Slowly but surely it's becoming clear how the Dutch elite, commonly referred to as 'the regents', led by Her Majesty and her chief advisor, the all powerful Vice President of the Council of State, 'Vice Roy' Herman Tjeenk Willink (in truth an ordinary socialist, career politician), have neutralized the election results in which the right wing liberal party (VVD) and Islam critic, Geert Wilders emerged as winners.
The CDA sports a vocal left wing, as well as a host of transnational progressivist elderly statesmen, of which Ruud Lubbers is a prime specimen. All vehemently oppose the Wilders agenda. The party declined to participate in talks. Seen in current light, this was probably part of the strategy.
- Caption: 'Vice Roy' Herman Tjeenk Willink -
Labour leader, Job Cohen had been spreading memes even before the elections that the Wilders agenda is "touching the edges of the rule of law". Which is a chutzpah, considering it's the postmodern 'regents' in the Justice Dept., the judiciary and in the multicultural, red/green cabal that is appointing them, that are a clear and present danger to the rule of law. Present story is a typical example of their anti-democratic, authoritarian mindset.
But facts and reality are irrelevant to these people. They are obsessed with their own subjective reality, the narrative they've constructed in which Wilders is a fascist and an enemy of the rule of law. This also helps explain, that while Public Prosecutors declined to procecute Wilders for "group offence" (insulting Muslims), a special anti-discrimination Court found reason to go after him nonetheless.
The socialist 'Vice Roy' is playing a central role in the controlled detonation of the Wilders explosive device. The key to this drama was recently discovered by a republican blogger (Hat Tip: Naar De Knoppen). An article entitled "The Constitutional Coup of State" on weblog ProRepublica states:
The answer lies in the last sentence of para C1 of Tjeenk Willink's advice to Mrs Van Amsberg (Her Majesty's common name). On the basis of this advice the head of state ordered Messrs Rosenthal (the Liberal party negotiator) and Wallage (the Labour negotiator) to form a government with the parties referred to as Paars+*.
The secret is summed up in one short sentence: 'The countersignature on Parliamentary initatives are to be refused if the principles of the democratic rule of law, the international position of the Netherlands, or basic financial policies are at stake.
The Government can decline signing a Bill into law, even if it has the support of the majority in Parliament.(...) >>>
The author of the article is obviously a fierce critic of 'Mrs Van Amsberg' and the cabal surrounding Her Majesty. He or she is asserting that "just about every subject" is covered by the three conditions summed up in the advice. I beg to differ. This is clearly a device solely meant to neutralize Wildersian initiatives.
The "principles of the democratic rule of law" is referring to international treaties and human rights covenants. Wilders wants to deport criminal immigrants and possible also citizens of foreign descend. He has also proposed an immigration moratorium for Muslim countries.
"The Internatonal position of the Netherlands" is in reference to recent threats by Jordan to prosecute Wilders and demands for explanations from other Muslim entities (my suspicion is the powerful OIC is also playing a role in the current prosecution of Geert Wilders). Dutch exporters in the private sector have also been quick to ditch liberty for sausages and dairy produce.
The final condition, where "basic financial policies are at stake" is even more sinister. Is there a Keynesian cabal as well at work, meant to undermine the right wing austerity program? Just what is going on here?
This isn't over. Not by a long chalk!
Related
- Hudson New York: "Dutch Establishment Rejects Election Results", by Thomas Landen
Related (Dutch)
- "Hoe Lang Hebben We Nog?"
- "De Wisseltruc van Job Cohen"
- "Regenten Demonteren Rechtse Bom"
- "Grassroots Verzet Tegen Paars+"
- "De Oorverdovende Dissonantie in het CDA"
- "Links Ontspoort Bijna Helemaal"
- "Nederland Stemt: Zweven Tussen Vrijheid en Statisme"
- "Inderdaad. Een Gevaar Voor de Rechtsstaat"
Posts
2 comments:
A strange piece about dutch politics with a major error:
it was not, I repeat not an anti discrimination court to called upon the prosecution of Wilders. The Netherlands doesn't even has such a court.
it was a regular court that has decided that the D.A. should prosecute pending the complaints about Wilders speeches. Such is mandatory in The Netherlands, unless the D.A. can prove on forehand that the complaints are irrelevant.
So the author of this piece is completely misled and his interpretation false, about dutch politics.
At the end of the day, it was Wilders who walked out, although the agreements was only days away from finishing. Wilders saw an opportunity to decline responsibility. CDA gave him this reason.
So, what do we have here? Another fundamentally dishonest anonymous!
Perhaps the correct word for this anti discrimination Court should have been Bench, but I fail to see how that essentially changes anything. The DA originally did show there was no case, but the Bench proceeded with their politically motivated case any way.
The case will be continuing in November: how precisely did Wilders 'walk out'?
Please stop wasting our time with spin. We're not having any.
Post a Comment