March 22, 2009
Word Verification Defunct
Co-blogger Terry Morris made me aware of the fact that the "word verification" for comments doesn't seem to work. So I've disabled it. Thank you Terry!
March 21, 2009
What do the Pope and Obama have in Common?
Both have, to dumb it down to the simplest of formulae, recently rehabilitated a Holocaust denier.
But if the Holocaust denier poses a REAL threat to Israel, that doesn't matter.
But if the Holocaust denier poses a REAL threat to Israel, that doesn't matter.
Where the Pope Went Wrong
All the world have their collective knickers in a knot because the pope didn't wholeheartedly recommend condoms as a measure of prevention against AIDS. He had the temerity to treat the people of Africa like mature, grown up people who may be able to find alternatives to condom use, based on their faith.
And does nobody realize what devastating consequences the pope's words must have on the gay community? Nobody will wear condoms in the darkrooms anymore now!
And does nobody realize what devastating consequences the pope's words must have on the gay community? Nobody will wear condoms in the darkrooms anymore now!
March 18, 2009
The Editrix Wears Prada -- Not
I am sorry for being so quiet, but to quote The Devil Wears Prada: "I'm one stomach flu away from my goal weight." I dropped at least two dress sizes in as many weeks and although my general condition is bearable again, I still feel tired and washed out most of the time. Next week I will move to the new place and as I wasn't able to organise anything, I will be offline for at least three weeks. They have Internet cafés in the sticks as well, so I'll be able to say "Hello" from time to time. Bear with me. I promise I'll be back.
March 12, 2009
Evil We Don't Dare Calling by Its Name
Yesterday, Tim Kretschmer, a 17-year-old boy, went on a shooting spree at his former school and later in the the small town of Winnenden in south-west Germany. After having found piles of unused ammunition, police also reported that the 17-year-old had intended to kill more than the 15 people he murdered.
As usual, a culprit was needed, because such a heinous crime can not be simply, you know, evil. The German media is full of the fact that the boy's father, a well-to-do businessman, owned (legally) guns, and that he is *gasp* an old-fashioned "patriarch". Do we really have to look any further for a culprit? Take over, Phyllis Chesler!
Of course, the "liberal German gunlaws" (they are anything but liberal) have something to do with it as well. Next we'll have to ban hammers, knives, frying pans, any blunt instruments, chainsaws, power drills, cars, aircrafts and every other thing that might take lives. Who cares that millions of people are not killed by the millions of people who use such things safely, including guns, every day. Who cares that our police is so crippled by politically correct brainwashing, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of women as patrol"men", that they have stopped functioning long ago. How could the murderer go on with his shooting spree after he left the school, killing several more people in the process? Who cares that the three gallant murdered teachers might have had a better chance of defending their pupils had they had guns and not just their bodies.
Some time ago, a case made moderate headlines when a 14-year old girl killed her six-year old sister with their father's hunting weapon. In fact, it was more the anti-hunting appeal of the case than the death of a child that got attention. The father was known as an inordinately conscientious gun owner and through a freak accident the girls had been left alone for a brief while -- with the gun. (I take it that it was a rifle, but use the term "gun" because of its generic quality.) The older girl had stated that her little sister had accidentially killed herself with the gun, which "a ballistic opinion" had proven impossible. (I don't need a "ballistic opinion" to know that a six-year old girl can not kill herself by pointing a long arm at herself, but whatever.) If I remember correctly (the case was discussed in hunting/shooting online fora), both children had been made aware by their father about the potential danger guns implicate, which means a basic tutorial on how they function. Grandfather (who had given the girl an alibi at first) and father (who claimed that HE had loaded the gun and not just left the box with bullets beside it, which is highly unlikely for the conscientious gun owner he reportedly was) have protected her and will presumably go on doing so. Now you tell me that a 14-year-old girl on the verge of adulthood, who has been made specifically aware of the danger guns implicate, kills her little sister by mere carelessness or a "prank gone wrong" and I will say that, had that not happened, we might have seen a bathing accident or something like that sooner or later.
But we can always ban bathing, can't we? Anything not to be reminded that Evil exists.
As usual, a culprit was needed, because such a heinous crime can not be simply, you know, evil. The German media is full of the fact that the boy's father, a well-to-do businessman, owned (legally) guns, and that he is *gasp* an old-fashioned "patriarch". Do we really have to look any further for a culprit? Take over, Phyllis Chesler!
Of course, the "liberal German gunlaws" (they are anything but liberal) have something to do with it as well. Next we'll have to ban hammers, knives, frying pans, any blunt instruments, chainsaws, power drills, cars, aircrafts and every other thing that might take lives. Who cares that millions of people are not killed by the millions of people who use such things safely, including guns, every day. Who cares that our police is so crippled by politically correct brainwashing, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of women as patrol"men", that they have stopped functioning long ago. How could the murderer go on with his shooting spree after he left the school, killing several more people in the process? Who cares that the three gallant murdered teachers might have had a better chance of defending their pupils had they had guns and not just their bodies.
Some time ago, a case made moderate headlines when a 14-year old girl killed her six-year old sister with their father's hunting weapon. In fact, it was more the anti-hunting appeal of the case than the death of a child that got attention. The father was known as an inordinately conscientious gun owner and through a freak accident the girls had been left alone for a brief while -- with the gun. (I take it that it was a rifle, but use the term "gun" because of its generic quality.) The older girl had stated that her little sister had accidentially killed herself with the gun, which "a ballistic opinion" had proven impossible. (I don't need a "ballistic opinion" to know that a six-year old girl can not kill herself by pointing a long arm at herself, but whatever.) If I remember correctly (the case was discussed in hunting/shooting online fora), both children had been made aware by their father about the potential danger guns implicate, which means a basic tutorial on how they function. Grandfather (who had given the girl an alibi at first) and father (who claimed that HE had loaded the gun and not just left the box with bullets beside it, which is highly unlikely for the conscientious gun owner he reportedly was) have protected her and will presumably go on doing so. Now you tell me that a 14-year-old girl on the verge of adulthood, who has been made specifically aware of the danger guns implicate, kills her little sister by mere carelessness or a "prank gone wrong" and I will say that, had that not happened, we might have seen a bathing accident or something like that sooner or later.
But we can always ban bathing, can't we? Anything not to be reminded that Evil exists.
The Creeping and Creepy Self-Dhimmification
A friend sent me the above cartoon, showing chancellor Angela Merkel reproaching Pope Benedict ("That's a no no, Ratzinger! As far as Holocaust denial is concerned you'll have to set things straight at your end at last, got me?!!") while protesters outside her window are shouting: "Kill the Jews", "Jews to the Gas" and "Allah bless Hitler". The caption says: "Sweeping at a remote door in the limelight", referring to the German proverb saying that one ought to "sweep at one's own front door first".What had happened?
During a press conference Merkel had been asked what she thought of the "personnel decision" made by the pope and the ensuing discussion. Merkel replied that it was usually not her custom to evaluate or comment church affairs, and added: "But this is different when it comes to matters of principle, and I believe it is a matter of principle when... the impression is created that denying the Holocaust could be possible." She stridently demanded that the Pope make it "absolutely clear" that there could be no Holocaust denial and that "it must be dealt positively with the Jews", adding: "As far as I see, these matters have not been satisfactorily clarified yet." The following brouhaha is history.
But it wasn't quite so, or rather: it wasn't JUST so. Merkel had made the above statement while, and the implications of this have been missed by all of the world media, standing beside Nursultan Nasarbajew, the president of Kazakhstan, because the press conference was the one following his state visit. Nasarbajew, the autocrat, Nasarbajew, weighed down by international accusations of corruption, Nasarbajew, the Sunni Muslim.
Chance? Certainly. The question was off-topic, but Merkel could have shunned it for that very reason.A lot of soul-searching has been made since then. Merkel, the Protestant pastor's daughter. Merkel, socialised in a Communist society. I don't think any of this applies. It is, like her predecessor's condemnation of the Israeli bombing of Palestinian terrorist camps in Syria in 2003 (during a state visit in Egypt, that was), the subconscious will to please THEM. And it's exactly that which makes it so frightening.
March 10, 2009
Be Careful What You Wish For Redux
I just came across these incredible (now old) news in the Sunday Telegraph, concerning Prime Minister Gordon brown's state visit:
The majority of Americans who wanted that man will soon be even more disillusioned than they are already anyway. What will this man, who is, six weeks into his office with a lengthy break in the middle, too tired to deal adequately with a state visit, do should another 9/11 hit his country? The mind boggles.
Maybe he is NOT a Muslim. Maybe he IS a natural born American. But one thing he is for sure: a dilettante.
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.Why?
[...]
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".
[...]
Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.So the president took over on January 20, had a lengthy weekend around Valentine only three weeks later...
Friday February 13, President Barack Obama is getting away from Washington for a few days to his home in Chicago, leaving behind Cabinet headaches and a partisan divide over his economic stimulus package.... and another three weeks later he is so exhausted that he snubs the head of the government of a major ally.
Obama was to make a Friday afternoon flight with his wife, Michelle, and daughters to his chilly hometown, his first return there since taking office. Aides said he planned a low-key, four-day holiday weekend, including a Valentine's Day dinner on Saturday with his wife and a likely basketball game with friends.
The majority of Americans who wanted that man will soon be even more disillusioned than they are already anyway. What will this man, who is, six weeks into his office with a lengthy break in the middle, too tired to deal adequately with a state visit, do should another 9/11 hit his country? The mind boggles.
Maybe he is NOT a Muslim. Maybe he IS a natural born American. But one thing he is for sure: a dilettante.
March 05, 2009
Apology to America or: God Help Old Europe
I have come across (and partly caused) such an utterly moronic, rock-hard dumb discussion at the Brussels Journal, that I briefly considered to throw them off my blogroll just for their readership. (Not that they'd notice it.) But to what avail? I have come to see, too, that the only way to manage a really serious political blog is the way Lawrence Auster does it at VFR, cumbersome as it may be.
I can not (repeat: NOT!) imagine an exchange quite that moronic at any American serious political website, however much I may have deplored American shortcomings in the past. I am trying to pinpoint what the basic difference is. It is not, I am sure, to be found on any intellectual or educational level. Yes, the latter is pretty low in the specific exchange here, but then, I have seen Americans, and even with impressive degrees, for that, so uninformed and intellectually dishonest (or plain dumb) that it made me weep. No, the difference is that Americans simply have a conscience, an ethical compass, which is lacking in most Europeans. If that is true (and I think it is) it explains a lot of things we are seeing today, good and bad. And to go back to the topic at hand, I can hardly imagine any average, straightforward American, arguing that "everybody was a Nazi anyway and one somehow had to survive [which is, by the way, contradictory] so that topic is a non-starter anyway."
The initial entry is interesting, but only moderately so. I think it becomes apparent that my wrath was tickled when a commenter stated, naming names, that there had been -- and thrived -- many former Nazis in a certain German political party, a (factually true) information that was dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". Then it goes from absurd to grotesque.
I can not (repeat: NOT!) imagine an exchange quite that moronic at any American serious political website, however much I may have deplored American shortcomings in the past. I am trying to pinpoint what the basic difference is. It is not, I am sure, to be found on any intellectual or educational level. Yes, the latter is pretty low in the specific exchange here, but then, I have seen Americans, and even with impressive degrees, for that, so uninformed and intellectually dishonest (or plain dumb) that it made me weep. No, the difference is that Americans simply have a conscience, an ethical compass, which is lacking in most Europeans. If that is true (and I think it is) it explains a lot of things we are seeing today, good and bad. And to go back to the topic at hand, I can hardly imagine any average, straightforward American, arguing that "everybody was a Nazi anyway and one somehow had to survive [which is, by the way, contradictory] so that topic is a non-starter anyway."
The initial entry is interesting, but only moderately so. I think it becomes apparent that my wrath was tickled when a commenter stated, naming names, that there had been -- and thrived -- many former Nazis in a certain German political party, a (factually true) information that was dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". Then it goes from absurd to grotesque.
Interesting Times in BavariaHere are the ensuing comments. To grasp the gist you have to read them chronologically from the bottom to the top:From the desk of Elaib Harvey on Fri, 2009-02-27 14:48The German – well OK, Bavarian – centre right party is in all sorts of trouble right now. They currently have 9 sitting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), including some big hitters in the Parliament like Inigo Friedrich. Due to a change in the way that the European Parliament election’s are being held in Germany, they stand to lose all 9, despite still picking up over 40% in their home, and Germany’s most populous Land, Bavaria. This time they have to get over 5% of the whole of Germany’s vote.
Of course this means that their sister (and have you ever seen sisters together, it can get pretty brutal at times) party, the CDU, will be the only one holding the flame of Christian Democracy in Germany, and they quite like that.
Add to that the spectre of Libertas Germany standing possibly with Count von Stauffenberg (former CSU federal MP – and a chap with a resonant name) at top of the list and their is massive pressure on the old party of Bavaria.
So what do they do? First, Edmund Stoiber suggests that he will ride to the flailing party’s rescue by sitting at the top of their Euro list. Now, we hear that current party leader, Horst Seehofer has been talking referenda. No not on the Lisbon Treaty – though that would cook Libertas’s goose in the Land – but over Turkish entry into the European Union.
Now everybody knows that Chancellor Merkel and the CSU see eye to eye on their not wanting Turkey through the portals of the Berlaymont (Germany would lose its position of country with most weight – and would have to pay for the privilege), but the word referendum is a dangerous one in German politics. Particularly in the light of the deliberations of the Constitutional Court.
Interesting times, indeed, in Bavaria.
The discussion goes on there, but I had my daily dose of asininity already. Isn't it wonderful that I can't go out much with my footsore young dog for the time being? I bet the old BJ didn't have such a nice little brouhaha in their comment section in years, and nobody has accused me of being an intellectual (nor even an "intellectual") ever before.Homework
Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 14:21."And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that."
Oh yes, lets! You obviously didn't bother to check how many (or rather how few) comments I delivered during that period of time. Oh yes! I lurked all that time breathlessly following your (plural) uneducated drivel to then suddenly pipe up, pretending I had never seen it.
Do you have to say anything about the CONTENT of my comment as well or are you really unable to perform a Google search, as you are obviously unable to klick on the "Track" button in a member's personal profile?
How to deal with one's past
Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 14:15."Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member."
Yes and -- in the context of this discussion -- so?
"What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?"
I, as a German, will not tell other people what to do about and how to see their own past. There IS, however, a tiny wee little difference between Germany and the other European nations: Different from Germany, no WWII and no Holocaust went out from their countries. I do, however, react a tiny wee bit irritated if a foreigner, like you, tells me how *I* have to see OUR past.
"Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship..."
I have to go back a long way to remember an equally callous statement of relativism and opportunism. And here I was, thinking that this is a conservative forum.
"... and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought."
Oh no! They are just trying to survive under a dictatorship, didn't you know?
"We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started."
YOU, Sir, have NO IDEA how "Kristallnacht" started.
I will, however, throw in some private lesson in German history and sociology. Germans as a people, with a few precious exceptions thrown in, did NOT, as you put it "try to survive under a dictatorship". They gladly supported it, as Germans in the former GDR are still whining about the end of the second German dictatorship. And don't you dare telling me it ain't so because I am living among them for more than two years now. Germans can't live without a totalitarian concept. That is why we don't have anything that resembles even faintly a conservative political movement. 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" under its openly gay leader. The staple between 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. All of them have NOTHING in common with parties like Vlaams Belang, Partij voor de Vrijheid or BNP.
The support for even the worst Muslim thugs is based on that very affinity, the mutual totalitarian mindset. Wasn't Jörg Haider rubbing shoulders with Bubba Saddam? Didn't a contractor, who is a member of the brown-over-red painted party NPD, build the gigantic mosque in Duisburg-Marxsloh? Hey! It worked pretty well between Hitler and the Mufti already, so why not now?
"Liberalism", Sir, is the LAST THING that has anything to do with it.
That was all. You may quote me.
Clueless
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2009-03-05 13:54."I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elswhere...".
And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that.
And to the same person (or anybody else for that matter0 who would go on to conclude with the statement, " I don't want to be any part of it", my 'simpleminded' response is simple, DON'T!
However, should anybody decide that they WOULD like to be "apart of it", I [SERIOUSLY] recommend that they first do their homework with regard to kappert's previous (general) statements and positions of moral relativism before taking any further potshots at me.
PS Thanks, traveller..@ The Editrix
Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2009-03-05 12:24.The sparring of Atlanticist vs Kappert has ideological grounds from a long time ago.
Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member.
What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?
Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought. We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started."Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher
Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 11:58."Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher of the BJ, sees nazis everywhere. But even supposing that some of his conspiracy theories are true..."
I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elsewhere and, frankly, I don't want any part in it, but to call what the former posted a "conspiracy theory" on the strength of that very comment, is... let me call it "simpleminded" to avoid any unnecessary bitingness. To say that the CSU (and the FDP and to a lesser extent the CDU) used to be a collecting pit for old Nazis post-WWII is simply the truth. I recommend that Atlanticist911 performs a Google search or two. It is not all that difficult and will prove kappert right.
@ 'Jerry' from the proud son of a British 'Tommy'
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 19:47.NOT so. My own father spent 6 years of his life fighting those nazi bastards and losing his younger brother in the process so that, among other things, spineless, cloth-eared clowns like you might live to ridicule and gloat. But if I was "hopping around" as you claim, I would have had the perfect Master/ Mistress in you.
@atlanticist911
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 18:56.Sorry: Jerry Fletcher Hollywood, Watts, Hobsbawn, Hitchens, 'change the topic'? You are hopping around, trying to avoid the acknowledgement that the crimes of WWII are largely accepted by the post-war democracies (see post-war careers), simply because the nazi-ideology is a consequent line in the thought of protestant technocrats. The opposition of science and religions, so often discussed in this blog, lead (so far) ultimately to the übermensch-ideology, conceived by 'thinkers' overwhelmed by the progress of science. Still, many countries feel an instant superiority towards others, means, the mentioned ideology in still working in the minds.
'Watt' Conspiracy (4) : tribe and diatribe
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:30.Without wishing to reduce my mini-debate with Kappert (XX ?) to one equating to something along the lines of 'Hobsbawn's Choice', with regard to the nazis vs commies, I believe most rational people would be prepared to listen and learn from a person who knows.
Example:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/03/in-search-of-my-mi5-file-the-only-thing-i-have-in-common-with-professor-eric-hobsbawn.htmlWhy Start a War?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:18.Surely good friends can live happily ever after?
http://www.geocities.com/provost_stiener/Nazi_Soviet_Pact.jpg@Kappert
Enlightenment sometimes requires a light bulb.War Starts (2)
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:10.Fellow BJ'ers will note: Not satisfied with avoiding offering any substantive responses to my questions on 'WATT', Kappert now wishes to change the topic of discussion to one concerning the chromosone Y. If there's a link here, I'm missing it!
'Watt' Conspiracy (3): At this particular moment in time...
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:41.You are free to leave. Why not take advantage of this opportunity before the war starts? Remember the cowards war cry, "Better Fled than Dead".
Your comment is an
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:24.Your comment is an enlightenment. Putting on the same level nazis, commies, trotzkis, maoists (don't forget sindicalists, uuhaa) you very much aline in the 'general forgiveness' towards nazis. They were welcome, voted and adored and nothing tells us that this history will not repeat itself in this fractured tribal Europe, as slave labour, human traficking and ethnic cleansing stand high on the wishing list of some political entrepreneurs.
'Watt' Conspiracy (2)
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:13."It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII".
It is also a "given fact" that Communists, Trotskyites, (and to a far lesser degree) Maoists and their ilk achieved similar successes, but I don't see you complaining about that. Perhaps this should be considered by (Occidental/ accidental) taoists as the political 'yin' balancing out the political 'yang'. Then again, maybe not.
NB That was not a question it was a statement, but you are still free to pass comment. (In case you hadn't noticed).re: (the) 'Watt ' Conspiracy
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 15:56.I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you answer one of my questions before I am expected to answer one of yours.
http://ewanwatt.blogspot.com/2008/10/conspiracy-theories-on-haider.htmlwhat conspiracy
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 15:40.It has nothing to do with conspiracy. It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII. Kiesinger was German chancellor, Waldheim Austrian president and UNO chairman, von Braun catapulted Americans to the moon, Quandt and Krupp continue to be the richest families in Germany - they are forgiven a long time ago! Where do you detect conspiracies?
careers (2) : aka When Worlds Collide
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 14:17.Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher of the BJ, sees nazis everywhere. But even supposing that some of his conspiracy theories are true, he's never prepared to provide serious answers to valid questions, like how would HE deal with the problem the original 'Jerry' faced, should said nazis ever decide to come after him?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theorycareers
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 13:15.Former Nazi-Parteimitglieder making career in the CSU:
Walter Becher, Hermann Höcherl, Friedrich Kempfler, Franz Krapf, Franz Nüßlein, Alfred Seidl, Siegfried Zoglmann: all these Nazis were Deputies, Diplomats or at least MdB for the Federal Republic of Germany. Some got highest positions at NATO.
(ps: the leader of Reiter-SS and NSKK later married the Dutch princess Juliana, so not only in both Germanys the Nazies proceed their career!)Bavaria is the biggest Bundesland by area, not by population...
Submitted by The_Editrix on Tue, 2009-03-03 22:41....and the CSU is hardly a centre right party by any international standard. They are Sacré-Cœur Socialists, centre, at best.
Good try and I wish them well, but I am afraid any political effort with "libertas" in its name will, in Germany, suffer the fate of a stillborn child. Germans just don't understand the concept.
Germany's most populous land
Submitted by heplev on Sat, 2009-02-28 16:19....still is Northrine-Westphalia! :)
Look here http://www.planet-schule.de/wissenspool/bg0051/kinder_europas/wissen_deutschland/die_bundeslaender.html (just run the mouse over the map)
Did John Paul II Follow a Doctrine Playing Up to Islam?
I cross-posted How does one improve one's relationships with the Jews? Let me count the ways... at IBA. I copy the ensuing comments below:
March 04, 2009
The Acceptable Face of Holocaust Denial
With all that concernment, consternation, dismay, sadness and shock about the pope and the Holocaust denier around, it was like a breeze of fresh air seeing ex-chancellor Gerhard "Gazprom" Schröder tackling the same problem with much more aplomb. John Rosenthal reports at NewMajority.com:Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder used the occasion of his four day visit in Tehran last week to criticize Iranian Holocaust denial. “The Holocaust is a historical fact,” Schröder is reported to have said in a speech to the Iranian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, “and it makes no sense to deny this unparalleled crime.” This was perhaps intended as friendly advice, since Schröder evidently does not believe that the Iranian government’s Holocaust denial or its associated threats against Israel are any reason to curtail relations with Iran.So Schröder met with a veritable Who's Who of Holocaust deniers and after some lukewarm mandatory statements from the Council of Jews in Germany it was all quickly forgotten while the concernment, consternation, dismay, sadness and shock about the pope and the Holocaust denier is still going strong. Chancellor Merkel, too, had no reproach in stock for predecessor Gerd's doings. He is, after all, not Catholic. John Rosenthal said that Schröder does evidently not believe that the Iranian government’s Holocaust denial or its associated threats against Israel are any reason to curtail relations with Iran. No, of course not. In fact, they are the REASON for those relations. When will people finally twig that the cussed "dialogue" with even the vilest Muslim thug has nothing to do with "tolerance" but is 1) the union between two totalitarian collective minds who share a deeply ingrained hatred for the Jewish people and 2) a way for the Germans to "prove" how open minded and multi-culturalist they have become when and while sucking up to the world's other Jew haters who might finish what they had to abandon 64 years ago. Even oil is a side issue, albeit a convenient one.
[...]
Schröder’s trip was ostensibly undertaken as a “private visit,” but it is known to have been coordinated with the German Foreign Ministry. While in Tehran, Schröder met with many of the public figures most closely connected to Iranian Holocaust denial: starting, of course, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has declared outright that the Holocaust is a “myth.” The meeting was preceded by a warm handshake. (See here.) Schröder also met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani. In December 2005, in remarks reported by the Italian news service AKI, Mottaki described Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial as the official “view of the [Iranian] government.” If Europe is interested in having a dialogue with Iran, Mottaki was quoted as saying, “it has to learn to listen to our opinions and take them into account.” One year later, Mottaki gave the opening address at an international conference in Tehran that brought together some of the world’s most notorious Holocaust deniers on the invitation of the Iranian government.
As for Larijani, just three weeks ago – and at the Munich Security Conference of all places! – he again defended Iranian denial of the Holocaust, saying that there could be “different points of view” on the matter (source: Focus). A photographer of the German wire service dpa captured Larijani and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier sharing a moment of apparently great mirth at a conference reception. Steinmeier is the Social Democratic candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German elections. He was previously one of Gerhard Schröder’s closest advisors as the head of the Office of the Chancellery from 1999 to 2005.In June 2008, Larijani’s brother Mohammad, himself a former deputy foreign minister of Iran, sparked controversy in Germany by calling for the “end of the Zionist project” – a euphemism for the elimination of Israel – at a “Transatlantic Conference” in Berlin. The theme of the publicly-funded conference was the search for “common solutions” in the Middle East. Conference organizer Bernd Kubbig would subsequently defend his invitation of Larijani by noting that it was none other than the Foreign Ministry of Frank-Walter Steinmeier that had recommended Larijani to him (source: Financial Times Germany).
How does one improve one's relationships with the Jews? Let me count the ways...
Via VFR (here and here) I was made aware of a review of Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" (I haven't seen it and it is not the subject of this entry) at NRO that includes a telling chracterization of the late pope John Paul II.
In the light of the recent anti-Catholic hate-feast triggered off by the fact that Pope Benedictrevoked the excommunication of a Catholic rehabilitated a bishop and Holocaust denier (we discussed it here, here and here) it became apparent how much better his predecessor John Paul II was received, specifically by those who had reason to prove that they are "not biased" towards the Catholic faith, eerily reminiscent of all those antisemites who are quoting their many "Jewish friends", so this dated bit about the Polish pope caught my attention:
Yes, but not in the way most people choose to see it.
The Polish pope was much lauded for his efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relationships. What did he actually do? How DOES one improve one's relationships with the Jews? Let me count the ways:
One of his first trips abroad was to Turkey, a nominally secular but in fact overwhelmingly Muslim country. That was in 1979. In a talk to the Turkish Catholics he demanded respect for the religious and moral values of Islam, so critically endangered to be daunted by Catholic influence. In Istanbul he visited Hagia Sophia, one of the greatest churches in the world under the Byzantine Empire, stolen by Islam, used as a mosque during the Ottoman Empire, now a museum, which was, no doubt, seen as a symbolic act. The first of many more to follow.
In 1985 he visited Morocco at the invitation of King Hassan II and became thus the first pope to visit an Islamic country at the invitation of its religious leader. At a historic meeting with thousands of Muslim youths in Casablanca Stadium, he emphasized that "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God", as indeed any nice little dhimmi would.
During a trip to Egypt in 2000, the pope met Islamic clerics of Cairo's al-Azhar University, which expanded the Official Catholic-Muslim dialogue. In 2001, as mentioned above, John Paul II became the first pope to enter a Muslim place of worship when he visited the Umayyad mosque in Damascus. He paused to pray at a memorial to St. John the Baptist inside the mosque in an event that was televised around much of the Muslim world, which was not all that amazing because, to Muslims, it was another clear gesture of submission. In 2003 Pope John Paul II took further steps to improve Catholic relationships with the Jews and criticized Israel for building a barrier in the West Bank, saying the Middle East "does not need walls but bridges", which safely equalled "Middle East" with "killing Jews" and nobody noticed, not even the pope himself. "The construction of the wall between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people is seen by many as a new obstacle on the road leading to peaceful cohabitation," he said and nobody laughed.
Not that his devotion to Islam was uncritical. Visiting Muslim-dominated places like Sudan, the pope publicly called for mutual respect for religious freedom, which must have been of great comfort for the many Christians while they were hacked to small pieces with big knifes by all those peaceful Muslims just out for a dialogue.
The slaying of a bishop and missionaries in Algeria prompted the pope to -- you've guessed it -- denounce all those who would kill in the name of God, without further asking who else but Muslims are still in the habit of killing in the name of -- their -- God.
In his criticism of the Iraq war, Johannes Paul met the Zeitgeist again right between the eyes and for that some even forgave him that he wasn't -- yet and just -- prepared to hand over the Catholic Church to self-abandon by supporting faddish (and deeply wrong) innovations like, say, allowing women into the priesthood, for which he was either hailed or reviled as "conservative" and a "traditionalist". And those few who really didn't like him blamed Cardinal Ratzinger for it anyway.
Yes, he held that great speech at Yad Vashem but in the light of the above I'm inclined to cynically quote Mandy Rice-Davies here: "But he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?"
And now we have the lonely old man in the Vatican, so far removed from any Zeitgeist, seemingly cold, restrained, frail, without the warmth and the vigorous physique of his predecessor and carrying the crippling burden of being German, a burden, which would have broken a lesser man long ago. We remember his touching visit of Auschwitz, his refusal to further apologize for the crusades, his open words to Polish Catholics, his... his... his... It was either never enough or too much already.
For me, too, it wasn't always enough what Pope Benedict did. I too, was disappointed at times. But I think, too, that it was, and specifically for a German, a courageous thing to do to allow, against all modish trends, a Catholic back into the fold of the church for theological reasons that had nothing to do with this Catholics demented views of the Holocaust. If a murderer is not excommunicated, why should a Holocaust denier? This issue will, as my friend the sage from Texas put it, define whether or not the pope can function independently or if he must give in to the opinions of the politically correct atheists who so use the Holocaust to further their agenda, and an agenda it is. Here we have exactly the same people swooning over death-cult-Islam appeaser John Paul II who are denouncing Benedict for "rehabilitating a Holocaust denier". And she goes on:
Earlier entries about Pope Benedict XVI here, here, here, here and here.
In the light of the recent anti-Catholic hate-feast triggered off by the fact that Pope Benedict
So much has changed and so much has stayed the same since that era. Nations still go to war over the region and tensions never seem to relax in the Holy Land. On another level, however, I was reminded how different things have become. The screening I attended of Kingdom of Heaven was shown on the night before the funeral for Pope John Paul II.Isn't it obvious how different the message of John Paul II is from that of the German pope with the Nazi past?
In May of 2001, he became the first leader of the Catholic Church to set foot inside a mosque. Although no one doubted his profound theological differences with Islam, the pope visited the Ummayad Mosque — one of the oldest mosques in the world — in Damascus, Syria. The site holds special significance to both Muslims and Christians because it is believed to contain the tomb of John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya to Muslims).
While in Damascus, Pope John Paul II said, "It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders will present our two great religious communities in respectful dialogue, never more as communities in conflict."
Yes, but not in the way most people choose to see it.
The Polish pope was much lauded for his efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relationships. What did he actually do? How DOES one improve one's relationships with the Jews? Let me count the ways:
One of his first trips abroad was to Turkey, a nominally secular but in fact overwhelmingly Muslim country. That was in 1979. In a talk to the Turkish Catholics he demanded respect for the religious and moral values of Islam, so critically endangered to be daunted by Catholic influence. In Istanbul he visited Hagia Sophia, one of the greatest churches in the world under the Byzantine Empire, stolen by Islam, used as a mosque during the Ottoman Empire, now a museum, which was, no doubt, seen as a symbolic act. The first of many more to follow.
In 1985 he visited Morocco at the invitation of King Hassan II and became thus the first pope to visit an Islamic country at the invitation of its religious leader. At a historic meeting with thousands of Muslim youths in Casablanca Stadium, he emphasized that "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God", as indeed any nice little dhimmi would.
During a trip to Egypt in 2000, the pope met Islamic clerics of Cairo's al-Azhar University, which expanded the Official Catholic-Muslim dialogue. In 2001, as mentioned above, John Paul II became the first pope to enter a Muslim place of worship when he visited the Umayyad mosque in Damascus. He paused to pray at a memorial to St. John the Baptist inside the mosque in an event that was televised around much of the Muslim world, which was not all that amazing because, to Muslims, it was another clear gesture of submission. In 2003 Pope John Paul II took further steps to improve Catholic relationships with the Jews and criticized Israel for building a barrier in the West Bank, saying the Middle East "does not need walls but bridges", which safely equalled "Middle East" with "killing Jews" and nobody noticed, not even the pope himself. "The construction of the wall between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people is seen by many as a new obstacle on the road leading to peaceful cohabitation," he said and nobody laughed.
Not that his devotion to Islam was uncritical. Visiting Muslim-dominated places like Sudan, the pope publicly called for mutual respect for religious freedom, which must have been of great comfort for the many Christians while they were hacked to small pieces with big knifes by all those peaceful Muslims just out for a dialogue.
The slaying of a bishop and missionaries in Algeria prompted the pope to -- you've guessed it -- denounce all those who would kill in the name of God, without further asking who else but Muslims are still in the habit of killing in the name of -- their -- God.
In his criticism of the Iraq war, Johannes Paul met the Zeitgeist again right between the eyes and for that some even forgave him that he wasn't -- yet and just -- prepared to hand over the Catholic Church to self-abandon by supporting faddish (and deeply wrong) innovations like, say, allowing women into the priesthood, for which he was either hailed or reviled as "conservative" and a "traditionalist". And those few who really didn't like him blamed Cardinal Ratzinger for it anyway.
Yes, he held that great speech at Yad Vashem but in the light of the above I'm inclined to cynically quote Mandy Rice-Davies here: "But he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?"
And now we have the lonely old man in the Vatican, so far removed from any Zeitgeist, seemingly cold, restrained, frail, without the warmth and the vigorous physique of his predecessor and carrying the crippling burden of being German, a burden, which would have broken a lesser man long ago. We remember his touching visit of Auschwitz, his refusal to further apologize for the crusades, his open words to Polish Catholics, his... his... his... It was either never enough or too much already.
For me, too, it wasn't always enough what Pope Benedict did. I too, was disappointed at times. But I think, too, that it was, and specifically for a German, a courageous thing to do to allow, against all modish trends, a Catholic back into the fold of the church for theological reasons that had nothing to do with this Catholics demented views of the Holocaust. If a murderer is not excommunicated, why should a Holocaust denier? This issue will, as my friend the sage from Texas put it, define whether or not the pope can function independently or if he must give in to the opinions of the politically correct atheists who so use the Holocaust to further their agenda, and an agenda it is. Here we have exactly the same people swooning over death-cult-Islam appeaser John Paul II who are denouncing Benedict for "rehabilitating a Holocaust denier". And she goes on:
Holy Father has already taken much abuse for simply being German. How I wish the real victims of the Holocaust could put in their opinions vis-a-vis those who use them for political gain. Not all those who call themselves "Jews" feel affection or affiliation with the victims, but they certainly do exploit them. I wish, and not for the first time, that those people could rise from the grave to avenge themselves not only on their murderers but upon those who see them as an opportunity. We might be surprised at what was revealed.Amen!
Earlier entries about Pope Benedict XVI here, here, here, here and here.
March 03, 2009
The Convenient Guinea Pitbull
Somebody called Horst Mahler was sentenced to 4 years in prison for denial of the Holocaust lately and was detained immediately because of flight risk.
Who is Horst Mahler? Horst Mahler (72) is the man who co-founded the left-wing-extremist terrorist "Red Army Faction" in 1970. He had been charged before with accusations, for example, of Holocaust denial, for saying the 9/11 attacks were justified, and for giving the Nazi salute when he reported to prison.
Before that, in the Seventies, the leading RAF-member Mahler was convicted for terrorist activities, including several bank robberies, and for helping head terrorist Andreas Baader to escape from prison. He was sentenced to 14 years but was released in 1980 after several public statements condemning terrorism. Early in the new millennium, he became a member of the neo-Nazi NPD for a couple of years and acted as their lawyer. Anything to help a totalitarian cause.
Was justice thus done? It seems so, doesn't it? And isn't German society dealing fair- and justly with their historical burden? Decide for yourselves:
Only months before Mahler's conviction, a man who had almost stabbed a Jew to death (a Rabbi who was clearly identifiable as such) had been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for aggravated battery and harrassment after a charge of attempted manslaughter had been dropped. He left the courtroom as a free man, applauded by a grinning entourage. He will serve the prison sentence only after proceedings finally underwent all instances and have thus become legally binding, if at all, depending on the outcome of his appeal.
The defendant's lawyers had stated that the fact that their client didn't stab the Rabbi a second time meant an "abandonment of an attempt to commit manslaughter" and that he was just an ebullient young man who was just too fond of "brandishing a knife". About the fact that he had delivered the blow together with a message, namely "I’ll kill you, you Scheiß-Jude", the perpetrator remained adamant, largely supported by the justice system and the maintream media, that there had been no antisemitic motive and that he had felt threatened by and physically inferior to the middle-aged, grossly obese rabbi. As the journalist Henryk M. Broder had put it then: "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"", because, you may have guessed it, the perpetrator was not an ethnic German, but a culture-enriching German with Afghan parents and we can not acknowledge Muslim antisemitism because it would blow the entire beautiful concept of multiculturalism out of the water.
On a deeper level, we do not WANT to acknowledge it either, because then we'd lose the convenient guinea pig for tinkering with "tolerance", a guinea pig which might as conveniently turn at lightning speed into a Jew-killing pitbull because Germans love Jews when they are dead.
And that is why, in Germany, given the proper perpetrator line-up, you'll get largely away with cutting a life Jew open, but not with a denial of the Holocaust.
Who is Horst Mahler? Horst Mahler (72) is the man who co-founded the left-wing-extremist terrorist "Red Army Faction" in 1970. He had been charged before with accusations, for example, of Holocaust denial, for saying the 9/11 attacks were justified, and for giving the Nazi salute when he reported to prison.
Before that, in the Seventies, the leading RAF-member Mahler was convicted for terrorist activities, including several bank robberies, and for helping head terrorist Andreas Baader to escape from prison. He was sentenced to 14 years but was released in 1980 after several public statements condemning terrorism. Early in the new millennium, he became a member of the neo-Nazi NPD for a couple of years and acted as their lawyer. Anything to help a totalitarian cause.
Was justice thus done? It seems so, doesn't it? And isn't German society dealing fair- and justly with their historical burden? Decide for yourselves:
Only months before Mahler's conviction, a man who had almost stabbed a Jew to death (a Rabbi who was clearly identifiable as such) had been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for aggravated battery and harrassment after a charge of attempted manslaughter had been dropped. He left the courtroom as a free man, applauded by a grinning entourage. He will serve the prison sentence only after proceedings finally underwent all instances and have thus become legally binding, if at all, depending on the outcome of his appeal.
The defendant's lawyers had stated that the fact that their client didn't stab the Rabbi a second time meant an "abandonment of an attempt to commit manslaughter" and that he was just an ebullient young man who was just too fond of "brandishing a knife". About the fact that he had delivered the blow together with a message, namely "I’ll kill you, you Scheiß-Jude", the perpetrator remained adamant, largely supported by the justice system and the maintream media, that there had been no antisemitic motive and that he had felt threatened by and physically inferior to the middle-aged, grossly obese rabbi. As the journalist Henryk M. Broder had put it then: "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"", because, you may have guessed it, the perpetrator was not an ethnic German, but a culture-enriching German with Afghan parents and we can not acknowledge Muslim antisemitism because it would blow the entire beautiful concept of multiculturalism out of the water.On a deeper level, we do not WANT to acknowledge it either, because then we'd lose the convenient guinea pig for tinkering with "tolerance", a guinea pig which might as conveniently turn at lightning speed into a Jew-killing pitbull because Germans love Jews when they are dead.
And that is why, in Germany, given the proper perpetrator line-up, you'll get largely away with cutting a life Jew open, but not with a denial of the Holocaust.
March 02, 2009
Sutures
My young dog has cut up one of his fore paws so nastily that it had to be sewed together under general anaesthetic Saturday night and I am pretty washed out after two nights of keeping him from eating up the dressing, specifically since he isn't dopey anymore. He seems to like the galling stuff I put on and licks his leg even more for it. He is an INORDINATELY lifely animal in everything he does, all dogs of this breed are, so my blogging efforts are somewhat curbed for the time being. At least he is a cheerful, and not a grumpy patient, like my terrier who vents his wrath on me if he is injured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Because Islam did not seem an issue to me at the time that John Paul II was Pope, I was not aware of his activities with regard to Islam.
I am well-aware that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does recognize that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God. I think that is a mistake. I don't know who initiated that idea, or why, but I think the evidence has shown that the god Allah is pretty near the opposite of the Christian God.
However, that being said, for John Paul II to have made the statement he made was absolutely doctrinal, and therefore, he probably should not be castigated for it personally.
Instead, the world needs to know that this is the opinion of the Catholic Church. And, most of all, Catholics need to know that this is the opinion of their Church. And, everyone needs to bring pressure upon the Church to change that ludicrous idea.
Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:25:00 AM
"However, that being said, for John Paul II to have made the statement he made was absolutely doctrinal, and therefore, he probably should not be castigated for it personally."
I disagree. Nothing about Islam is doctrinal in the Catholic Church. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption Mariae are. Johannes Paul II was free to do what he did and every Catholic is, as I am, free to see what it implies and openly criticize him for it.
I have looked up the (very brief and only) paragraph about Islam in the Catholic Catechism. There is a notable difference between the German and the English version:
English:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
German (literal translation):
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims who profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
That is conspiciously ambiguous. Go figure!
The Catholic Church doesn't need any reformation in the sense of a modernization. If they need anything it's a return to the traditional values because it is the only Western spiritual power that has the potential to stand in the way of Islam on its way to world domination. The systematic, planned, deliberate and carefully staged demolishing of the Pius Brotherhood and with it any conservative leanings within the Catholic Church, including Pope Benedict XVI, with this idiot Holocaust denier as a tool shows were we are heading. It was the work of atheists who consider themselves "free thinkers". Where were they when Gerhard Schröder (or all the others) kissed Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad's ring?
Worth a thought or two, eh?
Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:06:00 AM