They would not think of doing it to the Koran

Pope Benedict XVI puts the finger on the sore spot that is modern-day Western art:

The Pope has condemned a ' disgusting' taxpayer-funded exhibition in which visitors are urged to deface the Bible.

Visitors were offered pens by gallery bosses so they could scrawl comments on the text - leading to a host of puerile and obscene remarks.

Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.

His anger over the show, organised by council-funded arts body Culture
and Sport Glasgow, was expressed by a senior Vatican priest.

The adviser to the Pope said: 'It is disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran.'

The exhibition in question is Made in God's Image, which stated aim is '[t]o develop an innovative and challenging programme of visual art exhibitions, projects and education events to promote respect of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) human rights'.

The exhibition has changed it's set up in the mean time. Says the artist in question: 'I am saddened that some people have chosen to write offensive messages'.

Make of it what you will.

Quote of the day

Isn't this a sentiment that is shared by many in Western Europe?

What is happening right now is that many of the Danes who pay a high tax to finance the party have a feeling that the money is more or less wasted on people who come to Denmark but do not want to become part of Danish society

Thulesen Dahl, chairman of the Danish People's Party in an interview with Kristeligt Dagblad. Translation via Gates of Vienna.

A stake through the heart...

... of Anthropogenic Global Warming!

Three Australian scientists (real ones!) just published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research (abstract) in which they show that oscillations of the climate in the Pacific Ocean explain most of the changes in global temperatures.

The Climate Depot lays it out (emphasis mine - KV):

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

It will come as no surprise to many among our readership, that the warming of the last two to three decades of the last century has turned out to be natural. But it is of huge significance that what we 'deniers' think has now been corroborated by (and I can't stress this enough) empirical science.

No fiddled predictions from dodgy, incomplete models. Just a straightforward study of two sets of patterns in historical data and the relationship between the two. Today is the day that real, actual science drove a stake through the heart of AGW theory.

Of course none of it will be on the evening news... Vested interests and multi-billion and even trillion dollar investments (pdf) have to be protected.

The more, the less merry

Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV) has started a new initiative that will raise every single hackle in 'civilized society': What do immigrants cost society? asks PVV

Geert Wilders' anti-immigration party PVV has asked a number of government ministers to calculate exactly how much non-western immigrants cost Dutch society, Trouw reports on Wednesday.

The finance, social affairs, health, housing, education, economic affairs and defence ministries have all been asked by PVV MP Sietse Fritsma to calculate how much immigrants cost their departments and how much they contribute in terms of taxes.

'The core of Fritsma's questions is: The Hague spends relatively more on non-western immigrants and gets little back,' Trouw states.

The paper says Fritsma has asked the tax office to calculate how much non-western immigrants pay in taxes compared with the native Dutch. The education ministry has been asked how much it spends on catching ethnic minority truants.

And the health ministry has been asked to say how much more money it spends on non-westerners because they are more likely to visit the doctor.

The party has asked for the calculations to be based on government spending over the past five years with a forecast for the next five.

Trouw says it is unclear if individual ministries will cooperate with the PVV's requests or whether ministers will prepare a joint statement.

On the face of it it is a bit of a petty, unsympathetic initiative. But given the fact that out governments (the one in The Hague as well as the one in Brussels) are pushing mass-migration as the single most important cure for the ills of an aging population, the answer to that question is rather important.

However, I would be surprised if any cooperation from the ministries that received requests for information is forthcoming. In the past a number of studies have been carried out, all coming up with a negative answer.

See for instance this three page report (pdf, NL) from 2002, which concludes that your average non-western immigrant into Holland benefits society slightly more then zero in the best of circumstances. The older, or younger, an immigrant is, the more negative his/her contribution to society will be (see the graph above, reproduced from the report). The report notes that the possibilities to select immigrants is virtually impossible, what with family accompanying the immigrant hopeful. An average family arriving in the Netherlands from non-western societies are calculated to have a net benefit to the Dutch public sector of about -250,000 euros (-350,000 dollars US). The report is rather aptly titled 'The more, the less merry'.

[UPDATE001] Bravely, and rather unexpectedly I think, the liberal conservative VVD is supporting the PVV. Over on the Dagelijkse Standaard (NL) VVD MP Paul de Krom published a statement on behalf of the VVD:

It seems to me perfectly logical to honestly lay out the costs and benefits of immigration to the Dutch population and tax payers.

[UPDATE002] And hop: The (an?) answer is in. According to Elseviers Syp Wynia (NL video) the costs of immigration are 12.7 billion euros for this year alone. Over the last 40 years, the net benefit of immigration was some 200 billion euros (280 billion dollars US) negative income. Two-hundred-billion euros that can not be spent on taking care of the elderly or revising the system so mitigate the effects of an aging population. Fortunately we have all those undereducated muslims to take care of us when we grow old, right? Right?

Fjordman Files -- July updates

[19 - 7] The fifthh instalment of A History of European Music is up at EuropeNews.

[17 - 7] The fourth instalment of A History of European Music is up at La Yijad en Eurabia.

[9 - 7] The third instalment of A History of European Music is up at Brussels Journal.

[8 - 7] The second instalment of A History of European Music is up at Brussels Journal.

[1 - 7] Fjordman has started a new series one of my favorite subjects: Music. The first installment is up over at Brussels Journal: A History of European Music -- Part 1

This is the first part of a history of European music, from Pythagoras to The Beatles. It will consist of five parts published at The Brussels Journal, Atlas Shrugs and possibly other websites such as Europe News and La Yijad en Eurabia. After these parts have been completed, the entire essay will be republished at the Gates of Vienna. I have utilized many sources for this text, but the single most important reference work is A History of Western Music, Seventh Edition, by Donald J. Grout, Peter J. Burkholder and Claude V. Palisca.

RECENT FJORDMAN
A History of European Music -- Part 5
A History of European Music -- Part 4
A History of European Music -- Part 3
A History of European Music -- Part 2
A History of European Music -- Part 1
Britain: From Parliament to Police State
Some Mathematical History
To President Obama: Regarding Islam and Science
Why Christians Accepted Greek Natural Philosophy, But Muslims Did Not
Bruce Bawer on “Racism” Accusations
Why Muslims Like Hitler, but Not Mozart
Sweden Tops European Rape League — But Why?
Why We Need Germany
A Critical Look at The House of Wisdom by Jonathan Lyons
A History of Mechanical Clocks‏
The Self-Defeat of the United States

More Fjordman Files here.

Fascist to the left of me, 'fascists'to the right...

The label 'fascists' is nowadays bandied out to such an extent that the word has become virtually meaningless (unless your definition of a fascist is 'someone who doesn't take my word as gospel'). All the more so in the case of Geert Wilders.

Powerline's Paul Mirengoff tells us what is what in his Who are the fascists in Europe? And guess what: It ain't us...

Given the threat the Islamists pose to women, gays, Jews, and freedom in general, they are the true fascists in modern Europe, with their enablers running not far behind.

Fresh violence in France

In France the famous French 'youth' are back on the street rioting. It has been going on for a week now, after a criminal of Algerian descent attempted suicide while he was in police custody. Police say it really was a suicide, but that of course is not believed.

Tiberge has a good overview of the fresh violence of the past week. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any reporting on this in the Dutch MSM (or any other MSM out there). Why the coyness? Or have we really resigned ourselves to the fact that 'youth' (whose background, of course must never be mentioned) will use any excuse to cause havoc. And that our authorities will do next to nothing to curb the violence. As Tiberge notes: 'Clearly, French law does not apply to Muslims'.

A first world luxury

In the Spectator a long interview with Professor Ian Plimer, Australian geologist and the writer of a new book showing that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Just one thing: All major publishers rejected the book.

Luckily a tiny family publishing house took it upon themselves to take a chance for truth. Plimer couldn’t bring himself to accept an advance they clearly couldn’t afford. But then something remarkable happened. In just two days, the book sold out its 5,000 print run. Five further editions followed in swift succession. It has now sold 26,500 copies in Australia alone.

Some choice quotes:

On computer models.

I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.

On environmentalist.

When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.

On public awareness.

‘It’s one of the few good things to come out of this recession,’ says Plimer. ‘People are starting to ask themselves: “Can we really afford this green legislation?”’

On that much vaunted consensus.

If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.

Read it all, as they say.

(Thanks to Anonymous in the comments)

Enjoy it while it lasts

Remember this name: Cass Sunstein. He's a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And according to Kyle Smith of the New York Post it's the bland titles that should scare you the most.

"Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."

Another 'czar' in the Obama administration. But this is one with a difference. Mr. Sunstein thinks that bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.

Hence, in the best (by which I mean worst) of Post-modern tradition Sunstein is contemplating changing the meaning of the word 'libel'.

Sunstein may try to make good on the implicit threat that runs through his book: that he would redefine libel as the spread of false information and hold everyone up the ladder responsible.

If this happened, the blogosphere would turn into Pluto overnight. Comments sections would slam shut. Every writer would work on a leash shorter than a shoelace.

And to enforce the new 'law' on the internet, mr. Sunstein wants to engage in government sponsored lawfare against ordinary citizens.

You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Sunstein, trying to fair, argues that libel awards should be capped at $15,000, or at least limited for anyone demonstrating financial hardship. But $15K is the limit you'd pay to your opponent. The legal bill is the scary part, and the reason bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction.

And there you have it. The concept of Freedom as the Obama administration thinks it applies.

This piece in the Post is, of course, an early warning op-ed. Mr. Sunstein isn't officially appointed yet. And even if he is, I doubt radical legislation like this makes it through both Houses unscathed and indeed alive.

But I heartily endorse Mr. Smiths conclusion:

Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favour and declare war on him.

For if he gets his way, the blogosphere and indeed all independent news-gathering and opinion will be dead or forced underground. (h/t IBA)

[UPDATE001] Sunstein is not the the first or only anti-human, anti-freedom 'czar' about to be appointed by The One. From Michelle we get news of the designated Science and Technology czar, John Holdren and his peculiar views on the application of science to mould humanity. And the MSM is ripping him a new one over it... NOT.

"And for our next trick..." (updated)

- "... we will eliminate world poverty and hunger!"

- "... we will change the earths rotation to its opposite direction!"

- "... we wil turn water into wine!"

Idiots!

Mind you, the more astute among the western leaders must be aware that the global temperature has been trending downwards over the last year. So they should know that warming will be limited to within 2 degrees centigrade by natural processes alone. That they are still going along with the utterly insane, self-destructive insanity of a reduction of 80% of CO2 emissions tells us that this whole charade is not about impending climate disaster. It is about increased government control, pure and simple.

[UPDATE001] Our own intrepid PM, Jan Peter Balkenende, is also afflicted with the collective Jesus-syndrome: Balkenende content with climate deal G8 (NL). Will nobody rid us of these blathering fools?

[UPDATE002] And to underline the point of this post: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance'. (h/t Jim Hoft)

It on... again... on October 2nd

Ireland's Taoiseach (PM) Brian Cowen today announced when the do-over of the Irish referendum on the EU constitution Turnip Lisbon treaty is to be held: October 2nd of this year.

This comes after mr. Cowen secured the promise of a possibility of amending the treaty to settle Irish concerns during the 'summit' late last month. As we wrote then:

So the upshot really is, that the Irish have not got what they asked, they just got the promise that maybe they will get their wish, but only after they accept the Turnip Lisbon Treaty.

But since every other leader who managed ratification of the Turnip will not risk renegotiation of the treaty (with the risk of demands for a referendum attached to it), this promise is as empty as a slice of intergalactic space.

The next referendum is then, in very real terms, a literal do-over. The Irish get to vote on the exact same treaty, expected to give a 'Yes' this time around. That is how the EUnion works, don't you know?

More on EU Referendum.

The last days

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Rev. 3: 14-16)

Christianity in the Netherlands is doomed to extinction. In its present form anyway. This saddens me greatly, because I firmly believe that Christianity is a force for good in any nation where it has taken root. The Netherlands as a nation will suffer more then it is prepared to acknowledge if (or when) the Holy Ghost finally leaves these shores for good.

This morning mrs. KV and I attended service at a protestant church two villages away from ours (much to the delight of mrs. KV, the region, like mrs. KV, is predominantly Catholic. So if I want an old-fashioned 'black stocking' Reformed service, we have to travel a bit). I hadn't really paid attention to this before, but we, despite being in our early thirties, were the youngest ones there. Not only that, but the gap between us and the next youngest attendants was a good thirty years. A full 80% of the people occupying the pews were 70 or over. Which means that in about 30 years, when mrs. KV and I will be in our sixties, the congregation gathered today will in all likelihood have joined the choir eternal. We might well be the only two attending service by then (well, here's hoping our children will follow their parents in this seemingly losing proposition).

And, though I find this infinitely saddening, I can understand it. Mrs. KV and I go to church for our own sake. By that I mean we don't attend church for the sermon or the singing. It is hard to put into words exactly why it is we feel the need to visit a church every now and then. We jokingly refer to it as 'going on a visit to God'. Just the act of spending an hour in church, praying and meditating, I guess.

For people looking for a bit more then just 'visiting God', however, the protestant church in the Netherlands has become a barren place. I cannot remember the last time I have heard a sermon that did not leave me squirming in my seat. This Sunday was not exception. The minister, a sweet and in his own way: a wise man of eighty-three going on seventeen, reminded us all how we were morally obligated to take responsibility for all the crap in the world. How we MUST feel solidarity with the downtrodden in far away lands, suffering at the hands of regimes that are in fact propped up by the very money we were invited to put into the collection plate.

As sermons go, this was pretty standard fair. All my life I have been excoriated from the pulpit I didn't feel enough, didn't show enough, didn't do enough about the plight of people in far flung places in Africa and Asia, or (closer to home) the illegal immigrants that were desecrating our churches (back in the 80's), blithely using the altar as their own personal bedroom and/or toilet.

All *my* questions about what God wanted from me, how Jesus' teachings applied to my life were left unanswered. When such subjects were treated in a Sunday service, those questions that were important to me were dismissed in bland clichés about the Light and the Grace of God, shining upon us in Eternal Love(tm). It all sounded very lofty, but it answered nothing. Tired of being made to feel guilty about stuff that wasn't my fault to begin with, and I could do nothing about, while at the same time getting no answers to the questions that were most pressing to me at the time, I came to a point where I very nearly lost faith altogether. And our dear Lord only knows how many, consciously or not, have definitively turned their back on the church for this very reason.

Over the last few years the rhetoric from the pulpit (both in the protestant and in the Catholic church, I am sorry to say) has become even stronger. Last Christmas, on the Eve of the birth of Our Lord, we were treated to a flaming sermon about 'Solidarity'. The text itself seemed to be lifted straight from the minutes of a Komintern meeting. This Sunday the real kicker came when the minister started to refer, in thinly veiled terms, to those sympathizing with Geert Wilders as those who were the bringers of inequity we should oppose.

This has been a common theme for some time now, partly covered on this blog here and here. Both the Catholic and the Dutch protestant church have apparently taken up the position that just because islam also has a single deity, they are natural allies against the forces of secularization.

This particular attitude is exemplified by Erik Borgman, professor of 'Theology of Religion' at Tilburg University. Last year, prof. Borgman was voted one of Hollands 12 'sharpest' thinkers. Maintaining that 'islam is important to the church' this (NL) is what this sharp thinker had to say about Christians sympathizing with Geert Wilders:

I find that shocking.(...) Sin exists and can not be helped out of this world by sufficient education. But it would be worth something to me when churches for example would make it clearer that freedom of religion is one. That those who injure islam also injure the church.

I find it hard to believe that I am the only one seeing the contradiction in the statement that 'those who injure islam also injure the church', especially when injuring the (Christian) church is part and parcel to any and every Islamic regime in this world, from Egypt to Nigeria and the Philipines. Moreover, this petty little man declares anyone with the slightest sympathy for Wilders to be a sinner beyond education. How's that for an inclusive, non-judgemental and 'solidary' attitude?. Anyone remember Marcel van Dam disgracefully calling Fortuyn and 'inferior human being'. How is this different?

But this episode inadvertently points out where the church in the Netherlands is heading: To oblivion. Between the embrace of islam as a possible ally (how I pray we will not see the day when we find out what that alliance will actually mean) to the ambiguous stance on the 'Palestinian question' by the General Synode ('we want to boycott Israel, but the faithful might not like it'), it seems that the church has been taken over by those who shape God into the form of Marx. They obey God, but up to a point. When it comes to denouncing real, actual evil, the church has nothing to offer but artificial shades of grey and bland 'solidarity' with those that have expressed the desire to see us all exterminated. They are a tepid bunch, spued out by the majority of the Dutch even before God has spat them from his mouth.

That is the saddest part of it all: The astonishingly thorough secularisation of the Dutch since the 1960's was (and still is) a result of the choices the churches themselves have made.

(h/t Nieuw Religieus Peil)

Another defeat

UPDATE to this post.

This Friday the appeal court in Groningen ruled the owners of cafe 'De Kachel' not guilty of breaking the ban on smoking. This is the second time that an appeal court ruled against the smoking ban, the first time last May, when the Breda appeal court gave a similar ruling with regard to cafe Victoria.

Normally, this would mean the ban is 'dead in the water'. But EUnion treaty obligations demand otherwise: Health minister Klink will now 'adjust' the law (NL) to keep the ban in place. With the prospect of a multimillion euro claim, which would make the embarrassment for the government that much worse, the chances of finally overturning and/or scrapping this highly unpopular law are slim.

But this saga does bring into focus why the gap between The Hague and the general populace exists. The EUnion and by extension our local government won't (because they can't) admit defeat. They are here to rule, and we are here to listen. No matter how daft or unpopular the measures taken. Stubbornly they press on with their pet projects, seemingly oblivious to the contempt, scorn and naked hatred they heap upon themselves by doing so.

Which is why, in the end, they will end up being shot by the population they sought to rule...

Insufferable busybodies

The ban on smoking indoors in public places, including bars, discos and restaurants, has been in effect for a year now in the Netherlands. Geenstijl commemorates the event (NL) with a post, whose title translates to : 'One year smoking ban, the smoldering mess'.

As covered on this blog, the Dutch judiciary is contradicting minister of Health Ab Klink and itself (see here, here and here), while the minister and a goodly part of parliament sing the tune their (and our) true masters demand. In a new twist, this week a foundation called 'Red de Kleine Horeca Ondernemer' (Save the Small Hospitality Entrepeneur), representing a number of small cafes and bars, filed a suit (NL) against the state, claiming up to 100 million euros in damages.

This blog has been accused on conspiracy thinking when we remarked that the ban would be upheld no matter what, since our government (such as it is) does not have the power to contravene the EU Commission who are adamant that 'Europe' should become smoke-free.

But, thanks to EU Observer, we stand vindicated: Brussels wants smoking ban across Europe.

The European Commission on Tuesday (30 June) called on member states to boost their non-smoking legislation in order to move towards a "smoke free" EU by 2012.

The commission is suggesting the bloc's 27 member states agree smoking in "enclosed public places, workplaces and public transport" be banned by 2012, while children's exposure to tobacco should be specifically tackled and "efforts to give up tobacco use and pictorial warnings on tobacco packages" should be encouraged.

Just remember: It is for the children! We are now waiting for the first local politician to suggest that smokers lighting up in front of their children be declared unfit parents and their children taken away.

In the course of their argument, the commission come up with some truely fantastic figures:

According to commission estimates, 25 percent of cancer deaths and 15 percent of total deaths in the EU can be attributed to smoking.

Last year alone, 6,000 people died in the EU just from "workplace exposure to tobacco smoke," including 2,500 non-smokers, it says.

Given that no study worthy of the name has found a consistent link between 'second-hand smoke' and illness I find that very hard to believe. And 15 % of total deaths in the EU? I would really like to know how they came up with that number.

To give the article some balance, EU Observer asked UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom about his thoughts. And he makes an absolutely crucial point:

Nobody pretends that smoking is a good thing, but it is legal

continuing:

These bullies seem to have no truck with freedom, liberty or tolerance. Well in that case we shall have to take it back. And if that means a certain level of civil disobedience, well so be it

Which of course describes the situation in the Netherlands to a T.

But mr. Bloom raises a point that is absolutely fundamental to both the character of the EUnion and the fight we have on our hands regarding freedom and (personal) sovereignty: Smoking (unlike marijuana, or illegal immigration) is a legal, non-criminal activity in ALL member states. Granted it does harm, it is not healthy. Then again: what are the costs to industry and society of employers getting injured in their weekly Saturday football match? If we allow the EUnion to ride roughshod over the law like this, legislating quite arbitrarily against legal activity in the personal sphere, then where IS the limit of the EUnion?

We all should let these insufferable busybodies know that they need to stay out of our personal lives (and preferably out of our country) or else face the consequences. By which of course I mean violent insurrection and executions at dawn.