Brothers in Whining

Commenter Bruce Church (see previous entry) let me have information as a PDF-file, which can be downloaded here.

He writes:

I scanned a representative sample of the newspaper that the Octagenarian second-generation German-American Herman Otten of New Haven, Missouri, has sent out to thousands of Lutheran churches/pastors for the last five decades (since the 1960s I think).

Here I scanned two pages of one issue promoting a book for sale on anti-Zionism. Notice at the top it is mailed to a Lutheran Church, but I blackened out the address. Notice the anti-Zionist book Christian News is selling is in the lower-right corner of the front page (2nd page of the PDF), and the article continues on for two complete pages (page 3 and 4 of the pdf). The pdf is searchable for words, in case you want to search it.

Christian News is usually 24 to 28 pages in the small newspaper format, which equals two letter-sized pages of print per page. Sometimes the whole issue is dedicated to Holocaust Revisionism and related subjects like: the Dresden bombing, how badly the German citizens and soldiers were treated after the war by Allied Forces (including Russia), and how Germans were expelled by the Czechs and Poles, and anti-Zionism.

I can't thank Bruce enough. Here we have another example of the marriage made in hell between Germans and Palestinian Arabs. They must be made for each other. Start a war, lose it, pay with territory, the age-old formula for post-war dealings since mankind invented warfare does, so it seems, not apply to Germans and Palestinian Arabs, brothers in whining.

We have written many times about the Germans oh-so deep concern for the plight of the Palestinian Arabs and their long-standing brotherly relationship.

Would that specific German with an American passport, would all Germans, care about the Arabs of what used to be called Palestine during the British Mandate would their proposed solution (sic!) NOT be a danger of potentially genocidal proportions to the Jews and the State of Israel? You must be joking!

Edited to add:
Bruce sent me the following additional information:

Here's another more recent Christian News.

You'll see that I wasn't exaggerating when I said that the pages of CN are often filled with Holocaust and WWII Historical Revisionism, and Anti-Zionism. In the attached PDF there is material on the just-mentioned subjects on the title page, and pages 2, 5-8 and 15-23.

That's 15 pages out of the 24-page issues, or 63% of the pages have those subjects. (Some issues are 28 pages.) Feel free to post it, perhaps as another link next to the other PDF link. Like the other PDF, I made it searchable for words, meaning that search engines will index the PDF by it's word content.

Thank you, Bruce! Click here to open the file.

Backlog

Dear friends,

Due to real-life commitments I am forced to curb my blogging, and that now, when all those interesting and challenging comments are coming in. I think I will be back tomorrow. Hours of driving in heavy snow, sleet and torrential rain have left me with nothing but the wish to curl up in my bed with a book.

Bear with me!

Wonders DO never cease!

In my recent entry Will wonders ever cease? I wrote:

After we are writing our backside off for six or seven years now, starting long before this blog was created, about the disgusting hypocrisy in Germany when it comes to antisemitism and our "special relationship with Israel" (in fact, this entire blog is about it) the Jerusalem Post has twigged as well. Last Sunday that was.

The comments I received from Bruce Church in reply to that entry merit their own one, so here they are:

I'm American and I've read your blog religiously for the last two years, it seems, and even checked it during the few months you weren't blogging.

I suspected that there was more antisemitism over there than meets the eye, first because I know its worst manifestations are outlawed in Europe, driving it underground, and second, because I live among German-Americans, and they are still surprisingly antisemitic. They brought it from the Old Country.

And:

...the recent generations of German Lutheran and Catholic immigrants have ruined their respective American churches with antisemitism, and even pro-Nazi sympathies. Their attitudes were not diluted by mixing with Anglos.

The recent immigrants were products of the superior (uber) German educational system with its latest liberal scholarship, and they knew Deutsch better than German-Americans who had been in the country a while. So in the age before IQ testing and standardized merit tests, they were, often undeservedly, deemed to be very smart and educated. So they and their children often got tenure rather easily, and went straight to the top of their church hierarchies, often going back to Germany to obtain their doctoral degrees first--at church expense, of course. (There weren't many church-related universities and seminaries that gave out doctrinal degrees in the United States before WWII.)

When you see the surveys of whose pro-Israel in America, the 9% who are pro-Palestinian and the 30% who are undecided are mostly Catholics and Lutherans, many of German extraction. It's the Evangelicals who are pro-Israel, and if you search on their names here, you'll find that the Dobsons, Moodys, Falwells, Darbys, etc., are nearly all from Scotland or England, not Germany:
http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/default.aspx

The Evangelicals are more pro-Israel because since the 1700s or so, they've been saying that the Jews would be saved before the End, and they even were pro-Zionists before the Jews were. Also, the last hundred years they've dabbled in Pre-millennialism which, in some formulations, is pro-Jewish. Meanwhile, Lutherans, Catholics and the Continental Reformed have stuck with Amillennialism, which doesn't even mention the Jews.

If you look at the main English-speaking Holocaust Revisionist organization, IHR, outside of the infamous Englishman David Irving, chances are many such "scholars" are German-Americans whose families immigrated after WWI. See one list here:
Institute for Historical Review Bios
http://www.ihr.org/other/authorbios.html

Of course, most German-Americans are intermarried, with the father's side being, say, 6th generation G-As, and the mother's side being 4th, and sometimes one has Danish or English ancestry, too, so most people don't ask about ancestry in America, since it's too hard to keep track of anyway except for one's own ancestry. However, when it comes to antisemitism and Holocaust Minimization, that's an excellent question that more should be asking! We should ask: Was it your parents or grand parents that came from Germany?

Let me highlight two German-Americans who would issue the standard denial about being antisemitic, of course, but nevertheless have nothing fond to say of Jews or of Israel's existence:

1) Michael Hoffmann just came out with a book on the Jews in 2008, and he's definitely German-American, but I don't know what generation:

A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit."
http://www.rense.com/general84/mhof.htm

2) Herman Otten is an Octagenarian Lutheran pastor who is a second-generation German-American, whose parents came over after WWI. He often prints up a 24 and 28-page broadsheet newspaper full of historical revisionism and sends it to a couple thousand Lutheran pastor subscribers. Here's his bio:

Growing Up in New York City During World War II
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p321_Otten.html

Excerpt: The October, 1988 IHR Newsletter announcing this conference referred to me as a "German-American." My parents came to this country from Germany as teen-agers. However, ancestors on both my mother's and father's side came to Germany from Sweden. I mention this because some have said I am a neo-Nazi, out to defend Germany because of my background.

Bruce's information is of terrific importance to me. I have been called a self-hating German and worse by Americans who fail to see that it is impossible for a decent and honest German to muster up the same ordinary, positive, wholehearted, jolly-hockeysticks sort of patriotism Americans can enjoy. I care for my country or I wouldn't be such a relentless critic and I am ONE OF THEM. Do people think it is EASY to be German? The fact that decent, well-meaning Americans throw a free "He was a patriot" after every dead German Nazi towards hell drives me up the wall because it's such an abomination in the face of the truth. However, different from what some may think, I never wished to be anything else but German and I guess that makes me a Nazi now in the eyes of others. Fine!

There is more to come because my discussion with Bruce is still going on.

---

This entry is topical as well!

Western civilization reeks of rot:

Chantelle apparently slept with many boys near the time of conception. A war of single parents is developing, each proudly claiming paternity by their teen sons.

Well, what can one say? Things like that always seem to happen to girls with crappy names like "Chantelle". Had her parents named her, for example, Elizabeth Rose or Fiona none of this would have happened.

Hat tip: MND.
Cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.

Will wonders ever cease?

After we are writing our backside off for six or seven years now, starting long before this blog was created, about the disgusting hypocrisy in Germany when it comes to antisemitism and our "special relationship with Israel" (in fact, this entire blog is about it) the Jerusalem Post has twigged as well. Last Sunday that was.

We mentioned Prof. Dr. Wolgang Benz here before.

All the JP and we need now are some American readers able to understand the implications.

Mother-woman gives up whatever ghost of a unique talent she may have had

Or: Riding the Old Nag of Science to Death -- Backwards and Again

In the latest edition of Middle East Forum Phyllis Chesler is, so it seems, quite out of character carrying a torch for the Western male.

Differing Characteristics of Honor Killings and Domestic Violence

Honor Killings	Domestic Violence
Committed mainly by Muslims against Muslim girls/young adult women.	Committed by men of all faiths usually against adult women.
Committed mainly by fathers against their teenage daughters and daughters in their early twenties. Wives and older-age daughters may also be victims, but to a lesser extent.	Committed by an adult male spouse against an adult female spouse or intimate partner.
Carefully planned. Death threats are often used as a means of control.	The murder is often unplanned and spontaneous.
The planning and execution involve multiple family members and can include mothers, sisters, brothers, male cousins, uncles, grandfathers, etc. If the girl escapes, the extended family will continue to search for her to kill her.	The murder is carried out by one man with no family complicity.
The reason given for the honor killing is that the girl or young woman has "dishonored" the family.	The batterer-murderer does not claim any family concept of "honor." The reasons may range from a poorly cooked meal to suspected infidelity to the woman's trying to protect the children from his abuse or turning to the authorities for help.
At least half the time, the killings are carried out with barbaric ferocity. The female victim is often raped, burned alive, stoned or beaten to death, cut at the throat, decapitated, stabbed numerous times, suffocated slowly, etc.	While some men do beat a spouse to death, they often simply shoot or stab them.
The extended family and community valorize the honor killing. They do not condemn the perpetrators in the name of Islam. Mainly, honor killings are seen as normative.	The batterer-murderer is seen as a criminal; no one defends him as a hero. Such men are often viewed as sociopaths, mentally ill, or evil.
The murderer(s) do not show remorse. Instead, they experience themselves as "victims," defending themselves from the girl's actions and trying to restore their lost family honor.	Sometimes, remorse or regret is exhibited.

Is she? (Colouring added by me.)

In 2003 I wrote about Chesler's, then new, book "The New Anti-Semitism":

I read the book and I was disappointed. Chesler is an annoying woman, and that in more than one respect. A founding mother of second-wave feminism, she is not just a man-hater and sloppy researcher if it suits her agenda (in her 1986 book Mothers on Trial she stated that 70 percent of mothers in custody battles lost, which was based on an extremely non-random sample of 60 women, but frequently used as a feminist mantra) and, even worse, one of those irritating women who send their dignity, education and brain flying when they marry a Western-educated Muslim, followed him to his native country, find it -- surprise, surprise -- less than accomodating there and are then jumping on the victim-bandwagon.

[...]

Not to speak of Chesler's basic credibility problem. An "academic" who writes, as Chesler does in "Women and Madness", that "mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children" (inverted commas by the author!) has lost any right to have her say on any conservative cause. Correction: On ANYthing.

And to answer my own question: no she isn't. This man-hating ogre (or is it ogress?) who has presumably destroyed as many families as the average post-WWII armed conflict, is -- again -- up to her old tricks and, under the disguise of informing about the difference of "normal" domestic violence and Muslim "honour killings", fudging in her anti-social feminist drivel.

What is the truth about domestic violence?

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated "over 2 million very violent wives." While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In a later article, Straus and Gelles (1986) reviewed both their own and other studies in the United States and reported somewhat equivalent assault rates for both male-to-female and female-to-male. In their 1975 survey, Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) estimated that approximately 38 out of every 1000 families experience severe husband-to-wife violence, while 46 out of every l000 families experience severe wife-to-husband violence. Ten years later, Straus & Gelles (1986) reported that the rates have dropped from 38 to 30 and 46 and 44 per 1000 couples, respectively. In overall acts of violence, as defined by the Conflict Tactics Scales, husband-to-wife rates of violence were 121 and 113 and wife-to-husband rates of violence were 116 and 121 per 1000 couples for the two study years (i.e., 1975 and 1985).

Although Straus and Gelles (1986) did not dwell on these comparisons, they did make a statement that seems to run counter to the prevailing academic and public perception of the time, namely, that "an important and distressing finding about violence in American families is that, in marked contrast to the behavior of women outside the family, women are about as violent within the family as men" (p. 470). The small change in the wife-to-husband rate of violence, as opposed to some change in the husband-to-wife violence, was suggested to result from a lack of attention or concern to male victimization. The case for giving due regard to domestic women-on-men assaults and an acceptance of this higher level of victimization was backed by reference to other studies finding similar levels of male victimization (Brutz & Ingoldsby, 1984; Gelles, 1974; Giles-Sims, 1983; Jourilles & O'Leary, 1985; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; ; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Makepeace, 1983; Sack, Keller, & Howard, 1982; Saunders, 1986; Scanzoni, 1978; Steinmetz, 1977, 1977-78; Szinovacz, 1983).

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.

Can we really believe that the scientific findings from decades ago have not yet arrived at Professor Chesler's desk?

In post-Renaissance Europe, society ostracized and humiliated hen-pecked husbands. In France, for example, a "battered" husband was forced to trot around town riding a donkey backwards. It is safe to assume that enough men are, despite the worst efforts of a feminist society, still carrying some faint remnants of the patriarchal ethos telling him that a husband is expected to protect his wife and family instead of being beaten by her. Thus, a battered husband may be just -- dare I say it -- ashamed to admit that he has been the victim of female violence, which makes one wonder about the number of unreported cases.

But, thanks to the Cheslers of this world, as we children of the post-feminist age know, men do not suffer from subtle feelings like shame, victimization or humiliation. Only women do that.

I wish that hysteric woman would just shut up or at least stop abusing her academic position to deal with her personal problems. As a saviour of Western civilization she is simply miscast.

---

We have dicussed "honour killings" and the matter of "honour" in Muslim societies generally (for example) here, here, here, here or here. Many continuative links provided.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Or: The man who has blood on his hands, sort of...

Last week, the Al Guardian (no link) published this vile and smug little bit by the unspeakable "Lord Ahmed". Yes, that does sound like the member of a Sixties' Beat Group, but he is just a member in the House of Lords:

When I found out that Geert Wilders was planning to come to Britain and that Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his film, I wrote to the Home Office, the leader of the House of Lords and Black Rod to say that his presence would lead to the incitement of religious and racial hatred, which constitutes a public order offence.

I pointed out that Wilders is already facing a serious charge in his home country for inciting racial hatred. Furthermore, Cox and Pearson could hardly use an argument for free speech to justify giving him this platform because Wilders himself is calling for the banning of the Qur'an.

Wilders' film, Fitna, takes a lot of Qur'anic verses out of context and relates them to some terrible terrorist events, connecting them as though such acts are a religious teaching. I thought this would lead to extremist groups from both sides – far-right organisations like the BNP and extremist Muslims – rallying behind him.

As a result of my letters, the home secretary wrote to Wilders to say his presence would "threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK", and that therefore he was banned from entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence would be a threat to national security, public order or the safety of its citizens. I agree with her assessment. In the past, we have refused entry to people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others because of the language they have used, which could incite hatred and violence.

In an article in the Spectator, Melanie Phillips falsely claims that I had threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to demonstrate against Wilders. As a result, I have had hundreds of abusive emails, phone calls and threats from around the world to my office, my staff and myself.

The Quilliam Foundation says it disagrees with the ban, but it doesn't represent the masses and it doesn't have the support of the majority of the Muslim community. I represent views that I believe are in the best interests of our country.

In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature of the House of Lords had been changed by the Life Peerages Act, which allowed for the creation of life baronies. The number of Life Peers then gradually increased, though not at a constant rate.

The Labour Party had for most of the Twentieth Century a commitment, based on the party's historic opposition to class privilege, to abolish the House of Lords, or at least expel the hereditary element. In 1968, the Labour Government of Harold Wilson attempted a reform of The House by introducing a system under which hereditary peers would be allowed to remain in the House and take part in debate, but would be unable to vote. This plan, however, was defeated in the House of Commons by a coalition of traditionalist Conservatives, such as Enoch Powell, and Labour members who continued to advocate the outright abolition of the Upper House.

In the end, the Labour Party included in its 1997 General Election Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords. Their election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair thus heralded the demise of the traditional institution. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first step in Lords reform, but as part of a compromise agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the House of Lords Act 1999, making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

Nazir Ahmed, born 1958 in Pakistan, attended Spurley Hey Comprehensive school, then Thomas Rotherham Sixth Form College. He studied Public Administration at Sheffield Hallam University and joined the Labour Party when he was 18 years old.

While he worked as a grocer, he began his political career as a local councillor, with most of his activity centred around the North of England. He recognized the significance of grass roots politics and founded the British Muslim Councillors' Forum in 1992. Ahmed was also made a Justice of the Peace in the same year and chaired the South Yorkshire Labour Party for some years.

In 1998 Ahmed was appointed to the House of Lords, becoming the first Muslim life peer as Baron Ahmed, of Rotherham in the County of South Yorkshire.

Quite the immigrant success story, eh?

Yes and no. To add a little bit flesh to the bones, here is an alternative CV: Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, little Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain with his parents, where he took advantage of the free education provided by the British taxpayer and attended university while working for the Labour Party. In 1992, he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the North of England where he championed countless Muslim causes. 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance on the Koran, as one does in a vibrant, multicultural and tolerant country like Britain. As a Muslim peer, much of his activities relate to the Muslim community, both at home and internationally because Britains primary concern is to form the best of relations with Muslims worldwide. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims terrorist scum around the world, from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, to the Chechens and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them. He was, too, the first Member of the Upper House to lead delegations on behalf of the British government (yes!) to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, to keep his priorities in balance.

On 23 February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the (yes!) House of Lords for author Israel Shamir. On the 22 March, Stephen Pollard wrote in The Times that Shamir "is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas" known for statements like "Jews control ... a big share of mass media" (including the BNP) and also suggested that the large Muslim population in Britain was important to turn the tide of 'Judaic Values' in Britain. Lord Ahmed, when challenged, refused to comment on Shamir's remarks.

On 25 July 2005, Lord Ahmed, in an interview on National Public Radio, said that the London suicide bombers of 7/7 had an "identity crisis" and, that "unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand."

Picture: Getty Images
Traces of the "identity crisis" of young Muslims in London 2005.

On 19 June 2007 Lord Ahmed criticised the honouring of Salman Rushdie with a knighthood because of what he saw as Rushdie's offensiveness to Islam. He reportedly said, "It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations." And: "This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far." Sort of.

In an interview with Press TV (self-reference: "Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis"), performed by one Fareena Alam on February 3, Lord Ahmed informed us:

Press TV: Lord Nazir Ahmed, you raised question in Parliament about the legal implications of British Jews serving in the IDF. What was the response?

Lord Ahmed: I asked Her Majesty's government if they were aware of British citizens who may have been involved with the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli Defense Reserves. Her Majesty's government did not have any figures because dual nationals do not have to inform the government. However, there are reports in the Daily Mirror and The Sun with the names of British citizens who have been fighting in Gaza.

The point I was making is that war crimes have been committed, white phosphorous has been used and if there are people who have broken the 4th Geneva Convention, then whoever they are, when they return to this country, they should be arrested and charged - unlike the Major General who escaped in 2005.

Press TV: Are you certain these are up to date reports about British citizens serving in Israel?

Lord Ahmed: These are very new reports, dated January 2009, of British citizens who have gone out to fight against the Palestinian people as part of the IDF. Their names and ages are mentioned in these reports.
We know that there are student unions that have been actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defense Force and we also know that there are young Jewish students who go and serve on the kibbutz and also in schools, who are also then doing national service in Israel.

How many of those have been involved in war crimes? How many of those have broken the Geneva Convention? When they come back to this country, we want our government to take some legal action against them.

Press TV: Will our government take such action?

Lord Ahmed: Yes - if there is evidence and if the United Nations is strong enough. At the moment they have not even decided how they are going to conduct this independent investigation into the use of white phosphorous and other weapons prohibited by the United Nations.

There is very clear evidence that the 4th Geneva Convention has been breached - we know there was collective punishment, excessive and disproportionate use of force against civilians and deliberate attacks on schools, hospitals and ambulances. There have even been attacks on UNRWA personnel and warehouses.

If the United Nations makes a statement or if someone goes to the courts and gets an order against these people then I am sure the government has to take some legal action.

Press TV: Were you surprised by the response from the government?

Lord Ahmed: I am not surprised at all. Lord Malloch-Brown did actually say that if there is any evidence of the 4th Geneva Convention being breached, and it doesn't matter whether they are British citizens or whether they are other nationalities, these people will be arrested and they will be tried in this country.

Press TV: How do you think the British Jewish community will react to such a move?

Lord Ahmed: Well the reaction was very obvious. One of their lordships got up and started to praise the British citizens who were fighting in Gaza. He said: shouldn't we be proud of the fact they are fighting against terrorists who are hell bent on trying to destroy Israel.

But they are not fighting against a terrorist organization as such. The IDF and those who serve in it have been involved in the massacre of civilians, including hundreds of Palestinian children and attacks on the United Nations and even the American school. There is just no excuse for anyone to get away from these war crimes this time.

Press TV: Is this situation comparable to British Muslims allegedly going to fight in foreign conflicts?

Lord Ahmed: There have been many government statements with regards to British Muslims going abroad to foreign madrasahs and then seeking training. There was a huge outcry across the board - from government officials, politicians and civil society.

Of course, we do not support anyone who has been involved with terrorism or killing of innocent civilians anywhere, or those who fight British troops abroad.

However, to me there is no difference whether the young person is from a Jewish background or Muslim background. The only difference is that one has a uniform and the other does not. Both kill innocent civilians. Both need to be brought justice.

This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.

The very fact that in both cases, they kill innocent civilians, including children warrants a fresh look at this issue, as was recommended by Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

Press TV: Are you expecting any progress now that you have raised the issue?

Lord Ahmed: My intention was to bring this matter to the attention of parliament. The second was to discuss this openly in the media. It has always been a taboo to ask any questions about Jewish youth who go to Israel for training and service in the IDF.

We have received a government statement. Now, it is for the legal experts to take it up in the courts and to make sure the government takes legal action against people who may have been in breach of international law.

As a general point, I was surprised by how the entire British society was moved by this crisis. In almost every town and city, people went out to demonstrate against the bombing and killing of innocent civilians. They put pressure on the government and at least the government has done a few things such as taking the resolution to the UN.

But more importantly, I have definitely seen the mood amongst British politicians change to become more openly critical of the Israeli government. Unfortunately, that is not the same in Europe.

We went to see the President of the European Parliament and met with a number of Members of the European Parliament who feel that Germany, Austria and France and other parts of Europe still have guilt in relation to the Holocaust. That is why Israel can get away with anything it wants.

We know that very fine members of parliament like Gerald Kaufman MP, who is himself Jewish, very openly said that just because these people were victims of the Holocaust does not mean they should perpetrate another holocaust on the Palestinian people.

We need to speak out and support Jews, like Gerald Kaufman and Jews for Justice for Palestine, who have been supporting the Palestinians.

And nobody laughed.

So poor Lord Ahmed and those whose welfare he has, as a member of parliament, in mind are victims of Geert Wilders, Salman Rushdie, and, of course, The Jews, who are all so offensive that those many peaceful, tolerant Muslims must be protected from their inflammatory words and actions, or they might do something ... inflammatory.

I have hardly ever seen a more shameless reversal of the perpetrator : victim reality -- or taqqiya.

As for the Brits, I can only hope that they are happy with what they jettisoned the Upper Classes for. Egalitarianism has taken them a long way already, and no doubt the women of the new elites will not hurt the sensibilities of the masses anymore with offensive duds like cashmere sweaters, Alice bands, pearls, Barbours or green gumboots.

The new elites in full fly: Lord Ahmed showing his loyalty to Queen and Fatherland.

---

Information on the House of Lords and Lord Ahmed mainly from Wikipedia where the verifications can be found.

What Americans seem to be unable to twig

I am always losing my considerable charm and graces when Americans are wasting the word "conservative" on German circumstances, because they are unable to look beyond their, admittedly vast, borders. This time it was at Gates of Vienna:

A couple of weeks ago I posted a report by our German correspondent Furor Teutonicus about a German conservative movement known as Pro-Deutschland.

Some additional information seemed in order. I am re-posting the gist of my comment here, together with some additional points. As I have pointed out countless times, there ARE NO "conservatives" in Germany. Never were, are not, never will be.

To quote myself:

WHAT we have are brown-painted Socialists, Sacred-Heart Socialists, green-over-brown-painted Socialists, Communists and a tiny, hapless "liberal" party that used to be a receptacle for old Nazis after '45 and which has ousted itself from serious politics by their self-consciously cultivated image of a "fun party".

The staple of all of them is the hatred of America and Jews, which the not-brown-painted ilk insist to call "anti-Zionism" because they are such despicable hypocrites.

The quote can be found here, the bone of contention it that specific case was the fact that well-meaning but -- to put it politely -- slightly one-dimensional Americans threw another heartfelt "he was a patriot" after the deceased governor of Carinthia because, as I put it then, HE opposed immigration and THEY don't know their arses from their elbows, i.e. squat about German history, society and mentality, and were seriously AMAZED that this paragon of anti-immigration principles had rubbed shoulders with Saddam Hussein.

Now it's about the Bürgerbewegungen (civil movements) under the "Pro" label, heavily weighed down by Neo- and old Nazis. Case in point: One of the main backers of Pro Köln, vanguard of the "Pro" movement, is Günther Kissel, an (old) Nazi and wealthy muckshifter, who built the megalomaniac mosque in Duisburg. Pecunia muselmaniae non olet. That is not the only (Neo-)Nazi-connection, by the way. The common staple between left, right and center is hatred of Israel, the Über-Jew and America, the surrogate Jew and as Muslims are always glad to help, they are gladly welcomed, and to hell with "anti-immigrant" principles.

I performed a brief Google search and lo and behold, one of the local "Pro"-branches celebrates Gerard Menuhin, one of those Jews who are always gladly taken into the Nazi-fold and who, I hope, does not need an introduction here. What will one find if a one-minute Google search for "Pro Deutschland" with no other search parameter delivered that?

Vlaams Belang is fine, Partij voor de Vrijheid is fine, even BNP is able to learn. However, dear Americans, you may have noticed that they are not German. But then, you may not. I repeat: You WILL NOT find anything like that in Germany. If THAT is Germany's future, God help us!

Mind you, I am NOT saying that those "Pro" organisations are NOT attracting quite a few wellmeaning, decent citizens who are just desperate because the mainstream parties are exposing them helplessly to the Islamic threat.

I don't know America just from a few visits, have never lived there for any considerable length of time and never worked there. At this end many people like myself, Europeans, even Germans, are labouring to do America justice, reading, talking, thinking, learning about your country. Why do you Americans think you can get away with just grafting your home-made preconceptions on the infinitely more complex European circumstances.

I have written before that it is, albeit difficult, not impossible to understand Germany. To quote myself again:

That it is possible to understand that strange country shows Herman Wouk, who has got Germany's number to a "T". The information on Germany he delivers in his WWII-trilogy ist stunningly accurate and even more insightful. I seem to remember that it was in the first volume of this very trilogy, where a discussion based on the writings of one of the early sociologists (Pareto?) occured, saying that Germany had taken a path different from that of other European countries because of Arminius' victory over Varus in 9 AD. The relative absence of the mellowing, civilisatory Roman influence serves here to explain a cruel and ruthless streak in the Germans that seems to be absent, or not so prevalent, in other European people. Whether that is entirely true or not, it is certainly helpful to at least begin to understand Germany's otherness.

As for a more recent assessment, I recommend The German-Israeli historian Dan Diner's book "Feindbild Amerika", in which he outlines the long history of German antiamericanism as a backward-oriented society’s angst-ridden and contemptuous reaction to modernity. Sadly, there is no English translation available, but I am sure that "America in the Eyes of the Germans: An Essay on Anti-Americanism" contains at least the basics of Diner's theory. Here is a review.

A whiff of understanding of the German language would be quite an eye-opener, then Americans would be able to read (and hopefully to understand), say, the hate-filled, antisemitic comments in a serious Islam-critical and staunchly pro-Israel German blog like Politically Incorrect or the equally hate-filled buckets full of slandering slurry in the leftist blogosphere that is emptied over the PI-team, and maybe, perhaps, hopefully, understand that there is method behind such a mutual stance.

Then they would, too, understand the implications of the fact, that a medium like the Junge Freiheit, the modern, rinsed with demagogic fabric-softener, acceptable face of Neo-Nazism, is hosting interviews with militant Muslims and haters of the Jewish state like Jamal Karsli or Muslim Brother and Hamas-supporter Ibrahim El-Zayat. Soundbite from a recent interview headed "It's seething among the Muslims":

Will the Muslims in Germany thus percieve the Germans as enemies soon?

El-Zayat: No, luckily, we haven't come so far yet.

Yet.

The reason for possible enmity would be in this case, mind you, Chancellor Angela Merkel's lame-ish support for Israel in the Gaza-conflict. The German people, left, right and center, are quite d'accord with the Muslim hatred for everything Jewish anyway and beware Muslim wrath should that ever change.

But it won't. The stance of the left is clear anyway, and anything with "Pro" connected to "Deutschland" will INVARIABLY end up in an orgy of Nazi-, war guilt- , war crimes- , and Holocaust apology or revisionism, as proven by today's frontpage of Junge Freiheit.

Nationalism has no other face here. A healthy, positive Nationalism is unthinkable. At the end of the day, it's all about war crimes commited with Germans as -- yes -- victims, Holocaust relativism, and the ever-oppressive Jewish lobby. Just as the guilt-ridden sort, this kind of German identifies with the Nazi-aera and the (self-started and lost) war and with the Nazi-aera and the (self-started and lost) war only. Sad as it may be, there is no other Germany.

I am tired of translating. Go and try to get the gist and the spirit of the above precious "German conservatism" yourselves.

What the UN are googling...

We remember today: Jan Ziniewicz' Longest Night

Lest we forget!

The anti-Catholic hate-Fest: What Americans think

Worthwhile discussion at Infidel Bloggers Alliance of my entry Germans love Jews -- dead, that is:

midnight rider said...

Thank you, Editrix. I have not waded into this either because, as a Catholic, the hate and vitriol was so loud it would have done no good. I tried to explain, best I understod, early on what had happened but got no traction.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:37:00 PM

Pastorius said...

Good piece, Editrix. Thanks.

It has been hard to get accurate news on the Pope's intentions when it comes to this story. However, the blame lies at least in part on the Vatican itself.

A lot of Catholics get angry at the criticism. But, if the story had been clearly communicated in the first place, it would have helped people like myself who are basically Vatican apologists.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:55:00 PM

midnight rider said...

Agreed, Pasto. Where I ran into trouble and backed away was when the criticism and hatred starting moving away from the core issue in to general Catholic bashing which so many just love to do at any given opportunity. Some of the shit I read at Jawa and LGF was just plain moonbat stupid. How do you hold me accountable and evil for something my Church did 600, 700, 800 years ago? Something they have apologised for, recanted etc. That's the thinking of Islam, not Judeo-Christian. That's like an African american, whom I've never oppresed, demanding reparations from me because my ancestor 450 yrs ago owned 2 slaves.

Anyway, that's all rhetorical, not directed at you. But why I backed off this one early.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:02:00 PM

Pastorius said...

Here's the thing: I am not Catholic, so it is hard for me to understand the terms Catholics use. I have come to believe the Editrix's phrase that these men have been "ex-excommunicated" is accurate.

However, as a Protestant, there was a significant learning curve required for me to tease the few available facts out of the great morass of negative media.

Many of the media stories referred to the man as being a Bishop. My question from the beginning was, is the Pope reistating this man as a Bishop. It wasn't until yesterday that I found the answer was no.

It seems to me appropriate that the man can break bread at the Communion table. Christ certainly would have eaten with him. But, Christ would not stand for Holocaust denial, and he would not have had a Holocaust deniers as an apostle.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:09:00 PM

midnight rider said...

And there was the problem. The fucking media, again. Spinning it the worst way possible, not telling us everything. Even I said though (from my position as a Catholic) un-excommunicating him that the Pope should have then roundhoused him. I didn't know until yesterday that Benedict (apparently) wasn't even aware of the issue when he lifted the excommunication. And it is also true that the statement that caused the uproar was made after excommunication was lifted. But what the media latches onto and spews, in this order, is "Bishop was excommunicated, Bishop denies holocaust, Bishop is rehabilitated." Not that he was ex-com for reasons other than shoah denial, taht that open denial came AFTER rehab., that the Pope didn't knwo about the interview, that he wasn't rehabed back as a priest.

All of which gives the media it's blood orgy of anti-Catholicism.

Anyway, I still say this Pope of mine needs to wake up and STAND UP much more forcefully about the anti-semitism and Islam.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:52:00 PM

midnight rider said...

I guess what I mean is the media stirs up the masses and didn't give the Church the chance to explain how it works what happened and why to the non-Catholics the media was stirring up. Instead it made sure they remained in the dark or worse, purposely close-minded.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:55:00 PM

A Pundit with an Agenda

The Times used to be, long ago, a great newspaper when it was still the mouthpiece of the British establishment, or rather when the British establishment had a different face. Today, Times Online publishes the comment of one Sunny Hundal, headed Burning Satanic Verses lit the flame for better race relations, and yes, he means it exactly like that. To summarize: Frightening the living daylight out of Salman Rushdie and the stupid, white- and colonial guilt-ridden Brits in the same process was a good thing because it paved the way to the total submission we now see in Britain and what Hundal calls "remarkable civility". The entire comment is so incredibly full of politically correct leftist-liberal bullshit that it could as well be published at The Onion as a travesty and nobody would notice.

It has become such a frequent occasion that some profiteer from the fact that the Brits once, long ago, shouldered The White Man's Burden spits on that very tradition, that I have given up following it. However, Hundal didn't limit his bias to the country that gave him his passport and that irritated me:

Despite the rows and arguments, the British experience has been much better than that in Europe. France sticks to its official colour-blind approach but it has failed to make minorities feel that they have a stake in mainstream society. Germany has yet to shake off its history of associating nationality with bloodline and makes it difficult for even third or fourth-generation Turks to be full citizens. The Netherlands has careered from extremely liberal attitudes to much more xenophobic ones. Britain, in marked contrast, has conducted itself in remarkable civility.

Does this Times columnist really not know that France did not fail "to make minorities feel that they have a stake in mainstream society" but that the problem lies just with one of several minorities that prefers to burn cars instead of taking up its stake in mainstream society? That the Netherlands have not "careered from extremely liberal attitudes to much more xenophobic ones", but are trying to make up for their past mistakes, namely confronting a minority, that considers any liberal attitude as weakness, with such a despised and, at the same time, easily exploitable concept?

And Germany? Does it really have "yet to shake off its history of associating nationality with bloodline" that "makes it difficult for even third or fourth-generation Turks to be full citizens"? The cliché of the "racist" German is always gladly taken up, but that doesn't make it any more real. Germans are probably less racist than those European people with a colonial past -- or most third-worlders, for that. Germans are traditionally antisemites. That is a huge difference, which is hardly ever acknowledged. Germany, the only major European country without much of a stake in colonialism, is deeply provincial, always has been and after reunification even more so. Any cosmopolitanism is a totally alien concept to us, as is thinking in international terms. When the first Turks arrived in larger numbers in the early Seventies, nobody bothered to waste much thought on them because they were supposed to go back to their native country sooner or later anyway. They didn't, but at first it seemed as if Turks, coming from a secular country, didn't do so badly in the field of assimilation, no bearded men, no burqa-wearing women, they kept themselves to themselves, but their children, so it seemed, were going to do well.

And then, somewhere along the way and the Germans being tired of being branded forever as the world's premier racists, the suicidal family reunion schemes were started and instead of sending those who hadn't grown any roots in Germany, back, spouses from the deepest Anatolian sticks were imported while at the same time the alarming signs of a re-Islamisation of the Turkish minority were ignored. Again, at the same time, our little country took in Asians, Russians and other immigrants from non-Muslim countries without major problems, with the result that a Sikh in a British newspaper may ride now the old nag of German "racism" to death and nobody laughs.

Angry, I commented at the Times website:

This is an insult to your readers. How can one write a sensemaking, literate and informative comment covering such a complex topic having just 300 characters at one's disposal? But then, "You have no idea about what you are talking" only needs 40 odd characters and says it all.

I think I was wrong. Some hours and a bit of online search later, I have to concede that Sunny Hundal knows very well about what he is talking. He is a man with an agenda.

Matters of Family Honour

Ali Kur, the "alleged" murderer of an eight-year-old "girl of Turkish origin" in Germany was taken into custody by Turkish police last Tuesday night. In the Turkish town of Didim, that was. The German media are full of it, specifically because the father of the alleged one's wife had helped decisively in tracking him down. Kadir Ayaz, 49, had hired a detective and a group of 20 people to find his son-in-law. "I promised not to return to Germany unless I found Ali," Ayaz said to an unquestioningly attending German media. "For me it is a matter of honour." A divorce lawyer for his daughter has been hired.

Before Kur, a neighbour of the victim's family, could be indentified as the murderer of little Kardelen, the marked sense of honour within the Turkish community had caused some stir of a different kind in Germany already.

The writer of Turkish origin, Serap Cileli ("We Are Your Daughters, Not Your Honour") had made the guess the perpetrator might be a Turk. For that, she is now criticised in the Turkish dailies with the highest circulation in Germany, "Hürriyet" and "Sabah". The Turks in Germany are appaled at the statements, "Sabah" wrote ... Cileli had stated that it is not likely that a traditionally brought up Turkish girl will enter the car of a stranger.

The unlikely perpetrator Kur had fled Germany after Kardelen had disappeared on January 12. The child's naked body had later been found near a reservoir about 60 km away from the city of Paderborn where Kur lived. It turned out that DNA found in the unlikely alleged's home matched evidence from the crime scene.

(By the way, the unemployed Kur is a textbook example for the German family reunion scheme that allows for the relocation of a Turkish spouse to Germany. Kur's wife has German citizenship.)

Public prosecutor Horst Rürup said last week that Turkish prosecutors had warned they could not extradite Kur, but would try him in a Turkish court if he were caught. Turkish law stipulates life imprisonment for such crimes and I have a hunch that this means, different from German law, that Kur will leave prison only in a coffin. It gives me a good feeling being able to say something nice about Turkish circumstances.

What I hope for, though, is that the German media, who hadn't much to say about the arrogance of "Hürriyet" and "Sabah", and who are now gushing enthusiastically about Turkish honour, will, from now on, report as stridently all those cases where Turkish (or Muslim generally, for that) family honour plays a somewhat different part, or speak up the next time somebody like Serap Cileli, who has to live in hiding, is attacked by the honour-conscious Turkish media.

---

This, this, this, this and this entry may be helpful.

Clarifying a Calculated Disaccord

The following letter is by Mrs. Rosa Gillibrand to the German media-personality Michel Friedman, first posted at her husband's blog Catholic Church Conservation, which is among the few we have blogrolled. Roncesvalles is not a Catholic blog in the sense Catholic Church Conservation is. As the description in the header says, it is about news and views from the German backwaters, and biased ones, for that. So let me put Mrs. Gillibrand's letter in a German perspective by providing information, which a blog that focuses mainly on theological matters can and will not provide.

Michel Friedman, in his early fifties now, used to be a German lawyer, CDU politician and Vice President of the Council of Jews in Germany. He then broke into chat-show hosting and was, with his razor-sharp mind, aggressive interviewing style, flamboyant looks, and an ego as big as the Mount Everest, a huge success. Friedman's family had been saved by Oskar Schindler.

In 2003, he was trialled and convicted in a case of cocain usage, involving forced prostitutes from Eastern Europe. He then withdrew from all public offices, publicly apologized and asked for "a second chance". Predictably, German television, shallow and whorish as it is, allowed him a comeback. Recently, he has, somewhat predictably as well, acquired new attention through his vocal condemnation of Pope Benedict.

Michel Friedman is, to put it cynically, important, even invaluable for the German society. Why? Because he mirrors, like nobody else, the deeply ingrained antisemitic resentments of the otherwise oh-so tolerant and enlightened Germans who see, by Friedman's mere existence, their credo once again affirmed that antisemitism is the Jews' fault. I have a hunch that Friedmann deliberatelly caters for this resentment, but I may be wrong.

However, here is Rosa Gillibrand's remarkable letter:

Dear Dr Friedmann

I have always carried the name Friedman with pride; I am a Catholic and received the name Friedman by marriage. So dear was this name to me that I kept my passport with the name Friedman for four years after my husband had died, because it seemed to me an honour as an Austrian to carry this name. It therefore stands to reason that I cannot be an anti-Semite; at present, I am writing a book about the Jews of Linz in Austria.

I am ashamed of what you have said in your highly emotional and angry statements in the broadcast of the Kerner Show on ZDF. You call the SSPX, nazis, fascists and anti-Semites. It seems to me that you do not understand what the whole affair is about as I assume that you are a secular Jew and you have no knowledge of what is actually taking place. Just as the Germans under National Socialism have attacked the Jews without any reason, you have attacked and defamed a group of deeply believing Catholics.

It is apparent for you Vatican II means an opening to the world- you are an outsider and this is a simplistic view. I, as an insider, have experienced what had happened to the Catholic Faith- the removal of everything symbolic and sacred from the liturgy. What does this in actual fact mean? I have tried for over twenty years to come to terms with it and to overlook the shambles in the Rock Masses, Carnival Mass, Clown Masses, Sing-song Masses- everyone holding hands and Dance Masses, until I could not bear it anymore. Vatican II Masses became more and more banal, saying less and less and becoming emptier and emptier of spiritual content with a self-made and truncated rhetoric from the priest and a happy-clappy community. If I wanted to hear rock music, I would go to a rock concert- I don’t need the Church for this.

In my search for a Mass with content, where the sacred is still sacred and where the liturgy is still treated in a decent and dignified manner, I found by chance the Fraternity of St Peter. As however most of the liberal inclined bishop held them down with an iron fist and permitted few Masses in the Roman Rite, and as, for instance, in Brussels the Fraternity of St Peter is forbidden to celebrate through the obstinacy of the local Cardinal, I have found again by chance, the SSPX who possess their own church in Brussels independent from the grace and favour of the Diocesan bishops. The latter are set to continue their secular and liberal course, free and cheerfully, despite the fact that their churches are becoming emptier and emptier.

My religion matters to you- it possesses a liturgy which according to Michael Davies, “is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven”. I do not expect any understanding from you but I expect, at least, the respect that you would give to Orthodox Jews. To simply pour dirt onto the SSPX and call them nazis, fascists etc. which I must ask you to withdraw. You are making this statement solely on the basis of an eccentric bishop who denies many other things besides the Holocaust, (9/11, Pearl Harbour) or wishes to impose on them a different interpretation. As far as I know, the US has not taken him to court for this. In any case, should I meet him here again in Brussels- he was here a year ago- I would assure you that I would speak to him that I was married to a Jew and that 45 of his relatives perished. This would mean 45 of the 300/400 thousand that he specified.

You are attacking a group of faithful Catholics (the same disposition and more, you can find in your own faith, among the Orthodox Jews, but you are silent about them.) When I accompanied my husband to Stamford Hill in London- as a doctor, he had to visit an old Jewish lady who had been in a concentration camp, my reception there was not in the least friendly- no-one shook my hand, I was left standing in a corner and the children were clearly afraid of me (as I was not Jewish) and they tried not to come near to me. Contrary to you, I have not criticised their environment or behaviours but tried to explain it to myself.

Why don’t you come forward with the truth why you pour your hatred over the SSPX- because of the Good Friday prayers which are only prayed once a year by the priest in Latin for the Jews. Nb it is the priest who prays this prayer together with ten other bidding prayers. I would appreciate it if you could just once also say prayers for us, the unbelieving gentiles, or do you not pray any more....

I should be grateful.
Mrs Rosa Gillibrand, formerly Friedman

Thank you, Mrs. Gillibrand!

Gudrun Eussner says in an email that she found many of those things in a synagogue that are dear to a traditional Catholic with his Latin Mass as well (article in German).

We feel honoured!

It is with great pleasure and pride that we announce that the good old Jerusalem Post is plagiarizing us:

Germans (and Austrians) prefer to deal with dead Jews. In that, they are really experienced.

Here!
























































Oh yes, and for those perennial dumb clucks and ill-wishers: It was a joke!

Germans love Jews -- dead, that is!

I am probably the last person fit to comment on theological matters, so I refrained so far from saying anything in view of the ongoing discussion about the ex-excommunication of that Holocaust-denying renegate bishop by Pope Benedict XVI. However, the discussion here in Germany has become so strident, hysterical and impertinent, that I'd like to comment, even if only briefly.

While the statement, that the Pope hadn't known about the Holocaust-denial of Williamson (the much-publicized interview was, in fact, given AFTER the excommunication was revoked, but his stance wasn't new) shows that the information system of the Vatican leaves a lot to be desired, it wasn't in any way discussed, let alone the not entirely outlandish conspiracy theory that the pope was conned.

The instead ensuing anti-Catholic hate orgy in the media violated, and is still violating, any common standard of journalistic ethics (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one). I can not tell how many times I had to listen to the tale of the "rehabilitation of the Holocaust denier", and even the very last theological troll was allowed to let loose his inner child. Hans Küng, who called for the "resignation" of the pope and who is particularly qualified to comment on Jewish topics as he considers, for once on the side of traditional Catholicism, "the international law-violating occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel since 1967" a reason for the deterioration of the Jewish-Catholic relations, concluded in an interview with the "conservative" newspaper Die Welt: "The number of Christians who have left the Holy Land is speaking for itself", conveniently forgetting that it isn't Israeli-Jewish "occupation" that does that but Palestinian-Muslim atrocities, lauding, eerily befitting, Islam's "forceful Monotheism" in the same interview.

And nobody laughed.

So what is the ex-excomunication really about? The four men may now attend again confession and receive absolution. They may receive communion and will not have to die without the solace of the sacraments of their church. That is all.

All, but very much for a Catholic.

But the public discussion is not really about that, it is about the authority of the pope and the Catholic church, who doggedly refuse to surrender their values to relativist secular ones. The world will stop despising Catholics once they've accepted the rules of political correctness as above the word of Jesus Christ, in other words, when they have ceased to be Catholics.

Germany is a secular country. Since the revision of paragraph § 166 StGB of the penal code in 1969, blasphemy has been abolished as a punishable crime. Holocaust denial, in contrast, has been elevated to a status where it is liable to prosecution, and the European Union, in the same spirit, refrained to include any reference to God in their constitution but made Holocaust denial a punishable crime as well.

Have superior ethics and morality been thus achieved?

Well, what can I say? There is certainly a difference between the importance that is given to the denial of the past Holocaust and the call for a future one.

If a Muslim-mob haunts the streets of our country chanting "Death to the Jews" it doesn't seem to be a big matter. If German politicians are rubbing shoulders with the Middle Eastern scum who are ready, willing and able to commit a second Holocaust, most of them deniers of the first one themselves, it's mostly a good thing. If a dialie dialogue with Islam is promoted, it's received with enthusiastic acclaim. Hasn't it, after all, been exceedingly fruitful in the past already?

Thus, the "Never Again" solemnly and hypocritically sworn at any Liberation-of-Auschwitz-Day, turns well-nigh into the precondition for the "Way to go" for the next one.

Scumbags

Under the apt header "Scumbags demand more" Terry Morris discusses at Webster's the group of passengers on board US Airways Flight 1549, who are now sueing the carrier for a factor totally out of their, the carrier's, sphere of influence and by whose pilots they were saved in an act of extraordinary (arguably heroic) mastership.

I think my comment to this enty merits its own post here, because the behaviour of those people is part of a larger pattern of moral and ethical decay that is wrecking the underpinning of our Western culture. In a world, where a baby survives his own "late term abortion", is then left to die for ten hours after which he is still alive and the hospital staff finally unnerved enough by his crying to care for him, in a world where his biological parents then SUE the hospital on the grounds that they were not informed about the *risk* that their child might survive his abortion, in such a world I am, no, not all that amazed about the attitude of those people.

Information in German can be found at www.tim-lebt.de. Mind you, this happened in a country where they chain themselves to trees about to be cut town or where migrating toads are gently lead across a street so that nothing evil should befall them, and, different from America, where "late term abortion" doesn't even merit a public discussion because nobody gives a damn.