Betrayed once more

Since yesterday, the cuts in the Dutch armed forces that had your intrepid blogger hopping mad when they were first announced (see also here) have been going into effect.

And today De Telegraaf (NL) reveals what we at this blog warned was the real reason for the cuts: The formation of a EUnion army.

Minister Hans Hillen (Defence) will work out plans for cooperation with Germany. This he and his German colleague Thomas de Maizière agreed upon during a visit to Berlin on Tuesday. Like the Netherlands, Germany is making sizable cuts in its armed forces.

According to a spokesman to Hillen, both ministers see possibilities for cooperation on the operational level for the submarine services of both and the formation of a joint Patriot [surface to air defence] unit. Possibly other countries will join at a later date. According to the spokesman, Poland and Italy have already expressed interest. (...)

Hillen earlier spoke to his Belgian and British colleague about closer cooperation. In the short term he will visit Luxembourg and Norway with the same goal. The minister was assigned to cut the defence budget structurally with one billion euros. Other countries will see considerable measures as well.

That is as good an indicator of the true nature of the cuts in the defence budgets as any. As we feared a month ago, ultimate goal of this exercise is to dissolve and dismember national armed forces and co-opt the remainder in a EUnion army. Now we only have to wait for some treaty or other setting up a joint HQ and chain of command. One that will undoubtedly remove the last bit national control from the armed units left and hand it over to Brussels. We will have been disarmed on a national scale (1).

If the ratification of the Lisbon treaty was the ultimate betrayal, this surrendering of the means to defend our sovereignty is a runner-up that will be hard to beat. Even more so, De Telegraaf wryly notes, as the announcement came on the exact date, May 10th, when 71 years ago German troops invaded the Netherlands, dragging us into WW2.

This cabinet, as the ones preceding it, proves it will not look out for national interests. This cabinet, this promising coalition of CDA and VVD, with support of the PVV, cannot be trusted to serve us, the people either. This little episode proves that our entire political class, even VVD and (yes!) the PVV, serve the enemy, are the enemy. And it breaks my heart to have to conclude this.

But here's a question: All over Europe (well, the EUnion) countries are gleefully dashing head-over-heels into major deconstruction of their armed forces. Given the hardware that is stood down even just in the Netherlands, that is a major instance of destruction of capital. It all happens without much protest, not even from the opposition. And it all happens in a manner that raises suspicions of close coordination.

Who ordered those cuts? Which treaty mandates those cuts. Are there secret annexes to Lisbon we need to know about, that force out politicians to do this? Who or what has their balls collectively in a big vice?

Notes:

(1) Actually, given the principles of multiculturalism and cultural marxism at the core of the EUnion, we will find ourselves completely, utterly defenceless. The more I think about this, the more fearful I get.

You have to lie

The eurocrat of eurocrats, Luxembourg PM Jean-Claude Juncker, has openly admitted what many, many of us have been suspecting for years: Eurocrats lie.

The WSJ blog post linked to has a video up (see above) of Juncker addressing a conference on economic governance. Incidentally, that is the same conference where Juncker admitted his preference for 'secret, dark debates between a few responsible people'. What we didn't know then, but WSJ is relating now, is that Juncker apparently also said he has “had to lie”. And these were not unfortunate incidences either. Rather, it seems to be a guiding principle. Speaking about touchy economic topics, Juncker admitted “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”

Let that sink in for while. When 'it' becomes serious, 'you have to lie'. Not, 'you could lie' or 'you may lie', which would have been bad enough. No, in actuality is is much worse. When things get serious 'you HAVE TO lie'.

But the effects of this rather short-sighted breech of integrity that seems to be endemic in eurocrats are already making itself felt. When asked by the WSJ whether such deliberate misinformation would undermine confidence in future EUnion pronouncements, Guy Schuller, the spokesman for Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker confidently answered “not at all.”, observing that the market had practically no confidence in pronouncements already.

When Mr. Juncker, or European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, or French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde say something to the markets, Mr. Schuller said, “nobody seems to believe it.”

Gee, how on Earth could that be? It's not like we've been lied to by eurocrats thousands of times before, have we? Eurocrats all over Europe have been nothing but forthright about the character and intent of the Lisbon treaty, haven't they? They also kept every solemn vow about preserving democracy or abiding by the rules they have set for themselves, like the no-bail-out clause.

I'll stop here. There is no point in rehashing every single grievance I have against the EUnion and the EUnionistas (though I do delight in daydreaming of being present at the execution of a good many of them). I'll just note that we have here, not just A eurocrat, but arguably THE eurocrat in sublime purity, admitting that the EUnions guiding principle is what we've expected all along: The lie. By his own admission, Juncker has shown once and for all that eurocrats, both in Brussels and within our own borders, cannot be trusted.

On the face of it that is as sad a comment on our generation of politicians as any. It seems that the entire, complete political class across the EUnion has given itself over to a total break-down of integrity, honour and humility. But that realization will be the acid eating away the mortar that is keeping the EUnion building together. That realization will hasten the (now seemingly inevitable) collapse of that grand experiment. And as such Junckers comments are most welcome.

h/t ZeroHedge, EURef is also on the case.

Not a charity, a political lobby group

Via WUWT we get the news that in New Zealand Greenpeace has been disqualified for registration as a charity, losing its advantageous tax exemption there.

The reason? Greenpeace is too much of a political lobby organisation.

Environmental lobbyist Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc. is too involved in political causes to register as a charity, the High Court has ruled.

Justice Paul Heath turned down an appeal last Friday that Greenpeace could register with the Charities Commission after the body rejected its 2010 application.

Justice Heath said Greenpeace’s political activities can’t be regarded as “merely ancillary” to its charitable purposes and that the commission was correct in disqualifying it for registration over the potentially illegal activities.

Though the pursuit of peace could be “worthy,” that didn’t necessarily make it charitable, he said.

“The commission was correct in holding that non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entry,” Justice Heath said in his judgement.

“In qualitative terms, the charitable purposes of Greenpeace could be met without resort to the type of political activities that deny its right to registration.”

The New Zealand Herald is even more succinct:

Greenpeace New Zealand's political activities mean it cannot register as a charity, the High Court has decided.

Ouch. That has GOT to hurt.

Actually, I think the idea has merit. In the Netherlands and EUnion-wide we have far too many NGO's posing as charities, but in actuality shaping policy and setting agendas, often lavishly subsidized by the government to do so. Here in the Netherlands we have Oxfam-Novib and ICCO, between them receiving the best part of a billion euros in subsidies to tell us what shitty human beings we are for, amongst others, driving cars, using electricity, eating meat and refusing to believe the climate-hype. And to tell out MP's that 'something must be done', legislation-wise. Wouldn't it be grand if some independent agency kicked their status as a 'charity' in the shitter, because they've become too political?

With regard to Greenpeace, Anthony Watts asks: 'With the way they operate, can the rest of the world be far behind?'. Richard North answers 'Yes', arguing that the MSM has so far ignored the news and, most likely, will continue to do so. Therefore, it will become a non-event, and Greenpeace will be able to contain the damage.

That may be true, quite possible will be true. But we can do something. We can keep the story going, we can pick it up and spread it. And maybe, just maybe the existence of this story, even here in the underground, will drip into the public consciousness, to the detriment of Greenpeace and her ilk.

Consider this post to be me doing my bit to make sure this happy story is spread far and wide. Pass it on, if you can.

On this day...

[L]ike most things to do with the EU, even its founding day celebrations are based on a lie. And, in choosing 9 May, the "colleagues" simply mark the transition from one form of tyranny to another.

EURef recognizing 'Europe Day' for what it is. Tim Worstall shares his feelings as well.

On the bright side: Even across the Big Pond the realisation of the true character of the EUnion is setting in, with Vox Day and Irwin Stelzer shining their light on us, sad little subjects of the beast.

[UPDATE001] For some comic relief, head on over to Gawain Towlers blog and take in the spectacle that was the celebration of 'Europe day' in Brussels. They can't even pull off a modest flag ceremony.

Nice one

Tim Worstall demonstrates that the myth of speculators causing food price spikes, i.e. increase market volatility, is just that: A myth. Banning speculation will not decrease volatility, it will increase it. In other words: Banning speculation will decrease market stability.

To proof his case, he takes real world data. He shows a chart (reproduced below) comparing monthly price changes in crude oil, where speculation is allowed, with price changes in onions, where speculation has been banned for 50 years now. Spot the difference?

... Gone?

Update to this post.

According to Der Spiegel (D; EN reporting here) the Greek government is contemplating leaving the euro-zone.

Greece's economic problems are massive, with protests against the government being held almost daily. Now Prime Minister George Papandreou apparently feels he has no other option: SPIEGEL ONLINE has obtained information from German government sources knowledgeable of the situation in Athens indicating that Papandreou's government is considering abandoning the euro and reintroducing its own currency.

According to Der Spiegel the EUnion commission is having an emergencey meeting Friday nigh, at Château de Senningen in Luxembourg. Given the tense situation, the meeting in Luxembourg has been declared highly confidential, with only the euro-zone finance ministers and senior staff members permitted to attend.

Needless to say, Greece leaving the euro would inevitably followed by a restructuring of Greek debt, sending the banking sector in Europe and beyond into a fresh new crisis. Hence, it is no surprise that senior Greek and German officials have denied the report. That didn't avoid a big plunge in the euro, though (p).

More over at Zerohedge here and here. This one will be interesting to watch.

[UPDATE001] Reuters: Will Europe socialize Greek losses?

Socialize? Really? That is what they are calling it now? You and me working the better part of a day to repay the debts run-up by those lazy-ass, 5-hour work-day, tax-dodging leeches, that is social? F.CK YOU!

[UPDATE002] There it is:

Most economists already expect that the euro zone will have to provide Greece with all of its medium and long-term financing next year.

Come hell or high water, you and I will repay the Greek debt.

Empty suit

The White House Insider feeding Ulsterman shared information on the goings on at the White House leading up to and during operation Geronimo, taking out Osama bin Laden. In an initial, rather hasty communication the D.C. Insider reports that the point of determination, the go/no-go decision was made FOR Obama not BY Obama. In fact, he says,

When 48 hour go order issued, CoC [Chain of Command - the president] was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate. (...)

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.

In a follow-up offering more detail, the picture painted of the president is one of a man without determination, disinterested and indecisive, being led by the nose by his senior advisor Valerie Jarrett.

I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold.

Wow. I mean, just... Wow! This does not sound like a president in control of his government. This sounds like a class president instructed by his teachers. This sounds very much as if Barack Hussein Obama is the quintessential empty suit. And that is what we have as the leader of the free world...

I've mentioned Ulsterman and the WH Insider before. I think you could do worse then to keep an eye on what these two publish every now and then.

Wilders Trial day 18: An unfair trial

The 18th day of the Wilders trial saw Bram Moskowicz going after the judges of the Amsterdam court with a vengeance. In a plea aimed at proving the public prosecutors have a case that is so tainted it should be dismissed, Wilders' lawyer painted a picture (NL) of a judiciary that has not abided by the golden rule of 'presumption of innocence' required of them. Using the testimonies by Schalken and Hendriks, he fervently argued that a conviction of Wilders was written into the order to prosecute, written by Schalken and brought along by him to the now infamous dinner party. Hence, he argued, Wilders has been subjected to a fundamentally unfair trial.

So many things have gone wrong during this trial, and the interests of Wilders have been so damaged, that the public prosecutors case can only be dismissed. According to Moskowicz, the order to prosecute was an unadulterated reflection of the personal revulsion towards Wilders, felt by Schalken. As such, it is impossible to maintain that the Amsterdam court is neutral in this case or that Wilders enjoys the presumption of innocence granted to common criminals.

Towards the end, Geert Wilders was allowed to address the court. The good people from the PVV press liaison sent us a copy of the remarks:

Final remarks by Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam , May 2nd, 2011

Mister President, members of the Court. I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. Nekschot because I was a free man.


Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week...

continued of page II of KV.

Next Monday, May 9th, the court will respond to mr. Moskowicz's plea.

Expendable

Osama bin Laden is dead.

Good.

His Grace posted a magnificent 'obituary'.

Osama bin Laden will have a bit of a surprise this morning: no lakes of wine; no endless stream of virgins; no pat on the back from his inspirational prophet; no utterance from Allah of ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant” (in Arabic). No, today he stands in the fearful presence of YHWH, and the wages of sin is death. Osama Bin Laden has committed one or two sins of some considerable magnitude, was quite unrepentant, and did not accept Christ as his Lord and Saviour. His Grace therefore suspects that things might be a little warm for Osama today. His lake of wine will be a lake of fire: his tongue will burn and his thirst will never be quenched. The only virgins he’ll meet will be the worm variety, for the pit of Hell is a place of decomposition and destruction; of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I can't seem to work up the enthusiasm displayed (or is it: played up) by our MSM. EURef does a good job (as always) to articulate my unease with the way this event is handled, not too mention the timing of it. So does Vox Day. To wit:

I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden isn't dead. For all I know, he's been dead since 2001, if not before. But it strikes me that if you wanted to make your own words more look suspiciously incredible, you would be hard-pressed to top the recent actions of the Obama administration.

"Hey, here's an ineptly produced computer file that clearly isn't a simple copy of the document that supposedly no longer existed in the first place!" "Hey, we killed the bad guy, but we had to ditch the body before anyone else could take a look at it and confirm it's actually him. Maybe if we just wave our hands and talk about DNA that nobody else has, someone will buy it."

Be that as it may, the creature is dead. But in the grand scheme if things it doesn't count for much, or so it seems to me. The devil (or is it Allah? Or is that the same?) has long since gotten all the use out of bin Laden he was going to get. For some years now bin Laden had become very, very expendable. The damage has already been done, wheels have been set in motion. Bin Laden has served his purpose.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Good. But looking over the battlefield, is that really the major victory we are led to believe it is?

Fjordman File updates

[ 2 - 4] On Gates of Vienna: Preparing for Ragnarök.

While Ragnarök is the end of the world as we know it, it is not “the end of history” in the Judeo-Christian sense. A new world will arise from its ashes. Our goal should be to sow seeds that can grow into strong trees bearing fine fruits in the future. Whether this post-catastrophic culture — which will most likely have a different mythology and maybe a different concept of morality to go with it compared to what we have now — will be a revived version of Western civilization or an entirely new version of European civilization I do not know, but I tend to suspect the latter. It is hard to predict such things, but a crucial challenge will no doubt be to break with the mentality of “progress” towards “equality,” since a toxic combination of these two concepts is burying us under dangerous and biologically unsustainable egalitarian ideals.

RECENT FJORDMAN
Preparing for Ragnarök
On the Background for Easter Eggs
The Human Web: A Bird's-eye View if World History
Mohammed and Charlemagne, Revisited.
The Chinese and the Irrational
The Curious Civilization
Is There A Genetic Basis For Northern European Drunkenness?
Medieval Myths
War and Human Accomplishment
Do Western Authorities Care More About Hamsters Than About Europeans?
The Development of European Eye and Hair Color
Mead, Butter, and the Indo-Europeans
Why Islam must be expelled from the West
Book Review: “The Perils of Diversity”
Explaining the Cold Climate Theory for the Evolution of High IQ
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah


More Fjordman Files here.

Quote of the Day

Let me explain the system to you: grass is pretty and it's green; cows, sheep, and horses eat the pretty, green grass. Generally speaking, we then eat the cows and sheep, and on the rare occasion, the horses.

Now, it might seem more efficient to simply bypass the cow and sheep, and go straight to eating the grass. The problem is as far as I can tell every culture who went to eating the grass was wiped out by the cultures who continued to eat grass-eaters.

Relayed by America's 1st Sgt. over at Castra Praetoria

Secret, dark debates

The indefatigable Mary Ellen Synon shares with us, some observations made by Jean-Claude Juncker, permanent president of the eurogroup and prime minister of Luxembourg. He made these at a meeting organised by the European Movement.

Juncker was, Synon writes, talking about 'economic governance', EUrocratese for 'government'in the euroarea and the EU. He started with the non-sequitur that 'There are no such things as domestic affairs in a monetary union, the affairs of one are the affairs of all'. Using Greece as an example, we could just as soon state that even if it isn't, the EUnion will make sure it damn well will become 'the affair of all'. Remember this?

But then Juncker really gets into his own, and reveals just how scary, little a man he is, and how scary the whole EUnion project really is. As he and his fellow euro-bosses are steering the EU towards centralised economic and fiscal policy, he admits:

'Monetary policy is a serious issue, this should be discussed in secret.'

He said that by discussing each and every monetary-policy issue in public 'you are inspiring those who are players in the financial markets.' Yes, Synon observes, like the people who have to invest our pension funds, for a start.

Juncker doesn't like giving the markets information:

'I am for secret, dark debates between a few responsible people.'

Now, a national government can and should be able to discuss monetary, economic and fiscal policy in secret. Certainly there are some ideas that could rock markets if they became known too soon. But when it is a national government acting in private, and they come to the wrong decisions, the national electorate can then throw them and their bad decisions out of office.

But how do we get rid of Juncker and his ilk when they make a mess? Or, make an even larger mess then we already have? The misery of the EUnion is, that we cannot. We have no say, no vote.

Juncker added: 'I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic'. Mrs. Synon notes indignantly the arrogance of the man, that he finds the destruction of democracy amusing. But Juncker should count his blessing that for now he has only to worry about insults. He should start worrying that we can knit. And that we have noticed him.

(h/t ATW)

Faeces fly into the ventilator

Gawain Towler invokes the dreary Hans Brinker imagery and at the same time pays homage to the late, great Wim Duisenberg, who led the ECB before that lowlife and Chirac henchman Trichet took over. All that to convey to us the delightful news that the shit has hit the fan: EU official says Greece knows it must restructure.

Greece has accepted that it cannot avoid restructuring its debt, a Greek newspaper cited a senior European Commission official as saying on Tuesday as market fears of such a move persisted despite denials by Athens.

Financial markets are increasingly convinced Greece will have to renegotiate the terms of its public debt, recognising that its economy cannot grow fast enough to service a burden that is set to swell to 160 percent of national output.

"The Greek government has realised that there is no other way and has accepted a mild debt restructuring," daily Eleftherotypia said, quoting a senior Commission official speaking on condition of anonymity.

This has some implications, all of them not good if you pay your taxes. Those 'guarantees', or at least an important part of them are gone. We, sad little inhabitants of this damp corner of the world just lost 4.8 billion of OUR money and who knows how much more to save banks exposed to Greek bonds. Just to remind you: the Netherlands holds 244 billion euros in PIIGS junk bonds, equal to some 60% of the annual budget of Dutch government (national, provincial AND local!). How much of that will be left after the a bout of restructuring (Greece may be the first, but it sure as hell will *not* be the last) is anybody's guess. I for one will put my money on a number close to zero...

It all kinda, sorta plays out as we predicted almost exactly a year ago:

As soon as Greece gets its money, the banks will be paid off. And then, all of a sudden, the 'colleagues' will decide a restructuring of Greek debt is in order. Restructuring debts is a euphemism for not paying the debt (partly or in whole). Which would mean the money handed over by Merkel and our own Finance minster Jan-Kees de Jager, your money, will disappear into the black hole that is de Greek government budget. The markets won't give a damn because no party, other then the IMF and EUnion member states are affected. The only thing that will have gone missing is tax money. But hey, tax money is free money, isn't it?

Be that as it may, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end here. Over on ZeroHedge we find a guest column by Chris Martenson arguing that 'The Breakdown Draws Near'.

The IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, and numerous other institutions with access to $2 calculators have finally arrived at the conclusion that there's still 'too much debt' and that it cannot all be paid back. And they are now alert to the idea that the predicament only has two outcomes: either the living standards of over-indebted countries will be allowed to fall, or the global fiat regime will suffer a catastrophic failure.

All this on the day when the EUnion published a draft budget that is increased by 4.9% over the previous budget.

The draft budget for 2012 represents € 132.7 bn in payments amounting to a 4.9 % increase on 2011. Commitments amount to €147.4bn (+3.7%). The key objective of the 2012 Draft Budget is to fully support the European economy and EU citizens.

We remember this, don't we? At the suggestion of EURef I am learning to knit. But my hands are itching for some more productive measures against these utter, utter cretins.

[UPDATE001] ZeroHedge: Going...

[B]ack to reality, where Greece apparently has about 48 hours before it sets off a domino effect whereby bank asset writedowns are about to escalate and result in the same shadow banking system "Ice-Nine" effect that nearly destroyed capitalism back in September 2008.

[UPDATE0012] ... going ...

The deficit in the Greek government's budget amounted to 10.5pc of GDP in 2010, EU statistics agency Eurostat reported on Tuesday, putting it significantly above February's 9.6pc estimate from Brussels.

The continued flight from Greek sovereign debt pushed the yield, or return, on the 10-year government bonds to new highs of 15.5pc.

The European Central Bank, the only major potential buyer, "won't buy whilst [some eurozone countries such as Germany] continue to speak and put pressure on Greece to restructure", said one trader.

Fjordman File updates

[22 - 4] On Tundra Tabloids: The Human Web: A Bird's-eye View if World History.

Just out of curiosity, I searched for the word “jihad” in the index of The Human Web and found a single reference to it. Arab Muslims had laid siege to Constantinople in AD 674-678 but failed to take the city. They tried again in 717-718, but once more the Byzantines, assisted by Bulgars, managed to repel them. On both occasions they were crucially aided by so-called Greek fire, a mysterious, but highly effective flammable substance possibly similar to modern napalm that was successfully employed to set ablaze the attacking Muslim fleet. They lost several important provinces, but had managed to salvage Constantinople for the time being.

[ 8 - 4] On Andrew Bostoms blog: Mohammed and Charlemagne, Revisited.

The Inheritance of Rome consists of roughly six hundred pages densely packed with names, often excessively so compared to deeper insights into historical trends. Although the author has dedicated several chapters each to the Byzantine and Arab Empires in addition to Western Europe, which is fine, he is rather weak in comparing how these cultures used the Greco-Roman heritage differently, for instance Greek natural philosophy or secular Roman law.

He talks about Arab conquests and “raids,” but doesn’t explain Islamic Jihad as a word or concept. By reading this book and this book alone you will have no understanding whatsoever of the fact that Europe was for over a thousand years targeted by a religiously sanctioned war of conquest, certainly not that in the minds of many Muslims this drive for world domination continues to this day. In fact, you will learn more about Tunisian olive oil than about Jihad.

[ 2 - 4] On Vlad Tepes' blog: The Chinese and the Irrational.

The Chinese are practical people, which I for the most part mean as a compliment, and indeed often quite intelligent. One of the aspects of their culture that I find hard to relate to is their preoccupation with such things as “lucky and unlucky numbers.” Yes, you can encounter such notions in the West, too, but they are far more prominent in Oriental cultures. Many Chinese also seem to believe that luck is a character trait and that bad luck only happens to bad people.

RECENT FJORDMAN
The Human Web: A Bird's-eye View if World History
Mohammed and Charlemagne, Revisited.
The Chinese and the Irrational
The Curious Civilization
Is There A Genetic Basis For Northern European Drunkenness?
Medieval Myths
War and Human Accomplishment
Do Western Authorities Care More About Hamsters Than About Europeans?
The Development of European Eye and Hair Color
Mead, Butter, and the Indo-Europeans
Why Islam must be expelled from the West
Book Review: “The Perils of Diversity”
Explaining the Cold Climate Theory for the Evolution of High IQ
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
Medieval Muslim Scholars -- Their Contributions and Shortcomings
A Few Reasons for Cautious Optimism


More Fjordman Files here.

A story to keep an eye on

Props to Gates of Vienna for their daily tracking of the goings on with regard to the immigration crisis on Lampedusa. It is beginning to look like the Camp of the Saints will become the focal point of either the demise of the EUnion, or the demise of Europe.

From the latest at GoV: Camp of the Saints: A Strategy for Surrender:

Over the last few weeks it has become obvious that this containment effort is unsustainable, and some other method of dealing with the migrants must be found. Representatives of the EU member states that border on the Mediterranean met yesterday in Nicosia to discuss their common problem. They made it clear that they expect help from the rest of the European Union (...)

It isn’t clear whether the following initiative from Brussels was announced before or after the Nicosia meeting, but there’s no doubt that European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström and the other European commissioners were well aware of the sentiments expressed by the delegates in Cyprus yesterday.

What’s extraordinary about this latest response from the bureaucratic heart of the European Union is that it includes the declared intention of deliberately and pre-emptively importing the North African refugees into Europe.

That is, the Commission intends to surrender to the “Camp of the Saints” invasion before it is fully underway. (...)

So, in order to “avoid human trafficking”, the European Commissioners will become human traffickers themselves. And their low, low rates will drive all the other traffickers out of business.

And the model for the “redistribution proposal” is the recent resettlement of 10,000 culture enrichers from Iraq. Notwithstanding the fact that the “success” of the Iraq asylum program is debatable — ordinary Swedes and Finns may have a somewhat different opinion on the matter — the European Commission acknowledges that forty-seven times as many refugees are currently waiting to come to Europe.

And this is before the rest of the impoverished residents of North Africa learn about this golden opportunity and pack their bags to head for the coast.

And all during the worst global recession since 1933, with the Eurozone teetering on the brink of fiscal collapse.

How does Ms. Malmström envision this proposal turning out? How will all this cultural enrichment affect the financial well-being of the European Union? Where’s the upside?

Really, are these people that stupid? Or simply barking mad?

It may be a small island far away form our damp little corner of the world. But the implications are rather far reaching and potentially disastrous for the entire continent. If you find you're not that interested in Lampedusa I would suggest it nay be time to start getting interested.

Check this link on a regular basis. The more people know how the EUnion is plotting to elect a new people Europe wide, the more chance we have of resisting it.

A completely disinterested warning

Our new, Danish-style cabinet vowed to reduce the size of the corps of civil servants. From a report (NL) we learn that more then half of 1809 civil servants interviewed about the budget cuts expect a reduction in FTE's between 10 and 20%.

You'd think that would neatly decrease the amount of tax money payed out in salaries and benefits. But you'd be wrong: Civil service: Budget cuts counterproductive (NL):

The cabinets plans to cut budgets of the civil servant corps will maybe show benefits on the short term, but in the longer term they will produce extra costs. This was said by civil servants interviewed for an investigation commissioned by [civil servant magazine] Binnenlands Bestuur.

Aha, so we have civil servants selflessly arguing against the planned reduction in the number of civil servants. There's a shocker...

How many of those interviewed feel Damocles' sword suspended over their desks, do you think?

Video: Islamophobophobia explained

This video is from Acts17 by Nabeel Qureshi (ex-Muslim) and David Woods (ex-Atheist).

Europe: Koran burner is jailed for 70 days!

If it was not all over the papers, I would not have believed it (Daily Mail, The Sun, NY Daily News, BBC, etc):

Andrew Ryan was shocked when he saw Muslim activist Emdadur Choudhuryin on television burn a poppy during the 2 minute silence on Armistice Day in front of horrified service families in London. He and the other Islamic activist also shouted during the silence: "British soldier’s burn in hell". For this he was taken to court and the judge gave him the lightest possible sentence: a 50 pound fine.



In a response Ryan decided to take a Koran from the local library and burn it publicly. For this he was arrested, but not fined like the Muslim activist; instead he was sentenced for 70 days in jail.

70 days!

70 days! for burning a book!

70 days! for burning a book! In Europe!

A mindless bit of fun

I got this from the Anchoress. Watching, with growing bemusement, the bordering-on-hysteria hype of the coming royal wedding across the small pond (though the masses seem less inspired), I really liked the healthy dose of relativism this video brings. Enjoy!



BTW, are we sure that isn't the real Rowan Williams, Bishop of Canterbury making a cameo?

Quote of the day

Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.

'If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem...' he added, trailing off.

Charles Manson in a phone interview with the Daily Mail.

If I were a greenie, I would probably ask myself a few very searching questions about how it is that my beliefs resonate so deeply with someone whose grasp on reality is a matter of scholarly debate. It would seem to me that an ideology that finds on its side an utterly deranged individual like 'Helter Skelter' Manson, is an ideology whose time has come and gone, wouldn't it?

But I'm not a greenie, so I'll just note the fact and hold my peace... For now...

Wilders Trial day 17: Judges stay

The court of substitution has today ruled against the defense. Thus Geert Wilders and his defense keep the same court, with judges Geert Jansen, Marcel van Oosten and Judith Boeree, who remarkably enough appeared today not in robes but in casual clothing.

The substitution court argued as follows: all grounds for substitution would have to be appear immediate before the appeal for substitution. On these grounds the defense argument that the court did not react to a defense request was rejected. The argument of not doing an investigation into the lying witness that was called on the initiative of the court was rejected because the defense could request an investigation themselves. The substitution court also argued that the court of substitution was not meant for replacing the appeal procedure.

Thus now Geert Wilders has a court that has declared that it "feels used" by him and/or his defense lawyer.

Update:
Wilders tweets his response: Disapointed about this ruling. The bigwigs protect each other again. The circus continues.

Wilders also announced that he will press perjury charges against Bertus Hendriks (NL) later this week as he persisted in an inconsistent testimony that was also inconsistent with both other witnesses, of which one is a judge.


Other reports:
Dutch News: no new judges says legal panel

See also:
Wilders Trial: Judges feel used
Is it a conspiracy?
Wilders Trial day 16
Wilders Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?

Wilders Trial: Judges feel used

Last Friday defense lawyer Moszkowicz again requested for substitution of the court. His request is supported by an argumentation that could be split-up into two main arguments: first, the failure of the court to react to a request of the defense and second the courts rejection of a perjury inquiry into a witness that made inconsistent statements in which the witness kept persisting even after been confronted with the inconsistency of his own statements.

The first part of the argument, the failure to respond to a request of the defense, was also the reason for the first court in the Wilders trial to get substituted. Amazingly, this time again Mr. Moszkowicz could use a identical argumentation against the court as he had successfully used against the earlier substituted court. Again the court had failed to respond to a defense request for hearing Mr. Hans Jansen and by doing that the court had again deprived the defense of its rights.

But the argumentation was not identical, as the current court had not rejected to hear Mr. Hans Jansen, nor did it rejected to hear the new witness judge Schalken. But the court simply did not honor the defense request because they made it the courts sovereign decision to hear these witnesses. Also took the court the liberty to add an extra (hostile) witness. This in itself is a strange decision, as these witnesses are pre-trial witnesses, they are not part of the trial itself (they are only heard to determine the legality of this trial) and they were on the request of the defense only, the prosecution had no interest in hearing any of these witnesses.

By not honoring the defense request and making it the courts sovereign decision in hearing the witnesses it has deprived the defense of certain rights. Most importantly the defense lost the right to take the lead in the questioning of the witnesses. But key in this argument seems to be, that the court failed to respond at all on the request and thus never brought any arguments for their decision.

The second half of the argument, that gained it straight from the first half, was that the witness the court introduced was lying and that the court has rejected a perjury inquiry without sufficient argumentation. Salient detail is that the witness in question, Bertus Hendrix, has during his testimony on his own initiative declared to be a friend of Amsterdam judge Schalken (this is an Amsterdam court). He also declared that he would never tell things about Schalken that could reflect badly on him, if he was not bound by the oath. He made those statements after he had already told the court that the self-incriminating testimony of Schalken earlier that week was just not true and a result of the long questioning. But the reason for the perjury inquiry was that Hendriks had declared repeatedly in court that he had invited court witness Hans Jansen for a dinner with the Amsterdam judges for speaking about Islam in general and certainly not for talking about the Wilders trial. But that lead to inconsistencies with earlier press remarks by him, in which he had said that he had invited Hans Jansen because he was a witness in the Wilders trial. But during the questioning by Mr. Moszkowicz he kept persisting that both statements were truthful.



After Moszkowicz presented his case in substitution court, the president of the court, Marcel van Oosten, responded with these words (video):

"Dear president, I first like to note that we, all three of us, feel used and we don’t rest and that’s why we here. I also notice a considerable inequality of arms at this moment, I have to sit down because I have a fixed microphone although the defense lawyer can do his plea standing, as it should be, so I request the court if I can stay seated as otherwise I don’t have a microphone."

The body langue of the court president didn’t make his statements any better and he continues his plea with praising Moszkowicz because he often needs weeks of preparation for a plea and that he had prepared this elaborated plea in no time at all. He also told the court that in his "humble opinion" Moszkowicz took a too wide a scope of argumentation for requesting the rejection of his court, but nevertheless requested elaborate preparation time for giving a response. The substitition court rejected that request.

The substitution court will rule this Monday. But it seems quite difficult for the substitution court to still rule that Marcel van Oosten his court is still an impartial court for Mr. Wilders after van Oosten has claimed his court has hurt feelings because they "feel used" by the defense.

See also:
Wilders Trial day 16
Wilders Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?
Wilders Trial day 15

Is it a conspiracy?

This week trial testimonies in the Wilders trial exposed new facts about dinner club Vertigo that invited trial expert witness Hans Jansen only days before his court testimony. As reported earlier, one of the Vertigo members is Judge Schalken who ordered the trial against Mr. Wilders. Another member is also an Amsterdam judge and yet another is a Haarlem district justice. An other new fact revealed is that the dinner club, during its eight year history, never did invite guests and that it’s only other invited guest was also invited for discussing the Wilders trial with the Vertigo members.

Today, a day after trial day 16, Hans Jansen published a blog on Dutch group blog Hoeiboei wich is a response to these latest trial developments:

Is it ignorance?

If I had known before the May 3th 2010 dinner, that the members were not only a Haarlem district justice, but also a judge from the Amsterdam court, I would never have accepted the invitation. But nobody told me, I just heard about it a few days ago.

If I had known before the May 3th 2010 dinner, that I was only the second guest speaker from outside the Vertigo club, and that the first speaker also had talked about the Wilders trial, I would never have accepted the invitation. But nobody told me, I just heard about it a few days ago.

If I had known that I was the second guest speaker ever in this club, that both guest speakers had to speak about Wilders and his trial, that two members of the club were judges at the Amsterdam court, then the invitation would have triggered me to contact the justice department and Wilders his defense lawyer. Although I just don’t know if they would have ridiculed me for it.

I think it could be very instructive if the Justice department would also question the first speaker, Paul Scheffer, about his activities at the Vertigo dinner club. What has been discussed that evening about the trial? How did they portray to him the focus of that evening? How far did the judges go? On the other hand, Paul Scheffer is of course also a member of the leftwing church.

"I am not influenced" can mean that nobody has managed to influence my opinion, but it can also mean that nobody has spoken to me to try to influence my opinion. I have not always been aware of the ambiguity of this.[note: this is a reference to press accusations that Hans Jansen has been inconsistent about his allegation of being influenced by Schalken]

The Wilders trial will keep producing blunders and incident for years if nobody puts a stop on it. The cause is clear: Dutch law is currently not well equipped for handling opinion crimes. Maybe the PvdA (Labour Party) can take the initiative for drafting a new law book for these opinion crimes? Together with D66 (Left Liberals) and the GroenLinks (Greens) they surely can find a majority in support for this.

See also:
Wilder Trial day 16

Wilders Trial day 16

Today was the 16th trial day in the Wilders trial. Unfortunately I was not able to see last Wednesdays proceeding with the testimonies of Hans Jansen en Judge Schalken about that infamous dinner that caused the earlier Wilders trial to collapse. Because during the dinner judge Schalken, the judge who ordered the Wilders trial, tried to convince Hans Jansen about the rightfulness of his order during a dinner just days before Hans Jansen himself had to testify in that trial (see: Judge Schalken).



Today, on the sole request of the court, dinner organizer Bertus Hendriks, a well-known leftist Palestinian activist, took the stand. In his testimony Hendriks described Hans Jansen his testimony about Schalken and his overbearingly behavior when he tried to convince Hans Jansen as hogwash. He has seen no such thing that evening, apparently Hans Jansen had visited another dinner that he had. Claiming Hans Jansen had made it all up. And it was not Schalken who intimidated Jansen. It was rather the other way around; it was Hans Jansen who had intimidated the judge. While Hans Jansen was having a good time at the diner, it was Hendriks his friend Schalken that was silent for nearly the whole first half of the evening, still shocked by the events at the start of the dinner. Because when Schalken had arrived and was introduced to Mr. Hans Jansen as the judge who ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Hans Jansen had said he wanted to leave and did not want to talk about Islam if he could be arrested and prosecuted by this judge. But after lots of talk and the promise that he would receive immunity, Jansen agreed to stay.



Hendriks claimed that in The Netherlands nobody has to be fear for expressing his views and thus Hans Jansen must have some sort of problem and must be paranoid with his wild claims about witch trials, Eurabia, Soviet trials and his complaints about the Dutch judicial system. After Hendriks kept repeating that Hans Jansen was paranoid, defense lawyer Moszkowicz complained to the witness that Wilders was really sitting right next to him and that that was certainly not a paranoid delusion. But that dismayed the court, the president of the court insisted that Mr. Wilders was sitting there as a free man. Apparently the judge thought Wilders was free to visit his 16 trial days and counting, free to participate in the uncountable more preparation days, and also that having a 24 hour security detail, just to stay alive was not taking away his freedom.

Thus Bertus Hendriks can be best described as a hostile witness to Mr. Wilders, but he made good on that by being very talkative and making all kinds of interesting (unasked for) remarks. For example, he did not only claim that Mr. Hans Jansen made an incorrect testimony, according to him also judge Schalken made false claims. It started with the number of bottles of wine judge Schalken claimed to have been served during dinner: 6 bottles. Not true says Hendriks. Also the fact that Schalken acknowledged of bring papers with the court ruling of the Wilders trial was incorrect, clearly this was the result of long questioning of judge Schalken. Hendriks had seen no papers, this was just not true. But then again, he also described himself as a close friend of Schalken, such a close friend that he would never tell anything that would make him look bad, by that implying he would lie about facts, if he was not under oath.



BTW this is a part of Wednesday testimony exchange between judge Schalken and Moskowicz (NL):

Moskowicz: Did you have it (the court ruling of the Wilders trial) with you during the dinner?
Schalken: No.
Moskowicz: Not even a part?
Schalken: hmmmmmm…No, I don’t think so?
Moskowicz: Didn’t you take something out of your pocket during the dinner?
Schalken: hmmmmmm… No, well, I don’t know.
Moskowicz: Didn’t you read parts of the court ruling?
Schalken: Oh, yes, I did indeed.
Moskowicz: How?
Schalken: I brought it with me?
Moskowicz: What did you bring with you?
Schalken: Parts of the court ruling?
Moskowicz: What parts?
Schalken: The parts were we said that the comparison between fascism and Islam are not covered by the group offence article.
Moskowicz: Why that part?
Schalken: Because there are many misunderstandings about the court order and this part would interest Jansen.

Hendriks also declared that after Hans Jansen published his blog article that he had sent around an e-mail in which he described the evening so that all remembered the events correctly (amazingly no further questioning followed on this point). Hendrix also described conversations between other Vertigo members, they all agreed about the rudeness of Mr. Jansen of publishing about events that they all had agreed upon to keep private (although Mr. Jansen claimed never to have committed to such thing). Judge Schalken even complained to Mr. Hendriks of being not angrier about what Jansen had done.

There were also new facts around the nature of dinner club. The Vertigo dinner club has always been portrayed as a dinner club who invited mystery guests and who just happened to have invited arabist Hans Jansen as one of their guest. But as it turns out, Hans Jansen was just the second dinner guest in the 8 year history of the dinner club and believe it or not, that other guest was also about the Wilders trial.

The first and only other mystery guest of the dinner club was Paul Scheffer who was invited by judge . He is a known publicist and prominent PvdA (socialist party) member. Scheffer wanted to debate judge Schalken on his court order that ordered the prosecution of Mr. Wilders. Schalken agreed on the dinner discussion on the condition that the entire dinner group would read the complete ruling he and his co-judges had written.

This of course put a whole new light on the reason why Hans Jansen was invited to the dinner party. But according to Bertus Hendriks they just wanted to talk about Islam in The Netherlands and not about the court case. Hans Jansen was just invited because he was a known authority on Islam who had contrarian opinions compared to the groups. The talkative Hendriks had already defined his difference with Mr. Jansen on his own initiative at the beginning of today’s trial:

I’m more a people person and Hans Jansen is more a theology/book person. For example if people go to the mosque every day and thus hear every day the Koranic verse that describes the unbelievers as the enemy that you are at war with, Hans Jansen claims this must have some sort of effect, I beg to differ, I say people are different.

When I write mr. Hendriks was talkative, I actually meant the first part of the trial day, as that was when the court questioned him. Or questioning is not really the right word, they were just letting the witness flow; they didn’t ask too many critical questions and did not really focused on inconsistencies. That all changed when Moszkowicz started his interrogation of the witness.
After Hendriks again repeatedly claimed that Hans Jansen was just invited because they talked about Islam in The Netherlands and that it had nothing to do with the trial, defense lawyer Moszkowicz confronts him with statements he made earlier in the press in which he claims Hans Jansen was invited because he was interesting because he was a witness in the trial. To the dismay of the judges Moszkowicz warned Bertus Hendriks he was under oath. And after Hendriks kept claiming that both his statements were true, the defense lawyer requested a perjury inquiry.

Unfortunately I was not able to follow the afternoon developments, but the court decided to reject Moszkowicz his perjury inquiry on grounds that let Mr. Moszkowicz the impression of a possible prejudiced court, and thus he again requested a disqualification of the court. The disqualification court will rule Monday April 18, 2011.



See also:
Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?
Wilders Trial day 15
Wilders Trial day 14
Wilders Trial day 13
Wilders Trial day 11
Wilders Trial day 10