From Your Friendly DDR News Station…

Our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan reports on the latest news about the dhimmification of the Netherlands. First, his translation of an article in today’s De Telegraaf:

Scandal around a burka movie

Amsterdam — BNN broadcasting company and the public broadcasting organization manipulated a movie about women dressed in burkas in such a way that it appears people in Amsterdam avoid and ignore humans [that’s what it said in Dutch!] wearing this dress. We are pictured as a nation that intentionally ignores a woman in need who is wearing a burka. However, another local broadcaster published this piece of pure disinformation.

For this movie a female reporter employed by 101TV was dressed in a burka and send on the street to see how folks from Amsterdam would respond.


Burkha trouble in AmsterdamFrom tapes it shows that the woman is ignored when she’s dressed in a burka, but not if she wears ordinary clothing. This is shown when the woman, while wearing the burka, drops a bag of oranges and is ignored by passers by. Without a burka everybody is willing to help her to collect the oranges.

By sheer coincidence, a local city broadcaster, AT5, was taping in the vicinity. They show a very different side of this story. It appears clearly that bystanders who would like to help were stopped by the 101TV crew.

Really pissed

Lodewijk Asscher, the vice-mayor of Amsterdam, was really pissed after seeing these tapes. “I am a citizen of Amsterdam. My town is pictured as a city that doesn’t give a s**t. You see people who’d like to assist this lady in distress, but obey the shouts ‘move along, move along, this is a movie!’ It paints a picture that people are ignored if they wear a burka. Completely wrong, and disgraceful,” said Asscher to AT5.


Paul van Keulen, chief editor of 101TV, considers the incident exaggerated. “We work with young people, and young people sometimes create a bit of their own truth. One may hope it never happens, but in this case I find 90% accuracy depicted in this subject.”

According to him the female reporter walked for three hours helplessly through the city, but only when the AT5 crew came in view did people started to offer help.

Commentary from H. Numan:
– – – – – – – –

For some people the end justifies the means. This is one of them. He wouldn’t be in a wrong position as Volks Nachtrichten Leiter in former East Germany. The news? That’s what we create ourselves. To serve the party.

My fellow countrymen live nowadays in a strange society. The press controls the politicians, and woe betide the blond rascal who’s misbehaving! But this press is also controlled by the government. Woe betide the newspaper or broadcaster who publicly supports blond rascals!

A similar piece of disinformation appeared on the 20:00 public news. Geert Wilders was vilified in the most blatant way. Some Muslims were filing lawsuits against him. Wilders appeared only in a few shots, and only in black-and-white. His words were intentionally placed out of context, so it would support the image of a blond Hitler on his way to the gallows.

We’re living in very sad times indeed.

9 thoughts on “From Your Friendly DDR News Station…

  1. I am developing a red-hot hatred for Leftists lately.

    I think I’m getting near the point I have to take a blog-break and avoid the news for two weeks.

  2. Vince, I reach that point at least once a day, but I keep coming back.

    I cannot afford to be surprised. I watch weather reports for the same reason.

  3. I am confused. Should we pick up oranges for religious muslims, who are going to capture our countries, or not? Are we good and have higher moral stand because we pick oranges for them while they torch our cars and shoot from time to time? If so, should we pick more oranges? Or vice versa?

    Blaming media is easy. Harder is to suggest a consistent outlook of the problem.

  4. “In this case I find 90% accuracy depicted in this subject.”

    Oh. I thought that for a journalist, there were two types of stories: accurate and not accurate. Now we hear about roughly accurate, but with some falsehood added. That’s creative reporting for you.

    “According to him the female reporter walked for three hours helplessly through the city, but only when the AT5 crew came in view did people started to offer help.”

    What sort of help were they supposed to offer? Was the lady walking with a knife stuck into her, protruding from her back? Are you trying to tell us that people should have come up to her and offered her money just because she was a fake Muslim?

    Or was she just endlessly repeating the oranges trick, and onlookers were supposed, or so we are told, to help her pick them up?

    But in this case, did it not occur those do-gooders that not helping the woman might actually have been a sign of respect for her and her religious beliefs, as advertised by her clothes? Or even of fear of her husband, in the case he was in the vicinity?

    After all, if you go to such extremes as wearing the burka in the middle of a Western country, are you not warning everybody around to keep away from you?

    Are you not implying that it would be extremely offensive if you were looked at, spoken to or even passingly and inadvertently touched?

    Are you not deliberately putting a barrier between yourself and the others, which is meant to intimidate and which shouts: “go away and ignore me”?

    And, if we admit (proof to the contrary notwithstanding) that some people actually chose not to help her pick these oranges, was it not because they were afraid to offend her by doing so, which would have implied approaching her (ha! impure sexual motives, obviously!), speaking to her (mortal sin for her if her husband learns about it!), and even risking touching her fingers while handing oranges back to her (now she might as well have had intercourse in broad daylight whith a dozen onlookers!).

    But the multi-culti leftists who devised this social experiment are too dishonest to have imagined such a straightforward possibility.

    And the whole trick neatly summarizes the ideology of islamists and dhimmis: 1) it’s allright for Muslims to intimidate and threaten Westerners (the burka is such a threat), and you’re a racist if you dare complain about that, 2) in spite of these threats, you’re supposed to come forward without being prompted to offer help and assistance to Muslims (again, if you don’t, you’re branded a racist).

    Such behaviour is characteristic of an occupation army or of a police force in a totalitarian state. Beat people into psychological submission (double bind is a very potent tool to that effect), and chances are you won’t even have to use open violence.

    What’s the meaning of the word “islam”, again?

  5. I am offended that third world mores are being foisted upon my society as “enrichment” instead of the much more appropriate word “encroachment.” I doubt I would’ve helped her pick up the oranges either.

    I might even have been inclined to suggest the task would be much easier if she were willing to doff her “cloth coffin.” 🙂

    – Sodra

  6. AT5 interviewed me for 20 minutes and broadcast just two sentences one of which was “we have difficulty with the concept of moderate muslims”. It censored the explanation as to why.

    It also spent more time filming the counter demonstration to SIOE’s demo in Amsterdam, incorrectly saying there were more counter demonstrators.

    Western mainstream media are not concerned with the truth, unless it is to withold it.

  7. Please pay attention Steve. AT5 is the broadcaster that uncovered this disgusting piece of shit produced by another (even less important) internet-TV-station (called 101TV)

  8. This shit needs to be stopped. Freedom of the press is supposed to be sacrosant so the public cans read and see the truth.

    The producers should be sued for malpractice and a judgement sought which would include showing the oppposition video on the producrs stations.

Comments are closed.