The realization of Great Ideas, such as the Dutch Ethnic & Cultural Revolution, obviously does not come without a price. The societal architects therefore ask the people to make a small daily sacrifice for the Greater Good:
- The police of the Dutch town of Wateringen is looking for witnesses of a bag snatching that involved an 88-year old Tuesday afternoon. The perpetrator, a North African male around 30, grabbed the victim's hand bag, and took off with it.
- The police have initiated an investigation of the robbery on a 17-year old inhabitant of the Dutch town of Rijen Wednesday afternoon. The suspect, an unknown male of North African descent, blocked the road with his bike, and forced the victim to hand over his wallet.
- Thursdaynight a Karel Appel painting with an estimated value of €80,000 was stolen from a gallery in the city center of Amsterdam. The suspect, a North African juvenile, stepped into the gallery shouting 'Appel, Appel!', snatched the painting, and sped off on his scooter.
- The police are on the lookout for a very young and violent male of South European or North Africandescent. Thursdaynight, the boy robbed a cafetaria in the city of Almere, and stabbed the owner several times with a knife. The victim suffered a serious arterial bleeding, and is still hospitalized.
UPDATE Four Moroccan-Dutch boys assaulted a 34-year old post woman in Gouda while she was doing her round. One of the guys hit her with a dart that ended up one centimeter under her eye. In the same city, bus drivers went on a strike one month ago, because they could no longer accept the violence aimed at them by the local youth.
Dhimmitude in the Netherlands has reached a new height in the wake of Wilders's publication of his movie Fitna.
According to the newspaper Trouw the Dutch police have developed special forms for offended Muslims. If people wish to report Wilders to the police for (religious) discrimination, the only thing they need to do is fill in 'Geert Wilders' and 'Fitna' on the further preprinted form.
The measure follows an announcement by the High Police Command that reports against Wilders will be accepted more easily than other reports. 'Reports will be accepted even if the punishability of the act is not evident, if only to give complainants a chance to blow off steam'. Earlier this year, the Amsterdam police commandor Bernard Welten called Wilders's film 'a flat-out provocation' without even having seen it.
Clearly, the politically correct elite, the Police Command included, will do just about anything to placate the (allegedly!) inflamable Muslim community. Even if this involves the introduction of clear-cut apartheid at the police stations. The ease with which the neutrality of such a vital institution as the police is sacrificed to the pacification of Dutch Muslims, who haven't even shown the slightest inclination to riot in the first place, really is a chilling sign of Dutch dhimmitude, and as such a bad omen for the future of the Netherlands in general.
Last week a judge acquitted a twenty-year old Dutch-Somalian who had been accused of stealing a wallet in Rotterdam. The police were able to catch the perpetratror and found the stolen wallet on him. But in court the judge could not be convinced of his guilt. The thieve, who had just been released from prison after being convicted for another street robbery, denied any involvement. The judge believed him. For a remarkable reason. 'One has to assume that someone who has recently done time, has learned his lesson,' the judge argued.
For Dutch neo-conservatives, of whom there are still too few, it is difficult not to see the acquittal in the light of the 68-revolution, when the phenomenon of crime was reduced to a mere symptom of societal inequality. If only we stopped accepting the gap between rich and poor - if only we invested more in the marginalized victims of our prejudiced society, then, crime would simply cease to be. Retaliation, one of the most important aspects of criminal justice, was no longer considered a valid motive. Punishment, after all, would only increase the marginalization of the already marginalized.Eversince judges seem to be more busy resisting the "popular" demand for effective punishment than actually enforcing the law.
Most people don't even know how radical the Dutch elite had become during the late 60s and early 70s. Take, for instance, Louk Hulsman, professor of law at Erasmus University in Rotterdam (1963-1986), and key member of the progressive Coornhert League for reformation of criminal law. Hulsman felt that criminal justice had failed. Fully in line with the teachings of the post-modern activist Foucault, he came to the conclusion that the law was no more than 'an instrument of oppression'. In the early 70s, he radicalized even further, eventually to become a socalled 'abolitionist'. His abolition, though, had nothing to do with slavery. Hulsman actually proposed to abolish criminal law, so as to put an end to the criminalization of certain types of behavior by the state.
Fortunately, the abolitionists were even too radical for most Dutch intellectuals. This does not mean, however, that the debate at that time went beyond the overlap between neo-marxism and post-modern relativism. An important player was the juridical sociologist Toon Peters (1936-1994), one of Hulsman's contemporaries and a former student at Berkeley University. Peters, too, was disappointed about the effects of criminal justice. Yet contrary to Hulsman, he did not believe in abolitionism. Instead, he argued, criminal law should be made a tool in the hands of the oppressed. During his '72 inaugural lecture at Utrecht University, Peters proclaimed that 'justice should notbe impartial. It should rather be on the side of those who are powerless, those who are put under authority, those who are at risk of being marginalized.' Peters urged his colleagues and students to become activists and take part in the battle against state oppression. In juridical circles he is therefore still remembered as the inventor of 'academic activism'.
It has become a common-place, nowadays, to say that the sons and daughters of the '68 revolution have dominated or even hijacked the juridical and political debate in the Netherlands during the 70s, 80s and 90s, indeed a larger part of the former century. And because of their long-lived dominance, the post-modern paradigm is far from dead today.
A good example of the perpetuation of neo-marxist radicalism in the Netherlands is Bart Stapert, board member of the Dutch section of Amnesty International. In the 90s Stapert had been dedicating his life to the ultimate victims of state oppression, offering legal assistance to US death row convicts. In 2001 Stapert was rewarded for his ideological activism, when Utrecht University, an old Coornhert League stronghold, decided to bestow upon him an honorary doctorate at the Law department. The position offered Stapert an academic safe-haven from where he could undisturbedly spread his neo-marxist views.
In an interview following his appointment, Stapert seized the occasion to blow up at his natural allies, the Social Democrates, infuriated by their hesitant approval of tougher punishments: 'The Christian Democrates and even the Social Democrates are now calling for tougher punishments. This is all the result of the notionthat criminal law canbe used to tackle crime. Yet weknow that thouger punishments are merely a sign of impotence - that we have already been too late. In my view, the causes of crime and the suspect's background are of much greater importance.' In the light of this intellectual and juridical climate, it is of course no wonder that judges are often perceived as radically soft. It is no wonder either that crime rates have been steadily on the rise during the seemingly endless aftermath of the '68 revolution. If not even law professors believe in the law, why should a simple thug?
Amsterdam is a red city not only for its famous red lights. Since the 2006 elections, Amsterdam is run by Labor and the Green Party, who together won 56% of the votes. With the Socialist Party (13%), the Liberal-Democrats (4%) and the Greens (2%), the Left is good for a staggering majority of 75%.
Now, the Amsterdam lefties have deployed a new weapon in their silly war against the ethnic Dutch: stigmatization and racism. Check the cartoon in an official curricular brochure that was send to no fewer than three-hundred schools by the City of Amsterdam.
Ironically, the brochure mourned the 'unfortunate fact that some politicians seek to gain popularity by being very negative about certain groups of people.' No kidding! And the worst thing is that those politicians even have penetrated into the City Council...
Remember Bouchra Ismaili, the Rotterdam councillor that summoned all 'foreigners' and 'devil worshippers' (that's Eurabic for Dutch non-Muslims) to convert to Islam?
Well, she's back! Yesterday, she turned out to have actually signed the petition against the slandering of Islam, which is organized by the Saudi-financed anti-democratic Muslims of Hizb ut-Tahrir:
It is time to rid ourselves from a culture that damages our Islam en to propagate the beauty of Islam. Only then we will grow in our Islam. We should not invest in trying to change others, but let us change ourselves. Kind regards, Bouchra Ismaili.
No wonder Ismaili snapped last week. The email that triggered her reaction, after all, consisted of nothing more than two quotes by Okay Pala, the leader of the same Hizb ut-Tahrir that organized the petition:
We do on agree with freedom of speech, because we reject democracy.
and
What you need is a heavy bomb attack.
I am starting to like Ismaili. She is not two-faced at all, she's got a "unitongue". No taqiyya-games. Truely a wolf in wolves' clothes.
Of course, now even Labor has to let her go. I mean, I just assume that the local party president's remark, that 'Ismaili's views are in agreement with the party line', is a slip of the tongue. Yesterday, Ismaili was asked to give up her seat in the borough council.
Muslims will soon be able to do without their Labor guardians anyway. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, Turks (45,461) and Moroccans (37,159) already make out 15% of the total Rotterdam population (526,014). Under the age of 21, though, this percentage is probably about twice as high.
De Telegraaf recently reported that Moroccans voters are abandoning Labor en masse, because they no longer feel that the party is safeguarding their interests. Ismaili's downfall will only speed up this process, and it seems to be only a matter of time before the radicals will get politically organized. I quote the Rotterdam Turk Ali Guskizigmus in a (censored) reaction to the Telegraaf article:
I can easily set up a party that will draw 100% of the Muslim voters ...if only the mullahs would allow it. We are told to wait until we can get 33%. Then, our time will come.
So, while the first cracks in Socialislamism are finally starting to appear, its immediate successor, Islamism, is already casting its shadow over the city of Rotterdam.
'Saudi Arabia is funding a number of European departments of Hizb ut-Tahrir,' the Dutch Intelligence Service (AIVD) revealed at a conference of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. According to a staff member 'the Saudis are still poised to play an active role in radically Islamic movements. They have great sums of money at their disposal, and it is difficult to refuse the Saudi dollars.'
Hizb ut-Tahrir is continuously monitored by the Dutch Intelligence Service. According to a 2004 report on Islamic radicalization, From Dawa to Jihad, the organization has a strategy of secretive jihad. 'Officially, Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to reject violent jihad, but its supporters have been involved in anti-semitic incidents and incitement to acts of violence in a number of European countries' (p. 46). In other words, Hizb ut-Tahrir's strategy falls within the (popular) definition of taqiyya, the licence to lie to non-Muslims. The AIVD calls the organization 'a threat', because it seeks 'to secretly promote violence through the cultivation of a radical and puritan form of Islam' (p. 45).
According to the AIVD, the Hizb ut-Tahrir considers itself not yet strong enough to actually use violence. In the mean time, it seems to use those Saudi dollars to boost Islamic consciousnessamongst Dutch Muslims. In Dutch cities with concentrated populations of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir regularly spreads pamphlets regarding the creation of a global caliphate. More recently, it organized an internet petition against the 'slandering of Islam' by Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party.
The petition, by the way, is exemplary of the monstrous alliance between Muslim extremists and Dutch progressives in the battle against "Islamophobia". So, on 20 January, we have Abdelaziz calling for the victory of Islam over the infidels, and Rik raging against Geert Wilders' opposition to Islam:
Abdelaziz (7:10 CET): 'Islam will prevail, and we, with the help of the New Prophet, will defeat the Impostor and the disbelievers. Inshallah. My life and death truely belong to Allah. Subhanellahthala.'
Rik (8:42 CET): 'I am against the raking up of differences that in reality aren't that big, and that have nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Someone so deranged to see Islam as a problem is unworthy of freedom of speech. Unnecessary extremists such as Wilders must be stopped to prevent things from getting worse. He is a threat to our peaceful society.'
Note that Rik's stance is remarkably close to the statement by Okay Pala, the Dutch leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, that 'we reject freedom of speech, because we reject democracy'. And in this political climate, there seem to be plenty of opportunities for Saudi investors indeed.
Last week, the Dutch army lost two soldiers in Uruzgan, Afghanistan. In the heat of battle against the Taliban, soldier first class Wesley Schol (born 1988) and colonel Aldert Poortema (born 1986) were lethally wounded by friendly fire.
The reactions on marokko.nl, a Dutch-Moroccan news blog, were cheerful as always. 'Thanks to this news I will be able to sleep better. Allah hu aqbar! Great news!!'. 'Allah hu aqbar! Goodbye to two big criminals, responsible for raping and killing many civilians,' says a certain Barzan. 'Serves them!' someone else adds, 'Those pink pigs shouldn't have gone there in the first place. May there be many more.'
But the good news is that in 2006 marokko.nl was granted a 135,000 euro subsidy by the tax-based Press Encouraging Fund (Dutch: Stimuleringsfonds voor de Pers). Why? Because this governmental fund's goal is to boost ethnic diversity in the Dutch media, 'which minorities are unable to satisfactorily identify with'. And because the 'radicalist tendencies' on marokko.nl - the Islamist murderer of Theo van Gogh was a frequent poster - 'had been tackled', the fund subtly argues on its website.
Never a dull moment in our glorious multicultural society! Today the Dutch conservative blog HetVrijeVolk.com published a furious email from the Rotterdam Labor Party councillor Bouchra Ismaili. I quote:
"Listen well, you crazy freak. We are here to stay! Hahahaha. Drop dead! I am a Dutch Muslim and I will stay that way until I die."
Ismaili contends: "You are the foreigners here!!! With Allah on my side I fear no one. Me and my fellow Muslims are alive! Your species is being consumed by hatred. Let me give you some advice: Convert to Islam and find peace at heart!"
Now what exactly made Ismaili go snap? A certain Jos Parbleu had sent her two quotes from the Turkish-Dutch Okay Pala, the local leader of the radically Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir. During an interview with the newspaper De Telegraaf he had said:
"We reject freedom of speech, because we reject democracy," and "What you need is a heavy bomb attack".
Hizb ut-Tahrir is also known for activities such as handing out Islamist pamphlets in Dutch cities. In those pamphlets, Hizb ut-Tahrir calls for action against those who insult Islam, or against the infidels in general. According to the Dutch Secret Service, Hizb ut-Tahrir regards itself "not yet strong enough to use violence" in the struggle for Islamic world domination.
Fortunately, there are more than enough moderate Muslims in the Netherlands. You know, the ones that have embraced liberal democracy. Those brand new middle class Muslims that will protect us against the radicals. Succesful immigrant politicians like... Bouchra Ismaili.
But Bouchra Ismaili did not raise her voice against Okay Pala. She did not reassure the Dutch citizens who are genuinely worried about the growing power of radical Islam in the Netherlands. Instead, Ismaili vented her rage against... Jos Parbleu and what she calls 'his species' or 'the devil worshippers'.
I must admit that Ismaili is right about one thing: The ethnically Dutch are rapidly becoming foreigners in their own cities. Today, 36 pct of the Rotterdammers are of non-Western origin, i.e. Surinamese, Turkish or - like Ismaili - Moroccan. Under the age of 21, however, this percentage has risen to approximately 53 pct.
Now, the effects of this demographic shock wave are starting to set in. In October, the same Rotterdam city council made news when some members complained not to be able to understand their fellow councillors. Because they were speaking Turkish during the meetings and the breaks in between.
It seems that the multicultural radicals are finally going to have their way. The ethnically Dutch are becoming more and more marginalized in all the major cities. While sacrificing up to as much as half of their income to the multicultural welfare state, they are doomed to serve as a societal substrate, a kind of agar agar, as it were, on which 'rich cultures' are to multiply...
To motivate the jobless Amsterdam Moroccan youths, 'I use the image of Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Muslim Berber who landed at Gibraltar with 1,200 men. After his arrival he told his men to burn all boats. Then he addressed them with the words: "Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. Either go to battle or swim back. The choice is yours." Now this is the mentality that [Moroccan] youths need.'
These are the words of the Labor Party member Ahmed Marcouch during an interview by DePers.nl. To many people in the Netherlands, Marcouch is the living proof that Muslims actually can be integrated into Dutch society. As a son of a Moroccan guest worker, he migrated from Morocco to the Netherlands in 1979 at the age of ten, and became president of the Amsterdam borough of Slotervaart in 2006.
To me, however, Marcouch's acculturalization proves to be painfully shallow. How else could he fail to grasp that his Islamic parable amounts to a declaration of war against the Dutch? It was Tariq ibn Ziyad, after all, who in the year 711 defeated the Christian king Roderic, leader of the Germanic Visigoths, and made Spain part of the Islamic world...
On the other hand, it is difficult to see how Marcouch could not have understood the implications of his words. In the same interview, the Moroccan-born Marcouch admitted that he went through a phase of Islamic radicalization when he was younger. 'One thinks in terms of black and white. One believes that the woman's place is at home. That the West is the enemy.'
The whole situation is really deplorable. Who could have predicted, ten or twenty years ago, that in 2008 liberal Amsterdam would be run by an official city councillor with a history of radical Islamism? And that the same councillor would make use of Islamic rethoric to inspire Moroccan youths? Are we soon going to commemmorate the defeat of the Islamic invaders at the Battle of Tours in 732 to make angry young Muslims feel better?
I think that the bottom line is the following question: Should we regard Marcouch's words as a major slip of the tongue, as a symptom of not yet complete acculturalization? Or should we rather take him to be the embodiment of the merger between Islamism and Socialism, the forerunner of the new Dutch, more Islamoid way of life? In fact, neither possibility gives rise to optimism.
'Generally speaking, if you met Dutch people, they fell into two categories: those who felt that Holland had solved the question of human existance, that there were no problems left to solve and the rest of the world would follow Holland; and then there were also Dutch people that were so appalled by that, that they fled the country.' Theodore Dalrymple (12/23/2007) on the weekly debate program Buitenhof .
Job Cohen, the Labor Party mayor of Amsterdam, has officially started worrying. In his New Year's speech held on Tuesday night, he called the 'underachievement of some youths' one of Amsterdam's biggest issues. The policies on juvenile criminals, the mayor added, have failed. Hearing this from a mayor, who by many is known as a politically correct radical, can be recorded as the first break-through of 2008.
But for most people in the Netherlands the mayor's outcry is old wine in even older bottles. Real life people have known for a decade or so that the problem is the Moroccan street terrorists, who are dying to start another mini-jihad against Dutch society. The very night before Cohen's speech, these youths had attacked the police station at the August Allebé square in West Amsterdam. Windows were crashed and three police cars went up in flames.
Some of the Moroccan youths are the children or grand children of the guest workers recruited from Morocco in the 60s and early 70s. But when the recruitments stopped in 1973, the number of Moroccans in the Netherlands stood at a mere 22 thousand. The largest part of the Moroccan community entered the country through marriage immigration (the socalled right of family reunion), bringing the population to 329 thousand in 2007.
While billions of euros have been spent on literacy programs, Dutch language and integration courses, additional school subsidies, neighborhood hang-outs and multicultural street parties, Moroccans are notoriously 'underachieving'. The Dutch journalist Fleur Jurgens in her book Het Marokkanendramasummarized that 60 pct of the adults live on welfare, and that 70 pct of the youths drop out of school without a useful diploma. According to a 2006 research, 40 pct of the same youths reject a Western lifestyle, and 6 pct is even willing to use violence to defend Islam. The tolerant welfare state, celebrated as a role model to the world in the multicultural 90s, seems to have created a monster.
The police station at the Allebé square was no random target, by the way. It had already been the focus of Moroccan rage following the death of the psychotic Moroccan Bilal Bajaka. On 14th October of 2007 Bajaka walked into the Allebé station with a large knife in his hand, stabbing two random police officers before they could shoot him. While the officers had to go through life-saving surgery and weeks of slow recovery, the Amsterdam Moroccans sought revenge for the loss of their clan member, and launched a mini-jihad against civil society. During the next two weeks, dozens of civilian cars were torched, journalists violently ousted from the neighborhood.
Report on West Amsterdam troubles by EenVandaag (in Dutch).
As usual, the mayor's reaction was dangerously appeasive. While the Amsterdam chief commissioner Bernard Welten openly dreaded 'Parisian conditions', referring to the annual riots in the French suburbs, Cohen ordered the police not to intervene. Intervention, after all, could disturb the peace in the neighborhoods!
When the media later revealed that Bajaka was a close friend of Mohammed Bouyeri, the islamist murderer of the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, the question arose whether the onslaught on the police station wasn't simply a clumsy terrorist attack. Yet Cohen categorically denied any terrorist motive being involved, proclaiming that the attack was the mere act of a madman. Any possible commotion over a terrorist act, after all, would pose a serious threat to... peace in the city.
As a citizen of Amsterdam, it is frightening to see that the mayor is willing to sacrifice both the law and the truth on the altar of peace. A peace, I am afraid, that no longer exists but in the mayor's head. Is Cohen finally smelling trouble in 2008? Probably not. Yes, the mayor for the first time publically expressed his worries about the city's future in his New Year's speech. The larger part of his speech, however, was just a variation to the same old riff about the 'growing gap between the rich and the poor', which - as the socialists tend to think - is the real cause of crime and all other types of underachievement.
Exclusion is another one of those root causes. Exclusion by society (which is usually portrayed as too intolerant, too capitalist, and - especially - too Western) is supposed to be the trigger for people to become a criminal or an islamist. The cure-all to societal problems, the socialists therefore believe, must be unconditional inclusion. No wonder mayor Cohen in his speech frantically emphasized that the underachieving youths are in fact all 'Amsterdammers thatthe citycan't do without in the future.' Can't do without? Uh, I don't know about that... What I do know is that the Moroccan street terrorists can't do without their mayor.
Born in the late 70s in the Netherlands, Anders Wellebeeke grew up at a time when welfare statism and multiculturalism became a religion of state. In the new millennium he witnesses how progressive fundamentalists are destroying Dutch culture from within.
The realization of Great Ideas, such as the Dutch Ethnic & Cultural Revolution, obviously does not come without a price. The societal architects therefore ask the people to make a small daily sacrifice for the Greater Good:
