Foo Foo and Miss Piggy Go Islam Critics

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! -- are showing backbone again. Their self-effacement and humility is legendary:

A Statement from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the Freedom Defense Initiative

It has come to our attention today that Martin Mawyer, who had been scheduled to appear with us at the premiere of Mawyer's film [I guess that is Wilder's film] Islam Rising in Los Angeles on May 1, has had attributed to him a series of offensive anti-gay statements made in 1997. While we don't expect to agree on all issues with those with whom we collaborate on anti-jihad efforts, we do not wish to give the impression that we endorse, agree with, or approve of in any way the statements attributed to Mr. Mawyer. Nor do we wish to give the impression that Geert Wilders or the Freedom Defense Initiative approves of such statements.

The Freedom Defense Initiative, like Geert Wilders, stands for the human rights of people of all creeds, colors, and sexual orientations against the global jihad, which works daily to impose the discriminatory and brutal strictures of Sharia upon free people. Sharia denies basic rights to women, non-Muslims, and gays, and exalts its brutal and inhumane system as divine law. In standing for human rights in this way, we consider it of utmost importance that our message not be clouded by other agendas, as we labor to build a broad coalition of free people who hold a wide variety of perspectives on other issues, united against the slavery of Islamic law.

In order, then, to avoid creating any false impressions about our agenda and goals, or those of Geert Wilders, we have decided to cancel the event in Los Angeles on May 1.

Well, what can one say? First, that this is so embarrassingly pompous, blantantly self-serving, mind-bogglingly dumb, and flatulently bumptious that it merits a full re-print here.

Second, it is interesting to notice that the Innocents Abroad, who had had no compunctions about rubbing shoulders with European fringe-Nazis, are getting their underwear in a knot about a homophobic slur. What did Mawyer say exactly? A Google search containing "Martin Mawyer anti-gay statement 1997" leads to this:

In 1997, after Ellen Degeneres came out as a lesbian on her TV sitcom, Mawyer accused her of "DUMPING HER FILTHY LESBIAN LIFESTYLE RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF YOUR LIVING ROOM!! ... If we allow the tidal wave of gay and lesbian smut to continue to pour into our homes, it will utterly consume us in no time at all!"

Mawyer had been unknown to me so far, which makes it easier for me to reduce my statement to what he said. Every word is true and amply proven over the thirteen years since Mawyer spoke them out, which leads to point three and the question in which world Geller and Spencer are living. Have Tweedledum and Tweedledee never twigged that there is a world of difference between not stringing homosexuals to cranes on one hand and letting them corrupt and insult our values, tastes and sensibilities by the swinish, aggressive public displays of their sexuality on the other?

Those ostentations are not "vibrant", "colourful" or the expression of an "alternative lifestyle", they are debased, rotten to the core, degenerated and shameless and a culture that tolerates, even lauds, something like that as an expression of progress deserves to vanish from the face of the earth.

Have Tweety and Sylvester never sensed a whiff of how purpose- and successfully the "gay" lobby seeks to abuse the repressive powers of the state to silence all expressions of opposition to their agenda? How every concession is met with new complaints and demands? That "equal rights" are the last thing they want? How an unremarkable majority silently endorses an aggressive political leadership? How frighteningly similar that strategy is to the way Muslims reach their goals?

Fourth, something fishy may be going on there. Even Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels can't really be QUITE that dumb and dumber and believe that their Freedom Defense Initiative will have the slightest influence of the Dutch elections and that anybody will notice favourably that they threw for Wilders' sake an obscure American right-wing Christian conservative under the bus. So Martin Mawyer made 13 years ago some pretty outspoken anti-"gay" statements. He should have made quite a few since, or at least that is the impression I got from my brief acquaintance with that man. Why the 1997 quote? Why side with him in the first place? His general views are well known or so it seems.

But then, maybe it is really just another sort of arse-and-elbow-confusing gaffe, like the Pro-Köln one, when Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders' great confidante, must have failed to ask him why HE did NOT attend the rally. Possibly, she finally and too late, namely after she had consented to attend, had a word with him and that made her and Spencer cancel their attendance, and not the fear of dreadful Charles Johnson of LGF-infame. Somehow, things like this tend to end in some sort of terrible stupidity-induced cataleptic ennui.

---

The pictures above are from "Love Parades" and "Gay Pride" events all over the world.

I recommend the following reading from this blog for some background information:

About the 2009 "Pro Köln" dustup:

• 02/17: What Americans don't twig
• 04/26: Innocents Abroad
• 04/30: The Unembarrassables
• 05/10: Loose Apes with Razors
• 05/10: Shameless Cologne
• 05/13: The "Fission Fungus"
• 05/15: Rent-A-Nazi
• 10/02: German Patriot now Muslim

About a crucial American fallacy:

Dear American conservative! Did you know that there is a 99,9% probability that somebody you call appreciatively a German (or Austrian, for that) patriot will hate your guts?


"Gay" politicking:

• Islam's Intolerance Is the Fault of the West
• Volker explains what makes the world go round
• All Rights for Everybody
• Importance they don't possess and attention they don't deserve

About 'amour propre' and 'faire référence'

Or: Where Are The Thinking Little Blogger's Role Models

A week or so ago Gudrun Eussner made us aware that Andrew Bostom accuses his erstwhile friend Robert Spencer of plagiarism. Shortly after, Lawrence Auster picked it up at VFR and added a photo to his entry where the three Eternal Pillars of Islam Critique look like what they finally turned out to be, a bunch of trolls. Any doubts we may have had about that so far have been safely removed.

The funny-ha-ha level on which Bostom deals with such a grave accusation is something we might expect at a blog like -- say -- this one, but not at a paragon's of serious Islam critique. When all is said and done, the only concrete accusation boils down to Spencer using a Maimonides-quote without crediting Bostom, who had found and used it first. Some of the other alleged, and rather unspecified, transgressions happened, mind you, in 2008.

All this said, there can't be the slightest doubt that the reason for Bostom's undignified, unsubstantiated and over-the-top attack on a former friend and ally is something totally and utterly unrelated to "Islam critique", and that is where this blog entry could end. "Andy" is certainly not the first and not the last paragon of something who unmasks himself in the end as an assclown. However, Lawrence Auster makes us aware that there are further aspects to this when he chides Spencer of narcissism (the pathological variant, no less!) because the latter stated that what Bostom did to him was akin to "give fuel to the Islamic supremacists and their enablers". Frankly, I fail to see that, and while Spencer is not the epitome of Islam critique, he is for many, and for many little bloggers as well, a figure to look up to as an expert and to go to for reference. Whether that is merited or not is a different question. It just is so and such a vile, basically unfounded and unfair attack might indeed give fuel to jihadists. Auster then goes on to add a hefty dose of Luke 18:9-12 to his criticism, which is a pity.

Si tacuisses, and all that, looking further into the matter, it becomes patently clear that Spencer (Geller isn't even in the picture) is really painfully miscast for this role, at least for a little blogger who does his (or her) homework. Case in point:

This is a common species of wishful thinking and willful blindness. Its proponents imagine that Islam is a Religion of Peace(TM) with no anti-Semitic elements (you know the drill, Islam reveres the "People of the Book," etc.), but it was corrupted by the Nazis. Thus all one needs to do to solve this problem is to eliminate the Nazi elements and call Muslims back to the true teachings of the Qur'an, and the jihad will end. How wonderful! Except it's completely fictional, and based on ignorance or denial of the jihad doctrine, Islamic supremacism, and Qur'anic anti-Semitism.

Note also what my estimable and indefatigable colleague and collaborator Pamela Geller has revealed about the Mufti of Jerusalem's role in the Holocaust, and his own radio broadcasts.

I am not a native English speaker, so my first thought was that is MUST BE my fault. He really wouldn't have said that Pamela Geller revealed something about the Mufti of Jerusalem's role in the Holocaust, and his radio broadcasts. So did he? Lets have a closer look:

Note also what my estimable and indefatigable colleague and collaborator Pamela Geller has revealed about the Mufti of Jerusalem's role in the Holocaust, and his own radio broadcasts

So she didn't publish it, she didn't make it known to a wider public, she didn't introduce the Mufti, his doings and his role in the Holocaust to her readership, no -- she REVEALED it. Merriam Webster informs us about the meaning of the verb "to reveal":

1 : to make known through divine inspiration
2 : to make (something secret or hidden) publicly or generally known
3 : to open up to view : display

Yes he did.

Fact is, this little blogger introduced the Mufti Hadj-Amin El Husseini and his role in the Holocaust to her readership, first on Friday, May 19, 2006 (Child Molesters Comparing Notes) then again on Saturday, May 20, 2006 (A Very Practical and Attractive Religion for Soldiers) and later repeatedly, the last time on December 17, 2009.

I relied on, and quoted, several sources already existing in the Internet, among them Tell The Children The Truth, La bibliothèque proche-orientale or Kosovo and the Holocaust: Falsifying History and ISLAM UNDER THE SWASTIKA: The Grand Mufti and the Nazi Protectorate of Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941-1945, both by Carl Savich. At the time of my first entries about the Mufti, I advised my readers, too: "... or do a simple Google search, as the sources are too numerous to mention here." Here are the results of a Google search performed today including the parameters "mufti" and "broadcast". "Revealed", eh?

So what did Geller say? The link Spencer provides above leads to one of her usual shrill, PMS-ing and self-serving posts. Her (uncredited) quotes can be traced back, for example, to the website "The Empress' ooops... The Emperor's Clothes", and to the books "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini" by Chuck Morse and "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam" by David Dalin, John Rothmann and Alan Dershowitz.

Right! Pamela Geller "revealed" the truth about Hadj-Amin, invented the wheel and devised the Wonderbra. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) And what that Robert Spencer makes I better don't say because even this blog has a lower bound to its tone, besides, we don't want to give fuel to jihadists and their enablers (ha ha). Is this "plagiarism"? Of course not. A term like that would lead us in the realms of academia or at least serious journalism. It is plain, simple and unabashed Internet attention whoredom on a par with some pimpled teens' bragging at an Internet social network about their sexual derrings-do. What little bloggers need is not a role model to look up to, but some clay-feet detector and a lot more self-reliance.

---

Here are some of my earlier Foo Foo (or is it Kermit?) and Miss Piggy posts:
Foo Foo and Miss Piggy Go Islam Critics
'German Patriot' Converts to Islam
Loose Apes with Razors
The Unembarrassables
Innocents Abroad

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.

'German Patriot' Converts to Islam

The German "Pro" parties (Pro Köln being the best known one), so I stated when the rally organized by that party gained some notoriety by Robert Spencer's and Pamela Geller's absence in May, are not part of the bona fide "Islam critical" movement. In fact, so I argued, they have nothing against Islam as such, and don't shy away from rubbing shoulders with a world view to which they basically feel a marked affinity, first because it is totalitarian, and second because it is antisemitic/anti-American. What they do NOT want, however, are strangers at their own doorstep. This they call "Überfremdung" -- literally "overforeignisation" -- which is an undisputed- and definitely racist term. It has, I say it again, nothing to do with Islam, but with skin colour.

Here are my previous posts covering that specific issue, which I strongly recommend for further clarification:

-- The Pro-Köln-Dustup:

• 02/17: What Americans don't twig
• 04/26: Innocents Abroad
• 04/30: The Unembarrassables
• 05/10: Loose Apes with Razors
• 05/10: Shameless Cologne
• 05/13: The "Fission Fungus"
• 05/15: Rent-A-Nazi

-- A Crucial American Fallacy:

Dear American conservative!
Did you know that there is a 99,9% probability that somebody you call appreciatively a German (or Austrian, for that) patriot will hate your guts?

You will see that I, too, made perfectly clear that many decent people are among those who follow the "Pro" movement for want of any alternative in a political environment hell-bent on submission to Islam. I outlined as well the scandalously hypocritical and unconstitutional action of the German authorities and political classes towards a movement that is undoubtedly legal, as much as one may disapprove of that.

Maybe this bit of news sheds some additional light on it:

Roger Schwedes, former head of the regional branch of Pro-NRW Ruhrgebiet, recently converted to Islam. In an interview with the Islamist website "muslim-markt" he reports in detail about his time with "Pro NRW".

As a former member of the "Republikaner" [one of the -- just -- legal parties in Germany bordering on National Socialist ideology] he considered the "people's movement Pro NRW" young, fresh and full of new ideas... He didn't object to the "Überfremdung" assumptions of the movement because of the overproportional criminal behaviour among migrants. His goal was to find an alternative to the face- and characterless major people parties. Criticism of Islam wasn't all that important to him, what he wanted was to turn away from anti-German, pro-American and capitalism-orientated politics, so Schwedes explained.

[Follows a lengthy complaint about internal strife within the Pro-movement.] The informal Pro NRW meetings in various regions turned out to be nothing but palaver by frustrated lower middleclass Babbits, just eager to vent about "Ali" from next door. However, through Pro NRW he became familiar with Islam.

Roger Schwedes' conversion to Islam should be seen with a critical eye not just because of his former membership with the Republikaner and Pro NRW, but as well because of antisemitic statements approved by him. Additional information at Politblogger. Interestingly, Pro NRW claims now to have expelled him because of that, which, not surprisingly, is untrue: Schwedes resigned out of his own motivation and the head of Pro NRW, Markus Beisicht, thanked him for his cooperation over many years and the achieved "success for the organisation". Successor of Schwedes in the Ruhrgebiet happened to become the notorious Neonazi defence lawyer André Picker.

The interview mit Roger Schwedes can be read in full here.

(Translation mine.)

I wonder why nobody (myself included) asked Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders' great confidante, why HE did NOT attend the Pro-Köln rally back in May. Is it possible that she finally and much too late, namely after she had consented to attend, had a word with him and that THAT was the reason why she and Spencer refrained from attending, and not the fear that Charles Johnson of LGF-infame might drown their cyber rubber duckie? But it's always easier to blame somebody else than to admit that one has made a mistake, isn't it?

And so this self-hating German liberal leftist pinko commie (sorry if I forgot a couple of names I've been called) rests her case.

Innocents Abroad or Fool's Paradise

There is a major brouhaha going on among "Islam critics" because Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have announced that they may attend the Anti-Islamization Congress of the German Pro-Köln movement in May. Invectives are bandied about liberally and there is little room left between "Poster Girl for Eurofascists" resp. "publisher of the anti-Islam Internet hate site "Jihad Watch"" on one side, and "dynamo of energy and a paragon of courage and fearlessness" resp. "the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad" on the other.

Whatever they are, neither Geller nor Spencer are doing themselves a favour by posting inane statements like the one claiming that one of the leading members of Pro-Köln isn't a Nazi because . . . he says so.

Manfred Rouhs, a Pro-Köln member of the city council, is not a neo-Nazi. Here is a statement from Rouhs:
"blah blah yabber yack yack..."

Unbelievable!

I have blogged about Pro-Köln and other branches of the "Pro"-movement before. They are not "Eurofascists" (what sort of hollow epithet is that anyway) and, as I said before, they are attracting quite a few wellmeaning, decent citizens who are just desperate because the mainstream parties are exposing them helplessly to the Islamic threat. But they are not, by no stretch of the imagination, either, the clear-cut democrats, freedom lovers and defenders of Western values as which American conservatives doggedly insist to see them.

I am committing a major transgression now. I am quoting -- horribile dictu -- from LGF, the blog of Charles Johnson, ring leader in the open season on Geller and Spencer. And appreciatively to boot, which makes me now a liberal pinko commie leftist and ally of Evil Charles. But whatever. In a comment, the German blogger Gegenkritik states:

Hey all. Something more about pro Köln: their "pro-Israel"-stance is relatively new, it's mainly PI-news-founder Stefan Herre, who appears at their demonstrations with israeli-flags. He was also the one to interview former CDU deputy mayor of district Cologne-Ehrenfeld (where the mosque will be built), Jörg Uckermann, who is now one of the leading figures of pro-Köln, and it was Herre who convinced him to to take a "pro-Israel"-stance.

Some years ago, pro-Köln was openly hostile towards Israel: here's a leaflet (Google translated) that was handed out by pro-Köln's student-organization, entitled "Solidarity with Palestine!". You'll find the typical anti-zionism in it: Israel is waging war against the Palestinians, Ariel Sharon is seeking for cruel vengeance, the German Goverment should not deliver weapons but put pressure on Israel.
Two years ago, pro-Köln defended the stance of the German Bishops, who compared the situation of the Palestinians with the Jews in the Warsaw-Ghetto (Here is a LGF-post about this).

To be fair, all this is still not a real Nazi-position, and it is the common stance of 90% of Germans. But there is more: their agitation against the planned Jewish museum in Cologne. The background: after the destruction of most Jewish buildings in Cologne in the Nazi-era, a private foundation was fundraising for a museum about the Jewish history in Cologne. The foundation got the building permission, but suddenly, nearly all media as well as the city council were against the museum.

The only newspapers that were still in favor of the planned museum, were those of the Axel Springer AG, who are often attacked by leftists, muslims and Neonazis alike because of their Corporate principles ("To promote reconciliation of Jews and Germans and support the vital rights of the State of Israel"). Neonazis and other Anti-semites often take this point to lament about the "jewish controlled media" ("Verjudete Presse" was the original slogan in the Nazi-era) and it's very clear that pro-Köln is referring to this.

All this shows, that pro-Köln's pro-Israel-attitude is essentially a fake.

The only thing that is wrong with this is that it was published at LGF and will so inadvertently support Charles Johnson's unconsidered, uncalled-for and crude smearing of everybody and his pet ferret of whom he doesn't approve as a "fascist". Had Gegenkritik sent this statement to some conservative bloggers it might have triggered off some second thoughts.

Might. But I doubt it.

Anyway, now, as it appeared at the dreaded LGF, it CAN NOT BE RIGHT in the eyes of those who know everything already. Wanna bet? Not facts count, but where they appear and whether one likes them.

My blog has a fair ranking at Technorati, specifically for a one-woman-effort, at one time it used to be in the fortythousands, but I am not complaining. My SiteMeter count varies greatly, depending on how much blogging I do. My best result ever was well over 400 page views a day. That was, interestingly, for this entry. So I know I am at least read. I am decrying for years now the grotesque, hysterical (but strategic) exaggeration of the "rightwing danger" in Germany. In fact, it is one of the main topics at this blog. I decry as well the fact that people who stand for politically non-correct ideas are denounced as "right wing populists" (ever met a "left wing populist", by the way?) or "right wing extremists". Believe me (but you won't) I know a Nazi when I see one and if Charles Johnson says so too, he is STILL right, although his may be the factuality of a broken clock.

I believe I have established over the years the reputation of an intellectually honest blogger and a diligent researcher, and, as the Gegenkritik-blogger proves, I am not the only one who dares to question the wishful thinking of only too many conservative Americans who seriously think that Germany, that little country from which went out so much good and so much evil, Germany, with its almost twothousand years of history, Germany, with its multitude of age-old people, cultures and traditions within such a limited territory, Germany, which therefore never achieved true national unity, Germany, shaken in its foundations by the Reformation, something from which it is still suffering, Germany, that, historically, always took a different path from other West European nations, is just as easily comprehensible as their own relatively recently colonialised empty slab between two oceans. They seriously think that, because they know yodelling and Panzerlied, that they have a grasp of the German culture and mind and that they know better than educated, thoughtful, native Germans. There is, after all, Babelfish or Google to deliver quality translations of German copy from which one can then cherrypick what one would like to believe. THIS ARROGANCE MAKES ME SICK!

Not that the LGF-blogger is any more hot on fact-finding. The other day he informed us that Politically Incorrect, the major Islam-critic among the German blogs is a "pro-fascist German website". How he can know that without any knowledge of German is beyond me, but it would be presumptuous to presume presumptuousness only in the conservative camp. PI is blog number one among ALL political blogs in Germany, which shows how dearly in need we are of that sort of information. As I am contributing to its English section, I will now carry the title "Euro Fascist" awarded by one of the biggest jerks in all of the Internet with pride.

While I was writing this, one of the people at PI sent me an email with the link to an entry, reporting that Geller and Spencer have cancelled their participation in the Pro-Köln event. Egads! I wish Geller and Spencer (and a host of other American conservative Islam-critics) were able to read what the scummy rabble followers of Pro-Köln in PI's comment section, freedom-loving clear-cut democrats and defenders of Western values all of them, are saying about those two innocents and life in general.

But lucky for them, they can't. As it is, dream on!

A Fission Fungus' Account from Cologne...

Or: Nazis don't go where they are not welcome

UPDATE Wednesday, May 13:

PI is backpedalling. In an entry headed "The Congress - An Alternative Review", they offer a more nuanced account of the events at Cologne. And before I get a dressing-down from a great height by the mighty Baron Bodissey or some other frightfully important Internet-opinion-maker, I better say that I am not privy to all the private correspondence that is bound to have passed back and forth before this entry was published and that my advice to myself is not to jump to conclusions and just translate some brief excerpts from it.

This is about some invited speakers and their statement, that said a lot about Überfremdung and little of criticism of Islam. [We thematized that phenomenon here.]

About Petra Edelmannova, chairman of Narodni Strana ([Czech] National Party) which clocked up a whopping 0.17% at the last elections, who talked in her speech a lot about democracy and sacred duty to resist, we learn that she intends to push for a „final solution in the gipsy question“.

... Apart from that [so Edelmannova] there wasn't any genocide and the 326 victims [at a certain camp], mostly children, were responsible for their own death because of lack of hygiene.

[...]

Of course, the organizers knew all this, they had even been made aware of it by PI. That Edelmannova was graced with a speech at the main rally nevertheless is amazing only if one refuses to recognize the history of Pro Köln. "Gypsies" are targets of their hatred since they were up to their tricks as "Deutsche Liga für Volk und Heimat"...

PI-reader Hufeland writes:

I found it rather disgusting how Beisicht at the rally applauded every sentence of the right-wing extremist Czech Edelmannove (…) With such allies one can not win over voters with traditional conservative vaues...

[...]

Somebody like Wilders from Holland knows why he isn't playing court jester for Beisicht and his cronies, (…)

[...]

Another guest of honour of the congress, Robert Spieler, chairman of the French Nouvelle Droite Populaire, published on August 28, 2007 an enthusiastic article justifying the Iranian activities to build an atomic bomb, which will be, in contrast to the American ones at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only be used for determent purposes... In his speech he totally missed the topic in that he decried "political banks" and capitalism. [We thematized the fact that those valiant "conservatives" have nothing against Islam as such here as well.]

Later in the article, they quote the statement of Norbert Gehrig, which originally triggered off this entry.

And now I can only hope that you-know-who-you-are will read this, as he read the original entry, and go again crying at you-know-whom-I-mean's bosom, telling that he hasn't seen any (but ANY!) trace of a Nazi-presence so that you-know-whom-I-mean can then pass it on to me again, and will, again, get no reply from me in that matter.

But hey I've changed my mind! You-know-who-you-are WILL get one, here and now and on my terms: You say: "I have not seen red-white-black flags (the flag of Imperial Germany) at the rally." So what? Norbert Gehrig didn't say A THING about black-white-red FLAGS, he mentioned flag stickers (pin stickers or embroidery) on basecaps. You CAN read? And yes, Imperial Germany had black-white-red flags. Let's say, for argument's sake (And WOW! DO I love this argument!) that there HAVE been people carrying flags of Imperial Germany. By your reasoning they would be innocent, oldfashioned, conservative monarchists, right? By all let this be heard: Should people carry Imperial German (i.e. black-white-red) flags at rallies, they will be invariably, always, without exception and per definitionem ... what? Yes, you've got it: Nazis! Because Nazis always do that. They do that first to yank the state's chain because the Imperial flags are legal, and second because it gives them the oportunity to gather under something that looks as closely as legally possible like a Nazi flag.

Oh! You didn't know that? One mighty opinion maker more shooting his mouth off without knowing A THING? So what else is new? I, for one, have at least learned one thing during this entire sordid affair: Namely that the importance of a blog has nothing (but NOTHING!) to do with the intellectual capacity behind it, and when I have finished lighting a candle at the altar of Sancta Simplicitas I will come back and tell you what I REALLY think.

Seems somebody has taken the razor away from the ape for the time being. But I guess it's still on the loose.

Start of the original article:

Here is a comment by one of the regular commenters at the German blog Politically Incorrect (see my sidebar) on PI's account of the Pro-Köln rally:

#236 Norbert Gehrig (09. Mai 2009 22:03)

Also ich war wohl auf einer anderen Demo in Köln.

Ich lese hier Dinge die ich vollkommen anders erlebt habe..

Schon auf dem Bahnhof in Leverkusen wurden wir Frankfurter von der Front National aufgefordert,Abstand zu halten. Grund : Unser Fahnen- Israel Fahnen.

Auch die Polizei hatte wohl Probleme die Situation einzuordnen und bildete zeitweise eine Schutzkette vor uns und hinter uns. Ich muss die Polizei für Ihr verhalten loben. Umsichtig und vorausschauend. Sie verstanden zwar nicht warum wir da waren (wir im Laufe der Veranstaltung auch immer weniger), wären aber am Schluss der Veranstaltung bereit gewesen, uns separat auszuschleussen. Zu der Zeit war unser Gruppe über 20 Mann stark.

Ich schreibe nicht weiter. Nein. Ich hatte die Augen offen. Sind keinem die vielen Jugendlichen mit den Rot Weis Schwarzen Fahnenstickern auf den Baseballmützen aufgefallen, die Aufdrucke auf den T-shirts?

Macht die Augen auf Leute. Islamkritiker kommen aus den verschiedensten Schichten. Aber National-Sozialisten und ihre Nachfolger zählen nicht dazu. Die NS Elite war Anhänger der Islamfaschisten, der Großmufti von Jerusalem lebte bis 45 in Berlin.

Und Nazis gehen nicht dahin, wo sie nicht willkommen sind.

Front National war laut einer Pro Köln Aktivistin eingeladen. Sie forderte mich auf, nicht als “Spaltpilz” zu wirken.

Wer schwarz weiß rote Farben trägt, vertritt keine demokratische Vereinigung.

Weder mit National- Sozialisten Nachfolgern, noch mit ihren angeblichen Gegnern der Antifa, mit der sie die Ideologie teilen, sich nur nicht über den Weg einig sind, werde ich gemeinsam arbeiten.

Schwarz Rot Gold ist die Farbe der Republik.

Toll war das Zusammentreffen mit der Christlichen Gruppe aus Köln. Aber wir standen gemeinsam zwischen den Fronten.

Pro Köln hat ein gutes Stück Arbeit vor sich. Durch Taten beweisen, dass sie nichts mit diesen Leuten zu tun haben. Durch Taten..

norbert.gehrig@yahoo.de

---

I must have been at a different rally in Cologne.

What I am reading here is totally different from what I have experienced.

At the railway station in Leverkusen [a nearby town] already, our group from Frankfurt were asked by Front National to keep away from them. Reason : Our Israel banners.

The police, too, must have had difficulties to draw the correct conclusions and formed from time to time a chain to shield us. Kudos to the police, they acted diligently and far-seeing. Although they didn't understand why we were there (a view we started to share increasingly as the rally went on), they were willing to lead us safely from the scene after the rally was over ...

... Have none of you noticed the many young people with the black, white and red banner-stickers on their basecaps? The imprints on their t-shirts?

Keep your eyes open, folks! Islam critics come from all walks of life, but National-Socialists and their successors are not among them. The NS-elite followed the Islam-fascists, the grand mufti of Jerusalem used to live in Berlin until 1945.

And Nazis don't go where they are not welcome.

Front National was, according to a Pro Köln activist, invited. She asked me not to be a "fission fungus" [i.e. divisive].

Those who wear black, white and red colours do not stand for democracy.

I will work with neither, National-Socialist successors nor their alleged enemies, the Antifa, with whom they share the ideology and just can't agree on a mutual path.

Black red and gold are the colours of the Rebublic.

Meeting the Christian group from Cologne was just great. But we were caught together between two fronts.

Pro Köln has a lot of work to do. They'll have to prove by their deeds that they have nothing to do with those people. By their deeds.

And now Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer can go and email Norbert Gehrig that he must have seen things that only exist in Charles Whatshisname's imagination and that they only cancelled their attendance because Charles Whatshisname might have drowned their cyber rubber duckie had they attended, same Charles can tell Norbert Gehrig that it was MUCH worse because he says so and that he (N.G.) is a "Euro fascist" for attending at all. No doubt, all the other valiant and eminently knowledgeable experts of Germany, German culture, history and society and the German political scene on the strength of Robert Shaw's performance in "Battle of the Bulge", from B, like Baron Boddissey, to B, like Brussels Journal, can, and hopefully will, enlighten Norbert Gehrig as well.

And all that while we are scared witless about what might happen to us.