A "Thank You" to My Readers

Update:

Currently, this blog ranks as number 6448 with an authority of 459.

It's nice to know, but it clearly doesn't correspond with its comparatively modest visitor count.

---

I just checked and this blog was listed as number 12708 at Technorati with an "authority" of 411. Technorati has some time ago re-organised its rating system and is now (deliberately?) vague about it. In the past, it used to be based on links only.

Now is that rank good or bad? Only comparing it with other blogs will answer that:

Number 1 of ALL Technorati-listed blogs is HuffPo with an authority of 966.

The highest ranking blog which can be, by the loosest of standards, be described as conservative, is listed as number 7, The Corner on National Review, with an authority of 860.

A popular, maybe THE most popular Islam-critical blog is Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch with a rank of 174 and an authority of 719.

The blog Gates of Vienna, one among the vanguard of Islam-critique in the Internet, can boast a rank of 476 and an authority of 655.

The English version of the German blog Politically Incorrect, for which I write by the way, ranks at number 2218 with an authority of 540. Politically Incorrect is the most-read one of ALL blogs (not just the political ones) in Germany to the disgust of the Dhimmi-brigade. No doubt the sheer number of readers of the mother-blog helps in this case.

The perhaps most serious and consistent Islam critic is Andrew Bostom. His blog ranks as number 3190 and its authority is 513.

To my intense delight I found that one of my personal favourites, Catholic Church Conservation, is number 5088 with an autority of 475, a fact of which Chris Gillibrand can be justifiedly proud. CCC is a true one-man-effort.

This blog has, as already stated above, a rank of 12708, which is based on an authority of 411. In the light of the above, I think I can be proud as well and consider this one-woman-effort a success. What additional shortcomings I may have, at least one obstacle for further success is the fact that Germany is a non-topic for most Americans and, different from France, the country they hate to hate. At one point, that almost let me give over blogging (at least for an Anglophone readership) entirely.

This is a true surprise: The excellent blog of the libertarian write Ilana Mercer Barely A Blog ranks as number 21646 with an autority of 131. It is always worth a look, even if one doesn't share the libertarian world view.

Of course, these rankings are only snapshots in time and a bout of blogging frustration coupled with the usual abstinence could take a blog like this one down and into obscurity quicker than one can say "authority".

Even though Technorati's ranking criteria may not be based on links alone anymore, I think it is patently obvious that the rank of a blog must be still closely related to it. I put the incredibly low Technorati rank of Ilana Mercers blog down to the fact, that she is probably read by those who aren't bloggers themselves and won't thus link to their favourite articles. That may be the explanation for my amazingly high rank as well, because I have very few comments. I guess most of my lurking readers are bloggers who link to me. It ought to be mentioned either, that some popular blogs, for reasons that escape me, are not listed at Technorati at all.

But whatever, even such a little success keeps one going.

Read more...

Muslims Exempt from Death Penalty in U.S.?

This question is asked by Robert Spencer in an article at Human Events of which commenter Bruce Church made us aware:

Last October there was another in the growing number of Islamic honor killings in the United States when a Muslim in Peoria, Arizona, Faleh Almaleki, got into his Jeep Cherokee and ran down his twenty-year-old daughter Noor, as well as her boyfriend’s mother, Amal Khalaf.

Noor died not long thereafter, and Faleh Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. But prosecutors announced this week that he will not face the death penalty – it wouldn’t be multicultural.

Faleh Almaleki’s lawyer, public defender Billy Little, requested that the death penalty not be sought in this case because County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Christian and Almaleki is a Muslim: “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”

And indeed, the County Attorney’s office ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty, although it denied that Little’s request had anything to do with the decision: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison,” said County Attorney Office spokesman Mike Scerbo. “As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.”

This denial, however, did not ring true in light of the calculated nature of Almaleki’s actions: “By his own admission,” said county prosecutor Stephanie Low, “this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family."

So far so good and now for something (to me) totally incomprehensible. The county prosecutor goes on to say:

"This was an attempt at an honor killing.”

What does this mean? As the killer doubtlessly DID murder his daughter, what was the "attempted" bit? This may express doubts about the "honour killing" quality of the murder, but then it either IS one or it ISN'T, but it's not an "attempt at an honour killing". Or am I, as a non-native speaker, missing a point here or a detail of the American law?

Robert Spencer continues:

If a cold-blooded, premeditated murder doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what murder does? If the death penalty is to be applied or contemplated at all, one would be hard-pressed to find a case more appropriate than one in which a father murders his daughter freely, not in the heat of passion, and with full intentionality, because she does not share his values.

[...]

This is a human rights issue that ought to merit the attention of anyone who cares for the lives lost to this barbaric practice. Yet American law enforcement officials are doing nothing to call Muslim communities in this country to teach against and work against this practice. And relativist multiculturalists like Billy Little seem to think that taking a strong stand against honor killing would be an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim.

[...]

... For the first time, the idea that all are not equal before the law, but that some are more equal than others, has been given credence by an American court. Despite the County Attorney’s Office denials, a precedent has been set that Islamic pressure groups are certain to exploit to the hilt.

I think it goes even beyond the politically correct attempt at preventing an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim. It takes ill will of Christans towards Muslims per se for granted, which is such a deliberate, evil, perverted perception of reality, that it defies belief.

Read more...

Three basic facts about Islam every Westerner ought to know...

... but only too few WANT to know.

Interesting discussion at Beak's blog. The Pagan Temple (here is his blog) says:

It [radicalism] doesn't ever burn out completely. It just dies down for a while, and after a period of smoldering, it flares up again, eventually. Maybe one of these days Islam will go through this reformation period I've been seeing people suggest. I hope so. The way things stand now, the religion as a whole is a breeding ground for fanaticism. Very few redeeming qualities to it, in relative terms, compared to the capacity for intolerance and hate that are etched across so many of its Korans pages. Until it is brought into the civilized world, it will remain a savage anachronism. Unfortunately, the only thing that is going to bring about any kind of systemic change is hardship, tragedy, and failure. Understanding, tolerance, and acceptance ain't going to cut it with them, because far too many of them, including even among the ones who are not terrorist, nor for that matter even violent, see such things as signs of weakness.

My reply:

TPT, very thoughtful words! I once believed if not in a reformation of Islam (I never gave it a thought) but in assimilation of Muslims. How naive I was. The danger is not just Islam as we perceive it now, the danger is that any nice, assimilated Muslim living in the West is a potential time bomb. The re-Islamisation as well of countries (Turkey is a more recent example, Iran another one) as of individuals is frightening. There are countless examples in your country where formerly peacefull, assimilated Muslims suddenly "freak out" and commit murder. And I do not believe they are deliberately planted "sleepers", I think they are just behaving to Islam's intrinsic quality.

You (plural as in "you Americans") are still pretty relaxed about it because the number of Muslims in your country is, yet and just, relatively small. Estimates range from 2.5 million to 7 million, which includes (I presume) "Black Muslims". To get a feeling what is going on here in Europe, you'd need at least a (Middle Eastern and Turkish) Muslim population of 15 to 20 million. Think Dearborn, Michigan, but applied to several important large regions of your country.

The problem is that it is the very core of the Free West that lets them become the threat they are. Here I discuss the facts that only a certain small percentage of Muslims is tolerable before they start to damage their host society and that a secular totalitarian system will keep them at bay. That is not a plea for a secular totalitarian system, but a plea for self protection of the, yet and just, Free West.

The three basic facts about Islam every Westerner who cherishes his freedom and liberties ought to know are:

• There is a decisive limit for the size of a Muslim minority in Western societies that is tolerable before it will start to damage the host society. It seems to be not higher than 3%.
• Everything once owned by Muslims, however briefly and however long ago, is considered Muslim property. That applies to territory as well as to a person's mind.
• Taqqiya is an intrinsic part of Islam. Taqqiya allows Muslims to say whatever furthers the cause of Islam, lies, deception, the breach of treaties are seen as the first line of attack in jihad.

Never (but NEVER!) forget that when dealing with Muslims. Everything else is a self-deceptive lie. Here in Germany with about 4 million Muslims, i.e. 5% of the population, the line between taqqiya and open demands for supremacy has already become blurred, as it has in the UK, where the vast majority live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census form 3% of the population there. Otherwise notoriously up-to-date Wikipedia offers no more recent data. You may extrapolate.

Some examples from this blog here and here and here and here and here and here and here, and here, and here dating from 2006 to 2009.

Read more...

High on Booze and One's Own Importance

The pastoral head of the umbrella organisation of Germany's Protestant churches has admitted drunk-driving after having passed a red light and being caught with a blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit. This is not the first time the church leader has made headlines. Criticising Catholic teachings on homosexuality, the ordination of women and celibacy come to mind. The calling for the withdrawal of German troops from Afghanistan in a sermon on New Year's Day became well known or, if you like, notorious, as well. The representative of Germany's 25 million Protestants, who revels in the role of a moral authority, who has in that capacity criticised bankers for their greed during the financial crisis and condemned all forms of "excess", vocally declared that "Nothing is good in Afghanistan" and urged a speedy withdrawal of the German troops.

Now I will let you in on a secret about German psychology. You can bet your last penny that, if a German opposes a war -- ANY war -- he is really, deep down, opposing WWII, where the evil Americans attacked a trusting and innocent Germany to prevent it from completing their great patriotic deed.

"There is no such thing as a 'just war.' I cannot legitimize it from a Christian point of view," the bishop had stated, and: "There is nothing right in Afghanistan. All these strategies have just obscured the fact that soldiers are using their guns and even killing civilians."

Asked whether that applies to the war against Nazi Germany as well, the reply was affirmative: "They always say, if the Allies hadn’t attacked there wouldn’t have been freedom. But I say — why wasn’t there a strategy to avoid war? Why wasn’t the German opposition to Hitler strengthened? Why weren’t the rails leading to Auschwitz bombed?" And who gives an aviating fornication for the fact that is was the "strategy to avoid war" in the first place that enabled Hitler to turn into a threat to the entire free world.

Predictably, such history-relativising and responsibility-misaligning statements evoked a groundswell of support from the leftist German mainstream, public and media.

And now for the really interesting detail: The bishop is, interest- but not really amazingly, a bishoppette.

That women, known for granting the disgusting German tabloid BILD (no links to BILD from my blogs) interviews about her love life and her theology, never misses a snide remark about the Catholic church, like, for example "I'm not an infallibe papette", which proves either that she doesn't deserve her doctorate in theology or that she is an intellectually dishonest hack and oughtn't to head a Protestant kindergarden, let alone the Protestant church. Papal infallibility is clearly defined, strictly limited and has been executed twice, namely by Pope Pius IX in 1854 regarding the Immaculate Conception and by Pope Pius XII in 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary. But that theologian can safely assume that BILD readers don't know that anyway and whatever if it only makes such a great point against that evil old man in Rome whose throne even SHE (SHE SHE!) won't be -- horribile dictu -- able to reach. All this, mind you, goes by the label of "improving ecumenism".

We have, incidentally, reported on Margot Kässmann already when she was shameless enough to equate the radicalism, religious zeal and potential danger of Muslim and Christian converts and about the big slime spot she left in the Scripture when she twisted it to justify the breach of her marital vows. This bishopette, notabene, is divorced.

But as usual, not the problem is the problem, but how people react to it. The entire leftist public and media have their Attends in a knot to protect this paragon of leftist, i.e. rotten-to-the-core and depraved, values. Her organisation explicitly "covers her back" and the online fora are atwitter with statements saying that this is basically a good thing because it proves that she is, after all, human. And that when we all thought, just like she did herself, that she is godlike. Just imagine for a fraction of a moment what had happened, had a Catholic bishop made the same "honest mistake".

I, personally, find it almost a relief that her statements can now safely be dismissed not just as the the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged woman drugged by the thought of her own importance, but as the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged alcoholic woman drugged by the thought of her own importance. With a blood alcohol level of 1.54 o/oo, a non-alcoholic would have been, at best, able to find the next lavatory in time, but not his car, let alone open it, start it and drive it. That is not bad in itself, she is neither the first nor the last alcoholic in such an office, what IS bad is that she thought that she could get away with it (and that, so it seems, she WILL get away with it) and didn't even bother to call a taxi. Being high on one's own inflated ego and being high on alcohol is, in the end, difficult to tell apart, or so I guess.

If Margot Kässmann was, so far, the first bishopette of the German Protestant church, she is now the first booze-bishopette of the same church. And the latter is only the to-be-expected consequence of the former.

Cross-posted at TMDSC.

Read more...

So what else is new?

Currently, the worldwide mainstream media are working their collective Attends in a knot because Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a top terrorist senior Hamas official, who wanted to buy arms from Iran nothing but to live in peace like all Palestinians if the Israelis would only let them, was killed in a luxury hotel in Dubai.

While I was asking myself how a Hamas official could afford a luxury hotel in Dubai while the Palestinian children are starving (I haven't found an answer yet), I had a closer look at the case. So there was a team of eleven to perform an assasination for which two would have been sufficient? And they all look as if they'd jumped off the stage of a cheap amateur movie production? Smiling at the security cameras? Using mainly passports of Britons living in Israel? The MOSSAD, of all organisations, overlooked the fact that in security-obsessed Dubai nothing will escape the omnipresent cameras? Precision? Finesse? Not even the Hamas believes that the Mossad is behind the killing and suspects "an Arab government". And don't we all know how the Palestinian groups love and cherish each other?

To me (I may be wrong) this looks like an effort at getting rid of al-Mabhouh while playing off the Brits and Israel against each other in the process, and, thanks to the anti-Israel media bias, so far successfully. There is only one thing of which we can be sure at this point: The story will vanish into thin air more quickly, MUCH more quickly, than you can say "antisemitism" should it transpire that Israel is NOT behind the assassination.

Just as a reminder three random examples of antisemitic anti-Zionist media spin: this and this and this. There are countless more examples, just let me mention as well the probably most damaging ones, the Mohammed al Doura hoax and the Jenin "massacre" lie.

May the blood of the 23 killed Israeli soldiers come over those who ordered them to street fight to save Arab lifes instead of bombing the place.

To the world it is still a "massacre".

Read more...

Islam is Peace and Mercy

Last year in Afgoye, Somalia:




Those pictures have been taken by the photographer Farah Abdi Warsameh and were awarded the World Press Photo Award 2010 (2nd Prize in the General News category).

The Swiss magazine Blick prints three of the four pictures and asks him about his "experience". A group named "Hizb Al-Islam" invited him to the scene without telling him what would happen. "All the blood, the cries, my own helplessness - all those impressions are deeply ingrained in my brain. I will never forget them." Abdi Warsameh hopes to inform about what is going on in his country -- a truly courageous thing to do. Will people be interested? I doubt it. Basically, this is not new.

Notabene that in the comment section of the Blick article America is compared to, or rather equated with, Somalia. Clearly, Europeans deserve what they are getting.

---

At the World Press Photo website all four pictures can be viewed in high resolution, which I recommend specifically for those who think that "some Sharia" in the West wouldn't be all bad.

Read more...

So much about "Post-Racialism"

This is priceless: Jared Taylor, the man behind AR, debating a black man and a Latina on Obama's racial importance.



I mean... do the producers of such broadcasts INTEND to make non-white opinion makers appear as dumb as possible? To answer my own question: No, I don't think so. At least, not consciously so. However, no intelligent person would defend Obama and had they chosen a white Obama apologist he would have come across JUST AS dumb and everybody would have complained that it's an all white and thus not sufficiently "balanced" panel.

Had they chosen an intelligent, conservative black instead of Jared Taylor, everybody and his pet ferret would have complained that it's an "all black" panel.

Had they chosen one intelligent black Obama critic and two dumb white Obama apologists, there would have been complaints about "a-typical" opinons.

Now, with one intelligent white man critical of Obama shouted down by an embarassingly dumb Latina and a barely literate black man, everybody seems to be happy, because that's what seems to be an acceptable version of "reality" for most people.

Ain't it sad?

Hat tip: VFR!

Read more...

Technical Glitch

To my commenters Bruce Church and Universal Realist:

To my disgust I have noticed that comments are, although okayed, not showing. Please bear with me! I'm trying to find out what the reason for the glitch is.

Edited to add:
The "glitch" makes the comments appear in reverse order, so the most recent ones are at the bottom, but at least they are there. Also, the feed doesn't seem to work. I'll try to fix it!

Read more...