Skip navigation

Category Archives: fuck the netherlands


This is Marianna. Marianna is TranSage. Marianna was born in 1964, but she doesn’t feel 54. She’s always hung out with people younger than herself, using the same slang phrases and jargon as people half her age. Marianna knows all about the latest up-to-date technology and social media. Her clothes are the latest fashions. In fact, Marianna feels uncomfortable and awkward around people who were born around the same time as her. They seem boring, staid and she doesn’t share their interests and goals.

Marianna works out and is careful what she eats. She buys a lot of expensive body lotions and uses hair colourants to cover up her spattering of grey. She has good genes too. Marianna’s skin is great. People often think her 37 year old stalker is her older sister. Marianna can dance half the night without getting tired and run for the bus without getting out of breath. She listens to Radio X. Marianna can drink five bottles of WKD and snort a line of coke and go to work the next day without a hangover. Her doctor says she has the liver of someone half her age.

Marianna wants to get her passport changed to say she was born in 1971. Why shouldn’t she? She identifies and presents as someone much younger than herself. Why should society’s narrow view of what a 47 year old should be restrict her like this? People’s refusal to tell Marianna that she actually really is 47 really upsets her and she has become depressed recently. She knows how she feels. Marianna says that society’s refusal to let her change her age is oppressive and cruel.

Should we all be obliged to tell Marianna she is 47?
If not, why not?



This CNN news item about Donald Trump pretending to be his own pair of publicists is really interesting, because I myself once [redacted by censorious European courts&laws]. No, it wasn’t Donald Trump, it wasn’t Recep Tayyip Erdogan either, but I guess you can say it was [redacted by censorious European courts&laws], to the point of making me wonder whether the whole ordeal was inspired by Donald Trump and modelled after his invention of a pair of fake, non-existing publicists for himself.

Dr. Gail Saltz discusses possible psychological roots of Donald Trump’s personality traits, including pretending to be his own publicist, and what it means:

But if “John Miller” or “John Barron” don’t exist and are Donald Trump, it makes me think of the statement that he’s offered so often in this campaign where he says he’ll ‘surround himself with good people.’. Perhaps his idea of “good people” are misters Barron &  Miller, meaning, there is nobody that I can surround myself with because I’M DA MAN, I’m not yielding to anybody’s judgement, I’m gonna rely on Barron & Miller!

Read more at:

Donald Trump masqueraded as publicist to brag about himself

And speaking of Donald Trump, here is a video I found of legendary American punk rock artist Jello Biafra presenting a Donald Trump colouring book for American children which has an image of Trump dropping a nuclear bomb:

I love it how everyone all over the social media over the past few weeks was screaming holy hell about the Netherlands doing business with a country like Turkey, but doing business with a country that considers this kind of a colouring book suitable material for children is considered non-controversial.

The following blog entry is a work of fiction and bears no relation to existing people or events.


Cold as Efthimia Sitting On An Iceberg
vegan glutten-free Greek ice cream recipe
by drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou


– Δύο Αμερικανοί φασίστες αλεσμένοι, άσπροι
– Τέσσερις Αμερικανοί φασίστες δικηγόροι λιωμενοι, λευκοί
– Τρεις Ολλανδοί φασίστες δικηγόροι θρυμματισμένοι, χλωμοί
– Δέκα Ολλανδοί και Αμερικανοί φασίστες δικαστές μαλακισμένοι, βιασμένοι, τεμαχισμενοι, εξαφανισμενοι και μη, γαλανοαιμοι
– Ενας Ελληνας παιδεραστης ολόκληρος, μόνο ΠΟΠ (Προστατευόμενη Οικογενειοκρατία Προέλευσης)
– Ανταρκτικός πάγος, 2-3 παγόβουνα μπλε
– τρεις κουταλιές ζάχαρη
– απόσταγμα απόστημα βανίλιας
– blue food colouring


Η εκτέλεση των υλικών είναι η ίδια η εκτέλεση. Chill well before serving into a hot oven. Whipped scream and crazy nuts optional. Anything less than the best is a felony.

Institutionalized American exceptionalism at the International Criminal Court, or why Americans are literally above the law and will never be persecuted much less tried for war-crimes at the “World Court” or ICC.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution

it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’

In response to this threat to invade the Netherlands for the purpose of “rescuing” (read: kidnapping) an American citizen brough to trial at the ICC, the World Court gave explicit assurances to America that no American official will ever be prosecuted or indicted by the ICC.

I have seem may people in the social media who have recently been reblogging and posting a bunch of articles suggesting American will now finally be persecuted for war-crimes. I have said this before and I will say it again: no American will ever be persecuted for war crimes, ever. Americans have literally been declared above the law and beyond reproach by the World Court prosecutors. I have been posted the article below from the New Left review, and I will continue to post this until people get this through their heads: America LITERALLY THREATENED TO INVADE THE HAGUE if an American official was ever indicted, captured and brought to The Hague for trial at the world court. In fact, America literally adopted a new law, the so-called 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act, giving America the right to invade the Netherlands and kidnap any American official brought to trial at the World Court in The Hague. It is an article of faith of the globalist courts that no persecution of an American citizen will ever be undertaken and that International Criminal Law is mainly to be used to civilize the “dark savages”.

Get it through your heads people: Americans are literally above the law when it comes to international criminal law. International criminal law is just a means to institutionalize American white supremacy and American exceptionalism and to extend American jurisdiction beyond American borders, giving America the literal right to invade other countries, including Western countries like the Netherlands, to kidnap American officials.

Now, let’s quote the relevant excerpt in full from the New Left Review article about the World Court or ICC caving into American threats to invade The Hague and declaring Americans literally above and beyond the law when it comes to the indictment of war criminals on the basis of International Criminal Law at the ICC:

Fears that the icc might become ‘politicized’—code for the investigation of American war crimes—were repeatedly rejected as ‘unwarranted’ and ‘far-fetched’, a most ‘unlikely eventuality’, against which the Rome Statute had plentiful ‘safeguards’, ‘checks’ and ‘restraints’.34 The Bush Administration, gearing up after 9/11 for the invasion of Afghanistan, and with sights already set on Iraq, demanded harder guarantees.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’.

The courts’ jurisdiction was established by fiat of the occupying powers, who appointed both prosecutors and judges, while granting themselves impunity. As the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal put it in his dissenting judgement at Tokyo, it appeared that ‘only a lost war is a crime’.

Bush need not have worried. As Luis Moreno Ocampo, the incoming icc Prosecutor, hastened to assure a us official in March 2003, he ‘could not imagine launching a case against a us citizen’.

The Athens Bar Association submitted a call for an investigation of acts in Iraq ordered by Blair, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw.40 Ignoring the whole question of the Iraq war, Ocampo’s first statement as Prosecutor suggested that the Court might enjoy a Zen-like inactivity: its efficiency should not be measured by the number of cases it took up; on the contrary, ‘the absence of trials led by this court as a consequence of the regular functioning of national institutions would be its major success.’41 The ngo lobby was affronted by this do-nothing approach; the Prosecutor had to do something. The Office of the Prosecutor began scanning the world for sites of violence other than Afghanistan and Iraq. At his July 2003 press conference, Ocampo announced that he would be examining the situation in eastern Congo.

In July 2012 the Office of the Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation in Mali, its eighth formal investigation—and the eighth in Africa.75 The Court’s myopic focus has caused anger on the continent. That military intervention by former colonial powers has been followed, almost de jure, by juridical intervention by the icc, leaves Africans understandably suspicious. At the African Union summit in Addis Ababa in May 2013, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn accused the icc of ‘hunting’ Africans because of their race.76 The notion that international criminal law is a neo-colonial imposition is no longer limited to critical international legal theorists; it is now heard most loudly from the post-colonial elites of Addis Ababa and other African capitals.

That the Court’s investigations have coincided with imperial concerns is apparent; that they are motivated by simple racism is less evident, although this is not to downplay the court’s role in reproducing a longstanding dynamic of racialization in international law.78 On the Court’s record, crimes against humanity and war crimes are acts committed by non-Westerners. The Hague’s courtrooms replicate a historical pattern in which, as Makau Mutua puts it, ‘morality comes from the West as a civilizing agent against lower forms of civilization’.

The doctrine of ‘complementarity’, too, affirms a sharp division between Western countries, with their developed judicial architecture—which, as the German representative gloated, will never be found unable to carry out a prosecution—and the rest of the world, where the icc may more readily make out a case for a judicial system’s ineffectiveness. In this respect, the Court appears to reproduce the colonial international law of the 19th century, underpinned by a distinction between civilized and uncivilized states.

As the reactions to Ngudjolo’s acquittal revealed, many of the human-rights and international-justice advocates who once concerned themselves with the rights of the accused have become preoccupied with victims and the ‘scourge of impunity’ instead. Prosecution and conviction are increasingly conceptualized as the ‘fulfilment of the victims’ human right to a remedy’, as Darryl Robinson has noted.85 Amnesty International once focused on the release of political prisoners, with ‘amnesty’ central to its mission; on the treatment of defendants in custody and their right to a fair trial. Today, with the rise of an international-criminal-justice complex, Amnesty consistently opposes amnesty laws and is not wont to challenge the treatment of defendants accused of international crimes.86 This was evident at the Rome Conference, where human-rights ngos under the cicc umbrella were the most strident pro-prosecution voices. These groups advocated loudly for broad and open-ended definitions of crimes and modes of liability—and narrow defences—so as to avoid acquittals that would risk ‘victims’ rights to justice’.

Yet far from ending the de facto impunity long enjoyed by the powerful, the icc has helped to institutionalize it. The Court’s selective and highly politicized interventions have operated to reproduce one-sided narratives of complex conflicts, demonizing some perpetrators as hostis humani generis, while legitimating military interventions in the name of humanity. The logic of ‘international criminal law’ on this model was spelled out with refreshing frankness by the former Prosecutor in a recent interview on Canada’s cbc. nato and the Court should work hand in hand, serving one another: ‘Integrate the sc, the icc, nato forces.’89 Once celebrated as an avatar of Kantian cosmopolitanism, the icc has served rather to shield and strengthen the imperial powers, less a tool of international justice than the judicial concomitant to Western intervention.

– excerpted from “Dispensing Global Justice” by Tor Krever for the New Left Review at

Πραγματικά, η δημοσιογράφος του Θέμα Δανάη Δασοπούλου ούτε καν υποψιάστηκε πως απλώς μιλάει σε ένα άτομο που το μόνο πράγμα που δεν έχει κοινό με τον Άδωνι Γεωργιάδη είναι το μουνί –>

Εάν η υποκρισία ήταν έγκλημα, αυτή η κυρία θα ήταν ισοβίτης. Στην χώρα της μπορεί να μην την ξέρουν, εμείς όμως  που έχουμε μεγαλώσει στην Ολλανδία δυστυχώς έχουμε την ατυχια να γνωρίζουμε εδώ και δεκάδες χρόνια το μισάνθρωπο και ξενοφοβικό έργο αυτής της νεοφιλελεύθερης δεξιάς Ολλανδοτουρκαλας που μόνο ύβρις πουλάει και το μόνο που θέλει είναι να αποδείξει στους υπόλοιπους Ολλανδότούρκους πως είναι ποιο Ολλανδέζα κι από τους ίδιους τους Ολλανδούς. Το παρακάτω απόσπασμα της κωμικής σειράς Goodness Gracious Me ολοκληρωτικά απεικονίζει αυτά τα είδους ατομάκια που καταντάνε σχεδόν υστερικα στο να θέλουν να αποδείξουν πόσο μα πόσο ποιο Ολλανδότεροι Ολλανδοποημένοι είναι από τους υπόλοιπους ξένους που μένουν σε δυτική χώρα.

Πράγματι, θα ενδιαφερόταν τόσο πολυ για αυτήν ο Ολλανδός πρέσβης στην Τουρκία εάν δεν ήταν γνωστή στην Ολλανδική κυβέρνηση σαν ένα πιστό κυβερνητικό παπαγαλάκι με σταθερή δεξιά κατεύθυνση; Οι Ολλανδοί πρεσβευτές μόνο για τα δημοσιογραφικά παπαγαλακια νιάζονται, ποτέ για τους απλούς πολίτες. Δεύτερον, κάντε επιτέλους μια έρευνα της προκοπής αντί να επαναλαμβάνετε ο’τι μπούρδες σας ταΐζει. Η συγκεκριμένη κυρία σας είπε μπούρδες πως δεν γράφει για διεθνής θέματα και ότι τάχα μόνο ασχολείται με την Ολλανδική πολιτική. Για απόδειξη του ότι αυτή η κυρία έχει γράψει για διεθνής θέματα και επίσης για την Τουρκία σας παρουσιάζω το παρακάτω κείμενο της, που δημοσίευσε στις δύο Σεπτεμβρίου του 2015, οπου αναφερει μάλιστα και την χωρα μας.

EBRU UMAR – Het verdronken Syrische jongetje…

Ελπίζω να έχετε τουλάχιστον έναν μεταφραστή της προκόπης να σας το μεταφράσει από τα Ολλανδικά. Το κείμενο αυτό αφορά το πνιγμένο παιδάκι που έγινε σύμβολο της προσφυγικής κρίσης. Σε αυτό το αηδιαστικό κείμενο, η μισάνθρωπική και καχύποπτη αυτή κυρία αμφισβητεί πως το παιδί ήταν από την Συρία (το οποίο στοιχείο έχει διασταυρωθεί και αληθεύει), δηλαδή αμφισβητεί πως το βρέφος ήταν νόμιμος πρόσφυγας. Μέσα στο μίσος και την καχύποπτία της είναι ακόμα ικανή να αμφισβητεί την ταυτότητα ενός πνιγμένου μωρού. Επόμενα ισχυρίζεται πως δεν γινεται πολεμος στην Τουρκια ενώ όλα αποδεικνύουν πως οι Daesh έχουν περάσει τα σύνορα της Τουρκίας για τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις εντός Τουρκίας. Επίσης έχει το θράσος να χαρακτηρίζει ως “εγκληματίες” (“misdadigers”) τους δικηγορους που βοηθούν τους πρόσφυγες, υποστηρίζοντας πως οι δικηγόροι “καταφέρνουν να μπορεί να μεινει μια προσφυγική οικογενια στην Ολλανδία μέχρι και δεκαπέντε χρόνια” (“asieladvocaten zijn een aparte klasse misdadigers, lui die het voor elkaar krijgen het verblijf van een gezin tot 15 jaar te rekken”), το οποίο δικαίωμα προφανώς υποστηρίζει πως συνδέεται με το “έγκλημα” του να φεύγει κάποιος από εμπόλεμη ζώνη. Τέλος, πραγματικά το πιο κουφό απόσπασμα αυτού του άρθρου είναι προς το τέλος όπου ισχυρίζει πως οι πρόσφυγες  θα φτάσουν πνιγμένοι με τα φουσκωτά τους και μαζί με τα νεκρά παιδιά τους μέχρι και της ακτές της Ολλανδίας “στο Scheveningen, και ο Θεός βοηθός.”. Δανάη Δασοπούλου, άν είχατε κάνει μια ουσιαστική έρευνα στο Θέμα θα γνωρίζατε το πραγματικό βιογραφικό αυτής της κυρίας και το μήλο της Εριδος που έχει πετάξει οχι μονο στα μέσα της Ολλανδικής κοινωνίας αλλα σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα έχει στοχεύσει με τα ξενοφοβικα φαρμακευμένα κειμενα της. Είναι άλλο ένα αλαζονικό κακομαθημένο σαρανταεξάχρονο ανώριμο γυναικοκοριτσο του μπαμπά που νομίζει πως όλα είναι απλώς ένα αστείο. Δείξτε μου σας παρακαλώ σοβαρή Ελληνίδα δημοσιογράφος που να έχει γράψει δημοσιογραφικό κείμενο με τίτλο: “Γειά σου μουσουλμάνα, φοράς τον φερετζε σου γιατί είσαι μια ηλίθια βλαμενη” (“Hi hoofddoekmeisje, je draagt die hoofddoek omdat je een dom wicht bent”), για να ξέρουμε τι εννοούμε όταν μιλάμε για το δήθεν “δυναμικό” δημοσιογραφικό έργο αυτής της κυρίας –>

France adopts art protection law
– why you will never see this in the Netherlands
by drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou
(c) 2016 all rights reserved

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this blog article is not intended as legal advice. If you need a lawyer, please stop reading this blog right now.

Why would a country like France adopt a law specifically protecting art? Not just because of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. First, because there are people like this in the world who physically want to vandalize works of art as a proxy for the artist themselves.  Then there are people who attack artists themselves. As in the case of the Pim Fortuyn assassination, these people are often animal rights zealots. The controversial Belgian body-artist Jeroen Farbe was beaten up in a park by seven animal rights kooks dressed up as furry animals with baseball bats for using live cats at one of his performances. In a move typical of the animal rights movement, false rumours were spread within Belgium and beyond suggesting the artist was hanging live cats from meat-hooks at his show, when nothing of the sort ever happened, and all cats were perfectly alive after the performance. The Dutch artist Katinka Simonse was threatened by the animal rights contingent for creating an artwork for which she euthanized and taxidermied her sick cat, turning it into a bag modelled after a brand of plush toys popular in the 1980s, the Popples. There has to be a law specifically protecting art because the animal rights movement wants to censor art involving animals by any means, including outright violence and physical assaults against artists as in the case of Fabre. But more often, the book-burners and censors of the 21st century come dressed in a lawyer’s gown. I openly venture the opinion that the iconoclasm committed against works of art by lawyers, judges and public prosecutors in the West is far greater and more severe than the one by Islamic State tearing down museum pieces, ruins and ancient sites. You can destroy a piece of art with the hammer of ISIL, or with the hammer of a Western judge who assumes himself an enlightened person in favour of free speech.

As the song says:

The Netherlands could have adopted a special law protecting artistic freedom of speech after the Pim Fortuyn assassination, they didn’t…
The Netherlands could have protected artistic freedom of speech after the Theo van Gogh assassination, who after all was an artist who was targeted for his art, they didn’t…

This new French law intentionally protecting art is literally unthinkable and unimaginable in the fascist censorship and libel-tourism police-state that is the Netherlands, where book after book was banned in civil court last year, an activist was arrested for saying “Fuck the king, fuck the queen, fuck racism” at a protest, and some silly cartoonish white rapper was arrested at a show for asking his audience to shout “raise the middle finger to the police” as is customary at rap shows. Earlier in the year the same rapper was beaten up in Amsterdam after insulting a young girl.  Tellingly, the story about the rapper getting his ass whooped in Amsterdam was broken by a Dutch blog that was also once targeted by the same legal firm that went on to target yours truly. It’s really funny how things go around in circles in a little piece of shit country like The Netherlands where everyone seemingly bumps into eachother after a while for having the same lawyers involved with the same cases. I don’t know why this firm went from SLAPPing free speech and trying to jail people over speech issues to defending a rapper’s speech… maybe these lawyers just happen to enjoy rap music such as this? I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, assume they saw the light and switched sides. I suspect that for such legal firms that specialize in SLAPP-suits the occasional defending of speech is merely a dress-rehearsal or RPG exercize so they can better censor little people like me, people with no resources to defend themselves against these powerful legal firms. The existence of such legal firms targeting artists with no resources to fight a SLAPP-suit or to defend themselves against a wrongful conviction is another reason for having a law intentionally protecting art like France now does.

Quoting from ArtForum in an article about this new French law that is beyond Dutch comprehension, we learn:

The new law states that “artistic creation is free” and that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the freedom of artistic expression and dissemination. Summing up the potentially prickly legal language, Minister of Culture and Communication Fleur Pellerin said, “We must must ensure that art can continue to disturb.”

What can I say, I’m glad a bunch of French law-makers were willing to articulate the bleeding fucking obvious to their lawyers, prosecutors and judges :\ Dutch lawmakers don’t give a rat’s ass about freedom of speech and are perfectly happy to sit back and let speech-hostile judges issue one censorship-friendly verdict after another in various SLAPP-suits. Why? Because Holland is competing with the UK as to which of the two countries will have the most fascist, censorious and speech-hostile laws and jurisprudence and hence the most accomodating libel-tourism regime. I am glad France with their new art law basically went ahead and said the proverbial “fuck you” to both The Netherlands and the UK, “fuck you two and your silly libel tourism pissing match, unlike you two we in France are not going to throw our artists under the bus so that lawyers can make money from SLAPP-suits censoring artists, instead we will change our law to protect them.”.

Sources used:

Activist prosecuted over “fuck the king” statements

Girls storm police station after rapper Lil’Kleine’s arrest

This isn’t the first time Lil Kleine asked is audience to perform what we shall now call the middle-finger salute. This salute had become a recurring onstage gesture preceding the song “Liegen Voor De Rechter” (“Lying before the Judge”, possibly another song the lawyers representing this rapper enjoyed at the office?). During the Lowlands Festival the rapper had asked his audience to do exactly the same thing – but no arrest followed that gig.

This accidental Vimeo find (English subs, 15 min) is an example of how the Dutch imagined the internet and the networked society of the future back in 1988, before the widespread use of the internet in The Netherlands. It is a pseudomentary about wired life in the Netherlands of 2025, literally wired because apparently no one foresaw wireless in 1988. As the saying goes, “almost everything in history is ironic with the benefit of hindsight”. Watching this video is basically a game of “spot how much they got right/wrong”. They correctly foresaw the fact that PirateWhatever was going to become a nerdy lifestyle. They did not foresee Larry Lessig’s free culture ideology still driving the most successful business ventures on the internet. Reading this text message in blue ASCII in a CLI – apparently no one save for Blade Runner foresaw the widespread implementation of GUI back in 1980s – is just pure unintentional comedy goldmine: “We charge you ECU 258,00 an hour online.”! 😀

The Dutch legal culture of pedophila apologetics in the 1980s – lawyer Maarten Salden on Foucault et al. in the legal journal “Recht & Kritiek” in 1984

De Nederlandse juridische cultuur van pedofilieapologie – mr. Maarten Salden over Foucault et al. in juristenblad Recht en Kritiek 10, 1984

This article concerns an article I read in a Dutch left-wing legal studies journal from 1984 titled “Recht en Kritiek” (“Law and Criticism”). A pedophilia-apologist by the name of Maarten Salden (who according to Google is still a practicing lawyer in Amsterdam to this day)  had an article on page 105 of Recht & Kritiek issue 1, edition 10 regarding a discussion between French pedophilia-apologists Foucault, Hocquenghem and Danet. Of these three pedophilia-apologists,  Foucault was the only one who correctly predicted that society will never accept pedophilia and will continue to prosecute pedophiles. These three men were fully aware of how socially unacceptable and reprehensible their views were, yet all three still advocated the lifting of the age of consent. We can only hope that mr. Maarten Salden has changed his own reprehensible views on pedophilia since 1984. In his 1984 article, which expresses an almost zealous distrust of the psychological profession, Maarten Salden regals the reader with the usual pedophilia apologetics:

“Bovendien is het volgens hem [Danet] in Frankrijk heel moeilijk advokaten te vinden die pedofielen willen verdedigen. Net als bij de terroristen-processen zijn de verdedigers bang beschuldigd te woden van sympathie met hun clienten. Iemand die eigenhandig tien oude vrouwtjes vermoordde vindt makkelijker een pleitbezorger dan degene die even teder het geslachtsdeel van een kind streelde.” (p. 106)

Translation: “According to [Danet] it’s extremely difficult to find attorneys willing to represent pedophiles. Similarly to the trials of terrorists, are legal defenders worried of being accused of sympathizing with their clients. Someone who has murdered 10 old ladies with his bare hands will have an easier time finding a defender than someone who tenderly stroked the genitals of a child.”

This claim about poor child rapists who can’t find a lawyer is utterly absurd in the light of what actually happened during the trial of serial child rapist Robert M. in the Netherlands, who had not just one but FOUR CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYERS at his disposal! The fact is that Dutch legal defense lawyer will rush in to defend a pedophile because they have been groomed for years by the likes of mr. Maarten Salden and the “Recht & Kritiek” publication to think of pedophilia as something innocuous. You can watch Robert M.’s expert team of lawyers preparing his defense in the following documentary about the trial (English subs):

Reading mr. Maarten Salden’s article in Recht & Kritiek while watching the above documentary, one will notice that Robert M.’s attorneys were almost literally pulling a page out of Maarten Salden’s pedophilia apologetics. At one point towards the end of the document, one of Robert M’s attorneys becomes exgasperated and opines that the children raped by Robert M. “look happy” and “are smiling” during depositions. The lawyer ridiculously deducts from this that the children aren’t really suffering and weren’t really harmed by Robert M. This “real victims don’t smile” bullshit is classic rape apologetics.

One must keep in mind that Maarten Salden’s views were considered mainstream and de rigeur both amongst Dutch left-wing lawyers in the 1980s and the society at large. One could argue that it was because of these pedophilia-apologetic lawyers that the Netherlands eventually became such a pedophile haven. Maarten Salden praises the Dutch media in the 1980s for taking what he terms a “nuanced” approach to their reporting on pedophilia:

“Er is in Nederland vergeleken met twintig jaar geleden zeker sprake van een liberalisering die echt niet alleen illusie is. Op het terrein van de gezondheidszorg en het maatschappelijk werk pleit een groot aantal deskundigen en organisaties voor het laten vervallen van de leeftijdsgrenzen in de zedelijkheidswetgeving. De berichtgeving in de media is veel genuanceerder dan in de tijd toen Willem Duys uitriep dat hij de dader door zou slaan, wanneer het om zijn dochter ging. Ook het optreden van politie en justitie is soepeler geworden, wat moge blijken uit het toegenomen aantal seponeringen en uit de herhaalde beweringen dat politieambtenaren zich nu meer openstellen voor de opvattingen van de betrokken jongeren en dat zij alleen in ernstige gevallen ingrijpen.” (p. 108)

Translation: “Compared to 20 years ago there is certainly a liberalization of sexual mores in the Netherlands that isn’t merely an illusion. In the field of health care and social work many expects and organizations are arguing for the lifting of the age of consent in sexual offender laws. Messages in the media are more nuanced compare to the old days when Willem Duys [the late Dutch TV and radio presenter] cried that he would beat the perpetrator to death, if it were about his own daughter. Police and the judiciary have also become more flexible, which becomes apparent from the increased amount of dismissals and the repeated claims that police officers are now more open to the views of the youngsters involved, and the fact that they will only intervene in extreme cases.”

This passage from the article plainly shows that there was a legal, judicial and carceral culture of pedophilia apologetics in the Netherlands in the 1980s, a laissez-faire approach to sexual child abuse that was perpetrated by the Dutch mainstream media, an attitude that affected both the police force and the Dutch public prosecution service, who according to this excerpt were routinely dismissing sexual child abuse cases in favour of what the author terms a more “flexible” approach. This “flexibility” obviously became a vicious circle overtime: the more  child rape cases were dismissed, the less rape victims and their custodians saw the point of contacting the police to report a case of sexual child abuse.

If a lawyer said it was OK to sexually abuse children, insisting that no harm was done and that all the psychologists (who unlike the lawyer actually had to treat the raped and abused children) were in the wrong about pedophilia inherently traumatizing children, well, who was to argue with a lawyer in a society that blindly worships lawyers and the law like the Netherlands? If a lawyer said it was OK, it had to be OK. It wasn’t until this century that judges began listening to the Dutch public instead of lawyers, and adjusted their verdicts accordingly, having now borrowed the American legal concept of “community standards”. When the highest Dutch civil court banned pedophilia advocacy in 2014, the judges specifically referred to community standards as a reason to do so. This invocation of “community standards” of course was a legal cop-out, so that the Dutch judges wouldn’t have to acknowledge the body of scientific literature showing pedophilia and child pornography to be inherently damaging and traumatizing to children. Why were the Dutch judges truying to bypass scientific evidence in favour of “community standards”. Because this literature already existed in the 1980s, as Maarten Salden himself admits in his article when he obligingly paraphrases Dutch child psychologist dr. W. Wolters claiming that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that children enjoy having sex with adults.

The mere fact that mr. Maarten Salden was allowed to publish his pedophilia apologetics in a respected left-wing legal journal like “Recht & Kritiek”, this indicates that the supposed upholders of law and order in the Netherlands themselves made sure that serial child rapists like Robert “Monster of Riga” M. were eventually welcome and sheltered in the Netherlands. Let’s recall here that the only reason the Dutch public prosecution service began investigating Robert M. is because the United States requested that they do so after they discovered he was live-streaming his child rapes to pedophiles in the United States. If it weren’t for this American intervention, Robert M. would have continued raping children in the Netherlands and using Tor to stream his rapes over the internet to fellow pedophiles all over the world.

It wasn’t until 2014 that the Dutch courts put an end to this culture of pedophilia apologetics, now that they could no longer ignore how this supposedly Dutch permissiveness had endangered and victimized massive amounts of children. But did Maarten Salden change his mind? Did Maarten Salden feel a bit responsible when Robert M. was caught raping 64 children? Does Maarten Salden concede that he contributed to a culture of pedophilia apologetics that allowed the likes of Robert M. to vester under the surface of vapid Dutch sexual liberalism?

Countless examples of media coverage of pedophile scandals were lost during the censorship crusade of the Dutch government against the bloggers and independent researchers covering the topic of pedophilia in The Netherlands. The purpose of the censorwars was pretty to cover up the fact that The Netherlands was a safe haven for pedophiles, with pedophilia making it all the way to the top of the Dutch elite. Pedophilia-advocacy was only banned in the Netherlands in 2014 under public pressure as the Dutch public become more and more aware of their children being prayed upon by elite pedophiles and as a result of the Robert M. largescale child-rape scandal. By then most of the earlier online coverage had disappeared into the Dutch government’s memory hole. Lost in the memoryhole was the following documentary, which has mysteriously disappeared from the internet:

Zembla: Pedoseksualiteit geen bezwaar.

“Een man verhuurt zichzelf als clown op kinderpartijtjes. Eerder werkte hij met kinderen in buurthuizen en bij de scouting. Wat hij er nooit bij vertelt is zijn veroordeling voor pedoseksualiteit, bijna dertien jaar geleden. Vrijwilligersorganisaties blijken nauwelijks het verleden te controleren van mensen die met kinderen werken. Er zijn er zelfs die pedoseksuelen bewust een tweede kans bieden. Als dan mis gaat, wordt niemand geïnformeerd, want de goede naam van de vereniging is belangrijker dan de veiligheid van de kinderen.”

21st century book censorship in the Netherlands, part 1:

21st century book censorship in the Netherlands, part 2:

Conclusion: there is no freedom of speech in the Netherlands. None whatsoever. The Dutch are 21st century book burners.