Showing posts with label Family Values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Values. Show all posts

November 27, 2010

Language Help Needed

The Google search polls US President Barack Obama’s grandmother has admitted praying for him to convert to Islam results in 972,000,000 hits. It is this, which confuses me:
Obama, whose middle name is Hussein, has always maintained he is a ‘committed Christian’. But the news of his grandmother Sarah Omar’s wish to convert to Islam follows a poll, which found one in five believes he is a Muslim.
To me, "to follow a poll" seems to mean "to confirm the results of a poll". That would make sense had the news snippet said: "...the news of his grandmother Sarah Omar’s wish to convert to Islam follows a poll, which found THAT ONLY one in five believes he is a Muslim." In that case, Grandma (Gosh, another disgusting Americanism!) Sarah asking him "to convert to Islam", and specifically the media hype about it, could be seen as one of the smokescreens put up to conceal that he is, in fact, a Muslim. As it is, I'm just befuddled.

Notabene that Grandma Sarah is not his biological grandmother, but one of several wives of his Muslim grandfather and yet how everybody seems to accept her role, fully aware of that fact and in spite of the implications.

Hat tip: Gudrun Eussner!

October 26, 2010

Again: I told you so, Americans!

Here's another "Educating Americans" entry, part of the backlog due to my blog block. Our oh-so-conservative (I always get a neck like a red biscuit tin if I see that epithet applied to that woman) chancelorette's contradicting statements re Islam were met with interpretations from plainly wrong via deeply silly to patently ridiculous and only a very few twigged that she is simply as timeserving as a streetwalker, just less ethical.

Since our Catholic head of state -- that's the one with the tattooed concubine second wife Merkel hove into office -- called Islam a part of Germany, things have become a bit muddled here. Of course, he is right, he just doesn't mean it that way. Islam is a part of Germany, as I have written many times before, since the German elite embraced the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" as co-organiser for the Holocaust and certified Islam to be a practical and attractive religion for soldiers. Elite and opinion makers still love Islam, just changed the reasons for it a bit, and when Merkel then made that contradicting statement about "Mulitikulti" having failed, the confusion was complete. In fact, she could have said that the moon is made of green cheese with as much conviction.

The fact that a considerable part of the voting public didn't take too kindly to Merkel's head of state pro-Islam rhetoric -- Thilo Sarrazin must have hit a rare bulk backbone-nerve -- made her backpedal like a Tour de France contestant down L'Alpe d'Huez. As I put it in the comment section of an earlier entry here: that woman is an utter opportunist. She has come to understand that her spineless stance in the Sarrazin affair hasn't won her any brownie points with her potential elctorate. Never forget that she weasled her way all through the most vile of all Eastern Bloc communist systems.

I explained, too, why it drives me up the wall if Christian Democrats are labelled "conservatives". They are Sacré Coeur Socialists, always have been. When I was a child, a Protestant in a leading position in the "C" parties used to be somewhat suspicious. It was a Catholic stronghold with a notable wing close to the Catholic social teachings. The few remnants of former political glory of this old representative of political Catholicism have been utterly destroyed by the Communist Protestant pastor's daughter by now.

Why is it so difficult to understand that? Just keep in mind that she was born in Hamburg (West Germany for those of you who don't know) and her parents went from there to the Stalinist GDR, the most suppressive of all dictatorships behind the Iron Curtain, out of their own free will when she was a child and where she grew up, was socialised and politicised. Can you tell me about the mind of somebody who made such a decision? Again: THAT was the environment in which Merkel grew up. And later, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, she joined the Christian Democrats without missing a beat and made a career as Helmuts Kohl's "Mädel" (girl), as he put it so endearingly. Now go figure.

Bonn, 25.06.1992: Angela Merkel, then Minister for Women and Youth in Helmut Kohl's cabinet together with her mentor. There she accomplished "equal opportunities" law and the "right" of patents to a nursery place for their children. "Conservative", Christian Democrat, family policy at its finest.

Here, here, here, here, here and here I commented on our chancellorette. Read it and THEN get an opinion.

I wrote, for example, about the above cartoon, showing Merkel reproaching Pope Benedict ("That's a no no, Ratzinger! As far as Holocaust denial is concerned you'll have to set things straight at your end at last, got me?!!") while protesters outside her window are shouting: "Kill the Jews", "Jews to the gas" and "Allah bless Hitler", as it, in fact, happens in Germany. The caption says: "Sweeping at a remote door in the limelight", referring to the German proverb saying that one ought to "sweep [away the dirt] at one's own front door first". During a press conference Merkel had demanded from a great height that, in the affair about the ex-excommunication of renegade Bishop Williamson by Pope Benedict, that "it must be dealt positively with the Jews", adding: "As far as I see, these matters have not been satisfactorily clarified yet." What made this so interesting, and, typically, it was largely overlooked by the mainstream media, was that she made the above statement while standing beside Nursultan Nasarbajew, the president of Kazakhstan, because the press conference was the one following his state visit. Nasarbajew, the autocrat, Nasarbajew, weighed down by international accusations of corruption, Nasarbajew, the Sunni Muslim.

No, dear Americans, believe me: That woman won't do anything about anything (but ANYthing) that is near and dear to YOUR hearts.

The Potential of Attention Whoredom

Have you ever seen something quite as grossly nauseating as that?


However, it's the circumstances that are really remarkable. Here we have somebody who converted to Islam, half-sister to somebody for whom the description "has been" would be quite apropos, and all the world is as ecstatic as if the Pope had. And now we have to suffer the ubiquitous pictures of another sickeningly simpering blonde clad in a headrag. The phenomenon that lets women put on a self-congratulatory, smug smirk as soon as they are wearing such a piece of cloth, is something else!

I educated myself about her because I had never heard of her before. At home, she enjoys (You BET!) a modest notability as a TV personality, just exactly the vulgar, obnoxious lower class broad with a horrible accent one would expect, who makes the max out of her faint connection with the pre-previous PM.

There is only one possible explanation. The corrupted media, hell-bent on the Islamisation of the West, are hoping for copycat conversions because they know quite well that women will fall for any (but ANY) little bit of potential attention whoredom, however cheap, however dangerous, however evil.

August 06, 2010

The Compatibility of Western "Progressivism" with Islam

The previous entry It's Islam, Stupid! -- Redux got a couple of interesting comments. Let me summarize: Why do liberals, artists, atheists, homosexual activists, feminists favour Islam over a traditional Christian society? Isn't that illogical? No it isn't. That would only be the case if one would assume that they were, in fact, into freedom. But that is not the case. They are into control, and that's exactly why those people are usually not into just one "progressive", politically correct cause, but into all of them. A leftist will be as well feminist, into "equal rights" for homosexuals, vegetarian- or veganism, teetotalism (which, funny enough, doesn't extent to drugs), "animal rights", the cult of man-made climate change, the choice to murder your unborn child, agnosticism or atheism, "progressive" pedagogy and art, gun control, anti-racism and a rabid egalitarianism, and and and... In fact, it is all about control, bullying and might. They want to see the separation of powers, so fundamental for the rule of law, abolished. They are their own lawmakers, judges and law enforcers, political correctness is their constitution. They are abhorred at the thought that anybody anywhere on this earth might have fun. Wholesome fun, above all. They'd ban heterosexual sex, if they could. They want people sick of body and soul, helpless and frightened.

And that is exactly what Islam wants as well. They are mutually compatible, and each faction think they can control the other and we are supposed to lean back and wait who wins.

I'd like to add that the mutual hatred of Jews fits perfectly well into all this. For to the rebels in the West against God and the Ten Commandments, the godless cult of Islam must appear as the perfect ally.

June 30, 2010

Why I'm Not a Monarchist Anymore

We have a new head of state. Angela Merkel's candidate Christian Wulff won a much watched election in the third round of voting to become Germany's next president. The high office is largely ceremonial, however, Germans like to be able to identify with the office holder and his wife.

Wulff won an absolute majority of 625 of the 1,242 votes cast in a special parliamentary assembly, the Bundesrat, in the third and final ballot in which a simple majority would have sufficed. His main opponent, Joachim Gauck, won 494 votes. He was governor of the state of Lower Saxony since 2003 before his candidacy and will be at 51 the youngest president in Germany's history.

Wulff, who is a lawyer by profession, is one of those typical empty-faced, profile- and characterless career politicians whom we exactly do NOT want in that office. But then, maybe we do.

Because it gets worse. In March 2008, after the divorce from his much-respected first wife of almost 20 years, the lawyer Christa, he married wife #2, with whom he had already fathered a child while still married to his first wife. Wife #2, 14 years his junior, has another child, as it is so preciously put, "from a previous relationship".

It gets worse. This is our brand new first lady:
Foto: Reuters.

The conservative (giggle) FAZ, who informs us that people with tattoos are keen on making new experiences (which fits the second Mrs. Wulff to a "T") and more ready to go off the beaten track than others, qualities, which ought to be seen as a good omen for German politics, asked:
What is that supposed to be? A keyhole with licking tongues of flame surrounding it ...?
Well, to play Old Dr. Freud: Not really a KEYhole.
However, bad as all this may be, the good thing is that we will be rid of Wulff and the Missus (whoever she may be then) in 5 or 10 years, the latter if the worst-case scenario happens. This comes, mind you, from a supporter of the monarchist thought who was badly burnt by the recent -- sortof -- royal wedding where the future Queen of Sweden married a gigolo form the fish'n chips shop her "fitnesstrainer".

June 20, 2010

Technological Progress from South Africa

One just needs the proper incentive for innovation.

A brief Internet search revealed that this is not new. I was probably the recent interest in everything South African inspired by the Football World Cup which is responsible for a renewed interest in this:
(CNN) -- South African Dr. Sonnet Ehlers was on call one night four decades ago when a devastated rape victim walked in. Her eyes were lifeless; she was like a breathing corpse.

"She looked at me and said, 'If only had teeth down there,'" recalled Ehlers, who was a 20-year-old medical researcher at the time. "I promised her I'd do something to help people like her one day."

Forty years later, Rape-aXe was born.

Ehlers is distributing the female condoms in the various South African cities where the World Cup soccer games are taking place.

The woman inserts the latex condom like a tampon. Jagged rows of teeth-like hooks line its inside and attach on a man's penis during penetration, Ehlers said.

Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it -- a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest.

"It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," she said. "If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin, and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

Ehlers said she sold her house and car to launch the project, and she planned to distribute 30,000 free devices under supervision during the World Cup period.

"I consulted engineers, gynecologists and psychologists to help in the design and make sure it was safe," she said.

After the trial period, they'll be available for about $2 a piece. She hopes the women will report back to her.

It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on. If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter

"The ideal situation would be for a woman to wear this when she's going out on some kind of blind date ... or to an area she's not comfortable with," she said.

To read the entire article klick here.
If I've seen anything that can't be topped in its shameless "cure the symptom, not the disease" approach, this is it. Dear South Africans, why don't give one free to any female visitor to your country at immigration. A stamp in the passport plus a Rape-aXe and any woman is free to go anywhere and with anybody in your country and not to worry!

May 19, 2010

The Slave Driverette of Modernity

Margot Kässmann, ex-bishopette of Hannover and ex-"chair" of the council of EKD and thus the highest-ranking of Protestant bishops of both sexes in Germany, retired in February, following a drunk driving incident.

The -- inevitable -- demise was taken as a sign of human strength as well as the drunken joyride was taken as an endearing sign of being "just human". She is an expert of and always appealing to basic human stupidity and laziness, for example when she was shameless enough to equate radicalism, religious zeal and potential danger of Muslim and Christian converts and when she draw a big slime trail right through the Scripture when she twisted it to justify the breach of her marital vows. This bishopette, notabene, is divorced, another matter that proves to her adoring followership how cute and endearingly human she is.

Three months and presumably one withdrawal treatment later, the demoted bishopette-soon-to-be-papette made a triumphant return to public life and was received at the oecumenic church congress (Kirchentag) at Munich last week with standing ovations. Serves the Catholic Church right for supporting something that starts with "oecumen". As a staunch opponent of the war in Afghanistan, she spoke about the transformation of a weapon of war into a sign of hope, long bow, rainbow and all that. Yes, we yawned too.

At a sermon in the gallant Cathedral of Our Dear Lady, Munich Archbishop’s own cathedral, no less, Kässmann warned against "demonising" birth control. "We may, however, see it as a gift from God as well" and, with her very own idiosyncratic ability to travel on a slime trail through theology, concluded "for it is about the preservation of life, of freedom, which doesn’t have to degenerate at once into pornography, as much as the sexualisation of our society is, of course, a problem." Can you stomach more? "It’s about love without fear and about responsible parenthood. And for women "it’s about concern for their own lives and those of their own children." Well, whatever. You get the general idea.

Cheers! (Yes I know, that was cheap.)

Dear Catholic Church, your son G. K. Chesterton once said: "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age." If you want to survive, spiritually and physically, run for the hills at the first sound of "oecumen...", and let the rest have a jolly good time with Ms. Kässmann.

Cross-posted at TMDSC.

April 25, 2010

Seeping-in Sharia

HuffPo knows what REALLY interests us:
Sheikha Mozah Meets The Royals In Fabulous Fashion
(PHOTOS, POLL)


Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned of Qatar, normally known for her unapologetically monochromatic ensembles, really mixed things up during a meeting with Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle on Tuesday.

But two days later, she returned to the monochromatic Mozah we know and love [sic!] when she and Prince Charles attended a reception and planted a Sidr tree to mark the opening of the Qur'anic Garden Exhibition at the Royal Botanic Gardens [sic!].


Quick Poll

Which look do you like best?

Look 1 (with Queen Elizabeth) for attending a stoning in Iran

Look 2 (with Prince Charles) for attending a beheading in Saudi Arabia

To be honest, neither. She'd even make a burqa look good, so why not?

Rest assured, this is gallow's humour!

March 29, 2010

A Christian about Social Justice and Historic Guilt

I have been away over the weekend and a considerable work backlog, so all I do for now is retrieving this noteworthy commentary by Bruce Church from the blog bilges.
You said "America isn't doing too badly in balancing...personal freedom" and "social justice." I can tell you don't live here. It's disgusting. Here's what my commute is like. I drive home from work and see in the exurbs and countryside many McMansions and super-sized houses that must cost a fortune to heat, and then I pass the outskirts of a rundown neighborhood, and a fire station that has a sign saying there's a benefit for some family that has a child with cancer. In other words, the family already burned through its health insurance coverage fighting the cancer, and the family is bankrupt, and is in need of a donations from the community so they don't get evicted from their lowly home.

When Reagan was president, the top tax rate was lowered from 40% to 28%, and now it might be back up to 36%. What happened is many people got rich since the 1980s, but the poor remained poor. Women getting educated and entering the workforce didn't help the situation as one might suspect it would have, since the high earners tended to marry the high earners, making the couple twice as rich, thereby serving to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Because of this, the income inequity has increased in the US as measured by the Gini Index, so now the US ranks along with South American countries that have long been notorious for their poor/rich divide and lack of social mobility. This leads to a lot of crime since the poor on one continent sell drugs to the rich on another continent.

For the poor in the US, it's increasingly hard to get higher education and to break out of the generational poverty cycle.

The latest health care debate has exposed just how many people have vested interests in the status quo, and exactly how callous they are toward the poor.

Another area I've seen where the callousness is apparent is critics of aid programs don't like it that if the poor get extra money, they spend it on "sugary drinks." So they'd even begrudge the poor the simple luxury of Kool-Aid! See the links at the bottom of this post for more on that.

I seems to be bothered by the inequities of life more than other people, perhaps because I read my Bible and see that God's takes notice of, say, evicting a widow from her house in order to join houses together, the ancient version of todays McMansions that dot the American exurbs and countryside. I don't think God cares about how such deeds are laundered and impersonally done through financial "vehicles," and made to look extra-legal because the local sheriff is the one doing the evicting.

In the same way, I'm bothered when I read about Germans having great health care and spa treatments while Holocaust survivors are picking through garbage cans in Israel to get enough to eat. Also, the Germans and other European nations leave it up to America to defend the world while knowing America can only afford to do so at the expense of its poor.

One reason the US hasn't had nationalized health care is the people who would otherwise advocate on behalf of the poor already have excellent coverage via their union, or their state or church employers. Thus, pastors, union leaders and politicians actually come out against nationalized health care because they want to preserve their topnotch health care packages. For example, Mayor Rudy Giuliani of NY came out against nationalized health care because the US had slightly better prostrate cancer survival rates than the UK. What he didn't say was he survived his prostrate cancer thanks to being covered by NY City's health care package, something the average person in the US doesn't have access to. Another example is union leaders held up "Obama-Care" for months because they didn't want their "Cadillac" health care plans taxed, meaning their $25,000+ per year health care plans would be subject to a luxury tax. The compromise that got the unions' reluctant support is Cadillac plans won't have a luxury tax slapped on them until 2018. I've heard pastors say that Obama-Care will make US health care like Cuba's because more people will have access to good health care, yet the number of doctors and nurses will not increase for some years, and so the resources will be spread thin.

I don't believe in any racial component to guilt, however, there is a national and religious component to collective guilt. Also, I don't believe in trying to correct history and ruining the economy in order to make reparations, but I am for making amends where possible, and being sensitive about past historical wrongs.

I think that members of Lutheran and Catholic churches especially must admit that there is a long history of antisemitism in those churches, and that not only was this a factor in the Holocaust coming about, but it turned many people who could have stopped the evil into bystanders and even abettors. Also, in the Eastern Churches there was much Antisemitism, so in Ukraine and other places, no one put a stop to the mass killing of Jews, not even warning Jews to arm themselves or flee.

Members of nations and churches need to assume their share of the collective guilt associated with their respective church or nation, whether he/she, or his/her relatives, immigrated to a nation after the fact, or even a hundred years after the fact.

Immigrants should not be like many Muslim immigrants who, for example, move to Germany or Australia, and then disavow any connection to the dishonorable chapters of that nation's history, and have an attitude of moral superiority over the natives of their host nations. They also deny that by becoming a member of a host nation, they are in any way unfairly advantaged by past historical wrongs of that nation, and deny that they should make any personal sacrifice to make amends with the disadvantaged or victimized groups. (In the case of Australia, I'm talking about their former Aborigine policy).

-----------

Links:

People would begrudge poor even "sugary drinks":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sugary+drinks%22+%22deserving+poor%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://jezebel.com/5341698/are-women-the-new-deserving-poor

They add that the world's poorest families spend ten times as much on "alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts" as they do on education, and that "if poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries."
--
Reference Giuliani's cancer:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlighthealth/2002-10-14-giuliani_x.htm
--
Gini Index:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html
Thank you, Bruce, for this. I'll be back later.

February 23, 2010

High on Booze and One's Own Importance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted at TMDSC.

January 28, 2010

Some Embarrassment Is Good

The good news: We are finally rid of the Romeikes.
Christian fundamentalists have welcomed the decision by a US court to award a German family political asylum in the United States because the parents were unwilling to subject their children to mandatory school attendance rules in Germany.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike from the town of Bissingen in the southwestern German state of Baden-Württemberg wanted to teach their five children at home because they feared that they were being taught an "anti-Christian worldview" in public schools. They pulled their children out of school and in 2008, after fighting the authorities for years, emigrated to the United States, where they applied for political asylum in 2009. On Tuesday night, the evangelical Christian lobbying group Home School Legal Defense Assoication (HSLDA) announced that the Romeikes' asylum application had been approved.

Announcing his verdict in a court in Memphis, Tennessee, Judge Lawrence Burman ruled that the Romeikes' were entitled to political asylum. According to HSLDA -- the ruling is not yet officially available --, Burman argued that he believed the Romeike family's basic human rights were being violated in Germany. "We can't expect every country to follow our constitution," he said, as quoted by the organization. Burman also defined so-called homeschoolers, who teach their children at home, as "a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress." The family, Burman argued, has "a well-founded fear of persecution" and, as a result, the right to political asylum in the United States.

HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly called the decision "embarrassing for Germany." According to Donnelly, the Memphis court issued a final ruling "that homeschoolers are a social group that is being persecuted in Germany." A "Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children," Donnelly said. "This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history."
Isn't all history "past history"? But whatever. Maybe Donnelly was homeschooled. (Ooops... that was cheap!)

The anti-American Pavlovian drooling effect triggered off by this is only too telling and allows a glimpse into the deepest bilges of the German collective soul I wish I hadn't had, but nevertheless, in the best interest of truth, let me stress a couple of points:

Yes, we are trying to suppress homeschoolers. Maybe it is not apropos to make this comparison, but at least we have a rate for functional illiteracy of about 4% and the US of A of about 14%. I am sure that such a high percentage is not due to homeschooling, but I AM sure that our comparatively low rate is due to strictly enforced compulsory education. What I am NOT saying is that our school system does NOT have a lot of room for improvement. It has.

What a pathetic faith that is, which doesn't prepare children for a morning (in case somebody doesn't know: we don't have dayschools) of secular teaching, and what pathetic parents who are not willing or able (or not willing and able) to discuss with their children their curriculum later at home.

What a pathetic faith that resorts to lying to promote its own agenda. All this is "embarrassing" for YOU, not for us.

Dear Americans, in our little country prevails, maybe yet and just, the rule of law, but it prevails. If we allow Evangelical Christians to homeschool their children, we will have to make the same allowance for Muslims, and those, believe me, are only waiting for something like that to happen.

Here are some of the points I made in earlier entries:

Germany was the first country ever to have free elementary education available to all people. This was brought about by the Lutheran Reformation. Luther translated the Bible so that it could be read by everybody who could read.

Another reason for compulsory education was that children would get away for a couple of hours from a home where they would be forced to work. (Not a strong argument, admittedly, for Americans and specifically American libertarians.) Thus, compulsory state schooling was set up first in Saxony, where Martin Luther lived and worked. Ernst der Fromme (notabene Ernest the Pious), Duke of Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg, introduced compulsory school attendance in 1642 and saw that his schools were well equipped. Schoolbooks were printed. That was about 150 years after America was discovered and if I were into cheap shots I'd say now "150 years after America was discovered and some centuries before you winded up stealing your country from the natives", but I don't because I am not into cheap shots. Other German states followed suit, for example Prussia with the Principia Regulativa of Friedrich Wilhelm I. in 1717. Day-by-day realisation was somewhat slower, but by the end of the 19th century all of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Scandinavia and France had put into practice compulsory school attendance laws, and because I am not into cheap shots and "past history", I will refrain from pointing out any chronology connected to slavery in the American South.

This may amaze you, but we consider this one of the great civilisatory achievements, of which Europe, and Germany, can be justifiedly proud.

Now what about the "past history" between 1933 and 1945 during which countless regulations, rules and decrees were passed, which were unashamedly against God's and men's natural law. However, the law that finally and for all did away with homeschooling wasn't one of them. A lot of regulations, rules and decrees were passed as well, which were part of the everyday business of running a state –- ANY state.

It is not exactly as if the Nazis had destroyed a thriving homeschooling infrastructure and in fact it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say, or insinuate, so. In fact, there WAS no such infrastructure and never had been. The lawmaking process just did what would have been done sooner or later by any German government anyway, namely legally clarifying the status quo.

Obviously, some of the more zealous among the American homeschooling champions are too dense to understand that (or too much lacking in integrity to say so) and that their own traditions, historical development, understanding of personal freedom and scepticism towards governmental paternalism -- in a word: their mentality -- can not be applied offhandedly to other, specifically European, countries. If that were so easy, we'd all be over there.

As it is, it's good that at least the Romeikes are now.


Read also:

A Well-Meaning Suggestion for American Homeschoolers

Dumb, dumber, American conservative

When a Nazi poofter in lederhosen speaks the truth, something stinks!

September 15, 2009

"Just for the taste of it!"

The Christian Science Monitor offers some views on the current German election race at their global news blog:
Chancellor Angela Merkel debated Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on TV Monday, ahead of Sept. 27 elections.

A televised debate between the two candidates for Germany’s highest office was declared a draw by unimpressed Germans, as an election looms two weeks away for Europe’s top economy.

The election will pit center-right incumbent Angela Merkel against her current foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, from the left-leaning Social Democrat party.

At stake is whether Germany will chart a course out of recession with tax cuts and other business-friendly measures (Merkel) or pursue more state-led strategies such as funds for emerging industries, higher minimum wages and tighter regulations on executive pay (Steinmeier).

But many Germans have been left cold by both candidates. Playing on US President Obama’s campaign theme, the German newspaper Bild ran an analysis of the debate with the mocking headline, “Yes, we gahn!” (Yes, we yawn).

Deutsche Welle called the debate “uninspiring” in a roundup of the German press reaction; other descriptions included “shop talk between the chancellor and her deputy,” with “no real verbal sparring.”

The Associated Press said surveys were mixed, and cited a political analyst saying that the “well-mannered duel” was unlikely to change many voters’ minds.

Surveys carried out by three television stations after Sunday night’s duel found that viewers rated it a virtual draw, two putting Steinmeier marginally ahead and one giving a slight advantage to the conservative Merkel.

The debate, like much of the campaign, lacked passion and personal attacks between rivals who govern together in a “grand coalition” of right and left — the result of an indecisive 2005 election.

But the Wall Street Journal said undecided viewers favored Steinmeier, and gave the left-leaning candidate good reviews for a “snappy, vigorous debating performance.”

He argued for new tax rules to deter high executive pay and bonuses, and for minimum wages to slow the growing gap between Germany’s highest and lowest earners.

Mr. Steinmeier warned that the right-leaning government Ms. Merkel is seeking would pursue free-market policies of deregulation that he said had caused the global financial crash. “The thinking that got us into this crisis can’t get us out of it,” he said.

Merkel, by contrast, stuck to a pro-growth message, according to the Journal. The Journal said the candidates’ only significant foreign policy difference was on German troop deployments in Afghanistan, which two-thirds of Germans oppose.

Steinmeier said Germany should by 2013 “lay the groundwork” for pulling its troops out; Merkel offered no timeline.

To start on a negative note: It is not Germany's "highest office" that the debaters are aiming for. It is the most important office. We have a head of state and that is NOT the chancellor. Frankly, lack of basic knowledge like that doesn't inspire much faith in a political commenter. Get some education. In such a light, it doesn't really amaze that Merkel and her Christian Democrats are dubbed "conservative" all the time by Americans. But hey! Can they really be blamed for it? Germans are doing it all the time themselves. One the other hand, Germans don't know what "conservative" means, Americans do, or at least: they ought to, and, apart from a some issues dear to a Catholic's heart that can be linked to a conservative world view, there is nothing "conservative" about the CDU, never was, never will be. The CDU was founded post-WWII as the successor of the "Zentrum" (which translates, notabene, to "Center") the party of political Catholicism, devoted in considerable parts to the Catholic social doctrine, something which will remind Americans painfully of liberal leftis pinkos, the more dumber ones even of commie marxists. And that knowledge is just a couple of keystrokes and mouseclicks away at Wikipedia.

Now Merkel: During the entire debate she managed to totally and utterly avoid terms like "Christian" (even "Christian-Democratic"), "values", "family", "ethics", "human dignity" and "Lebensschutz" (= "pro life"), and even those who notice that at all and predict that Merkel will thus lose her "party stalwarts" are barking up the wrong tree. What "party stalwarts"? Those who voted for the CDU because they are Christian/Catholic, are dying out rapidly.

Merkel was socialized in the former GDR. Her parents went with baby Angela, who had been born in Hamburg, to the GDR. Only hardcore Socialists went voluntarily to the Stalinist GDR to live there, so this sheds a light on the political proclivities of her father, a Protestant pastor. (By the way, that knowledge, too, is just a couple of keystrokes and mouseclicks away at Wikipedia.) She was never heavily involved in official Communist party politics and described her FDJ youth movement years as "cultural work" later. It is not too amazing for a Protestant pastor's daughter either that she she did not take part in the secular coming of age rite "Jugendweihe", the acid test of a line-toeing party member, but was confirmed instead. She chose science as a career, like many bright and gifted students did in the GDR, because it provided a relatively politics- and hassle-free environment. But all that does NOT say that Merkel is NOT a Socialist. Pure and simple, she is. Four years ago, the amount of power she granted to her junior partner in the coalition was amazing. It isn't anymore. They are making HER politics and what she is doing now is aiming head-on at another four years of coalition with the Social Democrats. Why? Any other choice would bind her to the free-market Free Democrats (FDP), and that is exactly what she does NOT want. And if Steinmeier, who is bound to know that quite well, is blathering about "the right-leaning government Ms. Merkel is seeking" he is an even worse hypocrite than Merkel herself. Steinmeier, by the way, belonged, together with current minister of justice in Merkel's Cabinet, Brigitte Zypries, to the editorial staff of the leftist quarterly "Demokratie und Recht" (DuR) published by Pahl-Rugenstein-Verlag, who was at that time under observation by the office for the protection of the constitution (Verfassungsschutz). So far about some major members of "conservative" Angela Merkel's Cabinet.

We are heading for a diet version of the GDR -- "Just for the taste of it!". Mark my words.

August 26, 2009

Obituary for Edward Kennedy

In the past, we may have inadvertently conveyed the impression that the late Edward "Ted" Kennedy was, as were his hailed brothers, in some way an irresponsible womanizer who had left a young woman to die a horrible death in a submerged car because her presence alive might have embarrassed him. We now realise as of Tuesday morning that the scion of the most reprobate and degenerate illustrious and famously fate-stricken family in the entire Western world was in fact the most saintly man who has ever lived, who, with his charitable political activities, brought hope and succour to hundreds and millions of people all over the world.

We would like to express our sincere and deepest hypocrisy to all our readers on this tragic day and hope and pray that they will carry on reading our blog notwithstanding.


I stole the idea from a back print number of Private Eye who had applied the trick to the death of Princess Diana.

June 28, 2009

A Plea for Mendacity

Sometimes, I dislike America intensely. Maybe it's partly a matter of linguistics, but still...
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's mother said yesterday that she was praying for her son as pressure mounted for a criminal probe into his secret trip to visit his lover in Argentina. "I love him and support him," Margaret Sanford, 83, said while sitting on a wooden picnic bench outside her home.

After going missing for days, the married father of four admitted Wednesday to a yearlong affair with a woman who lives in Argentina. In a tearful news conference, the two-term Republican asked for forgiveness and explained that a friendship with the woman had blossomed into romance a year ago, around the time of a state-funded trip to South America.
For Heaven's Sake, can't she pray in privacy? Certainly her brand of Christianity hasn't done much for the son she (presumably) brought up. Alright, we Europeans (at least we Germans and certainly the English) are a stuck-up bunch when it comes to religion, but this is obscene.

But what I find even worse is to describe the making of an adulterous relationship as "a friendship with (a) woman (that) had blossomed into romance." Romance? BLOSSOMED? Pukebags anybody?

Not that politicians at this end (or people generally) do not commit adultery. But at least it isn't hyped to the max (to use another disgusting Americanism) or maybe they are just not as often found out, be that because they are less dumb than their American counterparts or because there is just less interest in other peoples' sex lifes. Whatever, so far we have been spared that cheesy view of adultery, the snivelling of the perpetrators and, thank God for small mercies, Mum's sanctimonious drivel as the icing on a turd that tries to sell itself as a chocolate truffle.

There IS, after all, a difference between mendacity and hypocrisy. The former can sometimes be necessary for sanity's sake, the latter destroys it.

The rest of the tripe is here.

June 05, 2009

What Causes Women To Do The Things They Do

Terry Morris of Webster's kicked off yet another interesting discussion:
Attn.: Editrix

Our female German correspondent, The Editrix, has some intriguing insights about the female sex, and what causes women (as women) to do some of the things they do.

At VFR is posted an article concerning the actions of a Dutch female reporter putting herself in harm's way. Read the article -- titled: Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are -- to understand what exactly I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not trying to make any sweeping generalizations, truly, but I've witnessed this kind of thing before in certain women who are (relatively) close to me. They engage themselves in certain self-flagellating, ceremonious, ritualistic behaviors, and in their particular cases I've generally identified it as a self-centered grasp for the sympathy due to victims as well as the applause and adulation due to someone so obviously self-less, warm, loving, non-judgmental, and so forth and so on. In other words, my sense in this particular case is that this woman seeks self-promotion and self-gratification, and she was willing to put everything (including her life) at risk to get it. What I find so irritating sometimes, is that people go along with it, legitimizing this kind of behavior, thus effectively creating a monster, er, a whole host of 'em.

But I want to hear (or read) Nora's point of view, as well as any other woman's perspective who would like to add her own thoughts or insights.


The_Editrix said...

Goodness, Terry! That must have been telepathy. I just read the entry at VFR, went to the BJ, was so angry that I left a VERY rude comment there and then thought I might have a look at Webster's for some sanity. I am suffering once more from acute blog frustration syndrome (you wouldn't BELIEVE what is currently going on here), but I am angry enough now to give it a break. I'll provide the link as soon as I've finished the entry. Thanks for encouraging me.

June 1, 2009 1:46 PM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Terry, I did it! It's very rude and full of expletives, quite unlike my usual oeuvre, but heartfelt nevertheless.

June 1, 2009 6:03 PM

Delete
chiu_chunling said...

In what possible sense was this woman raped? I mean...I'm reasonably sure that sexual intercourse did occur, but her face doesn't show the medical evidence that she said "no" to the Taliban.

I very sure that the Taliban comforted themselves about their being seduced by this woman by pretending that she was somehow "captured" and thus technically a legitimate object of rapine rather than a Western harlot who set out to create this entire situation, but is there any basis for this delusion?

Wilders is wrong on this one. This woman didn't emotionally surrender to her 'captors' as a way of denying her fear and helplessness (though that problem does afflict a good part of Dutch society). The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them.

"The noble savage even “invited her to a threesome,” i.e. to have sex with him and one of his three wives. “Ghazi was a very religious man. It is all so hypocritical. He was a complete fool,” she writes." He actually thought we had something, it was sooo amusing to toy with him like that. As if I would really give his benighted wives any pointers on how a real woman does these things. Teehee!

June 2, 2009 2:46 PM

The_Editrix said...

Yes, I think Wilders overestimates the motives of a woman like that. Her dhimmitude is only a symptom for a larger problem. Women like that are suffering from the attention whore syndrome, which makes them going for a life and for experiences totally opposed to those of a woman in a traditional society. Something like that MAY end in dhimmitude (and it very often does), but, as the example of Oriana Fallaci, Patron Saint of the more hyperventilating faction of Islam-critique, shows, it does not necessarily end in dhimmitude. Basically, Wilders takes that woman too seriously or better: he takes her seriously where he shouldn't. Of course women like that are dangerous, but not so much because they tend to be dhimmis, but because they are undermining like no other group, the basis of our culture, the family.

June 3, 2009 5:50 AM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Another aspect I'd like to discuss is what makes people compare women like Joanie de Rijke to Joan of Arc. I find it deeply shocking, but I have no answer to it.

A commenter at VFR said: "I assume this photo of her was taken before her exotic escapades. She may have a different deportment these days." Judging from the picture I put up at my above linked blog entry, she looks, if anything, more radiant, smug and, perversely, "happy".

I realize it is a nasty thing to say about a woman who has been, after all, raped, but maybe the experience to succumb to a man, even under unfortunate circumstances, was a new and, ultimately, positive one.

Feminism has given rape such an ambiguous meaning. If a woman regrets that she'd had sex with that guy the morning after she can go and get him for "date rape". So what do we expect will come out of that.

June 3, 2009 6:07 AM

Delete
The_Editrix said...

Ooops... I overlooked that: "The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them."

Yes indeed!

Isn't that my "condescension" theory in a nutshell? The one for which you, Terry, if I remember correctly, got so little positive attention at BE?

June 3, 2009 6:14 AM

Delete
Terry Morris said...

The answer to your question, Nora, is yes. I read the Joan of Arc comparison at VFR and almost fell over backwards in my chair. Seems like a dhimmi of a different kind.

My apologies to y'all. Our internet has been down since sometime yesterday. I'll have to get back to this later.

June 3, 2009 8:04 AM

chiu_chunling said...

But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!

LITERALLY!!!

MY HEAD A 'SPLODE

The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison.

It's horribly insulting, of course, but the insult is just built into the way they view the world. It isn't something that simply defies all possible explanation, like the claim that this woman was somehow 'raped' under any possible construction of the term.

I am filled with the urge to shout obscenities at the entire world, just thinking about this. It isn't good for my personal well-being. There isn't a pit in hell deep enough...there just isn't. You'd think that God, with a little of His infinite power, could have made the pits of hell a bit deeper.

Oh, yes, infinite wisdom too. I get the point. My bad, deeper pits not the answer, yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. I do get it...sometimes. I don't necessarily comprehend any of it, but infinity is like that.

June 5, 2009 2:25 AM

The_Editrix said...

CC, you said:

"But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!

LITERALLY!!!

MY HEAD A 'SPLODE"

And:

"The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison."

I agree on both accounts. Very astute observations!

June 5, 2009 3:34 AM

Delete
Terry Morris said...

I agree too, Nora. Well said, Chiu.

June 5, 2009 9:28 AM

The_Editrix said...

Maybe this makes an interesting addition.

June 6, 2009 5:08 AM

Delete
chiu_chunling said...

"If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil."

I think that quote really gets at the core of the matter. It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil. This creates a demand for lengthy explications of the non-evilness of every woman involved in some outrageously heinous activity. Thus you have a media firestorm of apology for every wicked witch of the west, much of which goes so far as to set her up as a heroine, while the genuine heroism (usually of the quiet variety but not always) gets almost no coverage because it doesn't take any special 'insight' to see that these women are good. Besides which, it's rather an embarrassment to the apologist for evil to set it side by side with good.

That is, of course, the 'innocent' explanation, which assumes no extraordinary wrongdoing on the part of the apologists. It covers much historical apology for evil women and most of the acceptance of such apologies, but most modern apologists for evil are not so innocent.

The truth is that many 'immoral' women are really the victims of evil men, but not all are. Probably not even most. And even the real victims are not thereby heroines.

June 6, 2009 1:39 PM

The_Editrix said...

"It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil."

Of course there are. I think (I may be wrong, though) that Marianism has lumbered our culture with an unintended and unexpected burden. While Islam states that all women are temptresses and evil, our Christian culture presumes the opposite. That functioned as long as women were willing to perform their duties in a traditional society, i.e. as long as they were busy and satisfied with their role as wives and mothers and supervised and reined-in by society. In our permissive age, women's natural proneness for the shallow and footle coupled with an intense desire for attention wreaks havoc on society, the more as the latter won't understand what is happening. It can't be the saintly women's, images of the Madonna all of them, fault or can it?

And I seriously believe that men are more often than not the victims of women and not vice versa. If you look at a broken down marriage where the husband has really behaved like the proverbial swine, you'll in all probability find a woman behind the scenes.

June 6, 2009 2:41 PM

I will add further comments, should there be any. Thank you, Terry, for this!

June 02, 2009

Dhimmi Without A Cause

In the previous entry I stated that the main issue about the Joanie de Rijkes of this world is not that they are dhimmis who gladly surrender to the powers out to destroy the West. Most of them do, but that is not the core of the problem. The more intelligent of this type of abandoned woman may as well turn out as an avid Islam-critic, as Fallaci did, but then, intelligence is a rare commodity.

Early in 2006, the case of the archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, who was kidnapped in Iraq, made headlines in Germany. This, this and this entry may serve as a reminder. I suddenly recalled Osthoff, when a commenter at VFR drew a (fatuous) analogy between Joanie de Rijke and Joan of Arc and I remembered that Osthoff, another one of those abandoned woman in need of a thrill, was compared to the French virgin saint as well. I wrote in 2006:
Thanks to Davids Medienkritik for ... the following gem:

Image hosting by Photobucket

Yes, that's right! The (leftwing) Süddeutsche Zeitung shows Ms. "Embarrassment Personified" Osthoff clad as Joan of Arc! A woman with intimate ties to the Saddam "Plasticshredder" Hussein regime, a convert to Islam. As Joan of Arc. A Christian saint.
I wonder what makes people compare undutiful middle-aged crones out for a titillating experience to a teenage virgin out on a sacred mission and can only presume that it's utter lack of ethical and cultural discernment, but that isn't the point here anyway.

The point is, to me, that it is not dhimmitude, but the typical female self-centeredness, vanity and irresponsibility that often, not always, leads to dhimmitude and which is, in every single one of its manifestations, so destructive to society. In Susanne Osthoff it becomes particularly obvious, or is it just me who sees a woman who just adores posing in sexually ambiguous clothes, "protected" by noble savages, putting herself in harm's way by being at places where she had no business to be. Osthoff, who dumped her child at a boarding school when she ought to have looked after it herself, Osthoff who married an Arab (albeit not for long), Osthoff, who could have worked in a field of archaeology more appropriate for a woman, say, in Sweden, and if I were a cynic I'd say now that even there is a fair probability of being raped by a Muslim. Osthoff, who could have refrained from embarking on such a non-career at all, but searched for the stability of family life she so pooh-poohed.

But this woman is, of course, only interesting because she is such an obvious paragon of deliquency and because there are countless others like her, happily undermining the core values of our culture.

At the high end it's Princess Diana strutting around in dungarees against landmines because even being married to the heir to the throne of England couldn't satisfy her craving for attention, and at the low end it's those perverts who marry death row inmates, with the Fallacis, Osthoffs and de Rijkes somewhere in between. A "cause", however ill-fated, lost and destructive (or even good), has none of them. Unfair to dhimmis!

June 01, 2009

Oversexed, Overpaid and Over There with the Noble Savages

Or: Joanie Making Politics on Her Back

I admit I hate the Dutch. I hate the way one, being German, is treated in that pokey little country (it has become a bit better over the years, but I still hate them), I hate that they nevertheless have no compunctions about taking our money, and I hate that sanctimonious post-war attitude even more because the valiant Dutch had been the only people raided by the Germans in WWII that surrendered without firing a single shot and who delivered their Jews gratuitously and free platform edge. I hate their ugly, pink, fat and blonde royals whom even two generations of inordinately goodlooking German husbands weren't able to prettify and I hate, once again, their sanctimoniousness which showed, impressively although not exclusively, when they disinvited the future father-in-law of the future fat, pink and blonde king from the wedding because he (the father-in-law) had once hold a mediocre office in the Cabinet of a third-rate, long forgotten South American dictator, whereas same future king's German grandfather had only been in the SS.

And BOY! DO I hate that unspeakable slag that made headlines recently because Geert Wilders (whom the Dutch don't deserve and whose only shortcoming is that he looks irritatingly Dutch) had cited her as a prime example of the moral decline of the elites in his country.

Joanie de Rijke is a Dutch journalist who was kidnapped in Afghanistan last November when all she wanted was to do some serious research on on the deaths of ten French soldiers hacked to pieces by the Taliban for the arse-and-tits magazine she is working for. Joanie looks painfully Dutch and exactly like the simpering silly bitch she is.

When she met the Taliban to 'hear their side of the story', the valiant freedom fighters, who would have thought so, kidnapped and the commander frequently raped her but not nearly enough because she wrote a book about it later and regurgitated it in chat shows (see picture) too. She still thinks (if one can call it that) that she was not taking unnecessary risks.
“This story” Wilders said, “is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters. Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, have dumped common sense in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims - that is the one thing they will condemn.”
So what did Joanie say:
"It's not black and white. It was the commander who raped me. I wanted to give vent to my hatred, to chop his head off and kick it off the cliff. He was schizophrenic: the following day, he said he was sorry. In that sort of situation - no matter how awful - you develop a bond with those people. You have to, if you want to survive. You could say the hatred and that bond go side by side."

"Just let me make one thing clear: I hate him for what he did to me. I hate him because he raped me. I was very, very mad and I wanted to kill him right away. But the day after it happened, he more or less asked me to forgive him. That was very confusing for me. It was a very schizophrenic situation because he had mood swings. I just had to cope with that. Normally you can show that you are angry but I couldn't of course. I had to get on with them. I just couldn't say to this commander what I was really thinking because then he would have killed me right away."
Very very mad Joanie said, too, that she was nevertheless shown respect.

Which eerily recalls the old joke, where the lady of the house is one female short for a proper dinner placement and, desperate, puts good clothes on a pretty maid and hopes for the best. When she asks her afterwards whether she's been respected, the girl replies: "Yes ma'am. Once on the balcony and twice in the garden."

And now Joanie is angry - not at her rapist but at Geert Wilders: "Geert Wilders bedrijft politiek over mijn rug." "He makes politics on my back." To make politics on her back is something to which Joanie can rightfully claim exclusive rights.

It may be a measure of the decline of our culture that even the attention whores have no class anymore. Many years ago Oriana Fallaci delivered a piece of memorable journalism and later recalled:
... that she found Khomeini intelligent, and “the most handsome old man I had ever met in my life. He resembled the ‘Moses’ sculpted by Michelangelo.” And, she said, Khomeini was “not a puppet like Arafat or Qaddafi or the many other dictators I met in the Islamic world. He was a sort of Pope, a sort of king—a real leader. And it did not take long to realize that in spite of his quiet appearance he represented the Robespierre or the Lenin of something which would go very far and would poison the world. People loved him too much. They saw in him another Prophet. Worse: a God.”
And nobody laughed or expressed embarrassment after it appeared in The New Yorker in 2006. It was, after all, by "La Fallaci".

It was a doubtful thing, anyway, to give Khomeini publicity to begin with, but Fallaci didn't really do research to inform but was collecting scalps and thus couldn't resist.

She, too, cashed in on matters which had better remained private. What does one call a woman who had an, as an uncritically adoring media called it, "tempestuous" affair with a much younger man who then kicked his unborn child out of her womb, a woman who didn't leave that man and rather wrote two books about it?

And exactly like that was her criticism of Islam, shrill and PMS-ingly hysterical. She stomped her little foot and wrote not what Islam is, but how "La Fallaci" found it.

But to do her justice, at least Fallaci was seriously attractive, did not write for crappy men's mags AND ABOVE ALL SHE WAS NOT DUTCH.

But what makes a serious journalist and writer like Fallaci and a floozy like Joanie de Rijke tick when putting themselves in harm's way to then write books about it? What made the ageing Fallaci swoon and drool over an old billy goat like Khomeini? Shameless lucre? Yes, but not JUST that. Attention whoredom? Yes, and again not just that. I think it's boredom. Boredom with their lifes, with the "good" men they meet, boredom with the little things in life, with a normal, ordinary life, with ordinary, everyday human decency. An able, clever woman like Fallaci goes and interviews Khomeini and Kissinger and writes well-received books about an unsavoury relationship with an unsuitable man, a silly bitch like de Rijke goes to Afghanistan to be raped by a Taliban, then writes a book about it to be totally overwhelmed by the brouhaha she caused and which to understand she is too pathetic. And at the bottom of the barrel, yes at the absolute bottom of the very same barrel we find those females who go and marry death row inmates. Our only hope remains that they'll never find out how to write books.

Hat tip: VFR.


Edited to add: To end this on a conciliatory note, I'd like to say finally something nice about the Dutch. There IS after all, something that is bigger than their dhimmitude and that's their tightfistedness. Which shows that they are not totally without principles. I overlooked that when I first read the article in the Brussels Journal from which I took the Wilders-quote.

As Joanie put it so endearingly:
“The Belgians have done nothing. They said it was a matter for the Dutch. And the Dutch authorities said they never pay ransom. In Afghanistan they know well enough that Western governments pay up after an abduction. Germany, Italy and France have all paid ransoms.”
Which may not be a terrific argument, but it at least reminds of another one of those vacuous, thrill-addicted women, the German archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, who was kidnapped in Iraq and whom I will now take up from the blog bilges in the next entry.

Edited to add: Done!