Sunday, March 09, 2008

A Storm of Normal

Obviously not all Netherlanders are stoned all the time. It seems that many of them are even getting sick of the ones who are. They seem to think they should go so far as to shut down some of the drug industries and outlets that dot the nation. What's this? Are they stupid and evil Rightwing religious bigots like I am? Put some kind of stop to the drug culture of the Netherlands? These "proposed changes come at a time when an increasing number of governments are gradually coming round to the idea of following the Dutch example, precisely because it has been such a success." There you have it. The Dutch are evil and pig-headed. They see that their drug culture is a great success that nations around the world wish to emulate, and the Dutch, out of sheer evil intentions and malignity want to ruin the sterling success of it all because of... a Rightwing conspiracy? What else could it be? It seems a Rightwing government is not a real thing of Human volition, but something like bad weather, a mystery from the skies that one bears till it blows itself out,

"This wind of change has to do with the fact that there are now far more conservatives among the people's representatives in the Netherlands than there have been for many a year."

"More conservatives among the people's representatives." As if they came form outer space! What has this guy been smoking? Good Lord, bud, maybe not everyone in the Netherlands is a hippie. Maybe many people are sick and tired of the hippie bullshit. Maybe people are just plain fed up with the hippie crap fed to them daily for all these years: that violent and demanding and parasitic losers are a product of nativist bias and are a reaction against racist hostility. Oh, spare me. I'm sick of it too. Stop blowing that smoke up my arse. It's over. Hippies puff? Ha. Hippies suck!

Rutger van Santen, "High life in Holland under threat"

For over 30 years, the Netherlands has had the most liberal drugs policy in the world. But all that is about to change. After this week's parliamentary debate on the drugs issue, it looks like even the Netherlands' world-famous 'coffee shops' may not escape the present government's reforms.

During the debate, the government presented plans to ban 'grow shops', which sell seed and equipment for cultivating marijuana at home. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin promised new legislation within a matter of months aimed at banning "everything that facilitates the domestic cultivation of cannabis" and imposing strict penalties on offenders.

Curtains for coffee shops?
A majority of MPs support the minister's efforts to take a much tougher line on the use, cultivation and sale of drugs. The spokesman for the main coalition party, the Christian Democrats, even advocated closing down the Netherlands' world famous coffee shops, where people can purchase a limited amount of soft drugs without facing legal sanctions. This proposal may also be able to count on a parliamentary majority.

This wind of change has to do with the fact that there are now far more conservatives among the people's representatives in the Netherlands than there have been for many a year. The coalition government currently running the country consists of three parties: the Christian Democrats, Labour and junior partner the Christian Union.

It is Labour's position that has undergone the biggest shift. Much to the vexation of the progressive opposition parties, Labour MPs have tend to vote along the same lines as their coalition partners since coming to power. And given that the opposition also includes the conservative VVD and the far right Freedom Party, both of which take a prohibitive stance on drugs, this is the first time in years that a real change in policy stands a chance of being implemented.

Success story
The left-wing opposition parties describe the changes as disastrous. For although the Dutch approach to drugs has been the target of much criticism from the rest of the world, its supporters within the Netherlands are quick to point out that it has been a shining success story. For years, the Netherlands has been at the very top of the rankings when it comes to the lowest number of drug-related deaths.

Experts say this is mainly due to the transparency of the Dutch system, the strict dividing line between hard drugs and soft drugs and the outstanding care for addicts. However, the current government is keen to jettison this liberal approach because of its own anti-drugs beliefs and because it is thought to contravene European regulations. Ironically, the proposed changes come at a time when an increasing number of governments are gradually coming round to the idea of following the Dutch example, precisely because it has been such a success.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the libertarianesque spiel of "prohibition doesn't work" and the idea that the state shouldn't regulate peoples' vices anyway if all they do is ruin their own lives. Fine. But it isn't fine or people wouldn't vote for governments that toss drug users and dealers in jail. One in one hundred Americans is in prison today, mostly for drug related offenses. Is that a bad thing? Would it be better to have them all on the street instead? If people are criminals, throw them in jail. If people can't stop doing what is prohibited, what is the problem with throwing them in jail? Most free citizens are happy to see them go. That too is democracy. If 99 people out of 100 aren't "progressive," then go somewhere else to live or go to jail for offending them.

A success? Only for those on dope and those in the industry. Everyone else suffers. It's not just the dope culture dominance that offends: it is the povertarian ethos of the hippies that is sickening and repulsive. The government and its expert managers control the drug pandemic, so not to worry. Well it sucks. It sucks because it is a government scam in the first place, one that can never be anything good, never positive, never better, only a management problem that will get worse and worse and always managed more and more by more and more managers demanding more and more money and money and money for a bottomless piss-hole. Only hippies can like this mess, and they do. It's their living, career, and identity. Who needs them?

Geert Wilders is taking on the whole rotten hippie establishment, and because he does he lives under 24 hour per day guard to try to survive the rage and hatred of Muslims and the dhimmis who would also kill him like one did Pym Fortuyn. A society that can't say no to drug culture can't say no to jihadis either. They can't say no to being bullied, beaten, robbed, raped, and even murdered. There's only so much people will put up with, and this is the time the tide turns. Wilders stands alone today in the public mind as one man saying "No" very loudly. Only hippies complain about him. Fitna? It's a Dutch word meaning 'the totally preventable social troubles brought on by hippies.' Death Hippies.

Go, Wilders, Go!


Anonymous said...

It's Pim (not Pym) Fortuyn, fitna of course is not a Dutch, but an Arabic word (meaning a.o. schism, see a.o. wikipedia entry).
That said, I agree with what you write. At the entrance of the town in the southwest of the Netherlands where I grew up sits a huge coffeeshop, which serves over 1.000 to 1.500 (for a large part French, also Belgian) customers PER DAY, and apparently has the largest turnover or profit before tax (are they taxed at all???) of all Dutch coffeeshops. For a ref.: the town Terneuzen itself has about 28.000 inhabitants. Just opposite is the town's newly built theatre. The coffeeshop started out as a barracks years ago, through some clever juridical moves got itself a permission for a permanent building on the same spot, despite protest of people living nearby and having to live with the hassle, and with none in the town council really wanting the thing to be there anyway, nor having the power to get rid of it.
Just goes to say.
Our own tolerance hits us in the face and we should not be able to even say that out loud?

And about selfcensoring the movie 'Fitna' - it will be seen by the worldwide (!) islamic community as giving in to a few threats uttered by a few die hard extremists, an easy victory without any actual fight. As our politicians being motivated by fear. Which they probably are? Yes, this last sentence is a heavy accusation, I realise. But we and our esp. gov't have to weigh our words and decisions well at this point in history. We're at the start of a slippery slope (and the movement on a slope is usually downwards).

Dag said...

My slip in writing the English literary version "Pym" rather than Pim. too many books and too few Dutch folks around here to keep e accurate on this kind of detail. And yes, Fitna is not Dutch, even though my definition is still very accurate in the sense it was meant and written. To write that fitna is a "schism" is for once the first accurate definition in English I've encountered in ages. Those who know Islamic history understand it as the strife of the early years of Islamic succession after the death of Mohammed particularly during the civil wars between Ali and Mu'awiyya and also between the Muslim establishment and the zealot Kharijites. Wilders' use of the word is clever, if not exactly accurate in Arabic. That hardly matters a pedantic realism detracting more than it would have added.

Anon brings up the point that a 'Dutch' pot-smokers are legion, in "large part French, also Belgian, customers PER DAY." That is a distinction only Dutch people care to make, and one would expect them to make it clearly and often even if few care. The problem is that image becomes definitive. Too bad. One finds a wrong impression of Dutch, the urban completely different from the rural, for example, and few outsiders knowing or caring or believing it to be true. So, much of what I write here is a deliberate teasing of those Dutch who come and see how outsiders might see them, inaccurately, as we know, but perceived as true, unfortunately.

Misperceptions of others, Dutch and the Umma as well, are easy if not natural, and easy condemnations of those who don't act as we think we would or at least should in those circumstances are easy in particular. Having made that point the hard decisions rest with those in the position of having to make them.

The Netherlands is a small nation, in a delicate balance between Europe's neo-feudal E.U and the raging umma. As well, there is an entrenched Left dhimmitude that threatens the nation and the people entirely. A social revolution is, from here, essential if the Netherlands is to survive as a political entity, and if the Dutch are to survive as a people, not all seeing either as desirable, some seeing such as innately evil. It's the thing of which history is made or unmade. There are choices to make and efforts to make or shirk. Such is history.

We who live elsewhere can only make opinions at this time. We, as relatives of Europe have some proprietary rights, though the final decision is up to the natives. Play is as they will, Europeans are making decisions that effect the whole world, for good or ill; and starting by sobering up and removing some of the wastrels from their midsts is a good start. It's tough, and it's a delicate situation. I'm pulling for Wilders, tht being because I pull for the Dutch in the hope he's the best chance for Europe at this time.