An alleged NPD donor list, customers of certain fashion brand and a list (according to tagessau.de) with rightwing extremists from Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom), among whom are people listed who are dead, former interview partners and authors. An example:

Dr. Franz Alt
Zum Keltenring 11
76530 Baden-Baden
07221/31 540
07221/25064
0172/19 42 143
franzalt@t-online.de

Yes, it has to do with the retired, red-Christian Eco-Jesus Franz Alt, whose own lunatic asylum called ARD is now indirectly counted among the “extreme Right” with the Indymedia list at hand! This is how it happens, when leftwing pipe bowls exert their perverted bird brain. In the process, the highly dangerous names – of all things not with address and telephone number – appear for anyone to read in the newspaper. One can only laugh.

However, it is sad when the same schizophrenic yellow press, who since the forestalled census of in the middle of the 80s has pitched a perpetual wail because of egregious breaches of data protection, lets their pseudo-democratic mantle quickly fall when it is an issue of rightwing dissidents. The leftwing Press of Quality can playfully accommodate with any Nazi block leader, and the red socks from the Nazi pocket network in any case. And among the red-colored fascists from Indymedia the headline for the JF list reads “We accept all of you”! Arrested or shot in the head?

Posted by on PI / Translation: Anders Denken

“We have the setback of the 70s not the least [...] to thank for the fact that the others have taken possession of the language, have used the language as a weapon, that they have created ideas, filled others with different meaning and then used them all at once as a projectile against us, and not without success. Therefore, for me, the battle for the language is one of the most essential requirements for intellectual self-assertion.

(By Rosinenbomber, PI-Münster)

The quote above comes from no less than CSU bedrock Franz Josef Strauss. His rise from son of a butcher to one of the most polarizing politicians in modern German history would have been unthinkable without a well-contrived speech agenda. And Strauss’ estimation has lost none of its validity to this day: Anyone who wishes to bring about political changes must occupy ideas and defend the dominance of the airspace around them. If their spokesman had ignored this mantra – the 60s-Liberal ideology would have failed in grand style and would never have been able to penetrate even the tiniest pores of our society. In this article, we would like to take a linguistic inventory and develop strategies for the reacquision of linguistic dominance.

Tolerance, integration, sustainability, social justice – in the country there rules no lack of political ringing of words that present an unhealthy mixture of conceptual obscurity and leftwing connotations. The greatest success of the socialists doubtlessly stems from having achieved that the terms “right” and “extreme right” are now being used synonymously. This is so devastating and disgraceful because by this means anything outside of leftwing ideology can be branded as illegitimate. And so, really only one civilizational certainty should be offered: that along with a democratic leftwing way, there is also a democratic rightwing way that has its place in the politcal landscape. Anyone who denies this has understood nothing about democracy, which depends on the contest for the better argument.

Also, in this place it needs to be emphasized that the position of “political moderate” – readily used by the CDU as a self-description – is subjective and therefore unsuitable as a description. The right-left pattern is not revised, despite all the assertions to the contrary by CDU representatives who shy away from the term “right” as much as the Devil does from holy water. There is simply no convincing alternative. The clear one-dimensionality of this yardstick of political position determining can be easily broken apart when the categories “socio-political (social)” and “economic-political (fiscal)” are added. For Germany, elevations are constantly being produced, for example, since many citizens think socially somewhat to the right while at the same time they can be found to be relatively left, fiscally speaking. The CDU, in its entirety, is an (extremely moderate) rightwing party because it doesn’t represent decidedly leftwing positions in every point.

Now, the one who still doesn’t always want to declare himself publically as rightwing can participate more subtly in the reacquisition of linguistic dominance: by constantly referring to “Neonazis” as “Neo National Socialists” and thereby exposing their socialist character. And by NEVER, NEVER, NEVER calling them “rightwing” or “rightwing radicals,” but rather “rightwing extremists.” By the use of this term, it will become automatically clear that a difference exists between “rightwing” and “extreme rightwing.” The term “rightwing radical,” however, is unsuitable because it sounds too mild and is used in political science (in any case among the followers of the totalitarianism theory) for the characterization of positions that are actually radical and rightwing (see horseshoe diagram).

Another example for the intentional distortion of language is shown by the term “nationalism.” I assert: The majority of the German nation is comprised of nationalists. Don’t you think? Then you ponder for a moment how a nationalist is defined from the pure meaning of the word: According to the definition, it has to do with a person who – in opposition to the communistic utopia of an international state – advocates for the existence of national states and would like to see the interests of his own protected. And note here: The advocates of the national state model have absolutely nothing at all to do with ultranationalists of the NPD ilk.

When you, dear reader, soon fall once again into a heated debate, instead of speaking about “integration,” calmly use “assimilation” (adaptation), and instead of “social equity or justice” use “equity or fairness of achievement.”

(Posted on PI November 10, 2011 / Translation: Anders Denken)

Nobody seemed to notice the charade as long as it worked so nicely as the “defense against all evil” in the Battle Against the Right™. However, now the respectable Antisemite stands before a serious conundrum: His whole game of hide and seek threatens to fly away because, of all people, the “rightwing populists” subscribed to scapegoats team up with the Zionist settlers in Judea and Samaria. To stand with credibility against this alliance hardly succeeds without revealing one’s own anti-Jewish resentments.

20 Minuten reports:

Genuine backing looks different. Israel has newly received such backing from an unexpected corner: European legal politicians are vociferously defending Israel’s claim to the occupied territories. …

Geert Wilders, whose rightwing populist and Islam hostile party the Dutch minority government tolerates said on the occasion of his visit in Tel Aviv the beginning of December, “A land that is only 15 kilometers wide cannot be defended. That is the strategic reason why the Jews must settle in West Jordan Land.” That matches the official Israeli position. …

“Our culture is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism, and the Israelis are fighting our battle. If Jerusalem falls, Amsterdam and New York are next.” In other words: Israel’s battle against the Palestinians is Europe’s battle against Islam. …

The episode didn’t remain an isolated incident. One day after Wilders’ appearance in Tel Aviv, European legal politicians completed a sightseeing tour in West Jordan Land, among whom were Heinz-Christian Strache, the head of the rightwing populist FPÖ (Austrian Free Party) from Austria, as well as Filip Dewinter of the rightwing-nationalist Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party. They also affirmed the Israeli claim on the occupied West Jordan Land.

The constantly forced spin of the left and the mainstream media in this situation is to accuse the Right by saying they have exchanged the demonization of the Jews with that of the Muslims, an assertion that most obviously consistent in foregoing any basis, since the most open Antisemites these days are themselves Muslims, and the leftwing tolerance in the face of their Jew-hating activity reveals their own resentments in this direction.

(Hat Tip: westsouthpark / Translation: Anders Denken)

The Sarrazin supporter held up a simple sign with the words “Thank you Thilo” together with the address of the largest political blog in Europe — and right away the horde of hypocritical journalists and Left/Green twisted deniers of reality turned pitted themselves against him. Only the police were able to prevent them from going at his throat.

Here is a report from eyewitness Bärchen:

I was already irritated. First there was an acute toothache early Monday morning, then in the waiting room there was the “Berliner Zeitung” newspaper with certain articles about the Sarrazin subject, but all were oriented in the same way, just as in the old German Democratic Republic (East German) times. They called him an “inciter” and were themselves practicing incitement in unacceptable ways:

[...] he sits on committee at the Bundesbank and insults peaceful citizens, neighbors, steps all over them as though they were grapes from which juice is made. Immigrants are stupid. Stupid f—s well. Those who f— well multiply like rabbits. Rabbits make Germany stupid. That is the lowest level. Doesn’t he have any honor in his body? Where were his manners?

Indeed an infamous high point of the days long and ever more strident witchhunt — all across the media and political statements — against Thilo Sarrazin, who dared to express a different opinion than those responsible for the disastrous immigration and integration policy in Germany that is riddled with mistakes. So much demagoguery hurts — worse than a toothache.

When this was sealed, I looked at the clock and noticed that I could still make the House of the National Press Conference, where on the occasion of Sarrazins book an “alliance against right-wing populism” intended to demonstrate against “racists” that was put together by the usual suspects from the LEFT, SPD, Greens and Antifa.

At the site of the event there was gathered a multitude of around 100 persons who were holding up red flags and banners. I identified “The LEFT” and “MLPD” as well as various Antifa pennants, but then my attention was turned to something else. A few meters to the side, a single counter-demonstrator stood leaning against a banister that led to the Spree, on his self-made cardboard sign he had written with an Edding marker, “Thank you Thilo!” and right under even “www.pi-news.net”. However, I was not the only one who caught sight of the man. Two women went up to him and tried to pull the sign away, thereby tearing it, “Those are right-wing positions!” Right away, a group thronged around him, a reporter shoved a microphone under his nose, and the following Inquisition-like conversation played out in which a good example of what “left-wingers” understand about “discussion” and “freedom of speech” could be seen.

Reporter: “Why are you standing here? Are you against Muslims?”

Sarrazin supporter: “Of course not. They were born into their religion and aren’t ever allowed to leave it.”

Heckler: “You have read ‘Mein Kampf’ too much, I believe that is your biggest problem!”

Sarrazin supporter: “I find ‘Mein Kampf’ and the Quran to be very similar, that is actually the problem we have.”

Reporter: “And the Bible?”

Sarrazin sympathizer: “I am not a Christian.”

Reporter: “But that means then that everyone who reads the Bible, even all those people stand closer to ‘Mein Kampf’, right?”

Sarrazin sympathizer: “No. That is nonsense… I am member of a group that intends to express its opinion, and it is undoubtful that we have big problems, not with foreigners because Germany has no problem with foreigners, but Germany has an increasing Islamic problem as does all of Europe.

Reporter: “A problem with Islam or with Islamism?”

Sarrazin supporter: “It is not against the individual Muslims…”

Reporter: “The question was, ‘a problem with Islam or with Islamism?’”

Sarrazin supporter: “No, I…”

Reporter: “Answer the question, ‘with Islam or with Islamism?’”

Sarrazin supporter: “I said…”

Reporter: “Hello! Islam or Islamism?”

Sarrazin supporter: “It is not against the Muslims…

Reporter: “Problem with Islam or with Islamism? What you are saying now will be edited out anyway.”

Sarrazin supporter: “Then I’m not interested anymore in this interview.”

Reporter: “Yes, then we’ll quit. Problem with Islam or with Islamism?”

The viewer of the video can judge for himself about the further, increasingly heated process of the “discussion.” The thing worth noting is the objectivity and calmness with which the lonely Sarrazin supporter put forth his arguments, even though he was surrounded and hassled by antagonists who had a totally different idea of “Nazi” and whose string of patience was suddenly broken.

“It’s hard to believe that you are offering a forum for this Nazi pig!” one darkly apparelled Antifa fighter roared, a second one shouted “Throw him off the bridge!” A woman began to scream hysterically with a overpowering voice, “Nazis raus! (Nazi’s leave!), it occurred to some that the situation was becoming threatening until the fortuitously large number of police covered the courageous one and suggested it would be better to leave the area.

I introduced myself to the young man and expressed my amazement at his courage, and asked him why he had exposed himself in this fashion. His answer, “The greater part of the people are behind Sarrazin’s issues. He has justified concerns for the future of our country. We cannot expect that a Sarrazin will address all of our problems for us or even solves them, therefore we have to accept the responsibility ourselves, we all have to be a Thilo Sarrazin, a Geert Wilders, an Alan West — or become one, of course, to each his own.”

The PI supporter was expressly thankful for the cooperative and competent protection by the police which he later thanked with a handshake. YouTube videos gave the impression he was led away. That isn’t correct. As soon as the mob was on the “Nazi” trip (nonsense, of course), the situation could no longer be remedied, and for his safety, the police led him away. Nevertheless, he was able to stand on the other side of the street and continue what he was doing! Only when this was a possible threat did things come to an end — but that was right away clear to me as well.

Meanwhile, we stood at a safe distance from the protest. A young woman came up behind us and said that she also had gone to the protest out of support for Sarrazin and had hoped to find like-minded individuals. Another man who stood on the other side addressed her about Sarrazin and answered, “He could have held back on the thing about the Jewish gene, otherwise I share his opinion.” A police officer who also heard this raised his thumb in agreement.

Phoenix also reported:

The picture of the valiant supporter of Sarrazin is meanwhile rushing through the paper forest. The Swiss newspaper “Blick am Abend,” for example, presented their 339,000 readers yesterday with this article (see lead story above). This one courage man demonstrated civil courage that is constantly being required by the citizens of this country. He stood with backbone before a mob of journalists that intended to show fault in him with their almost Inquisition-like interrogation. In addition the hate-filled hysterical cries of the Antifascists that saw the incarnation of a Fourth Reich in him. The man stood firm in spite of it. He wouldn’t let himself be intimidated and planted an unmistakable sign: Islam criticism must become more visual — not just on the Internet, but on the street as well!

(Michael Stürzenberger / Video processing: TheAnti2005 / Translation: Anders Denken)

HNA.de reports:

A procession planned for Saturday has been banned by the Marburg Mayor Egon Vaupel (SPD). In his estimation, the death of the 25-year-old is being abused by Right extremists. “Out of respect and esteem for the deceased, I have prohibited the procession,” Vaupel said. A wake was planned to proceed to a little before the Marburg pub in front of which a 25-year-old man was beaten to death back on August 14th. He died a week later as a result of serious head injuries he received in the beating.

The mourners are even being forced to remove their Website. The following is still to be found there:

The memorial procession for Samuel on Aug. 26, 2010, has been forbidden by order of the City of Marburg! We are filing suit against the ban in court, and expect that the ban will be canceled. Right now, that means that a complete prohibition stands against the Sunday evening meeting in memory of Samuel in the City of Marburg. On these grounds, we must sue against the ban so that you can remember at the scene of the crime without the police carrying proceeding against you the mourners.

Likewise, we have received an order of fines amounting to 250,000 euros so that we can no longer advertise for the wake, which is not what we are doing. We are likewise countersuing against this second order.

Even more follows…

Everything on the grounds that the “Right extremists” have presumably attempted to undertake the memorial is simply not true! — We are having to delete this memorial site under pressure by others and will do this in the coming days!

We want to thank you for your overwhelming participation!

Don’t forget Samuel, keep him in your hearts!

I am doing this, my friend — I thank you that I have been able to meet you!

You are missed! — Dear parents, we have the deepest sorrow for what has become of the memorial, and that it has gotten out of hand this way. We apologize of the bottom of our heart…

Contact:

Oberbürgermeister Egon Vaupel
Rathaus
Markt 1, 1 . Stock
35037 Marburg
Tel.: 06421/2 01 – 2 01
Fax: 06421/2 01 – 7 00
Email: oberbuergermeister@marburg-stadt.de

The Süddeutsche reports:

The SPD Party head Sigmar Gabriel has announced that he will examine the new, controversial book from SPD politician and Bundesbank committee member Thilo Sarrazin. He will check to see if Sarrazin makes character judgments about foreigners in his book. ‘If he did that, then it is certainly racist,’ Gabriel said in Worms. As far as expulsion proceedings by the party, Gabriel didn’t want to state any details. Such a decision has to be able to stand up in court. In his book on the subject of integration, the former Berlin Finance Senator Sarrazin charges many immigrants of not intending to integrate into German society and bring more expenses than benefits.

In Spring he said that Arabs and Turks had ‘no productive function other than for the fruit and vegetable trade.’

Bet Dr. Christian Pfeiffer gets a well remunerated commission very soon…

BILD Series on the new Sarazin book “Germany is Dismantling Itself”:

» Every pupil should wear a uniform!
» We’re becoming foreigners in our own country
» Germany is becoming more impoverished and stupid!
» Why Islam makes integration so difficult

(Hat Tip: M.S. / Translation: Anders Denken)

Regarding left-wing populist Gröhe, Newsticker writes:

The Union is following the advance of right-wing populist parties in Europe with great worry (Note: We would also worry about this, too!).

“We are keeping a very careful watch over what is taking place in other place in Europe,” CDU General Secretary Hermann Gröhe said to the “Saarbrücker Zeitung” newspaper. Asked about the danger of a similar development in Germany to the right of the Union, Gröhe stressed that his party must take the worries of the citizens in light of Islamist fundamentalism seriously.

“Where hate preaching occurs, where there is juxtaposition to militantism and the danger of recruiting terrorists, the rule of law has to show clear borders.” For many people the visible existence of another religion is a provocation. “However it isn’t a matter of stopping minarets, rather of the battling of hate preachers.” Also “a successful integration of the greater majority of peaceful Muslims in our country” protects against militant Islam, Gröhe said.

The “greater majority of peaceful Muslims” apparently has no problem with the hate preachers in their ranks. In any case, they don’t distance themselves from them, the don’t protest the terror attacks in the name of Allah, and they don’t demonstrate through Constitutional Protection to the people that they have totally misunderstand the Quran. For this, the CDU has made an effort carefully to distinguish Muslims from Islamists (Erdogan: “There is no moderate or non-moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”)

Without interference from Justice, the inclined listener download the hate song that has been available for many months now at a German website address and, of course view and listen to it on YouTube, where it openly calls for the raising up of fists against European Islam critics:

In the Battle against the Right™, freedom of speech is demonstrated generously…

In a quiet tone, clear and persuaded in the subject. And thus everything remained calm. No trace of physical aggression.

Until the Antifants came. About two hours after the rally began a group of young, aggressively inclined people arrived, that had little in mind for any discussion. They wanted to cause a ruckus. And thus they began to chant their rehearsed phrase, “Nazis get out.” Since we were of the same opinion with them in this point – and certainly only in this point – we joined with them in their chant. Just like last year in Berlin on German Unification Day, when a pack of left-wing reactionary do-gooders and long-bearded fundamentalist Muslims encircled us. Back then, though, this response unleashed a great confusion among our opponents.

However, as our way is, we tried to enter into conversation with these young people. For that which we have to present should itself usually find hearing even in the most deeply ingrained ideologies. Who could be of a different opinion about the subjects: oppression of women, hostility to democracy, and human rights violations?

Now, to the Antifants (translator note: “antifascist” demonstrators, truly an apparent misnomer). In their extreme left opinion, they have a purpose: to abolish the “system” they hate so much and the democracy to which it belongs. In this, Islamic ideology appears to them as a welcome ally, and therefore they attack Islam critics. There are totally simple thought patterns ticking in the Left-warped corridors of their brain. In this, they have learned nothing from history because such a coalition failed in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. As soon as Ayatollah Khomeini was in power, he delivered his useful left-wing helpers to the knife, for Muslims savor atheists even less than those of other faiths. But this wasn’t taught to the Antifants in history class. To argue with them rationally would be like trying to kick a lamppost over to make it move. It is futile and a pure waste of time. These young people are so ingrained, so solidly driven in their ideology, so brainwashed, so aggressive and agitated to such a high degree, that the wave they unleash can be outdone every time.

And so the lid eventually flew off the boiling cauldron. A young Antifant girl slapped one of our peaceful demonstrators, thereby breaking his glasses.

The police officers, who had restrained themselvs in an exemplary un-escalated way, now stepped in, as it is their duty to protect the sound physical condition of the participants in a registered demonstration. Thus they arrested the young lady in the blue T-shirt.

An especially aggressive Antifant then tried to free the young lady and turned violent, thereby injuring a police officer.

This young man was so highly aggressive and apparently battle-ready. Numerous officers were needed to calm him down, but then more people from the crowd tried to free him:

But the police still kept the situation under control and were able to secure the place. The officers warned the enraged Antifants again to behave calmly and not exercise violence.

But more attacks on the officers freshly ensued:

The situation threatened to escalate, and so reinforcements were called in. Within minutes, around a dozen other cruisers arrived with about 40 officers from the task force:

A few officers additionally stood prepared in the background:

Since there were a surprising number of young women among the aggressive counter-demonstrators, female task force officers were carefully employed to take care of them:

There were also mounted officers at the assignment:

The aggressive nature of the Antifants can be seen very well in the video:

It became really comical when the Antifants chanted: “We are peaceful, what are you?” That brought the saying “Islam means peace” quickly to mind. The peacefulness of these people was expressed in physical attacks, a crushed pair of glasses and an injured police officer. That criminal offenses might be recorded was, of course, not even recognized by these crazy-heads. “1-2-3 — set the people free.” In an absurd twist of reality, the officers on site were accused of hitting a “poor, defenseless girl.” A compatriot with an accent even remarked: “What kind of country is this where a person can let loose on young people with a club? And then even against a woman?”. This principle is familiar: By completely twisting the facts, the perpetrators are made into victims.

This incident can be read with total objectivity in the police report, and indeed exactly as it occurred:

Rally interrupted

Downtown Stuttgart: On Saturday (April 24, 2010) at a rally at the Schlossplatz, there arose disturbances against the event and also attacks against police officers. The meeting, which had started at 3:30 p.m., and in which around 800 persons participated, was interrupted by a large group of people. The approx. 25 persons provoked and insulted the participants in the rally with chants. The leader of the meeting was pulled out of the by a 17-year-old and slapped. When police officers came between and arrested the perpetrator, she struggled fiercely. Her companions tried at the same time to free the girl again. In order to protect themselves against the attacks until reinforcements arrived, the officers had to resort for a short while to duty clubs.

An 18-year-old attacker who also exercised opposition was able to be detained. After the arrival of police reinforcements, the group scattered. During the assignment, a 35-year-old police officer received a light injury to the hand. Further background information about the altercation is still unknown.

Further investigations were taken over by the criminal police.

We made ourselves available as witnesses to the officers still on site, just in case there might be some kind of crazy charge brought up against them. This police service ran optimally. The officers could not have behaved better on this afternoon. One could see that they were well educated for situations such as this.

Our thanks goes to all the officers who were there. They have once again protected democracy and free speech — against fanatical crazy-heads who have no sense about all of this.

» Stuttgarter Nachrichten: Skirmish at the Edge of a Rally

(Text & Video: byzanz / Photos: RChandler – Munich PI Group / Translation: Anders Denken)

Die Aachener Nachrichten (Aachen News) is breathing heavy on this one, in addition there’s a photo of Geert Wilders as though this “crudeness” came directly from him:

In various Internet forums, the followers of the Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders have zeroed in on Monschau’s Mayor Margareta Ritter, berated her, threatened her privately and called for a boycott against the city of Monschau.

A “assortment of crudeness” is what Ritter calls the entries from Wilders’ followers, but doesn’t wish to go into detail about these expressions of opinion so as not to give another reason for them to launch into further tirades. Monschau’s administrative chief says simply: “That’s all there is to say about it!”

The right-wing populist had recently checked in at the Carat Hotel under a pseudonym, and while there he had an attack of weakness that required the services of an emergency physician. At that instance it came out that not only Wilders but also his nine armed bodyguards were staying at the hotel under false identities. After the stir caused by the doctor visit, everyone else in the hotel knew who was being treated. Mayor Ritter declared the day after that Wilders is not welcome in Monschau.

Let it be clear that she will not be able to prevent Geert Wilders from coming to Monschau in the future. But to declare him as an unwelcome person was a “clear political signal”

(…)

Not only was hostility the reaction from the kingdom but also “sympathy and a form of shame for Geert Wilders’ extreme political viewpoints. And also concern for the image of The Netherlands in Europe.” The overriding majority of Germans fear extreme right-wing political views and their advocates. “Our own painful history has shown us where idle silence ends up.”

Yes, well we’re happy that Ritter considers herself brave enough to open her mouth on the basis of our “painful history.” Mrs. Ritter, you are an ornament for Germany. We bow deeply before your civil courage…

» margareta.ritter@stadt.monschau.de

(Contributor: Unrein / Translation: Anders Denken)

Even Der Westen (previously WAZ) is astounded at this:

Does the call for a peaceful blockade of a right-wing event fit the bill for the criminal act of duress? The discussions about the Gelsenkirchen protests against anti-Islam events by Pro NRW on March 26 and 27 are making waves.

The state security police are investigating an Internet call of the Coalition (of People) Against the Right, to which members such as the Greens, Young Socialists, Falcons, Left Party, Left Alternative, VVN, DKP, Antifa and Schokofront, and others belong. On its home page www.gelsenkirchen-nazifrei.de, The Coalition had called for making the Pro-NRW meeting place, Schloss Horst, unreachable by means of human blockades. The right-wing was to meet there on Saturday, March 27th. The protest initiatives against right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis in Dresden and Cologne were to serve as models.

Regional Greens and Young Socialist Committees Express Solidarity

Support is on the increase for the Coalition Against the Right (BGR) who has fallen under the scrutiny of the police and the District Attorney’s office. Thus, the Regional Greens and the Young Socialist national committee has signaled solidarity with the Gelsenkirchen initiative. “The call to counteractions against right-wing radical deployments cannot be criminalized,” Greens’ state manager Daniela Schneckenburger declared as a reaction to the Gelsenkirchen development. It is wrong when protests by democratic citizens are placed under suspicion. The Greens support counteractions against this “agitation conference” as they would any other right-wing extremist deployment and campaign of agitation.

At the other end of the evaluation of blockades, such investigations into anti-Right activists in NRW have a new quality, Member of the State Assembly and Speaker for Internal and Legal Policies of the Green State Parliament Faction, Monika Düker, said to the WAZ. In recent years there have been such appeals made for many events that haven’t led to punitive consequences.

Movement is Starting to Show in the Matter

On Friday, the Gelsenkirchen police examined the BGR-Webmaster responsible for genazifrei-de, Rolf Jüngermann (DKP – German Communist Party), regarding the matter. “The investigations continue,” said Gelsenkirchen’s speaker for the police, Konrad Kordts, in an interview. And how did it come to investigations? The police had inquired at the District Attorney’s office whether the appeal could have punitive relevance, so Kordts said. That received confirmation, whereupon the police took up their investigations — “just as it is our duty.”

The political background for the unusual renaissance of the constitutional state in NRW may well be the upcoming state parliament election. Experience up till now has shown that the Pro groups, that are competing even with the Muslims in a propaganda film to become the new Jews, often gain political clout if they can present themselves as victims. The Pro events are often so small that, not having the disproportionate deployments of Antifa and police, they can be ignored by the press without any further worry. The legal question regarding the criminal liability of appeals for disruption in any case aren’t too difficult to answer. The Law of Assembly says in § 21:

Whoever has the intention of hindering non-prohibited meetings or actions, or of blowing them up or stirring up any other such execution, or of planning or threatening acts of violence, or causing other major disturbances, will be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or punished with a fine.

That’s not really too hard to understand, is it?

(Photo: Antifascist propaganda: the eternal Nazi / Translation: Anders Denken)

Generations of later born German schoolchildren were delighted in their German instruction with the short story “Start of the Season” by Elisabeth Langgässer. The story deals with the subject of “Shunning” in the Third Reich. The last sentence, which is a very tactfully placed hammer at the very of the story, reads, “In this vacation area, Jews are undesirable.” The pupils, and perhaps you, must then show by interpretation that “it was understood” that shunning no longer has any place in Germany. In Monschau (Their slogan: “Enchanting Eifel Treasure”), this is even better understood now. There, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union party) Mayor Margareta Ritter demonstrated her best understanding of democracy in cavalier form. (Translator’s note: The mayor’s name ‘Ritter’ means ‘knight’ or ‘cavalier,’ and the adjective ‘cavalier’ has the same root: ‘ritterlich,’ hence a nice play on words.)

She stated with regard to the private visit by Wilders in the city Saturday:

“When somebody like Wilders bogs down the Dutch integration debate with poisonous right-wing populism, and with his demand for its prohibition compares the Quran with Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” he is not welcome in Monschau!” (…) “In spite of all the hospitality and tolerance that we citizens of Monschau characterize, we are sad to find such guests surprisingly in our city.”

Now, we understand: In Monschau “total” hospitality and “tolerance,” is the rule, but not for those who raise their voice against intolerance and ideologies hostile to democracy, and know that they have a very respectable portion, if not the majority, of the democratic spectrum supporting them.

One is ashamed of such a mayor who would even bring up such a thing in a media appearance in the Netherlands. And we have to ask ourselves for the umpteenth time, if this antagonistic kissing up to the left-wing/Green opinion monopoly isn’t ritual practice with the media, whose methods sometimes bring those of the Reich’s press staff to mind. When one pads the pockets with funds “against the Right” as a reward for declarations like the one mentioned above, this can also be interpreted as a suicidal mixture of political corruption and prostitution.

» margareta.ritter@stadt.monschau.de

(Text: Andreas F. / Translation: Anders Denken)

(Text und Photos: Nockerl – also known as “Fritz” / Munich PI Action Group for German PI. Translation: Anders Denken)

Now, British society saw itself put in the place of, or much more, being forced also into discussing with the European politician that has the most offensive and clearest view of Islam about the film and Islam’s violence-practicing totalitarianism as shown by it. The most visible sign of this discussion was a demonstration supporting Geert Wilders and an counter-protest initiative aimed precisely at this demonstration in front of the House of Lords on March 5th. (Note: Those interested exclusively in the demonstration’s course of events can read beginning with “The Counter-Demonstration”)

This counterinitiative apparently views a connection between the EDL and BNP. The latter was required only a short while ago under the guise of equal rights in Great Britain to accept non-white members. The first member to be accepted by this forced opening is a Sikh and a long-time supporter of the BNP. The EDL, in contrast, has ever been open to anyone and has members of every imaginable origin. It is naturally the endeavor of the Left and also the MSM to demonstrate or prove this connection. For some reason, this is practically their only way of having a discussion with the EDL. Behind this, possibly, is having to deal with Islam criticism where there is no desire of devoting time to presenting a clear opinion. Otherwise, one or another surprise might be just too much for the pure heart of the multi-culti followers.

The EDL

For starters, the appearance of the EDL makes it easy for their opponents to assert this connection as as granted. In the way thye came across, the demonstrators had a battling sound about them, whereby several members, masks notwithstanding, wore short hair (in some cases were bald). The critics intentionally overlooked the fact that the masks of some seemed to be a reasonable idea, especially when one pits themselves against an ideology bent on killing its critics.

The not so few colorful members present their opponents a problem that the opponents themselves trying to fight because they describe them as “Uncle Tom,” as was the case of the EDL speaker, who himself is a Sikh. A classification of individuals that attests to breathtaking racism. Using such classifications of individuals as a weapon against the alleged racism of the EDL can be explained by the fact that the Left has declared itself fundamentally free of racism; ultimately only “the others” are ever considered racist by these means.

The EDL has its roots in the football (soccer) fan scene. In the British — as in nearly any other — European football scene, there reigns a strong fundamental attitude that is patriotically shaped. Passion and enthusiasm have almost a battle-like effect here. English media studies — up until the recent past — show that whoever is upfield in a German-English football match clearly knows what patriotic groundswell the football on the mound belongs to. One can gather the impression that, up to the game or at the latest when England once again loses against the “Krauts,” the pilots of the bomber Harris are headed for Hamburg, while in the other direction, the Luftwaffe is preparing to lay Covent Garden again in scraps and ashes. But ultimately all of this is just coarse entertainment arising of the pride of having overcome “the bloody Germans” in the war against fascism.

This fundamental patriotic attitude was especially called out in Luton football fans when, in March 2009, the soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiments returned home to Luton out of Iraq and were given a “reception” by Muslim demonstrators. On occasion of the parade, Luton Muslims showed their hostility (PI reported).

As a result, Luton football fans made connections with fans of other football clubs. They wanted to work together against this unpatriotic conduct and hostility against their country. These untoward actions had been undertaken by a greater number of Muslims whose parents, or they themselves, had fled the conditions (understandably!!) in Muslim countries. Hadn’t the Muslims shown how much they rejected their society, and therewith themselves? That was the cause for the emergence of the EDL, which in nature is essentially indistinguishable of that in the football stands. Whoever stands against this has to explain whether he considers the battle of opinion as permissible only in the framework of aesthetic debate. Let it be mentioned only in the margin that among the Left — at least in Germany — are those who lay whole blocks in Berlin and Hamburg in scraps and ashes all year long, and this conduct doesn’t get nearly so much critical attention. The connection isn’t even made between the oppressive system of Communism and the mass murders committed by this movement.

Much room in the debate with the EDL is taken up by the conduct of certain members. So, there is also much arguing about whether some use the Hitler salute. There is also an overzealous quest to link some members with the BNP. The impression remains that this is pursued above all else in order to press for a truly substantial debate about Islam’s totalitarian ideology of violence that the EDL criticizes. Ultimately there is no need of devoting energy to arguments about alleged Nazis, since the arguments, besides functioning as a muzzle, also sensibly and practically serve as Nazi billyclubs. “Nazi scum off the street” is always easier to master intellectually than grappling with the issues and obvious consequences of Islam.

However it is also correct that the behavior of some individuals can be an indication for the spirit of a whole group. Why this should apply only to such movements as the EDL and not for Islam may well remain the eternal secret of the Islam apologists, considering that since September 11, 2001, 14,944 fatal attacks (as of March 7, 2010) and countless attempts can be traced back to their fundamental teachings. Even oppression of women, stonings, cutting off of hands, kidnapping an drape of non-Muslim women, as well as forced conversion, murder of so-called apostates, and much more, apparently allow no conclusions to be drawn about the issues of Islam, or the spirit that rules this religion.

The Counterprotest and Its Backgrounds

A few hundred Islam apologists had assembled and marched under the sign “unite against fascism” in order to shout “Nazi scum off the street” against the EDL — of course, this is a much more elegant way than the cultured style of discourse by the EDL. The campaign material for this group is also sponsored by the teachers’ union among others. This organization also works together with the Muslim Council of Britain. In addition, many representatives in Parliament belong to the supporters of the UAF.

The right of demonstration is generally understood to serve as a means for citizens to exercise criticism on the various state institutions. Apparently these representatives don’t sense it as a contradiction to support an organization that pits itself against such protest. The desire having the support of the representatives of shutting down the protest of citizens practicing their legal right to criticize Parliament and its respective representatives regarding their actions related to Islam attests to a remarkable understanding of democracy.

It isn’t surprising that the campaign material in the battle against an undesired opinion looks considerably more professionally produced than the material of the representatives of this very opinion, when one considers their large and financially strong circle of supporters. If the sponsors perhaps want to spring for another warm meal or one or another keg of beer, let them find more than the roughly 200 ingrates who are ready to carry other nicely crafted “protest” signs through London’s streets. Here is a possible opening to a marketing branch that could be signed under the Internet website rent-yourself-a-demonstration.uk. It could be subsidized with the right reintegration programs supported by the British Labor Ministry when legislators, executives or judiciaries would like to have an undesired opinion thundered down. There should be enough to do in the coming years among the policies of the various European governments and in the EU itself. Mr. Putin will most certainly stand alongside in word and deed; he finally had the so-called Kremlin-Youth Nashi set up as a Russian acclamation organization. Labour especially should stand by the older persuasion that they can learn much of Moscow.

The Counter-Demonstration

However, on occasion of the Fitna film showing, the democratic walk-ons supported by parts of the Parliament had to demonstrate their sincere anger, without the aid of food and drink, before the cameras of the BBC. The power fighters, with permission by and upon the wish of various parliamentarians, indicated that Fitna was anti-Muslim and racist. Unfortunately, in the framework of these statements, it couldn’t be pointed out as to which race the Islam ideology actually belonged. Otherwise, given such opportunities, there is the push at least to the assertion that any agitation against a group of people (also on the basis of their religion – or here: ideology) is racism. But this begs the following question: whether agitation against infidels, Dhimmis and Harbis don’t also fall under this completely arbitrary “definition”, and if so, then it is being answered by surprising aggression and not, for the most part, with proper silence. However, the answer to this complex issue was possibly not spelled out in the sponsor’s contract or in inserted into the exceptions for authorization by the legislators. Perhaps the question had been covered while the union’s scheduled furlough was at hand.

As an official reason, a sponsoree declared that she did not recognize the agenda (!) of the questioner. Unfortunately, the answer that a “good” argument should be able to persuade others without the use of the opponent’s “agenda” couldn’t move her to give any further answer. Fortunately, the MSM had a lot better luck with their conversational partners. But alas, these conversations – as far as they could be followed – resulted in no answer for the above-mentioned question as well.

The counter-demonstration then moved to the marching route according to contract plan. This had been planned for the same stretch as that of the EDL’s demonstration, only it was earlier and headed in the opposite direction (perhaps more than just a metaphor). Their march halted on this route, though, and those who were tired out by the lack of State-provided food supply sat down on the road. The malicious-minded police however took over for the weak, so as to block the EDL protest parade. The mob, supported by third parties and representatives, that was wishing to limit others civil rights on the basis of an assumed motive for whatever reason, was helped by the police away the place. In doing this, the offer of a free automobile ride was was taken advantage of by many who were fatigued. Finally the police were able to help the tired demonstrators to the feet so that the road could be freed up for a self-financed demonstration march by the EDL.

The EDL Demonstration

The Demonstration was to begin at one o’clock in front of Tate Britain. Just a short while before, this place had been crowded exclusively by police and media with whom some of the demonstrators were chatting. Most of them came in a large group. Only after they had chanted diverse slogans (“Muslim bombers off the street!!”) for a while, and held banners, flags and signs in front of the camera, this group then entered a nearby pub for a (self-financed) drink.

About two o’clock the demonstrators returned invigorated and ready to chant again, whereby mostly “E-E-EDL” was repeated. The invitation went out of the speeches to everyone, including Muslims, to join in the battle for the defense of Western values. A moment of silence was then invoked. It was for the British victims of the last two weeks in the Afghanistan campaign and two Sikhs who were beheaded in Pakistan the week before for their refusal to convert to Islam.

During the second speech, an incident arose in which the speaker (photo left) let himself get carried away by somebody shouting to call the counter-demonstrators jerk-offs. That led to immediate intervention by the police who pulled the microphone away of the speaker, which in turn led to cries of protest and unrest. The first speaker grabbed the microphone, took up speaking, and calmed the situation down rather quickly. The second speaker was visually embarrassed and constantly excused himself before all present. He begged pardon for allowing this mistake to happen and letting himself get caught up in the incident.

After that, the EDL broke out in the march. This was accompanied only here and there by a few small skirmishes and engaged calls of counter-demonstrators (“Nazi scum off the street!). The counter-demonstrators had positioned themselves in small groups or as individuals along the marching route. The greater part of the unarrested counter-demonstrators stood before the Parliament building, which also happened to be the tentative ending point for the EDL demonstration march.

When they arrived, the EDL demonstrators were “greeted” with loud “nazi” and “fascists” calls. One of the EDL members called out: “Yeah, I’m a fascist!” A “journalist” who eagerly scribbled something down in her notebook turned around to the author of these lines and expressed: “Did you hear that, he said he was a fascist!”

Her question was answered that the impression could have been given that he was speaking sarcastically. Of course, she didn’t want to accept that and expressed in a very condescending tone: “Sarcastic? They’re all nuts.”

One of the EDL demonstrators put his arm around the shoulders of a dark-skinned co-demonstrator and called out that one can see just how fascist they are. That led to furious protest calls to some extent, and at the end any semblance of reason was loudly canceled.

Now here’s the place where the the counter-demonstrator’s (left) state of mind should be dealt with. He is so eagerly and openly enthusiastic about waving a red flag with hammer and sickle. For lack of questioning, the assumption truly has to persist that he is celebrating the murder of 60 million people by the communist regime in Europe. However, it might also be that he was a late-comer to the Maoist campaign against the sparrows, in which the birds were scared off by the waving of cloths for so long that they were forced to fly until they finally fell out of the sky dead. In opposition to the socialist plan’s expectations, the insects that were now not being consumed by the sparrows in increasing destroyed the already bad crop situation caused by the managed economy. Whatever it might have been, our young friend pointed out in any case that one may feel morally superior when invoking the cause of mass murderers — at least if they had the fundamental convictions of the Left or, as a substitute, could base the mass murder on God’s command. In this view, the freedom of opinion is also unaffected (which is also correct!).

The female portion among the Islam apologists was astonishingly large, which however could also have had to do with the auto transfers that previously took place. The EDL called out to the female apologists who were present that they might want to prepare themselves for wearing the burka. In one instance, an EDL demonstrator told one of them that the burka would certainly not be a bad idea in her case.

Such conversations kept things busy for a while while press representatives were still conducting interviews with one or another. A few individual journalists were fair and appeared to be truly interested in listening to the opinions of the EDL people. For others, it appeared that they would rather spread their own opinions with their own premises interspersed throughout the questioning, and verbalize their own viewpoint among the interviewees. There was also an “interview” style that seemed to be more like an accusation or, as the case may be, a trial.

Apart of two little incidents, there were no more special events to report. Both times, one of the EDL members got over the barrier and attempted to go to the opposing side. This was prevented each time, and the second one led to an arrest. Soon after that, the EDL demonstration was accompanied to the next subway station (Westminster) and to the trains there, and with that the demonstration came to an end.

Conclusion

The EDL demonstration has a functions differently than other demonstrations. Especially in comparison to the one of the followers of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (for example, on the occasion of the trial’s beginning in Amsterdam), it has a rougher0 effect and is also a touch aggressive. But the freedom of expression is not limited by any certain institutional rules. And if one takes into fair consideration that there are football fans expressing their political opinion here, and doing so by use of the normal conduct befitting the game, then one wouldn’t make a bad conclusion about their unusual way of protesting. The author of these lines gathered in the demonstrators he observed, spoke with and listened to, that they are doing this for their land, nation, home, and for their and others’ freedom. Admittedly, previous demonstrations of the EDL may have been a little more undisciplined. If the EDL would like to be taken more seriously about the content of their opinions, a little discipline wouldn’t hurt. But how the heck could I possibly know, how to walk through London’s streets like anyone else? I’m just a damned Kraut!

» Videos and further photos of the counter-demonstration in London

Befitting their stupdity was an attempt with an obscure Bible passage that some editorial intern must have dredged up to cause Geert Wilders to stumble or stir him up enough to hop in the sack with the likes of BNP, Le Pen, or Jörg Haider. Whoever would be so hare-brained would most certainly not attain to becoming one of the most successful politicians in Europe, perhaps at best they might become a local German official.

So, what did journalist Emily Maitlis do wrong? Very simple: she violated one of the ground rules of modern journalism in the Battle against the Right. It is allowed to, no, it’s a requirement to spread lies about your political opponents. But one shouldn’t begin to believe those lies themselves. Otherwise, it might happen that, instead of a hollow-cheeked right-wing extremist, a well-educated and intelligent civil-minded liberal might appear and turn the guns on you. Or as it used to be said: “He who digs a pit for another will fall in it himself.” (or “What goes around, comes around.”

(Thanks to all contributors. Translation: Anders Denken)

The Hamburger Morgenpost reports:

Christmas gifts bring joy, even if they arrive a little late: The Hamburg organization “Laut gegen Nazis” (“Loud against Nazis”) has just received a $100,000 donation (about €71,000) from Internet giant Google.

“We feel more than honored and more than validated in our work,” from campaign chief Jörn Menge.

In the past year, Google did without the distribution of Christmas gifts to its advertising clients, and instead donated the money — an amalgamate total of 20 million dollars — to 15 charitable organizations worldwide (among others, “World Wildlife Fund” and “Heal Africa”)

(Translation of German PI-article by Anders Denken)

The change in policy has been very successful, as the apparent increase of immigration shows: In 2001, only 221,000 people immigrated to the UK, by 2007 it was already 333,000. All of this happened in spite of the knowledge that mass immigration leads to increased crime. The reason for this dissolution of their own country was the Left’s pursuit of the possession of political power: They had hoped for additional votes by Commonwealth citizens and immigrants, and planned to free themselves of the Right once and for all, using the club of racism at the slightest hint of opposition when necessary. As a result of the Left’s power struggle, Great Britain is now home to a dangerously high number of extremists. The spirits are now haunting Great Britain, Labour proclaimed.

(Translation of German pi-article by Anders Denken)

(Translation from Anders Denken of an open letter from Barbara M. to church representatives in Germany published on German PI)

When reading the first pages of the brochure “Nächstenliebe verlangt” (Wanted: Neighborly Love), one can understand just where the wind is blowing — namely completely leftward — and this is arousing concern; it is even antagonistic to democracy. This composition is embellished with the words “neibhborly love” and rants along in noble words originating from right of center. The conclusion, word for word without criticism and thought, is that “danger is on the increase, coming from parties or groups classified as left wing;” left wing crimes are being tried on a lower level and are therefore being trivialized. Not only is that unchristian-like, but it is dangerous in the highest degree. Also, it is an offense against the basis of equality set up in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, for we see here:

Antifascists are causing whole parts of cities to fold up; police are attacked with projectiles and injured; police vehicles are set on fire by leftwing individuals working alone; arson is being committed. The list of violent acts from “the left” goes on and on. Also, the fact is that radical Islamists are infiltrating large cities, and that bands of young foreigners are carrying out their mischief. Apparently these facts have no meaning in the eyes of leftist Church representatives; their eyes are only focused on the “right.” Similar crimes of the so-called “right” can demonstrably be categorized as only exceptional cases.

The intellectual sensibilities in our land reveal themselves in such a way, that the word “conservative” is enough to activate well-known reflexes and to shove people for no reason into the corner of the radical right. It is also shameful for a so-called democracy, when a part of the German population that expresses themselves only verbally against the overabundance of foreigners in our land suddenly ends up having the stamp of “right extremist” pressed upon them. Befitting this very subject is the example of journalist Helmut Matthies, who recently received the Gerhard Löwenthal prize. Matthies was defamed and even categorized as extreme right wing, only because the prize of a conservative weekly newspaper was conferred upon him.

You [the taxpayer] also are among the ranks fighting effectively for the media and “correct politics” in the “battle against the right,” which year after year is being financed by us taxpayers to initiate the actions mentioned above and other brain wrenching actions like them. In case you might not know how much the horrendous sums should be: in the last three years more than 100 million Euros of tax money have been squandered by the federal government for the “battle against right extremism.” This money was paid out for measures to “strengthen diversity, tolerance and democracy,” and for the building up of consulting networks and projects against “right wing extremism,” etc.

No wonder then, that only the political pressure is growing, but the churches are becoming ever more empty, because critical citizens don’t want bolshevik-antifascist values in the worship service — they want equalization and equal treatment also with it, as well as the right and left spectrums, for there is no “good” extremism.

The unblessed cheap propaganda tricks on the part of left wing church representatives is scandalous, and this is steering the church institution into dangerous waters. “Handouts” are to be understood as conciliatory actions, and not as a brochure embellished with sappy expressions that end up amounting to an antagonistic campaign of incitement. Also, The same naturally applies to actions and initiatives that are targeted in the same direction.

In the high regard due you,

Barbara M.

PS: For the reasons mentioned before, I also have already withdrawn from the church institution, and since then I invest time and money more preferably for sensible projects and actions, for example, like animal protection.

*The recipients of this open letter are:
- Mrs. Ilse Junkermann, State Bishop, Magdeburg
- Mrs. Dr. Margot Käßmann, State Bishop, Hannover
- Mrs. Gabriele Scherle, Provost, Frankfurt
- Mr. Jochen Bohl, Saxony State Bishop, Dresden
- Mr. Hans-Peter Strenge, Synod President, Hamburg
- Mr. Christhard Wagner, Upper Church Council, Eisenach
- Mr. Dr. Christian Staffa, Organization Leader for “Signs of Atonement Peace Services Action”, Berlin
- Amadeu Antonio Trust, Berlin
- Workgroup for Church and Right Wing Extremism, Mr. Maischner, by E-mail

(By the Editrix)

The exhibit covers the immensely topical issue “The Third World during the Second World War” and three of 96 exhibit panels are dedicated to the REALLY topical issue of the mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis who had a decisive influence on the Holocaust (we reported many
times already). Ebéné stated that she refused to display the information on Husseini out of respect for joint Arab organizations. Her decision was supported by migration commissioner of the Berlin Senate, Günter Piening. In a neighborhood (heavily dominated by Muslims) like Neukölln a “differentiated presentation” was paramount, Piening stated.

“Not differentiated enough”.The mufti and his German buddies.

Maya Zehden, a spokeswoman for the Berlin Jewish community, termed Piening’s statement “an appeasement attempt” to ignore the fact that “there was no official resistance from the Arabic world against the persecution of Jews” during the Shoah. She accused Piening of showing a false tolerance to German-Arabs in a heavily Muslim-influenced neighborhood.

In an e-mail to the JPost, Heinz Buschkowsky, the district mayor in Neukölln, wrote that it is a sign of “anticipatory obedience to avoid probable protests. I do not consider this position to be good”, notabene pointing out that Piening’s statement is a “repression of the facts dealing with anti-Semitism.”

Meanwhile, Ebéné denied that there was an “agreement” with the local Muslim community to censor the exhibit. She termed media queries regarding an agreement as “Eurocentric.” The Jerusalem Post was informed that the exhibit was intended as a “homage to soldiers from African” countries who fought against the Nazis. Indeed, a crucial aspect of WWII so far totally neglected.

When asked about her opposition to the inclusion of the mufti panels, she asked, “was there ever a commemoration event in Israel to honor the [African] soldiers?” In an Interview with Radio Berlin Brandenburg Ebéné, who has a German mother and a father from Cameroon and is thus, so to say by birth and per definitionem, on the right side, stated: I am not white. I have no reason to be afraid of Arabs”, which is rather endearing for somebody who is allegedly heavy into informing the world about the African slave-trade.

My take on all this? This is so rock-solid, die-hard, intransigently and impregnally stupid and so full of the usual German “antifa”, politically correct, “fight against the right”, “multiculti”anti-West and racist crap, that it defies any serious comment, because that would lend her antics a credibility they don’t possess. That Ebéné is first confusing Fascism and National-Socialism and then, when challenged, peddling her family’s (the German side, that is) history of saving Jewish children to show that she is by birth DOUBLY on the right side, is only the icing on the cake.

Of course, the reaction of the public, the political classes and the media, or the question how Ebéné could end up in such a position at all, are a different matter.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles

(By the Editrix)

Indeed, the media echo is stunning. A quick Google-search just for the name of the victim reveals amazing results. “Martyr”,”headscarf” and “pregnant” are the feeds that mainly catch the eye. Of course, the German results are almost identical, with the German equivalents of “hate crime” and “racism” thrown in.

All of Germany is wallowing orgasmically, like swine wallow in dirt, in their own moral squalor. They love that.

And moral squalor it is indeed, just not in the way they see it.

The secretaries of both, the Central Council of Jews, convert Stephan Kramer, and the Central Council Muslims in Germany, Aiman Mazyek, had the mutual enemy quickly identified and visited the widower together to express their sincere hypocrisy.

The French Figaro, so Gudrun Eussner informs me, quotes in today’s print issue on page 7 the same Aiman Mazyek who states that “total (sic!) religious freedom” must be defended, part of which is the wearing of the headscarf:…”liberté réligieuse totale, dont fait partie le port du voile.”

Has anybody still any doubt that we in the West are in a total (sic!) and global war with Islam?

Even such experts on human rights like Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR) chimed in, the latter issuing a statement saying the murder of Marwa al-Sherbini in Germany demonstrated the West’s disrespect to human rights.

And nobody laughed.

The most revealing aspect was, however, that even such an obscene extravaganza of German self-hatred and submission wasn’t enough for the trailblazing whips (or rather: “whippettes”) of dhimmitude. Andrea Dernbach, who has proven her ethical depth and moral prowess already by a justification of sex with children to clear Islam of the suspicion of homophobia, asked under the header “Germany’s new hatred”: “Why does the death of a woman wearing a headscarf – who wasn’t the victim of a so-called “honour killing” – spark so little interest in Germany?”

So far, so bad, but lately we seem even to export that specific brand of Islam-adoring journalettes, maybe because whatever Germans do, they do thoroughly. And indeed, under the even more incredible header “A murder that Germany ignored” a woman with a German-sounding name whines (in the Al Guardian, no less!) about what must be, I don’t have any other explanation, the figment of an estrogen-addled brain, and is even repeating an outlandish, preposterous accusation by the Muslim media:

They [the German media] could have asked – as an Egyptian did – why Marwa’s husband, while he was trying to help his wife, was shot and wounded by a policeman in the courtroom. Because he was not blond-haired?

I am not a prolific letter-to-the-editor-writer, but this time I couldn’t help myself:

Your name suggests that you can read German. So you either have an agenda or you are out of your mind. The German media is,
since that crime happened, in an orgiastic, self-hating frenzy. “Germans! She died for your sins!” And you are SERIOUSLY selling the
above drivel to an unsuspecting Guardian readership? The day the countless ethnic Germans who are beaten to a pulp or killed by our
Muslim culture enrichers get at least a fifth of the media attention this case got and it still getting, I will stop worrying what makes
people like you tick.Elsewhere, in Iran, the 31-year-oldmother of two, Mohabat Mahmodi, will be executed within the next couple of days, because she killed her rapist in self-defense.*

And nobody cares. They are all too busy being outraged by German islamophobia.

* Information out of an email by Mina Ahadi, exile-Iranian and secretary of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.