not work, and never was intended to work, in the interests of patients.

Here, it is worth a brief mention of the private charities. Conservatives have long regarded these as somehow separate from and superior to the State. This is not presently so. The most prominent charities—Oxfam, the RSPCA, the NSPCC, and so forth—are run and staffed by members or at least clients of the present ruling class. They wrap themselves in the mantle of selflessness while pushing an almost wholly political agenda. As they are private bodies, it might not be advisable to shut them down by direct means. But we should reform the charity laws, so that the only organisations able to claim charitable status would be those unambiguously devoted to feeding soup to tramps and looking after foundlings.

Coming back to state welfare, it would even be in our interests to increase some benefits. Adding up all the cuts suggested above we must easily have about a hundred billion pounds. This would fund a huge tax cut. We could also start paying the old something like the income they used to be promised. "

And here's the complete book. I recommend it be read by everyone in our national condition. That, basically, is the entire Western World.:


Sir Henry Morgan said...

You'll need to scroll back up to get it all from the beginning

laine said...

This phenomenon of foreign diplomats "going native" and starting to promote the local culture instead of their own is very common especially during the age of cultural relativity.

It is a giant problem in the US State Department. When you look at former US officials now officially on the Saudi payroll, it's hard to believe they weren't angling for that back when the US taxpayer was nominally paying their salaries.

Now State has a President aligned with their way of thinking, bowing and scraping to the Saudi King among other tyrants.

PatriotUSA said...

Maybe this loser should go on the mullah obamaham's next worldwide tour of apology and appeasement? Or perhaps an appointment somewhere
in the OIC, the Obama adminsistration always can make room for one more islamosympathizer.

Gregory, grow up and look at what the comment says, deleted by the author. Duh.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Looks like we are rushing toward martial law all over Europe. Perhaps the swine flu will be the excuse they need to shut down democracy in the holy name of national security. Then they can round up all dissidents and put them in camps. The dissidents will not be the muslim population. It will be us. So if the camps will turn out to be just reschooling camps, working camps or pure evil nazi death camps is anybody's guess. Maybe a combo of all three?

R. Hartman said...

@Sir Henry Morgan
Thanks for sharing this. Basically it boils down to what I call "Doing a Pinochet". But even that only lasted so long.

I wrote elsewhere yesterday that I'm coming to the conclusion that people cannot handle freedom, they lack the discipline for behaving morally in a consistent fashion, without being forced by some external power.

While they purport to treasure property, they only do so when it's their own. They make no bones about seizing someone else's property, that is, having it seized for them by the state. They wouldn't dream of doing so themselves: it's criminal, and risky. But when they outsource it to the state it suddenly loses its criminal aspects?

I think this is the main reason why socialism and political power mongers always return. The Boston Tea Party got rid of the English suppressors and was the start to a period of real freedom, only to have it handed away by Woodrow Wilson, despite the warnings by the Founding Fathers, and despite the 2nd amendment.

It's too hard work to stand up for your rights, as long as you have something to lose. And that's what those in power count on. And as long as we're vastly outnumbered by the immoral ones, any singular action will only achieve personal devastation for the actor, without even denting the state of affairs, rendering it futile, and irrational.

So yes, we need 'a Pinochet'. But there's little chance of that, I'm afraid.

Unknown said...

R. Hartman,

Your second comment reminds me of an exchange from Act IV, Scene II of Macbeth between Lady MacDuff and her Son:


Was my father a traitor, mother?


Ay, that he was.


What is a traitor?


Why, one that swears and lies.


And be all traitors that do so?


Every one that does so is a traitor, and must be hanged.


And must they all be hanged that swear and lie?


Every one.


Who must hang them?


Why, the honest men.


Then the liars and swearers are fools,
for there are liars and swearers enow to beat
the honest men and hang up them.