No Christian Values Christian Politician Says

July 28, 2010

René Stadtkewitz, the Berlin lawmaker who invited Geert Wilders to a political event in Berlin on October 2, is facing expulsion from his parliamentary group, the CDU.

SPON is the online version of the leftist battle rag mother of all political magazines in Germany, where the party of the hardcore-GDR-educated leftist Angela Merkel is doggedly called "conservative" and Geert Wilders with boring predictability as "right-wing populist". SPON informed us about the Stadtkewitz affair and even spared no efforts to find a pickie on which Stadtkewitz looks as ugly and cadaverous as humanly possible.

Frank Henkel, the CDU's regional parliamentary group leader, gave Stadtkewitz an ultimatum: Withdraw the invitation by July 26 or face the consequences.

Stadtkewitz refused in an open letter in which he also suggested that the CDU should be doing more to combat Islam politically. Up until now, public debate about the Islamic faith had been "too timid" in Germany, Stadtkewitz wrote. He added that the debate should focus on the defense of freedom and of Christian values, including concerns about "countless young women, who are forced into arranged marriages, enslaved and who sometimes become victims of so-called honor killings."

'No Place in Our Party'

Henkel responded Monday by saying that he would propose a motion to exclude Stadtkewitz from the parliamentary group because he had distanced himself from "the goals of the conservatives."
From which the conclusion can be safely drawn that the defense of freedom and of Christian values, including concerns about young women, who are forced into arranged marriages, enslaved and who become victims of so-called honour killings are not the goals of those "conservatives". I repeat: He gives a damn for the frightening number of honour killings of girls and women in his city and elsewhere, he couldn't care less for enslaved and forcibly married women, he flips the bird to the Christian faith, which is still, albeit yet and just, part of the name of his own party, in brief, he refuses to serve and protect the people he has sworn to serve and protect.

It gets worse:
Henkel said Berlin set a positive example of integration and immigration for the whole of Germany. "There is no place in our party for people who demonize Islam and pass judgment on believers in other religions," Henkel explained.
He is lying through his teeth and he knows quite well that this is not about "believers in other religions". Neither Russian Orthodox Christians nor Vietnamese Buddhists, Confucianists, or Taoists are a problem, and neither are Jews. This is about Islam and Islam only, and nobody needs to "pass judgment" or "demonize" Islam, because what Islam and those who believe in it do in its name is for everybody to see.

He knows, too, that Berlin is one of those cities where in "migrant quarters", which make up for a considerable part of the city, the rule of law doesn't apply anymore because the monopoly on the use of physical force has become void. For "migrants" take "Muslims".

More positive examples of integration and immigration in Berlin, anybody?

In Berlin, during the last two Football World Cups, policemen were banned from sporting German flags at their cars because it "might be provocative to supporters of other teams". Of course, this was meant to appeal to people like Poles, Italians and Dutch who are known for their violence and rioting. Not.

At an exhibition "The Third World during the Second World War" in Berlin 2009, the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem"'s collaboration with the Nazis, which had a decisive influence on the Holocaust (we reported many times already) wasn't exhibited at all "out of respect for joint Arab organisations". The decision was supported by the migration commissioner of the Berlin Senate, Günter Piening because in a neighbourhood (heavily dominated by Muslims) like Neukölln a "differentiated presentation" was paramount. Doubtlessly an excellent example for how "positive examples of integration and immigration" are understood in Berlin.

In 2008, a Berlin senior prosecuting attorney made two mistakes. He took a hard line bringing young criminals to justice and declared publicly that ca. eighty percent of those are not ethnic Germans, which was against the policy of only recognizing "positive examples of integration and immigration". The result? The Berlin government muzzled and then transfered him to a position where he surely couldn't do any more harm to "positive examples of integration and immigration". Hint: Ethnic Russians, Poles or Italians were rather underrepresented among those "non-ethnic Germans".

Surely Henkel doesn't know either the Rütli Schule, where after DECADES of inaction admiration of "positive examples of integration and immigration" the percentage of pupils with "a migration background" had reached a number that made calling in the police and a temporary closing down of the school inevitable. Hint: It weren't the Russian, Polish or Italian children who were the reason for that.

Now what makes a man like Henkel tick? Why is he so blatantly, openly and shamelessly lying? Because this goes far beyond denial or ignorance. Is he paid by some oil-rich sheik, the age-old argument to explain dhimmitude? I don't think so. Frankly, other than that limp "I don't think so", I don't have a ready answer either. As it is, it just seems that a mixture of belief in multiculturalism, Gutmenschentum and general spinelessness, coupled with the old German yearning to be dominated by a totalitarian cult, is answerable for that.

11 Comment(s):

Bruce Church said...

I'm glad that there's finally a confrontation in Germany over Muslim immigration. For some reason, rhetoric and argumentation is not enough. Voters need to see actual confrontation, like someone getting fired from a post, or disbarred from a political party, before they come down on one side of the issue at the ballot box. It's not unlike how it takes revolution and war, sometimes protracted war, to convince an opponent that his position is unwise and untenable.

In the US the immigration issue is finally coming to a head, with the US Feds suing Arizona. The voters will see that finally someone moved to do something about it, and the Democrats were the obstructionists who blocked that effort. Even the Fed judge who decided against Arizona was appointed by Democrat Clinton. Each party can no longer pass the blame around since it rests squarely on the Democrats.

The Muslim issue didn't come to a head in the UK until Wilders was banned there by the Home Office, which ban was overturned by the courts. Also, the EDL with their protest marches were always ending up in fist fights with immigrants and leftists, so now the UK is about to crack down on immigration. So that's what it took to get some action:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,708905,00.html

excerpt: Compulsory military service may be outdated, but Germany is finding it hard to give it up. The defense minister has made no secret of his desire to scrap conscription, but many conservatives see military service as a key part of their identity and are fighting to keep it.
---
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7896751/Burka-ban-ruled-out-by-immigration-minister.html

Mr Green used a wide-ranging interview with The Sunday Telegraph, his first since taking up his post at the Home Office in May, to issue a “message around the world that Britain is no longer a soft touch on immigration”.

He said the summer would see a major crackdown on the main streams of illegal immigration — including sham marriages, illegal workers and people trafficking — and confirmed that this autumn the Government would set an overall cap on migrants entering Britain from outside the European Union.

Bruce Church said...

I'm glad that there's finally a confrontation in Germany over Muslim immigration. For some reason, rhetoric and argumentation is not enough. Voters need to see actual confrontation, like someone getting fired from a post, or disbarred from a political party, before they come down on one side of the issue at the ballot box. It's not unlike how it takes revolution and war, sometimes protracted war, to convince an opponent that his position is unwise and untenable.

In the US the immigration issue is finally coming to a head, with the US Feds suing Arizona. The voters will see that finally someone moved to do something about it, and the Democrats were the obstructionists who blocked that effort. Even the Fed judge who decided against Arizona was appointed by Democrat Clinton. Each party can no longer pass the blame around since it rests squarely on the Democrats.

The Muslim issue didn't come to a head in the UK until Wilders was banned there by the Home Office, which ban was overturned by the courts. Also, the EDL with their protest marches were always ending up in fist fights with immigrants and leftists, so now the UK is about to crack down on immigration. So that's what it took to get some action:

Bruce Church said...

cont'd:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,708905,00.html

excerpt: Compulsory military service may be outdated, but Germany is finding it hard to give it up. The defense minister has made no secret of his desire to scrap conscription, but many conservatives see military service as a key part of their identity and are fighting to keep it.
---
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7896751/Burka-ban-ruled-out-by-immigration-minister.html

Mr Green used a wide-ranging interview with The Sunday Telegraph, his first since taking up his post at the Home Office in May, to issue a “message around the world that Britain is no longer a soft touch on immigration”.

He said the summer would see a major crackdown on the main streams of illegal immigration — including sham marriages, illegal workers and people trafficking — and confirmed that this autumn the Government would set an overall cap on migrants entering Britain from outside the European Union.

beakerkin said...

The notion of requiring spouses to be interviewed separately and affirm
their genuine desire to be married has been raised before.

What is to be done with them is a mystery as they can't return to their families.

fpb said...

Bruce: ha ha ha. If you took Cameron's protestations about immigration seriously, you did not know the man and his party. The Tories are a slippery lot of trimmers and always have been. Power, and especially the money that comes with it, is their only guiding light. Besides, they have made their coalition with the LibDems. So guess what: suddenly the electoral promises on immigration are under attack from every side, with journalists singing the praises of highly skilled Indian immigrants (who, for some reason, don't want to immigrate, leaving that to their Muslim equivalents) and assaulting European immigrants such as Bulgarians. And this, mind you, in the most Tory of Tory papers, the Daily Mail. Their corruption is total; the fix is in; immigration will not be checked or even properly faced; and we will have to like it. After all, all that matters is that the electorate have five years to forget all the lies that have been offered in the previous five.

F.P.Barbieri said...

This is the follow-up to my comment on "It's Islam, stupid!" It is, however, also relevant here, I think.

This made me think. It seems evident to me that what Ms.Bedawi instinctively opposed was the thought of thousands, maybe millions of people, each publishing freely - what is already happening with the internet, but in the more permanent and respected medium of paper. Where the surface of caste prejudice and the inner reality of religious threat meet, was in hating the idea of mass action - mob action - in the print media. Now Muslims, especially Sunni Muslims, certainly do not dislike mob action as such: it is their main way to be felt - yelling crowds of bearded youths pouring from mosques on hot Friday afternoons. On the other hand, the appeal clearly made by Bedawi to non-Muslims in general is clearly coded in a language of snobbery, intended to reach the elites and those who regard themselves as elite. It says: "Don't allow this banausic mob of Sunday scribblers to take control of the media from you - you who are educated, professional and enlightened. See what risks you run when you allow Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to say what they think about things they know nothing of - such as Islam?" In other words, there is an inherent attempt to co-opt the non-Muslim societal leaderships into the job of Muslim repression, by flattering their intellectual and social presumptions. You can hear it in the constant but never justified claim that anyone who criticizes or opposes Islam does so because he is ignorant: this is frequently repeated by establishment supporters of Islam - and you can see that the assumption involved helps them accept the claim, by flattering their own self-image. Hey, you don't understand Islam - because we do! Who else but us, the educated, the enlightened? So a religion that lives on the unleashing of its own mobs - and in which sometimes the mobs even devour some of the elites, and always threaten them - also advances by flattering the natural snobbish and repressive instincts of the elites of opposite groups; and not just by threatening them. That is not necessary when you can just arouse their own contempt - laced by unspoken fear - for the mobs in their own world. Of course, fears remaining a useful unadmitted motivation, but there is no need to ever mention it: to the contrary, you may act for all the world like the most quivering of cowed dhimmis and still see in the mirror the face of a paragon, a hero of enlightened vision and principle.

bruce-church said...

Some Deutschlanders want Palin elected over Merkel since at least she's Christian right, and might get things done:

http://deutschlandfurpalin.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCmArhkOHuQ

The_Editrix said...

Bruce, I hope you mean that tongue-in-cheek. ;-) We need Sarah Palin as much as we need a goitre. That video clip is plainly moronic (and staged to boot). Nobody here wants Sarah Palin, albeit for exactly the wrong reasons. I have commented at their blog:

"For heaven's sake, are you out of your minds? Here we have a woman who wasn't even able to control her teenage daughter and now she is supposed to govern the most powerful country in the world? She ought to be at home, ironing her husband's shirts and looking after her brood. She is not a "traditional Christian" but a hardcore feminist. Americans, you are demented. Do you REALLY want a PMSing broad at the nuclear button?

I have defended Palin against German antiamericanism and female jealousy, for example here and here, but enough is enough. Now she's even waxing vulgarly [striked in the original] lyrically about "cojones" (see YouTube video), like any other old feminist.

Has she ever said anything profound? I have no time whatsoever for Angela Merkel, but to compare her to that attention whorish MILF is an insult to all TRULY emancipated women."

bruce-church said...

Hi Editrix,

Just letting you know what's out there on the Web. It dealt with Palin and Germany in a whimsical way.

I suppose Palin will be a big contender for the Republican presidential ticket in 2012, meaning the Democrats are sure to win.

What Americans need more than ever is habits of education and reading, not NASCAR, sports, pop music or worse, and TV (Cable), which is what Palin would bring more of. Like I said, things are getting wild over here, and now that women aren't having many children, they are joining in the wild, careless lifestyle that was formerly reserved for too many men.

bruce-church said...

Palin's lack of reading being noticed by commentators again (see link below). I think it was Diane Saywer who noticed it first when she couldn't name any serious magazine she read, such as on foreign relations.

Palin's strength is that she's one of those persons who are always attuned to what the majority think, no matter how dumb. For example, the majority of voters (especially Republicans) are in favor of deep sea drilling, so her slogan is "Drill, baby, drill," no matter the consequences. German newspapers would call her a populist, for sure:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/06/npr-sneers-palins-fractured-lingo-shows-she-avoids-books-and-periodicals

excerpt: From his usual perch on the NPR show Fresh Air, liberal linguist and Berkeley professor Geoffrey Nunberg predictably sneered on Tuesday at Sarah Palin's use of "refudiate," and then her refusal to correct herself. He suggested she obviously doesn't read enough. "You have to frequent the places the word hangs out in, the kinds of books and periodicals that have semicolons in them."

bruce-church said...

Oops! It was Katy Couric:

Sarah Palin Can't Name a Newspaper She Reads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y