Saddam Hussein at the Waldbühne

. . . or: Yes, looks DO matter!

I had an eerie experience yesterday night. I was looking for performances of my all-time favourite singer, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at YouTube, specifically for Au fond du temple saint from Bizet's Les pêcheurs de perles, the aria for tenor and baritone to end all arias for tenor and baritone, which he superbly performed together with Carlo Bergonzi at an age when both guys would never see sixty again. Well, it wasn't there. But I became intrigued nevertheless.

Same concert, different aria.

First, there popped up that performance by Roberto Alagna and Bryn Terfel, which would have been rejected by any self-respecting vaudeville show (and yes, looks DO matter!) and then I stumbled over Placido Domingo and Rolando Villazón (Rolando WHO???) and wished I hadn't.

In open-necked shirt and with straggly gray beard, Domingo performed a fair impersonation shtick of Saddam Hussein, whereas Rolando WHO sported a hairdo, that gave an entirely new depth to the epithet "greaseball" (did I mention that looks DO matter?) and the only good thing about it was that, as one of the commentators at YouTube put it, that Domingo finally sang with the baritone voice God gave him. At the Berlin Waldbühne that was, in July 2006. And better forgotten.

But then I was rewarded for my pains. There they were. At the very bottom of the page. In a recording from 1970. Alfredo Kraus, not even arguably the most underrated tenor in the history of singing and Barry McDaniel, an American baritone who never got the international acclaim he deserved, mainly because he chose to work almost exclusively in Germany. Two guys, exceedingly handsome, immaculately groomed in white ties, no popular gimmicks, no tricks. Just pure art. Boring, eh?



And here was I, thinking that nobody could ever beat Fischer-Dieskau and Bergonzi, but Alfredo Kraus is so awesome that, although his partner McDaniel can, as a baritone, not quite touch Fischer-Dieskau and although Fischer-Dieskau's partner Bergonzi is one of the all time great tenors as well, Kraus outshines all that. This performance wins by a clear head. What effortlessness, what style, what poise!

Actually, Alfredo Kraus reminds me of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau in his expression, introspectiveness, total devotion to his art and in his elegant, aristocratic bearing as well (which came, due to the ethnic difference, probably easier to him than to the latter).

Comparisons, specifically between singers of different repertoires, are difficult, maybe even unfair. Other tenors certainly had a more dramatic voice. But compared to Alfredo Kraus, Franco Corelli was just a hunk with a clarion-voice, Domingo a mis-casted baritone, and Pavarotti... well, at least Maestro Alfredo has an understudy in heaven now.

Clearly A Case of Self-Defense

The stabbing of a rabbi in Frankfurt/Main almost two weeks ago is old news by now. Old news, too, is that the police arrested a "German of Afghan parentage" as the perpetrator last Thursday.

The 22-year-old admitted to stabbing the rabbi, prosecutors said in a statement. The man is being investigated on suspicion of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery.

According to the rabbi, the assailant said "I’ll kill you, you Scheiß-Jude." [Expletives are hardly translatable -- Scheiß=shit, Jude=Jew].

Prosecutors said that the suspect -- whose name they did not release -- denies having either, any intention of killing the rabbi or any antisemitic motive.

Of course not. Nobody who rams a 7 1/2-centimetre blade into somebody's abdomen has intention of killing the recipient of this attention. That is true. As true as the suspect's statement that he felt threatened by and physically inferior to the middle-aged, obese rabbi and so reached for his knife. As true as he picked by mere chance a man to attack who was, by his outfit, easily identifiable as Jew. As Henryk M. Broder put it: "Here we have another case of self-defense, where the provocateur leaps aggressively into the provocatee's knife as an answer to a friendly "salam aleikum".

Unable to help themselves either were the usual suspects. German politicians and celebrities spouted the prescribed politically correct dismay-drivel, the total meaninglessness of which was perversely proven by the man who jumped the queue to give words to his somewhat predictable abhorrence. Roland Koch, premier of the state of Hesse, called the attack, not even trying to be original, a "perfidious act that we can only view with horror and indignation and most strongly condemn" and in the shitrag to end all shitrags Bild to boot.

That is the same Roland Koch, mind you, who, at the time when the scandal concerning illegal donations to his "Christian" party, CDU, was unearthed, came under considerable pressure when it expired that the Hesse CDU (of which he is chairman) had for many years kept illegal bank accounts abroad, bank accounts, which had been used to finance Koch's election campaign. The same Roland Koch, who, although it was proven that he had not told the truth both in parliament and in the parliamentary committee of inquiry, did not resign. The same Koch, whose buddy, party treasurer Casimir Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (noblesse oblige!), had the temerity to concoct the perverse (and false) claim that the money came from "expatriate Jewish emigrants". The same Roland Koch who later compared the identification by name of wealthy citizens for a special inheritance tax to the yellow star Jews were made to wear by the Nazis.

The same Koch whose career none of those things harmed.

But I digress.

Back to our German with Afghan parentage perpetrator. It lately expired that, not earlier than in January, that very man had been arrested and "cautioned" by the Frankfurt-Höchst juvenile court (at 21 or 22!) and got a whopping juvenile custodial sentence of two weeks for aggravated battery, intimidation and criminal damage. In May he got a penalty order for 600 Euro because of bodily injury and intimidation.

He was then convicted by a local court because he had demolished an elevator in the house where he lived. When the caretaker asked him to pay for the repair he shot at the man four times with an alarm gun and wounded him in the face. Next day, he threatened two neighbours with a knife, informing them in the process, presumably to give more clout to his threats, that he had killed another neighbour just the day before.

In May he was convicted because of an assault in a bus. He socked a man in the face because he (the man) had kindly asked him to let him pass. When the bus driver tried to call the police and refused to open the door, he threatened him (the bus driver) with a knife saying: "I'll cut your throat" (or words to that effect). He then opened the door by force and escaped.

That was, so the report from the "conservative" FAZ informs us ultra-conscientiously, "according to the judge's opinion". And who knows, maybe it's really not true.

Whether the FAZ hacks couldn't believe that a man who had REALLY done all that was set free again and again by several German courts, or whether they were just scared shitless is anybody's guess.

Hat tip: Gudrun Eussner.

We’ll do God, and you can do Baal!

I came across the following through the help of an excellent new blog-find, WI Catholic Musings. The full article appeared at The Jewish Press, who are, as they are putting it themselves, commenting from "from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective".

The Pope's Got A Point
By: Rabbi Yerachmiel Seplowitz

The pope has generated a bit of controversy.

First, he permitted congregations to go back to the old custom of praying in Latin. (More about that later.) Then he announced that only the Catholic Church qualifies as a real church. Protestants, as far as the pope is concerned, simply don’t make the grade!

And with that, over 40 years of ecumenical dialogue go down the tubes. Protestant leaders are offended. The churches whose founders long ago broke away from the Catholic Church feel they are considered less-than-Christian by an institution they previously rejected as “too Christian.”

No doubt, in short order, a multitude of Jewish leaders will express their own concerns over the pontiff’s lack of tolerance for those whose beliefs are different from his own. After all, a spirit of cooperation fostered by the Second Vatican Council back in 1965 has allowed people of diverse faiths to share their beliefs in mutual respect. Why, we’ve even witnessed the intriguing phenomenon of cardinals, in full “uniform,” visiting rabbinical students to observe the study of Talmud. How, many are asking, could the pope jeopardize this détente with his bigoted condemnation of non-Catholics?

I have one thing to say to the pope: “Hear! Hear!” What do his critics want from the man? He’s got a religion to run!

I, for one, am not at all put off by the fact that the leader of another religion sees that religion as primary. If he thinks his religion is right, he obviously thinks mine is wrong.

I’ve always found it curious that people of different religions get together in a spirit of harmony to share their common faiths. By definition, these people should have strong opposition to the beliefs of their “colleagues” at the table. The mode of prayer of one group should be an affront to the other group. Yet, for some reason it isn’t. Why is that?

I suspect the reason many representatives of diverse religious groups find it easy to pray together is that they don’t really believe very strongly in the uniqueness of their own beliefs.

If my religion is okay and your religion is okay, we can mix and match and share with mutual respect and admiration. Can you envision Elijah the Prophet conducting an ecumenical service on Mount Carmel? “Oh, would you like to have a joint prayer meeting? Great! We’ll do God, and you can do Baal!” I don’t think so!

What the pope is saying – and I agree 100 percent – is that there are irreconcilable differences, and we can’t pretend those differences don’t exist.

Christians believe we are all sinners and that there is only one way to achieve salvation. It starts with believing that the Messiah arrived about 2,000 years ago. I obviously don’t believe that premise to be correct. I can’t. Such a belief is, based upon the teachings of the Torah, theologically indefensible.

If you believe in something, if you really believe in something, you need to have the courage of your convictions and stand up for what you believe. I can respect the pope for making an unambiguous statement of what he believes.

We need to respect all people. All of us are created in God’s image. This does not mean, however, that we have to respect their opinions. Nor does it mean that we should go around trashing the beliefs of other people. What it means is that we don’t need to play games of “I’m okay, your okay” with beliefs we find unacceptable.

The Latin Mass that was dropped many years ago included a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Now that the Latin Mass is once again acceptable to Catholics, the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations has written to the Vatican and expressed “profound concern … that the authorization may have allowed the return of this prayer.” They have requested confirmation that the conversion prayer will not be reintroduced.

I ask you, does this make sense? Where do we Jews get off making demands of Catholics that they only say prayers that meet with our approval?

Next week is Tisha B’Av. Have we forgotten that we are living in exile? The audacity of Jews dictating to Christians how they should pray is simply mind-boggling.

First off, the request implies that we can influence Catholic theology. Face it: Christians believe they are right and we are wrong. They think we should convert, and that attitude will not change until Moshiach comes.

And speaking of Moshiach, if we are going to sit down with the Vatican to negotiate liturgy, should we, l’havdil, offer to take out the second paragraph of Aleinu, in which we pray for the day when gentiles will stop worshipping idols? How about “sheheim mishtachavim” – the line that Christian censors removed from Aleinu, claiming it insulted Christians? Many of us have put it back. Should we allow the Vatican to dictate what we say in our prayers? Or should we, perhaps, do a line-by-line analysis of the Talmud to make sure there is nothing there that people may find offensive?

I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t be talking to Catholic leaders. The pope needs to know, for example, that it is good to encourage his millions of followers to support Israel and that it is bad to hate Jews. There needs to be careful dialogue, but it needs to be a secular, common, needs-based dialogue. We should not be studying Talmud together and we should not be discussing prayer.

A Catholic doctor once came to visit me in my office. Someone had told him what I said in a sermon about the murder of pre-born children, and he determined that he and I were on the same page. He invited me to participate in a symposium on abortion, to be made up of doctors, lawyers, and clergy. He was looking for non-Catholics. “After all,” he reasoned, “we orthodox people have to stick together!”

I declined the invitation.

The rabbi's views are like a fresh breeze cleaning up the minds clogged by relativism and I-am-okay-you-are-okay drivel. Can you believe it! He is not taken aback by the fact that the pope is Catholic! This is a long-overdue slap in the face of all those who insist on their different-, precious- and uniqueness and who are then not content with discerning respect received from a distance, an attitude best defined as leftism, by the way.

Another Tuesday on September 11

Never forget, never forgive.

Germans Are Traditionalists

Like other antisemites -- ooops: Israel-critics -- Norm Finkelstein and Ted "those Palestinians who have resorted to necessary killing have been right to try to free their people" Honderich come to mind -- Mearsheimer and Walt had no problem finding a respected major publisher, not some pokey leftist hole-in-the-wall rat shop, in Germany.

That is because stuff like that sells like hot cakes here.

The publisher Campus tell us in their blurb how it is:

Since it came into existence, Israel is supported politically and economically by the USA and -- for understandable reasons -- by Germany. But unlimited solidarity is dwindling. Now two experts are breaking a taboo by well-founded criticism and are kicking off a long-overdue debate.

As Liza puts it:

Wow! Five lies in just two sentences: There never has been an "unlimited solidarity" with Israel, the "two experts" are in spite of their academic positions nothing but demagogues, the "well-founded criticism is a de-facto new edition of the "Protocols", the alleged "taboo" is non-existent and always was and the "long-overdue debate" don't need to be kicked off becuse it'a alive and thriving for decades now. But because the credo of those who "criticise" Israel is mainstream-compliant in spite of, respectivevely because their followers consider themselves a oppressed minority, truth can take a break without any harm done to the reputation of a academic publisher.

I specifically like the cute-ism "understandable reasons" in the Campus blurb. It's really fun to see what wrenching Germans are able to muster just to NOT having to say "murder of the Jews". And of course, had that "blooper of Germany history" not happened, we could now all uninhibitedly kick up our antisemitic heels. How very irritating!

But Liza comes up with an even jucier little morsel:

... the theme [to exchange the stars in the Stars and Stripes by Stars of David] is very popular among the antisemites, pardon me: anti-Zionists of all colours and can boast an ubiquitous presence at rally banners or in magazines and newspapers. And it is old, even older than the State of Israel: 1942 already, a book appeared, the cover of which showed a US-flag adorned with the Jewish symbol. Its title: Powers behind Roosevelt (Kräfte hinter Roosevelt). Its author: Johann von Leers, one of the most radical and important national-socialist ideologues.

Who said that Germans are no traditionalists anymore? Or, to paraphrase Liza: At least an antisemitic book like that is easily identifiable.

On Another Strictly Private Note

Seems my ability to blog has nothing to do with how many time I have or what other things I have on my mind, so I guess the fact that I will move house sooner or later *again* won't affect my blogging all that much. However, I'd still like to share what is currently on my mind.

Rooms on the first floor.
I will be moving even further East, to the Erzgebirge (Ore Mountains) close to the Czech border. We are buying a Renaissance house in a small town there. It's dead cheap (as far as Renaissance townhouses go) and in fairly good condition, although a lot of renovation will be necessary to make it habitable. But it's structurally sound and, additionally, the office for the protection of historical monuments poured hundreds of thousands into it after the re-unification (and millions into the entire historic town). It boasts 30 rooms according to the estate agent's blurb, but after renovation there may be less because it had been used for shops and offices and some of the rooms on the second floor are rather small. The first thing will have to be to update the electricity and plumbing, which are still up to GDR-standard, to add a bathroom and a kitchen. As far as heating is concerned, I think we will go for fireplaces and ovens, both for financial and for reasons of independence.

The hall from the entrance.
There is a backyard, romantically placed behind high walls with huge trees. It has great potential as a small garden, which the dogs will enjoy. And their humans as well, of course.

Not too surprising, the already existing furniture will only fill a small part of the house. It's a great challenge to furnish a place like that on a small budget. The fact that it is a period house makes it both at once, more difficult and more easy. I am studying Renaissance patterns like mad and sometimes I think if I had all the money in the world to do it would be much less fun and I try not to feel daunted.

Why Women Oughn't To Be Holding A Public Office

SPIEGEL ONLINE reported last Friday, that Wolfgang Bosbach, a fairly prominent Christian Democrat politician, dared, in the light of the recent arrests of would-be terrorists who are ethnic German converts to Islam, to say that Germany needs to keep a closer eye on their Muslim converts. He said, too, that such converts seek out contact with violent and fanatic Islamist groups, which is specifically dangerous, because in such cases the attackers come from the midst of German society. Bosbach said that the monitoring of converts ought to be considered. This, predictably, triggered off angry twittering from the most odious of Gutmenschen, bishops of the Protestant church. In this spirit, the Protestant (female) Bishop of Hannover, Margot Kässmann, warned against overreacting because, although converts are often specifically ardent fighters for their religion, "that is found within Christianity as well."

Picture: DPA.
Right, Margot. And now tell me where and when the last Christian bomber, suicide or not, butchered dozens, hundreds, thousands of innocent bystanders.

Kässmann is the bishop whose divorce caused some moderate cluck-clucking in the media and a lot of boring soulsearching and some clever bible-interpretation by her. "Marriage", so Kässmann, "is a good and right institution ... But the bible says, too: 'Whatever you wish to loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16, 19)'". What the bishop and doctor of theology did not say was that this word of Christ has nothing to do with divorce ("If you manage to get a divorce on earth you will be shot of your husband in heaven [Thank God!] as well") but is about the redemption from culpability by mutual forgiveness. She, too, subtly changed the quote. The original quote says 'Whatever you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven', which proves that she knew what she was saying and is probably cleverer than her simpering (don't I just LOVE that word!) picture suggests.

Kässmann, too, wrote to the pastors of her diocese about her divorce: "It has been an immensely difficult step, which needed a lot of trust in God." Maybe a leading ... person of the church thinks he/she/it HAS to talk such drivel, and I wonder whether one of her pastors asked her why she didn't stick to the biblical command of marital faithfulness in the first place if violating it was so terrifically difficult and needed so much trust in God.

The shameless arbitrariness, blatant cynisism and lack of any ethical compass from what is supposed to be our elite is as frightening as sickmaking and we need not to be amazed that we can now add cowardice to this roster.

I don't really know how to translate "Bischöfin", the female form of the German word Bischof. Is it bishopette or bishopeuse? What sounds more vile?

---

My blog entry The Muslim faith is not a totalitarian dictatorship from last December may be interesting in this context.

Lawrence Auster's blog is always worth a look. He is never shuns the truth and has lately provided an interesting link to a blog of which I wasn't aware so far, Wise Man's Heart. The Wise Man blogger offers some interesting thoughts on the German reaction to Muslim terrorists from within. His thoughts on women and voting are worth following as well. The reactions this mere play with thoughts triggered off are almost comical to watch.

Cross-posted at TMDSC.

Evil by Any Other Name

Who hasn't heard about the sad case of the little English girl Madeleine who mysteriously disappeared in Portugal and whose parents have lately become suspect of having killed her. And who hasn't wondered about the somewhat over-developed zeal of those parents, the mawkish display of the little girl's cuddly toy included. Not that zeal in the face of such a horror isn't basically understandable, but it's not what other parents tend to do in similar circumstances and, sadly, Madeleine's is by no means an isolated case.

British doctors believe it is extremely unlikely for parents - especially doctors such as the McCanns – to give a child an overdose of regular medicines intended to sedate children.

I wonder whether British reporters are really that naive to print such a drivel and British doctors are either fools or trying to keep their name clean or both. Who said that doctors are better and more ethical people or parents than anybody else? Parents are killing their children all the time and even more parents are taking illegal means if they don't want to be bothered by their children for a while. The dumb tie them to their beds or just lock them up and leave them to their own devices if they are living in a neighbourhood that allows for such a behaviour, the more sophisticated apply sedatives. The girl's parents are doctors, so they thought they could get away with it. But this beats it all:

If they were [fooling everyone], it would be a truly extraordinary effort. “It is very difficult for two people to lie over a death, whether it was accidental or deliberate,” said Mike Berry, senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University. “I cannot see how they would be able to keep up a lie for so long under this media attention.”

What if the media attention was not circumstancial evidence for the innocence of the parents, but a means in itself for the perpetrator(s)? Anybody remembers Marybeth Tinning who was inordinately unlucky in raising children because nine of them died over the course of 13 years? When she was finally found out, she was blamed for a lesser degree of homicide through her "depraved indifference to human life." In any civilised society that would increase her guilt, not lower it.

Tinning, too, while nine of her children died, was only ever convicted of one case of murder because there wasn't sufficient evidence for the others.

But surely the father of those children must have suspected something?

Husband and father Joseph Tinning was somewhat bemused.

In newspaper interviews, he admitted occasional suspicion of his wife, but had managed to push it aside. "You have to trust your wife," he said. "She has her things to do, and as long as she gets them done, you don't ask questions."

She got them done indeed.

And of course she got what she craved most, attention and praise for the "care" of her children.

If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil. As they are, there is a long name now for it: Münchhausen by proxy syndrome.

Do we have a case of high-level Münchhausen by proxy syndrome here? Surely rubbing shoulders with David Beckham, Joanne K. Rowling and Pope Benny is not everyday stuff for a nondescript middleclass couple? I guess it doesn't make any difference to the dead child, but if little Madeleine was killed by somebody outside her own family it would be somehow less monstrous.

The World's Most Beautiful Voice Fell Silent Forever

Carreras may have been better looking and infinitely more gentleman, Domingo a much nicer guy, but for sheer creatural beauty of voice he was unmatched.

A philanderer, an attentionwhore and starfucker into each and every popular cause -- and it showed.

I always wondered how could somebody with such a mug have such an out of this world voice.

I am sad.

Islamists Are Counting on Converts IV

So the German public and media are "shocked" at the arrest of suspected Islamists who are said to have planned bomb attacks of yet unknown viciousness in this country.

Reports that two of the three suspects held were German-born converts prompt soul-searching. Some commentators question whether integration problems can really be seen as a root cause of Islamist militancy.

Our dreaded, oh-so-right-wing minister of the interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, put it like that, I suppose he couldn't help himself*: "This shows that it's not a matter of passport. Even religion is not crucial here, even though at the moment int's mainly Islam, which is dangerous. Religions as such are peaceful, to begin with."

As long as our leading politicians are spouting such euphemisms, terror will win. The immensely political ideology called "Islam" is not peaceful and will never be. One look at the Koran would convince our politicians of that. But they want to remain with their self-inflicted ignorance because otherwise they'd need to take action, and they can't yet calculate the consequences for themselves.*

In the same spirit, albeit presumably for different reasons, one Deniz Yücel writes in the leftist taz :

The fact that two of the bomb-makers are German converts makes it clear that Islamist terrorism is only partially linked to the integration of immigrants. Thus, the ubiquitous mingling of the two issues is not helping to the debate because jihadism is not some folklore imported by immigrants from Anatolia or the Atlas mountains. Those who decide to follow international jihad don't do that because they don't speak German very well or didn't get an apprenticeship. Instead we are, in fact, dealing with a modern political phenomenon that cannot be understood by looking for bloodthirsty or Jew-hating bits in the Koran.

Yes and no. Of course Muslims don't become terrorists because they don't speak German very well or didn't get an apprenticeship. Yücsel is right here. It's precisely the other way round. Djihad is a very time-consuming effort and a job or learning German would be clearly interfering with it (and what the heck, the German welfare-state is looking after their worldly needs anyway). And of course ONLY the bloodthirsty or Jew-hating bits in the Koran can help understanding those converts, as Yücsel ought to know. And their Muslim-born brethren, for that. And Yücel closes:

By the way, the success of the investigating authorities shows that the present law is obviously sufficient to prevent horrible attacks.

Obviously. And it is obviously sufficient to be a Muslim as a licence to feed one's Islamism light to an unsuspecting and only too willing German public.

By the way: It is rumoured that it wasn't so much the sleepy German "investigating authorities" or the GS-thirtyseven GSG-9-men plus twentytwo other policemen managed to arrest two "Red Army Faction" terrorists not without killing one of their own-G-9, but the Pakistan secret service who delivered the decisive hints.

---

*Quote and following conclusion taken from Gudrun Eussner's website.

I commented on the significance of converts to Islam in earlier posts here and here and here

And I wonder why the as infamous as revealing Osthoff case seems to be forgotten already.