Retirement Update

Update 07.06.2018:
Due to the new EU data security laws, I've disabled comments for this blog.

After having been banned by Facebook four times (last time for 30 days), I've decided to blog again. This is for now limited to my German blog.

The bilingual Editrix' Facebook "Fanpage", however, may be interesting for my Anglophone readers.

Update of the update 12.03.2018:
I've changed focus and design of my style blog "The Evil Style Queen" and there is a new one "Die böse Stilmutter" (something like "The Evil Stylemother").

Enjoy!

Important New Blog

For those who come here because they are interested in Germany and German matters, I can't recommend strong enough Manfred Kleine-Hartlage's new blog German Views, an offshoot of his essay blog Korrektheiten.

My German Blog

I have decided to staple my German blog together with my English language ones. In can be found here now.

It has no comment functionality because it has by far the biggest readership of all my blogs (several hundred single visits per day, about twice what this blog clocks up whose biggest visitor count has been 400 so far and that was only because I got a link from a major German blog), and I don't intend and can't afford to make blogging a full time endeavour.

"Die Editrix auf Deutsch -- Unerwünschte Nachrichten aus der Provinz", means "The Editrix in German" and the rest is stolen from the header of this blog.

Happy Birthday Beak

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

A "Thank You" to My Readers

Update:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... but only too few WANT to know.

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

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

My reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Glitch

To my commenters Bruce Church and Universal Realist:

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

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

Two New Posts ...

... at The Most Destructive Single Cause:
Simper Session
and
Women and Guns.

Two New Posts ...

... at The Most Destructive Single Cause:
The Missing "Y"
and
Sarah Palin and No End.

Three Cheers to Charles Johnson

I have been made aware of the feud between Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and other bloggers at Lawrence Auster's VFR, and find the interpretation offered there credible. Frankly, LGF never hold any attraction to me and I never returned after some brief looks in the very first years of this millennium. Too big, too chaotic, too little substance.

Now some clever pranksters produced a rip-off of "Downfall" (German: Der Untergang), an Oscar nominated 2004 German/Austrian film depicting the final twelve days of Adolf Hitler in his Berlin bunker. The rip-offers subtitled the original German soundtrack anachronistically, to show Hitler (Charles Johnson) erupting in frenzied, paranoid rage over his loss of ratings, spies he's going to ban: "conservatives, fascists, creationists, Christians", who are all laughing at him, so he is sure (and very probably right).



I, personally, find that a breath of fresh air. The film is so abysmally bad, I mean TECHNICALLY bad (I am coming to the frightful ideological underpinning later) whilst having received the highest acclaim, that ANY ridicule is welcome to take it down a peg. Bruno Ganz' Hitler is chewing the scenery (pun not intended) as if he had confused films and thought he'd be in Amityville Horror, while reviewers are enthusiastically drooling over this ridiculous, self-indulgent crap, Corinna Harfouch is pulling out all her artistic stops from A to B depicting Martha Goebbels, and Ulrich Matthes as her husband Josef comes across as a dour interpretation of Mephisto in a Faust-production somewhere in the deepest provincial backwaters, white facepaint and all. The rest is worse.

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel's (Yes, we laughed too when we first read that name and he looks the part as well!) assessment of the beloved Führer, whom the film's makers sought to give a "three-dimensional personality" (I first thought that had something to do with Bruno Ganz' chewing the scenery) says all one needs to know: "We know from all accounts that he [Hitler] was a very charming man — a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism."

But of course. Roughly 40 million of one of the culturally and technologically most achieving people in the history of mankind were magically charmed into crimes of so far unknown proportions, so to say against their will, by an ugly, funny looking epileptic Austrian housepainter of doubtful parentage. And 70 years later they are still so besotted with him that even the grottiest of films depicting his last pathetic days gets the highest acclaim, assisted in blissful ignorance by the [edited] Americans who graced this botch with an Oscar-nomination, presumably because they thought there'd be Panzerlied in it.

We are currently experiencing history revision of so far unknown proportions. Whether it is "Downfall" that explains that the Germans were victims of and string-puppets for Hitler, whether "Valkyrie" (interesting discussion here) tries to bring across the message that an utterly peripheral and not entirely blameless group of dissident insurgents stood for "a better Germany" that never existed, whether "The Reader" humanizes (and sexualizes) a perpetrator, the conscious or subconscious goal is to relativize German history, aided by idiot Americans wo hate to hate the Germans who have given, after all, Panzerlied to the world. Talk about the "leftist liberal commie" Hollywood coterie!

So thanks to Charles Johnson, whose antics have at least pushed the most obnoxious of those sorry efforts off its piedestal.

Apology to America or: God Help Old Europe

I have come across (and partly caused) such an utterly moronic, rock-hard dumb discussion at the Brussels Journal, that I briefly considered to throw them off my blogroll just for their readership. (Not that they'd notice it.) But to what avail? I have come to see, too, that the only way to manage a really serious political blog is the way Lawrence Auster does it at VFR, cumbersome as it may be.

I can not (repeat: NOT!) imagine an exchange quite that moronic at any American serious political website, however much I may have deplored American shortcomings in the past. I am trying to pinpoint what the basic difference is. It is not, I am sure, to be found on any intellectual or educational level. Yes, the latter is pretty low in the specific exchange here, but then, I have seen Americans, and even with impressive degrees, for that, so uninformed and intellectually dishonest (or plain dumb) that it made me weep. No, the difference is that Americans simply have a conscience, an ethical compass, which is lacking in most Europeans. If that is true (and I think it is) it explains a lot of things we are seeing today, good and bad. And to go back to the topic at hand, I can hardly imagine any average, straightforward American, arguing that "everybody was a Nazi anyway and one somehow had to survive [which is, by the way, contradictory] so that topic is a non-starter anyway."

The initial entry is interesting, but only moderately so. I think it becomes apparent that my wrath was tickled when a commenter stated, naming names, that there had been -- and thrived -- many former Nazis in a certain German political party, a (factually true) information that was dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". Then it goes from absurd to grotesque.

Interesting Times in Bavaria

From the desk of Elaib Harvey on Fri, 2009-02-27 14:48

The German – well OK, Bavarian – centre right party is in all sorts of trouble right now. They currently have 9 sitting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), including some big hitters in the Parliament like Inigo Friedrich. Due to a change in the way that the European Parliament election’s are being held in Germany, they stand to lose all 9, despite still picking up over 40% in their home, and Germany’s most populous Land, Bavaria. This time they have to get over 5% of the whole of Germany’s vote.

Of course this means that their sister (and have you ever seen sisters together, it can get pretty brutal at times) party, the CDU, will be the only one holding the flame of Christian Democracy in Germany, and they quite like that.

Add to that the spectre of Libertas Germany standing possibly with Count von Stauffenberg (former CSU federal MP – and a chap with a resonant name) at top of the list and their is massive pressure on the old party of Bavaria.

So what do they do? First, Edmund Stoiber suggests that he will ride to the flailing party’s rescue by sitting at the top of their Euro list. Now, we hear that current party leader, Horst Seehofer has been talking referenda. No not on the Lisbon Treaty – though that would cook Libertas’s goose in the Land – but over Turkish entry into the European Union.

Now everybody knows that Chancellor Merkel and the CSU see eye to eye on their not wanting Turkey through the portals of the Berlaymont (Germany would lose its position of country with most weight – and would have to pay for the privilege), but the word referendum is a dangerous one in German politics. Particularly in the light of the deliberations of the Constitutional Court.

Interesting times, indeed, in Bavaria.

Here are the ensuing comments. To grasp the gist you have to read them chronologically from the bottom to the top:

Homework

Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 14:21.

"And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that."

Oh yes, lets! You obviously didn't bother to check how many (or rather how few) comments I delivered during that period of time. Oh yes! I lurked all that time breathlessly following your (plural) uneducated drivel to then suddenly pipe up, pretending I had never seen it.

Do you have to say anything about the CONTENT of my comment as well or are you really unable to perform a Google search, as you are obviously unable to klick on the "Track" button in a member's personal profile?

How to deal with one's past

Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 14:15.

"Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member."

Yes and -- in the context of this discussion -- so?

"What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?"

I, as a German, will not tell other people what to do about and how to see their own past. There IS, however, a tiny wee little difference between Germany and the other European nations: Different from Germany, no WWII and no Holocaust went out from their countries. I do, however, react a tiny wee bit irritated if a foreigner, like you, tells me how *I* have to see OUR past.

"Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship..."

I have to go back a long way to remember an equally callous statement of relativism and opportunism. And here I was, thinking that this is a conservative forum.

"... and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought."

Oh no! They are just trying to survive under a dictatorship, didn't you know?

"We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started."

YOU, Sir, have NO IDEA how "Kristallnacht" started.

I will, however, throw in some private lesson in German history and sociology. Germans as a people, with a few precious exceptions thrown in, did NOT, as you put it "try to survive under a dictatorship". They gladly supported it, as Germans in the former GDR are still whining about the end of the second German dictatorship. And don't you dare telling me it ain't so because I am living among them for more than two years now. Germans can't live without a totalitarian concept. That is why we don't have anything that resembles even faintly a conservative political movement. WHAT we have are brown-painted Socialists, Sacred-Heart Socialists, green-over-brown-painted Socialists, Communists and a tiny, hapless "liberal" party that used to be a receptacle for old Nazis after '45 and which has ousted itself from serious politics by their self-consciously cultivated image of a "fun party" under its openly gay leader. The staple between all of them is the hatred of America and Jews, which the not-brown-painted ilk insist to call "anti-Zionism" because they are such despicable hypocrites. All of them have NOTHING in common with parties like Vlaams Belang, Partij voor de Vrijheid or BNP.

The support for even the worst Muslim thugs is based on that very affinity, the mutual totalitarian mindset. Wasn't Jörg Haider rubbing shoulders with Bubba Saddam? Didn't a contractor, who is a member of the brown-over-red painted party NPD, build the gigantic mosque in Duisburg-Marxsloh? Hey! It worked pretty well between Hitler and the Mufti already, so why not now?

"Liberalism", Sir, is the LAST THING that has anything to do with it.

That was all. You may quote me.

Clueless

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2009-03-05 13:54.

"I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elswhere...".

And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that.
And to the same person (or anybody else for that matter0 who would go on to conclude with the statement, " I don't want to be any part of it", my 'simpleminded' response is simple, DON'T!
However, should anybody decide that they WOULD like to be "apart of it", I [SERIOUSLY] recommend that they first do their homework with regard to kappert's previous (general) statements and positions of moral relativism before taking any further potshots at me.

PS Thanks, traveller..

@ The Editrix

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2009-03-05 12:24.

The sparring of Atlanticist vs Kappert has ideological grounds from a long time ago.
Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member.
What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?
Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought. We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started.

"Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher

Submitted by The_Editrix on Thu, 2009-03-05 11:58.

"Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher of the BJ, sees nazis everywhere. But even supposing that some of his conspiracy theories are true..."

I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elsewhere and, frankly, I don't want any part in it, but to call what the former posted a "conspiracy theory" on the strength of that very comment, is... let me call it "simpleminded" to avoid any unnecessary bitingness. To say that the CSU (and the FDP and to a lesser extent the CDU) used to be a collecting pit for old Nazis post-WWII is simply the truth. I recommend that Atlanticist911 performs a Google search or two. It is not all that difficult and will prove kappert right.

@ 'Jerry' from the proud son of a British 'Tommy'

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 19:47.

NOT so. My own father spent 6 years of his life fighting those nazi bastards and losing his younger brother in the process so that, among other things, spineless, cloth-eared clowns like you might live to ridicule and gloat. But if I was "hopping around" as you claim, I would have had the perfect Master/ Mistress in you.

@atlanticist911

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 18:56.

Sorry: Jerry Fletcher Hollywood, Watts, Hobsbawn, Hitchens, 'change the topic'? You are hopping around, trying to avoid the acknowledgement that the crimes of WWII are largely accepted by the post-war democracies (see post-war careers), simply because the nazi-ideology is a consequent line in the thought of protestant technocrats. The opposition of science and religions, so often discussed in this blog, lead (so far) ultimately to the übermensch-ideology, conceived by 'thinkers' overwhelmed by the progress of science. Still, many countries feel an instant superiority towards others, means, the mentioned ideology in still working in the minds.

'Watt' Conspiracy (4) : tribe and diatribe

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:30.

Without wishing to reduce my mini-debate with Kappert (XX ?) to one equating to something along the lines of 'Hobsbawn's Choice', with regard to the nazis vs commies, I believe most rational people would be prepared to listen and learn from a person who knows.

Example:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/03/in-search-of-my-mi5-file-the-only-thing-i-have-in-common-with-professor-eric-hobsbawn.html

Why Start a War?

Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:18.

Surely good friends can live happily ever after?
http://www.geocities.com/provost_stiener/Nazi_Soviet_Pact.jpg

@Kappert
Enlightenment sometimes requires a light bulb.

War Starts (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 17:10.

Fellow BJ'ers will note: Not satisfied with avoiding offering any substantive responses to my questions on 'WATT', Kappert now wishes to change the topic of discussion to one concerning the chromosone Y. If there's a link here, I'm missing it!

war starts?

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:53.

Wow, what a male you must be!!

'Watt' Conspiracy (3): At this particular moment in time...

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:41.

You are free to leave. Why not take advantage of this opportunity before the war starts? Remember the cowards war cry, "Better Fled than Dead".

Your comment is an

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:24.

Your comment is an enlightenment. Putting on the same level nazis, commies, trotzkis, maoists (don't forget sindicalists, uuhaa) you very much aline in the 'general forgiveness' towards nazis. They were welcome, voted and adored and nothing tells us that this history will not repeat itself in this fractured tribal Europe, as slave labour, human traficking and ethnic cleansing stand high on the wishing list of some political entrepreneurs.

'Watt' Conspiracy (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:13.

"It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII".

It is also a "given fact" that Communists, Trotskyites, (and to a far lesser degree) Maoists and their ilk achieved similar successes, but I don't see you complaining about that. Perhaps this should be considered by (Occidental/ accidental) taoists as the political 'yin' balancing out the political 'yang'. Then again, maybe not.

NB That was not a question it was a statement, but you are still free to pass comment. (In case you hadn't noticed).

re: (the) 'Watt ' Conspiracy

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 15:56.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you answer one of my questions before I am expected to answer one of yours.

http://ewanwatt.blogspot.com/2008/10/conspiracy-theories-on-haider.html

what conspiracy

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 15:40.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy. It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII. Kiesinger was German chancellor, Waldheim Austrian president and UNO chairman, von Braun catapulted Americans to the moon, Quandt and Krupp continue to be the richest families in Germany - they are forgiven a long time ago! Where do you detect conspiracies?

careers (2) : aka When Worlds Collide

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-03-04 14:17.

Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher of the BJ, sees nazis everywhere. But even supposing that some of his conspiracy theories are true, he's never prepared to provide serious answers to valid questions, like how would HE deal with the problem the original 'Jerry' faced, should said nazis ever decide to come after him?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory

careers

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2009-03-04 13:15.

Former Nazi-Parteimitglieder making career in the CSU:
Walter Becher, Hermann Höcherl, Friedrich Kempfler, Franz Krapf, Franz Nüßlein, Alfred Seidl, Siegfried Zoglmann: all these Nazis were Deputies, Diplomats or at least MdB for the Federal Republic of Germany. Some got highest positions at NATO.
(ps: the leader of Reiter-SS and NSKK later married the Dutch princess Juliana, so not only in both Germanys the Nazies proceed their career!)

Bavaria is the biggest Bundesland by area, not by population...

Submitted by The_Editrix on Tue, 2009-03-03 22:41.

...and the CSU is hardly a centre right party by any international standard. They are Sacré-Cœur Socialists, centre, at best.

Good try and I wish them well, but I am afraid any political effort with "libertas" in its name will, in Germany, suffer the fate of a stillborn child. Germans just don't understand the concept.

Germany's most populous land

Submitted by heplev on Sat, 2009-02-28 16:19.

...still is Northrine-Westphalia! :)
Look here http://www.planet-schule.de/wissenspool/bg0051/kinder_europas/wissen_deutschland/die_bundeslaender.html (just run the mouse over the map)

The discussion goes on there, but I had my daily dose of asininity already. Isn't it wonderful that I can't go out much with my footsore young dog for the time being? I bet the old BJ didn't have such a nice little brouhaha in their comment section in years, and nobody has accused me of being an intellectual (nor even an "intellectual") ever before.

Blogroll

Maybe somebody has noticed that I have replaced my vast blogroll with a much shorter version. The reason was not dissatisfaction with the blogs listed, but that I have come to think that those who recommend too much really recommend nothing. Also, any quality control of the linked blogs was practically impossible. The websites (there are not just blogs anymore) I have listed now I really and truly read on a regular basis.

Should I have violated any mutual-linking agreement, please let me know.

The Overall Balance of Well-Being and Human Life

The FAZ reports today that a new Swiss law spells out in 226 paragraphs on about 100 pages how animals are to be treated. For example, pets such as budgerigars or guinea pigs can no longer be kept by themselves, but only with a companion. Farm animals like sheep and goats must have at least visual contact with their fellow creatures and every owner of a dog (not just those of breeds that are listed as dangerous) will be obliged to take special classes to get some expertise, to name just a few items.

While searching for more information on the controversial ethicist Peter Singer mentioned in the article, who, to cut a long matter short, wouldn't have let his Alzheimer-suffering mother live had the decision about her life or death been his, I came across an entry in the blog Get Religion. While the entry itself was, as the entire blog is, about the missing religious angle when we are looking at cases of misanthropy and the love of animals, the really interesting points were made in the comments section.

1. Dave2 says:
   September 28, 2008, at 6:16 pm

   Mike Perry wrote:

   And to the previous post by Dave2, I’d suggest that the relativism lies in equating animal life to human life, or in the case of Peter Singer, of valuing some animal life more than some human life. Singer is, of course, careful to put Princeton professors high on his scale of value and that of happy children with Downs low. Relativists invariably tilt the scales in their favor.

   From what you’ve written, it looks like you do not understand what relativism is. Peter Singer, for example, is simply not a relativist. He is a utilitarian.

   Moral relativism is the view that the moral status of things is determined by and relative to human moral attitudes, either individually or as embedded in cultural norms. Thus, according to moral relativism, exterminating the Jews is morally right for an individual Nazi or for the German-speaking culture of the Third Reich, even though it is of course morally wrong for you or I or for mainstream American culture.

   Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is the view that the moral status of an action (or a practice or a social institution) is determined by the overall balance of well-being that is brought about by that action. So, if the Holocaust brought about an enormous amount of suffering, far greater than any happiness produced (as seems plausible), then utilitarianism will say that those who participated in the Holocaust were behaving wrongly. Note that utilitarianism gives an objective answer to questions of moral right and wrong, independent of human moral attitudes. Like most any ethical theory, utilitarianism has no time for relativism. I’m no utilitarian, but to assimilate utilitarianism to relativism is an egregious error.

   Moreover, there is zero relativism in the view that some animal life is more valuable than some human life. Indeed, such a view is flatly incompatible with relativism. For example, if I really think that a normal adult gorilla is far more valuable than a human zygote (a view I do in fact hold), I am not treating questions of value as a mere matter of opinion or of culture. No, I’m treating such questions as corresponding to actual moral truths: on my view, those who think human zygotes are more valuable than a normal adult gorilla are mistaken. In contrast, a relativist would say that I have my values and they have their values and that’s all there is to it.

   All this can be verified by consulting any Ethics 101 textbook.

   Finally, I believe you are wrong about Peter Singer’s views on children with Down’s syndrome. Here is a quote from his Practical Ethics: “Thus, though many would disagree with Baby Doe’s parents about allowing a Down’s syndrome infant to die (because people with Down’s syndrome can live enjoyable lives and be warm and loving individuals), virtually everyone recognises that in more severe conditions, allowing an infant to die is the only humane and ethically acceptable course to take.” As a utilitarian, Singer has no problem with genetic abnormalities as such. The question is whether they impair quality of life.

2. Imprimartin says:
   September 29, 2008, at 12:09 pm

   Relativism and Utilitarianism are both the same because the source of the values of both are decided by humans:

   Moral relativism is the view that the moral status of things is determined by and relative to human moral attitudes, either individually or as embedded in cultural norms.

   Notice how “human moral attitudes” and “cultural norms” are decided by humans.

   Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is the view that the moral status of an action (or a practice or a social institution) is determined by the overall balance of well-being that is brought about by that action.

   Here, the “overall balance of well-being” is also decided by humans.

   These theories are the same because of the source of “the rules” is the same. Disagreement among the parties does not determine difference.

   . . .those who think human zygotes are more valuable than a normal adult gorilla are mistaken. In contrast, a relativist would say that I have my values and they have their values and that’s all there is to it.

   Just because a person thinks someone is mistaken, doesn’t disqualify him as a relativist. A relativist says, “I have my values and they have theirs and mine are right because of the angle that I’m viewing from and his are right because of the angle he is viewing from. Consequently, we are both right and wrong at the same time. But make no, mistake, He is wrong because of where I’m standing and I choose to stand here.”

   In contrast, the natural rights arguments go something like this:

   -The source of natural rights are the observable, measureable, and verifiable laws that govern nature.
   -Humans are given some natural rights and animals are given others
   -If humans disagree with each other, someone is mistaken and investigation into the matter will discover who it is.

   A relativist will not acknowledge this governing law. An absolutist will.

   Ethics teacher,
   Martin

3. Mark Stricherz says:
   September 29, 2008, at 4:39 pm

   Imprimartin and Dave2,

   Your replies about relativism, utilitarianism, and the natural law are interesting but also tangential to my post. Please stop writing about those topics or your comments will be deleted.

   Mark

4. Dave2 says:
   September 29, 2008, at 6:26 pm

   Mark,

   Did you not write, “While America has long been an individualistic country, it has not considered some animals to be humans deserving of legal rights. Is the individualism carried to iconography related to the dictatorship of relativism that Pope Benedict XVI decried?”

5. Mark Stricherz says:
   September 29, 2008, at 8:28 pm

   Yes.

   Your replies, as well as those of others, deal with my question only glancingly.

6. Dave2 says:
   September 29, 2008, at 11:27 pm

   Well, I guess I’d still like to see any real connection between animal rights and moral relativism—i.e., something other than the fact that they’re both associated with the political left in American popular imagination.

7. The Editrix says:
   October 1, 2008, at 4:14 am

   I came here via a search engine looking for information on Peter Singer and found one of the most interesting, intelligent, informative and inspiring discussions I have ever come across in the comment section of a blog during the ten plus years I am online now. And what does the blog owner do? Instead of thanking the contributors for their time and effort, he threatens to delete their comments because they are ***screech*** “tangential” to his (mediocre) post.

   To misquote the Header of this blog: Get A Clue!

But however arrogant the attitude of the author of the entry (I take it that, different from my angry comment, he is not the blog owner) or how interesting the above discussion may be, when all is said and done, we can both, utilitarianism and relativism, safely file under Evil with a capital "E".

We have discussed matters "tangential" to the topic of "animal rights" here, here and here already.

Devisive Topics

I have been sharing recently some of the discussion at Lawrence Auster's VFR and Terry Morris' Webster's Blogspot. Then I thought why shouldn't it get even more attention by putting it up here as well, the more as some of the topics Auster or Morris discuss are carefully shunned by other conservatives and the more as I had it already written.

The original text from the respective blogs is formatted as blockquotes, additional remarks or paraphrasing by me is formatted as standard text.

This Blog

The readers who are still frequenting this blog will see that I at last gave in and switched to a Blogger Beta template. It may have not been worth the considerable trouble (I was adamant to keep my gimmicks and colours), but I enjoyed fiddling with it.

I have jettisoned the "Recent Comments" gadget, because it obviously doesn't make sense anymore.

The "Topics" are not displayed correctly in the Firefox browser, but who cares. Right now, I am not even updating my other blog, but I don't want to finally give up this one yet.


Edited to add on September 3rd:
I've tried, but the "Topics" list looks either less than perfect in IE or in Firefox and there is nothing I can do about it.

My New Blog

I have a new blog, The Evil Style Queen, motto: "I have a crown and a headscarf and no hangups about wearing either", but one would expect some level of bitchiness anyway, wouldn't one?

I was always amazed that my posts about personal things triggered off so many more reactions than my political commentaries. (Gosh, that sounds pompous, but what else could I possibly say?) So why not put that to good use at a blog of its own?

Right now, it's still in its very early fledgling stage. I intend to "recycle" a lot of posts from here, but there are countless topics in the pipeline, really.

It seems that working on my German blog revived my interest in Roncesvalles, so maybe a blog about style (read: everything that comes to mind) may well be increasing my interest in both.

What else can I say? Enjoy or be irritated, whatever suits you better.

Conflicting Values

Have a look at Ilana Mercer's Barely A Blog.

Are animals, as libertarian thinking tells us, limited to their position as chattel under all circumstances? Is a case of dog fighting just "in the tut-tut class" or do we have a responsibility towards creation and can be hold accountable for how we treat our living, breathing, feeling chattel?

This topic is particularly interesting because conflicting values, such as property rights and responsibility for a fellow creature meet head-on here, something for which libertarian thinking has no answer. At least so I think.

There is an interesting discussion going on and some excellent points made from all sides of this many-faceted issue.

Apology to Blogger

SO sorry!

Seems it wasn't Blogger who did unmentionable things, but that the Hackosphere blogger, who provides all the great hacks to us humble earthlings, has got bandwidth problems. As long I don't manage to implement the fixing solutions he provides (my fault, no doubt!) collapsible posts are disabled, as are "Recent Comments".

Edited to add: The "Recent Comments" are fixed.

B*gger Bl*gger

Blogger has done some unmentionable things -- AGAIN. However, I won't complain because it's a free service And a gift horse... and all that.

Just for information: The "expandable post" widget doesn't just not work anymore but fouled up the entire blog's layout. I had to remove it from the template, so the "Click here to read the full post" link is gone. If you come across a post that is obviously shortened, click on the permalink to read it in full.

Also, the "Recent Comments" widget has gone bust, which is less irritating for me personally because I don't get enough comments anyway to give this widget its due. I'll leave the "Recent Comments" line in the right sidebar for some time, just in case.

I adamantly refuse to switch to one of those jelly-mould new blogger templates, I am hesitant to use a different service because I have grown fond of this old layout and I can't be bothered right now anyway.