What makes Mawloud Bahr tick?

I haven't blogged for a while for no other reason that I was fed up with the perceived futilily of my blogging efforts, a not entirely new sentiment. But there is always a reason to get over that. What is it this time? I'm afraid I've got to go back and into greater detail to explain:

2009, a new political movement in Germany made moderate headlines. The "Bonner Bündnis für Frieden und Fairness" (Alliance for Peace and Fairness in Bonn) was founded in summer to win in autumn two seats on the city council of Bonn, one for Haluk Yildiz, the BFF president, one for Hülya Dogan, a headscarf-wearing woman. The "Alliance" was represented exclusively by "people with migration background", the politically correct euphemism for Muslims. The dhimmified MSM were absolutely drooling over it, and any campaigning of competing parties (including Pro NRW) was heavily weighed down by BFF's protection because of the German incitement of the people (sedition) legislation.

Hülya Dogan

My friend Gudrun Eussner, who has contributed so much to this blog, had published back then a matter-of-fact article about BFF at her website, including the roster of candidates. I have done so before, but let me say again here, that Gudrun's website contains a wealth of articles, extremely well-written and meticulously researched on many political and cultural issues, including, but not limited to, the threat of Islam to the West. Dr. Gudrun Eussner, now retired, is a political scientist who used to work for international organisations in the Middle East.

Some days ago she got, as a belated reaction to the BFF-article, an email from some Mawloud Bahr, which I have in parts translated. Dear reader, my English hasn't deteriorated, I am just trying to give my translation a whiff of the German I am translating:

We [the author and a friend] are two freedom- and democracy-loving people who are living since childhood here in Germany. I don't have any problem with the fact that you are publicly stating your opinion. ... We are long-standing friends and were enthusiastic about that idea [of a Muslim party] but have, disappointed, retired because of some situations that are predominant there.

We don't have anything to do with that party anymore. Our names aren't on the BFF roster as well anymore as you can see online. But even if I were still with this party I would have massive problems because people like you are publishing reputation-damaging slander abour persons like us two and thus make that we won't find a job anymore, because the bosses are reading at Google about our bad reputation because of you. I can't be bothered having to live at the expense of the German taxpayer from social security because of you.
I would therefore welcome your just step to delete us:
1. Mawloud Bahr
2. Rachide Chamlali
from your website so that we won't appear in the Google search results anymore.
Because we have left the BFF-party we are not public persons like politicians anymore with legally limited privacy but again privare persons. Therefore we reserve our right to file a civil lawsuit against you in the case of a non-deletion from your site because of damage of reputation, slander and compensation for damages because of a non-conclusion of a work contract based on the first two reasons mentioned.
I am sure that we do not have to go so far as to file a lawsuit against you. I have looked into your site in some detail and don't believe that you wish that, apart from the consequences mentioned above, your website will have to be closed down.

Sincerely yours,

Mawloud Bahr
Rachide Chamlali

Gudrun Eussner has, rightfully, not responded to this Stalinist strategy to correct history, and didn't delete the names. Instead, she published the email because she considered it a legitimate counter statement, which was kind of her. Bad luck for the two complainees, though, that some blogs picked it up, for example PI, the German giant of Islam-critique, published it, and gave it a different twist. This blog asks, notabene, the extremely interesting question, whether there isn't a motive quite different from job-hunting behind the wish not to find one's name at Google.

We are proud and happy to join the fray.

What I find most interesting about the entire matter is the fact that the good Mawloud Bahr had had, when he contacted Gudrun Eussner, already almost succeeded to have his name deleted from Google. In fact, Gudrun Eussner's was the only website of importance left. Go figure!

Now it isn't anymore, toughsky shitsky, as the Russian saying goes!

One can't help wondering why a man who claims to has left a Muslim party, engages in exactly the same behaviour we know from the followers of the religion of peace when they don't get their way: whining, complaints, veiled threats, open threats, and all in that order. But then, he didn't specify WHY exactly he was disenchanted with the BFF. Is it possible that they weren't Islamic ENOUGH for him?

Frankly, all this annoys me, as a German, as well. Here we have a man who got a fairly good education as a computer technician (so the BFF roster says) mainly at the expense of the German taxpayer, a man who was either unable or unwilling to acquire halfway decent German language skills, a man who then blames not himself for having foolishly joined a shady political movement, but somebody who has reported about that movement and for his resulting (potential, possible or real) failure to find a job, and on top of all that he has the gall to say that he -- so sorry -- will therefore have to live at the German taxpayer's expense now.

Anyway, if our friend Mawloud Bahr (this one is for the search engines!) indeed HAD an ulterior motive to see his name gone from Google, this shot has backfired and that pleases me no end.

Today, Gudrun has added the information to her article that Mawloud Bahr and Rachide Chamlali both run for the BFF in the election back in October and got votes.

Of Hatemongers -- and Hatemongers

A rape epidemic of unveiled women is sweeping across Europe. Different from what the mainstream media would like us to believe, things like that DO happen and with increasing frequency. Thanks to FrontPage and a few other courageous media, however, the facts are not entirely swept under the carpet.

This FrontPage Symposium is of special importance to me, because participant Gudrun Eussner and Iris Raddatz, the wife of Hans-Peter Raddatz, another participant, are dear friends of mine of whose knowledge and wisdom I am standing to benefit on an almost daily basis.

However, it is not easy in this country to have and to maintain a principled anti-Islam stance. Chicanery and intimidation are ubiquitous. Gudrun Eussner's website was taken off the web by the (German) provider because she had published a bill of indictment against a man who was charged with having insulted the Muslim faith by selling lav paper with a "Koran" imprint and Gudrun is now, too, charged with a criminal offense, namely the publishing of a bill of indictment prior to the trial (§ 353d StGB -- German Penal Code). I reported that incident HERE.

Iris' husband, Hans-Peter Raddatz, is one of our leading Islam experts. His excellent, scholarly books are as far removed from "hatemongering" as possible, yet that is of what he is accused by a public hell-bent on dhimmitude. (He has, by the way, to live under police protection because he has received death threats. So WHO is the "hatemonger" here?)

Please read the following symposium carefully.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com March 7, 2006

A Muslim rape epidemic in sweeping over Europe -- and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world. The direct connection between the rapes and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects. The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that there crime is justified since their victims were, among other things, not properly veiled.

What is the psychology here? What is the significance of this epidemic? And how do we face it when our own feminists, with a few exceptions, are deafingly silent about it?

To discuss this issue with us today, we are joined by:

Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the Palestinian Intifada. His new documentary, Suicide Killers, explores the psychology of suicide bombers. It is based on interviews with the victims of suicide bombers, the families of suicide bombers, would-be bombers themselves, and experts on suicide killer mentality.

Nancy Kobrin, an affiliated professor to the University of Haifa, Arabist, psychoanalyst and author of the upcoming book, The Sheikh's New Clothes: Islamic Suicide Terror and What It's Really All About;

Peter Raddatz, a German scholar of Islamic Studies and the co-author of the renowned “Encyclopaedia of Islam.” He is the author of many books, including From Allah to Terror? Jihad and the Western Deformation, Allah's Veil and The Turkish Danger. In a few months he will publish World Risk Iran.

and
Gudrun Eussner, a journalist with a Ph.D at Free University Berlin, specializing in mass communication and political science, and Iranian philology. She has experience working in numerous Muslim countries, including Bosnia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Usbekistan and others.

FP: Pierre Rehov, Nancy Kobrin, Peter Raddatz and Dr. Gudrun Eussner welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Peter Raddaz let’s begin with you.

A man sees a woman and she is not veiled. He thinks to himself: “Oh, I must rape her now.”

No matter how much I try to figure this out, I can’t. What’s the mindset here? If a person is upset that a woman is not veiled, it implies he wants some kind of supposed “morality.” But if he is thirsting for purity, how does perpetrating a violent sexual atrocity against the “immoral” one fit into moralizing her and the rest of society – and himself?

Raddatz: Your questions concerning mindset and morals put us right into the middle of the problem. They are the terms any culture's collective psychology is basing on. In the case of prevailing orthodox Islam we are faced with a deep division between the sexes. With Allah's unlimited ruling licence the males are entitled to be the masters of the females. The Koranic order says that the man has to "go to the woman" whenever he likes, to "enjoy her however he likes", and to discipline her in case she develops her own ideas like sexual self-determination.

Over the centuries this basic frame had been filled with a lot of "prophetic" instructions as to what disastrous role the woman could play if the man as Allah's deputy does not carry out this divine licence of fertilizing control. Insofar the woman is looked upon from a "higher" biologistic viewpoint regarding her as "seed field" that - under strict male surveillance signalled by "Islamic correct" veiling - guarantees for the continued survival and expansion of Islam.

We are dealing here with premodern, partly archaic thinking that divides its world into two Manichaean halves. Irrespective of the usual statistical remnant of liberal "dissidents", the orthodox ideology bases on an Islamic half that accords to Koran and "prophetic" tradition and a non-Islamic half consisting of unbelievers and disobedient women. The religious war - known as "jihad" - against the latter two groups belongs, therefore, to the most prominent duties of the "believing" Muslim. Its "religious" dimension is boosted enormously by customary family "honor" installing male control from early youth on, often widening into brutal raping, sometimes incestuous punishing patterns. Here a complicated interaction between father, mother, son and daughter comes into play about which, I guess, Dr. Kobrin will give us quite interesting insights.

Thus, the ontological being in Islam is not defined by individual right but clearly as integral part of the community in terms of a whole and "holy" entirety. In this context the primary form of human being is seen in the male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and expanding his "umma", meaning his community.

Its biologistic "thinking" demands the "pure" man as the real human dominating the "impure" woman as a lower form, rather close to some animal-like existence. Therefore, sexuality cannot be sublimated and has to serve - aside from ramifications into homo-, paedo- and sodo-variants - a basic double function: fertilizing and punishing.

This paradigm expresses itself not only in highly standardized family patterns but also in an equally conformistic education system. All contents, in school and university of almost every Islamic country, are ultimately restricted and tied to Islamic purposes, thereby avoiding abstract thinking categories that could relativate and jeopardize the dogma's absolute uniqueness. By the same token, however, and this is the core of "modern" Islam's tragedy, the male controllers are confined to physical methods of "sublimation" whenever problems arise. Aside from the usual bombing "protest" against Western "arrogance" and "unbelieving morals", the current rape wave is the vital expression of an ongoing jihad against women who under Western influence may drift slowly out of the grip of male Muslim hands.

The war character of this behaviour may become clearer from its archaic punishment perspective that has come out of use generally but survived in Islam until present times. During the Algerian independence war the freedom fighters used to publicly sodomize French officers in order to achieve the enemy's maximum degradation. The same applies to the woman as a possible internal enemy containing even a double danger: her alleged disobedience is a bio-political security risk for the Islamic entirety and her independent "devilish" sexuality represents a religious blasphemy, contaminating male purity. Both have to be dealt with accordingly: beating, raping, torturing, stoning, killing.

While some UN organizations keep on complaining about this, the Western feminists keep silent because they are not interested in the general problem but rather concentrate on clutching to their few elitarian privileges, mainly in business. Doing this they are simple part of a greater Western mainstream that has started to adjust to Muslim immigrant political "sharia" demands based on the growing radical Islamist influence as well as oil price pressure. And mind you: keeping Muslim women obedient through male "honor" might also sustain their "seed field" fertilization rate thereby compensating for the Western "morals" of pornography and weak reproduction. In this respect global elite ideology, antisemitic "new age" fascism and Islam are not so far apart.

FP: Thank you Dr. Raddatz. Dr. Eussner?

Eussner: Thank you, Jamie. I agree with Peter: The survival and expansion of Islam worldwide is the main goal of Islam since its invention by Mohammed. In this respect, the history of Islamic conquest is self-explanatory. The other aspect is the lack of appreciation for the individual as such. For both, men and women, it is true, that there are no individual rights, but for women it is even worse.

It may sound harsh, but the distinction between "fertilizing" and "punishing" a woman is evident. On the one hand you have sexuality as a tool serving the expansion of Islam, and on the other hand there is sexuality as a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as "unbelievers". Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women "conquered" in jihad, this may be read in the Qur'an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.

Why is the raping of unveiled women, either Muslim or non-Muslim, now spreading widely in our countries?

The conduct towards these women is due to the new developments initiated by Salafists like Tariq Ramadan. He has invented and introduced a new definition for the Western countries: they should no longer be seen the traditional way as Dar ul-harb, the space of war, but as Dar el-dawaà, the invitation to Islam, or Dar ash-shahâda, the space of testimony.

While orthodox Sunni Muslims, stuck to the unchanged application of the tradition are not at all in line with this "modern" interpretation, the "scholar" Tariq Ramadan has paved a soft way for Muslims to taking possession of countries formerly belonging to the Dar ul-harb. When living in Dar ul-harb there are two alternatives for the Muslims: either conquer the land by force and rule it by Qur'anic law or, if not strong enough, keep quiet and wait, not touching the property of the enemy.

Dar el-dawaà and Dar ash-shahâda are two of the trickiest inventions ever to reach the goal of conquest: at a quick and superficial glance it means resigning from the conversion of the West to Islam, permitting everybody to keep on in his belief, but on closer examination that means what the French call "l'entrisme", unnoticed penetration.

The Muslims are not living any longer in a hostile surrounding, they are almost in Dar ul-Islam. Profesor Nezvat Yalçintas, member of the Istanbul parliament, made an interesting statement. During the inauguration of the Murabitun mosque in Granada, Spain, in July 2003, he told the audience that Paris, Rome, Madrid now were components of the Islamic world due to the erection of new mosques.

But as Muslims are still obliged to wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit, the jihad is continuing in Dar ash-shahâda, and people not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws have to be punished. The trick of introducing these new definitions has a severe impact on Muslims' consciousness, especially on young Muslim men. People not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws are to be punished even stronger now. The Muslims are not any more restricted by the laws of Dar ul-harb, that has evaporated without notice, merely by changing the definition. The inhabitants of our countries are to obey to Muslim male supremacy and Qur'anic laws. What better a justification for conduct towards women?

The jihad against the infidels is conducted on each and every level, not only as terror and suicide bombing. The jihad against women, who by their behaviour in the public sphere, are "asking for rape", as the Danish mufti Shahid Mehdi, a Qur'an teacher of joung Muslims in Copenhagen, put it in 2004, and/or towards their husbands, by their alleged disobedience are challenging the survival and expansion of Islam, of the "Ummah", is a must for the Muslim men.

As far as the Western feminists are concerned, they seem to be hovering in other dimensions, in absolute arrogance, learned from ethnologues like Claude Lévy-Strauss. For them, freedom is that each "culture" may it be as inhuman as can be, is entitled to prosper even on our soil, and the next act in this surrealistic piece of stage play is the unlimited understanding the Norwegian Professor Ms. Unni Wikan shows for Muslims raping Western women: Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes, as they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it, as Mark Steyn reported already in 2002.

To read the entire symposium click HERE.

Why Fort Hood Happened NOW

A lot has been said about the Fort Hood shooting. Islam is to blame, immigration is to blame, liberalism is to blame. All that is right, or at least not wrong. But why did it happen NOW? After all, 9/11 happened 8 years ago and there was little Muslim violence against America since then - on home soil, that is. But there is one aspect that wasn't discussed at all, and if, I've overlooked it.

In the course of an email-discussion about American suicidal idiocy that allows Muslims in the military, Gudrun Eussner writes (and I translate):

During WWII, the Americans interned even perfectly loyal Japanese and Germans because of their ancestry. I recently saw a feature about German-Americans who are still fighting for their only too belated rehabilitation.

Did you see that "major" in the shop, clad in djellaba, white cap, the lot? In a shop at a military base!

Thanks BHO, thanks Dalia Mogahed!

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal… (Barack Obama)

Only waiters bow at the waist. (George V, 1910 -- 1936)

In the mood for another quote?

Five to six million strong, Muslims in America already outnumber Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Mormons, and they are more numerous than Quakers, Unitarians, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, combined. Many demographers say Islam has overtaken Judaism as the ccountry's second-most commonly practiced religion; others say it is in the passing lane." (Johan Blank, USNEWS on July 20, 1998)

Below is the video to which Gudrun referred, a convenience store surveillance video. It's from CNN and shows army major Nidal Hasan about 7 hours before he murdered 13 people:

What happened today?

At 11:25 AM, the President addresses the House Democratic Caucus – Cannon House Office Building.

At 2:30 PM, the President makes a statement to the press in which he warned the American public against "jumping to conclusions" over the motives of the shooter. Also, he elaborated on health care – Rose Garden.

At 2:45 PM, the President leaves the White House en route to Camp David where he is supposed to play golf – South Lawn.

God help the US of A. Their President who has -- somewhat stumbling -- sworn to do so won't. Notabene that it was political scientist Dr. Gudrun Eussner as well who identified the botched oath as something of greater and more far-reaching consequences, something which Americans, even "conservative" Americans, are either not willing or not able (or both) to concede.

Murdering Adolf Grünbaum AGAIN

Dres. Clemens Heni and Gudrun Eussner, Liza and myself share the feeling of a mutual job well done, although we all would have preferred not having to do it in the first place. At least a part of the media on both sides of the Atlantic signalled interest in the abominable gaffe of "Mein Führer...".

And there is Dr. Adolf Grünbaum, the REAL Adolf Grünbaum, that old man over in Pennsylvania, who is grateful and relieved that finally somebody recognized his misery. As of now, he doesn't intend to sue the maker of that film. He is 83.

Dani Levy, who made the film, enjoyed his role as a "taboo breaker" much too much to be bothered with a simple Google search. The coldness towards the victims is amazing.

But it doesn't end here.

"I should like someone to remember that there once lived a person named David Berger" wrote the 19-year-old boy before he was murdered in Vilna in 1941.

The Nazis did all they could to rob the Jews of their identities. They gave them numbers, they shaved their heads, they burnt them or – sort of – buried them in mass graves. But each and every person had a name, a life, a history and a place in the world.

What Clemens Heni found out, and what Dani Levy failed to find out before he made his abominable film, is that there had been many more Adolf Grünbaums who were not as relatively lucky as Dr. Grünbaum in Pittsburgh. They perished in the Holocaust.

Yad Vashem in Jerusalem keeps an online database of Holocaust victims at www.yadvashem.org. It contains more than 3 million names, together with photos, biographical information and remembered details provided by surviving family members and friends.

This database is accessible to anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world.

Here is what Clemens Heni found:

Adolf Grunbaum was born in Horlyo, Czechoslovakia in 1867. He was a businessman and married. Prior to WWII he lived in Horlyo, Czechoslovakia. During the war was in Horlyo, Czechoslovakia. Adolf perished in 1944 in Auschwitz. This information is based on a Page of Testimony (displayed to the left) submitted on 22/09/1999 by his family from United states, a Shoah survivor.

Adolf Grunebaum was born in 1885. Prior to WWII he lived in Lodz, Poland. During the war was in Lodz. This information is based on a List of Lodz ghetto inmates (displayed to the left) found in the Lodz Names - List of the ghetto inhabitants 1940-1944, Yad Vashem and the Organization of former residents of Lodz in Israel, Jerusalem 1994.

Dr. Adolph Grünbaum was born in Poland. He was a lawyer and married. Prior to WWII he lived in Prezhemisel, Poland. During the war was in Prezhemisel, Poland. Adolph perished in the Shoah at the age of 50. This information is based on a Page of Testimony (displayed to the left) submitted on 26/04/1999 by his niece.

Adolf Grünbaum was born in Opalyi, Hungary in 1927 to Miklos and Frida nee Weisz. Prior to WWII he lived in Mateszalka, Hungary. Adolf perished in 1944 in Auschwitz at the age of 17. This information is based on a Page of Testimony (displayed to the left) submitted on 23/05/1999 by his half brother/sister.

Try another – ANY OTHER – "Jewish sounding" name and you'll get similar results.

My take on all that? The whole affairs has two outcomes.

1) It demonstrates first-hand the devastation of the Holocaust.

2) It shows that anybody who attempts making a film, let alone a "comedy", about it, ought to have his head examined.

Or maybe rather his heart.


Clemens Heni's article, including all sources, can be found HERE at Gudrun Eussner's site.

Versatile Vehicles

At last! A conspiracy theory: Last Sunday, a car driver ploughed through Berlin's World Cup pedestrian "fan mile" and injured 26 people. Only because of the fact that there had been no matches on Sunday so that the festival was relatively empty, and a miracle, nobody was killed.

According to Berlin officials, the 33-year-old intentionally broke through a concrete barrier near the capital's landmark Brandenburg Gate in an effort to seek attention. The driver was arrested at gunpoint after his car crashed into a fence in front of a stage. A 55-year-old woman in the passenger seat was also arrested but later released.

A psychiatric disorder was firmly established as the reason for the dangerously erratic behaviour, although responsibility was not excluded. "There is an investigation of attempted murder," police spokesman Bernhard Schodrowski said, who refused to elaborate any further.

The driver was identified as a "German of Indian" origin.

Only yesterday it expired and then only in one single medium (as far as I was able to trace) that the driver is a "German of PAKISTANI" origin. The, according to eye-witnesses headscarfed, woman in the passenger seat was his mother.

Smokescreen number one.

-- Jump Cut --

On Monday, a four-car subway train flew off the rails in Valencia, Spain, killing 41 and injuring at least 45, 12 seriously.

According to the officials and the media, excessive speed is the most likely cause of the accident. Investigators said the train's "black box" indicated it was travelling over 80 km/h (48 mph) on a curved section of track where the maximum speed is limited to 40 km/h (24 mph).

Authorities haven't as yet finally determined what caused the excessive speed. They were, however, quick to rule out any link to terrorism.

The Number One Line, where the accident occurred, is the oldest in Valencia's notabene only 18 years old subway network, and news reports carry several accounts by local citizens that the line is badly maintained and in need of repair.

But then, official accounts say that the network was thoroughly repaired and maintained recently because of the imminent visit of the Pope.

Obsequies took place yesterday evening with sensational news like *gasp* the Spanish Royal Family attending (which is, after all, their job) and that *gasp*gasp* the Pope is praying for the victims (which is, after all, HIS job) dominating the headlines.

In a next step and with lighting speed it was decided that every injured person and the families of those killed will get 30,000 respectively 60,000 Euro, food for contemplation whether to accept or to sue, and which will keep any question of the real cause firmly in the background.

But that shouldn't keep us from making some conjectures, or should it? So what IS the real cause?

At first, news reports said that the driver of the train was hospitalised but not gravely injured: "Castellano afirmó que el conductor del convoy está hospitalizado pero no se encuentra grave" when only shortly later he was declared to be among the dead.

As a possible reason for the excessive speed a dizzy spell or blackout were mentioned: "Se baraja la hipótesis de que el maquinista hubiese sufrido un desfallecimiento..." or, even better, "some indisposition": "Los expertos sospechan que el maquinista pudo sufrir alguna indisposición según un informe dado a conocer esta mañana por la empresa de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana (FGV)."

Interestingly, the name or a name-stub of the driver was not published. What WAS published, however, was the following information: "Respecto al maquinista, el representante de SF señaló que procedía de una familia con tradición ferroviaria, que llevaba como conductor unos seis meses y que había recibido toda la formación requerida. Su relación laboral con FGV estaba establecida a través de una empresa externa mediante una modalidad de contrato conocida como adscripción temporal." The driver comes from a railroading family (whatever that means) who received the necessary training and was made a driver some six months ago. His relationship with the Valencia Railroad company, Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana (FGV), is based on a temporary work contract with an agency.

Smokescreen number two?

To quote Gudrun Eussner: Some learn how to fly a jetliner, some how to drive an underground train.

The name of the station where it all happened? Estación Jesús.

---

The above blog entry relies largely on information and thoughts of Gudrun Eussner. So if there is more than just a hat tip, this is it.

General information in English about the Berlin incident:
World Cup Notes: German driver may face murder charges - Seattle Times - 4 Jul 2006
Berlin festival crash driver investigated - San Jose Mercury News - 3 Jul 2006
Injury toll rises after World Cup crash - Independent Online - 3 Jul 2006

Information in English about the Valencia train wreck HERE.

The Unembarassables

Pamela Geller ("Fearless, intelligent, beautiful -- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl costume well ... is a dynamo of energy and a paragon of courage and fearlessness." Spencer about Geller) and Robert Spencer ("Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt." Geller about Spencer) (Yes, we cackled too!) have cancelled their trip to Cologne.

Politically Incorrect says that the withdrawal was due to Charles Johnson’s of LGF infame attacks on Pro-Köln, as a "fascist" organization. Wow!

What could have cyber-Charlemagne done to them? Send them a cyber curse for cyber-fascists? Cyber-clobber them with a cyber-fascism-cudgel? Cyber-drown their cyber-rubber duckie? Seriously, there is only one sensemaking reason for them to continue to defend their wannabe-hosts when they have cancelled their attendance, namely that they've gotten cold feet in the face of the many information on Pro-Köln they have gotten from serious Islamcritics in Germany (some of which I have seen) who know a thing or two more about their own country than our Innocents Abroad. And being the unprincipled attention seekers they are, they are now blaming CJ for it, so as not to close any doors to potential future appearances. (Yes, I know, the latter is an assumption.)

DISCLAIMER START

At this point, a disclaimer is called for: We do NOT deny Pro-Köln the right to host such an anti-Islam event. The way the city of Cologne is handling this shows that they have not yet arrived at democracy and probably never will. They do everything to marginalise, even foreclose, Pro-Köln's, a legal party's, activities, for example by banning a march to the building site of the gigantic DITIB-mosque, while they are tolerating next to the magnificent Cologne cathedral a permanent vile Israel-baiting exhibition. Such a march can not be "protected", or so Cologne police chief Klaus Steffenhagen says, which is unquestioningly repeated by the media. Gudrun Eussner says: Many events licensed by the authorities, which do not need to be protected, take care that the anti-Islamisation congress can not be protected." And:

Is it radical Left anarchists who are deciding now who is allowed to rally here and who isn't? Are they allowed to break the monopoly of the state on the use of force and does the police take it for granted?

The answer is: yes.

DISCLAIMER END

However, legal as Pro-Köln may be, a few questions regarding their legitimacy may be in order.

First and above all, their criticism of Islam is opportunist. Markus Beisicht, co-founder and chairman of Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW confirms in an Interview with the Junge Freiheit that "Islamkritik" is for Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW not more than part of a right-wing party project. Islamisation has become such a crucial topic for so many people and basically fits into a catalogue of "rightwing" issues that they picked it up and had been amazed how well it was received. "Specifically in big cities one can score here." They have, as Beisicht puts it, claimed a "market niche" and thus reached voters who wouldn't have elected them otherwise.

In other words and as Gudrun Eussner puts it: While looking for befitting issues for a party-project, Pro-Köln has found Islamisation. Therefore it might have been a different topic as well, had it only served the purpose of attracting voters.

Many "nationalist" European parties are, also, not quite the knights in shining anti-Islamic armour as which American Islam critics are fond of seeing them. Front National and FPÖ, for example, have nothing against Islam as such as long as Muslims are safely staying in their own countries. The Pro-movement shares this point of view, therefore their catchphase is "Against Islamisation and Überfremdung(1)", two terms, often used together. It is typical that both, left- and rightwing extremists, have nothing against Islam as such because of their natural affinity to a totalitarian polit-ideology like Islam. If it comes push to shove, rightwingers will club together with Muslims, be it against the Serbs or against the Jews, thinly veiled as anti-Zionism. Case in point: March 1999, Manfred Rouhs, later to become a Pro-Köln co-founder, supports the terrorist UCK in the Kosovo, who are - for him - liberation nationalists.

What says Robert Spencer in his own words at Jihad Watch?:

Meanwhile, I am not going to the Cologne conference, contrary to Johnson's claims; still, however, he is trying to defame me with it. From here is the claim that I am "defending" Manfred Rouhs of Pro-Köln, whom Johnson claims is a Nazi, because I posted his pro-Israel statement here. (You know you're in Johnson's Bizarro world when posting a pro-Israel statement gets you accused of being a Nazi.) Rouhs, says Johnson, is a Nazi who sells Nazi literature at his website -- and therefore I must be a crypto-Nazi, right? (Buckley's sage advice to Gore Vidal comes to mind at this point.)

Anyway, about Rouhs' book selection at his website: Rouhs sells material, as you can see, by the noted neo-Nazis Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Samuel Huntington, Norman Finkelstein, and Clausewitz.

Ah, but all that is just a cover for the Nazi literature that he sells, that Charles has found, right?

This is so incredibly, intransigent, rock-hard, impermeably and unforgivingly dumb that it almost left me speechless. That and the fact that it saves a lot of gastric acid to be prepared for either, those innocent, wide eyed requests for "proof" from those who then nick my information to post it as their own wisdom elsewhere (you know who you are), or those who think that Europe is just the 51st state of the US of A and are miffed when told that "right wing" has a somewhat different meaning at this side of the Atlantic, makes this entry a bit belated, but the open questions are still as topical as they were a week ago.

Such as: Does Spencer really not know for what Chomsky, Moore and Finkelstein stand? No, they are not "Nazis". In that he is right. Two of them are even Jewish and don't we all know that Jews can't be Nazis? They don't wear a black or brown uniform and they are not goosestepping around, brandishing swastika-ed banners. Should the truth be really too subtle to be understood by Robert Spencer and his likes?

Maybe. Let's start with Noam Chomsky. Maybe it was really too much trouble to find out that he is published by the Italian Neo-Nazi-publisher Barbarossa, right between the vilest Nazi scum, such as Jacques Isorni, the lawyer of Robert Brasillach:

Il Processo Brasillach - Jacques Isorni - € 6,20

More from Barbarossa:

Il Controllo dei Mass Media. Le spettacolari conquiste della propaganda - Noam Chomsky - € 7,00

La Menzogna di Giuda. I perché di un libro scomodo - Centro Studi Orion - € 5,16

Rivolte e Guerre Contadine. Storia non romanzata degli Stati Uniti d’America - Aa. Vv. - € 13,00

La Rivoluzione Fascista. Antologia di scritti politici a cura di A. Cucchi e G. Galante; in appendice articoli di J. Evola e R. Farinacci - Berto Ricci - € 8,00

You got the gist?(2)

Now Norm Finkelstein: The German translation of this upright anti-fascist's oeuvre is, for example, sold at the Neo-Nazi online shop Weltnetzladen, between books that reveal the genocidal and perverted nature of the bible, or those of Dr. Claus Nordbruch ("Machtfaktor Zionismus") who is fond of drooling over Germans as genocidal targets of Britain and America when he isn't stridently demanding "reparations" for a wronged Germany who was dealt a marked card in WWII and next to titles like "Ami go home!" or "Zwölf gute Gründe für einen Antiamerikanismus" (i.e. twelve good reasons for, you've guessed it, antiamericanism).(3)

But without doubt, Chomsky and Finkelstein are no Nazis and we all know how much Michael Moore loves America.

Even a superficial dig like this reveals such a cesspool of totalitarianism, antiamericanism, antisemitism, history revisionism and God knows what -isms, that it seems -- and indeed is -- totally irrelevant whether one labels it Nazi, or left or right or center or whatever. It is a kraken with countless tentacles obsessively feeding on its sole fodder, the hatred for America, the Ersatz-Jew and Israel, the Über-Jew. And it reaches far into the realms of other groups and parties as well, groups and parties much more respected and important than hapless Pro-Köln.

I have written about it countless times. It is the core topic of this blog. So what else is new?

The question remains whether it is asked too much from Robert Spencer to do some research. Brief, basic research, as I just did, in the Internet, would suffice. Nobody expects a crash-course of twothousand years of European and German history and culture from him. His Wikipedia entry tells us that he holds a Master's degree in the department of Religious Studies from an American university, so we can assume (or is it hope?) that he knows how to do research, to tell apart the important from the unimportant, not to let his personal opinions get in the way of the truth, and that he is able to perform a critical appraisal of his sources. That is not even intellectual integrity, that are the very basics of academic armamentarium, science 101. But the urge to be right when Charles Johnson is wrong is so overwhelming that Spencer, dumb and dull like the moron he isn't, happily commits intellectual suicide just not to be thrown out of his fool's paradise of feeling superior to Charles Johnson.

What an achievement.

---

(1) "For years Austrians have been warned about foreigners, indeed, about an inundation of foreigners. In 1993 the word "Überfremdung" - being overrun with foreigners - was declared the non-word of the year in Germany. Yet in 1999 a successful election campaign could be conducted in Austria with the slogan "Stop the excessive immigration." The word "Überfremdung" is hardly translatable, because the German language does not know the differentiation found in English, Italian, or Spanish between stranger and foreigner." See here.

(2) It is all available on the web. Dr. Gudrun Eussner, a political scientist, writes about it at her invaluable website for years now.

(3) Or, for example, a "conservative" book on bringing up children by Christa Müller, the wife of one of the leaders of the post-Communist party DIE LINKE, Oskar Lafontaine. By Spencer's logic, the entire shop would be above board on the strength of such immaculate leftist credentials.

Mentioning Dhimmies Brings on Drooling

I am SO flattered!

Friday week, on May 4, the eminent Neue Zürcher Zeitung, one of the oldest newspapers still published, of the reputation of a world-class newspaper and with a small but influential circulation of 160,000 (Yes, we yawned too!) has taken notice of me. A guy who goes by the name of Heribert Seifert told the world what he thinks of the Islam-critics among us bloggers and the headline reveals the stance already: "The Battle Bloggers" (Die Kampf-Blogger).

My co-defendants have dealt pretty competently with the -- to put it politely -- philosophy behind Seifert's rant earlier, so let me add some thoughts in the spirit of Anton Kuh: Why getting even-handed when an ad hominem will do as well?

Just who is Heribert Seifert? A brief online search tells us that Seifert, born 1948 in Dorsten (Westphalia), a place that is lending new dimensions to the terms "provincial" and "in the sticks" (trust me, I am from that part of the world as well), read history, German philology, philosophy and education to become a grammar school teacher in Recklinghausen, which is just a stonethrow away from Dorsten. He then progressed to become a teacher of teachers in nearby Gelsenkirchen and his day job at a Studienseminar (a teacher training college) leaves him apparently enough time to write for the NZZ on a regular basis (and occasionally for other media as well).

As this blog entry is about understanding Heribert Seifert and what makes him tick, a closer look at the city of his ministry should be in order: Gelsenkirchen is a city in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, in the industrial Ruhr area. In the early 20th century, Gelsenkirchen was the most important coalmining town in Europe. Today, with the mines once and for all confined to history, Gelsenkirchen is lumbered for decades now with one of the highest unemployment rates in Germany. Gelsenkirchen is, too, the city where schools are facing serious intercultural trouble, for example by demands from Turkish parents not to teach the theory of evolution anymore and to include "more Islamic content".

A teacher at a Gelsenkirchen comprehensive informed the WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk, one of the public broadcasters) that he had been molested over a period of time by Turkish students on the grounds of his suspected Jewishness.

"I had mentiond during history classes that my great-grandmother had been Jewish", which had led, so the teacher, to verbal abuse as "son of a bitch (whore), miscreant and Jew." He was, too, asked several times whether he believed the lie that humans are derived from apes and why the students had to learn such a lie – even though the theory of evolution wasn't even part of the current curriculum.

As it happened, it was in Gelsenkirchen, too, where a man was killed by his fellow-Muslims, which led the renowned journalists Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch to the following comment in the newspaper DIE WELT:

When last week [end of January 2004] a Moslem shot dead two fellow Muslims in a mosque in Gelsenkirchen because out of a feeling of violated honour, it received only minor interest in most newspapers. One has simply gotten used to the fact that right in the middle of a liberal society the Middle Ages are being raised from the dead: Honour killings, forced marriages, deprivation of liberty with women and girls as victims, vigilante justice based on perceived "honour violations". "Should my sister have pre-marital sex, I'll cut her up, that's clear", a young Muslim told a taz-peporter unselfconsciously. Attacks on pedestrians who are perceived as gay or Jewish in the eyes of the militant protectors of the faith are increasing.

No doubt, being a teacher in Gelsenkirchen is NOT nice.

Incidentally, Maxeiner und Miersch, together with the equally renowned journalist, writer and sometimes critic of Islam, Henryk M. Broder, are running the (sometimes Islam-critical) blog Die Achse des Guten, a (yes!) blog that conspiciously escaped Seifert's attention, while he is listing the blog Dhimmideutsch (or, as Seifert puts it so endearingly "Dhimideutsch" – don't they have proofreaders at the NZZ?) a blog with the whopping content of 33 posts.

Everywhere do «Akte Islam», «Politically Incorrect», «Fakten & Fiktionen», «Jihad Watch», «Daniel Pipes», «Gudrun Eussner», «Roncevalles», «Dhimideutsch» and their comrades in combat find proof of their suspicion that 'the' Islam and 'the' Muslims are working openly or clandestinely to take over the power. Whereas in the USA well-known publicists like Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) and Daniel Pipes are running those blogs, in Germany and Switzerland they are, apart from a very few rare exceptions, strangers to the world of publishing.

As links are notably absent, let me first introduce the "bloggers" Seifert mentions.

First there is Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the man behind Akte Islam, a lawyer, political scientist and much-published author on, among other issues, secret services, white-collar crime and Islam in Europe. I am sure he knows about what he is talking, but I rarely visit his website on purely personal grounds. Gratuitiously rude people like Ulfkotte, who scour the Internet for little bloggers who happen to err in details, like Esther from the Islam in Europe blog, to then deliver a dressing down from a great height

...I am German. And I just read your article … I write books on that issue. And I really have problems if people like you say that the things that I quote are not true. So please be so kind and write a correction ! I would kindly welcome that...

depress me.

But whatever. Ulfkotte's website Akte Islam is not a blog, which is not just a technical difference, and which seems to have escaped blogger-hunter Seifert's attention, as did the fact that the "stranger to the world of publishing" Ulfkotte is known roughly seven times better by Google than Seifert.

Politically Incorrect is number four of ALL (not just the political, as Seifert states) German blogs with 9908 unique visitors and 29914 clicks last Friday.

My personal opinion is that the PI team are doing a good job when it comes to information about Islam and they had very little to take back yet, which is quite an accomplishment in the face of the sheer volume of their published content. The comment section has some visitors I wouldn't let post at my blog, but then, my number of comments are a negligible fraction of theirs and I guess to make the comment section of a blog like PI watertight one would need the spare time a teacher at a Studienseminar probably has. Well, and for the "strangers to the world of publishing" bit: Google offers more than twice the number of hits for Stefan Herre, (PI's owner and founder) Heribert Seifert gets.

Kewil's Fakten&Fiktionen, a one-man-effort, can boast a respectable rank 27 among the German blogs. Kudos!

That said, Kewil is one of those bloggers that make me always cringe when I realise that we are on the same side of the criticising-Islam-issue (a feeling that is very probably mutual). But, interestingly and revealingly, it wasn't Kewil's Nazi-history-relativising or bordering on antisemitic content that got Seifert's attention, but this blogger's criticism of Islam.

Kewil's (a nom de plume) popularity-factor at Google is thrice that of Seifert's.

Gudrun Eussner's website, notably another non-blog, contains a wealth of articles, meticulously written and even better researched, on many issues, including, but not limited to, the threat of Islam to our Western culture.

Dr. Gudrun Eussner is a political scientist with Orientalism as minor subject who used to work for international organisations in the Middle East and Google mentions her ten times more frequently than -- you guessed it -- Heribert Seifert.

[Notabene that the "Heribert Seifert" hits include the mentionings of another chap similarly named (my condolences!) who is a proficient table-tennis player and that the recent blog-reactions to the NZZ-article boosted the results to boot.]

Much of what those blogs are publishing is without doubt unappetising, laden with resentment and no argument for their claim to counter the «cartel of silence of the mainstream-media» with truth. Because they do not offer own research. With the tunnel-vision of the Islam-hating zealot, those culture warriors are scouring the websites of the international media for the truth and they even pay attention to the local sections. Thus, an extremely biased selection is compiled, which is massively offered and allows for no distinction. There work is specifically geared at the knocking down of those boundaries, by which for example dailies are discriminating the important from the less important. Those bloggers are turning an act of abuse of Turkish youth, which was previously limited to the local section of a Bavarian daily into an event that can be noticed worldwide.

That exactly those "boundaries by which… dailies are discriminating the important from the less important" can be -- and ARE -- used as a massive manipulation tool by those very dailies seems to escape our paragon of publishing accomplishment, expert usage of the tools of the trade and good journalistic practice, and the fact that he finds the above mentioned news report not noteworthy allows us to get a whiff of from where Seifert is coming.

Let me limit the rest of this post to Roncesvalles, not because I feel a necessity to justify myself, but because I know my own blog and work best.

On May 3, the day before the slanderous NZZ-article appeared, the start page of my blog contained the following posts:

"The Ugly Duck(ling) Narcissist Who Thinks He Is A Swan", "KAWOOOM QUACK QUACK", "Cross-post from badeagle.org", and "LOL ROFL ROFLMAO ROFLMAOPMP", all four about a petty private feud I am childishly cultivating, "Obituary for David Reimer" an anti-feminist topic, "On a completely different personal note", "on another personal note" and "on a personal note", all about, as indicated by the headers, personal matters, "It Stinks Where 'It' Thinks" is one of my frequent (and better ones, by the way) rants about German history, as is "The Perennial Wish to Kill Jews by Proxy". "Media Darlings of the Unenlightened Masses" is about the notorious German lack of discernment and has only a very peripheral connection with Islam, if any, "Happy Easter" just shows a picture of the pope, "A Well-Meaning Suggestion for American Homeschoolers" is one of those rants I usually deliver when I caught some culturally over-zealous American talking about things German he patently knows nothing about and "The Selective Approach of Breaking Taboos" is about a case of incest and its apoplogists in Germany.

"The Strange Effects of Mountain Air" is about a German politician who aspires to talk to "Taliban moderates" (probably accompanied by multipara virgins),"Some Facts about Leeds University" is about the curbing of academic freedom at an English university, "Guilt Is A Mighty Lever" is about a case of perversion of justice by a German court in a divorce suit, "The Fox, The Henhouse …" is about another case of perversion of justice in a different context, whereas "Fibonacci Series for Dhimmies" is about fashionable self-hating and cultural relativist media-drivel and "Ten Years of Innocence Abused" is a travesty about the endless patience the media is mustering up when it is about murdering Jews in the Middle East. All of those posts are NOT ABOUT Islam, but about reactions TO Islam, but I am not petty.

Doubtlessly about Islam is the entry "Islam is tolerance" -- about the imprisonment of a blogger in Egypt to be precise.

Interestingly, it escaped our master-researcher's attention that I, on the start page of my blog, questioned the source of a report of a Muslim atrocity, even to the extent of contacting Robert Spencer who had published it. Three posts, "Untruth does not go away just because it is buried in the blog bilges -- redux", "untruth does not go away just because it is buried in the blog bilges" and "The Sheer Monstrosity Defies Belief " are about it. But what the hell, a phrase like "the tunnel-vision of the Islam-hating zealot" HAD to come out not to cause Heribert mental flatulences.

I will even grant our teacher of teachers that he may not be able to see that I am performing a critical assessment of sources far beyond what journalists are usually doing or what would be necessary according to the standard of a blog that is not part of a post-doc project, or that I keep meticulously opinion and facts apart. Recognising that would be a matter of both, analytic skills and intellectual honesty, which is clearly not everybody's thing. However, master-researcher Seifert didn't even notice what was plainly in front of his nose: namely that I use exclusively major media like DER SPIEGEL (repeatedly), Reuters, International Herald Tribune, DIE ZEIT, Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History, Der Standard, DIE WELT, UPI, The Guardian, or the WDR-website. Not a single local paper or -section in sight. He ignored, too, that I am backing up the information and opinions I provide by in-depth links, and to a far greater extent any journalist in the print media would (and could) do.

I believe he didn't even bother to read my blog, or the others, for that. As well as he sold us the 33-entries-blog Dhimmideutsch as a "Battle-Blog", he just read Roncesvalles' sub-header and started to drool like a Pavlovian dog hearing the dinner bell. And he doesn't even know what a blog is or he wouldn't have included Eussner's and Ulfkotte's websites in his list.

And just when I was in such fine fettle, I discovered this at the political feature pages of Deutschland Radio:

Trade Union newspapers contain amazingly open descriptions of day-to-day multiculturalism at schools full of violence and racism, which, this time, is coming from the immigrant children. Teachers, some of whom are working for decades dedicatedly and ready for dialogue in "problem neighborhoods", are describing in detail their disappointments and failures.

And their shepherded "victims", the migrants, of all people are sometimes not as innocent as they's like to appear. There are annoying stories of brutality and neglect, of broken-down families, from the destruction of cultural certainties, which makes "integration" to a hardly reachable goal.

What remains of his beef with the "Battle-Bloggers" then? Does Heribert only trust trade union sources? Or do we have just a pedestrian hack here who makes up his shit as he goes along, depending on the current drool-factor of the topic and the lines he and the NZZ are needing?

Get a blog, master researcher! I'll even explain to you what it is, and maybe, one day, you'll get at least THAT way recognition you clearly don't deserve.

---

Seifert closes his article with an appreciative nod towards a site with a less blunt assessment of Islam than the unloved "Battle-Bloggers", the Internet-portal Qantara ("Dialogue with the Islamic World"), whose intellectual dishonesty is of montrous proportions. Qantara is an effort of, among others, the Goethe-Institut, vanguard and flagship of German culture worldwide. That is the same Goethe-Institut, mind you, whose former director of the Ramallah office and then (January 2003) director of the Damaskus office (a Protestant pastor, which makes him automatically an expert of anything good and noble) dubbed Palestinian Arab terrorists "freedom fighters" and was, after a lot of soul-searching, harshly disciplined by a transfer to India, presumably because it's safely Jew-free. Not because anybody saw anything much wrong about his views, but because the cleric's selective liberation-geared ardour, which goes down so well at home in Germany, might cause some raised eyebrows abroad.

The Goethe-Institut, too, is the organisation who wiped Israel off their map. Everything not to offend the Arabs. They could get mad with us.

Or the Turks in Gelsenkirchen with Heribert, for that.

Herzlichen Glückwunsch Gudrun!

Dr. Gudrun Eussner's www.eussner.net about politics and culture, is the best German language web site in the entire Internet. If you read German and are a lateral thinker who prefers to think outside the box, you'll find a wealth of information there. Without her encouragement, support and helpful information, this blog would long be dead.

Happy Birthday and Many Happy Returns, Gudrun!

Who Botched the Oath and Why?

Some say that Roberts botched it, some say Obama. One thing is sure: It was an unusual swearing-in:

Roberts: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
Obama: I am.
Roberts: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
Obama: I, Barack…
Roberts: … do solemnly swear…
Obama: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
Roberts: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
Obama: … that I will execute…
Roberts: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
Obama: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
Roberts: … and will to the best of my ability…
Obama: … and will to the best of my ability…
Roberts: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Roberts: So help you God?
Obama: So help me God.
Roberts: Congratulations, Mr. President.

My friend Gudrun Eussner, who owns one of the most serious and competent Islam-critical German-language websites, has a theory, a theory that may appear far-fetched to many, but here it is anyway: She says Obama stuttered because he intended to swear as "Barack Obama" and not as "Barack Hussein Obama". Thus, his Muslim part wouldn't have been included in the oath and set the Muslim Obama free to do what he has to do. "Hussein Obama" didn't, after all, swear the oath.

Judge Roberts, so Gudrun thinks, (Gudrun holds a doctorate in political sciences. Now retired, she used to work for many years for NGOs in the Middle East and has come across taqqiya before...) has unmasked him and Obama has shown in front of millions of viewers what he is.

Roberts is the man of whom Senator Obama said:

...when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

Should Gudrun be right, Roberts has used his formidable skills here on behalf of a desperate attempt to unmask a dangerous fraudster.

But then, maybe Judge Roberts has never heard of taqqiya and really just fouled it up.

We will, I am afraid, see.

Plenty of video clips online to get an own impression.

Travesty Turned Tragedy

Gudrun Eussner's website was taken off the web by the (German) provider yesterday. The site is a paragon of Internet seriousness and respectability, not a conglomerate of abusive rants like this blog. Her meticulous way to provide sources and proof for everything she writes has even earned her the friendly leg-pulling epithet "Queen of Footnotes". Gudrun holds, after all, a PhD in political sciences. Her site is, however, Islam-critical.

Why was the site taken off the web? Because she had published a bill of indictment against a chap who is charged with having insulted the Muslim faith by selling lav paper with a "Koran" imprint somewhere deep in the German provincial backwaters. Now she, too, is charged with a criminal offense nobody knew it existed (save the informer, of course), namely the publishing of a bill of indictment prior to the trial (§ 353d StGB -- German Penal Code).

A law that was originally meant to protect the rights of the defendant is used here to intimidate. (Which is, of course, just my personal interpretation of the matter, so take no notice of it.)

Gudrun's site is online again now because the offensive document was removed, but the legal action against her is still on.

Watch this space for more.

Defining Down the Dangerous

My friend Gudrun Eussner has discovered Lawrence Auster's VFR and made me aware of this entry on Dutch novelist and writer Leon de Winter, whose oeuvre is well known to both of us:

My brain is running out of the neurotransmitters that transmit amazement. The Wall Street Journal has an article this week that calls on the Netherlands to cancel the trial of Geert Wilders--but not because it is wrong to put a man on trial for stating opinions; and not because it is totalitarian to send a man to prison for criticizing Islam. In fact, the author, Leon de Winter, does not actually find fault with the Netherlands' "hate-speech" laws under which Wilders is being tried, and his strongest criticism of the effort by Dutch prosecutors to put Wilders in prison for his opinions that it is "preposterous." He does not call it tyrannical Why, then, does de Winter want the trial to be stopped? Because the trial will expose the violent, hate-filled teachings of Islam, and that must be prevented at all costs. As he writes: "On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam."

There's a secondary harm de Winter sees resulting from the trial: Wilders might be convicted. But, as de Winter makes clear, the reason he wants to prevent that outcome is not that Wilders would be fined or go to jail and that the people of the West would be scared into silence on the subject of the encroaching power of Islam. No, de Winter want to prevent the conviction of Wilders because it will make Wilders more popular and help advance his cause.

From de Winter's reasoning it is clear that if Geert Wilders had not declared at the opening of the trial on January 20 his intention to make the truth of his statements about Islam the basis of his defense, de Winter would not have called for the cancellation of the trial. He is doing so, not in order to protect Wilders and other besieged Islam critics from tyrannical leftist governments, but in order to protect Islam from the truth.

One last point. From a quick look around the Web, it appears that conservative websites think that de Winter's column is pro-Wilders, mainly because of its title, "Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders." They don't seem to realize that the column is anti-Wilders, and pro-Islam.

While de Winter's bigotry is indeed stunning, it's not all that unusual not to read past the headline and there seems to be such a dearth of followers for conservatives, that they seem to jump on any impossible partner, like a fortyish spinster desperate for a husband, or start drooling like Pavlovian dogs, only it's not the dinner bell but some random key words that match with their "conservative detection" nodes inside what is left of their grey matter. But there is more to this article, and about that later.

Again by Gudrun, I was made aware of this entry by de Winter at Pajamas Media: Obama Is Now Showing His True Colors as a Radical. No doubt that will push the salivary glands of the partner-starved conservative spinsters into overdrive. (Pardon the mixed methaphors!)

As a community organizer, Barack Obama was heavily influenced by the theories of Saul Alinsky, who was a non-partisan neo-Marxist focused on the non-violent transformation of civil society. In Germany, a similar model was called der Marsch durch die Institutionen — “the long journey through the institutions.”

This conventional Obama-critique, something I have read countless times before, and better argued, for that, is not particularly noteworthy. However, what IS, is de Winter's translation of the German word "Marsch" as "long journey". How a child of Holocaust survivors and neighbour to the German people can NOT know what the German word "Marsch" means AND IMPLIES, is beyond me. Besides, "Marsch durch die Institutionen" is an idiomatic term within political science with a defined meaning.

What about this, Mr. de Winter?

"After the violent suppression of the Jewish revolt, the Germans took a long journey into the Warsaw Ghetto."

Or this?

On September 1st, 1939, the German Wehrmacht embarked upon a long journey through Poland."

It doesn't seem to be totally off to say now that he probably doesn't know any German. Granted! But even if he doesn't know a smidgeon of that language, which I doubt (Dutch people are fond of pretending to, but usually they DO know, and even more than just a smidgeon), what about that:

English: "Right about face!"
German: "Rechtsum kehrt, marsch!"
Dutch: "Rechtsom keert, mars!"

So there! He uses a euphemism to exculpate the left, a left who purposefully chose that very military term, from any militant deportment. And in the same spirit he uses in the WSJ article Lawrence Auster quotes for the Koran the definition -- Listen well! -- "the Holy Book of Islam", as normally only a Muslim would and lo and behold, it is, like German radical leftism, not dangerous anymore. And all that by means of a linguistic little trick.

What makes somebody tick who sounds more like a disciple than a critic of Communist/Marxist fellow-traveller Saul Alinsky?

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure.

So there again! And for that child of Holocaust survivors the German militant (and antisemitic) left didn't proclaim to "march" through the institutions in 1968 but to make "a long journey" through it, and for that Jew, whose iconic country of Israel is under threat by X million hateful Muslims, the Koran is "the Holy Book of Islam". Intellectual sluttery and moral cowardice won't take you very far, Mr. de Winter. Not that Pajamas Media will stop publishing you. After all, even Phyllis Chesler doesn't give them the creeps. Your (rather interesting) novels will go on selling well. But the Germans (in spite of enjoying your books), the left and the Muslims will go on hating you and your brethren, however much you will suck up to politically correct prescribed terminology and thinking.

Words from The Wise

In an email, my friend Gudrun Eussner says how it is:

Heute steht es in meinem Provinzblatt klipp&klar: die Karikaturen-Affäre wurde angeheizt aus den Palästinensergebieten nach dem Sieg der Hamas. Mit von der Partie war die Leitung der Muslimbruderschaft in Kairo, obgleich Ägypten kein "diktatorisch regiertes Land" sei (sic!).

Die arabischen Staaten wollen es m.E. jetzt wissen. Es scheint eine Machtprobe zu sein: wenn Ihr die Hamas nicht weiter finanziert, dann gibt's Ärger auf allen, selbst in entferntesten Bereichen, wo der Islam vorwärts kommen könnte. Mir ist es sehr deutlich: wenn jetzt die EU und die USA (!!!) nachgeben, dann ist uns die weitere Islamisierung Europas sicher. Das kann doch aber in niemandes Interesse sein.
_______________________________________

Today, my [French] one-horse-town rag says it in no uncertain terms: the cartoon-affair was fuelled from the Palestinian territories after the victory of the Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo was part of the team, although Egypt is no "dictatorship" (sic!).

I believe that the Arab countries are going to compel a decision now. To me, this seems to be a showdown: If you don't pay for Hamas anymore you'll regret it, even when it comes to peripheral issues, as long as they will support Islam. I think it's very clear: if the EU and the USA (!!!) are giving in now, further Islamisation of Europe is imminent. But that can't be in anybody's best interest.

Dear Gudrun, you are so right, but if one's own best interest were of any importance, the world, or rather: our own lemming-society, would be a better place.

The Marx-Mohammed Pact

This is a brilliant analysis of the European attitude towards Muslim immigration by the blogger Fjordman, who has sadly given up his own blog but publishes occasionally at other major blogs. This is from Robert Spencer's Dhimmi Watch:

Electing a New People: The Leftist - Islamic Alliance
A new essay by the European writer Fjordman:

Bertolt Brecht wrote a satirical poem
after the 1953 East German risings:
"The solution
After the uprising of 17 June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the People
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the Leftist parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural immigration parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: "I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money." The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.

There is, of course, nothing new in buying votes and "clients" by promising them access to other people's money. This was the essence of Leftism in the first place. However, although this is probably a flaw in the democratic system, democracy has still functioned within the borders of stable nation states. This flaw gets a lot more dangerous when combined with massive immigration, where certain political parties simply import people from other nations, even vocal enemies of their country, to shore up their own short-term support in elections. This will in the longer term breed resentment among the native population, who will in this way be forced to fund their own colonization. In the context of Europe, Muslim immigration could turn democracy into a self-defeating system that will eventually break down because native Europeans no longer feel that it serves their interests.

Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional, Judeo-Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an evil obstacle blocking the road to the Socialist Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin said that borders between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway. [...] Omer Taspinar describes how "Europe's Muslim Street," the 15 million or more Muslims of the European Union, is becoming a more powerful political force than the fabled Arab street: "This political ascendance threatens to exacerbate existing strains within the trans-Atlantic relationship. The presence of nearly 10 million Muslims versus only 700,000 Jews in France and Germany alone helps explain why continental Europe might look at the Middle East from a different angle than does the United States. Indeed, French and German concerns about a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq or Washington's blind support for Israel are at least partly related to nervousness about the Muslim street at home." "In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, a Muslim swing vote is already having a critical impact."

Iranian-in-exile Amir Taheri, too, has noticed this "red-black" cooperation. According to him, Europe's hard Left "sees Muslims as the new under-class" in the continent: "The European Marxist-Islamist coalition does not offer a coherent political platform. Its ideology is built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system."

This cooperation has received support from Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. Carlos has said thatIslam is the only force capable of persuading large numbers of people to become "volunteers" for suicide attacks against the US. "Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US," he said. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "once you decide that American-led "globalisation" is the main enemy, then any revolt against it is better than none at all. In some way yet to be determined, Al-Qaeda might be able to help to stave off global warming."

Christopher Caldwell, writing about this Islamic-leftist alliance, tells of how the second annual European Social Forum in 2003 was held in three Communist-controlled suburbs around Paris. "Muslims were hugely overrepresented among the Social Forum's delegates." The yearnings of radical Muslims are now at the core of the Social Forum's universe. "They have jostled aside the left-wing economics and focus on global markets that once dominated." The key sign of this shift was the Forum's anointing of Tariq Ramadan as the event's co-star. Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies in Geneva, Switzerland, is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and a hero to Muslims in Europe.

The Muslims are quite happy with this collaboration, at least for now: "We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestine: ahlan wa sahlan (welcome)," quipped Abu-Hamza al-Masri, the British Islamist firebrand who is awaiting extradition to the US on various criminal charges. "The Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy."

The American William S. Lind calls this "the Marx-Mohammed Pact:" "What made possible the recent bombings in London (July 2005), and the many more that almost assuredly will follow in Europe and the United States, is the Marx-Mohammed Pact. Once again, two sworn enemies, Marxism - - specifically, the cultural Marxism commonly known as Political Correctness - - and Islam, have made a Devil's bargain whereby each assists the other against a common enemy, the remnants of the Christian West." "London was only a foretaste of what those policies will bring to Europe and America. If we dare rip down the camouflage nets cultural Marxism has erected to blind us we see Europe has two real choices: an infinity of Londons or second expulsion of the Moors."

Of course, the same collaboration happened in Iran, where popular "reformers" such as Ali Shariati in the years before the 1979 revolution infused Islam with aspects of Western thought and made the Marxists believe that they could coexist with Islam. So they cooperated in overthrowing the Shah - and then all the godless Socialists were the first ones to hang from lamp posts around the country when Khomeini and his Islamic cronies seized power. The secular Leftists in Europe know fully well that they do not agree with religious Muslims on some issues, but they believe they are the senior partners in the alliance and that they can "ride the tiger." That may be true now, but for how long will the situation remain like that?

In Denmark, writers Helle Merete Brix, Torben Hansen and Lars Hedegaard think the Muslim immigration and the clashes we are witnessing now is part of a third Islamic Jihad, a third attempt to conquer and subdue the West. The fist one came with the Arabs more than a thousand years ago, the second with the Turks in the early modern era. Will three times be the charm for the Muslims? Will they succeed this time?

Charles Martel at Poitiers.

During the first Jihad, Charles Martel, "The Hammer," brilliant general and founder of the Carolingian Empire, the first Western power after the fall of Rome, defeated the Arabs in the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers) in 732, thus saving Western civilization, and by extension much of the world, from Islam. The Muslims underestimated the strength of the Franks, who they considered barbarians, and allowed them to pick both the time and place of the battle. The Muslims were also burdened with booty. During the battle, members of the Frankish army began freeing prisoners, and fearing loss of their riches, a significant part of the Muslim army abandoned the battle to protect their plunder. Although they managed to conquer Spain, Muslims thus lost the first shot at subduing the European heartland because they were too arrogant and underestimated the strength of their Western opponents, and were too weighed down by and concerned with their riches to fight effectively. Is the same thing happening now, only in reverse, with the arrogant West underestimating their Muslim opponents until it's too late?

Jan Sobieski's winged Polish Hussars who frightened the living daylight out of the enemy.

During the second Jihad, Jan Sobieski, king of Poland, routed the Ottoman armies that had laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Leading a combined force of Polish, Austrian and German troops, Sobieski attacked a numerically superior Turkish army until their lines were broken and the Turks fled in confusion. This was the last time Muslims came close to threatening the West in traditional warfare. They now prefer demographic warfare through migration, combined with terrorism.

The third Jihad started with the oil embargo, the influx of Saudi petrodollars and the beginnings of Eurabia and Muslim immigration to the West in the 1960s and early 70s. During the third Jihad, Leftists all over Europe seem to be opening the gates of Europe from within. "You want to conquer Europe? That's ok. Just vote for us and help us get rid of capitalism and eradicate the Christian heritage of Europe, and we'll let you in. In the meantime, you can enjoy some welfare goodies, and we will ban opposition to this undertaking as racism and hate speech."

Fjordman then goes on analysing the attitude towards Muslim immigration in various European countries in detail, of which I publish the part about Germany here:

In Germany in the general election in 2002, numbers have indicated that about up to 90 percent of the Muslim voters backed Schröder's left-wing coalition. "Some 200,000 German Muslims voted for Schroeder in the elections which he won by only 9,000." Poll data from 2005, when the Social Democratic SPD narrowly lost the election to the conservatives and joined in a coalition with Angela Merkel as Chancellor, indicate that 77 percent of Turkish voters planned to vote for the Social Democrats, followed by 9.2 percent for the Greens and 7.8 percent for the Left Alliance. Pundits said that the Muslim vote was likely to reward Schröder's Social Democrats (SPD) for its anti-Iraq war position and pro-Muslim policies. A meager 4.8 percent said they would cast votes for the conservative CDU. Cem Özedmir, a member of the European Parliament for Germany's Green Party, said the Christian Democrats had made a strategic decision in not trying to attract Turkish voters. "It is too high a cost," he explained. "For every Turkish voter the party might win, it would lose two or three German voters because of the party's conservative attitudes toward immigration and its social base." Guelay Yasin, manager of the Turkish-German Chamber of Commerce, made it clear for which party most of her members would vote. "We will vote for the party which supports Turkey's membership to the EU," Yasin said. The Social Democrats would profit from this since Schröder had personally supported Turkey's becoming a member of the EU.

In fact, the major challenge to the Social Democrats in vying for the Muslim vote in Germany, especially the country's 2.6 million Turks, 840,000 of them with German passports, comes from other Leftist parties. Some warned that the SPD could lose a number of Turkish voters to the newly formed and immigrant-friendly Left Party, a group born out of the marriage of former East German communists and Oskar Lafontaine, the ex-chief of the Social Democrats. Hans-Christian Ströbele, a member of parliament for the Green Party, in 2006 triggered a debate by calling for an official Turkish translation of the German national anthem. Conservatives worried it would send the wrong signal about integration. A Turkish version, Ströbele said, could demonstrate how multicultural German society has become. "I would see it as a sign of integration if citizens of Turkish descent could sing the third verse in Turkish."

To read the rest of the article (a MUST!) click HERE.

Pictures added by me.

---

For those who read German, I strongly recommend Dr. Gudrun Eussner's articles covering Tariq Ramadan and the Islamification of Europe:

Der Islamist Tariq Ramadan: "verunglimpft wie ein muslimischer Jude"

Prof. Dr. Tariq Ramadan - 12 Jahre im Dienste des europäischen Islamismus

Dr. Tariq Ramadan wird nun allmählich böse!

More at Gudrun Eussner's Homepage.