Nothing to Worry About, Folks

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this report on last week’s unfortunate knife attack in the Hague by a mentally challenged man. Needless to say, the incident had nothing to do with Islam.

Nothing to worry about, folks

by H. Numan

Friday was Liberation Day in The Netherlands. The Dutch celebrated their liberation from German occupation in World War Two. A “disturbed” man thought it would be a good idea to celebrate it by slashing throats. Nothing to worry about, folks. He’s not a jihadi, but merely a disturbed person. From Syria. Where he fought for ISIS. Who’s here on refugee status. No idea about the injuries of the victims, as no media thought to write about them. None. Not important — the disturbed man is the Real Victim©; the victims provoked him (by being alive and non-mohammedan). The police had to shoot and taser (in which order they did that I don’t know) this friendly man before they could subdue him.

No reason to inquire if this guy was somewhat overzealous preaching the da’wa. Mayor Krikke already knows he is simply a disturbed person. Why? Apparently he tossed his own furniture out of his house in February. Sane people don’t do that; therefore he must be disturbed. What else can you conclude? You must be a virulent islamophobe if you think this guy is practicing his religion.

Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands, but The Hague is the seat of government. Methinks a knife attack in the seat of government is pretty serious. So does the mayor, as she ordered the Rijksrecherche (sort of police to police the police) to immediately investigate the fact that the police had shot this man. Wounded, admittedly. But nevertheless they used their weapons! We can’t have that, can we? What about the “disturbed” man? Yes, she ordered an investigation of him as well. A psychiatric investigation. And she ordered a committee to look into his mental state.

As you can see, the situation is completely under control. Nothing to worry about.

Or perhaps we should worry? What I read on other than mainstream or government-approved media (in Holland that is the same) is that this gentlemen was fully under control of himself. He knew what he was doing, that being the slicing of throats of infidels. Nope, nothing to worry. Because it’s not mainstream media, therefore it must be fake news. Can’t be anything else.

Some other news you don’t have to worry about. The province of Frisia wants to make it compulsory for primary schoolchildren to visit mosques. Of course mohammedans came up with this brilliant idea, but the provincial government kind of likes it too. All in the name of community cohesion, understanding other cultures and whatnot. What I strangely miss is a compulsory visit of mohammedan children to churches and synagogues. But then, mohammedans take their religion — of peace — a lot more seriously than Christians and Jews. Because those religions explicitly forbid entering heathen temples as well. It’s just that nobody seems to care anymore.

The Dutch ministry of defense, officially, likes community cohesion too. Participating in an iftar meal is professional, they say. Which means if you do not want to participate, you’re not professional. We don’t want unprofessionals in our organization. Out you go, or that least no promotion ever. As you probably can understand, the Islamsterdam municipal police leads the way here.

What you will not hear a peep about is the rate mohammedans procreate in The Netherlands. In 1973 there were about 25,000 mohammedans in the country. Mainly guest laborers who were allowed to stay. Soon after that they were allowed to ship in their families. Then they got full DUAL citizenship and now they have their own mohammedan political parties. And how many adherents of the religion of peace in 2018? About 2 million now. Probably more. Which is quite a lot for a country with 17 million. That’s more than 10% of the population.

I stress DUAL because by law Dutch citizens are not allowed to have dual nationalities. Supposing that I were able to obtain Thai citizenship, I would have to make a choice: Either become Thai, and hand in my Dutch passport (which will automatically be revoked anyway), or keep my Dutch nationality and forgo Thai citizenship. This does not apply to people where their country of origin does not allow them to change nationality. Which are mainly mohammedan countries. Now we have a chair(wo)man of parliament, several mayors and high officials of state with dual nationality. The mayor of Rotterdam said in an interview he felt himself to be a Salafist.

The media went into overdrive to defuse that statement. It was an expression; he never meant that literally. That sort of thing. So, nothing to worry about. The fact that he considers every mohammedan a Salafist is just a figure of speech. Nothing to worry about, folks. Islam is the religion of peace. That the word means ‘submission’? Oh, you must be disturbed. Very disturbed!

There is nothing to worry about. Everything is just fine. You can read it in the news or hear it from our politicians.

— H. Numan

18 thoughts on “Nothing to Worry About, Folks

  1. What I find most disturbing about the use of the concept of individuals being “psychologically challenged” is not that some people are exempted (well yeah, by the time anyone is willing to go public with a knife or other weapon they are going to be in a bit of a state, unlike any cool professional sat at a desk, or tweeting from a bunker, controlling action), but that we are ceding judgement of people to a completely arbitrary method of analysis.

    What does that mean?

    It means that the thoughts and behaviour of people are being allowed to be pre-judged by an unprovable methodology. Hence when it is refined, it does not necessarily target background noise (on infidels for example) that incites, but instead the individual direction (knifeman). The result of this may lead to an acceptance of pre-targetting individuals using criteria that are very subjective, and ultimately an acceptance that anyone who displays “signs of hostility” will be labelled as “disturbed” and in need of attention. In other words a new strata of governance would be created.

    We already know that casual dismissal of someone as unbalanced has a grievious effect in society for a person, but what happens when “we all” accept that the analyser is “right” and that it is just a state of being that is not the fault in anyway of the individual – ” that the individual had no choice” (and we see this line of thinking in other realms already, such as gender issues etc. )?

    What happens is that responsibility, and therefore control falls into the hands of few ( who, guess what, might be deciding “wrong” because ” they had no choice” in how they decide either).

    You see maybe where this leads when direct responsibility for actions is waved, and in fact we see this increasingly in all state aparatus, in monetary and financial matters also.

    We should be very wary – not because we want to punish some f’d up dude on captagon who has a vengeance that is authorised to action by his religion, but because the basic moral examples that guide society and that are clearly understood, will become confused and put in the hands of at best a potentially fraudulent ambit, and at worst one that is corrupt and fully manipulative.

    • I think you’re giving the government bureaucrat functionaries too much credit for deep thinking.

      My take is that the sloth, incompetence, and bungling of the government leaders led them to try an untested experiment in altruism.

      Now, they have a tiger by the tail, and any pushback to flagrant criminality by the immigrants would entail not only great effort, but professional and personal risk.

      So, these invertebrate officials are now running out the clock, hoping to retire before any serious blowup, with a pension that permits them to relocated to remote rural villages not very attractive to Muslim economic immigrants.

      In other words, sloth, bungling and the availability of “other people’s money” fueled the invasion of Holland, and the very same set of seat-warmer and parasite will not be seen running against a well-organized and freshly-invigorated Muslim horde.

      • I hope you are right (in a sense) .

        Maybe it is because I have some personal experience of this concept (attempted) being used on another ( where I was asked to condemn someone on grounds of instability- my reply was “who am I to judge?” ).

        I am not saying it is not some kind of discipline also, a very limited one and quite pseudo in real terms ( that from various sources including those in the profession).

        So I remain (very) wary, it is a completely different story when you are placed under scrutiny by force, when you have the whole direction of your future, or relationships, in the hands of an intervening decision maker and his report – sometimes they not only have nothing to make a case of except that, but also have their own incompetence or even illegal/wrongfull actions to cover over. That bad.

        To extend the concept, the guy with a moustache was privately laughed at by reporters and others who met him, but a few years later his outfit was busy arbitrarily drawing up who was fit or not with horrific outcome.

        The simple, understandable reality (in a non conflict situation where dedtruction has not been legitimised) is that firstly the perp is responsible, then those who facilitate the perp. To suggest other is to undermine the credibility of justice and to allow the twisting of the definition of morality into whatever shape suits, so providing an apologetic encouragement, an easier route, to any who are contemplatig their own future intent.

        • Yeah.

          I see what you’re saying. And you’re making the point that prejudging the potential for someone to commit violent acts allows public officials a great deal of power. The individual who is the target of such a public official is stigmatized and punished for something he has not done.

          I myself prefer not to judge the private motivations of individuals. As we bring in more third world immigrants, the proportion of those who are obviously heredity and genetically criminal will increase. If you are predisposed to a behavior, does that alleviate your responsibility?

          I argue that consequences should follow actions, without being concerned about motivations or irresistible impulses. The person who is killed is just as dead in both cases. The objective should change from a just punishment, to an appropriate protection against criminals, triggered by a criminal action.

          In other words, I don’t mind the death penalty for rape or malicious assault with intent to rob, but I do object to incarceration on the grounds that your predisposition might lead you to criminal actions. Once you commit a criminal action, I’m more concerned with removing you than with finding mitigating circumstances.

          And, I’m well aware that severe penalties give authorities the ability to remove individuals for political reasons. For example, the Charlottesville demonstrators who could be sentenced to 20 years after being found guilty for maliciously assaulting a black hoodlum who attacked an elderly man with a flashlight.

          • Personally, I have noticed that granting the full right to the citizen to defend himself works. It pre-establishes, makes real, that there will be immediate retribution for a misdeed. Societies that work this way are quite solid, each individual participating in and contributing to the order – it is a proper deterrent, not perfect either, but
            where those directly and immediately involved are granted the notion that they are in a better position to judge and react. Sure that can be misused, but then it is one vs. one, and one person with ambition is not going to get far disturbing the whole of society that way.

            I live in Europe, and even in normal society people know how to distort the uselessness of the order to their full advantage when they choose to, the courts are generally prudent but also exaggerate particular themes, reactions slow, the results costly and tedious always and also a guess. Generally, it is those who have less respect that overstep the mark and take advantage, and those who need to defend themselves cannot face another person down in a manner that would count. In other words, it becomes a race to the bottom where you know the other will lie their way out of court and have you condemned also if possible, if you go that way, even with them being the clear and known instigator of trouble.

            My experience is that it is all very twisted, sometimes people play with such a system for the sake of it, or for attention they could not get any other way, and one way or another they get rewarded for that. Other times they just take advantage in an in your face sort of way, knowing the deck is stacked in their favour. This only occurs because the format allows it, in other stricter countries where people are not afraid to react ( due to right to) this sort of misery does not go on as much… sure, more people get hurt, but society is generally also more vibrant and at ease with itself in spite of that.

            A lot of it is the psychological balance between people in society, and between people and authority. When authority gets the upper hand and misuses it on society, as also happens, the results are the worst – misplaced threat and manipulation are very powerful and destructive on a population that has already ceded its power and trust to that authority.

            ( the guy with the moustache was meant to read the guy with the little moustache 🙂 )

          • “…sure, more people get hurt”

            just to clarify – that is the deterrent, it is a cold fact that the average person will not want to, be trained or able to, make an arrest. UK gun homicide is way low, for example….but you know the filthiest of people there are also getting away with crimes that would be checked well before if citizens felt they had any power or right to intervene. It isn’t possible, and I don’t like to, paint with a broad brush, or tot up a tally of eventual casualties “good vs. bad” etc., not least because it would be presumptuous to do so, but I can certainly say the “more getting hurt” is balanced against the most disagreeable “members of society” .

  2. Well we all know that past performance is no guarantee of future returns but hypothetically if the Muslim population were to continue increasing at the same rate it has since 1973 i.e. 25K to 2 million that would indicate a doubling every 7 years. Project that rate into the future and The Netherlands becomes majority Muslim in 21 years or well before mid-century.

    The Dutch hold elections roughly every four years. You could be looking at one of your last couple of actual Dutch governments the next time you go to the polls. Choose wisely, as if your future depends on it.

    • Every western European country is in this position. Their populations are indifferent. Call them cowards and idiots if you like, but this is their conscious electoral choice, dutifully reinforced every five years. Europeans deserve what is happening to them. Let them weep when the scales finally fall.

      Personally, I have lost interest, as the war is already lost, and I wish only to protect my little corner of my homeland and try to avoid the invasion in the rest of my daily life. I avoid all new-immigrant contact now (established immigrant communities I accept).

      I’m old and secure enough to be able to do that. Apologies for the selfishness, but I have done my bit in the frontlines, trying to convince the brainwashed, self-hating idiots around me that their society is dissolving before their eyes. They don’t want to know. They turn their pale, bewildered, flabby faces away from facts. And as a European of purely European ancestry going back centuries, I have lost all respect and sympathy for Europeans. I don’t care any more. Only the private world matters now. That I suppose is the definition of internal exile.

      • Here is a grating tangent view from someone younger, admittedly something of an exception:

        I don’t vote, have never voted, because I refuse to provide any form of credibility to what I see as a pre-organised direction. My single say, simply ticking a box every four years, where each of the few candidate might make use of that in any number of ways, is a satire . So I prefer to remain a cynic, a voice of dissent, where I can formulate my view as free from any form of complicity as possible, the reactionary who is not committed to react because he has not partaken.

        My family also fought on the frontline, and I also watch as my place, that of my family, is taken by migrant populations, watch as the world becomes trampled and sculpted by new direction. I watch, simply because I refuse to become tainted by any form of participation, I avoid bureacracy and certain people, migrant or local makes little difference – all part of the same show.

        Unlike you, I am an external exile to my own country (UK) – I am not allowed to legally return due to laws enacted by the UK with regard to EU (it is very complex and I won’t start to explain here). Me and my family ( of complete European descent) are also “structurally”, or bureaucratically, exiled in Europe. Denied, exactly as the full meaning of that word is at administrative level.

        You should not apologise for the selfishness, self preservation is vital, if local people occupied themselves with conserving what was meaningful instead of being open to whatever influence gave them a temporary fix, the country would likely be a better place.

        That does not redeem you of any guilt either though. I cannot place the outside world on your shoulders, you may have led an exemplary life, but somewhere over the last century the country you have overseen (any in Europe will do) has become corrupt, leaving the the older, now often successful, generation isolated in their own wellbeing, while the rest scramble for their share, your own circumstance being a perfect example of inequity to them.

        Are you to blame ? I don’t know, but certainly you will be easy to lay blame on, and as that is the political method of the progressive regime, all I can say is to stay centered and stay well – we don’t need good people punishing themselves into the bargain.

        What we do need is that isolate populations hold the fort, in whatever way they see fit, even if they are never called on, even if it should be in vain, because that is the very nature of survival, and one that will be appreciated for what it is by those who are sincere in their understanding.

  3. Corrected for typo’s

    In the perpetrator is an adherent to the “religion of peace”, it is always a “confused person”. Whenever this term is used, we al know what is really meant, but never mentioned.
    Do they really think, that we can be made to believe that every confused person kills other innocent people, and always instinctively screams “Allahu Akbar”? (because, of course, this is the easiest “primal scream” to pronounce…).
    We cannot hear the lies anymore. The same was said when some “culture enricher” drove into Israeli tourists in Amsterdam (he had “blood sugar”problems) and when some other “enricher” attacked a Jewish restaurant, and then did some other vulgar things there which I do not want to mention.
    The absurdity and obscenity of the case got amplified by that it was the mayor who first came with that “diagnosis”. Was she at the spot when it happeed? Of course not! Has she spoken to the perpetator? No, she wouldn’t even dare to come near him. Does she have any psychological or psychiatric qualification? Again, no!
    So much about her. Unfortunately, she is not the exception, but rather the rule.
    A specific extra problem in the Netherlands is, that the mayors are not elected, but appointed by the government. And this, while mayors in fact have a lot of power in a city. Being a mayor is not just an “administrative” or “symbolic” function, but a highly political one.
    Due to this system, the Dutch are stuck with a lot of incompetent mayors, always from the same corrupt establishment parties.
    And this in a country which calls itself one of the “oldest democracies in the world”. And then the officials still dare to criticise Russia, but even Russians can elect their own mayors, while the Dutch still have to wait for their rights to be fulfilled on that point.

  4. What strikes me most, is how the supposedly democratic, tolerant and inclusive state policy of the Netherlands openly and shamelessly discriminates against Christians.

    Christians are expected to keep their religious convictions to themselves and keep a low profile. Muslims, on the contrary, are encouraged to confess their religion very publicly. Dutch politicians make a point of attending iftar and to have their participation in this Moslem religious event widely covered by the media. Now, in Frisia, Christian children have to visit mosques as part of their education. But what would happen to a Frisian teacher who would dare to encourage Moslem children to visit a Christian church?

    Why is it so one-sided? Why should Christians bend over backwards to keep Muslims happy in the Netherlands and adapt themselves to Islamic mores, why Muslims in the Netherlands are not expected to take the slightest interest in the Christian heritage of the Dutch?

    Can you imagine a Muslim country that would go to to such lengths to keep its Christian residents happy? Can you imagine even the most secular Muslim state, in which teachers invite their pupils to visit a church or to paint an egg for Easter? A Muslim country where state-run schools teach a few basics of Christian faith to Muslim pupils with a view of broadening the childen’s minds and ensuring cultural cohesion?

    Tell me, why all this multiculturalism, tolerance, democracy, freedom and the rest of it is so ruthlessly anti-Christian? Is this strange and unnatural Islamophilia of the elites just a weapon in their war against Christianity? And why, oh, why, does the Western ruling class hate Christianity with such a vitriolic hatred?

    • Christianity seems to encourage victim mentality. Christians believe to follow the example of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus died, not fighting, said about ‘like sheep slaughtered’. Hence, Christians believing they should be (and are) very willing to be ‘slaughtered’.

      It is just a human nature to oppress/bully others who are meek. Christians are meek. Hence Western ruling class is happy to oppress Christians. People in (or desire) power see that Christians are not their ally to achieve or increase power. It just increase their desire to oppress.

      I am Christian. I believe that most of the laws the Lord Jesus teach in the New Testament is about personal relationship. If someone robs you, then you give him even more, is law about personal relationship. By no means, Lord Jesus implies that the law on the communal relationship (relationship among GROUPS of individual, instead of BETWEEN two individuals) no longer applies. ‘Not a single iota of Torah is abolished’ implies that laws in Torah (Old Testament) that rules the community still applies. Eye for an eye applies well until now for the relationship among countries, and it’s ok in God’s eyes. This (‘not a single iota is abolished’) and ‘Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s implies that when someone robs you, the police is ok to capture and punish him. Even if you forgive the robbers, the police (even if the police is Christian) must be EAGER to catch and punish the robber.

      Christians seem not to understand that proper theology, the laws that Jesus teaches is mostly limited to relationship between two individuals. This is the mistake that discourage Christians to riot, to be courageous in protesting against Western ruling class. This is my explanation.

      I hope someday some Christians aware of their victim mentality, acknowledge the proper theology (such as the one I propose), and will fight back.

      • This short video of Jordan Peterson explains a lot.

        https://youtu.be/soIyw8aOzdY

        Many terms in the Bible have been wrongly translated, and in addition, words change meaning during the centuries. Both have serious consequences if we do not reinvestigate the original meaning from time to time. In the Bible, the term “meek” is meant to mean someone who can control himself (not give in to violent outbursts of anger), which is a clear inner strength. It has nothing to do with the rather negative meaning it has acquired later, being a euphemism for something in between “indifferent” and “coward”.
        Even “turning the other cheek” does not at all imply letting yourself get slaughtered, but instead it means having so much inner strength and control, that the enemy gets impressed by your self-control and starts to respect you and see the truth in your values. A kind of inner strength which the Japanese call “Aikido”.
        But, as any doctor knows, a medicine wrongly applied can be more harmful than not taking any medicine at all. The same applies to religion.
        If all the so-called “Christians” only knew what Christ really taught us, our society would be much safer and saner.

  5. Thanks for this great article. Also for “..pity the poor mohamedans”. It is not only the information, it is also the way Numan writes, very appealing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.